krayzie said:

Young people of this corrupt generation wants very loud, booming, compressed drum beats. Also, they want MIDI-tight sound animation coming from the keyboards and/or highly compressed multi-layer guitar tracks.

LittleBLUECorvette said:

I had to listen to the local Top 40 station at work for months, something I hadn't done since I was 12 or 13. I really noticed with a lot of the newer music, there's no definition in the sound. Everything's loud.


And that goddamned Kelly Clarkson is constantly singing flat.

BlaqueKnight said:

And that's really what it comes down to. Yes, they've been fucking around with the sound quality on CD's, charging ridiculous prices, etc.

But the real problem with the industry IMO is that they're trying to feed us crap. They spend all their time pushing no-talent acts they can make a quick buck on and don't bother investing long-term in real talent, because there's no immediate money to be made. The irony in that of course is that a talented act with a loyal following can potentially earn more than a whole stableful of Britneys and Rihannas.

meow85 said:

meow85 said:

Again I repeat, the music industry promotes what the PUBLIC WANTS. They follow the public tastes.

They promote the artists that can sell the most. Period.

If the public was only concerned about real talents, do you think they would waste their time investing in no-talent acts ?

There are a lot of talented artists BUT most of those artists don't sell that much because they don't have the charisma, or sex appeal of Rhianna or Britney.

Artists like India Arie, Van Hunt, Raheem DeVaughn can produce great music but they can't catch the attention of the mass, because they have any the charisma/personality.

And concerning the fact that music labels don't bother investing long-term in real talent, you should WAKE UP, CDs sales are dropping, Music industry is losing a lot of money, they just can't support long term real artists anymore. Face it.

Naw, CDs aren't the problem. Put shit hop on vinyl and it will sound just as shitty.

Though I really don't know, and don't presume to be any kind of authority on the matter, I think it boils down to The Record Industry treating the product like a six sigma project.

They look to define quality in tangeable terms. And what I mean by quality is not what we all personally think is quality music, but what they [the music industry] believe will get the best response from the demographic they are trying to sell to. They seek to create the smallest possible standard deviation in the product so that it always passes their so called quality tests and presents the smallest risk towards success [mass record sales].

Artists who from time to time, break this mold, or become popular from a grass roots level, like The White stripes, for lack of a better example, or Nirvana, then become the example of a "quality" product in which newly discovered bands should emulate--I mean the standard deviation must be as small as possible. So what starts off as a legitimate musical discovery or movement, then gets turned into the musical version of a franchise or strip mall--because why risk going to your Mom and Pop shop if you can just go to Applebee's already knowing what the menu is going to taste like?

I really wish Jobs would institute a business model with Independent artists allowing them to sell their stuff on iTunes in mass (forgive me folks if he is already doing this and I'm just not aware of it). I really think Independent artists still have a fighting chance of turning the record industry on it's head.










oh, my short answer is, no I don't think CD's are the reason.

This is it in a nutshell. The music industry has joined forces and merged with so many different forms of media that its all bottom line now. An artist today getting signed pretty much has to be able to be put on magazines, put in videos and basically just be a puppet to their producer. True its all about money and maybe it always was, but you cannot tell me that there werent A&R people in their busted their asses to get people played and signed, and that there werent labels that were behind their artists if their shit didnt sell but they knew they had the talent to at least invest in them. Ive said this before, you can take any of the ORG favorite artists, from Prince to Duran Duran to whoever else and the truth is they wouldnt be signed today or if they were signed a label wouldnt wait till they caught on, and in Prince's case it took about 5 albums before that happend, so if you think there is that kind of investment in artists today like there was then, then you are smoking crack straight up. There may be a few artists here and there and minor labels like a "Lost Highway" that are devoted to artists and building followings more than just that one shot at the big time sales. So in reality the industry killed itself, it merged and sold itself out a long time ago, just as we entered the 90's and with the mega selling 90's everyone got fat and thought it would always be that way, but as i look around, and see labels dropping like flies, and merging and letting artists go and letting employees go, its really just about to end, and CDs werent really the cause, it was the money that was made off of them. Just do the math, it takes about 2-3 dollars to produce/manufacture a cd, and then a label charges the retail outlets 13 dollars to buy it off them. Still think retail are the ones at fault?? Remember that the next time you go in best Buy and the once low price is now being raised.

Imago said:

I totally agree. I do think "indie" artists have the ability to do this, and im not even talking about artists that are unheard of, there are plenty of long term proven artists that are label-less, or signed to an Indie or selling theri stuff of their site, that if they all formed an INDIE union of some sort, and even create a new outlet for their music and even their videos (MTV/VH1/BET have to be ended) then shit would change.

Imago said:

You know I hate to repeat myself, really. But I repeat again.
MUSIC INDUSTRY FOLLOWS THE PUBLIC. THEY SELL WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTS. WHAT THE PUBLIC BUYS. PERIOD. IF PEOPLE LOVE CRAP MUSIC, THEY WILL SELL CRAP MUSIC.

That's why Music used to be beter in the 70's, BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTED.

Like I said before the music industry didn't invent the gansgata rap, the grunge or the punk.


If music sucks now, it's not the fault of the Music industry, it's because people LOVE crap music right now. People buy Akon because the public loves it. As simple as that.

Imago said:

You talk about Nirvana ? Nobody expected and predicted the success of Nirvana, just like nobody expected the success of NWA. Because the public wanted to buy their stuff.

The PUBLIC DECIDES. ALWAYS.

Some people over there love to stereotype the music industry, and tend to diabolize everything the music industry too much, BUT THIS IS THE PUBLIC THAT CONTROLS WHAT THE MUSIC INDUSTRY SELLS.

The blame is not on the music industry, BUT ON THE PUBLIC WHO buys crap shit over real talent. At the end of the day it's up to the public .

Imago said:

You seem completely ignorant about the situation concerning Apple and the music business, your Steve Jobs is killing the labels and artists like never before.

For the first time we have a company (Apple) that controls the music market like NEVER before. Ipod is the biggest digital player and Itunes music store is the biggest music store online. Apple is now so dominant that they can even decide the price of a single song (99 cent) while taxing each song 25 cent. Major labels have no choice but accepting or dying.

If you serioulsy believe that indie artists have something to say about how to sell their stuff on iTunes, YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG.

Only Steve Jobs decides. Since Ipod is the dominant player, Steve Jobs can do whatever he wants...


Apple DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOUR INDIE ARTISTS. Ipod IS WHERE the money at. Ipod is the money maker. And WHAT matters to Steve Jobs is selling more and ipods Ipods. That's why he wants to control the price of the songs. And that's why Universal just refused to sign another deal with Apple. They are losing a lot of money. 99 cent is just too cheap.


You sound very naive my friend. Steve Jobs's only interest is selling more and more ipods and iphones not. This is where the money is.
[Edited 7/13/07 16:55pm]

krayzie said:

1. With regards to Nirvana, it was definitely the public deciding. I was part of that public having been a Nirvana fan from the time they were performing in garages. So I fail to see where there was anything in my statement about Nirvana that indicated the music industry made them what they are. There toppling Michael Jackson's album from the charts was nothing short of a grass roots movement. What I was saying as it was obviously stated is that when these innovative bands do breakthrough because of fan support, the Music industry pays attention and tries to find bands that fit that style or genre. It is that process that cheapens the whatever the original band or movement was doing. Nowhere there was I excusing the masses nor the general public from that process--The majority of top 40 listeners are happy to have the music industry find the music for them and to go out and buy the product. It's not that the music industry is telling people what to buy--its' that they project that this new "thing" is what people want and they go out and find crap artists that mimic the real ones (with a few exceptions), and the public is generally too lazy to care--if it can be whistled your car, it's good enough for most.

2. With regards to Steve Jobs/Apple,etc. I think I pretty well established that I don't know anything about the industry or how it works. But thanks for your reiteration of what I already said. I never implied, presumed , nor hinted that Indie artist have any part of the process, though I opened it for possibility since as I stated, I didn't know. I still believe Indie artist have to ability to influence the music industry and turn it on it's head--conversations and threads like this are not rogue ideas from folks with no time--they're very real sentiments from LOTS of folks who feel this way.

3. Also, yes you're right--the music industry follows the public. I never contested this. I never even implied they manipulated the public. What I meant is the process by which they release and produce the product is based on their perception of what the public considers quality music, and once they latch onto what they consider to be a winning formula (BASED ON WHAT THE PUBLIC IS BUYING), the set up template upon which other up-and-coming bands need to sound like in order to receive propper backing. Nirvana hits it big, the music industry pays attention, and all of a sudden, if you sound like Poison or Winger, promotion and airplay on MTV, etc. starts diminishing. It's not that they're manipulating the market--it's that they need to make money, and as their primary concern they place their bets on where they think they'll get the most ROI, based on a narrow standard deviation.

4. Yeah, I'm ignorant of the industry. I think I well established that at the very beginning of my post. But thanks for repointing that out or whatever.

And to save yourself some time here--everything I just posted is coming from that same ignorant person who just has an opinion on the matter based on what little or NOTHING that I know or don't.

I guess I can point out another industry then that I am completely ignorant of.
The movie industry, particularly mainstream Hollywood.


Summer "blockbuster" movies are all going to have very specific type of expectations around them. This is because audiences have come to expect explosions, robots, cgi, etc.

So the movie industry has a few guaranteed hits. It's not going to risk a whole bunch of money on a sequal to "The Sound of Music" or something like that. It's going to release a new superhero movie, or sci-fi thriller,etc. This is not because Hollywood is trying to manipulate our lives, but because they're in the business to make money, so if they can churn out a series of movies that resemble video games for 14 year old boys, knowing that the statistics show it will likely succeed, that is what they're going to do. It was stunning at all that the Lord of the Rings movies, as long as they were, ever got approved as a project. But with the success of that Franchise, the industry caught on and we now have shit like Erogon. Again, the Industry was only reacting to the market, but the results weren't spectacular.


But really. No, I don't think CDs ruined todays music.


.
[Edited 7/13/07 17:33pm]

BlaqueKnight said:

100% truth

Imago said:

The public always decides what they want to buy. This the public that stopped the punk era, the disco era, the gansta rap era, the grunge era, the psychelic era. Not the music industry. It proves that people always make the decision.

If the public don't want musicians but rappers, the music industry will promote rappers.

It's not the music industry fault if the people choose a Chris Brown album over Raheem Van.
The music industry has always supported great talents, but at the end of the day if the public don't want to buy great talents , they are dropped from the majors.

It has always been like this since day one. Always.
So I don't udnerstand why people want to blame the music industry.

The music industry is not responsible for the bad tastes and of the public. At end of the day it's up t the public to choose what they want.

Imago said:

Indie scene has always influenced the mainstream market. But Apple is not the best partner to work with. Apple is a big company that only cares about profits not music. And the dominance of Apple is turning the music business in even worse. They control the digital market. They control the biggest digital retailing store, they have the best selling digital player. So if you want to sell your music for the digital you have to accept the conditions of Apple. They taxe you 25 cent on each song, and blok the price at 99 cent.

Indie artists have no interest to work with Apple. Indie Artsists are still selling a lot of CD's because this much harder to find indie artsist on internet or

Imago said:

I don't see the problem here.
It has always been like this since day one. Always.
When the Beatles hit sucessfully the US maket, all the big majors decide to sign british acts. Some were talented like The Rolling stones, and some were not . It's up to the public to chose what is good or not.

I don't blame the music indutry which only tries to satisfy the public.

Why do people prefer Chris Brown over Raheem DeVaughn. Who are the responsible ?
[Edited 7/15/07 15:05pm]

Cds havent ruined anything, its all these stupid little kids who cant decide for themselves and get money off their parents to go waste on these bullshit artists/bands, that in conjuction with Ipod/Mp3 players is why the music industry is going down the shitter, i mean if your using Itunes your technically not allowed to even burn the songs onto a cd for backup!
They also provoke people into downloading illegally as well, cause lets face it not everybody is honest.

Cinnie said:

She is! That bothers me so much when I hear her music, because she's supposedly the best there was to offer according to the AI audience, and she can't sing properly. And this is WITH vocal training and spiffy editing tools to clean up her singing.

Imago said:

Valid points. What would a blockbuster film be without a killer game and soundtrack to go along with it. It's all part of the scheme of things.

krayzie said:

They could if they backed quality acts. People don't buy music anymore because the music sucks.

You say the public wants the Britneys and Fiddys of the music world, so why is it their albums aren't selling well either? When's the last time you heard of one of these acts selling out a tour? Or even selling really, really well? These sub-par artists are all over the radio and tv and magazines because their labels buy the media spots, but the attention they get does not match the sales they (don't) have. Why did Kelly Clarkson just have to cancel a tour due to lack of sales, even though we see her face everywhere? Why are all the headlines about these acts that the public supposedly wants rarely, if ever, about their music? Because these people are not being promoted for their art, because the higher ups know there is no art to be found. The public is being given what they want, but it's not a killer guitar solo or soaring vocals -it's a soap opera.

I stand by what I said -if more effort and investment was put into promoting talented artists instead of the flavour of the month pretty magazine face, the industry wouldn't be in half the bind it is now.

meow85 said:

Completely wrong, Music sales HAVE NEVER BEEN BASED ON quality but on public tastes and popularity.

If the public wanted only talented artists, Prince would have sold 20 million copies of Sign O the times, and Madonna would have never had a music career.

The majors only care about selling CDs. And the public decides what they want and what they don't want. If the PUBLIC WANTS TALENTED ACTS, THE MAJORS WILL PROMOTE ONLY TALENTED ACTS, IF THE PUBLIC WANTS UNTALENTED BEAUTIFUL GIRLS, THEY WILL PROMOTE UNTALENTED BEAUTIFUL GIRLS.

They promote what sell. Period.

30 years ago, talented acts used to sell records because THIS IS WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTED.

Since then the standard of public tastes have dramatically declined. The majors follow ALWAYS the public because they have to sell records.


The majors can't control the public.

meow85 said:

Majors always already put a lot of effort to promote talented artists. But they don't care. This is what you fail to understand ?

And if the industry is in half the bind it is now. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with quality of Music.

It has to do with the P2P programs, the albums leaking on the net, CD burnings, and massive sharing and downloading that have damaged the CDs Sales over the past few years. Not quality

Was music tha good few years ago when CDs sales were at their all time peak in 2000?
[Edited 7/18/07 18:54pm]

krayzie said:[quote]

meow85 said:

Blaming file-sharing is scapegoating, if you ask me. Yes, it's part of the problem -a BIG problem, even. But IMO it's not the main issue.

The thing is, instead of going out to buy a CD now with no guarantee anything on it is going to be worth listening to, much of the public would rather download the one or two singles they have heard, instead of throwing away 20 bucks on a pile of music not worth the plastic it's on.

If music available to the general public was of higher quality, more people would be willing to purchase an entire album's worth of songs. Would it stop people from downloading? Of course not. If a service is present, legal or not, people will make use of it.

As for your assertion that the public is only getting what it asks for? Here's some basic marketing psychology for you: If you present something to an audience long enough and constantly enough with the insistance that what they're being given is what they want and what's good, then eventually most of the audience will believe it. Politicians and governments employ this tactic all the time, and so do the admen working for the entertainment industry. Exposure=likeability.
[Edited 7/19/07 20:42pm]

meow85 said:

Ok, I repeat again. Quality music doesn't mean automatically GREAT SALES. You seem to refuse to realize that people have sometimes terrible tastes when it comes to music. And sometimes people will choose trash artists over great talent.
That's why an artist like Chrisette Michele who released her first solo album last week started at No. 29 with only 26,000 CDs (national tv apparences and promotion) while the hip hop group Shop Boyz started at N.9 with 52,000 copies.

It just shows you that sometimes garbage music sells more than great music. And it also shows you that if music available to the general public was of higher quality, more people wouldn't be willing to purchase an entire album's worth of songs.

meow85 said:

Completly wong, that would be great if majors or anybody else could control the public tastes.

Saddly, this is not the case. The public tastes always change. And nobody can control the public. The majors only try to follow the public tastes as much as possible. They sell and promote what the publicwants. When America fell in love with British music, majors started promoting British artists, when the public fell in love with gangsta rap, majors started selling gansta rap.

Don't foret that majos only care about selling records. If people wanted nothing but talented artists, do you serioulsy believe the major labels would waste their time promoting talent less artits like Akon or T Pain ?

And Exposure doesn't mean likeability, When P.diddy relesased his second solo Forever, the album miserabily failed in the charts despite MEGA EXPOSURE everywhere in the media. The album barely reached the platinum status. In 1999, P.Diddy was the most overexposed celebrity in America.


You can't manipulate the Public.

[Edited 7/19/07 23:27pm]

krayzie said:[quote]

meow85 said:

Ha ha; That's what happening in the world today.

Gos made 3 mistakes;
1; MAN
2 WO-MAN
3; THE POODLE

True, filesharing is an issue but it is a scapegoat. The biggest amount of file sharing is obviously going on with the younger crowd, which is strange, because the industry is targeting them with their promotion? Sounds stupid to target an audience that is really not buying your shit, maybe thats why labels are going under, how about saving that 20million in Promotion that a label just spent on Rihannas new cd that will be lucky if it sells a million, talk about waste. The truth is if you break down the industry, you see that all things are not losing money, older artists are still selling well, some better than before, and without promotion, people arent buying the new Barry Manilow cd on the street for $3 only to find out its a crummy cdr. So if the industry wants to stop losing money, dont spend 20 million to promote Rihanna when you know there is no way hell your gonna break even, spend wisely,stop making videos that VH1 and MTV dont show anyway, just try and get smart again.

icke4presidant said:

Yeah, sure. That's why great Motown hits from the 60's sound better on scratchy-ass burnt vinyl than any contemporary music does on CD.

Speaking of Motown, I have two of my mother's original Supremes albums from the 1960s. She never kept the inside sleeves or took good care of her albums like I did so they have plenty of snap, crackle, and pop. Actually though, I prefer to hear her vinyl than to hear the same Supremes songs on CD because every snap, crackle, and pop has a history and a memory.

As for the new bullshit music that's being made these days, I wouldn't listen to that shit if it came on any format.....CD, vinyl, cassette, 8 track, reel to reel....etc. New music sounds like shit, not because of the format it's on, but because it's a bunch of dull ass, no talent motherfuckers making the music.