Access Virus & Virus TI community since 2002 Virus TI Infekted

Go Back   The Unofficial Access Virus & Virus TI Forum - since 2002 > General discussion > General discussion about music

General discussion about music An area for general music releated threads.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 12.11.2014, 04:15 AM
Berni's Avatar
Berni Berni is offline
Veteran
Aged Veteran
 
Join Date: 24.02.2009
Posts: 743
Default

John Peel once said "everytime I here some music that I dont like, I just think that it's my problem that I don't get it"
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12.11.2014, 12:17 PM
TweakHead TweakHead is offline
Veteran
Veteran
 
Join Date: 16.07.2011
Posts: 573
Default

What I think that story on the link illustrates is that there's not so much money in the music industry because things have changed. There's not - like I said here - as much money to be made because there's more competition. There's plenty more artists, there's plenty more ways to get music to, even streaming is a big challenge for the music industry as we speak.

So the reasonable conclusion is that no band is ever going to achieve such levels of industry success ever. And if you need another example, then take Pink Floyd or the Rolling Stones while we're at it. Trust me, no one's ever going to touch that level of success again! And the whole point I'm trying to make here is that it's not just about quality, it's got to do with other things.

Even those big studios you mention, just take a look how many of them are still in practice today. Take a look at how much an artist is expected to make from an album and do your math: if you have the money to live off it, and you have money to get all the conditions and material you want, then chances are you'll be much more focused in just doing music, you'll make plenty of it and you're always growing and becoming better at it!

The fact of the matter is: that today it's quite easy to make music, but it's much harder to make a career with it.

And the points I've made are:

Both money and the audiences are much more distributed. So an artist gets less of both.

Labels are not big business anymore.

Success has nothing to do with quality. It's got to do with money and having a big audience.

I actually like the bands you pointed out!

cheers
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12.11.2014, 12:39 PM
MBTC MBTC is offline
This forum member lives here
This forum member lives here
 
Join Date: 16.04.2010
Posts: 1,082
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berni View Post
John Peel once said "everytime I here some music that I dont like, I just think that it's my problem that I don't get it"
I think in some ironic way, his sentiment applies to forum threads like this as well I don't think I've ever spent so much time on redundantly reiterating that the point really had nothing to do with my individual taste in music, yet it seems that's what everyone wants to debate.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12.11.2014, 12:44 PM
MBTC MBTC is offline
This forum member lives here
This forum member lives here
 
Join Date: 16.04.2010
Posts: 1,082
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TweakHead View Post
What I think that story on the link illustrates is that there's not so much money in the music industry because things have changed. There's not - like I said here - as much money to be made because there's more competition. There's plenty more artists, there's plenty more ways to get music to, even streaming is a big challenge for the music industry as we speak.

So the reasonable conclusion is that no band is ever going to achieve such levels of industry success ever. And if you need another example, then take Pink Floyd or the Rolling Stones while we're at it. Trust me, no one's ever going to touch that level of success again! And the whole point I'm trying to make here is that it's not just about quality, it's got to do with other things.

Even those big studios you mention, just take a look how many of them are still in practice today. Take a look at how much an artist is expected to make from an album and do your math: if you have the money to live off it, and you have money to get all the conditions and material you want, then chances are you'll be much more focused in just doing music, you'll make plenty of it and you're always growing and becoming better at it!

The fact of the matter is: that today it's quite easy to make music, but it's much harder to make a career with it.

And the points I've made are:

Both money and the audiences are much more distributed. So an artist gets less of both.

Labels are not big business anymore.

Success has nothing to do with quality. It's got to do with money and having a big audience.

I actually like the bands you pointed out!

cheers
Pink Floyd and Rolling Stones would also both be great examples of the bands of yesteryear I'm referring to, even though I'm not a big fan of either. There are a lot of others actually, some of whose music I actually can't stand personally, but I could still cite them as an example of talent that is increasingly unavailable.

One that comes to mind is Michael Jackson. I personally can't stand the guy's music -- not even one song of his can prevent me from changing the radio station. And yes, I think he was probably a bit of a pedo, I don't think his love of kids was purely innocent. However, I once saw a show highlighting some of his career accomplishments, and I was at awe at how talented the guy really was. It doesn't matter that I hate his music, I can still recognize the talent. Likewise, I can recognize the law of diminishing returns over time that has occurred in the music industry.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12.11.2014, 02:42 PM
MBTC MBTC is offline
This forum member lives here
This forum member lives here
 
Join Date: 16.04.2010
Posts: 1,082
Default

Last night as I realized that the personal insults (such as that I'm really just an old man with outdated taste who is trying to mask his motives) might have put me in a position where this thread was pointless, perhaps even over the heads of some, I thought about the effort I've already invested in trying to guide it back toward the original intention and I wondered to myself if my time is simply better spent elsewhere. However, to simply give up because things aren't going as planned is not my style.

The bottom line is that the intent of my original post in the thread was not to ignite a debate on whether or not musical quality has been on the downturn over the years; I was giving the benefit of the doubt that this was already common knowledge. I've become aware that some might not only have not been around long enough to see how things have changed over time, but might also consider this idea an assault on their particular generation. Rest assured it is not -- it also was not an attempt to create a tiresome Internet forum pissing contest.

So, in an effort to get the thread back on track... for those who are unable to see the phenomenon I'm referring to, I will simply say your opposition is noted, but also know that if you can't fundamentally see the issue at hand, or don't believe it exists, it's going to be difficult (impossible actually) for you to gainfully participate in the discussion at hand which is the possible causes of the issue. Discussing possible causes of the issue doesn't make a great deal of sense if you don't see the issue. And if you don't see the issue, I would say I'm envious of you in a way; it means you're able to derive listening enjoyment from a much broader range of content than I am, and it means that being a musician since age 5 has put me in a position of liability overall, in that it has made my ear for music perhaps too discerning. In some ways I wish I could blissfully listen to a lot of the content that kids are buying today.

But as I've noted, it goes way beyond what I am able too force myself to listen to.

I'm interested in exploring the causality of the issue. For example, someone mentioned that producers these days prefer giving multiple artists their five seconds of fame rather than identifying artists that have the potential to stand the test of time and have an extremely successful ongoing career. I presented the alternate possibility that audiences may be demanding this type of entertainment, but let's say for a moment that my theory is wrong or off the table, and that it's a producer-driven decision. Why would this be? Could it be because some level of maturation of the music industry has resulted this being a more attractive business model? Perhaps changes in the legal system have made it advantageous for a given producer (or perhaps more likely record labels) to pump-and-dump artists, making as much money off of each one and moving on to the next, without getting involved in longer-term legal commitments?

One idea that came up before was the cost of high-end home stereo equipment. How many people really listen to music this way anymore? So many folks these days listen to music with tinny ear buds plugged into their phones or iPods, or they are streaming from their phone to an amplified blue tooth speaker. These devices have been optimized for things that do not necessarily facilitate proper sonic reproduction, such as portability, wireless use etc. As we all know, what sounds good on one set of listening hardware does not necessarily sound good on another set of listening hardware. Has this "technology advancement" given us one thing (portability, low cost of ownership etc.) at the expense of another? Are the generation of kids who are blissfully unaware of the decline of music quality comparing music that was mastered and optimized for an iPod to music that was mastered and optimized for much better hardware?

The decline of dynamic range could probably be a discussion in itself. The kiddies like it relentlessly loud, compressed, side chained, etc. Has the advent of portable listening devices reshaped the way we listen to music, and simultaneously crippled the listening ear of the newer generations to the point they are unable to even recognize the difference?

I'm not claiming to have the answers, I'm trying to explore the questions. I'm bringing these ideas up to show the type of discussion I was hoping for. The Interwebs don't need another e-penis flexing show or meaningless debate, that's not what this thread was meant to be about. And again, in order to intelligently discuss the issue you must be able to see the issue -- if you're one of those who don't see the issue, this is probably not the thread for you.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12.11.2014, 04:07 PM
mitchiemasha's Avatar
mitchiemasha mitchiemasha is offline
Semi Pro
Semi-Pro
 
Join Date: 11.08.2008
Location: Teesside
Posts: 225
Send a message via MSN to mitchiemasha
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MBTC View Post
I think in some ironic way, his sentiment applies to forum threads like this as well I don't think I've ever spent so much time on redundantly reiterating that the point really had nothing to do with my individual taste in music, yet it seems that's what everyone wants to debate.

Because you fail to see that your taste is swaying your opinion. You mention the other hit like hits on FWM album and guess what, they weren't hits... FWM had poor single sales in the UK, i think the spice girls may of had more hits than them. To other people those songs arn't hits and rightly so because they weren't. You just see them as because it suits your taste of what a hit is.

Obviously album sales is a big factor here so less people likely to buy a single, before someone mentions it.

To other comments. Competition is still a big factor to no one ever getting as big ever again. Did you not see where i put labels bench acts. This happened a lot back then. they would deliberately bench acts so sales would be directed to which ever act they happened to have the vested interest in. What with the new technology, they can't really control that no more.

I'm for both sides of the argument i just get annoyed when people don't open up to the other. Just because a producer/band or act don't sell as many albums as say a 'LEGENDARY' band, does not mean that the new skooler has any less talent or is any less great than the legends, yes they might never sell as many records, they might only have a few hundred thousand following, they could release hit after hit material for generations, just never getting an actual hit. Yes the artist might never reach the same level of 'to the masses greatness' but they will surpass the skill of FWM. People like Zedd can play and craft, he has a grasp of technology that those old skoolers will never obtain.

Going back to taste, your reply back to me on Calvin Harris was directly connected to taste, the "this is exactly the dah dedah i was on about". People actually love this sh1t you know, exactly how you love fleetwood. It's you who is failing to make that connection.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12.11.2014, 04:11 PM
MBTC MBTC is offline
This forum member lives here
This forum member lives here
 
Join Date: 16.04.2010
Posts: 1,082
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mitchiemasha View Post
Because you fail to see that your taste is swaying your opinion.
Might want to read post #25, and keep doing it over and over again until it begins to make sense to you. You're lost my friend.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12.11.2014, 04:18 PM
mitchiemasha's Avatar
mitchiemasha mitchiemasha is offline
Semi Pro
Semi-Pro
 
Join Date: 11.08.2008
Location: Teesside
Posts: 225
Send a message via MSN to mitchiemasha
Default

And to the last post... How many people really had Hi end Hifis in the old days? What you on about there? Most people have better headphones now than people with decent Hifis in the 70's and early 80's. Even the masses spinning vinyl had cheap needles and radio players were very poor, remember those crappy cassette players. An I pod with some designer head phones is a big step up from what we had when i was a kid (i don't have an ipod). Most kids these days upgrade the headphone first chance they get, even in the poor areas.

You are raising valid points but your not seeing the full picture. I recon more people have Hi end gear now than they ever did.

Another point, how many shit 1 hit wonders came and went back then too?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12.11.2014, 04:31 PM
MBTC MBTC is offline
This forum member lives here
This forum member lives here
 
Join Date: 16.04.2010
Posts: 1,082
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mitchiemasha View Post
And to the last post... How many people really had Hi end Hifis in the old days?
Pretty much everyone who cared about whether music sounded good, because that was the only way to know the difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mitchiemasha View Post
What you on about there?
I'm realizing you're in the segment that will never know, no matter how much effort I expend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mitchiemasha View Post
Most people have better headphones now than people with decent Hifis in the 70's and early 80's.
Yes, the sheer quantity of people with "decent headphones" whose ears have been polluted by "good enough" over-compressed sounds is probably a major contributing factor to the problem.

Being involved in software development for almost as long as I have music, I've seen a similar issue with the current millennial generation that have grown up being only a Google-search ("how do I.....") away from a solution or an answer to a question. In the old days we had to dredge through hundreds or thousands of pages of dense technical material in order to derive solutions. It was not fast or convenient, in fact it was slow and laborious, but what happened was we obtained a deep technical understanding of things way beyond the sole answer we sought. Like music, modern times have spoiled and polluted the up and comers. I know this first hand because I interview them on a weekly basis, so I get first hand visibility into watching them fall embarrassingly on their ass when forced to solve complex problems without a search engine. Is it a little like not being able to solve a math problem without a calculator? Sort of, except perhaps the consequences are far more severe. Their entire ability to think is being tethered to the availability of their Internet connection, and that's fairly scary.

I'm just thankful I learned to think back when we still had to.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12.11.2014, 04:37 PM
MBTC MBTC is offline
This forum member lives here
This forum member lives here
 
Join Date: 16.04.2010
Posts: 1,082
Default

Following up on post #25, sometime back I promised Timo I would be more careful not to rise to troll bait discussions and try to keep things productive.

Has anyone read #25 enough times to understand the discussion I brought to the table? Feel free to start your own thread promoting whatever ideas or bands you like, I just would prefer to keep this one free of the mindless trollfests where possible. Thanks.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:24 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Skin Designed by: Talk vBulletin
Copyright ©2002-2022, Infekted.org