These are the words I uttered to my friend as I spontaneously followed her away from class during a break. I didn't go back. If I had any more than two and a half weeks left, I don't know how I'd be able to handle it.
The class is music management. It's a music industry class, obviously. Many of you may not be aware, but it has been almost exactly one year since I left the music industry program in favor of a marketing degree with a music industry concentration. I had many reasons for making this decision. A lot of it had to do with the fact that I didn't really feel as though I was learning anything. I was incredibly frustrated and mostly very bored. It's not that I'm not interested in the music industry; it's that my experiences in the music industry are so wildly different from others in the program that I don't feel as though I'm hearing anything new at all. The other reason is the other students in the program. I'm just sick of the name-dropping and constant posturing. It's ridiculous. They're music snobs, really. And they have very little respect for the industry itself, which also bothers me.
At any rate, I made a post in another thread about a guy who came to speak to us who said that the portability of music was devaluing it and making it more disposable. Well, today in class, the professor asked us what we thought of the speaker and what had stuck out to us about what he said. After squirming in my seat for a while, I finally brought that up. Everyone else in the class seemed to think that he was totally in the right.
I said that I thought that making music more portable made it a much more integral part of people's lives. It makes it less of a frivolous luxury purchase. Those weren't the words I used, though; the rest of the class is made up of music industry majors, and I'm sort of the black sheep BBA student.
Some kid started spouting off something about how if you listen to music while you do other things, you're just being a consumer, you download a song and don't listen to it or listen to it once and never pay attention to it again, and if you listen to music while you're not just sitting there listening to music, you're not fully appreciating the music as an art, and so forth. He then said something along the lines of, "When I listen to music, I sit at home in my room every night and really pay attention to it."
I said, "Well, when I listen to music the most is when I'm doing something else, like jogging or walking somewhere. And quite honestly, I don't think it decreases my quality of listening at all. I pay a lot of attention to the music; I think it helps me to be doing something else at the same time."
Cue "You don't do that. You're just SAYING that." And other such comments. And everyone else AGREED with him.
What a prick. It's people like that who make me despise the program itself. How DARE you tell me what I do inside my own head? How DARE you take this smug, superior attitude to the entire rest of the world simply because YOU liked such-and-such band "before they sold out." It's bullshit. And the fact is, I think I have much better insights into the minds of consumers than anyone else in that class, and part of the reason behind it is that I don't feel the need to prove anything. I just like music. Period. And I think it's stupid to make derisive comments or judgments about people based on their musical tastes.
Maybe I just have a broader taste in music than the rest of the people who were a part of the program. I really, honestly, will listen to pretty much anything. I feel like every kind of music has its place in my life. Maybe it's because I'm used to matching music with listeners. Maybe it's because I've personally seen how happy it can make some kids when some guy from Simple Plan or whatever smiles at them. I just can't help feeling like my classmates missing something.
This kind of thing goes on a lot. The fact that the class is almost over just gets me more riled up because I've dealt with this kind of mockery for three years, and now I'm about to be done with it, and I feel like I should speak my mind. I know there are at least a handful of other kids who feel the same way; we usually make good friends. It's just terribly frustrating. It's like I'm still in high school; I've gone out of my way to make sure that very few of these students know about my past experience or what I'm planning to work on next. They seem to think that I was into business before I was into music. The truth is, I've been playing instruments since I was two years old, and I can probably play more instruments than seventy percent of that class. But the truth is, I don't really want to prove my worth to them. I just want to say what I've been wanting to say for three years: get off your damn high horses, wake up, and take a look around you.
At any rate, in my mind, that sort of thing is going to remain a problem in the music industry. We've got closed-minded people controlling it now, and we'll have closed-minded people controlling it in the future. For some reason, people have this very difficult time combining both music and business. They seem to pick one and focus almost entirely on that single element, and that's a real problem.
Anyway. A non-copyright-infringement-oriented music industry thread. Enjoy.
-pH
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
In my opinion, someone who truly loves music makes it a part of their life and does not stop living just to listen to music. But sometimes does that, too.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:We've got closed-minded people controlling it now, and we'll have closed-minded people controlling it in the future. For some reason, people have this very difficult time combining both music and business. They seem to pick one and focus almost entirely on that single element, and that's a real problem.
Then it's a good thing we've got people like you in there as well, pH. Once you get out there, make yourself heard!
Posted by whiskysunrise (Member # 6819) on :
I listen to music when I have things to do. It helps me get things done. If I had to just sit and listen to it my mind would wander and I wouldn't get anything out of the music.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Music snobs suck. Why can't I like the music that appeals to me, even if Professor Know-it-all says the arrangement is elementary? It's pleasing, and I like it, and I'll continue to listen to and enjoy any band that meets that standard for as long as they meet that standard.
Posted by Friday (Member # 8998) on :
Do people like that kid really run the music industry? If so, that would go a long way towards explaining the RIAA's misguided (IMO) policies...
Personaly, I listen to music in a variety of ways. Often it's just in the background, like when I'm working on homework or reading or on the computer. Other times I'll plug my guitar in and play along, and on some occasions I'll turn it up and just rock out (particularly when driving home late at night).
Basicaly, not to rip on that guy in your class too much, but he deffinately seems out of touch with the role music plays in my life, and this seems like a poor trait for a potential future music industry leader.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: In my opinion, someone who truly loves music makes it a part of their life and does not stop living just to listen to music. But sometimes does that, too.
Well if you want music to be your life that's ok too isn't it? Only yah, then you really have to want it bad.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I listen to music when I drive. I listen to music when I clean house. I am a bad person. From now on, I will light a meditation candle in front of my CD player, dim the lights and listen to Bach with pure concentration. I will put on talk radio if I am unable to devote full attention to the music.
Forgive me? Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Music snobs suck. Why can't I like the music that appeals to me, even if Professor Know-it-all says the arrangement is elementary? It's pleasing, and I like it, and I'll continue to listen to and enjoy any band that meets that standard for as long as they meet that standard.
Well your responding to someone who has shown you a lack of understanding or patience. I consider myself a conscientious music snob. I pay attention to the music, and to the people who don't. Thing is this professor really does hear something different in the music you listen to, and if you had gone through a similar process as him, you'd likely feel the same way.
Not that this is a mandatory part of everyone's life, some people don't need or want that kind of depth in their study of music, but the fact is that most popular music is just not as complex or "academically" challenging as the stuff he or she is probably listening to. I have personal value judgements about pop music, but those are irrelevent to that part of the discussion, there can be no argument about the level of technical complexity. Obviously the prof. is more impressed and concerned with complexity, and this is because he/she has made it his life to understand music in depth.
You probably felt snubbed by the prof, and since you didn't like the attitude that came with the sentiment, you ignored him as a know it all, and rightly so I think. Not all classic/romantic/modern music efficianados are like that, in fact most aren't, but your likely only to hear from or meet the ones that look down on you. It's naturally really, academics and composers comprise a sub-culture of people who do nothing but talk about musical forms, composition, history, technique, etc, so the level at which they feel comfortable operating is different. When they are forced to contend with the average person's concepts of what is important, they often forget themselves.
I sit in class all day and talk about polymodality, pitch class set, and other obscure topics in musicology and theory, and if I started trying to get you interested in these topics (which are of no interest to anyone not interested in writing modern music in a very specific genre), you would likely think me a snob for thinking what I was saying was somehow vital or important. Because it would only be vital and important to me, not the people I wanted to project my desires onto.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I can relate, pH. Reminds me of sitting in an intense painting class and trying to explain to someone that I'm interested in comic art and animation.
Still though, for every person that got pretentious about it with me, there was another who would reply, "Really? I love Cowboy Bebop," or, "Have you read The Watchmen?" Which made it okay for me.
It must be utterly frustrating to be in that kind of situation where people are arrogantly offering up personal preferences as the absolute good. Especially without a solidly sane portion to take the edge off.
Look on the bright side though. Either this guy will end up in some hipster band that plays maybe a gig a week between his Burger King shifts, or he'll wise up to the fact that just because he has an extremely narrow focus doesn't make it true ofr everyone.
If you have to, to stay sane in future classes, imagine the look of perfect, sweating, eye-bulging, INTENSE concentration we'll say he makes while he listens to music.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
hehe.
I offer my perspective on this, (it being my only one, ), which is related in an anecdote:
I went out with a nice girl, a freshman (bit too young for me anyway) who is in theatre/drama and such. We hit it off pretty well, went to the movies, dinner, snuggling in front of the TV, sleep-over( I was a perfect gentleman though, honestly ), etc.
Anyway maybe the 4th or 5th time we saw each other, we were with some other people having a beer, and the topic of music comes up and someone asks what I'm into. I'm a classical musician, and she says, oh Lloyd (that's me orin), he's into "CLASSICAL" music. She said it like I don't know what, like it was the kiss of social death. In that moment I felt so old. I was pops orincoro and she was humoring my "classical" tendencies like I was some kind of red-wine sniffing, cheese nibling wanna-be intellectual F-tard. That's how I felt anyway. And after that I felt a little bit sour towards the whole thing, and she sensed it and unfortunately the whole thing petered out pretty quickly.
I don't know if that was the reason, but I do know that I couldn't have gone on with that over my head, I couldn't feel like a real person around her, since she didn't get me at all. That's how I feel alot of the time when I talk to non-musicians now, the culture insulates you, because people that don't do classical music don't get it, and the people that do are very ambitious and competitive. The result is that I have friends contsantly grow and discover new facets of the music world, and we leave the rest of society behind. We're very happy as a group doing this, but solo the difference becomes clear. Our lives are so centered around music that people hold up as this sort of freakish thing that they don't understand or think they can't understand, or think is trivial and specialized to absurdity. The result is that I walk around loathing the music I hear at the gym, in a cafe, at the mall, in an old friend's car, because my tastes are so wildly different from the mainstream.
I also sometimes don't understand how there can be this thing that is so powerful, so rich and full that the majority of people have abandoned because they don't want to think too hard. Or they say that it doesn't apply to them, or its boring, or its music for sleeping and elevators. I suppose no-one is required to like classical music, but being a person who loves it, I have a hard time relating to people who don't think much of it, and they have a hard time taking me seriously.
You can just go ahead and laugh at people like me, because it is kind of funny. But I'll always listen and try to understand what it is about J-Z that makes him the best thing since, whomever was the best thing before him.
On a related note, I started mentoring a local teen band about 6 months ago. They are the hard-core punk metal variety of 13 year-old suburban white kids from central California. We've worked alot on presentation, less on music, and they've gotten alot better, IMO, at listening to eachother and having some dynamic qualities to their music. It still sucks pretty much, but its sounding better every month. I'd like to think this is owing something to my ear for chamber music, that my experience can still be relevant to a bunch of kids who asked me if I knew how to play "Pachelbell's Canon...by Mozart" Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
pH,
quote:At any rate, I made a post in another thread about a guy who came to speak to us who said that the portability of music was devaluing it and making it more disposable
The attitude that you spoke of seems to me to be a product of cultural theorists such as Benjamin and Adorno. They both argue that the ability to reproduce and digitize music distorts its essence and makes its (and eventually our) reality distorted. In addition, Benjamin (I think) wrote a well-known essay about how the constant interplay of music in our daily lives alters our responses to it and thus is less authentically experienced.
