Go Back   Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums > Hobby Talk! > Music
MOVIE FAN CENTRAL FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-26-2012, 05:05 AM
Top 10 Reasons Why the Music Industry is Failing

http://rdstreets.hubpages.com/hub/To...try-is-Failing
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-26-2012, 06:22 AM
Numbers 7, 9 and 10 are particularly on point.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-26-2012, 01:25 PM
1 point they forgot to mention is LACK OF INTERACTION.

I mean MUSIC is labeled as a product like my toilet bowl cleaner and it shouldn't be like that.

That's why piracy is winning.

Check this Michael Buble video from his documentary ( not a fan , just stumble on the video on Youtube )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp0BE...eature=related

Now that's gold ..... staged ? maybe .... but 1 thing that is not faked is the interaction and basically (i know you can tell ) that's not a singer lipsyncing.

MUSIC is like a scratching lottery ticket. You wanna win of course. Yet the odds are not in your favor.

I saw 100's of shows .... and 90% were from the artist/band i liked ( blame my ex for some poor choice)

My point is : in all the shows i've seen , the only thing remotely close to that Michael Buble video was EdgeFest '98 .... when Greenday got a fan on stage to play bass on Longview. Say what you want about Greenday but that gesture was really cool. Foo Fighters also gave 100$ to a girl and and guy to slow dance on 1 of their song ( hey! that was a freaking long time ago and i was drunk ... Tea Party set on sundown was awesome tho )

I dont wanna discuss about musical choices in general but i am a MUSIC fan. I can't spend a day without listening to a CD or my MP3. And in all honesty , seeing a band I love , playing "all the classics+couple of songs of the new CD" attitude pisses me off. MUSIC is a social medium ... it's not a product or an attitude you can sell.

I dont want my band to systematicly play a chartboard. To say HELLO "insert city" , play 15 songs and say GOOD NIGHT "insert same city". MUSIC is not mechanical , it's personnal.

Man .... when i say interaction , i mean it. Like the 13th century bards , modern day musicians carry a message and ppl DO want to connect.

I dare you to find any MEGADETH - A TOUT LE MONDE in montreal on youtube where the crowd doesn't sing over David Mustaine .... now that's connection.

I can also point to Laura Fabian .... where the crowd basically caught her off-guard and litteratly buried her under love. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-roGMGyFu0 That's the most crazy crowd ever recorded imo. Half the song , she's holding her tears. Now THAT'S connection

Tons of story .... MUSIC is an emotional subject and it will not fail. The industry might fail tho but that is just market correction. There's a public for all style of music.


PS. MUSIC refer to the industry.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-28-2012, 09:39 PM
The guy who wrote the article clearly has no idea what he's talking about. The music industry failing?
What a joke. The music industry is just as big as it ever was. And with digitalization, it only gets more convenient for talented artists to share their music with the world.
The article is NONSENSE! lol
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-29-2012, 12:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeMovie View Post
The guy who wrote the article clearly has no idea what he's talking about. The music industry failing?
What a joke. The music industry is just as big as it ever was. And with digitalization, it only gets more convenient for talented artists to share their music with the world.
The article is NONSENSE! lol
I more or less agree. He comes off as one of those guys who think the Rolling Stones were the last good thing that happened to music and since then it has been dead.


Fuck him I'll listen to hardstyle all day and enjoy it. More importantly i'll support the artists I like. Thanks to sites like Beatport it's made supporting electronic music easy and worthwhile, the same can be said of Spotify.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-29-2012, 02:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost in Space View Post
I more or less agree. He comes off as one of those guys who think the Rolling Stones were the last good thing that happened to music and since then it has been dead.


Fuck him I'll listen to hardstyle all day and enjoy it. More importantly i'll support the artists I like. Thanks to sites like Beatport it's made supporting electronic music easy and worthwhile, the same can be said of Spotify.
The list is practically endless.

Rocbattle, soundclick, soundcloud, youtube, myspace music, facebook, twitter, the list goes on and on.

Artists are capable of marketing their music in more ways than one now. Back in the 'good ole days' artists depended on big studios for expensive advertisement campaigns and marketing. Now artists are more than capable of doing that for themselves. Its great! less corporate exploitation, more music!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-30-2012, 11:51 PM
Radiohead is one of a limted amount of musicians that will still be listened to fifty years after they stop making music.

It is known.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-31-2012, 02:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeMovie View Post
The guy who wrote the article clearly has no idea what he's talking about. The music industry failing?
What a joke. The music industry is just as big as it ever was. And with digitalization, it only gets more convenient for talented artists to share their music with the world.
The article is NONSENSE! lol
The MUSIC industry is failing ethically , not monetary. That was the point of the article IMO.

I'll only be scared monetary when Madonna or U2 can't sell 300$ tickets to their shows.

I do love the use of "talented" in your argument tho because talent never was/never will be the reason some artists sell 1 million CD and others are starving ... the manager/label does that. Internet does make it more convenient for artists but for now , only the "old guard" like Radiohead , Pearl Jam and Nine Inch Nails are commercially succesful JUST on the net. People already knew those bands for 10+years.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-31-2012, 03:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtyfrog View Post
The MUSIC industry is failing ethically , not monetary. That was the point of the article IMO.

I'll only be scared monetary when Madonna or U2 can't sell 300$ tickets to their shows.

I do love the use of "talented" in your argument tho because talent never was/never will be the reason some artists sell 1 million CD and others are starving ... the manager/label does that. Internet does make it more convenient for artists but for now , only the "old guard" like Radiohead , Pearl Jam and Nine Inch Nails are commercially succesful JUST on the net. People already knew those bands for 10+years.
I'm not sure what you mean by ethically? In the literal sense of the word, are you implying that the music industry is somehow less responsible? I'm just not sure I understand your use of the word.

But I'm fairly certain I did understand the point of the article.

Quote:
RDSTREETS

1. Record Labels Stopped Doing Their Job
At some point along the way (late 70s) label executives became hipsters vs. real A&R agents, becoming more interested in keeping their jobs and playing it safe vs. finding authentic and original talent to nurture and promote over the long haul. We used to have an industry focused on finding the next new and amazing thing. Now we have an industry where labels copy other labels both in artists and material. Gone are the days of breaking out of the mold. For the last few decades it's been about formula. So it is then no wonder that radio has become a second tier medium that is mostly ignored in the United States (of course unless there's a game on).
What he's talking about here is strictly large corporation music industry, and doesn't really apply to the underground music scene. The underground music scene, as far as I know, does everything to separate their sound from the everyone else.
Independent labels, and collectives search for the unique artists and individuals. These artists and individuals market themselves with funding from sponsorships, fans, and third parties.
With the internet, these unique underground artists are capable of marketing themselves across the world.
A local underground group has done two concerts in France, sold out. They did that through self promotion, and working hard. They're name gets bigger everyday, and without the help of a huge corporation like Interscope.
30 years ago, it would have been nearly impossible to be so successful WITHOUT the help of a large corporation like Interscope.

Quote:
3. Lack of Talent and Personality
Signed artists no longer have the staying power, personality or song writing abilities of their predecessors. They may be more marketable initially, but they're just not that talented. As such for the most part we don't remember many artists or "hit" songs from the last 20 years. I have to believe there are still amazing artists and song content out there, but some artists cling to the belief that they should write their own material when they clearly shouldn't. Others do come up with great songs but probably shouldn't be singing or performing them. Further, many song artists have failed to understand that music is a calling, a passion. You do it to do it. Yes you want to make a living, but fame and celebrity is the afterglow, not the inspiration.
Again this really only applies to mainstream, big corporation music industry.

Large corporations really don't look for talent. They look for people who already have a large fan base. Justin Bieber was a popular Youtube sensation before he got signed. Corporations took advantage of the fan base he already had because they saw he had dollar signs behind his name. And now he's a product. Not an artist.


Quote:
4. Traditional Roles Have Disappeared
The music business was once an industry where producers, songwriters and artists used to be siloed within their own core competencies. As such, there were clearly defined expectations and requirements that had to be met in order for someone to take on these titles. To our benefit, these lines got a bit blurred in the 50s & 60s. However since that time, with the dwindling of funds for music education in our public schools, we now have artists calling themselves songwriters with little knowledge of music theory, composition or song structure or appreciation for styles that came before (to our detriment). We also have people calling themselves producers with minimal studio experience and an extremely limited understanding of orchestration/arranging to better help an artist in realizing his or her full potential
This is becoming a larger problem with the advent of technology. Technology makes it easier to make simple music by pressing a button. However, the key word is simple music.
Theres so much competition within the music world, that every single producer/songwriter/artist is competing and pushing themselves to become better musicians.
Learning multiple instruments fluently, learning programs, and equipment like the back of their hands. Its not easy. And most mainstream artists sure as hell arent willing or capable.

Quote:
5. Fan Abuse
Over the past 20 years the music industry has abused fans in the U.S with both unnecessarily high CD prices and obscenely high concert ticket prices. CDs cost pennies to manufacture yet cost the consumer upwards of $20 for a product that in most cases has delivered 1-2 decent tracks at best with the remainder serving only as filler. Concert tickets are also overpriced with all sorts of made up fees included in the ticket transaction to further pad the profits of the vendors who service this side of the industry. Frankly we live in an age where there are just too many other options available out there to entertain us that provide much more bang for the buck.
Local artists often give out their albums free. I have 3 albums from local artists that I got free. And I have another two that I got for ten bucks each. They were excellent. And considering the quality and the length, I got more than I would for a typical mainstream album.


Quote:
9. Lack of Musicianship
There seems to be a serious lack of musicianship at play across so many of the song artists that are signed to major labels. It's become common knowledge that some of the most famous folks priding themselves on their singing ability rely way too heavily on auto-tune. There used to be a running joke about certain bands that made their living (and their hits) only playing 3 chords (nothing wrong with it - i.e. The Ramones). Yet now it really seems to have gone too far. Where are the virtuoso instrumentalists? Where are the guitar and drum heroes? The fact that we need video games to get our fix vs. seeing the real hero perform the real licks at a real show only further points to the fact that a deep seated need amongst music lovers is just not being served properly anymore.
I've already refuted this.


Quote:
10. Focus is on Beats over Melody
Finally, the loss of melody has been a major contributor to the decline in music's standing in American culture. Traditionally, songs have comprised of four ingredients namely; melody, rhythm, harmony and lyric. Over the last 300-400 years, the strongest and most memorable music ever written more or less received equal weight in these four areas. Classical music saw heavier weight applied to melody and harmony. Then jazz, blues and later rock each applied rhythm to a greater extent (i.e. the rhythm section using drums, bass and guitar). This gave energy to the songs and to their performances both on the turntable and on the stage. However over the last 30+ years so much emphasis has been applied to beats vs. melody that the rhythm seems to be all we know. Problem is you can't hum or sing a beat. You need melody for that. And, unfortunately many of our modern producers only know how to address this need by lifting melodies from other people's songs. This can't last. With the proper permissions it's legal but is effectively cheating. And, in the opinion of this song artist only serves as the final nail in the coffin of an industry that has for far too long overstayed its welcome.
This is only applicable for a few genres of music. Is this guy trying to imply that one day no music will have melodies? Because, that will never happen. Ever.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-31-2012, 03:52 AM
ok i never will not get a "my quote is better than your quote" debate.

When i mean ethically , i mean the reason me and everyone else listen to music.

MUSIC is not a product like the tomato i slice for my salad.

1. It's not a physical product ( i dont buy the CD , i buy the songs on the cd )
2. I have a deep emotional attachment to the music i really like.

My point when i say that music fails ethically is that MUSIC keeps pushing and pushing to market it like a tomato. How many artist dont get contracts or poor contracts or limited radio play because they do 8 minutes songs ( Porcupine Tree - Anesthetize says hi .... pretty good 17 minutes rock song no one heard )

I really dont care if CD sales are 10% higher/lower than last year or if 80s music if soooo much better than present day music.

It's the connection between artist/public than will always thrive. Mainly shows.
MUSIC is just pushing for tomatoes and that's why its failing.

Last edited by Dirtyfrog; 03-31-2012 at 04:09 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-31-2012, 04:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtyfrog View Post
ok i never will not get a "my quote is better than your quote" debate.

When i mean ethically , i mean the reason me and everyone else listen to music.

MUSIC is not a product like the tomato i slice for my salad.

1. It's not a physical product ( i dont buy the CD , i buy the songs on the cd )
2. I have a deep emotional attachment to the music i really like.

My point when i say that music fails ethically is that MUSIC keeps pushing and pushing to make to market it like a tomato. How many artist dont get contracts or poor contracts or limited radio play because they do 8 minutes songs ( Porcupine Tree - Anesthetize says hi .... pretty good 17 minutes rock song no one heard )

I really dont care if CD sales are 10% higher/lower than last year or if 80s music if soooo much better than present day music.

It's the connection between artist/public than will always thrive.
MUSIC is just pushing for tomatoes and that's why its failing.
I still don't understand what you're saying here. "your quote is better than my quote"? I'm very confused.
It sounds like you're agreeing with me.

The mainstream large corporation run music world will always push for the 'tomato' as you put it.

My point is that, the large corporation run music world doesn't, and will never represent the music industry as a whole.

There are plenty of talented musicians all across the globe who have many more opportunities now. Opportunities that the Rolling Stone era talents didn't have.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-02-2012, 11:41 PM
well i didnt want to discuss the specifics of each point.

Music will never die ... on the other hand , MUSIC (industry) will get crushed at some point.

Speaking of .... just got my tix for the Thrice show on may 29th . Might sound unrelated but its a milestone for me. First band i'll see for a 5th time.

Beating old-timers like Metallica , KMFDM , Deftones , Megadeth and Pantera ... all stuck at 4 live shows.

In my 25 years of experience of going to see live band, that was unexpected in my book ( except Pantera which died with Diamond ) .... still waiting for a good Pendulum concert in Montreal coz the opening of Linkin Park didnt count

I was talking about audience connection ... Thrice does it best lately.
Check the last minute of the Firebreather video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7C7A4eUY-I
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-02-2012, 11:47 PM
when i said i didnt want to get into a quote debate .... it was coz you analyse every point the guy in the article said and i didnt want to jump into "that coma ment the opposite of what you are saying "

Just because i dont want to get into a retarded debate , doesnt mean everyone is retarded. I get what you wanted to say.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-03-2012, 01:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtyfrog View Post
when i said i didnt want to get into a quote debate .... it was coz you analyse every point the guy in the article said and i didnt want to jump into "that coma ment the opposite of what you are saying "

Just because i dont want to get into a retarded debate , doesnt mean everyone is retarded. I get what you wanted to say.
I still don't understand what you're trying to say. The music industry will never die, as you said. How can I refute his point without arguing his points?
Also, I'm not sure what qualifies as a 'retarded' debate. As far as I know, this is the first time that word is being used in this 'debate'.
But this really isn't much of a debate, as you seem to agree with the guy but can't explain why, and when I try and refute him you tell me the debate is 'retarded'. Awesome.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-04-2012, 05:20 PM
Sigh ... you really want me in this debate , dont ya ? ok i'll pick it up on 1 point.

5. Fan Abuse
Over the past 20 years the music industry has abused fans in the U.S with both unnecessarily high CD prices and obscenely high concert ticket prices. CDs cost pennies to manufacture yet cost the consumer upwards of $20 for a product that in most cases has delivered 1-2 decent tracks at best with the remainder serving only as filler. Concert tickets are also overpriced with all sorts of made up fees included in the ticket transaction to further pad the profits of the vendors who service this side of the industry. Frankly we live in an age where there are just too many other options available out there to entertain us that provide much more bang for the buck.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeMovie View Post
Local artists often give out their albums free. I have 3 albums from local artists that I got free. And I have another two that I got for ten bucks each. They were excellent. And considering the quality and the length, I got more than I would for a typical mainstream album.
That's why i always differenciate music ( as a medium ) and MUSIC ( as an industry ). I know local bands will give away free cd BECAUSE they are local bands. Local is the starting point of a career. A major band like mmmmm let's say U2 will never give away their new cd since that means like 10 millions+ gift. A local band will make 1000 cd of their album at best , they will spend around 3k$ and count it in promo expense.

Apples and oranges. The article's point is based on music store cd & ticket prices and it's right. Why the fuck should i pay 30$ for a KMFDM cd when Lady Gaga cd sell for 12$ ( beside the point that KMFDM will sell 50k unit at best and Lady Gaga will sell shitload of millions .... still same process ).

Same for shows , if i wanna go see the next Gigantour next summer , tickets will be around 90$ ..... before the 20$ fee from ticket provider because the lady at the counter pressed PRINT. So overall , i paid 110$ but the bands will barely see 30 bucks out of all that. That's the problem.

MUSIC (industry) is the problem , not music (medium).

My problem is that all your answer are directed to support the medium while the article is against the industry. That's all.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-05-2012, 03:07 AM
Quote:
Sigh ... you really want me in this debate , dont ya ? ok i'll pick it up on 1 point.
You responded to me first. That indicated to me that you had a point you wanted to share. I've been trying to get you to share that point, but you've just been beating around the bush ever since.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtyfrog View Post
MUSIC (industry) is the problem , not music (medium).

My problem is that all your answer are directed to support the medium while the article is against the industry. That's all.
Then I'm not sure you understand the definition of the music industry. Industry encompasses everybody. Not just major bands like U2 and lady gaga.

The local bands in my area are signed to independent labels. I'm a musician myself and am also in the process of getting my name out there. I want music as a career, and I'm not trying to get signed to a big corporation like Interscope.

I'm part of the industry right now. If you're selling it. Technically you're part of it. If you're selling any aspect of your music. You're part of the industry.

I saw a local group about a month ago. Great show. Because I arrived before the crowds, I got a free band shirt and an older album of theirs.

After the show they sold their newest album at the venue. They also got a percentage of ticket sales, seeing as their event supported the bar.

Again, these guys are signed to an indie label. Yet they give a lot out free. They're very much part of the music business.


Quote:
Apples and oranges. The article's point is based on music store cd & ticket prices and it's right.
The point of the article is about the music industry. Only one point in the entire article about cd prices. If you didn't notice, every other point talks about modern musicians and why they suck compared to the Rolling Stones.

It sounds like both you and this article are living in the past. Which is my point. People can watch TV, and surf the internet on their phones now. That's insane.

It's now easier than ever to get your name out their as an artist and market yourself.
In the old days you NEEDED a big label to help you promote yourself. And the label would still screw you over.

Now days, people can promote themselves. Things like Twitter, Youtube, Myspace Music, Facebook, etc.. Give artists the capability to broadcast their music to a large audience.

I could make millions of dollars every year through internet marketing alone. That's without the help of a label, or a CD store.

Would I not be part of the music industry if I was selling millions of dollars worth of music every year?

Last edited by MikeMovie; 04-05-2012 at 03:09 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-05-2012, 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeMovie View Post
You responded to me first. That indicated to me that you had a point you wanted to share. I've been trying to get you to share that point, but you've just been beating around the bush ever since.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeMovie View Post
I still don't understand what you're trying to say. The music industry will never die, as you said. How can I refute his point without arguing his points?
Also, I'm not sure what qualifies as a 'retarded' debate. As far as I know, this is the first time that word is being used in this 'debate'.
But this really isn't much of a debate, as you seem to agree with the guy but can't explain why, and when I try and refute him you tell me the debate is 'retarded'. Awesome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeMovie View Post
I still don't understand what you're saying here. "your quote is better than my quote"? I'm very confused.
It sounds like you're agreeing with me.

Quote:
I'm not sure what you mean by ethically? In the literal sense of the word, are you implying that the music industry is somehow less responsible? I'm just not sure I understand your use of the word.

But I'm fairly certain I did understand the point of the article.
You actually could not be more casually obnoxious. I agree with you almost entirely but the fact you have to condescend the other guy every time you say something just looks silly. Let's cut out the fat and just get to what we want to say yea?

Quote:
Radiohead is one of a limted amount of musicians that will still be listened to fifty years after they stop making music.
I'm laughing at that statement.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-05-2012, 01:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost in Space View Post
You actually could not be more casually obnoxious. I agree with you almost entirely but the fact you have to condescend the other guy every time you say something just looks silly. Let's cut out the fat and just get to what we want to say yea?
I don't think I've condescended him at all. I asked for him to share his point. I really didn't understand the point he was trying to make, and I'm still having a difficult time understanding his viewpoint.
I simply asked for him to explain his point of view. Especially since he was eager to refute mine.
I wasn't getting nasty or condescending with anybody. Maybe a bit frustrated that he tried to shy away from answering my questions, hence the eye roll.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-05-2012, 03:12 PM
I only agree with #5 fan abuse.

The rest really tie back to money.

Money ruined everything.
The artists make too much too easy and burn out too fast. They have very little talent to last beyond an album or two.+

The producers and companies sell image and buy low. Once someone hits they tend to drop them so they dont have to pay them the big bucks out of their pockets and kill their own product. They stop pushing They sold this bullshit that production time costs so much. That is complete bullshit. They own the equipment and it costs a lot, but it is paid for dozens of times over. Once an artist gets some money, they buy all the shit they need and start their own studio.

Bands used to work hard to get known for years, They had lots of good fresh material. Now you are lucky if you get 3 songs you like.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-06-2012, 01:00 PM
1. I'm not shying away
2. I don't refute your argument , just stating that they are misguided.

Let's take #3 - Lack of Talent and Personnality.

Basically , you say the article is wrong and you are right because in music ( as a medium ) it's not true. Lots of bands/artists have both but the article focus mostly on the top40 charts one (aka mainstream ) and it's right about that. They all could be blood relative for what i know. I think that's what the article ment.

It's like a variation of a spaghetti dish .... this one got red pepper , this one got garlic , this one has a butter & salt sauce ..... it still is spaghetti in the end. That point in the article blames the lack of steak & seafood in the mainstream menu.

Well , that's my opinion.

Last edited by Dirtyfrog; 04-06-2012 at 01:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-07-2012, 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtyfrog View Post
1. I'm not shying away
2. I don't refute your argument , just stating that they are misguided.

Let's take #3 - Lack of Talent and Personnality.

Basically , you say the article is wrong and you are right because in music ( as a medium ) it's not true. Lots of bands/artists have both but the article focus mostly on the top40 charts one (aka mainstream ) and it's right about that. They all could be blood relative for what i know. I think that's what the article ment.

It's like a variation of a spaghetti dish .... this one got red pepper , this one got garlic , this one has a butter & salt sauce ..... it still is spaghetti in the end. That point in the article blames the lack of steak & seafood in the mainstream menu.

Well , that's my opinion.
The title of the article is "Top 10 reasons why the music industry is failing" and that is totally untrue. As I've said before, the MUSIC INDUSTRY is not failing.

I agree that the top 40 typically has no talent. The top 100 typically has no talent. They all seem alike. They're all basically spaghetti. Everything he says does apply to the top 40.
BUT
Where in the article is it said that he's only referring to the top 40? Where in the article does he say he's only referring to the utmost mainstream?

Is the mainstream music industry failing? Sure is.
Is the massive music industry which exists beyond corporate control failing? Nah, and none of the top 10 'reasons' applies to them.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-07-2012, 04:12 PM
If you work in music PR is it easier or harder to find a job now (or even 5 years ago) or compared to 20 years ago?

Music sucks today I mean you can't even begin to compare music quality today to what it was during the 60s and 70s let alone the 80s and 90s. And that's reflected in the failing of the music industry as a whole.

Last edited by creekin111; 04-07-2012 at 04:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-07-2012, 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
If you work in music PR is it easier or harder to find a job now (or even 5 years ago) or compared to 20 years ago?

Music sucks today I mean you can't even begin to compare music quality today to what it was during the 60s and 70s let alone the 80s and 90s. And that's reflected in the failing of the music industry as a whole.
I disagree. I think there are just as many talented, inspiring artists today as there were in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. I just think that the standards for 'radio' music has decreased.
The Beatles > Katy Perry
The Roots > The Beatles
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-08-2012, 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeMovie View Post
I disagree. I think there are just as many talented, inspiring artists today as there were in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. I just think that the standards for 'radio' music has decreased.
The Beatles > Katy Perry
The Roots > The Beatles
Well even the bands that got less play during the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s were better than most of the bands/artists of today.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-09-2012, 06:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
Well even the bands that got less play during the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s were better than most of the bands/artists of today.
As far as rock music goes, I completely agree. I cant think of one rock band that formed after 90' that I listen to. Just about all of the rock I do listen to was 70s-80s era rock. A few formed in the 60s but even then, its usually their 70s stuff I listen to.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-10-2012, 11:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeMovie View Post
The title of the article is "Top 10 reasons why the music industry is failing" and that is totally untrue. As I've said before, the MUSIC INDUSTRY is not failing.
I think this is the point where we differ .... because i do agree that the MUSIC INDUSTRY is failing.

Mostly because it wants to stick to old-school business model ( CD sales , ticket sales , radioplay, etc ) while new technologies have empowered the customer.

By failing , i do not mean DYING.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-11-2012, 12:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
Well even the bands that got less play during the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s were better than most of the bands/artists of today.
That's not true ...... we only remember the 60s/70s/80s/90s music that was great but we forget the 1000s and 1000s of shitty ones.

Granted that without the tools available today , the ones who made it back then were more carefully chosen by the labels. Like J.Bieber wouldn't be big in the 60s because Youtube didnt exist .... and even if he did manage to be big someday in the 60s , he would be like 28 yo when success came knocking. Over night sensations didnt exist but now its kinda the norm to attract the best writers/composers around.

This is the big difference between "now and then" ..... pretty sure in 2050 , people will say that 2010 music was teh shit !!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-11-2012, 12:08 AM
Well the music industry is failing because of sales through shops are not making profits anymore because of the way you can get free music on the internet

I have to agree with Erronoeous that bands used to work hard for there money and now they dont it is all because of the interent

You can download or get your music from Itunes

it is sad really but if they dont bring in a law they will not even bother to sing
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-11-2012, 09:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtyfrog View Post
I think this is the point where we differ .... because i do agree that the MUSIC INDUSTRY is failing.

Mostly because it wants to stick to old-school business model ( CD sales , ticket sales , radioplay, etc ) while new technologies have empowered the customer.

By failing , i do not mean DYING.
I think I see what you're getting at now. But I still don't think it's 'failing'. As i've said before, corporate bigwigs are making less and less money everyday. Which doesn't bother me. But the artists who play their cards right are becoming more popular than ever, and they're really starting to become successful.
And to me, thats a step forward for the entire music industry.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-11-2012, 09:19 PM
Well it is true the industry is not failing at this moment but it could be better

I feel that if we didnt have the interenet you would find that more people would by from music stores just like a few years back we didnt have the problems we do have now

it is easy to just download your music for nothing than go to the local store to buy the disc

The singers are losing money because of this
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-12-2012, 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bondgirl View Post
The singers are losing money because of this
This is actually untrue. A lot of people think that musicians make most of their money from cd sales, but that isn't the case. CD sales put money in the Record Labels pocket.
Musicians make 99% of their money through concerts, endorsements, merchandise, clothing lines, and other things.

That's why you see musicians with their own brand of alcohol, with their own clothing lines, with their own restaurants and what not.

Record Labels generally screw the artists as far as record sales. In most cases, an artist will have to sell a million copies before they see any real money.

Yes, music stores are hurting. But the musicians themselves aren't. But there isn't one 'industry' on the planet that isn't shifting for the digital age. Netflix instantly streams videos, which helped kill blockbuster and other video stores.
iTunes, among other things, killed/is killing music stores. But if these stores were smart, they would adapt to the digital age, and their companies would survive.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-21-2012, 06:30 PM
Considering rap/hip-hop (i.e. pretty much the ONLY type of music there is that I really don't like at all -- sorry, I don't give a shit about lyrics; I need melody, harmony, varied musical textures, etc.) seems to be the most prominent genre these days, it's probably little wonder. Other genres like jazz and country have become highly watered down ('redneck pop' would be a more apt term for the latter these days ). Most R&B has become almost too overtly sexual for my comfort. Rock is still mostly spinning its wheels (Jack White remains one of the few major voices... and even his sound remains deeply rooted in the past). And pop has never been more synthetic and disposable. I suppose there's little wonder I don't listen to very many post-80s groups.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump