Did bands from the past have it easier?

I guess it depends on what the criteria is for determining "have it easier." Financial success? The path to that was very different then but no less tough than it is now. 'The man' (the industry, the biz, etc.) had a certain degree of control over your trajectory back when. Thats been, in part, replaced by the sheer numbers of similar voices competing for so many customers willing to fork over money that actually gets to you. And thats just one of many factors.

 

Because of how easy it has become to both create and obtain music, paired with a lack of innovative musical directions and a general culture of music has been devalued by greed on both ends (i.e. consumer habits and the business itself), what we seem to have left (in my opinion) are a few "blockbuster" (as in painfully commercial) artists making huge numbers and then a dispersement of a million different bands who experience ups and downs but have a much harder time retaining artistic credibility while cracking the mainstream the way "great" bands have done in the past.

Current bands might be really great but they exist in an era that has devalued their worth and potentially compromised their ability to experiment and make art while still achieving greater commercial success. There is a general fleeting quality to it all--bands can be here today, gone tomorrow and only their relatively small group of fans will really care.

Meanwhile, the great bands and artistic figures of the past are still popular, their music still being poured over, their personalities still being discussed, some more than ever. It's indicative of a time where there was more incentive coming from all around (from the consumer and record companies alike) to be both creative and commercial at the same time. That to me would be representative of a true "golden age of bands" because there was genuine artistic passion that was rewarded instead of being micromanaged into something the public would love. Yes, there are tons of examples of the record companies "compromising" the intention of the artist then and now (cutting tracks, scrapping entire albums, etc), but it was frequently done with the ultimate message being that the artist should be the best version of him or herself that he or she could be. Now in order to be huge it's like signing up for a Marvel movie. You can only get so much of your vision out before the whole thing is risk-managed into something completely epic and bland at the same time.

I suppose it could be argued that we live in a "Golden Age of Music and/or Technology" because music itself has never been so accessible, but to emphasize the "bands" feels like a misappropriation.

 

I don't know about "easier" but certainly there was an era where bands who did VERY well, appeared for all intents and purposes to lead charmed lives, dancing between the raindrops, pulling the gravy train for the suits with cigars, and often benefitting by money that seemed to simply drop right out of the sky into their laps, sometimes almost at the exact moment in their career when they needed to make more of it.

I mean, virtually nobody would have seriously predicted in 1965 that in 2015 bands like the Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, etc would have sold their catalogs to fans 3, 4, sometimes even 5 different times over again, in different formats, and reaped these undreamt of amounts from touring, merchandising, licensing, songs in commercials, video games and the like. It was almost just impossibly lucky, for those few who got to enjoy the full ride. I have a feeling these modern latter day blockbuster tours like the Stones, Sabbath, etc must seem incredible, almost surreal, to the participants in the inner circle of the groups, on the inside, who came up bashing it out in clubs and living rooms and carrying their guitars on buses and the like. If it were me in a band like that, I suspect I would probably break down weeping with joy, backstage every single night after the show, thanking my lucky stars for another day.

Not to be crass, but there was definitely a time in the past when Paul McCartney could eat a scone, smoke a joint, or even take a whiz in a hotel bathroom while on tour, and while he was in there doing his business, by the time he zipped up and washed his hands, the songs have been played somewhere on radio, LPs or CDs have been sold somewhere, more tickets and Beatles merch would have been sold, on and on, and he's got MORE royalties and money coming in, even while he sleeps or watches the telly in bed. Even while he might be literally on tour, making money playing live onstage with Wings or his solo band,while people on the other side of the world at the same time, would be buying the Beatles and solo records and tapes, that's MORE money coming in.

That type of elite rock world is dying down a bit, but still. You can't NOT think that Paul or someone like Jimmy Page was talented, but also blessed to be born at the right particular place at the right time in the rock era, to have all that stuff happen to him.

Brian Eno sort of hints at this -- that it may turn out in the long run that there really was only a short period of time in history, where people actually made loads of money from recorded music, and had the airplanes, yachts and mansions and all, by simply selling the recordings and all these other ancillary things, besides performing.

 

And they sound like it. There is no substitute for actual in-person face to face band practice. It's the only way a band can ever get to be any good.

