Just think about it in business terms for a minute. There's a machine spitting out so few great records, plodding along, sticking to the formula and it's starting to drive me insane, especially the coke-snorting automatons that keep bemoaning downloads killing the industry. They're the very same people who claimed for a few seconds, before going all cherry-cheek, that 'Pop Idol' would save everything and anything.
Any band in the world can buy themselves a number 1 and shove themselves in everyone's faces [not to mention single-buying teams. Please don't kid the world and say they don't exist 'cus they blatantly do!]. And the most important question of all is: is being number one in the singles chart really much of an accolade anymore?
Hits are NOT what the "alternative music" scene is about. Sales don't equate with quality, if anything, based on the logic of Dubya being elected world leader, the fewer sales, the less mass appeal, the better. But that doesn't add up and bands don't get paid. Did Nirvana/U2/Smashing Pumpkins go straight in at number one? Would they be as credible if they did rattle the top of the charts? And surely there needs to be something credible, interesting and exciting to keep people buying records? Why are there hundreds of bands signed every year, barely developed, with promos bagged and posted out to press, yet so little in the past 5 years that's been inspiring, let alone exceptional examples of pop?
Seems almost too easy a scapegoat but maybe corporations are to blame with their lack of knowledge of the scene, and "the market". You only need look at Evanescence, an "alternative rock band", and ask yourself, where's the organic backbone? Where's the reality of a band working their tits off to get to the top? And some dipshit in the industry asks "Why don't the kids respect this?"
The key thing here is that the industry doesn't appear to understand (in some sectors, lest we forget the joys of Saddle Creek, Sub Pop, Domino, Beggars, Fat Cat, Visible Noise, Pias et al) it that the very appeal of the alternative (i.e. not the mainstream) is about struggle, alienation, being able to relate to a bunch of humans creating 'art'. It's about having something to push against. It's about bands and fans, not products and customers. It's about a culture. And all cultures are by definition, classifiably different.
All some major corporations are doing, it seems, is wandering in, treating one default template that works for one genre of music as the one for all. They're putting flags up, trying to colonise and take the power, the steam and magic out of "alternative music". What happens when kids get turned off and stop buying records? Oh yeah, you can blame downloading, because all the value and respect has been eaten away. But why are people downloading music? Because most of the £15.99 albums are a crock of shit, that wouldn't be fit to wipe the feet of any of the acts' idols. There are exceptions, but very few.
So yeah, all these bought number 1s, with heavy marketing (costs), might translate into record sales now, but like, say, One True Voice, who's gonna go out and buy the next 5 albums? And where's the back catalogue to keep labels afloat in 20 years time (like it's doing now)? Where's the value of blowing your load on a band's first album and then the next record being a flop, band dropped, lots of money pissed in the wind? (see also: Toploader, New Radicals, Terris, etc.) This kind of peak, trough, production line business structure isn't sustainable. The Music Industry is more than just bits of plastic. STOP BLAMING DOWNLOADING!
I don't want to see the music world die. And I do believe the resistance is getting stronger. Bands don't wanna sign their souls away, only to fade to away behind the counter in a superstore, rather than embarassingly to grey in their mansions. Fans are sick of their favourite bands - sitting on label rosters that number in the hundreds - never amounting to what they should be. Labels are starting. Things are moving.. S'all happenin'!
Evanescence At Number One; Or Why the Music Industry is Killing Itself
Whatever happened to bands being exciting? I remember a time when I'd be giddy as a schoolgirl as I rushed to buy a new album by a treasured band. I want to feel that way again. Whatever happened to bands that crept (instead of being thrown) into popularity? Discovering a band is part of the charm, discovering them before they made the charts helped you see them as YOUR band. Helped them become something special to you.
And I remember when "angst" music was brilliant, a bruised kind of beautiful. Not angst-for-angst-sake like it is now, rage-by-numbers. I remember hearing music that sounded for all the world like it KNEW how I felt. Music born of suffering and frustration. In comparisson, bands like Linkin Park are an insult.
Music has become junk-food. Its reassuring to read that I'm not the only one craving something more satisfying.
IaNaUn
Re: Evanescence At Number One; Or Why the Music Industry is Killing Itself
Being able to hype is more important than being able to play. Your PR person is more vital than your vocalist.
Those of us with the actual passion dont have the cold hard cash to make the difference we want to. Yeah, people do their best, but then the music machine (tm) tries to get in on all that with 90% of the street teams you see (corperate sponsored worming into peoples affections - who wants a free badge of a shite band anyway?)
The chats been a joke for a while anyway, ever since Blur whipped Oasis' arse there's been, what, maybe five decent number one singles? The album chart has SOME cred left. The industry is so out of touch its untrue most of the time, but that just means its up to the individual to find their "sound".
As long as everyone doesnt turn into a bunch of elitest scenesters, I dont see theres much wrong with having to put in a little effort for your pleasure.
Re: Evanescence At Number One; Or Why the Music Industry is Killing Itself
But the main problem here is that people are generally too lazy to find their own sound. The generation before us knew how to do it, but kids nowadays sit on kazzaa downloading bands they've just seen on m2 or read about in kerrang. The backlash is starting, but there's a need for everything good that's going on to have some area for the transition to take place. I didn't buy a GreenDay record one week and an Arab Strap record the next, etc.
Also, it's sickening how much work it takes pluggers to get something on the bbc (a public service). Something which i'm investigating for a feature at the mo (tho may wait 'til the koreans are getting some airplay first of all.. o'the politics..!)
The people with passion will find a way. Far too many people, however, are bothered whether they sell out or not. And keep plodding along, talking more than walking, ranting more than doing. Why is that? What's so wrong with being successful? Why the fuck are people accusing me of selling out for releasing records?
Re: Evanescence At Number One; Or Why the Music Industry is Killing Itself
there's always something you can do though. whether you're involved in the induhstry or not, you can offer one vitally important thing - support. support the bands you love, the bands that catch your eye, the bands you know you could love, given time. make choices. take that money you'd have spent in hmv, and buy a band's record at their gig off the merch stand if they play near you. if the don't, travel for them if you can. right now, somewhere, a band that could have changed your lifee is splitting up. last night it was mahumodo. [review up soon.] today.. who knows? catch em while you can. the largescale press can push anyone they want at us - it doesn't mean shit if we don't give a shit. don't give your cash, or your time, or your love, to anyone that doesn't deserve it.
x
gen
The major label dilemma
There will always be an "underground" where the muso's and indie kids live, but it will always be an underground because most of it's supporters invariably "grow up" and stop caring so much.
The point about back-catalogue is one I've made before though, although there's nothing to say majors won't continue to thrive selling the "quality" acts of fifties, sixties, and seventies to every generation.
Re: The major label dilemma
What you perceive as "underground" is not what I do. A lot of the bands you perceive as underground are small because they're rubbish.
You've totally missed my point, what I am saying is what is being enjoyed, is not sustainable, does not have value and ultimately, the poorer the intro level of music, the less chance people have of stepping out of their mtv bubble and into something special. The more quickfire marketing runs sales, the less actual money the industry has. It's like a junkie doing hundreds of little unnoticeable shots of smack, rather than one big one that'd get him high.
Re: The major label dilemma
pragmatism is for wankers. music is for passionate people, not city analysts.
Re: The major label dilemma
Re: The major label dilemma
Re: The major label dilemma
Re: The major label dilemma
And many many more aren't.
Re: The major label dilemma
Conversely, a lof of the bands perceived as mainstream are big because they're good - not because they've brainwashed the population with the marketing buck.
Re: The major label dilemma
Re: The major label dilemma
Re: The major label dilemma
If, as Sean's article suggests, blame for the decline in the music industry is to be placed at the door of major corporations, and their invention of an "indie"/"alternative"/"indie/alternative" genre which fails to understand the "indie ethic": then the hegemony of production-line pop has crushed the indie dream, and (as Sean says) made it inaccessable.
On the other hand, in the more pertinent of his above points, Andy seeks to blame the consumer rather than the corporation. He believes (i think rightly) that most people dont care how the music they buy, or download, has been produced. Bands "paying their dues" is irrelevant, music is simply a commodity sold by marketing men. But, ultimately, it is the passivity of consumers, and the demand-side of the market, that is responible.
In general, I find the latter argument more convincing... there is an accessable alternative as the existence of DiS shows, and "indie/alternative" IS a genre... That is to say, i dont think there is an absolute dichotomy between people who buy into "indie" as people on here would understand it (e.g. IaNaUn and Gen posts above), and people who are fans of the "indie" genre as record labels present it. There is a sound (usually guitar-based, but sometimes, and in some places, its history is rewritten) that is associated with the term. I dont think this idea is entirely (or even crucially) formed by the head of record labels, or, for that matter, the editor of NME.
However, the subtleties of Sean's argument go beyond whether supply or demand side is at fault. He points to a seperation between market and corporation, where the decline in sales seen by the major labels is directly related to a misunderstanding of the market!! (This provides nice contrast to over-simple, reactionary Marxist arguments about the nature of music as a product.) Sean envisions (or actually sees happening) a resurgence at grass-roots level providing for the market... a post-industrial solution to a post-industrial problem of accommodating individual "art" in a market economy.
If there is such a resurgence, or even if not, then the most useful thing any of us can do to help the cause is to make sure that the alternative available is easily accessible... and, as Gen mentioned, support bands that deserve it...
In terms of DiS, allowing diversity of opinion can only help in allowing support to be given to bands that deserve it, and to allow balanced assessments of the music industry to be made... as part of accessibility, everyone has to be entitled to their views...
To return to the issue of the music industry killing itself... I'm aware that Sean's piece was a polemic against what he perceives (and i dont know any better) as industry people blaming downloads for their own misunderstandings, but i do think words of caution are needed: downloads probably do play a small part in reduced record sales, and (as Sean hints, but doesnt make explicit) cd albums are overpriced...
if the mainstream music industry is killing itself it is less through failing to understand, and tap into, an alternative market which, in any case, would result in small rewards (and in which it could never attain sales to cover costs for credibility reasons), and more because they are pricing themselves out of a market which is now presented with the option of downloading music for free (albeit at marginally poorer quality)
Re: The major label dilemma
You don't get that quality of argument of DiS very much do you?
your mum.
Re: The major label dilemma
Re: The major label dilemma
As for the last bit, I would say it's a lot more to do with the erosion of value. Prices have risen. But so has the cost of living generally. The NME dont cost 50p anymore, etc.. but if it wasn't for cdwow and supermarkets and a sale every other week in the big chains, then surely the price wouldn't appear to be so expensive? And computer games cost £40? A pint of beer about the same as single.. most gig tickets come in at £15.. festival tickets over £100.. yet that's not deemed too expensive.
The problem is, most people can only afford to buy a few records a year, yet they'll 'consume music' via so many different avenues, and downloads arent that different than having a really amazing on demand radioshow, that plays all the tracks you wanna hear (although obviously flawed greatly by the inablity to leap from one band to another - tho audiogalaxy was great for this!!).
What I really do think is worth bearing in mind, is that people like my dad for instance, he has a draw full of tapes copies off friends from waay back, but the things he actually loves, he's gone out and bought the gatefold album and the cd and probably tickets to see an act. But if his access to music wasn't there, then surely, he wouldn't be spending money, now that he earns money on records he loved, which he might otherwise never had heard.
Sean
Re: The major label dilemma
A successful, sustainable indie label has to have success with a lot of acts. FACT. Many succeed (Deep Elm and Saddle Creek in the states, Wichita here), some choose to be underground, some fail and go broke. It's sad but true.
There are still loads of records that I like. tons. so why the fuss??
There's nothing wrong with wanting to be famous. I don't hate Linkin Park, I just don't like their records.
The music industry hasn't changed since the early 70s t much extent. Sure, some of the habits/practices/bullshit may have altered. But as ever, there are tons of awful boring bands that offer nothing but people really like (does that really harm anybody). There are also plenty of interesting, diverse great bands and it's not too hard to find their records if you want them. there are also a lot of bands in between. This will not change for a while yet.
There is no crisis.
Rock is not coming to an end.
The charts don't matter.
OK?
The type of cd a person buys is the type they want.
Re: The major label dilemma
Moaning gets you nowhere. It would be incredibly difficult for a truly inspirational band to survive on a major, because the bureaucracy would inevitably blunt and smooth all those passionate jagged peaks and troughs, and so all that passionate music is simply not being adequately connected with it's audience. This is a business opportunity, and we need some new independant labels, because nearly all the old ones have been bought by those corporations. This will happen when entrepreneurial music lovers get off their asses and make it happen. Our own dear editor is one such entrepreneurial music lover and that's no different from the likes of Ivo Watts-Russell (4AD), Jonathan Poneman (SubPop), Daniel Miller (Mute)... or even for that matter Richard Branson. I hope it all happens for him, and more to the point, I hope that many more like him pop out of the woodwork and try to change the musical landscape.
Re: The major label dilemma
I agree to some point that major acts nowadays aren't exciting, but surely Radiohead are exciting? Perhaps TATU are, So Solid Crew? Eminem? Jay-Z? What about The White Stripes and The Strokes? Do things need to be controversial to be good? I like Radiohead and some of the less offensive Jay-Z songs, none of the others.
And why shouldn't there be records for 'young kiddies'?? Is there some kind of rule that you have to graduated to the spotty teenage no friends so you try and impress everyone with your tastes stage before you can enter a record shop? And radio one actually doesn't play these songs, so I don't know what you're on about there. As everybody knows the pre-1995 daytime radio one was an embarressment, so it's maybe REVERTED back to that nowadays, but I think a lot of the time when indie kids moan about radio one its because they misread what it is meant to do, it's job isn't to break new acts, but to play the records people like. I don't buy this whole, major label conspiracy argument.
As I've already said, indies do tend to put out better records than majors. However, you seem to be implying that there aren't any exciting indies around. There are. Tons and tons and tons. This is why this whole argument is irrelevant, because ultimately there are still plenty of amzing bands. I would prefer it if more people listened to them, and I know some deserve more exposure, but that has always been the case, since the sixties some great groups broke through and got massive, but a lot didn't. That won't change, but I can live with that so long as all the great records are available, and they are.
Re: The major label dilemma
Re: The major label dilemma
If you don't I don't care. Fuck you. You lose.
Re: The major label dilemma
The culture is embedded too deep, over too many years. It seems one of the only outlets for disaffected youth to articulate themselves. It shouldn't be that way. Read my views in the post 'Lifespan'.
Re: The major label dilemma
Zane Lowe should be on an hour earlier than 8-10 pm as the nightly schedule resembles the 80's with John Peel was moved back to 10-12 slot in October 1998.
Mary Anne Hobbs, Giles Peterson and Mike Davis ought to be on earlier as well as currently their programmes are in a slot so marginalised that it is patrolled by Buffy.
1 point
Zane Lowe shouldnt be on that fucking station full stop. that infernal cocksucker should be grouped in with Moyles and Pearce. At least moyles is happy to admit he's fat, ugly, has little musical knowledge and his attempts at kickstarting his tv career have constantly been such laughable failures even his friends ring and text him on air to laugh at him and take the piss. Although it is funny, i will admit, when acts/ppl Lowe interviews let their dislike of him and his uninformed faux-pally i'm-yr-biggest-fan-everever-no-really ways show through, or you happen to know exactly what they do think of him in real life...ho ho
Frankly i'm far more excited by yesterday's random discovery that i can pick up london pirates like Choice, etc, in guildford! of all places! :D
Re: 1 point
Re: 1 point
No, he's not.
Re: 1 point
Re: 1 point
Re: -1 point
Re: The major label dilemma
Yes, they do.
Re: The major label dilemma
I agree. I mean if you wanted to manufacture a rock band for success in 2004 would you really put together a band who sounded musically like a fusion of QUEENSRYCHE and SAVATAGE but front it with a girl who sounds like Juliane Reagan? Or how about a band who fuse AC/DC with QUEEN and have a ridiculously falsetto singer? Surely not! There would be far easier, more cynical ways to do it...like BUSTED!
Whatever, Evanescence flew in the face of everything that was 'cool' and captured the imagination of the main stream by providing a sound that noone else was putting out at the time. And more importantly, radio actually played it, rather than disregarding it for Coldplay or Snow Patrol or something.
In a world where Coldplay is mainstream, don't the likes of Evanescence become the alternative?
Re: The major label dilemma
There is room for everyone and the point is if bands like McClusky suddenly achieved worldwide acclaim like Coldpay or success in the UK like keane people would turn on them to.
They are successful at what they do in their own way. they need to have a niche audience or else they would loose their cool.
People should be really worrying about the state of the press at the moment. They are constantly trying to push 'the next big thing' and the pressure on all these bands after sometimes releasing just one single is immense - bring back the days when bands were allowed to make maybe two or three albums before they reached idol status!
Evanescence At Number One; Or Why the Music Industry is Killing Itself
1: Bring Me To Life - Evanescence
2: Ignition - R Kelly
3: Fighter - Christina Aguilera
4: I Know What You Want - Busta Rhymes ft Mariah Carey
5: Don't Wanna Lose This Feeling - Dannii Minogue
6: Misfit - Amy Studt
7: Get Busy - Sean Paul
8: Sunlight - DJ Sammy
9: Say Goodbye / Love Ain't Gonna Wait For - S Club
10: Girlfriend - B2K
What do you mean, that's a great list of music?
Re: Evanescence At Number One; Or Why the Music Industry is Killing Itself
Nowt wrong with charts now, or ever has been, or ever will be
Evanescence do encompass all that has ever been wrong with the music biz. Great song though.
Re: Evanescence At Number One; Or Why the Music In
(I'm not going to say this is the original point of the article, because I don't think it was, but...) there's so much good music that is being ignored because a very small collection of artists and bands are promoted worldwide so well (compare the UK top 10 and the US top 10 and say it doesn't depress you that there's so little variety between the two) that the rest just don't have a chance.
I'd love to see localised succesful bands in charts, but as the media that exposes the music becomes more global, so is the music. If we want to see more of the great (and there is a load of great) local music (or even UK music) get recognition in the charts then sites like DiS and other "localised" media need to do their things and hopefully people will start turning to them instead of just flicking the tv onto m2 or similar.
Maybe a DiS chart is in order though?! :-P
Evanescence At Number One; Or Why the Music Industry is Killing Itself
The creative health of underground/alternative music has never been related to its commercial visibility (NME-style revisionism aside), and the charts have always largely consisted of cheaply-made, heavily-promoted crap (which has paid for the *good* stuff released by major labels, of which there's been quite a bit in the past few years).
I don't mean to sound complacent, but having lived through the Britpop/Britrock saga and its messy aftermath, the idea of my favourite bands hitting the top of the charts really doesn't fill me with that much fervour anymore...
Evanescence At Number One; Or Why the Music Industry is Killing Itself
Re: Evanescence At Number One; Or Why the Music Industry is Killing Itself
Not that i can write but hey, just sniping from the sidelines :)
Re: Evanescence At Number One; Or Why the Music Industry is Killing Itself
Re: Evanescence At Number One; Or Why the Music Industry is Killing Itself
Evanescence At Number One; Or Why the Music Industry is Killing Itself
Not that it's important.
