The "death" of bands

[Nova]

The biggest change that has affected every aspect of people's lives these days compared to those before the internet is that people have access to unlimited assets (songs, movies, etc.) and they have access to them everywhere they go. People listened to the same songs for weeks pre-internet because the only place you heard them were in the car, at home (only when you sat still usually) and at clubs on Friday and Saturday night. With iPods and now smartphones, people carry their entire music collection with them or stream unlimited music and movies everywhere they go. While this is awesome in many ways, it has diluted the value of sensory-based entertainment (songs, movies, etc.) to the point that most people tire of things much faster and the "instant gratification" high lasts less and less time. A lot of mainstream local radio stations have been hit so hard by satellite radio and mobile streaming that they are forced to limit their playlists severely knowing that since people are unlikely to listen to radio for hours on end these days, they can get away with playing the top 5-10 most popular songs repeatedly throughout the day.

We crave "more" and we crave it "now" and as the market shifts to give us what we want and when we want it, the market devalues itself more and more. At some point, the mainstream entertainment market will implode to where only a few major sources remain. The great thing is that when that happens, you will eventually see a real shift toward the independent movement. We have seen the formation of this movement for years now with indie bands and web-based movies and series productions getting more and more exposure through the internet and social media. I just hope that when that happens that people are not so addicted they can make the transition.

Pretty sure you nailed it.

The only thing that's really going to top charts consistently is the music that appeals to a wide audience (pop).

The problem may be that there are actually too many bands, and each band finds its niche via spotify, pandora, youtube, etc.


The only bands that make it big are the guys (or gals) that appeal to a wide audience: Coldplay, Maroon 5, Imagine Dragons, and in the past few years Paramore, Kings of Leon.

The only anomaly of late has been Mumford and Sons. They're the only band I can think of with such a different sound to find so much success.

 

[Nova]

There are a ton of factors - mostly having to do with the idea that record companies no longer "discover" talent as much as they "manufacture" it. If they can find someone with a modicum of it, they can get that person some songs written, then use Pro Tools and make them sound great with a band they've never met, and as long as the product is bland and largely inoffensive to as many people as possible, it'll be radio-friendly, and terrestrial radio is right there to push it as hard as possible and it's a system that seems to work for them.

Why go through the trouble of sending AR guys to dive bars to try to find the next big band, when you can take a pretty, photogenic girl and make her a pop-country music star? The bands are out there, they're just not on the radio because there's no money in it for the radio stations.

Terrestrial radio stations are also just about all corporate entities now, and they all follow the same rules and play the same stuff without any regard for regional or local flavors. They don't take chances on a band that a significant number of people might hate - they would rather take a chance on a band that a few people might really like, and most people think is just mediocre and don't care about.

This is why the only bands you see who sell anymore are guys like Nickleback and Rascal Flatts - bland, radio-friendly, and all sounds the same, and it sells because that's all people really have ready access to.

There are bands out there that have been slapped together by some music exec-- for instance, I believe Simon Cowell essentially created One Direction. But that's been true of every generation of music.

I honestly think this would have been a better description for the music between 98ish and 2003ish.

I agree with the bolded part, but from a different stand point. It's kind of pointless to do that now because the music industry, like many other industries nowadays, is much less profitable. The internet has given the consumer the power to choose.

Consumers don't have to buy an entire album to enjoy the one hit wonder that was on the radio any longer because they can listen to it just about anywhere at any time, and if they actually want to purchase the song, they can purchase the song for $1 and disregard the rest of the album.

But at the same time, the internet has made finding talent easier because of sites like YouTube.

Because of that, I'd say It's less about creating talent nowadays and more about being able to market the talent found other ways.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

That's a massive misconception. Its no different than it ever was before. The only difference now is that the "rebellious music acts"....whatever that actually means, haven't transitioned to the mainstream as visibly. But I actually think you could make the argument that Lady Gaga is rebellious in the same way that Madonna was, songs with folk backgrounds are hitting the tops of the charts (Mumford), and guys like Avicii are doing stuff that has never really been done before. The only difference now is that a lot of stuff is less angry, unlike the 90's grunge and 80's punk.

Now you could make the argument that some of those acts are manufactured, and Lady Gaga definitely is, but to act like young people only listen to pop and/or have no interest in anything else is pretty off-base I think.

I don't think there is any rebellion in Lady Gaga. Mainly because so many people see her as trying to follow the Madonna template. And because people were so shocked by Madonna and all of the people following Madonna, they are not shocked by Lady Gaga. It's the reason why so many TV shows are the way they are these days. The idea is to shock people, but all they are doing is taking 'shock jock' radio and applying it to TV. And it's been going on for so long that people are no longer shocked by it.

I also think in Madonna's case, it wasn't so much rebellion as shock. She had also had a well established safe, pop career before she got into the Justify My Love style of videos. Even then, the videos were often mocked for being so wacky.

When I grew up, it took forever to just find a radio station that would play a Guns N Roses song that was not Sweet Child O Mine. Eventually the radio stations relented because the audience wanted it too much. While groups like Led Zeppelin were essentially before my time, I would be willing to bet that their fans faced the same issue.

Whether you call it rebellion or 'edge', those bands had it. And the people of that generation went out of their way to go and hear it. Finally it led to the 90's when radio stations realized that they could make a lot of money by playing that type of music along with hip-hop.

These days, I just don't see that underbelly of music fans that would prefer to listen to something that is not pop-mainstream. I have a bunch of teenagers that work for me every year and I'm amazed of how content they are to listen to Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, etc. Some of the guys are unabashed fans of Gaga because in their words 'her tunes are catchy.' I just can't imagine getting more than 5 boys from when I was high school that would ever admit that. You would likely be casted as a ****** nozzle back then.

Now...not so much.





YR

 

[Future]

I don't think there is any rebellion in Lady Gaga. Mainly because so many people see her as trying to follow the Madonna template. And because people were so shocked by Madonna and all of the people following Madonna, they are not shocked by Lady Gaga. It's the reason why so many TV shows are the way they are these days. The idea is to shock people, but all they are doing is taking 'shock jock' radio and applying it to TV. And it's been going on for so long that people are no longer shocked by it.

I also think in Madonna's case, it wasn't so much rebellion as shock. She had also had a well established safe, pop career before she got into the Justify My Love style of videos. Even then, the videos were often mocked for being so wacky.

When I grew up, it took forever to just find a radio station that would play a Guns N Roses song that was not Sweet Child O Mine. Eventually the radio stations relented because the audience wanted it too much. While groups like Led Zeppelin were essentially before my time, I would be willing to bet that their fans faced the same issue.

Whether you call it rebellion or 'edge', those bands had it. And the people of that generation went out of their way to go and hear it. Finally it led to the 90's when radio stations realized that they could make a lot of money by playing that type of music along with hip-hop.

These days, I just don't see that underbelly of music fans that would prefer to listen to something that is not pop-mainstream. I have a bunch of teenagers that work for me every year and I'm amazed of how content they are to listen to Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, etc. Some of the guys are unabashed fans of Gaga because in their words 'her tunes are catchy.' I just can't imagine getting more than 5 boys from when I was high school that would ever admit that. You would likely be casted as a ****** nozzle back then.

Now...not so much.

YR

Well I would say that "shock" and "rebellion," in terms of music, are basically the same thing, but whatever.

I don't know exactly what age group you're referring too, but I dont think highschoolers ever went out and searched for it any more than they do now. One of the biggest differences is that radio stations are really quick to adapt, so stuff that might have been underground 5 months ago is mainstream now. Look at EDM and groups like Swedish House Mafia and Daft Punk. They've always had a following, but it wasn't until the last year or so that they got any radio play.

