I find most bands outside the mainstream do it for the love of making music, not to be world famous musicians.
Some friends of mine are in a band and they look at "success" in terms of making an album that sells in enough quantities to justify a tour and the money from the album sales and the tour covers the cost of everything plus a few quid left over to start the next album.
They are starting to make a real name for themselves, but if you were to ask any of them they would never say they are in it for world fame and to sell out the O2.
Sales are as important to artists and record labels as viewing figures are to TV producers and broadcast networks.
If nobody watches, there is a risk the network will cancel a TV show. Similarly, if an artist continues to sell poorly, the risk increases of record deals being lost. And both of these scenarios are bad news for someone who likes something so much they don't want to lose it. Being interested in sales can often be about feeling safe in the knowledge that something you like is going to continue for a little bit longer.
On the other hand, using sales as a method to beat each other up and prove who/what is best is just plain silly, of course.
Id say with some confidence that the vast majority of people I know think that being in the Top 40 means this is the best music there is out there. A friend of a friend (about 35 years old) recently stated that "he knew everything about music", then soon after, when Johnny Cash was brought up in conversation, said "Who's he, never heard of him". then followed that up with the admission that when he said "music", he meant Top 10. I was actually embarrassed for him, not only to not have heard of JC, but to be a 35 year old man still caring about the Top 10.
It's not solely about the music anymore, it was more so back in the 60's etc. It's all about controversy and hype and most of the top 40 buyers are kids.
Congratulations.
hands over plate of Blacksticks Blue, Dovedale, Bauvale Reive and Cornish Yarg
Choose any biscuits you wish to go with them.
You just nailed the whole scene and deserve a break.
It's not solely about the music anymore, it was more so back in the 60's etc. It's all about controversy and hype and most of the top 40 buyers are kids.
Yeah because there was never any hype or controversy in music back in the 60s. :rolleyes:
I find most bands outside the mainstream do it for the love of making music, not to be world famous musicians.
Some friends of mine are in a band and they look at "success" in terms of making an album that sells in enough quantities to justify a tour and the money from the album sales and the tour covers the cost of everything plus a few quid left over to start the next album.
They are starting to make a real name for themselves, but if you were to ask any of them they would never say they are in it for world fame and to sell out the O2.
The vast majority of 'mainstream' musicians also love making music, I suspect. Tell me that Bruce Springsteen, Chris Martin and Adele don't love what they do. There is false dichotomy between the 'mainstream' and what's outside it. It's a divide that exists more in the minds of the fans than in reality.
It's just that for every one musician who sells out the O2 there are thousands who would like to. What you are saying is that your friends would like to work as musicians for a living and that's fine. I would too.
I think many of the non-mainstream artists are successful, often through good word of mouth and then live performance. And in reality they aspire to more but there is only room for so many in the mainstream. Who wants to make music that no-one listens to?
I never said there wasn't any hype etc in the 60's, but that's the MAIN focus now, I don't reckon Rihanna or Miley would be as popular for example if they weren't dogs tbh, Hype sells, that's been the "thing" for a while now. There's lots of great music that did well back then without controversy, but there is very little music in the charts now which I find remotely interesting and it's clear songs and artists get there because of the latest gimmick or publicity stunt, while other artists who make better music straddle behind.
The media like to latch on to things too and then sheep follow, I just find the music could be more spiritual and versatile in the 60's, 70's...and could also be a hit at the same time but it's not like that now. There's always been novelty and generic music in the charts especially at the fore front but the charts were more varied and music just sounded more organic for the most part, well that's my opinion. Oh and before anyone blames my age, I'm 24.
It's just that for every one musician who sells out the O2 there are thousands who would like to. What you are saying is that your friends would like to work as musicians for a living and that's fine. I would too.
I think many of the non-mainstream artists are successful, often through good word of mouth and then live performance. And in reality they aspire to more but there is only room for so many in the mainstream. Who wants to make music that no-one listens to?
They're making the music they want to make and the music they consider to be good. Of course every artist wants people to hear their music but for many it's more a case of "yeah, I'd like to sell out the O2...but not if it means making that kind of music" .
They're making the music they want to make and the music they consider to be good. Of course every artist wants people to hear their music but for many it's more a case of "yeah, I'd like to sell out the O2...but not if it means making that kind of music" .
'Music is its own reward'
I think this idea that there are artists who prefer to be true to their art/music rather than sellout to the biz is a bit of a myth really. Non-mainstream artists want recognition as much as anyone. There's the same drive to have your works recognised and loved even if it's just as a cult artist!
'Music is its own reward'
I think this idea that there are artists who prefer to be true to their art/music rather than sellout to the biz is a bit of a myth really. Non-mainstream artists want recognition as much as anyone. There's the same drive to have your works recognised and loved even if it's just as a cult artist!
It's hardly a myth. How do you explain all those artists making music that is so clearly not 'commercial' or radio-friendly but keep making it anyway rather than changing their style to fit in with what sells? Also, I don't think wanting recognition is the same as selling out. As I said, all artists want people to hear and enjoy their music (not least so they can carry on making it). It's more a case of not releasing any old crap or music you don't believe in, in order to make it happen. The idea that all artists want to become rich and famous is the real myth imo.
It's hardly a myth. How do you explain all those artists making music that is so clearly not 'commercial' or radio-friendly but keep making it anyway rather than changing their style to fit in with what sells? Also, I don't think wanting recognition is the same as selling out. As I said, all artists want people to hear and enjoy their music (not least so they can carry on making it). It's more a case of not releasing any old crap or music you don't believe in, in order to make it happen. The idea that all artists want to become rich and famous is the real myth imo.
Put it the other way, do you really think that the big artists out there say to themselves we'll put out any old crap as long as it sells? No, they don't the vast majority of them put out the best music they can, more often than not music they actually believe in. Who or What are they selling out to?
And if you are trying to suggest that there is this huge set of 'non-commercial' artists who are totally original and haven't borrowed much of their 'style' from artists who have come before them, it just isn't true.
I don't get it either. It also means there is so much discussion I don't bother joining in with, because caring about sales that much and using them as a point scoring tactic against "rival" artists is just something I won't ever understand the appeal of
Yes & its boring as hell as well
I wish there was more lyric analysis or discussion about the techincal side of song writing/singing/performing but I rarely see conversation along those lines here. [/QUOTE]
Yes agree Digital spy should try to filter some of it out - not adding to the 'musical' discussion etc.DS seems to encourage it more than anything though.
Put it the other way, do you really think that the big artists out there say to themselves we'll put out any old crap as long as it sells? No, they don't the vast majority of them put out the best music they can, more often than not music they actually believe in. Who or What are they selling out to?
And if you are trying to suggest that there is this huge set of 'non-commercial' artists who are totally original and haven't borrowed much of their 'style' from artists who have come before them, it just isn't true.
You're the one who mentioned selling out, not me. I didn't mention anything about originality of 'non-mainstream' artists either. Honestly not sure what you're going on about.
I was merely explaining that there are reasons why artists are 'non mainstream' and that they're not all motivated to become 'mainstream'. It's certainly not always the case that they lack the skill or talent to 'make it big'. We all know there's a type of sound that sells well, it's usually simple, safe, predictable and familiar and it's hardly always the sign of good music or what most artists aspire to be. Christ knows people complain about it enough on this forum with the endless posts about the state of current mainstream music.
You're the one who mentioned selling out, not me. I didn't mention anything about originality of 'non-mainstream' artists either. Honestly not sure what you're going on about.
I was merely explaining that there are reasons why artists are 'non mainstream' and that they're not all motivated to become 'mainstream'. It's certainly not always the case that they lack the skill or talent to 'make it big'. We all know there's a type of sound that sells well, it's usually simple, safe, predictable and familiar and it's hardly always the sign of good music or what most artists aspire to be. Christ knows people complain about it enough on this forum with the endless posts about the state of current mainstream music.
Yes you tell him :P .There are artists out there that push out the same safe, predictable / familiar music.As long as it keeps selling they'll keep doing so as well - pushed on by their labels.Not sure if that amounts to the best music they can come up with.It all depends whether you have a commercial or artistic point of view.
There are still artists out there who still try to come up with original music.Some of them had 'commercial' success in the past.Being original & getting commercial success seems to be getting harder thing to achieve these days.Thats why many of us think music is going through a stagnation period 'in the mainstream', although 'singles' sales have gone through a period of increase, although seem to be slowing down now from what I have read.
The mainstream side of music is still in contraction at the moment though for various reasons as far as profit margins go.
If there is an album or an artist I am interested in, I usually research the critical appraisal of an album and then I see how the sales are doing.
Critical appraisal from what source though.'Critical appraisal' from certain sources has never been so 'commercially' influenced than they are at the moment.Printed music media vertially has to have a commercial bias to remain in existance these days (due to low sales) which is why in the main, I ignore it.Alot of internet / digital media has commercial bias as well.Which in turn effects sales.
Not saying I don't do the same, but I'm just trying to point out that we are in a very commercially dominated period of music at the moment, as far as getting any where near commercial success generally.Even though the Major Labels etc. are going through a period of profit decline
There is the long tail though which has ment overall music sales have held up quite well.Its very difficult to achieve massive commercial success these days though.
Yes you tell him :P .There are artists out there that push out the same safe, predictable / familiar music.As long as it keeps selling they'll keep doing so as well - pushed on by their labels.Not sure if that amounts to the best music they can come up with.It all depends whether you have a commercial or artistic point of view.
There are still artists out there who still try to come up with original music.Some of them had 'commercial' success in the past.Being original & getting commercial success seems to be getting harder thing to achieve these days.Thats why many of us think music is going through a stagnation period 'in the mainstream', although 'singles' sales have gone through a period of increase, although seem to be slowing down now from what I have read.
The mainstream side of music is still in contraction at the moment though for various reasons as far as profit margins go.
The point I was making above is really quite simple- that the vast majority of musicians/artists have both commercial and artistic reasons for making music and that applies across the so-called 'mainstream' and 'non-mainstream'. The artists who make the charts don't sell out they just sell more.
The idea that some music is aesthetically better than other music is constantly mentioned on these threads but seldom if ever is justified on grounds other than what an individual likes is what makes it good. So saying that some music is 'safe', 'predictable' 'mainstream' or that it is 'not original' isn't a criticism. Because some music hasn't been heard before ( which is really unlikely) doesn't actually make it any aesthetically better than the 'predictable' music you talk of. It's just a matter of taste.
The reason for the stagnation is that pop music as a developing story is over, it is no longer in train with the cultural zeitgeist. Reality tv, video gaming and social media are more in touch with that these days. Programmers are the new rock stars!
'Music is its own reward' I think this idea that there are artists who prefer to be true to their art/music rather than sellout to the biz is a bit of a myth really. Non-mainstream artists want recognition as much as anyone. There's the same drive to have your works recognised and loved even if it's just as a cult artist!
You think so? I don't.
There are plenty of artists out there who will not change their music to achieve commercial success, that doesn't mean they can't be successful in their own right, though.
Of course musicians want people to hear their work, what is the point in making it in the first place if it isn't heard? However a "cult artist" is very often someone who refuses to compromise their sound, so you are contradicting yourself.
The point I was making above is really quite simple- that the vast majority of musicians/artists have both commercial and artistic reasons for making music and that applies across the so-called 'mainstream' and 'non-mainstream'. The artists who make the charts don't sell out they just sell more.
Again with the "selling out" . That's not what the discussion's about at all. You don't automatically "sell out" once you become mainstream . You seem to be suggesting that people are saying all 'mainstream'=bad and all 'non-mainstream'=good, which isn't the case at all.
However a "cult artist" is very often someone who refuses to compromise their sound, so you are contradicting yourself.
His argument seems very contradictory to me too. He's saying all mainstream music has just as much artistic value as any other music but he's the first one to criticise the state of it currently. This sudden defence of 'mainstream' music is a surprise to me .
'Music is its own reward'
I think this idea that there are artists who prefer to be true to their art/music rather than sellout to the biz is a bit of a myth really.
Again with the "selling out" . That's not what the discussion's about at all. You don't automatically "sell out" once you become mainstream . You seem to be suggesting that people are saying all 'mainstream'=bad and all 'non-mainstream'=good, which isn't the case at all.
His argument seems very contradictory to me too. He's saying all mainstream music has just as much artistic value as any other music but he's the first one to criticise the state of it currently. This sudden defence of 'mainstream' music is a surprise to me .
I'm just suggesting that the motivations of mainstream, successful artists are no different from 'non-mainstream', less successful artists. That was in answer to the idea that the mainstream artists make some deliberate decision to 'play safe' or not take risks, as if they don't believe in their music. I think they do. That doesn't make their music better or worse, it's about why they do it.
Artistic value is a different area and few on here have any clear methodology for evaluating what is good and what is bad. The default position seems to be, it's all up to the individual what is good and what is bad. There is nothing to defend in that.
There are plenty of artists out there who will not change their music to achieve commercial success, that doesn't mean they can't be successful in their own right, though.
Of course musicians want people to hear their work, what is the point in making it in the first place if it isn't heard? However a "cult artist" is very often someone who refuses to compromise their sound, so you are contradicting yourself.
I think cult refers more to the following than the artist.
I'm not going to dispute exceptions, as I used to belong to a music collective and was a 'fan' of Crass. But these are marginal interests in the story of pop.
Comments
I find most bands outside the mainstream do it for the love of making music, not to be world famous musicians.
Some friends of mine are in a band and they look at "success" in terms of making an album that sells in enough quantities to justify a tour and the money from the album sales and the tour covers the cost of everything plus a few quid left over to start the next album.
They are starting to make a real name for themselves, but if you were to ask any of them they would never say they are in it for world fame and to sell out the O2.
If nobody watches, there is a risk the network will cancel a TV show. Similarly, if an artist continues to sell poorly, the risk increases of record deals being lost. And both of these scenarios are bad news for someone who likes something so much they don't want to lose it. Being interested in sales can often be about feeling safe in the knowledge that something you like is going to continue for a little bit longer.
On the other hand, using sales as a method to beat each other up and prove who/what is best is just plain silly, of course.
hands over plate of Blacksticks Blue, Dovedale, Bauvale Reive and Cornish Yarg
Choose any biscuits you wish to go with them.
You just nailed the whole scene and deserve a break.
Yeah because there was never any hype or controversy in music back in the 60s. :rolleyes:
The vast majority of 'mainstream' musicians also love making music, I suspect. Tell me that Bruce Springsteen, Chris Martin and Adele don't love what they do. There is false dichotomy between the 'mainstream' and what's outside it. It's a divide that exists more in the minds of the fans than in reality.
It's just that for every one musician who sells out the O2 there are thousands who would like to. What you are saying is that your friends would like to work as musicians for a living and that's fine. I would too.
I think many of the non-mainstream artists are successful, often through good word of mouth and then live performance. And in reality they aspire to more but there is only room for so many in the mainstream. Who wants to make music that no-one listens to?
The media like to latch on to things too and then sheep follow, I just find the music could be more spiritual and versatile in the 60's, 70's...and could also be a hit at the same time but it's not like that now. There's always been novelty and generic music in the charts especially at the fore front but the charts were more varied and music just sounded more organic for the most part, well that's my opinion. Oh and before anyone blames my age, I'm 24.
'Music is its own reward'
I think this idea that there are artists who prefer to be true to their art/music rather than sellout to the biz is a bit of a myth really. Non-mainstream artists want recognition as much as anyone. There's the same drive to have your works recognised and loved even if it's just as a cult artist!
Put it the other way, do you really think that the big artists out there say to themselves we'll put out any old crap as long as it sells? No, they don't the vast majority of them put out the best music they can, more often than not music they actually believe in. Who or What are they selling out to?
And if you are trying to suggest that there is this huge set of 'non-commercial' artists who are totally original and haven't borrowed much of their 'style' from artists who have come before them, it just isn't true.
Yes & its boring as hell as well
I wish there was more lyric analysis or discussion about the techincal side of song writing/singing/performing but I rarely see conversation along those lines here.
Yes agree Digital spy should try to filter some of it out - not adding to the 'musical' discussion etc.DS seems to encourage it more than anything though.
I was merely explaining that there are reasons why artists are 'non mainstream' and that they're not all motivated to become 'mainstream'. It's certainly not always the case that they lack the skill or talent to 'make it big'. We all know there's a type of sound that sells well, it's usually simple, safe, predictable and familiar and it's hardly always the sign of good music or what most artists aspire to be. Christ knows people complain about it enough on this forum with the endless posts about the state of current mainstream music.
Yes you tell him :P .There are artists out there that push out the same safe, predictable / familiar music.As long as it keeps selling they'll keep doing so as well - pushed on by their labels.Not sure if that amounts to the best music they can come up with.It all depends whether you have a commercial or artistic point of view.
There are still artists out there who still try to come up with original music.Some of them had 'commercial' success in the past.Being original & getting commercial success seems to be getting harder thing to achieve these days.Thats why many of us think music is going through a stagnation period 'in the mainstream', although 'singles' sales have gone through a period of increase, although seem to be slowing down now from what I have read.
The mainstream side of music is still in contraction at the moment though for various reasons as far as profit margins go.
Critical appraisal from what source though.'Critical appraisal' from certain sources has never been so 'commercially' influenced than they are at the moment.Printed music media vertially has to have a commercial bias to remain in existance these days (due to low sales) which is why in the main, I ignore it.Alot of internet / digital media has commercial bias as well.Which in turn effects sales.
Not saying I don't do the same, but I'm just trying to point out that we are in a very commercially dominated period of music at the moment, as far as getting any where near commercial success generally.Even though the Major Labels etc. are going through a period of profit decline
There is the long tail though which has ment overall music sales have held up quite well.Its very difficult to achieve massive commercial success these days though.
The point I was making above is really quite simple- that the vast majority of musicians/artists have both commercial and artistic reasons for making music and that applies across the so-called 'mainstream' and 'non-mainstream'. The artists who make the charts don't sell out they just sell more.
The idea that some music is aesthetically better than other music is constantly mentioned on these threads but seldom if ever is justified on grounds other than what an individual likes is what makes it good. So saying that some music is 'safe', 'predictable' 'mainstream' or that it is 'not original' isn't a criticism. Because some music hasn't been heard before ( which is really unlikely) doesn't actually make it any aesthetically better than the 'predictable' music you talk of. It's just a matter of taste.
The reason for the stagnation is that pop music as a developing story is over, it is no longer in train with the cultural zeitgeist. Reality tv, video gaming and social media are more in touch with that these days. Programmers are the new rock stars!
You think so? I don't.
There are plenty of artists out there who will not change their music to achieve commercial success, that doesn't mean they can't be successful in their own right, though.
Of course musicians want people to hear their work, what is the point in making it in the first place if it isn't heard? However a "cult artist" is very often someone who refuses to compromise their sound, so you are contradicting yourself.
His argument seems very contradictory to me too. He's saying all mainstream music has just as much artistic value as any other music but he's the first one to criticise the state of it currently. This sudden defence of 'mainstream' music is a surprise to me
Fugazi.
I'm just suggesting that the motivations of mainstream, successful artists are no different from 'non-mainstream', less successful artists. That was in answer to the idea that the mainstream artists make some deliberate decision to 'play safe' or not take risks, as if they don't believe in their music. I think they do. That doesn't make their music better or worse, it's about why they do it.
Artistic value is a different area and few on here have any clear methodology for evaluating what is good and what is bad. The default position seems to be, it's all up to the individual what is good and what is bad. There is nothing to defend in that.
You could have said Crass, more clearly antipathetic to the system than just having a DIY aesthetic. I hope Fugazi change the arc of the story.
I think cult refers more to the following than the artist.
I'm not going to dispute exceptions, as I used to belong to a music collective and was a 'fan' of Crass. But these are marginal interests in the story of pop.
There you go you've blown a hole in your own argument, it's not a myth afterall.
Oh and Steve Ignorant till very recently used to live about 2 minutes from me.