I've read many of these arguments in no particular order before:-
- the XF has little influence on the charts;
- the charts are crap irrespective of the XF;
- SAW were actually the bad influence (yeah, some truth in that);
- the real money is in live work (although that is mainly for established artists);
- alternative, more credible tv or radio programmes would help alternative artists; and
- there are many minor artists making great music outside of the charts.
There is some truth in all these comments.
But here's a newer idea, which I have mentioned elsewhere, The story of pop is over. It has less and less importance in the cultural landscape, all the new forms are recycled versions of the past, technology and the web have turned nearly everyone into a musician and provide the simple means to distribute this 'music'. And few of these 'artists' have much of interest to say or identify with; so much of it is just mixing beats and having a good time. It's all so homogenous and dull. There are no meaningful critics any more as everyone is a critic and cares little for anyone else's opinion. It's just about numbers. It's just business...(nothing personal).
The story's over.
not so sure its a 'newer' idea tbh, but i think youre spot on...
Yes but the problem is most "alternative" music is sh*t these days. I say that as a fan. Its utter, utter pish. "Alternative" for the sake of "alternative." Frankly I find a trashy pop song like I Love It by Icona Pop ft Charlie XCX to have more spunk about it than yet more dull but not so worthy middle class white males making dreary sh*te nobody interested in other than Guardian readers and the Mercury Music Prize. So its not really the chart pop that's the problem, its that their isn't much of an alternative to listen to.
Sometimes I see people playing the bar/club circuit that are better than many of the people we are directed to by the alternative music press as the next not so big thing. You feel sad for them as they will probably never get a shot at even been one of those bands that are outside the charts, never mind been one in it.
I've heard that a lot of indie label's just sign people on what sort of following they get on Facebook or whatever now, because they want a guaranteed audience for the act before they commit any money to them. Nobody is signed on their talent anymore, its how you can network.
I agree with you too. Your point about the main music media outlets having a much narrower list of music to play is true. I especially don't like Capital radio: they seem to have a worrying amount of control over the charts right now, plus of course their playlist is as repetitive as anything. And yes, I do think there should be something like The Old Grey Whistle Test back on TV to show proper music and, as you say, allow artists more of a voice. I know we've got Jools Holland's programme, which is good, but one programme on all of British television that showcases 'proper' music is not good enough, in my opinion.
I find Later... With Jools Holland desperately dull, to be honest. Very formulaic and predictable with vast swathes of popular music simply ignored.
I'm not sure a show like The Old Grey Whistle Test would make a difference when the major record labels are so short sighted in their refusal to make long term investments in talent.
Whilst that is true for the major labels, it isn't true for the smaller independent labels.
However many of those "smaller" labels are actually owned by the major labels, so the investment by the major labels is still there, but done via their subsidiaries.
Yes but the problem is most "alternative" music is sh*t these days. I say that as a fan. Its utter, utter pish. "Alternative" for the sake of "alternative." Frankly I find a trashy pop song like I Love It by Icona Pop ft Charlie XCX to have more spunk about it than yet more dull but not so worthy middle class white males making dreary sh*te nobody interested in other than Guardian readers and the Mercury Music Prize. So its not really the chart pop that's the problem, its that their isn't much of an alternative to listen to.
Sometimes I see people playing the bar/club circuit that are better than many of the people we are directed to by the alternative music press as the next not so big thing. You feel sad for them as they will probably never get a shot at even been one of those bands that are outside the charts, never mind been one in it.
I've heard that a lot of indie label's just sign people on what sort of following they get on Facebook or whatever now, because they want a guaranteed audience for the act before they commit any money to them. Nobody is signed on their talent anymore, its how you can network.
The problem with "Alternative" music is that it has become formulaic, it has been for years.
However there is still plenty of good music out there if you are prepared to take the time to search it. I love Progressive Music and that has had a real renaissance over the last few years and I find plenty to get excited about.
It's all a case of 'same as it ever was' really. The business has always been run by the money men. It wouldn't be anything but a niche otherwise.
And the money goes where the money is, with all the associated hype, rip-offs and bandwagon jumping. Look at the rip off of blues artists royalties and payments, the 50s/60s re-recording of black music so it would be acceptable to a white middle-class audience, the endless re-treads of any genre as it rises into formula music, until it drowns under its own weight (and I'm not thinking SAW here - its been a feature of music since ragtime created a flood of sheet music, through big bands, Country - several times- Psych, Punk, House ... ), the Monterey and Woodstock behind the scenes money manipulation, and the entertainment industry 'impresarios' who manipulated their artists long before Simon Cowell toddled off to school.
Try finding 'Rockonomics, the money behind the music' by Marc Eliot, or 'Hit Men, power brokers and fast money inside the music business' by Frederic Dannen. They both cover the ground (although only the Marc Eliot goes before the 1950s). Or to pick up a specific period in depth, try 'Will Pop eat itself' by Jeremy J Beadle, which discusses the 1980s-1990s in relation to the then-new sampling technology.
IMO it's the excitement of the newness, the first sniff of the thrill of a new and out of the public eye underground clique forming their own culture, that's missing. You can't fabricate a movement and convince the trend-setters (Bosstown Sound anyone?). R&B is now close on 25 years old. Electro-dance music nearly 30 years old, and Hip-Hop/Rap 35!!!
Of course, that's the Euro/US view. The few truly massive international new musics since then are in other markets - China, Japan, Indonesia, the African states, South America.
I suspect that the money will take a few years yet to really get a handle on how the online generation works. It took them long enough to work out 45rpm singles real potential for a new market (teens).
In the meantime, things are simply too fragmented socially for any new phenomenon like acid house or disco to take hold. So we're stuck with an industry that's becoming more and more polarised into the high-visibility company-manipulated chart/Cowell/TV stuff and the online/local/niche material.
However, I wouldn't like to say that this is the end of the story. It's merely moving on. It did in the 1930s (after the industry very nearly died - ironically radio rescued it). It did in the 1950s, when rock and roll opened a totally new market.
What's needed is a bright new generation with astounding new ideas that capture the zeitgeist. It'll happen, but I'm not holding my breath.:(
If you're a person who restricts themselves to a specific genre or type of music then the answer probably is yes, but if you're a person who can listen to music as a whole, regardless of where it comes from, then most certainly not.
However, I wouldn't like to say that this is the end of the story. It's merely moving on. It did in the 1930s (after the industry very nearly died - ironically radio rescued it). It did in the 1950s, when rock and roll opened a totally new market.
What's needed is a bright new generation with astounding new ideas that capture the zeitgeist. It'll happen, but I'm not holding my breath.:(
I don't think it will because music isn't the centre of the universe for most teenagers now.
I was a teenager in the late '70s/early 80s and a new album coming out was an event, something to look forward to for weeks. I can remember to this day going in to town the day Pink Floyd's The Wall came out with my mates and having to go from store to store to store to find it as it had sold out, when we found a store that still had copies, we brought one each and got the bus home to all listen to it whilst we poured over the cover. Once we'd listened to all four sides it was straight on to side 1 again!
But in those days we were in awe of these people. They were never in the newspapers, you rarely saw photographs of them, to see them live was a massive event. Today open up any tabloid and you will often find plenty of evidence that the latest "pop sensation" likes to go out for the evening without wearing any knickers; all carefully orchestrated, of course.
Music and celebrity have become an interchangeable commodity and unless that changes pop music will become more and more anodyne and celebrity status will be seen as a more worthwhile attainment than the actual music.
This is what The X-Factor exploits so well as it isn't about people who want a career in music, it is about people who want to be famous and they see programmes like X-Factor as a short-cut to achieving that fame.
I don't think it will because music isn't the centre of the universe for most teenagers now.
I have nothing to add to a post that heartfeltly and utterly accurately explains as to why we are where we are (and why we were what we were) to in a way simply slams the point home beyond argument.
Other than, can we go 50/50 on copyright on "music isn't the centre of the universe" t shirts - kinda in 'Frankie Says" mode
It's all a case of 'same as it ever was' really. The business has always been run by the money men. It wouldn't be anything but a niche otherwise.
And the money goes where the money is, with all the associated hype, rip-offs and bandwagon jumping. Look at the rip off of blues artists royalties and payments, the 50s/60s re-recording of black music so it would be acceptable to a white middle-class audience, the endless re-treads of any genre as it rises into formula music, until it drowns under its own weight (and I'm not thinking SAW here - its been a feature of music since ragtime created a flood of sheet music, through big bands, Country - several times- Psych, Punk, House ... ), the Monterey and Woodstock behind the scenes money manipulation, and the entertainment industry 'impresarios' who manipulated their artists long before Simon Cowell toddled off to school.
