Evanescence At Number One; Or Why the Music Industry is Killing Itself

HERE! HERE!

Whatever happened to bands being exciting? I remember a time when I'd be giddy as a schoolgirl as I rushed to buy a new album by a treasured band. I want to feel that way again. Whatever happened to bands that crept (instead of being thrown) into popularity? Discovering a band is part of the charm, discovering them before they made the charts helped you see them as YOUR band. Helped them become something special to you.

And I remember when "angst" music was brilliant, a bruised kind of beautiful. Not angst-for-angst-sake like it is now, rage-by-numbers. I remember hearing music that sounded for all the world like it KNEW how I felt. Music born of suffering and frustration. In comparisson, bands like Linkin Park are an insult.

Music has become junk-food. Its reassuring to read that I'm not the only one craving something more satisfying.

IaNaUn

Hrm, the media's not that fucked. People like us i taking the power and people are finding alternatives.

But the main problem here is that people are generally too lazy to find their own sound. The generation before us knew how to do it, but kids nowadays sit on kazzaa downloading bands they've just seen on m2 or read about in kerrang. The backlash is starting, but there's a need for everything good that's going on to have some area for the transition to take place. I didn't buy a GreenDay record one week and an Arab Strap record the next, etc.

Also, it's sickening how much work it takes pluggers to get something on the bbc (a public service). Something which i'm investigating for a feature at the mo (tho may wait 'til the koreans are getting some airplay first of all.. o'the politics..!)

The people with passion will find a way. Far too many people, however, are bothered whether they sell out or not. And keep plodding along, talking more than walking, ranting more than doing. Why is that? What's so wrong with being successful? Why the fuck are people accusing me of selling out for releasing records?

The only thing a major has that an indie doesn't is capital. Therefore it must play to this strength by selling lots of CDs from a limited number of artists to support their enormous cost base. They recognise that a band such as Linkin' Park will not sell to those people who consider themselves truly "alternative". However, those people are make up less than 1% of an audience that defines "alternative" as a genre rather than a lifestyle. Let's face facts, music is now a commodity for "the youth" in the same way as videos, TV, computer games, mobile phone gimmicks etc. Most people buy clothes completely aware that they've probably been stitched by a 9 year old in China. Why should they care anymore that their band's have been "manufactured" - so long as the end result is a product they enjoy?

There will always be an "underground" where the muso's and indie kids live, but it will always be an underground because most of it's supporters invariably "grow up" and stop caring so much.

The point about back-catalogue is one I've made before though, although there's nothing to say majors won't continue to thrive selling the "quality" acts of fifties, sixties, and seventies to every generation.

After that post, I would love to be able to say you're fired.

What you perceive as "underground" is not what I do. A lot of the bands you perceive as underground are small because they're rubbish.

You've totally missed my point, what I am saying is what is being enjoyed, is not sustainable, does not have value and ultimately, the poorer the intro level of music, the less chance people have of stepping out of their mtv bubble and into something special. The more quickfire marketing runs sales, the less actual money the industry has. It's like a junkie doing hundreds of little unnoticeable shots of smack, rather than one big one that'd get him high.

I reckon Evanescence, R Kelly, Christina, Busta, Dannii, SeanPaul and B2K are awesome songs too
Nowt wrong with charts now, or ever has been, or ever will be
Evanescence do encompass all that has ever been wrong with the music biz. Great song though.

I must be getting worked up, my grammar is terrible in these responses...

As is your spelling. ;)

"A lot of the bands you perceive as underground are small because they're rubbish"


And many many more aren't.

what was the lasy great pop single?

Or more succinctly, Sean learn to write. Get over yourself and your 'natural flow' of metaphors and dodgy wordplay, look at how good professional journalists manage to make their writing seem smart, coherent, interesting, 'revolutionary' even (this word seems to get overused and put into inappropriate contexts a lot around these parts), while still repecting conventions that mark their writing (and the organisation they write for) out as trustworthy, professional, smart, grown up, credible. And, no, bad writing cannot be justified ideologically.

Not that i can write but hey, just sniping from the sidelines :)

Aside from his rather eccentric comment about the nature of "underground" culture, i think Andy raises does make an important point.

If, as Sean's article suggests, blame for the decline in the music industry is to be placed at the door of major corporations, and their invention of an "indie"/"alternative"/"indie/alternative" genre which fails to understand the "indie ethic": then the hegemony of production-line pop has crushed the indie dream, and (as Sean says) made it inaccessable.

On the other hand, in the more pertinent of his above points, Andy seeks to blame the consumer rather than the corporation. He believes (i think rightly) that most people dont care how the music they buy, or download, has been produced. Bands "paying their dues" is irrelevant, music is simply a commodity sold by marketing men. But, ultimately, it is the passivity of consumers, and the demand-side of the market, that is responible.

In general, I find the latter argument more convincing... there is an accessable alternative as the existence of DiS shows, and "indie/alternative" IS a genre... That is to say, i dont think there is an absolute dichotomy between people who buy into "indie" as people on here would understand it (e.g. IaNaUn and Gen posts above), and people who are fans of the "indie" genre as record labels present it. There is a sound (usually guitar-based, but sometimes, and in some places, its history is rewritten) that is associated with the term. I dont think this idea is entirely (or even crucially) formed by the head of record labels, or, for that matter, the editor of NME.


However, the subtleties of Sean's argument go beyond whether supply or demand side is at fault. He points to a seperation between market and corporation, where the decline in sales seen by the major labels is directly related to a misunderstanding of the market!! (This provides nice contrast to over-simple, reactionary Marxist arguments about the nature of music as a product.) Sean envisions (or actually sees happening) a resurgence at grass-roots level providing for the market... a post-industrial solution to a post-industrial problem of accommodating individual "art" in a market economy.

If there is such a resurgence, or even if not, then the most useful thing any of us can do to help the cause is to make sure that the alternative available is easily accessible... and, as Gen mentioned, support bands that deserve it...

In terms of DiS, allowing diversity of opinion can only help in allowing support to be given to bands that deserve it, and to allow balanced assessments of the music industry to be made... as part of accessibility, everyone has to be entitled to their views...

To return to the issue of the music industry killing itself... I'm aware that Sean's piece was a polemic against what he perceives (and i dont know any better) as industry people blaming downloads for their own misunderstandings, but i do think words of caution are needed: downloads probably do play a small part in reduced record sales, and (as Sean hints, but doesnt make explicit) cd albums are overpriced...
if the mainstream music industry is killing itself it is less through failing to understand, and tap into, an alternative market which, in any case, would result in small rewards (and in which it could never attain sales to cover costs for credibility reasons), and more because they are pricing themselves out of a market which is now presented with the option of downloading music for free (albeit at marginally poorer quality)

Cor.

You don't get that quality of argument of DiS very much do you?

your mum.

Greggggggg split the band cos he didn't like being a pop starrrr or something. Now he just writes songs for other people and makes loadsa money. Hurrah!

Have any of you considered that the bands that are popular because people like them. Major labels don't brainwash people into buying cds. There are a lot of people out there that heard the Evanescene (or whatever!!! stew those silly spelling rools) record and actually thought it was a good song. That bands like Mcclusky don't have that appeal.
A successful, sustainable indie label has to have success with a lot of acts. FACT. Many succeed (Deep Elm and Saddle Creek in the states, Wichita here), some choose to be underground, some fail and go broke. It's sad but true.

There are still loads of records that I like. tons. so why the fuss??
There's nothing wrong with wanting to be famous. I don't hate Linkin Park, I just don't like their records.

The music industry hasn't changed since the early 70s t much extent. Sure, some of the habits/practices/bullshit may have altered. But as ever, there are tons of awful boring bands that offer nothing but people really like (does that really harm anybody). There are also plenty of interesting, diverse great bands and it's not too hard to find their records if you want them. there are also a lot of bands in between. This will not change for a while yet.

There is no crisis.
Rock is not coming to an end.
The charts don't matter.

OK?

The type of cd a person buys is the type they want.

Agreed..........good luck to the DIS label.
I agree to some point that major acts nowadays aren't exciting, but surely Radiohead are exciting? Perhaps TATU are, So Solid Crew? Eminem? Jay-Z? What about The White Stripes and The Strokes? Do things need to be controversial to be good? I like Radiohead and some of the less offensive Jay-Z songs, none of the others.

And why shouldn't there be records for 'young kiddies'?? Is there some kind of rule that you have to graduated to the spotty teenage no friends so you try and impress everyone with your tastes stage before you can enter a record shop? And radio one actually doesn't play these songs, so I don't know what you're on about there. As everybody knows the pre-1995 daytime radio one was an embarressment, so it's maybe REVERTED back to that nowadays, but I think a lot of the time when indie kids moan about radio one its because they misread what it is meant to do, it's job isn't to break new acts, but to play the records people like. I don't buy this whole, major label conspiracy argument.

As I've already said, indies do tend to put out better records than majors. However, you seem to be implying that there aren't any exciting indies around. There are. Tons and tons and tons. This is why this whole argument is irrelevant, because ultimately there are still plenty of amzing bands. I would prefer it if more people listened to them, and I know some deserve more exposure, but that has always been the case, since the sixties some great groups broke through and got massive, but a lot didn't. That won't change, but I can live with that so long as all the great records are available, and they are.

Well, I like it.
If you don't I don't care. Fuck you. You lose.

I agree with your analysis entirely, but not with the conclusion. The guitar is firmly established, every bit as much as any classical instrument. New technology to make new sounds does come out occasionally, but it's fewer and farther between. One such big deal was pitch bending pedals, like the Whammy (I first heard Prince and Chris Haskett from Rollins use these, but Tom Morello and to a lesser extent Johnny Greenwood have been the ones to make the sound famous)... since then... there are a few people, like Matt Bellamy who try bloody hard to do new sounds with a guitar, but it is very much an uphill struggle, and nearly impossible to do something completely new. I would say that it is much the same with the other forms of technology on offer. Synths, samplers, loops, drum machines, sequencers... they're al very much old hat, and it really cracks me up when a band starts spinning in loops behind their song and thinks they're being futuristic...ha bloody ha.However....

This fact makes it apparently attractive for bands to look back to the 'old days' to inspire their sound, and I fucking hate that. W're in a very consevative period right now. The Strokes, White Stripes and the other (probably NYC) bands on that bandwagon are all deeply retrogressive, and I dislike the way they take their sounds from such a narrow timeframe. When Jack White says he hates technology, he labels himself as a young narrow-minded-old-man ..."when I were a lad...". Conservative concepts like this are easily digestible by the 'beautiful people' and 'cool' set , who swarm to these gigs, and are very easily digestible to the industry at large. Fuckin hate the lot of them... wish they'd get lost. At the end of your post you touched on something that is important. more so in the US, with it's segregated radio.
There is still a large gap between the music of different cultures, and plenty or room for innovating by cultural cross-fertilisation, and the consequent mixing of genres. Think The Specials, The Happy Mondays... why aren't there more mixed culture bands and multi-culture music now?? There's still plenty of room for new things here. Why aren't there more System Of A Downs? (Armenian Metal). We're very fucking guilty of this in London. There is no more multi cultural city in the world, and instead of the newspapers stirring up intolerance by persistently whining about immigrants, I'd like to see a few more bands made up of people from all over the world making music loud and fuckin proud. The powers that be are trying to segregate radio over here (and MTV), because it makes it easier for them to target advertising to a narrower listening group, and because it satisfies the always loud-voiced conservatives who only want to listen to one type of music. Rock music needs to stop inbreeding with ideas from its own past and start fucking with ideas from outside it's immediate family... or else it's genes will become increasingly weakened and it will eventually die out. It's nothing to do with catharsis. There will always be people who need to reveal their innards to the world... what we want is less people obsessed with fame and celebrity and more people obsessed with becoming the heroes and heroines of future history.

"Rolling back over centuries, expression has gently evolved, broken by abrupt patches of revolutionaries and social change. Music is a primitive, lifebeat form of expression. Pulse-beat-womb-throb."

Whilst it is true that sound technology has been evolving, the fundamental importance has been the emotional aspect, hence folk music made in the 30s on traditional instruments.


"The sounds of the last century have been dominated by guitar, the centuries before; piano, brass, animal-hide drum and so on. These instruments have all found their place in the tombs of classical tradition or archaism and have all determined expanses in history. The climate might have changed but the intentions are always the same."

Yep, but you'd be wrong to say that classical music was irrelevent in the 1900s. You'd be wrong to say that guitar based music is irrelevant now. People will perhaps look on this as the age of electronic music, but the simple fact is that much of that music has very little meaning or emotion. There is nothing wrong with expressing oneself in a traditional form.

"Like all of those forms of musical expression it has exhausted those capabilities and those early strivings. (Many-boys-with-mop-hair-grasp-Fenders-till-the-last) Of course, it can still produce 'enjoyable' results and even occasionally; minor artistic progression, rare as it is."

If you feel that 'art' is more important than enjoyment, fine. But that to me is a ridiculous worldview, that 'art' has to involve new materials, that the culture of the age HAS to be progressive, worthwhile to history. Can't we just accept that culture is an unconcious concept, one that happens regardless, and that when we try to artificialy construct a progressive culture, it has no mass appeal and ceases to be relavent. Consider whether or not there is a place for 'art' AND other forms of entertainment, and if music is valid even if it isn't 'art'. Can pop music ever really be art?? Is artistic progression as important as catchy tunes and lyrics with an emotional reverence. Do we like 'OK Computer' because it is progressive art or because it is beautiful?

"It's like film"

Film is still wonderful. No film will ever top 2001: A Space Oddysee for sheer technical majesty. But a relatively traditional form of film, such as 'The Pianist' or 'Dirt Pretty Things' or even 'Punch Drunk Love' still captured marvelous performances and though the techniques have been done, they raised new questions, new ideas, and they cought our emotions. Then there is 'Donnie Darko' which used traditional techniques and a style of directing/acting that has been done before yet still made something new.

"It's enjoyable; it can create moving, dramatic sounds. It looks glamorous. You can pose. None of these add up to meaningful artistry, not any more."

I totally disagree. There are still areas that the SONG can go, with the guitar. Are you trying to say that an instrument that millions of people play has ceased to be a relavent part of our culture? I can think of tons of guitar based bands that do things noone else has ever done before. It's not about what the artist DOES, it's about what the artist DOES TO US.

"they play in bands where they 'try' desperately hard to create their own textured sound"

perhaps it is because they concentrate on the technical aspect of reaching for new sounds, rather than the emotional aspect of music that they fail to make good music?

"DO NOT LISTEN, READ, BELIEVE, PAINT OR DANCE TO ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T HAVE PURPOSE OR INTENT."

How would you define purpose or intent?
I would say that to entertain is a valid purpose of music. Or perhaps to reflect the society as a whole?
Surely even a band that aims only for commercial success is reflecting notions of the values/interests of society, and in artistic terms has purpose and intent, though it provides me no satisfaction or enjoyment, which then raises questions about the culture of our age and the unity of society. Yes?

"I cannot seriously believe that masses of people still have faith in rock music as a veritable, progressive art form."

Perhaps you're too hung up on the concept of art. And, they clearly do.... youth culture of our age will be defined this summer by sports event, movies, club holidays and THE FESTIVALS. A band like The Ataris may not be using new sounds, but their LYRICS define the lifestyle of their cultural generation. Rock music is a way of expressing these emotions to maximum effect. No art form made on computers will ever capture emotion like a piano or a guitar ever can. Perhaps evolving and technology have gone too far, have ceased to be relavent and we should kill them?? There are more important things to worry about than being 'new'.

"The people who were part of the punk revolution in the 70's would not have anything to do with rock music today. Maybe even music at all. In this media climate, I cannot picture or place them anywhere. People hadn't quite become commerce-grazers back then."

I think placing historical characters in the current context is never possible or a wortwhile exercise. But their actions explain the music scene we have today... Ian McKaye's actions in 'Minor Threat' still inspire the straightedge scene we have today, for example. But he wouldn't be involved in the current straight edge scene.. Doesn't make the current straight edge scene worthless.

"Absorb other cultures, people, places."

So you're saying we should reject our own culture and adopt someone else's?? Right............



Thankyou, Matt, for raising some interesting points. I disagreed with everything you said, but who's to say I'm right and you're wrong. I hope you find the music that fufills you........

take care, god bless

ben howarth

I'm sorry Ben, I realise I've been rambling on to something almost unrelated. I do actually agree with quite a few of the things you said, but in a contradictorily frequency. I agree but I have something tugging on my sleeve.

My age is a factor. I'm 35, I've seen more bands over more years, and sadly know that that great new thing we've just discovered... well they sound exactly like this other band that were playing in nineteen eighty something... Certainly the point is that it is human expression we are listening to, and the instrumentation is not important. I find all 'retro' artists are inherently rubbish because they are not able to cope with painting a picture with a truly up to date pallette... it's like a photographer who claims that the world died when we discovered colour film. Originality, then, can be defined no longer by style which, as we've said, is an inevitable regurgitation of a cocktail of ideas past.... the only originality occurs when the artists genuinely have a personality.... a bit of a strange person... not your normal meat and two veg sort of person... stands out from the crowd, but for some reason you can't quite put your finger on....

Not just because they're a pretty face, or because they're skinny and look good in tight clothes.

Of course the next hurdle is successfully conveying that personality through your music, when everyone around you is trying to get you to fit in to a genre that they know how to market... after all... it ain't easy selling records by Bill just because... they sound really Bill-ish. Yep... more personality is what we all want... more of it in radio, more of it in TV, more power to the individual DJ and much less to the radio producer, more de-centralisation.... not power to the people, because consensus will blunt any sword, but power to the individual.

You were spot on about Radio 1's Playlist But I Think They Should Dump Chris Moyles and Dave Pearce as they are so full of themselves and think they should get decent replacements.

Zane Lowe should be on an hour earlier than 8-10 pm as the nightly schedule resembles the 80's with John Peel was moved back to 10-12 slot in October 1998.

Mary Anne Hobbs, Giles Peterson and Mike Davis ought to be on earlier as well as currently their programmes are in a slot so marginalised that it is patrolled by Buffy.

if it's such a brilliant way to promote a band and it actually INCREASES sales, why is the industry so staunchly opposed to it ?

Simple - because, while it may increase album sales for small to medium indie bands, it sure doesn't increase sales of throwaway chart pop, which is where they make their profits. Once someone's downloaded a chart single there's really no reason for them to pay for the CD - B-sides are bound to be crap, and they'll probably get sick of it and move onto the next chart sensation after the a few listens of the mp3 anyway. The hope is that this will somehow force the music industry to change for the better, but it seems (unsurprisingly) that they'd rather just try and sweep it under the carpet with a bunch of irritating lawsuits.

but you can't make money off successful singles, can you?

i understood that they actually lost money on every single sold and that they make money through album sales and merchandising.

Well I met Zane Lowe at a Dillinger Escape Plan gig last year and he was really nice. I think he's brilliant on TV too, he's a music fan - not just someone trying to look cool.

"he's brilliant on TV"

No, he's not.

easy now, i wouldnt mind seeing some constructive critisism.

Where the fuck did I say anything about Everett Pissing True?

"Have any of you considered that the bands that are popular because people like them. Major labels don't brainwash people into buying cds. There are a lot of people out there that heard the Evanescene (or whatever!!! stew those silly spelling rools) record and actually thought it was a good song."

I agree. I mean if you wanted to manufacture a rock band for success in 2004 would you really put together a band who sounded musically like a fusion of QUEENSRYCHE and SAVATAGE but front it with a girl who sounds like Juliane Reagan? Or how about a band who fuse AC/DC with QUEEN and have a ridiculously falsetto singer? Surely not! There would be far easier, more cynical ways to do it...like BUSTED!

Whatever, Evanescence flew in the face of everything that was 'cool' and captured the imagination of the main stream by providing a sound that noone else was putting out at the time. And more importantly, radio actually played it, rather than disregarding it for Coldplay or Snow Patrol or something.

In a world where Coldplay is mainstream, don't the likes of Evanescence become the alternative?

haha