A Question About the Modern Music Industry.

[Ilash]

Now, this isn't yet another thread where I relentlessly bash the quality of modern popular music but it is a question about the state of popular music today. After listening a bit to a few "underground/ alternative/ indie" bands and artists such as Ween, Belle and Sebastian and Elliot Smith as well as several others, be it from Uncut Magazine's great cover CDs or from shows like The OC and Scrubs, I started to wonder just WHY modern mainstream music is in such an awful state. Yes, I know there is still the very occasional nugget of good music to be found within the current mainstream music scene but I doubt many people here would argue that it's still a pretty dire scene all in all. And I just don't understand why this is so.

When I first hear about this "underground/ alternative/ indie" thing that offered, well, an alternative from the mainstream, I figured that the kind of music that would be classified under this banner would be the sort of thing that the normal listener simply wouldn't have any interest in listening to. You know, crazy experiments with distortion, Avante Garde or just music that's too "out there" for the average consumer. But the more I listen to this stuff the more I realize that this simply isn't the case at all. Yeah, there is some less listenable stuff out there but there is TONS of good, solid pop music that is about as welcoming and accessible as pop music has ever been. So why is it exactly that this stuff is pushed to obscurity while similarly accessible but significantly worse music is ruling the charts, MTV and the radio?

Yes, yes, I know. The EVIL record companies. But my question is why don't the record companies push the equally accessible "underground" acts as much as the less worthy pop acts we have polluting the airwaves. What we have here is a modern day equivalent of what would happen if the major record companies in the sixties decided to push Herman's Hermits to mainstream success while banishing the Beatles to obscurity. It's insanity. Yes, I get that these record companies are mainly, if not entirely, interested in the bottom line but why not push music that would appeal to a mainstream audience as much as the crap that they're currently putting out but would appeal as much to actual music fans as well?

Any ideas?

[Chiasm]

Rap & Hip hop killed pop music. Thats what the majority of kids and 20 somethings want to listen to. So the radio caters to them. As does MTV. You get the occasional rock or alternative act sneaking in. Currently its groups like Nickleback and Good Charlotte, both of whom are very commercialized acts. Thats the only way you can crack the charts now as a pop / alternative act unless you have a really monster song.

Its also because rap / hip hop still cater a lot to the singles market whereas hard rock / alternative cater more to the album market. Or at least it seems that way.

[howyadoin]

Thats the only way you can crack the charts now as a pop / alternative act unless you have a really monster song.ClearChannel hasn't exactly been helping, either.

[Buried Alien]

Rap & Hip hop killed pop music.

Hooboy...

*Runs for the fire extinguishers*

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[Chiasm]

Hooboy...

*Runs for the fire extinguishers*

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

I'm not slamming it. True, I don't like rap and hip hop but its a simple fact that the rising popularity of rap and hip hop has pushed pop and rock off the airwaves. Rap / hip hop just isn't my thing even though it is the most popular form of music today.

Its no different than saying grunge (Nirvana) killed hair metal. Thats not a slam on grunge any more than I was slamming the similarly true statement with rap / hip hop.

[Chiasm]

I forgot one other way you can make the airwaves as a pop act:

1. Dress like a slut - ala Britney, Christina, Jessica, Mandy (although I give her credit for dropping the slut routine and trying to go straight).

2. Form a boyband with lots of cute guys for early teen girls to moon over (Backstreet, N-Sync, O-Town, etc).

Both are good ways to get rotation on MTV's one hour of videos a day which will lead to commerical radio playing them.

[Patrick Ferguson]

Rap & Hip hop killed pop music. Thats what the majority of kids and 20 somethings want to listen to. So the radio caters to them. As does MTV. You get the occasional rock or alternative act sneaking in. Currently its groups like Nickleback and Good Charlotte, both of whom are very commercialized acts. Thats the only way you can crack the charts now as a pop / alternative act unless you have a really monster song.

Its also because rap / hip hop still cater a lot to the singles market whereas hard rock / alternative cater more to the album market. Or at least it seems that way.

Most hip hop IS pop music. Just as Bing Crosby and the Beach Boys sound nothing alike, George Michael and Outkast are very different. They're all pop.

[Chiasm]

Most hip hop IS pop music. Just as Bing Crosby and the Beach Boys sound nothing alike, George Michael and Outkast are very different. They're all pop.

Well technically its all music. But calling George Michael and Outkast the same genre is really stretching it. Although admittedly I can tolerate Outkast and I vaguely recall liking a George Michael song from way back (the video had all supermodels).

[Adam Crocker]

Rap & Hip hop killed pop music. Thats what the majority of kids and 20 somethings want to listen to. So the radio caters to them. As does MTV. You get the occasional rock or alternative act sneaking in. Currently its groups like Nickleback and Good Charlotte, both of whom are very commercialized acts. Thats the only way you can crack the charts now as a pop / alternative act unless you have a really monster song.

But what is a 'really monster song'? A good one? Because there are tons and tons of acts throughout the course of rock who had GREAT songs, catchy and accessible ones too, but didn't score hits simply because the style wasn't commercially fashionable enough. As such I'm not sure it's simply a matter of rap killing rock music on the radio by pushing out the good stuff. (And it's certainly better than the later half of the 80s or the late 90s for that matter.)

