Music consumers are as much to blame for the state of the music industry

[Guest Len B'stard]

Beatles lived and died by pop as far as i'm concerned, even Sgt Peppers and White Album were hugely pop, elements of this and that in there but pop nonetheless.

[Amir]

But it still had art to it, to come back to that "artpop" thing. And I don't think we've seen the end of pop being mixed with art with the Internet, nor do I think we'll ever see it. I'm not a fan, but Mumford & Sons' albums sell by the shedload, they headline festivals, and even if I don't like them I have to admit their is some craft to their music.

[ThinkAboutYou]

I remember the days when I would be charged $30-$35 for a regular CD the record labels laughed all the way to the bank

The internet is the best thing to happen to music. Sure it can be tougher on the smaller guys but if you can't earn a living or generate a following should you even be in the music business?

I still think paying $9.95-$14.99 for a digital album is bollocks

And now in Australia we have concert tickets anywhere between $80-$500 the mainstream artists are taking consumers for a ride ($50 for concert t shirts)

I do like self funded ideas such as pledge music which help to fund independent albums/projects

Edited November 8, 2013 by ThinkAboutYou

[wasted]

Its a game. A new game. Maybe it will suit different artists or theyll be made to make different decisions. To me it seems like it suits punk and pop more than rock.

[J Dog]

I agree consumers should get a lot of the blame. So should the internet in general. The artists do too. For whatever reason creativity has gone down. Sure I agree that there is great music out there you just might have to look a little harder, and the internet can be a great gateway to finding new music. But honestly, I don't care if your favorite is GNR, U2, Nirvana, Beatles, or Prince, can you say recent music can compare? I think about my favorite bands from recent years, and I love them to death, but they just can't compare. Maybe a few here and there, but overall something is missing. It doesn't help that it seems this generation's attention span has diminished big time, some people today can't even make it through a 4 minute song without skipping to the next. And all the buy per song sites like itunes, I'm sure it helps against piracy, but I think it kind of kills albums too. People can just get those 2 hot songs and that's it fuck the album. The record company's seems like they have thrown in the towel. We will push the known money makers and the rest of you are on your own. There is more than enough blame to go around.

[sweetness]

As long as we pay for it, music will keep coming. But if we just get everything free, it will stop. The internet as a delivery tool is great, almost too good.

But maybe the industry needs cleansing so that only real music gets made and the more maunfactured stuff will die with out sales to drive it. Maybe thats why shows are more important than videos these days.

I'm not even talking about illegal downloading, but lets get into that. Yes, that does run rampant, yes, that has crippled major labels and has forced them to make investments based heavily on how marketable an artist is vs how original or creative they are, but I would argue that it puts their dirty fingers right where they belong. Yes, the shitty pop acts have way more money than they probably deserve, but in that world music is more of a business than anything and working with major labels means you're an employee, not an artist. Justin Beiber, Rhianna, Bruno Mars, these clowns don't have any artistic freedom, they don't even write their own material, they're just pretty faces with nice voices, they're commodities, and thats how big time music lables operate. They've had nearly a century to perfect their model, they're good at it, but it's never had the best interests of the artist in mind, it's just another multi-billion dollar industry to them.

However, the rise of the internet has given life to and strengthened thousands of smaller independent labels who are far more driven by promoting great artists than turning a profit, and some of these lables still have no problem doing that. Epitaph, Plan-It-X, Relapse, Deathwish Inc, Equal Vision, just to name a few that some of my favorite artists have worked with, would not have close to the amount of success they have enjoyed without the speed and efficiency of online promotion. Before the days of the internet, they would heavily rely on word of mouth to promote outside of their region, now that word of mouth stretches across international boundries and their artists are simultaneously building fanbases on several continents.

How is this bad for music?

You guys are missing the point, I've said it a million times on this forum but fuck it I'll say it again: the internet is the greatest thing to happen to music.

