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

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.

magpie

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.

Are you a Celtic fan or do you own a modified car by any chance?

Karlusss

JC 2K3 wrote:

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.

Also 18, and in agreement.

There is a different between a list of bands who have singles you like and a taste in music. That's something those quoted profile lists don't show. And it's widespread among the "Bebo generation" to say "oh I like all types of music" when in fact they mean "I have no real commitment to the music I listen to. I prefer cars and television". Which is not necessarily something to look down on, if it's spelled correctly.

A weird thing happened to me yesterday. One of my friends abused me for liking Sonic Youth and being "elitist", and some other anonymous internet indie Nazi said I was boring and mainstream for liking Sonic Youth specifically.

Weird.

JC 2K3

Karlusss wrote:

A weird thing happened to me yesterday. One of my friends abused me for liking Sonic Youth and being "elitist", and some other anonymous internet indie Nazi said I was boring and mainstream for liking Sonic Youth specifically.

It's all relative

Of course, then you can get into the whole early Sonic Youth vs. mainstream 90s Sonic Youth vs. modern Sonic Youth argument.

One point though, people who think "OMG I'm so alternative and cool for not liking anything besides this obscure brand of indie alt rock no one else knows about" are just idiots.

And yes, I used to be one of those.... Although Sonic Youth were one of the bands I liked that none of my peers had heard of, so perhaps I wasn't as bad as this indie Nazi you speak of...

Acid_Violet

Karlusss wrote:

Also 18, and in agreement.

There is a different between a list of bands who have singles you like and a taste in music. That's something those quoted profile lists don't show. And it's widespread among the "Bebo generation" to say "oh I like all types of music" when in fact they mean "I have no real commitment to the music I listen to. I prefer cars and television". Which is not necessarily something to look down on, if it's spelled correctly.

In fairness though, whenever people have been asking me what kind of music I'm into , of late I've only really been able to say 'all kinds of stuff' without listing all the bands/music I like. I listen to everything from Opera to Opeth depending on my mood and often all I want to listen to is the new single from the Klaxons or whatever 'it' band is out, because it's catchy, and in fairness I would say that I've a broad taste in music but definitely not the broadest, so 'everything' is applicable sometimes imo.

JC 2K3

Yes, but when have you ever seen "everything" being used in such a context on bebo?

There's a difference between liking "everything" in the sense that you have a broad taste in music and liking "everything" in the sense that you're indifferent and listen to whatever's marketed towards you.

mr_angry

I think people here are seeing the past through rose-tinted glasses, not to mention their dreams of a utopian, label-free future. Both perspectives seem to be utterly full of crap.

Here's a question for you all - name your top 5 favourite bands, and then ask yourself how you discovered their music for the first time. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of you heard them either on TV or on radio. And how did that happen? Their label marketed them at the station / channel. Regardless of whether the artist was the most tacky, talentless celebrity wannabe, or the second coming of John Lennon, they all came through that medium. Why didn't they come through the Internet? Because its too diverse.

Lets face it, if you're looking for new music on the Internet, where do you go? iTunes? eMusic? Last.fm? There are dozens of sites out there, and none of them are particularly good at marketing new music that you actually like. If you open the door up to artists that make music in their own homes, there will be such an avalanche that it will become totally unmanageable. Lets reverse the terms here - why are TV and radio so good at breaking new artists? Becuase they're an aggregation. They're the place that everybody in the country looks to in order to guage the quality of new music. Sure, some of it is crap, but at least its well-produced crap. And if these two transmission media were to go away tomorrow, most of us would struggle to ever find another good artist again!

TV / radio / magazines - they all aggregate the industry and focus people's attention. Labels like this, because they can market acts, and make some money. Bands like this, because they get attention, and they can estimate how well they are doing by airplay, the charts, etc. The Internet is different - there's no aggregation. Fans don't know where to look to discover new music. Even if one decent site pops up, there's no obstacle to Johnny Bedroom-Sitter setting up an alternative dozen sites and confusing the issue. Labels don't like this, and most bands wont either.

This brings me to my final point - there has always been crap music. Even in the heyday of Nirvana, Led Zepplin, and Pearl Jam, there was a non-stop stream of rubbish pop music. Naming 5 decent bands in a given decade does not mean that it was some kind of halcyon era for alternative music. I could name 5 bands from the 21st century that I think are every bit as good right now. What would that prove? Nothing.

In my opinion, the "alternative" genre implies that the music isn't universally loved by the music-purchasing consumer, ergo people like The Fratellis are ruled out. Does that mean that the term can't be used in another context by the press, some record label, or some fashion label? Sadly, no. The music industry is here to stay folks. TV, radio... labels need them, bands need them, and the fans need them. Its just too damn hard to find music without it.

JC 2K3

mr_angry wrote:

Here's a question for you all - name your top 5 favourite bands, and then ask yourself how you discovered their music for the first time. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of you heard them either on TV or on radio. And how did that happen? Their label marketed them at the station / channel. Regardless of whether the artist was the most tacky, talentless celebrity wannabe, or the second coming of John Lennon, they all came through that medium. Why didn't they come through the Internet? Because its too diverse.

A vast chunk of my favourite music has come from the internet, in fact, I'd be hard pressed to name a band I really like that I didn't discover on the internet. I started getting into rock music when I was 14 and haven't watched MTV since I was 13. I never listened to the radio 'til Phantom launched.

mr_angry wrote:

Lets face it, if you're looking for new music on the Internet, where do you go? iTunes? eMusic? Last.fm? There are dozens of sites out there, and none of them are particularly good at marketing new music that you actually like. If you open the door up to artists that make music in their own homes, there will be such an avalanche that it will become totally unmanageable. Lets reverse the terms here - why are TV and radio so good at breaking new artists? Becuase they're an aggregation. They're the place that everybody in the country looks to in order to guage the quality of new music. Sure, some of it is crap, but at least its well-produced crap. And if these two transmission media were to go away tomorrow, most of us would struggle to ever find another good artist again!

What do you think forums are for?

The beauty of the internet is that you can discuss music with a people with similar tastes to you and get recommendations.

mr_angry wrote:

TV / radio / magazines - they all aggregate the industry and focus people's attention. Labels like this, because they can market acts, and make some money. Bands like this, because they get attention, and they can estimate how well they are doing by airplay, the charts, etc. The Internet is different - there's no aggregation. Fans don't know where to look to discover new music. Even if one decent site pops up, there's no obstacle to Johnny Bedroom-Sitter setting up an alternative dozen sites and confusing the issue. Labels don't like this, and most bands wont either.

I'd hope that more sites like this would pop up.

I can't think of many bands I've gotten into in the last 2/3 years that ever received much airplay or were in the charts, I find everything on the internet. It's not as hard as you make it out to be to find new music on the internet.

mr_angry

JC 2K3 wrote:

A vast chunk of my favourite music has come from the internet, in fact, I'd be hard pressed to name a band I really like that I didn't discover on the internet. I started getting into rock music when I was 14 and haven't watched MTV since I was 13. I never listened to the radio 'til Phantom launched.

Well, I did say "vast majority". Clearly you aren't part of that majority, but I'd still stand by my statement.

What do you think forums are for?

I don't think that fora will ever form part of a music-discovery system that has mass appeal. People like to discover music passively, whilst doing other things. Fora generally require interaction, something that most people aren't willing to endure to discover artists. They've been conditioned to see it as a passive experience. They want the experience to be presented to them on a plate.

The beauty of the internet is that you can discuss music with a people with similar tastes to you and get recommendations.

Again, true, but a paradigm that requires a significant amount of effort on the part of the would-be fan. Word of mouth is all well and good, but it wont sell many records compared to a well-marketed campaign. Deep down, most bands want to be popular... they want to see their music reach the mass market. I don't believe that fora will ever accomplish that. Besides... which forum is right for you? Its highly subjective, and doesn't give the aggregation that most people are looking for.

I'd hope that more sites like this would pop up.

I can't think of many bands I've gotten into in the last 2/3 years that ever received much airplay or were in the charts, I find everything on the internet. It's not as hard as you make it out to be to find new music on the internet.

Its very easy to find new music on the Internet. Every post on this board has admitted as much. The debate at hand is whether artists can make a living out of music without the help of the record industry. I would argue against that.

deaddonkey

Karl Hungus wrote:

The Kinks,

i stopped reading there

wtf

lordgoat

Mr Angry, i'm old and out of my top 5 bands only one i heard on the radio/tv,
the internet has been great as a means to find new music.


On the whole label issue, while they are necessary. Like it or not, signing to a label that will push your music is still the best way to make it.

Too much going on here to jump right in and give a longer comment but this did make me laugh...

magpie wrote:

Are you a Celtic fan or do you own a modified car by any chance?