[NewMusic] Rolling Stone report on the "record industry decline"....

[Matt Davignon]

I don't disagree that there were shitty bands going on way back
whenever, or that there isn't good music happening now. I guess the
point that I was trying to make is that for the past several years, it
seems like the people deciding who to sign/promote on the big 4 record
haven't been listening to any music. Instead they depend on how well
their artists photograph, and how much they sound like previously
successful artists.

Battles isn't on one of the big 4 record labels (though Wolfmother
is).  Actually it turns out that Wolfmother and Linkin Park are both
on Universal. Guess who the label promotes more.

But if you want to compare now to the musically-dead era of the mid
70's, take a look at the songs that have lasted until now and people
still enjoy, and compare that to how many commercial radio songs from
the past 5 years will be remembered 20 years from now.

...But whatever you do, don't write about it in Rolling Stone!

Matt


On 6/20/07, grobair at emusician.com <grobair at emusician.com> wrote:
> There were plenty of shitty bands 10 years ago! Hell, go back 25 years: REO
> Speedwagon! Foghat! There has always been generic rock. Sadly, you¹re too
> young to remember at time before punk rock. Just ask Cremaschi or Segal what
> it was like to listen to the radio in the mid ¹70s. (bait, bait, bait).
>
> But then again, one person¹s boring is another person¹s head bangin¹.
>
> As to music that wants to make people learn to PLAY an instrument, check out
> bands like Wolfmother. A friend just came back from Bonnaroo and said that
> music with traditional instruments (e.g., guitar, bass, drums, keyboards
> rather than laptop and circuit bent toys) is back big time.
>
> It¹s easy to lose site of that here in the Bay Area, where so much avant
> garde talent plays. But elsewhere in our country, people still like cowbell
> rock, even if it sounds like Black Sabbath¹s ³Paranoid² (e.g., Wolfmother).
>
> Anyway, I think you¹re FOS on this one, Matt. :-)
> Stop complaining and check out all the cool bands on earth via MySpace. If I
> was 17 and heard Battles, I¹d be get myself a guitar and a  looping pedal
> right away...
>
>
>
> On 6/20/07 2:53 PM, "GrandMaster Davignon" whined :
>
> Yet not a single word about the declining quality of music on the big
> 4 record labels. They do mention something about banking heavily on
> Linkin Park, but they didn't mention that as part of the problem. When
> they first hit mtv, Linkin Park was a Nine Inch Nails knockoff about 5
> years behind the curve.
>
> 10 years ago, Linkin' Park would be considered a fairly minor band,
> like Screaming Trees or something.
>
> 20-30 years ago, a band that generic probably wouldn't have been signed at
> all.
>
> It's weird to say this, but even Nirvana and Pearl Jam had something
> to listen to, from a rock and roll standpoint. As recently as 2000,
> there was still some interesting thing going on in pop/RnB, but since
> then it's sounded more and more like a disposable representation of
> itself. And I don't think people want to pay that much money for
> disposable music.
>
> Compare to the major label stuff going on decades ago. Tom Dimuzio and
> I were having a discussion of how the music of Led Zeppelin and Pink
> Floyd made people feel like they *must* learn music. Now, seeing an
> image of a "recording artist" holding an instrument seems kind of
> rare.
>
> Matt