The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
UnNatural Perfection (and the end of rock)
Old 17th November 2009
  #181
Lives for gear
 
boody's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
You guys are fooling yourselves. ALL the evidence supports my position. The most people music is the most downloaded music. You almost never see kids on Youtube using (or commenting on) older music. The most popular (and downloaded) music is stuff you think is horrible.

I mean, how badly do you need to believe that kids are being brainwashed so that you don't have to accept that they like the music of their generation?

That doesn't mean that they wouldn't like any of it. It's not an either/or situation. Even if they did like some older music, that wouldn't mean that they don't like Lady Gaga. They CLEARLY love Lady Gaga.
You assume that all kids are on youtube and that lady gaga is so popular only with the kids? That's quite some generalizations. Just because you think you see the signs and think this is how it is, doesn't mean it is a fact.

To put some arguments up against your reasoning: I know a lot of kids (everybody under 25 is a kid to me ) who are deep into psychedelic, beatles, led zeplin, zappa, hendrix etc etc. Lately I played on a party for 16 year olds who only wanted to hear '60 and '70 soul. I have played in Germany on a party where all the older people jumped around on lady gaga while the kids walked away bored.

That said I think there is another thing that is greatly overlooked: the focus on entertainment. Some of the really good music used to be an entertaining form of art. Obviously there is money to be made from entertainment but not so much from art. The record bizz, radio stations and all other commercial music peeps focussed on entertainment. Musical hamburgers so you will. But just because all the media is focusing on the equivalent of a hamburger doesn't mean that there is no good music left! Sure, if you watch all the commercials you might think there's no hope. But that only means you watch too much TV (bad metaphor, but I'm sure you get the picture .

The only thing that I do believe is true: great music for the masses is, at this moment, almost a contradiction. To use the hamburger again: hamburgers are for the masses and mcdonalds and equivalents rule the inner cities and dominate with advertising all around the world, good food can be found in your local restaurants if you know where to go.

We need another business model: people are looking for good music, but they have trouble finding it. Who will show the way? CDs are on the way out, marketing mechanisms focus on flashy entertainment. How can we earn a living with making music that is an artistic expression instead of merely commercial entertainment for the herds? Those are the real issues imho.

my 2cts of course
Old 17th November 2009
  #182
Gear Maniac
 
Harry Hughes's Avatar
 

For what it's worth, I really dug some of John William's (the classical guitarist) classical guitar pieces when I was about 11 years old or so, and when I was 15 I listened to 70s prog rock like Yes, Genesis and Pink Floyd a lot, as well as some of the modern prog rock/metal. I'm 21 years old now and my taste in music has expanded to incorporate even more obscure and complex kinds of music (avant garde, extreme metal, 20th century classical), but I've also gained a better appreciation of some simpler stuff like Paramore (but hey, the last 2 albums have killer production anyway)
I was and still am pretty much oblivious to what's on the radio (I discovered Paramore through a friend, although they might have been on the radio, I have no idea since I don't even own a radio), but I can sometimes see that even in some music that appears pretty simple on the surface, such as Paramore, has some surprising complexities to it.

I've not yet heard Lady Gaga and don't intend to.
I tried Katy Perry (another really popular artist these days it seems) and didn't enjoy her stuff much more than one song that I thought was okay at best.
Old 17th November 2009
  #183
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by boody View Post
We need another business model: people are looking for good music, but they have trouble finding it. Who will show the way? CDs are on the way out, marketing mechanisms focus on flashy entertainment. How can we earn a living with making music that is an artistic expression instead of merely commercial entertainment for the herds? Those are the real issues imho.
It's funny because this same question has been on my mind and I think with the rise of new technology the established order of record labels could be a thing of the past. I've been reading a book by Michael Chanan called Repeated Takes about the history of recorded audio and all its innovations, business models and affect on music as art in general. There was a brief description of a system used in the early part of the 20th century where labels would get record buyers to preorder an album and not releasing it until a guaranteed amount of sales was reached (i.e. break even or most likely make a profit). I though this could be an interesting way to at least make some money back on records you made, basically ensuring costs were covered and you had some money to spend on promoting, travelling etc. and still have some money in pocket between making albums. Then I read an article on smh.com.au, my local newspaper here in Sydney and found out about a website called Kickstarter. It basically posts artists monetary goals to fund their project, and a funding target which the public contributes to to make their form of art possible. I think this could be where the future heads to. It may be difficult for startup bands, but if the product is good and you get a following through the traditional live scene, then funding the next few albums wouldn't be too difficult. I'm sure even record labels could adopt this model, but if there are no middle men siphoning money and trying to impose their artistic direction on the artist, then the public and artist could potentially, both be happy. The only downside I could see is too much direct contact with an artist may give the public the feeling that they own the record and should have a say in what it should sound like, rather than letting the artist go with their vision. I don't see this being too much of a problem as long as the musician is clear about what they are trying to put across.

