01 Apr 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesAt least a few youngsters can rise up in the pop world with shows like American Idol. It seems there are a lot of hopefuls but not a whole lot of genuine talent. Talent is rare. Even the ones who win American Idol are not guaranteed success. Some of those will have a career on the cruise ships however, so it helps them a bit. It's a matter of exposure.
You'd think that the internet would have been a major game-changer. In the past, if an artist wanted anyone to know they existed, they needed to get airplay on the radio. Now, they can just put something up on the internet.
And yet, it seems that commercial music today is so much worse now than commercial music was 30 years ago.
But where are the Joni Mitchell's, the Bob Dylan's, the Jim Croce's? The ones with monster talents that won't be denied?
01 Apr 10
Originally posted by sonhouseBut even people like Mitchell, Dylan, and Croce had a great deal of commercial success. Maybe because there was a time when you had DJs that cared about music and radio stations gave them some freedom in determining what got played on the radio.
At least a few youngsters can rise up in the pop world with shows like American Idol. It seems there are a lot of hopefuls but not a whole lot of genuine talent. Talent is rare. Even the ones who win American Idol are not guaranteed success. Some of those will have a career on the cruise ships however, so it helps them a bit. It's a matter of exposure.
B ...[text shortened]... ll's, the Bob Dylan's, the Jim Croce's? The ones with monster talents that won't be denied?
American Idol is kind of depressing because it could potentially be a great way to provide exposure for talent that otherwise would go unnoticed. But it seems like they eliminate anyone with any real quirkiness. And even the ones that do display some talent (like Adam Lambert last year) end up putting out records that are just as crappy as the rest.
So American Idol's main purpose now seems to be providing fodder for Vote for the Worst (www.votefortheworst.com). Anyone who is frustrated with "commercial music" will love what this website is all about.
the irony is that Mitchell, Dylan, and Croce might not have been good enough to make it very far on American Idol. Simon Cowell would've complained that Croce and Mitchell didn't have "star quality". Dylan's weird voice wouldn't have even gotten him a golden ticket to Hollywood.
And even if you do win, it seems like you're roped into a record deal where you have to sing garbage written by Kara DioGuardi or similar ilk.
02 Apr 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesWith the internet having clearly been a major game-changer, and the bewildering range and quality of music now readily available and marketed independently, in what way is the question of whether 'commercial music today is worse now than 30 years ago' significant?
You'd think that the internet would have been a major game-changer. In the past, if an artist wanted anyone to know they existed, they needed to get airplay on the radio. Now, they can just put something up on the internet.
And yet, it seems that commercial music today is so much worse now than commercial music was 30 years ago.
02 Apr 10
Originally posted by sonhouseI don't understand how you relate "commercialism" to "electronic manipualtion". Surely, there is loads of music that is heavily electronically manipulated but hardly "commercial".
Commercial music is after one thing: bucks. Newer talent can't get into the fold so they only repave older pop styles because to be innovative is forbidden. Look what happened in the US around 1959 with the song 'come along and be my party doll'. It was banned and from then on the rebels of music were not allowed airplay so pop music got dumbed down and led ...[text shortened]... trying to get rich on it. It is music to be appreciated by a small audience by definition.
02 Apr 10
Originally posted by sonhouseWell, I guess most of the talents just don't get any mainstream attention. But I can assure you that Mike Patton, John Zorn, Kristoffer Rygg or any other mastermind of modern music don't have to worry about their commercial success even if they never get any airplay on mainstream FM radio stations.
At least a few youngsters can rise up in the pop world with shows like American Idol. It seems there are a lot of hopefuls but not a whole lot of genuine talent. Talent is rare. Even the ones who win American Idol are not guaranteed success. Some of those will have a career on the cruise ships however, so it helps them a bit. It's a matter of exposure.
B ...[text shortened]... ll's, the Bob Dylan's, the Jim Croce's? The ones with monster talents that won't be denied?
06 Apr 10
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFYou're right - "commercial music" and the "commercial radio" that supports it are probably becoming obsolete like buggy whips.
With the internet having clearly been a major game-changer, and the bewildering range and quality of music now readily available and marketed independently, in what way is the question of whether 'commercial music today is worse now than 30 years ago' significant?
But one of the charms of "commercial music" is that it provided a certain basis of cultural common ground - every decade had certain songs and certain artists and bands that everyone listened to and was familiar with. Those songs might not have been the greatest things ever written, but they usually had some sort of melody, and were often about someone with a specific name, or about a specific place or event.
But now, it's becoming more and more a world where everyone has their own iPod. It seems like the amount of common ground is becoming smaller and smaller - and the songs that occupy that ground are becoming more and more indistinguishable from each other.
I see the Super Bowl halftime show as an illustration of this. In the past few years (since the "Wardrobe Malfunction" ), they have trotted out the great graybeards from the 1960's. And you get the sense that these are the only acts remaining that could appeal to the wide audience that views the Super Bowl. Is there anyone out there under the age of 50 that could do this?
But maybe this common ground thing is overrated. The 21st century will be all about small niche acts that appeal to small audiences and perform in small venues. Commercial radio will eventually abandon music completely and no one will miss it. The large record companies will fold as well and no one will miss them either. And all of this may be a good thing.
06 Apr 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesSo we will be back in the same boat as folk musicians have been for the last thousand years. The internet, the great equalizer.
You're right - "commercial music" and the "commercial radio" that supports it are probably becoming obsolete like buggy whips.
But one of the charms of "commercial music" is that it provided a certain basis of cultural common ground - every decade had certain songs and certain artists and bands that everyone listened to and was familiar with. Those so ...[text shortened]... l fold as well and no one will miss them either. And all of this may be a good thing.
06 Apr 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesI know exactly what you mean but I don't rate it. I think cultural common ground in TV - which carries mores, values, fleshed out shared anecdotes - is important. But I think cultural common ground in music pales in comparison.
one of the charms of "commercial music" is that it provided a certain basis of cultural common ground - every decade had certain songs and certain artists and bands that everyone listened to and was familiar with.
06 Apr 10
Originally posted by sonhouseHopefully that boat will also mean a return to an emphasis on quality songwriting.
So we will be back in the same boat as folk musicians have been for the last thousand years. The internet, the great equalizer.
How many of today's songs would make people want to get out the sheet music, pick up a guitar or wheel out a piano, gather a bunch of folks, and spend an evening singing together?
07 Apr 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesWith such masterpieces as 'If I were a Boy', now THERE is a song we can grab a piano and a bunch of friends to gather 'round and sing our hearts out......
Hopefully that boat will also mean a return to an emphasis on quality songwriting.
How many of today's songs would make people want to get out the sheet music, pick up a guitar or wheel out a piano, gather a bunch of folks, and spend an evening singing together?
07 Apr 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesI would say 'a fair few'. Also, I would say that if you went back in time to let's say 1967, 1969, 1971, 1974 and so on, just like now in 2010, you would come across thousands of songs that would NOT - and did not - make people want to get out the sheet music, spend an evening singing together and all the rest of it.
How many of today's songs would make people want to get out the sheet music, pick up a guitar or wheel out a piano, gather a bunch of folks, and spend an evening singing together?
07 Apr 10
Originally posted by FMFIt's odd that you would say such a thing. I distinctly remember that night in 1971 when I pulled out my guitar and me and my friends sang Close to the Edge at a campfire.
I would say 'a fair few'. Also, I would say that if you went back in time to let's say 1967, 1969, 1971, 1974 and so on, just like now in 2010, you would come across thousands of songs that would NOT - and did not - make people want to get out the sheet music, spend an evening singing together and all the rest of it.
07 Apr 10
Originally posted by FMFWhat songs from within the past few years would you choose for an evening of singing?
I would say 'a fair few'. Also, I would say that if you went back in time to let's say 1967, 1969, 1971, 1974 and so on, just like now in 2010, you would come across thousands of songs that would NOT - and did not - make people want to get out the sheet music, spend an evening singing together and all the rest of it.