Now Ashlee Simpson... she's real.
February 16, 2007 12:48 PM   Subscribe

Before the Music Dies Documentary of the current state of the music industry now on DVD. Perhaps not much we don't know, but certainly some insight and perspective by those entrenched. And it's got a nice marketing technique to it. Reminds me of the Wilco doc screenings I attended in Brooklyn warehouses.
posted by adamms222 (31 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite
 
Previously.

Seems really interesting. I'd love to see it.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 1:05 PM on February 16, 2007


Clips look hilarious, but damned if that title doesn't sound propagandistic.
posted by grobstein at 1:26 PM on February 16, 2007


My big question is....SO?

Music will never die. I'd argue it's thriving and looming larger than ever before.

Manufactured pop has been around forever. N'Sync is merely a modern-day Monkees.

Is it really a crime that Ashlee Simpson et al dominate the airwaves? No, because the people that care tune out and seek out their own channels. It all comes down to personal choice and opting out of being force-fed. A majority of people simply don't care because music doesn't mean that much to them. For those of us that do care, we continue to provide sustenance by listening to and creating music for others for the sake of art.

If these artists are complaining that popular music is taking the stage over "artistic" music, then they've already lost the commerce vs. art argument.

Every generation complains that music is dying.

Simple minds seek out simple pleasures, complex minds complex. The dumbing down of music is simply a response to a dumb-downed culture.

Anyone who takes music seriously won't buy into this hype. And if it's money they're seeking, they're not making music for the right reasons.
posted by Mach3avelli at 1:31 PM on February 16, 2007


There's something rotten in this whole thinking that the music industry is somehow ruining music. It seems to hinge on the proposition that great musicians can't be superstars anymore, that we get preprocessed garbage forcefed to our ears. However, the record industry is hardly preventing great musicians from being great musicians. Nor is the record industry preventing you from patronizing musicians of your choice. By virtue of your internet connection, you have access, right now, to many thousands of good-to-great musicians from all over the world, at no cost. No, the complaint is that these people whose music you love aren't rich and famous, nevermind that great wealth and fame via music are creations of the music industry. Treat the popstar phenomenon of the 1950's through the 1980's for what it was--a historical anomaly.

Sure, the music industry deserves blame for price-fixing and other abuses of oligolopy, but not for crimes against art.
posted by Nahum Tate at 1:38 PM on February 16, 2007


Or, what Mach3avelli said.
posted by Nahum Tate at 1:39 PM on February 16, 2007


Thirding Mach3avelli.
posted by dobbs at 1:54 PM on February 16, 2007


Mach3avelli - I think you're taking an optimistic and somewhat naive view of it. Only recently have labels begun to spin out of control, focusing on product tie-ins and marketing more than music. Pop music has been around a long time, but until recently it has always been about the tunes, not the performer's side projects in reality TV shows and movies or toy lines. I have not seen this documentary, but from the few sound bites, there seems to be pretty strong evidence that the music industry is now controlled by interests corporate and not creative. Old schoolers like Ahmet Ertegun and even Clive Davis would probably agree than we are experiencing such a decline. To say that there is still plenty of good music out there is to deny that most of it never makes its way to enough ears. From what I can tell, the thesis of the documentary is the Bob Dylan quote - that the capability of music to reform and incite change has been quashed by a giant corporate money machine hellbent on controlling what music actually gets pressed and distributed, and ultimately, what helps drives sales of their MP3 players, fast food, and zit creams...
posted by adamms222 at 1:55 PM on February 16, 2007


"if it's money they're seeking, they're not making music for the right reasons"... tell that to all my struggling musician friends who'd be devoting much more time to their craft if not forced to work an office job to pay rent. We're not necessarily talking about getting a house to show on "Cribs" but more those musicians who simply want to make a living at it.
posted by adamms222 at 1:57 PM on February 16, 2007


but until recently it has always been about the tunes, not the performer's side projects in reality TV shows and movies or toy lines.

Huh? What about Payola? What about the aforementioned The Monkees? What about Milli Vanilli?

To say that there is still plenty of good music out there is to deny that most of it never makes its way to enough ears.

What's "enough"? Enough to do what?

what helps drives sales of their...

Need I remind you that Bob Dylan himself has sold his tunes to businesses to use in commercials? I recall one being used in a frigging bank commercial.