Re: Evanescence At Number One; Or Why the Music In
Lifespan.
Rolling back over centuries, expression has gently evolved, broken by abrupt patches of revolutionaries and social change. Music is a primitive, lifebeat form of expression. Pulse-beat-womb-throb.
The sounds of the last century have been dominated by guitar, the centuries before; piano, brass, animal-hide drum and so on. These instruments have all found their place in the tombs of classical tradition or archaism and have all determined expanses in history. The climate might have changed but the intentions are always the same.
What I was going to say was something along the lines of 'discount music and reject every past endeavour in that particular form of expression.' I had it in my head to blurt out something as negligent as: 'it wasn't so long ago that the electric guitar was first fashioned (in every sense of the word) and it may be nigh on time that it is put away back in the 'tombs of tradition' to join the instruments and sounds of our heritage. Like Jazz-instruments, like Opera arrangement and like the tribal sounds of war (ok that is taking my argument to extremes) the electric guitar has punctured art-and-time-consciousness with powerful, visceral and absorbing sounds. Like all of those forms of musical expression it has exhausted those capabilities and those early strivings. (Many-boys-with-mop-hair-grasp-Fenders-till-the-last) Of course, it can still produce 'enjoyable' results and even occasionally; minor artistic progression, rare as it is.
A point in time characterized for the sounds. It's like film; film is still very much in the ascent in its evolution, but there have been heydays and low-points, it has exhausted certain genres and there are some, which have yet to be tapped into. Some forms of film are now nothing but sanitized cliché.
Artistic development is triggered by many factors, but faltering indecisive over exhausted means (the guitar) for the sake of anything but invention (product, fame, ego-massage etc) doesn't lead the way in this sense. I, for one, can understand why so very many people all cling on to the guitar (I’m using the guitar to symbolize the instrumental arrangements in modern rock/indie/folk/pop/alt music). It's enjoyable; it can create moving, dramatic sounds. It looks glamorous. You can pose. None of these add up to meaningful artistry, not any more.
Many forms of expression are nearing saturation point, becoming polluted by in-breeding and plagiarism. Writing in standard prose. Strumming an acoustic guitar. The great rawness of a newly hatched art form, comes from inside, from inner rhythms and emotions. Jazz, Romanticism, Classical, think of an exciting popular form of expression: it may have links and influences from the past, but at it's core was an energy of it's own, something animal, unrefined. The Beat poets and authors captured this theory in its entirety. They just wrote and wrote and wrote. It just came. Pop music used to be like that. When it 'came' it was something new and fresh. Now when it 'comes' it's old and worn. For example I have many friends who are devout fans of post-rock and the experimental side of guitar music (some electronica addled guitar sounds) and they play in bands where they 'try' desperately hard to create their own textured sound. Weaving themselves into deeper holes of soundscape and the past. They shouldn't 'try'. Too fractured, too far, too deep. Unity, PURPOSE has been lost. They should put down their instruments.
DO NOT LISTEN, READ, BELIEVE, PAINT OR DANCE TO ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T HAVE PURPOSE OR INTENT.
I cannot seriously believe that masses of people still have faith in rock music as a veritable, progressive art form. It must end. Kill it now, please, for it's own dignity at least. Even if you enjoy it, stop playing it, laugh at it, poke fun at it. Make a parody.
The people who were part of the punk revolution in the 70's would not have anything to do with rock music today. Maybe even music at all. In this media climate, I cannot picture or place them anywhere. People hadn't quite become commerce-grazers back then.
As for the music business, turn your back on it; don't listen to ANYTHING through its outlets. Listen to world music, listen to life-beats, and listen to Nature. The entire sorry mess should be swept under the carpet and left there for mass consumption. Quit listening to everything that you do at this point in time. Don't listen to the radio. Don't watch Mtv. Absorb other cultures, people, places. Create an instrument to bounce life-rhythms. Year-fucking-Zero.
Peace and Love Matt