In university circles, these guys are pretty well-known as part of the postmodern/modern pantheon of authors to read and quote. As those sorts of thinkers seem to be all the rage on college campuses these days, it is no surprise that people will try to subscribe to their ideas and twist their writings for their own arguments, even in a field as seemingly practical as music industry.
Sorry you have to deal with it! I know first-hand how annoying that attitude can be.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Thing is this professor really does hear something different in the music you listen to, and if you had gone through a similar process as him, you'd likely feel the same way.
I absolutely agree with this. My point is that just because you, for instance, hear things in music that I don't doesn't make the way I listen to music wrong. In other words, don't expect everyone to have as sophisticated tastes in music as you do, and we're fine. You can hate my music, but don't look down on me for liking it. (I'm addressing this post to Orincoro, but he hasn't been a music snob to me, so I'm not putting him in the same category as the guy in pH's class).
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Orinoco, my problem is that these people (not the professor as much, but the other students) seem to believe that I know nothing about music whatsoever. I've had years of musical training. I started ear training at a very young age, and as a result, when I got to high school, I was taught to tune other instruments for concert band and pipe and drum corps (because yes, you can indeed tune bagpipes, and they're much more beautiful when you do). I am perfectly capable of responding to music on both technical and emotional levels.
The fact is, most of the students in this class don't know all that much about music as...MUSIC. They don't know much about classical. They play guitar, and they can tell you how to play random "good" classic rock songs. This particular guy thinks he's hot shit because he's into the recording and engineering side. I'm not. Because I'm a business student, I don't have to take the tech classes. I'm used to the language because I've worked in a recording studio, but when it comes to describing recording, I definitely use what this professor refers to as "manager speak," which means I say things like, "It just sounds too...flat. Make it less flat." I have been informed that when I say something sounds too flat or lacks *insert wavey hands* richness, what it really means is that there's too much compression.
On top of that, the grand majority of people who listen to music don't know anything about its technicalities. So we should...what? Turn up our noses to them and deny them the music they love? It's ridiculous.
There are a handful of bands that just absolutely grab me, and they have a common thread amongst them despite the fact that they're in different genres. But I haven't been able to put the similarity into words. It's the way the song "feels," which to me, is made up of a number of different factors. But if they're there, they'll grab me no matter what I'm doing when I hear them. One of them I actually first heard when I was rushing to Best Buy to make some frivolous purchase. They were being played on some radio station, when the radio didn't yet completely suck, that was usually pretty good about playing new music from less popular bands. Within fifteen seconds, I was hooked. And even worse, I turned on the radio RIGHT AFTER they announced the name of the group, so I lived in excruciating agony until I could find out who they were.
-pH
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm such a music snob that I look down my nose at music snobs. How's that for snobbery? Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kristen: The attitude that you spoke of seems to me to be a product of cultural theorists such as Benjamin and Adorno. They both argue that the ability to reproduce and digitize music distorts its essence and makes its (and eventually our) reality distorted. In addition, Benjamin (I think) wrote a well-known essay about how the constant interplay of music in our daily lives alters our responses to it and thus is less authentically experienced.
In university circles, these guys are pretty well-known as part of the postmodern/modern pantheon of authors to read and quote. As those sorts of thinkers seem to be all the rage on college campuses these days, it is no surprise that people will try to subscribe to their ideas and twist their writings for their own arguments, even in a field as seemingly practical as music industry.
Music often acts as a filter through which we view our reality, anyway! Especially if you're totally obsessed with it. People in general respond to it because it makes them feel something. Period.
I don't know; I have been informed by the professor that I am a statistical anomaly in that I will go to concerts of people I don't know just because I want to go to a concert, and I think subscription music services are so the best, and so forth. It's possible that my response to music is wildly different from that of the general public, but I'm inclined to believe that the only difference, really, is the depth and intensity of the emotional response.
-pH
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I'm such a music snob that I look down my nose at music snobs. How's that for snobbery?
But do you restrict your worship of music to the sacred altar of your home? For it is blasphemous to enjoy the musical arts if you are not sitting absolutely motionless alone in an empty room in the dark. Sinners! Sinners, all of you!
-pH
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm not a music major or a skilled musician or anything, but this statement
quote: the portability of music was devaluing it and making it more disposable.
is not necessarily one I disagree with. When I took music appreciation in college last year (that fine art requirement in the core curriculum, you know) I was the only student there who had ever heard a live symphony before our mandatory concert attendance.
Do digital files really replace the beauty of hearing live music? I don't think so. And I think as we move further and further into the "digital age" or whatever, we become accustomed to things that are really poor substitutes for the real thing.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I guess my frustrations business- and education-wise are complicated by the fact that I really, really want school to be something more than going to class and coming home, but for some reason, when it comes to interacting with people who are actually in classes with me, it's barely an improvement from high school. I mean, come on. Aren't we supposed to be past this nonsense by now?
My freshman and softmore years in college, I had a few acquaintances that I knew from other classes, but for the most part I had no real friends there. I worked thirty hours a week doing carpentry/construction, and so right after class I got in my car and drove to my job, eating some sort of breakfast bar on the way.
It wasn't until I joined a research grant on campus that I made some actual "friends". This came naturally for me, even though I find it hard to go from acquaintance to friend, since we spent several hours a day interacting in our office.
If there's nothing similar to this which you can do at your college, I would suggest joining some sort of club. Something that meets often, and isn't all that serious. I never joined any clubs at my college, but I wish I had, because I think I would have made a lot more friends that way.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Xavier, I'm leaving undergrad in...thirteen weeks. And I don't think they offer clubs for the ten-week semester.
But I AM getting involved in some cool stuff that will probably lead to my meeting people. Just not people from my school.
I'm looking into working at Jazzfest, and I've also been asked to help organize both a national disaster relief tour and a national underground hip-hop tour. Do I know anything about the hip-hop scene? Not really. It'll be an adventure. And pretty much what the company said to me was, "You seem to have a knack for music things. We'll show you what we're doing and what we have in mind, and you can just do whatever you want that you think will help."
-pH
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
I also sometimes don't understand how there can be this thing that is so powerful, so rich and full that the majority of people have abandoned because they don't want to think too hard.
While I commend you for your efforts at self-improvement, I must assure you that music is, was, and always SHOULD be, an EMOTIONAL, FEELING experience.
Very much like sex, if you're thinking about it, you're doing it wrong.
Edit: I am speaking purely from a consumer's point of view. Of course, a creator must think about it. But if she thinks TOO MUCH, the music will suck. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
The lineup at Jazzfest rocks this year, and working it's a lot of fun. Lemme know if you need help with that.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
In my view, sophisticated tastes are good insofar as they help you enjoy more "sophisticated" music but bad insofar as they prevent you from enjoying less "sophisticated" music. I do think it's possible to have the former without the latter, too.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
See Orincoro I enjoy classical music. Well, to be honest I enjoy most types of music, but I guess you can say I like classical music the best. I don't know anything about it, though. I have a vague understanding that there was a baroque period and a classical period and a romantic period, and I think that they occurred in that order, but that's about the extent of my knowledge. I can't really talk to anyone about classical music though, because either people think it's the most boring thing in the world, or they know everything about it and they can't understand that I just like it. Classical music majors tend to treat me like I'm desecrating the music when I say that I liked "the fast section" or that I found some famous piece boring, but have no idea why. So as a a result, I stay away from classical music majors, because I can't just discuss my love for the music with them, I have to discuss all of the technicalities, and I have no interest in doing that.
Posted by xnera (Member # 187) on :
quote: Do digital files really replace the beauty of hearing live music? I don't think so. And I think as we move further and further into the "digital age" or whatever, we become accustomed to things that are really poor substitutes for the real thing.
Perhaps... but in some ways, popular culture is bringing people TO live music. The last two symphonies I attended were pop-culture ones--Lord of the Rings and Final Fantasy. LOTR was really good (though I got sleepy during it; we were very high up, and it was hot and stuffy). Final Fantasy was AMAZING. Absolutely amazing. I would go see it again in a heartbeat. And there's other "pop culture" stuff I'd love to see played live. The Battlestar Galactica soundtrack comes to mind.
pH, your first post in this thread just made me smile like crazy. I'm so glad someone like you is getting into the music business. It needs more people like you. You go, girl.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
I think your professor and that kid are both tools.
Academia is filled with them. That's where tools go to hobnob with other tools and impress themselves with how much more they understand Subject X than the hoi polloi could ever hope to.
Eventually you'll get out into the private sector, where the general public's opinion matters quite a bit, and your understanding of them will be valued instead of mocked.
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
I would assume the vast majority of people listen to music while doing anything but sitting in clam meditation. I listen to music all day at work, (I-tunes or pandora.com), in my car, pretty much anytime but when I am reading or watching TV. There are times when it's background noise and then there are times when I give it much more attention. I don't think it diminishes my listening experience.
I think the Music industry has/is missing the boat on the whole digital age. They are struggling to keep up with how people are acquiring and listening to music. It will be interesting to see how some of the new bands/musicians find ways to use this digital age to get heard. We seem to be at a major turning point. Long gone are the days where a record exc sees you in a bar one day and makes you a superstar the next. But on the other hand it has never been easier for artist to record and distribute their music. I hope the easy availability of music (free, paid for or pirated) will lead to more musicians making a living off of performing live. My thinking is along the lines, It’s OK if some of the recorded stuff is given away, or stolen as long as you go to up for the shows. Of course that means you have to be able to put on a good show.
I would be interested in how you guys see the Music Industry going, especially you pH since you are “in” the industry.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by SC Carver: I think the Music industry has/is missing the boat on the whole digital age. They are struggling to keep up with how people are acquiring and listening to music. It will be interesting to see how some of the new bands/musicians find ways to use this digital age to get heard. We seem to be at a major turning point. Long gone are the days where a record exc sees you in a bar one day and makes you a superstar the next. But on the other hand it has never been easier for artist to record and distribute their music. I hope the easy availability of music (free, paid for or pirated) will lead to more musicians making a living off of performing live. My thinking is along the lines, It’s OK if some of the recorded stuff is given away, or stolen as long as you go to up for the shows. Of course that means you have to be able to put on a good show.
I would be interested in how you guys see the Music Industry going, especially you pH since you are “in” the industry.
I think the music industry CAN shift its focus toward digital distribution. The thing is, digital music sales currently only account for like 5% of total sales right now.