Money for jamming as busking takes a digital turn - Music - Entertainment

Be Our Record Label. You, Music Lovers, Decide Who Rises Up! — Kickstarter
Old 17th November 2009
  #184
Lives for gear
 
memphisindie's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevieseven View Post
Necessary Evil, i suppose... Since reality is subjective, the more we define and become 'sure' about one thing or another the less open we are to the realm of possibility
I can swim in the cesspool and recognize the real from the fake.
It may even be in my interest, as an artist, to take a piss if the ends justify the means.
Well, old man, IS the grass greener on the other side?
For sure, on either side, there are cows, and they must eat the grass to provide the milk, remove the grass and there is no milk and no cow in the future. That is one of my bigger points and we are starving the cows.
Who cares what color the grass is? The cows. The cows are very important.
Quote:

If you are an artist, you must also have some humanity and by that line of reasoning you wish to see humans as a species become wiser, stronger and more robust.
If there is a big machine tweaking everything and digitizing and dehumanizing art, then it should be that we dwell in the house of the beast, that we **** with the 'system' from the inside- not drop out and complain that the world has left us behind.
When there is a choice in the matter. Also, it's not mutually exclusive that just because someone had to drop out yet still has a view that they are invalid, who's to say they won't come back?
That mutual exclusive pattern re-emerges. It's a waste of time.
Quote:
So if all the 'crap' only serves to further amplify and strengthen the gold, then let there be more! No complaints here.
My line of reasoning is this- let the animals feed, let them get fat and happy. Myself, i am nourished by other things...when i see a new artist make it 'big' i think to myself- "that is the end- everything from then on out for them is trying to replicate doing what got them there..."
Yes and I guess company reasoning is that the more it is computerized the more duplicatable it becomes only the results are in and it doesn't work, in fact, it's killing the biz, the entertainment, and the art all at once.
Quote:
People in my position are more than happy that things are in the state they are in. We now know more than ever the more the same formulas are cooked up and re-sold as 'new', the greater the demand for alternative arises. Eventually.
Got that right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
Google's 'search If you go to google and type in 'la' that gets you to Lady Gaga at the top of the list, which would mean that she is obviously ginormously searched for to be the first thing that comes up with just those two letters.
That doesn't mean that even half of the people who searched were doing anything more than trying to find out who the hell Lady Gaga is. Doesn't mean FANS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelpatterson View Post
I think equally amazing: "latin translation" is all the way up at number #10!
I mean... latin translation? How often does anyone really need to...(shakes head, kind of like his parents did) ... crazy world out there!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jono_3 View Post
Maybe bands just simply aren't as good as they used to be....
Well, who's making sure they would actually get better? Them? Their labels?
NO ONE???
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
Anyway, we don't even have to argue about that. Google hits reported:

Elton John: 94M
Little Richard: 69.8M
Brittany Spears: 67.3M
Lady Gaga: 53.5M
The Doors: 47M
Miley Cyrus: 42.9M
Jonas Broths: 34.7M
Coldplay: 28.5M
Led Zepplin: 16M
Jimi Hendrix: 11M
Nora Jones: 7M
Thelonius Monk: 1.63M

