Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Anderton

Seriously: What if the World Doesn't Really Need Any New Music?

Recommended Posts

I was talking with a friend today about streaming services, and how little musicians make from it. Often in this type of discussion, the trump card is "Well if musicians don't get paid to make music, they'll take their football, go home, and not make any more music .Let's see how the streaming services like that!"

 

Actually, it occurred to me they just might...as would the "rights holders" (translation: not musicians or songwriters).

 

More music exists and is accessible to more people than ever If no new music is ever made, I'll be long dead before I hear even a small fraction of what I'd want to hear. Upcoming generations have access to the entire history of music, and of course, it's new to them. And I lot of people my age are locked into listening to the music of their youth, which isn't going away.

 

Meanwhile, the "rights holders" get money with no risk, no paying for artist development, no advances to potentially great groups, and no need to create, inventory, or ship physical product. At this point it's all pure profit; the expenses were covered years ago.

 

Of course, record companies will be happy to make the odd hundreds of millions of dollars if an artist like Adele breaks through and sells actual physical media, but that's just icing on the cake.

 

This isn't a "oh, the old days were much better" rant. The music industry has always had problems. What's happened is a profound, fundamental, and irreversible change: Music is no longer an exclusively real-time experience. Imagine what would happen to grocery stores if you bought a chicken, ate it, and then next day, the chicken magically regenerated itself so you could eat it again...

 

So what incentive do streaming services have to care about musicians pulling their music? None that I can see.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had this thought before. I certainly don't think it needs any new rock or jazz. As good as some 20th century classical music is, the truth is that if nothing new in the genre had been produced since 1900 we'd all still have plenty to appreciate and enjoy and for new generations to discover.

 

​There will always be an artistic need to create. And a need for people to find new music to connect with. Every generation needs their music, I think. But if there's no real money to made from producing/selling it, there won't be much of it. And the marketplace will adjust to that.

 

​So if for new generations "their" music is stuff attached to movies/TV and the occasional Adele record...so be it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably a simple answer to an uniformed question but why don't the creators of the music earn money from plays? I thought BMI and Ascap collected mechanicals and paid .095 cents.

I asked this question about Youtube plays and I am pretty sure that after so many plays the creator joins in the payouts. Someone told after 200,000 plays then Youtube will have you join as some sort of affiliate and start paying you either from advertising money or BMI/ ASCAP payouts.

 

As far as new music goes you are correct...if no new music was made there would still a ton left to listen to...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I certainly don't think it needs any new rock or jazz.

 

Why?

 

What about country or R&B?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as new music goes you are correct...if no new music was made there would still a ton left to listen to...

 

Yeah but most people get sick of hearing the same ol' same ol' after a while don't they?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are in an era where folks just lay down and die lamb-like before whatever market forces prevail. Musicians still create things that people want, with some measure of uniqueness. But when the market says "give me your music so I can make money off of it, and I will give you nothing or close to nothing in return" the musicians just mumble "ok" and hand it over.

 

It's as if you have to have a car to get to work, but the toll roads take as much as you can earn by working. Lots of money to the toll road people, none or close to none for you. But your only chance is to keep working so maybe you'll get promoted and make more money than the toll roads take.

 

Who would tolerate that in the working world?? Who but musicians?

 

The Market is The Man, folks.

 

nat whilk ii

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[sung in imitation Frank Zappa/Absolutely Free voice:] Disintermediate, disintermediate.

 

Disintermediation (artists syndicating and promoting their music themselves via their own efforts and under their own control) has some downsides -- without a label, certain promotional avenues can become more difficult -- labels often have already established relationships with the shadowy (some would say sleazy) world of so-called independent promotion and with the just-don't-call-it-payola world of radio (terrestrial and otherwise -- I've started getting what are essentially unsolicited payola requests from online stations) -- but it also means the artist gets to keep pretty much all the royalties coming back from streaming. With the exception of 800 pound gorilla, Spotify, most subscription services tend to pay up around a penny per normal length track. It doesn't sound like a lot -- but it adds up if you make the kind of music that people keep listening to.

 

One of my favorite albums -- at one time a frequent get out of bed morning album -- has accumulated enough plays across the 13 track album in just the last two years I've been on my current service to earn the rights holders over $40 (assuming those rights holders get the same pay-out as I do as a fully indie artist -- although they may well get more as the album is on a major label). That's ongoing pure revenue (after paying syndication fees; I use Distrokid which is essentially $20 per artist per year). If I keep playing that album as I have, it'll be equivalent to another $40 of pure revenue from the one album from just my plays in another two years. And there are a number of other albums in my semi-regular rotation that have earned as much or more (in those two years on this service [which displays how many times you've played a track, making it easy enough to guesstimate]) as a self-releasing artist would be likely to make from physical sale of the album.

 

(If, OTOH, one makes the sort of music that people pull out of the jewel case and listen to only a handful of times before sending the CD to the bottom of the stack, it's probably best to try to maximize your physical sales via gig sales and the like.)

 

 

It's worth noting that the Beatles organization chose to not only put the core of the Beatles 'current' catalog in stream syndication (they had already had a limited presence on the free-or-paid Pandora for some time), they went ahead and put it on Spotify, with its ~ 3-to-1 ratio of paid and ad-driven accounts. The thinking, according to insiders, was apparently that the ad-driven tier would be important for extending the Beatles's reach and, hence, longevity, even though it pays considerably less than the subscription tier on Spot. (And, as noted, other services pay as much as twice or more what Spotify does, depending on contracts with labels.)

 

 

Of course, if one is labeled up, one is likely to only receive 10-20% of artist/rights holder stream royalties (but as much as 50% for hot, in-demand artists with smart negotiating teams).

 

Now, one place where stream payments can look really tiny is in writer/publisher royalties. But songwriter/publisher payouts are based on rates set by the 'consent decree' courts and performance royalties based on theoretically equivalent terrestrial radio royalties. (In the US, of course, only the publisher/songwriter entity gets a royalty for radio play. Artists receive nothing under the presumption that being played on the radio has positive promotional value.)

 

More on royalties: https://www.royaltyexchange.com/learn/music-royalties/

Edited by blue2blue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why?

 

What about country or R&B?

 

Those genres, too, have seen their best music composed already. Not saying there isn't probably still great music to be written in any genres. But does the world "need" any of it?

 

​I know that's a highly subjective statement. But there is a valid point to be made by those who think the 'best' of those genres was when they were fresh and new and exciting.

 

​If every new pop song to be written is going to be compared to The Beatles and deemed to fall short, why bother when I can just say to my Amazon Echo, "Alexa, play "If I Fell" by The Beatles" and hear it instantly? And if those songs continue to be new for future generations? Then maybe we DON'T need any new music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as my personal music habits go, I find myself digging up both old music I wasn't familiar with or never owned -- as well as listening forward, looking for new music recently to market. Now, my tastes are broad genre-wise, but I'm apparently fairly hard to please, my old axiom that 90% of everything is crap should probably be corrected to 95%... I do hear new music I enjoy and bond with -- but most music I hear randomly in any genre from any era strikes me as piffle, pabulum, or cookie cutter. I don't have time to waste on that stuff. (I'm old, tic toc and all that.)

 

So I definitely don't want musicians to stop releasing their music. But they have to do what they think is right for them. If they don't think streaming is going to work for them, they shouldn't do it.

 

(Assuming they have a choice, of course. Many labels automatically put their artists in syndication and then paid them at the same rates they would slice for physical product distribution and sales -- despite the fact that electronic distribution is ENORMOUSLY CHEAPER. General business/investment magazine Forbes has written about this particular victimization process: Inside The Black Box: A Deep Dive Into Music's Monetization Mystery )

Edited by blue2blue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah but most people get sick of hearing the same ol' same ol' after a while don't they?

 

 

But the point is that so much already exists, that new music doesn't need to be created in order to not hear the same ol' same ol'. With simple and inexpensive access to nearly every piece of music ever recorded, one can't practically listen to everything that ALREADY exists during their lifetime.

 

​And no. I'd argue most people DON'T get sick of hearing the same ol' same ol'. Hence the popularity of recorded music in the first place. And radio formats like "classic rock" and their narrow playlists.

Edited by Vito Corleone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Those genres, too, have seen their best music composed already. Not saying there isn't probably still great music to be written in any genres. But does the world "need" any of it?

 

​I know that's a highly subjective statement. But there is a valid point to be made by those who think the 'best' of those genres was when they were fresh and new and exciting.

 

​If every new pop song to be written is going to be compared to The Beatles and deemed to fall short, why bother when I can just say to my Amazon Echo, "Alexa, play "If I Fell" by The Beatles" and hear it instantly? And if those songs continue to be new for future generations? Then maybe we DON'T need any new music.

 

I think there will always be new and interesting chord progressions and melodies that can be written as well as creative arrangements but yeah rock is pretty stale right now (at least as far as what's really popular). But you could say the same about country and R&B as well IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

​And no. I'd argue most people DON'T get sick of hearing the same ol' same ol'. Hence the popularity of recorded music in the first place. And radio formats like "classic rock" and their narrow playlists.

 

 

Don't get me started on current rock radio.

 

At a Christmas gathering I was at someone (not me) brought up the current state of classic rock radio (in our city) and how monotonous it has become. Two stations playing the exact same handful of songs over and over ad infinitum. I thought well at least I'm not the only one thinking that. LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need new music more than I need the new season of Downton Abbey.

 

Does that count?

 

Isn't it part of human nature to create "needs", anyway? Maybe you need "non-needs" in order to be fully human. Feels that way to me, I must say.

 

nat whilk ii

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I respect your opinion, it doesn't count because you are a musician. You don't listen with a non-musician's ears.

 

I too listen with musician's ears, so my opinion doesn't count either.

 

The general public can listen to the same songs over and over and over and over again. When we started playing for the retired folks, they wanted Glenn Miller, Artie Shaw and the music of their lives.

 

Now we can play BabyBoomer era Top40 and Classic Rock to the same audience. The grey hair remains, but the tastes march through the ages.

 

Most people will like the music of their youth through child bearing years for the rest of their lives.

 

Eventually the condominium audience will say, "Do you know any 50 Cent or Snoop Dogg? You know they just don't write them like that anymore."

 

And their children will come of age in their teens and want something different. It's the child's duty to rebel, and one of the first ways they do that is with music. They want music that separates their generation from their parents' generation. For that reason, we will always have new music, whether the parents think it is music or noise.

 

Before the recording industry, the main way to make music was to perform it live. The publishers sold sheet music, and exploited the songwriters by making more than the songwriter per sheet. Nothing new, book publishers had been doing that for years.

 

Back when Motown was courting us in the late 1960s, they offered us a couple of pennies per record, out of that came inflated recording costs, inflated promotion costs, and inflated distribution costs. Our manager figured at the price they offered, we would have to sell a million copies to end up breaking even and not owing Motown money for their fees. They tried to bargain for more money, and negotiations fell through, they hired another band to do it.

 

So even then, the average artist didn't make anything from their records. That's why there are so many one-hit-wonders of the 45RPM days and one-CD wonders of the digital age.

 

If your first effort went viral, you could make a better deal for your next effort. If you were family relations or best of friends to the execs in the recording industry, you could get a better deal on your first effort. But for the average recording artist, you still had to make your money playing live for an audience.

 

Our manager didn't understand that, and we were too young to know.

 

For every Elvis, Clapton, Jackson, Beyonce, or Gaga, there are hundreds of recording artists that never made a living from their records.

 

And now, it seems harder than ever to make a living playing music. In the old days you had to go out to hear and see good music performed. TV had tinny sound, but now we have 7.1 surround sound, super HD screens and a cable bill that could easily be $300/month (there goes the entertainment budget right there). In addition to TV there are more ways to get entertainment and more competition for musicians.

 

Plus people drink less in the bars, DUI penalties are high, taxes to the venue are higher, and profits to the clubs are down.

 

The days of 6 days a week, 5 hours a night music in every bar from a Holiday Inn to a Show Club are gone, and probably gone for the rest of my life. Now we have the band on one night, karaoke on another, open mic night on another, "the big game" on TV on another, and the musician has to figure out how to survive on that. It's a new era.

 

There will always need to be new music, but as with all the arts, the painter, the author, the dancer, the poet, and the musician, the exploiters will make the majority of the money, and the artists will scoop up the crumbs off the table. Why? We need to do it. We would do it for free if we didn't have to charge for it.

 

Want to get rich from music, be an exploiter. While the musician made pennies per copy, "The Network" made millions of dollars bribing the radios to promote the record, and the "suits" in the record company drove home in their Rolls Royces.

 

I've been a professional musician most of my life. I had two day jobs testing what the rest of the country does for a living, and even though I made more money at one of those day jobs (Cable TV Engineer thanks to electronics in college), it didn't work for me.

 

Being a musician isn't what I do, it's what I AM.

 

I am of retirement age, but I have no plans to retire. As long as I can fog a mirror and there is an audience that wants to hear me, I'll be playing sax, guitar, flute, synth and singing for my supper. I don't want to quit, it's my second favorite thing to do (can't say what's first in a family forum) ;)

 

I've seen a lot of the world, met a lot of fine females (including the best one - the one I married), had a lot of fun, got to play music with some megastars and was treated as a peer, and am still having a great time playing. Why stop?

 

A wise person once said, "If you make a living doing what you would do for free, you will never work a day in your life." And except for those two day jobs, I've never worked a day in my life.

 

I still learn new songs, even if many of them are old songs. I play what my market wants to hear. And my market is determined by where I live (Florida - it's for the newlyweds and nearly-deads). For listening I prefer a nice symphony from Beethovan to Prokofiev, mostly romantic, mostly dark. For lighter music it's anything from Blues to Rock to Jazz with a touch of Salsa, Reggae, old Top40, classic Rock, and so on.

 

The kids will always rebel and need new music, the parents will always call it noise, and the exploiters will always make more than the artists. This I'm sure of.

 

Insights and incites by Notes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah but most people get sick of hearing the same ol' same ol' after a while don't they?

 

But you don't have to do that. There's so much music available today that you could listen constantly all the time you were awake and you wouldn't live long enough to hear it all. If all you listent to is commercial radio, then, sure, you'll hear the same thing a few times a day for a week or two, then won't hear it again for months, if ever.

 

Personally, it wouldn't bother me, other than in principle, if there were no more new recordings. I'd be content listening to what's available now. But then I have, on the outside, maybe 25 more years to live. Someone who's 12 years old now might eventually get bored if he didn't develop a wide range of musical taste.

 

Edited by MikeRivers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what incentive do streaming services have to care about musicians pulling their music? None that I can see.

 

If every artist pulled their music from Adele to ZZ Top, including myself and you, streaming services would be done. I`m releasing a record later this year but I was seriously thinking of putting out a pre-order form and make that amount of CDs and charge accordingly. I`ll probably get 5 orders if I`m lucky… I`m also not putting out for digital distribution… a decision I regret. If I knew how to do it and had the legal means, I would have all my music removed from streaming sites, including iTunes.

 

We`re creative people so we will make music even if no one listens. Thats a fact of life. I listen to my own stuff and I listen to music of other artists that I produce. I also listen and buy music from other artists because I`m genuinely interested in new music and old music.

 

The future of certain genres is strong. EDM will continue to grow. Classic rock and classical music will maintain a small but steady following. I`m think the same can be said for jazz, especially the stuff from the late 30s through the mid 60s. Opera will be extinct within 25 years.

 

The question remains: how will artists make $$$?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Don't get me started on current rock radio.

 

At a Christmas gathering I was at someone (not me) brought up the current state of classic rock radio (in our city) and how monotonous it has become. Two stations playing the exact same handful of songs over and over ad infinitum. I thought well at least I'm not the only one thinking that. LOL.

 

And that's really sad... because think of the amazing spectrum of music they could play. I listen to music from the classic rock period with reasonable frequency -- some utterly great stuff, stuff I grew up with as well as stuff I wasn't even familiar with back in the day -- but precious little of it is probably on the typical classic rock station playlist (which I strongly suspect varies precious little from major market to major market).

Edited by blue2blue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently bought a car that came with 3 months of free Sirius/XM satellite radio. I'm already bored with the playlists. Listening to the music of an entire decade (50's 60's 70's 80's) should mean you won't hear the same song two days in a row. Sometimes twice on the same day.

 

And their classical channel is like "Classics to snooze by" - with perhaps one decent exciting symphony per day. Jazz is "How much non-melodic jazz can we find". Country is "Nashville rock with twang singing about hats, trucks, blue jeans, boots, and booze"

 

All brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department.

 

And it gets worse They have the Elvis channel, the Jimmy Buffett channel, the Pearl Jam channel, etc. No, I haven't tried them. The idea of listening to one artist again and again and again and again would make me hate that artist.

 

Free radio is not different. Classic rock stations: "Hotel Caifornia", "Stairway", "Bohemian Rhapsody", "Roundabout" are all great songs, but you don't need to play them every day. Classical: I actually heard the DJ say, "Here is something from Beethoven before he got too wild". Oldies: Playing the top40 for the Baby Boomer generation should mean you don't hear the same song twice in a week, you don't have to play the same things every day.

 

But I listen with musician's ears. They "Department Of Redundancy Deparment Stations" are only there by popular demand. If enough people didn't listen to the Jimmy Buffett channel, it wouldn't be there. Don't get me wrong, Jimmy is talented, but he is no Tchaikovsky or Prokofiev. And I wouldn't want a Tchaikovsky channel without Prokofiev, Dvorak, Shostakovitch, Suk and dozens of others included.

 

I guess the public likes their little corner of the music world and doesn't need or want anything new.

 

Me? When I get done with the 3month trial, it's back to "Radio Bob" -- an iPod with 10,000 songs on it that range from Blues to Rock to Pop to Jazz to Brazillian to Salsa to Merengue to Reggae to Afro-Portuguese to Rom to Jump to shorter length Classics (romantic and forward) to Zydeco and so on. I let it play in the random mode, and it won't repeat until all 10,000+ songs have played or if it crashes before and I have to re-boot.

 

I have about 1000 CDs and almost that many LPs at home, and I've put the majority on my iPod. It's a work in progress, there are still LPs that haven't been digitized yet - it's a problem with time.

 

At home, full symphonies from Beethoven's Eroica (that's when music starts for me) to as modern as I can find (there is a lot of good 20th century work and a lot of boring too).

 

Anyway, I sill need new music, which is why I explore on the Internet - because the radio doesn't play anything new but EDM and Nashville Boots and Trucks, and I'm bored with that.

 

But I listen with musician's ears.

 

Notes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If every artist pulled their music from Adele to ZZ Top, including myself and you, streaming services would be done.

 

I should have been more specific - I meant music being made in the future. I'm assuming the contracts already in place are the standard "in perpetuity, throughout the known universe, on any existing medium or medium to be invented, forever and ever and ever, plus 10,000 more years just to be safe."

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New music is new in old ways. The generation maturing now (millenials) did not know about Cat Stevens. In my time he was new to the scene and I learned to play guitar via his and other contemporary music. But, both my sons discovered Stevens in their own respective searches for new music. It did not matter to them that Stevens was older than me. Pay forward his generation's creativity and tunesmanship and expose another round of new music to the masses. How many kids are like my sons? How many will riffle through old classics at a store or online listing with the same ear I and my Pop had? Few. How many millenials know James Cagney played a Martin OM and was pretty savvy with it? I'm guessing few to none. Okay, that's pretty obscure but you know where I'm coming from.

 

This was also true going back to my Pop's time with swing and the crooners. My wife is a swing aficionado. When she began listening to her Pop's vinyl swing music that's all she listened to until the BeeGees went falsetto. Me, my Pop was a WWII bomber pilot and a fast living - may die tomorrow - 20 year old kid who kept all of his music including the record player. He played that stuff regularly and he and my Mom danced to it in our livingroom. My sons grew to be acoustic and orchestral, the latter being new to this thread with a rather tertiary attraction in the overall scrutiny of pop music. My older son writes orchestral pieces now and pursues those same old classics no matter how much coverage they get via the many global symphonies and orchestras. He also digs Benny Goodman. He's 22.

 

The old masters are timeless and in that sense so are the old rock masters. Perhaps we can add to them the R&B, Blues, Jazz and Country masters, preferences notwithstanding, to the dismissal of the variations on those themes that took extreme orbits no one collective admits a preference or a reverence for.

 

Who can deny Andy Williams' signature Moon River wasn't a hallmark of his time? Can it be that the song is frozen back in time awaiting the final gasp of the Boomer? Like it's been said, the catalog is deep and one person cannot satisfy his curiosity in a single lifetime.

 

Howevah...

 

The idea is to punch up a method of exposure to the vastness of music's expanse and push it forward. That has not been done to my knowledge. A product mix of artist bests cutting across all genres has never hit my ears. I've never heard Moon River follow The Rain Song, and so on, in a looped mix.

 

I was at a Mellow Mushroom t'other night and heard an eclectic mix of rock classics cutting across 50 years. That's nothing new. Gimme the same deal embracing all genres and I will say that is new (to me). Maybe I just don't get out much.

 

All that said, new music should be an incentive unto itself and I sincerely hope that money isn't the foundation for creativity, or even its intrinsic reward. I've been arranging and composing for many years and cannot say that playing covers (copying, as we used to call it) gives me the same kind of juice. At the very least, I hope I'm not alone in that sense.

Edited by Idunno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I recently bought a car that came with 3 months of free Sirius/XM satellite radio. I'm already bored with the playlists.

 

​Honestly, if anyone gets bored with the playlists at SiriusXM, I'm not sure what to tell you. They have dozens, if not hundreds of stations.

 

​I've been a subscriber for years and can't recall ever hearing the same song twice a day on the same station.* Then again, I don't listen to it for hours on end usually, and if I do, I don't just keep it tuned to one station because there are so many to choose from. The odds of me hearing the same song twice a day on the same station would be pretty low.

 

​But I would say most of their stations generally have far more diversity than anything you're going to hear on terrestrial radio and on most peoples' personal playlists. I would imagine more people are put OFF by the diversity of some of the stations rather than finding them too narrow.

 

​I'm not a HUGE fan of the "70s on 7", "80s on 8" etc channels, because they DO stick to a lot of hits, but I do like that they generally shift back and forth between rock and R&B classics. Most radio stations tend to play only one or the other. You don't hear too many stations that are going to play Donna Summer and Foghat back to back.... And they come out with some songs I haven't heard in YEARS (although they aren't always ones I've actually missed....lol. Probably the reason I haven't heard them in so long! Recently suffering through Wayne Newton's "Daddy Don't You Walk So Fast" comes to mind....)

 

​But some of the "deeper cuts" stations like First Wave (new wave stuff from the late 70s/early 80s) I really like. All sorts of stuff on there you NEVER hear on regular radio. And if I get bored with it? Switch to something else.

 

​If there's a song playing I don't want to hear? It usually doesn't take more than a few seconds to find a station playing something I DO wanna hear. Can't always say the same thing for terrestrial radio.

 

​As far as the singular artist channels? Not my thing either, but those are generally one-off promotion deals that last only a week or so. Somebody's got a new album or it's somebody's birthday or something. Nobody wants to hear only one artist forever. And again, I don't think the idea is that it's supposed to be the only station you listen to for the rest of your life. The idea is that genre of music is there when you want it.

 

​But obviously nothing is for everyone. Some people don't ever seem satisfied with music selections unless they are the ones doing the selecting. Isn't it great that the iPod was invented for those who only want to hear what they want to hear? Nothing better than being your own radio station programmer. "Radio Bob" sounds perfect for you! thu.gif

 

​(*on edit: not 100% true. I do recall hearing a 70's hit on "70's on 7" one morning only to hear it repeated a couple of hours later when they did one of their American Top 40 replays.)

Edited by Vito Corleone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I

 

Anyway, I sill need new music, which is why I explore on the Internet - because the radio doesn't play anything new but EDM and Nashville Boots and Trucks, and I'm bored with that.

 

 

​While you still have SiriusXM give "The Coffee House" (Channel 14), "The Spectrum" (Channel 28) or "The Joint" (Channel 42) for some new stuff or new-to-you stuff or stuff you haven't heard in a long, long time on the radio. They are playing Josh Rouse "Oh I Need All The Love", Beck "Dreams", and Delroy Wilson "Have Some Mercy" respective as I type this. My only problem is I want to hear all three.

 

​There's also some interesting stations only available online or on their app. "Tom Petty's Buried Treasures" (Channel 312) is playing Fleetwood Mac "Need Your Love So Bad" right now. I don't think I've EVER heard that track on the radio. Not even back in the "good old days" of FM radio in the 70s!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I should have been more specific - I meant music being made in the future. I'm assuming the contracts already in place are the standard "in perpetuity, throughout the known universe, on any existing medium or medium to be invented, forever and ever and ever, plus 10,000 more years just to be safe."

 

I heard a piece on the radio the other day about a publisher with a plan to release books not as soon as the presses warm up, but 100 years after submission. If they did that with music, old would be new again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it doesnt matter one whit whether the world needs it, the need to create remains.

all the rationalization and mental masturbation will net the same conclusion in the end, from creators...

and the rest will continue, forever speculating and attempting to make sense of something they do not fully grasp.

seriously, after reading this thread a few times, its seems more about making money than making music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it doesnt matter one bit** whether the world needs it, the need to create remains.

all the rationalization and mental masturbation will net the same conclusion in the end, from creators... and the rest will continue, forever speculating and attempting to make sense of something they do not fully grasp.

 

So you're saying it's because of the music creators that the "need to create" exists?

 

I don't buy that. How often have you heard "I'm so bored of the music I've been listening to." -- A lot. At least I do. It's like watching a new movie. After a while, knowing the end leaves you unfulfilled. So people watch new movies.

 

seriously, after reading this thread a few times, its seems more about making money than making music.

 

I don't know about you, but it's hard to really hone the craft when you're working 40 hours a week in something unrelated. Seems like a big piece of the puzzle is the time. All the talent in the world doesn't go as far as it could if you can't put the time in or are too wiped out after work/things to do on the weekend to make it "happen".

 

How do you get that time? You make an increasing amount of money at it. No working musician needs to apologize about that, IMO. The pieces will fall where do. In the mean time, damn right, make money at it. If that's not part of the equation, then a pro they are not, and pros usually put on a better show.

Edited by BlueGreene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bluegreen, no thats not what i said at all, your comprehension as well as your perception is interesting, just sayin... and just for future reference, " whit" was precisely the word i chose, please refrain from changing the words in my poasts to suit your fancy... thanks in advance.

you are exactly right about one thing, you dont know about me.

Edited by Voltan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough about the edit. I shouldn't have done that, and it wont happen again. My apologies. My intent was not to slip in an edit to suit my fancy. I obviously don't understand what you were saying and still don't upon rereading. Seems vague.

Edited by BlueGreene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the SiriusXM free trial has ended, without a conversion to a pay customer. I hope they are successful, but it just wasn't right for me. I was disappointed that 3/4 of the classical music was "classical to relax to" - a regular snooze-fest and bouncing around other channels I found two things that irritated me (1) DJs talking over the beginning and ends of the songs and (2) on some channels, DJs talkng for 4 o4 5 minutes about inane things.

 

I could overlook the DJ thing, but as much as bounced around, I couldn't find enough interesting stuff to pay close to $20/month for. Especially since I only listen to it in the car. I did find a lot of things I've never heard before, much of it didn't interest me and to tell the truth, much of it bored me. When I did happen on something that sounded interesting, it was almost always followed with something that bored me.

 

OK, I know that although I like almost every kind of music, and enjoy playing a wide variety of musical styles, when it comes to recreational listening, I'm a bit hard to please.

 

If they had 3 classical music stations, opera, light classics (to relax by) and heavy classics (to excite you) I probably would have bitten the bullet. A quote attributed to Beethoven "Music should strike fire from the heart of man and bring tears to the eyes of woman." Unfortunately the majority of the selections on the one instrumental classical channel did neither. Mozart oboe concertos, Brahms harpsichord tunes, and so on. Great stuff in their day, but once you get to Prokofiev, Dvorak, Shostakovitch, Suk and others, there is no going back. If I want light classics, my local public radio station plays those for free.

 

I wrote a long, polite letter thanking them for the trial and explaining why I wasn't going to convert. I figured I owed them that. They wrote a nice letter back and said they would send my suggestions to the programming department heads.

 

Back on topic.

 

When I was a little kid, I suspected that just about all the music that could be written in those 12 notes had already been written, and that we would run out of music sooner or later. OK, pretty naive. But it still amazes me when I think about it that so many pieces of music can be written with that "limited canvas".

 

But I'm thinking that the instinct for music is wired into the human brain, as it is for the birds, whales and other animals.

 

I also think that while we are comfortable with certain things staying the same, we are also seekers of something new.

 

Thirdly I truly believe it is the child's duty to rebel. If young people didn't rebel and want something new, the world would be stagnant. Music and slang are two harmless things that they can use to rebel with. So I think there will always be new music.

 

And I also think it's the parent's generation's duty to dislike the music of the youth. That way they can fee they are being rebellious and be satisfied with the music being that vehicle.

 

Insights and incites by Notes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...