Is the future of music as grim as this article says?

RMCF

Distinguished Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2000
Messages
8,652
Reaction score
1,004
Points
1,979
BBC News - Where are the new music megastars?

It does look like all the big hitters in the world of music are a bit on the old side. If you mention that you like Bon Jovi then the majority will laugh at you, but they were the biggest earners in music in 2010, taking over £130,000,000. So plenty like them. Perhaps its just that this generation (mine I might add) are into going to big concerts and spending money on CDs etc, rather than downloading off illegal websites and not investing in the future of the music world.

Can people off X-Factor or manufactured bands really generate enough of a fanbase to keep the industry alive?

Look at the list of earners:
Bon Jovi, AC/DC, U2, Lady Gaga, Metallica, Michael Buble, Eagles, Roger Waters.

Plus Lady Gaga had to play twice as many gigs as the big rock stars to earn less money.

Is the big stadium concert on its last legs?
 
I think one reason could be that there's so much choice nowadays that it's difficult for a band to find a massive following. I think the really big bands come from certain movements within music, I guess you could call them the innovators. It's not easy for record companies to say 'listen to this artist' anymore. With the internet it's much easier for people to discover the music they otherwise normally wouldn't. People no longer have to rely on MTV and magazines as they did in the past.
 
I think one reason could be that there's so much choice nowadays that it's difficult for a band to find a massive following. I think the really big bands come from certain movements within music, I guess you could call them the innovators. It's not easy for record companies to say 'listen to this artist' anymore. With the internet it's much easier for people to discover the music they otherwise normally wouldn't. People no longer have to rely on MTV and magazines as they did in the past.
Good points, but if you look back to the late 60's that's been the case ever since then. There was a huge explosion of bands of various music types, jazz re-merged as did folk both of which splintered into myriad factions, and 'ethnic' music was becoming big news. When you go to places like the prog rock website you see literally hundreds of bands who made albums but never made it.

It's only ever been a relatively small number of bands that 'make it big', with some 'names' that were well known in their day still not troubling the charts.

The problem now is, is that music is so utterly facile, and has no substance whatsoever. But then that's by design. After all we don't want the plebs listening to stuff that angries up the blood while govts are busy protecting the wealthy at everyone else's expense do we? ;)

The music biz is as Conservative (whoops wrong c or going on Cowells pre election comments, is it?) as the rest of the establishment. and doesn't like boat rockers.........

The old school rockers are deemed 'safe' now, so who cares how many millions they make?

Music though, goes through phases, and I'm hoping this one won't last. Although, having said that, I was wrong to be optimistic in the 80's. The turgid **** that was served up then lasted over a decade! :rolleyes:
 
I only went to two shows this year, Roger Waters and Rush both at the O2 and both expensive. The few CD's or vinyl I've bought are all old albums, or new albums by old bands. There's only a few new things I like from the last ten years.

Nearly the same on both counts(didn't go to see Rush).

I used to be always buying CD's from new artists, these days it's nearly all re-issues or catching up on great albums I've missed through the years, some of which are old but new artists/groups to me and offer far more innovation.

Funny but I find looking at new releases these days pretty depressing TBH.
 
Nearly the same on both counts(didn't go to see Rush).

I used to be always buying CD's from new artists, these days it's nearly all re-issues or catching up on great albums I've missed through the years, some of which are old but new artists/groups to me and offer far more innovation.

Funny but I find looking at new releases these days pretty depressing TBH.
Ditto. On all counts.
 
I've all but stopped buying cd's in favour of social radio stations and subscription service napster. So I listen to a lot of artists and pay my share, but probably nowhere near what I used to.

The point about artists hitting their stride a few albums in is a good point and I'm sure many don't make it that far. When they do, I suspect its tours that reap the rewards, see Kasabian as a recent success story.

I do feel the last couple of years have been dull, not helped by a generation of kids thinking x factor is a valid career path. But the tide will turn and the new breed will emerge again.
 
overkill said:
The problem now is, is that music is so utterly facile, and has no substance whatsoever. But then that's by design. After all we don't want the plebs listening to stuff that angries up the blood while govts are busy protecting the wealthy at everyone else's expense do we? ;)
:

My, but you sound so angry Mr Overkill. None of it is true of course. The 'plebs' as you unkindly refer to them, don't want angry music, they want nice sing along tunes and stuff they can dance to at weddings, music that makes them forget the savage world they live in, they just want upbeat music that makes them feel good, they already have enough news on wars, corruption, murder, price rises. Angry Teenagers, particularly boys, still paint their bedrooms black and listen to angry music, feeling the world has conspired against them as they always have.

