Take your best production, put a talented local singer on it. It goes nowhere,

put Rihanna on it, Same lyrics same melodies.

It goes everywhere and you're rich.

Yep. The only way to make a decent amount of money... is to have a decent amount of money

You're probably trying to reach out to a demographic which is more interested in celebrity worship rather than actual music, making it a hopeless endeavor from the start. Those types of consumers will never care about whatever music is attached to the brand they're buying.

Yep, and THEY are the majority. Original music, as art, is moving more and more into an avant-garde form. Everthing else is grist for the entertainment mill or background noise to be ignored. Perhaps, music was always destined to return to a local endeveor of entertainment and self-expression. Nothing wrong with that.

I'm pretty sure you're being tongue in cheek, but if not then I call bollocks.


Music isn't dead just 'cos Simon Cowell said so.

Kinda....the consumer is now relying on brands to endorse the music..no endorsement...no hit.
And they endorse it by being the "vocalist". Today singers are really spokesmodels for the songs.

so how is this different from the rest of the history of popular music?

Simon Cowell is the one who KILLED it!
Last edited by blueman on Thu Nov 22, 2012 8:50 am; edited 1 time in total

It's different because of the ubiquity of, and easy access to, all music, as well as the sheer volume being produced and distributed daily. That's influencing consumer behavior in new ways. Yeah, the story may seem similar but I think we are certainly in a new era where being successful is more closely linked to a personal brand that is more concerned with performance and image than original expression (as an art form). Many of the classic bands would not have a shot today because they relied only on a committed fan base and creating "good music". Today's fans are FAR more fickle and a lot less loyal than ever before. That's what I'm seeing anyway.
Last edited by blueman on Thu Nov 22, 2012 8:51 am; edited 1 time in total

Precisely! "Popular" by nature is 'trendy', and "trendy" by nature is fickle.

Adapt, improvise, innovate, or get used to it being beyond your particular 'reach' (if not interest), and withdraw from the 'machine' all together.

[2c]

That's a machine I never had interest in. Respect of peers and a small income would be sufficient.

Difference wasn't suggested
But newer generations are not born with knowledge of the truth.

Why not just spend less time in the studio, and spend more time working on your appearance and image, and you'll be rich and famous with almost no effort. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Last edited by cryophonik on Thu Nov 22, 2012 9:00 am; edited 3 times in total

Fair enough, but it IS different by virtue of the variables (new technology) changing. I don't know how you can claim that popular music is as it always was when we now have music downloads, sample libraries and auto-tune. Today, so-called "real" band music is easily (and indistinguishably) replaced by something manufactured by a single person in a bedroom with the above tools readily (and mostly, freely) available. That, to me, is the game changer and its effects on what we are calling "popular music" are evident.