Also, pretty ridiculous to claim that prior musicians weren't used to sell products. Plenty of old blues and jazz musicians were sponsored by products and "whored themselves out" as pitchmen for corporations.

In the past week, these are the albums I've bought:

- Explosions in the Sky's new one
- Soft Circle's Full Bloom
- Philip Glass' "On Film" box set
- Juana Molina's Son
- Von Bondies' Pawn Shoppe Heart
- Eleni Mandell's new one
- 2 Bonnie Prince Billy singles

I'm sure that most MeFites who listed their recent purchases would have similarly (mostly) major label-free stuff. These musicians and thousands more like them are doing fine.
posted by dobbs at 2:11 PM on February 16, 2007


"if it's money they're seeking, they're not making music for the right reasons"... tell that to all my struggling musician friends who'd be devoting much more time to their craft if not forced to work an office job to pay rent. We're not necessarily talking about getting a house to show on "Cribs" but more those musicians who simply want to make a living at it.

I guess it really depends on the philosophy. I anticipate to never turn a profit on any music I make, and I plan to soon start my own label for the fun of it, too. Part of it comes with the acceptance that I can't force my brand of aesthetic on a majority of ears.

Good luck to your friends in turning into the next Modest Mouse, Bloc Party, Death Cab, Arcade Fire, Clap Your Hands, Sigur Ros, etc., though I'm sure it won't kill them if those Ashlee Simpson types don't show up to their shows.
posted by Mach3avelli at 2:20 PM on February 16, 2007


Mach3avelli: "Is it really a crime that Ashlee Simpson et al dominate the airwaves? No, because the people that care tune out and seek out their own channels."

You're right that "the music industry" isn't "destroying music." It is precisely this individualistic attitude touted by those who are content with their own listening couldn't give the slightest crap about the rest of society as a whole, much less the status and station of actual musicians, that is destroying music.

It's based on the fundamental misunderstanding of what music is about. People nowadays seem to think that music is a private affair, my personal experience of some sounds between two headphones all alone. That's certainly a part of it; but that ignores the other two important factors in the equation: the musician who made the music and the other people s/he made it for. Music is supposed to be popular, it is supposed to be shared, and it is supposed to be something we care about together. It's fun to cop the hip attitude that "I have enough records to last me for a long time, so what do I care what everybody else listens to?" and it's fun to say that pop music has always been bad, but to pretend that it doesn't matter whether or not it's bad is to ignore two thirds of what music means.

I want to point out, finally, that this doesn't necessarily mean that "the old days were great, and we're all going to hell." Things have certainly changed; but the nostalgic mentality which worships the past is equally as foolish as the mentality which claims that it's always been the same. Certain things have changed; Branford Marsalis is correct when he says that certain people who broke big in the past simply couldn't afford to make music and have enough food to eat in today's climate. That certainly doesn't mean that the soul-sucking promoters and A & R men of yesteryear, a conglomeration of whom have pretty much broken the industry for good, aren't to blame at all. But our willingness to turn our back on it, our willingness to throw up our hands and turn up our ipods, our willingness to retreat into our own private musical worlds is what really makes the co-opting of "the music industry," of which we at least used to feel a certain amount of ownership, possible.
posted by koeselitz at 2:33 PM on February 16, 2007 [1 favorite]


...and on non-preview:

Mach3avelli: "I guess it really depends on the philosophy. I anticipate to never turn a profit on any music I make, and I plan to soon start my own label for the fun of it, too. Part of it comes with the acceptance that I can't force my brand of aesthetic on a majority of ears."


In other words: people that make music today are the people who have enough money to afford the spare time and gear to do so, not necessarily the people who are any good.
posted by koeselitz at 2:36 PM on February 16, 2007


I'm glad you're seeking out smart, independent music, dobbs. How many teenagers across the country are doing the same thing (teenagers, mind you, who have always constituted the majority of popular music)?

as for payola, that's actually a technique to get music heard at least. but these days, simply another tool to get a very limited scope of music heard.

and the Monkees were a unique concept at the time - now they're the standard.

I (and the movie) am not complaining that musicians are used to shill products - there have always been ad guys keen enough to line up a celebrity with a certain product. The problem is that now, labels are choosing which artists to sign based on what products they'll be able to sell - which means it's not their songwriting ability or musicianship, it's their face and their tits. The order is backwards and it's determined by the wrong motivations.
posted by adamms222 at 2:39 PM on February 16, 2007


I AM SO PRETEND ANGRY AT THE STATE OF MUSIC THESE DAYS ALSO PLEASE GET OFF MY LAWN KTHX
posted by basicchannel at 2:41 PM on February 16, 2007 [1 favorite]


What, no torrent?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:52 PM on February 16, 2007


[ignores] the musician who made the music

Could you clarify? I don't understand what you mean.

Music is supposed to be popular, it is supposed to be shared, and it is supposed to be something we care about together.

Music can be shared and bring people togethter without being capital-p Popular. I go to sold out concerts all the time. There is no lack of ears for good music.

I'm good friends with a Canadian band called Danko Jones. They worked their asses off making music, working coffee houses and porn shops and doing whatever they had to to make it. Now they maintain apartments in countries they don't live in and travel the world playing to thousands of people. Yeah, it took them five years but they eventually made it because their music rocks and they didn't give up. They make a fine living now doing what they love even though the vast majority of people have never heard of them and they rarely get radio play in North America.

I know hundreds of musicians from numerous countries--some in the flesh and some digitally. The only type of musician I have yet to meet is the one that works their ass off and is talented and doesn't succeed.

On preview: "How many teenagers across the country are doing the same thing".

Lots. Perhaps not as many as you'd like but I don't see why that's relevant. I work in a record store 1 day a week--the customer base is absolutely across the board age-wise. And my store doesn't carry teen idol crap records.

Further, when I was a teenager, I listened to some shitass music, let me tell you. It wasn't until I found music on my own that was different and that I liked that I persued music more. I thought Phil Collins and the Eagles was good music. Husker Du and Tom Waits proved me wrong. Were someone to shove those guys down my throat at that time, I probably wouldn't have taken to them.

Music is a very personal thing. People HATE being told their taste in music sucks. It's not something you can ever convince anyone of. It's like trying to tell them they have no sense of humour, are a shitty driver, and suck and bed. No one wants to believe it. The only way they're gonna find out is to find out on their own.
posted by dobbs at 2:58 PM on February 16, 2007


dobbs: "Could you clarify? I don't understand what you mean."

I'm not making some veiled indictment of p2p music or something. I'm saying that "the music industry" is just the businessmen and the musicians, and that the place of those musicians matters. It's not something we can just write off and ignore.

"I know hundreds of musicians from numerous countries--some in the flesh and some digitally. The only type of musician I have yet to meet is the one that works their ass off and is talented and doesn't succeed."

Wow. That's great. So you're taking issue with a lot of the things said in that little trailer: namely, you're saying that conditions are equal, if not better, for musicians today, and that the industry is responsive and rewarding of their efforts.

If that's true, then it's a great thing.

"Further, when I was a teenager, I listened to some shitass music, let me tell you. It wasn't until I found music on my own that was different and that I liked that I persued music more. I thought Phil Collins and the Eagles was good music. Husker Du and Tom Waits proved me wrong. Were someone to shove those guys down my throat at that time, I probably wouldn't have taken to them.

Music is a very personal thing. People HATE being told their taste in music sucks. It's not something you can ever convince anyone of. It's like trying to tell them they have no sense of humour, are a shitty driver, and suck and bed. No one wants to believe it. The only way they're gonna find out is to find out on their own."


This is a really interesting point. It sounds like you're saying something like: musicians are really the only ones with the power to change peoples' minds about music.
posted by koeselitz at 3:29 PM on February 16, 2007


This is a really interesting point. It sounds like you're saying something like: musicians are really the only ones with the power to change peoples' minds about music.

Pretty much. Unless you're under the assumption you can will people to change their tastes. If not the musicians themselves, then certainly their fans, and only with the music as leverage.
posted by Mach3avelli at 3:53 PM on February 16, 2007


Wow. That's great. So you're taking issue with a lot of the things said in that little trailer: namely, you're saying that conditions are equal, if not better, for musicians today, and that the industry is responsive and rewarding of their efforts.

I think that hard-working, talented musicians make it. That's what I'm saying. And by "make it" I mean that they can make a living with their music--not that they're gonna be the next Rolling Stones financially.

And, no, I am not saying "the music industry", if by that you mean mainstream radio and major record labels, is responsive and rewarding of their efforts. I'm saying that people will be. Some of those people work at non-major labels. Most of those people won't work in music at all but will like the music enough to buy it and see it performed.