Most teens are doing what they always have done, x factor is just another top of the pops, dull music to you and me, but the kids don't vote for the best music, they vote for their favourite character, or the best fashion sense. None of it is politically motivated, at least not in isolation, although it maybe symptomatic of society in general, instead it is financially lead. It's about making money and that's about the only conspiracy going on.

I have friend, colleagues, family and I can tell you that they have never been interested in angry music. Music is just something they listen to in the background, to compliment a meal or entertain at a get together. I'm considered to be very strange in my tastes but no longer try to force feed them my idea of musical intellectualism.
 
My, but you sound so angry Mr Overkill. None of it is true of course. The 'plebs' as you unkindly refer to them, don't want angry music, they want nice sing along tunes and stuff they can dance to at weddings, music that makes them forget the savage world they live in, they just want upbeat music that makes them feel good, they already have enough news on wars, corruption, murder, price rises. Angry Teenagers, particularly boys, still paint their bedrooms black and listen to angry music, feeling the world has conspired against them as they always have.

Most teens are doing what they always have done, x factor is just another top of the pops, dull music to you and me, but the kids don't vote for the best music, they vote for their favourite character, or the best fashion sense. None of it is politically motivated, at least not in isolation, although it maybe symptomatic of society in general, instead it is financially lead. It's about making money and that's about the only conspiracy going on.

I have friend, colleagues, family and I can tell you that they have never been interested in angry music. Music is just something they listen to in the background, to compliment a meal or entertain at a get together. I'm considered to be very strange in my tastes but no longer try to force feed them my idea of musical intellectualism.
Angry, me? :confused: Only in the sense that the music biz is putting on the sideline anything 'good' in favour of what 'they' want.

I don't mean in terms of what 'I' like either. Even people who like indie, rap and soul often complain of how crap the current musical crop is.

As for the 'plebs' comment I was referring to how the establishment views 'us' not how I view other people! :facepalm::D

Apology accepted in advance m8............. :D
 
My, but you sound so angry Mr Overkill. None of it is true of course. The 'plebs' as you unkindly refer to them, don't want angry music, they want nice sing along tunes and stuff they can dance to at weddings, music that makes them forget the savage world they live in, they just want upbeat music that makes them feel good, they already have enough news on wars, corruption, murder, price rises. Angry Teenagers, particularly boys, still paint their bedrooms black and listen to angry music, feeling the world has conspired against them as they always have.

Most teens are doing what they always have done, x factor is just another top of the pops, dull music to you and me, but the kids don't vote for the best music, they vote for their favourite character, or the best fashion sense. None of it is politically motivated, at least not in isolation, although it maybe symptomatic of society in general, instead it is financially lead. It's about making money and that's about the only conspiracy going on.

I have friend, colleagues, family and I can tell you that they have never been interested in angry music. Music is just something they listen to in the background, to compliment a meal or entertain at a get together. I'm considered to be very strange in my tastes but no longer try to force feed them my idea of musical intellectualism.
Coming back to that, not that my initial post was meant to be taken that seriously, I have to take issue with a couple of points here.

In the 60's and 70's we had war, famine, collapsing economies (it came as a shock I can tell you!) collapsing empire, the cold war, missile crises, civil rights issues, race riots, terrorism on a grand scale, and the list goes on! But we didn't retreat into utter bilge music wise like we have today. No, instead the music got angry - and teens loved it!

Only in the 80's, and now, has music become cynically dumbed down to avoid what happened back then, people saying **** this.

See it as a pure 'accident' if you will, but I humbly beg to differ. ;)
 
Well they do say that communication is the responsibility of the writer ;-)

Yes, that probably is a close approximation of the establishment view. As to the music industry, back then, many producers were individual and seem to be anarchic, in fact those that were not anarchic were considered 'square daddy o'. Once the big corporates took over there was never an intention to push that sort of music, too many politicians, industrialists involved to want to rock the boat. Particularly when there's easy pickings and high profits to make peddling x factor.

Young minds are now so introverted towards the machine, material goods and attention spans have been dashed on the rocks of mobile communications that they never look up. It's only when these things they take for granted disappear that the game would be up. Trouble is I reckon they will just stare at the dry teat in hope, as they have never been exposed to revolutionary ideas and have little idea what they are supposed to do in a society that hacks down free speech while preaching world democracy.

So, yes I will gladly apologise and also ask you to make your communication a little clearer.
 
Well they do say that communication is the responsibility of the writer ;-)

Yes, that probably is a close approximation of the establishment view. As to the music industry, back then, many producers were individual and seem to be anarchic, in fact those that were not anarchic were considered 'square daddy o'. Once the big corporates took over there was never an intention to push that sort of music, too many politicians, industrialists involved to want to rock the boat. Particularly when there's easy pickings and high profits to make peddling x factor.

Young minds are now so introverted towards the machine, material goods and attention spans have been dashed on the rocks of mobile communications that they never look up. It's only when these things they take for granted disappear that the game would be up. Trouble is I reckon they will just stare at the dry teat in hope, as they have never been exposed to revolutionary ideas and have little idea what they are supposed to do in a society that hacks down free speech while preaching world democracy.

So, yes I will gladly apologise and also ask you to make your communication a little clearer.
Agreed, and will do. :)
 
What we need is another "punk rock" type explosion like we had back when I was a lad, now that did inject some excitement into the music industry, even though quite a lot of it wasn't all that good looking back at it :D
 
The situation is this -

The future of music is not grim! The older mega bands will always make millions as there fan base is always there and they will also generate new fans.

There are probably more new and unsigned bands/musicians than there ever has been at any time, but, unlike the old days where a band had to gain enough of a following (or get scouted) to be able to afford to get into a studio to record and release their music in a physical format that could be touted round, they can now perform to potentially millions on the likes of Youtube etc.

This can be an advantage for the lucky few who get noticed and snapped up, but there is so much out there that a lot just never get found.

Real musicians live and breathe to play and perform, it doesn't matter how old they are or if they aren't as energetic as they once were, if they can get up there and play they will. They also inspire younger musicians to do the same. That can only be a good thing. You may have to trawl through tons of crud to get to the good new stuff, but it is there if you look, and you finding this should pass it on to others. I have found a few bands through these forums where people have mentioned bands they have seen or heard.
 
What we need is another "punk rock" type explosion like we had back when I was a lad, now that did inject some excitement into the music industry, even though quite a lot of it wasn't all that good looking back at it :D
:D

No indeed. Most of them were cack! I found punk, although I like many of the bands from the 76-78' punk era, too contrived. The evil hand of talcy malcy was behind the whole image thing, and that soon killed off any street cred punk had. That plus the Clash etc selling out............ :D
 
The situation is this -

The future of music is not grim! The older mega bands will always make millions as there fan base is always there and they will also generate new fans.

There are probably more new and unsigned bands/musicians than there ever has been at any time, but, unlike the old days where a band had to gain enough of a following (or get scouted) to be able to afford to get into a studio to record and release their music in a physical format that could be touted round, they can now perform to potentially millions on the likes of Youtube etc.

This can be an advantage for the lucky few who get noticed and snapped up, but there is so much out there that a lot just never get found.

Real musicians live and breathe to play and perform, it doesn't matter how old they are or if they aren't as energetic as they once were, if they can get up there and play they will. They also inspire younger musicians to do the same. That can only be a good thing. You may have to trawl through tons of crud to get to the good new stuff, but it is there if you look, and you finding this should pass it on to others. I have found a few bands through these forums where people have mentioned bands they have seen or heard.
Wouldn't argue with any of that, apart from one thing, bands that can actually play, aren't being 'snapped up'.

That's the whole problem. If you can work with computer samples and recycle dance rhythms overlaid with 'maddona alike' vocals then you're made. However. that's not quite the same as 'getting up there and giving it a go'.

The latter is seen as old hat to the biz...........

As for exposure on facebook, all very well, but that doesn't sell albums - unless the biz notices you and you are flogging the right catchy 'pop/dance' tunes. A la Bieber, ;)
 
The thing is though that all that kind of stuff (Beiber etc) that appeals to teens is a market that has always been tapped. My 17 year old son is always saying he wishes he had been around in my heyday as he tends to like a lot of the stuff I liked then (and still do), and hates most of the stuff that is around now, but I keep telling him that there was as much rubbish around then as there is now, it is just so much easier to access it.

