Sunday, January 25, 2009
a theory in the works
the initial idea of creating a blog like this came from a conversation with nathan about the state of music today and a personal theory of mine which partially involves the topic of why some people stop listening to new music as they age. i believe the theory will eventually involve many possible reasons for this all-too-common occurrence and i will be working on fleshing out the general outline of my theory in coming days and look forward to hearing if you have any such personal insights right now. is it more than just the human tendency to look with disgust upon incoming generation's culture? is it that overall music generally devolves each year? is it the form and way we listen to music because of changing technology? is it genetic? etc...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
My short answer to that question is I think Napster (and now Youtube) started a really bad trend that has killed music and especially new artists. More so than any other factor: generation gap, genetics, brain drain of good music, etc. It's not all bad though cause I think things like Myspace music will eventually balance it out AND cut out the studio execs.
At least that is what I tell myself to sleep at night. I have a long theory but I don't wanna step on your theoretical toes.
don't worry about my theory being quashed because it is partly based on personal observations which not everyone will agree on. my theories do involve a bit of what you just mentioned, and i'd love it if you'd do a huge post outlining your long theory too. then we can argue the facts, and eventually come up with a theory of everything and use it to control the universe! it'll be cool.
OK!
The sad reality is that money has and always will drive the music industry. Pfft! Musical integrity! Creative expression! It’s all about the Benjamin’s baby. And before Napster, the only way we could get music was to go to the store and buy it. Why did we buy CD’s? Because buying CDs was easier than watching MTV all day or listening to the radio for your favorite song. As much as I loved MTV it was basically one, long, entertaining, commercial. Videos were a vehicle to advertise music to us SO WE WOULD GO OUT AND BUY THE BAND'S MUSIC and then perhaps see them in concert. Once Napster came around, instead of buying that Crowded House album for $15 that had only one good song on it, one could simply go online and download the band’s one good song from another sap that bought the album free of charge. This became a double edged sword for the consumer.
Well, notice the quantity and quality in the mid-to-late 90's of music after the p2p phenomenon hit. There became less new acts and more formula oriented "bands" dominating the airwaves. Not because there wasn't real talent out there but there wasn’t any financial gain in a music company pouring millions of dollars into a new act only to have a snot nosed kid (or adult) rip it off on Napster and burn it on a CD-R. Therefore as a result music became safe and predictable. If there was a successful boy band on one label then the competing label had to have one. Same with the blond chicks, again with the more-style-than-substance-grew-up-in-the-burb’s-“street” rappers and the grunge clone rockers. It was a safe formula that guaranteed a profit. It wasn’t about the next big thing but more of the next safe thing.
However, even the boy band era waned after the explosion of the mp3 players (which is a direct result of the Napster craze). Now CD's became that thing that cluttered up your office. Gone was the significance of cover art, liner notes or lyrics of your favorite acts. Cause it was now all nice and neat in your iPod. So if the fan doesn't require the cover art then why not get the music off Limewire instead of paying $15 for a potentially crappy album!?! Who’s going to listen to the radio when they have 5000 songs on their hip (or phone!)?
Hardly anyone cared the about the quality of CD vs .mp3’s? Which means labels can’t even count on “the big acts” bringing in the money. Gone are the days of 10 million selling records.
That's why the latest trend is the Nickelodeon or Disney channel "band". MTV isn't showing music anymore therefore Nick and Disney pump out these manufactured acts that has a TV show and merchandise attached to them. They do that because it is guaranteed money. There's no competition and they have control over the product. Plus, as a bonus, it ticks off the parents! How do kids rebel against parents that were raised on sex, drugs and rock and roll 80's, anti-corporation grunge and gangster rap? What's more the grandparents grew up on the free love revolutionary 60's. There is NOTHING that could shock a Gen Xer. In fact, most parents would crank it up. So what do the kiddies do to tick off their parents? They listen to the most contrived, corporate pile of poo money can buy. Enter Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers. If that doesn't send a Gen Xer running for the hills I don't know what will.
That is why I think we are in the abysmal music state we are currently in. Cause we proved that we will not pay for good music. Not when we can get it for free. So I guess it is you get what you pay for.
sean, I think your ideas do make sense from an anthropological perspective, because really the growth of music isn't linear, it's a tree.
myspace and facebook have completely open up social practices of people en masse, and let's face it: music movements are exponents of social movements. it just so happened that the very moment white people appropriated black music in the 50's, pop radio had come about, and the concept of genre was born. before that, music was separated only by generation and culture. it then became readily available across cultures, and then as the concept of pop music aged, across generations. so there it is, it's the 70's and there's this pool of potential influence, all building blocks for the next thing. and now it's not just black american music and white american music... it's stuff from all over, and soon stuff from the decades before pop radio (because the the kids were inevitably tired of pop radio, as they will be of their ipods in a few years). people identified with other cultures and generations, and created their own identities instead of playing the hands they were dealt.
now, with myspace and all, the tree gets bigger. sure, with napster and kazaa, you could find stuff easily... but at least you had to know the name of what you were looking for. now kids voyeuristically check out some band's page, read their influences, and before you can say "regurgitated" they're googling torrents (maybe a wikipedia page first if they're OCD enough to wanna hear it in chronological order).
so the question is, do you naturally tighten the valve at a certain point... or do you allow the tree to branch out further, beyond the eras where you originally found your passion for music. i don't think you have to be a certain age to face that quandary, either; the way i see it, it's alot more fun to follow the branches backward through time instead of sitting around staring at the tips, waiting for something new to grow out.
Johnny, is it just me or do I sense that someone in your household is "rebelling" and driving her parents nuts by being obsessed with Hanna Montanna? Wow that IS harsh.
Your comments seem rock solid to me, but I think the 2 main factors you mention are just a piece of the whole puzzle for me.
RCav, great analogy! I've always said that we need to go back and check the roots if we want to enjoy music beyond what gets forcibly blared on the radio, etc...
kinda like if we truly want to understand ourselves it helps to understand who our great-grandparents were as opposed to just defining ourselves based on the current world around us.
Heh. She certainly doesn't like the music that Janine and I listen to. She likes some of Gwen Stefani's stuff and Blackeyed Peas but it isn't really defined. Plus she can't have much of Stefani's stuff cause she has a potty mouth. She doesn't own any Hannah Montana or Jonas Brothers stuff but she'd listen to that 10x's more than what I play.
Back to topic: I also think age and getting set in your ways is a factor. Also, what we are conditioned to define as "good music". Is good music about a really good guitarist wailing then this is the dark times. Is good music is a signer with a "message"? Is good music a good beat? Is good music only the Beatles and the 60's rock revolution? The more we have a preconceived idea what "good music" is the less likely we are going to be able to listen to something new cause it doesn't sound like what we deem as "good".
Post a Comment