osted by Lis: When are the record companies going to
learn that it's more profitable to have just a few outstanding artists
that are seriously nurtured and promoted than 100 look a likes who will
release one album and be gone. For example, IRS watched R.E.M. for years.
U2 was kept by Island even though they didn't have a major hit internationally
(discounting minor songs like Gloria) til War and didn't hit it huge until
Joshua Tree. Artists like these are going to be more profitable in the
long term. Because really, who's going to still be buying a Jessica Simpson
record in twenty years?
Posted by
Desdinova: Let it first be sais that I love 70s rock,
especially Sabbath, BOC, Tull, etc. I even have a place in my heart for
the "corporate" 70s bands such as Boston, BadCo, Foreigner, and the like.
That music, I believe is closely analogous to Creed, Nickelback, and the
other Vedder wannabes. They are today's corporate rock. Think about it:
The sound to imitatate today is crunching guitars and a baritone vocal
[Pearl Jam]; in the 70s, the sound was high-pitched complex guitar melodies
and a Robert Plant-like vocal. Those 70s bands still have quite a measure
of popularity, so I believe their 90s-2000s counterparts will be around
for awhile, even if something new takes their place in the mainstream.
Even if they suck, its what a sizeable portion of the population grew up
with.
Posted by
Jay: I don't know if anyone stepped on this,
but every single major label is owned by one of five major corporations,
while nearly every radio station (not counting pirate or school) is owned
by one of three corporations. Are we starting to see a "Trend" here?
Posted by
burnout: 6-14 is the ideal target audience: they
have no taste, they're easily swayed by commercials and what their peers
like, and - most importantly - their parents have lots of money. when a
kid thinks he/she is too old for toys, what do parents buy for them? clothing
and crappy music.
Posted by
slash : i really agree with you max,i also once
heard that when jimi hendrix came out alot of people were releaved because
his music was for the older people cause that's what he was. i just really
dont' like the whole idea of them targeting people and always using people
for money.why cant' people be signed because of being musically talented,great
mnusic.things will change,thank god.
Posted by
MaxPower324: Possibly, the decrease in sales is due
to the shift in the target audience for music. In the past ten years, the
record industry has been going after kids aged 6-14 more than every before.
It seems like a good idea at first because it is easy to get little kids
hooked on anything, which would make for great sales in boybands and teen
divas, but little kids really don't have that much money, so you aren't
looking at long-term or repeat customers. The focus used to be placed on
high school and college students, who have way more money than gradeschool
and junior high kids, plus the fact that high school and college students
are much more likely to stay committed to a certain hobby (in this case,
music) where little kids interests change very rapidly. The idustry felt
a boom with the boybands and teen divas, but now that the little kids they
were targeting have lost interest and they aren't hooking as many high
school and college students, they are feeling a recession in sales as a
consequence.
Posted by
slash: they are the ones that create the fads
that there trying to keep up to.
Posted by
NOL: It seems to me as if the heartless industry
underestimates the intelligence of music fans, and basically the general
public. This happens whenever executives who see themselves as better and
smarter than the general public try to get inside the mind of the general
public. They try to relate to an audience in order to make a buck. This
may all seem obvious, but apparently not obvious enough to prevent the
cold, bleak "music scene" dominating pop culture. The propagandists may
make it look like people care about this stuff, and hell, perhaps a good
deal of people do, but eventually people grow up. This is not to say that
there should be the barage of bands we now see, but variety, individualism,
and development of new talent. Every band and artist that really means
anything had to start below their potential. Of course it is difficult
to see who to support until they make it, but it beats the rapid cycling
through bands that will not be worth remembering even a year down the road.
This is not 100%, but with bubblegum and copycat "genres" this is certainly
the case.
Posted by
Mr. huh? saying, "My Generation Sucks!": Part 1 is about Rock's roots in Blues
music. Part 2 is about the rise of Elvis and rock going full on mainstream
during the late 50's/early 60's. Part 3 is about the British Invasion.
Part 4 is about the Folk-Rock revolution. Part 5 is about the Soul music
revolution. Part 6 is about the late 60's Psychadelic scene. Part 7 is
about Guitar Gods and the Guitar's closeness to Rock music. Part 9 is about
the Punk revolution. Finally, Part 10 is about MTV first coming out as
well as the Alternative Rock revolution of the early 90's. Really great
material in that series. Very informative.
Posted by
slash: that's cool that you saw them too mr huh?,i
need to see the others though,i just saw the one.but i think alot of people
should watch it.
Posted by
Mr. huh? saying, "My Generation Sucks!": Slash, I saw the history of Rock N' Roll
series too (and you're right, there are 10 parts to it). The seventies
rocked, at least until (and the tape, part 8 documented this well) the
record industry went big business.
Posted by
L. Roy Aiken: You spoke of Geffen waiting a year for
Guns 'n' Roses to break. Check this: Back in the 60s and (pre-disco) 70s,
it was common practice to "develop" an act. There are many examples of
this, but the best known is probably Aerosmith. Their first self-titled
album came and went. Ditto their second, *Get Your Wings.* But their third,
*Toys in the Attic* had the timeless "Walk This Way" single. Aerosmith
was "an overnight sensation." At least with "Walk This Way." So what happened?
Columbia began selling more copies of the first two albums. Instead of
having to wait for new (I wince as I write this) product, the earlier albums
were there for the fans to pick up. And then something not unheard of,
but awfully serendipitous happened: disc jockeys discovered a song on the
grievously ignored first album called "Dream On." Wide airplay, more sales
of back catalog -- the only thing that could stop Aerosmith now was Aerosmith.
Keep in mind, Aerosmith's label was Columbia. Hardly an indie. And they
stuck with Aerosmith for THREE albums until they hit jackpot. One other
artist I can think of from that time was Elton John, with MCA. Yeah, he's
another old guy, but did you know HOW old? His first album, *Empty Sky*
was released in 1969! At least MCA didn't have to wait for two more albums;
Elton's second self-titled album yielded the hit "Your Song," and he's
been with us ever since. David Bowie took four albums to take off Stateside
and...well, I could go on. It was called "developing the artist." You stuck
found a band with talent first, then worried about writing the hits later.
It's a damned shame that, for all the enormous sums of money the corporations
are rolling in today, taking such losses on artists as you know were suffered
with the ones who didn't strike gold would be completely unacceptable.
Either they make a bazillion dollars the first time out, or buh-bye. I
fear things will have to go beyond desperate for any of the big five companies
to dare take chances. In the meantime they're going to beat up on file-sharers.
Badly. Which is a shame. At least I know it's not because I'm old. Damned
if there's anyone out there I can get excited about these days. It's not
just the latter day Donny Osmonds and their female counterparts today.
Even the bands who write their own songs seem to have forgotten how it's
done. It doesn't help that every other one sounds like Limp Biskit or Dave
Matthews or whatever. It does seem that, if we want to hear good music,
we're gonna have to make it ourselves. Rock on.
Posted by
slash: jack,what makes you think electronica
will be big? i think that there is one good thing about all this bad stuff
happening right now, people like us who dont' like it,will eventually make
what we wanna here, a change will happen cause more people then not are
not blind to what these money hungry, not real fans, only good at business
deals,non artists, are doing to music.am i making sense of that,tell me
what you think.
Posted by
Jack: First of all...rock and roll will never
die, even if it becomes less popular. Look at opera or Benedictine chant...this
stuff is centuries old and people are still making and listening to it,
granted in a niche market. So barring a complete collapse of Western civilization,
rock should keep ticking indefinitely. I agree that electronica will be
the next big thing, at least on the long term. Sure people have said this
for a long time, but that doesnt mean it won't happen. Jazz had been developing
for 30 years before it became the dominant popular music in the 1920s,
the same thing can happen to electronica. As far as good music is concerned,
it will still be made on minor and major labels into the future. Throughout
history good music has always been around and I'm confident it will keep
popping its head up from time to time in the future.
Posted by
slash: it's really pathetic that they will keep
doing this to music,they find something a few people like and then that's
all that everyone will get,some major amd lifelong changes need to be made.
Posted by
SMIC: Whiskey - there are loads of good albums
being put out they are just not being marketed Nickleback and Default are
all that is on the radio there is more out there.
Posted by
WhiskyPs: As far as the hard-rock/metal scence goes,
when you have whiny mall-core bands like Nickelback and Default as the
only ones really putting out albums, what do you expect other than crappy
record sales? All of these bands sound the same and have the same "woe
is me, my high-school sweetie left me" message.
Posted by
flea: sheryl crow once said something so perfectly,she
said that with the people like bsb and nsync,when they came out she said
it was very dismal,and then she said now that they have been around long
enough for the 13 year olds to be 18 now,they think it's normal and alot
look up to that stuff as something real.now i think that is so sad there
are people who think it's normal and that it's ok to have it there cause
not everything can be the same,but all i really ask for are some real artists
and musicians!
Posted by
slash: what needs to be done everywhere in the
business,is to have people who don't care about prestige and money,money
is so evil when it's used in a place that is so emotional and personal
to people.we need real artists and real musicians.
Posted by
flea: nirvana sold more then 10 million
Posted by
slash: another thing,i think mtv has alot to
blame for ever genre.and the thing that will kill any thing is when they
over kill the stuff,they get will only sign a band if they are guaranteed
to make money cause there just like the band that is huge right now,well
i watched a tape that is called the history of rock n' roll and i think
there are 10 of them but the one i saw was called the 70's:have a nice
decade.and one that was said in there that i will always remember is that
in the 70's they had a 360 degrees of music because everyone wanted to
be themselves. i just think that you guys should watch it cause there was
some really important things in there. until the people in the offices
signing these people are changed then this cycle will happen over and over.
if get a new thing soon it's pretty obvious that they will have the same
thing happen to them it's like these people think that once you like something
you want to see it all the time,well that's wrong.
Posted by
slash: people are forgetting that the reason
the pop groups sold so much was becuase they were being bought by little
girls who think there in love with one of the guys or they want to be on
of the girls and there parents will buy them these like would have bought
there child a doll. it's even been said that the young kids like them are
targeted because they have money to spend on things like that.it's either
the cd or some candy.
Posted by
slash: itpuzzles me as to why these people in
the record companies that are in control of music and are the ones making
fads,basically there the problem in alot of ways,but why are they the ones
in charge anyway,i would think they don't really care about music and aren't
true fans.and why aren't the real fans stepping up and taking control.
Posted by
evilklown: I think its funny how the music industry
is declining after shutting down the multimedia flie sharing program Napster,
saying that sharing of the artists work was bringing sales down. Now that
they eliminated what they saw as the problem, they found the real problem:
no one wants to buy music they haven't heard yet.
Posted by
Mr. huh? saying, "My Generation Sucks!": You're wrong about artists needing the
industry. Fugazi and Ani DiFranco have gotten along fine without them.
Also Aimee Mann (damn she's talented) just started up a coalition called
"United Musicians" in which the musicians have full copy-right control
and give a beginner's fee plus a small percentage from everyone of their
albums sold to support promotion and advertising. These is great for independant
artists.
Posted by
SMIC: Well its bad out there... mostly because
the majors have no vision and take few risks instead jumping on whatever
bandwagon is out there and oversaturating the market with overproduced
soundalikes. On the other hand my favorite band just signed on to a major
and they are a supremely talented totally original band with a beautiful
full on rock sound excellent musicians and a transcendent vocalist. Hopefully
the lable will stick behind these guys. It is sort of a catch 22 I wand
to see the industry crumble but I want the artists to succeed which is
impossible right now without industry support. There were actually alot
of great albums released in the last year both by majors and indie lables.
The lables cannot be blamed alone it is also the media and the reliance
on advertising sales for revenue that are responsible for the lack of quality
music that gets exposure.... Lables are partly to blame though. Island/Def
Jam just gave Mariah Carey a 20 million recording contract! That is money
that could have been better spent.
Posted by
EidahNY: You obviously don't do enough drugs then
Posted by
gothra: I know the people who buy the stuff and
spin it in the clubs. I'm pretty sure I've told them all.
Posted by
RidahNY: "All of it really sucks" huh? Well go
tell that to the people buying the records and the DJ's spinning these
records in the clubs. Goth, electronica, industrial whatever... It's not
rock n' roll so what difference does it make?
Posted by
gothra: Just a couple of corrections to the electro
thing, Bauhaus were a British rock band who broke up in 1983 and were heavily
influenced by dub and reggae music. Anymore they're labelled goth, and
didn't really use any electronics at all, except for 1 or 2 songs on their
last album. VNV Nation are "technically" EBM, electronic-based music, which
is really big in goth clubs right now, and all of it really sucks, except
for early Apoptygma Berzerk.
Posted by
Mr. huh? saying, "My Generation Sucks!": Say what you will. Lately I've been listening
to a lot of underground musicians such as Ike Reilly, Aimee Mann, Bob Mould,
Fugazi, Portishead, Jeff Buckley (god rest his soul)etc. Really good stuff
there.
Posted by
pick: Angorian, that's what I do. If there's
a new artist I hear about, or an older band I've never known of, I really
like the luxury of downloading a few songs before I buy the album (even
if it is but a few dollars).
Posted by
RidahNY: Well half drunk isn't too bad. Most of
the time when I'm on this site I got about 8 or 9 in me. That's why I disappear
for months at a time and then pop back up sporadically. I'll be sitting
home at 1AM wasted and remember www.antimusic.com, post some sh!t to piss
people off and then check back for the backlash.
Posted by
Spike: (In regards to RidahNY): You shouldn't
really take the things I type to heart(especially if I was half drunk and
and listening to Black Sabbath)!
Posted by
Angorian: I use mp3's like some people watch MTV
or Much Music, I use them to find new bands i like i dont like to buy stuff
I havent heard and most of the stuff i buy isnt big wnough to be played
on the small local radio station or on the music channels, so when I hear
about a band i think I would like I down load the mp3's and if I like it
I buy the cd.
Posted by
RidahNY: (In regards to Spike): I seriously doubt
it.
Posted by
Spike: Now people are wondering why the music
industry is down...it's cuz' people are probably not trying other forms
of music. But still that might not be a good idea a pop fan turning to
a rock fan might get killed in the mosh pit. Since the music industries
down I bet Britany Spears and all those other retard loser singers are
looking at their checks with sad eyes.
Posted by
Nag: Fighting over politics is like fighting
over what you want for dinner. Horse sh$t or shoe leather?
Posted by
aG: We should keep it to music! I don't like
debating that stuff here either.
Posted by
pick: Okay, I guess I'm going to quit arguing
politics on this site.
Posted by
aG: Actually, Under Reagan the goverment was
ran many of the years he was in office under a continueing resolution and
not a formal budget because congress and Reagan couldn't agree on a budget.
Posted by
aG: Pick, come on dude, I'm not a big fan
of Bush either (Sr or W) but the recovery was already underway (if you
look at the numbers, not the talking heads) when Clinton took office. And
the economy was already on a downturn with W took the oath of office, his
first budget didn't go into effect until the end of 2001. It's obvious
you are a partisan democrat. I didn't vote for Bush or Gore. But you can't
blame the mild recession we just had on Bush. Unless they take drastic
measures it takes up to a year for any economic policy or budget changes
to see a real effect on the economy. And let's not forget it is the House
who sets the budget, the President only signs it or vetos it. Sure the
president submits his own budget but they are usually DOA when they get
to Congress. Clinton had one budget passed with major changes by Congress,
Reagan had one budget passed with major changes by Congress and W Bush
had one of his Budgets passed with major changes to it. The way the government
works, it takes the Congress and the President to pass a budget.
Posted by
RidahNY: By reading Pick's last post he sounds
like the type of person that would be walking around with brand new bell-bottoms
in 1984 thinking he's "in style." Rap/metal and nu-metal being the next
big thing? Dude where is your mind, is it here with us in 2002 or is it
stuck in a time warp back in 2000? I mean seriously, that stuff just about
all but out the window now and you're talking about how it's the future
of music. Sounds to me like you're just looking for a reason to say we're
wrong. Well I got news for you - I'm NOT wrong, you ARE. Electronica is
on it's way up now. If you've ever been to Downtime in NYC or any other
hip or "chic" club you'd know what's on the verge of breaking. You're not
gonna find out by listening to the radio, looking at magazines, and reading
websites blurbs.
Posted by
RidahNY: I'm not blaming anyone for buying rap
music. I listen to rap. A matter of fact I'm on the Def Jam mailing list.
I wasn't going to reveal this but I also own turntables and mixers.
Posted by
Nag: What do you mean by next big thing pick,
its about the only rock that's selling right now. Electronica has yet to
be exploited, but it will, and it will send ELECTRIC guitars to the proverbial
museum. Don't get me wrong, I love rock as much as you guys, but its fading
quickly.
Posted by
pick: First, ??, the economy is greatly reflected
by who is in the White House. Look at what happened when Bush 1 left and
Clinton came in...in a couple of years the economy boomed. What happened
when Clinton left office and Bush 2 came in? After six months we were in
a rut/recession. And no, car SALES are down, not LEASES. Leases are what
killed Daimler-Chrysler. Second, electronia will never take over. This
rap/rock bull is the next big thing. I am serious about that. When you
look at record sales for rock, who dominates? Nu-metal and rap/rock artists.
Linkin Park got hot last year and I guarantee their next album will sell
at least 5 million copies and make them arena headliners.
Posted by
Bleach: Electronica the next big thing? They've
been saying that for years. I hope it NEVER comes true. I'd rather listen
to stinkin Creed at least try to play guitars and make half-decent rock,
than deal with that DJ sh*te. And stop crying about rap and making a racial
issue of it. Black people are less than 20% of the population. If a rap
record sells mad millions, white kids are buying it. You can't blame kids
for buying rap when rock is sucking so bad.
Posted by
RidahNY: Like Nag said, the record industry just
has to decide what they want to be a dominant force in music and then just
market it to the suburban white kids who have money to spend. It's pathetic
how people with an audi and a volvo in their driveway have a son thinking
DMX is this big and cool hero of mankind and in general, it's a shame that
rap music even got to the suburbs. People like KRS-one always talk about
what's "real hip hop", who the "real emcee's" are, "who sells out rap to
go pop" etc. and I wanna know why you would even ask those questions? Ever
since day one, the whole objective of rap was to be a total sell-out and
market that crap into the mainstream. So when you're supposedly the pioneer
of a genre of music that has a certain agenda and then 15 years later,
people are still following that agenda by being sell-outs and pushing records
into suburbia since white kids have their parent's money to waste and black
kids don't, how are you gonna sit there and complain? If hip-hop supposedly
stayed real these guys wouldn't be driving Escalades and Bentley's. The
stupid white kids are responsible for giving these clowns their fortune.
I hate to make anything a race issue but this topic involves race and I'm
pretty sure that both white and black people would agree with me here -
if you're a suburban white kid listening to DMX's "The Professional" (a
song talking about shooting people from a rooftop, putting a bomb in someone's
car, killing people and getting away from the cops) what are you thinking?
You can't tell me you can relate to this crap. As far as I'm concerned,
maybe KRS-one is right - bring hip-hop back to the ghetto and "keep it
real" so we don't have to be bombarded with it all the time and if we're
lucky, maybe we can even forget about it.
Posted by
Nag: Oh the record industry guys have their
masters marketing guru, they can sell what they want. If someone would
have said publicly 10-12 years ago that rap would be the strongest genre
by the end of the 90's they would have been smacked up side thier head
for being stupid. But record brass figured how to market it to the white
suburban kids that dominates the record industry, and now it sells like
ice water in hell. The thing hurting electronica is the fact it hasn't
been very accessible. We went to piano lessons at age 6, not digital musical
programming classes. But the next generation won't be able to remember
a time without computers, internet and other high tech crap everywhere.
So electronica will be more accessible as time rolls on. It's not even
a question of if, its a question of when. By the end of the decade it WILL
be the dominate force of music.
Posted by
??: Wallstreet went to hell because Clinton
was leaving office? So The democrats are the party of big business now?
Wow here I thought all along that was the republicans. Just for the record
car sales were up last year due to a lot in incentive programs like 0%
interest. whoever is in the whitehouse has very little to do with the economy
but they sure get the credit or blame for it and the tech industry is what
fueled the expansion in the 90's and bill clinton didn't help that at all
by going after microsoft.
Posted by
Guru of Everlasting Wisdom: If electronica is to be the Next Big Thing
it needs a big name group with an image, a group that's "safe," namely,
a group we won't like. New genres breaking through always start this way:
Pat Boone taking true rocker Little Richard's "Tutti Frutti (Loose Booty)"
and making it into a very white, safe song simply titled "Tutti Frutti"...
Vanilla Ice doing "Ice Ice Baby." This is going to be hard for electronica
to do because most electrocia artists are just that, quite arty; willfully
obscure; and not image-conscious. So it COULD be the Next Big Thing, but
it seems iffy to me. Oh, and the "what's real rock" argument--the great
thing about rock is that you can add anything and it's still rock. Sitars
and Indian influences, pompous classical things, stripped-down basic punk
or rockabilly, or even rap. What I love about it is its versatality...
So yes, I would grudgingly say the little idiot Durst is a rocker.
Posted by
dead: people probably stopped buying cds after
Napster was shut down just to spite everyone and prove that MP3s werent
reducing sales
Posted by
RidahNY: Correction: I meant VNV Nation.
Posted by
RidahNY: Nag - Oh my God, your view on electronica
being the next new thing to come is something that I strongly believe in
and totally forgot til you brought it up. Some of the new names I'm always
hearing in regards to new underground acts that are starting to catch on
slowly are FunkerVogt, UNV Nation, and Bauhauss to name a few. This synth
driven electronica/industrial stuff is really gonna start peaking in the
future therefore pushing rock further back into the logbooks or music.
I think it's inevitable.
Posted by
Nag: Creed "Human Clay" hit the ten million
mark early last year, they are a rock band, just not a groundbreaking one.
Linkin Park will also hit 10 mil by the end of the year, but I'M not touching
that. However, a couple groups hitting 10 million means little when everything
else isn't selling. I agree with Ridah that rock is dead, how many years
have we been sitting here talking about this when the next G'NR or Nirvana
is going to pop out of nowhere and kick everybody's ass. I remember having
these conversations back in 97 right after things went downhill, if I knew
then what I know now...At least the metal scene was still kicking, but
its dead too. The final nail in the coffin for me was Ozzfest 2000, I felt
like a polar bear in the jungle. All these mallcore kids with fubu and
bleached blonde hair, bouncing around like it was a eminem concert. They
probley think Van Halen is some weird illness you get when you don't wash
your hands. Luckily Pantera was there, and I had my last hurrah if you
will before this dinosaur walked off into the sunset. Haven't been to a
show since, maybe won't go to another one. I was even hoping for a miracle
with Lollapolza, like something groundbreaking would come out of it but
that went down the toilet. I mean, I try to be optimistic, but i'm pissing
in the wind. Electronica is the next big thing, I know this has been empty
speculation for about 10 years, but I think it is just a matter of time
until someone figures out how to market the genre to the masses. Rock,
well, it will be the Beethoven the last two generations.
Posted by
ShroomDevil: I wouldn't.
Posted by
RidahNY: Right now I think within the guidelines
of what I am - a 23 year old lifelong music fan who has been listening
since I was in diapers, a dedicated musician/guitarist and a non-employee
of the music industry. Emphasize "non-employee of the music industry."
Would I ever work in the business and want to make a living doing what
industry insiders do? Of course I would and you better believe that if
I had a chance to maximize profits and get myself a bigger office by signing
some bubblegum pop garbage I'd do it in a heartbeat. Like I said, right
now I DON'T work in the business so I'm sitting on the outside judging
every little thing they do and scrutinizing it since it may happen to be
morally and ethically wrong. It's easy to do now but if I had a shot to
work for Atlantic or Arista in Manhattan and it meant a nice posh little
one-bedroom in the Village or the LES - I wouldn't think twice about it.
I'd run rock n' roll right out of the business all while I got my Led Zeppelin
boxer shorts on under my 3-piece suit. There's 2 sides of the coin.
Posted by
pick: aG, financial cycles are funny, aren't
they? The main reason the economy slowed down in 2000 is because investors
were gearing for the exit of Clinton. However, if you look at sales of
certain products - clothes, CDs, cars - you will see a distinct decline
when Bush entered office. Last year was horrible for both the car and music
industries. If people need cars more than they need music, what does that
tell a person? And I think what Ridah was trying to say with the 10 million
mark is that it takes rock bands a long time to sell all of those records,
while a boy band or hot rapper can reach the mark more quickly. In fact,
it takes years for some albums to break the 10 million mark, but it's still
an amazing accomplishment even if the band is *NSync.
Posted by
RidahNY: Yeah but is this "rock" really going to
be rock music? They consider Disturbed and Korn rock these days. I don't
feel as though this really is rock music. Rock has a certain sound that
I feel these bands lack and just because there is a guitar, bass and drums
involved, this doesn't automatically mean it's rock. The rock n' roll sound
is dead and gone IMO. Although I don't like Pearl Jam at all, I feel that
the Ten album and Versus had a really good rock feel. Soundgarden had that
rock feel too because the Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath influence was
so obvious. As far as this other crap goes, it's not rock music. It's like
when you read in a magazine some crap about Limp Bizkit and the adjective
"rocker" is used to describe Fred Durst. Are you serious? This guy isn't
Joe Elliot, Axl Rose, Robert Plant, David Lee Roth or Chris Cornell - he's
Fred Durst. Fred Durst isn't a rocker. If this is rock music, then like
I said, rock n' roll is dead.
Posted by
aG: Ridah, I know where you are coming from
but people have said the same thing through the years and rock has always
come back. It's all cyclical, rock will come back in a big way then pop
will have another run at the top.
Posted by
RidahNY: First off, I don't consider Alanis Morissette
as rock music - she's just as pop as Sheryl Crow and Alicia Keys for that
matter. I don't unerstand why you're naming GNR, Metallica, Def Leppard
etc. Those bands were all the EXCEPTIONS. Also, when was the last time
a rock band hit the 10 million mark? It had to have been awhile ago. Sh!t,
Van Halen has 2 albums that sold 10 million and a 3rd one that's close
but then again, we're talking about Van Halen. Certain bands are the one
out of a million case where the timing is right, the public is buying records,
and the media is giving them enough exposure. Nowadays there's absolutely
no way a rock band could sell 10 million records. Maybe Linkin Park but
they're on their way out the door too. I don't know, like I was trying
to say before - rock n' roll is dead and as far as I'm concerned, there's
nothing that will revive it and make it the dominant force it once was.
Posted by
aG: Pick, the ecomony was down before Bush
came into office it started with Reno went after microsoft and wallstreet
freaked out. It was due for a correction anyways things were too out of
hand, and the one thing Bush did that I agree with was the taxcuts they
did put more money into the economy and now we are seeing things turn around,
all the recessionary indicators have turned around. Now if Bush didn't
actually spend more money than Clinton I might support him, I happen to
think taxes are way too high and should be cut even more along with about
60% of the wastefull federal budget, but it will never happen. But you
can't blame the recession on Bush he inherited it from the previous administration.
Ridah, rock albums that sold over 10 million GNR, Metallica, Def Leppard,
Bon Jovi, Pearl Jam, U2, ZZ Top and Alanis right off the top of my head.
True we never say such a high flying sales as we did with all the boybands
and pop divas in the past few years and a booming economy had something
to do with it but it was also a fad that is now fading and the record industry
is still set in the mindset of a few years ago.
Posted by
Nag: Well, yeah, the economy probley brought
sales down too. How drastically I don't know. During The Great Depression
when everything went bust, the movie industry boomed, as it was the only
means of escape from the misery that was everywhere. Don't know how relevant
that is here in 2002, but it's just a thought.
Posted by
Nag: Yeah, but when you make shirts all in
one size some people are going to be left out. Believe it or not: Britney,
N'Sync, and BSB sales have declined sharply in the last year. I'm not saying
they flopped, but it's evident that their run is almost over. True Grunge
was a fad, not willingly maybe, but after Nirvana and PJ hit look how many
copycat bands popped up looking more "grunge" then the originals, then
the third wave fourth wave and so on. Once it got too cliche, people traded
flannels in for FUBU. That was the thing, rap was ready to blow up huge,
it was everything grunge wasn't; and it was at the right place at the right
time. With this, we can see how oversaturation killed a genre, and when
cheesy pop has been such a huge focus of record companies during the last
4 years and the genre declines BOOM!!! So it seems the sky is falling.
That evidently seems to be the case right now with the bubblegum bands
fading away, there just hasn't been a suitable alternative to cheesy pop
bands. The brass of record companies in L.A. are very aware of what is
going on, and I am sure they are putting together the next "big thing"
that will bring up record sales for a few years. More then likley, I will
be going shirtless.
Posted by
pick: Ridah, you've got an excellent point at
the end. Ever since Dubya has come into office the entertainment industry
has experienced a sizable decline in sales and profits. Movies are earning
less, CD's are not booming and concerts aren't sold out. Why? Not only
do people not have enough money but people are also more cautious with
what they spend their money on. When the economy was booming, people could
buy awful music due to their extra disposable income. Now, though, they
really need to think if it's a necessary purchase.
Posted by
RidahNY: I don't believe that the "fad" argument
really holds true for the supposed decline of the music industry. The way
I read the case for the "fads" being responsible for decline in sales comes
off as really one-dimensional. Whether a band is a bunch of wastes who
can barely play their instruments or whether they're this musical visionary
force, when they start to "hit" and catch on with the mainstream public
a fad is ALWAYS responsible for it. Sure this "fad" may hold much more
credibility and weight than some boyband does but none the less, it's still
a fad. If you don't think Nirvana, grunge, ripped jeans and flannels were
a "fad" in the early 90's than you're not seeing things straight IMO. Fads
aren't only used and made by boybands and popstars. Influential rockbands
also thrive off of fads in order to sell music. The imagery is just as
important as the music in most cases. As far as what what actually IS the
cause for decline in record sales, how the h3ll could boybands and popsingers
be the cause when they average (yes average) selling close to 10 million
records each time out. That's way more than any other genre even comes
close to selling except for maybe rap. Rock NEVER has sold records in those
#'s - not even in the 80's. It's funny how people don't even take into
consideration that the economy is bad, unemployment rises daily, and money
is tight. You do need $ to buy records right?
Posted by
pick: Nag, here's how it works: radio stations
are monitored for their ratings. I forget the name of the rating system,
but it tells the aggregate listeners for that station. The test shows how
many people listen in the morning, afternoon, evening and late night, and
then it becomes a composite rating. So, if the ratings are low, that station
not only must find ways to boost listenership but also find ways to appease
their sponsors. That's why indy and lesser-known bands aren't played often...they
draw lower numbers and a low audience.
Posted by
Nag: Great article aG. I still place alot of
blame on the radio stations. I don't know about all the rap/pop genres,
but for rock its the same 10-12 songs in rotation all the time. Are people
so stupid that they beleve "In The End" by Linkin Park is "Brand New Rock",
when it has been brand new rock since August. What would it hurt the radio
stations to play an up and coming indy band from time to time. Maybe dedicate
an hour a week if not anything else. I can count on my fingers how many
new CD's i have bought in the last couple years. Pretty sad considering
I used to buy about 70 or more a year, albeit most of them older realeses.
As for radio, I just listen to the classic rock station, I really can't
stand the whole Nickelback, Puddle OF Mudd, Creed monopoly. I know its
radio and all, but it just seems to me it is alot worse and alot less experimental
then it was even 3 to 4 years ago.
Posted by
pick: aG, that was a pretty cool website. And
I am not trying to upstage you or prove you wrong, but it's unbelievable
that an industry would do that. If Chrysler enters a new car onto the market
and it flops, the don't keep producing that car. And, after learning a
lesson, Chrysler would not attempt to market a vehicle similar to the flop.
This is why I fail to grasp the logic behind music execs.The number of
150K copies or less per average CD is also staggering, but it does not
shock me, especially when I hear so often about bands prematurely breaking
up or going to other bands.
Posted by
aG: Travis' former bandmates went the way
of post grunge with Tantric and have enjoyed some success maybe that split
worked out for the best? Pick, the 9 out of 10 number does make sense when
you look at how many albums are released each year and how few go gold,
platinum or double platinum. With album advances, marketing and a ton of
other expenses most CD's have to sell at least gold to break even, many
times more. there have been bands that have had platinum albums and were
still in the hole due to tour expenses, advances etc. In a lot of cases
the record companies basically give bands a set amount of money for each
album, the bands use that money to record the album etc. Not until a certain
amount of albums are sold can they earn more, many times they never make
up the advance and actually owe the record company money. Sure a lot of
the numbers are shakey but the 9 out of 10 does seem to make sense. Hell
look at Virgin, they paid Pariah Carey $20 million NOT to record any new
albums because they stood to loose a lot more money if she did, because
no one is buyer her stuff any longer. Want a really enlightening into the
inner working of the biz? check out mosesavalon.com
Posted by
Mr. huh? saying, "My Generation Sucks!": Good points made. I only learned about
Ike Reilly (whom made many Top 10 of 2001 lists) from antiMUSIC, and he
is great. Days of the New is great also. Travis Meeks has come a long way
from his post-grunge wannabe days (something I don't see happeing for Nickleback
or Puddle of Mudd at all). The RED album was one of the most overlooked
albums of 2001. Why, oh why must the entertainment industry be run by f*cking
morons whom don't know sh*t about quality and variety.
Posted by
Dr. Feel-Good: Record companies these days. Why do they
allow themselves to be so self-dilluded??
Posted by
Dreamy Rover: Santana picked up 8 Grammies, yeah. And
then last year & this one too, U2 walk off with so many trophies it's
pointless to count them. And sure, we can't forget what happened when ANTHOLOGY
and ONE by the BEATLES came out in the market. And of course, no one might
mention that with each release Britney is going down. Michael Jackson had
the first flop release of his career. Madonna is being forgotten as your
last pimple. OZZY turns MTV upside down with his series thwarting the all
too known perception that Pop artists are the only people know or care
about. I do see Pop/Hip Hop being shred to bits with each passing day.
The music industry is now going to bring another new 'revolution', another
trend. Obviously, no one's going to learn any lesson from the current state
of affairs.
Posted by
5 Against One: Maybe people would buy more cd's if every
other band didn't SUCK!
Posted by
5 Against One: Who won all those Grammys a couple of
years ago? Oh, yeah...Santana...Starting to see a trend yet?
Posted by
5 Against One: The meltdown began in 2001. The Beatles
had the number one album that year, hmmmm........
Posted by
pick: mp3s represent a scapegoat more than a
reason. More often than not, people backed into a corner parlay a person
or thing as a scapegoat, showing that person unwilling to admit faults.
I use a very fast internet, and songs download at a rate of one per minute,
sometimes two per minute. But I can say that many mp3s are corrupt or of
terrible quality, and no true music fan wishes to put trashy mp3s on a
CD. Besides, not that many people have a fast internet service, and most
of those who do use it for browsing or chat. What I see is a wounded giant,
afraid to admit past mistakes, blaming technology for its downfall. For
one thing, 80% of the mass media is controlled by five companies. Competition
between those companies is fierce and dangerous for the consumer. So, in
order to keep par with each other, music execs choose the route of imitation
and sex appeal. While those may sell for a time, fads come and go. They
should've learned this long ago, yet the music industry continues to degrade
itself and make a mockery of art. We live in an ultra-impatient society,
so the big wigs at major labels don't want to release something groundbreaking
and then wait for it to boom. Interestingly enough, though, this is how
most influential music comes about. Once again, one might think the labels
would take note of the way the music world swings, but it won't happen.
The line about 9 out of 10 albums not making a profit...I have a hard time
believing that (sorry, aG!). I say this because it is not fiscally shrewd
to risk big money on a product sure to fail. Other major corporations are
very careful about releasing unfamiliar products. Again, I can't fathom
why these companies keep up the irresponsible trends.