Try finding 'Rockonomics, the money behind the music' by Marc Eliot, or 'Hit Men, power brokers and fast money inside the music business' by Frederic Dannen. They both cover the ground (although only the Marc Eliot goes before the 1950s). Or to pick up a specific period in depth, try 'Will Pop eat itself' by Jeremy J Beadle, which discusses the 1980s-1990s in relation to the then-new sampling technology.
IMO it's the excitement of the newness, the first sniff of the thrill of a new and out of the public eye underground clique forming their own culture, that's missing. You can't fabricate a movement and convince the trend-setters (Bosstown Sound anyone?). R&B is now close on 25 years old. Electro-dance music nearly 30 years old, and Hip-Hop/Rap 35!!!
Of course, that's the Euro/US view. The few truly massive international new musics since then are in other markets - China, Japan, Indonesia, the African states, South America.
I suspect that the money will take a few years yet to really get a handle on how the online generation works. It took them long enough to work out 45rpm singles real potential for a new market (teens).
In the meantime, things are simply too fragmented socially for any new phenomenon like acid house or disco to take hold. So we're stuck with an industry that's becoming more and more polarised into the high-visibility company-manipulated chart/Cowell/TV stuff and the online/local/niche material.
However, I wouldn't like to say that this is the end of the story. It's merely moving on. It did in the 1930s (after the industry very nearly died - ironically radio rescued it). It did in the 1950s, when rock and roll opened a totally new market.
What's needed is a bright new generation with astounding new ideas that capture the zeitgeist. It'll happen, but I'm not holding my breath.:(
not so sure its as simple as all that.
true money has been at the heart of the music business since day 1. but in the past there wasnt as much emphisis on success, artists were allowed to create, nowdays it HAS to be a success, it HAS to make money.
indeed the 50's and 60's did regurgitate black music for a white audience...so? the musicians back then were more into creating new music, or updating other styles, by way of experimentation. they cut new ground.
IMO it's the excitement of the newness, the first sniff of the thrill of a new and out of the public eye underground clique forming their own culture, that's missing.
absolutely! and thats been at the centre of my argument often voiced on here that todays music scene is pretty dull and theres no great movement going on.
I never get comments like this. If anyone did screw up the music industry, it's the public. Simon Cowell and Louis Walsh can shove all the talent shows they want upon us but without the public's backing they'd be nothing. We, the public, chose to support the shows and we chose to support the artists that came from it.
Alan McGee already gave his take on how the music industry works.
The music industry is like what it was in 1962 and 1972.
It is like one big Mr Krabs along with the media fuelling it as it's secret recipe.
All it cares about is your money and not what you and your friends like.
Not if your talented or not like it was in the 80's or early and mide 90's.
Plus the is no real new music scene anymore.It all manufacture Da Club and all that crap and Spice Girl,wannabes on repeat same with Take That copycat band for girls to buy.like one big fashion parade for teen and there money,and they stick to that format.
Plus the musicians and artists or band can't do what they want anymore like Sex Pistols or Guns and Roses or Nirvana anymore.It's got to be done by the record company's rules and what they say not the way they,want it like anymore.that go's giving the artist freedom to do what he or she does,just stick to the format.
Yes but the problem is most "alternative" music is sh*t these days. I say that as a fan. Its utter, utter pish. "Alternative" for the sake of "alternative." Frankly I find a trashy pop song like I Love It by Icona Pop ft Charlie XCX to have more spunk about it than yet more dull but not so worthy middle class white males making dreary sh*te nobody interested in other than Guardian readers and the Mercury Music Prize. So its not really the chart pop that's the problem, its that their isn't much of an alternative to listen to.
.
Are you sure you're a fan of 'alternative' music? Because you're description above is just an out-dated stereotype. The kind of 'dreary' indie rock you're talking about was far more prevalent 10/20 years ago than it is now.
In my mind, 'alternative' is anything outside of the mainstream norm. Music that does not fit in with any kind of social stereotype. As for 'indie', it will always mean 'independent', to me.
I don't think it will because music isn't the centre of the universe for most teenagers now.
I was a teenager in the late '70s/early 80s and a new album coming out was an event, something to look forward to for weeks. I can remember to this day going in to town the day Pink Floyd's The Wall came out with my mates and having to go from store to store to store to find it as it had sold out, when we found a store that still had copies, we brought one each and got the bus home to all listen to it whilst we poured over the cover. Once we'd listened to all four sides it was straight on to side 1 again!
....
Music and celebrity have become an interchangeable commodity and unless that changes pop music will become more and more anodyne and celebrity status will be seen as a more worthwhile attainment than the actual music.
This is what The X-Factor exploits so well as it isn't about people who want a career in music, it is about people who want to be famous and they see programmes like X-Factor as a short-cut to achieving that fame.
Yes, I read the history of the music biz outlined above and yes there have been hiatuses before. The key difference this time is that the connection between the music of the times and the zeitgeist isn't there and hasn't been for about 10 years or more.
true money has been at the heart of the music business since day 1. but in the past there wasnt as much emphisis on success, artists were allowed to create, nowdays it HAS to be a success, it HAS to make money.
indeed the 50's and 60's did regurgitate black music for a white audience...so? the musicians back then were more into creating new music, or updating other styles, by way of experimentation. they cut new ground.
absolutely! and thats been at the centre of my argument often voiced on here that todays music scene is pretty dull and theres no great movement going on.
Yes, I've heard you make the argument before and it is of some worth. A computer game like GTA has a much greater cultural resonance than a new record by almost anyone.
Originally I thought it was just rock music's story that had come to an end but I think it is more pervasive than that.
I don't want it to be the end of the story but in the words of The Matrix Revolutions 'Everything that has a beginning has an End'
I don't want it to be the end of the story but in the words of The Matrix Revolutions 'Everything that has a beginning has an End'
and of course everyone not in the movie walked away and continued their lives ...
and here we are, waiting for the next revolution, which someone will start ....
and of course everyone not in the movie walked away and continued their lives ...
and here we are, waiting for the next revolution, which someone will start ....
Actually the story ended at the end of the first movie but commercialism and vanity created two 'sequels' which added little to the original narrative. It's a good analogy for where pop music is right now! .
Quick reviews of some current alt / indie acts:
Bastille: Crap
Foals: Even more crap
Alt J: Ditto, say no more
Peace: Ditto, ditto, ugh
Palma Violets: New level of crap, just when you thought the pit could not be dug any deeper.
I could go on with further bands...I'll stop there.
All of them are pretty middle class and dreary to me. Do take into account I mean dreary just in quality of song writing rather than negativity of music. Not that I've anything against middle class and dreary it can be brilliant if it is done in the right way. Its just isn't by any of that lot. Need I go on? Sorry if anybody actually likes any of those bands, I don't mean to be offensive. But for me current indie/alt music darlings suck.
Oh but they're not proper current alternative bands some will cry! Yes as well as the bands I mentioned, you've also got all these other "indie/alt" acts that seem to have bought themselves a one of dem synthesizer type thingy me bobs and seem to think it is incredibly revolutionary to set the synth to emit a whining noise as they play chords whilst they wail over the top of it like they have a nasal problem. Cause that's just so... different. James Blake did a brilliant job of this on Friday's episode of Later. Just brilliant. I'm glad people like him are saving us from all that chart stuff with "great" music like that that would embarrass the most pretentious prog rockers of the 70's. Give him the Mercury Music Prize now. Cheer, Cheer!
Am I still into "alternative" music? You know what on current evidence probably not actually. Like I say, I prefer my pub circuit bands that none of you will have ever have heard of.
To be honest, I think the biggest problem is the reluctance of major record labels to make long term investments. They all want the quick buck, the easily marketable, radio friendly stuff in line with present trends. They need to get back to signing artists who can have long term careers. They may not make millions immediately but the pay off over time will work out more.
I agree with that. I think ever since the noughties, the larger labels are only prepared to invest in two albums per artist. If the second, in particular, is successful, then they will receive more investment. The budget for their videos will become bigger and they will get more exposure from MTV and through promotions and chat shows.
Originally I thought it was just rock music's story that had come to an end but I think it is more pervasive than that.
I don't want it to be the end of the story but in the words of The Matrix Revolutions 'Everything that has a beginning has an End'
I do wish people would stop perpetuating this myth....
I think you will find Rock music is alive and doing very nicely, thank you. It's undergone a real revival in the last 10 years or so but that revival has been completely ignored by the mainstream media.
Download had over 90,000 people this year and Bloodstock sold out, again.
However the lack of mainstream media interest does mean Rock music is where it belongs, underground and thriving.
I do wish people would stop perpetuating this myth....
I think you will find Rock music is alive and doing very nicely, thank you. It's undergone a real revival in the last 10 years or so but that revival has been completely ignored by the mainstream media.
Download had over 90,000 people this year and Bloodstock sold out, again.
However the lack of mainstream media interest does mean Rock music is where it belongs, underground and thriving.
You misunderstand the point, as many others seem to.
The story of rock is over not the music or the audience.
It is part of the cultural tapestry but no longer part of the cultural zeitgeist which it was, it's cultural importance has diminished not it's audience. It has been replaced by other narratives such as reality tv, celebrity culture, social media and video gaming.
That's the point.
You misunderstand the point, as many others seem to.
The story of rock is over not the music or the audience.
It is part of the cultural tapestry but no longer part of the cultural zeitgeist which it was, it's cultural importance has diminished not it's audience. It has been replaced by other narratives such as reality tv, celebrity culture, social media and video gaming.
That's the point.
The mainstream media covers what it believes the public thinks is important, however that doesn''t necessarily tie in with what the public actually think is important and I think the revival in rock music is a symptom of that.
The mainstream media covers what it believes the public thinks is important, however that doesn''t necessarily tie in with what the public actually think is important and I think the revival in rock music is a symptom of that.
Of course. The problem is that there isn't a driving 'non-mainstream media' any more. Instead of an NME, Face, iD (and Melody Maker and Sounds too in their own way) helping push the edges of the envelope, the media that is capable of picking up on new trends and supporting them is simply far too fragmented nowadays to have any major influence.
When was the last time the mainstream press picked up on anything other than what the record business (as opposed to the artists) gave them on a plate?
So what you end up with is an ever-smaller pool of on-the-edge musicians driving things forward to a small, committed but (importantly) disconnected audience, and a slowly diminishing mainstream public reduced to buying the same old same old.
I'm sorry, but you can't tell me that the current 'rock music revival' is anything but utterly derivative and treading water for an audience who didn't see it the first two (or three) times round. Pleasant and undemanding, yes, but hardly something that's going to see the industry healthily through puzzling times. Its more a new generation with very few ideas and little effort trying to make weak voices heard to an increasingly disinterested music audience that doesn't see any of it as 'important', just another adjunct to their entertainment world.
Rock is in a terrible state, but music popularity is cyclical. It'll be back in vogue one day, just like it came back from a post Britney Spears and N'Sync world in the early 00s. All it takes is for one band, one song, to break through then all of a sudden the media notice a ton of other bands that sound just like it. And hey-ho, it's called a 'revival'. In fact the last one was dubbed the 'New Rock Revolution', as I recall.
Comments
not so sure its a 'newer' idea tbh, but i think youre spot on...
Sometimes I see people playing the bar/club circuit that are better than many of the people we are directed to by the alternative music press as the next not so big thing. You feel sad for them as they will probably never get a shot at even been one of those bands that are outside the charts, never mind been one in it.
I've heard that a lot of indie label's just sign people on what sort of following they get on Facebook or whatever now, because they want a guaranteed audience for the act before they commit any money to them. Nobody is signed on their talent anymore, its how you can network.
I find Later... With Jools Holland desperately dull, to be honest. Very formulaic and predictable with vast swathes of popular music simply ignored.
Whilst that is true for the major labels, it isn't true for the smaller independent labels.
However many of those "smaller" labels are actually owned by the major labels, so the investment by the major labels is still there, but done via their subsidiaries.
The problem with "Alternative" music is that it has become formulaic, it has been for years.
However there is still plenty of good music out there if you are prepared to take the time to search it. I love Progressive Music and that has had a real renaissance over the last few years and I find plenty to get excited about.
And the money goes where the money is, with all the associated hype, rip-offs and bandwagon jumping. Look at the rip off of blues artists royalties and payments, the 50s/60s re-recording of black music so it would be acceptable to a white middle-class audience, the endless re-treads of any genre as it rises into formula music, until it drowns under its own weight (and I'm not thinking SAW here - its been a feature of music since ragtime created a flood of sheet music, through big bands, Country - several times- Psych, Punk, House ... ), the Monterey and Woodstock behind the scenes money manipulation, and the entertainment industry 'impresarios' who manipulated their artists long before Simon Cowell toddled off to school.
Try finding 'Rockonomics, the money behind the music' by Marc Eliot, or 'Hit Men, power brokers and fast money inside the music business' by Frederic Dannen. They both cover the ground (although only the Marc Eliot goes before the 1950s). Or to pick up a specific period in depth, try 'Will Pop eat itself' by Jeremy J Beadle, which discusses the 1980s-1990s in relation to the then-new sampling technology.
IMO it's the excitement of the newness, the first sniff of the thrill of a new and out of the public eye underground clique forming their own culture, that's missing. You can't fabricate a movement and convince the trend-setters (Bosstown Sound anyone?). R&B is now close on 25 years old. Electro-dance music nearly 30 years old, and Hip-Hop/Rap 35!!!
Of course, that's the Euro/US view. The few truly massive international new musics since then are in other markets - China, Japan, Indonesia, the African states, South America.
I suspect that the money will take a few years yet to really get a handle on how the online generation works. It took them long enough to work out 45rpm singles real potential for a new market (teens).
In the meantime, things are simply too fragmented socially for any new phenomenon like acid house or disco to take hold. So we're stuck with an industry that's becoming more and more polarised into the high-visibility company-manipulated chart/Cowell/TV stuff and the online/local/niche material.
However, I wouldn't like to say that this is the end of the story. It's merely moving on. It did in the 1930s (after the industry very nearly died - ironically radio rescued it). It did in the 1950s, when rock and roll opened a totally new market.
What's needed is a bright new generation with astounding new ideas that capture the zeitgeist. It'll happen, but I'm not holding my breath.:(
I don't think it will because music isn't the centre of the universe for most teenagers now.
I was a teenager in the late '70s/early 80s and a new album coming out was an event, something to look forward to for weeks. I can remember to this day going in to town the day Pink Floyd's The Wall came out with my mates and having to go from store to store to store to find it as it had sold out, when we found a store that still had copies, we brought one each and got the bus home to all listen to it whilst we poured over the cover. Once we'd listened to all four sides it was straight on to side 1 again!
But in those days we were in awe of these people. They were never in the newspapers, you rarely saw photographs of them, to see them live was a massive event. Today open up any tabloid and you will often find plenty of evidence that the latest "pop sensation" likes to go out for the evening without wearing any knickers; all carefully orchestrated, of course.
Music and celebrity have become an interchangeable commodity and unless that changes pop music will become more and more anodyne and celebrity status will be seen as a more worthwhile attainment than the actual music.
This is what The X-Factor exploits so well as it isn't about people who want a career in music, it is about people who want to be famous and they see programmes like X-Factor as a short-cut to achieving that fame.
Other than, can we go 50/50 on copyright on "music isn't the centre of the universe" t shirts - kinda in 'Frankie Says" mode
not so sure its as simple as all that.
true money has been at the heart of the music business since day 1. but in the past there wasnt as much emphisis on success, artists were allowed to create, nowdays it HAS to be a success, it HAS to make money.
indeed the 50's and 60's did regurgitate black music for a white audience...so? the musicians back then were more into creating new music, or updating other styles, by way of experimentation. they cut new ground.
absolutely! and thats been at the centre of my argument often voiced on here that todays music scene is pretty dull and theres no great movement going on.
Alan McGee already gave his take on how the music industry works.
The music industry is like what it was in 1962 and 1972.
It is like one big Mr Krabs along with the media fuelling it as it's secret recipe.
All it cares about is your money and not what you and your friends like.
Not if your talented or not like it was in the 80's or early and mide 90's.
Plus the is no real new music scene anymore.It all manufacture Da Club and all that crap and Spice Girl,wannabes on repeat same with Take That copycat band for girls to buy.like one big fashion parade for teen and there money,and they stick to that format.
Plus the musicians and artists or band can't do what they want anymore like Sex Pistols or Guns and Roses or Nirvana anymore.It's got to be done by the record company's rules and what they say not the way they,want it like anymore.that go's giving the artist freedom to do what he or she does,just stick to the format.
Are you sure you're a fan of 'alternative' music? Because you're description above is just an out-dated stereotype. The kind of 'dreary' indie rock you're talking about was far more prevalent 10/20 years ago than it is now.
In my mind, 'alternative' is anything outside of the mainstream norm. Music that does not fit in with any kind of social stereotype. As for 'indie', it will always mean 'independent', to me.
Yes, I read the history of the music biz outlined above and yes there have been hiatuses before. The key difference this time is that the connection between the music of the times and the zeitgeist isn't there and hasn't been for about 10 years or more.
Yes, I've heard you make the argument before and it is of some worth. A computer game like GTA has a much greater cultural resonance than a new record by almost anyone.
Originally I thought it was just rock music's story that had come to an end but I think it is more pervasive than that.
I don't want it to be the end of the story but in the words of The Matrix Revolutions 'Everything that has a beginning has an End'
and here we are, waiting for the next revolution, which someone will start ....
Actually the story ended at the end of the first movie but commercialism and vanity created two 'sequels' which added little to the original narrative. It's a good analogy for where pop music is right now! .
Perhaps, autotune is the biggest culprit for destroying music!
Quick reviews of some current alt / indie acts:
Bastille: Crap
Foals: Even more crap
Alt J: Ditto, say no more
Peace: Ditto, ditto, ugh
Palma Violets: New level of crap, just when you thought the pit could not be dug any deeper.
I could go on with further bands...I'll stop there.
All of them are pretty middle class and dreary to me. Do take into account I mean dreary just in quality of song writing rather than negativity of music. Not that I've anything against middle class and dreary it can be brilliant if it is done in the right way. Its just isn't by any of that lot. Need I go on? Sorry if anybody actually likes any of those bands, I don't mean to be offensive. But for me current indie/alt music darlings suck.
Oh but they're not proper current alternative bands some will cry! Yes as well as the bands I mentioned, you've also got all these other "indie/alt" acts that seem to have bought themselves a one of dem synthesizer type thingy me bobs and seem to think it is incredibly revolutionary to set the synth to emit a whining noise as they play chords whilst they wail over the top of it like they have a nasal problem. Cause that's just so... different. James Blake did a brilliant job of this on Friday's episode of Later. Just brilliant. I'm glad people like him are saving us from all that chart stuff with "great" music like that that would embarrass the most pretentious prog rockers of the 70's. Give him the Mercury Music Prize now. Cheer, Cheer!
Am I still into "alternative" music? You know what on current evidence probably not actually. Like I say, I prefer my pub circuit bands that none of you will have ever have heard of.
I agree with that. I think ever since the noughties, the larger labels are only prepared to invest in two albums per artist. If the second, in particular, is successful, then they will receive more investment. The budget for their videos will become bigger and they will get more exposure from MTV and through promotions and chat shows.
I do wish people would stop perpetuating this myth....
I think you will find Rock music is alive and doing very nicely, thank you. It's undergone a real revival in the last 10 years or so but that revival has been completely ignored by the mainstream media.
Download had over 90,000 people this year and Bloodstock sold out, again.
However the lack of mainstream media interest does mean Rock music is where it belongs, underground and thriving.
You misunderstand the point, as many others seem to.
The story of rock is over not the music or the audience.
It is part of the cultural tapestry but no longer part of the cultural zeitgeist which it was, it's cultural importance has diminished not it's audience. It has been replaced by other narratives such as reality tv, celebrity culture, social media and video gaming.
That's the point.
The mainstream media covers what it believes the public thinks is important, however that doesn''t necessarily tie in with what the public actually think is important and I think the revival in rock music is a symptom of that.
When was the last time the mainstream press picked up on anything other than what the record business (as opposed to the artists) gave them on a plate?
So what you end up with is an ever-smaller pool of on-the-edge musicians driving things forward to a small, committed but (importantly) disconnected audience, and a slowly diminishing mainstream public reduced to buying the same old same old.
I'm sorry, but you can't tell me that the current 'rock music revival' is anything but utterly derivative and treading water for an audience who didn't see it the first two (or three) times round. Pleasant and undemanding, yes, but hardly something that's going to see the industry healthily through puzzling times. Its more a new generation with very few ideas and little effort trying to make weak voices heard to an increasingly disinterested music audience that doesn't see any of it as 'important', just another adjunct to their entertainment world.