Chris Rock on the music business

[big country]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

bigcountry -- I think you are 100% correct!

speaking of music, I heard you got some
how would a Big country go about getting a hold of some of your fine tunes

[big country]

if musician's went on "pay to play strike" they could regain some dignity

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by Pasta4lnch

Ya know - I'm just curious . . . being a relative newbie in the music bizz, has there ever been a time where people were like: yeah, this is the best time to be a musician. as long as you are talented you'll make it and record labels and publishers won;t get in your way . . .

i suspect the answer is no . . .

I guess he is right, but I think artists are survivalists. They gotta do what they gotta do to stay on top. . .

i dunno. i haven't had my coffee yet this morning, I can't get too deep . . .

I suspect that there's much truth in what you suggest.

But it's also true that there are better times and worse times -- this cycles like everything else.

Right now there's a paradigm shift going on as big, I think, as anything in three generations, back to the 30s when the remants of the prohibition era crime families consolidated control over the music industry by working their puppet legislators in Congress to write a bunch of laws that would essentially enshrine that evovling business model in black letter law.

At the end of the 20th century, the lumbering giants fostered by those laws tried to shore up the walls of that business model with the Millennium Copyright Act, which set the kind of statutory award amounts that eviscerated the old Mp3.com [or was it their sheer stupidity?] and that were recently in the news with the $220,000 judgment against a single mom who a jury found liable for making a number of mp3 songs avaialable over the internet via one of the widespread peer2peer apps.

I've always supported IP rights for musicians but it's clear that the sea shift that is occurring around us will sweep aside ideas of scrupulous public behavior just as they've swamped previously unsinkable business models.

[fanriffic]

Originally Posted by themaidsroom

we need another berry gordy
a place that nurtures real talent
a place that encourages depth
over bling

..have to say although berry 'knew how to pick em' he wasn't known for his encouraging of depth-motown was the original (black) 'production line' record company prior to 'whats going on'-squarely aimed at churning out the hits.
Marvin had to fight to get what berry called,at the time,something like 'the worst record i've ever heard..(paraphrasing)' released and the success of that opened the door to giving stevie artistic control over his self produced records and a freer,innovative,'artist led' mode of work..but only because they sold and only to a few lucky (and of course very talented) ones..
The nuturing was standard record company business practice at the time.

I have to respectfully disagree and say berry WAS about the bling(or the 60's equivalent)and was the forerunner to the hiphop moguls of today-believe me if he thought he could have made some green from a diana ross perfume or a temptations clothing line (..lots of velvet..)he'd have been ON IT !!

[six_wax]

Originally Posted by biggator6

Ayn Rand's "the fountainhead" should be required reading for everyone before they graduate or drop out of high school. She wrote about the celebration of mediocrity and what it would do to society... in the early 1940s!! The stuff she covers in that book is EERILY familiar today (but substitute newspapers for television, etc)

It was forecast long before that. Try Alexis de Tocqueville's 'Democracy In America'... ca. *1833*.

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by big country

speaking of music, I heard you got some
how would a Big country go about getting a hold of some of your fine tunes

Thanks for asking. I'm just launching a website. Hold on!

[Old Goat]

Originally Posted by zboy2854

Not to mention back in the '70s, you didn't have to be some videogenic, image obsessed act, you could make great music and it was enough, even if you were butt-ugly. Today, as far as the label system goes, not a chance.

Some of the Taxi listings actually specify marketable looks in not plain English. There is definitely no market for old gray dudes that haven't already been on the charts for forty years...

[crufty]

In my opinion, a musician is someone who plays music. right now, there is no better time to be a musician. the quality of instruments available has never been better, nor cheaper, nor more widely available.

However, entertainers...who depend on a following for their survival...entertainers have it a bit rough. Its 20:36 right now on the east coast. I'm not listening to music on the radio. I'm not watching TV. I'm not reading a book. I'm posting on a forum.


I like rap. Rap, to me, has always been a natural form of music. Talk about low barriers to entry. Some guy beatboxing on the corner while some guy makes up rhymes. That's all that's required...

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by big country

I think the industry just needs a shot in the ass maybe two

what brings down any society is negativity
same with the music industry

the industry needs something new

if every ones talking about how the industry is f_ed up
the industry will never shine

really think about it

if you want something to be great you have to convince your self its great ( but not be naive )

that is the only reason I think rap took off
people thought it was great ( actually sucked)
the disco kick made it easy to listen to

so I guess if you ever want the the music industry to take off
you have to believe (positive)

simple anthropology

You know, I have been saying that for years. Spot on big country!



Here is my theory....

The 60's and 70's still stand as the most exciting times for music in human history.

There are two reasons for this in my eyes.

1) A high enough quality of technology met a price point that the average citizen could afford.

2) As a culture we were excited about music, that created interest in making music, which created more variety in the industry, which created a very solid money stream, which created even more interest in making music, created more excitement. In short, the whole thing was on a feedback loop, excited fans, good musicians, a variety of styles with good quality and money to burn.

The problem with feedback loops is that if any one leg of the loop gives out the whole thing falls down like a house of cards.

In this case I think the problem was greed, not a new story unfortunately. Instead of staying out of the way and letting the thing run on it's own at some point in the late 70's and early 80's the record companies thought they could get more involved to make more money. The ranks of the majors stared getting filled with bean counters, 25 years later the excitement is all gone. Less interesting styles of music, less variety, less fan excitement, less interest....... and less money.

The great irony is that by trying to make more money, the labels destroyed the industry, now they are fighting for their financial lives.

[colinmiller]

Almost every day I do my Chris Rock impression and say "Let's mix this piece of s***!" (ala Jay & Silent Bob strike back)

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by crufty

In my opinion, a musician is someone who plays music. right now, there is no better time to be a musician. the quality of instruments available has never been better, nor cheaper, nor more widely available.

What follows is my rant of the day. Apologies ahead of time. Please just ignore if you're offended.

I can see you point, but I disagree. I think this is a terrible time to be a musician. Toys, toys, toys. So many toys; everybody's playing with toys and stopped learning how to play music.

It's a fantastic time to play music if you already play music and have a group of people you already play with. But finding people who have a passion for playing music and not technology, is a tough call.

Having a ton of places to play, where you can hone your craft and communication/performance skills in front of audiences is virtually gone. You used to have to get a 4 set show together. Then you played two to four times a week, even as an original band. You rehearsed more than that. You had to have practice time to learn your parts and something else besides. And then write music with pencil and paper!

But if you want to sit down with toys, like drum machines, guitar modelers, softsynths, virtual samplers, drum machines, auto-tune and a ton of instruments, plug-ins -- BASICALLY PRODUCTION TOOLS, you can have a field day. Sure, for the first time in history you can play music and not learn to play an instrument. This I think is sad, and at the end of the day, destructive.

Before the 80s, if you wanted to play music; if you wanted to play in a band, you had to PLAY an instrument. And playing an instrument required a certain desciplne. I don't think most young musicians have enough attention to sit down day after day to learn an instrument well.

[themaidsroom]

Originally Posted by fanriffic

..have to say although berry 'knew how to pick em' he wasn't known for his encouraging of depth-motown was the original (black) 'production line' record company prior to 'whats going on'-squarely aimed at churning out the hits.
Marvin had to fight to get what berry called,at the time,something like 'the worst record i've ever heard..(paraphrasing)' released and the success of that opened the door to giving stevie artistic control over his self produced records and a freer,innovative,'artist led' mode of work..but only because they sold and only to a few lucky (and of course very talented) ones..
The nuturing was standard record company business practice at the time.

I have to respectfully disagree and say berry WAS about the bling(or the 60's equivalent)and was the forerunner to the hiphop moguls of today-believe me if he thought he could have made some green from a diana ross perfume or a temptations clothing line (..lots of velvet..)he'd have been ON IT !!

berry hired that band,
the hits that they "churned out" were of a depth, quality and sincerity that
was marked - the money came second - the standard was high - even a not
so remembered motown classic is more musically and economically viable
in 2007 than it's hip-hop counterpart from 2 years ago.........

berry has gone on to say that marvin gaye was the greatest single artist
he ever worked with - he never stopped marvin from doing anything
when "what's going on" came out, he was behind it (it did take him
a year)
he speaks of stevie wonder's records with love
berry was and is and very smart and deep man - i have spent some time
talking with one of the biggest hip-hop moguls on several different occasions and i assure you, he is a man of
average intelligence who has a passing interest in music

a friend of mine spent a weekend at berry's in la last year and was up with
him to the wee hours spinning vinyl - the man loves music - that attracted
great artists


we need another berry gordy - you are very mistaken about the bling factor
fly to detroit and sit in that room - 2468 west grand blvd - there is a bling
free spot where talented people had huge transformative power - songs and love and passion - nothing
even 10% of that has been produced in the past 20 years - being blunt, i would guess
that berry's iq is 60-80 points higher than his closest hip-hop counterpart.......



be well


- jack

[emdub123]

Originally Posted by not_so_new

In today's market would Yes stand a chance? Would a new Eagles be able to break the Country charts let alone crossover? Would Zeppelin make a second album after Zep 1 only made it to #10 today OR would Zep have done anything at all without releasing any songs for radio play album after album? Would James Brown be a household name in today's market? I doubt it because he would not be aloud to experiment, same goes with Funkadelic. How about Frank Zappa, would he be able to make quirky music for a niche audience?

My questions along this line of thinking would be: Can the creative "giants" of our time reach as broad of an audience as the creative giants of the 1970s? At that time, it seems that the "machine" was able to market these artists successfully -- people knew who they were. Today, the "machine" is no longer capable of marketing the vast majority of artists. Therefore, if the creative giants fall outside of what the record companies are capable of hyping and marketing, who's gonna know about them? I think it's back to word-of-mouth.

Originally Posted by not_so_new

Music is not dead today I agree with that. But music that was amazing, fresh and exciting from a cultural aspect IS dead and gone. In the 70's for example every week there was a new release to be excited about, a release that would still be relevant and popular 30 years later… EVERY STINKING WEEK something was released that made an impact on the culture of the period and individual listeners for a lifetime.

When was the last release that was so exciting and culturally relevant that it would still be talked about in 30 years?
*sigh*

I don't think we can say what has lasting cultural relevance without the benefit of hindsight (time and distance), can we? Did The Stooges' 1973 release have a greater or lesser impact than 10 Years Afters' 1973 release? How would the general consensus about this have changed over the last 34 years?

In 1993, who would have thought that Uncle Tupelo's Anodyne would have any lasting impact whatsoever? In 1996, who would have thought that Whiskeytown's Faithless Street would be anything but a blip on the radar? If you don't listen to alt.country, you probably have never heard these records. Yet, if you're into the alt.country sub-genre, you might agree that these two records were hugely meaningful. A record's impact today is relative. Relative to how popular it's genre is with the general public and relative to how meaningful that genre is to us personally.

Not many people knew about these two records at the time, but year after year, they go from friend to friend (or peer to peer, as it were). How can the impact of something be gauged if it's a slow trickle instead of a big splash? There are lots of great records going from friend to friend at this very moment that, over time, will come to be regarded as "important" records. It's just going to take time.

This brings me to one last observation. Maybe music consumers are more sophisticated today than they were 30 years ago. Maybe the fragmentation of the music into hundreds of sub-genres has made the ability to reach a universal audience without playing to the lowest common denominator a cultural impossibility. There can't be another Led Zeppelin because there's hundreds of different outlets for finding rock music today, whereas in 1969, the local FM radio station was a single-source provider.

[pebis]

. . not to mention the competition with video games, DVDs, computers etc. . what was the 70s? maybe 2 color TVs, no pervasive cable/satellite,no home playback format for videos until late in the decade. . no real video games until late in the decade, and no home computers. . well. . no mainstream world wide web until. .

etc.

information/sensory overload.

of course i wasnt born 'till the 80s, so this is just speculation. .

[emdub123]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

Having a ton of places to play, where you can hone your craft and communication/performance skills in front of audiences is virtually gone. You used to have to get a 4 set show together. Then you played two to four times a week, even as an original band. You rehearsed more than that. You had to have practice time to learn your parts and something else besides. And then write music with pencil and paper!

A four-set show! Today, we have 125+ channels on TV and most people can't stick with one channel for more than a few minutes, we surf from channel to channel for hours on end. Our culture has now come to a point where there is no interest in seeing ONE BAND play for four hours. Nobody is good enough to hold people's attention that long, and I do mean NOBODY. Times have changed. When it comes to decision time, most people choose to stay at home vs. go to a venue and listen to live music. Musicians are no longer competing with SportsCenter on Jumbotrons, Karaoke and dance clubs. Musicians are competing with the Trading Spaces marathon and Shark Week and we're losing.

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

But if you want to sit down with toys, like drum machines, guitar modelers, softsynths, virtual samplers, drum machines, auto-tune and a ton of instruments, plug-ins -- BASICALLY PRODUCTION TOOLS, you can have a field day. Sure, for the first time in history you can play music and not learn to play an instrument. This I think is sad, and at the end of the day, destructive.

Before the 80s, if youwanted to play music; if you wanted to play in a band, you had to PLAY an instrument. And playing an instrument required a certain desciplne. I don't think most young musicians have enough attention to sit down day after day to learn an instrument well.

This "lowering of the bar" contributes to the noise. The noise is part of what keeps "talented" musicians from reaching their audiences. If there's 1000 records for sale and 975 of them are crap, how can those 25 records rise above? Funny thing is, we can all agree that there's a lot of noise and very little substance, but we just can't seem to agree on what's what. Your 25 good records aren't going to be the same as my 25. We'll probably agree on the vast majority of the 975 crappy records, but the problem with the music industry isn't, in reality, the 975 crappy records. The problem is that nobody can agree on which 25 are good. There's going to be about 100 records that get multiple votes as being good. Now, if you break down the aforementioned ratios it means that for every record that I like, there are three other ones that I've heard and don't like very much, and another fourty or so that just plain suck.

The quantity of product is probably at an all-time high, but so are our collective skills as consumers of pop culture. I don't know about you, but I'm finding good, substantive music out there. It takes as much or more time than it used to, but it's there.

[musictechltd]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

Toys, toys, toys. So many toys; everybody's playing with toys and stopped learning how to play music.

Well said that man!

Originally Posted by pebis

. . not to mention the competition with video games, DVDs, computers etc. . what was the 70s? maybe 2 color TVs, no pervasive cable/satellite,no home playback format for videos until late in the decade. . no real video games until late in the decade, and no home computers. . well. . no mainstream world wide web until. . etc... information/sensory overload. .

And perhaps this is why I meet so many kids who can barely read, don't know jack sh*t, and even some who won't learn to play an instrument 'coz, it's like, too difficult innit?'



Sorry, been a hard day.

[Nu-tra]

Yeah people would rather play the part than "BE" the part. I'm just starting to get into some jazz chords and my fingers are killing me haha!

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by emdub123

My questions along this line of thinking would be: Can the creative "giants" of our time reach as broad of an audience as the creative giants of the 1970s? At that time, it seems that the "machine" was able to market these artists successfully -- people knew who they were. Today, the "machine" is no longer capable of marketing the vast majority of artists. Therefore, if the creative giants fall outside of what the record companies are capable of hyping and marketing, who's gonna know about them? I think it's back to word-of-mouth.



I don't think we can say what has lasting cultural relevance without the benefit of hindsight (time and distance), can we? Did The Stooges' 1973 release have a greater or lesser impact than 10 Years Afters' 1973 release? How would the general consensus about this have changed over the last 34 years?

In 1993, who would have thought that Uncle Tupelo's Anodyne would have any lasting impact whatsoever? In 1996, who would have thought that Whiskeytown's Faithless Street would be anything but a blip on the radar? If you don't listen to alt.country, you probably have never heard these records. Yet, if you're into the alt.country sub-genre, you might agree that these two records were hugely meaningful. A record's impact today is relative. Relative to how popular it's genre is with the general public and relative to how meaningful that genre is to us personally.

Not many people knew about these two records at the time, but year after year, they go from friend to friend (or peer to peer, as it were). How can the impact of something be gauged if it's a slow trickle instead of a big splash? There are lots of great records going from friend to friend at this very moment that, over time, will come to be regarded as "important" records. It's just going to take time.

This brings me to one last observation. Maybe music consumers are more sophisticated today than they were 30 years ago. Maybe the fragmentation of the music into hundreds of sub-genres has made the ability to reach a universal audience without playing to the lowest common denominator a cultural impossibility. There can't be another Led Zeppelin because there's hundreds of different outlets for finding rock music today, whereas in 1969, the local FM radio station was a single-source provider.

You know... I don't completely disagree with what you are saying above, just making a point here but we are somewhat on the same page.

I don't think it is all about TV or other forms of entertainment, that is a chicken and the egg argument from both sides. Are other forms of entertainment causing the decline of music or is the lack of good quality music causing the advancement of other forms of entertainment?

[not_so_new]

Let's say this, without a doubt more music and artists have survived from the 70's than will survive from today and that is because there are already more artists rememberd from the 70's than are even out in the general public right now....

Just stop and think about this list of artists that STILL have songs on the radio from the late 60's and 70's. These are just mostly off the top of my head.

Now compare that to the artists of today that are part of the pop lexicon. And I am not talking about a group like Whiskeytown. To me and most of the general audience Whiskeytown IS a blip on the radar.... sorry.

So think about this list for a minute.....

Now list all the active NEW bands on the radio today (say from the last 15 years) regardless of their staying power for the next 25 years I would be shocked if they equled 25% of this list.

I think we forget just HOW MUCH music was produced in the late 60's and 70's that we remember.

Led Zep
The Beatles
Steely Dan
Black Sabbath
The Who
The Police
Yes
Kansas
Deep Purple
James Brown
The Stones
The Doors
The Animals
Jimi Hendrix
The Eagles
David Bowie
Kiss
Jeff Beck
ELO
America
The Cars
The Clash
The Kinks
Van Halen
Boston
Journey
Santana
Hot Chocolate
ABBA
Cheap Trick
Emerson Lake and Palmer
Rod Stewart
Mannford Man
Bruce Springsteen
Paul Simon
John Couger
Gordan Lightfoot
Joe Walsh / James Gang
The Meters
The Doobie Brothers
The Allond Brothers
Jackson Brown
The Jackson Five
The Ramons
Billy Joel
Elton John
Wings
John Lennon
Ringo
George Harrison
Carly Simon
Fleetwood Mac
Jefferson Airplane
Jannis Joplin
Edgar Winter
Johnny Cash
Elvis
Conway Twitty
Rainbow
Genesis
Michael Jackson
Stevie Wonder
The Supremes
Glen Campbell
Prince
Marvin Gay
Berry White
Jerry Rafferty
Seals & Crofts
Hall & Oats
Gary Wright
Jerry Reed
Gary Glitter
Chic
Hart
Air Supply
George Benson
ZZ Top
The Knack
Crosby Stills Nash and Young
Judas Priest
Joe Cocker
Dolly Parton
Village People
Ray Charles
White Snake
Lynard Skynard
The Oak Ridge Boys
The Bee Gees
Carole King
Pink Floyd
Aretha Franklin
Isaac Hayes
T-Rex
AC/DC
Rush
Curtis Mayfield
Uriah Heep
Sweet
Mahavishnu Orchestra
Blondie
Aerosmith
Badfinger
Queen
Free
Slade
Chick Corea
Weather Report
Donna Summer
Gloria Gaynor
The Sex Pistols
Bob Marley
Waylon Jennings
Willie Nelson
Bob Dylan
Kenny Rogers
Parliment/Funkadelic
Creedence Clearwater Revival
Al Green
Moody Blues
Grand Funk Railroad
Patti Smith
Foreigner
Rufus / Chaka Khan
Linda Ronstadt
Styx
Van Morrison
Iggy Pop
Stephen Stills
Traffic
Cat Stevens
Foghat
Supertramp
J. Geils Band
Blue Oyster Cult
Four Tops
The Band
Ten Years After
Todd Rundgren
Nitty Gritty Dirt Band
Little Feat
Don McLean
Dr. John
Southside Johnny & The Asbury Jukes
Orleans
Grass Roots
Brownsville Station
Spirit
Smokey Robinson
Robin Trower
Bill Withers
Nazareth
Average White Band
Marshal Tucker Band
Elvis Costello & The Attractions
10cc
Golden Earring
Tower Of Power
Alan Parsons Project
Meat Loaf
Boz Scaggs
Lou Reed
Eric Clapton/Derek & the Dominos
Alice Cooper
Gladys Knight & The Pips
Grateful Dead
The Beach Boys
Sly and the Family Stone
Kool & The Gang
Bob Seger
Steve Miller Band
Grateful Dead
Joni Mitchell
Commodores
Jim Croce
War
Hot Tuna
Jethro Tull
Molly Hatchet
Mountain
Olivia Newton John
Peter Frampton
Pat Benatar
Neil Diamond
Steppenwolf
Ted Nugent
Warren Zevon
Rupert Holmes
David Gates
Tom Petty

[henryrobinett]

I don't think it's other forms of "entertainment" causing the decline or music itself causinng this decline. It's, in part, the plethora of entertainment possibilties that's leaving the public standing like a deer in the headlights. Too many variables and options. xBox360? PS2? Wii? Cable? Netflicks? Surfing the net? Blog?

Plus, and this is just my peave, music IS seen as entertainment. Even less that and more as a commercial means of selling OTHER products.

Music, to me, is still ART. But few think of it in this way any longer. Is art entertainment? Sometimes, but it doesn't have to be. THIS, is all but dead. Music today sells THINGS. Is not even valued enough to be purchased.

[Dr Gruv]

Nice topics - hard questions - harder answers

could be a collage of all that's said here, multiple reasons for the music biz being in its current state and of course competition with other outlets

[pebis]

I don't think it's other forms of "entertainment" causing the decline or music itself causinng this decline. It's, in part, the plethora of entertainment possibilties that's leaving the public standing like a deer in the headlights. Too many variables and options. xBox360? PS2? Wii? Cable? Netflicks? Surfing the net? Blog?

yes, that's basically what i meant (if it wasn't clear)

Plus, and this is just my peave, music IS seen as entertainment. Even less that and more as a commercial means of selling OTHER products.

Well, the big money/advertising goes to POPular music, and notwithstanding the "artistry" (craft) of writing a hook, there's a common denominator at play. And what is the art of the common denominator? What IS the common denominator in the sped up sensory overload western world?

[big country]

Originally Posted by Nu-tra

Yeah people would rather play the part than "BE" the part. I'm just starting to get into some jazz chords and my fingers are killing me haha!

Im thinking we do need more jazz

nothing like getting to the root of a problem
and working ground up from there

we all know jazz started it all
starting at point A then moving forward

I have to say I'm a blues lover more than jazz
but blues has that down felling
where jazz kinda is uppity
rock was roots from blues
so It kinda has that down thing going that makes it real
catchy

so My Idear
I dont think jazz ever really grew up
so If blues grew up to be hip hop
through all its many jonras

what will jazz grow up to be?

I could be totally wrong
but I only wonder?
when I think a new style of music I think
new instruments ( thats the inventor in me )
I would love to see a more intelligent side of music
and I think roots jazz has it
it needs something more

my belief
listen to intelligent, intelligence shall follow

[big country]

its the perfect precise happy touch of a symbol

that perfect sole filled guitar bend

it's the little push of great synchronized energy on every instrument
that leaves the listener walking away with a guaranteed great day
thats bling ( I dont like that word but WTF )

having a crappy day
listen to this shit...

[travisbrown]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

Is art entertainment? Sometimes, but it doesn't have to be.

If art is not entertainment, what is it? From Aristotle's Poetics to the modernist theorists*, I find the seemingly inevitable conclusion is that the purpose of art is to educate and entertain. Sometimes one (a lot) more than the other.

I understand what you are getting at. I think you mean that there is some "art" that is so devoid of anything substantial that it's hard to call it art at all, but in the end, art is just anything that is created and holds some qualities that educate and entertain. Then we try and divide it into qualifying groups like "high" and "low" art. Unfortunately, we've got this barrage of crap coming at us so fast, enabled by an explosion of media convergence and infrastructure, that there is little opportunity to filter out the worthy from the worthless. We've kind of put ourselves in front of a firehose.

In one way or another, art has to always be entertainment in that it "entertains" our imagination, morality, fancy, inquisitiveness, or even just occupies us some degree.

*(post-modernists aside because I still haven't quite figured out what they are getting at yet)

[emdub123]

Not_so_new: I would tend to agree that the 60s and 70s were high-water marks for the Rock era. No question, my "desert island" list of records would be dominated by these two decades. Your list kind of makes that point, but it also makes another one: the list has a bunch of artists that just plain suck. Sucked then, suck now. Let's not forget that suckiness is timeless. 8^)

In my opinion, you would have to attach personal memories and nostalgia to consider most of those bands "better" than what's popular today. As a Gen-Xer, that list is mostly just a classic rock and oldies station playlist to me. No better or worse than any other decade. Very little of it is part of the "soundtrack" of my life, but the part that is, is hugely important to me. I guess what I'm saying is that, if you were young in the 70s, it kind of compromises your objectivity on this subject doesn't it? Of course someone who grew up in the 60s and 70s thinks that music is better, right?

[henryrobinett]

bigcountry -- I knew there was a reason I liked you so much!

travisbrown - I think entertainment -- is not what I think of when I think of art. For me, entertainment tends to pander; tends to attempt to contrive mass communication, primarily for monetary gain, or fame. Sitcoms are the ideal example of what I think of as entertainment.

Art, for me, is self expression and doesn't necessarily seek to entertain. Art is a statement of being. It can mean sometihng or nothing. But doesn't NECESSARILY desire approval. It CAN, but doesn't HAVE to.

Dance music has to make people want to dance, to be successful. That is an entertainment factor.

If that's what Aristotle defines as arts purpose, I don't happen to agree.

[big country]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

bigcountry -- I knew there was a reason I liked you so much!

thanks.



did jazz ever grow up?
I'm just guessing but it's easier to make a catchy down song than happy

that our its from people playing to release aggression
I'm guilty of this.

happy art comes from happy people

we all know where the blues came from
( then people dig the song because they Identify ultimately bring them down)

blues
that word in its self is meaning being down

Jazz is happy
it just needs to identify happy things to the listener
not so much lovey dovey crap
some where in the middle

thats the tricky part ,lyrics

[big country]

selling drugs, selling another human being doesn't entertain me
thumbs down on the whole rap biz vibe

more to life than getting a blow job

[crufty]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

It's a fantastic time to play music if you already play music and have a group of people you already play with. But finding people who have a passion for playing music and not technology, is a tough call.

Having a ton of places to play, where you can hone your craft and communication/performance skills in front of audiences is virtually gone. You used to have to get a 4 set show together.

What instruments aren't toys? Guitars? Drums? Tuba? That's toy 101 to any toddler Same thing goes for fast cars

Lets split the difference and call y2k the era of the soloist

But honestly, is it really that hard to find other people to play music with? The era of the internet, how hard is it to post "Violinist looking for quartert in Main St, USA" and get a response? Espicially with the accessibility and advent of myspace? Of off the top of my head I can think of five places within 2 miles I could go set up an act--*any* act, and I only live in a moderately sized city. Sure, they are small, and there's little or no pay...but it still could be done.

Still, I would agree that the increased accessibility has led to increased distraction. Americans, anyway, are living more distributed lives. Work here, eat there, sleep where? I can talk to anyone in the world all the time any time, and if I can't talk, I can text them. So stability in terms of groups low--I could see that. The home has become the center, leading people away from common hangouts, with the internet superseding face-to-face communication. Just a transition phase is my thought.

But if someone is a musician, and wants to learn a new technique--no longer does one have to travel to an art center as in the days of Bach / Beethoven. Find an internet poster and ask them to post a video on youtube. Pales in one sense to being there, yes, but does open the door to a broader audience. And if you are a grand master, post an equal video on youtube--now anyone in the world can watch you. It's not live, and that IS an issue. The days of arena rock may be over...

So that could be the crux: I view more opportunities as better, however, it does cloud gene pool. The stars are still stars, just lost in the mix.