Though I'll be interested in hearing from the board's resident hip-hop heads on what they think of state of hip-hop on the radio. I say this as I've heard no end of complaining from hip-hop fans about the state of hip-hop on the radio as much as rock fans.

When I first hear about this "underground/ alternative/ indie" thing that offered, well, an alternative from the mainstream, I figured that the kind of music that would be classified under this banner would be the sort of thing that the normal listener simply wouldn't have any interest in listening to.

Speaking from personal experience while there was plenty of great strange stuff in 80s alternative rock, it was just as true that the underground served as a refuge for great guitar pop songwriting, such as R.E.M.'s IRS output, the Replacements, Hüsker Dü (and for that matter Bob Mould's band in the 90s, Sugar), the Smiths, the Pixies, etc. etc.

[Chiasm]

By monster song I mean one that is catchy and unique enough to get you airplay. Or (as in my first example) has prominence in a movie or TV show.

Three examples:

1. Bring Me To Life - Evanescence. I love their album. But I know very well that the only reason they got attention was a very catchy first single coupled with a very prominent place in the Daredevil movie - which in fact is what turned me on to them.

2. Clocks - Coldplay. Love them too. And while they had a minor hit with "Yellow" it was this catchy song and the fact that every other movie trailer for a year featured Clocks it that got them to where they are today.

3. Bittersweet Symphony - The Verve - the whole classical music thing was unique enough amongst todays music to get it attention.

[Aelo]

Rap & Hip hop killed pop music. Thats what the majority of kids and 20 somethings want to listen to. So the radio caters to them. As does MTV. You get the occasional rock or alternative act sneaking in. Currently its groups like Nickleback and Good Charlotte, both of whom are very commercialized acts. Thats the only way you can crack the charts now as a pop / alternative act unless you have a really monster song.

Its also because rap / hip hop still cater a lot to the singles market whereas hard rock / alternative cater more to the album market. Or at least it seems that way.

Really now? Hmmm... I'm gonna think about that for a minute...

[howyadoin]

3. Bittersweet Symphony - The Verve - the whole classical music thing was unique enough amongst todays music to get it attention.But unfortunately they sampled that symphonic thing illegally and ended up losing all the royalties to the song.

[zombie]

Its also because rap / hip hop still cater a lot to the singles market whereas hard rock / alternative cater more to the album market. Or at least it seems that way.

There are a lot of people who believe that rap is not suited to albums, and should just be a singles game.

[Punchy]

I'm not slamming it. True, I don't like rap and hip hop but its a simple fact that the rising popularity of rap and hip hop has pushed pop and rock off the airwaves. Rap / hip hop just isn't my thing even though it is the most popular form of music today.

Its no different than saying grunge (Nirvana) killed hair metal. Thats not a slam on grunge any more than I was slamming the similarly true statement with rap / hip hop.
No its not the same thing. You are lumping all rap in with pop music while being more specific with grunge and hair metal.

Rap is not a singular entity. There are great underground hip hop acts and bullshit pop rap acts. To say rap music killed pop is kind of unfounded. Its just the genre du jour for the record companies like singer/songwriters in the 70s, hair metal in the 80s, "alternative" knock-offs in the 90s.

The reason why things are so bad with pop music today is because record companies are losing money and sales are down. Therefore they stick with what is safe for them financially. Sign an artist, make a lot of money off of a couple huge singles, and drop them. That way they stay away from investing a lot of time and finances into a group that doesn't have the potential to score a "big hit" for them and make them money quickly.

[howyadoin]

The reason why things are so bad with pop music today is because record companies are losing money and sales are down. Therefore they stick with what is safe for them financially.Should be interesting to see how the drastic upswing in digital music sales affects things, then.

[KenK]

There are a lot of people who believe that rap is not suited to albums, and should just be a singles game.

Well those people are retarded. Don't listen to them.

There are great underground hip hop acts and bullshit pop rap acts.

Don't get it twisted, there are plenty of underground dudes who are complete ass-cheddar. Some of those cats get a lot of undeserved praise for just doing something different from mainstream acts. And just like how there are mediocre rappers who get by with a tight producer, the same can be said for guys in the underground. There are a lot of obscure acts I probably wouldn't listen to if not for them getting someone like Pete Rock or Premiere to produce for 'em. I like Guru by himself (or whenever he does a Jazzmatazz record), but dammit if I don't prefer to hear him when he's with Premiere.

[PunkMC]

First Welcome to the indie Fold. Let me know if you want recomendations :).

But to answer your question, it's easy, one word, MARKETABILITY. (if that truely is a word).

You can't really market Elliot Smith or Ween to the public as as you can say Blink 182.

But yes there really is a ton of good music out there all people have to do is find it. It does suck that the radio wont catch on, but I think they cater to the mindless music section. (no offense towards anyone) What I mean is most of the masses will just get in their car for the 1 or 2 hours a day and they want to hear something to pass they time. They dont care about the music, they just want something to distract them from their crappy drive home or the bad day at the office. So they love bands like Avenge Sevenfold, who I personally would like to hit with a bat, but sometimes dreams don't come true :(.

The true music lover will go and find the underground / indie music, because I think they truely love the music that much. I dont know it sorta hard to explain. I love recommending new bands to people and then watch radio catch on to them a year or so later. But heh that's just me what do I know.

But I think this is really starting to change. I think that soon MTV and Radio will be switching very soon. Why do I say this? Look at the major music festivals. Bannahroo / Cochella - both of these have TONS of indie bands on there. Last years Lollapalooza was the same way and they are selling out. So people have to know about the bands. I think the indie scene is starting to make it's break, which sorta sucks, but on the same not I'm happy for the bands that have toiled for so long to finally make some real money.

[DDM]

Underground "alternative" music is hard to classify; therefore, the marketing department has a difficult time packaging the band or solo acts. Throughout the 80's, MTV supported underground music with 120 Minutes, but you will not find any counterpart today.

[PunkMC]

Underground "alternative" music is hard to classify; therefore, the marketing department has a difficult time packaging the band or solo acts. Throughout the 80's, MTV supported underground music with 120 Minutes, but you will not find any counterpart today.

MTV2 actually had a program on that similar to this recently..but as usual it's not on anymore.

Now MTV College, (I think that's what it's called) or MTVU whatever they play a ton of Underground / Indie videos... but seeing as how almost no one gets that station I'm guessing it doens't really help.

Oh and Fuse has The Dive. They play the hard to find stuff too.

[Buried Alien]

Essentially, I think that Ilash's query is similar to something that I've been pondering for years. Why is it that today, what's commercially viable and what's artistically satisfying are, more often than not, poles apart, while in earlier eras, the twain between the two met much more often? Technological and demographical issues aside, the recording industry used to be able to meet their monetary goals by promoting the work of the best musicians in the business. As the years have gone by, however, that's become less and less the case. Why?

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[Shellhead]

The listening audience is more fragmented today. Rock has been in decline for years, but still commands great loyalty from older listeners, while rap is doing well and capturing most of the younger listeners. Mainstream pop (and country, which has basically become pop with a twang) sucks right now because it is too safe and too bland. The few corporations that dominate the radio dial chop listeners up into artificial market segments, and then program towards those markets with cold-blooded efficiency.

There is a lot of good new music out there, but finding it and promoting it doesn't seem to be profitable enough for record companies, the radio stations, or even the listeners themselves. So they take the easy way out. They pick the low-hanging fruit, or even some wormy stuff laying on the ground near the tree, and then they tell us that this is the best of the new, so most people just eat it. Once in a while, something great gets airplay too, but that's increasingly rare these days.

[Shellhead]

You can't really market Elliot Smith or Ween to the public as as you can say Blink 182.


Eliot Smith became an even tougher sell to the public after his suicide.

[PunkMC]

Eliot Smith became an even tougher sell to the public after his suicide.

The bad part is...that's when I really got into him :(

[PunkMC]

Essentially, I think that Ilash's query is similar to something that I've been pondering for years. Why is it that today, what's commercially viable and what's artistically satisfying are, more often than not, poles apart, while in earlier eras, the twain between the two met much more often? Technological and demographical issues aside, the recording industry used to be able to meet their monetary goals by promoting the work of the best musicians in the business. As the years have gone by, however, that's become less and less the case. Why?


Again I may be wrong here, but I think the answer to this question comes down to Time. I think it was the same back in the 70's for instance.. actually I'm almost positive it was. The groups that we look back on now as "Classic artists" weren't being played that much on main stream, in that day AM, radio. The real music lovers were listening to FM where they could hear the 6 minute songs. I think in time this will prove true with this generation. Except instead of finding the artists on FM we will look back and say, "Oh Yeah I found them on the net before anyone knew them."

[leonaozaki]

Essentially, I think that Ilash's query is similar to something that I've been pondering for years. Why is it that today, what's commercially viable and what's artistically satisfying are, more often than not, poles apart, while in earlier eras, the twain between the two met much more often? Technological and demographical issues aside, the recording industry used to be able to meet their monetary goals by promoting the work of the best musicians in the business. As the years have gone by, however, that's become less and less the case. Why?

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

It's a good question, and as such there are many answers. The one that comes to my mind right now is essentially that there are too many choices for any kind of consensus to be viable.

One of the things rock 'historians' like to say about the 60's was that white and black music coexisted in the public imagination and on the radio dial. However much that might be an idealization of the past, you can listen to the Beatles and Otis Redding, or the Who and Wilson Pickett, and while I am not foolish enough to say that they are the same, they're not wildly dissimilar, like modern rock and R&B are.

To my ears, this is one of the roots of the fabled consensus of the 60's: most of the music being made back then didn't sound all that different. Now, we can argue about quality forever, but white and black music of that decade was clearly drawing from many of the same source(s).

Moreover, the Velvet Underground aside, there just weren't that many choices with regards to 'underground' music. Even the Doors, who freaked so many people out, had Top 40 success. Also, one's venues for finding out about new music were largely limited to TV and the radio. Don't forget that Rolling Stone didn't even exist until 1967. So just to get heard a band or artist had to hew closer to the mainstream.

