Questions for Rockists:

[Galactus]

Riley's just trying to seem less gay, he doesn't mean it.

[pauledwardwagemann]

thorny said:

pauledwardwagemann said:

QUESTION #3:
is "What is the defintion of selling out, and does that automatically make a band worse?"

"Selling Out" is a concept entirely relegated to the delusional bitterness of those who can only squint through the narrow apertures of the blinders they wear.

And NO, it absolutely does NOT automatically make a band worse.


~

There is good music. There is bad music. Each of which are abundantly to be found in commercial music; in "sell outs"; in underground music; and even w/ street corner musicianship.

~

Hence, I find the entire "Sell Out/Commercial" argument utterly insipid, and a reflection NOT of the music it is AIMED at criticizing; but rather, it is more of a reflection of the LIMITATIONS and/or impositions of the LISTENER to said music.

~

Example: Someone who claims that the only "good" Smashing Pumpkins record is GISH has not revealed one iota of the subsequent Pumpkin catalog's actual worth; rather, they have only revealed that *they themselves* are nothing but a self-aggrandizing, petulant, narrowminded little poser bitch ass punk.

The thing is that when you go from a major label from a minor one it is a different atmosphere. There is more people who are affected by the product you put out and therefore there are more people who are going to be putting pressure on the artists to make it a certain way. "Oh come on, just do this one remake--so and so needs a boost in their royalties, and we can just tack it to the end of the album" Or "I dont hear a single" Or "Grunge is over man--you need to sound more emo" etc.
Okay sure, maybe the artists can ignore that bullshit--but it is a distraction. Plus on a major label the sales of records/cds goes to pay for the bands tour. If a major throws a lot of deniro out there for a band to tour, and then the album tanks, that means the artist is in debt to the label. I think Tom Petty--as well as others--had to declare bankrupcy once because of this kind of thing...
Also there are other distractions on a major label. Suddenly there are obligations; public appearances, percentages, contracts, interviews, etc. Also success itself is a huge distraction, not to mention drugs, boobies and the free pants that come along with it.
Then there is the distraction of knowing that you are no longer expected to just be making music for a few of your friends and fans--the way youve always done it. Nos when you write a song you realize you have thousands of people to think about. You're no longer worried about making music that is liked by your immediate family--now you have to worry about the entire universe...
For most bands these distractions (and others that I havent even gotten into yet) have proven to be too much.
Simply by the structure system of the corporate music business, big is bad when it comes to quality.

[Kensterberg]

P.E.W. -- re-read Our Band Could Be Your Life. It's obvious from it that there is no correlation between quality and label size. Small labels screw artists, big labels screw artists, and artists who go in with their eyes open in either case get screwed less often.

And sometimes, labels get screwed by artists. Look at R.E.M. and Warner -- let's sign this huge deal that'll make us all millionaires a few times over, then we'll completely flip and stop making commercially viable albums. Warner has taken a huge bath on R.E.M. since that signing, and whatever you think of the band's output since Automatic For the People, you can't argue that they've done it to please their label. Complete creative control.

It's too complicated for "major labels suck" and "small labels rule" to be accurate. The Replacements were happier with their major label relationship, as were Husker Du. Sonic Youth sure as hell haven't sucked b/c they've been on a major. There are good and bad bands signed to both, and there are good bands who've been happy with majors, bad bands who've loved being on indies, and vice versa. There's simply no inherent correlation between label size and artistic quality.

[pauledwardwagemann]

kenholzman said:

P.E.W. -- re-read Our Band Could Be Your Life. It's obvious from it that there is no correlation between quality and label size. Small labels screw artists, big labels screw artists, and artists who go in with their eyes open in either case get screwed less often.

And sometimes, labels get screwed by artists. Look at R.E.M. and Warner -- let's sign this huge deal that'll make us all millionaires a few times over, then we'll completely flip and stop making commercially viable albums. Warner has taken a huge bath on R.E.M. since that signing, and whatever you think of the band's output since Automatic For the People, you can't argue that they've done it to please their label. Complete creative control.

It's too complicated for "major labels suck" and "small labels rule" to be accurate. The Replacements were happier with their major label relationship, as were Husker Du. Sonic Youth sure as hell haven't sucked b/c they've been on a major. There are good and bad bands signed to both, and there are good bands who've been happy with majors, bad bands who've loved being on indies, and vice versa. There's simply no inherent correlation between label size and artistic quality.

There are exceptions to the rule, as you've argualy sited. Still the culture created by the major label is much different than that created by the minor label. Maybe the mark of a truly great band is one that can thrive in either environment. Or on the other hand maybe that's just the mark of a pretty good band with good management and the real mark of a great band is one that doesnt need a major label in order to make great music.

[bowiglou]

thorny said:

pauledwardwagemann said:

QUESTION #3:
is "What is the defintion of selling out, and does that automatically make a band worse?"

"Selling Out" is a concept entirely relegated to the delusional bitterness of those who can only squint through the narrow apertures of the blinders they wear.

And NO, it absolutely does NOT automatically make a band worse.


~

There is good music. There is bad music. Each of which are abundantly to be found in commercial music; in "sell outs"; in underground music; and even w/ street corner musicianship.

~

Hence, I find the entire "Sell Out/Commercial" argument utterly insipid, and a reflection NOT of the music it is AIMED at criticizing; but rather, it is more of a reflection of the LIMITATIONS and/or impositions of the LISTENER to said music.

~

Example: Someone who claims that the only "good" Smashing Pumpkins record is GISH has not revealed one iota of the subsequent Pumpkin catalog's actual worth; rather, they have only revealed that *they themselves* are nothing but a self-aggrandizing, petulant, narrowminded little poser bitch ass punk.

Thorn...I couldn't agree with you more..you said it perfectly....for instance thorn, as a 7 year old circa 1964 I happened to get introduced to a couple of bands that somewhat made it big and kinda sold alot of 33 1/3s.......Beatles and the Stones.......I don't EVER recall someone calling them sell-outs back then!!......mass popularity and artistic merit are not necessarily mutually exclusive!!

[pauledwardwagemann]

bowiglou said:

thorny said:

"Selling Out" is a concept entirely relegated to the delusional bitterness of those who can only squint through the narrow apertures of the blinders they wear.

And NO, it absolutely does NOT automatically make a band worse.


~

There is good music. There is bad music. Each of which are abundantly to be found in commercial music; in "sell outs"; in underground music; and even w/ street corner musicianship.

~

Hence, I find the entire "Sell Out/Commercial" argument utterly insipid, and a reflection NOT of the music it is AIMED at criticizing; but rather, it is more of a reflection of the LIMITATIONS and/or impositions of the LISTENER to said music.

~

Example: Someone who claims that the only "good" Smashing Pumpkins record is GISH has not revealed one iota of the subsequent Pumpkin catalog's actual worth; rather, they have only revealed that *they themselves* are nothing but a self-aggrandizing, petulant, narrowminded little poser bitch ass punk.

Thorn...I couldn't agree with you more..you said it perfectly....for instance thorn, as a 7 year old circa 1964 I happened to get introduced to a couple of bands that somewhat made it big and kinda sold alot of 33 1/3s.......Beatles and the Stones.......I don't EVER recall someone calling them sell-outs back then!!......mass popularity and artistic merit are not necessarily mutually exclusive!!

Comparing the corporate music industyr of 1964 to the one of today is about as usefull as comparing Babe Ruth to Barry Bonds. Two totally different animals. The industry has changed so much that selling out means something totally different nowadays than it did then.

[Kensterberg]

So what does "selling out" mean in 2006? And how does it relate to "cashing in"?

[pauledwardwagemann]

kenholzman said:

So what does "selling out" mean in 2006? And how does it relate to "cashing in"?

To answer that you have to understand that the corporate music industry in 1964 was much different. No one understood that a fourman guitar band like the Beatles could reach and influence so many people. I mean Rock was thought to be dead as a Pop moneymaker.
The real change in the music industry came in the 1980 with conglomerate mania. Suddenly you had parent companies that not only controlled the record labels that a band recorded for, but also the magazine that reviewed the band, the radio stations that played the band, the tv stations that promoted the band, the merchandising company that merchanidised the band, the clubs where the bands played and the beverage companies that were sold at the concerts, and so on and so on. All of this means that suddenly when you signed on to a record company you also signed on to all of these other companies as well, sinc ethey all fell under the umbrella of one parent conglomerate.
None of that existed anywhere close to that magnitude in 1964. Plus in 1964 PR and maketing were infants. There was maybe three tv stations at the time. And your options for listening to music was either a stereo, the radio, a live show or a juke box. Suddenly in the 80s you had cable tv, you had cd players, you had casettes, you had videos, etc all competing for the 18-30 year old demagraphic. And today its gotten even more entangled with ipods, dvds, mp3 players and downloading, music on video games, etc.
So selling out today is much more involved and far reaching than selling out in '64.

[Kensterberg]

pauledwardwagemann said:

kenholzman said:

So what does "selling out" mean in 2006? And how does it relate to "cashing in"?

To answer that you have to understand that the corporate music industry in 1964 was much different. No one understood that a fourman guitar band like the Beatles could reach and influence so many people. I mean Rock was thought to be dead as a Pop moneymaker.
The real change in the music industry came in the 1980 with conglomerate mania. Suddenly you had parent companies that not only controlled the record labels that a band recorded for, but also the magazine that reviewed the band, the radio stations that played the band, the tv stations that promoted the band, the merchandising company that merchanidised the band, the clubs where the bands played and the beverage companies that were sold at the concerts, and so on and so on. All of this means that suddenly when you signed on to a record company you also signed on to all of these other companies as well, sinc ethey all fell under the umbrella of one parent conglomerate.
None of that existed anywhere close to that magnitude in 1964. Plus in 1964 PR and maketing were infants. There was maybe three tv stations at the time. And your options for listening to music was either a stereo, the radio, a live show or a juke box. Suddenly in the 80s you had cable tv, you had cd players, you had casettes, you had videos, etc all competing for the 18-30 year old demagraphic. And today its gotten even more entangled with ipods, dvds, mp3 players and downloading, music on video games, etc.
So selling out today is much more involved and far reaching than selling out in '64.

PEW, I don't think that your factual assertions here support your thesis. In '64, the media was smaller, and more directly controlled by a few major players. The Payola scandals were still playing out in radio at this point, so you literally had corporations paying for airtime. And that airtime gave them access to huge parts of the populace b/c there weren't as many alternatives.

If a performer wanted exposure, s/he had to sign up with one of these big corporations, on their terms. Does that mean that everyone who was popular in the sixties was a sell-out? Because I think you're saying that playing with big corporations as distributors for your music means you've sold out. If that's the case, then weren't the Beatles and Stones (and the Who, and Zep, and the Clash, and Springsteen, and Dylan, and Nirvana, etc.) all sell-outs?

And today, how can a small label afford to properly promote an album across all kinds of media, particularly since the smell of payola is once again in the air? Pearl Jam's success with their latest album was really possible b/c of their reputation and established presence in the marketplace. There were a lot of people who were happy to have PJ appear on their shows in order to attract PJ fans (it's all about getting ears and eyeballs, and if Leno or Letterman can attract a few more viewers by featuring PJ, it's to their benefit to do it), something that would not have been an option to a brand new band trying to break in to the industry. If a band wants to break out of the niche of indie stardom (and let's face it, this is a definite niche in today's pop ecology), then they need to work with people who can better market a product, who can get it out to more ears.

If Nevermind had been released on Sub-Pop, it would not have killed hair metal. It's that simple. Rock and roll is a popular art form, and that means it has to be heard. A great band that never gets an album released disappears into the mists of time: a mediocre one that was on a major lable can keep churning out releases decades after their demise. There's just no correlation between artistic success and the size of the label that releases it -- but there is a definite correlation between having your stuff still in print (which means you are selling something, and your label can afford to keep you in print) and having your catalog disappear from public memory and access.

[Kensterberg]

Question #1:
If a musical artist rips off someone elses song, melody, riffs, etc, does that automatically lower them in terms of 'quality'?

No. It's very dangerous to deal in absolutes. Paul Weller nicked the bass line from the Supremes' "Can't Hurry Love" for the brilliant "Town Called Malice;" Strummer/Jones lifted the chord progression from "Can't Explain" for "Guns on the Roof;" George Harrison outright took "He's So Fine" lock, stock and barrel from the Shifons for "My Sweet Lord," but rock and roll would be poorer without any of these.

[bowiglou]

........and most blatantly, the Pistols ripped off the Jam's 'In the City' opening riff for 'Holiday in the Sun'

[kmc]

On a lesser note, Jet took Iggy's "Lust For Life" and made the craptastic "Are You Gonna Be My Girl".

[Ayinger]

kenholzman said:

Question #1:
If a musical artist rips off someone elses song, melody, riffs, etc, does that automatically lower them in terms of 'quality'?

George Harrison outright took "He's So Fine" lock, stock and barrel from the Shifons for "My Sweet Lord," but rock and roll would be poorer without any of these.

I had Harrison's deal with "My Sweet Lord"/"He's So Fine" come to mind when I first read the question. Made me try to picture George sitting down and spinning the latter and then making a concentrated effort to copy it onto something he could call his own --- I just can't see that purposely happening. Like he was going "Oy! Dis is a great melody but the words suck....lemme do something better with it!"

[Ryosuke]

PEW - I think Skvor and I provided a list of major label artists who we each think are good?

Edit: In the other Rockist thread, that is.

[pauledwardwagemann]

pauledwardwagemann said:

The real change in the music industry came in the 1980 with conglomerate mania. Suddenly you had parent companies that not only controlled the record labels that a band recorded for, but also the magazine that reviewed the band, the radio stations that played the band, the tv stations that promoted the band, the merchandising company that merchanidised the band, the clubs where the bands played and the beverage companies that were sold at the concerts, and so on and so on. All of this means that suddenly when you signed on to a record company you also signed on to all of these other companies as well, sinc ethey all fell under the umbrella of one parent conglomerate.
None of that existed anywhere close to that magnitude in 1964. Plus in 1964 PR and maketing were infants. There was maybe three tv stations at the time. And your options for listening to music was either a stereo, the radio, a live show or a juke box. Suddenly in the 80s you had cable tv, you had cd players, you had casettes, you had videos, etc all competing for the 18-30 year old demagraphic. And today its gotten even more entangled with ipods, dvds, mp3 players and downloading, music on video games, etc.
So selling out today is much more involved and far reaching than selling out in '64.

Another thing to add to this is that there is a greater understanding of the PR/marketing game today by the genral population than there was 40 years ago when that game was really in its infantsy. Todays kids grow up watching Jessica Simpson or SuperGroup or Surreal Life and see how it works to some degree. I dont think kids growing up in the 50s were aware of that.
So my point is, these young artists who sell out today, now what it entails. The Beatles and others had no clue. And in fact, the entire PR/marketing game was not as sophisticated or as engrained in the entire corporate music industry to the degree that it is today.