The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Interesting Video, why nowadays music sounds all the same Keyboard Synthesizers
Old 2 weeks ago
  #421
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
It definitely gets. . . complex lol. The balance between the challenge of incorporating more difficult techniques and arrangements and the challenge of finding perfect simplicity.

Zappa is an interesting example. A lot of people have always thought he was a bit of a hack, an intermediate hiding behind pointless complexity.

How Does One Appreciate The Songwriting Of Frank Zappa ?

Needless complexity tends to point to intermediacy. But then it comes down to your definition of “needless.” Which Zappa sits on the line of, making him a polarizing musician as far as the respect/disdain he gets.
I am figuring Zappa would say pop music has always sucked, by definition... LOL. for what’s its worth, the Motown pop scene is still my favorite, had a romantic vibe, probably all the strings..
Old 2 weeks ago
  #422
Lives for gear
 

Zappa the person was interesting, but I detest his music and that scene. Same with Phish, the Dead, and I especially can't stand Steely Dan. Yanni is cooler and more interesting than Steely Dan.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #423
Gear Addict
 
Subverter's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goa-Dubs View Post
£20 each.Old school prices.
Woah. You certainly are going back a few years there. Think I'll stick with the guy 'round the corner and get five for the same money.



*overdoses*
Old 2 weeks ago
  #424
Lives for gear
 
boombapdame's Avatar
@breakmixer modern Hip Hop is fine when you distance yourself from what's on radio. Who do you like now?
Old 2 weeks ago
  #425
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by boombapdame View Post
@breakmixer modern Hip Hop is fine when you distance yourself from what's on radio. Who do you like now?
This is the latest rap/hip hop joint that gets a thumbs up from me, none of that bling or gangster stuff, back to the original ethos.
Old 1 week ago
  #426
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RunnyKine View Post
Zappa the person was interesting, but I detest his music and that scene. Same with Phish, the Dead, and I especially can't stand Steely Dan. Yanni is cooler and more interesting than Steely Dan.
Yeah Zappa, like George Lucas, and all of Star Wars for that matter, is highly over-rated by people who know no better.

Can't say the same about Phish or the Dead or Steely Dan, though; they all made great music. For their time.
Old 1 week ago
  #427
Lives for gear
 
Herr Weiss's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
Yeah exactly. I like to call it the cultural zeitgeist.

When it comes to hit records, its entirely up to the consumer. Hit records and steady radio plays can't be bought, only earned. You can buy a short minor advantage, or moreso a lottery ticket in the "hit song powerball". . but hits are chosen by the people. There's no conspiracy or much control of any kind at play at the top, other than hedging bets Vegas style.
If you do not hear the song on your favorite station, all bets are off.
Dozens or even hundreds of 'good' songs never had a chance all due to not being part of the rotation.
I know this because many of my newly preferred songs never did reach my ears for whatever reason, God only knows. If were not for YouTube, I still would be ignorant of their existence.
Sometimes I find a new 'old' great song where all the comments come from some faraway foreign place, which then I surmise that the song in question was never even played in the States; I wonder why.

A lot of bands and songs never got the recognition they deserved due to this 'filtered' placement by the powers that be.

Yes my friend,
~HW
Old 1 week ago
  #428
Lives for gear
 
greggybud's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herr Weiss View Post
Dozens or even hundreds of 'good' songs never had a chance all due to not being part of the rotation.
Thank you for putting quotes on good.

Secondly, that would be dozens or a hundred EVERY WEEK. And you get to add maybe 2 or 3 songs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herr Weiss View Post
which then I surmise that the song in question was never even played in the States; I wonder why.

A lot of bands and songs never got the recognition they deserved due to this 'filtered' placement by the powers that be.
So many reasons! Political, money, wrong timing, changing moods, are a few. At the time I thought the british band Steps was perfect for a Top-40 entry in the USA. It never happened. Looking back, my guess is their style was a bit late to the USA game at the time. If you don't live in Europe, you probably have never heard of Steps. Thats life.

How does one determine "deserved?" That to me is going back to "good." The "powers that be" would usually...not always...but usually be...the ones with the most money. But keep in mind what Newguy1 said...this is just a little opening that gets you in the door after a lot of money spent. There is no guarantee whatsoever once a single is added for possibly 2 weeks that anything happens.

I was told once that Max Martin always looks to see how much "push" is behind any single he produces. Spending 100k for Max to produce a single and then not budget much money for what comes next would not generate much interest...since he can pick and choose.
Old 1 week ago
  #429
Gear Addict
Anyone that doesn't know that the music industry has been manipulated by the "powers that be",even before the Beatles, for yes, money, but primarily for their agenda among societies, is woefully brain-dead or willfully complicit, because they are cashing in, in some way.

So, YES. They put their puppets up there first.
Old 1 week ago
  #430
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
The problem is most are undiscovered, most are making no money and many are part time as a result.
The people who conform to norms have a better chance of making a living at it.
In the past, record companies that had big earnings from a recent Eagles album or ABBA single, would use some of that money to nurture a left field talent, often a pet project for the label boss, or someone high up in A&R.
That has all gone.
Perhaps the problem lies in perception- what are these "Norms"?...in the history of music/civilization, recorded music was a new thing, fresh, exciting, via industrialization, and therefore was a tangible product: selling records. I would actually say an aberration- but my point is, why is this industry template seen as "the ideal", considering the many artists who were just plain exploited by record companies? It almost sounds like (not judging, but to illustrate) that you really don't have that much experience with it, as if from an outside young idealist POV.
Sure, I get it's a tough slog, but I would say we all, as artists, agreed in a way en masse, that it was better to have creative control, even if it meant totally accepting responsibility for one's success/failure, an even playing field, direct to consumer. There's a market for everything, if you find it. And most musicians I admire, who have had decades-long "careers" have day jobs.
So the video goes to illustrate this: the (pop culture) "Norms" aren't often normal at all: they are freak occurrences, as the few talents that fueled the industry. But the need to sell sell sell, at any point, to feed consumption and make what little there is left, which is basically advertising, sends the message that the aberrations can be mass-produced, on a weekly basis, a la American Idol. There is always the message you can have your cake and eat it.
So, at least, the ball is rightly back in the court with artists, to a degree. We are no more liberated or in demand as we ever were, but the illusions are gone. If you want to make a lot of money, go make a lot of money. If you want to make good art, do that. But classically, as far as music is concerned, most people just want to hum a catchy tune and forget their troubles for five minutes. If you can do all the above, this is magic we all want. But certainly not the norm.
Old 1 week ago
  #431
No, that's the BS propaganda put about by the tech disruptors to justify not paying artists and musicians.
The pre-internet system was (IS) the ideal because many hundreds of thousands of musicians earned a decent living as professionals. Since Napster, Pirate Bay and Spotify the number of paid musicians has plummeted. And it's very, very hard to play your bills, eat and make music full time.
It wasn't an 'aberration' it was progress, it was evolution.
We as a society accepted musicians should be paid when they work.
Before that they were paupers, or charity cases. Sadly we are heading back in that direction - which ISN'T progress.

The 'creative controls' point is yet more BS.
Since the late 70's punk revolution and the rise of independent labels, artists could choose creative control.
Since the internet and DIY, all artists could release their own music with complete freedom and creative control.
Unfortunately, a small handful of billionaire tech barons saw a way to exploit artists, use their content to amass great wealth, while not paying the creators. We've been fighting that ever since.
Old 1 week ago
  #432
Quote:
Originally Posted by MixedSignals View Post
considering the many artists who were just plain exploited by record companies?
many, many fewer than have been exploited by pirates and tech companies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MixedSignals View Post
It almost sounds like (not judging, but to illustrate) that you really don't have that much experience with it, as if from an outside young idealist POV.
Very likely I have waaaay more experience than you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MixedSignals View Post
And most musicians I admire, who have had decades-long "careers" have day jobs.