As we all know, popular music became increasingly fragmented at the end of the 60’s. Punk sealed the deal on this process, of course, but the older generation didn’t help matters by essentially refusing to admit that anything the punks did had any musical value. Disco played a key role in the diversification of popular music as well, not just because it offended ‘classic rock’ fans so tremendously (although of course it did) but because it proved to music execs that they could make lots of money on selling records that didn’t require a lot of investment in those pesky things like bands, or artists.

Post-1980, all these trends accelerated. The major corporations that determine much of what we hear and what is available for purchase grew and merged. Such corporations found it much more profitable to milk the Next Big Thing for a few hits instead of nurturing them for their career. The music buying populace grew less adventurous as rock turned inward and R&B turned into something that sounds a melismatic mess “sung” over random beeps and clicks.

I don’t think the aggregate level of quality in music has declined. I think the business has changed beyond all recognition. Of course music moguls have always wanted to make money, but from what I’ve read in the 60’s and 70’s there was at least some concern with actual quality. I think that concern largely vanished in the 80’s and beyond.

rob

[Jonathan Bogart]

Technological and demographical issues aside,
Technological and demographical issues aren't aside, though; they're the reason.

The fragmentation of the market mentioned by Shellhead is due to a fragmentation in American culture (which, by extension, means most of what other countries hear, or copy, too). On the most obvious level, in the forty-year span you and Ilash have under consideration, we've gone from having three networks control everything on television to the shocking plenitude of even basic cable today. The rigorous scheduling of television too much for you? Fine, there's the internet, where virtually unlimited content is available for no effort at all. Our grandparents had limited options for entertainment; there is literally no limit today.

Psychologically, the excessive availability of options works a curious trick on our minds. Most of us retreat, in some way, from all the options out there, just for the sake of coherence. (One famous study on children in playgrounds showed that children ran freely all around playgrounds that were fenced in, but huddled towards the center of playgrounds that had no barriers between them and the rest of the world.) Similarly, supermarkets know that the vast majority of their customers aren't comparing prices or reading nutritional-value labels; they just buy what they've bought before.

The hegemony of the major labels, top 40 radio, and what are still fondly referred to as "the music video channels" (ha ha) has been accepted by the majority of music consumers to be that fence between their playground and the rest of the world. It's a protection racket, in a way: the majors get their money, and in return the consumer is protected from having to make a decision.

This, of course, does not ring true to anyone's experience, and I'm not suggesting this is a conscious thing on anyone's part. Because stupid as "information wants to be free" sounds, it's a little bit true in the sense that nobody can have a monopoly on good music, and with the pseudo-democracy of the internet (not free, but cheaper), even distribution is getting harder to monopolize. Not that they won't find a way; I'm reminded of the way radio went from being the province of a million amateur hobbyists in the 20's to being two coast-to-coast networks subject to government regulation in the 40's. Already, most web surfers never leave their tightly-scheduled round of regular stops, almost invariably professional-grade sites.

I'm wandering. (Actually, does that last paragraph even make sense?) Basically, I meant that when there were fewer options, it made financial sense to "run quality programming" (like the BBC); you had every right to expect that at least a certain percentage of your audience will go for it, since there's nothing brighter or shinier available. Today, in the midst of so many options, the people still attempting to make a profit under the old model have no choice but to keep dumbing it down to appeal to the broadest possible market, even if the appeal itself is watered-down. I like a lot of modern radio music, but I don't own any of it; it's enough to hear it a couple of times at random, and then get on to the really cool stuff I'm interested in that doesn't get played on the radio. And that just seems normal now.

the recording industry used to be able to meet their monetary goals by promoting the work of the best musicians in the business. As the years have gone by, however, that's become less and less the case. Why?
It never was the case, for one. The Beatles are an exception; and they're illustrative, too. Capitol loved the money that came pouring in, sure, but they didn't like having to deal with the demands of their stars. One thing about fostering brilliant talent: once they've figured out how rich they're getting other people, they tend to want a piece of the pie. And they can always walk away, like the Beatles did to create Apple. Or break up, which means more loss of revenue. The labels all wanted Beatles knock-offs that they could control, not the Beatles. Even the Monkees, representatives of corporate synergy at its finest, started getting peskily artistic.

Besides, who just wants to meet monetary goals anymore? Unlimited growth is the only way to compete in the modern American business market. Breaking all previous sales records is the new making back your investment. It's that mindset that got the record industry to this point, is sending Hollywood down the crapper, and will ultimately break the back of American commerce.

But me, I've got some field recordings from the 1930s to listen to.


EDIT: I wrote the above while rob was posting his bit. As usual, he gets it righter than me, and is more coherent about it too.

[Adam Crocker]

Disco played a key role in the diversification of popular music as well, not just because it offended ‘classic rock’ fans so tremendously (although of course it did) but because it proved to music execs that they could make lots of money on selling records that didn’t require a lot of investment in those pesky things like bands, or artists.

Post-1980, all these trends accelerated. The major corporations that determine much of what we hear and what is available for purchase grew and merged. Such corporations found it much more profitable to milk the Next Big Thing for a few hits instead of nurturing them for their career.

Sandy Perleman actually said as much when being interviewed about file sharing for Punk Planet. He said that Saturday Night Fever basically taught the music industry the very bad lesson that they could sell millions through a few promotable mega-hits instead of promoting a larger number artists who sold in the hundreds of thousands.

(That said Disco also made music heavily based on rhythm acceptable to the mainstream. And while that paved the way for modern R&B dross and crappy 80s mainstream dance music of the Stock-Aitken-Waterman variety, it also opened the way for synth-pop, the better dance-electronica, and the eventual ascension of hip-hop.)

[Shellhead]

(That said Disco also made music heavily based on rhythm acceptable to the mainstream. And while that paved the way for modern R&B dross and crappy 80s mainstream dance music of the Stock-Aitken-Waterman variety, it also opened the way for synth-pop, the better dance-electronica, and the eventual ascension of hip-hop.)

I suppose that's true enough in modern terms. But I think that humans throughout history have enjoyed music heavily based on rythym, because it seems like every culture was playing the drums in the early days. From the Master Musicians of Jajouka in Morocco, to the taiko drummers in Japan, to the modern native american tribal gatherings, you can still hear the sound of traditional drumming.

[howyadoin]

Technological and demographical issues aren't aside, though; they're the reason.You definitely nailed that one.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Essentially, I think that Ilash's query is similar to something that I've been pondering for years. Why is it that today, what's commercially viable and what's artistically satisfying are, more often than not, poles apart, while in earlier eras, the twain between the two met much more often?


I think you're guilty here of nostalgic BS, BA. I can't think of any time in thie history of recorded music when quality and success were substantially any more - or less - connected than is the case now. Many of the earliest big hits were essentially lame novelty songs. In the sixties, there were any number of crappy, derivative bands that oversold the Velvet Underground at something like a 100:1 ratio. Shawn Cassidy probably sold more albums during his brief heyday than Tom Waits has sold in his entire career.

The difference here is mainly that there is less music coming out right now that *you personally like. * Well, me too, but I'm not going to pretend that just because a lot of the current pop stuff leaves me cold, that my times were necessarily any better. 70s? Crappy bands like Journey, Kansas, America and Bread sold tons of albums. 80s? Shitty bands like Flock of Seagulls and Ratt were mega-successful. For every deserved success, every true quality band or performer that hits it big - for every Sinatra or Elvis or Beatles or Hendrix or Talking Heads or Prince or Guns'n'Roses, there is the inexplicable and embarrassing success of someone like Cliff Richard or the Captain and Tennile or MC Hammer or Corey Hart or ... what's his name, that "Achey Breaky Heart" asshole?... and there's also someone like Marshall Crenshaw or Frank Zappa who never found the deserved audience.

[Adam Crocker]

I suppose that's true enough in modern terms. But I think that humans throughout history have enjoyed music heavily based on rythym, because it seems like every culture was playing the drums in the early days. From the Master Musicians of Jajouka in Morocco, to the taiko drummers in Japan, to the modern native american tribal gatherings, you can still hear the sound of traditional drumming.

They have. I guess I should have been more clear that I was talking about the anglo-American pop music market.

[Spike-X]

...I started to wonder just WHY modern mainstream music is in such an awful state.

Any ideas?

Most people prefer shit.

[PunkMC]

Most people prefer shit.
You know the man does make a good point here.

[Ilash]

Sorry. Been away from computer for a while. Some great points have been brought up and I'll get back to them soon.

[Ilash]

Most people prefer shit.

Yeah, which is why the Beatles are the biggest selling band ever.

Sorry but I just don't think it's nearly so simple.

[Jonathan Bogart]

Yeah, which is why the Beatles are the biggest selling band ever.
Are they, though? Really? You have any actual numbers?

I would've thought the Eagles or someone had surpassed them by the early 1990s.

[Jonathan Bogart]

According to this site (http://www.philbrodieband.com/muso_solo_bestselling_albums.htm), there are plenty of top-selling albums ahead of any Beatles record. And this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best-selling_music_artist) Wikipedia article notes how difficult it is to make the case one way or another. I assume you'd say that the Beatles are light-years better than Michael Jackson or Elvis Presley, so by your criteria the top three contenders for the spot are decidedly mixed.

I'm sick of the critical sacrosanctity of the Beatles, anyway. They were good, but the only reason they're considered the peak of Twentieth Century Music is because people consider them the peak of Twentieth Century Music. (Like various comic books like to suggest for religions, it's people's belief in the gods that gives the gods their power.)

[Ilash]

According to this site (http://www.philbrodieband.com/muso_solo_bestselling_albums.htm), there are plenty of top-selling albums ahead of any Beatles record. And this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best-selling_music_artist) Wikipedia article notes how difficult it is to make the case one way or another. I assume you'd say that the Beatles are light-years better than Michael Jackson or Elvis Presley, so by your criteria the top three contenders for the spot are decidedly mixed.

I'm sick of the critical sacrosanctity of the Beatles, anyway. They were good, but the only reason they're considered the peak of Twentieth Century Music is because people consider them the peak of Twentieth Century Music. (Like various comic books like to suggest for religions, it's people's belief in the gods that gives the gods their power.)

No, I consider them to be the peak of Twentieth Century Music because that's exactly what they were. No other musician had their track record of releasing as much great music with so little filler in so short a time while breaking all sorts of musical boundaries. They are the ultimate case of commercial accessibility colliding perfectly with artistic integrity. I've heard a fair amount of 20th century music and though I love a lot of it, like even more of it, no one comes close to the Beatles.

As for your first point. No the best selling album of all time is probably not a Beatles album but when you look at their total output, as far as I know, they still are unmatched. More importantly though, no band or musian has engrained themselves in the public consciousness, even now, 36 years after their breakup. I don't care if the Eagles greatest hits is the biggest selling album of all time, they certainly can't come close to matching the Beatles in this matter.

[Ilash]

First Welcome to the indie Fold. Let me know if you want recomendations :).


Thanks. Any yes, I always am on the lookout for good music but my true musical love does lie in the music of the mid-sixties through mid-seventies.


But to answer your question, it's easy, one word, MARKETABILITY. (if that truely is a word).

You can't really market Elliot Smith or Ween to the public as as you can say Blink 182.


True, Ween are a bad example. They're much to weird and vulgar for most people's tastes. Elliot Smith, Belle and Sebastian and others like them are such easily accessible music that I don't get why the aren't/ weren't bigger. And there are tons of others like them who's names I just can't recall off hand.

But yes there really is a ton of good music out there all people have to do is find it. It does suck that the radio wont catch on, but I think they cater to the mindless music section. (no offense towards anyone) What I mean is most of the masses will just get in their car for the 1 or 2 hours a day and they want to hear something to pass they time. They dont care about the music, they just want something to distract them from their crappy drive home or the bad day at the office. So they love bands like Avenge Sevenfold, who I personally would like to hit with a bat, but sometimes dreams don't come true :(.


Totally true. But why can't they release music that works just as well as background noise and good music?


The true music lover will go and find the underground / indie music, because I think they truely love the music that much. I dont know it sorta hard to explain. I love recommending new bands to people and then watch radio catch on to them a year or so later. But heh that's just me what do I know.


While I get the appeal of the cultish nature of Indie music, I would trade that in an instant for the more "communal" feel of when music actually unites a large group of people rather than the opposite.


But I think this is really starting to change. I think that soon MTV and Radio will be switching very soon. Why do I say this? Look at the major music festivals. Bannahroo / Cochella - both of these have TONS of indie bands on there. Last years Lollapalooza was the same way and they are selling out. So people have to know about the bands. I think the indie scene is starting to make it's break, which sorta sucks, but on the same not I'm happy for the bands that have toiled for so long to finally make some real money.

Wait, why would that suck?

[Ilash]

Underground "alternative" music is hard to classify; therefore, the marketing department has a difficult time packaging the band or solo acts. Throughout the 80's, MTV supported underground music with 120 Minutes, but you will not find any counterpart today.

That's 'cause there is no such thing as Indie music! Seriously, I hate it when stores have two sections, one for pop/rock and one for Indie/ alternative. Indie music simply means that it's distributed on smaller, more specialised record labels. It is not a musical genre at all. I mean, do you honestly mean to tell me that bands like Belle and Sebastian and Wheezer who are placed under the "alternative" label are actually more alternative than, say, King Crimson, Captain Beefheart and Barret-era Pink Floyd, who would be placed under the normal pop/rock label?

[howyadoin]

While I get the appeal of the cultish nature of Indie music, I would trade that in an instant for the more "communal" feel of when music actually unites a large group of people rather than the opposite.You missed the alt.rock movement by about 13 years.

[Ilash]

It's a good question, and as such there are many answers. The one that comes to my mind right now is essentially that there are too many choices for any kind of consensus to be viable.

One of the things rock 'historians' like to say about the 60's was that white and black music coexisted in the public imagination and on the radio dial. However much that might be an idealization of the past, you can listen to the Beatles and Otis Redding, or the Who and Wilson Pickett, and while I am not foolish enough to say that they are the same, they're not wildly dissimilar, like modern rock and R&B are.

To my ears, this is one of the roots of the fabled consensus of the 60's: most of the music being made back then didn't sound all that different. Now, we can argue about quality forever, but white and black music of that decade was clearly drawing from many of the same source(s).


Ummm...

I do see what you're saying here. I just hate to say that the music from the sixties all sounded the same simply because there were so many different things going on at the time. And yet, I do see where you're coming from because it does seem to me from personal experience that once you've developed an ear for sixties music, you will probably land up liking most of the different stuff from then. And yes, you can't say that about today. But then why not just market black and white music seperately? Yes, it's a big step backwards but it would reflect reality more. So again, keep rap and hip hop as is and push the more accessible of the "whiter" indie pop and rock more to the mainstream.


Moreover, the Velvet Underground aside, there just weren't that many choices with regards to 'underground' music. Even the Doors, who freaked so many people out, had Top 40 success. Also, one's venues for finding out about new music were largely limited to TV and the radio. Don't forget that Rolling Stone didn't even exist until 1967. So just to get heard a band or artist had to hew closer to the mainstream.

As we all know, popular music became increasingly fragmented at the end of the 60’s. Punk sealed the deal on this process, of course, but the older generation didn’t help matters by essentially refusing to admit that anything the punks did had any musical value. Disco played a key role in the diversification of popular music as well, not just because it offended ‘classic rock’ fans so tremendously (although of course it did) but because it proved to music execs that they could make lots of money on selling records that didn’t require a lot of investment in those pesky things like bands, or artists.

Post-1980, all these trends accelerated. The major corporations that determine much of what we hear and what is available for purchase grew and merged. Such corporations found it much more profitable to milk the Next Big Thing for a few hits instead of nurturing them for their career. The music buying populace grew less adventurous as rock turned inward and R&B turned into something that sounds a melismatic mess “sung” over random beeps and clicks.


No arguments here. Problem is that then the blame basically falls on most people not wanting the music they listen to to be interesting. Why is this? That wasn't really the case back then when Pink Floyd, Cream, Led Zeppelin, Bob Dylan, Jefferson Airplane, The Beatles (obviously), The Rolling Stones, The Band and many others released good, exciting, risky UNSAFE music that managed to chart and chart well? Why can't a good indie band that aren't even half as adventurous as even the safer of these guys chart now? What has changed in the listening public?


I don’t think the aggregate level of quality in music has declined. I think the business has changed beyond all recognition. Of course music moguls have always wanted to make money, but from what I’ve read in the 60’s and 70’s there was at least some concern with actual quality. I think that concern largely vanished in the 80’s and beyond.
rob

True but I think the only way the aggregate level of music hasn't declined is if there are more good bands now than there were back then because, however much I like a lot of what i've heard, that newness, freshness, uniqueness, true greatness that defined the best of the classic rock giants cannot be found today. That's not a criticism on these newer artists but simply a fact that modern popular music, as it stands, has been around a long time and it just gets to a point where there simply aren't that many new ideas left. This is something i don't really want to get into now because it is a WHOLE other discussion but that's just my feeling on the matter and nothing I've heard has changed my mind on this.

[Ilash]

You missed the alt.rock movement by about 13 years.

Yeah but what about TODAY?

[Ilash]

One other thing, on a semi-related note. Aside for the fact that music companies are neglecting good music, even their manufactured throwaway bubblegum music is worse than what it was in the 60s. Compare the Backstreet Boys to the Monkees to see just how true this is. Honestly, regardless of who wrote and performed Last Train to Clarksville and I'm a Believer, these manufactured ditties are a hundered times better than most of the stuff on the radio nowadays, be they similarly manufactured ditties or the "original" music of, well, just about anyone really. I guess that's the difference with being forced to manufacture bands that could stand up to the Beatles, verses manufacturing bands that have to stand up to Mariah FREAKIN Carey.

[(A)//(E)]

STZA of Leftover Crack sums up how I feel about the music industry in the song "Clear Channel (Fuck Off!)"
It goes a little something like this:

Clear Channel (Fuck Off!) by Scott 'STZA" Sturgeon and Leftover Crack

The Sovereign Insincerity The monopoly of greed
Nickleback, POD, Rancid, Britany and Creed
The Bureaucrats they leech upon to mediocre trends
Your song in heavy rotation from the cash your label spends
From the products you promote for the ones who foot the bill
A Prefabricated goose-step for the pockets that you fill
The monotony of censored products shine in the display
The same old song of compromise went platinum today.

From town to town and state to state
The same old song you love to hate
The same shit stacked upon your plate
rotate again and syndicate
We've been waiting far too long
too change the band, too change the song
through every day and dusk and dawn
We've been brain-washed to sing along
No difference between the hot new single
& the Pepsi ads commercial jingle
The beauty's withered faded crinkle
Just sip the coke and pop the pringles
The boardroom is the dragons lair
They play us shit 'cuz they dont care
The clearest channel plays unfair
we all want you off the air
Overdose on shoddy culture; mediocre trends
Auto-Tune the bottom line as a mean to meet the ends
Merging corporate empires create the ill conglomerations
and buy up to reprogram major market radio stations

Fabricate one single voice broadcast from sea to sea
What once held notions of change and choice
is now being controlled fully
Deregulations raised the edge of expolitations bar
Politics replaced by "bling" and clothes and fancy cars
Trapped imaginations from the video's blinding light
Bombarded with monotony that captivates the sight

The channel we've been tuned to is all frigid, blank and clear
Told what to eat and drink and buy and whom to hate and fear
Poisoned by the fairy-tale, A capitalistic dream
Go to sleep, You're free and brave, and on the winning team

"They figured out a long time ago that it is much easier to control people when we're all watching the same TV shows, listening to the same radio stations, going to the same movies, looking at the same billboards, eating the same food, and speaking the same language."

[Saracen Pig! Spartan Dog!]

Bannahroo / Cochella - both of these have TONS of indie bands on there. Last years Lollapalooza was the same way and they are selling out.

Bonnaroo2006 has the following artists signed up to perform: Common, Sonic Youth, Son Volt, Blues Traveler, Steve Earle, Nickel Creek, Ricky Skaggs & Kentucky Thunder, G. Love & Special Sauce, Dr. John, Damian Marley, Buddy Guy, The Neville Brothers, Death Cab For Cutie, Bonnie Raitt, Elvis Costello 7 The Imposters, Beck, Phil Lesh & Friends, Radiohead, Tom Petty 7 The Heartbreakers.

None of those come anywhere near the definition of an "indie act."

As for Lollapalooza being a sell-out, please. There were more then 15,000 unsold tickets.

[Pepsigirl]

Bonnaroo2006 has the following artists signed up to perform: Common, Sonic Youth, Son Volt, Blues Traveler, Steve Earle, Nickel Creek, Ricky Skaggs & Kentucky Thunder, G. Love & Special Sauce, Dr. John, Damian Marley, Buddy Guy, The Neville Brothers, Death Cab For Cutie, Bonnie Raitt, Elvis Costello 7 The Imposters, Beck, Phil Lesh & Friends, Radiohead, Tom Petty 7 The Heartbreakers.

None of those come anywhere near the definition of an "indie act."


Yes, but it also has Cat Power, My Morning Jacket, Atmosphere, Stephen Malkmus, The Dresden Dolls, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, Devendra Banhart, Mike Doughty, Dungen, Andrew Bird, dios (malos), and others. He wasn't saying that the lineup was all Indie bands, just that it had a lot of them.

[Jonathan Bogart]

Seriously, I hate it when stores have two sections, one for pop/rock and one for Indie/ alternative.
What? I've never seen a store do that, and I've been buying music everywhere I can find it for years.

....but that's just my feeling on the matter and nothing I've heard has changed my mind on this.
Rinse, wash, repeat.

[Ilash]

What? I've never seen a store do that, and I've been buying music everywhere I can find it for years.


Ah, yes but you don't live in South Africa. They do it all over the bloody place over here.

[PunkMC]

Sonic Youth, Son Volt, Death Cab For Cutie

As Pepsigirl pointed out I wasn't saying it was Indie acts. But the acts listed above would IMOH still be considered Indie.

Sonic Youth is THE quintessential indie act. Yes people know them now, but are still considered undgeround with acts like Yo La Tengo and Fugazi.

Son Volt. I bet half the people on this board don't even know who Son Volt is.

Death Cab for Cutie is again another Indie. They have 2 albums out, only one of those are a major lable release. Again most everyday people won't know who they are, unless they are following the music scene.

[zombie]

Death Cab for Cutie is again another Indie. They have 2 albums out, only one of those are a major lable release. Again most everyday people won't know who they are, unless they are following the music scene.

Or watch The OC.

[Expletive Deleted]

Video killed the radio star, of course.

I *heart* Iron and Wine, but Sam Beam ain't exactly teen idol material.

[PunkMC]

Or watch The OC.
They'd still have no idea who they are. They would just be oh I heard that song on the O.C. .. is that The Dandy Warhols?

[howyadoin]

Yeah but what about TODAY?Today, from what I can see, music is a lot more fragmented than it was then.

But really, so what? The alt.rock thing was great for people like myself who grew up on fringe music; it was a mass, culture-wide validation, basically. It was a pretty exciting few years, and it did wonders for my self esteem, but it was followed immediately by all the Mouseketeer kids and their plastic friends, so it's not like it changed the world forever.

And it's not as if the people it united are still united, either.

[Adam Crocker]

But really, so what? The alt.rock thing was great for people like myself who grew up on fringe music; it was a mass, culture-wide validation, basically. It was a pretty exciting few years, and it did wonders for my self esteem, but it was followed immediately by all the Mouseketeer kids and their plastic friends, so it's not like it changed the world forever.

I'm not so sure about that. As much as I despise the mall punk and mall emo thing, they have become a seemingly permanent fixture in the popular music landscape, it was Nirvana that paved the way for that. And chance would the Strokes, the Hives, the White Stripes, the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, etc. or the bands that followed them such as Interpol or Franz Ferdinand if the alt. rock explosion hadn't legitimized post-punk aesthetics in the North American mainstream to a certain degree?

[howyadoin]

I'm not so sure about that. As much as I despise the mall punk and mall emo thing, they have become a seemingly permanent fixture in the popular music landscape, it was Nirvana that paved the way for that. And chance would the Strokes, the Hives, the White Stripes, the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, etc. or the bands that followed them such as Interpol or Franz Ferdinand if the alt. rock explosion hadn't legitimized post-punk aesthetics in the North American mainstream to a certain degree?Y'know, that's a good point. I guess I tend to think of their success as more a consumer reaction against Britney and N' Sync than a continuation of what the alt.rock acts were doing, but it's not necessarily that simple.

[Maleficentogre]

A lot of people know about death cab for cutie. People that I know aren't big into the music industry's deep underground. I'm talking pure radio listeners. So I wouldn't put the indie label on them.
I don't much mind modern music. I don't listen to a lot of it but what I do hear I like. That said there's a lot of modern music I don't listen to. Like that whiny I want to kill myself music. Any genre of depressing music is a no go for me.