Looking Ahead 20 Years - I Am Sad
Monday, October 4, 2010 at 12:01AM Will there be a "Bring Back Metalcore" or "Bring Back Emo" in 20 years?
Are people even passionate about music anymore? Or anything of substance really?
I'm amazed at how fast the world moves. I swear, when I started this site, it was Myspace or bust. Then Facebook. Now Twitter. So what's next? You and I both know that within four years, Twitter will be the "has been" of the social networking world and everyone will have moved on. Again.
All this "moving on" really concerns me when we're talking music. Myspace was (is?) good for musicians because the site allows bands to push out new music to new and old fans for free...and then maybe that fan would become a customer. As social media platforms move forward, so do bands. But do the fans?
Remember back when we were kids and Glam was hot? The only way you could really follow the bands was to watch MTV or buy Metal Edge. Then, you could get a Metal Edge pen pal and talk about those bands over snail mail. You had to wait...for a response! There was something so civilized about it all. Now, forget it. You can get into a fight with your favorite musician if you're on the right social media site at the right time. I've often theorized that the reason I kept my Glam bands with me for so long was because they were all I really had in terms of interests outside of school. My friends were all really into music, so all our conversations revolved around rock bands. After all, I used to buy a couple CDs a week and I always liked to show off my haul. With the rise of digital music, there's nothing to show or hold anymore. Now, I know very well that kids still like music. It's just the importance of music in life these days seems diminished.
And really, we need the escape of music now more than ever. Honestly, the world we live in these days terrifies me. Political parties fight about the wrong issues, everyone is broke and you're lucky if you have a job. So, it seems to me this is a great time for a great musical revolt, just like in the 1960s. Except that if it happened, we probably wouldn't even know because there's no unified platform in which we receive our music anyway. After all, commercial radio is just that - commercial. There's no more real MTV and the web can honestly only take you so far.
I feel sorry for kids today. I really do. Not only is the world a complete and utter mess, I can't imagine they'll have many special "music related" memories to look back on a couple decades from now. What a tragedy.
Reader Comments (37)
Who have we really had since John Lennon passed away?
We're talking about the kind of Rock Star that can write significant songs both lyrically and musically that are truly transformational.
Kurt Cobain.
And who have we had since then?
I think the closest artist we have to a true Rock Star today is Lady GaGa, believe it or not.
Only time will tell to see if she is indeed the next true Rock Star.
p.s. I do think the kids have helped keep Glam Metal alive. Look at Shadow who comments on here quite often and is always very informed with his opinions. The kid is in college and he's like a major Iron Maiden freak, as well as being into a lot of the other bands from back in the day! And he listens to 'em on vinyl! How hip is that?! The hippest, man! I also think about all the kids I saw at a Kix show not too long ago in Baltimore at Ram's Head Live. The kids will Bring Back Glam!
The plus-side is that they're often very keen to talk about older bands, and much less dismissive when they do so. The down-side is, they're probably never going to be "rockers" or "metal-heads" in any way that we could possibly understand.
I honestly don't know that this is a bad thing though. For the last 50 or so years of the 20th century, teenagers largely became separated not by race or economic background, but by music. We grew up with this, and so we think it's normal... but is it? Isn't half of the reason why there's now a website called "Bring Back Glam" simply because another group of teenagers (and the music industry exec who pandered to them) once decided that glam was "uncool" and therefore something that needed to be squashed? I can't see that happening with modern performers, and it's simply because young people are much less isolationist than they used to be.
Surely that's something to be celebrated, rather than mourned...
I will have help though, all my music.
Rock Hard, Ride, Free ALL day, ALL night! nuff said.
1.Everything today has become disposable. There's so much of everything, and everything can be accessed anywhere, anytime, with anyone. There's no more waiting for months for your favorite band's album to come out since there's leaks, no more anticipating what the setlist will be like since you can find them on the internet, and you can access any music video at any time on YouTube.
2. Piracy has helped music become more disposable. Since you don't pay for it, you don't treasure it as much, and let's face it... if you lose your digital files, it may be a hassle, but you wouldn't care as much as if your friend smashed your album collection. Also, because you can download only one or two tracks from an album as opposed to getting 10 or so songs, you're only exposed to a few songs from each artist, and as a result band's get less hardcore fans. And because you can download a track anywhere, anytime, there's no more searching for albums in record stores... which helps you bond with an album.
3. Music just isn't the focal point of our culture anymore. It used to be teenagers and college kids would go to live music shows or parties with live bands, but there are so many ways teenagers can be social now... For example, you can stay on facebook and youtube all night. This is absolutely killing the live music industry.
As a full-time professional musician, this scares me.
And, are you guys kidding? The record companies want to build artists. That will never change. They want to keep the Lady GaGa Brand going as long as they can.
It will be up to her if she can defy the norm and push the boundaries more.
As far as the tepid response to my claim that the last great Rock Star was Kurt Cobain, who has come along that can rival John Lennon?
I'm tellin' ya it might be GaGa. She has the world's attention, but we'll have to see and hear what her next move is.
p.s. Hey, Christian, you never told me if you have or have heard of Zambelis. They are from Australia back in the day. I think I mentioned here before they sounded like AC/DC/Def Leppard hybrid. Awesome album.
Brilliant. I'd probably stick to music journalism if I were you, even though your acute analysis of the state of the nation is fascinating *ahem*....
Second, the reason why the live music scene is going in the tank is, plain and simple, exorbitant ticket prices. Here's a perfect example. Van Morrison, whom I'd love to see in concert, is coming to San Diego. I was very excited until I learned that the price for the worst seat in the house was $90. That's just ridiculous! Because of those prices, I will not be attending that concert. You want to save the live music scene?...Break up the stranglehold that TicketMaster and Live Nation have on the concert business so that ticket prices can go down and be more in line with the cost of living of the average person. Back in the 80s when I attended tons of concerts, a concert ticket was not a back-breaking expense as it is now. That's the problem.
Blaine, please don't lose sight of the fact that the consumers are your customers. You're placing too much blame on them, and not enough blame on the few monopolies that rule the music business and feed the masses this load of BS that the consumers are the problem.
I believe there is more good music now than ever before, but unfortunately nobody to invest in it, develop it, produce it, and market it. If you don't buy the music, the record labels have less money to invest in new bands, and more importantly, take chances on bands out of the norm. We've seen the industry go from an albums-based industry to a singles-based industry in less then a decade. Only problem is that a singles-based industry doesn't build hardcore fans or long artist careers.
Most people don't have the time or desire to seek out DIY or super-indie music on the internet. This and a lack of marketing money (a record label will typically invest 1.5 million to market a band's first release) puts a cap on sucess, and ultimately means less people are able to make a living off music.
For the live industry at the Live Nation level: Ticket prices are skyrocketing because developed major label or nostalgia acts will take a major financial loss on record sales, and have to make up for it via live ticket and merch sales. But don't lump all musicians in with the few at the very top. Newer bands playing smaller clubs owned by live nation typically sell tickets for anywhere from $15-30.
If you don't buy the music, you don't support the creation of the album. There's a lot that goes on behind the scenes that many fans don't know about. Session musicians like me are having a harder time finding work since there are less high quality recordings being made since there's less investing in albums because there's less of a return. Same with producers, mixing engineers, managers, dsitributors, etc.
There are many ways to check out a CD to see if you like it without stealing. iTunes, Amazon, CDBaby all provide 30 second samples, and many bands are streaming their music online for free. If you can't find a way to listen to the music for free to see if you like it and you're worried about being ripped-off, maybe you shouldn't buy the album, or only buy the song you want from iTunes or some other mP3 site.
People who steal my music are not my customers. It costs tens of thousands of dollars to release an album just independently. If I ran a car dealership, and people we're "borrowing" my cars for an unspecified amount of time and saying "Well, I might eventually buy it if I think I like it enough," they aren't my customers. Remember, there's more people here who rely on that money besides the act/band.
Zambelis - no, I've not heard of them. Album name ?
I was good friends with the guy who ran the local independent CD store. We are still friends, but his store never recovered from the 30% drop in sales that happened overnight when Naptster hit. I read an interview where Bruce Dickinson said that Maiden records now because they want to, they know they will be lucky to break even because of downloads. If Maiden can't make money selling CDs, how can a new act hope to ? They can't, that's why bands live more and more on the road, that's the only place they can hope to make money.
Anyone who thinks that 'file sharing' is not stealing, or is acceptable, is fooling themself. And FYI, in Australia, we've always paid $90+ for tickets. Perhaps there are logistical reasons why the US has been cheaper, but the price of a show is a relative thing. If you're used to paying that much, you just pay it. I always do. I paid $150 for my last few local shows, and that was for normal seats. Bon Jovi tickets were $300.
Part of the problem with the decline of music sales comes from the fact that record labels are still too focused on the CD. I'm sorry to say, but in the year 2010, the CD is a highly ineficient means of music distribution. Remember, I'm speaking as a person in my early 40s, so that sentiment is not unique to young people. Why do you think CD sales went down so much after napster came on the scene? Suddenly, digital copies of songs were easily accessible to the masses. If the record labels had seized upon this new reality instead of trying to litigate it out of existance, they would have had a cash cow on their hands. they could have had their own amazing legal download service that napster users could have migrated to. They could have charged a small amount per song, made sure the downloads were of a high quality, and were not hampered by digital rights management. What napster user wouldn't have opted for a legal option versus an illegal one? The problem was that the labels never got their heads out of their asses long enough to realize this. Instead, they still tried to force people to buy little round discs for $15 a piece. If the labels had innovated rather than litigated we'd be having a different conversation right now.
I know i've rambled on quite a bit, and I apologize. i guess my point is that, when it comes to the fact that so many people download music illegally, I firmly believe that it didn't have to turn out this way, and I blame the labels for getting themselves into this mess.
finally, to speak to one of Blaine's points...Yes, I completely agree that the industry has moved from album-based to single-based, but I disagree with your assertion that a singles-based industry doesn't build hard core fans, or long artist careers. Remember that the long-playing record didn't even exist until the late 1940s, and that album sales didn't surpass single sales for the first time until 1968. the last time i checked, the music industry was doing quite well before the rise of the album, and plenty of artists made very long careers for themselves, and had plenty of hard core fans by releasing singles.
Do you really think that the cost of living today and the cost of living in the 70s are the same ? I agree that the price is a little high, it's often cheaper to buy the CD, but, they own the material, they get to set the price. The only legal and moral option is to choose not to buy, stealing is not a reasonable form of protest. I also think that if they made it 10 cents, it wouldn't much change who buys and who does not, hence they set the price at a level to maximise their falling returns.
I do agree that the labels handled it badly, only because the fact is, if I wanted to steal music, no one could stop me, and the labels should have tried to make people WANT to not steal, instead of turning it into a David and Goliath battle that many thieves now use to justify their actions.
Reason why? First is Accessability. You can get any amount of music anywhere. As Christian said, the majority of illegal downloaders download thousands of tracks and then only listen to them a few times. And if you're a new, indie band, just because your music's on the internet waiting to be downloaded, that doesn't mean the masses will find it. You need a promotional machine.
Second is because you don't go as in-depth with the artist. Instead of listening to an entire album, you listen to one or two songs. An artist get's judged by one song rather than a body of work. And because you don't buy the music, you don't value it as much. It becomes devalued in intangible terms. And because of this, you're less likely to seek out shows and merch.
And even if you feel the labels handled the Napster problem ineffectively, why would you steal from the artists who weren't around then? From the session musicians, producers, and songwriters who had no say in the matter? The A&R guy who lost his job because 95% of his product is being stolen?