The Day The Music Died
- Thread starter Muggsy Blue
- Start date
Rolling Stone hasn't been relevant for years. How anybody can view it as more than bird cage linings is beyond me. This cover doesn't even get me fired up. A completely fabricated story, like the UVa rape one in the fall, being passed off as actual journalism is much worse. But that writer of fiction as real news is somehow still employed by Rolling Stone and she probably got a raise because the controversy has gotten them so much attention.
Once upon a time Rolling Stone was about music. That ended decades ago. I was never a regular reader as there were always better music publications to read. It's a shame that music magazines have disappeared as the amount of talented musicians today is off the charts. With the amount of music thievery that goes on now and the decreased number of people who support live music, it has never been more difficult for artists. This is especially true for independent artists, who account for practically all of the good music being made. Even at our age my wife and I find plenty of shows to attend. We also purchase more than 100 albums a year.
I continue to be amazed by the lack of interest in live music. When I was coming of age in the late 70s and early 80s, that is what young people did. We bought the Village Voice and Aguarian early in the week, and planned our weekend around the live music ads. People these days are settling for a more sedientary lifestyle, which accounts for the interest in nonsense like the Kardashians. It's all TV all the time even for young people, which is sad because there is no greater feeling than the unpredictability and camaraderie of a live music performance. It can even be a life-changing experience. As a music fan, I wish people would turn off the TV on occasion and go out and support something that's meaningful. Eventually all the brilliant music being made will disappear due to lack of support. That will be a difficult pill for music fans and supporters of the arts to swallow.
I continue to be amazed by the lack of interest in live music. When I was coming of age in the late 70s and early 80s, that is what young people did. We bought the Village Voice and Aguarian early in the week, and planned our weekend around the live music ads. People these days are settling for a more sedientary lifestyle, which accounts for the interest in nonsense like the Kardashians. It's all TV all the time even for young people, which is sad because there is no greater feeling than the unpredictability and camaraderie of a live music performance. It can even be a life-changing experience. As a music fan, I wish people would turn off the TV on occasion and go out and support something that's meaningful. Eventually all the brilliant music being made will disappear due to lack of support. That will be a difficult pill for music fans and supporters of the arts to swallow.
well, at least Rolling Stone still gives us a few Matt Taibbi articles every year.
Kim K is of course the worst, but that picture...shopped or not...damn. girl can get it.
Kim K is of course the worst, but that picture...shopped or not...damn. girl can get it.
I don't get it. Maybe it's my age but I just do not understand the fascination with Kim Kardashian & her wacko family. Near as I can tell they have no talent or skills other than getting enormous amounts of unmerited publicity and quite honestly I don't think she is particularly attractive either.
TK
TK
Once upon a time becoming a celebrity was attached to some type of talent. At the risk of sounding like a prudish old-timer, it's amazing what people focus on nowadays. As I mentioned in the Lauren Hill thread on the SHU hoops board, decisions like this are made after careful consideration. Adults in a meeting room arrived at this decision. The light is out at Rolling Stone. It must be embarrassing for some of their employees to continue working there.
Agree with you about Rolling Stone, but again, out of touch. My sister in law lives in Manhattan, is single and in her 20's, and sees live music, from local and national acts, on a weekly basis, as do her friends. That's Manhattan, NYC, the cultural center of the US, not Manhattan, Kansas.
Agree...my daughter lives in Brooklyn and is a music-junky. There are so many outlets for live music, especially up and coming artists because of the internet. The other thing is that music festivals are much more prevalent today...Firefly, South-by-Southwest, Bonaroo, etc. I can remember bouncing back and forth between concerts at MSG and the Capitol Theater in Passaic each month.
There are not nearly the number of music venues in New York that there used to be. I have several musician friends in the area who lament this every single day. These are people who once relied on small-venue gigs for income.Those smallish venues that cultivate a local scene no longer exist as venues have shut down and not been replaced (or, in the case of a place like Maxwell's, turned their back on booking original music). When I was in my teens and in my 20s there was a myriad of inexpensive venues that made it possible for people like me to experience live music regularly. They also paid musicians for playing. Not only do the locals now have fewer places to play and get paid for doing so, but neither do indie bands and musicians who once considered the New York Metropolitan area a crucial tour stop. I know plenty of musicians personally who bypass New York when they hit the Northeast.
I have been covering music on-and-off for more than 30 years and know what I'm talking about. Live music has dried up in many regions, New York in particular. Where I live the musical heritage is heavily promoted in an effort to attract tourists. But at the end of the day, there are few opportunities to hear live music unless you're willing to travel an hour or two. Meanwhile, local musicians must decide whether they should play for free in order to gain "exposure." That's ridiculous as playing live is these people's bread and butter, especially as the sale of recorded music continues to drop at all levels. You think it's bad that hit records don't sell like they used to? Consider the plight of talented independent artists who struggle to sell a couple thousand albums. More and more, artists have taken to self-releasing their music because labels, both major and independent, aren't signing new acts. Media coverage has also shrunk with the folding of many of the better music magazines and less space being available for music and the arts in daily newspapers. While there are music blogs I check out, that is not the same as it was in the old days when magazines and newspapers covered and wrote about music. The last paper I worked for didn't replace me when I left. The one before that relies more on wire copy than local coverage. Meanwhile there is a bias against independent artists.The indie publicists I know fret about this as it was always difficult to gain attention for their clients. Now it is even worse. I am one of those people who thought the Internet would make it easier to gain exposure, but no longer do. Mention it to a musician and they roll their eyes.
This is a hot topic within the music community as there isn't the same level of encouragement for those who want to pursue a life in music as there once was. I was discussing this "new model" just last week with a singer-songwriter. Though this person has made a nice living writing songs for others and maintaining a low-profile recording career, it is their belief that today's young artists might not have that chance if things continue the way they are going. At this rate, this person said, much of the great music being made now might disappear. While it is better in Europe as those people tend to appreciate American music more than Americans do, that is a difficult step for a new or unknown artist to take because those early treks will result in a huge financial hit. Meanwhile, America has become a musicians' graveyard. Fewer places to play, music thievery, the decline of record labels and radio, much lower record sales, less media coverage, high gas prices, higher cost of living. These things combine to make it difficult for talented people to be heard and get noticed. It is always a risk to pursue the arts, of course, but why would future generations even take that chance at all? There are only so many floors a person will be willing to sleep on. If they quit, then where are tomorrow's Bob Dylans, Aretha Franklins, and Willie Nelsons going to come from?
I have been covering music on-and-off for more than 30 years and know what I'm talking about. Live music has dried up in many regions, New York in particular. Where I live the musical heritage is heavily promoted in an effort to attract tourists. But at the end of the day, there are few opportunities to hear live music unless you're willing to travel an hour or two. Meanwhile, local musicians must decide whether they should play for free in order to gain "exposure." That's ridiculous as playing live is these people's bread and butter, especially as the sale of recorded music continues to drop at all levels. You think it's bad that hit records don't sell like they used to? Consider the plight of talented independent artists who struggle to sell a couple thousand albums. More and more, artists have taken to self-releasing their music because labels, both major and independent, aren't signing new acts. Media coverage has also shrunk with the folding of many of the better music magazines and less space being available for music and the arts in daily newspapers. While there are music blogs I check out, that is not the same as it was in the old days when magazines and newspapers covered and wrote about music. The last paper I worked for didn't replace me when I left. The one before that relies more on wire copy than local coverage. Meanwhile there is a bias against independent artists.The indie publicists I know fret about this as it was always difficult to gain attention for their clients. Now it is even worse. I am one of those people who thought the Internet would make it easier to gain exposure, but no longer do. Mention it to a musician and they roll their eyes.
This is a hot topic within the music community as there isn't the same level of encouragement for those who want to pursue a life in music as there once was. I was discussing this "new model" just last week with a singer-songwriter. Though this person has made a nice living writing songs for others and maintaining a low-profile recording career, it is their belief that today's young artists might not have that chance if things continue the way they are going. At this rate, this person said, much of the great music being made now might disappear. While it is better in Europe as those people tend to appreciate American music more than Americans do, that is a difficult step for a new or unknown artist to take because those early treks will result in a huge financial hit. Meanwhile, America has become a musicians' graveyard. Fewer places to play, music thievery, the decline of record labels and radio, much lower record sales, less media coverage, high gas prices, higher cost of living. These things combine to make it difficult for talented people to be heard and get noticed. It is always a risk to pursue the arts, of course, but why would future generations even take that chance at all? There are only so many floors a person will be willing to sleep on. If they quit, then where are tomorrow's Bob Dylans, Aretha Franklins, and Willie Nelsons going to come from?
A
anon_4htvdezyfe7k9
Guest
I can't get too worked up over this considering they once put a glamorized pic of this piece of s$%& on their cover. https://www.google.com/search?redir...=1437428234481&devloc=0#imgrc=I_0jb9jWNzjufM:
Jim, I have to disagree with you. First of all the print media you describe transcends music coverage. Print media is dying on all fronts. And those that relied on print media to advance their music careers are suffering like everyone else that is dependent on the dinosaur. But if you look at the next generation of musicians, they utilize other avenues to promote their music. I also disagree about the number of music venues. Maybe those venues are different but there are so many ways to access live music today. For example, just in our area, go west and spend 10 days at Musikfest, you can see over 250 artists performing during the festival. Almost 1,000,000 people go to Bethlehem for it. Artsquest has concerts virtually every night all year. Millennials and Gen Xers have different interests and ways they want to view live music. Maybe your friends are lamenting because they are of a different generation and can't connect with the industry changes. All of these music festivals are thriving for a reason.
Actually I am in touch with and speak to musicians from different generations. Fewer venues to play music in is a fact, and musicians of all ages are lamenting it. Venues are shutting down and not being replaced, which results in fewer paid gigs for musicians. How do you replace the money when a venue you relied on no longer exists? As for festivals, that will eventually blow over as they are becoming too overrun with corporations that are interested in making money for only themselves. These events tend to rip-off musicians, inviting them to either play for free or pay to play. These events are benefitting everyone but musicians.
As for promoting music through other means, a problem with the Internet is that there are too many reviewers working for free, without a discerning ear, and who specialize in snarky commentary (yes, I just described Pitchfork). As a result people making quality music aren't getting the attention they deserve. These folks aren't relying on print, they are now using inferior channels to promote themselves. Everything is too scattered. If there are fewer venues, fewer records being sold, fewer journalists, no artists getting signed, and crappy radio at all levels, that means the economic picture for musicians is worse than it was in the past.
Here's a link regarding a situation with a band that was asked to play South by Southwest last year for free. This type of thing is pretty common with these festivals as the corporate influence is making life tougher for musicians.
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2...d-brands-rolls-on-at-south-by-southwest/?_r=0
As for promoting music through other means, a problem with the Internet is that there are too many reviewers working for free, without a discerning ear, and who specialize in snarky commentary (yes, I just described Pitchfork). As a result people making quality music aren't getting the attention they deserve. These folks aren't relying on print, they are now using inferior channels to promote themselves. Everything is too scattered. If there are fewer venues, fewer records being sold, fewer journalists, no artists getting signed, and crappy radio at all levels, that means the economic picture for musicians is worse than it was in the past.
Here's a link regarding a situation with a band that was asked to play South by Southwest last year for free. This type of thing is pretty common with these festivals as the corporate influence is making life tougher for musicians.
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2...d-brands-rolls-on-at-south-by-southwest/?_r=0
Jim, that article actually supports that the music industry is thriving with even more Financial opportunities for musicians. That band, the Ex-cops played SXSW for the opportunity to play in front of hundreds of thousands of people and get exposure they would only dream. Go back and look at history. Jimi Hendrix was the highest paid act at Woodstock and made a grand total of $19,000. Santana was paid $750. The article you linked indicated that Lady Gaga was paid $2.5million for her appearance. I know the person that runs Musikfest. The number of artists submitting applications has grown each year and is now in the thousands. Your prediction that these festivals will wane is not supported by any factual evidence. Yes corporate America has infiltrated music but in fact they've provided more opportunities for exposure and financial rewards for musicians.
You are correct in that the quality of journalism is in decline. The Internet has created experts that are a mile wide and an inch deep. That is not limited to music though. Just watch the news any night. You can't tell the difference between the CBS news and Access Hollywood. The news content on Yahoo, MSN, and CNN is comical. The Grammy's have become more about stupid stunts like Kanye West then recognizing the music.
I don't see any data that supports that there are fewer venues. In fact with the Internet, there's many more outlets to get ones music played, downloaded and paid. If you have a link please share.
I was in Nashville a few years ago and was speaking to several musicians. We were talking about those that didn't make it big, however, had carved out a great living for themselves as studio musicians or supporting the tourist trade there in Nashville. Many of them preferred that lifestyle rather than being on the road. Sure you have to make your breaks but there are a lot of musicians making a lot of money there and the quality of the product is excellent.
You are correct in that the quality of journalism is in decline. The Internet has created experts that are a mile wide and an inch deep. That is not limited to music though. Just watch the news any night. You can't tell the difference between the CBS news and Access Hollywood. The news content on Yahoo, MSN, and CNN is comical. The Grammy's have become more about stupid stunts like Kanye West then recognizing the music.
I don't see any data that supports that there are fewer venues. In fact with the Internet, there's many more outlets to get ones music played, downloaded and paid. If you have a link please share.
I was in Nashville a few years ago and was speaking to several musicians. We were talking about those that didn't make it big, however, had carved out a great living for themselves as studio musicians or supporting the tourist trade there in Nashville. Many of them preferred that lifestyle rather than being on the road. Sure you have to make your breaks but there are a lot of musicians making a lot of money there and the quality of the product is excellent.
Jim has been out of the area too long. Irving Plaza, The Highline Ballroom, Bowery Ballroom, Terminal 5, Beacon, Grammercy, Webster Hall, Brooklyn Bowl, and a venue I forgot next to the South Street Seaport -- all places I've seen shows in the last year, and I'm not a huge concert-goer. The city is literally teeming with them.
I will again say that the number of venues in the New York Metropolitan area is in sharp decline. When Brownies and the Rodeo Bar both closed last year, those venues were not replaced, It's the same thing with Maxwell's no longer booking original music. Musicians who therefore relied on those gigs for income lost that money. There have been many stories in recent years about New York music venues shutting down. Every time that happens musicians get hurt.
I know session musicians in Nashville, including the great Will Kimbrough. Will spent a couple decades touring while carving that niche. The way you get better and gain footing in the industry is by playing live. Those opportunities are disappearing in many cities, New York included. People like Cheap Trick and Bonnie Raitt wouldn't happen today. When they were getting started, Cheap Trick supported themselves by playing well in excess of 200 dates per year. A Midwestern band that didn't make it, Fools Face, that also played 200-plus shows a year. That was possible because there were venues and there was an audience. In Raitt's case, her career was nurtured over several years before she hit the big-time. She spent those years as a working, touring musician. That is how she made her reputation, by playing live. How does today's music climate support the next Cheap Trick or Bonnie Raitt, or even the next Fools Face? The talent is sure out there. The support system is not.
The guy I consider the best songwriter in America, John Moreland, has had to self-release his last two albums. He produced them himself and played all the instruments himself because that's all he could afford. After the release of his 2013 album (a classic, to my ears, and in my personal all-time top 10 favorites), he had a big decision to make. Should he release a follow-up quickly to build on the momentum he received through positive press? Or does he wait a few years so he can afford to do it properly? He opted for the former, meaning he again produced it himself and played all the instruments. It is very lo-fi though the songs are brilliant. He is getting attention in some key outlets, though not selling many records. At age 30, he is at a crossroads. Who knows when he'll ever be able to make another record. Other artist in his age group are facing similar problems. Caitlin Rose is amazing but will not follow-up her excellent 2013 album until next year at the earliest. She will still be under 30, but three years is a long time for an artist as good as her to have to wait. The music out there is fine; the business climate surrounding the music is not.
Yes there are more outlets, but people are opting to obtain their music for free rather than paying for it. I have a nephew who never pays for music, regardless of how many times I've lectured him about it. Supporting artists is not part of his culture. When he visited us for my wife's family reunion, he asked if he could log onto my computer for a few minutes. I said "sure" and a few minutes he called me over. He had loaded some type of program onto my computer that would have enabled me to download anything I wanted for free. He told me he felt sorry that I was actually paying for music. Naturally I told him to take it off my computer. This is how the next generation acquires its music.
Me and him went out to hear music the next night, to see a couple singer-songwriters. Since his listening background was in hard rock and hip hop, he was enthralled by seeing Chris Smither captivate an audience with just an acoustic guitar and a tapping foot. It was an education for him. After Smither's opening act concluded her set, I went over to chat with her and purchase a CD. My nephew said, in front of the artist, "I won't buy one, Uncle Jim. You can just burn me a copy of yours when we get back to the house." An embarrassing moment for me, and my nephew is no kid as he was in his late 30s at the time. That's the mentality today and a big reason why sales are down and artists record less frequently.
Here's a story regarding the decline of music sales.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/buying-music-is-so-over/384790/
Here is a well-known story from 2012 regarding an NPR intern named Emily White. She was candid, and some would say clueless, in blogging about how she accumulated her large music collection without paying for it. This story set off quite a firestorm. The intern did not understand why so many people thought her music-shopping practices were wrong because that's how she grew up.
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.c...-about-11000-songs-almost-none-paid-for/?_r=0
Here is one on the scamming that goes on at large festivals. If people are paying between $600 and $1,700 to attend South by Southwest, then why aren't the musicians getting the money? South by Southwest used to be squarely about the music. Not anymore. The same is true of our local Bristol Rhythm & Roots Festival, which is now in I believe its 17th year. They book about 130 artists for the festivals three days, with a noticeable decline over the years in worthwhile acts. Quantity, not quality. Mainly, they take whoever will play cheap. If you are booking a festival, it is your job to book the best event possible. We are skipping Rhythm & Roots this year due to the lineup, even though we live in Bristol. People who play for free tend to not be as good as those who want to be paid for their work. This was a problem on the New York music scene for years, and now many of the paying venues are disappearing due to high rents. No musician that played Rodeo Bar ever complained, because at the end of the evening they were paid and paid fairly. Now the place is gone. Places like that are important because they help musicians pay their bills.
http://theweek.com/articles/545237/why-south-by-southwest-huge-exploitative-scam
I know session musicians in Nashville, including the great Will Kimbrough. Will spent a couple decades touring while carving that niche. The way you get better and gain footing in the industry is by playing live. Those opportunities are disappearing in many cities, New York included. People like Cheap Trick and Bonnie Raitt wouldn't happen today. When they were getting started, Cheap Trick supported themselves by playing well in excess of 200 dates per year. A Midwestern band that didn't make it, Fools Face, that also played 200-plus shows a year. That was possible because there were venues and there was an audience. In Raitt's case, her career was nurtured over several years before she hit the big-time. She spent those years as a working, touring musician. That is how she made her reputation, by playing live. How does today's music climate support the next Cheap Trick or Bonnie Raitt, or even the next Fools Face? The talent is sure out there. The support system is not.
The guy I consider the best songwriter in America, John Moreland, has had to self-release his last two albums. He produced them himself and played all the instruments himself because that's all he could afford. After the release of his 2013 album (a classic, to my ears, and in my personal all-time top 10 favorites), he had a big decision to make. Should he release a follow-up quickly to build on the momentum he received through positive press? Or does he wait a few years so he can afford to do it properly? He opted for the former, meaning he again produced it himself and played all the instruments. It is very lo-fi though the songs are brilliant. He is getting attention in some key outlets, though not selling many records. At age 30, he is at a crossroads. Who knows when he'll ever be able to make another record. Other artist in his age group are facing similar problems. Caitlin Rose is amazing but will not follow-up her excellent 2013 album until next year at the earliest. She will still be under 30, but three years is a long time for an artist as good as her to have to wait. The music out there is fine; the business climate surrounding the music is not.
Yes there are more outlets, but people are opting to obtain their music for free rather than paying for it. I have a nephew who never pays for music, regardless of how many times I've lectured him about it. Supporting artists is not part of his culture. When he visited us for my wife's family reunion, he asked if he could log onto my computer for a few minutes. I said "sure" and a few minutes he called me over. He had loaded some type of program onto my computer that would have enabled me to download anything I wanted for free. He told me he felt sorry that I was actually paying for music. Naturally I told him to take it off my computer. This is how the next generation acquires its music.
Me and him went out to hear music the next night, to see a couple singer-songwriters. Since his listening background was in hard rock and hip hop, he was enthralled by seeing Chris Smither captivate an audience with just an acoustic guitar and a tapping foot. It was an education for him. After Smither's opening act concluded her set, I went over to chat with her and purchase a CD. My nephew said, in front of the artist, "I won't buy one, Uncle Jim. You can just burn me a copy of yours when we get back to the house." An embarrassing moment for me, and my nephew is no kid as he was in his late 30s at the time. That's the mentality today and a big reason why sales are down and artists record less frequently.
Here's a story regarding the decline of music sales.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/buying-music-is-so-over/384790/
Here is a well-known story from 2012 regarding an NPR intern named Emily White. She was candid, and some would say clueless, in blogging about how she accumulated her large music collection without paying for it. This story set off quite a firestorm. The intern did not understand why so many people thought her music-shopping practices were wrong because that's how she grew up.
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.c...-about-11000-songs-almost-none-paid-for/?_r=0
Here is one on the scamming that goes on at large festivals. If people are paying between $600 and $1,700 to attend South by Southwest, then why aren't the musicians getting the money? South by Southwest used to be squarely about the music. Not anymore. The same is true of our local Bristol Rhythm & Roots Festival, which is now in I believe its 17th year. They book about 130 artists for the festivals three days, with a noticeable decline over the years in worthwhile acts. Quantity, not quality. Mainly, they take whoever will play cheap. If you are booking a festival, it is your job to book the best event possible. We are skipping Rhythm & Roots this year due to the lineup, even though we live in Bristol. People who play for free tend to not be as good as those who want to be paid for their work. This was a problem on the New York music scene for years, and now many of the paying venues are disappearing due to high rents. No musician that played Rodeo Bar ever complained, because at the end of the evening they were paid and paid fairly. Now the place is gone. Places like that are important because they help musicians pay their bills.
http://theweek.com/articles/545237/why-south-by-southwest-huge-exploitative-scam
Jim, the model has changed, but there is more money and opportunities than ever for artists. The Woodstock data clearly shows that. You continue to offer anecdotal stories about musicians or venue examples with no statistical data to support the argument. Technology has turned the music industry upside down, but it's also expanded the reach of an artist and given them many more opportunities to connect and make money. I think you've watched "Almost Famous" too many times. The singular formula of a 200 date tour is obsolete. Business models change; it happens everywhere...should we whine about Blockbuster Video going out of business because of the advent of streaming? Has our access to movie content suffered? No, it's gotten better. It's interesting too that you see many artists creating their own labels to find more new talent. Maybe that's the way it should be...artists like Jay-Z and Lady Gaga, should be giving back to the emerging artists. I get the free version of Pandora...one commercial every five songs is great for the price. Why would I pay for something that I don't have to? And every artist I listen to on Alternative Radio, I'm pretty sure was making nothing 3-5 years ago and they are all doing quite well now (and the music is quite good). There will always be "starving" artists, musicians and actors....are you suggesting a single-payer government run entertainment structure??? Then you will really kill the arts!!! lol
I am suggesting nothing of a sort. What I am saying is that artists are not statistics, they are people. Every individual person is different, just as the stories of people, children, and families living in poverty are different. That's the value of great journalism. They bring these individual stories to the fore. They add a face and therefore a human element to the story. If you want perspective on a issue, hear from someone that issue affects. Just 15 minutes ago I was talking to a songwriter about a song she wrote and how it impacted my life. In today's marketplace that song might not exist, and my life experience might be different. She was floored by my story as that was not the song most listeners chose as their favorite from that 1999 album. Great art and music impacts lives. Had I not seen The Clash in September 1979 and heard 'Hank Williams' 40 Greatest Hits' a short while later the course of my life would have been much different. Those are human experiences that cannot be quantified with statistics.
On Friday I was talking to a songwriter about how one of his songs helped me cope with my mother's death two years later. Our conversation was the result to a soundtrack of my life article I am writing for a literary journal (20 songs covering the 25 years from 1990-2014). We Invariably got to talking about the music scene and how it has changed from the time he started playing until now. He told me there are less places to play now. There are many fewer venues listed in the Village Voice now than there was then. Each time a venue closes that is one less place musicians to play.
By the way, when you don't pay for music you are taking away from someone else's livelihood. That's why so many artists have taken an activist's stance against "services" like Pandora and Spotify. They aren't paying, or are barely paying, for the product that keeps them in business. When that happens someone is invariably harmed. That's something that didn't happen in the '80s. If you wanted to hear Bruce Springsteen's 'Born in the 'USA,' you went out and bought it. You didn't download it for free. No record sells like that anymore, and that's only on the high end as independent artist records are doing much worse. Indie artists flourished in the '80s because people supported the music with their dollars. Those first couple R.E.M. records would have barely sold had they come out today because people would have taken them for free. As a result the band might not have made it to their peak commercial period, which would have changed the entire musical landscape. As it is now there is less money for artists and more for companies that have nothing to do with the actual music. The founders of Pandora and Spotify should not be getting wealthy at the expense of musicians. Artists were screwed during the major label era as well, but it wasn't as bad as it is now. At least then artists like Randy Newman, Bonnie Raitt, and The Clash saw their careers develop.
On Friday I was talking to a songwriter about how one of his songs helped me cope with my mother's death two years later. Our conversation was the result to a soundtrack of my life article I am writing for a literary journal (20 songs covering the 25 years from 1990-2014). We Invariably got to talking about the music scene and how it has changed from the time he started playing until now. He told me there are less places to play now. There are many fewer venues listed in the Village Voice now than there was then. Each time a venue closes that is one less place musicians to play.
By the way, when you don't pay for music you are taking away from someone else's livelihood. That's why so many artists have taken an activist's stance against "services" like Pandora and Spotify. They aren't paying, or are barely paying, for the product that keeps them in business. When that happens someone is invariably harmed. That's something that didn't happen in the '80s. If you wanted to hear Bruce Springsteen's 'Born in the 'USA,' you went out and bought it. You didn't download it for free. No record sells like that anymore, and that's only on the high end as independent artist records are doing much worse. Indie artists flourished in the '80s because people supported the music with their dollars. Those first couple R.E.M. records would have barely sold had they come out today because people would have taken them for free. As a result the band might not have made it to their peak commercial period, which would have changed the entire musical landscape. As it is now there is less money for artists and more for companies that have nothing to do with the actual music. The founders of Pandora and Spotify should not be getting wealthy at the expense of musicians. Artists were screwed during the major label era as well, but it wasn't as bad as it is now. At least then artists like Randy Newman, Bonnie Raitt, and The Clash saw their careers develop.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't doubt music plays a very important part of just about everyone's life and also reflects the trends of the time. I also don't think that has changed at all. Our kids are moved by the music of the times in the same way. The changes in technology or distribution hasn't effected that. If you insist on using anecdotal stories, I'll share mine. When we moved out to Hunterdon County 20 years ago, there were a handful of places you could go see live music within a thirty minute drive; now there are dozens with an incredible variety.
Reading the title of this thread, and thinking of Buddy Holly. IMO, of all the great rock performers who died young, I think music missed Holly the most. It seems to me he was on track to raise the level of rock, like the Beatles did later. And what he left us was amazing stuff that still holds up today.
