|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Apr 5, 2024 15:18:08 GMT
The point here is just to engage with the interview and hopefully start a discussion of some sort. I am not big into any music - especially not modern music (who the hell is The Weekend?) - but I found the conversation interesting. The presence of the internet has allowed me to find a lot of stuff that I never would have known before, exploring my tastes that would never have been possible to discover if the only distribution was TV/radio. Like Rick, I've discovered artists by hearing them in supermarkets, on top of Youtube. But this also means that I could not possibly identify Usher or Taylor Swift, because they are not culturally as prevalent as the old guys. I know Rammstein when I hear them despite only knowing one or two songs tops, because their music is more a part of movies and TV and pervaded the culture in ways that even the biggest artists today cannot.
Something not mentioned in this interview that I think is a key reason for artist tours becoming more prevalent is the easy distribution of music *forcing* artists to rely on tours for income. Tours used to be promotional, right? You'd see the show and buy the album. Now you can instantly find the whole album or your favorite songs with no fuss, and tours are the way that performers earn their keep. But it still wouldn't be possible if the demand wasn't sky high.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 5, 2024 15:57:11 GMT
It's a great topic - and in theory should get like 25 pages of comments but won't because the board is comprised of people in their own monoculture(s).....  This very idea is what Punk Rock essentially fought against - what Classic Rock radio (evil, shit) fought to develop in opposition - and as always Punk Rock lost but in another way kind of won......that the music industry counts on your / our stupidity ......that any song, any artist can be "developed" to have hits by mere repetition / saturation.......that's why I try to review a lot of artists I don't know and review them fast - so my initial thoughts on their quality matters......in the review itself I mean The Umbrellas Fairweather Friend is a perfect example of this I think - one of the years best records, it appeals to me who is outside of this music genre.......it would appeal to fans of The Cure......Alvvays.......C86........80s US Indie....REM ......in theory they have a broad potential audience ........a huge one........in reality they miss all of those audiences and have a very small one...... Pop music now - not Rock - but the broad based idea of "Pop" music has in effect become Jazz - known, and cultivated by a refined culture of informed taste ...........but it's across thousands of permutations of taste......and enacted by people who have time to care in sustaining that....... The key is not only don't you have to know who Beyonce or Taylor Swift or Bad Bunny are - it may not matter at all if you do......  |
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Apr 5, 2024 16:05:38 GMT
I'm not quite understanding the Usher comment. He's had hits since the 90s and has a diamond album. Taylor Swift is not comparable, as she became a superstar only in the past decade and her fandom has skewed much younger.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Apr 5, 2024 16:17:37 GMT
I'm not quite understanding the Usher comment. He's had hits since the 90s and has a diamond album. Taylor Swift is not comparable, as she became a superstar only in the past decade and her fandom has skewed much younger. Well, I'm not terribly familiar with any music before 1960, so perhaps I'm not the best judge of these things  |
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Apr 5, 2024 20:46:55 GMT
Martin Stett - you are the ultimate weirdo of this board. Sounds like you're proud of it tho so I should say it more times. You're a weird kinda sino-japo personality with some of the weirdest tastes in movies there is. But this a beautiful thread. I think Taylor Swift is the most popular person on the planet. Nobody in a street corner is talked about. Taylor is namedropped all the time and debated for all types of talking points. Only other guy right now I hear people talk about while I'm loitering in public is Kanye. But theres no way anyone can do what The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, and Pink Floyd did. Back then 75% of the country (young people mostly) listened to the same 5 things. BEATLES. ZEP. FLOYD. ELVIS. SINATRA. Nowadays the surplus of musical acts has grown exponentially. MTV is no longer a power. All types of listeners around. Some just listen to independent music. Some just listen to MTV endorsed music of 20 years ago as they are no longer a power. Some just listen to their favorite genres. But there are way more than 5 artists around. Back then it was the same 4 artists even around. Also I think society has evolved. Back then the most popular (The Beatles) was considered the best. After 1981 (rise of MTV) and late 70s punk, its no longer "most popular is the best." MJ WAS THE MOST POPULAR OF THE 80s. BUT VERY few say hes better than The Beatles. That's because by 1982, snobby attitudes had already developed. Its cooler to say Mission to Burma is better, by '81. Personally. AROUND 1981 is when my snobby attitude developed too. I'm not a Beatles guy....they sound pretty much like any other POP SUNSHINE band there is just with a longer discography. HAWKWIND > PINK FLOYD. I like Led Zeppelin but i dont worship them. Same goes for Elvis. I LIKE Madonna but Britney was 1999. 1999 was my year. Prince > MJ.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 5, 2024 21:35:10 GMT
But theres no way anyone can do what The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, and Pink Floyd did. Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd - the 2 biggest bands really - in some ways hint at what Punk disliked and what later Post-Punk would love: in the way they were presented........especially Pink Floyd.......they were never on any (much) Non-Rock magazines or in movies or anything "commercial" outside of Rock music itself......it was entirely possible to ONLY know them IF you liked Rock music.....there were no real concessions to the culture as a whole outside of that.........which didn't matter because EVERY kid liked Rock music There was no need for the single, at all - hit or otherwise.........no need for TV appearances, non-Rock magazine covers - no need for photos on album covers or often inside..........that's the joke behind "Oh by the way which one's Pink" When Punk came it was the opposite - short songs, the single, in the tabloids, eveyone knew what Johnny Rotten looked like - even if they hated Punk.......10 years later Sonic Youth was for a time much more like Zeppelin and Floyd in how they presented themselves ...... Nothing "teenaged", nothing Pop, nothing silly about them: Pink Floyd in 1977  |
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Apr 5, 2024 21:51:48 GMT
But theres no way anyone can do what The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, and Pink Floyd did. Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd - the 2 biggest bands really - in some ways hint at what Punk disliked and what later Post-Punk would love: in the way they were presented........especially Pink Floyd.......they were never on any (much) Non-Rock magazines or in movies or anything "commercial" outside of Rock music itself......it was entirely possible to ONLY know them IF you liked Rock music.....there were no real concessions to the culture as a whole outside of that.........which didn't matter because EVERY kid liked Rock music There was no need for the single, at all - hit or otherwise.........no need for TV appearances, non-Rock magazine covers - no need for photos on album covers or often inside..........that's the joke behind "Oh by the way which one's Pink" When Punk came it was the opposite - short songs, the single, in the tabloids, eveyone knew what Johnny Rotten looked like - even if they hated Punk.......10 years later Sonic Youth was for a time much more like Zeppelin and Floyd in how they presented themselves ...... Nothing "teenaged", nothing Pop, nothing silly about them: Pink Floyd in 1977 I agree. I'd also say that whenever I meet a punky oriented guy, they tend to compromise of the majority of PINK FLOYD and Led Zeppelin haters. So yeah I agree there was a counterculture to the mainstream music in the 70s too. But I think the biggest punk wave came a bit later in the decade. Floyd was already a legend by then. I think MJ was always considered primarily an entertainer even when he first started. Never placed in the same category as Mission to Burma who were loved by everyone who heard them or with Talking Heads who have just been able to materialize a big cult around their idiosyncratic music. But I agree with you. Punk artists have always relied on image, and maybe not necessarily Rolling Stones is the magazine of their primarily marketability unlike Pink Floyd who feel like the epitome of the Rolling Stone artist. Rock artists can hide behind the sheer magnitude of their genre, but Pink Floyd did make splashes in the mainstream too but if you're a 45 year old who only listened to Sonny and Cher it was possible to ignore them too. But I think it's way more possible to avoid Taylor Swift nowadays because no collective group bands around one artist anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Apr 7, 2024 17:41:14 GMT
(who the hell is The Weekend?) Daniel Craig doesn't seem to know either- The key is not only don't you have to know who Beyonce or Taylor Swift or Bad Bunny are - it may not matter at all if you do...... I remember I had no idea what Bad Bunny was when people were first talking about him. When I heard people saying "I love Bad Bunny" I was wondering if it was a new ice cream shop or something. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Apr 8, 2024 16:05:22 GMT
I had never heard the words "Bad Bunny" in my life before watching this video
|
|