Hmm, what's good about that?
Less time to dedicate to their great music.
Old 1 week ago
  #433
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MixedSignals View Post
Perhaps the problem lies in perception- what are these "Norms"?...in the history of music/civilization, recorded music was a new thing, fresh, exciting, via industrialization, and therefore was a tangible product: selling records. I would actually say an aberration-
It's not an aberration though. We've wrapped this intellectual concept around everything we do: capitalism and its free market. Throughout its history goods and services have been commodities on this market. Art isn't really an aberration within that context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MixedSignals View Post
but my point is, why is this industry template seen as "the ideal", considering the many artists who were just plain exploited by record companies? It almost sounds like (not judging, but to illustrate) that you really don't have that much experience with it, as if from an outside young idealist POV.
Sure, I get it's a tough slog, but I would say we all, as artists, agreed in a way en masse, that it was better to have creative control, even if it meant totally accepting responsibility for one's success/failure, an even playing field, direct to consumer.
I don't really think that's the right way of thinking about how our industry changed with regards to the context we were talking about though.

The industry of music changed because people got the means to take music without paying for it. That's why it borderline collapsed. In addition to that you have just plain old inflation and technological advances of course, but the lower revenue clearly had a detrimental effect on the larger labels.

Now, it's all fine that some people might say they want complete control over their music and not hand all or part of it over to a label, that's fine. But I've lost track of how many times I've heard an artist live, in a sort of minimal singer-songwriter situation, where I found the songs to be quite strong, and then when I bought the CD they were selling I just felt a big let down because the essence of what they had wasn't taken to its 'peak'. I think labels helped in a big way because they could use their network of great collaborators to have them refine the music to create a greater end product (album).

The labels actually performed an actual service and also spent money on artists betting that they'd get a return on their investment one way or another. Of course we might not like the deals a lot artists got, and that's all fine, but that doesn't mean that the alternative had to be what we have today. I'd say that had it not been for 'piracy' we'd have had a much healthier environment today, with viable and more artist friendly labels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MixedSignals View Post
There's a market for everything, if you find it. And most musicians I admire, who have had decades-long "careers" have day jobs.
Well, there's "admire" and then there's "admire" I guess. To me it's Prince, MJ, The Beatles, Tom Petty, U2 etc. I don't all like them equally much, but it's I argue fair to say that in terms of pure craftsmanship there's generally no comparison between those doing it full time and those having art as a hobby.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MixedSignals View Post
So the video goes to illustrate this: the (pop culture) "Norms" aren't often normal at all: they are freak occurrences, as the few talents that fueled the industry. But the need to sell sell sell, at any point, to feed consumption and make what little there is left, which is basically advertising, sends the message that the aberrations can be mass-produced, on a weekly basis, a la American Idol. There is always the message you can have your cake and eat it.
So, at least, the ball is rightly back in the court with artists, to a degree. We are no more liberated or in demand as we ever were, but the illusions are gone. If you want to make a lot of money, go make a lot of money. If you want to make good art, do that. But classically, as far as music is concerned, most people just want to hum a catchy tune and forget their troubles for five minutes. If you can do all the above, this is magic we all want. But certainly not the norm.
Maybe we're saying the same thing.....
Old 1 week ago
  #434
Lives for gear
 
Herr Weiss's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by greggybud View Post
Thank you for putting quotes on good.

Secondly, that would be dozens or a hundred EVERY WEEK. And you get to add maybe 2 or 3 songs.



So many reasons! Political, money, wrong timing, changing moods, are a few. At the time I thought the british band Steps was perfect for a Top-40 entry in the USA. It never happened. Looking back, my guess is their style was a bit late to the USA game at the time. If you don't live in Europe, you probably have never heard of Steps. Thats life.

How does one determine "deserved?" That to me is going back to "good." The "powers that be" would usually...not always...but usually be...the ones with the most money. But keep in mind what Newguy1 said...this is just a little opening that gets you in the door after a lot of money spent. There is no guarantee whatsoever once a single is added for possibly 2 weeks that anything happens.

