Whats wrong with modern music (imo)

harVee

If you look at the greater scheme of things (last couple of thousand years), modern music really encompasses all music from about 1890 onwards.
Going by this logic, there is little difference on music produced 50 years ago and music produced today.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Music is no longer about sound it’s about image</font>

It always was.
music is produced to get attention. Image is all about the perceptions formed after that attention is achieved so it is natural that the two go together.
It is generally male birds that make the most noise, and also have the nicest feathers, for example.

Dont be at yourself

Yeah fanj, I agree with most of what you say.

It is extremely hard for bands who want to keep their "musical integrity" and still be successful - they will have a fan base, they still will take in a profit but they're overshadowed by whatever's flavour of the week. If it comes down to a record company choosing between the next REM and the next Limp Bizkit, they'll choose the latter.

The music industry is not about music anymore(was it ever? I think it was). Wheter a band succeeds is not down to their music, its down to wheter a record company is willing to invest, produce, expose and promote the band - and to a large extent, the public will lap it up whatever the end result is.

---

Fear can sometimes be a useful emotion. For instance, let's say you're an astronaught on the moon and you fear that your partner has been turned into Dracula. The next time he goes out for the moon pieces, wham! You just slam the door behind him and blast off. He might call you on the radio and say he's not Dracula, but you just say, "Think again, bat man."
hello.

[This message has been edited by NekkidBibleMan (edited 22-05-2001).]

harVee

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by NekkidBibleMan:

The music industry is not about music anymore(was it ever? I think it was).
</font>

Industry of any kind is about making money. The music industry, since its inception, has been about just that. Yes, there are people in it who will market good "credible" bands, but generally they only get the distribution deals because there is money to be made out of it.

Take a look at the example given: R.E.M.
Warners took them off IRS only after they'd done 5 albums and had already been described by Rolling Stone as Americas most important band. It took another 5 albums on Warner for them to be offered their current $80m record deal. So to say bands like R.E.M. wouldn't make it in the current system is rubbish, Except for electronic media distribution, the system hasn't changed at all.

the fnj

Ok this started off as a response to the Why are Limp bizket crap thread but I lost the run off myself and produced this. So I'm giving it, it's own topic so I can be flamed directly . It is long but I think it is worth the read.

The real question that will prove if Limp Bizket are good are bad is, will they be around and popular in five years? I really don't think they will last more than another year and that’s being very generous. There will be some new anti-hero next year for the pre puberty kids to adore.

I blame the MTV and the new way the industry runs. The whole music industry underwent massive changes during the mid nineties. While a lot of improvements were made and a lot of bad was taken out it left the record companies in control of basically everything.

The record companies were then left with the choice of promoting artists who would either bend over and do exactly what the record company wants or artists who stick to the morals and refuse to lose there musical integrity. Unfortunately they decided to promote the “sell outs”. Knowing full well that they can sell more records quickly with the sell out’s as opposed to the waiting for a return on their investment in a decent band. Basically they were greedy and wanted money now. Bands like REM would not make it in the current system. Overall REM would have made far more money for a record label compared to how much Limp Bizket will make. But Limp Bizket will make more money in the first few years. This begs the question what are we missing out on? I think it was Kurt Cobain who said for every chart toping band there are at least 100 better bands.

In the last two years kids have started turning away from the plastic goody goody pop bands. They have started looking for the anti-hero. The record companies looking at the success of shock rocker Marilyn Manson (he broke a lot of new ground) started to churn out these bad guys. The two biggest so far have been Eminen and Limp Bizket. By lowering their standards both musically and morally they have been able to get rich quick. Fair play to them, its not there fault. They are only taking advantage of a system that the punters (i.e. people who buy records) have let take over.

Kids have more money these days. So when they go into a record shop they can buy more albums. I’m not over the hill just yet but I remember for myself personally buying a record was a big investment. I would have listened to a lot of the artist’s stuff before hand. I would ask people what they thought about the album and the artist and would have read as many reviews as possible. This has left me with a collection of stuff by Queen, Pink Floyd, Prodigy, Nirvana and other bands before and during my time. In my opinion nearly all of the bands I listened to back then and they all still get listened to now. Honestly how many Limp Bizket fans expect to be listening to them in ten years time?

Music is no longer about sound it’s about image. I watch my sister run out to buy the latest albums by the coolest pop bands. Then she tells all her friends how she’s got the new Shaggy album and how good it is even though she only listens to the singles on the album even though she both them weeks ago. Then the band suddenly becomes uncool and the CD’s and singles become crap that she now hates and they end up in the attic because she could never let her friends know that she used to be their biggest fan.

The only hope I have is that maybe one day she will start listen to my ramblings and pull herself out off this money grabbing loop. My constructive and destructive recommendations always seem to push her further away and reinforce her belief in her music.

While music remains image over sound the industry will remain in its current state.

By
Thom Fanning

Listening to pop music for musical content is like watching a porno movie for its plot line!



[This message has been edited by The FANJ (edited 22-05-2001).]

Klay

Its the case with most things nowadays...Music, Games, TV, Humour...theirs very little originality anywhere anymore. I say keep trying to improve rather than be original. Its not easy to come up with something that no1 has ever thought of before, and even if you do, theres no guarantee that everyone is going to like it...

---

"(Shaft error to Klay[b-airlock140.esatclear.ie]: Erection reset by queer)"

the fnj

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Klay:
Its not easy to come up with something that no1 has ever thought of before,
</font>

That’s bull!

One of my favourite things about the guitar is I can mess with the set-up make some random noises on it. I'm sure most of the set-ups I have tried are crap. But the odd time I do stumble on something I like. Even if I don't I have not lost anything in fact I have gained more experience.

There are no laws to being original. Once it's never been done before it's original the sound is irrelevant in this case. Too many bands are afraid to experiment. They wrote a hit now they try write every song the same way. The songs sell well for a short period of time but the band quickly becoming boring and fall into the "were are they now category”.

Also Harvee I think most people knew what I meant when I said modern music so there is no need to nit pick.

The point about music being about image was to highlight the fact that social acceptance in teenage groups is based on what bands you like. My sister for example would probably be looked upon as an outcast if she was to tell her friends that she listened to REM (REM are get great advertisement here ). To my sister the sound is irrelevant. It’s about what’s cool and the same applies to most kids her age. The proof of this is how quickly Boyzone could be dropped for Westlife even though there both similar styles and sounds. Boyzone just became un-cool.

Your point about REM holds no water. REM negotiated a very hard deal with Warner in 1989 (I think it was around then). They would not get away with that again. Record labels do not give creative control away easily. There is no way that a major label at the moment would give a cult band who are politically outspoken band with a habit of record what they feel like. That scares record companies and they are much happier not doing it.

Karl Hungus

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by The FANJ:

That’s bull!

One of my favourite things about the guitar is I can mess with the set-up make some random noises on it. I'm sure most of the set-ups I have tried are crap. But the odd time I do stumble on something I like. Even if I don't I have not lost anything in fact I have gained more experience.

There are no laws to being original. Once it's never been done before it's original the sound is irrelevant in this case. Too many bands are afraid to experiment. They wrote a hit now they try write every song the same way. The songs sell well for a short period of time but the band quickly becoming boring and fall into the "were are they now category”.
</font>

I totaly agree here!
There is practicaly no limit to what you can do with a guitar.
As well as having combinations with different instruments... Such as Keyboards and synthisizers, which can really add depth.

As for the originality, and Klay...
Try listen to Rammstien and tell me you can't come up with something nobody has ever heard before.
Also listen to Susperia.
A band that can go on with a mother of a guitar riff, that's extremely catchy, and then throw you a completely different riff totaly unexpectedly, yet it still progresses perfectly, and fits in totaly to the song.

The same goes for vocals.
Listen to Susperia and Kovenant, and you'll hear the kind of vocal oddities that you'd have never imagined.
I find that vocals are something that does lack a LOT of originality in music today, and that there are very few bands that are willing to mess around with different vocal effects.

I mean, there is a whole world of different things you could do with vocals, and only now are bands even starting to experiment around.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by The FANJ:

Your point about REM holds no water. REM negotiated a very hard deal with Warner in 1989 (I think it was around then). They would not get away with that again. Record labels do not give creative control away easily. There is no way that a major label at the moment would give a cult band who are politically outspoken band with a habit of record what they feel like. That scares record companies and they are much happier not doing it.
</font>

I would argue that things are getting better now.

SONY (of all people!) have signed none other than Cradle Of Filth!

Cradle Of Filth are the worlds foremost Black Metal band, and cited by many magazines to (Unfortunately) NEVER see any mainstream sucsess because of the fact they are such an extreme act.

Yet they have just been signed by SONY.

Not only that, but Sony have also given them their own record label: Abra Cadaver.
This means that they themselves will be signing other bands, and will have TOTAL creative control over their own music.

Also taking into account the amount of great bands who could be signed to Cradle's record label, who, otherwise would NEVER be able to get a good deal.

As well as the fact, that if Sony would sign and give so much control to a band that has sold barely more than 2 million records... Who else could they give this kind of control to?

the fnj

Cradle of Filth my not be bad musically but there frontman is a twat.
(I hope I'm think about the same band here )

I read an interview with him about two years ago. He started by saying how much he would like to eat the beckhams new baby then on to how much he really loves his daughter.

There was alot of other stuff like that in the interview. That totla gave me the impression that this guy is a faker and is only in it to make money from the shock value.

(It may not have been Cradle of Filth but I'm 95% sure it was.)

He just came accross as a total twat.

I don't know enough about the band to make any proper comment
but
Do you think cradle of Filth will continue in their current direction or will they get far more comerical with the Sony machine behind them? It's very easy to forget about everything you stood when you have dollars been thrown at you.

Karl Hungus

Hmm... Eating a baby...

Sounds more like somthing Manson would say...
I can't say for sure that he didn't say it, but I actualy met the guy, and can say first hand he's not a twat.

Also they are not in it for the money.
They recently went on tour after being dropped by their old record label, and paid for the whole thing themselves, out of their own pockets.
This could move have put them on the streets, if the tour bummed out, as they had no company to pay for the tour at all...
I don't really think they are just in it for the money...
Thats one of the main reasons I think they are such a great band.

And the stuff from their new album is meant to be just as heavy as the last... I haven't heard anything yet.

Maybe it was him in the interveiw, but I think you might have taken him up wrong...