digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

The Music Fades When Shilling Is The Motive

seattlepi.nwsource.com — What happens to the music itself when the way to build a career shifts from recording songs that ordinary listeners want to buy to making music that marketers can use? That creates pressure, subtle but genuine, for music to recede: to embrace the element of vacancy that makes a good soundtrack so unobtrusive, to edit a lyric to be less specific.

Who dugg this? Made popular Dec 29, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

68 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • MiddleAmerica, on 12/29/2008, -0/+30I'm a musician & have been in the industry my whole life.

    There millions of musicians out there that do it for the love of the art, but there is always the industry that's only in it for profit, which seems to be evolving in such a way as to make crappier & crappier music.

    But at least thanks to modern technology it vastly easier to find good music.
  • boulderomen, on 12/29/2008, -1/+26It's a sad day when the only the only motive of making music is to make money.
  • radicaldementia, on 12/29/2008, -0/+18Everything the author mentions applies to all the mainstream music, which has always been about the money. But there's tons and tons of amazing underground music of all genres that most casual music listeners don't know about. I listen to a lot of underground metal, electronica, and indie rock (REAL indie rock, not whiny emo junk), and it honestly just keeps getting better and better every year.

    The internet and specifically bittorrent made it a lot easier for underground music to spread like wildfire, and at least for these artists it's really paid off. Mainstream music exists merely to satisfy average people who want something "with a good beat" to listen to. For all I care, those artists can whore themselves out all they want, true music will always live on.
  • inactive, on 12/29/2008, -0/+11If you own a radio you know it's about the money, I can't even listen to it anymore unless it's an oldies station and a lot of that is commercial "crap". Selling; sex, excess, and an altogether self indulgent attitude/philosophy. I mean it's great if you can't see past the mirror, you have a thing for bubble gum, and have the creativity of a house fly.... (sorry a little cynical I know) Still there is a variety of non-commercial artists that are great, albeit hard to find.
  • Frankiedog, on 12/29/2008, -0/+11Yea, it was way better when we did it just to impress the chicks.
  • mbelleghem, on 12/30/2008, -0/+9As I music journalist, I disagree with the argument constructed in this article. Just because Moby's album "Play" saw every song licensed for commercial use, that's supposed to mean that Moby is writing his songs with commercial utility in mind, ie if something is good for a particular purpose, that therefore must have been the intention of the person when they made the work? Silliness - Moby happens to make the sort of music that sits nicely as audio backdrop for lots of moving pictures - witness his website, where he gives away for free to any aspiring filmmaker instrumental versions of dozens of his tracks just to be a part of the larger creative process. As many will recall, Moby made Play after having been all over the map for a number of years making all sorts of strange music. Play was strange too, it just happened to be strange in a way that resonated with a lot of people - but recall that it got panned a fair bit during the first few weeks of its release before a critical mass of people 'got it'.

    Seems to me that the author is jaded - 'music used to be amazing, now its poo, everyone is in it for the wrong reasons boo boo wah wah'. If you know where to find it (or if you can find a good DJ who will guide you) there is more good music being written at this very minute for YOUR tastes than you can possibly listen to if you listen every minute of every waking hour. You just need to find what you like - and if you don't like mainstream commercial music, instead of bitching about it, find some better music and enjoy it - and then do your part by bringing it to as many other people's attention as possible. That's how people like the unknown pill-popping underground rave kid shlepping around the dented record box at 5am known as Moby ended up on the top of the charts and in every TV ad, and it's how the next 'real' musician will get there, too - whatever kind of music he plays.
  • petebot, on 12/29/2008, -0/+6Is this what happened to the new Kings of Leon album?
  • meruru, on 12/29/2008, -0/+6Because few of us have ever met or known a successful musician, but all of us know that guy who skipped college and didn't get a job in order to become a musician who 5 years later is still penniless and mooching off his friends and family.
  • Anonymerican, on 12/29/2008, -0/+6Not ones for supporting our local music scenes are we?
  • cubicledrone, on 12/29/2008, -2/+7The funniest thing about music is that as a society, we do everything we can to discourage people from pursuing music as a career. There are three kinds of "acceptable" musicians in our society: professional orchestra members or opera singers, multi-platinum rock stars, or famous film composers: a total population of about 2000 people.