Back then:
You heard/saw music on vinyl or cassette, television, radio, or live. That was it.

Now:
You hear see music on CD, download, internet, television, DVD, radio, live. Basically anywhere you want, at any time you want in any format you want, and can do most of these for free, (with the likes of Spotify for example).

What this means is that there is that much more music around to listen to you are overwhelmed by the choice and will inevitably miss out purely because you will never stumble accross some thing obscure that is right up your street.

In the old days you were more likely to hear stuff as there were only a limited number of options for bands to get heard, they also had to get out and play to people, or go and record and press a physical copy of the songs to get their music heard. I could go home now, sing an awful tune (and believe me it would be awful), post it on Youtube, and be an overnight sensation! I wouldn't have to have worked at it, or even be good at it. It would be a novelty thing, which as I said before has always been done, just more people can do it now without having to go and make a record.

It does make it harder for decent bands/musicians to get heard, but if they have the determination and are good enough, I still believe they can get there music out there and heard, at least I hope so, coz my son (in a band), has promised he is going to look after his Dad when he is a rich and famous rock star, and I am holding him to that!!
 
These types of "article" appear every few years or so.

There is loads of music out there good bad & otherwise & this has been the way of things since year dot.

I have no problem with the big earners, after all they allow record companies to invest in smaller bands, so no problems there.

Put it this way, when Pop Idol was at its peak in the early 2000's the same subject came up, it was ALL boy band's, it wasn't of course but that's what was being promoted by lazy record & tv companies

I don't watch X-Factor, don't listen to any of the acts & generally manage to avoid it without too much effort.

The best thing that the concerened record buying public can do is get out there & start seeing new bands, you won't have to pay Stadium prices either !
 
Last edited:
Spot on Soundstory, especially the bit about getting out to see new bands. I know that up here in Newcastle there is a thriving music scene, especially for local bands. I think that a lot of places have cottoned on to the fact that as the number of people going out to pubs has decreased dramatically, they have to offer something to entice the public in. Most places are either free entry, or a nominal charge and it works. Pub is happy as they are getting punters in, band are happy as they are getting paid and heard, and punters are happy as they are getting to hear music for free, and getting p****d.

I also know that for example the 02 Academy in Newcastle does quite a bit for local bands as well. My 15 year old sons band have managed to get a small (10-15minute) support slot with another couple of local bands (My Extraordinary are the headliners) on 28th November with tickets only costing £5! That is for four bands. If you are in the Toon and fancy it, please go, if you do go, look out for "Queen Annes Revenge" (not listed on the bill at the moment). This is the kind of thing that is needed, ie the opportunity for small bands to get heard by a wider audience, actually playing live.

I have to admit that I do sometimes listen to X Factor (only coz the wife has it on, Promise!), and it always strikes me as karioke on a grand scale. I much preferred the Sky talent show (It's all about the music or something like that) which showcased performers mostly doing their own stuff, and for the most part not trying to imitate anyone else. Much more talent involved.
 
The best thing that the concerened record buying public can do is get out there & start seeing new bands, you won't have to pay Stadium prices either !

the bit in bold is the problem though...there's not enough of a record buying public, as a huge amount of folks are illegal downloaders (myself included, in addition to buying albums :blush:). The article linked to in the OP mentions that record companies won't finance tours because no one's buying the records...its a vicious circle!

As an example there's a lad here at work who likes his music, goes to gigs but openly admits to having not paid for an album for years...he downloads all illegally, even from his favourite artist upon release of new material :eek:
 
:D

No indeed. Most of them were cack! I found punk, although I like many of the bands from the 76-78' punk era, too contrived. The evil hand of talcy malcy was behind the whole image thing, and that soon killed off any street cred punk had. That plus the Clash etc selling out............ :D

Yay! someone who shares my view! The Sex Pistols recurited Sid Vicious because he had punk attitude, not because he could play.

I still mantain that Pink Floyd's 'Animals' was more punk than punk itself.