Marsalis saying that Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles would not get a shot is total horseshit imo. And I bet Wonder and Charles would say the same thing. Their lack of [insert "handicap"/malady/whatever] could not stop those two men from getting a shot. That's true of every musician I've ever met.

West interviews people--at least from the trailer--that I personally wouldn't ask for recommendations on music. Listeniing to Erykah Badu and Eric Clapton and a writer from Rolling Stone complain about the state of current radio is laugable.

As ?uestlove says in the trailer, don't confuse art and commerce and you don't have a problem. Britney Spears ain't art--she's commerce. You're mad she and her contemporaries are clogging the airways--turn the fucking dial! Don't turn it to another station, turn it off. You don't have to listen to the radio.

Bruce Flohr says there's a difference between the record business and the music business. He's right. However, people constantly complain about the state of music. I remember my brother complaining 25-30 years ago about exactly the same thing.

And people constantly bitch that young people only listen to what their friends are listening to--they say people shouldn't care about what other people listen to. They should take their own advice.

musicians are really the only ones with the power to change peoples' minds about music.

I don't think anyone has the power to change anybody's mind about anything. The only person with that power is the person themself. It doesn't matter how good the album you give them is. If they don't want to hear what's happening in it, they won't.
posted by dobbs at 4:02 PM on February 16, 2007


Mach3avelli: "Unless you're under the assumption you can will people to change their tastes."

Is it possible to talk meaningfully about music? Or is the only way to experience a change of mind about music to listen to other music?

dobbs: "I don't think anyone has the power to change anybody's mind about anything. The only person with that power is the person themself."

I guess I'm just on the other side, but it's always seemed to me that hardly anybody has the power to change their own mind. It seems like that takes years of practice that hardly anyone is willing to devote to it.

"As ?uestlove says in the trailer, don't confuse art and commerce and you don't have a problem. Britney Spears ain't art--she's commerce. You're mad she and her contemporaries are clogging the airways--turn the fucking dial! Don't turn it to another station, turn it off. You don't have to listen to the radio... And people constantly bitch that young people only listen to what their friends are listening to--they say people shouldn't care about what other people listen to. They should take their own advice."

I think people should care about what other people listen to. I guess what bothers me is that it seems as though hardly anybody does anymore. The least beneficial aspect of the current climate, as far as I can tell, is dramatically increasing isolation. The unwillingness people have to even discuss music, whether it's good or bad or interesting or fun or sad or whatever, with people who disagree with them is a sign of that to me.
posted by koeselitz at 4:14 PM on February 16, 2007


Mach3avelli: "Unless you're under the assumption you can will people to change their tastes."

Is it possible to talk meaningfully about music? Or is the only way to experience a change of mind about music to listen to other music?


But that's the thing. Sure, you can read a review or overhear a band name-dropped somewhere and go off those merits alone, but that sort of influence necessitates an open mind. And people with open minds tend to find their niches because they're open to new experiences until they find all the best ones available to them through whatever means. However, the same cannot be said about the narrow scope of simple minds. That's where I'm talking about willing people to change their tastes. If someone isn't receptive to change, you can't force anything on them.
posted by Mach3avelli at 4:27 PM on February 16, 2007


koeselitz, I discuss music with my friends all the time. Through my various mailing lists I share music with thousands of people every time I send out an issue. But I don't tell them that what they're listening to sucks. I don't mock them for listening to Ashlee Simpson because I listen to Bob Dylan. That's not gonna get you anywhere but make the Simpson fan think you're a jerk and tell the Dylan fan what they already know.

There's a huge difference between discussing music and dissing music. Personally, I'd rather just play the music and stfu, but maybe that's just me.

But when I was a kid, you could not convince me, no way no how, that Phil Collins wasn't the be-all end-all. Today, there are a gazillion people who don't think he sucks. However, when I heard something that was better, I decided, that for me, he sucked. I was very mad that all this music was being made and no one told me! That's with hindsight. I know in my head that people were trying to turn me on to other stuff at the time, but until I embraced it on my own, I ignored their opinions. I think that's the case with a lot of people. Again, though, maybe I'm wrong.

it's always seemed to me that hardly anybody has the power to change their own mind

In the end, each person is the only one that can change their own mind. No individual mind can be changed without that person doing it themselves.
posted by dobbs at 4:30 PM on February 16, 2007


Also want to contend this point:

Mach3avelli: "Is it really a crime that Ashlee Simpson et al dominate the airwaves? No, because the people that care tune out and seek out their own channels."

