|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Jun 13, 2006 22:16:12 GMT -5
So are you saying that the Beatles sold out? Because if you are, then I'm not sure we're talking about anything resembling the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by frag on Jun 13, 2006 22:49:41 GMT -5
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. Dude, you're arguing about artistic integrity, and your examples don't really make sense within that argument. Standards change, and with that, what people want to hear changes. The Beatles broke in because they wrote catchy songs. Britney Spears broke in because she sang catchy songs. Nirvana broke in because they wrote catchy songs. Who, in any business, goes in with the mindset, "You know, I want to pour all of my hardwork into this...but I really don't want anything in return." Nobody. You make it sound like you truly believe (and maybe you do) that any indie band is automatically better than any major band merely by default. Bullshit. It's not like there's a giant blanket over which artists give a shit about their music and the ones who have stock in it. All it takes is a little thought. It's easy to hear if something was half-assed. If you're goal is only to make money in the music business, then that is all you will accomplish. If you're there out of the drive in your own heart and soul, then you'll make some money and you might leave the legacy you deserve. Has absolutely nothing to do with the label you're on. It's not like it's a brand name or anything. Individuals working with individuals all hoping for a scrap and then some, to do what they love doing. |
|
|
|
Post by luke on Jun 14, 2006 8:59:21 GMT -5
"I didn't sell out. The nation bought in."
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jun 14, 2006 9:27:37 GMT -5
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. No! NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO! As some one who as been working in the "buisness" for over 10 years now, you couldn't be more full of it. I have had more friends screwed over by indie labels who are just as evil as the majors. Get it through your thick skull that people with power corrupt bands, not a label. Bands who allow themselves to get talked into all of that crap corrupt their bands, not the guy is who is doing the schmoozing. Bands on indie labels get their heads swelled in the hopes that they will be the cool of the cool and critical darlings just like major label bands do. There aren't exceptions to the rule. Either you are a good band or you are not. Most people can tell if a band's intentions are less than pure, since mostly they will sound like their bad intentions. |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jun 14, 2006 9:35:33 GMT -5
Conglomerate mania? What about Sub Pop distributing labels like Up, K, Rx Remedy, and Kill Rock Stars in those labels early start up days?
Commercialism started in the 50s with the invention of television. That generation isn't a bunch of spoon fed mogoloids is the big difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jun 14, 2006 9:57:56 GMT -5
Next question: Is rockjism dead?
|
|
|
|
Post by riley on Jun 14, 2006 10:07:49 GMT -5
Next question: Is rockjism dead? Refer page one of this thread, prior to post#1. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jun 14, 2006 10:26:03 GMT -5
I like SY's albums better on the Geffen....Dirty, EJST&NS, Murray Street, and Sonic Nurse are top notch. Going to see them this Thursday at the 9:30 Club! Paul, late show or early? Late show...Checking out the opening night of the Ft. Reno shows first (Free concerts every Monday and Thursday at Ft. Reno in DC from this Thursday till the end of August)...Are you going? |
|
|
|
Post by pauledwardwagemann on Jun 14, 2006 11:18:25 GMT -5
So are you saying that the Beatles sold out? Because if you are, then I'm not sure we're talking about anything resembling the same thing. John Lennon said he felt the Beatles sold out as soon as he let Brian Epstein force them to wear suits and ties. Musically they compromised. Certainly they wrote some songs just to be hits, but they also wrote many that were authentic. Some were creative expressions, some were straight ahead rock-n-roll meant to be heard by kids on the dance floor and to have fun with. Then after being inspired by Dylan they (John especially) began to write more introspective songs--sometimes that were brutally honest and they were alwasy pushing the envelope of experimentation and mind expansion through the creative process. As far as their image goes, the Beatles constantly alligned themselves with the people that they found most creative and interesting. The results were some great photo sessions, some great movies and some great album covers. And in their interviews they were always brually honest--I mean can you imagine a Pop star today openly admitting that he was taking LSD or saying that his band was bigger than Jesus? Then as far as product endorsements goes--certainly, early on the Beatles had signed on to some crazy stuff; lunchboxes, combs, etc. They were about 22 years old when they did that, and like I say the common person in 1963 just wasnt as savvy to the ways of the PR/marketing racket as they are today. That's not an excuse, I'm just trying to put what they did into context. So yes, to some degree they did sell out--but it was not as blatant not did it affect their work as much as a sell out of that callibre would into todays corporate consumer culture. |
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jun 14, 2006 11:50:46 GMT -5
I am trying to make the Sonic Youth show, but I am SO broke. I'll let you know tomorrow if I am going up to DC.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jun 14, 2006 11:59:05 GMT -5
I am trying to make the Sonic Youth show, but I am SO broke. I'll let you know tomorrow if I am going up to DC. Cool man, hope you can make it! If so, we should meet up for a beer at the gig tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Post by pauledwardwagemann on Jun 14, 2006 12:04:04 GMT -5
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. No! NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO! As some one who as been working in the "buisness" for over 10 years now, you couldn't be more full of it. I have had more friends screwed over by indie labels who are just as evil as the majors. Get it through your thick skull that people with power corrupt bands, not a label. Bands who allow themselves to get talked into all of that crap corrupt their bands, not the guy is who is doing the schmoozing. Bands on indie labels get their heads swelled in the hopes that they will be the cool of the cool and critical darlings just like major label bands do. There aren't exceptions to the rule. Either you are a good band or you are not. Most people can tell if a band's intentions are less than pure, since mostly they will sound like their bad intentions. Sorry, but I dont see it in those kinds of absolutes. I've seen good bands turned shitty (or have broken up) due to not beign able to deal with the distractions. Due to getting caught up in the hype, due to drugs, due to any of the things I mentioned in the above post. Great bands may be able to overcome these things--thats a topic for argument. But simply just a good band, that seems unlikely... Moving on... QUESTION #4 and #5: Does converting analog recordings to digital pollute the artists original intent? Does digital conversions of analog recordings sound worse than analog original? |
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jun 14, 2006 13:39:42 GMT -5
Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the quality of the art or how benign their label is. Thing is, you could put out two great albums on a major label and be hailed forever. People like you would automatically label said band sellouts, but the fact is that there is no shame in making money doing what you love. The assumption that a major label automatically fucks up your music is baseless.
|
|
|
|
Post by pauledwardwagemann on Jun 14, 2006 14:06:26 GMT -5
Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the quality of the art or how benign their label is. Thing is, you could put out two great albums on a major label and be hailed forever. People like you would automatically label said band sellouts, but the fact is that there is no shame in making money doing what you love. The assumption that a major label automatically fucks up your music is baseless. I'm not saying it automatically fucks yoru music up, what I'm saying is that it causes distractions and pressures that generally fuck your music up. Do you disagree that being on a major is a different environment? Do you disagree about any of the distractions it causes that I listed earlier in this thread? |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jun 14, 2006 14:15:17 GMT -5
"I didn't sell out. The nation bought in." nice |
|