 

As I said earlier in the thread, I'd rather have hundreds of bands sell several thousand copies of a song than a handful sell millions - but that's not the model that benefits huge corporations.

Sad, but true. Personally, I tend to enjoy being one of the few than one of the masses.

The weasels have always been weasels, but now the costs of making and distributing music is so low that, unless you're aiming for the top of the charts, bands can be allowed to succeed or fail on their own merits. I've mentioned them here before and don't want to wear their names out, but some good friends of mine are touring the world, playing huge festivals like Glastonbury, have released half a dozen records, have songs in popular TV shows...and are playing Country Blues in the style of Charlie Patton! They are not producing the music a major label would want to sell, but by putting on great shows and playing the music they love with skill and passion, they are making a nice living, seeing the world and fans all over the world are loving it.

Bands, solo artists, musical collectives, one-offs, you name it...the same changes apply to everyone.

 

A band led by a proven hitmaker?

 

Alright, ours is a nice horse race. Lets suppose there are indeed more bands today. Your arguments that technology makes it easier are good but they also give an example of how bands have it much easier today. They can much more easily self-publish and distribute an album across the country (heck, the world!) through more varieties of media. They can get support their project through crowd funding or by Mom and Dad who are quite excited that their daughter is the local School of Rock star (and today's parents actually dig the kids' music - not so in the '60's). Sure, the fact that the field is crowded makes it hard for any one band to get noticed today. But even if we accept that the field was not as crowded in the sixties, it was still crowded then AND the avenues available for a band to record and and have their work distributed across the country were severely limited in comparison to today.

 

Historically speaking, your friend's band still doesn't represent a "golden age of bands"--they're just a good band releasing good music and making a living. And while you could say that now is arguably a great time for bands because they don't have the constraints of meeting expectation and can cheaply distribute whatever music they want, plenty of artists could counter that sentiment by saying they feel under-appreciated and under-compensated given their talents and abilities, and plenty of others could say that the cheap costs of recording and distributing music have a deteriorating affect on the quality of the music itself (less cost theoretically meaning you can let more garbage through that would've been otherwise scrapped for instance). And while you could also posit the notion that this is a great time for listeners because they have so much choice and access to festivals and any song in the world, I'm not sure that equates to anything more than the fact that people will always love the music they love and it's hard to say that listeners now are any better off than listeners in previous eras. Therefore it's very hard for me to swallow the idea that we're in the midst of some amazing "era" or "age" of "great bands" that will be remembered for years to come for the actual music. It's not so much a problem with the quality of the music (at least some of which is great), rather the concept that it's a "golden age" which implies historical significance. Maybe you could even say that it's a golden age for bands because they're liberated from the previous shackles of big business, but one must potentially bear in mind that with said liberation there has resulted a nearly unprecedented amount of disposability (not physical media, mind you, rather the longterm affects of any given band's achievements).

 

Sure,but the genre of music they play hasn't been in vogue for decades, and in the absence of the Internet, had no way of reaching an audience. My wife discovered them on MySpace, clicked on their name, heard one of their song, found they were playing a bar in Chicago the next week, saw them, became friends, and proudly watched as our friends worked their butts off and became well known. And that never would have happened without the Net.

Yes, there's more chaff, but there is also more wheat. And unlike the days when my choices were from a selection already determined for me by the the industry, I now have a nearly infinite number of people to make recommendations.

Sure, but we equally have the opportunity to discover music that will be vital to our lives. There has always been more music created than any one person could ever listen to, but now we can take advantage of a community of listeners all around the world to assist us in that task.

 

Can one even imagine a band like The Mothers of Ivention coming out the gate with a double album today? The industry is much less willing to take risks on unknown factors.

 

I guess, if you were good, and played by the established system's rule back then you could make money, but also make other people money and possibly be screwed by contracts if you weren't careful.

I think it's easier now to avoid the system if you want to get your music heard. It's really easy for a group to create a website, a Facebook, and instagram, and literally have the ability to record and drop an album themselves at the click of a button. Here's our album! Whereas back then you were dependent on distribution by your record company. Now a band can literally create their own image and market it themselves. But.. Money..

 

I think music nowadays has more of a DIY approach. Screw being an indentured servant to a label, if you get that far. Technology is partly to blame for records not selling. Back in the day (pre internet) it would have been a little more difficult to hear an album before you bought it. (except friends, maybe radio, etc) Now, you type a few words and bingo. Hell, you can even talk to your computer and it will do the work for you. Listening to it now, and not liking it means no chance of a sale. In the past, one might have liked the jacket, previous output, etc and bought it. Even today, you might like everything about it, and still not buy it, no matter the cost.

The old modes of a band making it are long gone, but it was likely never easy as no matter what a band was almost always competing for an audience. I do feel one of the biggest difficulties today is disposable income. Times seem to be be tighter now that 10-20-30-40 etc years ago. Not to mention there are other source of entertainment like much better video games. Those things didn't exist in the 60's/70's, and to some extent the early 80's when compared to today's quality games.

 

It's easier to distribute your music but harder to make a living doing so.

Don't pin all independent hopes on social media. The days of free social are long dead. Organic reach on Facebook averages about 7% of your fans. You've got to pay to get the word out.

 

You're citing one of the most successful bands of all-time and then asking if things were easier back then. What about the thousands of bands that never had a recording contract, let alone made it big? It was easier for Led Zeppelin but it's never been easy for almost everyone else.

 

Yeah, but that's Facebook rigging the game. For the life of me, I'll never understand why everyone abandoned MySpace for it - music discovery was so much easier on it. Give me YouTube and Twitter.

 

I think it's the opposite. Today you just have to appear on a TV show and BOOM there's your contract. You don't even have to be talented. Look at William Hung. He made over a million doing nothing but making people cringe. He wouldn't have made a dime singing on a street corner back in the 70's.

 

William Hung? That's the best example you have? He was a novelty act at best. People followed him pretty much only because he was so f'ing terrible. Pretty sure there have been similar artists in the past. Weird Al anyone?

 

Dissing Weird Al won't get you very far in these quarters - the man is too well respected. He's a better songwriter than half of the artists he's parodied. I would suggest you check out The Gregory Brothers aka Schmoyoho aka Autotune The News. Genius pop songwriters, no record label, their entire career built on YouTube.

 

Except that hasn't amounted to any real important music that's projected to stand the test of time. In other words, I'm not really addressing the issue of whether there is "great music" out there that we have easier access to, or that "bands who are now thriving would have perished in previous eras", I'm addressing your use of the term "golden age". So many of the bands that are doing well today can disappear tomorrow and be forgotten entirely within the next decade. Meanwhile, The Doors (as just one of many examples) broke up over four decades ago and they are still being discovered, adored and reissued over and over and over again.

Weird Al has a following because he's witty, not because he's terrible. He has literally nothing in common with William Hung.

 

The problem is that you're setting a standard that requires either a time machine or immortality for verification - neither of which I have access to, to my regret.

How much of the Doors continuing popularity is due to inherent quality versus the tastes of the 800 lb gorilla known as the Baby Boom?

 

Yes, you are correct that I am talking from the gut here and really cannot determine what will last and what won't, though if prodded I do think I could make a very reasoned and possibly quantitative argument to defend my stance.

As a huge Doors fan I can't answer your question without bias. I will add, however, that I'm no boomer.

 

easier? no way shape or form! Youtube makes stars..

 

Local bands had it far easier. A band could book 6 nights a week in most cities and larger towns in the past.
And could make a great living.
Far as those trying to "make it big" I don't think they had it easier, but they had a better situation. They could "do their own thing" most of the time and not be turned into Ken dolls by the industry.
And they had a shot at making a good living at it even if they didn't "make it big".
And the music was far more important than the image.
During rock bands had the benefit of having numerous small labels that had significant amount of charting songs to start out on, and often stay with as opposed to now when the industry seems to be one huge monolith.
Back in the day before they all got absorbed into huge faceless corporations like Sony and Warner, or whoever the biggies are now.

They also had the advantage of being in a society that loved the music and that music was still something very special to the point where they could fill up arenas with fans who weren't taking out a mortgage to buy a ticket.

 

He's my example of an artist (who sucked) that appeared on a TV one day and the next day was a sensation. As for Weird Al, who cares if his music is (or was) silly? He busted his chops touring in the early 80's to get to a point where could release an album. William Hung got his contract on a silver plater for doing nothing.

Next time my examples aren't good enough for you, please just move on...