Elton John actually kicked butt at 94M. But of course he had a vast number of hits over a long period of time,
That has more meaning than you let on.
Quote:
and the whole Diana thing decades later. So probably not suprising I guess. But Little Richard, a vertible institution, is only somewhat more referenced than Brittany and Lady Gaga. And The Doors only a bit more than Miley.
To be fair, Jim has been DEAD for a very long time, and his legacy has been stigmatized by an onslaught of wannabe's, making listening to him somewhat dangerous in that you might become one.
Quote:
But anyhoo... if you gauge the number of other people referencing these acts by name on the web, they are very much in the public eye. Yes, some of those may be people saying they don't like them, but the same would likely apply to all of them, unless you are going to claim that all of Led Zepplin's hits are positive and none of Miley's are, which isn't remotely likely.
There are things called demographics and if you had those too, it would be more valuable, add to that if you actually knew why these hits were garnered on an individual basis it would be infinitely valuable.
Quote:
One way or another, those folks are very widely known in the culture and people wouldn't be talking about them that much if they weren't important to people of their generation.
Which has yet to be determined. Promo companies can make these hits happen, trust me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
indeed so - but my argument has always been that the biggest selling acts aint the ones in the charts - they just sell at a lower rate for a longer time. Check out the stats on the biggest records in any year and the figures rarely reflect what you saw in the charts!! Thankfully.
Mind you - i'm not against hyper computerised music - thats all good for those who like it......
I agree. Mega and Kiss sold millions before one song ever hit the radio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlaw Hans View Post
what bothers me is the decline in songwriting skills and production in the rock / band-pop music. Having said that, the Brits have come up with some interesting acts lately. They've even made it into the mainstream.
Encouraging too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boody View Post
You assume that lady gaga is so popular only with the kids?
: I know a lot of kids who are deep into psychedelic, beatles, led zeplin, zappa, hendrix etc etc. Lately I played on a party for 16 year olds who only wanted to hear '60 and '70 soul. I have played in Germany on a party where all the older people jumped around on lady gaga while the kids walked away bored.

That said I think there is another thing that is greatly overlooked: the focus on entertainment. Some of the really good music used to be an entertaining form of art. Obviously there is money to be made from entertainment but not so much from art.
They have to be handled differently or both get devalued.
Quote:
The record bizz, radio stations and all other commercial music peeps focussed on entertainment. Musical hamburgers so you will. But just because all the media is focusing on the equivalent of a hamburger doesn't mean that there is no good music left! Sure, if you watch all the commercials you might think there's no hope. But that only means you watch too much TV (bad metaphor, but I'm sure you get the picture .
TRUE, sadly.
Quote:
The only thing that I do believe is true: great music for the masses is, at this moment, almost a contradiction. To use the hamburger again: hamburgers are for the masses and mcdonalds and equivalents rule the inner cities and dominate with advertising all around the world, good food can be found in your local restaurants if you know where to go.

We need another business model: people are looking for good music, but they have trouble finding it.
And they are being handled improperly and almost interchangeably which DOES NOT WORK.
Quote:
Who will show the way? CDs are on the way out, marketing mechanisms focus on flashy entertainment. How can we earn a living with making music that is an artistic expression instead of merely commercial entertainment for the herds? Those are the real issues imho.
my 2cts of course
Good 2 cents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by funkymunk View Post
It's funny because this same question has been on my mind and I think with the rise of new technology the established order of record labels could be a thing of the past. I've been reading a book by Michael Chanan called Repeated Takes about the history of recorded audio and all its innovations, business models and affect on music as art in general. There was a brief description of a system used in the early part of the 20th century where labels would get record buyers to preorder an album and not releasing it until a guaranteed amount of sales was reached (i.e. break even or most likely make a profit).
This was not so feaseable when it was dog and ponied out, but, I bet this could be extremely valuable today. Pinpoint sales prediction. Customer driven.
Quote:
I though this could be an interesting way to at least make some money back on records you made, basically ensuring costs were covered and you had some money to spend on promoting, travelling etc. and still have some money in pocket between making albums. Then I read an article on smh.com.au, my local newspaper here in Sydney and found out about a website called Kickstarter. It basically posts artists monetary goals to fund their project, and a funding target which the public contributes to to make their form of art possible. I think this could be where the future heads to. It may be difficult for startup bands, but if the product is good and you get a following through the traditional live scene, then funding the next few albums wouldn't be too difficult. I'm sure even record labels could adopt this model, but if there are no middle men siphoning money and trying to impose their artistic direction on the artist, then the public and artist could potentially, both be happy. The only downside I could see is too much direct contact with an artist may give the public the feeling that they own the record and should have a say in what it should sound like, rather than letting the artist go with their vision. I don't see this being too much of a problem as long as the musician is clear about what they are trying to put across.
If they stick to their guns, but, too much public unrestricted access devalues a product, BUT, It could work very well if the people who could see this page were limited to people who could fund the project instead of just anybody.
Thanks for that, very valuable info here.
Old 17th November 2009
  #185
Lives for gear
 
boody's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by funkymunk View Post
There was a brief description of a system used in the early part of the 20th century where labels would get record buyers to preorder an album and not releasing it until a guaranteed amount of sales was reached (i.e. break even or most likely make a profit). I though this could be an interesting way to at least make some money back on records you made, basically ensuring costs were covered and you had some money to spend on promoting, travelling etc. and still have some money in pocket between making albums. Then I read an article on smh.com.au, my local newspaper here in Sydney and found out about a website called Kickstarter. It basically posts artists monetary goals to fund their project, and a funding target which the public contributes to to make their form of art possible. I think this could be where the future heads to.
I've seen a couple of initiatives like kickstarter, and pre ordering as a way to fund a record is one of the tactics used by bands that go independent. But I don't see this a s a valid answer to the issues because people have to invest in a product they can only evaluate when it's finished. It's a nice way to get support and raise a fund plus it gives extra commitment, but it's only very small scale.

I think one of the things we need to realize is that today, recorded music = software. That's why there's a 'download problem'. If we insist on keeping music a 'product', we should get i-lock like protection; you're player should be the dongle. But: meanwhile the whole software industry is moving from 'product based' to 'service based'. Soon you will have access to windoze office online, Google is setting the trend for this and the open source community slowly takes over. I think for the music industry it is important to follow this development and learn from it.

The future imho is: music recording is software in a service based industry. Now how can we make enough money to survive?
Old 17th November 2009
  #186
Lives for gear
 
steelyfan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by boody View Post
You assume that all kids are on youtube and that lady gaga is so popular only with the kids? That's quite some generalizations. Just because you think you see the signs and think this is how it is, doesn't mean it is a fact.

To put some arguments up against your reasoning: I know a lot of kids (everybody under 25 is a kid to me ) who are deep into psychedelic, beatles, led zeplin, zappa, hendrix etc etc. Lately I played on a party for 16 year olds who only wanted to hear '60 and '70 soul. I have played in Germany on a party where all the older people jumped around on lady gaga while the kids walked away bored.

That said I think there is another thing that is greatly overlooked: the focus on entertainment. Some of the really good music used to be an entertaining form of art. Obviously there is money to be made from entertainment but not so much from art. The record bizz, radio stations and all other commercial music peeps focussed on entertainment. Musical hamburgers so you will. But just because all the media is focusing on the equivalent of a hamburger doesn't mean that there is no good music left! Sure, if you watch all the commercials you might think there's no hope. But that only means you watch too much TV (bad metaphor, but I'm sure you get the picture .

The only thing that I do believe is true: great music for the masses is, at this moment, almost a contradiction. To use the hamburger again: hamburgers are for the masses and mcdonalds and equivalents rule the inner cities and dominate with advertising all around the world, good food can be found in your local restaurants if you know where to go.

We need another business model: people are looking for good music, but they have trouble finding it. Who will show the way? CDs are on the way out, marketing mechanisms focus on flashy entertainment. How can we earn a living with making music that is an artistic expression instead of merely commercial entertainment for the herds? Those are the real issues imho.

my 2cts of course
Your post reminds me of why vinyl WILL be coming back.
More and more of the younger generation seem to be finding modern music a bore, like a drug that's going out of style, and are looking back at some of the classic sounding stuff. Not only looking back because they want to hear what their present day hero's grew up on, where they got their inspiration from, but because of how the recordings sounded. They actually care, and MOST of the younger musicians and music lovers I know are in awe of that older recording sound....regardless of the music style.

Music's facelift will eventually be making it a ritual again, having parties and talking about how great something sounds, a more intimate experience again. Trends always come back around.
Old 17th November 2009
  #187
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
...the biggest selling acts aint the ones in the charts ...
All through the '60s Frank Sinatra was the biggest selling artist every year yet the most chart activity he'd have was an occasional new title popping up in the bottom 50 for a few weeks.

It was a fact that really kept our egos in check at Motown when we had four or five of the top ten.
Old 17th November 2009
  #188
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by steelyfan View Post
Your post reminds me of why vinyl WILL be coming back....
...Music's facelift will eventually be making it a ritual again, having parties and talking about how great something sounds, a more intimate experience again...
There is no question about this. The faster the CD goes away the better. Vinyl won't be back other than as a novelty but I'm sure something having comparable packaging and much more engaging sound quality than today's genre-flavored elevator music will return to the stores. There'll also be a new generation of dedicated music stores and live performance producers.

The sorcerer's apprentices running the music business off the tracks in the '90s has actually created a huge opportunity for anybody who can use their head and see through the endless nonsense being spouted on the internet by tech stock hustlers.
Old 17th November 2009
  #189
Lives for gear
 
crufty's Avatar
i'm very sorry buy vinyl is a horrible medium for a 12 yr old.

I think wav files on devices are the way to go. anything else will be a failure. in my crystal ball---

cd stores carry posters. a fan goes in, picks up their favorite band's latest poster. At the check out, the clerk scans the poster, the fan's cell phone transmits the payment info automatically to the register--the fan presses ok on their cell phone. wavs are beamed within seconds from the stores wifi onto the phone. from there the fan can burn the wavs or move them to other devices or do whatever they want.

alternative scenario: fan hands clerk atm card and a usb keyfob, or whatever.

that is the future.
Old 17th November 2009
  #190
Lives for gear
 
memphisindie's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by boody View Post
I've seen a couple of initiatives like kickstarter, and pre ordering as a way to fund a record is one of the tactics used by bands that go independent. But I don't see this a s a valid answer to the issues because people have to invest in a product they can only evaluate when it's finished. It's a nice way to get support and raise a fund plus it gives extra commitment, but it's only very small scale.

I think one of the things we need to realize is that today, recorded music = software. That's why there's a 'download problem'. If we insist on keeping music a 'product', we should get i-lock like protection; you're player should be the dongle. But: meanwhile the whole software industry is moving from 'product based' to 'service based'. Soon you will have access to windoze office online, Google is setting the trend for this and the open source community slowly takes over. I think for the music industry it is important to follow this development and learn from it.

The future imho is: music recording is software in a service based industry. Now how can we make enough money to survive?
You can't because it still comes down to internationally enforced intellectual property rights laws. That's being addressed.
The model could work if the donors were more like "angel capitalists" instead of the average Joes. Average Joes would go to a site that would elicit what kind if stuff is desired and when something hit critical mass, the angel capitalists would fund it's production to the degree of demand over the first hurdle with benchmarks to provide guidance.
What do you think?
Old 17th November 2009
  #191
Lives for gear
 
memphisindie's Avatar
 

Bob, that was pure wisdom.
Crufty, didn't stop an entire generation of 12 year olds from 1950's to the eighties from using them.
Old 17th November 2009
  #192
News alert!

Rock music has been dead for years. It is a stale, tired music form. It is now devoid of growth and new ideas. Why some keep kicking that dead old horse like you expect him to get up and run is truly a mystery.

I'm ready for NEXT! When catalog rock sells better than new "rock" that writings officially on the wall.

No matter, keep kicking that dead horse. Maybe a fly or two may pop out of it's dead mouth.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades
Old 17th November 2009
  #193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
There is no question about this. The faster the CD goes away the better. Vinyl won't be back other than as a novelty but I'm sure something having comparable packaging and much more engaging sound quality than today's genre-flavored elevator music will return to the stores. There'll also be a new generation of dedicated music stores and live performance producers.

The sorcerer's apprentices running the music business off the tracks in the '90s has actually created a huge opportunity for anybody who can use their head and see through the endless nonsense being spouted on the internet by tech stock hustlers.
Cd packaging can be done very well. I have examples here. The Cream and Hendrix box sets are excellent. The books included have wonderful graphics and pics. It's not the format, it's the delivery person you need to blaim. The CD's sound good on a very high end converter as well. To me they sound better than the vinyl versions which sound flat and have no depth in the low end.

To each his own...

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades
Old 17th November 2009
  #194
Lives for gear
 
ianbryn11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by steelyfan View Post
Your post reminds me of why vinyl WILL be coming back.
Many of my friends bands, which are the bands who have really influenced me lately, are still putting things out on vinyl... in the DIY/Punk scene, Vinyl is still commonplace.... But, to keep things somewhat current, most records come with a cd sometimes, or with a code for free mp3 downloads....
Old 17th November 2009
  #195
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

When I type 'la' in the goog I get:

latte art philadelphia
latte best nyc
laz25 <-- (that's an api op-amp replacement)
lady gaga hermaphrodite (<--wtf?!)
la fitness
latin translation
lane bryant
lands end


Here's the thing: some of those 'suggestions' are clearly sponsored links and have absolutely nothing to do with my search habits or history. Lane Bryant? Lands End? For real?

I feel cheapened, like product placement has come to my laptop and I never saw it coming.


Gregory Scott - ubk
.
Old 17th November 2009
  #196
Lives for gear
 
steelyfan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianbryn11 View Post
Many of my friends bands, which are the bands who have really influenced me lately, are still putting things out on vinyl... in the DIY/Punk scene, Vinyl is still commonplace.... But, to keep things somewhat current, most records come with a cd sometimes, or with a code for free mp3 downloads....
Yea, most of my friends and I buy ONLY vinyl. Of course, cd's make it to the car for for easy travel music. But when something that's GREAT comes out, it is a ritual. We will drive 3 hours to a friend's house in the woods with a stack of new records for a weekend of wine , whisky , scotch and..... It's a BIG DEAL. LOl.

We kick back and listen to one after the other, it's a chill time. Big glass windows that look out to a 2 story deck that faces the woods, speakers on the deck. This guy's turntable cost more than my car. We enjoy it.

How the rest of the world treats their music experiences........or what becomes the next popular medium.........I could care less really.
I'll always have a way to listen that turns ME on.

cheers,
Steelyfan
Old 17th November 2009
  #197
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
When catalog rock sells better than new "rock" that writings officially on the wall.
it doesn't. Foo fighters and QOTSA sell more in a given year than the classics. Only on a new "rebox" do the oldies generate any indent.

Agree on the Hendrix package - very good CD set.
Old 17th November 2009
  #198
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
All through the '60s Frank Sinatra was the biggest selling artist every year yet the most chart activity he'd have was an occasional new title popping up in the bottom 50 for a few weeks.

It was a fact that really kept our egos in check at Motown when we had four or five of the top ten.
brilliant fact!
Old 17th November 2009
  #199
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
Cd packaging can be done very well. I have examples here. The Cream and Hendrix box sets are excellent...
Indeed the box set plays precisely the role that the LP played prior to the late '60s.

The problem with the CD is that it's too small, too cheap and each piece doesn't turn fast enough to make an attractive product for most retail stores. Combine that with how convenient it makes distributing massive numbers of illicit copies and it's a loser on all counts. And even if it were great, the optical disk player is going the way of the CRT computer monitor soon due to Moore's law.
Old 17th November 2009
  #200
Lives for gear
 
Outlaw Hans's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k View Post
lady gaga hermaphrodite (<--wtf?!)
That was me...
Old 17th November 2009
  #201
Lives for gear
 
FireMoon's Avatar
If you check the musical tastes of many many young people on MySpace.. the names Led Zepplin.. Hendrix, Pink Floyd and few others, crop up time and time again.

Nick drake's pink Moon, sold just over 3000 world wide, when it was first released the CD sold 20x that last year, 30 years after his death.

I had a bunch of Japanese kids in a rock band doing the whole *not worthy thang* when they discovered an act i was once in, not 6 months ago...

To judge rock on the outpourings of the likes of My Chemical Romance and Evanessence is like judging 70s rock by quoting the works of The Sweet and Black Oak Arkansas.

I'd hazard a guess that. King Crimson's Lark Tongues in Aspic, is played more today, by people world wide, than it ever was in the 1970s..

There is a tendency to assume that. America = the world..it isn't. Genesis would have been dropped by their record co years before the Phil Collins stage had it not been for the huge market they had in countries like Italy and Germany..

For the size of the market, someone like Michael Jackson was actually , pretty much an also ran in Germany. Don;t believe the hype you hear coming out of record companies. The truth tends to decrease in direct proportion to the advertising budget when it comes to how they report sales...

The biggest grossing touring act in the USA in the 1980s was ..The Grateful dead... the biggest, overall grossing British acts in the USA in the 1980s, ie tours, sales and merchandise were.... Depeche Mode and the Cure..

Before the introduction of the net..The Moody Blues Days of Future past was stiil shifting 250,000 units, in a typical year, world wide..

The media would love to portray each successive youth age as wanting to cast off its' peers,but since the mid 80s, that simply isn't true, save for the previous generations *pop idols* ..

The chief problem with today's bands is simple. They are nearly al *single flavour bands* geared towards niche markets. Bran van 3000 couldn't get a release for ages for their second album Discosis, cos it straddles too many genres.. yep... the accountants had a spaz about it as they only understand demographics and consumer models, not actual real life... That is where the real cancer lies in this bizness.. Someone needs to shove these focus groups where the sun don;t shine up the nearest executive and remind them.. People can make their own minds up, thank you very much... and it's non conformity that touches people's hearts, more often than not, on a long term basis, not prepackaged preprogrammed, focused and squeaky clean bollox..

That's why Zepplin and Floyd are still, so damned big...
Old 17th November 2009
  #202
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlaw Hans View Post
That was me...
LOL.....NO! Hans! NO!
Old 17th November 2009
  #203
Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
it doesn't. Foo fighters and QOTSA sell more in a given year than the classics. Only on a new "rebox" do the oldies generate any indent.

Agree on the Hendrix package - very good CD set.
Given year is only a snapshot. Hendrix and Zep have sold far more than ANY modern rock band and will continue to sell long after those modern rock records are in the dust bin at K-Mart.

I would take those numbers anyday over coldplay or any other modern outfit.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades
Old 17th November 2009
  #204
Lives for gear
 
crufty's Avatar
Could we say that artists with lofty goals can take their audiences to lofty places? If that is true, can that recipe change?
Old 17th November 2009
  #205
This is a wierd conversation for me, because I'm sympathetic to the points others are making, and my musical tastes are similar. But it's just crazy to act like Lady Gaga or Miley Cyrus isn't huge among young teens, and not because they are too stupid to realize that there are other things.

As to Led Zep selling more than any modern act, well Britney has supposedly sold something like 85M records in a fraction of the time that Zep has had to sell their reported 200M. You might argue that she won't sell any more after this, but I doubt that. She was a huge part of a lot of young girl's formative years and they'll probably be just as nostalgic for that music as we are about the music that we grew up with.

I mean I know a lot of people who LOVE The Scorpions because that's what they grew up with. To me it's pretty horrible stuff, but it's the music of their youth and they still have it in their music collections.

* Because of the fact that one of the things my product does is media management, I get to see a lot of people's music collections if I have to help them out with a problem. Mo young folks use our product, it's a big boy toy, but it really demonstrates to me that music people were exposed to in their youth remains an important part of their musical landscape as they get older, though of course they do get into other things.

And, BTW, the Bee Gees have also sold around 200M albums, so what does that tell you? That would make them as important a band in history as Led Zepplin.
Old 17th November 2009
  #206
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
Given year is only a snapshot. Hendrix and Zep have sold far more than ANY modern rock band and will continue to sell long after those modern rock records are in the dust bin at K-Mart.

I would take those numbers anyday over coldplay or any other modern outfit.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades
Thats true but selling in any year the accounts dont care for previous sales! that's not repeatable money !! hehe if only!
Old 17th November 2009
  #207
Lives for gear
 
FireMoon's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
This is a wierd conversation for me, because I'm sympathetic to the points others are making, and my musical tastes are similar. But it's just crazy to act like Lady Gaga or Miley Cyrus isn't huge among young teens, and not because they are too stupid to realize that there are other things.

As to Led Zep selling more than any modern act, well Britney has supposedly sold something like 85M records in a fraction of the time that Zep has had to sell their reported 200M. You might argue that she won't sell any more after this, but I doubt that. She was a huge part of a lot of young girl's formative years and they'll probably be just as nostalgic for that music as we are about the music that we grew up with.

I mean I know a lot of people who LOVE The Scorpions because that's what they grew up with. To me it's pretty horrible stuff, but it's the music of their youth and they still have it in their music collections.

* Because of the fact that one of the things my product does is media management, I get to see a lot of people's music collections if I have to help them out with a problem. Mo young folks use our product, it's a big boy toy, but it really demonstrates to me that music people were exposed to in their youth remains an important part of their musical landscape as they get older, though of course they do get into other things.

And, BTW, the Bee Gees have also sold around 200M albums, so what does that tell you? That would make them as important a band in history as Led Zepplin.
Totally different time though... Zepplin sold 250 million albums at a time when sales figures from much of Europe were about as reliable as a Trabant.. You can foget about China/ The ex Soviet states and just about everything South of Texas as well. Many many countries had, fulls cale bootleg pressing plants churning out exact copies of major label releases, replete with artwork.

I actually own a bootleg of Farewell to Kings that was totally legitimately bought by a major chain in England and sold at a knock down price when Cds first started to bite deep into the vinyl market.. I'd guess you could double Zepplin's actual sales and then halve Britney's as they don;t half tell some absolute stinkers about sales in the USA. about USA acts...
Old 17th November 2009
  #208
BTW, I think it's also important to point out that bands like Led Zepplin and The Beatles and Pink Floyd sold those numbers to possibly the largest surge of youth population ever, whereas modern artists are selling theirs to kind of the opposite situation. The number of people from 5 to 19 is down like almost 15% or something like that compare to the 1970s. And the boomers, due to their sheer financial weight (once they got over the whole revolution thing) have been unusually dominant culturally over an extended period of time.
Old 17th November 2009
  #209
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireMoon View Post
Totally different time though... Zepplin sold 250 million albums at a time when sales figures from much of Europe were about as reliable as a Trabant.. You can foget about China/ The ex Soviet states and just about everything South of Texas as well. Many many countries had, fulls cale bootleg pressing plants churning out exact copies of major label releases, replete with artwork.

I actually own a bootleg of Farewell to Kings that was totally legitimately bought by a major chain in England and sold at a knock down price when Cds first started to bite deep into the vinyl market.. I'd guess you could double Zepplin's actual sales and then halve Britney's as they don;t half tell some absolute stinkers about sales in the USA. about USA acts...
But Brittany and Miley sold theirs during a time when theft is more widespread than anyone could possibly have experienced back during Zep's heyday. We have the hard pirates still plus we now have a world of casual pirates. So I think tha tthe handicap still is far in the modern artist's favor, both on levels of theft and age distribution.

AND they are doing it at a time when there are far more competing interests as well. So, all around, I think that 85M means a lot more now than than back then.
Old 17th November 2009
  #210
Lives for gear
 
steelyfan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
And, BTW, the Bee Gees have also sold around 200M albums, so what does that tell you? That would make them as important a band in history as Led Zepplin.
It'd be hard to compare the importance of the two, but the Bee Gees were just as good at what they did as Zepplin was to rock.

Man......... Barry's Gibb's voice was badass! Those three part harmonies with falsetto's and shivering vibratos. !!!

I've never been to a party where Zepplin was playing, song ended, and the Bee gee's came on to a group of sour faces. The stoners playing air guitar smiled, got up off the coach and cut a rug........singin along the whole time.
πŸ“ Reply
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
πŸ–¨οΈ Show Printable Version
βœ‰οΈ Email this Page
πŸ” Search thread
♾️ Similar Threads
πŸŽ™οΈ View mentioned gear