independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Yngwie Malmsteen: New Bands Have No Chance Of Becoming Rock Stars
« Previous topic  Next topic »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 10/16/14 5:48pm

MickyDolenz

avatar

Yngwie Malmsteen: New Bands Have No Chance Of Becoming Rock Stars

YNGWIE MALMSTEEN Says New Bands Have No Chance Of Becoming Rock Stars

October 14, 2014 - Blabbermouth

.

In a brand new interview with The Rockpit, legendary Swedish guitarist Yngwie Malmsteen spoke about how his career has been affected by the fact that, in the age of streaming music and social media, albums don't sell like they used to.

.

"I'll put it in a nutshell," he said. "Basically, what happened with the Internet was that the money machine was eliminated. When the money machine was eliminated, all these people who had nothing to do with the music, and who used to make millions of dollars, started to do something else. Then everyone went, 'It's fine. Bands are still signed.' But it's not! The reasons bands were signed and new acts could get a shot was because people thought they could make money from these bands. So the fans got to hear new music while the machine was going around, investing a million and getting ten million back. Now when there is no return, no new bands are being signed or exposed and no record labels are acting like they did before."

.

He added: "People love heavy metal, people love rock and roll and people love guitar players, but there's no money in it… There's nothing new [coming out]! Simply because the labels, the retailers, the distributors, the manufacturers graphic designers, photographers and so on, they are not making money... so they say, 'Fuck this,' and they go do something else. The new groups that start in a garage are not going to get exposed and the fans are not going to get new music."

.

Asked if he thinks that's led to an upsurge in the live music scene, Yngwie said: "Look, the thing is, if you're already established, if you're JUDAS PRIEST or Yngwie Malmsteen, you're fine. There's no difference; you do what you've been doing and it's the same. But if you're a nobody and you want to sound really good but you want to start out, you can't get a tour bus or an opening act slot because there's no machine there to invest in you.

.

"All the old acts, like ALICE COOPER, The SCORPIONS, THE POLICE and more, they're bigger than ever.

.

"Do you remember the days when there was a new band every fucking week? It's not happening! Back then, someone could sink a few hundred grand into a band and make millions.

.

"If you make a product that people steal and it costs money to make that product, you get no say in who's going to put money into it. To me, I thank god every day for being where I am. I can do whatever I want and not worry about airplay or the first single. I don't have to worry about any of that shit. If you're not established you're never going to have a big mansion, you're never going to have a big mansion and a Ferrari, you're never going to be a rock star. That's the shame of it all. If you're established, you've got nothing to complain about."

.

Asked if he thinks that's leading to the rise of nostalgia for the '70s, Yngwie said: "The biggest reason for that surge in all those bands is because of record sales is because there's nothing new, because the people who put those bands on the map only did it for the money! If I said, 'Hey, I've got a YouTube video. Check it out,' what's going to separate it from a billion other people?"

.

Malmsteen recently headlined the "Guitar Gods" tour with Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal of GUNS N' ROSES and Gary Hoey. He also spent time in the studio mixing a live album and DVD recorded at back-to-back shows in Tampa and Orlando. According to the guitarist, it will probably be called "Spellbound Live". He told CitizensVoice.com about the live album and DVD: "That's a perfect example of how when I play, it's always different. Because one's from Tampa and one's from Orlando, and it's completely different."

.

Yngwie's latest album, "Spellbound", was released in December 2012.

You can take a black guy to Nashville from right out of the cotton fields with bib overalls, and they will call him R&B. You can take a white guy in a pin-stripe suit who’s never seen a cotton field, and they will call him country. ~ O. B. McClinton
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 10/16/14 6:27pm

Ego101

The Shred Meister is unfortunately Correct! sad

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 10/16/14 7:44pm

RodeoSchro

We have those who steal music from the internet to thank for this. They are thieves plain and simple, and they have also ruined music.

And if that wasn't enough, concert tickets are so high because that's the ONLY source of revenue most bands have. They don't make money off album sales any more. So when you see some idiot kid with 10,000 songs on his iPod, and you know he didn't pay for more than 100 of them, then you're looking at the reason for the death of good music.

.

[Edited 10/16/14 19:45pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 10/16/14 8:15pm

Gunsnhalen

This woman beating, overrated asshole is barely a rockstar. That fast jack off guitar music he makes has no soul too it.