 

[Nova]

These days, I just don't see that underbelly of music fans that would prefer to listen to something that is not pop-mainstream. I have a bunch of teenagers that work for me every year and I'm amazed of how content they are to listen to Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, etc. Some of the guys are unabashed fans of Gaga because in their words 'her tunes are catchy.' I just can't imagine getting more than 5 boys from when I was high school that would ever admit that. You would likely be casted as a ****** nozzle back then.

Now...not so much.





YR

I'm 27, so I'm out of touch with teenagers now and pretty darn proud of it.

But are you sure the guys are 'fans' of Gaga, or just tolerant of her music?

Back in college, one of the funnier things I remember hearing from one of my guy friends was "This Fergie song is girly as hell, but [***] me if it isn't catchy!"

Now obviously, Fergie is just terrible, but it was one of those moments where it dawned on me that it was pretty silly to think that you should care what anyone thinks of the music you like. I thought it was one of those things where we were just getting older and it was acceptable to not pretend to die in disgust of pop music, but maybe times were just changing.

Overall, I think this generation is just more accepting of mainstream music. But I don't think that necessarily means we're fans of it.

For instance. I'm okay with Lady Gaga. Not as a person per se, but her music is generally good. But I'm not a fan. My spotify playlist consists of Alabama Shakes, Mumford and Sons, Feist, The Heavy, Black Keys, Coldplay, Cold War Kids, Dawes, Bastille (which has actually become pretty popular lately), etc. That's the music I like, but I'm not going to pretend like Gaga doesn't have some good music.

 

[Wheeltax]

Gaga at least is a talented musician and writes her own music.

 

[Future]

Gaga at least is a talented musician and writes her own music.

She's annoying as all hell, but she's probably more talented than most people give her credit for.

 

[Hoov]

I'm wondering if you have a Sirius/XM satellite subscription?

I do, and I'm hooked on Tom Petty's Buried Treasure show.

The very best in rock, rhythm, and blues.

Truly the Last DJ.

Judging by your aforementioned tastes, I think you'd like it.

I don't. But I think I'll look into it

 

[Nova]

She's annoying as all hell, but she's probably more talented than most people give her credit for.

Absolutely. She was accepted into Juilliard's pre-college division when she was age 11 (but ultimately did not attend) and she also went to Tisch School of the Arts.

I don't care for her act, but from a musical standpoint there probably aren't many pop stars with her pedigree.

 

[Stash]

I don't. But I think I'll look into it

I would highly recommend trying it out.

 

[DanteEXT]

Popular music does not appeal to me. Generally speaking, the music I listen to the most never charts very high (though some have hit I big). I've been having to work to find my music since the early 90's.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

I miss the days 10-15 years ago when all the little kids were into Eminem and all the parents were scared to death. Now the kids listen to soft crap like Drake. I remember the Marilyn Manson era too. And Slipknot. I appreciate a band that inspires (supposedly) a kid to shoot up a school.

 

[MonsterD]

I appreciate a band that inspires (supposedly) a kid to shoot up a school.

That seems glib.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

That seems glib.

I overexaggerated. But I appreciated that era when the music was actually rough and scared the parents. I don't know of any musicians (pop/rock/rap) that do that nowadays. Everyone is so cookie-cutter.

 

[theebs]

there are a ton of bands around...good ones.

there is just no way to get them noticed in the way people have become accustomed to.

 

[theebs]

I miss the days 10-15 years ago when all the little kids were into Eminem and all the parents were scared to death. Now the kids listen to soft crap like Drake. I remember the Marilyn Manson era too. And Slipknot. I appreciate a band that inspires (supposedly) a kid to shoot up a school.

whats not cookie cutter about manson or Eminem? They are cookie cutter music to a tee.

neither are original or good.

