Do you enjoy complaining about the current state of the music industry?

Waking-Dreams

Have you considered that you could be one of the people you are complaining about?

Read on:

I just finished reading ‘Complaint’ by Julian Baggini, a short but entertaining look at the pastime of complaining, the idea of it being a human universal (even a leisure activity in many instances) and that when used properly can lead to many practical benefits. But what caught my attention was the part about contradictory complaints.

You see this regarding many of the complaints/rants aimed at how over-saturated the music industry has now become, or how much harder it is to make headway. We’ve all heard the following at some time or another:

“Now everyone and their dog has a band they play in, a MySpace account, and are cluttering up the Internet and the rest of industry with their piss-poor music, making it harder for good bands like us.”

But who are “bands like us”? If you think about it, the complainers are moaning about people just like them. Arguments about musical taste aside, this type of complaint is aimed at self-made, DIY musicians clogging up the social networks and industry yet, it is a complaint often made by the very same kind of people. I know it's also made by professionals too, who feel they are competing against free YouTube video posters who are not “as dedicated to their craft” and have “cheapened” a lot of forms of entertainment, etc.

Now, I do want to distinguish between people who point out how much harder it has become but accept the reality, and the people who complain about how much harder it is and don’t see how they are part of the same “problem”.

I suppose, in many cases it stems from their unwillingness to consider that their music just may not be so great either, which could explain why they perceive their lack of success being a result of the over-saturation problem. But like the great Bertrand Russell states: “If you find that others do not rate your abilities as highly as you do yourself, do not be so sure that it is they who are mistaken.” Wise words, although one would certainly need an adequate level of emotional maturity to take on board and accept such.

Anyways, it’s a good, albeit, brief book. Well recommended, given how much online content is rooted in complaints that are self-serving in nature but dressed up as a call for “justice” or how things ought to be.

maccored

I cant say I enjoy complaining, but it deserves to be complained about. One thing though - it should be ancient knowledge to anyone that the internet was going to let as many ****e bands online as good ones, so there really shouldnt be anyone saying "making it harder for good bands like us.".

maccored

Now, I do want to distinguish between people who point out how much harder it has become but accept the reality, and the people who complain about how much harder it is and don’t see how they are part of the same “problem”.

One set will be trying to innovate new ways of using the internet to promote their music - the others will be slowly catching up on ways innovated long before by others. I know which set I belong in.

Waking-Dreams

Of course, there is much to give out about, with intent that it can be improved upon but you know what I’m talking about… the musicians who succumb to self-indulgent complaint about circumstances in which they in fact play a bigger role than they think, but swear it’s all because of other people making matters worse or it’s the big bad record business suits. Sometimes, a harsh truth just has to be accepted.

Fandango

Simple fact is, a good band that put in the effort will always become known eventually. You can write great tunes, play as tight as ever but if you dont put effort into promoting yourself, getting out there and getting heard, great tunes mean nothing. The Irish music industry is in a bad state especially when you look at the amount people going to free nights with unsigned bands. I remember 10 years ago those nights were fairly packed but you get a mailing list going, interact with your fans a bit and play every gig you can, a good band will get a following pretty fast. Just wish i could follow my own advise! Altho, have set up a mailing list. Takes some getting used to but if anyone wants a free one, mailchimp.com is the one i use. Pain to set it up but once its ready all ya gotta do is type and press send. Deffo do a trial mail to yourself first tho as my first attempt was all over the shop!!!

niall1976

Thanks for the tip Fandango, been working on a mailing list recently....I'm gonna try that one

guitarzero

I live in a house with 2 musicians, both in active bands and anytime the topic of music is mentioned it becomes pretty heated.
Theres so much begrugdery - "this guy didnt sign us cuz he was a so and so, if so and so was there we would have been touring such and such", "our drummer ended up getting such and such",everyone else is to blame for their lack of success except their music.
So I had a listen and my curiousity was solved, both were just rubbish. I mean they played their instruments well, very well, to the point where they thought that because you can play an instrument technically as well as Mark Knofler or say Steve Vai(not a fan) you should get as much respect. They totally and completely forgot that what makes all bands great, immortal, was that they carved out an original sound. Something that will push new buttons and light up new neurons in our heads using the magic of sound.
Yet, perhaps blind to this fact, deaf to their own downfall they persue what will only end in failure, due to lack of recognition of their unoriginality.
Yet, when I brought up the notion of originality they kinda looked cow-eyed and became a bit subdued. I'm not sure whether this was guilt or complete lack of awareness. But they keep plugging on, playing in bars and getting slots here and there all the while this burning ambition for fame. And to me its entirely fame - Model yourself by what has been successful, therefore success. Music is the means, not the purpose.
I think anyone who has a problem with the music industry or the state of music itself should pick up a guitar or piano and get cracking, its not anyones particular duty to create great music.
But before you get cracking, stop thinking about what other people want to hear or how something should sound, play from your gut, play with a higher purpose, this tends to get recognition regardless of how big the industry is or how Katie Perry is flooding the airwaves. We are all waiting for you.

"Being someone else is a waste of yourself."

Waking-Dreams

guitarzero wrote: »

Music is the means, not the purpose.

Nail on the head.

Lack of originality can also be down to a lack of creativity, not just chasing popular trends to try and coat-tail off the success of others. Plus, nobody ever wants to admit they copied someone else's style.

In having many of these debates with musicians, who are assured of their greatness or their favourable odds of success, I’ve realised that while you can bring the horse to water, you can’t make him drink.

There’s an illusion put forward by Johnathan Haidt known as “wag-the-other-dog’s-tail”. In an argument, we expect the successful rebuttal of our opponents’ arguments to change our opponents’ mind, when this is rarely the case. Haidt has observed that human beings tend to make decisions on the basis of emotion, justify these reasons with post hoc rationalisations, and stick to their guns even when their reasoning demonstrably fails.

So while “heated” debates are a usual occurrence when it comes to the topic of music or success in the music industry, I think it is important that one fully understands that even if you have the perfect summary of what the music industry is really all about, it’s no guarantee that anyone is going to listen, because chances are they have made their decision based on emotion, not facts and logic.

That said, there are different levels and all kinds of people. Not everyone would be like your housemates.

But some people have to arrive at the conclusion in their own time.

drumdrum

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Lack of originality can also be down to a lack of creativity, not just chasing popular trends to try and coat-tail off the success of others. Plus, nobody ever wants to admit they copied someone else's style.

The problem is that in the Western music scale there are twelve notes per octave, to which few sound "consonant" when switching between chords.
A brief history lesson here (I'm going to skip over some obvious parts in history here to get to my point quicker...so please don't troll! ):
The late romantic, expresionist and serialist movements of the 20 century expanded upon this always consonant movement and dischordal sounds were used to make music for the first time. This took a while to be deemed "acceptable" by music lovers - sure there were riots at Stravinskys Rite of Spring at its first showing in Paris in 1913!!
But then this dischordal and different music was still too "different" to the masses ears so it became more academic music than music for the masses. Then the "found sound" movement took off with academics and changed the concepts of "music" completely (look at Cages 4:33 for example).

Now consonant music needed a change... the traditional instrumentation was all but exhausted and a new "fresh" sound was needed. The focus for consonant music shifted more towards timbral differences rather than musical ones. So enter the electric guitar, bass, drums and vocals setup, used for years in less popular genres such as jazz, and now being the mainstead for rock'n'roll etc that has lasted since the late 1940s or so. Technology and computers then came around and changed everything again with the hippy movements in the 1960s giving bands and musicians more creative freedom. This only got more influential during the 1970s and 80s and has remained today, although it seems to prevail more in electronic genres such as dance....with more traditional genres such as rock retaining its traditional mainstead...albeit with technological improvements such as effect pedals, modern amplifiers etc etc....


Now for my point...

Modern rock music mainstead as been electric guitar, bass guitar, drums and vocals for over 60 years now. And the vast majority of this music has been consonant chord changes, rather than dischord "anarchic" sounds. Some bands do use these dischordal sounds to colour their sounds but the prevailing chords are intact.
this has been done for over 60 years. The amount of interval progressions that sound "good" to the masses are recycled hundreds of times per year in pop music (just listen to the bass lines...) yet still people think it sounds "fresh" and "new". So technically, its virtually impossible to remain commercial yet completely musically original. Take every commercial/popular song you like from the last 20 years or so, and I guarantee you can find the same chord progressions used before them. The chord progressions guide the melody line so similar melodies will be created all the time. However to stand out, you need catchy melody lines that can be remembered over the mundane-ness of recycled backing chords.
Even rhythmically a lot of these artists are similar.

So whats the difference?
Well there are two things really. One is what I call the "mass-originator (MO)" and the other are the "come-afters (CA)".
With the MO groups, these are the guys who found or popularized a slightly different timbre to go with their melodic structures (aka songs, I guess! ). For example, Muse came out about 11/12 years ago and were originally seen as a Radiohead clone what with Matt Belamys extensive use of fal setto singing and their combination of heavy piano usage along with guitars and drums. They were even dropped from their original label after "Showbiz". However, with their second album, they combined a more edgier/dramatic flair to their songs and created some fantastic catchy riffs to go with their songs and created (IMHO) a masterpiece of an album with "Origin of Symmetry". and they continued this routine for another album or so before experimenting with their sound, sometimes to great effect (Black Holes) and sometimes pushing things a little too far (The Resistance...though I still love it!)

so what did they do that made them different? Well, its always very hard to pinpoint, but for me it was catchy riffs and their overall SOUND that they produced that did it for me. Different people will have their own reasons why they like them obviously. I mean if you were to really dissect their music, it really isn't that technically challenging to play, but to be the actual one to write it....now that took skill.

another MA that comes to mind, though I'm not personally a fan, is Lady Gaga. She has dominated the radio and club scene the last few years with catchy dance based songs that are simple yet catchy.
Now since she has succeeded so well, the come-afters (CA) are what I refer to (probable a bit PC on my part!) as "copy-cats". Modern acts are copying her style and sound, but she will always be the first. The rest, while still maybe successful, will probably not be around in 2 years time or so.

There are tons of examples of originators and copy-cats in the music biz such as that dam Auto-tuning sound that everyone was/is abusing nowadays. There is the sudden explosion (especially in the unsigned scene) of female singers to rock bands after Paramore came out.

And to be original and successful takes courage and belief, yet also the ability to recognise when something isn't working. "Originality" does not automatically mean that it sounds good, yet at the same time you dont always need a massive amount of originality to establish yourself i.e, you don't need to try to create your own genre or anything!
For example, with a band I currently jam with, we are trying something slightly "new" by having short commercial/catchy songs yet with slightly heavier drum parts. The writing structure for some songs veers away from the VCVCBC structure used to death, and in general, we try to write some decent catchy songs. Some will brand it as "it sound just like band X" and they may be right, but in this day and age, nothing is completely original. Everyone gets their ideas based upon their influences. This has been true for centuries and the only difference is that in this day and age, what with their being more people and all, its just that much harder to stand out.

And on a final note,
<rant!>
I've been to a few unsigned gigs in the last year or so, and I can count with three fingers the amount of bands that sold (or at least tried to sell) their music to me. From this I mean, not shoe-gazing and standing statuesque on stage, but giving it balls to the performance. I get that its nervous onstage (I've been there myself) but you gotta go up there during the good gigs and the bad and really sell your music with a great performance and the right energy to the songs. If you dont, you dont convey belief to the audience and if you dont act like you believe in your songs, how the hell do you expect and audience to?
</rant!> ( )

Oh and thanks Waking Dream for starting an interesting conversation. Its been too long since our last!

Grolschevik

... thoughtful and incisive!

Though people will always disagee on stuff like "Gaga = Madonna clone" and "Muse = Radiohead + Queen"...

Still; intelligent threads like this are just another reason that I may spend more time on this particular forum...

CrystalLettuce

another MA that comes to mind, though I'm not personally a fan, is Lady Gaga. She has dominated the radio and club scene the last few years with catchy dance based songs that are simple yet catchy.
Now since she has succeeded so well, the come-afters (CA) are what I refer to (probable a bit PC on my part!) as "copy-cats". Modern acts are copying her style and sound, but she will always be the first. The rest, while still maybe successful, will probably not be around in 2 years time or so.

She isn't though. Her music and image is based off of something that was heavily done in the 80s if you knew where to look(and done better).

I think people not being clued into this can be part of the problem too, but it's impossible to avoid. However sometimes people try too hard to give kudos to at least SOME popular artists.

Waking-Dreams

Not surprisingly, the precarious nature of what makes a hit song a hit will never be an exact science. Too much repetition and people may lose interest because of over-familiarity. Too little repetition, where it’s off the wall in its uniqueness, and people may not ‘get it’ or find it too discordant. It’s all a juxtaposition of those two factors.