http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...n-from-tv.html
Interesting, with some thoughtful ideas. Discuss?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...n-from-tv.html
Interesting, with some thoughtful ideas. Discuss?
I'm not lazy. I just work so fast I'm always done.
Very interesting article and hard to dispute, as these are messages that we, in this little arm of the web galaxy would stand behind.
Impossible. The very definition of rock and roll is to market to children---before rock and roll, music was always marketed to adults. Yes, 1968-1976 was an anomaly-I guess the children were a tad more sophisticated then.
Thanks for sharing. I find it full of interesting ideas, but not the plan to make the model work. I did find it most interesting that it is possible to change the model entirely within a generation. I thought the most fascinating premise was "we didn't pay for TV, now we do" as a premise that one can find ways to get consumers interested in paying for music. Who woulda thought we'd pay for water?Originally Posted by Dana5140
That said, TV is consumed differently than music and much of what the author is stating has made TV more interesting doesn't translate well for music. Music can be purely a visceral experience. While name recognition can be important, you aren't going to create a 5-season long musical work with a character story arc. And while they try to imply that it's the "top talent" that makes us want to tune in (to which I agree), there are so many channels out there today are filled up with a cesspool of "Snookis", "news", and increasing levels of "low brow" entertainment.
Additionally, while subscription is part of the current model for generating revenue for the TV industry, advertising is the other major component.
But it's at least an interesting article and could provoke some interesting discussion.
WANTED: Sig-worthy quote.
For the most part, I agree with your sentiments
However, at this point, what does the industry have to lose by not trying to adopt these ideas?
Good points, Cozy. However, I'd argue that TV has at least tried to market top talent. Yes, broadcast networks and the lesser "free cable" channels are now notorious for cheap 'n' easy reality TV, other networks like HBO, FX, AMC, and Showtime have tried to raise the bar and have largely been rewarded for it. And these aren't "indie labels" - they're high-profile, mainstream networks. Like the article says, there's a whole group of consumers who are under-served.
So, rock and roll is the only genre of music that can be sold and marketed?
Again, you have adults with disposable income who would love to buy more music, if they could find stuff that they like.
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
Simply put, you can't recreate what happened in the 50s/60s/70s. The boomers grew up with music their parents did not know, could not even have imagined. There was only one Chuck Berry, only one Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, etc, etc... They also grew up without so many other forms of "analog/digital" entertainment. That era will NEVER happen again.
Rock is Dead, Long Live Rock!
"Always ready with the ray of sunshine"
1) "Target adults, not kids."
A nice idea, the writing quality has improved 1000% in TV since the 60's. How much has radio improved since then ?? The target audience is still 12 years old for hit-single pop radio.
2) "Embrace complexity" Oh yeah, like that's really going to work. Prog is about as complex as it gets, and suffers for it.
3) "Improve the technology" Did $50,000 worth of microphones improve the drumming on H+E ???
4) "Resist tired formulas" Ground breaking innovation is dead in the water. The market wants the same-old-same-old-same-old thing. A band tries some fresh air and everyone whines "Its not CTTE". Tired formulas ? I don't see Country music suffering from it.
5) Invest in talent and quality. Record labels are not investing in talent and quality, ask any Prog (or any other) band what their last advance was. And where is a band going to go out and hire a 'better guitar player' ?? Music is not baseball.
I'm going to give the article a thumbs up. It raises awareness of the situation, and will make people think harder for solutions. If marketing can get people to buy water, surely they can get people to buy music.
for everything non-pop radio, its aimed at Conspiracy Theorists
Prog isnt the only style of music that generally features virtuoso musicianship and complex arrangements: many Funk bands also have these elements and the music is way more fun/less pretentious
.......
Conspiracy Theorists = old geezers
The baby boomers are in their late middle age now, with the most disposable income they're ever going to have. I think marketing to us -- as well as doing that surprising cross-genre thing -- would make a lot of sense.
The problem with the music industry is that it's run by Neandertals.
in terms of subscription services, if labels partnered with services like Pandora to provide exclusive content, instead of fighting them, it could make the pay-for-play model work.
They are. Who do you think those $200 box sets for 45-minute albums from the 1970s are aimed at?
The thing that Netflix did that makes so much sense is to provide both TV series AND movies to people. I'm really not that interested in the TV series'. I just in general don't like to get roped into watching a show every week, and I'm not one for binge watching. I can't take more than an hour or two in front of the TV. Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead are about the only TV I'll watch (Letterman occasionally), and aside from that maybe a couple of movies a week.
But my wife loves series like House of Cards, The Killing, etc., and she's a big binge watcher. Our kids are big on series like Futurama, etc., and also movies.
So that mix really makes sense. We could easily get by with only Netflix (too bad you can't get some really cheap cable or FIOS and only Netflix), although there's Game of Thrones on HBO (we have HBO but GoT is the ONLY thing we watch on it!). If my older son wasn't into it, I could skip GoT. Walking Dead is the only show I really HAVE to see.
