An insightful look at today's music industry

[Light Dependant Resistor]

I was impressed with the effort put in to this video, explaining similarly as Joni Mitchell sings in her song "Free Man in Paris"
"Stoking the star-maker machinery Behind the popular song "
https://youtu.be/oVME_l4IwII

Of course there are many labels like ECM and other artists heading quite correctly and happily, ( thank goodness ) in the opposite direction.
Here is one, to compare to having just listened to the first video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w4Iw7RCKUI

[brucew268]

Some good points but in many ways rather over-simplified.

He tries to make a case for brainwashing, through blanketing the market with a song. But that’s what record companies have done from the beginning. They would pay to get their songs played, and played more often in key radio stations across the nation. You’d turn on the radio in the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s and knew that within 20 minutes you’d hear at least three of the songs that record companies meant to be hits. Often most of the songs played fit that category.

Someone runs a language analyser for complexity and see a decline in the last 10 years. Yet, I can find a whole lot of hit songs from the 60's that are just as mindless and simple, including a lot of stuff from the Beatles. There were a few record label song writers that dominated the pop charts for decades.

Drum machines and synthesizers have been competing with sessions musicians and their instruments for at least 40 years.

There are new issues. Loudness. Pitch correction. Lables issues vs self-publishing issues. But many of the issues you mentioned have been around for over 50 years, just updated to today’s technology.

[brucew268]

I didn't see anything about Joni Mitchell in that link. Did you link to the right video?

[Light Dependant Resistor]

Some good points but in many ways rather over-simplified.

He tries to make a case for brainwashing, through blanketing the market with a song. But that’s what record companies have done from the beginning. They would pay to get their songs played, and played more often in key radio stations across the nation. You’d turn on the radio in the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s and knew that within 20 minutes you’d hear at least three of the songs that record companies meant to be hits. Often most of the songs played fit that category.

Someone runs a language analyser for complexity and see a decline in the last 10 years. Yet, I can find a whole lot of hit songs from the 60's that are just as mindless and simple, including a lot of stuff from the Beatles. There were a few record label song writers that dominated the pop charts for decades.

Drum machines and synthesizers have been competing with sessions musicians and their instruments for at least 40 years.

There are new issues. Loudness. Pitch correction. Lables issues vs self-publishing issues. But many of the issues you mentioned have been around for over 50 years, just updated to today’s technology.

A great reply there, and needing further exploration. If we think of a band like Led Zeppelin, commencing instead in 2019, is it likely they would now attain the worldwide success and recognition they achieved ? Indeed efforts they made to attain distribution under their own label were rejected by major record companies, then needing distribution by their former label .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Records Led Zeppelin I think would still achieve success if starting today, but would do so with their own label.

The Beatles were rejected by Decca , which leads to thinking did Decca actually make the right decision, as awkward as that sounds as we might not have had
the many songs which sound the same. Then again the Beatles had some great moments that are hard to ignore.

The reference to Joni Mitchell in Free man in Paris written about David Geffen, was simply to show Joni capturing in music actual comment about the record industry Likewise The Who with their reference to the four minute song in "Won't get Fooled again " over 8 minutes long. and many others like Hendrix and Frank Zappa were continually battling the ideology behind the record industry.

An examination of commercial radio stations show record labels have total control over their output, either by direct ownership or restrictive licencing.

So the age of exploring music, rather than being told what to listen to, is needed.
Here a few spots to do that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:ECM_Records_artists
http://freemusicarchive.org/curator/Creative_Commons/

[alphaGT]

That’s a very interesting video, and I’m going to agree with a lot of it. But, is music dumbing down its listeners through brain washing? Or is the public at large just dumber? Maybe a bit of both?

Before ever seeing this video I’ve held the opinion that the music industry has gone the way it has to minimize risk, just as this video was saying. Back in the 60’s, the music industry found talent, and made their records, and profited massively, and paid the artists next to nothing! Anyone ever see, “Behind the Music”? The episode for the Mama’s and the Papa’s was telling, they got stoned and missed the meeting to renew their contract, and the next day they were thrown out of their homes, no car, nothing! It all belonged to the company.

In comes Led Zeppelin, with a contract in hand. They knew they would be huge! And wanted creative control, gate fold album covers, and a larger percentage of the take. Every studio rejected it, laughed in their faces! Until Atlantic said, why not? If they are indeed huge, we’ll cash in! And they did. Except after a few albums, Zeppelin took their profits and created their own label! Cut the “Man”, right out of the cash flow. It became the norm, better contracts were demanded by talent, and this same scenario happened again and again, and the artists got so wealthy the studio lost control of them.

And that’s what it’s all about, control. The record companies do not want this to happen again. They take talentless hacks and prop them up with backup dancers, vocal effects, and songs written for them. Disney will beat the youngsters over the head with some new sexy artist, and as soon as they turn 20, they jerk the rug out from under them, and start with a new, younger artist. They actively do not want anyone with real talent! Because those people can get too big, and they can loose control of them. And they don’t want people buying records from anyone that is not on their payroll.

Anyway, those were my thoughts going way back, and this video actually hits on many of these ideas, plus a lot more. Statistics show that the average public is getting dumber, no doubt this is on purpose, to make them easier to control. Next time you hear the government is trying to enforce some blatantly stupid rule, who do you see rallying in favor of it? A crowd so dumb they couldn’t pour piss out of a boot if the directions were written on the heel. I’ve got my theories on why this is happening too, but that’s not in the scope of this thread.

Russell

[mightymonoped]

Some good points but in many ways rather over-simplified.

He tries to make a case for brainwashing, through blanketing the market with a song. But that’s what record companies have done from the beginning. They would pay to get their songs played, and played more often in key radio stations across the nation. You’d turn on the radio in the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s and knew that within 20 minutes you’d hear at least three of the songs that record companies meant to be hits. Often most of the songs played fit that category.

Someone runs a language analyser for complexity and see a decline in the last 10 years. Yet, I can find a whole lot of hit songs from the 60's that are just as mindless and simple, including a lot of stuff from the Beatles. There were a few record label song writers that dominated the pop charts for decades.

Drum machines and synthesizers have been competing with sessions musicians and their instruments for at least 40 years.

There are new issues. Loudness. Pitch correction. Lables issues vs self-publishing issues. But many of the issues you mentioned have been around for over 50 years, just updated to today’s technology.

What he said! [emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alphaGT]

I saw a video on YouTube yesterday to the effect that modern music is slack, the elder gentleman in the video explained that the same 4 cord progression can be found in almost all new songs!

So, I couldn’t help but echo a bit of what we’ve said here on this thread, how music through the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s has more style, and the musicians more talent. Etc.

I was flooded with a bunch of negative comments! Apparently the youth of today don’t like to hear it! And this one guy opened with, “there are better song writers today than the Beatles”, and I knew it was a lost cause. If they honestly believe that, there is no hope for the future of music.

Russell

[oldius]

I was told that the music I liked was rubbish. My parents were told that the music they liked was rubbish. We were told it by the older generation who really believed that music was better in 'their day'. It is, and always has been, absolute nonsense and the domain of a tartan rug brigade of barley sugar sucking nostaligics who have no intention of swaying from their view, regardless of what they hear.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[walpurgis]

Perhaps it's just that a lot of people really do like rubbish music? :)

From what I've seen of some music choices here, I think that impression could be true! ;)

[struth]

overall, and barring the stuff that aint really music, then standards are still fairly high. but there is some bloody awful stuff around these days too. the bad stuff has never been worse, but the good stuff is excellent

[montesquieu]

Well I stand by my comments from the last time this video was linked to here:



Well I think all the points he makes are spot on - they are measurable after all:

So-called popular music is becoming less harmonically complex - well this is intuitively true and I would suggest a bad thing. And measurable/demonstrable.
So-called popular music is becoming less melodically complex - again this is intuitively obvious, the dumbed down millennial woop is something you can also count.
So-called popular music is becoming less interesting and varied in the textures and timbres used - again, the studies are irrefutable.
So-called popular music is overly risk averse, due to the amount of money needed to break a band now - I would say this is less measurable but I think perfectly defensible.

The result overall is that today's so-called popular music is pretty shit. Note that I'm talking about POPULAR music - the stuff that's forced down your ears when you go to the barbers, or got to a noisy pub, or any other source of noise pollution. The stuff that's everywhere, in Nandos, in the charts, whose stars' names are on the telly and in Hello magazine, who people are supposed to know by sight. And the fact is - it's the shittiest it's ever been.

By no means am I saying that all modern music is shit, or that all kids have bad taste. What I'm saying is that what passes for 'common', shared music of our era, the stuff that's unavoidable unless you go round with ear defenders on, is the absolute pits. Think about it - talent contest rubbish, mass manufactured crap. Was it better in the days of Showaddywaddy, Bay City Rollers and Boney M? Well probably, yes. It was certainly less offensive and had a bit more variety.

I am most certainly not talking about other kinds of music. I have kids too, now 19 and 21. My daughter's taste is completely off the wall and I doubt you'd ever find any of it in the barber's. (She's also a pianist and harpist though, so I'd expect her to have some taste). I use to take the piss that she was putting her south korean bazuki music on again. My son astonished me though, A combination of old Zappa and modern Thundercats-type stuff, his music is not far off the same sort of Jazz Rock I used to mix with classical at that age (I recently bought him a turntable, since I found he already had a vinyl collestion) - but again it's not, by any definition, pop music.

As for comparison with Dylan, the Beatles, Eric Clapton, even the Smiths - yes you can compare it perfectly legitimately, because for all it's treated as art music these days, it competed against the daily dreck and somehow made it to the top of the charts, people got their pocket money out and bought this stuff in their millions. It's a mark of how far pop music has fallen that some would now argue the comparison can't even be made.

[struth]

i agree re the most popular stuff. its been like this for years tho

[montesquieu]

i agree re the most popular stuff. its been like this for years tho

The point of the youtube video is that it's become measurably (not just subjectively) worse in the last decade and I think his argument is well-made.

The last time this was discussed few people posting actually bothered to watch it and the thread descended into grumpy-git vs groovy-dad tediosity.

[struth]

of course harmonic complexity isn't the be all for music. much top music is fairly simple but still good. its just when you get a system where the singers all sound the same, look similar and the music is pretty similar it breaks down as an art form.
companies just want it all that way because thats the tripe kids like now. imo its the listeners that accept this canned music that are to blame.. its laziness

[montesquieu]

of course harmonic complexity isn't the be all for music. much top music is fairly simple but still good. its just when you get a system where the singers all sound the same, look similar and the music is pretty similar it breaks down as an art form.
companies just want it all that way because thats the tripe kids like now. imo its the listeners that accept this canned music that are to blame.. its laziness

The video (which of course as with last time, few will bother to watch) puts the blame on the industry and makes a decent case for that.

[AJSki2fly]

Well I stand by my comments from the last time this video was linked to here:

Quote Originally Posted by montesquieu View Post
Well I think all the points he makes are spot on - they are measurable after all:

So-called popular music is becoming less harmonically complex - well this is intuitively true and I would suggest a bad thing. And measurable/demonstrable.
So-called popular music is becoming less melodically complex - again this is intuitively obvious, the dumbed down millennial woop is something you can also count.
So-called popular music is becoming less interesting and varied in the textures and timbres used - again, the studies are irrefutable.
So-called popular music is overly risk averse, due to the amount of money needed to break a band now - I would say this is less measurable but I think perfectly defensible.

The result overall is that today's so-called popular music is pretty shit. Note that I'm talking about POPULAR music - the stuff that's forced down your ears when you go to the barbers, or got to a noisy pub, or any other source of noise pollution. The stuff that's everywhere, in Nandos, in the charts, whose stars' names are on the telly and in Hello magazine, who people are supposed to know by sight. And the fact is - it's the shittiest it's ever been.

By no means am I saying that all modern music is shit, or that all kids have bad taste. What I'm saying is that what passes for 'common', shared music of our era, the stuff that's unavoidable unless you go round with ear defenders on, is the absolute pits. Think about it - talent contest rubbish, mass manufactured crap. Was it better in the days of Showaddywaddy, Bay City Rollers and Boney M? Well probably, yes. It was certainly less offensive and had a bit more variety.

I am most certainly not talking about other kinds of music. I have kids too, now 19 and 21. My daughter's taste is completely off the wall and I doubt you'd ever find any of it in the barber's. (She's also a pianist and harpist though, so I'd expect her to have some taste). I use to take the piss that she was putting her south korean bazuki music on again. My son astonished me though, A combination of old Zappa and modern Thundercats-type stuff, his music is not far off the same sort of Jazz Rock I used to mix with classical at that age (I recently bought him a turntable, since I found he already had a vinyl collestion) - but again it's not, by any definition, pop music.

As for comparison with Dylan, the Beatles, Eric Clapton, even the Smiths - yes you can compare it perfectly legitimately, because for all it's treated as art music these days, it competed against the daily dreck and somehow made it to the top of the charts, people got their pocket money out and bought this stuff in their millions. It's a mark of how far pop music has fallen that some would now argue the comparison can't even be made.

Having actually just bothered to watch the video posted on here, I would tend to agree with the comments made above. I would add the following observations made by myself.

1. To my ears diversity and quality of music, certainly pop or commercial music, seemed to fade during the 90's, by the 00's it had become homogenised into all sounding similar.

2. I think what is happening today can also be explained by the iTunes and streaming site phenomenon of paying for your favourite songs that you wanted permanently for £0.99, or a monthly subscription. If you think about it for it to work at this level of cost the record companies have to aim at very large mass markets(global), not just the local country home markets. So as the chap in the video says this means air time and exposure everywhere and making songs that are subconsciously familiar to the first time listener, in other words create them using patterns that are known to sell because it has before. So as time progresses variety and creativity become lost as they are not supported.

3. Luckily there is still some great music out there, but you need to look hard for it, and sadly very few of these make it big.

I eagerly wait for the modern day equivalents of The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Kate Bush, Pink Floyd etc. to appear, if any of you can point me to some new artists that are promising I would certainly be happy to have a listen.

[Macca]

Next time you are in the car swap between listening to Radio One and Absolute '80s. The difference is shocking. And I wasn't much for 1980s pop music at the time. Now it sounds like genius by comparison. Although we still switch over if The Smiths come on. :D

[Pigmy Pony]

Not all the Smiths are bad - Curt and his mate Roland Orzabal did good :) Not keen on Sam Smith though, sounds a bit girly-girl pain whinge.

[Macca]

Fair point - their crisps are pretty good too.

[Pigmy Pony]

Fair point - their crisps are pretty good too.

But they were better when they came with a scrunched up bit of blue paper. Just like pop music, they seem fine when you're too young to remember how good they used to be.

If we could just shed 30 or so of our years we could enjoy lower standards and so appreciate more of the cack that's around now.

[alphaGT]

I eagerly wait for the modern day equivalents of The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Kate Bush, Pink Floyd etc. to appear, if any of you can point me to some new artists that are promising I would certainly be happy to have a listen.

This is a point I fully agree with. What album made 5 years ago is still on the top seller list? 10 years ago? Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin have been on the top 100 album list for 40 years! I dare say music of these past 20 years has no staying power. Am I missing something? Are there albums made 10 years ago that remain on the top seller’s list? I mean, I wouldn’t really know since I don’t listen to that tripe.

And I do realize there is still great music being made, but the major labels will not be producing it, and you won’t hear it on pop radio.

Russell

[thingfish]

Modern music is shit, or I should say the modern music they serve us up on TV / Radio is.
But there is believe it or not some fine new stuff out there.

[Pigmy Pony]

Modern music is shit, or I should say the modern music they serve us up on TV / Radio is.
But there is believe it or not some fine new stuff out there.

Agree, that's it in a nutshell Alan. There is good music still being made, but it isn't being brought to our attention by mainstream TV/radio. What we get instead is whatever tripe appears to sell well to the brain-dead majority. The musical equivalent of 'Love Island'.

[thingfish]

Spot on Steve......:cool:

[Minstrel SE]

I dont think you can over analyse this. The industry will always be out for profit and artists want to get noticed. There have always been songwriters writing for various artists...Felice and Boudleaux...Chapman etc.

I think its part of getting older.The kids today will probably moan at what their kids are listening to. Its about rebelling against the confines of your parents and thats just natural.

I do think music is getting worse but I cant prove it. :) I feel a lot of pop now is overblown, over anthemic bullshit. It seems to mix the style of dance and ballads. Just that cowell sense that its getting more cynical. Throw everything into the mix and someone needs to tell them that less is more

There is good music about and dont forget that John Peel was like an oasis in a TOTP world.

Putting Perry's Firework on repeat would quickly drive me clinically insane.

I dont like the term pop music. I think Bob Dylan is a true master and Janis and Joni were from a golden era. I like to think Im older and wise enough to have refined my musical tastes.

[Pigmy Pony]

I saw a programme a couple of years ago where this producer guy was saying that the term 'pop music' came from taking a song and producing it in such a way to make it 'pop', ie be more catchy. And not an abbreviation of 'popular' music.

[alphaGT]

I saw a programme a couple of years ago where this producer guy was saying that the term 'pop music' came from taking a song and producing it in such a way to make it 'pop', ie be more catchy. And not an abbreviation of 'popular' music.

I think that back when we actually had to put film in cameras, and it was expensive to develop, people were more careful who they pointed their cameras at! Now that digital cameras are free to operate, they’ll point them at any ol’ idiot! In fact, the more ridiculous the better! Music is no different.

Russell

[Light Dependant Resistor]

Having actually just bothered to watch the video posted on here, I would tend to agree with the comments made above. I would add the following observations made by myself.

1. To my ears diversity and quality of music, certainly pop or commercial music, seemed to fade during the 90's, by the 00's it had become homogenised into all sounding similar.

2. I think what is happening today can also be explained by the iTunes and streaming site phenomenon of paying for your favourite songs that you wanted permanently for £0.99, or a monthly subscription. If you think about it for it to work at this level of cost the record companies have to aim at very large mass markets(global), not just the local country home markets. So as the chap in the video says this means air time and exposure everywhere and making songs that are subconsciously familiar to the first time listener, in other words create them using patterns that are known to sell because it has before. So as time progresses variety and creativity become lost as they are not supported.

3. Luckily there is still some great music out there, but you need to look hard for it, and sadly very few of these make it big.

I eagerly wait for the modern day equivalents of The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Kate Bush, Pink Floyd etc. to appear, if any of you can point me to some new artists that are promising I would certainly be happy to have a listen.

Hiromi is a great example of a modern original music artist who just enjoys what she does, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAiBLH8C7LY and as a result produces
music that can appeal to just about everyone. She has so much involvement and fun in playing- its just great to see her, along with in this next video Simon and Anthony play, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rxYw7Y45Eo

So this look at the music industry in the video on Page 1 is pretty clear I think that shows a form of sound which could I say -the artists do not even enjoy what they are doing, rather we might be able to say as depressing as it sounds- they are being told what to do. Talk about selling their souls -

Now I am sure David Gilmour became tired of playing the same songs - but despite 1000's of Comfortably Numbs later he still did it well.
If you happen to have seen the Live at Pompeii DVD Deluxe Edition it comes with a look at a lot of Pink Floyd history, and where Comfortably Numb originated
as a piece of music. So David always did it well, because he wrote the piece of music, unlike today's dictated to (you will do what your told to ), artists.

The video on Page 1 reveals just two people are writing tired formula music for numerous artists. Its up to the buying music public, to wake up to
the hoodwink being perpetuated , in handing continually over, cash for trash. Instead the recipe is to before buying music today, see if the artist ('s) is/are enjoying
what they are doing, before buying. Using that formula, such music should not take long to be replaced by actual music.