Dude, Where's My Industry?

[Gregg Sartiano]

This week's L.A. Weekly has an interesting music biz cover feature ("A Small New Future") -- here's the leadoff quote:

"The record industry discovered some time ago that there aren't that many people who actually like music. For a lot of people, music's annoying, or at the very least they don't need it. They discovered if they could sell music to a lot of those people, they could sell a lot more records."

-- T-Bone Burnett

Comments? Reactions?

[largeunit]

True.

[djui5]

Umm....that's the dumbest statement I've ever heard....



Yeah....there's quite a few people who could care less what's hot in the industry right now...

Then again...there's a billion screaming 12-15 year old girls who just love the $hit out of boy's in bands.....

[Telecastr]

i would disagree.

[hollywood_steve]

But how long has it been since 12 to 15 year old girls like anything resembling a decent band? If you remember back that far, Elvis, the Beatles and David Bowie were favorites of the training bra crowd. Who was the last decent band that captured their attention, Nirvana? more than 10 years ago. Wha' happened?

[Scinx]

If the majority of people did not like music, then why is the majority of FM radio music? And if the majority really doesnt like music, does it make a difference? To me, that means there is more upside because things are being sustained on a populace of less than half. In any case, I have no idea where this idiot found this divine truth. And the statement that they could do better if they sold to people they arent selling to now is like saying "if Company A sells more items they will have more revenue".

In other words, doesnt appear true. However, if it is true, then its full of obviousness. At the end of the day, a pointless commentary.

[enharmonic]

I took the statement to mean that the majority of people do not like music, which explains why there's nothing on the radio that one can call music while keeping a straight face these days.

The problem with music is that somewhere along the way, the bean counters lost their musical senses. Music is all style and no substance...has been for many moons.

The only way out is to DIY...record your own records (with qualified gear slutz of course ) realeas your own records, and promote your own records. In other words...aside from the good guys (the gear sluts who record the music), we need to take "music" out of the hands of people who can't tell a song from a widget, and put it back into the hands of the people who love music...because it's obvious to me at least that the music business wants nothing to do with music...just image and anything that they can sell with that image.

Most people don't think anymore, and that hurts lyricists. Most people don't feel anymore, and that hurts music.

Serve the minority the real deal...serve the majority the crap that's called "music". Problem solved.

[DannyDay]

This seems to be the case (exagerated, yes) here in the USA. It's not so in many (most) other places. Where my family is from, Venezuela, music and dancing is everything.

People _need_ music (and other art). Whether we want accept this or not, I believe it's true. It's part of being human. To ignore this is to become unnatural. Heck, even my cats enjoy good music.

As long as there's a few folks around that do like (love) music, we'll be alright. We'll just have to find them and get them to listen to our music. I make a good living recording *music*. I don't deal much with *entertainment*. Thank God.

I'm rambling! Perhaps the US market will circle back around. Perhaps not.

DD.

[mpr3]

Originally posted by slipperman
We live in an era of obvious, garish, transitory pleasures.

Music is just plain "moving too slow" to compete with all the other distractions.

Wow, do I agree, and that would explain why most modern music can be likened to a big bright advertisement, lobbying for your attention like a child forced to 'act up'.

[Scinx]

Why does it matter if a majority of people like music? To me, I like it. And as long as there is good music to be had (yes, it requires hunting) - then I am happy as can be - regardless of whether 90% of the populace likes it or 4% of the populace likes it.

I create and record music because I enjoy making it, and listening to it. I have found that the music I enjoy, others (with the same love for music) enjoy, and hence, my music helps me find music I like (by creating it) and helps others find music they like. I love finding good music on boards like this and buying albums. True music is played on the streets in the city with $15 dollar, half broken acoustics, some plastic buckets and emotion. True music is played from the soul. True music is anything created with emotion. The product on the radio is manufactured for the most part, with the main goal of appealing to the masses - and of course - it fails to be appealing to people who love music since its a fake.

Making music for the sole purpose to appeal to others and/or to make money harms the artform, turning it into a consumable, manufactured, product. Making music for the love of it, and for the expression of the human condition keeps it true to its nature. The problem lies in the distribution of this "true" music, and the fact that many people arent aware that true music exists (or that there is something much more fulfilling not being played on the radio). In addition, record companies (majors primarily) are busy trying to find acts that people have shown to like. This is a catch 22 as the average person is never presented (outright blatantly) with the taste of good, creative music unless they seek it out, and, only the minority do this.

