And yet other people manage to walk into record stores and find new albums to buy, on labels large, small and one-person. Other people manage to listen to terrestrial, satellite and internet radio stations and hear new songs. Other people manage to have conversations with friends about what they've been listening to, and read magazines and websites with features and interviews and reviews of new bands. I've been doing all of this for over 40 years. It's no more difficult now than it was when I was a kid. The industry isn't the problem, the problem is people who demand to be spoon-fed.
An excellent overview covering many of the aspects of the current music world. I think you said it well without letting personal opinion of the music get in the way of seeing the whole picture. I think many rock fans just think with their hearts, but you are using your heart and brain to see the whole state of music today. Well said.
Maybe you should step down off of that high horse there. The truth is, music consumption has changed dramatically in the last two decades and it can be challenging for some older listeners to keep up, particularly those who may not be as conversant in all the latest tools and technology. As we all know, the whole music marketplace has become a lot more fragmented and savvy consumers need to be aggressive about seeking out new stuff because it isn't likely to drop in our laps anymore. I'm pretty fortunate in that I'm single and I have a fair amount of free time to comb through various different sites and sample stuff on YouTube, though even I find it to be a little exhausting with so many different choices to absorb--thousands and thousands of bands that I've barely even heard of. Should I expect to be won over on the first listen or should I go back and give bands more of a chance if it didn't gel right away? I can only imagine what it must be like for a busy parent to find new music this way.
Ridiculous. The current streaming services payment/royalty rate system for artists & composers is equally corrupt as any previous royalty arrangements, it's just done through legal loopholes created by entertainment-biz-supported lobbyists now! Spotify Hit With $1.6 Billion Copyright Lawsuit Over Tom Petty, Weezer, Neil Young Songs Sony Reaches Settlement Over Streaming Royalties to 'American Idol' Stars ;;
Some is more derivative than others. But yes, all new music has been influenced (to some degree) by other music. It's the early innovators that interest me the most. The ones that can sustain that innovation, that continue to innovate, are once in a lifetime. The Beatles somehow kept innovating. Until they couldn't anymore because they were played out. They didn't want one song of theirs to sound like another song of theirs. Much of today's Hip hop has become derivative. Rap as well. A formula. And whatever you call Beyoncé's stage show of gyrations and scantily dressed women. It's a formula. Very derivative at this point. Being derivative to some degree, in and of itself, may be impossible to avoid. But if that's mainly what you are...and if you don't break new ground...and if you don't keep breaking new ground... Well, that's enough for many lovers of Rock...just to keep maintaining. Whether its listening to gloom Rock. Or whatever. I've interested in the early stages of a new genre. As it comes into existence and then into early fruition. So, yes, all bands and music have been influenced by some other band or music. But we all know the innovators in the music world, the ones since the 1940's until today. I just happen to think that there aren't many innovators left in the world of today's new Rock. And new genres have left Rock behind...or assimilated some of Rock...while clearly branching beyond Rock. Maybe others disagree and maybe I'm wrong. But that's how I see it.
I make a distinction between R&B/hip hop and rap. But they lump them together. I think R&B/hip hop is actually doing better than rap. Per the article, "Rock is no longer the top dog in music. For the first time ever, R&B/hip-hop has surpassed rock to become the biggest music genre in the U.S. in terms of total consumption, according to Nielsen Music's 2017 year-end report. Eight of the 10 most listened-to artists of the year came from the R&B/hip-hop genre, led by Drake, with 4.8 million album equivalent units (combined album sales, song downloads and streams), and Kendrick Lamar (3.7 million). Rap also experienced the second-highest growth of any genre, spiking 25% over 2016 and coming in just behind Latin music, which was up 30% in total volume. Hip-hop dominated the charts in 2017, with viral hits such as Lil Uzi Vert's XO Tour Llif3, Future's Mask Off and Post Malone's Congratulations ranking among the 10 best-selling tracks of last year, according to BuzzAngle Music and Mediabase. Rap up-and-comers Cardi B (Bodak Yellow) and Migos (Bad and Boujee) each spent multiple weeks atop the Billboard Hot 100 with their respective singles, while four of the five Grammy nominees for album of the year were R&B or hip-hop artists."
If you don't mind DRM, I took these 3 points of your post. Firstly, none of the 60's or 70's bands could match the Beatles everything either-I mean it's the Beatles you've been bringing up - the greatest so we know there's no argument in beating the best already- whether the band is from 1968, 1978, 1988, 1998, 2008, or this year. The Beatles will always win. ----- The early stages of a new genre- is it to the advantage of the earliest bands to have the most chance to innovate? ----- DRM: I just happen to think that there aren't many innovators left in the world of today's new Rock. If I were to change that sentence minutely as write 'I just happen to think that there aren't many innovations left in the world for today's new Rock.' Just being born later than the 60s and 70s groups, rock bands are at a disadvantage. What if today's bands came first in a switch with the band's of yesteryear? Who would have more innovations? --- Let's say on Record Store Day, a record store carries 60 records. Some have been long anticipated and are desired by many. Some are just lesser releases that won't be as good. A bunch of people stand on line for the best (long anticipated) records of the bunch. I'm standing in a line as the 50th person let's say. Will my chance of getting a long anticipated record be less than that of someone who was their earlier, in front of me in line? Probably. I will be left with slim pickings. 60 years into rock music, in 2018, you and I decide to start a rock band. The Beatles and all the great 60's and 70's bands have found and used the innovations of rock. How many innovations can be left for us? What would you and I come up with that hasn't been done already? We would have it harder as a rock band while the rock world was ripe for innovation back in the 60's.
I will admit to being a jaded old fart,who has been listening to music over fifty years.Little new excites me any more.Except maybe some of the modern Arabic music I've discovered on YouTube. Rap/hip hop is now a 40 year old genre,EDM has been around almost 30 years.Both have largely become as boring and predictable as new rock. You can sit and and praise the kids at School of Rock all you want,and I'm sure it's a good thing to keep the music alive for new generations,but I'm not sure I personally would want to see a bunch of 17 year olds doing straight note-for-note covers of "Baba O'Reilley" or "Smells Like Teen Spirit" any more than I would want to see some college big band playing Duke Ellington or Count Basie from the original charts.It doesn't sound authentic to me.I've seen and heard it all before too many times.I don't like tribute bands that fill casinos all over the country ,or bands from the 60s and 70s who go through rote-like sets of the hits,with only one surviving original member for the same reasons.I know a lot people don't feel the same way I do,and I'm sort of in the minority. I think there are a lot of old farts,like me,who seriously miss music that completely changed the world,and that happened so many times in the 20th Century,that we took it for granted.The birth of jazz,with it's own revolutions that upset the proverbial apple cart,from King Oliver and Sidney Bichet to orchestras like Ellington,Herman etc to bop/post-bop,free jazz,fusion and beyond.Rock from the 50s and 60s to prog and punk/post punk.The rise of genres like ska and reggae,and hip hop,out of R&B/soul.Whole genres that rose from the streets and back alleys,challenged the status quo,and became institutions.I think this is what not only a lot of us old geezers miss,but what a lot of those in their teens and twenties feel they missed out on.Music stopped being a shared cultural experience a long time ago.That can never come back.
I don't see why not - they only have two fewer original members of The Who than the band currently playing arenas. As has been pointed out time and time again, everyone starts out playing covers. Learning how to play classic rock...or Ellington...or Bach...is how you learn music from the inside. Once a particular piece is in your head and fingers, that is one more tool you have to draw upon when you start writing your own music. I have plenty of videos of School of Rock kids performing their own songs, and the sad truth is nobody watches them. I disagree with you about both music no longer being a shared cultural experience...as well as the value of that. I spent my teen years seeing pretty much every concert in Kansas City, selling t-shirts, programs and Sno-Cones. Everyone I knew listened to the same radio station. Yet I didn't truly discover my music until I was 18 and saw Kate Bush on Saturday Night Live. Until I met my wife, I was pretty much the only Kate Bush fan in Kansas City, and any "shared cultural experience" about Kate's music was talking about it on the internet or traveling to visit other fans. I get the impression that a lot of people who love classic rock love it because it was what all their friends listened to when they were teens.
WilliamWes, yes to 'I just happen to think that there aren't many innovations left in the world for today's new Rock.'. That's why I added: "And new genres have left Rock behind...or assimilated some of Rock...while clearly branching beyond Rock." Early innovators found a way to innovate when others (perhaps numbering in the thousands or millions) on the scene...at that exact time...may not have been able to. And sometimes new technologies enable those...ready for the new times...and able to take advantage...to become the new innovators. Of course, to keep innovating after that first innovation...often is more difficult. Digital, synthesizers, etc...have broadened the horizon. The Beatles, The Moody Blues, the Who, the Byrds, Yes, Genesis, Todd Rundgren...definitely assimilated analog synths into their music...and were able to keep progressing and moving forward. Likewise, Brian Eno (who greatly assisted the Talking Heads and U2)...and then brought it into the digital age. It's not saying anything horrible against Rock to say its best days are over. (Although, for some, that statement is deeply offensive...) That doesn't mean we can't enjoy the best of classic Rock. Or that some new Rock may be enjoyable for some.
Yes to Rap being largely boring and predictable. Even as Hip hop (I put Drake in that category) is something completely different from Rap. And there is electronic music that's still progressing. That doesn't mean that much of Hip hop and Electronic music hasn't become derivative and formulaic. But some artists are still progressing things forward in those genres. As opposed to Rap and Rock.
Why does the music have to be innovative? Why can't it just be kick@$$? There was nothing particularly innovative about the music of Elvis Costello, for example. It didn't need to be because he's an excellent songwriter. There's nothing all that innovative about the music of Nirvana, but it helped put a vibe in the air that lasted for most of the decade.
Yes, I think you're setting an impossible goal if you say 'OK, I want a new band that really rocks hard, and I want them to be totally original and innovative too!'
One of the things imo that has hurt rock is the mystic has gone. Everything and everyone has become too accessible, through the internet, facebook, etc. That vast gulf between artist and fan has been bridged. Part of rock music is the "rock star" mystic. I know, I know what does that have to do with the music. Nothing. But it did fuel the passion for an artist, especially to spend the big bucks to see them live. The masses have also become more talented in their own right. You don't show up to see a Jimmy Page, Clapton, Van Halen, etc. type play guitar or a great drummer because now there is a 15 year old girl on youtube that can play whatever note for note, on guitar, drums, bass, etc. I remember when the guy that could play the Heartbreaker solo, Crossroads, Eruption etc. note for note was something really special. Now, so what. All I'm saying is part of what made rock so great, the mystic, is gone ... imo.
Was the guy really that special or was he just the only one that you knew about because he lived in your neighborhood or went to your school? Is that 15 year old really more talented or is it just that more people know about her due to youtube? I'd be much more interested in finding out what her own songs sound like, if she's even written any.
It's true, but that started with punk and the punk/alternative/indie scene thrived for decades without having much of a mystique.
I had a couple of friends who were in a rock band who drew the attention of several major record labels. One rep told them after a gig, "if it isn't funk or it isn't rap, keep it home in the garage". That was in 1993 which to me is the height of the grunge rock era.
