The Devaluation of Music

[richardg]

There should be no 'industry' It is a 'blip' in a 2000+ year history of music that started mid-60s has been in decline since the mid-00s.

But let's address your 3 points anyway:

1. The Internet has increased the chances of hearing new music. Moreso than listening to Peel or taking mates' recommendations. It also offers more opportunities to 'try before you buy'.

2. Music should be affordable. The old model of £15 for a CD and £12 for an LP is not going to fly nowadays as people prioritise spending on 'phones etc.There is money to be made if you're a composer / performer but not in direct sales; money comes from live performances (I've made more money that way), merchandising, streaming and, IME, licensing of music.

3. I think that was always the case but I agree it's a bit easier on the Internet. That said, it's easier to switch the PC on and play some tunes than faff about setting up the TT and letting it all warm up before a listening session.

Your introductory point is a different issue. The article refers to recent history.

I agree with your response to point 1. But that does not mean it did not devalue the industry.

I agree with point 2 but again it does not add anything to the argument that the industry is devalued. It is agreeing with my point, I think?

 

[mr.datsun]

OK, the sampling you describe sounds OK by me. I can 'dig' that as a method, although it's unlikely the results would do much for me because I'm an old stick in the mud with little interest in electronic music. But the more obvious use of whole chunks of a previous hit simply because the 'artist' can't come up with anything new really does strike me as more plagiarism than sampling.

Mull

We don't know that they 'can't come up with anything new' or even whether that is why they do it. Some people enjoy reworking or quoting other people's music and sampling is an obvious way to do it. However, the practice is not new. Composers have often referenced or paid homage to other people's music throughout the history of music and before the invention of sampling. It's part of the game - whether serious or tongue-in-cheek. The Velvet Underground were inspired by R&B, Motown, The Rolling Stones, even The Beatles and the songs they borrowed riffs from are well-known to fans.

Same thing goes on in all forms of art. Picasso, cubism, collage, montage. etc etc.

Plagiarism implies that the artist is actually trying to hide what they are doing – something much harder with samples. Most musicians don't want to hide it at all - it's always part of the fun for the listener, knowing the musical quotes.

> 'little interest in electronic music'

But there's so much pleasure and enjoyment out there!

 

[richardg]

I agree....electronic music brought an amazing change down the youth club disco. The Model completely blew my mind. All of a sudden the atmosphere turned icey and everyone was trying to be serious, cool and aloof on the dance floor. Bollocks in retrospect but at the time it felt like a different universe when stuff like that came on.

 

[mr.datsun]

I agree....electronic music brought an amazing change down the youth club disco. The Model completely blew my mind. All of a sudden the atmosphere turned icey and everyone was trying to be serious, cool and aloof on the dance floor. Bollocks in retrospect but at the time it felt like a different universe when stuff like that came on.

And electronic music is not just the dominion of youth clubbers and Krautpop. Electronics have been applied in all forms of music from low to high, traditional to modern.

 

[Mullardman]

I think that article is scratching around for ideas. I think the devaluation is more simple. It is entirely due to the digital revolution and nothing to do with progress in music culture that people are arguing about upthread, and nothing much to do with the other non-internet reasons cited in the article. For example, music in schools is to blame? Piffle. Maybe in the US, where this article comes from, but I doubt it. Music in schools in Hull is miles ahead of what it was when I was a kid. I have 2 kids going through school now and I am amazed at how lucky they are. But they can't really be arsed with it because they have their heads stuck in their tablets playing games, like all their friends.

If you think there is nothing new in music culture then you have got old between your ears. Not so say that you are wrong, but when you are a teenager and have little reference, much regurgitated stuff sounds new. So, if the kids gave a shit, bands and the industry could easily convince them that new music was indeed new and exciting.When I look back to the stuff in the 80s that I thought was new and amazing I now know quite a lot was regurgitated and quite a lot was innovative. At the time I could not distinguish. For example, many acts broke into the mainstream because of a cover. Boy George, Marc Almond for example. Stodgy stuff, looking back. Loads others, Gary Numan, Martin Fry, David Sylvian, were just Bowie clones. Stranglers and Dr feelgood sounded really edgy when I was a kid. I mostly hear the blues and a bit of balladeering thrown in there now.

So, for me, the internet is entirely responsible for sucking the magic out of the industry. There are 3 obvious issues:

1. Music is now too accessible because of the internet
2. Music is too cheap because of the internet
3. Other activities on the internet distract people from listening to music like we did before the internet.

And that's about it.

Which I agree with and which is broadly in line with what I said in #18.

Mull

 

[Mullardman]

In fairness Mull you come over here as a person with spectacularly narrow taste that apparently stopped exploring any new music forms 30+years ago! Over the past couple of days you've slammed the whole '80s as a decade, a decade which had many musical movements that remain hugely influential to this day, and here you slam not only all sampling but all electronic music and it would appear minimalism too! I guess Glass, Reich, Riley, Adams etc all fall too far outside your 60-70s blues/soul/rock comfort zone too?

Tony, surely you know my posting style by now? It's influenced by Mick.

To slightly expand on my views. I was a teenager in the 1960s. I therefore had the double whammy of the old 'formative years' thing, plus the massive impact of a generally acknowledged 'golden period' in popular music.

Throughout the 70s my interest in 'popular' music rapidly waned and I got deeper into traditional and contemporary folk, jazz, classical as well as the likes of Dylan, Cohen, Mitchell et.al.

I'm sure there was interesting music in the 80s but I was pretty busy with other things like going through uni, having kids etc., so I only really heard the 'pop' end of the 80s synthpop stuff. Most of it IME was pretty dire. I recall the Thompson Twins appalling performance at Live Aid as possibly the worst of all. I did quite like the Eurythmics, which probably makes me uncool or something, but they seemed to achieve a good balance of electronic stuff with interesting songs, good melodies and the undoubted talents of Ms Lennox. I also quite liked R.E.M and a few others.

I've said here before that I lost interest in almost all 'rock' after about 1970. ISTM that it was all covered by then. I never bothered with Sabbath, Purple,Crimson, Heep, Genesis, Yes or any of that lot.

Yet you persist with this line:

spectacularly narrow taste that apparently stopped exploring any new music forms 30+years ago!

And for at least the third time:

your 60-70s blues/soul/rock comfort zone

You also allege that I 'love' 60s 'white blues'. Really? Would you like to quote where I posted that?

Tony, you've never seen my music collection. And I've been collecting for over 50 years.

I guess jazz, classical, elements of 'world' music, people like Laura Marling, Lana Del Rey, Karine Polwart, Ren Harvieu and many many others also fall inside my alleged 'comfort zone'?

I've been exploring music all my life. Some new, some old/historic. There is no rule which says that I should slavishly waste what time I have left trying to like stuff which doesn't move me just because it is 'new'.

And yes, I like soul, blues etc., in moderate doses, but what I like more is seeking the roots of popular music and its develpment from mostly black roots. Exploring backwards if you like. But still exploring.

Does that help?

Mull

 

[Mullardman]

We don't know that they 'can't come up with anything new' or even whether that is why they do it. Some people enjoy reworking or quoting other people's music and sampling is an obvious way to do it. However, the practice is not new. Composers have often referenced or paid homage to other people's music throughout the history of music and before the invention of sampling. It's part of the game - whether serious or tongue-in-cheek. The Velvet Underground were inspired by R&B, Motown, The Rolling Stones, even The Beatles and the songs they borrowed riffs from are well-known to fans.

Same thing goes on in all forms of art. Picasso, cubism, collage, montage. etc etc.

Plagiarism implies that the artist is actually trying to hide what they are doing – something much harder with samples. Most musicians don't want to hide it at all - it's always part of the fun for the listener, knowing the musical quotes.

> 'little interest in electronic music'

But there's so much pleasure and enjoyment out there!

Yes yes yes. You make some good points, but I still simply cannot see how some of the simplistic 'Acid' stuff quoted here can, in anybody's universe qualify as 'A masterpiece' (Quoting a Youtube comment)

And there is no pleasure in electronic music for me. I don't like it. There are many here who don't like, or don't 'get' classical, or folk, or jazz, etc. I don't like electronic music. I find it soul less, almost without exception. But I'm not stopping anyone else from enjoying it.


Mull

 

[gassor]

Mull, I'm about the same age as you, but have come to a very different conclusion about what I want to spend time listening to. I'm always on the lookout for new music and when I find something, it still knocks me out. Last week it was Ryan Adams album of Taylor Swift songs - 1989. Gob smacked. And a few weeks before that it was Frazey Ford with Al Green's backing band.

I think there is lots of good stuff out there and it's a shame if you don't come across it. End-of-year lists are a good pointer and if you have Spotify or the like you can rummage to your heart's content and may even find something new to 'light your fire' and throw into the conversation when the kids are discussing the new Rihanna album like the new single from from a singer named Betsy.

 

[mr.datsun]

Yes yes yes. You make some good points, but I still simply cannot see how some of the simplistic 'Acid' stuff quoted here can, in anybody's universe qualify as 'A masterpiece' (Quoting a Youtube comment)

And there is no pleasure in electronic music for me. I don't like it. There are many here who don't like, or don't 'get' classical, or folk, or jazz, etc. I don't like electronic music. I find it soul less, almost without exception. But I'm not stopping anyone else from enjoying it.


Mull

Mull. I suspect that some albums may be called classics within their own subgenre, even if they do not translate well to a wider audience. DJ Shadow may be one.

Then I get the idea you are really talking 'electronica', not 'electronic' music. Electronica is, to me, a quite a narrow (usually) beats-based dance music genre* – and I have to say with a few exceptions holds little intrinsic interest for me.

Not all electronic music is soul-less. And I would like to think carefully before choosing which examples to back up that assertion up.

And then there is music for which electronic sound simply provides another voice alongside the traditional – keyboards, guitar, bass etc., etc.

You make it clear that you are not really interested in exploring, so I will not make suggestions, except to say that i wish my friends' album (2 Square Y?) was not stuck in mastering limbo. Otherwise I would send you a copy to show that electronics can work well alongside guitars, drum, bass, strings and can expand the emotional range of pop music even with roots in the 60s and 70s.

*Some of that genre does expand beyond strict beats but it is still rooted in that tradition.

 

[fay spook]

There should be no 'industry' It is a 'blip' in a 2000+ year history of music that started mid-60s has been in decline since the mid-00s.


2. Music should be affordable. The old model of £15 for a CD and £12 for an LP is not going to fly nowadays as people prioritise spending on 'phones etc.There is money to be made if you're a composer / performer but not in direct sales; money comes from live performances (I've made more money that way), merchandising, streaming and, IME, licensing of music.

faff about setting up the TT and letting it all warm up before a listening session.

The industry didn't start in the 1960s, it has evolved out of publishing from a century before that then evolved into recordings (and mechanical rights?)

CDs are priced about the same as buying all the tracks as a download and will usually sound better and give you a bit of packaging. Records are coming in at £15-18 for an LP. I am sure this is less than they "should" be if inflation is taken into account. People just expect to pay less for music today- therefore it has been devalued. I still by new and old vinyl only.

Music is affordable. It was when I saved my lunch money to buy second hand vinyl. I hope you make as much money as your music deserves and a bit more for being nice I know record deals (how quaint) aren't great and overall sales are down but there is also a big hit for middle sized venues and the sucking up of gig money by the massive acts in massive venues- unless they are you?

I bet you a CD/DL/LP that I could get a record playing quicker than you could get something off your computer. Spin the platter, switch on, move arm v press power, wait for boot, (wait for wireless), open program, press play.

If you say your laptop is just in sleep I could still beat this macbook with the time it takes to wake up.

Tablets might be faster, I don't know but they aren't part of the bet!!

 

[Seeker_UK]

The industry didn't start in the 1960s, it has evolved out of publishing from a century before that then evolved into recordings (and mechanical rights?)

It's roots were well before then but it didn't become that massive profit-making enterprise (that today is so scared of dying) until the 60s. Before then music was an entertainment, not a means to increase the value of shareholders' investment.

I bet you a CD/DL/LP that I could get a record playing quicker than you could get something off your computer. Spin the platter, switch on, move arm v press power, wait for boot, (wait for wireless), open program, press play.

Dunno. I'm old school so listen to stuff CD/LP/MC. I'm sure someone who is part of this digital age can help you lose that bet.

 

[fay spook]

It's roots were well before then but it didn't become that massive profit-making enterprise (that today is so scared of dying) until the 60s. Before then music was an entertainment, not a means to increase the value of shareholders' investment.
.

I am always happy to bow to those with greater knowledge.

I gained a chunk of my knowledge read the histories of recorded music. Recently Ta-Ra-Ra-Boom-De-Ay by Simon Napier Bell and Cowboys and Indies by Gareth Murphy (a Kindle and a commute). They offer a version where "it was ever thus" for the past 150 years.

 

[Ponkbutler]

Equally, they've had the guts to do it rather than take the safe option and then moan jealously from the sidelines....

 

[Mullardman]

Just on the point about the existence or otherwise of an 'industry'.

I seem to recall something about Mozart, but can't come up with anything firm. Maybe someone else can add this.

However, it is well documented that the world of 19th C American songwriter Stephen Foster was based upon a financial relationship between composer and publisher, which may not always have been entirely honest and above board. The popular image seems to be that Foster was mercilessly ripped off by publishers and also some performers. This may or may not be true, but there was most certainly a lot of money in play between the composers, publishers and performers as far back as the 1850s.

Mull

 

[mr.datsun]

3. I think that was always the case but I agree it's a bit easier on the Internet. That said, it's easier to switch the PC on and play some tunes than faff about setting up the TT and letting it all warm up before a listening session.

Isn't this part of the devaluation problem? The ease of download, the ease of finding anything, the ease of pressing play?

When I was a kid I would spend what little money I had on a well-chosen record. I would then play it and play it until I effectively knew every nuance. I would read the liner notes. I could remember the track-listing on each LP by heart. If bought a 'difficult' album (e.g. Henry Cow) I would work at it until it made sense, until I unlocked it and found enjoyment/interest. I could not afford to buy LPs willy nilly, reject them and put it at them back of the pile. Even music I did not like. If I was given an album by a band I did not like, I still got everything I could from it before it gradually went to the back of the pile. I read NME/MM cover to cover. I read anything I could find in the library. Gigs were rare and a special event. Everything in the process of finding/choosing, buying and listening had value. Hard won value. And now music flows like water.

 

[Mullardman]

Mull. I suspect that some albums may be called classics within their own subgenre, even if they do not translate well to a wider audience. DJ Shadow may be one.

Then I get the idea you are really talking 'electronica', not 'electronic' music. Electronica is, to me, a quite a narrow (usually) beats-based dance music genre* – and I have to say with a few exceptions holds little intrinsic interest for me.

Not all electronic music is soul-less. And I would like to think carefully before choosing which examples to back up that assertion up.

And then there is music for which electronic sound simply provides another voice alongside the traditional – keyboards, guitar, bass etc., etc.

You make it clear that you are not really interested in exploring, so I will not make suggestions, except to say that i wish my friends' album (2 Square Y?) was not stuck in mastering limbo. Otherwise I would send you a copy to show that electronics can work well alongside guitars, drum, bass, strings and can expand the emotional range of pop music even with roots in the 60s and 70s.

*Some of that genre does expand beyond strict beats but it is still rooted in that tradition.

That's an interesting post Mr D. Thank you. And yes, I'll admit I'm not familiar with the differences between the various dance type genres which seem to have emanated from the 'club' scene since the 80s. ish.

