|
Grex > Music2 > #112: Changes in the Music Business | |
|
| Author |
Message |
krj
|
|
Changes in the Music Business
| 
Feb 4 01:49 UTC 1998 |
Here's an interesting item on changes in the music business which appeared
in last Wednesday's New York Times. If I haven't dallied too long, the
full article might still be available on their web site.
(http://www.nytimes.com (search the archive for "boomer"))
January 28, 1998
Restless Young Music Fans Hungry for the New
...
A new generation gap is opening up among rock and pop
fans. The difference isn't necessarily in the kind of
music baby boomers and their children listen to. After
all, Oasis emulates the Beatles, Hanson tries to be the
Jackson Five, and members of Pearl Jam are avowed fans
of the Who and Led Zeppelin.
What's different is the way they consume that music: the
elders stood by their favorite bands while the young
constantly chase after the new.
Record industry executives say pop music, particularly
rock, is changing from a genre that gave rise to career
artists (the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan,
Michael Jackson) to one supported by a succession of
young, transient acts.
And in the concert industry, which earns most of its
revenue from baby-boomer bands, executives are beginning
to panic because most of these younger acts are not
building a loyal fan base and their ticket sales are
languishing compared with the success of their albums.
...
((back to KRJ))
One factor here, I suspect, is the increasing stretch between releases.
In the sixties bands tended to produce 2-3 albums per year; in the seventies
that slowed to one per year; now we are to 2-4 years between albums
for "major" artists.
I'd always blamed this on the rise of the accountants to control of
the music business. But a long-lost Wall Street Journal article
claimed that the long delays between albums were due to the rise
of global touring.
|
| 189 responses total. |
bruin
|
|
response 1 of 189:
|
Feb 4 02:22 UTC 1998 |
RE #0 Also in the sixties, pop albums usually consisted of two or three hit
singles and nine or ten cover songs or other less-remembered efforts. And
before the Beatles hit the scene big time in 1964, most albums concentrated
on Mom and Dad's favorite pop singers.
|
scott
|
|
response 2 of 189:
|
Feb 4 17:19 UTC 1998 |
Actually, there used to be a lot of transient acts. Acts like the Beatles
broke out of the disposable pop arena into what has become the standard, acts
that last. We may get back to the "producer" era, where producers like Phil
Spector or Barry Gordie (Motown) applied their specific sound to a series of
mostly-forgotten "artists". Look at Don Was's rep these days, or Jam & Lewis
back in the 80's...
|
mcnally
|
|
response 3 of 189:
|
Feb 4 18:58 UTC 1998 |
I think you're already seeing that to some extent in the rap & hip-hop
scene -- producers are quite prominent, have a great deal of influence
over the sound, and in an increasing number of cases are better known
than the acts they're producing..
Who, though, were "Jam & Lewis"? Completely doesn't ring a bell for me
even when I rack my brains for influential producers of the 80's..
|
carson
|
|
response 4 of 189:
|
Feb 4 19:28 UTC 1998 |
(Jimmy Jam & Terry Lewis. biggest claim to fame that comes to mind
is their production work for Janet Jackson.)
(I agree with mcnally's assessment of producers in the hip-hop scene,
and would add that such influence seems to moving into the R&B category
as well.)
(I'd hypothesize that the reason for the disinterest in live music
is that the current generation is more interested in watching videos
than concerts, and most of the current acts are more interested in
making videos than music, at least in the pop genre.)
|
orinoco
|
|
response 5 of 189:
|
Feb 6 03:54 UTC 1998 |
Well, there are still live music followers, but it's more of a cult thing.
I mean, there always have been and always will be bands - the Dead and Phish
being the classic examples, but also most jazz and funk - who exist for the
purpose of playing live. What you see less of nowadays is mainstream bands
touring constantly with as much success as they used to be able to.
|
teflon
|
|
response 6 of 189:
|
Feb 6 23:38 UTC 1998 |
be able to what? (SF! SF!)
|
orinoco
|
|
response 7 of 189:
|
Feb 7 03:17 UTC 1998 |
(You're wrong, but I'll fight with you about it elsewhere)
|
cyklone
|
|
response 8 of 189:
|
Feb 7 14:20 UTC 1998 |
Didn't Jam and Lewis also produce the Time?
|
lumen
|
|
response 9 of 189:
|
Feb 8 06:06 UTC 1998 |
I assume I'll probably stick with my bands. I don't chase new trends-- I find
an act or group I like, and I usually choose well enough that I'll continue
to stay with their music.
"Video killed the radio star," as the Biggles sang, but I would agree the
music concert seems to be less of a main attraction than music videos, thanks
to MTV. However, I don't think the groups themselves want to always do a
music video-- I heard someone suggest the proliferation is usually contractual
obligation. Maybe it's the abstract artist in me, but there are some really
CRAPPY videos out there. I often find I need to go to VH1's Pop Up Video for
80's videos, or to MTV's show AMP for techno videos for something interesting.
|
krj
|
|
response 10 of 189:
|
Feb 9 18:42 UTC 1998 |
Undoubtedly I'm just whining for the loss of a golden age
which never existed. :)
But I really lament the loss of this sense of "relationship" that I used
to have with a number of bands and performers. I miss the feeling that
you could look forward to a release from someone -- it would be
approximately an annual event -- and then you would spend a while
listening to the album, just because of who had put it out, rather than
dashing off in search of the next cheap thrill.
Three of the last performers who I had this sort of special
bond with, I feel let down by and lost with in recent years:
Richard Thompson, R.E.M., the Oyster Band; my runs with those bands
went 20 years, 10 years and 8 years, respectively. The only band
that I still feel that tie to is Hedningarna.
Sifting and searching for someone new is getting to be more and more of
a chore... there was a quote which I thought was from that same NY Times
article, but which is apparently from a source which I have now lost:
there are over 700 new albums released each week.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 11 of 189:
|
Feb 9 20:28 UTC 1998 |
Hhhhm. I tend to do this with only a few performers, and those are
usually the ones which I have loved for many yaers (James Keelaghan,
Archie Fisher, Garnet Rogers, and Dougie MacLean are all immediate
no-questions-asked buy-it-asap, if not sooner artists for me). I tend
not to do it for bands as much as singers, though the Oyster Band is still
one of my top ten favorites, and I do buy all of their releases the same
day as they come out. Erm. Mustard's Retreat, too. I have stopped doing
this for most everyone else, simply because most of the other bands that I
likehave had personell changes which have altered their sound enough that I
need to listen a bit before I buy their newest products.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 12 of 189:
|
Feb 9 22:20 UTC 1998 |
re #10: I share Ken's lament -- partly release schedules are too shaky
and delays too long to invest much excitement in waiting for a favorite
act's upcoming release, partly those releases have often disappointed
me in recent years.. Either way I no longer wait with bated breath the
way I used to, to the point where the fact that a favorite act has a new
recording out often takes me completely by surprise..
I've noticed that this has had a substantial effect on my record-buying
habits -- without regular releases to look forward to, and already
posessing a large share of the available recordings of artists I know
I like, and without decent channels to introduce me to new artists
(I certainly don't pick up much from radio play and I don't have time to
read much in newsgroups or the music press..) I buy records at only a
small fraction of the rate I used to..
|
anderyn
|
|
response 13 of 189:
|
Feb 10 20:39 UTC 1998 |
Hhhm. Interesting. I didn't buy albums very fast in the eighties, well,
I bougth some things, but usually only after I'd been exposed via radio/
someone else's copy. Now (and particularly in the last several years)
I buy a LOT more. I will take a flyer on compilations especially, but
I also know what I like, and I have a lot more confidence now when I go
to the store. I don't ALWAYS buy something when I go to the music store, but
I know what kinds of things I might like, and check those bins accordingly.
|
lumen
|
|
response 14 of 189:
|
Feb 12 01:56 UTC 1998 |
Ah, see, but you've got it all wrong! What got me glued to Depeche Mode was
I went back to buy old albums I hadn't heard yet, searched for b-sides, and
just whatever material I could yet! I did that when "Songs of Faith And
Devotion" was a disappointment for me. Then by the time _Ultra_ came out,
I was happy :)
Is there an unwritten rule that says you can't go backwards chronologically
in a discography? Well, okay, I know a few here have just bought massive
amounts of recordings of their faves to begin with, but who says it has to
be new? If it's good enough, it should stand the test of time..and if not,
well, I'm just a freak :)
I still for the most part buy according to the way Twila used to..I am poor
enough right now that I won't risk buying ANYTHING bad.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 15 of 189:
|
Feb 12 03:52 UTC 1998 |
Well, my interest in King Crimson is pretty much all backwards - of the two
albums and one EP that have come out since I've been following them, one -
Thrakkattak - was horrendous, and only the album THRAK was really worthwhile.
Their older stuff, OTOH, is incredible.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 16 of 189:
|
Feb 12 06:49 UTC 1998 |
I don't even much like "Thrak", probably because I was a fan before then..
I suspect I'd like it much better if I hadn't heard their other albums
first but it's pretty weak in comparison..
|
orinoco
|
|
response 17 of 189:
|
Feb 13 04:56 UTC 1998 |
If only for the 'noise' songs - VROOM, B'BOOM, and THRAK, it was worthwhile.
The rest was quite weak indeed.
|
krj
|
|
response 18 of 189:
|
Feb 26 22:29 UTC 1998 |
How has the rise of the net changed your interaction with the
music business?
|
krj
|
|
response 19 of 189:
|
Mar 13 05:35 UTC 1998 |
Mmm, I'm surprised no one wanted to chip in on this one.
One thing I have noticed is that sound samples on the web put me
off buying far more albums than they encourage me to buy.
Usually I hear a 30-second sample by a band, and that convinces me
that I don't need them in my life. This is good for me -- anything which
discourages CD shopping is good for me -- but if it is a widespread
behavior it isn't going to encourage such marketing by labels and
artists.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 20 of 189:
|
Mar 14 19:04 UTC 1998 |
yep.. there are a number of records I've been interested in that I've
declined to pursue after hearing small snippets on web pages.. of course
I usually hate the single from any given album, too -- almost invariably
the most popular song winds up being among my least favorites even with
very popular artists..
|
krj
|
|
response 21 of 189:
|
Apr 7 04:44 UTC 1998 |
There are a couple of news stories which I will try not to garble
as I pass them along.
Monday's New York Times had a piece on how the corporate record biz
is trying to deal with the development of the MP3 format as a
convenient way for fans to swap recordings.
All Things Considered had a short story picked up from Billboard
which reported that women now form a majority of CD buyers.
IIRC, the percentage of CD buyers who are women has risen from
43% a few years back, to 51% this year.
The Billboard writer suggested several explanations:
-- Record stores have been traditionally male-dominated territory,
but CD retailing has moved into Wal-Mart superstores and into
bookstores such as Borders
-- Guys are spending more money on videogames and computer stuff.
-- The charts are currently dominated by acts which skew towards a
female audience, most notably with the Spice Girls, Celine Dion, and
the TITANIC soundtrack. There's a shortage of top-selling
"guy music" right now. This will probably change.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 22 of 189:
|
Apr 8 02:54 UTC 1998 |
Actually, the skew towards females began a while back. A friend of mine who
was in radio promo for many years tried to get into the A & R end. Back in
1993 his industry contacts were telling him they were mostly interested in
female acts. Whether this was a desire to sell more to women or not I don't
know.
|
lumen
|
|
response 23 of 189:
|
Apr 9 23:06 UTC 1998 |
Hrmm..definitely, female artists have recently been allowed to come more into
their own-- that might be another facet of explanation #3
|
mcnally
|
|
response 24 of 189:
|
May 7 06:12 UTC 1998 |
I've been thinking more tonight about how the web has been changing
the music scene -- lately the process has started to become much more
noticable.. A couple of things that I think are significant developments:
1) the MP3 format is really taking off and bootlegs, live recordings,
homemade stuff, etc. are flying around the net everywhere you look.
the record companies seem to be waking up and recognizing it as a
threat to their industry control -- and when they're gouging $16.99
for new CDs these days with CD-R media under $1 (in quantity) perhaps
they have good reason to fear a popular free format, distribution
channels outside of their control, and a network of hobbyist and fan
sites far too numerous for them to find and stop them all..
2) artists are waking up to the possibilities of the web. up until now
it's mostly been amateurish fan-run sites or glossy, content-free
record-company sponsored stuff but many artists are really starting
to explore the "new" possibilities. One particularly interesting
example that I've spent a good portion of the evening exploring is
Roger McGuinn's "Folk Den" site (http://www.salonmag.com/21st/reviews
for an article about the site, http://sunsite.unc.edu/jimmy/folkden/
for the site itself.) Best known for his lead role in the
influential (and underappreciated, I think) 60s band the Byrds,
McGuinn has actively embraced the growth of Internet as a
communications channel, actively participating, for example, in
the Usenet group alt.music.byrds. Lately he's been exploring his
interest in traditional folk music. Believing commercial interest
in a collection of traditional folk songs to be limited, he has
instead built an archive of such performances and made them
available for free for non-commercial use via the web, adding one
performance a month for over two years now..
As a Byrds fan I have to say that the performances are merely OK --
not knockouts in any way, still, it's the idea I find exciting.
I think we'll see greater and greater numbers of established,
successful performers doing such things to distribute their
non-commercial pet projects to their fans and I think it'll be an
interesting process to watch develop..
[readers who come along later, please note: the www.salonmag.com
URL for the article about "Folk Den" will change with time..
I add it for the benefit of those music conference participants
who are reading around the date on which I write this..]
|