Not always a good thingOriginally Posted by Jerjo
Not always a good thing
Fair enough. However, you made a point of saying that talented people would go do something else, and "then the music starts to suck and nobody wants to hear it". So understand the confusion.
And as I mentioned earlier, record companies will find those they (and presumably the artists) can make money from. What one considers "talented" and "good music" notwithstanding.
WANTED: Sig-worthy quote.
Funny, I was also born in '61, but find myself listening to more and more of the earliest recordings ('20s/'30s blues and jazz) than anything.
Record companies are in big trouble. A senior record company executive recently remarked "music is as healthy as ever, but the record business is dead." Professional music-making doesn't have to be important in any culture; it could move to amateurs and those who will work for next to nothing. A big part of what has driven the rock era is the fact that one could get very wealthy making music, and this has attracted very talented people to rock. If that can't really happen, young and talented young people will seek their creative outlets elsewhere. This has already been going for years. This is what the guys in Pink Floyd understand. If music doesn't pay, the music will decline.Fair enough. However, you made a point of saying that talented people would go do something else, and "then the music starts to suck and nobody wants to hear it". So understand the confusion.
And as I mentioned earlier, record companies will find those they (and presumably the artists) can make money from. What one considers "talented" and "good music" notwithstanding.
The Mighty Megalosaurus
Tree Pusher, WESAYSO Corp.
I'm with you, up until your last line.
I don't think it follows that the "music will decline" if music doesn't pay.
I think the sheer volume of music being made is exponentially orders of magnitude greater than it was in the 60's/70's/80's. Music may not "pay" in the "Mountains of cocaine, Jaguars and Private Jets" world of the 70's rockstar anymore...for most. But that hasn't stopped people from making their music, and distributing it via any means available. The Volume of music has not declined.
Now, as to the quality....I'm not so sure. Financial incentives may be a driver of quality, but I don't think they are a necessity. My feeling is that the music I enjoy the most, the music with the greatest "quality value" for me, is far less "commercial." There are people out there who are creating original music out of the sheer pleasure and desire of doing so. I'm not trying to endorse the "Starving Artist" notion, but I think money can also be a driver in the DECLINE in quality of music.
Yep, I meant the quality of music will decline. I hope it won't, but I've been at this long enough to be confident it will. I'd love to be proven wrong, believe me. On the starving artist notion, I'd say the decline is not so much because the artists are starving as much as it is that they have to do it part time while doing something else to make money. And they end up having to depend on a lot of others in the same boat. This is a significant limitation that no amount of good intentions can make up for.
The Mighty Megalosaurus
Tree Pusher, WESAYSO Corp.
I'd like to live in a world where people can create art without having to worry about making a living/earning a buck. I would think that this would mean people would make the music they wanted to make, instead of the music they thought would make them more money. The influence of money on the "product" (that's what record companies call music, eh?) strikes me as a negative, on the whole.
The most interesting music I've heard in the last ten years comes from artists on the fringe--those who play styles that are not commercially viable. Including, I must say, bands we talk about here on Prog Ears. Just as some examples, bands that release on Cuneiform, or Soleil Zeuhl, or even Laser's Edge and Abstract Logix, are not getting rich--nor, I feel, do they intend to. Now, I have to add that, in my perfect world, those artists would not have to struggle to make ends meet, nor would the labels representing them. But compare any of these acts to 95% of the mainstream, multi-billion dollar "music industry" artists--or, say, the American Idol Finalists with their releases--and tell me if you still feel that there's a direct relationship between financial incentive and quality.
I don't doubt it's a factor...but not the driving factor.
Don't forget that a lot of independent artists live in a world sustained by the activity of the music-business professionals, even if they are not themselves full-time music people. The popularity of styles that are blatantly commercial provides the economic incentive that feeds the entire industry, making it possible for the independent creative artists to live on the fringe of it. If the recording industry does change in all the ways insiders are predicting, there is no way that does not affect even those who were not even signed to a label.
The Mighty Megalosaurus
Tree Pusher, WESAYSO Corp.
Perhaps that's true to a degree--but it seems that you are arguing that prior to the financial incentives offered by "Industry" music had less quality? The intersection of "art" and "commerce" is a fascinating thing, for me...and I find it a very complex subject.
We can agree, can't we, that some of the greatest art in any genre was made by those who didn't reap financial reward? And, conversely, if we could purge the dreck that was created merely to make a quick buck, we'd be left with a higher standard of quality, overall? Maybe?
We've got a ton of new artists banging at the doors on the PE Facebook site. Of course, Sturgeon's Law definitely applies because a majority are the equal of Blue Vino.
Last edited by Jerjo; 06-26-2013 at 09:03 PM.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down.'- Bob Newhart
There has tended to be a business component to much of the music we hold up as art. Bach had various gigs, one had him writing a new cantata every week as part of his contract (not because that's what he necessarily wanted to do). Mozart really wanted to be an opera composer and worked the business in Vienna pretty hard to make that happen (he was not particularly successful in his day, despite his efforts). Beethoven was often cutting deals for publication, and sometimes dishonestly. And then there are the commissions and various stories of patronage. But the way the story of classical music is told, you'd think all these guys ever thought about was being faithful to their inspiration, not compromising anything in a constant attempt to advance the art. That's partially true, but after you get out of your 20s, most people either try to make money in music or get a day job. You do it with all the integrity you can. And if there's no money in it, you do what does pay the bills. Romantic ideas of artistic creation are often held by those too young to know better and by those with no real career experience who believe the press releases and interviews they read. A life in music can be very rewarding, but it's often not much like what fans think it is.
The Mighty Megalosaurus
Tree Pusher, WESAYSO Corp.
I disagree with none of that, NotTheMama. I've been there; I have personal experience with the industry, to a degree.
There is a "financial" or "business" component to any music being made today, no doubt. It costs money to make music. It costs money to record music, to distribute music, etc. But I don't see a directly proportional link to lack of industry funding and quality of product. Certainly there will have to be different paradigms relating to the "business" ends of things in the future.
http://tinyurl.com/obxwlrt
That's something I was involved in, in another life-time. We did it, our way. No record companies were harmed in the making of that product.
Can anyone name a big hit songs that either didn't involve a major music company, or where the major music company was acting solely as a distributor? I think Prince might have had a release like that.
I know Marillion had some releases, like Marbles, where it was all self-produced but EMI was used just for distribution. Not that Marbles was a big hit, but it did spawn hit singles (or was it just one?).
I'd love to see the big music companies used like that - as a service simply to be used, not as entities that would actually make a percentage of profits.
Pandora's response to Pink Floyd. The plot thins:
We have enormous respect for the members of Pink Floyd, and their amazing artistic contributions. We also respect the genuineness of their opinion.
Unfortunately, they have been given badl...y misleading information – the result of a well-orchestrated campaign by the RIAA and their lobbying arm to mislead and agitate artists.
A glaring example is the assertion that Pandora supports an “85% artist pay cut." That is simply not true. [emphasis ours]
We never, nor would we ever, support such a thing. In fact, Pandora has suggested solutions that would guarantee no reduction in artist payouts while also nurturing the growth of internet radio -- a medium that is crucial to thousands of independent musicians who don’t enjoy major label support or FM radio exposure.
This much is true: Pandora is by far the highest paying form of radio in the world and proudly pays both songwriters and performers.
For perspective, to reach the exact same audience, Pandora currently pays over 4.5 times more in total royalties than broadcast radio for the same song. In fact, at only 7% of U.S. radio listening, Pandora pays more in performance royalties than any other form of radio.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/pando...#ixzz2XM2UOJ1N
Talking about Big Hits doesn't equate with talking about quality. Not that I think you said that, or implied it...I just wanted to point it out.
There are already "distributors" who do nothing but distribute. They make a profit, of course.....but the Biggie Industry (Sony/Disney/Etc.) would never just relegate themselves to distributor status, IMO. They still see much more money to be made in creating the product itself....bigger percentage of profit, vis a vis distribution-only.
I'm all for those who do it for the music, believe me. Those who are currently selling CDs through CD Baby or at the show do indeed have an outlet for their product. (CD Baby is fabulous.) And fans can be very happy buying releases that sell 10,000 units tops, usually less. All that's good.
The Mighty Megalosaurus
Tree Pusher, WESAYSO Corp.
I know, but I want them to be relegated to that. I want the big music companies to be relegated to doing the dirty work for a small cut.
excellent!
I would love to see all artists just selling music through their websites and eliminate the big$$record industry
I'm still pissed at the big$$record industry for stopping the production of vinyl in 1988 in order to FORCE LP buyers to pay DOUBLE for CDs. I remember paying 5.99 OR 6.99 for brand new LPs in 1987, then in 1988 having to pay 16.99 for a new release CD
they made their bed AFAIC
Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks