"Alternative" ain't what it used to be...

Karl Hungus

You know, I rarely post on this board, if ever... Which is actually a bit odd, seeing as I used to be into the whole alternative scene a lot. But I find that Alternative just isn't alternative any more.

In my teenage years, it was Smashing Pumpkins that was one of the biggest bands for me, aswell as Pearl Jam and other such bands. After that, when I was about 18 or so, I'd be mostly going to the main Alternative clubs here in Galway, and listening to aforementioned bands, aswell as Nick Cave and Muse and other such things.

But lately, what's called Alternative is, without being diplomatic about things, an absolute heaving pile of **** and garbage! It's all identikit bands like The Thrills, The Kinks, The Vines, and whoever else that come out with a hit song and is then forgotten about while the next big thing comes along a month later... It's crap, plain and simple. There's no passion, emotion, originality any more.

Listening to so-called 'Alternative' music today, it's all pop music! Pop music dressed up with guitars and sold to pretentious people who don't want to believe what they're listening to is pop. None of these identikit bands are ever going to come out with anything that matches Meloncollie & The Infinite Sadness, or Murder Ballads.

One thing that really put the nail in the coffin for me is that on the Rock/Metal board, there is a big thread about the Smashing Pumpkin's upcoming album, yet I've looked at the past 3 pages on this board, and there's not a whisper about it. Now either I've missed something, or it seems that even The Smashing Pumpkins aren't Alternative anymore...

It seems that the Pumpkins have far more in common with what's going on in the Rock/Metal scene than Alternative. I think it's bands like A Perfect Circle, Tool, Porcupine Tree and so forth, that are giving me the same thing that Pumpkins were back in the day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVjDvJ0AfxY

I find that it's stuff like Devin Townsend, who's fairly well planted in Metal, that the Pumpkins have more kinship with:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb3KFD3dkBg

Sorry for the rant... Feel free to tell me to **** off.

projectmayhem

the problem you're describing is not the loss of the "alternative" music, it's still there alright, but it's being caged in other sub-genres somewhere else rather then simply being "alternative". part of this is because "alternative" music isn't as big as it used to be (look at the charts generally), but the bigger part of it is simply because "alternative" is no longer a way to describe music, it's a fashion.

Sinfonia

Karl Hungus wrote:

The Thrills, The Kinks, The Vines,

is this a typo??????????????????

Karl Hungus

SumGuy wrote:

is this a typo??????????????????

Actually, that's just me trying to think of some bands that start with "The" and making a critical blunder.

padi89

projectmayhem wrote:

the problem you're describing is not the loss of the "alternative" music, it's still there alright, but it's being caged in other sub-genres somewhere else rather then simply being "alternative". part of this is because "alternative" music isn't as big as it used to be (look at the charts generally), but the bigger part of it is simply because "alternative" is no longer a way to describe music, it's a fashion.

Well put.Back around the times Karl described Alice in Chains,The Smiths and Aphex Twin were all played on the same "alternative" shows.Each a completley different sound its just now they have all been put in different genres.
I would assume the whole metal scene would seperate itself from the likes of Linkin Park,Limp Bizkit,funeral for a Friend

ogy

i kind of agree and kind of disagree with what your saying
pop music had always had a big part in alternative music, there have been quality alternative acts that are pop bands at the same time e.g. elvis costello, blur, super furry animals.

however, yes, just like gap selling mc5 and cbgb t-shirts "the man" has noticed that alternative sells and in doing so has made it not alternative anymore.

as someone else said music which contains similar qualities to what used to be grouped together as alternative music still exists but they don't neccesarily get associated as any kind of similar genre because they don't appear in the same magazines, same festivals, same djs playlists etc.
theres great stuff going on in lots of individual genres but sometimes that means you have to wade to crap to filter out the good stuff.

maybe the good music is hiding out behind other genres and crap music to through the corporations off the trail:)

smackbunnybaby

i love when you go on bebo and see peoples music interests.

"i listen to loads of types of music, snow patrol, the killers, damien rice, kelly clarkson. as you can see i am pretty varied"

dear God.....

lordgoat

Yeah this is a tough topic. I wouldn't classify any of the band you mentioned as alternative (sh ite yes) I'd call them pop. The way i break it down is if it's on today fm/2fm before 10pm it's not alternative. The very odd song sneaks in. The only really alt radio show i listen to and then again they're not strictly alt is JK's afternoon show on Lyric and The Small Hours Donal Dineen on today fm.

This is just something that souds about right to me. All these ****ing pissy bands from england in the last 5 years or so really bug me. I ****ing hate those bastards the fratellis. I would pay to never hear them again. I don't know how this cycle can be broken either they seem to be propagating them selves at a ferocious rate...

Sinfonia

smackbunnybaby wrote:

i love when you go on bebo and see peoples music interests.

"i listen to loads of types of music, snow patrol, the killers, damien rice, kelly clarkson. as you can see i am pretty varied"

dear God.....

I KNOW!
Jesus Christ..

"omg i'm sooo into music - i like the kooks, the killers AND razorlight"

Lunar Junkie

I think maybe you have it the wrong way around.. I'd say the early to mid 90s was a bit of a blip on the radar in that the 'alternative' rock bands were the ones who were the most popular, for a brief moment in time.. Now we're just back to normal.. i.e. 'pop' = popular. Alternative music is still around, it's just not being played on MTV, daytime radio or other such outlets as much. Also, I think Smashing Pumpkins are really more of a 'pop' band than you're making out (and making music that's overtly catchy isn't really anything to be ashamed of, in my book).

smackbunnybaby

they reviewed two albums on 2tv just there.
1. maroon 5 new one
2. the marilyn manson album.

now i know marilyn manson has been very accessible over the last few albums but getting reviewed on 2tv is totally new territory...

johnny_ultimate

smackbunnybaby wrote:

i love when you go on bebo and see peoples music interests.

"i listen to loads of types of music, snow patrol, the killers, damien rice, kelly clarkson. as you can see i am pretty varied"

dear God.....

Very true.
But yeah, alternative is still there. The 'tags' assigned to these things by the press are just nonsense words which should be ignored.

Captain Smiggy

hurm....Some bands labelled as Alternative/Indie are just that- labelled. 21 demands would have no problem being labeled pop, but people are afraid of the word, and it's nothing to be ashamed of really. The whole thing about it bewing a fashion now is very, VERY true. I would agree that it has become a marketing tool, but sadly, theres nothing can really be done about, unless you want to start calling Good Alternative a different name.....

Lunar Junkie wrote:

I'd say the early to mid 90s was a bit of a blip on the radar in that the 'alternative' rock bands were the ones who were the most popular, for a brief moment in time

Can i have some of what you're on please? There were ridiculous amounts of boy bands, girl groups around in the mid to late nineties, and why? Cos there was a market for them. Pop was HUGE back then, now it's rap and hip-hop moreso, or at least as far as i can see.

Stompbox

SumGuy wrote:

I KNOW!
Jesus Christ..

"omg i'm sooo into music - i like the kooks, the killers AND razorlight"

I'm pretty sure liking those 3 bands does justify being 'into' music. Just because they may not be into your specific genre of music doesn't mean they're 'a steaming pile of ****e'. I don't see why all these bands are being knocked,I personally feel The Thrills are an absolutely fantastic band who didn't stumble on the second album, contrary to what the rest of Ireland may feel. And what's wrong with the Fratellis might I ask? Fair enough,you're entitled to your own opinion but if you don't like a band surely you can just say 'they're not my cup of tea'?

Earthhorse

Was alternative ever what it used to be?

Tool were originally considered alternative rock but as that scene died down they were moved, albeit marginally, into the metal genre. Alice In Chains, on the other hand, who arrived just as the alternative scene was booming, were chucked in with it even though they were always really a heavy metal band.

When bands like The Thrills are labelled alternative, well that's just a mislabelling really and shows how meaningless the label has become and possibly always was.

nyarlothothep

debates about genre, where to begin, they get so convoluted and get lost in a fog of confusion

Bands like Tool can be considered alternative insofar as theyre not mainstream like Justin Timberlake. But they can also be progressive rock/metal or whatever. Meh, and then a band like Muse can be mainstream and alternative at the same time, a band thats crossed over. Or you can be alternative in being so utterly different to everything else yet also enjoy mainstream success like Radiohead or Bjork. Or a band can transform into a mainstream band. Or you can have mainstream bands that havent got mainstream success. Is there any point fixating over an absolute definition for what music belongs to what genre? Cos there never seems to be an absolute answer and I think its due to the fact that there probably isnt one, only tentative interpretations.

As regards Alternative "The Fashion" its utter bòllocks, just my personal experience of the snobbery that tends to dominate that scene

As regards Alternative music, my first impression of a band or song isnt, this is alternative, I rarely think of music in those terms, I think "thats a brilliant piece of art." Which on the spur of the moment makes me think is the whole notion of alternative a marketeer's wet dream?

Garret

well no alternative isnt what it used to be.

Is this bad?

No.

Sinfonia

Sweet wrote:

I'm pretty sure liking those 3 bands does justify being 'into' music. Just because they may not be into your specific genre of music doesn't mean they're 'a steaming pile of ****e'. I don't see why all these bands are being knocked,I personally feel The Thrills are an absolutely fantastic band who didn't stumble on the second album, contrary to what the rest of Ireland may feel. And what's wrong with the Fratellis might I ask? Fair enough,you're entitled to your own opinion but if you don't like a band surely you can just say 'they're not my cup of tea'?

I was agreeing with smackbunnybaby's post about how people claim their music tastes are well varied, and then list off several bands/artists who all fit into a similar genre, and who are also usually in the pop music charts.

What we are pointing out about this, is that these people's claims are essentially very wrong.

smackbunnybaby wrote:

"i listen to loads of types of music, snow patrol, the killers, damien rice, kelly clarkson. as you can see i am pretty varied"

This is not a very well varied selection of artists.

As for being 'into' music, what I'm pointing out is the amount of people who claim to be very into music, and yet don't bother to venture into any music outside of the charts. To me, this denotes not being very into music.

mr_angry

Tbh, if you associate your own identity with a meaningless badge assigned to musical genres, you're asking for trouble. All truely great artists will be followed along by a bunch of hangers-on who are trying to make a fast buck - the grunge scene of the early 90's was pretty clear evidence for this. Some of the poor fools in question don't even realise that they're being taken for a ride by the music industry.

In any case, does that mean that they aren't entitled to make music? Does that mean that the world can't badge them in the same genre as some of the artists that you actually liked? Sorry, since nobody owns the term 'alternative', musical press and marketing junkies can use the phrase wherever they like. If its any colsolation, the funds generated by these acts probably go a long way towards the financing of some of the artists that you actually like. Somebody's got to keep them in pints while they busy themselves imploding under the weight of their musical genius.

0ubliette

You really jsut have to compare the best examples of past and present alternative music to see just what a downward spiral its become:

90s:
Galaxie 500
Alice in chains
Smashing pumpkins
Nirvana
Failure
Pearl jam

00's
Razorlight
every band named 'the somethings' (cause lets face it theres not much difference between the kooks and the strokes or any other one of these identi-kit the bands)

So yeah, modern day alt-rock is, well, ****.

Acid_Violet

Karl Hungus wrote:

You know, I rarely post on this board, if ever... Which is actually a bit odd, seeing as I used to be into the whole alternative scene a lot. But I find that Alternative just isn't alternative any more.

In my teenage years, it was Smashing Pumpkins that was one of the biggest bands for me, aswell as Pearl Jam and other such bands. After that, when I was about 18 or so, I'd be mostly going to the main Alternative clubs here in Galway, and listening to aforementioned bands, aswell as Nick Cave and Muse and other such things.

But lately, what's called Alternative is, without being diplomatic about things, an absolute heaving pile of **** and garbage! It's all identikit bands like The Thrills, The Kinks, The Vines, and whoever else that come out with a hit song and is then forgotten about while the next big thing comes along a month later... It's crap, plain and simple. There's no passion, emotion, originality any more.

Listening to so-called 'Alternative' music today, it's all pop music! Pop music dressed up with guitars and sold to pretentious people who don't want to believe what they're listening to is pop. None of these identikit bands are ever going to come out with anything that matches Meloncollie & The Infinite Sadness, or Murder Ballads.

One thing that really put the nail in the coffin for me is that on the Rock/Metal board, there is a big thread about the Smashing Pumpkin's upcoming album, yet I've looked at the past 3 pages on this board, and there's not a whisper about it. Now either I've missed something, or it seems that even The Smashing Pumpkins aren't Alternative anymore...

It seems that the Pumpkins have far more in common with what's going on in the Rock/Metal scene than Alternative. I think it's bands like A Perfect Circle, Tool, Porcupine Tree and so forth, that are giving me the same thing that Pumpkins were back in the day.


Sorry for the rant... Feel free to tell me to **** off.

I'm 16 and since I just turned 13 Smashing Pumpkins have been my favourite band, so I appreciate another MellonCollie-phile's words. Actually probably all my favourite bands are from an era-lost.......90's grunge ftw.

So I was thinking to myself for a while about this era's music, just how **** it is in general, listening to Phantom ain't so good, plenty of **** on that like the Killers and other stuff that's also......****.

But then I thought, the reason why music from different era's that I know of is so good is because that's the only music that has survived. Now, I'm not so sure, all music seems the same boring vapid repetitve ****ty **** **** (I think this is the most times I've ever said **** in a post). So does anyone think there may be truth that the reason why music from the past was so good is because that which has survived was good, or am I afraid that it just happens that my youth has ben poisoned by icky bands of this horrible generation?

Btw, you forgot Radiohead, it's easy to call them depressing and all that but it's certainly hard to call them bad! Long Blondes ain't bad....Dresden Dolls? Maybe not altrenative, but quirky and cool, Dandy Warhols are good, not sure what genre yis'd put these bands under though, Kristin Hersh maybe? Come on, lets try to salvage whatever good alternative music of today there is!

Rozie

"Alternative" doesn't exist in this country any more.

And good god, people's interests on Bebo are dire. I think "okay they look like boring sods but you can't judge everyone on appearance surely" and they really ARE boring sods.

Face it, Ireland, especially, has become conservative and conformist as hell. It's not just "The Man" that's like that - it's the vast majority of people in general. Without any kind of sense of rebellion, music tends to get dire. People are becoming more and more apathetic, getting more worked up only about people that get worked up.

How can this sort of situation provide us with good alternative rock music? The 90s were progressive which is how alternative rock really came into it's own.

The only alternative band I can think of that's got any real recognition these days that cropped up post 00s is the Dresden Dolls - but honestly, their second album is pretty dire if you're looking for "alternative" as opposed to "mildly quirky". Most likely a one hit wonder.

If you were in Britain or even the US there would at least be some decent "Scenes" to be involved with - over here it's bollocks, all cover bands and Pub Rock wannabes.

If you want some REAL alternative music, try this guy - http://patrickmay2000.dmusic.com/

0ubliette

Rozie wrote:

"Alternative" doesn't exist in this country any more.

And good god, people's interests on Bebo are dire. I think "okay they look like boring sods but you can't judge everyone on appearance surely" and they really ARE boring sods.

Face it, Ireland, especially, has become conservative and conformist as hell. It's not just "The Man" that's like that - it's the vast majority of people in general. Without any kind of sense of rebellion, music tends to get dire. People are becoming more and more apathetic, getting more worked up only about people that get worked up.

How can this sort of situation provide us with good alternative rock music? The 90s were progressive which is how alternative rock really came into it's own.

The only alternative band I can think of that's got any real recognition these days that cropped up post 00s is the Dresden Dolls - but honestly, their second album is pretty dire if you're looking for "alternative" as opposed to "mildly quirky". Most likely a one hit wonder.

If you were in Britain or even the US there would at least be some decent "Scenes" to be involved with - over here it's bollocks, all cover bands and Pub Rock wannabes.

If you want some REAL alternative music, try this guy - http://patrickmay2000.dmusic.com/

in london at christmas, i have to say it lookes as bad as over here if not worse. I was in a club in camden and every person there was the same, like vast sea of clones, people with haircuts styled to look like they just got out of bed, but it really took them an hour to style it just right, and the music was all muck, but that was probably just the club i was in.

I dont think ive actually got any modern day alt rock in my cd collection. Its mostly dates up til about 2000. The only band to literally blow my bollocks off in the past 5 years or so have been sigur ros, and lately, Grizzly Bear.

And Acid Violet, i like the cut of your jib. We need more teenagers that dont listen to the utter ****e MTV spoon feeds you nowadays! Maybe then bands will start to realise that quirky haircuts and tight jeans do no maketh the band.

Earthhorse

Aw, we're not getting rid of the haircuts and jeans are we?

What am I gonna do with all this hair gel?

nyarlothothep

Rozie wrote:

"Alternative" doesn't exist in this country any more.

And good god, people's interests on Bebo are dire. I think "okay they look like boring sods but you can't judge everyone on appearance surely" and they really ARE boring sods.

Face it, Ireland, especially, has become conservative and conformist as hell. It's not just "The Man" that's like that - it's the vast majority of people in general. Without any kind of sense of rebellion, music tends to get dire. People are becoming more and more apathetic, getting more worked up only about people that get worked up.

How can this sort of situation provide us with good alternative rock music? The 90s were progressive which is how alternative rock really came into it's own.

The only alternative band I can think of that's got any real recognition these days that cropped up post 00s is the Dresden Dolls - but honestly, their second album is pretty dire if you're looking for "alternative" as opposed to "mildly quirky". Most likely a one hit wonder.

If you were in Britain or even the US there would at least be some decent "Scenes" to be involved with - over here it's bollocks, all cover bands and Pub Rock wannabes.

If you want some REAL alternative music, try this guy - http://patrickmay2000.dmusic.com/

I couldnt agree more, Ive noticed that a lot of bands that are popular at the moment like The Fratellis or The Kooks, and even though theyre not huge anymore the Polyphonic Spree, any number of these celebrated "indie"/alt bands etc have no edge, not in the same way as NIN or Radiohead, 90s bands. Imo they make chocolate box music which doesnt cast an eye on the state of the world. Imo they make music which fabricates comfort bubbles.

And its very true that there is a lot of conservatism in Ireland, but Id also think in England and America aswell. Art for me is rebellion and conflict. I dont know why the majority of music has been so **** as of late, but maybe its due to the rise and rise of consumer culture which hardly promotes creativity and does promote living in comfort bubbles. The fact that most bands are about image and nothing else confirms to some extent how music has gotten even more commercialized than it was in the past when it was still very much commercial. That said The Mars Volta is a great alternative band in recent memory.

Even though there were way more better bands in the 90s and that the naughts are like the 80s for music- it predominantly sucks, I would point out that the whole britpop era which was in the 90s was for the most part absolutely dire and not much different to now.

Imo the underlying problem is that art has been progressively multilated by industry.

magpie

It's all identikit bands like The Thrills, The Kinks, The Vines

Hmm, spot the odd one out. Obviously not a music historian.

And I hate to break it to you, but Smashing Pumpkins and Pearl Jam are mass-market, manufactured corporate rock. I'm not sure what you'd consider them an alternative to, excpept perhaps Neil Diamond.

DadaKopf

Seriously, why's everyone gettin' all het up about a word?

tywy

magpie wrote:

And I hate to break it to you, but Smashing Pumpkins and Pearl Jam are mass-market, manufactured corporate rock. I'm not sure what you'd consider them an alternative to, excpept perhaps Neil Diamond.

Add Muse to that list!

Ugh! One bad thing about Phantom, they play way too much Muse, how bland!

I would consider myself an alternative fan but I don't let the radio tell me what's alternative.

I know this isn't a listing contest but I'm currently listening to The National's new one, Arcade Fire in general, LCD Soundsystem and White Rabbits.

I generally flick around the internet, read what's getting good reviews etc. from places that have similar tastes to me. Then I give a listen, read the review again more thoroughly and see if I agree.

Karlusss

Alternative is a defunct label. It doesn't mean anything. It represented anything from Marilyn Manson to Smashing Pumpkins to Alanis Morrisette to REM in the 90s, but it doesn't have any modern meaning.

The worst thing about this thread, apart from someone who apparently considers himself enough of an authority on music to decry incorrect classification calling The Kinks a modern alternative band, is the fact it implies that what mainstream radio and the girl on Big Brother consider indie and alternative are actually indie and alternative.

Guitar rock is pretty much mainstream in Western Europe, so the real alternative these days would possibly be stuff in the area of Xiu Xiu and Lightning Bolt.

Acid_Violet

magpie wrote:

And I hate to break it to you, but Smashing Pumpkins and Pearl Jam are mass-market, manufactured corporate rock. I'm not sure what you'd consider them an alternative to, excpept perhaps Neil Diamond.

They were mass-market, manufactured and corporate to the extent that they got a label that made them successful in the music industry but those bands, Pumpkins esp. had a new sound, had a different sound, a distinguishable sound and personally I don't think rising to the top because of this makes you mass-market, manufactured or corporate.

Speaking of industry, it shall soon collapse hopefully. This shall result in smaller bands being able to develop and make it, as opposed to the **** people come out with that they suffer the most because labels need money to support them. It'll result in bands being able to make it by word of mouth and selling online as opposed to depending on ****ty record deals where the get hung out to dry. It'll change music from being an industry to being culture again. And with this music may become more localised instead of everything from everywhere sounding the same.......

JC 2K3

The key lesson to take from this is DOWNLOAD PEOPLE!

I can't remember the last time I bought a major label CD.

Karlusss

JC 2K3 wrote:

The key lesson to take from this is DOWNLOAD PEOPLE!

I can't remember the last time I bought a major label CD.

So long as you buy indie label CDs, this attitude is cool.

Some of the indie bands who tour through Dublin look dangerously skinny, it always makes me feel guilty.

padi89

JC 2K3 wrote:

The key lesson to take from this is DOWNLOAD PEOPLE!

Fvck that.I have one downloaded album "Siamese Dream",once was enough.SQ was sh1te,nothing physical to hold,no album art and sleeve notes just a list of songs on my PC.It all felt just very mundane, no excitement to it at all, it was like paying a bill.NOT for me thanks.

o1s1n

padi89 wrote:

Fvck that.I have one downloaded album "Siamese Dream",once was enough.SQ was sh1te,nothing physical to hold,no album art and sleeve notes just a list of songs on my PC.It all felt just very mundane, no excitement to it at all, it was like paying a bill.NOT for me thanks.

I never got this point of view at all.
Do you honestly take out the sleeve notes and look through the documentation every time you listen to a cd? I bet you don't.

I have hundreds and hundreds of cds. All up in the attic. No use for them any more. All my music hard drive based now.

Sound quality can be superb. It's all down to what level you encode it at.

How can it feel mundane with no excitement? ITS THE SAME BLOODY ALBUM! So you don't have the cd case and some inlays. Big deal! I cant see how that can effect actually listening to it.

padi89

o1s1n wrote:

I never got this point of view at all.
Do you honestly take out the sleeve notes and look through the documentation every time you listen to a cd? I bet you don't.

I have hundreds and hundreds of cds. All up in the attic. No use for them any more. All my music hard drive based now.

Sound quality can be superb. It's all down to what level you encode it at.

How can it feel mundane with no excitement? ITS THE SAME BLOODY ALBUM! So you don't have the cd case and some inlays. Big deal! I cant see how that can effect actually listening to it.

I always have a look through the sleeve notes and the album artwork,jesus obviously not everytime but certainly when i buy a new CD.
I also have hundreds of CDs also in a nice display cabinet beside my seperates and i think its great.Its nice to look at a CD collection rather than a list.
The only time i listen to ripped music is when im on the PC or using a dap.They are VBR lame encoded so the quality is good but its got nothing on a dedicated seperates CD player.


"Read my Post" , i said the whole downloading experience is mundane.You pay (whatever) for an album thats a list of compressed music on your PC not having the actual physical disc itself and its contents IS a big deal to me.There have been some quite unique albums over the years with great artwork and nowadays some extras like DVDs included.

JC 2K3

padi89 wrote:

SQ was sh1te,

Download FLACs.

padi89 wrote:

nothing physical to hold,no album art and sleeve notes just a list of songs on my PC.

You can download the album art and sleeve notes and even print them if you wish.

You can also burn the tracks to a CD and even put it in a cheap jewel case along with the sleeve notes if you wish.

padi89 wrote:

i said the whole downloading experience is mundane.You pay (whatever) for an album thats a list of compressed music on your PC not having the actual physical disc itself and its contents IS a big deal to me.There have been some quite unique albums over the years with great artwork and nowadays some extras like DVDs included.

1) Hardly anyone pays to download.
2) Why aren't you still using vinyl?
3) You can download the unique extras also.

Acid_Violet

Plus if the labels collapse it'll be good

padi89

JC 2K3 wrote:

Download FLACs.


You can download the album art and sleeve notes and even print them if you wish.

You can also burn the tracks to a CD and even put it in a cheap jewel case along with the sleeve notes if you wish.


1) Hardly anyone pays to download.
2) Why aren't you still using vinyl?
3) You can download the unique extras also.

If i wanted to keep FLAC files on my PC id grind the thing to a hault,anyway id have to convert it again to go on my DAP,it will play FLAC but it would be full in no time

Printed album art,cheap jewel cases just dont appeal,im not trying to sound anal but it is an inferior product.

1)Thats up to the individual.
2)I still do although very little nowadays.Most of my purchases are impule buys but vinyl is seriously lacking in Galway.Why did you assume i didnt?
3)I honestly didnt know that

Im not here to knock downloading at all im just saying is its not for me.

Doctor J

Acid_Violet wrote:

Speaking of industry, it shall soon collapse hopefully. This shall result in smaller bands being able to develop and make it, as opposed to the **** people come out with that they suffer the most because labels need money to support them. It'll result in bands being able to make it by word of mouth and selling online as opposed to depending on ****ty record deals where the get hung out to dry. It'll change music from being an industry to being culture again. And with this music may become more localised instead of everything from everywhere sounding the same.......

Sorry but that it rose-tinted bull****. If a band has signed a ****ty deal it's only because they were stupid enough to sign their names to it, presumably with an X in crayon or a chocolate stained thumbprint. Idiots such as these are hardly going to develop into captains of industry and you can rest assured their music will sink without trace as idiots who commit their futures bad deals will get ripped off buying a bag of chips, let alone negatiating a distribution deal or publishing agreement which will remain even if the labels disappear. It's merely an extension of Darwinism, those stupid enough to allow themselves to be screwed deserve what they get and it is merely nothing more than the way of the world that there will always be more than one person more than prepared to take advantage of them. Labels only sign bands who want to sign for labels which, sadly, would appear to be the primary objective of pretty much every band out there, with very few exceptions. The reason? Musicians like to play music, very few of them have a parallel passion for business and marketing, which is why they sign deals to sell their music to companies who do that sort of thing, leaving them free to write about lost love and other groundbreaking sentiments. Do you have any kind of idea of the quality of music there will be if your favourite artistes are spending 15 hours a day on the phone negotiating and trying to organise the things that record labels take care of? It'll be fairly ****. "S'cuse me, while I... phone the cd plant and get them to reprint 2000 cd's cos there is clipping on track threeeeeeeeeeee" yeah, good tune that. Evil and all as the music industry is, most bands, even the musically good ones, couldn't organise a week's holiday in Butlins, let alone selling their own music in an organised fashion or investing time and money in promoting themselves to a level above a Monday night gig in Voodoo. There is nothing to stop any band in the world from selling their music over the internet and promoting themselves through word of mouth today. The same obstacles won't be there tomorrow, or the day after. So why aren't we hearing of any non-affiliated Irish bands breaking it big on the world stage through word of mouth and the internet? I mean, it's not like those nasty major labels and those sneaky pretending-to-be-indie-but-really-affiliated-to-nasty-major labels are stopping you from spreading the word today. Any band who want to can sell their music on the internet without obstruction today. The labels need the bands a lot more than the bands need the labels in this day and age. The thing is though, as long as there are people prepared to pay for music there will be bands looking for some sort of organisation looking to take care of the business side of things. There is no interference from any record label stopping them selling or you buying, but yet bands are drawn to lablels. So,as long as there is money to be made in music, there will be the people who float on the creative side and people who take care of the business side, there will always be labels. But hey, who the **** is going to pay for something they can steal with less effort?

All this bull**** about only buying from indie labels and download what you like from major labels, that kind of twisted moral high ground is a load of cock. The facts are this: The last people to be paid will be the band. Every lost cd sale just means it's going to be longer and longer until the band, whose music you enjoy, get paid for their work. The record company will be the first to get paid and, until they get paid in full, the band won't get a cent. This won't really affect Mariah Carey or Robbie Williams but the bands shifting maybe 50,000 units or less will certainly feel the squeeze. The band were probably desperate enough to sign up for a few releases and, with debt spiralling up around them, are more likely to break up and quit than record again. "Oh but I'll buy a t-shirt when they tour" you cry. Bull****. A band who are in debt and not selling records aren't going to have money to tour. Yeah, amazingly it actually costs money to buy flights, accomodation, rent gear and some of those people look for money up front. Yeah, terrible I know. Promoters too are always on the lookout for bands who aren't selling well, they love spending money bringing bands like that over on the off chance that, even though they only sold 20,000 cds worldwide, they have legions of fans who'll come out in droves and fill the Point. So yeah, downloading is really helping music come out, especially the bands trying to break out of local circuits. Well done Brainiacs, the bands not only get screwed by the labels, but also the music "fans". Beautiful logic, you're as bad as the labels you claim to be disgusted by. If you're going to steal music, just steal it and be open about it, don't act like you're on some sort of ****ing moral crusade to help take music back from the corporations because it's a crock of ****. You're stealing from the band, end of story. You and the labels

Ahh I'm being harsh, but everyone seems to think everything will be sunshine and lollipops if there were no labels. If there were no labels there would be **** all original music. Bands want labels. They want to be paid. If you want new music there needs to be something to get the music from the band to you. That's what labels do. If you don't like the label, tell the band. Don't just steal from them. Bands need to get paid in order to continue to be able to afford to make the music which brightens your day or becomes that special tune between you and your loved one. So many bands break up because of the pressures and expense of being in an original band. I like new music and I think it's **** that people have somehow convinced themselves that it's ok to steal someone's livelihood away because of some misguided grudge against "record labels". It's bull**** and it's killing new music. Here are some interviews from artists affected, you may never have heard of them but you'll get the gist of what is happening to musicians, even if you don't like their music.

http://www.bravewords.com/news/24649
http://www.bravewords.com/news/19531
http://www.bravewords.com/news/65576

JC 2K3

Doctor J wrote:

If you're going to steal music, just steal it and be open about it, don't act like you're on some sort of ****ing moral crusade to help take music back from the corporations because it's a crock of ****. You're stealing from the band, end of story. You and the labels

The band earns practically nothing from CD sales, the label is the party most affected by downloading. And if the band loses what little money it may earn due to downloading, it's their own fault for signing to a major.

Doctor J wrote:

Ahh I'm being harsh, but everyone seems to think everything will be sunshine and lollipops if there were no labels. If there were no labels there would be **** all original music. Bands want labels. They want to be paid.

Bollocks. There are other viable business models for music sale and distribution that don't involve labels as we know them today.

Doctor J wrote:

If you want new music there needs to be something to get the music from the band to you. That's what labels do. If you don't like the label, tell the band. Don't just steal from them.

Firstly, the internet is a cheap and easy way to distribute music with no traditional label involved. Why not a non-profit "label" in the form of a website promoting new music? Why not a monthly/annual fee to download as much music as you like from such a website with all the proceeds besides administration costs going directly to the musicians?

Secondly, the most effective way to tell a band you don't like them being on a major label is to steal their music.

Doctor J

JC 2K3 wrote:

The band earns practically nothing from CD sales, the label is the party most affected by downloading. And if the band loses what little money it may earn due to downloading, it's their own fault for signing to a major.

Well when you're dealing in small numbers, the difference between practically nothing and actually nothing is quite significant. Labels also fund tours for bands they think will make money with a bit of a push. Label funding is frequently the only thing that gets bands in venues here and anywhere else. So if the band can't afford to tour and can't afford to pay for professional marketing services, who's going to hear them and buy their music? Oh yeah, word of mouth, that always works... yeah right.

JC 2K3 wrote:

Bollocks. There are other viable business models for music sale and distribution that don't involve labels as we know them today.

Yes, well spotted, that was already pointed out. I'm sure you'll agree none have, as yet, set the charts on fire or generated any widescale public interest. Labels are not just there to take money, they also serve as a one-stop-shop for reproduction, distribution and marketing. If the labels weren't the most viable model for bands at this time, surely there wouldn't be so many bands clamouring to sign contracts with labels? Surely these other business models would have flourished by now given the justifiable levels of apathy to a lot of the ****e released these days.

JC 2K3 wrote:

Firstly, the internet is a cheap and easy way to distribute music with no traditional label involved. Why not a non-profit "label" in the form of a website promoting new music? Why not a monthly/annual fee to download as much music as you like from such a website with all the proceeds besides administration costs going directly to the musicians?

Why not indeed? Again, I've also lauded the possibilites of the internet and you've reintroduced a form of label/record company, so you agree with me then? However in this case you think the website should be non-profit but the bands get paid. Who's going to go through the cost and trouble of setting something like that up, coding it, maintaining it, but not getting anything out of it? You get nothing for nothing. What you're also missing out on is the cost involved in getting the music rehearsed, recorded and produced to a pro level and the cost of marketing such a website, then the cost of marketing within such a website. The basis of most recording contracts includes an advance of monies to cover these costs, which most bands don't have the finances to do themselves, like a musical mortgage. The money has to come from somewhere to create a product worth paying for. If you're familiar with the output of many unsigned bands you'll no doubt be familiar with the deplorable audio quality of many of them and the unimaginative production values many share. Again, labels play a big part in getting sometimes mediocre sounding bands on demos to sound pro quality on official releases. It doesn't just happen by magic. Apart from the nasty business side we all dislike there are a lot of talented people involved with contracted bands who ensure that the end result is greater than the sum of the band unit and a cheap ass studio. Go listen to some of the stuff on cdbaby to see what I mean. It's a great outlet for new music and there are a lot of great bands on there, but a lot of it could be a lot better with just a little more attention to detail that you generally get with proper label managed releases.

Again though, who is going to pay for something they can steal with less effort? You?

JC 2K3 wrote:

Secondly, the most effective way to tell a band you don't like them being on a major label is to steal their music.

Well, at least you're using the correct term now

TelePaul

JC 2K3 wrote:

The band earns practically nothing from CD sales, the label is the party most affected by downloading. And if the band loses what little money it may earn due to downloading, it's their own fault for signing to a major.

You honestly believe this? If you're going to devote your life to a career in music you're going to want compensation. Nobody works for free. Your records don't sell, you don't get paid because your label drops you. No more album advance, no more touring or merchandise, no more sponsorship. Do you think David Geffen is going take into account how many times your album was downloaded through wankster or sent to your mates through mytunes?

JC 2K3 wrote:

Firstly, the internet is a cheap and easy way to distribute music with no traditional label involved. Why not a non-profit "label" in the form of a website promoting new music? Why not a monthly/annual fee to download as much music as you like from such a website with all the proceeds besides administration costs going directly to the musicians?

Have you listened to an MP3 streamed at 160kbps? You know what it sounds like? It sounds like hammered ****. It doesn't get much better when it's downloaded. You're applying a disintermediation model where one can't be applied: the labels create the neccesary barriers to entry, because they're well-established and they have the money to produce a desirable finished good. The pay the best producers and hire the best engineers in the best studios. The problem with the internet as a model for mass distribution is that it lowers the barriers to entry and allows any no-talent b*stard with GarageBand and a Mac (like myself) to throw up his latest 5-minute mix. It's just a race to the bottom as far as quality goes. How do I know this? Because some guy I go to college with asked me to record some tracks for him. You can now buy them online on the indie music store. He hasn't sold any because they're not good enough.

JC 2K3 wrote:

Secondly, the most effective way to tell a band you don't like them being on a major label is to steal their music.

No...stealing a bands music is the most effective way of stealing a bands music. Why do you care if they wind up on a label? Robert Smith spent his entire advance on the Cures' first album on two fender Jazzmasters, to make MORE good music. The view you've depicted is so nouveau cynical, you've attributed no tangible value to a creative process.

JC 2K3

Doctor J wrote:

Well when you're dealing in small numbers, the difference between practically nothing and actually nothing is quite significant. Labels also fund tours for bands they think will make money with a bit of a push. Label funding is frequently the only thing that gets bands in venues here and anywhere else. So if the band can't afford to tour and can't afford to pay for professional marketing services, who's going to hear them and buy their music? Oh yeah, word of mouth, that always works... yeah right.

Yeah, but if the whole structure of labels as they are today were to collapse or lose a significant amount of power, the way the business operates would be different. If the internet became the epicentre for marketing then not as much money would be needed.

Doctor J wrote:

Yes, well spotted, that was already pointed out. I'm sure you'll agree none have, as yet, set the charts on fire or generated any widescale public interest. Labels are not just there to take money, they also serve as a one-stop-shop for reproduction, distribution and marketing. If the labels weren't the most viable model for bands at this time, surely there wouldn't be so many bands clamouring to sign contracts with labels? Surely these other business models would have flourished by now given the justifiable levels of apathy to a lot of the ****e released these days.

Not really, since downloading has only really become viable in the last 2/3 years with the advent of cheap broadband.

Just because no one has yet managed to implement a successful alternative to the traditional label doesn't mean it's not viable.

Doctor J wrote:

However in this case you think the website should be non-profit but the bands get paid. Who's going to go through the cost and trouble of setting something like that up, coding it, maintaining it, but not getting anything out of it? You get nothing for nothing.

Non profit doesn't mean the administration get nothing. They'd still get a salary, which would be part of the administration costs.

Doctor J wrote:

What you're also missing out on is the cost involved in getting the music rehearsed, recorded and produced to a pro level and the cost of marketing such a website, then the cost of marketing within such a website. The basis of most recording contracts includes an advance of monies to cover these costs, which most bands don't have the finances to do themselves, like a musical mortgage. The money has to come from somewhere to create a product worth paying for. If you're familiar with the output of many unsigned bands you'll no doubt be familiar with the deplorable audio quality of many of them and the unimaginative production values many share. Again, labels play a big part in getting sometimes mediocre sounding bands on demos to sound pro quality on official releases.

Technology is moving so fast that recording high quality music is getting easier and easier. With a mid-range PC and a couple of peripherals you can set up a very decent home recording studio. The audio quality on many unsigned band's music is deplorable largely because they have no clue how to record something that sounds good.

At the end of the day it's not that I'm necessarily "against major labels" as such, but I'm more against the way they refuse to progress with the times. iTunes is laughable and a disgraceful excuse for an online distribution system, €20 for a CD is ridiculous and the fact that the music scene has become so commercialised and and homogenised is crap. If they change their ways I might support them, but until then, I shall not.

JC 2K3

TelePaul wrote:

Nobody works for free. Your records don't sell, you don't get paid because your label drops you. No more album advance, no more touring or merchandise, no more sponsorship. Do you think David Geffen is going take into account how many times your album was downloaded through wankster or sent to your mates through mytunes?

He might, you can't download the experience of a live performance. If a band has huge download stats despite poor sales then surely it makes sense for them to go on tour?

TelePaul wrote:

Have you listened to an MP3 streamed at 160kbps? You know what it sounds like? It sounds like hammered ****. It doesn't get much better when it's downloaded. You're applying a disintermediation model where one can't be applied: the labels create the neccesary barriers to entry, because they're well-established and they have the money to produce a desirable finished good. The pay the best producers and hire the best engineers in the best studios. The problem with the internet as a model for mass distribution is that it lowers the barriers to entry and allows any no-talent b*stard with GarageBand and a Mac (like myself) to throw up his latest 5-minute mix. It's just a race to the bottom as far as quality goes. How do I know this? Because some guy I go to college with asked me to record some tracks for him. You can now buy them online on the indie music store. He hasn't sold any because they're not good enough.

1)There's no reason not to offer FLAC as an alternative to audiophiles.
2)I never said ANYONE could join this hypothetical non-profit label. There would have to be some standards.
3)I wouldn't consider many of the bands in the mainstream today to have much talent. Most of them seem to be no-talent b*stards the labels randomly choose, invest in, heavily produce them to give them a homogenised sound, make a profit on them and then drop them.

Doctor J

JC 2K3 wrote:

Yeah, but if the whole structure of labels as they are today were to collapse or lose a significant amount of power, the way the business operates would be different. If the internet became the epicentre for marketing then not as much money would be needed.

If might never happen Even so, with millions of bands fighting for attention in one portal, if anything, I'd say marketing would become more of a necessity. The way the business works is changing and will change more, but what is happening at the moment is hurting the bands the most, which isn't good for anyone who really likes music. It's the small bands that are getting ****ed by this.

JC 2K3 wrote:

Not really, since downloading has only really become viable in the last 2/3 years with the advent of cheap broadband.

Well that's just not true at all. If you recall, Metallica's lawsuit against Napster was filed in 2001. Downloading was not only viable but pretty commonplace in the last century, years before it became enough of an issue for Metallica to initiate their lawsuit. Now it is just more viable and even more commonplace as the technology behind file sharing has progressed. Bear in mind though, that the technology to track file sharers has also progressed and I believe there will be consequences for lots of people who think they're getting away with it.

JC 2K3 wrote:

Just because no one has yet managed to implement a successful alternative to the traditional label doesn't mean it's not viable.

Nobody is arguing that the internet isn't where the industry is heading, but people will always want something physical, something tangible and most bands will rather concentrate on the music and leave the business side to the suits. There will always be some form of business/label/company who will offer bands a service of replication, duplication and distribution. Be they major or indie, as long as people want to buy music there will companies acting on behalf of bands selling the music.

JC 2K3 wrote:

Non profit doesn't mean the administration get nothing. They'd still get a salary, which would be part of the administration costs.

Folks like to make cash money. If you could make an extra million a year to your bank account you would. So would I. Non profit is for charities. The real world likes £$€.

JC 2K3 wrote:

Technology is moving so fast that recording high quality music is getting easier and easier. With a mid-range PC and a couple of peripherals you can set up a very decent home recording studio. The audio quality on many unsigned band's music is deplorable largely because they have no clue how to record something that sounds good.

Exactly and this is why the stuff that has been properly engineered, produced and mastered will always sound head and shoulders better than the stuff that isn't. It's easier to sell beacuse, regardless of the quality of the songs, it sounds pleasing and interesting to the ear of the listener. Never underestimate the impact a good producer can have on a bands music. Sometimes labels can do good things to music too (it may not happen much, but it does happen )

JC 2K3 wrote:

At the end of the day it's not that I'm necessarily "against major labels" as such, but I'm more against the way they refuse to progress with the times. iTunes is laughable and a disgraceful excuse for an online distribution system, €20 for a CD is ridiculous and the fact that the music scene has become so commercialised and and homogenised is crap. If they change their ways I might support them, but until then, I shall not.

I agree entirely, however, my point is that stealing music from bands hurts the bands the most. It isn't the way forward. It's a cop out.

Acid_Violet

TelePaul wrote:

You honestly believe this?

It's true actually. Back in the old age of the pound bands got about 4pence for every cd sold. Touring is what birngs in the money, hence why so many bands reform and tour without releasing a cd and openly admit 'we did it cos we were all ****ing broke.'

0ubliette

TelePaul wrote:

Have you listened to an MP3 streamed at 160kbps? You know what it sounds like? It sounds like hammered ****. It doesn't get much better when it's downloaded. You're applying a disintermediation model where one can't be applied: the labels create the neccesary barriers to entry, because they're well-established and they have the money to produce a desirable finished good. The pay the best producers and hire the best engineers in the best studios. The problem with the internet as a model for mass distribution is that it lowers the barriers to entry and allows any no-talent b*stard with GarageBand and a Mac (like myself) to throw up his latest 5-minute mix. It's just a race to the bottom as far as quality goes. How do I know this? Because some guy I go to college with asked me to record some tracks for him. You can now buy them online on the indie music store. He hasn't sold any because they're not good enough.

This is an excellent point. Much like how TV, glossy magazines and tabloid newspapers are filled to the brim with the latest reality TV nobody-turned-celebrity, the chantelles, the badgers, the ****ing list is endless, do we really need a similar movement in the music industry? Distributing your own home recorded ****e via the interweb is the musical equivalent of getting famous on big brother. Youre a no talent hack who, if he had any talent in the first place, would have been famous already for the simple fact that you are talented enough to be recognised by a label as a viable artist, instead of needing a platform that requires zero talent to leapfrog off. I personally dont see the demise of major labels as a good thing. Major labels are a necessary evil. I mean up until nirvana signed with geffen, how many people had heard bleach, and be honest? If it werent for geffen signing them, we might never have had the grunge revolution in the early 90's, at least not as we know it today.

Acid_Violet

Much like how TV, glossy magazines and tabloid newspapers are filled to the brim with the latest reality TV nobody-turned-celebrity, the chantelles, the badgers, the ****ing list is endless, do we really need a similar movement in the music industry? Distributing your own home recorded ****e via the interweb is the musical equivalent of getting famous on big brother.

Do I need to point out reality tv castings for bands and stuff like Paris Hilton having her own single amongst many others? The music industry already is brimming with ****.

How do I know this? Because some guy I go to college with asked me to record some tracks for him. You can now buy them online on the indie music store. He hasn't sold any because they're not good enough

Do you mean that the tracks themselves aren't good enough quality or his music/musical ability isn't good enough?

Karlusss

The point about buying from indie labels instead of major labels is still valid even if bands make piss from both, because an indie label will almost without fail be looking to put out music they're into, whereas a major label are looking to put out music they hope a lot of people will be into. Hence artistic pressure, etc. And if you don't have principles (considering it's been so bluntly stated that bands don't make money from CDs or ever get to touring), what do you have?

The more money you pay a major label, the more they are going to be able to funnel into selling you an identikit version of the band you've just supported in two years time by paying their way onto TV ads and every programme that will let them "position" themselves as indie and cool.

Attractive Nun

Rozie wrote:

And good god, people's interests on Bebo are dire. I think "okay they look like boring sods but you can't judge everyone on appearance surely" and they really ARE boring sods.

OK, there's a lot of bebo-bashing on this thread. Now, I'm no great fan of bebo by any means. And to an extent, I agree with you that you can see some hilariously bland lists of favourite music on people's homepages - but I feel like people are trying to paint themselves as part of some some super-intelligent, richly cultured resistence to the mass marketed bands that dominate the media. In fact, I'm often very impressed by the interests I see on people's bebos and I really think people are being unfair.

For example, the six 'featured profiles' on bebo at the moment display the following musical tastes:

Profile 1 wrote:

Powderfinger, WolfMother, Pearl Jam, Evermore, Jet, Sneaky Sound System, Kid Kenobi, Dirty Laundry and anything house.....

I can't stand Jet or Wolfmother, but nevertheless this is hardly the standard "Damien Rice and The Killers!!!!!"

Profile 2 wrote:

Metallica, Slayer, Hatebreed, Exodus, Dope, Chimaria, Arch Enemy, Children Of Bodom, Disturbed, Soil, Tool, Smashing Pumpkins, Korn, Slipknot, Bush, Stone Sour, In Flames, Lamb Of God, Cradle of Filth, Rammestein, Fear Factory, Mudvayne, Nirvana, Down, Drowning Pool, Superjoint Ritual, Soulfly, Pantera, Sepultura, Type O Negative, 36 Crazyfists, 40 Below Summer, Queens of The Stone Age, Dark Tranquility, Queen, Staind. Just to name a few, loads more.

I'm not a big metal fan, but this, again, is not at all reflective of the attitude people seem to find omnipresent.

Profile 3 wrote:

i love all the soundtracks to o.c and scrubs..love the frames too..but when i wantto get out and dance love nelly furtado..woo hoo tiger heat represents 31st may kicked ass...

Ok I'll give you this one...

Profile 4 wrote:

kanye west, 2pac, 50 cent, bassmen, d4l, chris brown, akon, black eyed peas, bob marley, dj tiesto, dj cammy, dj sammy, dj mystic, gigi agostino, dj rankin, dj pulse, eminem, gorillaz, oasis, arctic monkeys, special d, u2 and anything that i can dance to.

Meh, don't follow dance so I don't really know how popular most of these people are, but again there's at least some independent tastes evident in this one.

Profile 5 wrote:

bolt action five. popular workshop. late of the pier. foals. good shoes. robots in disguise. crystal castles. bloc party. the bled. the fall of troy. enter shikari. misery signals. as i lay dying. smashing pumkins. deftones....

I haven't heard of most of these.

Profile 6 doesn't mention any musical tastes.



So I will defend bebo and the tastes of our youth! Sure, the killers and the fratellis are always going to attract crowds at concerts and festivals, but so will many, many bands. How many times could Arcade Fire have sold out the *******? Look at the line-up for Electric Picnic - it's fantastic. Sure, mass marketed, fashionable bands will always appeal to the radio audience because they're easy to listen to (and remember that a great proportion of the radio audience consists of adults who have no interest in music, just like a nice song), but the great unwashed bebo generation are not as apathetic and passive as many people like to imply.

JC 2K3

Attractive Nun wrote:

but the great unwashed bebo generation are not as apathetic and passive as many people like to imply.

I'm 18 and I disagree.

The majority of my peers' tastes in music and the extent to which they actually have an appreciation for music and not some shíte that's been marketed to them is really dire.