Main problem with the industry is...

[joie]

Mainstream music today is like the ice cream industry.

Every year the dairys introduce dozens of new, exciting,
differerent flavors of ice cream.

But at the end of the day, vanilla and chocolate FAR outsells all other flavors combined.

The public know what it likes, and apparently, safe and bland is in.

[BlueStrat]

 

Mainstream music today is like the ice cream industry. Every year the dairys introduce dozens of new, exciting, differerent flavors of ice cream. But at the end of the day, vanilla and chocolate FAR outsells all other flavors combined. The public know what it likes, and apparently, safe and bland is in.

 

 

 

The industry might be like that if everything that came out was remotely equal in quality. Unfortunately, it isn't.

[joie]

BlueStrat,

I almost always agree with your point of view, I think you have great insight,

But I am perplexed about one thing,

The mood here seems to be, Yea, the music is weak now, but just wait,
sooner or later a great band or a new trend will emerge, and the gravy train
will roll again, Just you wait and see!!

Sounds kind of like the proponents of major league soccer, for 25 years, they have been trying to spark interest, 'All we need is a star or two!"
but no matter how hard they try, over and over, the public just yawns.

I hate to admit it, but maybe Rock will never regain it's glory days.
It had a great 35 year run, thanks for the memories.

[spoonie g]

BlueStrat, I almost always agree with your point of view, I think you have great insight, But I am perplexed about one thing, The mood here seems to be, Yea, the music is weak now, but just wait, sooner or later a great band or a new trend will emerge, and the gravy train will roll again, Just you wait and see!! Sounds kind of like the proponents of major league soccer, for 25 years, they have been trying to spark interest, 'All we need is a star or two!" but no matter how hard they try, over and over, the public just yawns. I hate to admit it, but maybe Rock will never regain it's glory days. It had a great 35 year run, thanks for the memories.

 

 

I don't think the point is that great music doesn't exist anymore, but more that it is lost amid the sea of others.

[joie]

I don't think the point is that great music doesn't exist anymore, but more that it is lost amid the sea of others.

 

 

 

Great music will always be made, and serious listeners will always appreciate it.

 

But like my ice cream analogy, the mainstream public, no matter how daring, exciting and new, they want thier vanilla, so thats what will always be the biggest sellers.

 

Bland, Boring

[ihateyouguys]

Great music will always be made, and serious listeners will always appreciate it. But like my ice cream analogy, the mainstream public, no matter how daring, exciting and new, they want thier vanilla, so thats what will always be the biggest sellers. Bland, Boring

 

 

With vanilla ice cream you can make an ice cream sundae.

 

Or a malted shake.

 

Or a brown (or even orange) cow.

 

You can put it on pie or cake.

 

You can do almost anything with vanilla ice cream - not something you can say about double fudge mint chip mocha ice cream.

 

The point being that most people are passive consumers of music. They listen to music in the car, at work, while doing housework, while reading, etc. Most don't seek out new or exotic music. As long as the flavor isn't offensive to them and what they're doing, they'll keep consuming the vanilla. Really, that's all they want or need - because they don't really NEED it. It's just a pleasant distraction for part of their brain while they're doing something else. Music is just a part of what they're doing - it is not the focus of their activities.

 

I think that's probably something more musicians should come to grips with.

[PFLOYDD]

Steve Popovich told me to my face on his front porch steps "if you're gonna write music... it better be strong!"

Go ahead, try to void that line....
That's right, look him up, then take his words on as a challenge and kick ass for the right reasons!

Thanks!
JR
Wickliffe

[Scafeets]

Steve Popovich told me to my face on his front porch steps "if you're gonna write music... it better be strong!"

 

 

That's good advice. Always was and always will be. The thing is: Don't equate Big Sales with quality. "Strong" -- as defined by Popovich -- doesn't always mean great from a quality standpont. It can also mean "commercial" as in "Millions of people will buy this {censored} because it strikes a tone somewhere within them."

 

Steve, just like his father before himn, has had a great career because he can not only spot quality -- he can also pick hits. As a record guy, you have to know who to invest in. Steve has always had a soft spot for David Allen Coe; but he'll be the first to tell you DAC aint gonna be the next Michael Jackson.

[joie]

The two biggest pop hits this past summer...

'Well, have a nice day' and the other was 'You're Beautiful'


I'm sure 95% of the regulars at this forum, if they were an industry exec, would have thrown it in the garbage at first listen.

Yet they ruled the radio, MTV, Billboard charts for months.

Like McDonalds, junk sells tons.

[BlueStrat]

 

"Strong" -- as defined by Popovich -- doesn't always mean great from a quality standpont. It can also mean "commercial" as in "Millions of people will buy this {censored} because it strikes a tone somewhere within them." .

 

 

 

Well, exactly. People buy music because it makes them feel good, by and large. It resonates with something in them, and enhances or reminds them of experiences. Which is why pop music sells, and death metal doesn't. Yeah, a few people are emotionally stimulated by death metal (God help us) or any of a number of genres. But the fact is, 25 years ago, there were far fewer niches in the market. There wasn't any 'prog matchcore screamo' or 'post-industrial techno grindcore'.

 

**(note: from here on out, when I use the word 'you', it is the generic, not specific, 'you')**.

 

One reason people don't listen to new music is simply because of what it's called. By creating new genres and sub-genres, their creators only ensure that the masses will ignore them. Musicians, in an attempt to separate themselves from the masses and use the fact that they're different as a selling point, have created these genres and done exactly that. Only they aren't really selling. They have already told the masses that they will likely not like what they're doing.

 

The public has always liked what it likes. It's only been very recently that anyone and everyone has been able to inject their version of 'new and different' into the market. What has changed is not the public, but the number of DIY musicians who seem to be laboring under the delusion that just because they can make a CD, it's automatically good, and that the public are dolts for not seeing it.

 

The music business is in a massive state of schizophrenia right now. How many bands on this site alone do you see who say "we don't do this for the money. We just want exposure." Okay, great. Exposure for what? To draw a crowd? Why, if not to make money? And wouldn't it be easier to draw a crowd if you played what they liked, instead of what you think they should? And even if you did draw huge crowds, wouldn't that by default make you a pop band? Or are you delusional enough to think that the masses are going to come around to your 'post punk Manchurian goat chants'? So many guys today dismiss the puiblic as ignorant puppets of corporate greed, and then seek to gain a following by those same puppets. How nuts is that?

 

If anyone is going to hold the buying public in contempt, and purposely create or write in a genre that is specifically created to be different than what is selling, don't be shocked when it doesn't sell. You can't have it both ways, and claim some kind of badge of honor because you don't cater to the masses and then heap scorn upon the masses because they aren't flocking to what you're doing. People who choose this path need to get over themselves. If you take the road less travelled, don't piss and moan because there isn't any traffic on it.

[BlueStrat]

 

The two biggest pop hits this past summer... 'Well, have a nice day' and the other was 'You're Beautiful' I'm sure 95% of the regulars at this forum, if they were an industry exec, would have thrown it in the garbage at first listen. Yet they ruled the radio, MTV, Billboard charts for months. Like McDonalds, junk sells tons.

 

 

 

That's where you're wrong. If I were an industry exec, I'd have pumped the hell out of both those songs. Why? Because they are melodic, easy to sing along with, emotionally driven, and catchy, which is exactly what I though when I first heard both of them. I'm not sayng I really like either of them all that much, but I can see why they were huge. In short, they're what a ton of people want to buy.

 

Is the fact that they appeal to the masses what makes them 'junk' to you? Because from where I sit, both are well written and well produced songs, regardless of whether I like them or not.

[joie]

...... Is the fact that they appeal to the masses what makes them 'junk' to you? Because from where I sit, both are well written and well produced songs, regardless of whether I like them or not.

 

 

 

No, they were Junk to me because when first I heard them I wanted to puke, and shoot my speakers, you think I'm kidding.

 

 

I take the position that they are NOT well written, because both songs have nothing new to say and other than the main chorus,

can anyone remember the melody of the verses?? They sound like an 8 year old could have wrote them.

 

Mass appeal has nothing to do with my enjoyment of music, hey, I still listen to ABBA, you know why??

 

Because the songs are FUN, and even listening for the 500th time, I still

think to myself, man those two guys that wrote this stuff are geniuses.

[justcrash]

can anyone remember the melody of the verses??

Yes, I can. You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts.

[BlueStrat]

No, they were Junk to me because when first I heard them I wanted to puke, and shoot my speakers, you think I'm kidding.

 

Fine, you're entitled to that opinion, but that in and of itself doesn't make them bad songs. Apparently, millions of people disagreed with you as well.

 

 

I take the position that they are NOT well written, because both songs have nothing new to say and other than the main chorus,

 

Since when does having something new to say constitute a good song? I'm sure you've noticed that many great songs say nothing new. "Yesterday" and "Michelle" by the Beatles said nothing new. Were they junk? Or "A Fool For You" by Ray Charles, or "Don't Think Twice" by Dylan, or ...well, you get the idea.

 

Mass appeal has nothing to do with my enjoyment of music,

 

Mine either, but that doesn't mean the masses are stupid or that what they like is junk simply because it isn' what you or I like.

 

Because the songs are FUN, and even listening for the 500th time, I still

think to myself, man those two guys that wrote this stuff are geniuses.

 

Well, different strokes. I happen to think "Have a Nice Day" is a fun song, and ABBA makes me want to shove knitting needles through my eardrums. But because I don't lke them doesn't mean it's junk or poorly written. Quite the contrary, I think they're genius, too. I just don't like them. But I would never presume to make the leap that because I don't like them, they're {censored}ty.

 

I guess I just think it's pointles and counterproductive for musicians to dismiss out of hand music they don't like as 'junk' simply because it's not their cup of tea.

[Delle_Rose]

 

I take the position that they are NOT well written, because both songs have nothing new to say and other than the main chorus, can anyone remember the melody of the verses?? They sound like an 8 year old could have wrote them.

 

 

Given I've never heard "Well, Have A Nice Day" or whatever (correction: I've never heard OF it), in the case of "You're Beautiful", you have to see why people like it. Yes, it IS a well-written song. Is it schmaltzy? Yeah, of course (though note: I actually have developed quite a fondness for James Blunt... he's actually really wonderful, "You're Beautiful" and "High" be damned). Does it say anything new? No, but who cares? It's a simple but poignant song that's vague enough that a lot of people can identify with it, and easy on the ears enough for a lot of people to give it the chance to do so.

 

The fact is, and the reason why the song is so popular, because it says what a million other songs were trying to say but in a no BS way that everyone can understand and indentify with. Frankly, no matter how much you kick and scream proclaiming otherwise, most great songs (by everyone from Jacques Brel to The Beatles to Beck to a million unknown artists who will stay that way... hell, Brel's biggest hit was a song with a chorus of "Ne me quitte pas!" ["don't leave me!"] slightly atonally repeated over and over again, but I don't think ANYONE would ever accuse him of writing fluff), no matter how much cynicism and allegory and other clever little devices they're filled with, basically all come down to a desperate and slightly bitter whine of "you're beautiful!". James Blunt just used less filler to get there.

[kurdy]

Given I've never heard "Well, Have A Nice Day" or whatever (correction: I've never heard OF it), in the case of "You're Beautiful", you have to see why people like it.

 

 

The only song with that title I can think of at the moment is the title song from Bon Jovi's recent album. And I'm not even really that familiar with it.

 

I suspect he may be talking about the song "Bad Day" by Daniel Powter. If there is any better recent example of what makes a hit song, this is it. If you actually read the lyrics, they make absolutely no sense at all, except for the hook line, "You had a bad day". People hear that line, and immediately think, "Hey--I have bad days! I can relate to this song!" Even though the rest of the song makes no sense. People don't necessarily pay close attention to lyrics, including myself. But the melody is extremely catchy and repetitive, and easy to hum along with. That's what really gets people, along with subject matter that most people can relate to.

 

A lot of modern country music, I personally find overly sappy. A good example would be that song "Live Like You Were Dying". However, my mother, my brother, my brother's girlfriend really like it a lot. It--like many modern country songs--doesn't try to be clever, obscure, or go over anyone's head. It deals with a subject that many people can directly indentify with and find meaning in. This is what the average person goes for--not some obscure, vague, artsy lyric that requires heavy analyzation to understand. Unless of course, they are accompanied by a really strong hook and catchy melody (ala the Beatles). I don't mind this type of lyric--in fact, I often find more interesting than the more straightforward stuff, but I know the reality is that such songs stand a lesser chance of attracting a wide audience. People like simple, catchy relatable. "Vague" and clever" aren't qualities high on the list of your average listener. Doesn't mean they are dumb or shallow; just means their priorities don't necessarily include sitting around trying to analyze a song the way we musicians, or more active music listeners do.

[girlwithnoname]

Popular music - in all it's many facets - has been turned into a crazed and exploited commodity. As a culture, perhaps we are becoming immune to what might be "good" or unique, and what qualifies a piece of music as having genuine artistic merit. So much music is mass produced crap fitting into a strictly formulated, mind dulling injection of mediocre sounds just to sell products and generate a crowd for advertising backers (MTV, American Idol).

Think of marketing and media's past, - tv shows, and movies that HAVE had some kind of embedded formula for entertainment and marketing value - it is NOT a new idea. Currently, the rock-pop-idol images being used to sell items is overwhelming now. The "rock star image" is used in many markets - from toddlers to senior citizens selling everything from breakfast cereal to life insurance to holiday cruises. Admitedly, as a songwriter I am not immune to this idea of music placement - maybe to have a song placed in an ad could be pretty helpful right now. There are many movie scenes I have enjoyed BECAUSE of the music... Movies themselves have been a grand inspiration of ours...

Music can help reach certain marketable audiences, but the idea that music is so prominently a part of our every move - from tv commericals, to the images posted in fashion magazines to billboards, to scenes in movies, it is hard for the general populace to seek out things that are truly innovative. I agree with some of the former sentiments in this, that the world IS oversaturated with crappy music and non-thinking bands.

So many writers are prone to fast, "immedia-tech" ways of making music. Some of these computer programs may yield interesting fruit, but there still must be some senses of original thought, tone, instrumentation, and sentiment behind that fruit. There are many "good sounding" bands out there in the trenches but "good sounding" is not enough amazing chops are not enough...

No one wants to stand around and listen to something that someone else has already done. There are formulas for writing, there is the ability to break boundries, and there is also the truly avant garde. One can sound like what is already being packaged and sold and get "immediate" reception from a crowd - but WHY? What kind of longevity does that build for an artist? Does one change their style when you see/hear something newer has become hip as an all out trend in the market? Why not sound good and offer something original - or at least heartfelt or at least, something with unique truth.

Perhaps the reason the industry is so sucky right now and popular music is at an all time low, is because it is going through a face lift of sorts. The older larger labels are freaking out because they are not sure of how or what they should be marketing things to people....they simply can't deliver or hold on to what they had before with many artists out DIY-ing it, and not waiting for the industry's complete support...

I suggest the trenches, and some good simplistic songwriting would help a bit, but really we should all be diving deeper into some more truthful music...and not buying what Starbucks is re-packaging...They make coffee - they are not making/writing music...it's like buying a part for your car at the lingerie shop - this is what we have come to...UHHHHhhh!!!!!

http://www.thelostpatrol.com

[joie]

I suspect he may be talking about the song "Bad Day" by Daniel Powter. If there is any better recent example of what makes a hit song, this is it.

 

 

My bad, your right, that is the song I wanted to bring up, See how forgetable it is, to me anyway.

 

 

 

People like simple, catchy relatable. "Vague" and clever" aren't qualities high on the list of your average listener. Doesn't mean they are dumb or shallow; just means their priorities don't necessarily include sitting around trying to analyze a song the way we musicians, or more active music listeners do.[/

 

Agreed, people like simple, catchy, But all simple songs are not equal,

 

Why is She Loves you Yea Yea Yea... Louie Louie... Shes real fine my 409...

Pretty Pretty Pretty (Peggy Sue)... still so well known 40 years later, and even considered masterpieces?

 

I highly doubt if 'You're Beautifull' will have that status.

 

I think it was a period in time where all the planets were in alignment and the top artists of the day could do no wrong.

These songs marked a moment in listeners lives that stayed with them decades on.

 

When I was Jr high in the 70's, one of the lamest pop songs topped the charts, Anyone remember Billy Don't be a Hero?,

but somehow when I hear it on the radio now, instead turning the station, I actually turn up the volume,

 

It just brings back the memories.

 

I'm curious if anyone thinks, Bad Day and You're Beautiful will be played at all 2037.

[kurdy]

I'm curious if anyone thinks, Bad Day and You're Beautiful will be played at all 2037.

 

 

I'd say it's possible. As songs in the traditional sense, they are probably better than 90% of hip-hop/rap tracks currently topping the charts.

 

If the songs in question had come out in the '60s or '70s, chances are they'd stand a better chance of being remembered than they would today. It was a totally different climate for popular music back then. The industry was still young, there were less avenues for music to be heard, and less forms of entertainment to compete for the public's attention. Nowadays, songs appear to have a shorter shelf life and much less of an impact, not necessarily because they aren't as good (as you said, there were a lot of really lame songs topping the charts in the '70s as well), but because popular music has been around for so long, that it no longer has the same impact it once did.

 

Similarly, there'll never stop being bands that make good music--these bands may even become quite popular and acquire a healthy fan base, but the chance of them reaching the level of Elvis or the Beatles, or even Michael Jackson really isn't possible anymore. The key to being a successful band or artist in music today seems to be less about gaining acceptance with a mass public, and more about finding a niche and catering to it.

[BlueStrat]

 

Similarly, there'll never stop being bands that make good music--these bands may even become quite popular and acquire a healthy fan base, but the chance of them reaching the level of Elvis or the Beatles, or even Michael Jackson really isn't possible anymore. The key to being a successful band or artist in music today seems to be less about gaining acceptance with a mass public, and more about finding a niche and catering to it.

 

 

Yes! Which is why out of the top 20 grossing concert tours, most of them have been around for 10 to 20 years. Who will replace the Stones, Clapton, Elton John, Madonna, Springsteen, etc etc when they're gone? And why do they still draw so well after all this time? It's too bad, really, that niche marketing, while intended to make bands sell by highlighting their uniqueness, has in fact had the opposite affect and has served to splinter the buying public into ever shrinking fractions of fans.

[spoonie g]

You know, I thinks it might have to do with the advancement of the craft (of rock music). Has it really changed much in the past 10 years? Maybe the audience is bored?

[Delle_Rose]

 

If the songs in question had come out in the '60s or '70s, chances are they'd stand a better chance of being remembered than they would today.

 

 

You know, it's funny... the other day while driving around in the crappy little farming town my grandmother lives in I was listening to the oldies station (60s and early 70s rock, soul, and a.m. pop... mostly a.m. pop) and thinking "man, James Blunt would fit in PERFECTLY with this". Seriously. It was creepy (in a good way, coz I like both).

[Delle_Rose]

 

Yes! Which is why out of the top 20 grossing concert tours, most of them have been around for 10 to 20 years. Who will replace the Stones, Clapton, Elton John, Madonna, Springsteen, etc etc when they're gone? And why do they still draw so well after all this time? It's too bad, really, that niche marketing, while intended to make bands sell by highlighting their uniqueness, has in fact had the opposite affect and has served to splinter the buying public into ever shrinking fractions of fans.

 

 

Actually, to answer your question, the way things currently look I'm willing to bet that Smashing Pumpkins, RHCP, Pearl Jam, and The Cure will replace the others (though does Madonna belong with the group you mentioned or the group I mentioned? I can't decide). I'm sure others will emerge.

[Delle_Rose]

 

You know, I thinks it might have to do with the advancement of the craft (of rock music). Has it really changed much in the past 10 years? Maybe the audience is bored?

 

 

Probably partially true... except more than 10 years. Frankly, the prototype for pretty much EVERY branch of rock that's popular now (and most pop & hip-hop) was created circa 1980 (give or take a few years). It's all been recycled post-punk, hardcore(and emocore and all the other -cores that started in the 80s), and douchy metal since. Ohk, slightly unfair to say, but mostly true. Hell, most of the popular bands now sound almost exactly like (insert band name) from (insert one of said genres).

[kurdy]

Probably partially true... except more than 10 years. Frankly, the prototype for pretty much EVERY branch of rock that's popular now (and most pop & hip-hop) was created circa 1980 (give or take a few years). It's all been recycled post-punk, hardcore(and emocore and all the other -cores that started in the 80s), and douchy metal since. Ohk, slightly unfair to say, but mostly true. Hell, most of the popular bands now sound almost exactly like (insert band name) from (insert one of said genres).

I'd say ten years is about right. The evolution of pop music seems to have slowed considerably in the last decade. I always say (speaking in general terms here) that if you play a popular song from 1987, and compare it stylistically to one from 1997, you'll hear a major difference. However if you take that same song from 1997, and compare it to one released today, you'd probably have a difficult time telling which is which. Well--unless one of them has those weird digitally pitch-corrected vocals, which would be a dead giveaway. But really, in terms of musical style and production, there seems to be little change between now and ten years ago, compared to previous decades.