vainandy said:

leonche64 said:

Brothers and Sisters, there has NEVER been a time in history where the majority of music did not suck. It is only in hind sight that we remember the hits, because they were just that...HITS. By sheer mathematics and averages, all the crap gets lost in the shuffle and forgotten in time.

More artist CAN make more money today than they used to be able to under the old system. But not more than the ones at the top of the order. One big myth that has continued up until the present day is that all these folks in show biz are rich. That has never been the case, and it never will be. Grab a chart from any time period and pick an artist name at random and do a search to find out "where they are now."

The industry itself can go away, it does not matter, because the music will remain. I think I have acquired the same number of songs in 2011 as I did back in 1997. I like what I like. If it is on the radio or not does not matter. Of course I want my favorites to make money so they keep making music, but that is not a factor in my musical choices.

Not in the 1980s. The majority of stuff was good and the stuff that didn't make to the radio at the time, usually was something dull that didn't deserve to be on it. As for the hits being the only thing remembered these days, that's because the radio these days has been taken over by major corporations who only play the biggest hits. I have lots of jams I play for people and they recognize them immediately and love them but have forgotten them over the years because the radio hasn't played them for decades.

And so far I have 23 VainAndy Podcasts stored in my Music Library totaling more than 24 hours worth of booty-shaking hits to prove it, lol.

It's incredible the changes that have taken place with radio and the music industry in general over the years. Back in the day, radio was an adventure (...especially late at night). I mean, they still had playlists they had to go by back then, but the lists were more diverse. And you were able to go more than one whole hour before you might hear the same song again, lol. But still, you could never be exactly sure what you might hear next on the radio back then. I remember one of the classic rock stations used to have "Album Hour" every Sunday at midnight where the DJ would play an entire album (both sides, lol) without commercial interruption. I got turned on to so many artists that way back then; Edgar Winter, Emerson, Lake, & Palmer, STYX, Rush, Pink Floyd, and others. Today, radio seems like one, giant, long, loud commercial to me. Back in the day; WE decided the hits, when we put that needle down on the record. Today, the HITS are decided by some corporation weeks before the single even drops.

Yet, despite the gloom & doom of the music industry, I've somehow managed to remain hopeful. And while I accept the statistics that show CD sales dropping off while digital downloads are on the rise, I don't see CD's falling off the map entirely. I recently just purchased my first two CD's of the new year, and I would not have been content with a mere digital copy of them. In fact, I had/have them as digital files first, before determining I needed the actual physical package. I'm posting more on that later. But yeah, partly thanks to tA's thread: The "Your FAVORITE Albums...11" Thread, have I really began to notice that there's actually quite a bit of good "new" music out there. I went NUTTS when I heard that Oz Noy joint, lol. Perfect example of a CD that would have never been discovered or purchased if I hadn't listened to it for free on the net first. I also noticed that "Twisted Blues Volume 1" has only been out a couple of months, and already it seems to be getting harder to find. I'm clearly not the only one that thinks that CD is hot, lol.

All this is to say; the music industry hasn't completely failed me yet. Though it has indeed changed.

Mong said:

It's pretty obvious that you don't even know about things like packaging deductions in downloads which labels impose. Again, get this into your head. There is less money in download sales than CD sales. I know what a 360 deal is. Your condescending ways are tiresome.

[Edited 1/10/12 5:49am]

You ain't said nothin' slick to a can of oil. You are arguing with MATH. Your argument is against the numbers. YOU ARE WRONG. Its as simple as that.

Packaging deductions in downloads means that particular artist has shitty lawyers that work for the label. Only first-time artists or dumb, dumb, desperate, DUMB artists sign deals that go for that bullshit. A first year contract lawyer with an internet degree should be able to spot that bullshit from a mile away.

1 download = about $.70 to the artist, therefore 1M paid for downloads = $700,000

Most artists are pulling down LESS THAN $1.25 in royalties from entire CDs and even less if they have ANY music videos that the label paid for. Cross-collateralization!

The OBVIOUS route for artists is to become singles artists if they want to make more money from downloads. Selling dated tech is NOT the way to go. Its a dead business model and the only ones clinging to it are vintage artists, old school record execs and middlemen who have profitted the most from that messed up format of selling music to the public. You can be sick of whatever you want to but change is inevitable. Grow up and deal with it.

BlaqueKnight said:

Mong said:

It's pretty obvious that you don't even know about things like packaging deductions in downloads which labels impose. Again, get this into your head. There is less money in download sales than CD sales. I know what a 360 deal is. Your condescending ways are tiresome.

[Edited 1/10/12 5:49am]

You ain't said nothin' slick to a can of oil. You are arguing with MATH. Your argument is against the numbers. YOU ARE WRONG. Its as simple as that.

Packaging deductions in downloads means that particular artist has shitty lawyers that work for the label. Only first-time artists or dumb, dumb, desperate, DUMB artists sign deals that go for that bullshit. A first year contract lawyer with an internet degree should be able to spot that bullshit from a mile away.

1 download = about $.70 to the artist, therefore 1M paid for downloads = $700,000

Most artists are pulling down LESS THAN $1.25 in royalties from entire CDs and even less if they have ANY music videos that the label paid for. Cross-collateralization!

The OBVIOUS route for artists is to become singles artists if they want to make more money from downloads. Selling dated tech is NOT the way to go. Its a dead business model and the only ones clinging to it are vintage artists, old school record execs and middlemen who have profitted the most from that messed up format of selling music to the public. You can be sick of whatever you want to but change is inevitable. Grow up and deal with it.

Agree on some of that, the point of an old business model, however, i have to site that the current marketing is the downfall, not the clinging to cds or whatever, cds have been disappearing now for about 5 years, this was the first year that digital outsold cd's, but thats not an accomplishment because of the disappearance and lack of what people caring to buy stuff is the reason, not because digital is all of a sudden the shit, its the only shit around. If the only drug for sale was crack then crack would be the shit. I think thats the main thing people are missing, they are talking like there is this resurgence overall in the business, well theres not, more people are gonna get cut off rosters of labels and more small labels are gonna fold when feb 2012 hits. So Digital can do the dance of joy but lets be real, digital has been out there a long time and its not picking up the sales in the transfer like albums to cassettes to cds, the problem no one saw coming was that digital was so cheap and took no effort to copy and bootleg that it would backfire on everyone. everyone has an mp3 or ipod and yet under 25% of owners actually have purchased music, and that number is dropping not going up. So i know everyone is like the music is business is back look at Adele woohoo sales, thats one record, and like a Norah Jones was a fluke to catch on the way it did, you can run a business on flukes. Also i dont know any artists get 70 cents on a download of a single? i can see any label doing something so stupid, especially since places like iTunes and amazon all get cuts no label is gonna let an artist take close to 75% of the money.

kitbradley said:

vainandy said:

Not in the 1980s. The majority of stuff was good and the stuff that didn't make to the radio at the time, usually was something dull that didn't deserve to be on it. As for the hits being the only thing remembered these days, that's because the radio these days has been taken over by major corporations who only play the biggest hits. I have lots of jams I play for people and they recognize them immediately and love them but have forgotten them over the years because the radio hasn't played them for decades.

My favorites have never been the extremely huge selling hits, not even back in the 1980s either. When something is usually a huge hit, the reason it became so huge in the first place is because it was something watered down to appeal to as many people as possible, including people who have dull tastes. R&B radio didn't used to be like this back in the early 1980s and played all the jams on a daily basis until they went out of style. When they would play an old jam back then, they would pull something out of the stacks of wax that went really well with the mood of the two recent jams it was played sandwiched between. Whether it was a huge hit or not, had nothing to do with it. A huge hit by someone like Dionne Warwick would have sounded rediculous and out of place inbetween two artists like Lakeside or Con Funk Shun who had current hits at the time and it would have disrupted the whole vibe of the DJs set. There's no DJ input these days, it's all huge hit after huge hit after huge hit when it comes to oldies radio with no rhyme or reason as the order and sequence of the songs other than the fact that they were huge hits. Radio was about entertaining people back then. It's not about entertaining people anymore and hasn't been for decades.

As for the same amount of good music in 2011 as there was in 1997, hell music had already been fucked up for years before 1997 even arrived. The exact same stuff that dominated radio in 1997 is still the same stuff that dominates today....adult contemporary, shit hop, and neo stool.....at least on R&B radio anyway. You got to go way back further that 1997 to see the drastic change, like back to around 1991 or 1992. Actually, it started going downhill in 1985 when Shitney Houston came on the scene and totally died once the 1990s got kicked in real good.

You crack me up whenever you say that name!

Andy shits on Whitney every chance he gets. I can see where he's coming from, I would hate it too if the type of music I hated became popular and started to dominate. After 1985 everyone tried to find their own version of Whitney (Mariah, Celine, etc.). I happen to like A/C, hip hop, and 'neo soul.'

LastDecember:

I wasn't trying to say that digital downloads are the "new hotness' so to speak but rather to emphasize the fact that CDs are dated tech whether we (and I do mean we, since I still like and buy CDs) like it or not and we are fastly becoming the minority in consumer numbers for CDs. When it comes to artist's profits (specifically in the pop realm), an artist can sell a bunch of downloads of ONE SONG and make almost what they would make in royalties from a whole CD. The trick (for now) is to sell a bunch of singles.

The TRUE way to get paid is still the same for the artist - TOUR. Its the INDUSTRY that is suffering. Artists have a more direct connection with their base than ever these days.

BlaqueKnight said:

LastDecember:

I wasn't trying to say that digital downloads are the "new hotness' so to speak but rather to emphasize the fact that CDs are dated tech whether we (and I do mean we, since I still like and buy CDs) like it or not and we are fastly becoming the minority in consumer numbers for CDs. When it comes to artist's profits (specifically in the pop realm), an artist can sell a bunch of downloads of ONE SONG and make almost what they would make in royalties from a whole CD. The trick (for now) is to sell a bunch of singles.

The TRUE way to get paid is still the same for the artist - TOUR. Its the INDUSTRY that is suffering. Artists have a more direct connection with their base than ever these days.

This is true. And for some reason people keep trying to insert the record company into the mix while artist are trying to keep them out. Stop thinking in the old way. We don't "owe" the record company anything. They have raped one side while gauging the other for long enough.

BlaqueKnight said:

Mong said:

It's pretty obvious that you don't even know about things like packaging deductions in downloads which labels impose. Again, get this into your head. There is less money in download sales than CD sales. I know what a 360 deal is. Your condescending ways are tiresome.

[Edited 1/10/12 5:49am]

You ain't said nothin' slick to a can of oil. You are arguing with MATH. Your argument is against the numbers. YOU ARE WRONG. Its as simple as that.

Packaging deductions in downloads means that particular artist has shitty lawyers that work for the label. Only first-time artists or dumb, dumb, desperate, DUMB artists sign deals that go for that bullshit. A first year contract lawyer with an internet degree should be able to spot that bullshit from a mile away.

1 download = about $.70 to the artist, therefore 1M paid for downloads = $700,000

Most artists are pulling down LESS THAN $1.25 in royalties from entire CDs and even less if they have ANY music videos that the label paid for. Cross-collateralization!

The OBVIOUS route for artists is to become singles artists if they want to make more money from downloads. Selling dated tech is NOT the way to go. Its a dead business model and the only ones clinging to it are vintage artists, old school record execs and middlemen who have profitted the most from that messed up format of selling music to the public. You can be sick of whatever you want to but change is inevitable. Grow up and deal with it.

Your maths are so fucked up. Artists going through a label do not get anywhere near that amount from a typical 99 cent download, if that's what you're using as your basis. Using my own country as a reference, if a download costs around 79p, about 10p of that will go to the artist. Ill informed people like you do more of a disservice than anything. Do you really have to perpetuate your nonsense in bold font too?

leonche64 said: Especially in the 80's. The synthesizer made making music cheap and easy. This is the beginning of disposable music. No longer did you need a band of trained musicians. For all the guff that disco gets, (a lot of it deserved), they at least had orchestral arrangements. The bass guitar was almost extinct in all forms of music except metal.

As if keyboard and synthesizer players weren't trained musicians. The basics of piano/keyboard/syntheizer are a very important part when composing and arranging. It's not that you push one button on a synth and there it goes on an automatic pilot. Synths have been part of the music since the 70's, and the poppin'/plucking/thumping bass was very present in 80's funk as well.

As for people who don't feel like exploring the web for new music. Check the org archives here for topics by orgers Enfantdumilieu, Paligap, (i might overlook a few more other orgers though). Or check the variety of mixtapes which have been made by a number of orgers. I think that Hamsterhuey was one of the originators for this idea.

^ Princes 80's era was basically breathing of synths and electronica (Oberheim, Linn Drum, etc), so his sound was cheap and easy?...

leonche64 said:

vainandy said:

Not in the 1980s. The majority of stuff was good and the stuff that didn't make to the radio at the time, usually was something dull that didn't deserve to be on it. As for the hits being the only thing remembered these days, that's because the radio these days has been taken over by major corporations who only play the biggest hits. I have lots of jams I play for people and they recognize them immediately and love them but have forgotten them over the years because the radio hasn't played them for decades.

My favorites have never been the extremely huge selling hits, not even back in the 1980s either. When something is usually a huge hit, the reason it became so huge in the first place is because it was something watered down to appeal to as many people as possible, including people who have dull tastes. R&B radio didn't used to be like this back in the early 1980s and played all the jams on a daily basis until they went out of style. When they would play an old jam back then, they would pull something out of the stacks of wax that went really well with the mood of the two recent jams it was played sandwiched between. Whether it was a huge hit or not, had nothing to do with it. A huge hit by someone like Dionne Warwick would have sounded rediculous and out of place inbetween two artists like Lakeside or Con Funk Shun who had current hits at the time and it would have disrupted the whole vibe of the DJs set. There's no DJ input these days, it's all huge hit after huge hit after huge hit when it comes to oldies radio with no rhyme or reason as the order and sequence of the songs other than the fact that they were huge hits. Radio was about entertaining people back then. It's not about entertaining people anymore and hasn't been for decades.

As for the same amount of good music in 2011 as there was in 1997, hell music had already been fucked up for years before 1997 even arrived. The exact same stuff that dominated radio in 1997 is still the same stuff that dominates today....adult contemporary, shit hop, and neo stool.....at least on R&B radio anyway. You got to go way back further that 1997 to see the drastic change, like back to around 1991 or 1992. Actually, it started going downhill in 1985 when Shitney Houston came on the scene and totally died once the 1990s got kicked in real good.

Especially in the 80's. The synthesizer made making music cheap and easy. This is the beginning of disposable music. No longer did you need a band of trained musicians. For all the guff that disco gets, (a lot of it deserved), they at least had orchestral arrangements. The bass guitar was almost extinct in all forms of music except metal.

Back in the day there was separation by genera, so there was more choices and more variety in music. The social progress has caused a musical wasteland where everything has met in the middle...of Sucksville. So there is less room in the public conscience for the fringe acts.

I said I have acquired the same number of songs in 20011 as I did in 1997. Made no reference to there being the same amount of good music. And 1997 was an arbitrary number. As a professional musician, I am drawn more to bands than solo singers. I like what I like. The big album for me that year was Fishbone's "Chim Chim's Badass revenge." No idea where it was on the charts, doubt it got much airplay...and I don't care. It got played on my cassette deck, and I bought a second copy in London or Denmark when the first wore out.

The radio does not belong to me. I have little interest in it. But I do love live music. And I have had the pleasure to play with and hear some great musicians that will never be widely known outside of Hong Kong, the Philippines, Japan etc. But they are doing it, making a living at it.

Seems every generations comes along and complains about the music of the next one. I remember my dad telling me how Prince was not as good a singer as Marvin Gaye, and how the 80's Bar-Kays were not as good as the 60's Bar-Kays. (He did like The Time's suits though). It is all subjective.

Turn off the radio, go check out a band in your area.

I love synths when it comes to replacing horns like Prince did and I even like a combination of synths with horns like Rick James and The Barkays did. I hate synths or drum machines if they become a total replacement for drums and bass. Prince and many acts of the early 1980s used drum machines with real drums and bass and they sounded great. It's when they totally replaced the real drums that songs started sounding horrible because they are too weak and don't have the pounding power that real drums have or the presence of a human touch like real drums have. I didn't notice them disappearing until the late 1980s. As for real bass, it was all over funk songs in the early 1980s and it was like orgasm to my ears. As for horns though, I can take them or leave them so synths replacing them was no problem for me because it made the songs sound further away from jazz.

Oh, I'm also totally more into the actual music than the singing on a record. It's the music that makes my ass shake, not somebody's voice so a voice is secondary to me when it comes to a song. Somebody can eliminate any instrument they want but when they strip the real drums and bass off, that's when my feathers get ruffled. As for the 60s Barkays as opposed to the 80s Barkays, that's a legitimate argument and simply a matter of taste. I love them both but prefer the late 70s and 80s Barkays by far. In other words, the Mercury label Barkays as opposed to the Stax label Barkays. By yeah, that's just a matter of taste because both the Stax and Mercury Barkays are real music but just different styles of music. However, if someone likes the 2000s Barkays (I'm talking studio albums and not live concerts), then they simply have no taste because the 2000s Barkays are a shitty shit hop disgrace to what they used to be using those damn shit hop drum machines.

kitbradley said:

vainandy said:

Not in the 1980s. The majority of stuff was good and the stuff that didn't make to the radio at the time, usually was something dull that didn't deserve to be on it. As for the hits being the only thing remembered these days, that's because the radio these days has been taken over by major corporations who only play the biggest hits. I have lots of jams I play for people and they recognize them immediately and love them but have forgotten them over the years because the radio hasn't played them for decades.

My favorites have never been the extremely huge selling hits, not even back in the 1980s either. When something is usually a huge hit, the reason it became so huge in the first place is because it was something watered down to appeal to as many people as possible, including people who have dull tastes. R&B radio didn't used to be like this back in the early 1980s and played all the jams on a daily basis until they went out of style. When they would play an old jam back then, they would pull something out of the stacks of wax that went really well with the mood of the two recent jams it was played sandwiched between. Whether it was a huge hit or not, had nothing to do with it. A huge hit by someone like Dionne Warwick would have sounded rediculous and out of place inbetween two artists like Lakeside or Con Funk Shun who had current hits at the time and it would have disrupted the whole vibe of the DJs set. There's no DJ input these days, it's all huge hit after huge hit after huge hit when it comes to oldies radio with no rhyme or reason as the order and sequence of the songs other than the fact that they were huge hits. Radio was about entertaining people back then. It's not about entertaining people anymore and hasn't been for decades.

As for the same amount of good music in 2011 as there was in 1997, hell music had already been fucked up for years before 1997 even arrived. The exact same stuff that dominated radio in 1997 is still the same stuff that dominates today....adult contemporary, shit hop, and neo stool.....at least on R&B radio anyway. You got to go way back further that 1997 to see the drastic change, like back to around 1991 or 1992. Actually, it started going downhill in 1985 when Shitney Houston came on the scene and totally died once the 1990s got kicked in real good.

You crack me up whenever you say that name!

PDogz said:

vainandy said:

Not in the 1980s. The majority of stuff was good and the stuff that didn't make to the radio at the time, usually was something dull that didn't deserve to be on it. As for the hits being the only thing remembered these days, that's because the radio these days has been taken over by major corporations who only play the biggest hits. I have lots of jams I play for people and they recognize them immediately and love them but have forgotten them over the years because the radio hasn't played them for decades.

And so far I have 23 VainAndy Podcasts stored in my Music Library totaling more than 24 hours worth of booty-shaking hits to prove it, lol.

It's incredible the changes that have taken place with radio and the music industry in general over the years. Back in the day, radio was an adventure (...especially late at night). I mean, they still had playlists they had to go by back then, but the lists were more diverse. And you were able to go more than one whole hour before you might hear the same song again, lol. But still, you could never be exactly sure what you might hear next on the radio back then. I remember one of the classic rock stations used to have "Album Hour" every Sunday at midnight where the DJ would play an entire album (both sides, lol) without commercial interruption. I got turned on to so many artists that way back then; Edgar Winter, Emerson, Lake, & Palmer, STYX, Rush, Pink Floyd, and others. Today, radio seems like one, giant, long, loud commercial to me. Back in the day; WE decided the hits, when we put that needle down on the record. Today, the HITS are decided by some corporation weeks before the single even drops.

Yet, despite the gloom & doom of the music industry, I've somehow managed to remain hopeful. And while I accept the statistics that show CD sales dropping off while digital downloads are on the rise, I don't see CD's falling off the map entirely. I recently just purchased my first two CD's of the new year, and I would not have been content with a mere digital copy of them. In fact, I had/have them as digital files first, before determining I needed the actual physical package. I'm posting more on that later. But yeah, partly thanks to tA's thread: The "Your FAVORITE Albums...11" Thread, have I really began to notice that there's actually quite a bit of good "new" music out there. I went NUTTS when I heard that Oz Noy joint, lol. Perfect example of a CD that would have never been discovered or purchased if I hadn't listened to it for free on the net first. I also noticed that "Twisted Blues Volume 1" has only been out a couple of months, and already it seems to be getting harder to find. I'm clearly not the only one that thinks that CD is hot, lol.

All this is to say; the music industry hasn't completely failed me yet. Though it has indeed changed.

I remember a line from "WKRP in Cincinnatti" that Venus Flytrap was telling Johnny Fever when they were complaining because Mother Carlson was trying to bring in a new program director. He said...."I don't play hits, I MAKE hits".....That was very true with radio back in the 1980s. An artist would release a lead single about a month before the album would come out and the stations would play it. When the album came out, then the station would play the album version, which was usually a longer version and even later a 12 Inch version if one was released. However, once an album was released, the DJs immediately started playing other tracks from the album over the air. They didn't wait for a second single to be released. Whatever tracks caught on was usually the second single so in other words, the general public listeners like for a song decided what the next single was going to be, not some corporate record executive.

As for looking for new good stuff, I don't waste my time looking for it because it is too hard to find. However, there is a former orger called FrenchGuy who is one of my Facebook friends and he has hipped me to a few good current songs. He's a young black guy that lives in France. Apparently, they still like to jam over there. I have noticed though, that 90% of the funky jams he's introduced me to are by white artists which is I find great on one hand because jamming shouldn't be restricted to one race but I also see it as humorous and a damn shame on the other hand that the inventors of rhythm, black folks, have become completely rhythmLESS in the mainstream these days and that white people in a completely different country can outjam circles around them these days. It's like living in the Twilight Zone.

Terrib3Towel said:

kitbradley said:

You crack me up whenever you say that name!

Andy shits on Whitney every chance he gets. I can see where he's coming from, I would hate it too if the type of music I hated became popular and started to dominate. After 1985 everyone tried to find their own version of Whitney (Mariah, Celine, etc.). I happen to like A/C, hip hop, and 'neo soul.'

We don't have the same exact tastes but you do at least understand why I feel the way I do and I like that.

vainandy said:

I remember a line from "WKRP in Cincinnatti" that Venus Flytrap was telling Johnny Fever when they were complaining because Mother Carlson was trying to bring in a new program director. He said...."I don't play hits, I MAKE hits".....That was very true with radio back in the 1980s. An artist would release a lead single about a month before the album would come out and the stations would play it. When the album came out, then the station would play the album version, which was usually a longer version and even later a 12 Inch version if one was released. However, once an album was released, the DJs immediately started playing other tracks from the album over the air. They didn't wait for a second single to be released. Whatever tracks caught on was usually the second single so in other words, the general public listeners like for a song decided what the next single was going to be, not some corporate record executive.

As for looking for new good stuff, I don't waste my time looking for it because it is too hard to find. However, there is a former orger called FrenchGuy who is one of my Facebook friends and he has hipped me to a few good current songs. He's a young black guy that lives in France. Apparently, they still like to jam over there. I have noticed though, that 90% of the funky jams he's introduced me to are by white artists which is I find great on one hand because jamming shouldn't be restricted to one race but I also see it as humorous and a damn shame on the other hand that the inventors of rhythm, black folks, have become completely rhythmLESS in the mainstream these days and that white people in a completely different country can outjam circles around them these days. It's like living in the Twilight Zone.

First off - damn we are getting old. I remember that episode, too.

Second, it was true. It was true until Clear Channel became a corporate gang and wrecked the radio business.

Somebody's always got to complain about something. The sheet music folks complained about the record business. The live performers complained about records. The record business complained about the jukebox, cassettes, blank CD's. The jukebox users complained about radio. The acts complained about the labels and publishing companies. The powers that be complained about payola. Listeners complained about ragtime, jazz, big band, rock n' roll, country, bop, soul, teen idols, bubblegum, psychedelic, free jazz, easy listening, fusion, prog, disco, old songs used to advertise stuff, etc.

BlaqueKnight said:

LastDecember:

I wasn't trying to say that digital downloads are the "new hotness' so to speak but rather to emphasize the fact that CDs are dated tech whether we (and I do mean we, since I still like and buy CDs) like it or not and we are fastly becoming the minority in consumer numbers for CDs. When it comes to artist's profits (specifically in the pop realm), an artist can sell a bunch of downloads of ONE SONG and make almost what they would make in royalties from a whole CD. The trick (for now) is to sell a bunch of singles.

The TRUE way to get paid is still the same for the artist - TOUR. Its the INDUSTRY that is suffering. Artists have a more direct connection with their base than ever these days.

Very true and artists are more direct now with their fan base, but i still going through a label, its still using an old method. Artists that TOUR and make money almost arent selling albums for the most part, U2 topped the touring and hasnt had an album in 3 years, Bon Jovi rolled in behind them in tour $$ and they also havent had a record since 2009-2010, and that was far from a huge radio hit, they were touring on their base. ALOT of these singles artists are not touring, because what do you tour on? a single or two? For Rihanna she had to have alot of singles before she could tour, but there are tons of others that have a fraction of her singles that cant even scrape together the means to tour. Alot of the older artists now dont even bother with a label, not even a sponsor for their tours which nets tons of cash. Ask Rick Springfield, these dude has been making $$ over th last decade more than he did in the 80's , hes been touring nonstop, releasing records that rarely chart high now, occasionally gets a new song on the radio, but has been on the road steady since 2000, even has an indie film coming out through a movie company he put together, so he, to me if anyone wants to learn how to capitalize off your base, check how he does it.

BlaqueKnight said:

vainandy said:

I remember a line from "WKRP in Cincinnatti" that Venus Flytrap was telling Johnny Fever when they were complaining because Mother Carlson was trying to bring in a new program director. He said...."I don't play hits, I MAKE hits".....That was very true with radio back in the 1980s. An artist would release a lead single about a month before the album would come out and the stations would play it. When the album came out, then the station would play the album version, which was usually a longer version and even later a 12 Inch version if one was released. However, once an album was released, the DJs immediately started playing other tracks from the album over the air. They didn't wait for a second single to be released. Whatever tracks caught on was usually the second single so in other words, the general public listeners like for a song decided what the next single was going to be, not some corporate record executive.

As for looking for new good stuff, I don't waste my time looking for it because it is too hard to find. However, there is a former orger called FrenchGuy who is one of my Facebook friends and he has hipped me to a few good current songs. He's a young black guy that lives in France. Apparently, they still like to jam over there. I have noticed though, that 90% of the funky jams he's introduced me to are by white artists which is I find great on one hand because jamming shouldn't be restricted to one race but I also see it as humorous and a damn shame on the other hand that the inventors of rhythm, black folks, have become completely rhythmLESS in the mainstream these days and that white people in a completely different country can outjam circles around them these days. It's like living in the Twilight Zone.

First off - damn we are getting old. I remember that episode, too.

Second, it was true. It was true until Clear Channel became a corporate gang and wrecked the radio business.

I recorded every episode of that show that I could when they aired it years ago on the TNN Network. I'm glad I did too because I hear that the DVD set for the first season contains generic music when the DJs are in the studio.

I used to love that damn Venus too. He was one cool motherfucker. And they must have had a hell of a format there too. Johnny playing rock and roll oldies in the morning, another DJ playing current pop/rock hits, and Venus playing R&B and jazz at night. And Venus was at a white radio station too but he was playing stuff like "Make Up Your Mind" by Aurra and "Nobody Knows" by Ashford and Simpson. That ain't no crossover shit.

Shango said:

leonche64 said: Especially in the 80's. The synthesizer made making music cheap and easy. This is the beginning of disposable music. No longer did you need a band of trained musicians. For all the guff that disco gets, (a lot of it deserved), they at least had orchestral arrangements. The bass guitar was almost extinct in all forms of music except metal.

As if keyboard and synthesizer players weren't trained musicians. The basics of piano/keyboard/syntheizer are a very important part when composing and arranging. It's not that you push one button on a synth and there it goes on an automatic pilot. Synths have been part of the music since the 70's, and the poppin'/plucking/thumping bass was very present in 80's funk as well.

As for people who don't feel like exploring the web for new music. Check the org archives here for topics by orgers Enfantdumilieu, Paligap, (i might overlook a few more other orgers though). Or check the variety of mixtapes which have been made by a number of orgers. I think that Hamsterhuey was one of the originators for this idea.

You joined the conversation in the middle Shango.

Still doesn't change my p.o.v.

Shango said:

^ Princes 80's era was basically breathing of synths and electronica (Oberheim, Linn Drum, etc), so his sound was cheap and easy?...

I was responding to someone that said all the music in the 80's was great with very little rubbish. I remember it differently. This is the first time Prince has been mentioned in this discussion. Prince has the ability to play all of the instruments that he recorded in the 80's. Thus he wrote bass lines from the perspective of a bass player, keyboard parts from the perspective of a keyboard player, and guitar riffs like a guitar player, as well as true to feel drum parts. Not just the "sound" of a bass, guitar etc. With the DX-7 you could get roughly these "sounds", but none of the feel that a skilled musician will bring to the table. Give it the old ear test. Play 2 number one songs from 1984 back to back. One recorded with a full band and one on a synth. Play "Let's go Crazy" by Prince, and "Let's Hear it For the Boy" by Deniece Williams. Do they sound like the same level of skill and professionalism to you? Did not think so.

George Duke's production had additional guitar and percussion, and although the track might not be everyone's taste, it's imo well executed for it's purpose and it's optional target group. George was experienced enough in the production field at that time. Different strokes, some people might have or might still dig that song.

Let's Hear It For The Boy

Engineer [Second], Mixed By – Murray Dvorkin
Percussion – Paulinho Da Costa
Composed By – Dean Pitchford, Tom Snow
Guitar – Paul Jackson*
Engineer, Mixed By, Recorded By – Tommy Vicari
Drum Programming [Linn Drum], Keyboards [Prophet V], Synthesizer [Memory Moog, Moog Bass] – George Duke
Backing Vocals – Deniece Williams, George Merrill, Shannon Rubicam
Engineer [Second], Recorded By – Nick Spiegel*

Deniece Williams - Let's ...at Discogs

A general statement that keyboards and synthesizers were cheap, disposable and easy doesn't work for me. How can they be since specialists such as George Duke, Herbie Hancock, Stevie Wonder and others were already experiencing with those instruments in the 70's?

Shango said:

George Duke's production had additional guitar and percussion, and although the track might not be everyone's taste, it's imo well executed for it's purpose and it's optional target group. George was experienced enough in the production field at that time. Different strokes, some people might have or might still dig that song.

Let's Hear It For The Boy

Engineer [Second], Mixed By – Murray Dvorkin
Percussion – Paulinho Da Costa
Composed By – Dean Pitchford, Tom Snow
Guitar – Paul Jackson*
Engineer, Mixed By, Recorded By – Tommy Vicari
Drum Programming [Linn Drum], Keyboards [Prophet V], Synthesizer [Memory Moog, Moog Bass] – George Duke
Backing Vocals – Deniece Williams, George Merrill, Shannon Rubicam
Engineer [Second], Recorded By – Nick Spiegel*

Deniece Williams - Let's ...at Discogs

A general statement that keyboards and synthesizers were cheap, disposable and easy doesn't work for me. How can they be since specialists such as George Duke, Herbie Hancock, Stevie Wonder and others were already experiencing with those instruments in the 70's?

Dude, you are taking this in an odd direction. One in which I was not going. I said listen to the song. It does not matter who did what in the studio. Of course the song did well, it was a number 1 hit. I liked the song back in the day. George Duke is a legend. I would wager even he will tell you he has done better stuff before and after this period. George Duke, Herbie Hancock, Stevie Wonder are all musicians, not technicians. They would be successful if the synth had never been invented. They also played in a band setting. They were vanguards in the electronic music era, but it was an instrument. If you can't hear, or acknowledge a difference between Hancock's "Rockit" and "Two of Hearts" by Stacey Q, then we are just far apart on the musical landscape. No harm, no foul. Just occupying different spaces.

Once again, it was not a general statement, it was in response to a previous post. And you changed my to quote to fit your argument. I never said keyboards and I was referring to synths in regards to the technology aspect. The point that was missed was that, then, new technology (seemingly) made a lot of musicians redundant in the musical process as the sonic range was "played by the left hand" of the synth player. This reduced the creativity that was previously present in the group dynamic, into a science equation of loops, sine waves, and sample freqs.

And for the most part, there has been no massive recovery. Listen to any style of music pre 80's and tell me that the musicianship across the board was not better than it is today. Hard pressed to do because there just are not as many bands. But there are more songs.

Gunsnhalen said:

RodeoSchro said:

Rock and roll used to be about partying and getting chicks.

The Nirvana came along, and ever since then rock has been about how much your life sucks.

Nirvana killed rock and roll.

Wow, it's 2012 now to be frank quit whinning about it

I like hair metal to, it was fun. But heavy metal was getting huge, Metallica had a number 1 album in 91 so did Skid Row same year Nirvana went to number 1. Funk metal was coming, alternative, shit was changing. This it was alll Nirvana bullshit is old, it was a lot of factors. You sound just like the hair meal guys who think Nirvana is the reason there music game fizzled

No, it was many factors & besides did you expect Poison to have hits for another decade? smh

Hey, I'm an old guy! I remember what it used to be like, and I watched the change happen before my very eyes and ears. It was sad.

I still whine about it because I hold out hope that some generation is finally going to go back to learning real music, instead of just turning the fuzz boxes to 11, and produce some great rock.

BlaqueKnight never lets facts get in the way of his argument.

MickyDolenz said:

You can't get tired of something you don't pay attention to.

Quoted for truth