I was told once that Max Martin always looks to see how much "push" is behind any single he produces. Spending 100k for Max to produce a single and then not budget much money for what comes next would not generate much interest...since he can pick and choose.
Yes, I was not aware of a band named Steps.

Nice version of Tragedy by Steps.
Perhaps, their other songs were not as strong;
I will listen intently to their work, bucket list.

Yes, money start the wheels rolling and then the music/image have to do the rest.

Even The Beatles spent money in advertisement. Making the films A Hard Day's Night and Help, to complement the albums, was one of the best moves they did.

Nowadays, making a video that merges with the music is equally valid, although not a guarantee for acceptance by the fickle masses.

Cheers,
~HW
Old 1 week ago
  #435
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
No, that's the BS propaganda put about by the tech disruptors to justify not paying artists and musicians.
The pre-internet system was (IS) the ideal because many hundreds of thousands of musicians earned a decent living as professionals. Since Napster, Pirate Bay and Spotify the number of paid musicians has plummeted. And it's very, very hard to play your bills, eat and make music full time.
It wasn't an 'aberration' it was progress, it was evolution.
We as a society accepted musicians should be paid when they work.
Before that they were paupers, or charity cases. Sadly we are heading back in that direction - which ISN'T progress.

The 'creative controls' point is yet more BS.
Since the late 70's punk revolution and the rise of independent labels, artists could choose creative control.
Since the internet and DIY, all artists could release their own music with complete freedom and creative control.
Unfortunately, a small handful of billionaire tech barons saw a way to exploit artists, use their content to amass great wealth, while not paying the creators. We've been fighting that ever since.
I would add, as a member of the intellectual elite, that before the economics of music-making was completely hollowed out by tech, those "evil companies and their evil record executives" actually provided value, in making decisions about who was good, who was not -- true in all the creative publishing industries.

Sure, as in everything commercial, there were certain lines of success that were driven purely by money-making -- the commercial pop music that this thread rails at -- but even Tommy James and the Shondells weren't that bad, compared with a lot around them. Cactus, who weren't that good, got their airplay alongside T-Rex, who was a lot better. There was actually more democratization, and the spreading of the wealth and visibility and marketing, when the old system was in place than there is now.

But now that we have "the democratization of taste," it's really become the "mediocritization of taste" -- the generic, algorithmically-driven decision-making operates with little information culled from people involved in a lifetime of fascination with and dedication to music, and just selects those things as popular that get the most clicks, without regard to quality, creativity, dedication, competence.

So you end up having a computer-run "culture" that is pure dreck.

Fortunately, outside the "data-driven decision-making" going on that produces this pure dreck, there are enough channels of interest and accessibility, due to the same tech, for a million sub-genres and local phenomena to spring up and have a hearing, at least, they'd never have gotten under the auspices of the old music industry. They're curated at best by amateurs, but amateurs with dedicated if narrow tastes in each sub-genre, so the quality is quite various.

Oh well. Another turn of the wheel and something entirely different will come along. Perhaps the farmers' market equivalent for music making, where little local music festivals will garner at least some pay for the local buskers.
Old 1 week ago
  #436
Wow, strange tangent going on....
Steps were hired through an ad in The Stage, a newspaper for actors and theatre folk. The four people who passed the audition did so on the basis of good looks and an ability to follow choreographed dance routines.
They were then signed to notorious pop impresario Pete Waterman who only signed them on the basis that he had complete creative control.

It's strange to have a conversation about the decline of popular music, perhaps thru industry corruption, and have Steps somehow held up as a beacon of art.
Old 1 week ago
  #437
Quote:
Originally Posted by realtrance View Post
There was actually more democratization, and the spreading of the wealth and visibility and marketing, when the old system was in place than there is now.
Yes.
Old 1 week ago
  #438
Lives for gear
 
greggybud's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by MixedSignals View Post
Perhaps the problem lies in perception- what are these "Norms"?..
I'll call "norms" a new paradigm. An entire set of new rules, procedures, norms model etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MixedSignals View Post
Sure, I get it's a tough slog, but I would say we all, as artists, agreed in a way en masse, that it was better to have creative control, even if it meant totally accepting responsibility for one's success/failure, an even playing field, direct to consumer.
Who really made this agreement? Or was it acceptance with technology? Did anyone have the foresight to fully understand the results of creative control? I thought it was technology that changed everything. "Artists" have simply adapted or decided not to adapt, or somewhere in between, and live on Top Ramen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MixedSignals View Post
There's a market for everything, if you find it. And most musicians I admire, who have had decades-long "careers" have day jobs.
Due to internet, there seems to be a market for everything. I'm still amazed by "artists" or just "normal" people creating Youtube shows for kids, tutorials, short films, and etc, that I think I could have easily done had I known it would make so much money on YouTube.

But I didn't do it. Someone else did, and is making a good comfortable living off Youtube. Consider the Sweetwater music explosion and how many careers that has spawned with new developers involved in musical instruments and software. Chuck Surack owns multiple companies including aviation and of course his own private jets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MixedSignals View Post
If you want to make good art, do that.
"good" is subjective and will never be defined, especially in public forums. I'll state that as a objective fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MixedSignals View Post
But classically, as far as music is concerned, most people just want to hum a catchy tune and forget their troubles for five minutes.
I agree. That is pop music, countdowns, charts, American Idol, etc. Writing, and producing this is often way more difficult than it first seems. Max, Luke, and hundreds/thousands of Max, Luke, Stargate, formula "professionals" do this. But (just a guess) 1% of these thousands make it on the charts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Since Napster, Pirate Bay and Spotify the number of paid musicians has plummeted. And it's very, very hard to play your bills, eat and make music full time.
While I agree, others have either adapted, or for younger generation, they didn't really know the old paradigm. Whether or not you are an artist or a record buyer, I think you almost had to live that era, because descriptions just don't really sink in.

This guy (sorry for posting again) was involved near the end of the old paradigm, but has completely evolved and thrived with the new one. He has a family. He got sick of touring. And he doesn't have any kind words for Sony.
YouTube
Peter Hollens - Wikipedia
He is making a wonderful full time living. So he figured things (the new paradigm) out...something a lot of "professional" musicians have not been able acheive, or refuse to do. While luck may be an element, this guy made very conscientious choices to remain "professional" and luck had little to do with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
The pre-internet system was (IS) the ideal because many hundreds of thousands of musicians earned a decent living as professionals.
Yet, due to technology, the old paradigm maintained an unequal playing field for a select few. Today the technology barrier is gone. But there still is that other constant...money.

This is becoming the repeat of another LONG Gearslutz thread with you and another professional producer. I remember saying I don't think not being a professional (definition: full time which I really think is a lousy definition for numerous reasons) is a bad thing, and cited a few charting Top-40 singers who decided to opt for a "normal" 9-5 career, yet maintain being a part-time musician. This is part of the new paradigm IMO. Maybe a 12-year old kid in his bedroom on Maschine creates a "beat" in 1 minute, then Taylor Swift discovers it and builds a song around it and it goes to #1 . This is the new paradigm IMO.

Is that really a bad thing?

Regardless, the old paradigm IMO is gone for good. One can reminisce of better days, but that changes nothing. Technology always evolves, and money is a constant. Unless the "professional" musician evolves and adapts, I honestly don't see much future for the "professional" musician. It's harsh, and some musicians refuse to accept it.

I have total respect for you Chrisso. I just think you are a dying breed. I can hope not, but reality......?

Apologies for going off topic.
Old 1 week ago
  #439
Lives for gear
 
greggybud's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Hmm, what's good about that?
Less time to dedicate to their great music.
Again, I hate the definition of "professional" but...

My personal observation is that time isn't nearly as important as talent, dedication, and other verbs that I can't think of at the moment.

I'm guessing we all know full time "professionals" who should not be doing it full time for numerous reasons?

And for the select few "professionals" who have chart "success" it seems the majority of their time is no longer spent mostly perfecting their craft. They have a small support staff, enabling them to pursue whatever they wish to maintain or accelerate what they have achieved.
Old 1 week ago
  #440
I feel sorry that young musicians don't have the opportunity that I had.
It's a few years since that old Gearslutz thread and I think we're seeing what the reality is now.
Those Tech start-ups are now commonly called 'disruptors'. It's Uber, it's Air BnB, It's Amazon.
All of those tech businesses have caused regular hard working people to lose their jobs.
That's fine, it's a new revolution, a tech revolution rather than an industrial revolution. What I think is less 'fine' is that this latest iteration off a revolution rewards a tiny handful of people billions of dollars, while the vast majority actually go backwards, either to very low incomes, uncertain employment (zero hours contracts) or unemployment.
That's not good for anyone.
Regarding the current music scene.
I see a lot of people cutting corners - because they can't afford to rehearse for a show, so the show ends up sloppy. They can't afford to pay another musician, so they use loops, and virtual instruments. They can't afford to keep a band together, so they tour as a soloist with an acoustic, or a keyboard workstation.
They can't afford to spend months on an album, so they put out multiple tracks constantly, recorded at home, engineered by them, no producer to edit their thoughts and whims.
It may be reality, but very little of it is a good reality.
Old 1 week ago
  #441
Quote:
Originally Posted by greggybud View Post

My personal observation is that time isn't nearly as important as talent, dedication, and other verbs that I can't think of at the moment.
Talent? - who knows, it's just a word, I'm not sure it exists as an actual thing.
Dedication? There's the rub, dedication is disrupted by having to work in an office 52 hours a week and only being able to 'dedicate' a couple of hours a night and maybe a few more hours at the weekend to their 'art'.
How do you tour if you aren't professional?

Has fewer professionals and more part timers raised the level of music being made in 2018?
Old 1 week ago
  #442
Lives for gear
 
greggybud's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herr Weiss View Post
Yes, I was not aware of a band named Steps.

Nice version of Tragedy by Steps.
Perhaps, their other songs were not as strong;
I will listen intently to their work, bucket list.
I was thinking of Steps-It's the Way You Make Me Feel. It charted big in England.
YouTube

My thoughts at that time:

It's the perfect pop song, and a definite consideration for an add. Great production. Written by another talented Swedish pop writer. Other than braces in this video, it was absolutely perfect for USA Top-40.

But it was never released in the USA. My guess is that this style was nearing the end of a USA run of Britney Spears, boy-bands, and a Max Martin sound that had already peaked? Timing is everything. Along with radio stations, record companies do their national research too, while with radio it is localized.
Old 1 week ago
  #443
Lives for gear
 
greggybud's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Steps somehow held up as a beacon of art.
No. This was just an example of a potential pop song that to my ears sounded appropriate for USA air play, but was never released in the USA.

Very few if anyone knows of Steps in the USA.

For the record, this isn't a Milli Vanelli scenario. It's their own vocals with Autotune.

Long live SAW!
Old 1 week ago
  #444
Lives for gear
 

The new model has been a boon for independent musicians. I think if you're on the label-oriented rock side of things you've seen shrinkage, but in my experience coming up in the dance world and going pop there are many more pros now than in the past: • Number of full time musicians in the U.S. by employment type 2017 | Statistic

This one shows a loss of about 10,000 pros since 1999 though. Clearly entirely different numbers though so it must depend on what's getting counted: http://money.futureofmusic.org/wordp.../NAICS2013.png

But this says things are about to explode, now that the new model is firmly set: Music Industry Will Hit $41 Billion By 2030 According to New Goldman Sachs Report | Billboard

The record industry was over 17 billion in 2017, up 2 billion from the previous year.

The music industry as a whole (not just the record industry) is at 43 billion now, with artists taking 12%. Certainly room for a larger slice of pizza for artists: http://www.xxlmag.com/news/2018/08/a...industry-2017/
Old 1 week ago
  #445
Lives for gear
 
greggybud's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Talent? - who knows, it's just a word, I'm not sure it exists as an actual thing.
Dedication? There's the rub, dedication is disrupted by having to work in an office 52 hours a week and only being able to 'dedicate' a couple of hours a night and maybe a few more hours at the weekend to their 'art'.
How do you tour if you aren't professional?

Has fewer professionals and more part timers raised the level of music being made in 2018?
I'm not sure what "level of music" means? It's more difficult today for me to search out the "good stuff." The quantity today of course is exponentially high compared to years ago adding to the difficulty.

Maybe I should have said skill? Regardless, I know of a disproportionate number of professional musicians who, IMO, should not be professional. But it's their life of course. I would never point fingers. I just observe the results of not-so-great-skilled musicians, struggling, divorce, drugs, and when I think to myself maybe their calling isn't as a professional, but something 9-5 where they can still practice their love on weekends. Of course you can't tour. It's all a compromise, and we see that everywhere in music as you described.

How about all the Peter Hollis type artists/musicians in the world? They adapted to the new paradigm and are successful.
Old 1 week ago
  #446
Lives for gear
 
Herr Weiss's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by greggybud View Post
I was thinking of Steps-It's the Way You Make Me Feel. It charted big in England.
YouTube

My thoughts at that time:

It's the perfect pop song, and a definite consideration for an add. Great production. Written by another talented Swedish pop writer. Other than braces in this video, it was absolutely perfect for USA Top-40.

But it was never released in the USA. My guess is that this style was nearing the end of a USA run of Britney Spears, boy-bands, and a Max Martin sound that had already peaked? Timing is everything. Along with radio stations, record companies do their national research too, while with radio it is localized.
The song does have a dedicated following!



Millions of views!!!
Old 1 week ago
  #447
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herr Weiss View Post
The song does have a dedicated following!



Millions of views!!!
That song sounds like 1999 in 2009, but even more watered down than '99 Britney Spears (sounds like '99 Britney/Backstreet Boys meets the Aladdin soundtrack). No chance in America. Its not perfect pop if its 10 years too late with no edge at all. America pop tries to get people laid. We've already had Britney singing "Slave 4 u" as a teenager 15 years ago, as the kiddie music 12 year old girls go nuts for. Cannot be this sugary in America.

EDIT:

Never mind. It came out in 2000, the video is 2009. That makes way more sense. In that case its the fact that its the even more sugary Britney knockoff that came out the next year from somewhere overseas.
Old 1 week ago
  #448
Lives for gear
 
Herr Weiss's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
That song sounds like 1999 in 2009, but even more watered down than '99 Britney Spears (sounds like '99 Britney/Backstreet Boys meets the Aladdin soundtrack). No chance in America. Its not perfect pop if its 10 years too late with no edge at all. America pop tries to get people laid. We've already had Britney singing "Slave 4 u" as a teenager 15 years ago. Cannot be this sugary in America.
I don't remember the '90s!
Old 1 week ago
  #449
Lives for gear
 

I remember the band playing at my junior high school dance doing a 43-minute noodling version of The Zombies' "She's Not There." And it sounded like a bad The Doors imitation, which they also did. And then an endless version of Jose Feliciano's "Light My Fire." Oh wait, that was The Doors, but Jose Feliciano was the one who made it safe to play on public airwaves.

Interesting history:

Light My Fire - Wikipedia

Too bad there's no video of Jim Morrison smashing a '60's Buick!

I think the parents didn't want the cover band playing "Riders in the Storm," though -- too subversive at the time.

Jose Feliciano made The Doors Safe for Pop Music.
Old 1 week ago
  #450
Lives for gear
 

I don't care what anyone says, No Diggity is an absolute banger and always will be. Teddy Riley gave that groove to the world and we're better off for it, poppy or not.

Though as much as I generally like Dr Dre - his raps and those from Queen Pen are the weakest part of that song. But the rest of it, absolutely banging!
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…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump