Record Executive Comment

[mervap]

I usually look at singles as a "foot in the door" proposition, something that grabbed my ear and opened my mind for more by the artist in question. Nowadays, it seems that one has to be continually doing that just to be heard. Granted, that would seem to make sure one gets better tracks, though my ears tell me different. More on this when I get home...

[DazedOblivion]

Labels have to pay the price for their decisions. The many years of dispensing a diet rich in crap and blockading worthy artists have either decreased appetites or destroyed the tastebuds. Sure the illegal downloading has been a problem, but I believe that the problem is more extensive than the downloading thing alone.

DJs rarely get to choose what to play. The music is instead chosen by corporations that own and operate most radio stations based on research and marketing aims. In my opinion, these corporations have done to music what fast food chains usually do with food: lowered the quality, make it all the same, so everyone hears the same few songs, coast to coast. MTV and VH1, which used to have music as THE commodity, were turned into reality show channels. I had an email discussion with a DJ who endured the transition to the corporate radio format, and he came to the point where he turned off the music while it was playing. This corporate dictation of airplay has turned off a lot of audiences. There are many alternatives to music around now, such as the whole video gaming industry, that weren't there before. I know that I was turned off to music until I got on the computer to search for the kind of music that I enjoy - no matter where it is made.

Kerry Livgren of Kansas wrote a very thoughtful blog on the current state of music. He wrote:

It must be a symptom of our shallow throw-away culture. Things are no longer built to last. Everything, not just music, seems destined for a transitory life, as if designed only for maximum profit, soon to be replaced by the "next big thing." It is as if planned obsolescence has invaded the realm of human expression. Longevity is only relevant as it relates to commercial viability. Quality or creativity seem not, in and of themselves, to be sufficient reasons to justify the existence of a piece of music. They have been eclipsed by something called "image," and marketability, now a necessity for the artist (if "artist" is the appropriate word).

I believe that the entire corporate "major label pipeline" has made music subservient to the goals of marketing. Music is promoted and utilized in such a way as to herd us into groups (urban/hip-hop/rap OR country, with a vast empty chasm between) where we can then be specifically targeted for commercial reasons. A trip to the music section at Walmart or Target will prove this. It's a divide and conquer ploy, and I feel that mainstream pop/rock music and band rock seemed to be the loser.

I do believe that one of the reasons for the innovation in music in the 1960's and 1970's was that DJs had more autonomy to play the songs from a full spectrum of genres that they thought were good. The cream seemed to have a greater chance to rise to the top than it does now.

Perhaps record labels should go away. Perhaps it would be good to get rid of the attorneys and let the artists self-distribute. Maybe that might level the playing field and, if musical tastes are not damaged beyond repair, the cream might rise to the top once again. I'm tired of contest winners and actresses selling more albums than truly gifted artists who have paid their dues with years of hard work. In so many ways, record companies dug their own grave though music fans grabbed a shovel and helped through actions like illegal downloading that undermine the ability of artists to make a living with their music.

Kerry Livgren also wrote of his misgivings when it came to discussing this topic and I think we all probably have this in the back of our mind:

One of the things that frightens me most about saying things like this is that I sound just like our dads sounded when we were teenagers! Growing up in the sixties, most of us heard our parents expound on the unequaled greatness of Benny Goodman or Glenn Miller, and how this "modern" music sounded like noise, had no melody, and would not stand the test of time. The generational boundaries were clear then, but interestingly, they seem to be getting less distinct today. I have seen many families with teenagers in which both the parents and kids were listening to the same groups. In some cases, the kids were reaching farther back than the parents were. That rarely would have been the case in the sixties or even the seventies. I never would have bought a Count Basie or Frankie Carle album when I was sixteen (although I appreciate them now, and I'm starting to really dig Glenn Miller).

[Greg]

Wow.  Nice post.  That would make a great newspaper column or magazine article.
The whole "I feel like an old guy complaining" probably has some validity, but I think very little.  Yes we are older and are complaining about today's music.
Here's the difference to me.  We weren't sitting around listening to Glenn Miller or Tommy Dorsey when we were young and complaining about The Clash or The Stones or whatever.  Today's kids love the rock of the 60's/70's/80's.  Many of them complain about the crap they make today.

But again...there is good music out there.  Man Man and others just aren't on the radio.

[mervap]

I've heard it said many times that, "...if only we could get this tune out on the radio and people could hear it, folks would want to have it...". I wonder if that's true....sometimes it seems that the worst songs get the most attention and even when given a chance, good tunes don't sell. Is the music buying public to blame? Do we truly get the music we deserve? If *insert undeserving singer here* didn't sell by the bucketload, would anyone care about them? I find that most people don't give their music nearly as much thought as I do, or you all do. If they see it on TV, it must be ok, so we'll buy it.

