The State Of Music Today

I had a conversation with Olivia a few weeks back over a hamburger about the state of music today. We were discussing where it is now, versus where it was 3, 5, even 10 years ago. I'd like to point out a few things as I begin this post, hopefully in a successful effort to establish some required credibility when discussing a topic like this. This is in the hope of initiating what will be a healthy and intelligent discussion. I am a musician. I work for a company that services the independent and major label music industry in the U.S. and in Canada. I used to own and operate a small independent record label, with distribution deals in Canada and in the U.S. I've met and done business with minor and heavy hitters in both countries, and have been present at every level of an artist's career from marketing themselves at a grassroots level, to seeing recording and publishing deals getting negotiated.
Where is music today? When I say music, I am referring not only to the "music industry", but also the quality of what we're hearing, radio, video, what sits on the various charts, what's popular, what is being marketed to youth, and who's buying what. I am attempting to bring to light why we don't see artists anymore like Michael Jackson, Prince, Madonna, or David Bowie. I've had this conversation with friends and associates who are musically inclined before, and often I've heard how much of a talent people like Beyonce and Christina Aguilera truly are, and how they are modern day versions of the artists who came before them. I won't deny the individuals that come up during the course of these conversations are in fact very talented, sometimes even more so than some of their predecessors and musical peers, but there are big differences when comapring them to the likes of those performers and artists who were and continue to be held responsible for what many refer to as musical revolutions, so much so, that they've been immortalized on rehashed rock shirts that are being worn by the very individuals who are being called modern day versions of them. Being a child of the eighties, and although I didn't have the sixties or the seventies to fall back on in terms of a reference, I really felt that there was an abundance of new sounds that were emerging. These sounds affected and influenced how people dressed, acted, talked, and lived. There were social groups based on music. The whole New York/London underground scene, spanning the androgyny of the Dolls, to Blondie, to David Bowie, to The Velvet Underground/Lou Reed, to the Ramones was in itself a movement. The leather jacket/converse bound youth of the that time will call testament to that, because in most cases, they are the 40 year old fogies who hang out at Manitoba's and Kansas City in the heart of Manhattan, surrounded by pictures of that time, drinking and having no problem recounting those times, which to them, are sacred. From that, we go to the Funk/Glam scene that set out from Minneapolis, almost singlehandedly started and conceived by Prince, (with a slight tip of the hat to Rick James), with all of it's frills and lace. This scene was credited as bringing true musical ability and showmanship to the forefront in way never seen before. Choreography, while playing your instruments was essential, and Prince's fame and relatively short time to be considered a musical icon was credited to his insistence that the music he was producing was only capable of being successfully conveyed to an audience if the people watching could "feel" it as well as see it. From that, we go to the burgeoning hip hop scene in the boroughs of New York City. L.A. was spawning the glam rock/pop scene, showcasing the debauchery of the life, that was a slight rip off of pretty well what Johnny Thunders and the Dolls were doing on the East Coast, but true and never seen before in it's own right. Folk music was making it's mark in mainstream charting, and suddenly, mediums like MTV thrust all of these artists into a new realm of visibility, further enhancing what many think was the magic of that time. There are a number of reasons why we aren't seeing this kind of thing anymore. MTV, whether you like it or not, was like the coming of Christ when it comes to music. It established how we would view and listen to any and all future music, and the emergence of the music video became as important as what single to release. There was no returning back to sitting by a phonograph, investigating the lyrics on a vinyl sleeve, and hanging with friends while you simultaneously ensured that the needle didn't skip. MTV was that important, because television was, especially with the introduction of the VCR, becoming more diverse and accesible. Watching, versus listening, was easier, affordable, and considering the times, much more exciting. The eighties was all about maximum exposure and enjoyment for the senses. This is what the misconception is nowadays...is that the magic of the heyday of the eighties, and for that matter, the sixties or whatever is something that will never return because of all of these "boy" bands and manufactured garbage and blah blah blah. I disgaree with this. I feel, that that is an easy way to simply strike a criticism in favor of what might bring you credibility as an artist's artist or expert. Anyone willing to lash out and attack what Lou Pearlman does obviously knows what they're talking about. Well, I think that a few things have to be taken into account before coming to such a quick conclusion. To be clear, there has always been a manufactured aspect to the music business. It has been there since it's inception. I'd go so far as to agree that the importance of recognizing that it is in fact a business is much more prevalent nowadays, but even Elvis Presley was honed and trained to be as controversial, and in the end, as marketable as possible. Colonel Tom Parker even admitted as much. This business is one of the most sensitive in correctly assessing what it is that their market wants to see, and it follows trend reports and fads so closely that it has developed it's own publications and industry insider resources. The reason why we might be seeing more of the manufactured aspect of this currently or in the not so long ago past, is because it is harder to sell. Another cultural revolution known as the Internet, has increased the exchange of information, as well as the accessibility of music. This has changed the way that we perceive this aspect of the business, but make no mistake about it, it has always been there. Has it sacrificed the talent, and the recognition of that by the individuals in financial positions to make these people stars....maybe so, but I think that that's a pretty weak argument considering that if anything, I think people are much more talented than they used to be. They're more aware that the industry is that much harder to break into, and I think generally artists are much more concerned with general technical execution of their craft or crafts, as well as the look that they relay to a scout or an audience. They need to be that much better than before in order to get an audition or showcase. Another thing to take into account, is that the consumer demographic has changed. Children and teenagers are in much more of a position to purchase music, and the amalgmation of all of these mediums as to how they communicate have played an important role in what we see on television, and now, what we see on our computer screen or IPod browers. The same people who complain about how they can't see a concert or purchase an album without seeing something corporate laced into it, are forgetting these points. It is harder to make a buck in the industry nowadays, and the honest truth is that when people can get it for free, mp3's in this particular case, you need to get more aggressive about marketing what it is that you're selling, you need to take less risk, and you need to cross promote. These are all regular issues in any business, and the ones that can move with the times, will continue. The truth is, that it's not a sound idea to develop an artist, maybe take a bath on the first few records, in hope and faith that eventually, a single will break. Majors now play the quantity game, signing many bands and hoping for one or two of them to chart or produce a single. It's not good business anymore to play the waiting game, and nobody can afford to take chances like Clive Davis did on virtual unknowns like Carlos Santana or Whitney Houston back in the day. With that said, since the industry has changed so much, and the human creative reaction to change is to exxagerate or make the situation bigger than it is, the artists that are the contemporaries of the Bowies and Blondies of the past aren't usually brought up in conversations in coffeeshops as music experts discuss the problems with boy bands and groups that look as if they are owned by clothing outlets. There are still many credible bands and artists out there, doing orginal and genuine things with music, but because the business of it has come more to the forefront, people are much more anxious to accuse everyone of selling out.