 

[theebs]

never heard of him.

iceberg is my dj name and ive been "pimping" unsigned music for over 15 years. i've turned off my yamaha, marantz and other "tuners" for how i listen to music cause they play FM. AM. Line In.

i'm disappointed that people today listen to music on a phone.

there's a reason i bought DCM/Cerwin Vega 3 way speakers.

there's a reason people used to put a ton of money into their car stereos.

people today listen to music off a ****ty phone speaker and feel like they discovered something. i'm not after justifying yesterday, i'm trying to understand tomorrow. reading an album cover was cool. it got compressed to cassette. then cd.

now it's an afterthought and the art of music is "does it fit on my phone".

there is simply no direction to the music industry today cause they're still trying to figure out how to make money, not music.

but the industry today i link back to the 60s and 70s. those putting put music today do it out of love. not a superbowl appearance.

the problem is that people are lazy and they want to be told what to listen to.

then again, they did in the 80s also, but through more established means.

the IGS i coined long long ago isn't about the cowboys, it's about our culture.

we have to be willing to work for what we want or we'll forever complain we don't know what we want.

you either see the difference, or you're a ****ing idiot.

I am among those who listens to a stereo and not computer speakers or a phone for gods sake. I listen to vinyl mostly. I am happy it is coming back and maintaining a healthy rebirth currently. New digital formats are being set out to make music sound good, flac is excellent and the thing neil young is working on is supposed to be excellent.

but this brings us to the real reason at this point in time the music business is struggling. Supply and Demand.

the music business exploded in the 60's. The baby boomers and generation x consumed music at an obscene rate. I know because I am a generation x person who is an obsessed music person...I have about 500 cd's, close to 650 albums and a ton of downloaded digital music.

We in these two groups are not the norm anymore. The audience who consumed this has shrunk considerably. The millenials or generation Y if you will do not consume music the way we did/do. In fact they grew up not paying for it and have that in their mind....there only way to get music they like is to download it.

As you said, CD sales are falling off of a cliff.....The hope here is This new generation z and the tail end of the millenials appear to be music consumers.

I think there are a ton of great bands around making excellent records, but there is no mtv, the independent local radio stations who could break bands, take requests and determine the top 40 is gone. They were all bought up in the unregulated conservative windfall under the previous president.

I am an editor of a music tv show, we have some great artists who are really talented making great music...but its a struggle to find an audience and then keep them. I can tell you people do not even watch music videos anymore. In Texas Music is alive and well. I think in Seattle and some other areas music is also alive and well.

iTunes allows consumers to buy one song, its like the old days in the 50s and first half of the 60's when people bought 45's. It took some outstanding artists to create the concept of the album and a whole record full of meaningful music. I don't know how we get around this currently.

It will be interesting to see what happens going forward.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

whats not cookie cutter about manson or Eminem? They are cookie cutter music to a tee.

neither are original or good.

True. But at least it had parents scared. Do you think parents are scared of Justin Beiber? It's a sad day when the parents approve of the music their kids are listening to.

 

[theebs]

True. But at least it had parents scared. Do you think parents are scared of Justin Beiber? It's a sad day when the parents approve of the music their kids are listening to.

this is an entirely different conversation.

to quote the great josh schwartz "we live in a post everything world"

Parents being scared means nothing to the quality of the music.

Different generations of people. I listen to tons of music, the music my kids will grow up listening to will have zero chance of ever scaring me. Ever.

In the old days parents/adults were fearful of a lot of the stuff that was being told about bands because access to information was not like today. People thought everyone were devil worshippers, gangsters etc.....In the world we live in today you cant be any of those things as a marketing plan put together by the record label. not that record labels exist.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

this is an entirely different conversation.

to quote the great josh schwartz "we live in a post everything world"

Parents being scared means nothing to the quality of the music.

Different generations of people. I listen to tons of music, the music my kids will grow up listening to will have zero chance of ever scaring me. Ever.

In the old days parents/adults were fearful of a lot of the stuff that was being told about bands because access to information was not like today. People thought everyone were devil worshippers, gangsters etc.....In the world we live in today you cant be any of those things as a marketing plan put together by the record label. not that record labels exist.

I agree for the most part. But I don't think things today are THAT much different from how they were 10 years ago. Maybe I'm underestimating the impact social media and the development of the internet has had on things. I mean I'm talking early 2000. But I forget how new lots of these things are.