I don't believe I actually said I'm 'not interested in exploring'. For the most part I don't regard music as an intellectual exercise, but as a medium for entertainment and relaxation. I am actively exploring in the other direction, trying to understand how much of pop music came about. Things such as the link between for example, The Ink Spots in the 40s, the Moonglows in the 1950s and the subsequent development and phenomenal success of Motown., in this case through the good offices of the Fuqua family. I find it all fascinating. But I also dig back further still, into jazz, r&B, blues etc., plus 19th and early 20th C popular music. Much of what I discover is new to me. There may well be some sort of deep psychology here as I yearned to own a record player and always felt denied access to music until I was about 13, though I was obsessed with, and fascinated by what little I heard.

As for more recent stuff, I don't automatically reject anything. My ears are open and if I hear anything which grabs me, I will look further. I've bought a range of stuff in recent years just on the basis of a hearing at a show, on radio, at a friend's house etc.

OTOH I don't think I'm the only person my age and even younger, who finds new music less likely to 'grab' me.

And of course the 'golden ages' of jazz/blues and classical, and even to some extent folk, pre-date many of us. Oddly, I don't see anyone getting criticism for exploring Miles Davis, or Charlie Parker, or Mingus.

Mull

 

[abbydog]

When I was a kid I would spend what little money I had on a well-chosen record. I would then play it and play it until I effectively knew every nuance. I would read the liner notes. I could remember the track-listing on each LP by heart. If bought a 'difficult' album (e.g. Henry Cow) I would work at it until it made sense, until I unlocked it and found enjoyment/interest. I could not afford to buy LPs willy nilly, reject them and put it at them back of the pile. Even music I did not like. If I was given an album by a band I did not like, I still got everything I could from it before it gradually went to the back of the pile. I read NME/MM cover to cover. I read anything I could find in the library. Gigs were rare and a special event. Everything in the process of finding/choosing, buying and listening had value. Hard won value. And now music flows like water.

You clearly enjoyed relative poverty and scarcity. I like relative wealth and plenty as far as music is concerned. To whom would you like to further restrict access to music, so they could 'enjoy' it more?

 

[mr.datsun]

You clearly enjoyed relative poverty and scarcity. I like relative wealth and plenty as far as music is concerned. To whom would you like to further restrict access to music, so they could 'enjoy' it more?

In some sense things have not changed. There is still scarcity and poverty because for me, it's equally as rare to find interesting music today as it was in 1973, maybe more so. Back then it was easier to spot.

I'm not suggesting solutions. It's an observation. We don't value the things that are in abundance or given to us on a plate as much those we search out. The searching helps define our interests, who we are and in turn shapes our response to the music.

In East Germany, professional musicians had to earn a licence to perform. Obviously that would not go down well in a democratic culture, but it artificially kept the value at a required level.

I favour music as an educational process, self-fulfilment and personal enjoyment, but when you turn music and its production into an industry, a commodity and a career path, then it changes. Over-abundance of any commodity reduces it's value. But over-abundance is only a problem for those seeking financial rewards.

 

[blossomchris]

I agree, It has always been difficult to source new music you like. It is certainly cheaper/free to hear new music today, yesteryear I made a few expensive mistakes as I could not bare the record shop to play a record I fancied,(my daddy was an early semi audiophile) as often the rarer stuff there would only be one copy.

My brother always asks me, have you got any new music and depending on how we are getting along at that time, I tell him or not who the artist/record is or isn't


Bloss

 

[fay spook]

You clearly enjoyed relative poverty and scarcity. I like relative wealth and plenty as far as music is concerned. To whom would you like to further restrict access to music, so they could 'enjoy' it more?

I think part of the point was, do you enjoy the music you pick up for next to nothing very easily? when it was an occasion and you really worked at it, has that music lasted? I am not saying which is correct.

It is also hard to gauge the music you've bought now and the music from when you were young. I am sure there was less in your life then, time moved slower and you were more passionate about the simpler things in life.