So him and his fake wig can shove it. Another week, another ''there's no money in said music genre'' article biggrin

Pistols sounded like "Fuck off," wheras The Clash sounded like "Fuck Off, but here's why.."- Thedigitialgardener

All music is shit music and no music is real- gunsnhalen

Datdonkeydick- Asherfierce

Gary Hunts Album Isn't That Good- Soulalive
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 10/16/14 8:20pm

MickyDolenz

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

They don't make money off album sales any more.

Most acts didn't make much money from records before the internet, so its not much of a difference. The acts who became really rich were mainly after the early 1970s, when the blockbuster album really took off. Beforehand, the average act released 2 or 3 albums a year and in some cases, non album singles. Some labels (mostly small independents) specialized in singles and didn't release albums at all or might have slapped one together if a song became a big hit. Labels didn't milk records for a long period of time like they did later, especially post Thriller. The labels and CEO's made most of the money. But as they made money, the labels were willing to spend money (payola) to promote some of their acts to make them radio stars since it benefited them, not the acts per se. There were very few "stars" out of all of the records released. There's thousands of albums released in any year, and most didn't sell much.

You can take a black guy to Nashville from right out of the cotton fields with bib overalls, and they will call him R&B. You can take a white guy in a pin-stripe suit who’s never seen a cotton field, and they will call him country. ~ O. B. McClinton
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 10/17/14 10:35am

leonche64

RodeoSchro said:

We have those who steal music from the internet to thank for this. They are thieves plain and simple, and they have also ruined music.

And if that wasn't enough, concert tickets are so high because that's the ONLY source of revenue most bands have. They don't make money off album sales any more. So when you see some idiot kid with 10,000 songs on his iPod, and you know he didn't pay for more than 100 of them, then you're looking at the reason for the death of good music.

.

[Edited 10/16/14 19:45pm]

This is flawed logic. What person do you know that has paid for 10,000 records? Be it 45's, cassettes, or LP's? If the Internet were not available, he would have the 100 that he paid for. Downloads are a digital medium, not a physical property. Everyone likes to look at the boom time of the 1980's as if it were the norm. Those times did not exist before then, and they are not ever coming back. You had a brand new method for promotion in music videos and radio was still strong, and divided into genres. There is more music available than ever now and there are still superstars making the big money. Musicians have always made their money performing, and they still do so. The record compant brass have been the ones looking for new cash cows. Yngwie is correct in the fact that bands are not promoted like before, but look at it this way. A band had a hit album, went on tour for 9 months, played for thousands of people 4 nights a week. Get home and the recond company sends them a check for $40,000. They can make more money than that now booking their own gigs and selling their music after their shows.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 10/17/14 11:21am

lastdecember

avatar

leonche64 said:

RodeoSchro said:

We have those who steal music from the internet to thank for this. They are thieves plain and simple, and they have also ruined music.

And if that wasn't enough, concert tickets are so high because that's the ONLY source of revenue most bands have. They don't make money off album sales any more. So when you see some idiot kid with 10,000 songs on his iPod, and you know he didn't pay for more than 100 of them, then you're looking at the reason for the death of good music.

.

[Edited 10/16/14 19:45pm]

This is flawed logic. What person do you know that has paid for 10,000 records? Be it 45's, cassettes, or LP's? If the Internet were not available, he would have the 100 that he paid for. Downloads are a digital medium, not a physical property. Everyone likes to look at the boom time of the 1980's as if it were the norm. Those times did not exist before then, and they are not ever coming back. You had a brand new method for promotion in music videos and radio was still strong, and divided into genres. There is more music available than ever now and there are still superstars making the big money. Musicians have always made their money performing, and they still do so. The record compant brass have been the ones looking for new cash cows. Yngwie is correct in the fact that bands are not promoted like before, but look at it this way. A band had a hit album, went on tour for 9 months, played for thousands of people 4 nights a week. Get home and the recond company sends them a check for $40,000. They can make more money than that now booking their own gigs and selling their music after their shows.

Alot of times are not coming back, like the fact of MUSIC selling that is never coming back because people feel they have the right NOT to pay for it. this does not exist in any other form of art at all. BUT that being said it is not the main issue with why music sales are in the toilet, its a combination of the fact that music now has to compete and quite frankly no one really cares to go to a store and get a cd or album or whatever anymore, that form of "outlet" has been dead since soundscan and inflated numbers begain in the early 90's which was where this all began, nothing to do with the internet. Thing is the superstars today making money are not making it off their music, its either their side businesses or tours sorry to say. But artists survive and have the mind set that this is the way now, but they still get ripped off, people see a song sell 2 million in downloads and fail to realize that the new artist gets pennies on a download of a song, pennies. If you cant tour you are done, like an assembly line, because a label is NOT or ever will again invest in artists that dont sell day one, its that simple. The mind set of investing in an artist and losing some to gain later is never gonna be again. that is how it was done and why artists grew, they had to record an album or two a year, now they DABBLE in music, maybe tossing out a single a year then a record every four.

To show how confused people are, there are 100's of moronic articles about U2 selling only 27,000 this week for their new record. Now what is their point? this album was free for a month, which is HOW most music is consumed now, FREE. U2 took a 100milllion dollar check for this stunt, promo, but it proved a really good point, if its free not many will buy but some will still for the added bonus. Now U2 is easily the biggest touring artist over the last 3 decades by far, so this point is not going to hurt them at all, but look at a "little act" that has no control and cant tour, and their album leaks? think any of that 27,000 that U2 sold would buy their record?? No not going to happen.

So yes the 80's are over but so are the 90's and that is what people still are holding on to, fans that is, that MUSIC still sells, it doesnt.


"We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 10/17/14 12:05pm

bobzilla77

I am not a fan of his but on this point, he is absolutely right.

While it MAY be true that artists have always depended on income from touring - there are exceptions - they at least used to have record label money being spent to promote them and get them in front of people, to the point where someone would want to spend money on their live show. It also helped that the artist pool was smaller, only so many videos on MTV, only so many albums arriving at radio stations. It was large but finite number.

The reason there are not new band emerging and becoming popular at the rate they used to, is because there are no labels spending money on them. The bands are still there but they are under the radar, trying to get attention on the internet against THOUSANDS of other bands. No one will leave the house and spend even $10 to see a band they've never heard of. The chance for an unknown to get in front of a huge audience is a lot more rare than it used to be.

It remains to be seen whether that spells the "end of new music" or if new musicians will eventually find a way to exist in this new market. Obviously there's still new music happening, some of them are figuring it out.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 10/17/14 1:34pm

lastdecember

avatar

bobzilla77 said:

I am not a fan of his but on this point, he is absolutely right.

While it MAY be true that artists have always depended on income from touring - there are exceptions - they at least used to have record label money being spent to promote them and get them in front of people, to the point where someone would want to spend money on their live show. It also helped that the artist pool was smaller, only so many videos on MTV, only so many albums arriving at radio stations. It was large but finite number.

The reason there are not new band emerging and becoming popular at the rate they used to, is because there are no labels spending money on them. The bands are still there but they are under the radar, trying to get attention on the internet against THOUSANDS of other bands. No one will leave the house and spend even $10 to see a band they've never heard of. The chance for an unknown to get in front of a huge audience is a lot more rare than it used to be.

It remains to be seen whether that spells the "end of new music" or if new musicians will eventually find a way to exist in this new market. Obviously there's still new music happening, some of them are figuring it out.

You see i agree to a point. But this notion that there is this "well" of talent not being looked at, is just not accurate at all. Though there are more ways to get music out an too your public, fans etc...that doesnt mean there are better things trapped on the internet. I think the fact there is more just leads people to believe "Well there has to be great stuff in there" and at times yes but im not seeing anything HUGE coming through where Im like "damn". And the idea of "great music is out there you gotta search for it" is a tired reason/idea and also people dont want to do that people have 30 second attention spans, they cant handle "clips" of songs let alone having to search for things. I mean think about it, in an age now where there are cell phones, video games, tablets, and so much more that people spend money on, music really has no place in MOST peoples lives anymore, unless they can get it cheap and tack it on their phone, its not a lasting thing anymore, those days are gone.


"We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 10/18/14 3:11am

leonche64

lastdecember said:

leonche64 said:

This is flawed logic.

Alot of times are not coming back, like the fact of MUSIC selling that is never coming back because people feel they have the right NOT to pay for it. this does not exist in any other form of art at all. BUT that being said it is not the main issue with why music sales are in the toilet, its a combination of the fact that music now has to compete and quite frankly no one really cares to go to a store and get a cd or album or whatever anymore, that form of "outlet" has been dead since soundscan and inflated numbers begain in the early 90's which was where this all began, nothing to do with the internet. Thing is the superstars today making money are not making it off their music, its either their side businesses or tours sorry to say. But artists survive and have the mind set that this is the way now, but they still get ripped off, people see a song sell 2 million in downloads and fail to realize that the new artist gets pennies on a download of a song, pennies. If you cant tour you are done, like an assembly line, because a label is NOT or ever will again invest in artists that dont sell day one, its that simple. The mind set of investing in an artist and losing some to gain later is never gonna be again. that is how it was done and why artists grew, they had to record an album or two a year, now they DABBLE in music, maybe tossing out a single a year then a record every four.

To show how confused people are, there are 100's of moronic articles about U2 selling only 27,000 this week for their new record. Now what is their point? this album was free for a month, which is HOW most music is consumed now, FREE. U2 took a 100milllion dollar check for this stunt, promo, but it proved a really good point, if its free not many will buy but some will still for the added bonus. Now U2 is easily the biggest touring artist over the last 3 decades by far, so this point is not going to hurt them at all, but look at a "little act" that has no control and cant tour, and their album leaks? think any of that 27,000 that U2 sold would buy their record?? No not going to happen.

So yes the 80's are over but so are the 90's and that is what people still are holding on to, fans that is, that MUSIC still sells, it doesnt.

Some very good points here, extremely well thought out. But I think we may have strayed in different directions. I think dude was talking about bands/musicians specifically, and not singer/performers in general. They are built for different purposes.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 10/18/14 8:15am

MotownSubdivis
ion

lastdecember said:



bobzilla77 said:


I am not a fan of his but on this point, he is absolutely right.



While it MAY be true that artists have always depended on income from touring - there are exceptions - they at least used to have record label money being spent to promote them and get them in front of people, to the point where someone would want to spend money on their live show. It also helped that the artist pool was smaller, only so many videos on MTV, only so many albums arriving at radio stations. It was large but finite number.



The reason there are not new band emerging and becoming popular at the rate they used to, is because there are no labels spending money on them. The bands are still there but they are under the radar, trying to get attention on the internet against THOUSANDS of other bands. No one will leave the house and spend even $10 to see a band they've never heard of. The chance for an unknown to get in front of a huge audience is a lot more rare than it used to be.



It remains to be seen whether that spells the "end of new music" or if new musicians will eventually find a way to exist in this new market. Obviously there's still new music happening, some of them are figuring it out.




You see i agree to a point. But this notion that there is this "well" of talent not being looked at, is just not accurate at all. Though there are more ways to get music out an too your public, fans etc...that doesnt mean there are better things trapped on the internet. I think the fact there is more just leads people to believe "Well there has to be great stuff in there" and at times yes but im not seeing anything HUGE coming through where Im like "damn". And the idea of "great music is out there you gotta search for it" is a tired reason/idea and also people dont want to do that people have 30 second attention spans, they cant handle "clips" of songs let alone having to search for things. I mean think about it, in an age now where there are cell phones, video games, tablets, and so much more that people spend money on, music really has no place in MOST peoples lives anymore, unless they can get it cheap and tack it on their phone, its not a lasting thing anymore, those days are gone.

I agree with all of this. I'll add on by saying that I'm one of those people who couldn't be bothered to dig deep underground to find music that is supposedly that great. I live in the Pastime Paradise and thathas it's ups and downs with I guess one of the latter being that I just don't see the point of having to conduct a major search for the best music has to offer today. It's not that I think all underground acts/ music sucks or isn't worth finding but for the most part, I think that if something is THAT good then I would've heard it/ be listening to it by now. The only genre I really mess with on a low-key level is rap.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 10/18/14 8:17am

JoeTyler

every time I read one of this rants I have to LAUGH

the business is dead because the NEW bands are SHIT, and veteran artists are not releasing new masterpieces, either

that's why when a TRULY strong album with hits potential is released it becomes a MONSTER = Adele's 21 or Gaga's The Fame, but those were exceptions in a very sterile/awful era (2005- and couting...)

the real debate should be: Why do new bands/artist SUCK (mostly) ?

seriously, this thing is old already, CURRENT MUSIC SUCKS and smart +18 yo people AIN'T paying for it, NOT even bothering to download it, face it, accept it, deal with it

[Edited 10/18/14 8:18am]

tinkerbell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 10/18/14 5:41pm

lastdecember

avatar

JoeTyler said:

every time I read one of this rants I have to LAUGH

the business is dead because the NEW bands are SHIT, and veteran artists are not releasing new masterpieces, either

that's why when a TRULY strong album with hits potential is released it becomes a MONSTER = Adele's 21 or Gaga's The Fame, but those were exceptions in a very sterile/awful era (2005- and couting...)

the real debate should be: Why do new bands/artist SUCK (mostly) ?

seriously, this thing is old already, CURRENT MUSIC SUCKS and smart +18 yo people AIN'T paying for it, NOT even bothering to download it, face it, accept it, deal with it

[Edited 10/18/14 8:18am]

Also the problem is that genres are so so split now, people say the 80's were divided REALLY??? Tell me when you hear the Foo Fighters and Beyonce on the same station, NEVER. Top 40 is for the Beiber crowd, i'm so sick of hearing that the "walls" have come down, BS the walls went up in the 90's and have gotten higher and now if you are over 25 you are an old washed up performer and we wont be playing you at all. This is what happens when you let "business majors, college grads" get there little hands on decision making, cause to them it AINT about music never has been, but its bought and sold, so look for your favorite shit, just dont expect to hear it on the radio or see a video for it.


"We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 10/18/14 10:53pm

leonche64

lastdecember said:

Also the problem is that genres are so so split now, people say the 80's were divided REALLY??? Tell me when you hear the Foo Fighters and Beyonce on the same station, NEVER. Top 40 is for the Beiber crowd, i'm so sick of hearing that the "walls" have come down, BS the walls went up in the 90's and have gotten higher and now if you are over 25 you are an old washed up performer and we wont be playing you at all. This is what happens when you let "business majors, college grads" get there little hands on decision making, cause to them it AINT about music never has been, but its bought and sold, so look for your favorite shit, just dont expect to hear it on the radio or see a video for it.

I think the 80's were more divided and it was a good thing. If you are talking about about age, you may have a point, but I am talking about distinct genres, which may be more of the issue. You can hear Beyonce in any market in the country. How many stations have the Foo Fighters in rotation? Radio is homogenized now and that has removed the time available for anything regional, experimental, or off-lable to be heard. You have 5 stations in a market playing the same format, where as before it was one, maybe two.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 10/19/14 4:12am

JoeTyler

lastdecember said:

JoeTyler said:

every time I read one of this rants I have to LAUGH

the business is dead because the NEW bands are SHIT, and veteran artists are not releasing new masterpieces, either

that's why when a TRULY strong album with hits potential is released it becomes a MONSTER = Adele's 21 or Gaga's The Fame, but those were exceptions in a very sterile/awful era (2005- and couting...)

the real debate should be: Why do new bands/artist SUCK (mostly) ?

seriously, this thing is old already, CURRENT MUSIC SUCKS and smart +18 yo people AIN'T paying for it, NOT even bothering to download it, face it, accept it, deal with it

[Edited 10/18/14 8:18am]

Also the problem is that genres are so so split now, people say the 80's were divided REALLY??? Tell me when you hear the Foo Fighters and Beyonce on the same station, NEVER. Top 40 is for the Beiber crowd, i'm so sick of hearing that the "walls" have come down, BS the walls went up in the 90's and have gotten higher and now if you are over 25 you are an old washed up performer and we wont be playing you at all. This is what happens when you let "business majors, college grads" get there little hands on decision making, cause to them it AINT about music never has been, but its bought and sold, so look for your favorite shit, just dont expect to hear it on the radio or see a video for it.

that's TRUE

tinkerbell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 10/19/14 2:14pm

lastdecember

avatar

leonche64 said:

lastdecember said:

Also the problem is that genres are so so split now, people say the 80's were divided REALLY??? Tell me when you hear the Foo Fighters and Beyonce on the same station, NEVER. Top 40 is for the Beiber crowd, i'm so sick of hearing that the "walls" have come down, BS the walls went up in the 90's and have gotten higher and now if you are over 25 you are an old washed up performer and we wont be playing you at all. This is what happens when you let "business majors, college grads" get there little hands on decision making, cause to them it AINT about music never has been, but its bought and sold, so look for your favorite shit, just dont expect to hear it on the radio or see a video for it.

I think the 80's were more divided and it was a good thing. If you are talking about about age, you may have a point, but I am talking about distinct genres, which may be more of the issue. You can hear Beyonce in any market in the country. How many stations have the Foo Fighters in rotation? Radio is homogenized now and that has removed the time available for anything regional, experimental, or off-lable to be heard. You have 5 stations in a market playing the same format, where as before it was one, maybe two.

see i have to disagree there slighty, things that happend could never happen today. An artist like a U2, REM, INXS, Prince, Billy Joel etc...could never be signed and NOT have any real hit till 4 and in some cases 6 albums into their careers, that is one area. But with Genres I find that today it is so distinct, where as before a Top 40 could consist of, Hitmakers of the day like say Hall and Oates, Lionel Richie, Kool and the Gang, Prince, Madonna, Richard Marx, Rick Springfield, Expose, and then veterans like Aretha, Elton, Billy and The Rolling Stones, all going for the same radio station support AND GETTING IT. Im not hearing or seeing that diversity anywhere now, from Rap music MOST of the time being about "Ballers and Bitches, and LOOK WHAT I GOT" to Bad "So Called" Rock Bands with the tattooed lead singer with perfect hair that walked out of a GQ shoot, knowing nothing about music at all. TO the Typical things like Arianna Grande first album i sing, second album i get sexy on you, third album will be IM SURE the rebellion against my world record. The marketing now is so so played out, even with artists you never hear that are buried they have the same gimmicks. BUT it was to be expected, when everything went digital and music became a free for all, and you can make an album in your living room on your laptop, never learn to read write or play music, your going to get this onslaught of shit quite frankly.


"We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 10/19/14 3:49pm

MickyDolenz

avatar

I don't think Top 40 really has that much to do with being a rock star. Groups like Pink Floyd, KISS, Yes, Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, Ozzy Osbourne, Rush, etc. had little if any Top 40 airplay and hit singles. But they sold lots of albums. I'd say that the demise of Album Oriented Rock stations hurt rock bands/singers more than getting on the Top 40.

You can take a black guy to Nashville from right out of the cotton fields with bib overalls, and they will call him R&B. You can take a white guy in a pin-stripe suit who’s never seen a cotton field, and they will call him country. ~ O. B. McClinton
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 10/19/14 6:58pm

leonche64

lastdecember said:

leonche64 said:

I think the 80's were more divided and it was a good thing.

see i have to disagree there slighty, things that happend could never happen today. An artist like a U2, REM, INXS, Prince, Billy Joel etc...could never be signed and NOT have any real hit till 4 and in some cases 6 albums into their careers, that is one area. But with Genres I find that today it is so distinct, where as before a Top 40 could consist of, Hitmakers of the day like say Hall and Oates, Lionel Richie, Kool and the Gang, Prince, Madonna, Richard Marx, Rick Springfield, Expose, and then veterans like Aretha, Elton, Billy and The Rolling Stones, all going for the same radio station support AND GETTING IT. Im not hearing or seeing that diversity anywhere now, from Rap music MOST of the time being about "Ballers and Bitches, and LOOK WHAT I GOT" to Bad "So Called" Rock Bands with the tattooed lead singer with perfect hair that walked out of a GQ shoot, knowing nothing about music at all. TO the Typical things like Arianna Grande first album i sing, second album i get sexy on you, third album will be IM SURE the rebellion against my world record. The marketing now is so so played out, even with artists you never hear that are buried they have the same gimmicks. BUT it was to be expected, when everything went digital and music became a free for all, and you can make an album in your living room on your laptop, never learn to read write or play music, your going to get this onslaught of shit quite frankly.

Oh yeah, you are spot on with that one. There will never be the development time allowed as it was, I concede that point. Consider this. Before, you had a minor leauge, or "second string" of groups that made a career. Bands that did not have to have top 40 air play in order to make a living. Bands like Zapp, Shalamar, Lakeside, The SOS band, all thrived with just R&B support. These were not headliners, but they put out good product and had followings. I would say the vast majority of bands were on this level. That place is gone from the scene now. Everything is moved to the middle and there just isn't room.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 10/19/14 7:21pm

MotownSubdivis
ion

leonche64 said:



lastdecember said:




leonche64 said:



I think the 80's were more divided and it was a good thing.




see i have to disagree there slighty, things that happend could never happen today. An artist like a U2, REM, INXS, Prince, Billy Joel etc...could never be signed and NOT have any real hit till 4 and in some cases 6 albums into their careers, that is one area. But with Genres I find that today it is so distinct, where as before a Top 40 could consist of, Hitmakers of the day like say Hall and Oates, Lionel Richie, Kool and the Gang, Prince, Madonna, Richard Marx, Rick Springfield, Expose, and then veterans like Aretha, Elton, Billy and The Rolling Stones, all going for the same radio station support AND GETTING IT. Im not hearing or seeing that diversity anywhere now, from Rap music MOST of the time being about "Ballers and Bitches, and LOOK WHAT I GOT" to Bad "So Called" Rock Bands with the tattooed lead singer with perfect hair that walked out of a GQ shoot, knowing nothing about music at all. TO the Typical things like Arianna Grande first album i sing, second album i get sexy on you, third album will be IM SURE the rebellion against my world record. The marketing now is so so played out, even with artists you never hear that are buried they have the same gimmicks. BUT it was to be expected, when everything went digital and music became a free for all, and you can make an album in your living room on your laptop, never learn to read write or play music, your going to get this onslaught of shit quite frankly.



Oh yeah, you are spot on with that one. There will never be the development time allowed as it was, I concede that point. Consider this. Before, you had a minor leauge, or "second string" of groups that made a career. Bands that did not have to have top 40 air play in order to make a living. Bands like Zapp, Shalamar, Lakeside, The SOS band, all thrived with just R&B support. These were not headliners, but they put out good product and had followings. I would say the vast majority of bands were on this level. That place is gone from the scene now. Everything is moved to the middle and there just isn't room.

I daresay there is no middle now. Either you're on the top or irrelevant with nothing in between to bridge that gap. What also doesn't help is how almost all artists are promoted now as much bigger and more talented than they actually are and treated as such. Look at Ariana, after only 2 albums (a decent debut and a boring excuse for a follow up) we're supposed to view her as prime Mariah or some star of that credibility.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 10/20/14 12:00pm

bobzilla77

I think the fact there is more just leads people to believe "Well there has to be great stuff in there" and at times yes but im not seeing anything HUGE coming through where Im like "damn". And the idea of "great music is out there you gotta search for it" is a tired reason/idea and also people dont want to do that people have 30 second attention spans, they cant handle "clips" of songs let alone having to search for things.

I think you're right that it doesn't always feel like the search is worthwhile. I am realizing that the music of today's generation is not speaking to me like the music of my peers or especially my elders.

But it seems to be even worse for the fact that we have no more shared experiences with new music. They used to be so common, now they are so rare.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 10/20/14 1:38pm

CynicKill

With all its faults the music industry knew what we craved: Big events and big albums. The shared experience is crucial to the culture at large. But the kids don't know any different and don't seem to mind. The rest of us had our time and what happens today doesn't really matter that much.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 10/20/14 1:52pm

TheGoldStandar
d

bobzilla77 said:

I think the fact there is more just leads people to believe "Well there has to be great stuff in there" and at times yes but im not seeing anything HUGE coming through where Im like "damn". And the idea of "great music is out there you gotta search for it" is a tired reason/idea and also people dont want to do that people have 30 second attention spans, they cant handle "clips" of songs let alone having to search for things.

I think you're right that it doesn't always feel like the search is worthwhile. I am realizing that the music of today's generation is not speaking to me like the music of my peers or especially my elders.

But it seems to be even worse for the fact that we have no more shared experiences with new music. They used to be so common, now they are so rare.

.

Spot on!

.

Another thought - people go on about how "thieves "steal" "crappy" music online. I have the same beef Yngwie speaks about (a billion YouTube videos) is that the bands are AWFUL. No talent, grandstanding, auto-tuned fake millionaires in unaffordable garb living in an unrealistic manner.

.

Give me Natalie Merchant in her bare feet singing folk songs over Iggy anyday.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 10/20/14 2:27pm

bobzilla77

Even living in the 80s and trying to get into underground punk rock, there were filters available. There was music your college radio DJ played, music your friends were into, music that sounded good when you read about it in magazines. If a band hit all three of those points I would probably end up checking them out. I can think of two or three bands where I went all-in and bought an album without ever having heard them - because that was the only way I would get to hear them.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Yngwie Malmsteen: New Bands Have No Chance Of Becoming Rock Stars