It isn't that people in general are losing interest in music all together, that hasn't diminished at all. It's the overwhelming access to so many different artists that has been brought to the consumer by the internet that has changed, people are no longer limited to what is played on the radio and MTV or whatever bootleg tapes are being passed around, they can find literally anything that appeals to them if they look for it online. This hurts big business in the music industry, sure, but it has given new life to the "underground", and thousands of artists spanning across all kinds of genres are now capable of touring and releasing albums without being multi platinum recording artists signed to major labels. Why is this so good for music in general? Because it forces the product to be more original, more honest, and more challenging amidst the inevitable sea of mediocre and unremarkable shit.

No, we'll probably never see anything that takes the world by storm like the Beatles or Elvis ever again, and thank god. Fact is, our individual taste in music is a whole lot more diverse than we could have imagined, and thanks to the internet we can now indulge ourselves with more media than ever before.

In a way that makes it less accessible though, don't you think?

No. How is it less accessible?

I agree consumers should get a lot of the blame. So should the internet in general. The artists do too. For whatever reason creativity has gone down. Sure I agree that there is great music out there you just might have to look a little harder, and the internet can be a great gateway to finding new music. But honestly, I don't care if your favorite is GNR, U2, Nirvana, Beatles, or Prince, can you say recent music can compare? I think about my favorite bands from recent years, and I love them to death, but they just can't compare. Maybe a few here and there, but overall something is missing. It doesn't help that it seems this generation's attention span has diminished big time, some people today can't even make it through a 4 minute song without skipping to the next. And all the buy per song sites like itunes, I'm sure it helps against piracy, but I think it kind of kills albums too. People can just get those 2 hot songs and that's it fuck the album. The record company's seems like they have thrown in the towel. We will push the known money makers and the rest of you are on your own. There is more than enough blame to go around.

I couldn't disagree more. Creativity has progressed as it always has, there's just an overwhelming amount of marketable shit getting attention in mainstream media. The thing about this era is great music isn't going to find you, it does take a bit of effort to find what you like, more effort than a lot of people are probably willing to put in just for some good music which seems to be the main complaint in this thread, but I promise you there is great art being made out there and you'd probably never have a chance of being exposed to it without the internet.

Edited November 8, 2013 by sweetness

[Guest Len B'stard]

No. How is it less accessible?

Well when you have to actively seek something out as opposed to it's having a a broad profile then that makes it sort of less accessible, doesn't it? Also if it's fragmented is many many different little groups, again, less accessible.

[sweetness]

No. How is it less accessible?

Well when you have to actively seek something out as opposed to it's having a a broad profile then that makes it sort of less accessible, doesn't it? Also if it's fragmented is many many different little groups, again, less accessible.

Yeah, I think thats fair though. If you want everything spoon fed to you by Rolling Stone and Top 40 radio prepare to be disappointed. These days you actually have to look for yourself if you want quality music, it isn't that hard though, in fact with social media its become incredibly easy, and it's all there, thats what I meant when I said it's more accessible than ever before. But yeah, it does require effort, novel concept, I know.

[Guest Len B'stard]

No. How is it less accessible?

Well when you have to actively seek something out as opposed to it's having a a broad profile then that makes it sort of less accessible, doesn't it? Also if it's fragmented is many many different little groups, again, less accessible.

Yeah, I think thats fair though. If you want everything spoon fed to you by Rolling Stone and Top 40 radio prepare to be disappointed. These days you actually have to look for yourself if you want quality music, it isn't that hard though, in fact with social media its become incredibly easy, and it's all there, thats what I meant when I said it's more accessible than ever before. But yeah, it does require effort, novel concept, I know.

Why does it have to be one way or the other? Do you not see the benefits in constructing a framework whereby things are accessible so that they can reach a wider audience? Thats sort of the point in making music isn't it, so that as many people as possible can hear it.

And all you really do with this 'well go find it cuz if you don't then it's your tough titty, you miss out' is limit yourself because all that happens is fewer people get turned onto the music. People develop an interest in something a lot slower if there are not signposts towards it that are apparent.

Quite frankly i think you discount the power of the commercial aspects of music and the way it informed and led your own evolution musically. I mean it's all well and good saying (not saying that you are) you're some kinda underground punk leader of the new school but correct me if i'm wrong but your interest in music was stimulated first and foremost by what was commercially available to you, no? Unless you're telling me that you got into music through a Pastels bootleg or something. Think about kids born in an era where those commercially available sounds are disinteresting to them, it's not as simple as saying 'well they'll have to look for the good stuff' because they won't have any reference point and what you'll really end up with, as we kinda are now, is a generation of kids that ain't really into music that much anymore.

If it requires effort as you say, as opposed to the previous system then, in effect, by your own reckoning it is less accessible. I can waffle on all day long about all the non-commercial bands i like, or artists in general, all the cool edgy fringe people and all but the fact is we're all by and large awakened to music by pop, by a buoyant and vibrant popular music scene, first artists i like was like Guns n Roses, Nirvana, Michael Jackson, big commercial artists of their time, if they weren't there for me then I would've probably developed other interests or further developed pre-existing interests so that they filled that gap.

I have a 7 year old niece now and i see her growing up and she's not even really into music so much but she falls in love pretty quick with stuff she hears in my car and I wonder why and to me it's just cuz there really isn't that much good accessible music out there, you have to develop that initial spark or flame to the point where you get to 13 or 14 years old and you've kinda covered pop and it's like 'OK, so what else is out there?' and then move onto like, y'know, weeding out some other options for yourself but if that initial interest isn't developed well enough by an accessible medium then you'll never get that far.

Also, with respect, if i'm not mistaken you pretty much came of age in the age of the internet right? I don't think you really know the meaning of having to actively seek out good music. I don't mean to sound like Grandpa Irving waving his cane there but i thought it might be worthwhile putting that out there, being that you were making a point of required effort and all that

[sweetness]

Why does it have to be one way or the other? Do you not see the benefits in constructing a framework whereby things are accessible so that they can reach a wider audience? Thats sort of the point in making music isn't it, so that as many people as possible can hear it.

And all you really do with this 'well go find it cuz if you don't then it's your tough titty, you miss out' is limit yourself because all that happens is fewer people get turned onto the music. People develop an interest in something a lot slower if there are not signposts towards it that are apparent.

Quite frankly i think you discount the power of the commercial aspects of music and the way it informed and led your own evolution musically. I mean it's all well and good saying (not saying that you are) you're some kinda underground punk leader of the new school but correct me if i'm wrong but your interest in music was stimulated first and foremost by what was commercially available to you, no? Unless you're telling me that you got into music through a Pastels bootleg or something. Think about kids born in an era where those commercially available sounds are disinteresting to them, it's not as simple as saying 'well they'll have to look for the good stuff' because they won't have any reference point and what you'll really end up with, as we kinda are now, is a generation of kids that ain't really into music that much anymore.

If it requires effort as you say, as opposed to the previous system then, in effect, by your own reckoning it is less accessible. I can waffle on all day long about all the non-commercial bands i like, or artists in general, all the cool edgy fringe people and all but the fact is we're all by and large awakened to music by pop, by a buoyant and vibrant popular music scene, first artists i like was like Guns n Roses, Nirvana, Michael Jackson, big commercial artists of their time, if they weren't there for me then I would've probably developed other interests or further developed pre-existing interests so that they filled that gap.

I have a 7 year old niece now and i see her growing up and she's not even really into music so much but she falls in love pretty quick with stuff she hears in my car and I wonder why and to me it's just cuz there really isn't that much good accessible music out there, you have to develop that initial spark or flame to the point where you get to 13 or 14 years old and you've kinda covered pop and it's like 'OK, so what else is out there?' and then move onto like, y'know, weeding out some other options for yourself but if that initial interest isn't developed well enough by an accessible medium then you'll never get that far.

I don't think the point in making music is so that as many people as possible can hear it. It's just a form of expression, some people will be able to relate to it and enjoy it, some people wont, and I don't think that if more people enjoy a certain artist necessarily makes them "better musicians", just that more people are able to connect with them. Sure, you can definitely use that as a measuring stick, but there's plenty of inconsistancies between "audience" and "quality" that just add up to music, or any art form for that matter, as being subjective. There isn't one audience anymore, theres several, and that's just how it is.

Yes, having to go out and find music for yourself probably ensures that overall less people will be exposed to it, but I don't think thats to say it hurts the art at all. If somebody is passionate and hungry enough for something they're going to go out of their way to seek for it, if they aren't as serious about it then whats accessible to them through mainstream media is probably good enough for them anyway.

My interest in music absolutely started with what was commercially available to me, Guns N' Roses, Michael Jackson, and Elton John sparked this whole passion for me when I was younger. But I also have to say that for the most part I was not in to the popular music at the time when I was in grade school. I didn't care for Hanson, Third Eye Blind, Brittany Spears, NSYNC, or really anything being played on the bus ride to school every morning, and I never had any problem finding my niche in the world of music as I grew up. But for all of my talk of the loads of shitty mainstream pop artists these days (of which I think most in this thread can agree on), is all commercial music really that bad? I know theres a good deal of Kanye West, Lady Gaga, Eminem, Avenged Sevenfold, and U2 fans on this forum who would beg to differ. I wouldn't worry about today's youth finding their way, I'm just trying to make the point that people who aren't into that stuff do have other options. THANKS TO: THE WONDERFUL INTERNET!!!!

All I'm saying is that the internet has been GREAT to the art of music. It has given artists a vast landscape to showcase themselves to the world in ways that couldn't have been imagined in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and even the early 90's, as well as a vast landscape for the consumer to explore. No the mainstream commercial scene isn't producing as much desirable material as we would like to see but what can you do about it? Go online and look for yourself, its worked for my friends and I

Also, with respect, if i'm not mistaken you pretty much came of age in the age of the internet right? I don't think you really know the meaning of having to actively seek out good music. I don't mean to sound like Grandpa Irving waving his cane there but i thought it might be worthwhile putting that out there, being that you were making a point of required effort and all that

Thanks for bringing that up, because it really supports the point I'm trying to make. It is now EASIER THAN EVER to actively seek out good music. So again, what exactly is the problem here?

[Guest Len B'stard]

I don't think the point in making music is so that as many people as possible can hear it. It's just a form of expression, some people will be able to relate to it and enjoy it, some people wont, and I don't think that if more people enjoy a certain artist necessarily makes them "better musicians", just that more people are able to connect with them. Sure, you can definitely use that as a measuring stick, but there's plenty of inconsistancies between "audience" and "quality" that just add up to music, or any art form for that matter, as being subjective. There isn't one audience anymore, theres several, and that's just how it is.

It's a form of expression…and why do people express themselves? To communicate something…the highest estate of which is when you communicate to the most possible people. I do think it makes you a better musician, more so than any amount of textbook knowledge or whatever, this is why people get up onstage, because they have something to say, something to communicate, if it was just the need to express oneself why not just create for creatings sake, to scratch that itch, why release it, why bother getting up onstage to perform it to audiences?

Yes, having to go out and find music for yourself probably ensures that overall less people will be exposed to it, but I don't think thats to say it hurts the art at all. If somebody is passionate and hungry enough for something they're going to go out of their way to seek for it, if they aren't as serious about it then whats accessible to them through mainstream media is probably good enough for them anyway.

Right but my point was how can they get to be as serious if their ears are not pricked up early on by something that suggests to them that there is something more of value out there to look for?

All I'm saying is that the internet has been GREAT to the art of music. It has given artists a vast landscape to showcase themselves to the world in ways that couldn't have been imagined in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and even the early 90's, as well as a vast landscape for the consumer to explore. No the mainstream commercial scene isn't producing as much desirable material as we would like to see but what can you do about it? Go online and look for yourself, its worked for my friends and I

I ain't seen shit quite frankly. OK, i haven't trawled the internet with my every spare moment but i'm recommended bands up and down, i read about em, i hear about em off this forum, there's some OK stuff, some really naff stuff, nothing that'd blow peoples socks off. And i think probably a lot of it has to do with this 'several audiences' thing you outlined earlier where it's like OK, this is my little audience and that is your little audience and etc etc blah blah blah, to me thats ridiculous and it's as bad as the dreaded 'making music for everyone' mentality. I don't think that such an acute awareness and acceptance of ones niche audience can lead to anything but catering to a minority so you end up with a bunch of people catering to 'several audiences' and end up fragmenting and fucking up the whole set up. But i guess if thats the way things have gone naturally then it's the way it's meant to be but to me thats just a load of faction-chic really.

[wasted]

It does really matter about the internet or anything, there will only by one page or morrison every decade or so. In 90s everyone got rich. But now maybe Page would get a shallow grave.

[sweetness]

I don't think the point in making music is so that as many people as possible can hear it. It's just a form of expression, some people will be able to relate to it and enjoy it, some people wont, and I don't think that if more people enjoy a certain artist necessarily makes them "better musicians", just that more people are able to connect with them. Sure, you can definitely use that as a measuring stick, but there's plenty of inconsistancies between "audience" and "quality" that just add up to music, or any art form for that matter, as being subjective. There isn't one audience anymore, theres several, and that's just how it is.

It's a form of expression…and why do people express themselves? To communicate something…the highest estate of which is when you communicate to the most possible people. I do think it makes you a better musician, more so than any amount of textbook knowledge or whatever, this is why people get up onstage, because they have something to say, something to communicate, if it was just the need to express oneself why not just create for creatings sake, to scratch that itch, why release it, why bother getting up onstage to perform it to audiences?

Yes, having to go out and find music for yourself probably ensures that overall less people will be exposed to it, but I don't think thats to say it hurts the art at all. If somebody is passionate and hungry enough for something they're going to go out of their way to seek for it, if they aren't as serious about it then whats accessible to them through mainstream media is probably good enough for them anyway.

Right but my point was how can they get to be as serious if their ears are not pricked up early on by something that suggests to them that there is something more of value out there to look for?

All I'm saying is that the internet has been GREAT to the art of music. It has given artists a vast landscape to showcase themselves to the world in ways that couldn't have been imagined in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and even the early 90's, as well as a vast landscape for the consumer to explore. No the mainstream commercial scene isn't producing as much desirable material as we would like to see but what can you do about it? Go online and look for yourself, its worked for my friends and I

I ain't seen shit quite frankly. OK, i haven't trawled the internet with my every spare moment but i'm recommended bands up and down, i read about em, i hear about em off this forum, there's some OK stuff, some really naff stuff, nothing that'd blow peoples socks off. And i think probably a lot of it has to do with this 'several audiences' thing you outlined earlier where it's like OK, this is my little audience and that is your little audience and etc etc blah blah blah, to me thats ridiculous and it's as bad as the dreaded 'making music for everyone' mentality. I don't think that such an acute awareness and acceptance of ones niche audience can lead to anything but catering to a minority so you end up with a bunch of people catering to 'several audiences' and end up fragmenting and fucking up the whole set up. But i guess if thats the way things have gone naturally then it's the way it's meant to be but to me thats just a load of faction-chic really.

Whats the big deal about multiple audiences? Why does something have to be appreciated by EVERYBODY to be considered valid? What is wrong with artistic diversity? Humans are incredibly diverse beings, it only makes sense that the aesthetics of their self expression would be naturally diverse too. This is the age where great artists don't necessarily need to be considered "larger than life" pop culture icons anymore, don't you see a beauty in that?

I'm not saying you have to like it but that is how it is now. In saying there's "several audiences" doesn't exactly mean "pick one", a lot of people I know are into a lot of different kinds of music, there's isn't like any clique based rules or anything. It also doesn't mean artists aren't striving to expand their audience to reach as many people as possible, that is definitely true, but the fact of the matter is only so many people are going to lend an ear and fully appreciate it, thats just how it is. To give an extremely general example; the kid who grew up on a farm playing the fiddle is probably not going to appreciate media the same way as the kid who grew up in the inner city playing basketball, and neither of them will probably appreciate it the same way as the classically trained pianist kid in the suburbs. Just enjoy what you enjoy, and if you can't find anything that kocks your socks off well I'm sorry but I don't think I can help you.

Maybe all the music kids are into these days just sucks really bad, all the artists have no idea what they're doing, and it's all a bunch of circle jerks of fools who think they're part of some sort of culture or something

[Guest Len B'stard]

Whats the big deal about multiple audiences? Why does something have to be appreciated by EVERYBODY to be considered valid? What is wrong with artistic diversity? Humans are incredibly diverse beings, it only makes sense that the aesthetics of their self expression would be naturally diverse too. This is the age where great artists don't necessarily need to be considered "larger than life" pop culture icons anymore, don't you see a beauty in that?

Nothing at all is wrong with em and they ain't a new thing either, they've always existed but wilful fragmenting and wilful catering a specific audience is contrary to the nature of culture, which is an inclusive thing. The next step from making music designed for a certain audience is picking and choosing whose worthy to be a part of that audience.

I'm not saying you have to like it but that is how it is now. In saying there's "several audiences" doesn't exactly mean "pick one", a lot of people I know are into a lot of different kinds of music, there's isn't like any clique based rules or anything. It also doesn't mean artists aren't striving to expand their audience to reach as many people as possible,

Thats all i was getting at

Maybe all the music kids are into these days just sucks really bad, all the artists have no idea what they're doing, and it's all a bunch of circle jerks of fools who think they're part of some sort of culture or something

Maybe music isn't exclusive to kids

Edited November 9, 2013 by sugaraylen

[Dan H.]

You guys are missing the point, I've said it a million times on this forum but fuck it I'll say it again: the internet is the greatest thing to happen to music.

It isn't that people in general are losing interest in music all together, that hasn't diminished at all. It's the overwhelming access to so many different artists that has been brought to the consumer by the internet that has changed, people are no longer limited to what is played on the radio and MTV or whatever bootleg tapes are being passed around, they can find literally anything that appeals to them if they look for it online. This hurts big business in the music industry, sure, but it has given new life to the "underground", and thousands of artists spanning across all kinds of genres are now capable of touring and releasing albums without being multi platinum recording artists signed to major labels. Why is this so good for music in general? Because it forces the product to be more original, more honest, and more challenging amidst the inevitable sea of mediocre and unremarkable shit.

No, we'll probably never see anything that takes the world by storm like the Beatles or Elvis ever again, and thank god. Fact is, our individual taste in music is a whole lot more diverse than we could have imagined, and thanks to the internet we can now indulge ourselves with more media than ever before.

I don't agree with this at all. yes the internet is a great tool for discovering music but it's also a major reason why quality isn't pushed to the forefront the way it once was. The ease in which people can find something new, then move on to something new and then again onto something new has lowered their attention spans and has hinderd their ability to really appreciate what they are listening to. People may be discovering more music now than ever but they are not appreciating it the way they once did. In fact the internet is responsible for giving us people like Justin Bieber. The internet is partially responsible for trash music becoming so popular. I love youtube but let's not act like youtube hasn't benefited shit artists in a way radio never could have. Let's not pretend that at the click of a button people can have the shitty artists n their playlists instantly thus breeding and entire generation of vapid music listeners. The internet hasn't forced any originality on anyone. If anything it discourages originality because if you're unique you get lost in a sea of mediocre shit. It's the mediocre paint by numbers shit that has mass appeal these days because nobody wants to take the time to hear anything original. Look at radio. It wants nothing to do with originality. People want what they had yesterday and if they don't get that CLICK onto the next thing that is that.

You have to remember those of us who post online on a music site on a regular basis are TRUE music fans. We are different. We're not the normal person. the internet has beena great tool for people like us but for the average person it's imply given them a means to gain the shittiest music possible so that they can be part of the "in crowd" and have the flavour of the month on their ipod only to delete it and replace it a month later with the new flavour. The general public wasn't able to do this back in the day so instead they'd invest in quality music that was worth their time and money. They don't have to do that now and they don't have the desire to seek it out.

Based on what? There's no evidence what so ever to support the statements I highlighted. In fact it sounds like you're just making shit up.

Are you just assuming that people have shorter attention spans and don't appreciate music as much? The lives of most people I meet revolve around music.

But honestly, I don't care if your favorite is GNR, U2, Nirvana, Beatles, or Prince, can you say recent music can compare?

Yes. Absolutely.

Edited November 9, 2013 by LiveFromNormal

[bacardimayne]

Apart from the odd Rebecca Black phenomenon, the internet has done nothing more to benefit trash artists than was already happening. I mean, look at the 80s. Almost everything that hit the charts in that decade was shit and everyone ate it up, no internet to help with that.

[Crash Diet]

I agree with your statement, but it's the inevitable advance of technology. My dad has a pile of over 50 vinyls from his youth, all collecting dust upstairs.

Artist are adapting to the advances of technology (think about Duff McKagan's the Taking, Metallica's through the Never, Slash Movie etc.), but I fear the consumer of today can't bring it up anymore to sit back, relax and enjoy something. Thanks to the internet the consumer is getting smarter and greedier by the day and aren't willing to shell out money anymore. For most consumers nowadays an album of music is just a quick fix and barely has the same effect as that grand euphoria you got when you bought a new record of your favorite band 20 years ago. Just look at that video from a record store at the time of the launch of the UYIs in D&N. You will never ever get that same experience again. The fact that the whole mystique about your favorite artist is gone because of the internet also has a lot to do with it.

I think the future for an artist lies in making digital interactive content. Think about a visual experience to accompany the music. Perhaps even a videogame, think along the lines of Tim Schafer's Brutal Legend. Maybe a 3D mini-hologram live concert when you open your record, who knows. Given the rapid advance of technology, I think a lot will be possible in only a couple of years.

this

also this

[sweetness]

Whats the big deal about multiple audiences? Why does something have to be appreciated by EVERYBODY to be considered valid? What is wrong with artistic diversity? Humans are incredibly diverse beings, it only makes sense that the aesthetics of their self expression would be naturally diverse too. This is the age where great artists don't necessarily need to be considered "larger than life" pop culture icons anymore, don't you see a beauty in that?

Nothing at all is wrong with em and they ain't a new thing either, they've always existed but wilful fragmenting and wilful catering a specific audience is contrary to the nature of culture, which is an inclusive thing. The next step from making music designed for a certain audience is picking and choosing whose worthy to be a part of that audience.

I wouldn't really say that these divisions are even that wilful though, I'm just acknowledging that they exist and the whole point I've been trying to make here is that all of these smaller sub cultures have been exposed to more people through the internet which has in turn made them stronger, it's all about "word of mouth" spreading faster. It is about expanding the audience, but just because one audience isn't as large as another doesn't mean that it's greater in any way. That's just how they exist.

Edited November 9, 2013 by sweetness

[dalsh327]

80 percent of artists are willing to go along with whatever technology you can listen to their music on, as long as they get some sort of compensation. It's the ones like Metallica, AC/DC and The Beatles that resist making the jump, but if it's become the standard for people to use, they eventually go along with it, but there better be a big check to go along with it.

Why blame people because they found a way to have unlimited access to music when the real culprit is the technology and the people who illegally ripped the CDs, violating the copyright that was right there on the disc and in the booklet? Sony makes the product and Sony's artists sue you for using it "the wrong way"?

I looked at the RIAA stats a while back and it went crazy high because people were buying a lot of back catalog, and remember when you had to buy replacements because the label got stuck, the disc had those pinholes, or just got scratched from playing it over and over in the car? I'm sure there's people who bought 5 copies of AFD over the years. Once you were able to rip and burn, or plug your player into the car stereo, the original could just be kept at home and maintain a clean copy. That hurt sales as much as file sharing ever did.

How many scratched copies of GNR CDs did you go through? When was the last time you had to replace a copy?

Back when GNR worked their way up, it didn't cost much to have a fun night out. Arena shows didn't cost more than 20 bucks, and if you figured out the inflation rate, that comes out to 40 dollars, so why do most concerts cost triple?

[magisme]

Whats the big deal about multiple audiences? Why does something have to be appreciated by EVERYBODY to be considered valid? What is wrong with artistic diversity? Humans are incredibly diverse beings, it only makes sense that the aesthetics of their self expression would be naturally diverse too. This is the age where great artists don't necessarily need to be considered "larger than life" pop culture icons anymore, don't you see a beauty in that?

Nothing at all is wrong with em and they ain't a new thing either, they've always existed but wilful fragmenting and wilful catering a specific audience is contrary to the nature of culture, which is an inclusive thing. The next step from making music designed for a certain audience is picking and choosing whose worthy to be a part of that audience.

Culture is just as exclusive as it is inclusive. I'm sure you understand that.

[wasted]

Music has just got so diverse and consumers just want more than they can afford.