You're right that "the music industry" isn't "destroying music." It is precisely this individualistic attitude touted by those who are content with their own listening couldn't give the slightest crap about the rest of society as a whole, much less the status and station of actual musicians, that is destroying music.

It's based on the fundamental misunderstanding of what music is about. People nowadays seem to think that music is a private affair, my personal experience of some sounds between two headphones all alone. That's certainly a part of it; but that ignores the other two important factors in the equation: the musician who made the music and the other people s/he made it for. Music is supposed to be popular, it is supposed to be shared, and it is supposed to be something we care about together. It's fun to cop the hip attitude that "I have enough records to last me for a long time, so what do I care what everybody else listens to?" and it's fun to say that pop music has always been bad, but to pretend that it doesn't matter whether or not it's bad is to ignore two thirds of what music means.


I take exception to this, as I do very much care what society as a whole listens to. I do my part; I keep a music blog to do my share of espousing. It's not so much an "apathy" as it is a "course-steering." I introduce everyone I talk to about music to several different things I listen to that they would otherwise have never heard of. I'm not in a position of power to warp what caters to society as a whole, but I feel I do my part to keep everyone I come in contact with in check.

And maybe it's just the genres of music I dabble in, but nearly all the artists/bands I keep relations with could give a flying fuck if they get airplay. Many simply encourage p2p because they only care about getting their music out to as many ears as possible.
posted by Mach3avelli at 4:35 PM on February 16, 2007


Whoa, that last paragraph didn't come out right...

They don't care about popularity (not airplay, specifically), just the embrace.
posted by Mach3avelli at 4:39 PM on February 16, 2007


koeselitz: The least beneficial aspect of the current climate, as far as I can tell, is dramatically increasing isolation. The unwillingness people have to even discuss music, whether it's good or bad or interesting or fun or sad or whatever, with people who disagree with them is a sign of that to me.

Maybe that's b/c it doesn't so much matter whether there's anyone in their family/class/busride/whatever who wants to discuss it with them. They can go online nowadays & discuss the most obscure sub-section of the most regional scenes to their hearts' content. They can get suggestions on listening from folks who actually know the music under discussion. IOW what appears to be isolation may be the informed decision to discuss their musical tastes where you're not seeing it (online).

The sort of I've been making music for over 15 years now & I strongly believe it's dangerous to simultaneously attempt to 'make your living off your music' and hold any claim to being truly free-thinking. I know Danko too dobbs, and let me ask you this - how long do you think those guys would be able to pay their rent if Danko started writing weepy introspective numbers? Or even turned down their guitars?

Consider your expression (whether music or painting or whatever) an expensive hobby, and the disadvantages are obvious: you'll probably never be famous, you may go a long time between releases, you may have a small fanbase, etc., etc.

What may be less obvious is the advantage that overrides all other considerations IMHO: you are truly free to follow any and all whims in whatever manner you're expressing yourself. You answer to no one but yourself, and you never ever have to consider whether this song/painting/story is getting you any closer to your next bag of groceries.
posted by stinkycheese at 4:39 PM on February 16, 2007


Second paragraph should have lost the first three words before I posted, sorry.
posted by stinkycheese at 4:41 PM on February 16, 2007


let me ask you this - how long do you think those guys would be able to pay their rent if Danko started writing weepy introspective numbers?

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. It sound rhetorical but I'm not following. I'm feeling rather dense and frazzled today so talk to me like I'm 5, pls.
posted by dobbs at 5:15 PM on February 16, 2007


I'm just saying people associate Danko Jones with a certain sound, for good or for bad. If they changed that sound - to put it cynically, if they mess with the formula - they would lose their audience but quick. It has nothing to do with them specifically, it's true of artists and creative people the world over.

It's a sort of trap of creative commerce, if I can put it that way. You create X, the masses love X & buy it up. You get rich (or modestly well off, or whatever), and then when it comes time to follow up X, what do you do for an encore? Do you do X2, carbon copy, X with a twist? Or do you do Y?

I don't think too many musicians can get away with the kind of genre-hopping that, say, someone like David Bowie is known for - that sort of willingness to follow a musician down their own path with all its twists and blind alleys was rare thirty years ago, and it's even rarer now. Record companies don't want to develop artists over the space of several records - each record has to do better than the last, big numbers, blah blah blah.

