I was checking the thread 'What happened to music after 1992?' and decided to make another more comteporary thread for a couple reasons:
1992 was 20 (20!!!) years ago and times have changed and music, as an art, as a product, as a communication device, it's technology to produce and reproduce, etc have also changed dramatically... From the LP to the MP3, from the record store to iTunes, from the big record labels to the indy people...
First, very quick music after 1992: It became a business. Artists gave up soul for dollar signs. Their stuff went into scrutiny by big record corporations (examples of such corporation, the RIAA) because corporations wanted artists to create music that was sure to sell, thus, artists becoming mainstream, becoming sellouts.
It happened a lot within my type of music, Punk Rock, when the most evil corporation that kills music, MTV, wanted a piece of the pie as well changing a lot of my favorite bands back then into commertial products. It also influenced other artists into thinking going commertial = getting a contract with big music corporatios thus allowing them to make money.
Now, 1992 was a very long time ago. What happened to music after 2005 +/-?
The internet came and with it a whole different ball game. Technologies became more efficient, cheap and easy to aquire. Communication became quicker and more effective, artists from New York could collaborate with artists in California without taking a single plane, bus or train (check out band: The Postal Service).
Creating recording studios is cheaper than ever. Powerful computer software like Logic and Reason is more easy to get and powerful than ever. Even to promote your music, Facebook, MySpace,Twitter is way better and cheaper then say any corporate music magazine like Rolling Stone.
Even the not-cool aspects like 'music sharing' promote bands getting their live presentations full of people. An interview I saw on TV with rapper Pitbull, he said artists dont make money like they used to on record sales, they have to tour and sell merch, do ads, collaborations etc if they want to make money, people with a smartphone is a potential music sharer thus promoter.
Now artists can do everything themselves, from production to event management by themselves leaving completely out of the equation the big music corporations. Their content comes out like they want when they want without deadlines leading to rushed productions etc. From those who were under a music contract while the internet boom, are not comming back and becoming independent. Websites like pitchfork, pandora, last.fm, amazon, itunes can recommend similar artists.
So what has changed? Everything changed. This on a audiophile forum is interesting because a debate can come out like 'that indy music doesnt have quality' or 'the production techniques are inferior of those corporations with money' but definetly more creativity exists and easier to aquire than ever. Sure we dont longer have the Marvin Gayes, Gloria Gaynors, Pink Floyds, The Doors, John Coltrane etc but we have The Cinematic Orquestra, Adele, Florence + The Machine, Jaga Jazzist, Bonobo....
What do you think? Older people, how you feel about music after the internet? Even vinyl sales have gotten up in later years due more artists keeping the format alive...
1992 was 20 (20!!!) years ago and times have changed and music, as an art, as a product, as a communication device, it's technology to produce and reproduce, etc have also changed dramatically... From the LP to the MP3, from the record store to iTunes, from the big record labels to the indy people...
First, very quick music after 1992: It became a business. Artists gave up soul for dollar signs. Their stuff went into scrutiny by big record corporations (examples of such corporation, the RIAA) because corporations wanted artists to create music that was sure to sell, thus, artists becoming mainstream, becoming sellouts.
It happened a lot within my type of music, Punk Rock, when the most evil corporation that kills music, MTV, wanted a piece of the pie as well changing a lot of my favorite bands back then into commertial products. It also influenced other artists into thinking going commertial = getting a contract with big music corporatios thus allowing them to make money.
Now, 1992 was a very long time ago. What happened to music after 2005 +/-?
The internet came and with it a whole different ball game. Technologies became more efficient, cheap and easy to aquire. Communication became quicker and more effective, artists from New York could collaborate with artists in California without taking a single plane, bus or train (check out band: The Postal Service).
Creating recording studios is cheaper than ever. Powerful computer software like Logic and Reason is more easy to get and powerful than ever. Even to promote your music, Facebook, MySpace,Twitter is way better and cheaper then say any corporate music magazine like Rolling Stone.
