Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ryan Leigh Patterson]

Well, I've been mulling over this idea for sometime....and I've got a few ideas, but I'd love to hear the opinions and experiences of the more experienced and seasoned cats on this forum.  Here is my take on the situation, before the wiser of the bunch step in to clear things up.

With every second kid on the block in a band of some sort, every third kid with a ProToolsCuBaseDPReason system in their basement and everyone in the world as a songwriter/singer...what value does music have in todays society?  Sure, great music is fantastic, but with so much of it, how does it maintain any sort of value.  Bob O said in another thread that "how much value does something almost any kid can make in his bedroom have".  I agree....and this effects the role that we, as engineers and producers play.  More and more artists are learning the gear and learning the recording process (this is great most of the time, but can be a real pain) and now quite a few choose to go it alone when they make a record... once again, our role?  are engineers (along with 2 inch tape, plate reverb, singers that sing int tune and real studios) going the way of the Dodo Bird?  

Just to add a bit of bite to my post, I'll also bring in the role of video games in todays entertainment market....they are big, and probably more important to most kids than music is.... a big change from days of yore..... no values judgments here, lets talk reason.  No "video games are evil"  "kids today are so stupid"  etc...

Survey says!!

[Bob Olhsson]

Photography has been the most popular hobby forever yet there's still plenty of work for professional photographers!

Music recordings aren't very competitive with other forms of entertainment today. This is almost entirely, in my opinion, a question of quality. The success of Harry Potter proves that. Who would have expected a novel to capture a generation's imagination? Many said exactly this about the Beatles back in the '60s.

So what will it take? Very probably something more compelling both musically and sonically than most of what has been done over the past 40 years.

The biggest difference I see between now and the time of the Beatles is the quantity of truly excellent local live music available. Performance has always been a major component of successful music. It has also been the standard of experience that recordings have been judged by. When more people start performing, their fans will begin wanting recordings that capture the excitement and drama of their performances. At that point we will have come full circle with music returning to being more than just a fashion statement.

[howlback]

What value does a Chef have to society?  Everyone can cook at home, but it ain't going to taste as good (at least at my house).

Bob Olhsson wrote on Tue, 30 August 2005 23:52

Many said exactly this about the Beatles back in the '60s.

Hey Bob, I love the Beatles as much as anybody.  But their initial success had less to do with the quality and imagination of their records than other socioeconomic factors.  The Beatles of generation-X is certainly Nirvana or Radiohead but their social impact is less. Why?  Because the boomers didn't buy their records en-masse.  There is just no way "the industry" (whatever that is) will ever have another Beatlemania.  Not until after WWIII anyway.  If GWB keeps it up I might still have a chance of cashing in!

Bob Olhsson wrote on Tue, 30 August 2005 23:52

Music recordings aren't very competitive with other forms of entertainment today.

Certainly this is a problem with the current generation-y market (the screenagers that now have piles of disposable income).  They want multimodal entertainment, they want to download it, and they want it to be free.

[Bob Olhsson]

howlback wrote on Wed, 31 August 2005 01:26

...The Beatles of generation-X is certainly Nirvana or Radiohead but their social impact is less. Why?...

They weren't nearly as "off the beaten path" and outside of the mainstream as the Beatles were. I don't think most younger people comprehend how big the Beatles actually were and how their immense popularity expanded the palate of what one could do with a pop record, a concert, print media and radio. I'm not talking from being a fan, I'm talking about their impact from the standpoint of those of us who were competing with them for airplay and sales.

In many ways I think the music industry has been coasting along on the Beatles's coat tails since that time and it's not just a small part of our current problems.

[CCC]

Bob Olhsson wrote on Wed, 31 August 2005 14:30

howlback wrote on Wed, 31 August 2005 01:26 ...The Beatles of generation-X is certainly Nirvana or Radiohead but their social impact is less. Why?... They weren't nearly as "off the beaten path" and outside of the mainstream as the Beatles were. I don't think most younger people comprehend how big the Beatles actually were and how their immense popularity expanded the palate of what one could do with a pop record, a concert, print media and radio. I'm not talking from being a fan, I'm talking about their impact from the standpoint of those of us who were competing with them for airplay and sales. In many ways I think the music industry has been coasting along on the Beatles's coat tails since that time and it's not just a small part of our current problems.

No disrespect to anybody's opinions - but early Beatles is pretty straight ahead. I respectfully suggest that the Beatles rose to fame on really great, but really simple, innocuous, pop tunes. The revolutionary recordings that bent the shape of popular music and production came after fame and fortune, and was in fact facilitated/enabled by that early success. Arguably some of the more interesting modern rock artists followed a similar path of growth - but without the same depth and breadth of fan base. Radiohead circa "Creep" is far more straight-ahead than Radiohead circa "Hail to the Thief"...just as Beatles circa "Please Please Me" is far more straight ahead than Beatles circa "Revolution #9".  

I therefore agree with Senor Howlback - the impact of demographics in 60s counter-culture and pop art shouldn't be underestimated. The enormous popularity of Beatles/Stones et al did not hinge on their innovativeness, since they were really not at all innovative in the early stages of their careers. Really cool, but not groundbreaking. The enormous popularity, impossible to equal today, was predicated on an enormous youth market. Again, as Senor astutely and wryly points out, there's nothing like a good war to get the economy back on track. Now if they could do something about the price of gas, that'd be happenin'.

[Bob Olhsson]

The Beatles' rise to fame was the result of an utterly revolutionary approach to marketing music as high fashion.

This came completely from out of left field due to Brian Epstein's connections within the fashion industry and his utter lack of connections in the music industry.

[Eric Bridenbaker]

WRT: Revolutionary Music,

Just wondering which comes first here, the chicken or the egg. It's true that the art and music of a certain time and place certainly reflects the culture, and vice versa.

When we talk about the innovation in thought that came out of the sixties, I'm left to wonder if the fact that thinking went "revolutionary" had a lot more to do with kids getting drafted and killed for a reason they could not understand or justify.

Perhaps this is part what it takes to make impactful revolutionary art, creators immersed in that mindset, and a receptive climate.

The vast majority of the popular music I hear coming out today, to me, says one thing: Safe. That goes for a lot of productions as well, just you know, safe....IMHO anyway.  Maybe we need to feel that way given the accelerated pace of change, and the myriad of disaters, natural and human created that fill the headlines with seemingly increasing urgency.

Cheers,
Eric

[Lord Alvin]

Back to the original topic, I believe that audio engineering is largely misunderstood these days.  Everyone says that they are an engineer now.  The term has become almost useless because it is being applied to anyone who owns a mic and a computer.

It used to be that I could count on lots of demo work to sustain me.  The competition for this kind of work has gotten so thick that it has completely lost its value.  To make matters even more complex, some of these guys who are doing this work for cheap or free in their bedrooms are really doing a nice job.  For myself, I have chosen to focus only on the kind of work that requires a professional with broad studio engineering experience to pull it off.  That kind of work is harder to find, but I find it more satisfying.

So how does an engineer/producer fit into today's industry?  I think the answer is the same as it has always been.  It has never been an easy industry to break into.  Those who are really talented and driven will tend to be successful.  Some will succeed based on dumb luck.  Others who should succeed will fail to find themselves in the right place at the right time.

Craig Alvin
Freelance Recording Engineer
Portland, OR

[Gary Flanigan]

No disrepect intended, but were you around before and when the Beatles first broke in the US?  Their early songs/recordings were exciting and a breath of fresh air compared to the pap that was on the airwaves.  While folks can say that there was a lot of great jazz and blues going down, most folks (me included) didn't hear about Howlin Wolf and Muddy Waters until Mick and Keith pointed them out.

The excitement of Elvis, Chuck, Little Richard, et al. had settled down by the early sixties, and the majors had managed to sell Pat Boone singing "Tutti Fruiti".  

The early Beatles stuff, while not as complicated as their more experimental efforts later on, had great vocals and arrangements and most importantly had performers who loved what they were doing and were excited about it.  That excitement came across.

[Bob Olhsson]

Eric Bridenbaker wrote on Wed, 31 August 2005 10:24

...The vast majority of the popular music I hear coming out today, to me, says one thing: Safe...

I totally agree although I don't buy that the "'60s revolution" was anything more than an an appealing fantasy driven by massive amounts of hype.

Still most great popular music WAS controversial. Some people loved each record as much as others hated it. That doesn't fly today because the DJs have been canned and focus groups are programming music radio.

[howlback]

Bob and Gary,

We are engaging in a classic Boomer-Generation X argument.  

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X

"Some have suggested that Generation Xers are proud not to be from the baby boom generation and actively rebel against the idealism the baby boomers advocated in the 1960s. Some would also argue that it is not merely the idealism of the 1960s that Generation Xers reject, but a deeper cynicism of the fact that such "idealism", inevitably doomed in its gratuitous na

[eightyeightkeys]

Quote:

The biggest difference I see between now and the time of the Beatles is the quantity of truly excellent local live music available. Performance has always been a major component of successful music. It has also been the standard of experience that recordings have been judged by. When more people start performing, their fans will begin wanting recordings that capture the excitement and drama of their performances. At that point we will have come full circle with music returning to being more than just a fashion statement.

Maybe this relates in some way. At least it points a dissapointing trend in our culture....

At one point in time last year, I was trying to figure out how to get my students more excited about music. So I did a mini survey to find out what they're listening to.

Well, I was shocked to find out that only one of my students have ever attended a live concert of any kind (not counting recitals, of course). Not even the teenagers or college age students.

A couple of the students don't listen to music.....hardly at all....not even a clock radio in the morning.... and could not name a favourite artist or a favourite piece of music. C'mon ! It's the MTV/Much Music generation isn't it ?

Video games ? Oh yeah. Plenty came pouring out. Movies ? Hell, yeah. Favourite T.V. show ? Nooo problemo.  So, for a few kids, I started lifting themes from favourite T.V. shows....even from video games.... to try and get them excited about music.

Also, some students come in every week with tunes freshly downloaded from where-ever.com on the net, in spite of my lectures, and will ask outright if they can have a copy of my so-and-so CD !!! without even a wry smile. They are used to getting music fer free

It's definitely a new culture.

[Bob Olhsson]

All we need is one musical artist who captures most people's imagination.  Ella Fitzgerald and Elvis Presley were probably the only artists who redefined pop music in a comparable way to what the Beatles did. The first two did it with performance while the Beatles did it with a combination of wit and fashion hype.

The important thing to understand that whoever pulls this off WILL change everything once again. It won't be another Beatlemania and will probably have very little to do with fashion. I totally agree that "the industry" is way too hung up on how the Beatles defined people's relationship with music as being about fashion.

[wireline]

Bob Olhsson wrote on Wed, 31 August 2005 17:45

All we need is one musical artist who captures most people's imagination.  Ella Fitzgerald and Elvis Presley were probably the only artists who redefined pop music in a comparable way to what the Beatles did. The first two did it with performance while the Beatles did it with a combination of wit and fashion hype. The important thing to understand that whoever pulls this off WILL change everything once again. It won't be another Beatlemania and will probably have very little to do with fashion. I totally agree that "the industry" is way too hung up on how the Beatles defined people's relationship with music as being about fashion.

I would love to see this, but I think the music buying markets (or those that control the industry) have convoluted the masses by building 12 mile high concrete walls between genres....(or so it seems to me)

Remember, the Beatles did a Buck Owens number or two...doing it in their own style, but still honoring the original intent of the songs...Imagine some punk rapper doing a George Jones number in today's market...or for that matter George Jones doing a rap...

As much as I would love to see someone that could truly appeal to everyone, I am not so sure it will happen...too many people stand to lose too much money if that were to occur, and lets face it: the divisions between musical genres, although narrowing, are still too wide to be bridged by any one person or group....or perhaps the world isn't motivated to embrace a culture changing genre bridging musical form...and that is sad

(Just an opinion...)

[Ryan Leigh Patterson]

That's exactly it!!  George Jone rapping.  Think of one of the biggest CDs in the last few years ... Johhny Cash doing cross genre covers.  All sorts of people bought it.  Why, it was real, it was good and it was universal.  

I'll date myself here and say that when I was in grade 10, there was a fairly massive paradigm shift in pop music, the year was 1991.  Of the records that came out that year that were major, how many are still good today (lots), try and say that about 2003!!  Lets name the records,

1. RHCP Blood Sugar Sex Majik (the senoir record of my Chillis life, still great today)
2. Metallica Black (the end of my Metallica days)
3. Nirvana Nevermind (yeh, i bought it...)
4. Public Enemy Fear of a Black Planet (i think?? correct me if I'm way out)
5. Soundgarden, Badmotofinger (much improved from their previous stuff)
6. Pearl Jam 10 (hmmm, not as good as I like to remeber)
8. Primus, Sailing the Seas of Cheese (so much fun!!)

I'm sure I've forgotten a million others, but you get my point...which is, all of a sudden, all the great bands that were fairly midrange artists, for quite a while I might add, as many of them had been at it for almost 10 years at this point, got noticed my the maturing New Kids on the Block crowd, and many,  having been burnt by Milli Vanilli, demanded something a little more authentic.  So all of the great music that us "underground" listeners had been enjoying suddenly became hip.  Thats about the time I discovered good jazz and old funk....and bad 70s fusion (oops)...  Most everyone had a few of these records.  I can not recall a time like since.  I guess it's due...who it be this time??