Main problem with the industry is...

[joie]

 

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.....

 

 

 

I'm not convinced that once the 60's and 70's dinosaurs finally hang it up that the stadium tours

will be replaced by the New Wave and Grunge acts.

 

 

Does anyone really believe that in 2015 Chili Peppers, Cure and Pumpkins will be selling out

30-40,000 seat tours??

 

This 'Rock will always rule' attitude reminds me of the 1950's-1960s music world, before Rock,

the top of the charts was topped by easy listening and pop standards.

 

Acts like Henry Mancini, Paul Anka, Perry Como, Nat Cole, Dean Martin, Della Reese, Sinatra, Streisand dominated the charts and airwaves.

 

Once Guitar Rock and the British Invasion made the charts, they ALL thought it was a temporary phase, cheap teen thrills, and their kind of music will be back on top once it passes.

 

But guess what, it NEVER regained it's glory days, most of them ended up playing Casino lounges for the geriatric crowd and GASP! the dinner theatre circuit.

 

Sure Rock shows will always exist, But in 10 years, 800 seats yes, 8000 seats maybe,

28,000 seat stadiums?,

 

Umm, Highly doubtfull

[spoonie g]

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.

 

Yeah, I hear quite a few bad rip-offs of stone temple pilots/alice in chains in "modern rock" today.

[BlueStrat]

It is kind of ironic that in the 60s and 70s, even the 80s, a lot of different things were being created and were struggling to be accepted and included in the mainstream. Thus we had Aretha Franklin, Abba, Pure Prairie League, the Clash, and Black Sabbath, all trying to be packaged and sold as 'rock'. We used to listen to all of them on the same radio station as well.

 

Now, it's mostly recycled stuff being repackaged under new names and genres in order to be considered different. *scratches head*

 

 

*shrugs*

[jalfredprufrock]

I think that it's hard for us as musicians to realize how little music matters to the general population. While you'll never convince me that that the latest Green Day, Jay-Z or Coldplay single is superior to Bitches Brew or A Love Supreme or even the fusion and post-rock groups that draw on these influences, the man on the street simply does not care. This doesn't mean that every indie and metal group deseres arena status, but I think it's a little naive to pretend that people don't buy what they're sold (There's a huge hole in my logic here regarding downloading, etc., but let's just skip over that for now. ). Music, for the most part, is little more than a lifestyle accessory (stole that from Thom Yorke). It's a fashionable trinket that drifts in and out of people's lives w/ little or no consequence. Is Chopin musically superior to James Blunt or a Springsteen record? Certainly, but the average person can't relate to it and doesn't want to take the time to study it because it isn't something he loves. It's the same reason people spend time pouring over airport books like the Da Vinci Code instead of Ulysses or Finnigan's Wake. That said, there are million terrible writers who believe they're James Joyce and that the public are fools for not recognizing their genius. The general public may very well have atrocious taste, but none of us blues, rock, and country players are doing anything too terribly important musically, anyway.

[kurdy]

 

I think that it's hard for us a musicians to realize how little music matters to the general population. While you'll never convince me that that the latest Green Day, Jay-Z or Coldplay single is superior to Bitches Brew or A Love Supreme or even the fusion and post-rock groups that draw on these influences, the man on the street simply does not care.

 

 

That's a very good point, and I agree. Musicians long for that romantic ideal of the music fans of the '60s and '70s who'd sit around, pouring over their favorite band's albums, absorbing the music, analyzing lyrics, artwork, smoking joints and having deep discussions about it with their friends; that sort of stuff doesn't happen anymore. I think the description of music today as a lifestyle accessory as pretty accurate. People download popular songs on their i-pod and listen while they go jogging. They don't have the time nor the interest in exploring new music, or things that are unfamiliar. I suppose as musicians, we just have to learn to be content with knowing that not many people are going to care about what we do.

 

People love to talk about movies, TV, sports, yet music seems to have become old hat, for some reason. Except of course, to musicians.

[BlueStrat]

 

That's a very good point, and I agree. Musicians long for that romantic ideal of the music fans of the '60s and '70s who'd sit around, pouring over their favorite band's albums, absorbing the music, analyzing lyrics, artwork, smoking joints and having deep discussions about it with their friends; that sort of stuff doesn't happen anymore. I think the description of music today as a lifestyle accessory as pretty accurate. People download popular songs on their i-pod and listen while they go jogging. They don't have the time nor the interest in exploring new music, or things that are unfamiliar. I suppose as musicians, we just have to learn to be content with knowing that not many people are going to care about what we do. People love to talk about movies, TV, sports, yet music seems to have become old hat, for some reason. Except of course, to musicians.

 

 

Man, you nailed it.

 

I can remember when I started playing guitar back in 1969, one of the reasons I did was because anyone with a guitar and four chords could go to a park, start playing, and people would come and sit around them and listen. It was nothing on any given Sunday afternoon in the town I lived in to see several groups of people gathered around guys playing guitars. Now, no one really pays attention anymore. As you say, they can now carry their personal soundtrack to their lives around with them and not have to be bothered with anything they don't like or are unfamiliar with.

[BlueStrat]

I think that it's hard for us as musicians to realize how little music matters to the general population. While you'll never convince me that that the latest Green Day, Jay-Z or Coldplay single is superior to Bitches Brew or A Love Supreme or even the fusion and post-rock groups that draw on these influences, the man on the street simply does not care. This doesn't mean that every indie and metal group deseres arena status, but I think it's a little naive to pretend that people don't buy what they're sold (There's a huge hole in my logic here regarding downloading, etc., but let's just skip over that for now. ). Music, for the most part, is little more than a lifestyle accessory (stole that from Thom Yorke). It's a fashionable trinket that drifts in and out of people's lives w/ little or no consequence. Is Chopin musically superior to James Blunt or a Springsteen record? Certainly, but the average person can't relate to it and doesn't want to take the time to study it because it isn't something he loves. It's the same reason people spend time pouring over airport books like the Da Vinci Code instead of Ulysses or Finnigan's Wake. That said, there are million terrible writers who believe they're James Joyce and that the public are fools for not recognizing their genius. The general public may very well have atrocious taste, but none of us blues, rock, and country players are doing anything too terribly important musically, anyway.

 

Very well said.

[spoonie g]

I think that it's hard for us as musicians to realize how little music matters to the general population. While you'll never convince me that that the latest Green Day, Jay-Z or Coldplay single is superior to Bitches Brew or A Love Supreme or even the fusion and post-rock groups that draw on these influences, the man on the street simply does not care. This doesn't mean that every indie and metal group deseres arena status, but I think it's a little naive to pretend that people don't buy what they're sold (There's a huge hole in my logic here regarding downloading, etc., but let's just skip over that for now. ). Music, for the most part, is little more than a lifestyle accessory (stole that from Thom Yorke). It's a fashionable trinket that drifts in and out of people's lives w/ little or no consequence. Is Chopin musically superior to James Blunt or a Springsteen record? Certainly, but the average person can't relate to it and doesn't want to take the time to study it because it isn't something he loves. It's the same reason people spend time pouring over airport books like the Da Vinci Code instead of Ulysses or Finnigan's Wake. That said, there are million terrible writers who believe they're James Joyce and that the public are fools for not recognizing their genius. The general public may very well have atrocious taste, but none of us blues, rock, and country players are doing anything too terribly important musically, anyway.

 

 

Some very sobering and, well, depressing points there. Similar to what I was trying to say. I started out as a blues/rock player, but I'm at least trying to do something a little different.

[Delle_Rose]

 

I'm not convinced that once the 60's and 70's dinosaurs finally hang it up that the stadium tours will be replaced by the New Wave and Grunge acts. Does anyone really believe that in 2015 Chili Peppers, Cure and Pumpkins will be selling out 30-40,000 seat tours?? This 'Rock will always rule' attitude reminds me of the 1950's-1960s music world, before Rock, the top of the charts was topped by easy listening and pop standards. Acts like Henry Mancini, Paul Anka, Perry Como, Nat Cole, Dean Martin, Della Reese, Sinatra, Streisand dominated the charts and airwaves. Once Guitar Rock and the British Invasion made the charts, they ALL thought it was a temporary phase, cheap teen thrills, and their kind of music will be back on top once it passes. But guess what, it NEVER regained it's glory days, most of them ended up playing Casino lounges for the geriatric crowd and GASP! the dinner theatre circuit. Sure Rock shows will always exist, But in 10 years, 800 seats yes, 8000 seats maybe, 28,000 seat stadiums?, Umm, Highly doubtfull

 

 

 

I never said that rock would always rule. In fact, I've said the exact opposite in many posts. That being said, I don't think anything else currently threatens it (hip-hop has been around for nearly 30 years now, and its never completely dethroned rock... teen pop is universal... "post-rock", despite all the pretention, is just rock)...

 

And if you wanna subcategorize it, then, well, geezer stadium rock isn't "popular" (read: new) anymore either (Clapton has sounded outdated for well over 20 years now, and he still has a huge draw). But it still has a huge concert draw. It's nostalgia. As the generation that grew up with alt-rock becomes middle-aged and get comfortable jobs with benefits and resign to living in the suburbs and taking the kids to soccer practice, they'll become more able and willing to spend $100 (or the relative cost 10 years from now) on a ticket for teenage nostalgia.

 

The Stones have becomone more famous for being famous for so long than they ever were at their creative peak (which is what they were initially famous for).

 

So, rock doesn't have to be popular and "new" for rock nostalgia acts to attract a huge audience. I mean, Streisand may be old news and has been since before I was born, but she can still sell $1000 tickets. Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra... they were more iconic and had larger draws once they were artistically/commercially obsolete than they were/did when they ruled. Wayne Newton is a cheesy cliche of a cliche... yet he sells out how many shows per week in Vegas?

[Poker99]

 

I never said that rock would always rule. In fact, I've said the exact opposite in many posts. That being said, I don't think anything else currently threatens it (hip-hop has been around for nearly 30 years now, and its never completely dethroned rock... teen pop is universal... "post-rock", despite all the pretention, is just rock)... And if you wanna subcategorize it, then, well, geezer stadium rock isn't "popular" (read: new) anymore either (Clapton has sounded outdated for well over 20 years now, and he still has a huge draw). But it still has a huge concert draw. It's nostalgia. As the generation that grew up with alt-rock becomes middle-aged and get comfortable jobs with benefits and resign to living in the suburbs and taking the kids to soccer practice, they'll become more able and willing to spend $100 (or the relative cost 10 years from now) on a ticket for teenage nostalgia. The Stones have becomone more famous for being famous for so long than they ever were at their creative peak (which is what they were initially famous for). So, rock doesn't have to be popular and "new" for rock nostalgia acts to attract a huge audience. I mean, Streisand may be old news and has been since before I was born, but she can still sell $1000 tickets. Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra... they were more iconic and had larger draws once they were artistically/commercially obsolete than they were/did when they ruled. Wayne Newton is a cheesy cliche of a cliche... yet he sells out how many shows per week in Vegas?

 

 

So damn true.

 

The business is over. Its like diamonds. If tomorrow it starts raining diamonds, they will lose all their value.

 

Music is free now. The market is corrupted and overloaded. It will be even worse with the next generation, cause kids will be born in that new era where music is free and has no meaning. They just won't care.

 

More and more they don't care about bands because there is too much of them and because they care for SINGLES. Real fans are much harder to find and keep.

 

Its over.

[Scafeets]

Man, y'all are giving up way too easily. If your measure of success is sales, then music is still selling. Therefore, it isn't dying. Yes: US CD sales have gone from 785 million in Y2K to $588 mil in 2006. For those keeping score at home, that's a 24% decline in the sales of little plastic thingies. However, digital music sales increased by 65% just since 2005, generating $1 billion in revenue. That's 1,000 million clams.

Just because the People Who Used To Run the Industry only measure success in the sales of atoms (CDs) doesn't mean we of the Intellectual Property Brigade should forget that the new economy is built on bits, not atoms. All 10 if the Top selling CDs of 2006 were from relatively new artists, and the #1 CD of the year was a kid's record (High School Musical) which indicates to me that there's a vital growing new market out there. Just like their parents (and grandparents) traded up from the Cowsills and the Monkees, these kids will go from HS Confidential to something new.

Now - if your measure of success is the Stadium Tour, you're right: Top tours of '06 were the Stones, Streisand, McGRaw/Hill, Madonna, Chesney, Bon Jovi, Matthews, Elton, Billy Joel and Rascal Flatts. Good news for Nashville - bad news for Hinder.

But I have to believe that electronic media will find a way to give the next generation of fans the ability to enjoy live music without standing in line for a $100 ticket.

[Poker99]

How much of this "new" money went to the artitsts?

[kurdy]

In all honesty though, when was there ever a time when something wasn't wrong with the industry? Artists have always gotten the short end of the deal while record companies have always taken as much as they could, there's always been great music gone unheard, while crappy music became mega-successful. The music industry as a whole has always sucked. Is today really that much different than before?

 

Still through it all, there have always been instances where great music did get heard, where great artists did get what they deserved, where record companies did make profit, and that still continues to happen. Only now, the playing field has been leveled somewhat. Many more artists are business savvy, are more in control of their careers, and know better how not to get taken advantage of. That can't be a bad thing.

 

Sure, the days of multi-million selling albums may be over, but was selling that many albums really necessary? Most of that money just went into record execs pockets, and helped them pay for their mansions. Much of the "bloat" and the excess has gone from the industry as well, which again, isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[Mittens]

 

That's a very good point, and I agree. Musicians long for that romantic ideal of the music fans of the '60s and '70s who'd sit around, pouring over their favorite band's albums, absorbing the music, analyzing lyrics, artwork, smoking joints and having deep discussions about it with their friends; that sort of stuff doesn't happen anymore. I think the description of music today as a lifestyle accessory as pretty accurate. People download popular songs on their i-pod and listen while they go jogging. They don't have the time nor the interest in exploring new music, or things that are unfamiliar. I suppose as musicians, we just have to learn to be content with knowing that not many people are going to care about what we do. People love to talk about movies, TV, sports, yet music seems to have become old hat, for some reason. Except of course, to musicians.

 

 

I was completely oblivious to this.

Me and my friends sit around and talk about music today.

Most of my friends are not musicians, but they do want to hear new and interesting music.

I guess my friends are just different...

[Scafeets]

 

How much of this "new" money went to the artitsts?

 

 

Generally, more than in the old days, since they don't have to recoup big manufacturing costs. And since there's less money fronted on tour support, marketing, etc. most new artists are getting both significantly higher royalty rates AND lower "recoupables" than they did 30 years ago.

[joie]

BLAH BLAH, YADA YADA YADA...

 

A million and one reasons,

 

Bottom Line:

 

I just want the industry to release incredible music thats easily accessible.

 

I should'nt have to search thru a gazillion bands or scour the internet to see if some

German band recorded something cool in their basement.

[Scafeets]

 

BLAH BLAH, YADA YADA YADA... I should'nt have to search thru a gazillion bands or scour the internet to see if some German band recorded something cool in their basement.

 

 

So, you figure an army of A&R guys should do it for you? That worked out swell when LPs sold for the equivalent of $15 and no one could copy them.

[joie]

 

So, you figure an army of A&R guys should do it for you? That worked out swell when LPs sold for the equivalent of $15 and no one could copy them.

 

 

 

I just want incredible music thats easily accessible

 

You're saying it's impossible??

[Scafeets]

 

I just want incredible music thats easily accessible You're saying it's impossible??

 

 

It's possible right now. However, you will have to dig for it on your own since there's little motive for record companies to do it. Going back to the "problem with the industry" thread that started all this: Why should you expect "the industry" to do all the research for you? Are you, or anyone else, paying them to listen to 1,000 demos a week? Who's going to pay the travel expenses to send teams of A&R people out there to hear the bands that aren't in the major markets?

 

And who's going to pay the artist development dollars to help those bands get their {censored} togerher? And the tour support, video budget, marketing, promotion, etc.?

 

From my perspective, the "problem with the industy" is:

 

1. The current consumer market is the most musically ignorant one in history. Fewer people play an instrument and fewer people listen to music regularly.

 

2. A lot of people consider nursery-rhyme grade poetry set to sampled loops as music.

 

3. An entire generation thinks 128K sample-rate MP3s are acceptable fidelity.

 

4. An entire generation thinks downloading free music is part of the Bill of Rights.

 

5. What's left of "the industry" still thinks they're in the business of selling little pieces of plastic instead of intellectual property.

 

6. Songwriters and musicians are just as uneducated today as they were 30 years ago, so they continue to get screwed by every facet of "the industry" including club owners, agents, managers, lawyers, publishers, radio, TV and, yes, record companies.

 

7. Garageband, $500 digital studios, YouTube, MySpace, Taxi, and 100 other websites create the illusion that anyone can be a part of "the industry." Still, most musicians live under the poverty line without a day job or a rich uncle.

[distilledfx]

The difference between good music and bad music is quality, and that is about individual tastes. There's something in most music for someone to like.

 

The difference between popular music and alternative music (alternative to what? all music is alternative to something..) is exposure to people who, in turn, are able to recognise the music. What I understood from BlueStrat is that being "successful" is not about making good music, it's about making music that is so hyped up or flogged on the radio that people will recognise it amongst all the other music that they have no reason to buy because they have never heard any of it in thier life. If you know what you want when you go to buy a guitar, you don't get something else you have never tried before or heard when you know what you like

[BlueStrat]

 

What I understood from BlueStrat is that being "successful" is not about making good music, it's about making music that is so hyped up or flogged on the radio that people will recognise it amongst all the other music that they have no reason to buy because they have never heard any of it in thier life.

 

 

Well, not quite. What I meant is that if you want to be successful in the music business, you have to produce what is selling, just as in any business. That is quite apart from being successful as a performer, or a player. I've seen great performers sell mediocre music. And a player is only as successful as he wants to be. I know incredible jazz players classical players that can't get 20 people to listen to them. I know brilliant and talented rock players who can't get it through their heads that there just isn' a huge market for another Emerson Laker and Palmer or King Crimson-type band. Does it mean they aren't good? Oh, hell, no. It just means no one's buyingf it.

 

And, just so you'll know, I don't equate good with successful. Some things that sell are quite good, others aren't. Conversely, some things that are quite good will never sell, while things that are awful will.

 

I don't have any problem with people who want to write, produce and perform music that isn't popular. I do it myself. I just wish they'd stop bitching about the public and blaming the crowds as being stupid or uncaring simply because they don't care for what is being produced. Like I said before, if you're going to set up shop on the road less travelled, you can't bitch because there isn't any traffic on it. This is something I accepted a long time ago.

[ZigZagWanderer]

 

What I meant is that if you want to be successful in the music business, you have to produce what is selling, just as in any business.

 

 

Well...I'm not sure it's that easy. There are always people who are trying to ride whatever wave is happening at the moment, but I don't think that that is necessarily a ticket to success. Suppose, for example, it's 1992 and you start a band that would be recognized as "grunge" by music fans. That doesn't mean you're going to start cashing in. My guess is that there were just a whole lot more unsuccessful grunge bands in the early '90s.

 

In fact, I think that the minute there is a new hit, there's a whole industry of producers, session cats, labels, etc. who are copping that sound. If a boy band hits, then next week every label has their own boy band. But not every boy band is a hit. In fact, I would venture to say that if you inventoried all of the boy bands that were out there when N'Sync and the Backstreet Boys were on the charts, most of them would be just as unsuccessful as any other band doing anything else.

 

Personally, I would sell out in a heartbeat. In fact, I've tried to sell out, but I couldn't figure out how to do it. If it were easy to sell out, then I think most musicians would do so.

[BlueStrat]

 

Well...I'm not sure it's that easy. There are always people who are trying to ride whatever wave is happening at the moment, but I don't think that that is necessarily a ticket to success. Suppose, for example, it's 1992 and you start a band that would be recognized as "grunge" by music fans. That doesn't mean you're going to start cashing in. My guess is that there were just a whole lot more unsuccessful grunge bands in the early '90s. In fact, I think that the minute there is a new hit, there's a whole industry of producers, session cats, labels, etc. who are copping that sound. If a boy band hits, then next week every label has their own boy band. But not every boy band is a hit. In fact, I would venture to say that if you inventoried all of the boy bands that were out there when N'Sync and the Backstreet Boys were on the charts, most of them would be just as unsuccessful as any other band doing anything else. Personally, I would sell out in a heartbeat. In fact, I've tried to sell out, but I couldn't figure out how to do it. If it were easy to sell out, then I think most musicians would do so.

 

 

Well, again, I'm being misunderstood, or I'm not communicating very well. I didn't meant to imply it was easy, or that everyone who produced popular music will succeed.

 

What I'm saying is that people who are successful in business produce what the people want to buy. But that doesn't mean everyone who produces the same (or similar) things will sell. They may not succeed for a variety of reasons-lack of commitment, lack of charisma, not having the 'look' or just being in the wrong place, or handled by the wrong people.

 

Look at it this way:

Trees are green, but not everything that's green is a tree. Likewise, all music that sells huge is popular, but not all that sounds popular sells huge.

 

Am I making sense here?

[ZigZagWanderer]

 

Trees are green, but not everything that's green is a tree. Likewise, all music that sells huge is popular, but not all that sounds popular sells huge.

 

 

...or maybe you could do an Anna Karennina thing: "All successful bands are alike, but every unsuccessful band is unsuccessful in its own way."

 

 

people who are successful in business produce what the people want to buy.

 

 

Sure. But how do you know what people want to buy? Especially what music people want to buy?

 

I agree that you can draw a distinction between, say, a string quartet and a rock band (meaning that the rock band--even untalented kids with guitars and six months of lessons--is more commercially viable). Or a jazz band and a rock group. It's probably a safe bet that more people want to buy rock than jazz. Otherwise, I just don't think commercial viability can be predicted on any level.

 

To be a chart-topping, generation-defining act, you simply have to capture the zeitgeist--and I don't think that can be planned or predicted. Nirvana is the example I'm thinking of at the moment. The music market was primed and ready for Nirvana in '91 (or '92--whenever they broke). Nirvana didn't know that beforehand, the labels didn't know it and I doubt the fans did either. They just knew it when they heard it. And while there was room for a handful of other grunge acts at the top, I think that most of the follow on bands were around before Nirvana hit--I don't think there were many 'manufactured' grunge acts that made it (maybe STP falls in that category, but that's all I can think of).

 

As a musician, I honestly think the only thing you can do is do what you do extraordinarily well (which I think is much, much harder than it may appear)...and hope for the best. Consider SRV. Would anyone have predicted that a blues rock act would hit in the '80s? I doubt it. My guess is that everyone was trying to cop the Police, under the theory that "that's what's popular so if we want to be successful, we need to sound similar to the Police." To follow up with one of your earlier posts in this thread, I think that an over-the-top, great ELP or King Crimson style band has a greater chance of success than a 'pretty good' DMB or Coldplay clone.

 

I think that labels have gotten the whole 'figuring out what people want to buy' as close to a science as you can get. Everything is test marketed and focus-grouped and whatever else they do to try and figure out what will catch on. But it's still a gamble, every time. If it were possible to know what music people wanted to buy, every label would have a stable full of chart-topping hit acts.

[BlueStrat]

I can't disagree with any of this. My only point is that if band wants to be commercially viable, you have to be in tune with that the masses are buying or likely to buy (which is hard, as you pointed out). Yeh, there are flukes, like SRV, as you pointed out, but SRV didn't stop mainstream pop from selling. And yeah, SRV had a few hits on the radio, but his appeal was to musicians much more than high school girls and soccer moms. The mainstream has always like what's familiar and comfortable and makes them feel good.

 

All I'm saying is that too many guys think they can have an all original death metal or post-industrial prog screamo band to be different, and yet be justified in holding the masses in contempt because they aren't buying it. I'm just saying you can't have it both ways, by being intentionally off the beaten path and then whine because the public are a bunch of "mind numbed sheep, spoonfed by corporate radio, who don't know what's good." There is just some kinds of stuff that will never be mainstream no matter how well it's done. That isn't the public's fault. If I know that the average teen likes fast food, and I set up a stand next to the high school selling green salads, broccoli, and tofu burgers, and no one buys them, am I justified in blaming the public for not buying it, even if it's really good? Or would I be smarter to at least try to sel them something I think they're going to want to buy?

 

So yeah, you're right, no one can predict accurately what the market will be in a year or even a month, but you can spot trends and at least try to be in the ballpark by eliminating what you know won't sell. Of course, if you aren't in it for money, it doesn't matter. I'm only addressing people who want to be successful monetarily.