It's a little depressing sometimes, talking music around guys at work...most of my fave tunes are older than they are, sometimes older than I am. There are a few artists I've found recently that give me some hope...that Glenn Miller guy has some promise! :)

[chris]

there are some very good posts here. nicely done, everyone.

as mentioned before me, what is marketable is not always what is the best song. i can be driving my car, i can be at work, hell...i can be at the supermarket...and be stopped in my tracks at how good a song is. and i can think that without any attention or care as to if someone can dance well while singing it, or to how nice (or crazy) they look while singing it. for me, it is all about how good the song sounds to my ears. thats pretty much it. for me.

not that novely acts don't work. sure they do. i remember when i was a kid. i saw these album covers by kiss. by their looks alone, i thought, these guys must be so heavy, they might even be dangerous. one guy even spits blood and breathes fire. then i heard their music, and i thought...this is tame. they're just singing about girls (and corny sex metaphors). nothing like what i thought it would be. same with alice cooper. one minute the guy is chopping heads with a guillotine on stage, next minute he is wearing plaid pants and a polo shirt sizing up his next chip shot on hole 8 at the local golf course.

at the end of the day, for me, and it seems like a lot of us here, it's just about the music. not cool clothes, or dance moves, or live snakes. i've said this on other threads...but people who don't really get the beatles ask me...why them? what is it about them? and i think, they were not musical virtuosos like a lot of bands from the 70's. so i answer the most honest way i can...and i reply...they wrote better songs than anyone else. and what is listening to great music, if it isn't about the relationship between you the listener, and the song?

[Greg]

...and the system for movies and music is kind of set up in a unique way.  The media reports on the top-selling songs or highest grossing movies this week.  The person on tv or radio comes on and says, "Ohhhh the top-grossing movie this week is 'movie title'"!  'Movie title' came in second at the box office, followed by..."  Same with music. 

What I see as a problem for quality's sake here is that they are not focusing on quality; they're focusing on quantity. 

What if the reports came out as to what were the most critically acclaimed songs or albums this week?  Seriously.  If it seems like some unworkable, and illogical, scheme...why?  Does the current system of Here's-What-Everyone-Is-Buying have to be way we report on music and movies?  It only serves to perpetuate the consumption of what everyone is buying.  That's fine but it's only one way to report on this stuff.

[Kylenz]

I do believe that one of the reasons for the innovation in music in the 1960's and 1970's was that DJs had more autonomy to play the songs from a full spectrum of genres that they thought were good. The cream seemed to have a greater chance to rise to the top than it does now.

Reminds me of a Frank Zappa interview I saw where he discusses the state of the music industry in the 90s and how it changed from the 60s - back then, the 'freaks' were allowed to run amok and be given free reign to do what they like, because it was making money for the men in suits who didn't understand their music but as long as it was making them moola, who cares! Then what happened later, those same hippies ended up taking over the industry with their own fixed vision of things, they became the very people they rebelled against. Zappa said, they ran their ship with a tighter grip than the stuffy men in suits!

And I think Zappa nailed it.. this interview was conducted prior to the internet and the digital age taking over.. but Zappa could see what was going on.. these guys tried to impose their own agendas and it stifled growth in the music industry, no longer was it about fostering creativity, it was about generating a product. Think about it - the age of MTV, videos, 'selling' an act.. hair bands.. MJ and Madonna.. New Kids On The Block. Of course, when downloading came along, they failed to adapt. They looked at it from the wrong perspective - and that's because they looked at it from a financial point of view rather than a social and artistic view. They missed the boat. 

[Greg]

Yes.  You can talk to some of those guys from the old days and they'll agree.  A few months ago I talked with a DJ from the 60's and 70's.  He stated everything that was in Kylenz's post.  These guys got in the radio DJ business because they love music like nothing else.  They care about the quality.

This guy I talked to said he had the freedom to play what he thought was good.  And how 'bout this?  He got a little pressure to play a record he didn't like...what did he do?...he played it at 78rpm in protest!

Media is tightly controlled.  The Dixie Chicks say that Bush is an idiot and they almost disappear from 900 radio stations.  Clear Channel owns 900 radio stations.

(I just deleted a rant about modern country music at the end of this post about the heavy southern accent they use in singing as compared with their speaking voice.)

[oldasSoul]

I'm enjoying this discussion about the state of radio today. When I was 6 I got a transistor radio for my birthday, and my world opened up! Now I wasn't stuck listening to Mahler's 96th symphony in D# minor, or talk radio, I had control over what I heard! This was in the early 70's, and the station I set it to played a very interesting mix of things: Zep's Communication Breakdown, followed by the Hollies' He Ain't Heavy, Go All the Way, No Matter What, Get Off My Cloud, etc. Hell, they'd play Abba, the Carpenters, Bad Company, etc. Now it seems every station has its own little niche market, and heaven help you if you try to play anything outside of the 2000 song playlist.

I recently saw the movie Pirate Radio, which is well worth a look. At one point, the pirate djs are bemoaning the popularity of another radio ship that just recently started up. The new ship's motto is, "Who needs the Beatles when we have Herman's Hermits?" What was true in 1966 is still true today. Why indeed would anyone choose to listen to music that is "different," or challenging, or requires repeated listens to fully grasp? Can't make a profit from advertisers with that format. Let's just force feed them the manufactured pablum the big music corp.s are shoving down our throats.