posted
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.
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.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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"
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.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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"
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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)
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 484 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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".
Posts: 484 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
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" Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[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)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(That title used to confuse me until I realized Maynard meant himself. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