Danko Jones almost certainly could not support themselves playing their music in Canada, as you yourself note. I can attest, and Danko would likely agree, that there are dozens if not hundreds of musicians from their own home 'scene' of Toronto who are just as 'good' (this is entirely subjective of course) but who are still waiting tables, working at Rotate This, or going back to school as they get older so they can get a half-decent job, and so on. Why? It's not b/c they're any less hard-working or talented.

I sort of hate the term musician, and never refer to myself that way, but let me say that if you're really into playing music, you'll do it even if you're down to humming or playing rubberbands or spoons by yourself. You won't be able to not play music, it's a compulsion. It is a pure thing.

There is music and people who play music, and then there is the biz. People who play music are generally fun and a joy to hang out with. The biz is stupid, greedy, and shallow, and generally the people in the biz are clueless about music, endlessly insincere, and guided by nothing more than industry buzz and the promise of the next whatever.

People are signed for all kinds of horrible reasons, few of which have to do with who is the hardest-working or most talented. You can drive yourself crazy or become extremely bitter if you truly believe that the best necessarily see any rewards or recognition for their efforts b/c you won't understand why it's not coming your way while some schmuck who's been playing guitar for six months is on the cover of magazines.

The best course of action IMHO is: make your own music, and do it b/c you love it. Don't read industry magazines, don't listen to corporate radio, don't buy major label releases. Don't feed the beast. The day is finally here when we can go through life without any of that. We can make our own records cheaply, book our own tours, develop our own scenes, communicate internationally for free.

The only downside to all this change is that we may be witnessing the demise of the popular musician-as-career (with the important exceptions of the always-touring musician or the orchestral musician or the soundtrack musician, at least). Like I said, if it's just a hobby, you're golden.

Even the musicians I know who actually made big bucks either pissed it away real fast on luxuries or used it to buy more gear. The idea that you can play shows and put out records and make a living at it is just a pipedream for 99% of the people trying to do it, but it keeps a lot of people invested in that idea. It's the same reason people in capitalist societies don't question why laws are geared to favour the rich. They all think they can be a winner, and it just winds up keeping everybody down.
posted by stinkycheese at 5:56 PM on February 16, 2007


It's based on the fundamental misunderstanding of what music is about. People nowadays seem to think that music is a private affair, my personal experience of some sounds between two headphones all alone. That's certainly a part of it; but that ignores the other two important factors in the equation: the musician who made the music and the other people s/he made it for. Music is supposed to be popular, it is supposed to be shared, and it is supposed to be something we care about together. It's fun to cop the hip attitude that "I have enough records to last me for a long time, so what do I care what everybody else listens to?" and it's fun to say that pop music has always been bad, but to pretend that it doesn't matter whether or not it's bad is to ignore two thirds of what music means.

Perhaps the answer to this is the NY Sun article. Basically, music is ceasing to define the cultural zeitgeist, as books ceased to define it in the 50's.

By lowering the cost of distribution and creation, we democratize music. And democracies are not run by gods, just men. Professional grade music can be downloaded from our neighbor Bob just as easily as the Rolling Stones and as such there becomes little difference between the two.
posted by zabuni at 7:02 PM on February 16, 2007


stinkycheese, I agree with some of what you're saying. Yes, DJ are known for a sound--it's a sound and image they've embraced and are eager to keep up. They like what they do. However, they're music has changed, both the sound and lyrics, over the years. Yes, it's still rock, but it's definitely a lot "harder" today than it was in 1997.

That said, there are bands that do change their sound over the years or album to album. Liars come immediately to mind. I love all their records but each of them sounds very different. Yes, they're all alternative and they're all "rock-y" but those are pretty vague terms. Oddly, when each of their records came out, they were met with luke warm reviews. Over time, however, things have evened out and if you review their albums reviews now, you'll see that they're all highly regarded.

However, they, and other artists like them, and you can include Lou Reed and Bowie among them I think, don't change genres for the hell of it. They've got a constant running thru their careers: quality; and they make music they want to make. That is all that matters. That's the only "power" or "freedom" I think that you can weigh these people with. If an artist consistently makes the music that they want to make and the fans follow along, what more could you ask.

And, if you accept that premise, I think that there are many, many artists that fit the bill today: Smog, Will Oldham, Jason Molina, Bjork, Magnetic Fields, John Zorn, Black Dice, Blood Brothers, Michael Gira, etc etc.

As for Toronto bands who haven't made it yet, yes, there are many. Some of them are good, sure. Many of them aren't. But I'll accept your idea that some are very talented and very hard working and haven't broken out yet but I think that's just a matter of time.

