Chris Rock on the music business

[zboy2854]

Sad, but funny and true...

Chris Rock: Music kind of sucks. Nobody's into being a musician. Everybody's getting their mogul on. You've been so infiltrated by this corporate mentality that all the time you'd spend getting great songs together, you're busy doing nine other things that have nothing to do with art. You know how shitty Stevie Wonder's songs would have been if he had to run a f*ckin' clothing company and a cologne line?


RollingStone: Plenty of rappers say, "I'm not a rapper, I'm a businessman."


Chris Rock: That's why rap sucks, for the most part. Not all rap, but as an art form it's just not at its best moment. Sammy the Bull would have made a shitty album. And I don't really have a desire to hear Warren Buffett's album - or the new CD by Paul Allen. That's what everybody's aspiring to be.


We live in a weird time. No one knows who's smart - we just know who makes money. "Hey, somebody invented Viagra! We don't know their name, but we know Pfizer, because they make the money." That guy made a pill that keeps your dick hard, and nobody knows who the f*ck he is. The pharmaceutical companies are like f*ckin' record companies. There's literally the Bo Diddley of medicine walking around, not getting his royalties. He signed all his f*cking pill publishing away.

[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 . . .

[Bassmankr]

Speaking of Viagra, it was pretty funny watching what Congress did at the time with funding/subsidies/tax breaks for medicine . . . Lets see, boner pill or cure cancer . . boner pill or cure cancer?

[zboy2854]

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 . . .

Actually, yes, it was called the '70s.

[drew]

Originally Posted by zboy2854

Actually, yes, it was called the '70s.

you sure about that?

The black artists got ripped in the '60s
The pot smokin hippies got ripped in the '70s
The hair teastin girl-boys took it in the 80s
The non showering grunge doods in the 90s

It will always be.........

[themaidsroom]

i think in many periods in the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's there were great players
playing music - people worked hard to learn to play instruments - the 80's
changed all that - rap changed changed all that - mtv changed all that - midi
changed all that

there is no musicianship or environment that nurtures musicianship -
a hotel band in clevleland in 1961 had more chops than stars of today

the standard that is celebrated is very low

in rap it is particularly low, even the classics for me are very dated - i am more
attached to the most obscure leon ware records than "it takes a nation of millions"
what is tragic is that african-american music is this nation's finest achievement, to
have let it go for tennis shoes is so sad......
rap has not created a stevie wonder - stevie wonder's records from 1968-1978
still have more to offer in my opinion.....


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


be well


- jack

[zboy2854]

Originally Posted by drew

you sure about that?

Compared to today, absolutely. Sure, labels were always relatively ripping off the artists, but from a creative standpoint, the '70s were the heyday for artists. Labels gave them unprecedented creative license. Today, if you're on a label you're lucky if they let you make a record at all, and if you do you're luckier still if they let you make the kind of record you want to make, and if you do you're even luckier still if they even release it.

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.

Then there's the whole idea of allowing artists to fully develop and blossom. Not anymore today. Imagine if acts like Neil Young or Bruce Springsteen came out today. Those guys took a few albums before they broke big in the mainstream. Today, if the first album (which you're lucky to have released) doesn't pop out of the gate, you're almost guaranteed to be dropped.

[Sigma]

Originally Posted by themaidsroom

i think in many periods in the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's there were great players
playing music - people worked hard to learn to play instruments - the 80's
changed all that - rap changed changed all that - mtv changed all that - midi
changed all that

there is no musicianship or environment that nurtures musicianship -
a hotel band in clevleland in 1961 had more chops than stars of today

the standard that is celebrated is very low

in rap it is particularly low, even the classics for me are very dated - i am more
attached to the most obscure leon ware records than "it takes a nation of millions"
what is tragic is that african-american music is this nation's finest achievement, to
have let it go for tennis shoes is so sad......
rap has not created a stevie wonder - stevie wonder's records from 1968-1978
still have more to offer in my opinion.....


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


be well


- jack

thumbsup

[Nu-tra]

People settle for crap.

[locosoundman]

i think in many periods in the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's there were great players
playing music - people worked hard to learn to play instruments - the 80's
changed all that - rap changed changed all that - mtv changed all that - midi
changed all that

Don't forget ProTools and autotune.

Maybe it's just me, but lots of times it seems like I spend more time fixing what was wrong with the performance than I do recording or mixing it.

That's why I bill by the hour...

[warhead]

He's talking a lot about rap also, which is more about poetry than music. A rapper is a "talker", not a "singer".

I'm not saying it isn't entertaining for those who like rap, but I doubt most people are digging on rap albums for their musical content. It's more of a cult of personality thing, and projecting their image on yourself. Of course there are rappers who have something to say aside from their money, their dick and their possessions.

Chris Rock is right but rap is more music "related" than musicians creating music. Rap uses music to deliver a message and yes, the message usually sucks.

It almost doesn't matter what genre these days: the "artists" themselves are promoted over the music...the music is a vehicle for delivering a package.

War

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by zboy2854

Compared to today, absolutely. Sure, labels were always relatively ripping off the artists, but from a creative standpoint, the '70s were the heyday for artists. Labels gave them unprecedented creative license. Today, if you're on a label you're lucky if they let you make a record at all, and if you do you're luckier still if they let you make the kind of record you want to make, and if you do you're even luckier still if they even release it.

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.

Then there's the whole idea of allowing artists to fully develop and blossom. Not anymore today. Imagine if acts like Neil Young or Bruce Springsteen came out today. Those guys took a few albums before they broke big in the mainstream. Today, if the first album (which you're lucky to have released) doesn't pop out of the gate, you're almost guaranteed to be dropped.

Exactly.....

Maybe the artist was getting ripped off just as much back then but I do firmly believe the "Music Industry" in the 50's 60's and 70's was more "Music" and less "Industry." The artist was able to create music that was interesting to them not necessarily geared to sell.. and that WAS it's greatest sales tool.

Think about it.... in the 70's alone there was Country, Blues, Rock, Heavy Rock, Soul, Funk, Disco, Prog Rock, Punk, Folk, Glam, singer / songwriter and all sorts of crossover artists. All of these styles were thriving and were in existence side by side with plenty of fan interest and support.

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?

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*

[eligit]

chris rock is a pretty sharp mind.

i was listening to seinfeld being interviewed and he mentioned in passing that chris rock was so clever and quick that he (seinfeld) had to be on his toes just trying to keep up in a conversation.

i think his comment here is pretty accurate.

the model of what the music biz IS has totally changed. many "artists" really are just about "getting their mogul on" as he says.

[Nu-tra]

My album this spring?

[plexisys]

In the 70s-90s it was about playing music, getting laid, partying and being able to make enough money to keep playing music, getting laid and partying.

Today it's about getting as much press as possible, as many crossover deals/endorsements you can put your name on, and as much none music "merchandise" as you can sell.

If Martha Stewart or Opraha put out an album it would be the best selling album of all time.

[travisbrown]

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 . . .

Just was reading an interview with Andy Summers of The Police. He was comparing the mess of the music industry now with the eighties, which he said was a great time to be in the industry. Money flowed much more freely from the companies.

Though I don't suspect that here was ever a time that labels don't "get in the way" of artists. But, remember, before labels and the industrialization of music and recording, there were wandering minstrels wandering around begging for patronage. Maybe not much has changed.

Art makes art, commercialization makes money. Should ever the twain meet, you'll have to live in as conflicted bedfellows.

[jordanh]

The Oprah Music club, haha

In order to sell cd's there needs to be a big "O" stamped on it...

[davet]

Last time I checked, corporate music mogul Jimmy Buffett was doing just fine. Don Henley railed against the record companies in front of the California Legislature. Then crawled in bed with Wal-Mart.

Seems to me that artists who deliver music their fans want to buy are doing just fine. The no talent types complain, but don't improve their product. I agree that Barry Gordy screwed the Motown guys and that shouldn't happen again. In the end it's up to the artist to create work their audience likes. I hate Stings music, but he sure has lots of fans.

[warhead]

Originally Posted by mgphoto

If Martha Stewart or Opraha put out an album it would be the best selling album of all time.

This is one of the most cleverly stated insights to the "music" biz I've ever read. So spot on it's not even funny.

War thumbsup

[biggator6]

there is no musicianship or environment that nurtures musicianship -
a hotel band in clevleland in 1961 had more chops than stars of today

the standard that is celebrated is very low

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)

[Clayphish]

Did anyone else unintentionally read that with Chris Rocks usual stand up delivery? lol

[christmasjones]

Originally Posted by Pasta4lnch

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 . . .

The renaissance to the romantic period. I bet that would have been a kick ass time to be a musician. You still had to make music that was desirable for the rich... but at least they weren't tell you how to score you music!

[jindrich]

Originally Posted by mgphoto

If Martha Stewart or Opraha put out an album it would be the best selling album of all time.

... in the USA.

the remaining 5.7 billion people of this planet have no clue who those ladies are.

unlike with elvis, michael jackson or madonna

[zboy2854]

Originally Posted by Clayphish

Did anyone else unintentionally read that with Chris Rocks usual stand up delivery? lol

Totally!

[henryrobinett]

The 70s were a fantastic time to be a musician! But I had to agree with the other poster who questioned if we knew it. Everyone seems to slag their own time. "Musicians are forever bemoaning the death of music and the fact that there are no gigs. Well it's more true now than it ever was. But we had no idea the 70s would be some golden era. We thought it would always be.

But because music was so alluring, magestic, fun and such a GROUP activity then, it's spoiled me for NOW. I play with live musicians and hate sequencing stuff. My thing is still my unstrument and communicating with it. The 70s certainly was a heyday. Not MY heyday, but a big heyday for music.

[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

[Nu-tra]

The music world needs an enema!

[henryrobinett]

bigcountry -- I think you are 100% correct!

[big country]

that or a dush filled with liquid intelligence

the abilty to spell dush correctly and free all theis a start!

[big country]

Originally Posted by Nu-tra

The music world needs an enema!

I dont think any thing should ever enter the butthole