Jump to content

Beyond 11: You Won’t Get this Chance Again for a Long, Long Time


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I'm starting to write some of the "Dear Musician"-type editorials I used to write for Music Gear Weekly, and we're calling the series "Beyond 11" because I hope to come up with topics that are better than 10 :)

 

The first one is called (as you might have guessed from the thread title) "You Won’t Get this Chance Again for a Long, Long Time." I've created this thread for comments so we can have more of a back-and-forth discussion than what article comments allow.

 

What do YOU think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Wow! Deep and mind bending. And in some ways I have to agree that there is room, ... but in this day and age, I think you have to be exceptional.

Listeners have been so dumbed down because of "instant downloads", and "talent show of the week" on TV, that I am unsure if the average listener even knows what a great performance sounds like anymore.

But if someone is exceptional, I think they can have staying power opportunity. Another big difference that today's instant information age does is limits people's attention span, so that is why I question someone being able to ever be as big as the people who made impressions when there were 3 channels max on people's TV.

 

As to whether that staying power could compete with that of The Rolling Stones, Elton John, or other comparable acts, It is hard to say. Think about some really talented people who have come and gone over the last 10 years and you really dug their music. Where are they now?

 

In the end, the dynamic of something being "fresh and new" seems to be lost on people anymore. They see fresh and new with each 10 Facebook posts youtube video.

 

And when people have forgotten hi-fidelity because they are accustomed to hearing music in low-bit quality on their phone ... mercy!

 

I'll probably catch some flack for these statements, but he, just trying to keep it real here.

 

Yet I digress ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've come to feel that if the song and it's performance doesn't stir you in some way, or make the hair on your neck stand up, it is going to end up with all the other 'dreck' music out there, in the dumpster of history. The fidelity and mix do not have to be perfectly pristine; often it comes off better if it is not.

 

Maybe that's why it's taken me 5 years(!) of free time to do my latest album. But I refuse to put out anything that doesn't pass the "hair test"...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

"Take your music to the edge and don’t let it come back. You don’t have to create a huge, alienating stadium spectacle that’s the musical equivalent of empty calories (“I’m sure there are musicians somewhere on that stage.”) You need to amplify your soul, not just your instruments. And you need to amplify it more than you amplify your instruments—a lot more. That's no guarantee you'll resonate with people, and the odds are still a million to one against "making it." But if you're not true to yourself and amplify what's in your soul, then I can pretty much guarantee you won't resonate with people."

 

Wayne Dyer says, "Don`t let your music die in you." I like that. For me, it means letting your emotion and passion drive your art. The fine line I walk is doing that but also making the music accessible. The general public is expecting a sound that is new but familiar. They can only handle so much novelty before they tune out. I`m with Philboking on this. I`ve been working on my second record since 2007. Its not because I`m lazy or unfocused, I`m just trying to walk that fine line between something new and keeping it familiar sounding but also make sure its worth actually working on. There has to be an emotional connection there for the listener or else the entire thing was/is a waste.

 

I think we live in really confusing times for most people. There is no certainty, there are no guarantees. We live moment to moment with no real sense of long term promise. I`ll probably start a thread on this subject in a few days.

 

What can an artist bring to the current music scene that ensures longevity for themselves? I don`t have the answer to that question and I`m not sure anyone does… Why? Because these are the changing times we live in. Uncertainty, alienation, insecurity reign and that seems to define the music of our times….

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I think we live in really confusing times for most people. There is no certainty, there are no guarantees. We live moment to moment with no real sense of long term promise. I`ll probably start a thread on this subject in a few days.

 

What can an artist bring to the current music scene that ensures longevity for themselves? I don`t have the answer to that question and I`m not sure anyone does… Why? Because these are the changing times we live in. Uncertainty, alienation, insecurity reign and that seems to define the music of our times….

 

Um, life has always been about insecurity and a lack of guarantees. I am old enough to remember 'duck and cover' and how we lived under the very real possibility that everyday could end with a mushroom cloud. If you want to talk about uncertainty, how about the riots of the 60's? Of course, we can go back further, like the depression of the 1930s.

 

Yet in spite of the uncertainties the music was great. Not all of it, of course. As time goes on we remember the good and forget the bad. But with all of the uncertainty and pain and suffering, we did great things. Today, we still have pain and suffering and uncertainty, but seem unwilling to even try to do great things. We have to make sure everything is right and the end will be a guaranteed success before we even start. And if we can't insure success, then what's the need to try.

 

In many ways, music mimics the times. Perhaps in that respect nothing has changed. For if music is indeed a window into our soul as a society, then this time period in which we find ourselves the music is merely a reflection of that society. If it is, then it says alot about who we are, what we value, and where our hearts lay.

 

Is this good, or bad?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Um' date=' life has always been about insecurity and a lack of guarantees. I am old enough to remember 'duck and cover' and how we lived under the very real possibility that everyday could end with a mushroom cloud. If you want to talk about uncertainty, how about the riots of the 60's? Of course, we can go back further, like the depression of the 1930s.[/quote']

 

Great points. I agree with you to an extent. I`m also not old enough to comment on the Psychology of the times prior to 1990 when I was 17. Anything before that and I`m just BS`ing you. I think what differs today is this we are constantly inundated with threats of terrorism, end times talk, global warming, pedophiles, the dark net, banks too big to fail, etc… you know what I mean? From what I think I know about prior decades, one put money in the bank and got interest and could actually save a buck. One parent could work while the other stayed home with the kids and tended to the home… not anymore. Back in the day we knew were the enemy was… today it could be your neighbor. You know what I`m saying? I live in NYC so my experiences are vastly different than someone living in the middle of the panhandle or Montana… at least I think so.

 

Yet in spite of the uncertainties the music was great. Not all of it' date=' of course. As time goes on we remember the good and forget the bad. But with all of the uncertainty and pain and suffering, we did great things. Today, we still have pain and suffering and uncertainty, but seem unwilling to even try to do great things. We have to make sure everything is right and the end will be a guaranteed success before we even start. And if we can't insure success, then what's the need to try.[/quote']

 

I wouldn`t say all the music was great. I listen to a lot of music from many genres… I grew up listening to classical music, opera, then lots of big band, jazz, etc…. it wasn`t all great. Same goes for the 50s and 60s… it wasn`t all great. I think memory tends to dwell on the hits or popular tunes of our youth and we tend to think the music was better "back then".

 

I do agree with you when you say, "We have to make sure everything is right and the end will be a guaranteed success before we even start. And if we can't insure success, then what's the need to try."

 

This to me is really a major culprit in the current state of music. Labels stopped developing talent. Radio only wants "hits". Now we have flavors of the week. There is no sustainability…. no longevity for an artist.

 

In many ways' date=' music mimics the times. Perhaps in that respect nothing has changed. For if music is indeed a window into our soul as a society, then this time period in which we find ourselves the music is merely a reflection of that society. If it is, then it says alot about who we are, what we value, and where our hearts lay.[/quote']

 

We have had this conversation before here on HC… there is a lot of good music being produced today but you have to go looking for it. Thanks to iTunes and other online music services, one can click away and discover new music like we did back in the day at Tower Records… instead we`re no longer thumbing through bins…. we`re clicking… its not the same motion but its the same idea…

 

In my humble opinion, popular music today is a refection of the greed and short-sightedness of labels and radio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Be outrageous. Be original. Be different.

 

I think it's kind of hard to be outrageous, original and different when everything has already been done before.

 

There was a thread a few weeks back where a couple of people were complaining that they felt popular music hadn't changed very much in the last fifteen years or so. Certainly not as much as it did from the say the fifties through the nineties. Whenever there's a new art form there's usually an explosion of originality and change and the originators create the templates. But after a while the changes start to slow. What else can be done?

 

The evolution of western popular music was driven mostly by the technologies of the era. The electric guitar and bass and multi-track recording, then on to MIDI and digital synths and sequencing all heavily influenced the sounds of the times. But all that stuff is old hat now, not to mention available to anyone with a home computer.

 

I think there's a lot of great music being made today but how original is it? A lot of the so called original music I'm hearing these days is really fusion music of previous forms. A little of this mixed with a little of that adding up to incremental musical changes. But for me I could care less whether something is original or not. I only care if I like it and it moves me.

 

As far as another Rolling Stones or Led Zeppelin is concerned I think the world is so different now and the music business is so very different that it would be almost impossible for there to be that kind of success today. They were outrageous, original and different in a time when nobody had ever heard or seen anything like them before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Craig's post, and and all;the commentaries after have all been so very good, with so many valid points, and viewpoints. I don't feel as astute or well spoken to deliver a tome even approaching most of yours. So I'll just say this:

 

11 or 12,000 years ago, some guy found a hollow log and whacked it with a stick. He dug it, found another stick and started whailing away. Somebody else dug it and joined in. That's probably how it all started.

 

Since we became self-aware we have been striving to express ourselves. Music is one of our common threads as a species. We have been expressing ourselves through it as long as we have been gathering together. This will always be so. The generation gaps will always present, and music will always be derivative. It cannot help but be. Any music anyone makes is influenced by the music that they first loved, or liked, or was impressed by. Saying music is original is really kind of a stretch when you think about it.There's just the twelve notes, but an now infinite number of ways to color them, and arrange them.

 

It's all the guy and the log. It always will be. Music will always be here, but the days of Giant Music Stars are probably gone for the foreseeable future.

 

Some will always be trying to make music to amass wealth. Some will be happy enough just making a living with it.

 

The great ones will do it because they are compelled to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
What can an artist bring to the current music scene that ensures longevity for themselves? I don`t have the answer to that question and I`m not sure anyone does… Why? Because these are the changing times we live in. Uncertainty, alienation, insecurity reign and that seems to define the music of our times….

 

I think the answer to "why" is that it's not possible to have an answer. What always seems to happen is something rises up out of nowhere, and then the best you can do is "reverse engineer" why it happened. I really doubt anyone said in the early 60s "You know what the answer is to shaking music out of this whole Bobby Vee kind of thing? British guys! Who write songs that are original, but heavily influenced by iconic musicians like Buddy Holly, but different! And they'll have long hair!"

 

There have been a lot of musical transformations over the years. Think how if you looked at the Wailers, based on the instrumentation you'd probably figure they played rock...but it was really anything but, and genuinely different. Nine Inch Nails created a genre. Kraftwerk begat electro which begat trance which begat EDM. But I don't think any of these groups had an answer about what they could do to insure their longevity. They were different, they were sincere, they played from their hearts so they gained longevity - Bob Marley is still seen in some parts of the world as almost a saint, even all these years after his death.

 

I think it's possible to make a calculated ploy to have a hit, but I don't think it's possible to do that with a career. All people can do is be themselves...and maybe the magic will happen.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In my humble opinion, popular music today is a reflection of the greed and short-sightedness of labels and radio.

 

I think there's even more to it than that...labels and the radio don't let people make choices based on their gut, but on spreadsheets and focus groups. I can't tell you how many old-time promoters were willing to bet that bands would mature over time and become big deals. But corporate thinking doesn't allow for that. It's all about what can you deliver to the bottom line this quarter so you don't lose your job.

 

There was a time when a band could drop by a radio station with a record. The DJ would listen to it while another record was playing, and if he liked it, he'd play it. If the phones lit up with people saying "play it again!" that was all the focus group that was needed. And, the DJ had a certain sense of ownership for having discovered the band.

 

The record business used to be pretty tiny; even in the 60s it remained fairly small but then the $$$ started rolling in during the 70s. Multinational corporations saw music as a way to print money, and get some cachet from being involved in entertainment. But selling music had nothing to do with selling TVs, razors, or vodka. With music, you were selling the intangible. So, you needed people who could understand that which is fundamentally intangible. When those people were driven out the industry, and the accountants took over, you ended up with music that was force-fit into a tangible context. Companies would rather bet a zillion dollars on one "sure thing" (Michael Jackson's HIStory, anyone?) then 1% of a zillion dollars on a hundred groups and hope that 10 would make it.

 

But those 10 would rise to the top because they were cool and resonated with people, not because they were supported by millions of dollars of ad buys, product placement, and PR forms placing stories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The machine that made bands big isn't there anymore. The recording companies willing to turn out bands, promote them on radio stations, advertisements with major record chains and even national booking agents, All of that collapsed with the advent of the internet.

 

I still don't know what will act as a substitute for that support structure. Back then musicians made music. Everything else was done by the machine. Bands can only do so much on their own to make up for what no longer exists. All the pros I know run their own websites, make their own recordings and sell them, book their own dates and play full time as well.

 

How can you be focused on making the best music possible if you're having to do 20 other jobs that need to be done equally well just to put food on the table? I know I gave it a shot and worked my butt off in the process. I had jobs but playing big gigs just didn't come up often enough in my area to make all that extra work worthwhile.

 

When I compare it to the touring I did in the 70's/80's we had non stop work 7 days a week and had all the best clubs lined up. We'd open for headliners all the time and could make a decent paycheck.

 

Its a number of factors that need to be there and no matter how optimistic you are, that support structure for live music isn't coming back.

Maybe there will be something that comes along to take its place.

 

It will likely be in some kind of internet based structure that both musicians and artists can interface with. Something along the lines of facebook but more of an early MTV type appeal and much more live music oriented. Bands could target gigs based on their popularity in an area and be assured the local fans in that town would be there to see them.

 

The type of advertisement the band can project cant be the old magazine stuff either. That may be fine for a link to their site but you can easily wind up with nothing but bands pushing their CD's and turning people off. This would need to be a substitute for radio's ability to promote bands and be a center of a much larger community.

 

Hey maybe, HC will wind up being the center of something like that. it would need a whole lot more then a forum and articles posted. I can see it taking off with star musicians posting a Q/A in forums, but it would need allot more. Some real time notification to cell phones on Friday and Saturday nights with bands playing in their areas. Ratings on clubs those bands play at. Add live concert feeds for those who cant make the gig but are willing to pay a buck for the audio feed and two bucks for a video feed.

 

Its got to be in real time though. That's the key. Back in my day we used to play parties on the Jersey shore every weekend in the summer. We'd draw thousands in to hear us play. We didn't have cell phones, we used CB radios and telephones that spread the word. People would hop in their cars and drive over at the spur of the moment and what started out with a single keg and maybe 50 people ended with several thousand people having a blast.

 

You'd need real time cellphone messaging with an app that keeps people in touch. You could go on the app and see whose playing, how much the cover is, and the size crowd that happens to be there. That's important too. How many times have you gotten in a car to go see a band and couldn't get in because they were over capacity? More times then I can count and it makes for a bum night if you have a date. You wind up listening to elevator music in an old mans rest home.

 

You can add a pyramid structure there too, from small clubs to big arenas. Have some kind of historical map of where a band was, and where they are playing now to give you an idea if the band is getting better or just holding their own.

 

The clubs can sponsor some of it too. They tie in and can be guaranteed a good crowd and good bands. A band cancels, an alert goes out and lets fans know in real time. They can post their reschedule, offer a waved cover charge or maybe a discount card if they do show up for the reschedule.

 

I mean I'm just brain storming a little here, but like Craig says, you got to think on a much larger scale, come up with good ideas, then make them a reality. This entertainment site could blow all the little guys off the map, but it would take a big company to back it and it would need to be up and running before you release it, otherwise it will not have any traction at all. The release has to be something people sign up for immediately while they are psyched and then get good results. I don't think it would cost that much either. You can do it on a small city basis then have the smaller cities tie into a grid statewide.

 

The toughest part would be getting the clubs lined up. Back in the day it was, how do you say it, a network with dubious ties to promoters. I wouldn't doubt those owners are having a tough time keeping those clubs running. They don't just have to be clubs though. You could have church concert venues, civic sponsored events, concert halls, any place live music can be played.

 

Without some kind of structured organization there's just no appeal to kill yourself trying to earn a living at music. But when you consider what people do with simple texting when some news event occurs, you know the potential is there, it just needs a path to the market to be there that isn't a patchwork of dysfunctional dead ends.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I think there's even more to it than that...labels and the radio don't let people make choices based on their gut, but on spreadsheets and focus groups. I can't tell you how many old-time promoters were willing to bet that bands would mature over time and become big deals. But corporate thinking doesn't allow for that. It's all about what can you deliver to the bottom line this quarter so you don't lose your job.

 

There was a time when a band could drop by a radio station with a record. The DJ would listen to it while another record was playing, and if he liked it, he'd play it. If the phones lit up with people saying "play it again!" that was all the focus group that was needed. And, the DJ had a certain sense of ownership for having discovered the band.

 

The record business used to be pretty tiny; even in the 60s it remained fairly small but then the $$$ started rolling in during the 70s. Multinational corporations saw music as a way to print money, and get some cachet from being involved in entertainment. But selling music had nothing to do with selling TVs, razors, or vodka. With music, you were selling the intangible. So, you needed people who could understand that which is fundamentally intangible. When those people were driven out the industry, and the accountants took over, you ended up with music that was force-fit into a tangible context. Companies would rather bet a zillion dollars on one "sure thing" (Michael Jackson's HIStory, anyone?) then 1% of a zillion dollars on a hundred groups and hope that 10 would make it.

 

But those 10 would rise to the top because they were cool and resonated with people, not because they were supported by millions of dollars of ad buys, product placement, and PR forms placing stories.

 

EXACTLY !!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think there's even more to it than that...labels and the radio don't let people make choices based on their gut, but on spreadsheets and focus groups. I can't tell you how many old-time promoters were willing to bet that bands would mature over time and become big deals. But corporate thinking doesn't allow for that. It's all about what can you deliver to the bottom line this quarter so you don't lose your job.

 

That which isn't popular nearly instantly immediately gets dropped. There's no longer any room in the budget for developing and nurturing talent. Either you make them money right the heck now, or you're history - and so is the person who signed you. A&R reps are more concerned with keeping their jobs than taking a risk on something new.

 

There was a time when a band could drop by a radio station with a record. The DJ would listen to it while another record was playing, and if he liked it, he'd play it. If the phones lit up with people saying "play it again!" that was all the focus group that was needed. And, the DJ had a certain sense of ownership for having discovered the band.

 

Playlists are so tightly controlled at the corporate level that even local PD's (program directors) can't add stuff to them anymore. More's the pity. That pretty much killed any local market / regional radio popularity that bands used to enjoy. Now it's all or nothing. The other side effect is there's really no "regional musical sound" anymore. Nothing like the old LA sound, or London sound, or Philadelphia sound...

 

 

The record business used to be pretty tiny; even in the 60s it remained fairly small but then the $$$ started rolling in during the 70s. Multinational corporations saw music as a way to print money, and get some cachet from being involved in entertainment. But selling music had nothing to do with selling TVs, razors, or vodka. With music, you were selling the intangible. So, you needed people who could understand that which is fundamentally intangible. When those people were driven out the industry, and the accountants took over, you ended up with music that was force-fit into a tangible context. Companies would rather bet a zillion dollars on one "sure thing" (Michael Jackson's HIStory, anyone?) then 1% of a zillion dollars on a hundred groups and hope that 10 would make it.

 

But those 10 would rise to the top because they were cool and resonated with people, not because they were supported by millions of dollars of ad buys, product placement, and PR forms placing stories.

 

Now that the people who could understand and appreciate the intangible have been driven off, there's really no one left to serve as the gatekeepers. In one respect, the lack of gatekeepers is good - everyone can put their stuff out now, but there is a big downside to that insofar as the sheer amount of stuff out there, with no one really there to tell people what's hip / cool anymore. Playlists only go so far in that regard IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree with the vacuum concept. But I think it will take people getting tired or more probably annoyed with technology... the way they listen to music now via Internet. I already hear the rumbling. People complaining about the process. For example in my case I will never ever by a Nissan because of that ad on youtube. It's every freaking where. So it's had the opposite affect on me. Nissan is no longer an option when car hunting. They are dead to me. Eventually it will come around again and the annoyance will outweigh the convenience of music at the click of a mouse or whatever you're clicking these days.

 

And don't wait to follow anyone! Start something new... start a trend... be the first! That's my comfort zone.

 

I will admit the last live concert I went to was Fleetwood Mac, 2 years ago this month in Georgia, and it was because of who they are/were to me in my youth. I wanted to see them one last time. The old guard can still fill arenas, where new talent no matter how good struggles to fill a room.

 

I think part of it is overload at present as well. Once I saw the 7-year-old kid play drums to all the Van Halen songs on youtube I thought, "Oh well hell, I can die now... I really have seen it all."

 

One last thought for the time being (Maybe I'll think of something more profound after I've slept). We've taken the power away from the gatekeepers like we all wanted to decades ago, and we've made it too easy to make music. That is, everyone thinks they can make music with loops and such and everyone and their mother is in a band.

 

We do have to blow people away with real musicianship again. It's the saliency that always kept this business in business. That new sound... that new grove... that new look, etc.

 

The saliency I'm planning to spring on the world is vocals with no pitch correction whatsoever. (I never use it). People will stop in their tracks and say "Wow WTH is that sound? Those vocals are like nothing I've ever heard!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I think it's kind of hard to be outrageous, original and different when everything has already been done before.

 

People have been saying that "everything has already been done before" for eons. Do you really believe that? I don't. We're constantly encountering new thoughts, new ideas, new music, etc. You can blow people away. But you have to be really good. And really different. Not too easy.

 

I think the editorial is spot on.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

People have been saying that "everything has already been done before" for eons. Do you really believe that? I don't. We're constantly encountering new thoughts, new ideas, new music, etc. You can blow people away. But you have to be really good. And really different. Not too easy.

 

I think the editorial is spot on.

 

 

Like I said I hear incremental changes in style and there is a lot of great music being made today but I think if something so new and so different and so original was gonna come along and shake the music world like the Rolling Stones or Led Zeppelin did - it would be happening already.

 

People used to ask the question If the Beatles came out today would they be as successful as they were in the sixties? Twenty years ago I used to think they would be. Today I don't think so. I think they would have some success and a lot of people would recognize them as being exceptional but I don't think they would be able to get any airplay on top 40 radio stations. They would probably have some hits on the alternative rock stations and be able to make a living but I doubt they would be considered the influential band that they were in the sixties because they would be playing a type of music that people have already heard before. Doesn't mean they wouldn't still make great music, but this thread is about a lack of big acts in today's world.

 

The context of the times has a lot to do with how people perceive any type of art and like Craig said the music business is so very different than it was in those days that I just don't see how you can have that kind of success like the Rolling Stones or Led Zeppelin had in today's world.

 

But hopefully I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

People have been saying that "everything has already been done before" for eons. Do you really believe that? I don't. We're constantly encountering new thoughts, new ideas, new music, etc. You can blow people away. But you have to be really good. And really different. Not too easy.

 

I agree Ken. I do think it's still possible to blow people away, and that in order to do so the material and performances have to be really, really good. If something really breaks new ground though, and is good AND different, it's going to be difficult for it to gain widespread acceptance due to the fact that there's such a fragmented audience; people are often into just one or two styles, and there are so many different genres and styles, and so much material of mediocre quality in each of those genres for people to have to dig through to find the gems that a cross-stylistic breakout and mass-audience acceptance of something really new and groundbreaking is going to be hard to achieve. But eventually I think there will be something that does so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I agree Ken. I do think it's still possible to blow people away, and that in order to do so the material and performances have to be really, really good. If something really breaks new ground though, and is good AND different, it's going to be difficult for it to gain widespread acceptance due to the fact that there's such a fragmented audience; people are often into just one or two styles, and there are so many different genres and styles, and so much material of mediocre quality in each of those genres for people to have to dig through to find the gems that a cross-stylistic breakout and mass-audience acceptance of something really new and groundbreaking is going to be hard to achieve. But eventually I think there will be something that does so.

 

I know that songs by Adele or Bruno Mars or others are not cutting edge, but these songs, these artists resonated with people because they are sung well and evoke real emotional responses.

 

Now those are pop songs, nothing adventurous or super new. But they still impressed people, including me, who usually doesn't listen to much pop.

 

Now just think if someone came along and really did something new, something different, something utterly cool. In the '60s and '70s in particular, there was a competitiveness creatively where many artists were trying to outdo the other, from Motown/Beatles trying to get the coolest bass sound to later, when people were trying to get the coolest, most outrageous stereo recordings, concept albums, thematic concepts, sound effects, etc. This sort of idea existed in Europe and the U.S., but also in places like Turkey or some countries in Africa or Asia, where often, there were government sponsorships that *encouraged* people to create music in different contexts!!!!

 

I agree that it's more fragmented, and we're unlikely to have something that grabs the Western world the way The Beatles or Pink Floyd or Zeppelin or Radiohead did. But I do think that creating something that blows a lot of people away is still not out of reach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members
Notice that much of Bruno Mars music sounds like much of the era of Morris Day and the Time? How about all of that a lot of Mehgan Trainors music sounds like late 50's bubble gum music? And everyone (the young generation) are proclaiming the "new" sound.

 

You sound like my dad did in the sixties when I was listening to the psychedelic blues guitarists of the British Invasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Manager.

 

Yes, but most aren't on that level. At a recent seminar that offered "career advice" (which I would have titled "Do the opposite to be successful"), the presenter was telling everyone they had to DIY - from recording to engineering, social media, merch, artwork, etc. He never once mentioned the idea of delegating tasks to either people you could pay, or friends who wanted to bolster their resume ("designed artwork for CD projects and web sites").

 

Trying to do everything yourself means something is going to suffer. Even if an act is not on the level of having a full-time professional manager, sometimes the fan base can provide part of that service by alerting you to venues and such.

 

But I think the main takeaway from your post isn't necessarily get a manager...it's "delegate what you can."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...