|
Post by willywonka666 on Dec 27, 2007 8:09:54 GMT -5
So which is more to blame in your eyes? I think if the internet was around 25 years ago, it wouldn't have affect Michael Jackson's Thriller that much, sure it would a bit, but people wanted that album, and while they were out buying Thriller, they saw another album or two they heard about radio or saw on MTV and bought it as well.
It's not even beneficial for MTV to play videos now,or for the artists to make a video,and I blame that on blah artists and a blah scene in general. I'm not saying it's all bad, just saying it's more the music scene than just downloading. It'd be too easy IMO to blame it on the internet.
Thoughts?
|
|
Libertine
Unicron
Cerebral Caustic
Posts: 3,082
|
Post by Libertine on Dec 27, 2007 8:12:54 GMT -5
The industry missed the boat initially on the internet.
That and the now standard rise and fall of most bands. A lot of magazines promote the "next big thing" every issue. There's only so many 'great' bands.
|
|
|
Post by strykerdarksilence on Dec 27, 2007 8:14:38 GMT -5
I`m going to say neither. I think its just indicative of society in general that the people at the heads of record companies saturate the market with their label`s own version of a succesful artist.
Look at every "breakthrough" artist of the last 15-20 years, as soon as something new and interesting breaks, other record labels immediately sign up the first person or group they can find that has a similar style. Soon everyone is sick of hearing the same sort of music and we`re back to square one.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Dec 27, 2007 8:15:59 GMT -5
It's a combination of things, in my opinion.
It's not only both of those, but as an extension of the "blah artists" part, we're still waiting for the Next Big Thing. Not an artist, a movement. The last two of any true significance were grunge and the short-lived boy band craze. There just hasn't been another one of those...another British Invasion...another New Wave to move in with full force and make people take notice of not only one individual band, but a whole genre. So-called "emo" and "nu-metal" are so ill-defined that they never had a chance to become a true force, even though individual bands and musicians in each have done exceptionally well.
|
|
Libertine
Unicron
Cerebral Caustic
Posts: 3,082
|
Post by Libertine on Dec 27, 2007 8:19:17 GMT -5
It's a combination of things, in my opinion. It's not only both of those, but as an extension of the "blah artists" part, we're still waiting for the Next Big Thing. Not an artist, a movement. The last two of any true significance were grunge and the short-lived boy band craze. There just hasn't been another one of those...another British Invasion...another New Wave to move in with full force and make people take notice of not only one individual band, but a whole genre. So-called "emo" and "nu-metal" are so ill-defined that they never had a chance to become a true force, even though individual bands and musicians in each have done exceptionally well. We're getting that in Britain currently with the Indie 'trend.' You know, the part where boys wear skinny ties and girl wear hideously mis-matched clothes. Nothing to do with the music anymore; mainstream indie (contradiction, surely?) is piss-poor anyway.
|
|
|
Post by willywonka666 on Dec 27, 2007 8:27:31 GMT -5
I think the Blah artists go with the Blah times we're living in. These are not really great or exciting groundbreaking times, and these artists are performing and composing during these times, thus we're getting a reflection of society-Blah.
|
|
|
Post by Chuckie Finster on Dec 27, 2007 8:30:43 GMT -5
I agree with what Madison said but I think that the next big movement could be one artists or group. The Beatles were a movement. Elvis was a movement. Sure they had their imitators and Johnny-come-lately's but overall, they WERE the movement. Sure that was two generations ago, but music's such in an odd way right now that it wouldn't surprise me.
It could also be just like the grunge movement where Nirvana ushered it to the forefront and Alice in Chains and Pearl Jam became such big names in it so it wasn't just the Nirvana movement but the grunge movement. With so many different labels and sub genres, it could very easily be diluted, no matter how good or refreshing it starts out, as already mentioned in the first post.
The true next big thing will come eventually. It always does. May come in one of the ways already done or something new altogether. Someone will adapt to the times and capitalize long term on it with something unique enough to change the business.
|
|
|
Post by big nasty on Dec 27, 2007 8:40:43 GMT -5
i would lean toward the downloading as a reason. for an example, my niece wanted itunes gift cards for christmas. when i was her age (13) i wanted CD's. the technology has changed, simple as that. the music industry will suffer until they figure the best way to adapt to it.
movies had a period of adjustment to make, as well. for a few years box office numbers were down a bit, and people wondered if it was because of ticket prices, poor product, boot-leg DVD's, internet video, etc. movie makers adapted to changing times. now they pump up a movie for a few months (or longer), hope for a big opening week. the movie release is practically a huge advertisement for the upcoming DVD release, which has extra features, more scenes, and generally costs 2-3 times as much as a movie ticket, yet people gobble them up.
|
|
|
Post by ASYLUMHAUSEN (Nana is BUNS) on Dec 27, 2007 8:55:46 GMT -5
I think the over saturation (ESPECIALLY compared to, say, 10...15..20 years ago) of literally THOUSANDS of new cd's being released EVERY week combined with the arcane refusal to buy into this whole "internet" thing before it was too late is to blame...that is if you actually BELIEVE the whining multi billionaire corporations that are doing the bitching.
|
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,219
|
Post by Push R Truth on Dec 27, 2007 9:45:39 GMT -5
Good Music gets my money.
I haven't spent a cent since 1999 on Music. All the MP3s I have are ripped off my old CD's and cassettes.
I take that back, I bought the LOTR Trilogy soundtrack. That's my only musical purchase this decade.
|
|
|
Post by Cooler Than Sliced Bread on Dec 27, 2007 9:56:03 GMT -5
It's like record companies and their artists are putting out
music like it's fast food, ESPECIALLY in hip-hop.
It's so formulaic-
1st single- Party song for the club
2nd single- Love song for the ladies
3rd single (not too many rappers make it here)
Introspective song/another love song for the ladies
|
|
|
Post by Cooler Than Sliced Bread on Dec 27, 2007 9:57:34 GMT -5
It's like record companies and their artists are putting out music like it's fast food, ESPECIALLY in hip-hop. It's so formulaic- 1st single- Party song for the club 2nd single- Love song for the ladies 3rd single (not too many rappers make it here) Introspective song/another love song for the ladies Willy wonka had a great point, I'd like to add.
|
|
|
Post by Dynamite Kid on Dec 27, 2007 9:59:06 GMT -5
I think it's not illegal downloading, it's legal downloading. No-one needs to buy records. Songs from seventy years ago are ending up in the charts. The charts are no meaningless. Releasing a record is pointless.
So, yay for everyone not needing a label any more, but doesn't that suck? You're killing the industry. Is anyone going to sell out stadiums any more? No-one's going to have big monetary backing for their records, no more number one albums - I just liked the music industry the way it was, and this is killing it.
|
|
|
Post by jfbop37 on Dec 27, 2007 10:11:26 GMT -5
For the artists, having their own label is better. They'll certainly see more of the profits from their own sales.
And don't worry about the loss of stadium tours. When a band gets big enough to warrant such a thing along with having the desire to do it, they'll be there. Until then, they can settle for arenas, theaters, and clubs (and charge out the ass for tickets to those performances.)
|
|
|
Post by Aaron E. Dangerously on Dec 27, 2007 12:09:49 GMT -5
Madison had the right idea. People want a new movement, a totally different sound. I know I do.
|
|
|
Post by Avalanche Alvarez on Dec 27, 2007 12:16:51 GMT -5
The music industry is sagging because today's music is reprocessed, retreaded, reheated, and usually boring as hell.
Originality is almost a dead concept. And when you want to charge $20 or more for a CD filled with that kind of material, you will get this.
|
|
|
Post by Dynamite Kid on Dec 27, 2007 12:47:14 GMT -5
I'm hoping that Gallows will start a new British hardcore scene, and that Plan B, Jamie T, Dizzee Rascal and Skinnyman will start a giant new Brit Hop scene.
|
|
NIXON
Unicron
Hail to the Chief Bootknocker
Posts: 3,354
|
Post by NIXON on Dec 27, 2007 12:50:06 GMT -5
It has to do with music currently being in the toilet, and the fact that CD's cost way too much. Record companies have been charging 20 bucks for cd's that have 1 or 2 good songs and a bunch of filler for decades now. They deserve to be struggling right now.
|
|
adamclark52
El Dandy
I'm one with the Force; the Force is with me
Posts: 8,139
|
Post by adamclark52 on Dec 27, 2007 12:55:07 GMT -5
I blame the internet more but it's a combination.
I think the internet has hurt mainstream music in that it used to be you heard a song on the radio, bought the album and the only good song was the one on the radio. Now you can avoid that entirely and have the one decent song. So I don't feel pity for not buying an album that would be utter crap anyway.
For the music I listen to (metal) it hasn't changed much at all. Bands I like are selling the same number of albums as they were 10 years ago (ie. not many).
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 27, 2007 12:55:24 GMT -5
Frankly, I think, at the heart of it, the record industry simply missed the boat on the Internet, and are becoming more and more obsolete, yet are fighting each day to avoid their fate.
Record companies going away can only help music in the long run. Look at how Radiohead promoted its latest album; yeah, you could get it online for free...and yet they managed to average about $7 per album sold. The way people buy music, WANT to buy music, and how they're going to do business concerning music, is changing, and it doesn't involve record companies.
|
|