[tanker]

Maybe what what t bone meant was, a majority of people dont like his records

[heinz]

I look at iTunes and think people still like music. I try to get tickets for my favorite acts on day2, and discover people still like music. I go to see bands and stand in packed rooms lke The Croc and feel that people still like music.
And occasionally I play a shitty gig at a nowhere club with an audience full of transients. Even they still like music.

Seems like that hasn't changed much in 300,000 - 500,000 years, depending on which theory of homo sapiens timeline you subscribe to.

[natpub]

One trend is that the masses are expecting multi-media, not just music alone. As a result, so many chart-toppers are actually written first as the theme song to some hit movie or video game, and only later turns up on the radio and CD retail charts.

Which begs the question, did "Video kill the radio star?"

Or was it "Broadband".

As it is now, I can pump sound and visuals into my home 24/7, and get pretty much anything I want, on demand, with no more effort on my part than to click go.

The record industry is scrambling for any excuse they can find to explain their plummeting profit margins.

Corporate labels do not wish to face a reality where they cannot keep investing less and less time/money/love into music and expecting bigger and bigger returns.

That scam worked for them during the 80's and 90's, but now it has failed and they are scratching their heads trying to understand why.

Damn, I really miss Ahmet Ertegun :-(

[Kestral]

I think the statement needs to be qualified.

For the average person, they see music as a background of their life. It's there and it's like sonic wallpaper. They'd miss it if it wasn't there, just like how some people like to have the TV on all the time even if they're not watching.

However, for people like us, we are obsessed with music. And I think that the average person isn't as obsessed as us folks who are killing ourselves over what converters are being used, what preamps, etc etc. For most people, it's about the experience as a whole, and it's just another part of their life whereas for people like us, we make it a much larger part of our lives.

More and more I'm starting to think that maybe if I was more like those people, I'd be a better musician :D

[natpub]

Originally posted by Kestral


For the average person...

...More and more I'm starting to think that maybe if I was more like those people, I'd be a better musician :D

Kest,

I think those are heartfelt and very sweet sentiments. I too share such wistful longings. Be that as it may, musicians (of all varieties, including Composers, Arrangers, Performers, AE's, Mixers, Prod's, ME's, and so forth) are not unlike those in any profession. Take D.C. Polititians, for example (sorry to use such a debased example, but they are more like us than we might wish); in their world, it's all about the "Beltway," and they see themselves as center stage in the world. Their judgements can never really be objective, if such a thing even exists.

In my former/latter life as a Psychologist, I used to measure and study such things. And, I gave mass behavior quite a bit of thought. Rightfully, such things belong to Sociologists, but I got along with them fine.

Regardless of the intent of the quote that started this whole sheebang, it reflects a very basic truth--the world is indeed what each individual sees it as. There may, actually, be no objective world, per se.

If there is anything one might call "objective," then it probably belongs to the statisticians who measure mass movement. As we all probably know, such measurements are easily and frequently skewed to show whatever the scientist wishes to show. Thus, even the best of studies is tainted, perhaps beyond repair.

I, myself, decline to accept the idea of objectivity in the common sense. To me, the world rotates around music, and music can make the world dance, cry, laugh, cheer, or anything in between. To me, without music, life would barely exist, if at all. To me, the primal human first beat his log (hmmm...he said "beat his log" ) [or her, indeed, probably "HER"] to set the world spinning, and 'let there be light!'

I do not really think the idea of music becoming so mechanized and programed into corporate slop troughs is very serious. I would not worry my dear friends.

Perhaps a view of history will remind us: The Trubadours and Bards of Old never faded, and passed through 10,000 years (in one form or another) of jaded political and technological scat [read "shite"] unscathed.

I suspect that the muse is either of the heart or not. Bottom line. If it is of the heart, then no techno frills will ruin it. If a song is not of the heart, then no techno frills can save it.

The rest is just time passing...and as George Harrison said, "all things must pass..."



--K

[Fletcher]

Originally posted by tanker
Maybe what what t bone meant was, a majority of people dont like his records

That's exactly what he meant... they prefer aerosol crap to real music... sorta like the people that purchase the aerosol cheese in a can because real cheese is so damn inconvenient.

The quote, most often attributed to Samuel Goldwyn, that applies here is: "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public".

The thing is that now their ambivalence has been replaced with other 'entertainment product' that competes for the disposable income from the 14-34 demographic... in other words, they ain't spendin' their money on shit they don't think is a good value for their money.

Video games, DVD movies [which are roughly the same fukking price as CD's... how that works is a fukking mystery to me] along with some not very inspired music have led to the current industry tailspin... oh well.

They got what they deserved... why the hell should any of us care. In my world, 10,000 units for one of the artists with whom I've worked is akin to "Platinum"... the people with whom I generally work have flown under the "commercial radar" for so long that the record industry's current economic slump doesn't really apply to them.

What does apply is that there are fewer and fewer places to gig, which is damn unfortunate. The reality there is that radio is for the most part no longer programmed locally... so even while the people listening to radio just for a sound to keep them company are still passively listening to the radio, they're not even being passively exposed to local/regional product... which means that the saloon owners [who don't give a shit about music, they just care about selling beer] have gone with a more popular form of entertainment to bring those beer buying dollars through the door... fewer places to play, more and more people who want to gig... you end up with either the band's working on a "volunteer" basis or actually paying to be the attraction that sells beer for the club owner.

It's a pretty fukked up world when you actually have to go out and buy a gig... but then "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public"

[Brad Lunde]

Natpub: what a great post.

There is some reason to think that live music and young people's special connection to it began its present decline when the bar age went from 18 to 21. The number of live bands making a living absolutely collapsed and the bar business did the same. Since 18-21 makes up a large portion of the "music activist" crowd, this really hurt. The proliferation with Video games, computers has as Fletcher said, divided young people's attention and spendable income. Kids aren't as connected to one thing now-they are connected to many things and fractured into many small groups.

I remember when I was 18, it was just after the gearhead (car junkie) days. The older kids in the neighborhood wanted a car, were fixing a car, making muscle cars. EVERYONE I knew wanted a stereo, a really cool stereo, more than anything else in the world. EVERYONE wanted to be in a band, see a band, hang out with a band. People hung out at the one kid who actually hada stereo and listened to music. Imagine, just sat there listening! There was an explosion in the diversity of music too and a lot of live music almost anywhere. Pool parties, teen bars, tons of live music bars, etc.-that kind of accessibility to music is gone for yourger people. But, maybe not!

Kids are file sharing and while we in the biz hate it for what it does to muscians, its cool and hip and fun for kids to do. There are those bands out there trying to address this and participate. Its hard for corporate america to get on this online wagon, but corporate america has never been at the lead of music and never will. Its at its best when people are driving it!

I think we are seeing a return to music popularity. I think the last 3 years has been hell for most everyone in the biz, but it seems to be turning the corner by most insiders I know in LA. Still tough, but much better. I think the next 3 years will be pretty good overall for music and hopefully once this damn election is over with, we can get on with real life!

Brad

[natpub]

Originally posted by Brad Lunde

I remember when I was 18, it was just after the gearhead (car junkie) days. The older kids in the neighborhood wanted a car, were fixing a car, making muscle cars. EVERYONE I knew wanted a stereo, a really cool stereo, more than anything else in the world. EVERYONE wanted to be in a band, see a band, hang out with a band. People hung out at the one kid who actually hada stereo and listened to music. Imagine, just sat there listening! There was an explosion in the diversity of music too and a lot of live music almost anywhere. Pool parties, teen bars, tons of live music bars, etc

Good Lord, Brad, we are of the same era, lol!

Jeesh, I haven't thought of pool parties in ages. Damn, I miss it all...

Thing is though, the whole view we blow here is probably skewed all to hell on our age bias. I am sure the kidz are still just the same as Pete Townsend said they were...."alright!!!"

I stand by my post 3 rows back..."Broadband" is the culprit and the savior in one.

If I may, a nudge for the slutz:


http://www.mudda.org/

http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/n...26-mudda_x.htm


I think Peter had the right idea, though he kinda sold out recently--such is life:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06...deye_buys_od2/

In either case, something like MUDDA or others is, to me, the wave to ride. If the "White Stripes" are any indication, ultra-indie can and will find success in its own manner, in its own time.

After owning and running a record label, a publishing company, and now a growing studio and production house (and of course, the BAND, I NEVer abandon "the Band, man!," e, ref: John Belushi), we arrived at the view that it is best to ignore all trends, protocols, and traditions, and simply keep making and putting out the best music our hearts and souls can make.

That appears to be the best "business model" I can find.



--KT

[grahluk]

Originally posted by mpr3
Wow, do I agree, and that would explain why most modern music can be likened to a big bright advertisement, lobbying for your attention like a child forced to 'act up'.

I couldn't pick a point where it went that way in an absolute sense. MTV maybe? Looking at it now it seems that "music" is now a general sphere of "entertainment" that trades in spectacle rather than emotion or even ideas. An "artist's" impact has everything to do with their personal image. Most often it seems that their personal life or social appeal is promoted and the "music" is just another promotional tool towards that end. It might be interesting even if there was some sort of novel approach or idea to their schtick (Malcolm McLaren seemed to understand this and took a lot of the piss out of the 70's in creating and promoting the Sex Pistols). More often they align themselves in a well worn clich'e where they use their "influences" as some sort of crutch of validation. Isn't it interesting that we intimately know who the current pop starts heroes and idols are while what Hendrix listened to is almost irrelevant to what makes him compelling.
Really though, I don't fear for music. Maybe on the large scale as far as cultural touchstone's go. I don't see any ideas like John Lennon's "Imagine" easily gaining widespread traction at the moment. It's just not sexy enough. ( ;
About that majority that doesn't like music? T-bone could be right. Maybe he could play a song that could make a person cry but for that ambivalent mass a middle age man singing and strumming a guitar can hardly compare to the entertainment value of a well endowed post pubescent diva with a phalanx of pseudo-street professional dancers behind her projected on a jumbotron where you can see what new belly button jewlery she's wearing today. I guess that could make you cynical if you're that artist who's dedicated a lifetime to the "art" of music.
Again I don't fear for music. Have you noticed the audiences of those spectacle entertainers? It seems like the opening of those shows has everyone in hysterics but as the show goes on the performer has to work harder and harder to keep their attention?
The shows ends up having to be a series of events strung together with music for continuity. When folks come out of the shows much of the praise usually falls along the line of "I liked the part were X, came out in Y, then did z!" Same goes for their other endeavors. What's in the new video? What's their latest hairstyle, lover, fued? It gets to the point where a current artist's songs of 3 years ago are viewed as camp if they last long enough to still be relevant enough that they themselves aren't seen as camp. On the other hand I can recall times where by complete accident I've been transfixed by performaces seen once that I'll never forget. This could be a singer/guitarist in a Portuguese restaraunt, a soca band in a parade, or a group of young guys in a freestyle battle on a downtown brooklyn corner (actually still happens now and again). The (music) revolution will (indeed) not be televised.

[Gregg Sartiano]

Originally posted by hollywood_steve
But how long has it been since 12 to 15 year old girls like anything resembling a decent band? If you remember back that far, Elvis, the Beatles and David Bowie were favorites of the training bra crowd. Who was the last decent band that captured their attention, Nirvana? more than 10 years ago. Wha' happened?

Coldplay did it. Even people who follow rap/R & B exclusively recognize that "Clocks" theme -- jeez, I can name at least three different clients who "thought out loud" about sampling it.

You know something's a little off when "what groove are we gonna sample" is considered creative thought. Don't get me wrong, I have respect for DJ'ing and sampling as a craft, I just think DJ's are a LITTLE high on the food chain right now.

[toolskid]

I'm gonna go and see a movie tomorrow, I really like the way the projectionist in my local UCI puts on the film, its really...really....great


I love djs.........

[Gregg Sartiano]

Originally posted by toolskid666
I'm gonna go and see a movie tomorrow, I really like the way the projectionist in my local UCI puts on the film, its really...really....great

Yeah, and all the girls love the way he wears those shades in the dark and propels his arms above his head along with the beat of the Main Title track as the lights go down.

Meanwhile, those taxpayers in my hometown state are STILL subsidizing the state-supported art & music school I got my music degree at...you know, the one where I used to sit in the music library with my Beethoven scores & headphones studying antiquated concepts like melody and harmony...

[jonnyclueless]

Harmony and Melody? I thought music was about repeating a 4 bar loop and cutting out a few parts here and there. When he said Harmony and Melody, I think he meant to say Cut and Paste.

[Jose Mrochek]

I don't believe in fake music. There is no such thing as.. ok "I will make a fake hit". Unless it's a copy from someone else, it's not fake. If it's crap, well the guy that did it is "real crap". But make a fake hit? wow, everyone would be doing hits. You could get those "make hit's for dummy books".. it just doesn't happen. Nothing has changed, it's the same 12 chords.. guys, snap out of it .. really.. if you wan't to critize the hit makers of today that is cool, but I think you at least need to have made some hits of your own to have that priviledge.

[Bob Olhsson]

Nobody's mentioned what I consider to be one of todays two main problems

In the 1990s advertisers began dictating what music people in the US get to hear. During the 40 years prior to that record sales had determined what got on the air and ticket sales dictated who got booked into concerts. There was a pretty direct connection between what fans liked and what became successful.

The consolidation of radio advertisers in the '90s led to a new music radio "business model" that used specific kinds of music to micromanage audience demographics. Market research facilitated by cheap computers replaced retail music sales figures in determining playlists as advertisers became intoxicated with the idea of "narrow-casting." Radio stations began defining themselves with small specific audience groups and demanded that record labels pay for market research that "proved" a new release could draw the very specific group of listeners they were looking for.

This in turn led to a consolidation of radio station ownership. It allowed an advertiser to specify precisely who they wanted to reach and the station owners could sell them a package of stations that very precisely filled that order. Adding insult to injury, the largest chain bought up most of the major US concert promoters and started adding concert sponsorship to their radio advertising packages.

It's ironic, today we have radio playing records nobody will buy and not playing multi-platinum albums that only got exposed through movies. We've got thirty year old groups half-filling auditoriums as part of advertising sponsored tours and young artists who could fill stadiums that can't get booked.

The other problem, as Brad Lunde mentioned, is the loss of the venues that used to be able to support local and regional acts. We also lost the small radio stations that used to be where records were broken and great DJs began their careers. In other words, the musical minor leagues are gone. The result is that VERY few actual new music acts are making it today, just lots of TV stars turned singers.

[triez]

The real point I think is that music no longer leads the revolution for young people.

When I was a teen in the 70's, all the kids in my street were from conservative working and middle class families, and our rallying point was music. Rock and pop were the one thing that we had that was all our own. It was our little world and piece of rebelion that our parents and teachers tolerated but were not a part of, and we loved it, and had to work hard saving up to get it. In the absence of MTV, internet, mobile phones, and all the other stuff, our hard saved for records and record players were treasure.

We could not just download or copy stuff, so when a band we loved released something new we had to keep out portable tranny's on if we wanted to hear it while we waited for the single. I laid in bed so many nights trying to stay awake hoping that some new song would be played on 2SM. When it was played, I just new that my friends were at their homes almost certainly doing the same thing. Really the result was that music was almost a fetish item, and we were obsessed with it. when I bought a new album, I listened to all the tracks over and over, studying them. I read the liner notes, and always worried when it was getting close to time to buy a new "needle" for my little HMV, as they were expensive for a kid.

This intensity no longer exists, our society now is so overstimulating and it's currents are so strong that music has dropped from a thing for kids to obsess over to just be the stuff they copy into their iPod as the background noise to their life. A different world indeed...

[Jay Kahrs]

Originally posted by Fletcher
What does apply is that there are fewer and fewer places to gig, which is damn unfortunate. The reality there is that radio is for the most part no longer programmed locally... so even while the people listening to radio just for a sound to keep them company are still passively listening to the radio, they're not even being passively exposed to local/regional product... which means that the saloon owners [who don't give a shit about music, they just care about selling beer] have gone with a more popular form of entertainment to bring those beer buying dollars through the door... fewer places to play, more and more people who want to gig... you end up with either the band's working on a "volunteer" basis or actually paying to be the attraction that sells beer for the club owner.

True and not true. Lot's of places around here go to a booking agency which shovels them cover bands a few nights a week. The shitty part is that the general public seems love it. Go to Hoboken on a Saturday night and see 200 people lined up to get into a place to see Big Orange Cone but 10 miles away there are 40-100 people there to see Mofro or Levon Helms.

Sad.

How the hell did Clearchannel get to be soooo fukking huge?

[jonnyclueless]

I agree with Bob in that has anyoe noticed the difference between the bilboard hot 100 chart and the 200 album sales? Shouldn't they be pretty simillar? Album sales is pretty straight forward, but hot 100 seems to be dictated by who the record companies think is this weeks hot producer. I am sure this could be argued, but it seems like what is being marketed and what people are buying are not completely inline.