Why does music today suck?

[controllerzero]

man, mainstream (radio) music is played for the masses. (duh.) Not for people who sit by and try to decipher every riff or chord. They listen while they work or while they talk on cellphones and drive or whatever. Radio tries to grab their attention with the latest "new sound". Biance's vocals or Blink182's trying-to-be-clever-lyrics, catchy yet not too deep. No time for that nowadays. I'm sorry but radio sponsors want masses. The same goes for the record companies. They only sell what they think they can sell so that they will be here tomorrow. It may only cost them 2 bucks to make a cd but they have to pay the band one. that's 3. Don't forget the state of the art recording studio the band spent hundreds of hours at. what about all of the promotion? Making posters and online adds and paying to fly the band from here to bum**** and then pay to repair the hotel they trashed? What about the last couple of videos? do you think the band paid for those?? suddenly it's the record company getting the $1 per cd. Now they have to split amongst their 600 employees. If they are doing such a good job raping bands and consumers then why don't we see mr. pop rock promoter in fortune 500 magazine? The masses want suburbian white-kid wanna be gansta-rappa, so that's what they are getting.

[aseepish]

Originally posted by Tony10
The Cult is reunited and has a new album coming out!

Your prayers have been answered.

I was just listening to Love last night....

Brilliant! Billy Duffy was my main inspiration to take up the guitar in the first place. He and Jimmy Page.

-T

[Tony10]

Not really...

Controller Zero:

Actually,

a) Who pays for the videos? The band does. Every expense the band incurs--in other words, that the record company pays for--is "recoupable." Which means that the band does not make one cent until the costs fronted by the record company have been paid back in full. This is standard procedure in the music biz.

The same goes for the studio time, the cost of the album, whatever you want to throw in there. Think of the major label as, essentially, a bank. They loan you the money for everything and they expect all of it to be repaid. They do not give you anything that you don't have to pay back. The idea that you're shaking a tin cup for these poor little companies, like--for instance--Sony... is LOL funny.

b) Any tour support--if the record company provides any--is often minimal and is again--to be repaid in full by the band.

c) Your math is completely flawed. I said it costs the record companies (and probably it's a high guess) $2 per CD. You then say "they pay the artist $1," so that leaves them with $1.

Wrong. They sell it wholesale to stores for $10. That leaves them with $7. It is virtually pure profit.

You demonstrate a pretty non-existent understanding of how it all works. The idea that these mega-media-empire record companies are making $1 per and then--sob--having to split that among 600 employees is preposterous. These are multi-BILLION dollar corporations who thrive on an industry wherein when they sign artists (I use that term loosely), it's not a question of if they're going to f*** them but how hard.


Your argument that radio stations just want masses isn't a revelation--when was that ever not true? To suggest that the dumbing down of music to the lowest common denominator and most cookie cutter type of product because people "just don't have time" would have to mean that the great music of the 60s through the 90s was successful with unemployed people or slackers?

With all due respect, you probably don't want to lecture somebody who's been in the biz for 8 years how it works.

[controllerzero]

tony10, wow, you've been in "the biz". I apologize for speculating about the company expenses. It is, however, totally igonorant to say they make $7 pure profit off a cd. That's like saying a bar takes a 14 dollar bottle of bacardi, sells it off at $3 per shot and makes $22 pure profit. You probably agree with that statement and that is your problem. As for the great music of the last four decades, (By great i assume you mean popular, I'm sure if you site examples I'll say they are great too, as will everyone else.) It became great by giving people (not just beatniks and slackers) a desire to listen to it. Does your music do that?

[controllerzero]

Also, I think the company does pay for the band's expenses up front, recoupable or not. What if the band can't bring the crowd. what if they break up or the lead singer goes to jail or dies or something. Who gets screwed then? The money that does get recouped goes directly into another band. Hopefully they will be worth a $hit and not drive up the cost of cd's by losing everyone money.

I feel like I'm representing myseslf as a preacher for the gospel of record labels. I don't think that good artists get paid what they are worth. I do think, however, that the record labels run a legitimate business and if they could lower prices or pay the bands better they would. They would have to, they have competition from independents and other big labels to worry about. I love music. Music would still thrive even if the labels died. Especially in the information age of today. Perhaps it is time for a new system. Maybe we don't need the labels to act as a middleman for us anymore. If you can think something let me know.

[Tony10]

Trust me, CZero, you're absolutely dreaming with respect to the intentions of record companies, although there are some genuine people in the biz. But they want EVERYTHING they put out back.

Well, you're right--not "pure" profit necessarily, but definitely way over that of the artist. And they're taking even more by jacking wholesale prices when their costs have declined. That's what I mean.

With reference to popular music, what I mean is: nobody takes chances. It doesn't have to be dumb pop for everybody to like it. However, that's all radio stations will play, and that's the problem.

Think of how many greats broke out because deejays played their record, regardless of whether they "fit" or not. Format wasn't important, just having a good song was. Now it's the other way around (of course with some exceptions).

That's all I mean. I'm not crying about some tuneless prog-rockers not getting airplay, trust me.

[camundongo]

personally i like any music with a good beat, lyrics, etc.
but its true that most modern music sucks because its all basically fake...i mean...back in the 70's (and before) there was mostly the vocalist accompanied by a guitar, drums, whatever (a live instrument) which helped the musics overall appeal ...now there is almost no music that is entirely "natural" sound...most of it is made with drum machines, beat machines, synthesizers and other electric machines that can even alter a horrible singers voice to sound really good
like alot of you said that todays pop stars aren/t talented they are models...thats the sad truth...when is the last time you saw a truly ugly solo singer? like some of them are pretty nasty but basically pretty (the girls anyway) there was just a show called like "making the band" or something for a girls group and there was a part when the producers said that one contestant would not make it because she wouldn't look good onstage ...i say f**k the industry...PEACE

[Hookah Smokin Caterpillar]

Fight the power!

[IronMaiden]

The Cult

About The Cult:
Tony you were right their new album has already came out.As for me you can probably figure it out which is my favorite band, and I also like AC\DC, Deep Purple and Black Sabbath(yeah Ozzy is kinda f*cked up in the head but he's great).

[aseepish]

Classic Metal!!

IronMaiden,

AC/DC have been criticized for recording the same song again and again for many an album, but fortunately it's a good song!

You haven't lived until you've heard a Filipino bar band cover "Highway Star."

Time to go check out the new Cult album...

Tony (not that one, the OTHER one)

[IronMaiden]

AC/DC

aseepish,
you're right a lot of people(especially music critics) say that all of
AC/DC's songs look alike.That someway true.But they rule no matter what.
And yes, The Cult they are great.

[Pit Dog]

WHY MUSIC SUCKS TODAY

The reason music sucks today is because it lacks PASSION.

Same with cars, etc.

People make music now for money, not because they want to express themselves. Old time music was a bout a LOVE for music as well as something to say, a message to communicate.

Music today is like plastic furniture, or cars that get totalled from a fender bender: no quality in the craftsmanship; no pride and true effort to make a good product. Just a desire to imitate the latest shpeel ... with zero talent behind it.

[Masala]

Check out Ween.



Hi Pit!

[Pit Dog]

What's up oldtimer?

[Tony10]

I don't believe it. Pit Dog comes out of retirement finally. Awesome.

I agree with you. I feel bad for kids these days--not to sound like an old-timer, but in a lot of ways I feel like they don't know what they're being cheated out of. I'm sure they may feel some affinity for their band that fits into one of the five formats, but had they been around in the 80s/early 90s, they'd be appalled at the lack of passion and emotional content today. It's just product.

At the same time, nothing makes me feel more like I was born at the right time then to consider that I was around during the heydey of all the great bands during that same period, whose music--literally--made my life better. It still stands the test of time.

Too bad for them these days. They don't even know what it would be like to have what we had.