NEWS.COM -- An interesting piece on where the music industry went wrong, how it needs to reshape itself and how artists should respond. Interesting, but I think it puts too much back on the artist to be entrepreneur and artist. More...
I wonder if broadcast television holds a useful parallel. They say that The Cosby Show was one of the last times that America all watched television together. There's actually one later show and I can't remember which one it was, know that it was embarrassing to all of us humans. But up until that point, there was a general consciousness and pulse and you could bet that if there was something on the night before, there was a very good chance that nearly everyone saw the same thing. But as cable became available and grew and started offering watchable alternatives, the audience fragmented. But there were fewer eyes for each thing. And it became much harder to find quality, harder to get your product into people's minds.
And now radio/music's heading down the same path. We don't just have the three AM stations in town to listen to, we have CDs, satellite radio, HD Radio, lots of regular radio stations, iTunes / Napster / Wal*Mart / Rhapsody, LaunchCast and so on and so on. How's an artist to get noticed and gain a following? It's gotta be even harder, since you can't say "Tune in every Thursday at 8 pm to hear a new song from me."
To be sure, the bigger artists backed by the studios will continue to thrive, but as choice becomes more ingrained, the masses will be less and less receptive to the same regurgitated and force-fed tripe that the studios put all their weight behind.
4 comments:
I wish you were correct in what you wrote, I really do. But the mere fact Americal Idol is popular is proof alone that you are wrong. If it wasn't, the fact that radio stations who offer playlists larger than 500 songs lose money would be proof (most stations settle in between 250-300 songs played). And you can yank satellite radio out of the equation, at least for now... for all the money being dumped into it, it hasn't generated enough revenue to sustain itself (hence the merger of the big two). Ipods and other mp3 players screwed XM and Sirius.
And though I know you enjoy listening to stations so you can discover new artists, I assure you that you are in the minority... Arbitron ratings have proven that repeatedly.
For reasons passing understanding, when people are looking at what music to listen to, the majority won't consider an artist or group that hasn't been financed, promoted, or sanctioned by a person or company that makes a lot of money. Ratings and album sales have shown that people do not trust their own opinions when it comes to music. The US population (to say nothing of world markets) actually prefers a self-indulgent blowhard like Simon Cowell telling them what is cool.
I wish it were not true, but it is. Artists need to be more than good businessmen... they need to be musical prostitutes (Michael Buble and Rod Stewart are two 21st century examples, though I cut Stewart a little slack due to semi-decent earlier work). They need to be willing to pander and prance... they need to be willing to do whatever it takes, whether it be skimpy outfits (insert blond pop starlet's name here) or music you have no business performing (see earlier reference to Buble and Stewart), successful artists have to do more than sell out... they have to cop out.
So, in answer to your question, where did the music industry go wrong, they foolishly bought into the public's general perception that the industry knows more about music than music fans do. And the public in general is OK with that shared illusion.
And all of that obnoxiousness is how I am able to spell Nick Lachey's name correctly. I shouldn't know his name. I should have never heard of the talentless little turd. Forget about that other boy-band bastard who whines about how he is bringing sexy back... I'd be content if any one of them brought music back.
And the last show all Americans watched together was Carson's farewell, unless you want to count the OJ verdict.
Ok, that was way too long to read in its entirety.
However, I think you misunderstood me.
1. I do not listen to terrestrial radio. I listen to LaunchCast which is commercial-free and has what seems like a nearly unlimited selection of music. (I don't choose it. Either the computer chooses it based on my past ratings or by how much Yahoo! is being paid to foist it on me. I can tell what's paid content -- it's the same stuff that shows up as the iTune free single of the week -- and I ban the artist from ever playing again in most cases.)
2. I was making the same argument about artists needing businessman. I think I just forgot to put it all in there. That, like the article says, there's only a small group of musicians with enough accumen to make an independent go of it... Phish, Grateful Dead, Bearnakedladies, Aimee Mann, Ani Difranco. Even if they eventually sold out, copped out or died.
Satellite radio... we had it in the rental car a year ago. It was nice, but with one station of each genre, what if you didn't like what was playing then and there? You could change genre, or wait for something you liked. I agree with you there, DAPs screwed satellite radio because at the end of the day, it's still a push-technology.
The only push technology for music that we'll use is MusicChoice on the TV. It's great for background noise, especially in some of the channels where our own collection is weak or non-existent, like Soundscapes, Light Classical and Jazz.
We will continue to have more and mor choice and we will exercise that choice. The music business is afraid to recognize that fact and is stubbornly clinging onto the sinking ship instead of swimming to shore and building a new and better boat.
That and a lot of music these days sucks.
Ok, that was way too long to read in its entirety.
However, I think you misunderstood me.
1. I do not listen to terrestrial radio. I listen to LaunchCast which is commercial-free and has what seems like a nearly unlimited selection of music. (I don't choose it. Either the computer chooses it based on my past ratings or by how much Yahoo! is being paid to foist it on me. I can tell what's paid content -- it's the same stuff that shows up as the iTune free single of the week -- and I ban the artist from ever playing again in most cases.)
2. I was making the same argument about artists needing businessman. I think I just forgot to put it all in there. That, like the article says, there's only a small group of musicians with enough accumen to make an independent go of it... Phish, Grateful Dead, Bearnakedladies, Aimee Mann, Ani Difranco. Even if they eventually sold out, copped out or died.
Satellite radio... we had it in the rental car a year ago. It was nice, but with one station of each genre, what if you didn't like what was playing then and there? You could change genre, or wait for something you liked. I agree with you there, DAPs screwed satellite radio because at the end of the day, it's still a push-technology.
The only push technology for music that we'll use is MusicChoice on the TV. It's great for background noise, especially in some of the channels where our own collection is weak or non-existent, like Soundscapes, Light Classical and Jazz.
We will continue to have more and mor choice and we will exercise that choice. The music business is afraid to recognize that fact and is stubbornly clinging onto the sinking ship instead of swimming to shore and building a new and better boat.
That and a lot of music these days sucks.
I wish you were correct in what you wrote, I really do. But the mere fact Americal Idol is popular is proof alone that you are wrong. If it wasn't, the fact that radio stations who offer playlists larger than 500 songs lose money would be proof (most stations settle in between 250-300 songs played). And you can yank satellite radio out of the equation, at least for now... for all the money being dumped into it, it hasn't generated enough revenue to sustain itself (hence the merger of the big two). Ipods and other mp3 players screwed XM and Sirius.
And though I know you enjoy listening to stations so you can discover new artists, I assure you that you are in the minority... Arbitron ratings have proven that repeatedly.
For reasons passing understanding, when people are looking at what music to listen to, the majority won't consider an artist or group that hasn't been financed, promoted, or sanctioned by a person or company that makes a lot of money. Ratings and album sales have shown that people do not trust their own opinions when it comes to music. The US population (to say nothing of world markets) actually prefers a self-indulgent blowhard like Simon Cowell telling them what is cool.
I wish it were not true, but it is. Artists need to be more than good businessmen... they need to be musical prostitutes (Michael Buble and Rod Stewart are two 21st century examples, though I cut Stewart a little slack due to semi-decent earlier work). They need to be willing to pander and prance... they need to be willing to do whatever it takes, whether it be skimpy outfits (insert blond pop starlet's name here) or music you have no business performing (see earlier reference to Buble and Stewart), successful artists have to do more than sell out... they have to cop out.
So, in answer to your question, where did the music industry go wrong, they foolishly bought into the public's general perception that the industry knows more about music than music fans do. And the public in general is OK with that shared illusion.
And all of that obnoxiousness is how I am able to spell Nick Lachey's name correctly. I shouldn't know his name. I should have never heard of the talentless little turd. Forget about that other boy-band bastard who whines about how he is bringing sexy back... I'd be content if any one of them brought music back.
And the last show all Americans watched together was Carson's farewell, unless you want to count the OJ verdict.
Post a Comment