In light of the recent so called X-Factor 'scandal'......
Linky
 
It was refreshing to see the Pistols "There'll Always Be An England" with Glen Matlock playing, I've never heard them sound so accomplished ! :D
 
the bit in bold is the problem though...there's not enough of a record buying public, as a huge amount of folks are illegal downloaders (myself included, in addition to buying albums :blush:). The article linked to in the OP mentions that record companies won't finance tours because no one's buying the records...its a vicious circle!

As an example there's a lad here at work who likes his music, goes to gigs but openly admits to having not paid for an album for years...he downloads all illegally, even from his favourite artist upon release of new material :eek:
This is a bit of a myth. The majors (bar dying EMI) all posted hefty, and in Sony/BMI's case, record profits in recent years. This is hardly evidence that downloading is 'killing music'.

The only two issues with that are:-

1) the reason profits are still so high, is that CD is massively overpriced.

2) many young people are not buying, but downloading, and they are the future of music sales.

The two are linked.

The record companies still easily make enough money to get tours off the ground for new acts, and the big names don't need any cash from them as they make mega bucks on each tour and have done since the 70's.

No, the biggest problem is that all music is now overly commercialised not just the 'pop' market.
 
The majority of music has been total rubbish for the last 20 years. I will never stop listening to bands from the 70's and a few in the 80's/90's. There is too much pop music marketed at teenagers that come and go all the time. I can't remember the last time I bought a CD as I object to paying what they want for them. I rather pay more for decent vinyl.
 
No, the biggest problem is that all music is now overly commercialised not just the 'pop' market.

When has music not been commercial? I agree that originality is pretty much non existent in modern mainstream music, but what's wrong with commercial music? Just because it was designed for a certain purpose, doesn't mean it's bad and doesn't mean people can't enjoy it. Personally I enjoy a lot of the commerical music of the eighties (yes that includes the whole glam metal genre, AOR, melodic rock etc). Does that mean I have awful taste in music and my opinion is wrong? No. I think it's stupid to dismiss music because it was written for the purpose of getting hits/making money, but if it makes people feel better for believing that they have superior taste (as if it actually matters) then that's fine by me, your loss.

Plus it's silly to blame record labels for lack of originality. All they do is identify which artists are the most popular and sign up a bunch of similar ones. When this happens, people will start to get bored of hearing the same things over and over and it signals the end of that particular music movement. I guess it happened with glam metal, boy/girl bands etc. in the past.
 
Last edited:
When has music not been commercial? I agree that originality is pretty much non existent in modern mainstream music, but what's wrong with commercial music? Just because it was designed for a certain purpose, doesn't mean it's bad and doesn't mean people can't enjoy it. Personally I enjoy a lot of the commerical music of the eighties (yes that includes the whole glam metal genre, AOR, melodic rock etc). Does that mean I have awful taste in music and my opinion is wrong? No. I think it's stupid to dismiss music because it was written for the purpose of getting hits/making money, but if it makes people feel better for believing that they have superior taste (as if it actually matters) then that's fine by me, your loss.

Plus it's silly to blame record labels for lack of originality. All they do is identify which artists are the most popular and sign up a bunch of similar ones. When this happens, people will start to get bored of hearing the same things over and over and it signals the end of that particular music movement. I guess it happened with glam metal, boy/girl bands etc. in the past.
Depends how you define 'commercial'. All music could be classed as commercial once you have signed to a major label and break into the mainstream.

However, that's not what I meant, as I'm sure, despite the tirade, you are fully aware. Music is now all geared to the lowest common denominator, the easiest sound to produce, the less challenging the better.

Now, if you REALLY think that music in the past was dumbed down to the degree it is today, then fine, but I wish you luck trying that argument out.

As before, the music business does not play catch up with what consumers want, it sets the trends. Acts don't suddenly think, 'I know I'll start a 'Glam revolution today', the record companies say's to them, 'ditch that whole squeaky clean look this is what's going to be in now'. How do I know? Because bands/acts have said that's what they were told! :rolleyes:

Once, a very long time ago, bands that had the talent, by sheer hard work could make it, some (very few) even created whole new sounds. But that has happened less and less over the last 25 years, and will decline as time goes on.

Face it, this is the x-factor age, the short cut to stardom, the age of Lady Ga-ga and the final triumph of style (image?) over substance.

I would also stop getting so riled about it if I were you, that sort of angry post isn't good for your health. ;)
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom