I’ll continue on the question of popularity in music. One of the strange things about the blog is that I get a germ of an idea and then spend thirty minutes thinking and writing about it, which isn’t nearly enough time to get any cohesive thoughts together. I’ve got more than a few points that I’d like to make here so this may go in a lot of different directions.
The first part I want to talk about is this big idea being discussed about reaching the Long Tail of content. For those people who don’t spend their entire life listening to marketing pitches (which is sadly much of my day), this is the belief that things like MySpace, iTunes, and Amazon have created a limitless online inventory in which consumers will buy a ton of obscure content. So whereas in the old model (way back in the 80’s) we had a couple of massive albums that people bought at Musicland in the mall now we have fans listening to varied music that exactly matches their interests.
Now, as a music fan I am all for this. I live on Pandora and it has been great in introducing me to new music. And thanks to the wonders of the interweb I’ve had CDs shipped to me from New Zealand, which is the ultimate in the long tail. But historically, companies that focus on making me happy go out of business very quickly. I am the epitome of a niche market. This is why I think the end of the huge bands can be a bad thing for the music industry. I will always buy CDs but what about my friends who have a CD collection that can fit on a small shelf? They will only buy music that they’ve heard a lot and have been convinced is popular. And I think that the death of MTV and radio and collective cultural experience means that these people will stop buying music. And I reckon that there are a lot more of them than there are of me.
Of course, that is an argument about how many zeros can we add to the balance sheets of the record labels, who admittedly are on the list of who will be against the wall when the revolution comes. The question is whether this makes music better and does it make a musician’s life better. I’m still not sure as to an easy answer as to why people make music. There is the simple answer that they do it because music is in their soul. There is Chuck Klosterman’s statement that the first answer is complete bullshit and that people make music to be popular and adored and get chicks. If anything, I’ll take Jack Ingam’s line that when you first start writing songs and playing it’s for you and you alone. You do it because you have to do it. Then someone gives you a gig and you get free beer and it changes. I’m more in Jack’s camp but even I admit that while one of the reasons I write is because I need the creative outlet and feel a need to share myself with the world, I also know that I got started writing in high school because I discovered that it gave me a weird degree of popularity. (And I still think that at some point a girl will fall for me when I tell her that I’m a writer.)
I would say that on the whole that I’m happy with the new model of music out in the open. It’s much easier to find good music and that should result in more artists who in the old world could not hold onto a record deal now can survive on sales and a devout (if small) base. I’d still be happier in a world where artists always get paid for people listening to their songs but at least with iTunes we’re getting closer to that point. And there is a sense that without having a label dictating everything artists should be making better art. There is no way in hell a label would have released Sufjan Stevens’ “Illinois” before. Not too many albums outside of death metal features songs about John Wayne Gacy. But this was easily one of the best albums of 2005.
I guess I just miss MTV producing bands that everyone knows about, whether they were good or not. It’s the fact that there just aren’t those universal musical touchstones anymore; bands that you know a mention of will elicit a response because if you’ve turned on MTV at any point in the past month you’ve seen the video. Sure, Hootie and the Blowfish and the Spice Girls sucked but you could mention those bands and be sure that the other person would nod. One of the questions that I dread in a bar is when someone asks me what my favorite band is. This should be the best question for me. Theoretically, if I’m talking to a girl and get the topic to music I should be home free. Instead I find myself stammering because I am searching for a band or artist that the other person would know. So I know that I can’t discuss Neko Case so I mention Aimee Mann and Beth Orton. As I get a blank stare in return I keep on moving up the mainstream until I’m talking about Coldplay and a) I am not that big of a fan and b) they’re not hugely popular either. I end up talking about U2 and at some point have to mention that I am now into a decade of protesting the band because Bono cost me a date. At which point the girl starts looking for someone more stable to talk to.
I think that is why I miss MTV. There are times when you just need a band that can sellout a football stadium. It’s not the best reason in the world but it’s a reason.
1 comment:
As long as we are looking to the arists themselves for answers (a good idea since few know better than they) we should add NOFX to the Jack Ingram and Josh Ritter list.
NOFX has some very interesting opinions on the whole "big music" thing and as a band that is now going on 20+ years of making a living from music, and has never once been on MTV, a major radio station, or a big record label, I think their opinion holds some water. I won't quote them here but listen to "Dinosaurs Will Die" or "Medio-core" or "60%". They apparently have seen this trend coming for some time. I don't think they saw iTunes and Pandora etc as the cause, but the effect remains the same. I still think it's cool as hell that they made a video and when MTV pressured them for the rights to play it they said the same thing that they have told all major interests who tried to make money off their music: "Go fuck yourself"
Post a Comment