Yes, it sucks that some "lesser" artists break out very early, but... well, oh well. A career in anything, done well, takes time, whether that be a doctor, a writer, or a musician. At least, if you're talking the music industry as opposed to the record industry--using the distinction Flohr mentions in the trailer.

Brendan Canning's a good example, I think, and perhaps you know him as well. He was in Hhead, which was a so so band. He was in By Divine Right, which was a better band and met with more success, and then, sticking it out as a musician while working shitass jobs, he ended up in Broken Social Scene, which has done really well. Time and hard work will separate the wheat from the chaff, to be blunt about it. Yes, some good musicians may give up or succumb to something, but that's true of every damn art form there is.

I envy musicians, to some extent, because, though they work their asses off, it's an art form that they can practice anytime and get feedback on. A writer or a painter has to wait for those opportunities to come--till someone else says, "yeah, I'll publish this story or give you a show at this gallery" whereas a musician can plop down on a street corner or, for very cheap, put out a cd of their own which already has some support systems in place (indie record stores, cd baby, emusic, whatever, amateur nights at clubs)--many other artists slave over their work and don't have those channels. There is no equivalent to indie radio, emusic, busking, or opening gigs for a novelist. Yes, they can self publish but after they have the book in their hand there is no tried and true method of getting that book into the hands of readers.

This is why, when I hear people complain that the music industry sucks these days, I gotta disagree. I think that there is far more opportunity for the truly talented artist to make it today than there was 3 decades ago. Yes, many artists made it in the 70s, but countless numbers didn't. Those same bands would stand more of a chance today than they did then, imo.

Further, anyone seeking quick fame is pretty much out of luck unless they want to be a puppet for some corporation. But that's been the case for a long time--marketing has ruled the music industry pretty much forever. Hell, the Eagles were once called "Super Groupie Teen Rockers" or some such shit (I forget the exact name but it was ridiculous) until David Geffen insisted they change it (according to this Geffen biography). Today, one of their albums is the best selling in American history. Had they told Geffen to shove it it's possible they'd never have been heard from again in that line-up.

And for those that complain it's too hard, I say boo hoo. I hear it all the time from writers as well. I have no time for it. Christ, Dostoevsky spent 4 years in prison 4 in the army and had a wife and children to support and he managed to write 3 of the greatest novels of all time. ;)

As David Mamet once wrote: Your excuses are your own. And as Lou Reed has said Andy Warhol drilled into him: The most important thing is work.
posted by dobbs at 7:05 PM on February 16, 2007


I don't think too many musicians can get away with the kind of genre-hopping that, say, someone like David Bowie is known for - that sort of willingness to follow a musician down their own path with all its twists and blind alleys was rare thirty years ago, and it's even rarer now.

They've got a constant running thru their careers: quality; and they make music they want to make. That is all that matters. That's the only "power" or "freedom" I think that you can weigh these people with. If an artist consistently makes the music that they want to make and the fans follow along, what more could you ask.

And, if you accept that premise, I think that there are many, many artists that fit the bill today: Smog, Will Oldham, Jason Molina, Bjork, Magnetic Fields, John Zorn, Black Dice, Blood Brothers, Michael Gira, etc etc.


Another good example of a wildly popular bloke who genre hops is Damon Albarn. The Good, the Bad, and the Queen is as far away from Gorillaz, as Gorillaz is from Blur, and as Mali Music is from all of them, and yet, there is a constant there as well.

For a local example, I was at Lee's Palace recently and the Thurstons were a clear stand out band on the bill because of their music and, their enthusiasm, and their performance. I've found that the quality of a band's performance is also a key element in addition to the music itself. I'm not even sure I like them, but I'd see them again. There is no way I'd see the headliner of any of the other bands again.

Although we have a dominant commercial element to the industry as a whole, we've also got far more access to a diverse selection of music that would have been harder to be exposed to before, which of course, gives artists access to listeners. I don't pay attention to the charts for example, and I imagine many successful bands don't either. I remember Malkmus from Pavement saying that when Geffen wanted to sign them away from Matador they just couldn't be bothered with all the extra effort they'd have to make in addition to just writing and performing their songs. Despite that, they were still a success and made a living.
posted by juiceCake at 7:39 PM on February 16, 2007


« Older Theme Magazine   |   What Would Grandma Do? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments