The 21+ conundrum

[Delle_Rose]

Ohk... I've long been opposed to the idea of 21+ shows (or even 18+, for that matter). Before I turned 21, I thought it was just just coz I couldn't go anywhere. But once I reached that milestone, well... I still HATE the idea of 21+ shows.

 

And this where the confusion comes in... so please, your insights are welcome.

 

First of all, a la my "Children of the Revolution" mindset, ages restrictions are bull{censored}. Kids make up the vast majority of the record buying public (particular for rock/hip-hop/pop). Kids (and by kids I mean teens) tend to, in a hormonally out-of-whack haze, believe music can save them and the world they live in. More than any other age group, they live/breath/OMGso&soisSOOOhoTTTTT, etc... It actually means something to them - it can save their mortal souls. 21+? Eh... it'll be nice background noise for a night of drinking, and eh, maybe they'll listen to a few songs they stole when they're taking the train to work/school/whatever. Kids aren't jaded, adults are. SO WHY EXCLUDE THEM? It always pisses me off when people ridicule teens for listening to huge pop acts and bitch about how kids don't "support independent/local music", blah blah blah. Face it - they can actually SEE a Pussycat Dolls or Green Day concert... so they get the full experience. And why would they support a local scene that doesn't even support their right to see live music? What's the sense in that?

 

And this coming from a person who, as a kid, DID actually like weird obscure bands who played 21+ shows (though I was always disappointed in bands who did so, but fell 894759845x more in love with the few bands who didn't - thank you Jump, Little Children... {censored} you Starlight Mints).

 

It just seems so stupid to exlclude teens from shows in a business where they're like 90% of the market. Drinking laws... blah blah. Drunk people generally talk through shows and act like asses anyway. Curfew laws... blah blah. Personally, I've vandalized WAYYYY more public places after turning 18 than before.

 

And, the real conundrum here...

 

Given age restrictions vs. record buying public... how is a local band's draw in any way indicative of what their national draw would be? So their music appeals to lots of drunk 20 somethings who don't really care about music... great. By whose convoluted logic does that translate to how they'd appeal to the national pop-musik record buying public (approx. ages 12-18)? Does this seem weird to anyone else? Think of it... how many local bands do you know who have a HUGE local bar/club draw but you know damn well could never get past that (here in San Francisco, I can think of about a couple dozen cover/afrofunk/etc... bands who, while huge here, have no major label interest and would never do well nationally). How many do you know who jaded/drunken 20 somethings don't like but kids would love if only they knew about them? (once again, I can think of more than a few) Face it... should the band be picked up by a major label and go "national", their target audience wouldn't be the bar/club set...

 

Rant. But what's your take?

[captain average]

i don't think about it too much.

[Nick Steen]

Good point.

 

Bartenders should get off of their asses and card people. It's not like they don't have coke to feed the young'ns anyway. It's more of a profit than locking kids out for a little bit of effort that they are supposed to be spending anyway. As for curfews... They should be abolished.

 

We should take this to the streets. Let's bring this mother down!

[BlueStrat]

Kids make up the vast majority of the record buying public (particular for rock/hip-hop/pop).

 

I agree kids are the largest consumers of music, but I'm not sure they make up the largest segment of buyers. My daughter and most of her friends have ipods chock full of songs, upwards of 1000 or more, and I don't think any of them paid for a single one. The borrow CDs and download freebies off of various websites. In fact, I'm hearing (don't know if this is true, its just what I've heard, so take it with a grain) that bands catering to kids are selling fewer and fewer CDs at shows, because the crowd is so used to not paying for music. One of my friends has a 19 year old son who is in a band and while they draw well, told his dad this sad fact about selling CDs, even at 5 bucks a pop. Again, it's anecdotal, but it makes sense to me.

 

Itunes? Other pay download sites? Most of them require credit cards or pay pal accounts. How many teens have those?

 

My own feeling is that bands are becoming increasingly popular while they make increasingly less money. It's almost as if fame has become the new currency, as bands brag about how many downloads they get that have no translation into money at all.

 

There has to be a way for music to be accessible to the consumer but profitable for the musician. I don't know what it is anymore, but I'm hoping someone comes up with it soon, not so much for my benefit ( my day is long past) but for the young guys coming up.

[cooterbrown]

We're playing a high school function, this coming Saturday, and we do a few of those a year, so there!

[BlueStrat]

Yeah, but you live in Alabama or somewhere!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(said the guy who lives in Idaho... )

[Delle_Rose]

 

Kids make up the vast majority of the record buying public (particular for rock/hip-hop/pop). I agree kids are the largest consumers of music, but I'm not sure they make up the largest segment of buyers. etc...

 

 

Yeah, that's probably the real question... who actually BUYS music? The thing is, I don't think older people really buy music either. Of all of my friends (jaded 20-somethings), I can only think of 1 who actually regularly buys music. ONE! But they all have iPods that they listen to (on their commutes to work/school, or both). Generally peeps in their 40s and 50s seem to buy music, but they seem to mostly buy older music (hence giving the Beatles and David Bowie a reason to re-release THE SAME {censored}ING ALBUM WITH LIKE 1 BONUS SONG every year and still have them sell well). And the only people I know of who DO buy music are teens... well, in most cases their parents buy it for them, but still. Oh yeah, how many teens have credit cards? A few. How many have parents with credit cards? Pretty much all (with a few exceptions, I'm sure).

 

Yeah, fewer people are buying music. There's not doubt about that. Its just a question of whose buying more than other age groups who aren't buying much either. But I'm still pretty certain it's teens... who, while they may not have a lot of money, have no negative consequences to face if they blow it all, and have parents to buy stuff for them. Whereas I, for example, have to worry about rent and having enough money for my dog's vet bills and etc... (but then again, I don't have an iPod, either)

 

ANd regardless, money vs. fame... there is obviously a weird schism right now. But bands who have no draw don't make much money anyway. And bands with a huge draw may not make much, but they make more than bands with no draw... and the most popular bands have an audience almost entirely of teens (so regardless, there's also a schism between what's marketable in a local scene and what's marketable nationally).

[Delle_Rose]

 

We should take this to the streets. Let's bring this mother down!

 

 

When I was 16/17 I was tempted. I was able to get into a few shows now and then because my mom likes a lot of the bands I do so she'd go with me (and some places will let you in if you're with a parent). But the shows I couldn't... well, I was living in Nashville, which I didn't care for. So I wrote my now infamous "Nashville Sucks, Yee-haw!" song and would call clubs with shows I couldn't get into and leave it on their voicemail...over and over and over again.

 

Didn't do much good, but it was good for venting.

[baron85]

 

Kids make up the vast majority of the record buying public (particular for rock/hip-hop/pop). I agree kids are the largest consumers of music, but I'm not sure they make up the largest segment of buyers. My daughter and most of her friends have ipods chock full of songs, upwards of 1000 or more, and I don't think any of them paid for a single one. The borrow CDs and download freebies off of various websites. In fact, I'm hearing (don't know if this is true, its just what I've heard, so take it with a grain) that bands catering to kids are selling fewer and fewer CDs at shows, because the crowd is so used to not paying for music. One of my friends has a 19 year old son who is in a band and while they draw well, told his dad this sad fact about selling CDs, even at 5 bucks a pop. Again, it's anecdotal, but it makes sense to me. Itunes? Other pay download sites? Most of them require credit cards or pay pal accounts. How many teens have those? My own feeling is that bands are becoming increasingly popular while they make increasingly less money. It's almost as if fame has become the new currency, as bands brag about how many downloads they get that have no translation into money at all. There has to be a way for music to be accessible to the consumer but profitable for the musician. I don't know what it is anymore, but I'm hoping someone comes up with it soon, not so much for my benefit ( my day is long past) but for the young guys coming up.

 

 

Don't you just love the bull{censored} the record industry feeds you?

 

Sorry for the vulgarity, but that pretty much sums up the entirety of your post.

[baron85]

 

ANd regardless, money vs. fame... there is obviously a weird schism right now. But bands who have no draw don't make much money anyway. And bands with a huge draw may not make much, but they make more than bands with no draw... and the most popular bands have an audience almost entirely of teens (so regardless, there's also a schism between what's marketable in a local scene and what's marketable nationally).

 

 

Bands make their money off shows. And merchandise sales. It's been that way for a long time, and it will continue to be so. CD sales have always made up a VERY limited portion of any artist's income.

[Delle_Rose]

 

Bands make their money off shows. And merchandise sales. It's been that way for a long time, and it will continue to be so. CD sales have always made up a VERY limited portion of any artist's income.

 

 

To some extent. I mean... the Beatles stopped performing live, and I don't they were hurting. They made a killing on merchandise, though, so... eh.

 

And record sales, while they may not be very lucrative in themselves, aren't unrelated to the size crowd you're playing to.

 

And yeah, so bands make money off shows... acts appealing to teens still have a larger audience.

 

Honestly, I think you're right in that respect... CD sales aren't THAT lucrative, and they're becoming less and less so. It's almost time to just give it up and find something new (or revive something old). I think the singles market will become bigger and bigger... a la the days of 78s and 45s, but without the 78s and 45s. Albums will have to become less and less important, if only out of financial necessity.

 

PS: I like that you apologised to BlueStrat for your "vulgarity". Especially in a thread I started. (ie: in case you haven't noticed, most of my posts are basically "{censored}ity {censored} {censored} {censored}ty fag whore {censored}")

[baron85]

I apologized because he was essentially saying, in a very polite, backhanded way, that "people that download music are thieves and are killing the recording business!" But, he did it in a rather unassuming way. The thing is, the record company cannot adapt to change - well, that's somewhat false. They do adapt, they just resist it. In case you didn't know, when radio was first invented, they tried to have it banned. After all, change is inherently a threat. It allows new tactics, new players into a ballgame that the record company was winning. They're going to have to adapt to this in the same way that they had to adapt to the introduction of radio. What digital media does, in essence, is allow for the decentralization of the music business. Case in point: Clap Your Hands Say Yeah! They started releasing their music online (for free), on their web site, myspace, etc. Played some shows, got some attention, recorded an album, got a 9.0 from Pitchfork, and they're huge. And you know what? What cost them $8000 to record (by themselves) and promote (by themselves) has paid off immensely. They didn't need the record company. And see, THIS is the crux of the issue. They don't tell you this with their ads and their legislative efforts and their calls to your morals. They don't tell you that they're really not worried about losing money due theft and illegal downloading, etc. They're worried that digital media is going to make them irrelevant.

 

And as far as 21+ shows go, I'm undecided. I really can't choose a side.

[BlueStrat]

Yeah, that's probably the real question... who actually BUYS music? The thing is, I don't think older people really buy music either. Of all of my friends (jaded 20-somethings), I can only think of 1 who actually regularly buys music. ONE! But they all have iPods that they listen to (on their commutes to work/school, or both). Generally peeps in their 40s and 50s seem to buy music, but they seem to mostly buy older music (hence giving the Beatles and David Bowie a reason to re-release THE SAME {censored}ING ALBUM WITH LIKE 1 BONUS SONG every year and still have them sell well). And the only people I know of who DO buy music are teens... well, in most cases their parents buy it for them, but still. Oh yeah, how many teens have credit cards? A few. How many have parents with credit cards? Pretty much all (with a few exceptions, I'm sure). Yeah, fewer people are buying music. There's not doubt about that. Its just a question of whose buying more than other age groups who aren't buying much either. But I'm still pretty certain it's teens... who, while they may not have a lot of money, have no negative consequences to face if they blow it all, and have parents to buy stuff for them. Whereas I, for example, have to worry about rent and having enough money for my dog's vet bills and etc... (but then again, I don't have an iPod, either) ANd regardless, money vs. fame... there is obviously a weird schism right now. But bands who have no draw don't make much money anyway. And bands with a huge draw may not make much, but they make more than bands with no draw... and the most popular bands have an audience almost entirely of teens (so regardless, there's also a schism between what's marketable in a local scene and what's marketable nationally).

 

Hey, I buy it! But I'm 51, (soon to be 52 ) and I prolly spend at least $20-30 a month on Itunes and then whatever I buy in stores, usually another 3 or so CDs a month. And I don't just buy old stuff; I buy a lot of guys I haven't heard that I find on itunes. Amos Lee, Richard Buckner, and Chris Knight are a few I've found that I didn't know about.

 

Maybe I'm in the minority. I hope not.

 

 

As always, an excellent post from you on a great subject.

[Delle_Rose]

 

The thing is, the record company cannot adapt to change - well, that's somewhat false. etc...

 

 

Yeah, and cassette recording was gonna ruin it, and CD burning, etc...

 

The thing is, that's where I'm stuck. While I don't support the record companies being all Draconian and {censored} (I LOVE vulgarities!), I also don't support bands getting screwed over. Right now, the industry is in a very inbetween phase... there's this new approach, but no one really knows what the {censored} to do with it or where to take it. Yeah, you can release an album and become big without a label. But you can't become huge (CYHSY is big, but not HUGE). Most bands still need to be signed... but the record company screws them over. So, in an protest against record companies, consumers steal music which ends up screwing the band over, which makes the record label screw them over more. So, the idea is there, the medium is (probably) there, but no one's figured out exactly how to effectively use it all quite yet. Everyone's still floundering in that inbetween place where everyone just gets {censored}ed. (CYHSY may have opened the door, but they never really walked through it, in my opinion).

 

With downloads and MySpace and this and that, the singles market is coming back... No one really buys albums. But bands still record albums. But then again, few people really buy singles because you can just circulate them around once someone rips it off an album. Well, Ohk... people still buy albums and singles. For all the record industry's bitching, they still make how many billions of dollars per year? But there's obviously a change. The fact is, their refusal to adapt is what stands to make them irrelevant.

 

So while I support a change, I don't think musicians should be expected to give themselves and their music away. I mean, artists are going from whores to sluts... and frankly, at least whores have some self-worth (once again... I LOVE vulgarities). Record companies exist, so just ignoring them isn't helping bands. Defiance is only good if it has a purpose and leads to a change, which is the farthest thing from the minds of most people ripping off songs and throwing them on their iPods.

 

Anyway, there obviously is some change coming... I just don't think we're there yet, and people who think we are(and therefore helping themselves without a second thought) are hindering it more than helping it. Because no matter how much the record companies whine and no matter how many albums self-promoted bands sell, record companies are still making WAY MORE MONEY and still selling WAY MORE ALBUMS! You can't just ignore them, because their resources aren't even close to exhausted.

[baron85]

 

For all the record industry's bitching, they still make how many billions of dollars per year?

 

 

Revenue streams. Movie tie-ins. Commercials. That's how they make their money.

 

The thing is, whether they get money or not, artists are going to continue to make music. It's like that old adage/cliche/whatever - if you're doing it for the money, you're not doing it for the right reasons. Now, I'm not saying that they should do it for free, but you have to admit, making a living based on playing music is a pretty damn good job. This is all subjective, though. My own opinions for H-C's consumption and debate.

[Delle_Rose]

Hey, I buy it! But I'm 51, (soon to be 52 ) and I prolly spend at least $20-30 a month on Itunes and then whatever I buy in stores, usually another 3 or so CDs a month. And I don't just buy old stuff; I buy a lot of guys I haven't heard that I find on itunes. Amos Lee, Richard Buckner, and Chris Knight are a few I've found that I didn't know about. Maybe I'm in the minority. I hope not. As always, an excellent post from you on a great subject.

 

Oh, you're DEFINATELY in the minority. Sorry to say. But you're not the only one... my girlfriend's dad is way more hip than she and I are, and he buys tons of albums (and he's 58). A few others, too. But rare.

 

Oh, and thanks!

[Delle_Rose]

 

Revenue streams. Movie tie-ins. Commercials. That's how they make their money. The thing is, whether they get money or not, artists are going to continue to make music. It's like that old adage/cliche/whatever - if you're doing it for the money, you're not doing it for the right reasons. Now, I'm not saying that they should do it for free, but you have to admit, making a living based on playing music is a pretty damn good job. This is all subjective, though. My own opinions for H-C's consumption and debate.

 

 

Yeah, artists will always make music. Despite the bitchings of some, music isn't going to become irrelevant anytime soon. Thousands of years ago it was a key element to the most sacred of rituals. Hundreds of years ago musicians, as both butt-boys and thorns-in-side to royalty, were the icons of culture. 10s of years ago, the current standard was set. Music isn't going away.

 

And yeah, it's not about money. Not at all. But money is necessary, for better or worse... "Don't wanna be a richer man/Gonna have to be a different man". I mean, time may change us, but we can't trace time, ya know? Er... sorry. Money is meaningless. Art, from a creative standpoint, has nothing to do with money. But money isn't gonna become obsolete anytime soon, either. So if artists have nothing in a society based around money, then art/music WILL become obsolete (or at least artists will). It has to adapt to the times, too... failing to do so is the one thing that can make it irrelevant. Because in Ancient Egypt and and 18th Century Austria, music and musicians were EXACTLY in accord with contemporary society.

[BlueStrat]

 

I apologized because he was essentially saying, in a very polite, backhanded way, that "people that download music are thieves and are killing the recording business!" But, he did it in a rather unassuming way. The thing is, the record company cannot adapt to change - well, that's somewhat false. They do adapt, they just resist it. In case you didn't know, when radio was first invented, they tried to have it banned.

 

 

That's not what I was saying at all. My daughter doesn't download illegally. We have had this discussion in my house, and she knows he drill. But when everyone has ipods, it only takes each kid having to buy one CD or less for everyone to load it on the ipod. And with myspace, soundclick, download.com, etc there are thousands of songs legally available that you don't have to pay for. Every kid with an ipod has a playlist of at least a couple of thousand songs. All they have to do is go to a friend's house and select the songs they want and put them on the ipod. That's my point. Illegal dowloading has almost become irrelevant. There are so many artists giving it away to get people to listen to them that there just isn't much reason for it any more.

 

As to radio trying to be banned by the record companies, I don't know where you get your information, but the fact is, a lot of radios were being manufactured by the same companies that produced records and record players (like RCA) precisely so music could be played to the masses, resulting in massive increase in sales. And record companies spent thousands getting their records on the air going clear back to the 20s (as they do now).

 

I'm no fan of big record companies, as a rule, and think they have gone to great lengths to cut their own throats out of sheer greed and hubris. I have declined offers to sign with them and have done my own thing, mostly because I don't ewant to travel anymore and I sure don't want to owe them money.

 

But I don't think they're all bad, either. They still do two things that only a handful of indies have ever come close to, and that's marketing and distribution. The internet may have promise in the future, but so far it has failed to live up to it's potential. You can point to a few artists who have used the internet to their advantage, and become successful, but they are unique. Out of the thousands upon thousands on DIY artists out there, can you name 50 that have hit it big? 25? 10?

 

I hope some day it does make lots of artists successful and financially independent, of both being owned by corporate interests or from being a slave to a day job. But right now, the way it seems to work is that the same internet that can make someone popular also makes what they produce available to the masses for nothing. Sure, live performance may be what sustains a band for awhile, but the shelf life of a band that "hits" these days is about 18 months to three years. Who, for example, is going to be buying tickets to see The Killers in two years? How can they make money if they are no longer in demand performance-wise, but can't make money off of royalties, either?

 

And another thing is this: If kids today don't see recorded music as something they should have to pay for, how long will it be before they come to expect performances to be free, too? Or will they? I don't have an answer, I'm just tossing the question out there.

[BlueStrat]

Yeah, and cassette recording was gonna ruin it, and CD burning, etc... The thing is, that's where I'm stuck. While I don't support the record companies being all Draconian and {censored} (I LOVE vulgarities!), I also don't support bands getting screwed over. Right now, the industry is in a very inbetween phase... there's this new approach, but no one really knows what the {censored} to do with it or where to take it. Yeah, you can release an album and become big without a label. But you can't become huge (CYHSY is big, but not HUGE). Most bands still need to be signed... but the record company screws them over. So, in an protest against record companies, consumers steal music which ends up screwing the band over, which makes the record label screw them over more. So, the idea is there, the medium is (probably) there, but no one's figured out exactly how to effectively use it all quite yet. Everyone's still floundering in that inbetween place where everyone just gets {censored}ed. (CYHSY may have opened the door, but they never really walked through it, in my opinion). With downloads and MySpace and this and that, the singles market is coming back... No one really buys albums. But bands still record albums. But then again, few people really buy singles because you can just circulate them around once someone rips it off an album. Well, Ohk... people still buy albums and singles. For all the record industry's bitching, they still make how many billions of dollars per year? But there's obviously a change. The fact is, their refusal to adapt is what stands to make them irrelevant. So while I support a change, I don't think musicians should be expected to give themselves and their music away. I mean, artists are going from whores to sluts... and frankly, at least whores have some self-worth (once again... I LOVE vulgarities). Record companies exist, so just ignoring them isn't helping bands. Defiance is only good if it has a purpose and leads to a change, which is the farthest thing from the minds of most people ripping off songs and throwing them on their iPods. Anyway, there obviously is some change coming... I just don't think we're there yet, and people who think we are(and therefore helping themselves without a second thought) are hindering it more than helping it. Because no matter how much the record companies whine and no matter how many albums self-promoted bands sell, record companies are still making WAY MORE MONEY and still selling WAY MORE ALBUMS! You can't just ignore them, because their resources aren't even close to exhausted.

 

Pretty much what I was trying to say.

[baron85]

 

As to radio trying to be banned by the record companies, I don't know where you get your information, but the fact is, a lot of radios were being manufactured by the same companies that produced records and record players (like RCA) precisely so music could be played to the masses, resulting in massive increase in sales. And record companies spent thousands getting their records on the air going clear back to the 20s (as they do now). But I don't think they're all bad, either. They still do two things that only a handful of indies have ever come close to, and that's marketing and distribution. The internet may have promise in the future, but so far it has failed to live up to it's potential. You can point to a few artists who have used the internet to their advantage, and become successful, but they are unique. Out of the thousands upon thousands on DIY artists out there, can you name 50 that have hit it big? 25? 10? I hope some day it does make lots of artists successful and financially independent, of both being owned by corporate interests or from being a slave to a day job. But right now, the way it seems to work is that the same internet that can make someone popular also makes what they produce available to the masses for nothing. Sure, live performance may be what sustains a band for awhile, but the shelf life of a band that "hits" these days is about 18 months to three years. Who, for example, is going to be buying tickets to see The Killers in two years? How can they make money if they are no longer in demand performance-wise, but can't make money off of royalties, either? And another thing is this: If kids today don't see recorded music as something they should have to pay for, how long will it be before they come to expect performances to be free, too? Or will they? I don't have an answer, I'm just tossing the question out there.

 

 

First off, where I got my information (I think this is the one):

Garofalo, Reebee. “From Music Publishing to MP3: Music and Industry in the Twentieth

Century.” American Music. Fall 1999, p. 318-354. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, 2000.

 

Here's another good one:

Dolfsma, Wilfred. “How Will the Music Industry Weather the Globalization Storm?”

First Monday. Vol. 8, No. 5. May 2000. http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_5/dolfsma/index.html

 

As for DIY artists that have become successful, it's becoming an increasing pattern as of late. Radiohead's Kid A was written off by its label as "unmarketable" until early copies of it were illegally released on Napster. It hit #1 without a single and negligible (if any) promotion. Wilco was dropped from their label, recorded Yankee Hotel Foxtrot on ProTools by themselves, eventually found another label, and it ended up being their biggest hit. These are two of the most critically acclaimed releases in the last decade. Lily Allen, Panic at the Disco! (two of today's most popular acts) and a number of others owe their considerable success to Myspace.

 

Shelf life of artists: I attribute this to the record companies, as well. There's no time taken for development of young artists, any more. Ever since Thriller, the record companies have been focusing on the blockbuster album and the superstar artist, to the detriment of the rest of the field. They rode into the digital age hitched to a scant few artists.

 

I'm not saying I have the answers. I'm certainly not saying that. What I am saying is that the current system is broke, and breaking, and that there is something outside that might be able to fix it, or might simply demolish it altogether. Whatever the case, one cannot keep their head in the ground about the existence of free media. No amount of legislation will be able to stifle it now. The music industry is changing, and no one has any idea how to adapt. But they're going to have to.

[Delle_Rose]

 

First off, where I got my information (I think this is the one): Garofalo, Reebee. “From Music Publishing to MP3: Music and Industry in the Twentieth Century.” American Music. Fall 1999, p. 318-354. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, 2000. Here's another good one: Dolfsma, Wilfred. “How Will the Music Industry Weather the Globalization Storm?” First Monday. Vol. 8, No. 5. May 2000. http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_5/dolfsma/index.html As for DIY artists that have become successful, it's becoming an increasing pattern as of late. Radiohead's Kid A was written off by its label as "unmarketable" until early copies of it were illegally released on Napster. It hit #1 without a single and negligible (if any) promotion. Wilco was dropped from their label, recorded Yankee Hotel Foxtrot on ProTools by themselves, eventually found another label, and it ended up being their biggest hit. These are two of the most critically acclaimed releases in the last decade. Lily Allen, Panic at the Disco! (two of today's most popular acts) and a number of others owe their considerable success to Myspace. Shelf life of artists: I attribute this to the record companies, as well. There's no time taken for development of young artists, any more. Ever since Thriller, the record companies have been focusing on the blockbuster album and the superstar artist, to the detriment of the rest of the field. They rode into the digital age hitched to a scant few artists. I'm not saying I have the answers. I'm certainly not saying that. What I am saying is that the current system is broke, and breaking, and that there is something outside that might be able to fix it, or might simply demolish it altogether. Whatever the case, one cannot keep their head in the ground about the existence of free media. No amount of legislation will be able to stifle it now. The music industry is changing, and no one has any idea how to adapt. But they're going to have to.

 

 

Actually, as far as "Kid A"... they DID promote it. Quite a bit. I remember they had promo commercials for it on TV... weird little animations akin to the album art with "Optimistic" playing in the background. They also had the special edition version and a few copies with that weird little extra booklet which I somehow didn't get even though I bought the damn thing pretty quickly, so wtf?! I'm still angry about that! Anyway, yeah... they had commercials for it, full displays, etc... And regardless, it's RADIOHEAD, patron saints of whatever... They were following up "OK Computer", so obviously there was gonna be a huge buzz even without promotion (and worth it, at that... "Kid A" is tied with "The Bends" as my favorite Radiohead album... "Amnesiac" on the other hand? Pure crap by comparison). Likewise, Radiohead has always had a very long list of people helping them out.

 

Also, Panic! At the Disco doesn't really owe their success to MySpace... they owe it to the bassist of Fall Out Boy (who actually probably owe their success to MySpace, so hmmm).

 

But I agree with you. There's obviously a change happening, but no one really knows what to do with it quite yet. I'm not even 100% sure the medium is completely there... It probably is, but I'd imagine someone would have figured out what to do with it then. But regardless, a change WILL happen... but until then musicians have to know their "enemy"... The record industry may be in for a good smack, but not yet... not even close. They're just now starting to feel it (a "just" that has lasted a few years without escalating much), but they still have the money and the resources (and therefore, like it or not, the power).

 

Also, honestly, it's not *that* new. Yes, there's a change happening... but the climate causing the change has happened (though maybe to a lesser extent) before. I mean, labels have always wanted the next blockbuster to the detriment of other acts. In the jazz age through early rock n roll, LPs were seldom even considered in the "pop" market. Singles were the big thing, and most acts even then were whored for one hit then dismissed. It wasn't really until the 60s that LPs became IT... and that got exhausted, and labels wanted singles so Tony Orlando was promoted more than Bob Dylan. Then Glam came around, and used the industry to turn itself inside out... a new singles market that was deliberately "disposable" pioneered by acts (T. Rex, Roxy Music, David Bowie, etc...) who have proven to be anything but disposable. Marc Bolan proclaimed T. Rex to be a disposable act, but several hit singles and millions of albums later and he's a legend. And guess what? It gave the record industry their hit singles but in a way that they were (if only for a short period) OWNED by such bands and their 14 year old fans... they had no choice but to promote "risky/risque" bands who were inherently subversive... in Bolan's case, his merchandise (including albums) and concert tickets were, by his demand, significantly less than any other comparable acts, thus ensuring 14 year olds could and WOULD pay to see him and buy everything he released (at the height of T. Rextacy, 6% of ALL record sales in the UK were T. Rex records... ALL RECORD SALES, old and new). And for all the promotion he eventually got, "Ride A White Swan" (his breaktrhough hit) was passed around and snubbed by DJs until kids started calling in and demanding to hear it, because the label wouldn't promote it.

 

Then punk came along and took that same idea but with a more obviously DIY approach (ie: same thing, just not as cleverly done) and took all the credit for it, starting the DIY underground market in earnest which to this day has changed very little, and the rest is history (fyi to anyone reading this... yeah, I don't like punk [though I love post-punk] and I blame it for a lot of the problems in pop music. *shrug*)