    According to our society, however, everyone else who claims to be purusing a career in music is a worthless loser. In fact, with few exceptions, again according to our society, everyone else who PLAYS music is a worthless loser unless they're getting paid for it. (Cue "euphonium" jokes, even though in the movie he was playing a baritone SCRIPT FAIL)

    Every television show, commercial, promotion, radio commercial, radio show, movie, stage show, carnival, convention, awards ceremony, graduation, party, sporting event, elevator, office building, department store, cafe, satellite radio channel, animated film, video game and Broadway musical needs new and original music on a continuous basis.

    Now why does our society believe that music is a worthless career if practically every 100 yards you find another business that needs music? Hmmm?
  • watcht, on 12/29/2008, -0/+5Where is this free Bacon?
  • thingamajig765, on 12/29/2008, -2/+7Thank God for the vast amounts of pirating happening on the internet today... it's the only hope for making music what it once was. When it's no longer profitable to make s***** music, then the people that will be making music will be making it for music's sake. Who the hell needs volume. I'll take quality over quantity any day. Its very possible for good musicians to do well for themselves without selling records. I organize shows here and we had a semi-famous band here a month or two ago and their Guarantee was $2000. Split five ways that's $500 bucks a peice. That's a pretty good living for doing what you enjoy more than anything else in the world. You never hear musicians complaining about downloads hurting their pocketbooks (unless those musicians are in Metallica... at that point I don't know if Musician is the proper term... whores maybe? Tools... Definitely... but I digress) because they make the large share of their profits from live shows. It's the RIAA that can scream louder than any individual or band (unless that band is Radiohead or that individual is Trent Reznor, they've been yelling back pretty well as of late) and that's who we're hearing from when we hear the laments of lost record sales. F*** the system as it stands today, we need revolution and I feel it coming
  • StupotAce, on 12/29/2008, -1/+5Bacon.
    Oh wait, noen already said Love.
  • smokesteam, on 12/30/2008, -0/+4thingamajig765,

    You are confused. Very confused. I'm going to assume you've only heard the "information wants to be free" side of the story though, or that you've never looked at the real breakdown of numbers, costs, etc. for non rockstar musicians.

    I make music, I run a small label. These days I sell at best a few hundred copies of each record. Ten or twenty years ago, I might sell a few thousand copies of each release over time, but now thanks to downloads, I can literally see the effects of downloads. It hurts my pocketbook (now you can say you've heard a musician say that). It costs money to press and distribute records, and yes there are still people out there who will only buy physical media. It costs money when I have to rent studio time to record anything I cant do in my own studio (which wasnt setup by a charity, that cost money too).

    For bands like the one you mentioned, probably 10% of that gig fee went to their management, some of the rest went to pay for gas, food and lodging (touring expenses). I pretty much doubt each member really "took home" $500 for the show. For music that is impossible or impractical to get paid touring, sales or licensing are it.

    Piracy is no blessing for me and G-d has nothing to do with it. IIRC, His opinion was "thou shalt not steal".

    I've heard this cry of net.revolution for about a decade now, longer if you consider its just a rehash of what punks in the US called for in the 80s. The difference is that lots of punk bands actually did something about it instead of bitch about The Man. They went and started up their own studios, labels & distribution. Oddly enough even if some of those bands got "big" people still paid for their records.

    As for the big labels, sure they play alot of dirty pool, but they are basically venture capitalists, investing in the work of musicians which may or may not produce a return. I'm sure you've read Steve Albini or Courtney Love's commentaries so I wont go into them here.
  • ProfessorRiffs, on 12/29/2008, -0/+4If you have any experience with the music business/industry, you'd know that it is pretty much next to impossible for new artists to make any significant amount of money in today's world without A) giving in to pressure a great deal or B) being a total sell-out minded douche to begin with.
  • SquigglyP, on 12/29/2008, -0/+4There is a market for any sort of commercial art. Doesn't mean that all of them are whores. A lot of them may be whores, but there are some top-tier artists who are making music (or any other kind of art, for that matter) just because they love to. A few of them will take on commercial projects because the project or the format is so interesting to them. Many artists will take on a commercial job to pay the bills so they can afford to do what they love. Most artists, tho, end up falling into the trap where what they do ends up becoming just a job, and they no longer do it for the love anymore.

    But lets look at reality. No one starts a new, "mainstream" style radio-friendly band with any sort of artistic goals in mind. They just want to play a guitar, yell into a mic, smash some drums and do it in front of a large, screaming crowd while strobe-lights and pyrotechnics are going off. But to really make it 'big' you have to look good as well. You don't see too many ugly-ass rock-stars, and it's not because ugly people aren't making music.

    So, write some catchy tunes with some shallow, throw-away lyrics, smash your drums like you mean it and make sure any prospective band-members are also nice to look at, and you've got yourself a marketable band. You've got about 1000:1 odds that your garage band will make it to a state where it can play gigs for money. After that you've got 1000:1 odds of getting a record deal. After that you've got 1000:1 odds that you'll ever amount to more than just one or two singles making the top 100 before you all start fighting over the money / contracts / whatever and your band breaks up. After that you've got 1000:1 odds that anyone will remember who you are a couple decades later.
  • DivisibleByZero, on 12/29/2008, -0/+4That only works if you take piracy out of the equation. Since consumers aren't afraid to take music they like without paying for it, musicians have to go to the music that still pays them. That means music that's incorporated into a larger product that users can't or are less likely to steal. And since the music isn't the sole focus of those products, it can't be as expressive as it would on its own.
  • MeatyMcBeef, on 12/29/2008, -0/+4Is the problem the industry or the consumers? Perhaps the consumers appreciate a type of music that the real artists do not like to make? If consumers wanted real artistic music they're would be a market that the industry would begin to capitalize on.
  • noen, on 12/29/2008, -1/+4Love
  • smokesteam, on 12/30/2008, -0/+3Its good to see this thing finally being talked about in the open. A number of musicians I know get far more money doing licensing deals or cutting special purpose tracks for overseas advertising.

    In a way the author is trying to break a rock journalist taboo. Ever since rock writers helped create the myth of the rockstar and rockstar lifestyle and by extension the starving artist musician, its been taboo to talk about musicians actually getting paid (except if one got really screwed over). No one questions the need for any other service people to get paid do they? Its just too bad that people think its OK to take service from musicians when its not freely given.
  • budgeysmuggler, on 12/29/2008, -0/+3I'm sure most of those artists mentioned started out making music for the love of it and if they make a decent living from it then great.
    becoming popular or known in the industry is dream for most musicians. Anyone would hard pressed not to take a fist full of cash in exchange for rights to their work. They probably realize they are going to loose some fans by doing so, but may gain a wider audience.
  • KMFDM781, on 12/29/2008, -0/+2I like how this article (not so) vaguely points to illegal downloading as the reason that artists have to resort to pursue companies to whore themselves. If mainstream music wasn't so horrible, people might buy it instead of downloading illegally...but now artists have incentive to keep making ***** music...wonderful.
  • Briandt75, on 12/29/2008, -0/+2Your comment is akin to the boring sell out music in this article... yawn
  • watcht, on 12/29/2008, -0/+2Egh right i guess, just hard to find if it's true or not.
  • ProfessorRiffs, on 12/29/2008, -0/+2This article makes it sound like music hasn't been being turned to ***** by dollars for decades, if not more.
  • Anonymerican, on 01/04/2009, -0/+2Yeah, and then when said band makes it on to the radio, or television, they are the first to brag about how they liked them before they were big, when in reality they were annoyed at the background noise because they paid a cover charge to leer at women.
  • AikoMiko, on 12/29/2008, -1/+3Moot. Artists will do it for the art, Whores will do it for the money. >Cough!SMASHMOUTH!cough!<
  • WiretapStudios, on 12/29/2008, -4/+6@ Meaty: Real music connoisseurs listen to lots of different music. Sheep listen to lots of music that all sounds the same. They are easy to lead and market to.
  • bdbr, on 12/30/2008, -0/+2Same thing with Santogold - that album was on a small label, getting great reviews BEFORE the commercials. She probably never imagined it'd end up in commercials. How can she be a "shill"?

    I see this all the time with indie music: an artist starts becoming successful, and they're immediately dissed as a "sell out". So-called "fans" say they LOVE these artists, but they want them to barely scrape by financially? What the hell kind of love is that?
  • watcht, on 12/30/2008, -0/+2No just a realist.
  • smokesteam, on 12/30/2008, -0/+2Please come back and say that after you've actually distributed a full project for a band.
  • bdbr, on 12/30/2008, -0/+2...sometimes.
  • xR0e, on 12/30/2008, -0/+2I love how the record company's are scared ***** because they're realizing that they're not needed anymore by musicians for distribution. All you gotta do is pay them to help record your track and then post it on the net. Your album reaches all corners of the globe for a much lower cost.

    Record company's can shove it.
  • bipolarruledout, on 12/30/2008, -0/+2Not sure it's quite that easy... despite the low odds. But I see a lot of shows and there is a marked difference between bands and musicians with the possibility of "going places" and those who aren't. It's not always their level of talent either. The bottom line is you have to "bring it" when your on stage and you have to really want it. It literally IS a job and you have to work at it and even then you might only do well enough that you can quit your day job or work part time.

    And for gods sake spend a few hundred dollars on MASTERING your albums; it really does make a difference.
  • bipolarruledout, on 12/30/2008, -0/+2I don't completely disagree with this statement. People will dig you down because they refuse to take a good look at themselves. It's not necessarily our fault; in a capitalist society everyone is conditioned from birth to value material goods and wealth while the arts and other areas of personal fulfillment are devalued. There is a very exacting view of what an acceptable and "happy" lifestyle should consist of.
  • bipolarruledout, on 12/30/2008, -0/+2A lot musicians actually need the money and don't live "rock star" lifestyles contrary to popular opinion. Music licensing is a very personal decision I think most musicians are willing to weigh the consequences against the gains. I'm not going to hold it against anyone but I might think twice about buying their next album particularly when there are many great musicians that need the money more.
  • smokesteam, on 12/30/2008, -0/+1MeatyMcBeef,

    You have a point. I dont think its about "real" art or artists or not though. Even within minor genres there are popular songs. I've worked on a few "name" projects over the years and alot of projects no one ever heard from again. Some of em were deeply artistic, some bubblegum (even within industrial, bubblegum exists) and some just pops. In some ways being a musician is just the same as any other job. You show up, you play the same songs you played last night, you get paid (hopefully). Sometimes its art, but what does it feel like to paint the same picture over and over again for years? I dont know the answer myself, I've never done a record that someone asked me about 10 years later.
  • smokesteam, on 12/30/2008, -1/+2I think the author referenced Play as a first, not pointing to it as a sellout.

    BTW, I dont think Moby was a pill popping though I do remember running into him shuffling around the East Village around the time that Go was first hitting the clubs.
  • WyllyWylly, on 12/30/2008, -0/+1Please. The starving artist crap is annoying. I get paid ***** for performing and writing, and I don't care. I love doing it. Just the same, if someone offers me a pile of cash for one the songs our band creates and I can feed my family, do you really think I'm going to say no? Every performer wants to get paid for doing what they do. Britney, Nickelback, etc. make bland music, sure... but it sells, and I doubt anyone here would say no if offered the chance to make fistfuls of money toting their gear from city to city. It's a pretty fine line... Pearl Jam got a lot of hate for shunning the established business model in their heyday. Do what you do and get over it. There will always be *****, soulless music and there will always be great music. At the end of the day, everyone in the business wants financial security. EVERY business has winners and losers, and that's what this is: the music BUSINESS. Don't like the product? Don't buy it. Vote with your wallet.
  • bipolarruledout, on 12/30/2008, -0/+1I'm a big believer in supporting indie and unknown artists with albums sales. It's literally the very LEAST you can do. Do they make much money this way? Of course not but it's an amazing gesture to personally buy a CD or record from a musician and shake their hand especially if they are playing a show out of pocket and might not have even made enough money for gas.
  • smokesteam, on 12/30/2008, -0/+1YES. Hold back a big chunk of your budget for mastering.
  • smokesteam, on 01/06/2009, -0/+1thingamajig765,

    When an entire press run consists of a few hundred records (not CDs) every sale counts. Without debating what constitutes a lost sale, the way I can see the effect is when stores stop ordering from small labels directly or cut their orders down to just 3 units (barely worth my time to ship) when they used to order 25 or 50 copies. They are the ones telling me that they cant sell so many because kids in the stores are saying they wont buy what they can easily download. I've seen this for myself even here in Japan.

    Also let me clear up two things, there is no "profit margin" for me any more. The best I can hope for these days is break even or that I wont have to add too much budget out of my own pocket. The other thing is that none of the labels I've ever run myself or worked closely with represent actual "bands" like in rock. I've worked with abstract studio guys, dance music and now reggae. There's never a band to tour.

    For this kind of music, it usually goes one of two ways: either there is a producer (may be the same guy who owns/runs the label, maybe not) who pays the talent and then owns the master ("work for hire") or the artist comes in and pays for the studio time, production fees, etc and may leave the work of sales and distribution up to the label. In the first case there is rarely any profit sharing back to the artist but theres an understanding that the artist can use the instrumental track for their own performances without any legal hassles. The second case isnt so clear as to how the money will be split or who owns what. Thats when problems usually happen down the line.

    Anyway, I'll keep running labels until there are either no record distributors or record shops to trade with or until people just stop buying records. If that day comes then I'll just work as a producer/mixer/composer for hire.

    HalsMyPal

    YMMV. What have you done lately?
  • bipolarruledout, on 12/30/2008, -0/+1It's amazingly sad. Especially when you go to shows and people don't even have enough respect to LISTEN to the music.
  • smokesteam, on 12/30/2008, -0/+1Having been in and out of the music business for over 20 years here are my observations as to why that is the case:

    1 your garbage man earns better and more steadily than 99% of the people who try to make a full time living out of music. As meruru pointed out, few people know a successful musician so they dont have a model to point to their kids. The same could be said for astronauts, but OTOH astronauts dont tend to be associated with any of the following things.
    2 live music is pretty much associated with nightlife, a thing that happens in bars, on the "wrong side of the tracks", places with women of questionable morals etc. Most parents dont really want their kids to grow up having a job in that environment.
    3 booze & drugs. If you are working around it all the time, its tempting. People see the news where such and such musician died of an alcohol or drug related death and they dont want that for their kids.

    Also if your assumption about the great need for music were true, it would be a a market which generates more jobs, which it doesnt. Theres enough work to keep a few people employed full time and a larger number get supplemental income out of it.
  • smokesteam, on 12/30/2008, -0/+1RTFA, its come to this.
  • bipolarruledout, on 12/30/2008, -0/+1True but the dynamic has changed due to the internet and increased awareness of indie music. The internet has made the world flat.
  • ProfessorRiffs, on 12/30/2008, -0/+1Yeah, and that kinda sucks. I like indigenous music and every place and person having their own sound. It helps make and keep the musical world rich in sounds. I have long held the internet largely responsible for the homogenization of music. It used to be that if you traveled 50 miles you found people playing a different style & sound of music... now everyone is influenced by everyone and it's all starting to blend together.
  • HalsMyPal, on 12/30/2008, -0/+1"The difference is that lots of punk bands actually did something about it instead of bitch about The Man. They went and started up their own studios, labels & distribution."

    yeah, but they also made Punk music! one of the worst excuses for talent and musical merit in popular music.
  • MrSkills, on 12/30/2008, -0/+1For the vast majority of musicians the opposite is true - they need their music to make money so that they can do it full time. The article is pointing out how, increasingly, even honest "doing it for the music" musicians are forced into thinking more about the licensing appeal of their music if they want to be able to continue doing it as more than a hobby.
  • smokesteam, on 12/30/2008, -0/+1I own MMM on vinyl and at one time played it on the radio in Dallas.
    It was an FU. A big big FU.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...

© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.