Even the not-cool aspects like 'music sharing' promote bands getting their live presentations full of people. An interview I saw on TV with rapper Pitbull, he said artists dont make money like they used to on record sales, they have to tour and sell merch, do ads, collaborations etc if they want to make money, people with a smartphone is a potential music sharer thus promoter.
Now artists can do everything themselves, from production to event management by themselves leaving completely out of the equation the big music corporations. Their content comes out like they want when they want without deadlines leading to rushed productions etc. From those who were under a music contract while the internet boom, are not comming back and becoming independent. Websites like pitchfork, pandora, last.fm, amazon, itunes can recommend similar artists.
So what has changed? Everything changed. This on a audiophile forum is interesting because a debate can come out like 'that indy music doesnt have quality' or 'the production techniques are inferior of those corporations with money' but definetly more creativity exists and easier to aquire than ever. Sure we dont longer have the Marvin Gayes, Gloria Gaynors, Pink Floyds, The Doors, John Coltrane etc but we have The Cinematic Orquestra, Adele, Florence + The Machine, Jaga Jazzist, Bonobo....
What do you think? Older people, how you feel about music after the internet? Even vinyl sales have gotten up in later years due more artists keeping the format alive...
What?
You're not serious, I hope. I was working in the music business in 1992 and don't remember any great shift. Believe me, it was a business long before that and continues to be one today.The biggest shift I see from the '90s is that back then concerts supported CD sales. The money was in record sales. Now the money is in concerts. That's not such a bad change, is it?
What Pano said- for 45 years, I've been actively going to concerts, buying records, and (many years ago) playing in bands, and it's ALWAYS been about the money. As I've said ad nauseum, the Internet has only been a good thing, greatly increasing diversity and removing the gatekeepers with suits and focus groups. The oddball-talented local indy bands (like Crack the Sky, Okkervil River, Dark Dark Dark) can suddenly find audiences outside of their home turf- and be accessible to them.
It has certainly been a money business back to the wax roll and Edison, through the big bands and Sinatra, soul, rock n' roll, pop of all varieties, punk, headbanger, to today. The record companies ruled as gods by pushing coke up the noses of DJs many decades ago. All through the lure for many performers was sex, drugs, money & fame in some order. The internet has only changed that by creating a huge bypass path around the moneymen at the center. Its done good in diversity, bad in lack of uniform quality (although the money men sin here as well), awful where it has expropriated the property of performers without fair compensation, and great for removing the bottlenecks.
Internet makes some hard to find music recordings easier accessible that is a real pro.
Also the fact that Atlantic City organ that was started in 1929 eventually was accomplished almost a Century later in XXI makes me feel there is some interest in music now as well. Lovely instrument BTW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBFtgzmxunY
Very few primarily HiEnd stereos are able to reproduce recordings with adequate quality at home however.
Also the fact that Atlantic City organ that was started in 1929 eventually was accomplished almost a Century later in XXI makes me feel there is some interest in music now as well. Lovely instrument BTW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBFtgzmxunY
Very few primarily HiEnd stereos are able to reproduce recordings with adequate quality at home however.
It's somewhat similar to a conversation I had with my 15 YO niece, I told her her hand-held device will in a decade or so, give her access to any and all music/narration/movies EVER recorded. The entire sum of human Knowledge ever recorded, available in her hand. She didn't understand any of the ramifications this would imply......but it is coming. It would seem quantity vs. quality are inversely proportional. The by now, infamous statement of the Mixing Engineer pandering to the "customer"....the poor mixing, we will soon see the drop in quality of video to match the "customers" 150mm screen size. Bandwidth will not be able to keep up with the incoming flood of volume. Handheld media will fall onto the "elites" of music & video.........us.
With our 'passion' we will be the odd-balls of society, not caving into the "norm".......That's OK, we never really were!
_______________________________________________________Rick........
With our 'passion' we will be the odd-balls of society, not caving into the "norm".......That's OK, we never really were!
_______________________________________________________Rick........
Last edited:
The all time, number one motivation in the music biz.
There was a great Life In Hell comic to this effect about 20 years ago.
What?
The biggest shift I see from the '90s is that back then concerts supported CD sales. The money was in record sales. Now the money is in concerts. That's not such a bad change, is it?
Yes you have a point and to put it more specific, it has always been a business dominated by big music corporations like BME, Sony, Universal, etc and like any business they want to sell. Good or bad what matters was the sale.
Now change came within 2005 with the advent of the internet. More people with high speed connections became better quality and better technologies to distribute music. Artists could leave corporations out of the equation and produce, promote and tour their music the way they see fit. No deadlines, no corporate filters.
After Korn made the first album, Blind, they got a record label who demanded another record within a deadline. They say the reason the second album, A.D.I.D.A.S, was such rubberish is because of a deadline. This also reminds me of lazy artists that make an album with 2-3 good songs and the rest is filler. Now you can get the song you want for ~$2.
Let's take another example, it may be controversial but many important businesses analysts and publications say it, Steve Jobs changes the way we interact with music with the iPod and the way we acquire it, iTunes. Around where I live, record stores with many years in the market like "Casa de los Tapes", "La gran Discoteca" Disco Hits" among others all have been closing in droves for the last 10 years since people are no longer going there to get their music. Same thing is happening with Blockbuster in the movies department. The Blockbusters became Netflix and the record stores iTunes, SoundCloud, MixCloud etc. People get online and from the comfort of their home they get it.
Now I think that's quite a big change.
The vinyl LP album format still being produced for audio aficionados in mind. Not tape, not 8-track but vinyl with better sound quality. Big artists like Radiohead sell their music online and many times even give it for free. They know the money is on concerts and the hassle of producing physical copies, distribution, retail handshake is just not worth it due people pirating it in the first place.
Beign a DJ myself, our industry has changed more in the last 5 years than since it's most primitive inception. I no longer need to buy vinyl, I use a DVS (digital vinyl system) and get my music on Beatport on the format I see fit, AIFF, WAV, 320kbps MP3, FLAC etc. Instead of buying an album for $20 I buy the track I see fit for $2. Just like iTunes.
Shure, we now have new an often very talented artists and groups.
However one essential part seems to be missing for the most part........ good songs with a real mellody and interesting chord pattern.
Now, it seems we often just have a boaring, predictable beat with a monotone vocal drone over a single chord that subs for a melody!
I suspect that it's mainly due to giving the "people" what they want instead of being creative.
However one essential part seems to be missing for the most part........ good songs with a real mellody and interesting chord pattern.
Now, it seems we often just have a boaring, predictable beat with a monotone vocal drone over a single chord that subs for a melody!
I suspect that it's mainly due to giving the "people" what they want instead of being creative.
Last edited:
JoeDJ - I think that accusation can be leveled against chart music, but in many not so mainstream genres (progressive metal, dubstep, drum & bass being my three favourite three) we are seeing a whole range of experimental styles emerging, while the two electronic genres have basic guidelines that they must *nearly always* conform to, beyond that basic principle nearly anything goes.
Hell, without the internet my mate's death metal band wouldnt be getting gigs and touring the UK, without the internet I wouldnt be able to share mixes i've recorded and tracks that i'm trying to produce with any of my friends! I wouldnt even have the software necessary to produce tunes. So from my view the internet is a blessing to the music industry.
As for a lot of mainstream being boring and predictable, a lot of pop music back through the ages was just as banal, we only remember the classics, or at least those of us born within the last 30 years only remember the classics.
A friend of mine who takes complex music far too seriously once said that the reason modern pop music is so boring is because young people these days are not musically educated enough to comprehend more complex forms such as classical music, or prog rock. I think to some extent he has a point.
Hell, without the internet my mate's death metal band wouldnt be getting gigs and touring the UK, without the internet I wouldnt be able to share mixes i've recorded and tracks that i'm trying to produce with any of my friends! I wouldnt even have the software necessary to produce tunes. So from my view the internet is a blessing to the music industry.
As for a lot of mainstream being boring and predictable, a lot of pop music back through the ages was just as banal, we only remember the classics, or at least those of us born within the last 30 years only remember the classics.
A friend of mine who takes complex music far too seriously once said that the reason modern pop music is so boring is because young people these days are not musically educated enough to comprehend more complex forms such as classical music, or prog rock. I think to some extent he has a point.
This is one reason that I listen to a lot of the newer County and Western groups. They write their stuff (often - but not always) can sing it live and can actually play more than four chords.
The internet is a great thing for music and the artist. The 1st time I went bust was from getting shafted by record companies and recording studio's. Someone in or around the performer still needs to know how to run the business end of things - but by going direct to the listeners and customers it cuts out a lot of the money sharks that are between the two. I was always surprised by how many performers were paid crap but the managers and record companies racked it in from their talent and labors.
Audio/visual technology has evolved to the point where the creation of any conceivable (or otherwise) visual or sonic impression is within reach of millions. Television, advertisements, games, music, film - all have increased in pace enormously, and with this (IMHO), 'consumers' of 'content' have had their boredom thresholds and attention spans altered.
The earliest computer games had one 'event' every second or few (Pong, Pacman, Space Invaders); now even the most basic console game has multi-variable, continuously-changing on-screen status, with 3-D visual and auditory input vying for attention. Television programmes used to have infrequent 'technical edits' (shot changes, cutaways, etc); now, 'serious' documentaries have incessant edits, irrelevant, dramatic background music and visual effects. Even news programming has continuous ticker info on screen, etc.
In music, it would clearly be absurd to compare Sibelius to dubstep, but the question is: why would music with abrupt and disjointed changes in rhythm, pace, tonality, texture, etc - be of interest to anyone? Dupstep isn't really a pet hate, I just can't imagine what state my mind would have to be in to enjoy it.
(Incidentally, I don't see dubstep as an extension of the rhythmic, trance-inducing dance music that found a new voice with the emergence of cheap audio tech and the rise of MIDI in the 80s and 90s (1992 was a great year for progressive house). House and related forms picked up where Funk left off, and continued the ages-old tradition of dancing in a trance-like state with one's community until sun-up, dubstep seems only to be explicable as a sonic analogue of the discombobulated, hectic babble its adherents are used to experiencing in other media.)
Well, it's easy to 'create' - Beardyman explains Dubstep. (A fairly amusing three minutes, during which, ponder: is this the creation of art; the generation of sound; or the mere actuation of noise?)
"Everyone has a book inside them, and for most people that's where it should stay." Widely-attributed, oft quoted, and applicable to music, too. I suspect that much of what I would consider musical dross has been 'created' by those whose talents really lie elsewhere. Before music could be recorded, no composer would have been able to persuade any assembly of musicians to play their work if it wasn't possessed of at least some commonly-appreciated merit. Now, with the virtual orchestras and printing presses at our disposal, there is more 'content' than ever, but the audio and print industries are in crisis. If - collectively - we were creating material of long-lasting value, would this be the case?
On a train recently, I had no choice but to overhear the music a girl two rows away from me was listening to. I'm pretty sure that during the 45min trip, she didn't complete a single track before zapping to another - typical 'youth' behaviour (as was the cochlear-wasting level). Why spend time and resources on good recording, production and mastering, if most of the target audience won't listen to half the work, and half of them can't hear most of it?
The Penguin Cafe Orchestra's album was "Recorded at the Penguin Cafe between 1977-1980." It's a superb recording of unorthodox, curious music; a gem with timeless appeal. I have no idea how and by whom the recording was financed; but who would wait more than three years for an album now?
So, artists are having to get up and perform to make money nowadays? Fancy that! And if they aren't making the same relative amounts as Led Zep when they had a Boeing 720, what does this imply? What is encouraging is the clear appreciation for authentic voices. There's an interview with the excellent Seasick Steve somewhere, where he comments on the inability of some current performers to entertain. His own path - many years as a street performer - gave him an ability not only to perform, but to connect with and entertain his audience. Highly recommended, by the way.
Live music certainly isn't dead, but what has gone wrong with live sound? I used to live in a city with an annual, 10-day, free music and arts festival, with the main stage about fifty feet from my window. There would be everything from funk to folk via reggae and classical. Until ~2003, they used Turbosound Floodlight, and the sound was very variable, and highly dependent on the engineer. The good ones really got it singing, but the bad ones (or bad bands) sounded bad. Then they began using line arrays - AKA 'dangling turds' - and the sound has been uniformly mediocre ever since.
Line arrays have become a meme; everyone is using them, but no-one is listening to them (maybe they're too busy looking at the specs). Even the Montreux Jazz Festival. Turds everywhere, gnueurch! Mediocre is the best they can do, and I've yet to hear an exception. Sheep-like, marketing droid-based behaviour of the PA companies, many now bought out and congealed into a mush, with only the brand names still visible?
Things have also changed enormously in the organisation and promotion of live music. Sure, the internet is available to all for self-promotion, but public spaces are still accessible to those with cash. Companies like Clear Channel appear to be monopolising radio, advertising, and promotional space, and allegedly denying access/airplay to competitors or artists signed with competitors. Who remembers the Hammersmith Odeon? Hammy O, then Labbatt's Apollo, and now it's the HMV Hammersmith Apollo (and maybe some other stuff in between). What exactly is the London cinema/Canadian beer connection..?
Music festivals are suffering too, stymied by increasingly ridiculous policing and noise control policies, and forced to do sponsorship deals to have a hope of breaking even. Glastonbury Festival is now festooned with corporate logos, and equipped with ATMs and such. Getting a bunch of people together in a field with a genny and a few local bands seems to be impossible nowadays, at least in the UK.
Finally, what's with the record companies' failure to embrace new media? I signed up to hdtracks.com, only to be told at first login: "For the time being, HDtracks only sells to U.S. Residents"! WTF?! Record companies claim hardship; I sign up with the intention of spending my money, and am pushed away? Cretins!
Still, on the plus side, cost is now much less of a barrier to upcoming artists having access to creative tools and equipment; people are objecting to the loudness war (both for music, and for broadcast, see: Loudness Wars/EBU R128); the possibility exists for really high quality audio to become broadly available, and for many unheard, authentic voices to be appreciated.
This wasn't intended to be such a rant, and I hope I don't sound too curmudgeonly. Actually, I think we're in a trough at present, and hope we will look back at the last 10-20 years as a partially lost opportunity from which lessons were learned... As long as the big corps aren't allowed to take over, the future could be pretty good.
The earliest computer games had one 'event' every second or few (Pong, Pacman, Space Invaders); now even the most basic console game has multi-variable, continuously-changing on-screen status, with 3-D visual and auditory input vying for attention. Television programmes used to have infrequent 'technical edits' (shot changes, cutaways, etc); now, 'serious' documentaries have incessant edits, irrelevant, dramatic background music and visual effects. Even news programming has continuous ticker info on screen, etc.
In music, it would clearly be absurd to compare Sibelius to dubstep, but the question is: why would music with abrupt and disjointed changes in rhythm, pace, tonality, texture, etc - be of interest to anyone? Dupstep isn't really a pet hate, I just can't imagine what state my mind would have to be in to enjoy it.
(Incidentally, I don't see dubstep as an extension of the rhythmic, trance-inducing dance music that found a new voice with the emergence of cheap audio tech and the rise of MIDI in the 80s and 90s (1992 was a great year for progressive house). House and related forms picked up where Funk left off, and continued the ages-old tradition of dancing in a trance-like state with one's community until sun-up, dubstep seems only to be explicable as a sonic analogue of the discombobulated, hectic babble its adherents are used to experiencing in other media.)
Well, it's easy to 'create' - Beardyman explains Dubstep. (A fairly amusing three minutes, during which, ponder: is this the creation of art; the generation of sound; or the mere actuation of noise?)
"Everyone has a book inside them, and for most people that's where it should stay." Widely-attributed, oft quoted, and applicable to music, too. I suspect that much of what I would consider musical dross has been 'created' by those whose talents really lie elsewhere. Before music could be recorded, no composer would have been able to persuade any assembly of musicians to play their work if it wasn't possessed of at least some commonly-appreciated merit. Now, with the virtual orchestras and printing presses at our disposal, there is more 'content' than ever, but the audio and print industries are in crisis. If - collectively - we were creating material of long-lasting value, would this be the case?
On a train recently, I had no choice but to overhear the music a girl two rows away from me was listening to. I'm pretty sure that during the 45min trip, she didn't complete a single track before zapping to another - typical 'youth' behaviour (as was the cochlear-wasting level). Why spend time and resources on good recording, production and mastering, if most of the target audience won't listen to half the work, and half of them can't hear most of it?
The Penguin Cafe Orchestra's album was "Recorded at the Penguin Cafe between 1977-1980." It's a superb recording of unorthodox, curious music; a gem with timeless appeal. I have no idea how and by whom the recording was financed; but who would wait more than three years for an album now?
So, artists are having to get up and perform to make money nowadays? Fancy that! And if they aren't making the same relative amounts as Led Zep when they had a Boeing 720, what does this imply? What is encouraging is the clear appreciation for authentic voices. There's an interview with the excellent Seasick Steve somewhere, where he comments on the inability of some current performers to entertain. His own path - many years as a street performer - gave him an ability not only to perform, but to connect with and entertain his audience. Highly recommended, by the way.
Live music certainly isn't dead, but what has gone wrong with live sound? I used to live in a city with an annual, 10-day, free music and arts festival, with the main stage about fifty feet from my window. There would be everything from funk to folk via reggae and classical. Until ~2003, they used Turbosound Floodlight, and the sound was very variable, and highly dependent on the engineer. The good ones really got it singing, but the bad ones (or bad bands) sounded bad. Then they began using line arrays - AKA 'dangling turds' - and the sound has been uniformly mediocre ever since.
Line arrays have become a meme; everyone is using them, but no-one is listening to them (maybe they're too busy looking at the specs). Even the Montreux Jazz Festival. Turds everywhere, gnueurch! Mediocre is the best they can do, and I've yet to hear an exception. Sheep-like, marketing droid-based behaviour of the PA companies, many now bought out and congealed into a mush, with only the brand names still visible?
Things have also changed enormously in the organisation and promotion of live music. Sure, the internet is available to all for self-promotion, but public spaces are still accessible to those with cash. Companies like Clear Channel appear to be monopolising radio, advertising, and promotional space, and allegedly denying access/airplay to competitors or artists signed with competitors. Who remembers the Hammersmith Odeon? Hammy O, then Labbatt's Apollo, and now it's the HMV Hammersmith Apollo (and maybe some other stuff in between). What exactly is the London cinema/Canadian beer connection..?
Music festivals are suffering too, stymied by increasingly ridiculous policing and noise control policies, and forced to do sponsorship deals to have a hope of breaking even. Glastonbury Festival is now festooned with corporate logos, and equipped with ATMs and such. Getting a bunch of people together in a field with a genny and a few local bands seems to be impossible nowadays, at least in the UK.
Finally, what's with the record companies' failure to embrace new media? I signed up to hdtracks.com, only to be told at first login: "For the time being, HDtracks only sells to U.S. Residents"! WTF?! Record companies claim hardship; I sign up with the intention of spending my money, and am pushed away? Cretins!
Still, on the plus side, cost is now much less of a barrier to upcoming artists having access to creative tools and equipment; people are objecting to the loudness war (both for music, and for broadcast, see: Loudness Wars/EBU R128); the possibility exists for really high quality audio to become broadly available, and for many unheard, authentic voices to be appreciated.
This wasn't intended to be such a rant, and I hope I don't sound too curmudgeonly. Actually, I think we're in a trough at present, and hope we will look back at the last 10-20 years as a partially lost opportunity from which lessons were learned... As long as the big corps aren't allowed to take over, the future could be pretty good.
Most posts here (not the one above) seem to be talking about music distribution since the Internet, not MUSIC. There is a difference, you know.
Pop music has always been simple and banal. That's what makes it pop. The only change is that it seems to get louder and more raucous as time goes by. Shootz, I never cared for "Classic Rock" when it was new - only with the passing of time has it become tolerable. Mainstream music has been rubbish for decades, and that's not about to change.
Pop music has always been simple and banal. That's what makes it pop. The only change is that it seems to get louder and more raucous as time goes by. Shootz, I never cared for "Classic Rock" when it was new - only with the passing of time has it become tolerable. Mainstream music has been rubbish for decades, and that's not about to change.
My watershed year is 1981. I find it surprising how many LP's I like from around that time including hardcore punk and harsh industrial. Independent labels were thriving in a real DIY record atmosphere. Ah, for those CRASS LP's all folded up in their political spew.
I think the culture has transformed as much as the music.
As I was growing up in Miami there were two to three rock music stations. As the radio waves were all acquired by the mega corps the music began to die. Now there are ZERO rock music stations receivable in the south Florida area. There is absoultely NOTHING on the radio that I want to hear. So where do I go to look for new music, or cool videos of the stuff that I grew up with.....DUH the internet. Rock concerts in South Florida? Not many any more. I went to a Lollapalooza concert here in 1996, last year Lollapalooza was streamed live right into my flat screen TV via the internet. I wrote down what I liked and bought the CD's from Amazon. I never would have found that stuff without the internet since the radio doesen't play it anymore.
I wouldn't say "musically educated", but overall educated. I see newer people as "anything goes" constant consumers. They don't demand their gear to be good, the mastering to retain dynamics, nor the local newspaper to be fair, nor their schools to teach. So not demanding good music is just a part of it all.
Here in Brasil we face a decade-and-a-half long educational crisis, and the ultimate popular music style ("batidão" or "pancadão) consists on someone shouting nonsense over a repetitive 50~55Hz beat and sometimes a couple effects. Harmony? Melody? No, there aren't instruments with notes, just endlessly looped beats and annoying shouts. That fits people's nowaday quality demands, just like stupid soap operas and well-advertised politicians.
If people were curious and critic, music would be better.
OK, end ranting. There are and always will be good artists. But this is how I see the process.
Best regards,
Emerson
I completely disagree.
I advise to create an account with Pandora will get you to listen similar music based on the music genome project, simply put any band you like in Pandora and it will find great music super fast. THere are other services like Last.FM but Pandora is better.
Another point to take into consideration is musical education. Comparing the past to present day, many musicians were self taught with little or no musical education. Yes, it is arguable that a degree in music will get you to make or not great music but it will definitively help in you music creation process. History of music, classical music composition, music production, etc are some classes that will get you to learn and get music in a whole different way. The proliferation of musical schools, educational aid, ease to communication and where to get stuff cheap with the internet in sure to make some interesting collaborations and productions. There are simply more tools and better communication to create awesome music.
Just use the tools the internet have and prepare to be amazed of what you will find
I guess I'm bit anoyed that the internet now seems to be the answer for everthing!
If the internet goes down, society comes to a pause.
Don't get me wrong...I got my first computer back in the '70s (C-64) but it's not the center of my existance nor should it hold the sole collection of good msuic!
If the internet goes down, society comes to a pause.
Don't get me wrong...I got my first computer back in the '70s (C-64) but it's not the center of my existance nor should it hold the sole collection of good msuic!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.