Margot said:

JayCrawford said:

They just don't understand, we come from an era where good music was found on the radio, MTV, talk shows even.

That music was good to you, not to everybody that was around at the same time. I was around some goth kids and some metalheads and both groups tended to say that the music & artists played on Top 40 radio & MTV was sellout music and no good. That's why there were different radio formats. There was "easy listening" for the WWII generation, "R&B" for that audience, "AOR" for hard rock fans, adult contemporary, and so on. Many people only listen to one genre. There's people who only listen to gospel music and no secular music at all. They consider anything that is not gospel "blues", "worldly music", or "devil's music".

Music now is in a different world than it was. From the way you get it, most dont even have a collection, they have playlists and libraries stored and lets face it if Spotify went under or something like that most would have no music collections anymore and not even remember what they had. Streaming is renting regardless of you thinking you own something now you dont that is the difference and why you really cant compare eras. I mean its like comparing A homerun hitter in baseball to now comparing to Babe Ruth or someone like that, guys train now, back then they tossed the ball, there were no weights and supplements, also no rules of what you could do, I mean in the mid 80's Keith Hernandez of the Mets drank beer in the clubhouse and smoked a cigarette on the bench waiting to go back on the field, today its all different with rules and regiments. With Music it is no different you cant compare eras, but this goes in many things, back in the day it was a big thing if you made a film, because of costs and difficulty now some can make films on their phones, many music videos have been shot on phones. So i cant compare someone working and shooting a film on a digital high tech camera to someone like Coppola who shot on film and the editing was cutting and splicing etc..Now with music and the eras you cant compare because the world is different, when the internet came into play and how to get and make music changed, things changed drastically. But also remember as these times changed so did focus, when music stopped selling and sorry that is a factor, when it became a rental and aritsts really could not make money or very little, they began to go back to just doing singles, because the attention of the listener or in this case the renter doesnt have time for an hour long investment into their product, so you still get good artists songs and whatever but you arent going to get THAT artist with THAT appeal of another era, its just not going to happen. So music means whatever to whomever, its something to you that it isnt to me. Someone can post their top artists right now and I pretty much guarantee that very few us share similar artists at all.

lastdecember said:

Spotify and other services have taken the place of radio for the younger generations. Heck, my son doesn't even download albums anymore and play them. He just listens to whatever random songs pop up on different streaming services on his phone...like I do with radio. A different ball game entirely.

JayCrawford said:

lastdecember said:

Music now is in a different world than it was. From the way you get it, most dont even have a collection, they have playlists and libraries stored and lets face it if Spotify went under or something like that most would have no music collections anymore and not even remember what they had. Streaming is renting regardless of you thinking you own something now you dont that is the difference and why you really cant compare eras. I mean its like comparing A homerun hitter in baseball to now comparing to Babe Ruth or someone like that, guys train now, back then they tossed the ball, there were no weights and supplements, also no rules of what you could do, I mean in the mid 80's Keith Hernandez of the Mets drank beer in the clubhouse and smoked a cigarette on the bench waiting to go back on the field, today its all different with rules and regiments. With Music it is no different you cant compare eras, but this goes in many things, back in the day it was a big thing if you made a film, because of costs and difficulty now some can make films on their phones, many music videos have been shot on phones. So i cant compare someone working and shooting a film on a digital high tech camera to someone like Coppola who shot on film and the editing was cutting and splicing etc..Now with music and the eras you cant compare because the world is different, when the internet came into play and how to get and make music changed, things changed drastically. But also remember as these times changed so did focus, when music stopped selling and sorry that is a factor, when it became a rental and aritsts really could not make money or very little, they began to go back to just doing singles, because the attention of the listener or in this case the renter doesnt have time for an hour long investment into their product, so you still get good artists songs and whatever but you arent going to get THAT artist with THAT appeal of another era, its just not going to happen. So music means whatever to whomever, its something to you that it isnt to me. Someone can post their top artists right now and I pretty much guarantee that very few us share similar artists at all.

Do you think Spotify hurt music?

I think streaming overall hurts artists, there are a few benefits because many new artists can link through social media and then hope their listeners will share or they will end up on a playlist sponsored etc....but the pennies they make that's one of the reasons they can on,y do singles especially if they are doing it all on their own, booking shows, promotion, it's tough I mean they really need hundreds of thousands of streams to even make anything, I mean I know many indie artists that I follow and 10k streams they are lucky to get a few hundred bucks if even, now if they were selling a single physical it's more or people were actually buying it not renting it, and also you better be doing the writing and playing because if you have co writes and a band that money you gotta split you are lucky now to get a cup of coffee. Thing is it's only one of the art forms or entertainment whatever that this is acceptable. So I think it's more negative than positive some argue that at least they are getting something because years ago the music was just getting stolen, I don't buy that argument.

lastdecember said:

JayCrawford said:

lastdecember said:

I think streaming overall hurts artists, there are a few benefits because many new artists can link through social media and then hope their listeners will share or they will end up on a playlist sponsored etc....but the pennies they make that's one of the reasons they can on,y do singles especially if they are doing it all on their own, booking shows, promotion, it's tough I mean they really need hundreds of thousands of streams to even make anything, I mean I know many indie artists that I follow and 10k streams they are lucky to get a few hundred bucks if even, now if they were selling a single physical it's more or people were actually buying it not renting it, and also you better be doing the writing and playing because if you have co writes and a band that money you gotta split you are lucky now to get a cup of coffee. Thing is it's only one of the art forms or entertainment whatever that this is acceptable. So I think it's more negative than positive some argue that at least they are getting something because years ago the music was just getting stolen, I don't buy that argument.

Unfortunately my friend there are so many bullshit arguments younger folks like to make to defend modern music lol. I agree with your whole statement though

I also think as an artist like anything else you grow from the work but also those around you I think competition helps build these artists up more, look at any era and you will see how artists constantly releasing and challenging each other with something different.

lastdecember said:

Music now is in a different world than it was. collection, they have playlists and libraries stored and lets face it if Spotify went under or something like that most would have no music collections anymore and not even remember what they had.

There were a lot of people in the past who did not have a record/tape collection. Many just listened to the radio. That isn't much different from streaming other than with the radio, you heard what the DJ played. Streaming is kinda like a free jukebox, you pick what you want to hear and can listen to a specific song as much as you want. If a song doesn't become a radio hit, the station will probably drop it quickly. You don't have to listen to the songs on the radio that you don't like. There were also people who bought street tapes or copied a record from someone else onto a cassette. Later there were dual cassette decks to do the same with tapes.

MickyDolenz said:

lastdecember said:

Music now is in a different world than it was. collection, they have playlists and libraries stored and lets face it if Spotify went under or something like that most would have no music collections anymore and not even remember what they had.

There were a lot of people in the past who did not have a record/tape collection. Many just listened to the radio. That isn't much different from streaming other than with the radio, you heard what the DJ played. Streaming is kinda like a free jukebox, you pick what you want to hear and can listen to a specific song as much as you want. If a song doesn't become a radio hit, the station will probably drop it quickly. You don't have to listen to the songs on the radio that you don't like. There were also people who bought street tapes or copied a record from someone else onto a cassette. Later there were dual cassette decks to do the same with tapes.

Yeah, but unlike streaming I could record whatever I wanted off the radio on cassettes as a kid and then play them when I wanted since I couldn't afford to buy albums and could only to buy 45s for two for a dollar... Didn't discover used vinyl until I was older...

purplethunder3121 said:

purplethunder3121 said:

Yeah, but unlike streaming I could record whatever I wanted off the radio on cassettes as a kid and then play them when I wanted since I couldn't afford to buy albums and could only to buy 45s for two for a dollar... Didn't discover used vinyl until I was older...

I never heard of anyone taping off a jukebox.

MickyDolenz said:

purplethunder3121 said:

Yeah, but unlike streaming I could record whatever I wanted off the radio on cassettes as a kid and then play them when I wanted since I couldn't afford to buy albums and could only to buy 45s for two for a dollar... Didn't discover used vinyl until I was older...

I never heard of anyone taping off a jukebox.

What the heck does a jukebox have to do with anything we're talking about? I put plenty of change in jukeboxes thoughout the years...

purplethunder3121 said:

MickyDolenz said:

There were a lot of people in the past who did not have a record/tape collection. Many just listened to the radio. That isn't much different from streaming other than with the radio, you heard what the DJ played. Streaming is kinda like a free jukebox, you pick what you want to hear and can listen to a specific song as much as you want. If a song doesn't become a radio hit, the station will probably drop it quickly. You don't have to listen to the songs on the radio that you don't like. There were also people who bought street tapes or copied a record from someone else onto a cassette. Later there were dual cassette decks to do the same with tapes.

Yeah, but unlike streaming I could record whatever I wanted off the radio on cassettes as a kid and then play them when I wanted since I couldn't afford to buy albums and could only to buy 45s for two for a dollar... Didn't discover used vinyl until I was older...

yeah my older brother did this all the time and then I started trying to tape things off the radio always starting a second too late or the dj talking over something but that was how I collected till I started saving my allowance and buying 45s at first then albums and then on to cds etc...

purplethunder3121 said:

What the heck does a jukebox have to do with anything we're talking about? I put plenty of change in jukeboxes thoughout the years...

I said up above that streaming is like a free jukebox instead of a radio station where you're listening to what someone else (like a DJ) chooses to play.

JayCrawford said:

Cassettes were awful (unless you didn't have the money to buy records then sure it was convenient for recording stuff off the radio and playing it later).

Pre-recorded cassettes were the same price as the record. When CDs came out, they cost more than both. There was also reel-to-reel and 8-track tapes.

MickyDolenz said:

JayCrawford said:

Cassettes were awful (unless you didn't have the money to buy records then sure it was convenient for recording stuff off the radio and playing it later).

Pre-recorded cassettes were the same price as the record. When CDs came out, they cost more than both. There was also reel-to-reel and 8-track tapes.

They generally weren't. I know this because if it was an album by an artist that I was only into

for 2 to 3 songs off it I bought the cassette which was cheaper than buying the album which may have cost a dollar or 2 more.

A lot of cassettes I have I bought them because they were cheaper than the Vinyl LP.

[Edited 12/19/20 9:57am]

phunkdaddy said:

JayCrawford said:

phunkdaddy said:

They generally weren't. I know this because if it was an album by an artist that I was only into

for 2 to 3 songs off it I bought the cassette which was cheaper than buying the whole album.

A lot of cassettes I have I bought them because they were cheaper than the Vinyl LP.

Exactly

I remember when CD's took off in popularity around 1993 and 1994 Circuit City always sold

cassettes cheaper than CD's.

phunkdaddy said:

They generally weren't. I know this because if it was an album by an artist that I was only into

for 2 to 3 songs off it I bought the cassette which was cheaper than buying the album which may have cost a dollar or 2 more.

A lot of cassettes I have I bought them because they were cheaper than the Vinyl LP.

They were at the local stores where I live, whether it was a record store or a department store like K-Mart. The only tapes that were cheaper were street tapes sold at flea markets or store parking lots. They were pretty much bootlegs, not official.

MickyDolenz said:

phunkdaddy said:

They generally weren't. I know this because if it was an album by an artist that I was only into

for 2 to 3 songs off it I bought the cassette which was cheaper than buying the album which may have cost a dollar or 2 more.

A lot of cassettes I have I bought them because they were cheaper than the Vinyl LP.

They were at the local stores where I live, whether it was a record store or a department store like K-Mart. The only tapes that were cheaper were street tapes sold at flea markets or store parking lots. They were pretty much bootlegs, not official.

The prices between vinyl and cassettes got closer in the 80's especially, with some differences usually a dollar or maybe two. Funny thing was when albums got phased out, and cds took over the price of cds never swayed in fact it went up and cassettes rose to narrow the gap, but this was all because of the labels, they would charge the retail stores 12 dollars a cd so they couldnt sell it for 9 or 10 because you were losing two dollars a new cd and it added up. So the big retail for music like Tower and Sam Goody couldnt compete with the Wiz or then Best Buy selling below cost, and i always tell people that those places could lose 3 dollars a cd because they made it up on the tv sets and dvd players and vcrs and washing machines and all the other crap Best Buy would sell and make their margin, they were not in the MUSIC RETAIL business like Tower or Goody was.

lastdecember said:

The prices between vinyl and cassettes got closer in the 80's especially, with some differences usually a dollar or maybe two. Funny thing was when albums got phased out, and cds took over the price of cds never swayed in fact it went up and cassettes rose to narrow the gap, but this was all because of the labels, they would charge the retail stores 12 dollars a cd so they couldnt sell it for 9 or 10 because you were losing two dollars a new cd and it added up. So the big retail for music like Tower and Sam Goody couldnt compete with the Wiz or then Best Buy selling below cost, and i always tell people that those places could lose 3 dollars a cd because they made it up on the tv sets and dvd players and vcrs and washing machines and all the other crap Best Buy would sell and make their margin, they were not in the MUSIC RETAIL business like Tower or Goody was.

Prices varied depending on the store. The record store I usually bought albums at, all (single) albums were $5.99, LP or tape. But there was a mom and pop record store down the street I could walk to and didn't have to wait for my mom to go somewhere and take me. The same album would be $8.97 or $9.97. The 45s were cheaper at the first store too, but not by much, maybe 30 cents. The neighborhood record store mostly had black artists and R&B, blues, gospel, rap, some comedy like Eddie Murphy/Richard Pryor and very little else though. Then at Mongomery Wards an album would be $13.99. Those record club albums were expensive too. You had to buy a certain amount and if you didn't send in the form on time to cancel it, they would automatically send you the "selection of the month". If you didn't want it, you had to pay to send it back.

MickyDolenz said:

lastdecember said:

The prices between vinyl and cassettes got closer in the 80's especially, with some differences usually a dollar or maybe two. Funny thing was when albums got phased out, and cds took over the price of cds never swayed in fact it went up and cassettes rose to narrow the gap, but this was all because of the labels, they would charge the retail stores 12 dollars a cd so they couldnt sell it for 9 or 10 because you were losing two dollars a new cd and it added up. So the big retail for music like Tower and Sam Goody couldnt compete with the Wiz or then Best Buy selling below cost, and i always tell people that those places could lose 3 dollars a cd because they made it up on the tv sets and dvd players and vcrs and washing machines and all the other crap Best Buy would sell and make their margin, they were not in the MUSIC RETAIL business like Tower or Goody was.

Prices varied depending on the store. The record store I usually bought albums at, all (single) albums were $5.99, LP or tape. But there was a mom and pop record store down the street I could walk to and didn't have to wait for my mom to go somewhere and take me. The same album would be $8.97 or $9.97. The 45s were cheaper at the first store too, but not by much, maybe 30 cents. The neighborhood record store mostly had black artists and R&B, blues, gospel, rap, some comedy like Eddie Murphy/Richard Pryor and very little else though. Then at Mongomery Wards an album would be $13.99. Those record club albums were expensive too. You had to buy a certain amount and if you didn't send in the form on time to cancel it, they would automatically send you the "selection of the month". If you didn't want it, you had to pay to send it back.

What? You didn't rip off Columbia House like all the other kids?

purplethunder3121 said:

What? You didn't rip off Columbia House like all the other kids?

Nah, I was raised in the church and a lot of my older relatives were church people. That's who I was around. I never even thought about doing such a thing.

MickyDolenz said:

alphastreet said:

Was also raised on religion but not kept from music. Used to order from Columbia house as well when I was a teenager

I could listen to regular music. My parents weren't strict like that. I did have some relatives of my grandparents generation who did not want secular music played in their home. Like you couldn't watch American Banstand or Soul Train there. They only listened to and/or sang gospel & spirituals. They called any secular music the blues, no matter what it actually was. If it was a thunderstorm, you had to cut everything off at their house. They would say you're not supposed to be doing anything while the Lord was doing his work.

MickyDolenz said:

alphastreet said:

MickyDolenz said:

I could listen to regular music. My parents weren't strict like that. I did have some relatives of my grandparents generation who did not want secular music played in their home. Like you couldn't watch American Banstand or Soul Train there. They only listened to and/or sang gospel & spirituals. They called any secular music the blues, no matter what it actually was. If it was a thunderstorm, you had to cut everything off at their house. They would say you're not supposed to be doing anything while the Lord was doing his work.

That sounds extreme, the most I remember was my grandma telling me I get excited over celebrities more than God and that made me feel insecure cause I like to think of myself as spiritual

My Dad was strict and religious but he didn't stop us from listening to the music we wanted. I don't think he paid much attention... He even got my sister and I eight-track players one Christmas. That was right before they stopped making them.

purplethunder3121 said: