|
Grex > Music > #19: The Twenty-fourth "Napsterization" Item |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 20 new of 46 responses total. |
mcnally
|
|
response 27 of 46:
| 
Jun 9 21:26 UTC 2006 |
re #25: It's hard to mix and match statistics. With half as many
independent stores selling music as there were in 2000, you'd expect
there to be fewer sales at independent retailers (in fact, if sales
figures were level per store you'd expect there to be about half as
many sales.) So knowing that sales declined 27% last year certainly
sounds alarming but may be more complicated to intrepret than that..
|
scholar
|
|
response 28 of 46:
|
Jun 10 00:37 UTC 2006 |
i once bought a cd in st. louis!
|
jenevious
|
|
response 29 of 46:
|
Jun 10 21:42 UTC 2006 |
soul coughing
|
krj
|
|
response 30 of 46:
|
Jun 13 17:56 UTC 2006 |
Norman Lebrecht, Mr. Doom and Gloom, writes on the shutdown of Warner
Classics, the classical music division of Warner Music Group.
Warner takes with it a bunch of European labels I had been fond of,
like Erato, Teldec and Finlandia.
So there are only three active classical music divisions left
among the major labels.
Lebrecht writes that the major label classical divisions are down
to about 36 releases a year of "serious" classical music.
http://www.scena.org/columns/lebrecht/060612-NL-crash.html
|
keesan
|
|
response 31 of 46:
|
Jun 13 20:57 UTC 2006 |
What are the 'major labels'? Is there still a SONY/CBS < Columbia? Did
someone buy RCA?
|
krj
|
|
response 32 of 46:
|
Jun 14 12:42 UTC 2006 |
The remaining Major Labels are: Warner Music Group (WMG)
Sony/BMG (a joint venture which
contains both the old Columbia and
the old RCA)
EMI
Universal
There's been a lot of talk about EMI buying Warner, or maybe
Warner will buy EMI. EMI made an offer but Warner rejected it.
|
keesan
|
|
response 33 of 46:
|
Jun 14 14:08 UTC 2006 |
Where did Warner and Universal come from? I think EMI includes Capitol and
London and Decca. What happened to Deutsche Grammophon and Philips and VOX
and Angel/Seraphim? I have records from at least 25 companies.
|
gull
|
|
response 34 of 46:
|
Jun 22 02:10 UTC 2006 |
It seems like niche markets, like classical music, might be better
served by some kind of Internet outlet.
|
remmers
|
|
response 35 of 46:
|
Jun 22 12:26 UTC 2006 |
Sad that classical music has come to be thought of as a "niche market."
|
gull
|
|
response 36 of 46:
|
Jun 22 17:44 UTC 2006 |
It happens to most genres that concern themselves entirely with looking
backwards.
|
twenex
|
|
response 37 of 46:
|
Jun 22 22:29 UTC 2006 |
I wonder what Philip Glass would make of being accused of "looking backwards".
|
mcnally
|
|
response 38 of 46:
|
Jun 22 22:35 UTC 2006 |
Probably not much. I think a lot of his music plays the same in both
directions..
|
twenex
|
|
response 39 of 46:
|
Jun 23 01:03 UTC 2006 |
I don't quite see what you mean, Mike. Anyway, my point was that if you're
going to deride something just because it was invented 200 years ago or more,
you might also like going without: wheels, fire, clothes, and democracy. To
name a few.
I'm sure there's lots of classical music that has fallen by the wayside, as
has happened with novels, &c. However, in music as in books, the stuff that
has survived has done so not least because, (in contrast to a lot of trash
that has "fifteen minutes of fame" but simply won't be relevant next century
/year/month), it's actually good.
|
twenex
|
|
response 40 of 46:
|
Jun 23 01:04 UTC 2006 |
Not only that, but remember: a lot of that stuff was
innovative/underground/belittled when it was first written, not
"backward-looking" at all.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 41 of 46:
|
Jun 23 12:17 UTC 2006 |
re39: Hey, fire wasn't invented 200 years ago or more.
|
twenex
|
|
response 42 of 46:
|
Jun 23 17:12 UTC 2006 |
Huh?
|
gull
|
|
response 43 of 46:
|
Jun 23 19:29 UTC 2006 |
I figured there'd be some objections to that comment.
The thing about "modern classical" music is it tends to be written to
be impressive to other academics, not to be listenable. Most of it is
very atonal and experimental.
|
twenex
|
|
response 44 of 46:
|
Jun 23 19:49 UTC 2006 |
Oh, MODERN. Maybe. Like I said, though, much, if not all, of the "original"
classical music was controversial at the time, and I understood from the above
that it was new RECORDINGS of classical music in general (like, say, a
performance of Mahler by the Berliner Philharmonic or of Glass by the Beijing
Philharmonic) that were coming out at a rate of only 3 a year.
|
twenex
|
|
response 45 of 46:
|
Jun 23 19:57 UTC 2006 |
The thing about "modern classical" music is it tends to be written to
be impressive to other academics, not to be listenable. Most of it is
very atonal and experimental.
Another "objectionable" comment. I'm sure I remember reading somewhere
(probably in an old edition of Encarta) that, recorded material aside, Jazz
is the most popular genre of music in the US; however, whilst that suggests
that it is not "written to be impressive to other academics", and therefore
"listenable", *I* certainly find much of it "atonal and experimental" in ways
which don't apply to, say, rock or even pop music I don't much like.
The point: Horses for Courses.
To reinforce the point: My great-grandfather was notoriously "anti"
pop/rock-music, characterising it as "noise". However, I myself don't remember
ever hearing (much less liking) any rock-music record as seemngly pointless
and meaningless as the chorus of his favourite rhyme, "Maisy Dotes and Dozy
Dotes and Diddly Dumsy Divey".
Seriously.
|
keesan
|
|
response 46 of 46:
|
Jun 23 23:40 UTC 2006 |
Mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy. or
Maresy dotes and dosey dotes and lidle ambsy divey.
|