Adele

[Dendy Jarrett]

Find out how Adele is using MILFs, British comings, singular sensations and happy endings to single-handedly save the recording industry from fiery destruction -

 

Interesting article by Chris Marion!

 

http://www.harmonycentral.com/articles/to-hellor-to-adelein-a-hand-basket

 

[Ernest Buckley]

The only thing that Adele has over every one else is an incredible voice. There are no secret ingredients to her success. The songs she writes are not incredible, but when she sings them, she takes them to another level. Give Taylor Swift an Adele song and it won`t sound as good because TS cannot hold a candle to Adele`s voice. I own 21 and 25 and I own Swifts 1989 and another record she put out earlier in her career. Both artists put out good tunes but Adele`s voice knows no equal. She is her generations Aretha Franklin.

 

I do think that artists would be wise to keep their music from streaming services. I also think artists should remove their songs from any site that sells singles. It may also make the most sense and $$$ for major acts and labels to sell albums directly to consumers from their sites with each download having some sort of algorithm that only allows the song to be downloaded to specific user. How? I don`t know but labels and artists need to rethink streaming and singles. In my opinion, thats what is killing any chance for us to make $$$$.

 

EB

[Folder]

I don't really like Adele's voice or most of her music.

But I do like Taylor Swift's voice and a good bit of her music.

[Folder]

The article says the British are coming.

 

It's been probably about ten or fifteen years now but I remember reading an article about British artists on the American music charts. It said that in 1973 36% (I think) of the songs on the American charts were British artists. Ten years later in 1983 it had actually increased to about 39% (I think).

 

At the time of the article which was the early 2000s it said British artists on the American charts were less than 10%. I remember at the time the Spice Girls were popular but there were a lot of British artists that could not break thru in America.

 

When I was kid all my musical heros were British.

[UstadKhanAli]

She writes good songs, she has a great voice that is very emotional, she seems cool and straightforward, she creates pop music that is better than most of the other pop music out there, and she and the music she makes seems real.

 

I don't even listen to that much pop, but I can tell you that the first time I heard "Rolling in the Deep", it stopped me in my tracks. It was like a force of nature. I don't hear that very much.

 

The second song that I heard her song was "Daydreamer", when I Googled her. This is gorgeous.

 

 

[Vito Corleone]

The only thing that Adele has over every one else is an incredible voice. There are no secret ingredients to her success. The songs she writes are not incredible, but when she sings them, she takes them to another level. Give Taylor Swift an Adele song and it won`t sound as good because TS cannot hold a candle to Adele`s voice. I own 21 and 25 and I own Swifts 1989 and another record she put out earlier in her career. Both artists put out good tunes but Adele`s voice knows no equal. She is her generations Aretha Franklin.

 

 

 

I do think that artists would be wise to keep their music from streaming services. I also think artists should remove their songs from any site that sells singles. It may also make the most sense and $$$ for major acts and labels to sell albums directly to consumers from their sites with each download having some sort of algorithm that only allows the song to be downloaded to specific user. How? I don`t know but labels and artists need to rethink streaming and singles. In my opinion, thats what is killing any chance for us to make $$$$.

 

 

 

EB

 

 

 

Forcing people to buy an album because they like one or two songs? Why not just increase the price of a single to $20?

 

 

 

I think the business model will change. It has to. To what? I dunno. I heard today that Taylor Swift has a new live thing that is exclusive to Apple Music? Maybe the future is that artists will be more like sports stars. Adele gets signed to a label/streaming service and provide exclusive content for $50 million for 3 years. She's only ever seen wearing their "uniform". The artists will be the reason to have "that" service. They'll help to brand it.

[Ernest Buckley]

Forcing people to buy an album because they like one or two songs? Why not just increase the price of a single to $20?

 

Yes, I`m saying that artists should package their albums, not songs. Go back to the older model of the CD by "forcing" the fan to purchase all the songs. Most artists are writing albums anyway as a whole presentation so I don`t have a problem with that.

 

I think singles and streaming services water down artists and I think the last decade has proven that.

 

[Ernest Buckley]

I don't even listen to that much pop' date=' but I can tell you that the first time I heard "Rolling in the Deep", it stopped me in my tracks. It was like a force of nature. I don't hear that very much.[/quote']

 

Same here. Even her new tune "Hello".... my wife played the song for me and my response was after hearing it, "The song is nothing special but damn, she can sing."

 

There is a "primal-ness" to her voice that one in a million singers have. She has this gentle raspy thing going on where her voice sounds like its going to break up but it just keeps on giving and she has tremendous control of her range and dynamics. You don`t see this level of vocal maturity much anymore so enjoy it while it lasts. (Knowing a bit about her vocal issues, her career may be short lived… I only hope I`m wrong and that we get the chance to hear her sing.)

 

We need another Aretha Franklin and Adele is the second coming.

[MikeRivers]

Forcing people to buy an album because they like one or two songs? Why not just increase the price of a single to $20?

 

I think the idea is that we should have more artists who make good albums, for which most listeners who like the artist at all will like every song. Not only that, they'll like how the songs flow from one to another on the album - somethiing that you'll want to take the time to sit down and listen to from start to finish.

 

This wasn't so hard to do in the LP era. An album could be planned as two 20 or so minute sets with a break between them to turn over the record. That's a reasonable amount of material to arrange coherently, and a reasonable expectation of attention span. With CDs, the temptation is to put a couple of good songs on the disk, then a bunch more that the royalty payments contribute to artist/writer's fortune and other production expenses.

 

Might the "LP stream" or "LP download" with five or six songs that you'll want to hear every one of, and in the artist's chosen order to boot, save the industry? Could be.

[Vito Corleone]

[/size]

 

Yes, I`m saying that artists should package their albums, not songs. Go back to the older model of the CD by "forcing" the fan to purchase all the songs. Most artists are writing albums anyway as a whole presentation so I don`t have a problem with that.

 

I think singles and streaming services water down artists and I think the last decade has proven that.

 

Yeah, but you can't force product on people. There has to be a demand for it. That's part of what killed the music business in the first place.

 

I don't know that we'll ever get back to the "album" era again. People's lifestyles are so much more different now. Listening to 40 minutes of music by one artist doesn't seem realistic to me. Sure---there are going to be the rare Adele or Taylor exceptions, but as the model for the whole industry?

 

The more I think about it, the more I think the label/service branding model might be where we are headed. The one odd thing about the previous era of music is that while labels controlled the industry, nobody much cared about them. Who cared if somebody's album was on Warner Bros or Columbia? Berry Gordy came the closest to doing this with Motown, and a few jazz labels had stylistic niches. But beyond that? It didn't happen.

 

But what I see happening now is the way the streaming services are competing for market share. It's no longer about everyone having their latest singles up on the rack and jockeying for end cap space in the retail store. It's about who is going to pay however-much per month to subscribe to your service. And if you're the only one whose got Adele or Taylor or whoever else.....

 

At which point it won't be about albums as much as who can put out a steady stream of new material. Here's Adele's latest single, and here's a live-concert stream, and now here's some backstage interviews, etc etc.

 

 

[Folder]

 

I don't even listen to that much pop, but I can tell you that the first time I heard "Rolling in the Deep", it stopped me in my tracks. It was like a force of nature. I don't hear that very much.

 

 

Yeah that's one those songs you remember where you were the first time you heard it. One of those songs you feel like calling the radio station to request (If they still took requests). I waited for days for the DJ to finally say who it was.

 

But I have to admit I haven't liked anything else she's done since then. Of course I don't own her album's so maybe there might be some songs I would like on them. Maybe I'll like the next single but for me everything else I've heard so far is just way too schmaltzy. And I just don't get her comparison to Aretha.

[Vito Corleone]

 

I think the idea is that we should have more artists who make good albums, for which most listeners who like the artist at all will like every song. Not only that, they'll like how the songs flow from one to another on the album - somethiing that you'll want to take the time to sit down and listen to from start to finish.

 

This wasn't so hard to do in the LP era. An album could be planned as two 20 or so minute sets with a break between them to turn over the record. That's a reasonable amount of material to arrange coherently, and a reasonable expectation of attention span. With CDs, the temptation is to put a couple of good songs on the disk, then a bunch more that the royalty payments contribute to artist/writer's fortune and other production expenses.

 

Might the "LP stream" or "LP download" with five or six songs that you'll want to hear every one of, and in the artist's chosen order to boot, save the industry? Could be.

 

Sounds nice, but I don't think we're going back to people listening to long form music. They'll probably be some exceptions. But as a general rule-- "take the time to sit down and listen from start to finish"? Who's going to do that in this modern era?

 

What the industry DOES need, though, is more 'rock stars'. I've been saying for years now (and I still believe is true) is that while the anti-rock star/shoe-gazing-introspective artist thing that sprung up in the 90s was a necessary respite after the over-blown 80s, it also eventually helped kill the industry. It needs big name, bigger-than-life stars to grab media attention. Musicians who can make people care about them as much as the music. And whether the artist is Adele, who does it primary with her voice, or Taylor Swift who does it primarily with her ability to connect her lyrics to a particular audience, or a Mylie Cyrus or Lady Gaga doing it with outrageous antics---that's all good and simply a function of what that artist brings to the table.

 

 

[Zooey]

Adele's latest hit is a tiresome dirge.

[UstadKhanAli]

Well, unfortunately, I missed that NBC special she had, the concert in NYC. Oh well.

[Ernest Buckley]

I don't know that we'll ever get back to the "album" era again. People's lifestyles are so much more different now. Listening to 40 minutes of music by one artist doesn't seem realistic to me. Sure---there are going to be the rare Adele or Taylor exceptions' date=' but as the model for the whole industry?[/quote']

 

People commute more now than ever. It takes me 45 - 60 minutes whenever I have to travel to work, I listen to entire records.

 

Its about attention spans, not quality of music IMO.

[Vito Corleone]

 

People commute more now than ever. It takes me 45 - 60 minutes whenever I have to travel to work, I listen to entire records.

 

Its about attention spans, not quality of music IMO.

 

It's about attention spans. Exactly. But people who commute 45-60 min to work? Is that really the target audience?

 

​Musical tastes are formed at a young age. Teens have ALWAYS been the primary target audience for most music. ESPECIALLY for new artists. By the time you're commuting to work, you're listening to the 'classics' and hating the new stuff already, aren't you? Most people, anyway.

[Ernest Buckley]

 

It's about attention spans. Exactly. But people who commute 45-60 min to work? Is that really the target audience?

 

​Musical tastes are formed at a young age. Teens have ALWAYS been the primary target audience for most music. ESPECIALLY for new artists. By the time you're commuting to work, you're listening to the 'classics' and hating the new stuff already, aren't you? Most people, anyway.

 

I`m in the minority for sure… just last month I was listening to these entire albums:

 

Taylor Swifts "1989"

Adeles "21"

Seals new album "7"

Coldplay "A Head Full of Dreams"

Goldfrapps "Head First"

Jean-Michel Jarre "Electronica 1"

 

I`m 42… my kids listen to Top 40 constantly so I guess I still have an ear to the ground.

[Folder]

 

Teens have ALWAYS been the primary target audience for most music. ESPECIALLY for new artists. By the time you're commuting to work, you're listening to the 'classics' and hating the new stuff already, aren't you? Most people, anyway.

 

I think there have always been some "teen pop star" artists that are marketed to teens but to say that "Teens have ALWAYS been the primary target audience for most music" is ludicrous in my opinion. I think teens are more likely to be into what's new and hip and the music industry is constantly seeking the latest cool trends and styles which are usually created by younger people and younger people tend to purchase more current "pop music" but I don't think there are any rules about how old a person should be to like a certain type of music.

 

I used to love listening to top forty radio with my grandmother who was in her seventies when I was in grammar school. I first heard "Eleanor Rigby" on a single she had on her turntable when I was about five years old.

 

People like certain genres of music. Some people like "popular music". Millions of people of all ages listen to "the new stuff" at work, in their cars and at home. I still listen to "The new stuff" on the radio everyday. There's a lot of it I don't care for but it has absolutely nothing to do with it being music for teens.

 

This thread is about a current top forty artist and most of the people on this forum are Gen-Xers and Baby Boomers yet we all have heard her songs on the radio.

[UstadKhanAli]

I just bought tickets for her show in Los Angeles. I love her voice.

 

I've been to rock, metal, reggae, psychedelic, country, bluegrass, experimental, ambient, electronic shows. But never a pop concert. Until now.

[Ernest Buckley]

I just bought tickets for her show in Los Angeles. I love her voice.

 

I've been to rock, metal, reggae, psychedelic, country, bluegrass, experimental, ambient, electronic shows. But never a pop concert. Until now.

 

I don`t remember the last "pop" concert I went to… I was going to get tickets for Adele here at MSG but I decided not to. As much as I enjoy her albums, I`m usually satiated after 45 minutes. Maybe I`ll change my mind in time...

[Vito Corleone]

 

I think there have always been some "teen pop star" artists that are marketed to teens but to say that "Teens have ALWAYS been the primary target audience for most music" is ludicrous in my opinion. I think teens are more likely to be into what's new and hip and the music industry is constantly seeking the latest cool trends and styles which are usually created by younger people and younger people tend to purchase more current "pop music" but I don't think there are any rules about how old a person should be to like a certain type of music.

 

I used to love listening to top forty radio with my grandmother who was in her seventies when I was in grammar school. I first heard "Eleanor Rigby" on a single she had on her turntable when I was about five years old.

 

 

​And you don't see how your grandmother was the exception to the rule? Even though you were only five, you certainly understand how The Beatles were marketed and sold, don't you? Their images were on things like lunch boxes, not bottles of Jean Nate.

 

​I don't think it's at all ludicrous to say "teens have always been the primary target audience for most music." When have they not been? Even in the case of Adele, whose demographic skews a bit older than most other current pop artists, they are STILL targeting her primarily to the younger end of her demographic. Sure---she sells more than most because she's got a broader appeal than most. But that's what makes her the exception, not the rule.

 

​Even Sinatra started off as a teen idol. That's great that sometimes older folks like some of the new music too, or that once in awhile an artist exists that isn't really a "teen" thing. But to the degree the conversation is about the future of the industry and things like whether the album is a viable format going forward? Yeah---it's about the kids. Always has been. Why would that change?

 

[Vito Corleone]

And let me put all that another way:

 

​I just don't see how you start hooking younger listeners on the album format nor I do see how you start breaking new artists to older listeners who might be interested in albums.

 

​OCCASSIONALLY there's a new artist that connects with older audiences: Adele is obviously one (and I presume older audiences make up a good chunk of all those album sales she has). Norah Jones was one of the last I can think of that was this huge and she moved product like hotcakes as well. But that was 15 years ago. Those things happen far too rarely to be a model for an entire industry. For the most part, older listeners would rather listen to old albums, or even new albums by older artists, rather than get excited about someone new.

 

​And even with Adele---sure---older audiences have embraced her and helped her become the huge deal that she is today, but without "Rollin' In The Deep" connecting with younger audiences and zooming to the top of the Top 40 charts? She'd likely just be another one of those really good kinda-retro sounding singers that show up on my Pandora playlists that I've never heard of.

 

 

[Folder]

I just bought tickets for her show in Los Angeles. I love her voice.

 

I've been to rock, metal, reggae, psychedelic, country, bluegrass, experimental, ambient, electronic shows. But never a pop concert. Until now.

 

And I thought McCartney was expensive.

 

At the other end of the spectrum are a pair of third row floor seats for Friday priced at over $10,000 apiece. That same general area of seating goes up to more than $18,000 per ticket on Saturday night.

 

http://talktown.blog.myajc.com/2015/12/17/didnt-get-adele-tickets-dont-despair-prepare-to-pay/

[tbry]

40 minutes dedicated to a single artist or act is not likely to ever be the way music is going to be consumed in the future...Pandora is the norm now with rotating artist in the genre you prefer...I personally like it that way. Although there are times when I want to listen to a bunch of songs from a particular artist or band I mostly lean to the newer model...I like a song and look for someone else that can do that too...what is cool is that if my 93 year old mother is in the car I can put on Dean Martin and she will like all the songs that play whether it is Dean or Frank or Doris Day.

She wont like my Jack Johnson station or Fountains of Wayne or Beatles but I can hit a home run with her genre...

[Folder]

 

​Even in the case of Adele, whose demographic skews a bit older than most other current pop artists, they are STILL targeting her primarily to the younger end of her demographic.

 

I think they are promoting her to the "top forty" radio format because that is where the biggest audience is. You may see it as promoting her to teenagers but I don't. I've never seen it that way. To me you have different genres of music and pop music is the lowest common denominator of those genres. More people listen to the "pop stations". Of course like I said there have always been teen pop stars but they are in the minority in my view. I don't think most artists are thinking about the age range of their listeners. Most artists are just trying to create good music that people like and get some exposure. I think all artists would like to have a big hit record on the charts.

 

Do teens tend to keep up with popular culture and the latest trends more than older people? Of course. And we all know that younger people tend to buy more music. (Or at least they used to) But to say that "Teens have ALWAYS been the primary target audience for most music" is quite a stretch if you ask me. I mean I know people who didn't even really start to get into music until they were well into their twenties.