The music industry

[YOUTUBE]9EcjWd-O4jI[/YOUTUBE]

For the Greengrocer

 

It will stay the same, genres like metal will never become popular . Most of the people I know don't know a single metal band . Pop/rap will always be the most popular even though artists like 'Jessie J' or 'Girls Aloud' are no where near as talented as artists like Serj Tankian etc . You can't imagine SOAD or Sepultura being played on Clyde 1 .

 

Even once underground forms of music like Extreme Metal have been infiltrated by shittyness. I actually can't think of any Death Metal album I own that came out in the 2000's well except for bands that were good throughout the 80's and 90's. Even new Death Metal bands have adopted a totally different style compared to the older bands. The only band I listen to that haven't changed one bit since they started are Bolt Thrower.

Pestilence, Atheist and Cynic; three Progressive Death Metal artists I love all disbanded in the early 90's. Reformed in the last two years and released * albums. Deathcore the tumourous parasite leeching off Death Metals (moderate) success from the 90's is destroying its reputation. Instead of Extreme Metal bands being known for Gore and Satanism and Philosophy and War lyrics now they're known for * emo lyrics and cutting themselves.

I'm glad some of my favourite bands are no longer playing because if they were I'd be afraid they were going in the wrong direction. Only Bolt Thrower deserve my money for a new album nowadays because they've always stuck to their guns and did what they wanted and it even resulted in them being kicked off their label.

Popular music nowadays is a complete fad. Who'll listen to a song that came out this summer next summer? whereas I have albums that came out in the 80's and 90's from bands that are 20+ years old. But any non Extreme Metal band like Metallica or Pantera or Megadeth will always follow the money and success. If you compare Metallica's or Megadeths first four albums to any of their later releases its a huge difference. Its pop Metal even though I like some of the albums from both bands later periods it'll never compare to Peace Sells... or Ride The Lightning or Rust in Peace. Same goes for a band like Morbid Angel, their first four albums were Death Metal gold and after Covenant when they released a music video that got time on MTV2 it started to go down hill, they were trying too hard and when they started losing credibility they then tried to be too Extreme to appease the teenage goth satanist *.

I don't really care about new music anymore. I didn't know who Lady Gaga was until about 6 months ago that would tell you how much I follow it but I still have a treasure trove of Death, Thrash, Progressive, Groove, Black and Melodic Death Metal from the 80's and 90's to listen to. Combine that with all the old Rock from the 70's and 80' coupled with some of the old school gangsta rap from the 90's I have enough great music to last me a lifetime.

 

Most music died when the 80s died.

 

You guys remember this from back when. This is rap:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FPimCmbX8[/YOUTUBE]

 

Think the single biggest factor that has contributed to the demise of inventive & innovative music has been the advent of sites such as itunes etc.

Whilst itunes certainly has its good points, what it also means is that the emphasis has shifted considerably away from the album, and a sharper focus of cheaper & more instantanious gratification, at the expense of invention.

 

It's not dead. There will always be good music and there were always be bad music. The world wide web has made it easier than ever before to find new, exciting, good music.

As for what's played on the radio, on tv and in the charts; well a lot of it will always be * but the key thing about music is that it's subjective. What's good to me might not be good to you and vice versa.

Some people say it's all over-commercialised mainstream * in the charts these days. Go back ten years and some people would say the same. Go back another ten years and some people would say the same. Go back another ten years and....

 

I think the advent of sites like iTunes helped rescue the music industry when record sales were plummeting. It's an innovative idea that makes albums cheaper to download and due to that makes people more likely to buy it.

And if you ask most musicians or songwriters, they'll more than likely say they'd rather have a good album than one good single.

 

Perhaps I was not clear in my earlier post, when referring to individual tracks. These do not necessarily have to be singles. I would agree that most every artist would be much more satisfied to have a fantastic album that a great single, but that doesn;'t detract from the fact that people can just go through an album on itunes etc, pick and choose which tracks they want & don't bother with the rest.

I did say that sites like itunes does have their good points, such as the one you illustrated, but the stats speak for themselves; fewer albums are being purchased either in the stores or online, compared with individual song sales - regardless of if it is a single or not.

 

I suppose it just comes down to supply and demand. Much better that the music industry is still finding a way to earn money for the artists rather than people continuing to download for free. Although I'm aware it still happens with a lot of people.

 

At the end of the day it is a business & the record companies primary concern is to make money, at the expense of artistic integrity. Although this has always existed in the industry the modern model seems to be less accomodating to invention & innovation, in lieu of what has the potential to sell, which could be argued is reflected in the relative paltry quality & diversity.

 

But the charts have always been *. I mean 1967 is commonly regarded as one of the best music years ever, had classic albums by the Beatles, Hendrix and The Doors yet the biggest selling single of that year was "Release Me" by Engelbert Humperdinck. The Smiths only broke the top 10 once. * music has always existed alongside great music and * music has always dominated the charts. Stuff like iTunes has made that worse but the internet's also made it easier to hear great music, if you're willing to look for it.

 

Aye, the charts have always been dominated by *.

[youtube]h37KQu64RY4[/youtube]

This was Christmas number 1 in '93 for * sake.

 

Hip Hop isn't dead,it's underground.

 

Music ain't dead, you just have to look

 

The Clash were never punk...they jumped on the bandwagon...successfully.The * Pistols were the only true punk originators...even if they did end in farce.
Never Mind The Bollocks Here's The * Pistols is still the best ever punk album....

 

Well...that's not true. The * Pistols were a showbiz construct, much like any X Factor band.

 

This must be a wind up, yeah?

 

Never Mind The Bollocks has about as much artistic merit as something by You Me At Six or All Time Low or one of those many other identical bands on Kerrang with gay haircuts, whiny voices who are referred to as "punk" because they have tattoos and play guitar.

The Clash were put together by Bernie Rhodes but clearly moved onto a level of actual musicianship.

 

Really?Why....because that * McLaren says so? Eh,they wrote their own songs...and without them, the punk industry would never have taken off the way it did.I dont really care what the historians say in retrospect mate...i was around and the * Pistols were the first and only huge impact band that punk has ever seen.Nothing compares to the wake-up music got at that time, and they were at the forefront.The press they attracted was what made punk successful and they were never off the front pages.The Clash quickly jumped on the bandwagon.