They do have the right idea in pushing for subscription services, in my opinion. I think the reason most people don't accept subscription services is because they haven't tried them and don't really understand the value they offer.
Especially with increased access to broadband Internet, a subscription music service becomes sort of a personalized, commercial-free version of radio. You can listen to whatever you want whenever you want as many times as you want.
One of the biggest problems I see is smaller labels getting greedy. Labels like (off the top of my head) Victory will suddenly haul off and sign twenty bands after their first big success. That's just not the way to go about it. Your first success, as a small label, generally comes from the amount of attention you pay to this small group of bands that you love. Saying, "Cool, this worked, let's get everyone else in on it, too!" is completely the wrong way to go about it. Artemis did that, as well. Their one big success was Kittie. To a lesser degree, Crossbreed did all right, but if you look at their list of bands, it's about 95% groups you would never have heard of in your entire life unless you lived in their hometowns.
I have a lot more to say, but it's time for ancient law class. Back later.
-pH
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I'm such a music snob that I look down my nose at music snobs. How's that for snobbery?
But do you restrict your worship of music to the sacred altar of your home? For it is blasphemous to enjoy the musical arts if you are not sitting absolutely motionless alone in an empty room in the dark. Sinners! Sinners, all of you!
No, I don't. Indeed, I look down my nose at those who do (i.e. music snobs). I'm a meta-snob.
I listen to lo-fi FM transmissions of lossy digital copies of source audio while doing something else entirely all the time. That is, I use my FM transmitter to listen to music from my iPod while driving. Is the quality great? No, it isn't. But then, I'm also comfortable connecting my 5.1 surround sound speaker setup to my computer's noisy analog audio output to listen to those same lossy digital copies of source audio. Indeed, for the most part, I think that does sound great. And even if you can't hear every last little detail, what I'd consider the essence of the music is still there -- that is, the melody and most readily audible harmonies.
It's odd to hear me advocating against audio quality, because one of the reasons I'm not huge on listening to the Beatles is how dated and, well, thin the recordings sound. It's interesting that my copy of some Rachmaninov performances (him playing his own works) sounds better despite the fact that the source material is decades older.
Sometimes I do sit cross-legged in the middle of my living room floor with the lights off, surrounded by my speakers, and really listen to something, but I don't think listening to something uplifting while driving down the road on a bright and clear summer's day is in any substantive way a lesser experience.
Added:
quote:I think the music industry CAN shift its focus toward digital distribution. The thing is, digital music sales currently only account for like 5% of total sales right now.
5% is infinitely higher than the percentage before the introduction of iTMS, though. Indeed, going from 0% to 5% in this short a time frame is explosive, which means that there was a lot of pent-up demand for legal digital distribution well before it became available. I think it will continue to grow rapidly if the labels don't force the distributors to accept variable pricing on singles. If they do, there might be problems.
quote:They do have the right idea in pushing for subscription services, in my opinion. I think the reason most people don't accept subscription services is because they haven't tried them and don't really understand the value they offer.
I think you're wrong here. I don't know a single person in my circle of friends who listens to the radio anywhere but in the car, and even those people are a minority. I think radio is in the early stages of what I'm guessing will be a long decline into niche status and ultimately maybe even death. Added 2: Of course, if that happens, it'll probably take at least the better part of this century.
quote:Especially with increased access to broadband Internet, a subscription music service becomes sort of a personalized, commercial-free version of radio. You can listen to whatever you want whenever you want as many times as you want.
Only for as long as you subscribe to the service and continue paying the monthly fee. You're renting the music rather than buying it; while people who buy a single for $1 from iTMS don't technically "own" anything, the sense of ownership is still there. You exchange money for music in the same way that you would do it if you went to a record store and bought a CD. Indeed, once you've bought whatever you want, you can listen to it whenever you want as many times as you want. You certainly can't do the last of those things with a subscription service. Added 2: Really, both the subscription and pay-per-download models generally place restrictions on the "whenever," too. AllofMP3.com is the obvious exception, but then it's only quasi-legal.
I think that most people are occasional buyers, and I think occasional buyers are more interested in pay-per-download services than subscription services. I also think that the relative success of iTMS compared to other online services bears this out.
I do get your point, and it's a reasonable argument, I just don't agree with it. Presumably time will tell.
[ April 06, 2006, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
quote: I think the music industry CAN shift its focus toward digital distribution. The thing is, digital music sales currently only account for like 5% of total sales right now.
This may be true, but I bet it is growing very fast and I would be willing to bet that a much larger percentage of the music people are listening to now comes from the computer some how.
Sharing files the internet e.i. Napster, or one of it's many clones Or
Sharing files with friends, copying CD's and MP3's, this is how I see most music being acquired right now. One person buys it and shares with all their friends who share it will friends…. So the end result that are a lot more people who have and are listening to artist music than are paying for it.
I don't see how the music industry has learned to take advantage of this. Obviously it hurts the record companies, but I haven't really seen any artist trying to find a way to use it yet. The only way I see to use this is to get all those people listening to your music to come see you perform it. I think sometime time soon some young and hungry artist will figure out how to do this.
I know there is a long thread on pirating "wonders off to read it"
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm not saying that the music industry has fully grasped the ability to use digital distribution. Absolutely not. But despite the fact that yes, 5% is a significant amount of growth over a short period of time, it's still not really enough to attract the kind of attention it deserves.
Again, I point to previous industries facing technological change. Transportation, film, there are plenty of instances in which companies just did not understand, sometimes for extended periods of time, that they needed to take advantage of the changes rather than fight them. Most large businesses are afraid of change.
As to subscription music services, I was NOT referring to subscription radio. Absolutely not. I was referring to the ability to pick and choose unlimited numbers of tracks to put on one's mp3 player. Are there restrictions on usage? Yes. Are there restrictions on the "whenever?" Not really. All you have to do is connect your player to your computer once a month so that it can verify that you're still subscribing to the service, and chances are if you own an mp3 player, you connect it to your computer more than once a month to begin with. I really do think that the subscription model isn't getting enough attention. Because yes, most people do not HAVE twenty gigabites of music to put on their players. But at the same time, again, if you buy more than fifteen songs (or one CD from any retail store) per month, the subscription makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, since iTunes doesn't offer a subscription option, most people seem to write it off altogether.
The comparison to radio was more in reference to the fact that you have the ability to listen to a variety of music of your own choosing. If you don't like that crappy Beyonce song, you don't have to put it on your mp3 player. Then, you'll never hear it while you're driving or walking around or doing whatever it is that you do while you listen to music.
Oh! About the FM transmitter thing: I tried it. I also tried a regular little car kit for CD players, the kind with the cassette that you plug into the device. The CD player car kit sounds MUCH better than the FM transmitter. So if you have a tape player in your car, try it out.
-pH
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Are there restrictions on the "whenever?" Not really.
What I'm saying is that "you can only listen to these songs for as long as you maintain your subscription" is a significant restriction on "whenever." If I never buy any more music for as long as I live, I'll still be able to listen to the music I already have.
I don't buy one CD per month -- I might go four months with no purchases and then buy two or five all at once. In late 2004 I spent a month and a half in New Zealand with my family, which would have been problematic if I'd been a subscriber to a service where the licence to play back songs on my iPod had to be renewed monthly by connecting the player to my home computer (I don't have a laptop).
quote: So if you have a tape player in your car, try it out.
My car is CD-only, so I'm out of luck on that score. Still, I'm generally satisfied with the FM transmitter's sound quality when the signal is boosted by plugging the iPod into the cigarette lighter via a car adapter. Cruising on the highway provides enough background noise that the difference is noticeable, but not dramatic. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
twinky, the subscription can be held on up to three computers at once. I have two computers, and both of them can access my account. I can also have two devices. Right now, I have a 20gig player and a 2gig player. And on top of that, you can change which computers are authorized to access the account. So if I replace these two computers with two more computers, I can just remove the authorizations for the old computers.
The FM transmitter drove me up a wall! Hahahaha. But it may also depend on how loud you play the music. I usually listen at a higher volume, and maybe that makes the static all the more noticeable.
-pH
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Audio Quality:
Direct connect Tape adapter FM transmitter Holding your player really close to a microphone
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:twinky, the subscription can be held on up to three computers at once.
This wouldn't have helped me in New Zealand, at least not without imposing more on my relatives than I would have been willing to do.
(And I wouldn't really want to authorize an internet kiosk to play my downloads. )
quote:I have two computers, and both of them can access my account. I can also have two devices. Right now, I have a 20gig player and a 2gig player. And on top of that, you can change which computers are authorized to access the account. So if I replace these two computers with two more computers, I can just remove the authorizations for the old computers.
As far as feature-comparison goes, iTMS allows five computers, unlimited iPods (but only iPods, that's the kicker), seven or ten burns of a specific playlist, and unlimited burns of an individual song (on different playlists). Computers can also be deauthorized. That sounds like a wash to me. (Added: iPod restriction excepted, of course.)
To reiterate: If I buy a track from iTMS (or comparable pay-per-download service), I can play it forever. If I rent a track from Napster via a subscription, I can only listen to that track for as long as I maintain my subscription.
Unless you can burn rental tracks to a CD. Can you?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Napster offers a pay-per-song service just like iTunes. So if you want, you can forego the subscription fee altogether and just pay $.99 a song. If that's the case, I can put the songs onto as many mp3 players as I want and burn both playlists and songs in an unlimited manner. I own a few hundred songs from Napster like that; I had a $9.99 a month subscription that allowed unlimited plays on the computer. Napster has three different options. One has no monthly fee and is $.99 a song, just like iTunes. One has the ten bucks a month fee, and you can play anything you want on your computer, and if you want to burn or transfer anything, you pay $.99 a song. I had that for over two years. A month ago, I upgraded to the "to Go" fifteen bucks a month subscription. And since I bring my mp3 player with me everywhere I go anyway, it works really well.
Also, I haven't tried it yet, but I'm pretty sure that authorizing a computer to use Napster to Go to renew your licenses doesn't require that you actually download the songs. In other words, I THINK you download the songs only when you're putting them into your mp3 player. I base this assumption on the fact that when I had the other subscription, the music didn't have to actually be downloaded onto my computer in order to play, as long as I wasn't on dial-up.
I adore music and would listen to it every second if I could... I also REALLY LOVE classical music and get irratated by how it gets abused in pop culture. Put into stupid commercials and lame boring movies... Grah. Classical music deserves better. It drives me insane when I want to find something rare and weird like the Dolly Suite by Faure, NOT the orcestral version but the version for 2 pianos! It takes me ages to find stuff like that. The rarity of classical music recordings I want is a bit frustrating...
pH I wonder if you'd like Dir en grey... I talk about them constantly because to me they are just the best band every and fit my criteria for that. I wonder if I am a snob, but I advocate playing music while doing EVERYTHING. Even watching television. If I am not listening to music I might have to make up songs. Stupid ones that would scandalize music students.
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
Now there is an artist using the digital age to her advantage. I think we will see more of this kind of thing.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Surprisingly, SC, when I brought up that story in class today, I was informed that it was clearly just a publicity stunt on the part of the label.
So I guess major labels just can't do anything right in the eyes of these people.
-pH
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I should check her out.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Napster offers a pay-per-song service just like iTunes. So if you want, you can forego the subscription fee altogether and just pay $.99 a song. If that's the case, I can put the songs onto as many mp3 players as I want and burn both playlists and songs in an unlimited manner. I own a few hundred songs from Napster like that; I had a $9.99 a month subscription that allowed unlimited plays on the computer. Napster has three different options. One has no monthly fee and is $.99 a song, just like iTunes. One has the ten bucks a month fee, and you can play anything you want on your computer, and if you want to burn or transfer anything, you pay $.99 a song. I had that for over two years. A month ago, I upgraded to the "to Go" fifteen bucks a month subscription. And since I bring my mp3 player with me everywhere I go anyway, it works really well.
Yes, you've explained Napster's options before. I'm definitely not saying that Napster is bad. Leaving aside the fact that Napster is not Mac-compatible or Linux-compatible, which makes it completely useless to me but isn't a problem for about 96% of personal computer owners, the multiple options are a decent compromise.
I guess what I've been talking around but have yet to state clearly is that I don't think subscription models have the growth potential you seem to think they do. My theory is that consumers want DRM to be as non-intrusive as possible. For me, as an iTunes user and iPod owner, the iTMS DRM has been essentially invisible. It has only prevented me from doing something I wanted to do with my music once. I should note, here, that this does occasionally include sharing it illegally, but that the "once" I mentioned wasn't one of those instances. If I never buy another song from Apple again, it will continue to generally not prevent me from doing what I want to do with it. With a subscription model, this is not as true, because the subscription model is inherently more restrictive than the pay-per-download model.
On the other hand, as I noted, there's something to be said for having the choice, because the subscription model suits some people (like you). What I'm saying is that I don't think it suits most people, or even enough for it to be the desired primary mechanism for digital distribution.
quote:Also, I haven't tried it yet, but I'm pretty sure that authorizing a computer to use Napster to Go to renew your licenses doesn't require that you actually download the songs. In other words, I THINK you download the songs only when you're putting them into your mp3 player. I base this assumption on the fact that when I had the other subscription, the music didn't have to actually be downloaded onto my computer in order to play, as long as I wasn't on dial-up.
iTMS doesn't require the files to be present on the computer for authorized playback either, though of course with a non-subscription service the only way this happens is when I've got my iPod connected to someone else's computer. This actually happens more than you might think. What I really wish, though, is that Apple would licence FairPlay to Microsoft's Home and Entertainment division so that the Xbox 360 could play protected AAC files as well as unprotected ones. I'm somewhat tempted to strip the DRM from my iTMS files just so I can stream them when I buy an Xbox 360. That was the one thing I wanted to do with iTMS purchases that I can't do -- I took my iPod to a friend's place and we could stream all of my non-iTMS music to his 360 just by connecting the USB cable, but the iTMS stuff was a no-go.
Of course, that's more of a nice-to-have for the sake of my geek lust than anything else.
[ April 06, 2006, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
But the thing is, twinky....I really do think that the subscription market has potential. Again, it's rather unfortunate that over 70% of the market has next to zero exposure to it. In that respect, I'm kind of hoping that the labels DO get iTunes to offer a subscription service, if for no other reason that I really want to see how the general public responds to it. In general, people who've tried subscription services have loved them. And the thing is...why do the restrictions even matter? Again, I don't generally burn CDs. I listen to music on my computer and on my mp3 players. And a good portion of the people who use iTunes, it is my impression, listen to a lot of their music either on their computers or on their iPods.
The thing is, I gravitated to the subscription model from the beginning. My parents told me a couple of Christmases ago that since I'd gotten the scholarship to school and whatnot, and since I was so involved in the music industry, they wanted to give me a digital download account. But I researched the various services that were available at the time before I chose one, and quite honestly, I think that a subscription model WOULD work for a larger number of consumers if they were exposed to it.
-pH
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
my brother is like that; "You don't actually like Russian music you listen to it to seem like a intellectual."
Baka.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
What I'd want from such services is-
High quality. The ability to burn my own CDs if I want because I like to make my own mixes and I just can't afford an I-pod right now (though I want one).
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: See Orincoro I enjoy classical music. Well, to be honest I enjoy most types of music, but I guess you can say I like classical music the best. I don't know anything about it, though. I have a vague understanding that there was a baroque period and a classical period and a romantic period, and I think that they occurred in that order, but that's about the extent of my knowledge. I can't really talk to anyone about classical music though, because either people think it's the most boring thing in the world, or they know everything about it and they can't understand that I just like it. Classical music majors tend to treat me like I'm desecrating the music when I say that I liked "the fast section" or that I found some famous piece boring, but have no idea why. So as a a result, I stay away from classical music majors, because I can't just discuss my love for the music with them, I have to discuss all of the technicalities, and I have no interest in doing that.
Classical musicians are taught very early on in analysis and musicology classes that, "I really liked it," it not a sufficient expression.
As a result we're practiced in analytical thought, and rarely bother with more basic judements: "I thought it was TOO slow, or TOO fast." We learn to forget about what we would like, and focus on what was done in the music and why. There is always the judgement in the back of your head, either you like it or not, but for the sake of analyis, nearly everything is INTERESTING either way.
As a result we learn to appreciate the complexities of a peice of music, or the orchestration or the history or context or whatever makes that peice important, even if it isn't "beautiful" to others. It speaks to you on a different level if it reminds you of something you think is important.
The thing that I don't think many people see is that Classical musicians and theorists are often vilified as snobs, while other artistic endeavors from the same time periods and in the same vanes are not. Your not a snob if you study literature, and everybody loves some book or other that was written centuries ago: it isn't too much for people, it isn't too intense or too obstruse. The culture has unfortunately convinced alot of people that classical music (speaking in the very broad sense of written music between 1250-1920), is somehow unreachable.
We don't ask that we not be bothered with classical literature or art, we don't say that we prefer simple books or that we always read something that's fun. We read challenging books in school and like them, we read challenging material as adults and we think we are doing ourselves good. But we never want to challenge ourselves when it comes to music, and I have no idea why that might be.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: We don't ask that we not be bothered with classical literature or art, we don't say that we prefer simple books or that we always read something that's fun.
There are plenty of people who do this.
And there are also plenty of people who enjoy classical literature but don't know the names of the literary devices used. So? Does everyone in the world need to take a score of advanced theory classes in order to appreciate music?
-pH
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No, I didn't say they did. I'm a literature major as well, and the ratio of bug eyed looks I recieve for saying that is way lower than the ones for music.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I really do think that the subscription market has potential. ... In general, people who've tried subscription services have loved them.
I can't just take your word for this, you know. Besides, given the low availability of subscription services, the people who've tried them are probably people like you who gravitated toward them anyway. For my own use, subscription services are a non-starter. I'm not interested in having to pay company X or Y a rental fee for music that I could buy and own forever for a comparable sum. I don't see the value. Of course, I also overwhelmingly buy music by album (I almost never buy singles), so I'm not exactly the average consumer.
Anyway, I'm unconvinced, but as I said, we'll see. Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
And I'm saying that the reason everyone assumes you're a snob when you say you're a classical music major is that what inevitably follows is you talking down to them. Like you're doing here.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
twinky, yes, this is true. But the thing is, there ISN'T any way to know right now. There just isn't. It's a gut feeling for me, which is really all you have to go with for a lot of business decisions.
The thing is, I don't see the issue as being OWNERSHIP for the majority of consumers. In other words, I think that as mp3 players become more prevelant, putting music into them will become far more important than burning CDs. I'm not saying I don't still buy CDs. But the CDs I purchase are going to be either extremely specific or complete impulse buys from the $8 rack at Best Buy.
And Orinoco, blacwolve has a point.
-pH
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:we don't say that we prefer simple books or that we always read something that's fun.
I purposefully seek out books or movies that are 'shallow', or 'simple' when I'm in the mood for something light. I do the same with music. I find I listen to the narrow segment of pop that I can tolerate when I don't feel like thinking.
And, for what it's worth, I don't think Orin is talking down to anyone. I think he's trying to explain why people who devote a lot of their lives to the study and creation of music tend to discuss it on a deeper level.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: And I'm saying that the reason everyone assumes you're a snob when you say you're a classical music major is that what inevitably follows is you talking down to them. Like you're doing here.
I'm not talking down to anyone, you'll know when I talk down to you, I will be perfectly clear. Do you expect me to talk down to you? That is a different question, and I think the answer according to your post is certainly YES.
Funny thing is I was being the exact opposite of a snob, I was suggesting that classical music ought to appeal to everybody. I wasn't saying I was special for liking it, or I was better than anyone, because I think anyone can like it and understand it, and some people will be able to understand it better, and maybe like it more. There's no snobbery in that, only your false assumptions.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: And, for what it's worth, I don't think Orin is talking down to anyone. I think he's trying to explain why people who devote a lot of their lives to the study and creation of music tend to discuss it on a deeper level.
Thanks JT, I think specifically said I felt classical music could interest anyone, I don't see how that is snobby.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: The thing is, I don't see the issue as being OWNERSHIP for the majority of consumers. In other words, I think that as mp3 players become more prevelant, putting music into them will become far more important than burning CDs. I'm not saying I don't still buy CDs. But the CDs I purchase are going to be either extremely specific or complete impulse buys from the $8 rack at Best Buy.
-pH
I've always wondered what things are going to be like when the convenience of Cds is finally completely nullified. It has to happen eventually doesn't it? Even if there will be some better media to replace it, the chances are it will be superceded by the convenience of non-material transfers. When that happens, how will the music industry maintain the same relationship with costumers? For example, there will be no need for releases at record stores, signings, album covers, the small amount of money that goes to manufacturing. Will the album be abolished in this new schema? Will it be necessary in 50 years for a band to even record with a label at all, rather than just go through a consulting firm to handle ads, and run an independent website?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
And I'm saying that this is why I'd never want to discuss classical music with you, or go to a classical concert with you. Because I could never just say, "I liked that piece, it made me feel alive and happy" without you responding with some deep analysis of it to prove that you appreciate it so much more than me.
This is why classical music doesn't appeal to most people. Because there is this assumption among the general public that you can't just enjoy classical music, in order to truly appreciate it you have to spend years studying tp learn all of the musical theory behind it. To most people, music is a hobby, they don't want to put that work into it. So they focus on types of music that are readily accessible to them.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Thanks JT, I think specifically said I felt classical music could interest anyone, I don't see how that is snobby.
What you specifically said that bothered me was.
quote: Classical musicians are taught very early on in analysis and musicology classes that, "I really liked it," it not a sufficient expression.
Do you not understand how that discourages people from being interested in classical music, how it makes them feel like they'd better not bother, because unless they go to school and study for years they're not going to "get it" anyway?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve:
quote: said that bothered me was. [QUOTE] Classical musicians are taught very early on in analysis and musicology classes that, "I really liked it," it not a sufficient expression.
Do you not understand how that discourages people from being interested in classical music, how it makes them feel like they'd better not bother, because unless they go to school and study for years they're not going to "get it" anyway?
What I ought to have added to that sentence was "for the purposes of class discussion." I'll reply to your other thoughts in a moment's time.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: And I'm saying that this is why I'd never want to discuss classical music with you, or go to a classical concert with you. Because I could never just say, "I liked that piece, it made me feel alive and happy" without you responding with some deep analysis of it to prove that you appreciate it so much more than me.
This is why classical music doesn't appeal to most people. Because there is this assumption among the general public that you can't just enjoy classical music, in order to truly appreciate it you have to spend years studying tp learn all of the musical theory behind it. To most people, music is a hobby, they don't want to put that work into it. So they focus on types of music that are readily accessible to them.
Well in paragraph 1 you make an unfair assumption about me, which is also wrong. I go to performances with friends who are not interested per se in classical stuff, and we have a good time. I myself don't go into a performance analytically, I first decide if I actually LIKE the peice, (this is really ok to do, even for students, its just that in class it doesn't matter if you like it or not, same as in a lit class or a biochem class, its the subject at hand).
I went to a very challenging concert on sunday night with a friend who is not a fan of the genre, nor was I. It was alot of experimental non-tonal stuff that was difficult to like, but a few peices had their moments, and the tambers of the instruments they used (and how they were used) was pretty cool. My friend turned to me at intermission and said, 'I really liked the way that peice had this instrument in it that made that wierd sound'. I agreed it was very cool, although I didn't like the peice for much else. I had absolutely NO need (or desire, or ability) to tell her about the structural whatevers of the peice or how the composer had employed such and such a technique. If I had thought about I could have come up with something, but it was all in the program notes, and I wasn't terribly interested in the peice anyway. At no time did I turn to my friend and try to PROVE anything about myself, I have not need to prove myself at a concert of somebody else's work. If I do comment that I appreciated the subtle complexity of some part of the peice, then I think it would be something anyone might have guessed at, and it wouldn't have anything to do with me proving myself.
This is a pretty malicious thing to assume about me, because its wrong, and I'm just not like that. If I want to talk about something, its because it INTERESTS me, not because I've gotta prove I'm so ultra intelligent (if only!).
"To most people, music is a hobby, they don't want to put that work into it. So they focus on types of music that are readily accessible to them."
I can't help if you ignore what I said before, which was that I think this in itself is a false assumption, and ridiculous. Classical music is perfectly accessible to anyone, a symphony is fun, even the first time, or else it probably isn't any good.
Your saying that we have to go to school for years to truly appreciate classical music? Well if only you knew the dirty truth about that little idea. I'll tell you something, there is a reason modern composers write in such wacky styles often times, its because we GET TIRED of traditional classical music. The idea that your love just grows and grows with your accumulation of knowledge isn't really true. While education will help you appreciate DIFFERENT aspects of the same peice, it isn't going to make you like anything you would have despised before. It will help you appreciate the parts of a peice which remind you of something you DO like, but that doesn't change the basic tastes you already had.
So your wrong from the outset of paragraph 2. I think, and I specifically said that anyone can like classical music, that it doesn't take a supposed expert. The idea that it takes alot of educating to REALLY REALLY enjoy it, well this actually might be a LITTLE true, but not the way YOU mean it.
The education you need is the one that everyone used to get, until the priorities changed in the 20th century, and other parts of our lives were emphasized. Its simply listening to classical music. Perspective is an interesting thing, and pop music exists at the tale end of 700 years of the development of harmony and melodic/rythmic structurs. As a result it does one thing REALLY REALLY well, it is based on a hook, or a melodic rythm, or harmony that catches the ear, and it rides that wave for the 4 minutes or so of the average song, and then dies away.
If you were born listening to classical music, if that was the only music you had heard, then the melodic rythm, and the harmonic compass that is available in classical music, (a much larger one than pop music), would seem very natural to you. The thing is that we aren't "ear virgins" anymore, we hear pop music everywhere, and the ear accustoms itself to the flow of the pop hook, but this employs only a tiny part of the tools which classical music offers. As a result, a classical concert can feel disconected and unfamiliar, it doesn't swing (yet), and it doesn't feel like something that catches you. What I'm telling you is that all is required is a little, just a very little perspective and yes, GASP concentration.
It isn't that the music is too dense, or even always as dense as some pop-rock music. Its just that the tools used are different, and you have to get used to the classical sound before you can start deciding how you feel about it. This doesn't mean studying for years, or investing in cds or reading music or anything like that. This means going to a concert and trying, just once, with the program notes in hand, to listen for something you weren't expecting to hear. Chances are you'll hear it quite easily, and hopefully you'll enjoy it too.
There is nothing academic about it, its like growing up in a country where all the fire-engines are red. You go to another country, and at first you dont spot any fire-engines because they're all green. But once you notice the big green trucks that look suspicously like fire engines, you will easily recognize them for what they are, and appreciate that they are there.
edit: btw, would you refuse to go to see China just because you don't speak chinese? (assuming you don't). Would you pass up the beauty of the landscape and condemn china as a place reserved only for either the chinese, or people who take chinese language classes? No, you can visit for the parts you CAN enjoy, even if you can't or don't want to talk to the people when you get there. Who's looking down on whom? Feels like your looking down on ME.
[ April 07, 2006, 01:55 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
And Orinoco, blacwolve has a point. -pH
Whoever these two people are, I'd certainly like to hear THEIR opinions!
(you misspelled my name...or did I? )
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
pH
I was thinking about this topic on the way into work this morning and it reminded me of a art professor I had in college. Art majors can be a lot like the music majors it seems. They all want to be counter cultural and never want to be seen as "selling out". So My professor used to make fun of these types a little. He would say, "Hey if you want to fight the system that's great. I have no problem if you want to maintain your integrity and all that stuff just don't get pissed when the system won't give you a job."
It sounds to me like your music snobs are just like this. they want to talk about how bad the music industry is, and complain that all they do is promote crappy music like Britney Spears. But what they don't realize is that is were the money is. It's fine if they want to make truely great music that is complexe and original, without any mainstream appeal what so ever. They just don't need to get upset when only a few other music snobs show up to appreicate it and no record label decides to promote you. It just the nature of business. The music industry is going to promote the kind of music they think they can sell.
And it would be interesting if they were offered a big check to play back up for Shina Twain how many of them would jump at the chance.
[ April 07, 2006, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: SC Carver ]
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by pH: The thing is, I don't see the issue as being OWNERSHIP for the majority of consumers. In other words, I think that as mp3 players become more prevelant, putting music into them will become far more important than burning CDs. I'm not saying I don't still buy CDs. But the CDs I purchase are going to be either extremely specific or complete impulse buys from the $8 rack at Best Buy.
-pH
I've always wondered what things are going to be like when the convenience of Cds is finally completely nullified. It has to happen eventually doesn't it? Even if there will be some better media to replace it, the chances are it will be superceded by the convenience of non-material transfers. When that happens, how will the music industry maintain the same relationship with costumers? For example, there will be no need for releases at record stores, signings, album covers, the small amount of money that goes to manufacturing. Will the album be abolished in this new schema? Will it be necessary in 50 years for a band to even record with a label at all, rather than just go through a consulting firm to handle ads, and run an independent website?
This is the kind of thing I was talking about earlier. Sooner or later someone is going to figure out how to make money from the new ways music is being distributed and listen to. Then the big record labels will have to adapt or go away. It doesn't matter how good you are at what you do if the market goes away. At some point someone was absolutely the best wagon wheel maker, and at some point someone had 100% of the wagon wheel market, but it didn't do them any good in the long run unless they started making car tires.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
First, I apologize, I did make assumptions about you based on my experience with many other classical music students. I shouldn't have done that, and I'm sorry.
Second, you don't need to convince me that classical music is cool. I enjoy classical music. While I don't listen to music in general all that often, I listen to classical more than any other genre. What I was trying to describe was the reason why the general public doesn't listen to classical music. I think we're talking about different things in this case. If someone listens to a piece that's supposed to be wonderful and they don't get it, their first assumption is going to be that they need more training to get it, not that they need to listen to more of this music that they don't like. So, while I was speaking of percieved reasons, you were speaking of actual reasons.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Blacwolve: Thanks, that makes enough sense for me.
pH- you assume facts not in evidence: that I intend to base a career in classical music, and that classical music isn't a big seller. It is, maybe not as much anymore, but the music of romantic composers has been selling for two centuries, longer than the recording industry has existed.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
SC, they claim, however, that it's damaging to society that record labels only sell Britney Spears. And the thing is, it's not JUST Britney Spears. There are plenty of awesome bands who are popular, but for some reason, it seems that as soon as a band gets popular and starts making money, they're a sellout and are no longer good enough.
First of all, there's no reason to say that people SHOULDN'T buy Britney Spears albums if that's what they want. It's not inherently harmful. It's not like all people should be REQUIRED to listen to whatever the music snobs think is "good" music. Even if they did, then the "good" music would become mainstream and popular, and then the music snobs would pick some other "underappreciated" music to support.
-pH
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: pH- you assume facts not in evidence: that I intend to base a career in classical music, and that classical music isn't a big seller. It is, maybe not as much anymore, but the music of romantic composers has been selling for two centuries, longer than the recording industry has existed.
Show me where I said this.
-pH
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: There are plenty of awesome bands who are popular, but for some reason, it seems that as soon as a band gets popular and starts making money, they're a sellout and are no longer good enough.
-pH
It’s not limited to music. I think some people enjoy being the guy who knew about the musician, author, movie director, artist before they were big. Then once they get big they no longer support them. I think you just see more of it in music. And then there are people who seem to enjoy bashing things just because they are soo popular. Look at how many people like to bash Dan Brown. I am not saying that he is making great literature, but it is a fun roller coaster ride that obviously appeals to a lot of people. If he hadn’t sold millions of books no one would bother.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I know it happens in other areas as well. It bothers me to no end. When I see a small band get big, I'm incredibly happy for them!
I think if you really like a band's music, you'll be glad that other people notice them and understand how good they are.
-pH
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
I've never understood the concept of popular = sell out. If there is a relatively unknown band I like, I try to promote their music until they become popular, at which point I can sit back and be happy for them. Isn't this the point of things like college radio in the first place? Isn't that the job of A&R people? It kills me when I see someone love a band until the moment they sign a big contract, then bash them completely and wish for their downfall.
"Do you think that they're too cool now? Being popular is lame You're the one who made them popular All the songs are still the same"
--Five Iron Frenzy, "Handbook for the Sellout"
--ApostleRadio
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
quote: they claim, however, that it's damaging to society that record labels only sell Britney Spears.
Like you said the record companies aren't only selling the popular records they loose tons of money each year producing flops. They may only put tons of money into promoting the big pop records because that is were they are going to see a return, but even if they did sell, and even promote the more obscure musicians doesn't mean the masses are going to like it. I don't think you're going to find any business that is willing to throw money away because it is what is good for society. They may do what they can, but they have to make money somehow.
That being said there are lots of great bands that don't get air play or promoted because they don't fit into what the national radio chains and record labels deem is popular. Great bands that would probably find a good size fan base if someone would promote them. And today it seems like the radio chains are narrowing their plays so much it is almost impossible for small acts to get heard except through non-radio means, which means the free internet may play more and more of a role in the future. I would be more apt to demonize the radio industry before the record labels.
There is a privately owned radio station in Charleston, SC Wave 96.1 who decides their own play list. It is by far the best station around; I wish I could pick it up here in Columbia.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
"I met a boy wearing Vans, 501s, and a dope beastie-t, nipple rings and new tattoos that claimed that he was OGT, back from '92, from the first EP. And in between sips of Coke, he told me that he thought we were selling out, laying down, sucking up to the man."
-- Tool, "Hooker with a Penis"
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
Hey Carver, do you ever listen to WUSC? I only ask because I used to have a couple shows on the station. If you don't it won't surprise me, as there are only a couple DJ's currently working there who play anything I want to hear, but maybe that's just me.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
I don't hardly ever listen to the radio anymore. I used to listen to WUSC every once in a while, but most of it was a little too out there for my taste. I guess I am just a sell out.
I guess the college station is the last place were non-mainstream acts can still get some airtime.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
Well, the problem with WUSC is that the chances are likely you will run into one of the music snobs pH is complaining about, which means you will never have heard the music they are playing. Not neccessarily a bad thing, so long as two conditions are met. 1) It needs to be a good song. 2) They need to tell you what the song is and who it is by. Sadly, neither of these are done most of the time. There used to be a number of good shows on, where DJs would choose solid music and do a decent job of actually speaking, but most of those folks left. Now you are left with either DJs who never talk or DJs that spend all the time telling inane and non-entertaining stories, and neither of them ever announce the bands they just played, which are from so far out in left field that the only audience they appeal to is a niche of 10 guys who probably weren't listening because there is no rhyme or reason to how the schedule at the station is set up anymore....
::breathes::
Sorry. Umm. A little bit ranty there. The station and I have issues, which is why I ended up quitting my shows in the first place.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
I'll stick to my I-tunes/CD's and be my own DJ. Now if they would just make I-Pods cheaper. I don't want one of the little one because I would want to put all of my music on it, but instead of lowering the prices they just keep adding features.
Where else can I get: Uncle Mingo, Andrew Peterson, Sufjan Stevens, Drive by truckers, Alman Brothers, Coldplay and Pete Yorn all back to back on random play. (I was sitting here thinking that I-tunes had been playing some good songs)
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
SC, to me, that is the essential flaw in the music industry. Their failure rate is ridiculously high. I mean RIDICULOUSLY high. They lose money on more than ninety percent of the artists they sign. So pretty much, they take a volume approach: Sign a bunch of bands, throw them all out into the spotlight, and see who sells. The ones that sell the most (Britney Spears, Coldplay, etc.) have to make them enough money to compensate for their losses from everybody else.
-pH
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: SC, they claim, however, that it's damaging to society that record labels only sell Britney Spears. And the thing is, it's not JUST Britney Spears. There are plenty of awesome bands who are popular, but for some reason, it seems that as soon as a band gets popular and starts making money, they're a sellout and are no longer good enough. -pH
Both you and SC make claims based on specious analogies, and logic that only works the way you want it to.
SC. The wagon wheel thing is flawed because you assume a progression in complexity and usefulness which is not apparent in popular music. IE, it changes, but it doesn't get any 'better.' It may not get worse, but it doesn't "improve" on classical music in any broad way. The wagon wheel is inferior to the car tire in many ways, because the wagon is inferior to the car. If we all still rode around in wagons, we would still need wagon wheels, and I am saying, we haven't switched from musical wagons into cars. Not by a long shot.
pH. Your assuming an intent on the part of people who snob "sell-out" bands. This is true in some ways, but the source of the innevitable sellout label is far deeper than simple capriciousness on the part of the public and the snob market.
Its like a movie thats really great, like "The Matrix," which spawns a sequel which is on one hand a great movie just for the good things about it, but on another hand, it must contend with expectations established in the original. Bands are the same way, and if an artist or band SETS UP an expectation with their first album that they are going to be doing "THIS," then the next album isn't exactly the right combination of new material, with the familiar style (or minor alterations in style to make it different), then a part of the audience that thought they would be getting something else is dissolutioned.
This is an innevitable quality; it is known as entropy: The more "complex" the history of your relationship with the music, the more you are likely to understand and appreciate any changes to it, because you have already experienced previous shifts, and you understand the devolving or evolving pattern of the band better.
The debue album presents the band in a brand new light, and that light will almost always be the best possible light, since it provides some listeners with the expecation that the next album will be more of THIS, or THAT, but doesn't actually have to respond to those desires, since it is one of a kind. There is no-one holding the band accountable for BEING what they thought it was and should be.
Your blaming the consumers and the snobs for their capriciousness, but this is short sighted. Look at the history of music: we start out thinking that a style of music is just the best thing, since obviously it is the latest thing, and it provides all the current answers. Over time we begin to see that some of those answers will endure forever, and some are specious and will fall by the wayside. It is my humble opinion that the vast majority of the popular music of the last 25 years will be completely forgotten by history, for exactly this reason.
Really the process is no different over the long term: there is only so much space for music, so only truly great and powerful work will endure the test of time, and many of those works will eventually fall from the place of honor in our hearts and memories. Beethoven's 9th may be considered by some to be the greatest peice of music in history, but it must now be judged against all styles, it must be compared with the works of two centuries which it inspired to grow, and eventually its fame will be surpassed by another, even if that work doesn't seem greater to us at all. The perspective will shift, and so the importance of the 9th may diminish or grow, but it will constantly face the test of time.
This all proves to me, again that music like Britney Spears Schlock is so worthless: it can't even stand up to the test of a few short years. This has nothing to do with politicking or snobbery or whatever, because the quality of the music remains at issue. And if a peice of music is really TOO good, then the standars will change to accomidate this new force, and the standards will shift. When the Beatles started cranking out hits in the 60's their music was really just way too good for the market, and they drowned out their competition with their excellence. But even they, over time, will be and are being superceded by their own disciples in our memories. It may be that the post beatles work of the 80s and 90s will be proved to be worthless by history, and in 200 years, only they will survive in memory, but I don't know for sure.
You need also to think about all that before you go blaming the consumers for getting tired of horrible music. Thank god they do.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: "I met a boy wearing Vans, 501s, and a dope beastie-t, nipple rings and new tattoos that claimed that he was OGT, back from '92, from the first EP. And in between sips of Coke, he told me that he thought we were selling out, laying down, sucking up to the man."
-- Tool, "Hooker with a Penis"
I like that guy actually. That's balls.
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
quote:SC. The wagon wheel thing is flawed because you assume a progression in complexity and usefulness which is not apparent in popular music. IE, it changes, but it doesn't get any 'better.' It may not get worse, but it doesn't "improve" on classical music in any broad way. The wagon wheel is inferior to the car tire in many ways, because the wagon is inferior to the car. If we all still rode around in wagons, we would still need wagon wheels, and I am saying, we haven't switched from musical wagons into cars. Not by a long shot.
I wasn't talking about what kind of music people listen to, I was really talking about how they listen to and acquire it. My point is that people are starting to change in these areas. I do believe at some point in the not to distant future (20 years)people won't buy CD's to get their music. So the Record labels will have to adapt or they will be selling wagon wheels. If they keep selling CD's and full length albums when everyone is using MP3's and listening to singles they won't be in business long.
As far as selling out. there are bands who sell out. Jefferson Airplane/starship would be the classic example. However, to me selling out is changing your style for the sole purpose of trying to sell more records. This is not what we were complaining about. We were complaining about when people like a band, then the band becomes popular and they stop liking them just because they are now popular. The band doesn't necessarily have to change their sound.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That's sort of a ridiculous attitude, not liking a band because they are popular. If by some fluke Dir en grey became popular I'd still love them as long as they keep playing that good music... Each song being different and unique. Each note dripping with their desire to play what they want the way they want with a lot of feeling... More bands should be like that *hearts*
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by SC Carver: [QUOTE] As far as selling out. there are bands who sell out. Jefferson Airplane/starship would be the classic example. However, to me selling out is changing your style for the sole purpose of trying to sell more records. This is not what we were complaining about. We were complaining about when people like a band, then the band becomes popular and they stop liking them just because they are now popular. The band doesn't necessarily have to change their sound.
I suppose I can't help it if I post an argument apros pos to the subject and you tell me "oh no, that's not at all what we were talking about silly." Its right there in the first part of my post: "You assume an intent" which is NOT in evidence. That is, you assume people stop liking a band because it is too popular, and though this may even be the claim made by people who stop liking bands, it is nevertheless specious and beside the point. The thing is when peole say "that band got too popular," even THEN they are also saying that the sound of the band responded to a popular aspect of their previous work, which that person did not believe had made that band sound better. Effectively "going middle of the road," or "selling out," is in the MUSIC too, and this affects the way some people react to the band's evolution.
Think of an early Creed album (if you must), and think of the way people at first might have said, "I really like the gravel in that guys voice! Wow!" That appreciation in that context is one thing, but when 5 albums down the road, Creed has become so aware of the popular aspect of a really truly gravely grating singing voice, that each album sounds like a Creed parody rather than a creed album, then you begin to see how the band "Sold out." This has less to do with the fact that people like them, but that they responded to it by changing their sound in a way that some people didn't appreciate, and so they become ex-fans. I am an ex-fan of John Mayer, because what was a sweet and lovely solo voice and a pure sounding mike-only acoustic sound, became a ridiculous parody of itself within 5 years, Mayer banking on every aspect of that image that made his music good at first, then turned the music way too sugary sweet.
I noticed recently that they used to make frappaccinos differently at starbucks: they used to actually taste like coffee, and people really liked them. Now most of the flavors don't even have coffee in them; they just taste like sugar, and I hate that. Its the same thing, the music really does change.
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
You're right, If you have valid reason's for not like the direction of the band takes then you're not one of the people who stopped liking them for no other reason.
I'll give an example and show my age. When I was in college Hootie and the Blowfish were a bar band here. They were a very popular bar band and lots of people in columbia supported them. Then of course they made it huge. Now they were still playing the exact same songs that they used to play in the bars, but suddenly there was a backlash and it wasn't cool to like them, becuase instead of being a local bar band they had become a frat boy party band. Their sound didn't change, people's opinion of them did. I don't like Hootie's newer stuff because to me it sounds like they have been making the same album for 12 years, and their new stuff is not very good, but I didn't stop liking them for becoming popular.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: pH. Your assuming an intent on the part of people who snob "sell-out" bands. This is true in some ways, but the source of the innevitable sellout label is far deeper than simple capriciousness on the part of the public and the snob market.
A lot of times, it really isn't. Trust me on that one; I have to spend far too much time around pretentious indie hipster hardcore scene white-studded-belt-wearing idiots.
-pH
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Exactly, SC.
It also happened, to a certain extent, with Maroon 5, off the top of my head.
I remember when they were playing in run-down little bar/venues.
It's so awesome that they've had this much success.
-pH
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: pH. Your assuming an intent on the part of people who snob "sell-out" bands. This is true in some ways, but the source of the innevitable sellout label is far deeper than simple capriciousness on the part of the public and the snob market.
A lot of times, it really isn't. Trust me on that one; I have to spend far too much time around pretentious indie hipster hardcore scene white-studded-belt-wearing idiots.
-pH
I'll add then, with the expection of blatantly narcissistic and useless indie hipster harcore scene white-studded-belt-wearing idiots, my point remains valid.
Anywhere where your dealing with Hottopic patrons, I think we can all assume the normal rules about realistic self assesment do not apply.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Exactly, SC.
It also happened, to a certain extent, with Maroon 5, off the top of my head.
I remember when they were playing in run-down little bar/venues.
It's so awesome that they've had this much success.
-pH
pH, of course there is the other side of that equation too, so I suppose your right. Nobody in my position cares to associate with a bunch of screaming 15 year old girls, so I won't be going to any Maroon 5 concerts. I also think their music is annoying as hell, but I always felt that way.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Liking a band doesn't have to entail going to one of their concerts.
I'm just talking about liking a band. Period.
And again, I think you underestimate the amount of people who will stop following a band because "everybody likes them now."
-pH
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
quote:And again, I think you underestimate the amount of people who will stop following a band because "everybody likes them now."
I don't understand that attitude at all.
My friend asked me for a band recommendation for an indie-music band that students in my school liked, and I said, off the top of my head, the Yeah Yeah Yeahs. His response: "But weren't they on MTV?"
BTW, Orinoco et. al, classical music sells really well. I think Beethoven and Mozart topped the BBC's tracking of downloads last year followed by the Beatles. The big names (composers, performers etc) do great, and then it tapers off dramatically, just like modern non-classical music.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: And again, I think you underestimate the amount of people who will stop following a band because "everybody likes them now."
-pH
Change "underestimate" to "ignore." I'm not so naive as to really think that everyone has a logical or noble reason for liking or disliking anything, since most people are more animal than human IMO. I simply don't care about what those people think. If you can think and talk and communicate, then you probably have SOME better reason than "everybody likes them now," that your just not capable of expressing, or you don't want to, or your mad at your parents, or you smoke too much pot or something.
The animal-human thing is hyperbole, don't take me too seriously on that one, I'm not a fascist.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kristen: [QUOTE] BTW, Orinoco et. al, classical music sells really well. I think Beethoven and Mozart topped the BBC's tracking of downloads last year followed by the Beatles. The big names (composers, performers etc) do great, and then it tapers off dramatically, just like modern non-classical music.
I would believe that actually. I think though that you'll find the number of actually titles downloaded from mozart or Beethoven to be dispraportionately low in comparison with the number of beatles titles. That is to say: There are alot of downloads of The "Moonlight" Sonata by Beethoven, but probably very few of his other works, whereas the Beatles will be getting downloads of 50 popular songs equally, with a few special ones getting more.
Edit: I hasten to ad that I think this actually also has to do with the pop-culture exposure that a little bit of classical music gets in movies and in hip-hop songs occassionally. Ie. the moonlight sonata in alot of movies, Mahler's 5th symphony, Bach's Chaconne in D-minor, or "Sleepers Awake." The selection is relatively low when one considers the amount that is commonly available. Since I have searched itunes out of curiousity, I've found a dirth of material from all but the best known composers, and even there the selection pales in comparison with the independent music store.
further edit: Not to rain on that parade, if its true I think that's great. They have a better appreciation of classical music in Britain, since you mentioned the BBC, it (music) being a bigger part of their history and school lives. I think as the market gets easier for older people to use, and as this generation grows to appreciate new (old) music, then that market will catch up in a big hurry.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Change "underestimate" to "ignore." I'm not so naive as to really think that everyone has a logical or noble reason for liking or disliking anything, since most people are more animal than human IMO. I simply don't care about what those people think. If you can think and talk and communicate, then you probably have SOME better reason than "everybody likes them now," that your just not capable of expressing, or you don't want to, or your mad at your parents, or you smoke too much pot or something.
The animal-human thing is hyperbole, don't take me too seriously on that one, I'm not a fascist.
Oooooookay. So pretty much, there's no point in discussing that attitude with you because to you, it's so insignificant that it doesn't exist.
...yeah.
You still haven't shown any evidence of this:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: pH- you assume facts not in evidence: that I intend to base a career in classical music, and that classical music isn't a big seller. It is, maybe not as much anymore, but the music of romantic composers has been selling for two centuries, longer than the recording industry has existed.
-pH
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
Orin (because I don't want to mispell your name again):
I agree that pop culture exposure has much to do with renewed popularity of classical music, especially with all that talk of exposing your kids to Mozart=high IQs. But, for whatever the reason, they chose to download it and I think that's what pH's original point was: they listen to music for their own reasons (and there is nothing wrong with that).
Where was Mahler's 5? And you can't forget the Rach #3. I went to a concert at the CSO and was shocked that it was completely full and then was like "oh, Shine duh".
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Oooooookay. So pretty much, there's no point in discussing that attitude with you because to you, it's so insignificant that it doesn't exist.
...yeah. -pH
Of course it exists, I'm just being sarcastic.
Edit: sounds like Kristen covered me on the selling angle.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kristen: Where was Mahler's 5? And you can't forget the Rach #3. I went to a concert at the CSO and was shocked that it was completely full and then was like "oh, Shine duh".
Mahler 5 mov. 4 is an oft used movement for emotionally evocative scenes. Its all strings with harp, very powerful. I personally can't remember it from a movie, but I've been told it is used alot. (I guess I don't get out enough).
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
I remember being the first DJ on the college station here to play Maroon 5, and other DJs thought it was really cool music. Later, after they made it big, these DJs hated them with a passion for being teenybopper trash, despite the fact that it was the same songs they had previously enjoyed. So I'm with you on that one, pH.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I've decided that I really don't like the Fray.
And the Postal Service get really boring after a while. And when I say "a while," I in fact mean before the end of one song.
Also, Mr. Robert Thomas, what is up with your solo videos? Like, seriously. You have a crazy booty shaking party, and then you start kicking furniture around? I mean, I appreciated the butt shot and your own attempt at booty-shaking, but still. And did I seriously just see a video that ended with your wife jumping out a window? I just...no, Mr. Thomas. No. Perhaps I was spoiled by the "Unwell" video. But you know, if you're going to have weird, random images and butt shots and attempts at dancing like a pop star, can you at least throw in some angry makeout a la Maroon 5?
This ramble has been brought to you by My Brain on VH1 at 2:45am.
-pH
[ April 08, 2006, 03:40 AM: Message edited by: pH ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Common pH, those aren't random images: they're in fact the work of careful and precise consideration on the nature of man's relationship with his television bunny ears, and his subsequent attempt to commit suicide with said bunny ears. Hilarity ensues. Product of a 4am 21st birthday party with music majors showing off their perfect pitch... "Happy birthday: your not special" mehehehe.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I was referring to the random images in the "Ever the Same" video...which involve pigeons and his wife standing on a window sill and...some kind of....homeless guy, or something.
-pH
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
And for a third time:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: pH- you assume facts not in evidence: that I intend to base a career in classical music, and that classical music isn't a big seller. It is, maybe not as much anymore, but the music of romantic composers has been selling for two centuries, longer than the recording industry has existed.
I really want to know where I said this. Because right now, I'm rather annoyed that you're making assumptions about what other people are saying and then telling said people that THEY are the ones making assumptions. Which is one of the reasons I really don't see the point in discussing the whole subject with you right now. On top of that, you seem unable to distinguish between music industry snobs (as in, Music Industry Studies students) and classical music snobs, and I, in my first post, was clearly referring to the former.
-pH
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: "I met a boy wearing Vans, 501s, and a dope beastie-t, nipple rings and new tattoos that claimed that he was OGT, back from '92, from the first EP. And in between sips of Coke, he told me that he thought we were selling out, laying down, sucking up to the man."
-- Tool, "Hooker with a Penis"
twinky, I was so going to quote that! (That title used to confuse me until I realized Maynard meant himself. Tool is so awesome! Did you preorder 10,000 days yet?)
pH, Duke Ellington said "If it sounds good, it IS good." Jazz was once put down by those same type snobs as not being *real* music. Then a generation later it got to be the opposite, that the snobbiest snobs thought cerebral highbrow jazz was the ultimate in music, and they totally looked down their noses at rock and roll or blues or gospel. Some gospel people look down on blues as being corrupted and not spiritual and pure like gospel. And of course, lots of people love to look down on country. I believe this has been true throughout all of time, and og thought grog was a total philistine because he beat graphite instead of limestone rocks together.
Almost all new good music in history was loathed by some when it came out, too. I love the story of Stravisnky having to jump out the bathroom to escape from the angry crowd after the premiere of "Rite of Spring" (which kicks ass, by the way. If you haven't heard Stravinsky you should check him out.)
When we were growing up, we always had one really good stereo in the living room, and we all got exposed to each other's music because of that. For years we would tease dad about Bach, and ask how he could listen to that stuff that was so repetitive. Then one day when he was playing the Kyrie Eleison from the Bm mass on the piano, I was like hey play that again! Eventually I learned it myself, and then more Bach stuff, and now I think Bach rules. Same thing happened with my little brother and his Led Zeppelin that he played over and over and I teased him about how bad it was until one day I was like hey that sounds great. I think it was when I saw "the song remains the same" on MTV. I became a Jimmy Page fan. (Now I bolt from stores who play classic rock, though.)
Later on Dad got into Maurice Ravel, and Rachmaninoff, and I teased him about Ravel being all romantic and stuff, and didn't like the weird dissonances in it until one day boom it just grabbed me and I couldn't hear enough.
The same was true for dad and Mike as well, that they would put down each other's and my music and later on they would get it and start playing it themselves.
So the rule totally seems to be that karma works in this too, and whatever music you make fun of or put down, you will someday see why it's good and have to eat your words.
I know it's gotta be horribly annoying to have to deal with those attitudes all the time. I hope the industry as a whole isn't full of those type people, or if it is that you can learn to roll your eyes at them and not let it bother you.
There's another Tool song off that same cd with the advice Maynard has for all the poseurs and industry people in L.A., and about how nice it will be when the tidal wave comes through and washes it all clean. It's called "Learn to Swim" Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm planning to go buy 10,000 Days at a record store on release day.
Incidentally, the song about LA falling into the ocean is actually called Ænema, but "learn to swim" is one of the refrains. Personally, I like "Fret for your figure and fret for your latté and fret for your hairpiece and fret for your lawsuit and fret for your prozac and fret for your pilot and fret for your contract and fret for your car." Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Aenema is SUCH an awesome song. I love it.
Although for some reason, I prefer A Perfect Circle to Tool even though...they're the same.
But they're different.
Okay, maybe I just like "Judith" and "The Outsider."
I know what you mean about jazz. OH! If you like jazz, check out the band Johnny Sketch and the Dirty Notes. They're like...New Orleans rock, kind of. And there's a violin.
I wouldn't say that APC and Tool are the same, the only thing they share is a singer. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: I really want to know where I said this. Because right now, I'm rather annoyed that you're making assumptions about what other people are saying and then telling said people that THEY are the ones making assumptions. Which is one of the reasons I really don't see the point in discussing the whole subject with you right now. On top of that, you seem unable to distinguish between music industry snobs (as in, Music Industry Studies students) and classical music snobs, and I, in my first post, was clearly referring to the former. -pH
I think your right, you must not of said that, since you checked, so I apologize for thinking that you did. I think I was reacting to something you said about careers in classical music, since there aren't many.
I know you were talking about music industry snobs, but I took it in the direction I am familiar with, since there are some parallels, and differences. We talked about industry snobs too right? I just thought snobbery in general is sometimes misenterpreted, and I think I talked alot about both types of snob.
I watched Zoolander last night for the first time since Highschool
Ph- Why you been actin so messed up towards me? Orincoro: Why you been actin so messed up towards me? Ph- I mean I thought this guy is guy is really hurting me you know?... and it hurt! Orincoro: Well maybe I'm just a little bit jealous you know because your topic is just getting started, and mine is just kinda winding down...or whatever. pH- Your orincoro man, your the REASON I wanted to be come a snob! Orincoro- I was WACK! pH- no I was wack!
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Oh, yeah, you're right! It is called Aenima, I forgot!
APC is great too but I totally prefer Tool. Maynard is a fantastic singer, though, and just about anything he sings is going to be good. I just recently heard that Deftones song called "Passenger" that he sings on. It's so great! Have you heard it?
I think it's his struggle and intensity that you just can't help but become caught up in. I seriously can't wait for 10,000 days. Aenima was like a fierce life and death struggle, and then Lateralus came like some fantastic breakthrough into the divine. Maybe 10,000 days will show us what heaven is like.
Is it true that Maynard writes most of the music for Tool but someone else does most of the writing for APC?
As for snobs of all varieties, they're sort of sad, I think. In order to be cool yourself it's totally not necessary that you put down somebody else, but they seem to think it is....
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: As for snobs of all varieties, they're sort of sad, I think. In order to be cool yourself it's totally not necessary that you put down somebody else, but they seem to think it is....
Yes, and my negative reaction to the snob label has actually been that you can be an "efficianado" and really NOT intend to rub your elitist stink in everybody's face, but alot of times people are going to assume you will or you do anyway. There was also the question of intent: does a music lover start telling you something about music because they love or music, or they love the sound of their own voice, and the gratification of pedagogy? Musicians, especially classical, are pedagogical by nature since that's how we communicate with each other. Since there's too much for one person to know in music, we are always teaching each other something.
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
Or.
I hope I have not irritated you on this thread. I understand as an "artist" how hard it is to find people with similar taste. Just because I don't love classical music doesn't mean I don't understand your point of view. I don't think liking classical music is equal to snobiness. In fact anyone who actually loves classical music probably is so far removed from the "mainstream" that they couldn't be considered snobs. The whole classical thing should be considered more like the "2-D" artist are. As a painter you will be considered a Cubist, expressionist, abstract artist, or whatever. Now as a Musician you still just considered an Musician. No one seems to disrespect and "artist" because you don't do the kind of art you like, but this does happen will with "Musician’s" they don't care what we think.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I was really disappointed by Maynard when I saw A Perfect Circle play a show a couple of years ago.
-pH
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
pH, what disappointed you about him?
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
pH: me too!
Of course they were opening for NIN after NIN's 4+ year hiatus, so perhaps I was just impatient, but my friends agreed with me. Lackluster performance.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: APC is great too but I totally prefer Tool. Maynard is a fantastic singer, though, and just about anything he sings is going to be good. I just recently heard that Deftones song called "Passenger" that he sings on. It's so great! Have you heard it?
Yup, I have the Deftones album that it's on (as well as a couple of others). It's definitely my favourite Deftones song.
quote:Is it true that Maynard writes most of the music for Tool but someone else does most of the writing for APC?
Tool write the music as a collective, though the band does work on stuff while Maynard is off with APC. APC, though, started as Billy Howerdel's project. He originally wanted a female singer to front his band, but after he played some demos for Maynard, Maynard offered to sing.
I saw APC live shortly after their first album came out. They were good, but that same day I also saw (among others) the Foo Fighters and the Smashing Pumpkins. It was one of the Pumpkins' last shows, and they were absolutely unbelievable. Of course, now the Pumpkins are gone and James Iha is playing with APC.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
The Pumpkins were so great! I wish I had seen them. Everyone who did said they were fantastic in person.
I like James Iha's guitar playing but I always thought his songs for the Pumpkins sucked. Billy's are almost uniformly great and James' are uniformly sucky. I take them out of every Pumpkins playlist. I hope he doesn't do any writing for APC.
I have two friends who went to see APC on the tour that I think would have been for "Thirteenth Step" and both of them speak of that show in reverent terms. It sounded like a life-altering experience for them. All I've seen is videos of APC playing live and videos of Tool interviews (which are really rare) and what struck me was the contrast of Maynard singing on stage (in which he looked powerful and free, like some god) and Maynard talking in the studio (in which he seemed very constrained and precise and intellectual and nerdy).
Ooooh this is just whetting my anticipation.
[ April 09, 2006, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Tatiana, he had like no stage presence whatsoever. I was bored to tears, and I'd specifically taken a break (it was at Voodoofest; I was working) to go see them! I should've just insisted on seeing Mindless Self Indulgence...Jimmy Urine is always a good time.
-pH
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
That was the same experience I had seeing APC. I love Maynard, but he just stood there like a bump on a log. It was a boring show and I walked away very dissapointed.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Weird! He must have off nights and on nights.
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
Tatiana: The Pumpkins were my first rock concert and were amazing (it was the MCIS tour).
Speaking of concerts and classical music, I just saw a 13-year old play Rach #2 first movement on PBS. *floored* Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Jeepers. I can play one of his preludes, but the concertos will forever be beyond my grasp, I'm sure. That's astonishing.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
A friend of mine played her Junior recital yesterday (viola). She played Shostokovich string quartet no.8, the "WWII" quartet. The 4th and 5th movement are based on Ann Frank's capture.
Not a dry eye in the room.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by SC Carver: Or.
I hope I have not irritated you on this thread. I understand as an "artist" how hard it is to find people with similar taste. Just because I don't love classical music doesn't mean I don't understand your point of view. I don't think liking classical music is equal to snobiness. In fact anyone who actually loves classical music probably is so far removed from the "mainstream" that they couldn't be considered snobs. The whole classical thing should be considered more like the "2-D" artist are. As a painter you will be considered a Cubist, expressionist, abstract artist, or whatever. Now as a Musician you still just considered an Musician. No one seems to disrespect and "artist" because you don't do the kind of art you like, but this does happen will with "Musician’s" they don't care what we think.
Hmm. Thats pretty true. I think there is something about "art," that makes it impervious to judgement. "Art," the popular context meaning painting/sculpture, photography, or other like visual disciplines. Maybe it is just that the art community is so obstrusely variable and diversified between individuals, that no-one is actually a fair judge of anything. I have always thought that most people don't actually appreciate art very much, or even like it for being beautiful.
I traveled alot in Europe last summer, and I was often horrified by the attitudes and actions of alot of international tourists. American, German and Japanese people seemed to be the prime offenders when it came to talking too loudly in a quiet room, obsessively photographing things with bright flashes, (pushing people aside to get their desired angles), and generally being obnoxious. I was alone, so I had no opportunity to see how I might function in such a group situation, but I hope I wouldn't be as bad as some of the people I saw. One of the phenomena I sometimes discussed with fellow travelers in hostels was how many tourists seem to follow their digital cameras around like robots, viewing the museum through the tiny screen and shooting pictures of famous works, often without even looking at them directly.
One of the most perpexing things I observed was a man about 20-25, angling his way down a museum hallway, briskly shooting photos of each painting, pausing only a split second before moving on. The photos couldn't have been very good, and he certainly hadn't had a good look at any of them along the way. It was very strange. I felt that alot of people take pictures of famous places or things to prove that they had "done that." When I returned after 3 months of travel, I showed people photos of things I had seen that were really interesting to me, but of course the ones they wanted to see where replicas of the postcards that form mental images of the cities of Europe: The pyramid at the louvre, or a canal in Amsterdam, or Sagrada Familia in Barcelona.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
My favorite picture from the trip I took to England is of my then best friend Alex and me feeding ducks by a river. We were ten.
-pH
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
My favorite London photo is probably one I took of myself at sundown on primrose hill, in memory of Douglas Adams's "Long Dark Tea-time of the Soul."
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
When I took Art history they told me the average person only spend some ungodly short amount of time looking at each painting in museums. It was somewhere under 2 secs. Almost no photo's you take in the museum ever do the work any justice, you're better off to buy some post cards of your favorites at the gift shop.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
THat's exactly what I do - I love the postcards at museum gift shops.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I tend to pick one or three artworks I like best, and stand in worshipful awe before them for long times. But I guess I miss a lot that way. I just get quickly saturated with the whole "next, okay next, next" thing of doing art museums.
Then it breaks my heart when they take my favorite things off display.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SC Carver: When I took Art history they told me the average person only spend some ungodly short amount of time looking at each painting in museums. It was somewhere under 2 secs. Almost no photo's you take in the museum ever do the work any justice, you're better off to buy some post cards of your favorites at the gift shop.
I hope that they were averaging out the times. I will spend just a glance on some paintings while you can't drag me away from others. It might average out to a short time "per picture".
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
), which is related in an anecdote:![[Cool]](cool.gif)
), etc. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
It bothers me to no end. When I see a small band get big, I'm incredibly happy for them!![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)