Dee Snutz wrote:A lot of things have happened to music since the 80's. One is MTV. Substance was discarded for image. Great musicians weren't always the best looking people. The best musicians were losers who had nothing better to do than get great at their instruments/craft. Now they can't get signed because they're compromising the bands MTV cred.
As ML said, I do not believe that substance was sacrificed for image. The visuals were intended to accentuate the music, to give the artist a chance to not only give their music to a different audience, but to allow for a method of enhancing or altering the story in the song. To suggest that the best musicians were "losers" or were of questionable appearance is just marginally accurate at best. Of course it helps when an artist or act has strong visual appeal, but it is by no means essential. Most people care about the music, period. And to also suggest acts cannot get signed due to the influence or creation of MTV and the medium it represents, is simply not true, at least not in the total sense of that idea. I would love to hear you cite some examples of this concept. Which bands or singers are having trouble getting representation or sales because of "compromising" MTV?
Then came the CD/indie age. Now EVERYONE could make a cd. And it wasn't just 18 mins on two sides of vinyl. Now it was 80 mins. Which permitted another million more mediocre recording artist to dilute their already mediocre product w their ego.
Again, I concur with ML on this point as well. The more the merrier. I have discovered or been exposed to more new music over the last twenty to thirty years that I never would have known about if it hadn't been for the independent age. I loved the fact that not only could you embed more music per disc on a c.d. vs. an album, but you could store more discs in your collection due the smaller size of the product. They were portable and easier to listen to on the road, as opposed to tapes, and they were cleaner sounding. Of course, I will always prefer the rich and full, warm sound of a piece of analog vinyl over the sharper, cold sound of digital any day, but that's a minor quibble.
As to the ego thing, an artist will "dilute" their product with throwaway filler regardless of format. The Beatles White Album is proof of that, and I love that record. But there are certainly a couple of tunes on it that would have been better left on the editing room floor. "Revolution 9" as example.
So now here we are in 2012 and it's like the 1960's where bands release a singles. And considering the state of the music industry the last 10 yrs, what young brilliant artist would still enter into a career in music? Until they figure out how to get back to actually selling records, and people can make money, those geniuses can ply their wares in some other creative field. And by today's music scene I mean, where you can now afford to listen to ALL that beautifully diverse music. Because it's free. An age where you're never pissed that you spent your hard earned money on some shit band. Or do you actually enjoy all that diverse talent while paying pay for it?
Kind of an odd question. And a true dichotomy of what you seem to be advocating. There is a veritable deluge of new artists on the horizon every year. Hell, every month. Dozens of new artists pop up all the time, especially in light of the availability and easy access to their music due to the internet. The web, as well as reality television have spawned a multitude of musicians and singers who otherwise would never have seen the light of day. And therein, lies a major problem with new music. The actual selling of records. Because of downloading and the ability to pick and choose a playlist at will, artists are getting the royal screw over when it comes to sales. Consumers just don't buy records (or c.d.'s) the way they used to. A potential buying audience may never know what an artist intended for them because they won't hear the album in the sequence it was intended to be played. Imagine listening to "Tommy" or "Quadrophenia" out of order. The experience would be ruined. The only way we can go backward, to the way the music business should be, would be to eliminate downloading, period. While it would surely limit access to new and old music alike, at least the artists could once again generate the income from album and c.d. sales they so richly deserve. The whole aspect of downloading is a tricky affair when it comes to the argument of sales versus access. In my own personal view, as one who sides with the artist and their intellectual and creative properties, I would abolish downloading. However, I'm sure I'm in the minority on that. And sadly, we aren't going back down that old road any time soon, if ever.
The state of the music industry over the last 10 years has indeed suffered, at least in the sense of what old school music and business represents versus most of the schlock and over-produced, auto-tuned drivel we are currently exposed to. True talent can be tossed out the window if you have a nice piece of eye candy to represent.
However, I suppose, as ML and Papa Willie both attest to, it's a generational thing. Each passing one shakes their head with misty-eyed regret at what was, and will never be again, as the new one raises its fist and turns a mocking glare backward, thinking how foolish and close minded their elders are. Each generation looks at the other and wonders what the hell they were or are actually listening to, and why they think 'our' music is so much better than 'theirs'. In the end, to paraphrase Paul McCartney, the music you make is equal to the music you take. Or something like that.
