Has The Music Industry Died?

[RockyRaccoon]

I saw a video the other day that was an old Frontline report. It was talking about how the music industry has greatly declined since the advent of Rock N' Roll in the 50s, saying that its high points were in the 60s and 70s. It said that since then the music industry has become less and less about the music and more and more about selling it, about the money made. It's about the single and not about the album or the quality of music.

My favorite part was this quote from David Crosby:

"When it all started, record companies -- and there were many of them, and this was a good thing -- were run by people who loved records, people like Ahmet Ertegun, who ran Atlantic Records, who were record collectors. They got in it because they loved music. …

Look at it this way. A couple of years ago, somewhere between a fourth and a third of the record business was owned by a whiskey company, who shall remain nameless, but were notably inept at running a record company. And they sold it to a French water company, who shall also remain nameless, but knew even less. Now, those guys haven't a clue! [laughter] They haven't a clue. And they don't care about having a clue. They are trying to run it as if they're selling widgets, plastic-wrapped widgets that they can sell more of. And they want easily definable, easily accessible, easily creatable, controllable product that has a built-in die-out, so that they can create some more.

By that, I mean, "Get me a lead singer. He's got sort of an androgynous blonde hair, very pretty. We need a guitar player, sort of hatchet-faced, wears a hat, plays very fast, very dramatic. He must be very dramatic. Get me a pound of bass player, pound of drummer. I don't think he needs keyboards; I think we look good. And we'll call them the Bosco Bombers! No. The Bad Dogs, that's good! I like that!" And then you sell it. You sell the hell out of it. You spend $500,000 on record promoting, and they make a lot more.

But they're making little cardboard cutouts. They hire a producer, they hire writers, and the people that they put out in these little boy bands. And in the current stuff now, they don't even bother getting people to play. Don't bother with that guitar player, bass player, drummer -- nonsense. That's all nonsense to them. Got to look cute, have a flat tummy, and be controllable. And then they put you in these little cardboard cutout band."

I happen to agree with them, but I was wondering if the forum had some opinions?

[Levis]

Well as an industry it has to make money, so it needs the cardboard cutouts etc. because they're the most marketable. You usually have to make a choice between integrity and $$$, it's difficult to have both. The industry has to make $$$ so as long as the general public (and that includes you and me) are willing to buy the cardboard cutouts (or even have them on in the background if the TV or radio plays them), the industry is alive.

's what I think anyway

[The Seeker]

It hasn't died, it's just changed focus. I don't think the difference is all that extreme - back then you had the Monkees, now you have other boy bands. And it's not like bands in the 60s weren't groomed by their labels to represent a certain style.

And taking a stab in the dark here... back in the 50s or 60s bands knew a lot less about the music business, so bands today try to go for the indie label because it offers more freedom and credibility. So if you're a label, it's easier to come up with a cardboard cutout.

[edna]

It hasn't died, it's just changed focus. I don't think the difference is all that extreme - back then you had the Monkees, now you have other boy bands. And it's not like bands in the 60s weren't groomed by their labels to represent a certain style.

I absolutelly agree. There won't be more Ahmets or Berry Gordys or people like that. Indies are important now too. Bands do it through Myspace. But the music industry will not only focus on other styles, it's also changing its ways. Now it's also internet, remasters and revivals, sponsors, adds in sites, downloads though the net... plus the editing and publishing rights, where they still get a piece of the cake.

[Farin]

first of all, I think the question is a bit misleading... the Music Industry hasn't died (yet), I think what you meant is that they just don't care about the music itself anymore...

in fact, one could argue that nowadays it's more of an industry than ever before, and they're making a ton of money with it

one important part is:

When it all started, record companies -- and there were many of them [...]

today there are 4 record companies, which hold 82% of the market share in the US, and to get the artists famous it's still important to get them featured on TV - which is dominated by only one media conglomerate - Viacom

but everybody knows that recordsales are getting fewer and fewer, so for earning more money the concerts and live shows are becoming more and more important... only that the live music market is prevailed by Live Nation as a promoter and Ticketmaster for the sales

of course for people like us, who are willing to look for new ways to get to know new music there will always be an opportunity at the edge of the market, but for the large majority of casual listeners (or should I say 'consumers'?)...

[Levis]

The industry HAS to make a ton of money simply to exist. The Stone Roses, Kraftwerk and Spacemen 3 all had either seminal albums or entire discographies remastered and reissued this year. I can't see any reason why a label would do that other than to bring in more money QUICK.

[Levis]

And it's OKAY to want/have to make money - the world runs on it. The indie kids would be nowhere without the instruments they bought with their straight-edge parents' money. We can't ALL be independent and alternative and creative and free-from-the-system etc.

[BlueAngel]

The music industry has always been an industry like any other: it aims to expand and prosper. I don't think its fair to say it started out idealistic then became corrupted. There has always and will always be those who are in it for the money and those in it for the music (who I'm sure also don't mind getting a few checks now and again if only to pay the rent).

As a business it needs to determine the kind of product likely to be most successful with the general public. Once they hit upon a winning trend who can blame them for repeating it and beating consumers over the head with it, like every other business does?

Of course there are those in the upper part of the industry nowadays who care about the quality (as subjective as that really is) of the music product they sell, but probably most view it largely in terms of marketability and potential profit, not originality or merit.

There are an increasing number of alternative ways to listen to and obtain great new music which are becoming a good-sized part of the music industry as whole. If however your viewing the industry only from a major label/mainstream perspective then it does look a little bleak unless of course your a fan of that music.

[RockyRaccoon]

Yea I can see all that. I mean, the industry has to make money. And it always has. I mean, there have been cardboard cutouts since the 60s. The Monkees couldn't even really play instruments. And then there was the whole bubblegum pop stage going into disco and then hair metal. So I mean each decade has had cutouts. And every year there will be crappy music. Always has been.

I think some problems have arisen that have always been around but become more prevalent these days. It seems to me that it's become all about the single. Rarely the album. One of my favorite albums is Moody Blues's "Days Of Future Past" which seems to be about the album. Now I mean, it's not like there was a plethora of albums 30-40 years ago that were masterpieces, but there seems to be more than there are now.

I don't know. It just seems to me that when Britney Spears is putting out songs that have the depth of a birdbath and is making millions upon millions of dollars for it, being glorified as an incredible musician, when musicianship has all but left the music that people listen to and instrumental proficiency is now boring to put in a song, I feel like something bad has happened. As if we've degenerated in some way. It used to be people could sit through a symphony. Now if the song isn't done in 2-5 minutes interest has been lost. If the song isn't catchy and quick no one cares. But perhaps I forget that the music business is exactly that, a business. And as long as people keep buying what they put out, they'll keep putting it out.

[blind-fitter]

I blame the general public for their enduring propensity to buy third rate crap.

[Levis]

Now look, if the general public bought the first rate crap that we love, it would rapidly turn into third-rate crap by virtue of the inverse relationship between number of people who like something and the quality of that something. Maybe the people liking it is what makes it suck.

Also, Britney Spears isn't ever glorified as a musician. She's a performer and she IS pretty good at performing (obviously you are going to disregard that disastrous VMA incident)

[Farin]

Now look, if the general public bought the first rate crap that we love, it would rapidly turn into third-rate crap by virtue of the inverse relationship between number of people who like something and the quality of that something. Maybe the people liking it is what makes it suck.

^ This.

just think of all our hate objects who "ruined everything by going commercial"

but for the last sentence, I think "everybody is listening to them" could be A, but certainly not THE (only) reason

[blind-fitter]

Now look, if the general public bought the first rate crap that we love, it would rapidly turn into third-rate crap by virtue of the inverse relationship between number of people who like something and the quality of that something. Maybe the people liking it is what makes it suck.

Speak for yourself. I'm not a snob. If I wanted my personal favourites to remain in obscurity, I wouldn't waste so much of my life evangelising on their behalf, sharing stuff with friends and relative strangers, etc. Good music is good music, however many people are in on it. The problem is; the vast majority of music is consumed by people who don't actually care much about music, even less about creativity in music, artistic values, etc. Ergo, the majority of music in the public domain is relatively devoid of creativity, artistic value or integrity. Which is where the money is.

There are odd exceptions, but by and large, to achieve commercial success (for yourself and the record label that underwrites the bill for the necessary hype) you must accept the compromise of any artistic integrity you might think you have; collaborate with prostitutes / become one. That's the deal, unfortunately.

If you look out on the margins, there are doubtless plenty who aren't engaging in such prostitution. But we seldom hear about them, because they are out of the public eye.

[BlueAngel]

I don't know. It just seems to me that when Britney Spears is putting out songs that have the depth of a birdbath and is making millions upon millions of dollars for it, being glorified as an incredible musician, when musicianship has all but left the music that people listen to and instrumental proficiency is now boring to put in a song, I feel like something bad has happened. As if we've degenerated in some way. It used to be people could sit through a symphony. Now if the song isn't done in 2-5 minutes interest has been lost. If the song isn't catchy and quick no one cares.

Has there ever really been a time since the beginning of rock and roll, when albums mattered more to the industry and the general public, excluding established fans of specific groups than the singles used to promote them? Did radio stations ever play the whole album or even a side when it was first released?

The casual music listener is often simply not enough of a fan of either music in general or artists in particular look beyond mainstream artists to alternative ones or the singles to album tracks, they just want a few nice songs to listen to sometimes. I don't think this is a new or a worsening condition of people in general. For alot of people music just isn't their thing, they take what's given to them, not caring much either way.