But yeah, I don't really see how the music industry can make a subscription thing work. Especially for us prog fans. I know there are things like Spotify that people here like, but really, do those services have stuff like, say, all the stuff that was released on the Kinesis or Syn-Phonic labels, or all the Cast albums? If a music service isn't complete, it's not going to replace my music collection.
For "hit-single pop radio," yes. But even radio has taken a similar routes as TV, with Sirius/XM having many more stations that appeal to a more "adult" audience than 12-year-olds. They have 3 or 4 pop stations, but dozens of talk radio and "vintage" music stations.
There's "embracing complexity," and there's getting "as complex as it gets."
Call me crazy, but I'm thinking that there's a middle-ground here.
That's not a real argument, is it?
Well, again, TV is proving this theory wrong. Many want the same old thing, but a substantial group enjoys something different every now and then.
This is the argument that the article is making - labels should be investing in talent. And promoting that talent, instead of cookie-cutter, Auto-Tune-assisted pop tarts.
This idea kinda goes against what the article is saying, though. The columnist is saying that you'll draw an audience if you devote some effort into producing quality.
And I agree.
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
I sort of agree this. I don't have children, but I'd think if I were young, my biggest wants would be: a cell phone, preferably a smart phone, a computer or iPad, a gaming system, and I'd be pretty much set. You could still get music, but it wouldn't think it would be as in high demand as in previous decades--plus FM radio is everywhere these days, but then there are other things to grab one's attention. Plus that doesn't include clothes, going to movies, or whatever else kids do these days. I see the same change happening in comics. Back in the 50's they used to sell millions of copies of comics, today they're lucky if they can sell 150,000 on a good title. There's just a lot more competition for that disposable dollar.
I think this is true, really. The time of having ground-breaking musicians and singers who came out of nowhere and whose work was eagerly distributed around the world is over. Only crap that is created by corporations for pre-teens is safe enough for those corporations to invest in. Aside from that, it's a bunch of niche markets. I guess Rap and Soul/Urban is another safe market for those corporations.
As much as I despise Billy Joel and Bruce Springsteen, can you really see another Billy Joel or Bruce Springsteen coming along and being a huge success? Even another Edie Brickell?
Maybe if MTV actually started showing only videos again, and it was promoted up the wazoo - MTV was 24 x 7 effective advertising for the industry, and for some reason they castrated it decades ago.
Right - but the error in judgment there is the assumption that baby-boomers have no interest in new music. The box-sets became a great tool because they couldn't create/market another format like CDs that would have people re-buying Rumours or Dark Side of the Moon for a 15th time. And they'd much rather sell you something you already have than put in the effort to cultivate an act that could create their own masterpiece.They are. Who do you think those $200 box sets for 45-minute albums from the 1970s are aimed at?
Exactly. Instead of trying to innovate, they'd rather waste money and resources fighting change.
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
I didn't really become a music consumer until college. It was exposure to other people's favorite music that got me fired up and wanting to buy music myself. Also, it wasn't till then that I had the freedom and time to sit around and watch MTV for hours on end - it didn't hurt that MTV was launched just as I started college. And then of course there were two record stores within a short walk. Brick and Mortar had some advantages for the industry too.
I wonder if they should be targeting college-aged young people more than the pre- and early-teenagers?
Yeah, the phrase "Artist Development" implies that there will be some failures, and thus financial risk. Somehow the industry used to be able to accept that, and now it can't. Maybe the big music companies weren't owned by shareholders back in the day? Because now it seems like it's the fact that they can't possibly risk shareholder money on trying to develop new products that's holding them back from developing new talent.
There is only one reason: it ceased to generate revenue. And it really wouldn't work now because that's what Youtube is for. (Of course, looks like that is going to change too...)
I disagree. It's over because the industry doesn't have the patience or interest in developing artists anymore.
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
Country music did change it's formula. When I first worked in radio in the early 80's it was George Jones, Merle Haggard, Willie Nelson, Randy Travis, Judds, Conway Twitty, Reba McEntire...all very much in the fiddle/pedal steel country mode. All of that is long gone. Garth Brooks saw to that. He turned country music into bad rock music. Whatever one thinks of the current state of country music, the fact is that Nashville completely changed direction since 1989. They began to market to baby boomers who grew up on classic rock and became disenfranchised with the rise of rap and grunge. Classic rock radio began to disappear in many markets or morphed into the same 250 songs played over and over. Nashville packed up the pedal steels and fiddles and cranked up the guitars. There was a reason why Brooks and Dunn began to sound more like the Rolling Stones instead of George Jones. The down side was that country radio began to embrace that and pushed heritage artists like Johnny Cash and Loretta Lynn out the door while they were, arguably, making some of the best music of their careers, particularly in Cash's case. Jack White also got a great album from Loretta Lynn and where was country radio? Too busy worrying about dirt roads, tight jeans and cold beer on every song.
Bill
She'll be standing on the bar soon
With a fish head and a harpoon
and a fake beard plastered on her brow.
What's interesting, however, is that no one stepped in to fill the void and feature that "heritage" music. Again, there was probably a market for it.
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks