Neil Young sez "Piracy is the new radio, That's how music gets around."

[metronome_jones]

Sure, getting your unknown music in the hands/ears of the unwashed masses is best handed out for free.

But what happens when you actually wish to see some financial payback for the work you did?

Even if you record everything at home w/ pirated recording software, those CDs you attempt to sell at gigs didnt just get handed to you for free.

 

Let's just say there are no absolutes here.

[Matximus]

As far as ugly white guys go, all these indie bands that the kids listen today are full of ugly smelly looking dudes with beards and they seem to do just fine

 

Exactly: They do "just fine." That's cause Indie music is like Jazz but no one is ready to admit it yet - it's respectable, high-minded, niche music for aficianados.

 

But look - it breaks down like this like this: Dylan to Neil Young equals Amy Winehouse- to-Adele. Person with unorthodox - and somewhat challenging - music & looks paves way for much uglier person to thrive that makes more palatable, much less challenging music in a similar vein.

 

Back to Indie Music - the only ones in Indie music (in U.S., at least) carrying the fire belly like great record makers of old is Arcade Fire. They care enough to figure out how to rock a stadium - I think its cause their leader is a tad older than some of his peers. He grew up on Grunge, same way as grunge rockers grew up on Sammy Hager & Kiss & REO Speed Wagon. They got punk - but they couldn't shake that pop bombast in the soul. Arcade Fire has that. Dudes ugly - but he brings it like Townsend.

 

Rest of people that make indie Music today seem to embrace this cloying & alarming anti-charisma fog. It Baffles me. I think its cause if you are 25 and make music with guitars right now - the only people you had setting the example for you in your most important formative years (around 15) would be.... Who? {censored}ing Coldplay? The STrokes, maybe? Egads: Blink 182 and the VINES. I like or love all of them well enough- but world beating rockers they are not. Most high-profile rocking band you had showing you how to get it done would be White STripes. Or, I'm throwing up in my mouth a little bit at the thought: Loud, hamfisted, heart-on-the sleeves types like Linkin Park. That's it: Pathetic. Limp-Wristed Coldplay & Whiney Emo Rockers broke Rock music. I believe this 100%. Well - it was Mostly RadioHeads fault. They gave Coldplay all their bad ideas that it's cool for ugly guys to make weepy songs over rocking balls with loud cathartic songs. Or actually: That it's super awesome to make rocking balls cathartic songs that are .... whiney - WTF?? Rocking balls should be rocking balls.

 

Anyway: On the flip side: Who was throwing down the gauntlet in Top 40 pop when Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Adele and others at the top of the their pop game were teens? Max Martin - the unbelievable hitmaker for Britney, Back Street Boys, N'Sync & Kelly Clarkson. Say what you will about the sentiment & sonics of those songs he was churning out like tic tacs circa 2001: They were as well-crafted & sharp as ninja swords.

 

They're all taking the basic ideas behind his songs and dolling em up in different styles - pure pop, dance, retro soul. But they are all hitting the marks like Max Martin showed em how when they lip sync Hit Me Baby... in front of their bedroom mirrors when they wre kids.

 

There should be a seroius re-assessment of the good things to come out of that boy Band era. That era needs more respect. It gets knocked, but there was a lot of good things to come out of that boy band sound.

 

And on who will be legendary: Britney Spears will be a legend.

 

She is one already among people that were tweens when she was dominating pop ten years ago. Love or hate her- she was an important artist of her time. And the victors write the history books.

 

She is big as Madonna to a lot of people that own the charts today - the people that own the charts today cement the narrative that will become gospel among the people that own the charts tomorrow. Call Britney garbage or whatever: But Beatles were considered disposable puke pop for Teeny Boppers when they first came out. Now they're legendary geniuses as important as Shakespeare. It's all bull{censored}, but the reason for that: The teeny boppers that loved the Beatles disposable puke pop decided they were geniuses - that's the story that survived after those teeny boppers that grew up on the Beatles started making hit records of their own.

 

The pop deification of Britney is well under way. It helped that she cut a handful of really, really good & fun records. When she was a kid. She still does: Last year's "Roll With You" was ridiculous. Love it!

[richardmac]

Oh boy, Max. You outdid yourself in this post. The genius of the boy band era, and Britney Spears will be legendary. Heh heh. It's like walking into the Gibson forum and saying "Les Pauls suck - the Squier Bullet is a much better guitar!"

 

I will say this - we are in no position, any of us, to predict what acts will still have their music played 30 years from now. If you want to look at history, then you would say that at least some of the Top 100 songs of each year will still be played 30 years from now. But it's darn hard to predict which ones.

 

Madonna keeps coming up, but it wouldn't surprise me at all for her to turn into a musical footnote in the not so distant future. As much as she's doing to try to stay current, I don't know too many people who still listen to even her old music, honestly.

[BlueStrat]

 

Exactly: They do "just fine." That's cause Indie music is like Jazz but no one is ready to admit it yet - it's respectable, high-minded, niche music for aficianados. But look - it breaks down like this like this: Dylan to Neil Young equals Amy Winehouse- to-Adele. Person with unorthodox - and somewhat challenging - music & looks paves way for much uglier person to thrive that makes more palatable, much less challenging music in a similar vein. Back to Indie Music - the only ones in Indie music (in U.S., at least) carrying the fire belly like great record makers of old is Arcade Fire. They care enough to figure out how to rock a stadium - I think its cause their leader is a tad older than some of his peers. He grew up on Grunge, same way as grunge rockers grew up on Sammy Hager & Kiss & REO Speed Wagon. They got punk - but they couldn't shake that pop bombast in the soul. Arcade Fire has that. Dudes ugly - but he brings it like Townsend. Rest of people that make indie Music today seem to embrace this cloying & alarming anti-charisma fog. It Baffles me. I think its cause if you are 25 and make music with guitars right now - the only people you had setting the example for you in your most important formative years (around 15) would be.... Who? {censored}ing Coldplay? The STrokes, maybe? Egads: Blink 182 and the VINES. I like or love all of them well enough- but world beating rockers they are not. Most high-profile rocking band you had showing you how to get it done would be White STripes. Or, I'm throwing up in my mouth a little bit at the thought: Loud, hamfisted, heart-on-the sleeves types like Linkin Park. That's it: Pathetic. Limp-Wristed Coldplay & Whiney Emo Rockers broke Rock music. I believe this 100%. Well - it was Mostly RadioHeads fault. They gave Coldplay all their bad ideas that it's cool for ugly guys to make weepy songs over rocking balls with loud cathartic songs. Or actually: That it's super awesome to make rocking balls cathartic songs that are .... whiney - WTF?? Rocking balls should be rocking balls. Anyway: On the flip side: Who was throwing down the gauntlet in Top 40 pop when Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Adele and others at the top of the their pop game were teens? Max Martin - the unbelievable hitmaker for Britney, Back Street Boys, N'Sync & Kelly Clarkson. Say what you will about the sentiment & sonics of those songs he was churning out like tic tacs circa 2001: They were as well-crafted & sharp as ninja swords. They're all taking the basic ideas behind his songs and dolling em up in different styles - pure pop, dance, retro soul. But they are all hitting the marks like Max Martin showed em how when they lip sync Hit Me Baby... in front of their bedroom mirrors when they wre kids. There should be a seroius re-assessment of the good things to come out of that boy Band era. That era needs more respect. It gets knocked, but there was a lot of good things to come out of that boy band sound. And on who will be legendary: Britney Spears will be a legend. She is one already among people that were tweens when she was dominating pop ten years ago. Love or hate her- she was an important artist of her time. And the victors write the history books. She is big as Madonna to a lot of people that own the charts today - the people that own the charts today cement the narrative that will become gospel among the people that own the charts tomorrow. Call Britney garbage or whatever: But Beatles were considered disposable puke pop for Teeny Boppers when they first came out. Now they're legendary geniuses as important as Shakespeare. It's all bull{censored}, but the reason for that: The teeny boppers that loved the Beatles disposable puke pop decided they were geniuses - that's the story that survived after those teeny boppers that grew up on the Beatles started making hit records of their own. The pop deification of Britney is well under way. It helped that she cut a handful of really, really good & fun records. When she was a kid. She still does: Last year's "Roll With You" was ridiculous. Love it!

 

 

I agree withg all of this too. And I think Justin Timberlake will be a legend. Gaga. Several of the hip hop guys.

 

What it troubling to me, though, is that so much of the music they put out is so forgettable. Their legendary status is acheived in their personality, performance, and staying power, pretty much the exact opposote of a Neil Young or a Joni Mitcvhell, who wrote brilliant songs and just stood there and played them well. The Super Bowl half time show was a great example. Well done spectacle befitting a pop icon. Flawlessly executed, grandly over the top, but in truth the music was little more than a prop, a background for the show itself. I watched the game with a lot of people at our house, folks my age, some 10 years younger, and my kids and their fiances aged 23 to 30. And The younger girls loved it. The older wives thought it was interesting. Most of the guys thought it was over the top. All of us agreed that no one would be singing any of those songs in their heads or on the way to work this morning.

 

And that seems to be how it is today. Some of the best selling stuff in the world is dance club music. Is that good, bad, or indifferent? I don't know. Certainly not stuff I want to listen to as I find utterly forgettable. I vaguely remembered "like a prayer" but for the most part, the lyrics are trite and mind numbingly vapid and the songs are repetitive and run one in to another. But lots of people must really like it a lot.

 

I don't know when or even if we'll ever have a master lyricist who can turn a phrase and touch people's spirits the way a Dylan or a Neil Young or a Joni Mitchell do who can crack the hot sellers charts the way they did 30 years ago, and that worries me some.

[Vermoulian]

On the original topic, one thing that is undeniable and often gets forgotten is that NOBODY in living memory became a musical star without some mechanism by which a live audience could hear their music for free. For a variety of reasons, radio, which served that function for decades, is not doing that anymore---at least, not to anywhere near the extent it used to. But the point is, people have ALWAYS listened to music for free.

[Brian Hulnick]

 

Yes.

 

 

Agreed, an illegal download is an illegal download.

[g.bird84]

 

There only legend in the past 20 years in rock is Kurt Cobain and I suspect it's because he offed himself because I'm not hearing any brilliance in his music. Never have and I knew them when they were still on SubPop..... Alas, the focus on looks since the proliferation of videos and MTV has {censored}ed the art. Do you think they would have ever Signed bug-eyed Billy Joel? Bob Seger?, Elton, and the list goes on and on..I mean there were some like the Beatles and early stones who had the looks that begot pop appeal but there are SO MANY GREATS who were less than beautiful. The focus on looks nowadays is ONLY in the mainstream beat driven pop drivel. Everyone else who are all about their own Niche do not care about {censored} anymore. You're going to see lots of changes in music in the next decade and it's going to be for the better:) This Younger generation doesn't and never has played by the same rules as those of us over 30. Grab some popcorn cause it's going to be fun!

 

 

You are so spot on there.

[BlueStrat]

 

You're going to see lots of changes in music in the next decade and it's going to be for the better

 

 

Based on what evidence? And please define "better." Because from what i can see, really great music may be more available but it is not making any money to support the artist. The stuff that is making money is still vapid pop crap. In a truly merit based world, a James McMurtry or a Chris Knight or a Wayne Shorter would be household name superstars and Andre 3000 would be a dishwasher model, not a star.

[daddymack]

Sadly, this has never been a meritocracy...we as music listeners have always been at the mercy of the appeal to the lowest common denominator, and for all we know, the greatest artists of all time have toiled unrewarded and died in obscurity because no one with the power to move them up saw their potential, or cared to assist them.

Genius, skill and/or talent alone will never be enough...'twas ever thus.

[richardmac]

Let's not forget that our grandparents and parents probably both said the same things when they were 42 years old. I'm sure the old folks thought "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" was the dumbest thing ever, because they were used to the crooners who sung with style and class. And I know that my parents thought KISS and Rush and Genesis were all noise. They were right about KISS but not the other two.

 

Point being the old farts always think the new music sucks. In other news, the sun will rise.

 

Don't ask a 40 year old if he thinks the 20 year old's music is good. That never works.

 

And I disagree with piracy being the new radio. Spotify is the new radio. It and the other businesses like it. Again, if the cable companies ever bundle it, it's going to be game over for almost everything else. I haven't bought a single CD since I started subscribing to Spotify. No reason to. And for people trying to make a living selling plastic shiny discs, that's bad news, but for me, it's good news, because I'm listening to more music and I can hear almost everything I want.

 

I do confess, though, that right now (on Spotify) I have headphones on and I'm listening to "Thunderstorm and Rain Sound for Deep Concentration, Studying and Graduation - Soothing Rainstorm Sound." No, seriously. It's drowning out the kids in the background, the dog, the stupid TV show on in the living room, everything. It's very relaxing.

[Poker99]

Sadly, this has never been a meritocracy...we as music listeners have always been at the mercy of the appeal to the lowest common denominator, and for all we know, the greatest artists of all time have toiled unrewarded and died in obscurity because no one with the power to move them up saw their potential, or cared to assist them. Genius, skill and/or talent alone will never be enough...'twas ever thus.

 

Wrong. I can think of at least one time when it happenned.

 

 

 

[Vito Corleone]

My 4-year old daughter has become my barometer for which current pop songs my band should learn. I make CDs (yes, I still use those) of songs my band is learning, or that I'm thinking about having us learn and the ones that my daughter ends up asking me to play over-and-over are the ones that end up going over best. Her current favorites are Katy Perry's "California Gurls", Britney's "Till The World Ends" and Gaga's "Born This Way". Whenever that one comes on she always tells me "Daddy! We have to put our paws up!"

 

So what does this tell us? Is this some sign of the degradation of pop music that it appeals so much to 4 year olds? I dunno. To some degree it's always been that way. What I call Nursery-Rhyme songs have always been big hits. Songs with very simple melodies that remind me of "Three Blind Mice" like "The Hokey Pokey" or "Achy Breaky Heart" or "We're Not Gonna Take It" have always been huge and end up being the songs that last for decades. My daughter will probably still have a guilty-pleasure connection with those songs when she's 40 because they will be among some of her earliest memories. She might even buy tickets to go see a 70-year old Britney Spears warble through them or watch her close out the Grammy's telecast with Justin and Katy and Jack White joining her on stage.

[daddymack]

Yes, except that his music was bought and paid for by the wealthy, for the wealthy...and at inception was never intended for the general public, like most 'classical composers'.

[daddymack]

Wrong. I can think of at least one time when it happenned.

Yes, good point... his music never publicly 'aired' for free during his lifetime (obviously), and much of it was bought and paid for by the wealthy, for the wealthy...and at inception was never intended for the general public, like most classical/romantic era composers.

[Kramerguy]

I think the message is lost.. I gave up reading responses at about #20 because nobody seems to have noticed the biggest flaw of Neil's argument.. Nobody pirates UNKNOWNS. People pirate Metallica, Brittany, and Miley. Pandora, Slacker Radio? They play corporate rock like everyone else. There's literally nowhere to go to listen to good and filtered unknowns other than college radio, and even then 95% of it is sponsored. So how exactly does piracy support unknowns? It doesn't. It helps people who are already recognized to gain bigger audiences. There's still 100,000 musos out there who can't give it away and would be thankful for a "piracy boost". I give Neil mad props, he was certainly an influence in my younger years.. but you guys are right in the end- he's way out of touch with the struggles of the modern unknown musicians.

[Perfessor]

 

I'd love to see a proper scientific study on vinyl vs digital. I'm talking strict control of all variables, double-blinding, and proper sample size/selection. Oh yeah, I agree: piracy is the new radio. Back in the day, you'd drop hundreds of thousands of dollars bribing a radio station to play a track. Now, you lose money to pirating, but you get the exposure. Same deal: you pay to play.

 

 

Several years ago Radio Netherlands, on international shortwave, did a study just like you describe. They had different groups of people in a studio for many days to find out which music sounded better to them, vinyl records or CD's. In 70% of the time it was the vinyl records. The reason is that vinyl records capture a 3rd order harmonic that sounds more like live music. CD's and electronic media produce sound in an antiseptic fashion and this harmonic is missing. Also the vinyl records sounded richer according to those who were in the study.

 

When new music is put out, they always first produce 100 promotional copies in vinyl. These are all collectors items. The reason they produce the promo's in vinyl is because they want whomever is hearing the music for the first time, principally music sales executives, to have the best impression of it.

[Carlos.S]

His comment seems like someone who has made his pile and no longer gives a toss.

[BlueStrat]

 

Oh yeah, I agree: piracy is the new radio.

 

 

It's interesting that this same philosophy does not apply to other arts, like theater. My brother in law is artistic director for a small 200-seat theater and they have to pay full royalty rates for every play they put on. Theaters who don't pay are aggressively pursued and sued or shut down. One would think they could just say to the playwright, "but look at all the free exposure you're getting". They don't accept it.

[m.shaw87]

 

Several years ago Radio Netherlands, on international shortwave, did a study just like you describe. They had different groups of people in a studio for many days to find out which music sounded better to them, vinyl records or CD's. In 70% of the time it was the vinyl records. The reason is that vinyl records capture a 3rd order harmonic that sounds more like live music. CD's and electronic media produce sound in an antiseptic fashion and this harmonic is missing. Also the vinyl records sounded richer according to those who were in the study. When new music is put out, they always first produce 100 promotional copies in vinyl. These are all collectors items. The reason they produce the promo's in vinyl is because they want whomever is hearing the music for the first time, principally music sales executives, to have the best impression of it.

 

 

 

You are so on the money. You will never beat vinyl. I did not realize about the new material stuff tho.

[NeverTheMachine]

With regard to what he said in the end "piracy is the new radio"; I know he's just being an objective observer of that, but I can't help but get a sense of acceptance of it coming from him. Someone like him shouldn't be so complacent about it. Yeah, it's okay that piracy is the new radio for him, he was around when there was real radio and people actually paid top dollar for albums.

[NeverTheMachine]

By the way, piracy can never be the "new radio". Maybe pandora, jango and internet radio in general is. When you have pirated music, you have the files, it takes the element of surprise and spontaneity out of the music, which I'm sure adds to the excitement of hearing something new, then wanting to "have it" for yourself. PIracy and hoarding of music makes you appreciate it less.

 

This isn't rocket science of course....

[js1]

Well, radio isn't radio today. As a place to discover a wide range of new music - it sure doesn't fulfill that role. As a place to connect younger people together (er, "teenagers"), fail again. I don't know anyone under 30 that listens to music radio. Not even to wake up to - this is what IPhones are for.

 

So, what replaces radio as a place to sample and bond over new music? "Hey, you gotta check this out...."

 

js

[David Bereuther]

true!

[BlueStrat]

 

So, what replaces radio as a place to sample and bond over new music? "Hey, you gotta check this out...." js

 

 

About the closest thing is Pandora anymore.

[satannica]

This is utter crap.

 

If the police came out and said "We're no longer taking any interest whatsoever in auto theft", what exactly do you think the reaction would be? We'd just take the nearest car, do what we wanted and leave it where we got to. There'd be no point in owning one because someone would just steal it anyway. They wouldn't be worth anything on the black market because people would just steal them anyway. Dealers wouldn't be able to sell them because people would just steal them anyway. The people who were still buying their cars might spend £10k on a family wagon while someone across the road drives away with one for each family member.

 

Suddenly, car companies stop making cars for the average joes and only make cars that they will sell to people who can afford £300,000 Ferraris who keep them under armed guard and they can race on private race tracks. Why take a risk on smaller uglier cars that, although people enjoy, they couldn't sell for two farthings.

 

You can apply the "take it for free" method to anything on the planet. Just because it happens doesn't make it correct.

 

But, along with Bog Ghrol of Foo Fighters, if Neal is happy for everyone to steal his music, I'm more than happy to serve his back catalog from my PC since he feels so dapper about the whole situation!