Also, this sounds like it getting close to the tired Old music vs. New music debate. There is plenty of music out there with as much excellent musicianship and emphasis on musical skill and innovation as there ever was 30-40 years ago, but, for better or worse, much of it sits just beyond the mainstream media's grasp.

Now look, if the general public bought the first rate crap that we love, it would rapidly turn into third-rate crap by virtue of the inverse relationship between number of people who like something and the quality of that something. Maybe the people liking it is what makes it suck.

Yeah I agree. I make a point of liking only bands I'm positive most of the people I know can't stand, its the only way I know they don't suck.

[blind-fitter]

There are examples of bands who signed major label deals without it having a discernible negative effect on the quality of their music. That doesn't conflict with my punk/indie values system. And I've long since ceased being disappointed by the career decisions made by artists I have loved. Artists sell-out, not by signing to a "major", but by watering down their music (and, in some cases, their values) in the interests of greater market-appeal. That can piss me off a bit; but nowadays, it's just, "Meh!" and move on.

[Levis]

Yeah I agree. I make a point of liking only bands I'm positive most of the people I know can't stand, its the only way I know they don't suck.

Well not 'can't stand' as much as 'have not heard (enough) of' - I do get more, er, satisfaction out of a record the less I've heard other people speak of it. I like it to be as 'mine' as possible.

's just me tho, I've noticed most people are more noble and generous.

[Levis]

Gosh I'm such a snob Oh well at least I know it MINE

[BlueAngel]

Hmm 'not heard enough of' is even better criteria and I'll make a point of not talking about or listening too much to anything you mention.

[Levis]

Excellent That's how I like it

[RockyRaccoon]

That is true. Like I said, there wasn't necessarily a plethora of albums that were all about the album. But I'm saying it seems that there were more then than there are now. At least that I know of. I mean, I know radio stations have always played one song and never the album. And thats always how it has been and it always will be. But think of all the immortalized songs that were rarely played on the radio. What I'm trying to avoid here is an overgeneralization. I know that singles and a money making industry have been around for a long time, I'm just saying that it seems that the desire for quality has digressed a bit in recent years. There were crappy songs, and there always have been crappy songs. It just seems like there's more that people think are incredible songs. What bothers me is when I tell people that someone like Taylor Swift isn't a terribly talented guitarist and they tell me that's my opinion. It's maddening. Singer? Sure. Guitarist? No, she hasn't shown that to me. Yet somehow that's my opinion.

And as far as old music vs. new music, I do realize that there is some great new music out there. I love some of the stuff that's out there. And in fact some of it is very popular. Bands like Wolfmother or Muse. Bands that still contain talented musicians and are popular. And there's still bands out there. Just seems like they're less glorified than they used to be.

Then again, it is still my opinion. Just a thought.

[Farin]

Taylor who?

And as far as old music vs. new music, I do realize that there is some great new music out there. I love some of the stuff that's out there. And in fact some of it is very popular. Bands like Wolfmother or Muse. Bands that still contain talented musicians and are popular. And there's still bands out there. Just seems like they're less glorified than they used to be.

but that doesn't have to do with the music - it's more an "old industry vs new industry" issue, isn't it?

[BlueAngel]

Taylor who?

Just consider yourself fortunate.

It just seems like there's more that people think are incredible songs. What bothers me is when I tell people that someone like Taylor Swift isn't a terribly talented guitarist and they tell me that's my opinion. It's maddening. Singer? Sure. Guitarist? No, she hasn't shown that to me. Yet somehow that's my opinion.

And as far as old music vs. new music, I do realize that there is some great new music out there. I love some of the stuff that's out there. And in fact some of it is very popular. Bands like Wolfmother or Muse. Bands that still contain talented musicians and are popular. And there's still bands out there. Just seems like they're less glorified than they used to be.

I agree many great artists go unacknowledged while those with a pretty face, a good publicist but limited musical ability become idolized, but I don't think that's anything new. Plenty of artists and their music have only been appreciated in hindsight and were often rejected or ignored in their own time. The converse is also true: artists have been celebrated for being the best thing since sliced bread, but years (or months, as often happens) later are looked on as unfashionable rubbish.

'Tis unfair and frustrating certainly, but its still just someone's opinion.

[RockyRaccoon]

Taylor who?

but that doesn't have to do with the music - it's more an "old industry vs new industry" issue, isn't it?

I guess so. I just feel like the focus of the industry has shifted a bit. Like the music has stayed fairly consistent but the focus has changed. I guess it is an industry thing rather than the music.

[Farin]

Just consider yourself fortunate.

I just wanted to express my opinion with a healthy dose of sarcastic ignorance

that being said, I actually don't think she's that famous here (I only know her by name too)

[BlueAngel]

I figured that, but I wanted to express my distaste for her celebrity by responding to your sarcastic ignorance.