Kings of A&R

82 Comments »

1. a possible answer to this article…
   myspace.com/dirtywordsmusic

   YOU DECIDE!

   Comment by i agree with your article — June 13, 2008 @ 9:53 am

2. And God bless America? Whatever.

   The problem is that music in practical terms is controlled by corporations, whether it’s WMG or Clear Channel or Viacom or whatever. The bottom line long ago eclipsed any idea of or concern for art. This isn’t new… this is why Poison sucked. And Motley Crue. And Europe. And Duran Duran. Nevermind Candlebox, Bush, & all of those copycat grunge bands of the early 90’s.

   This leads to music becoming a product that caters to short attention spans and a snowballing epidemic of impatience. This conflicts directly with concept of enduring art.

   The convenience of digital recording and the proliferation of myspace have little to do with it. The fact of the matter is that if the next Dark Side of the Moon were recorded tomorrow, Joe Music Lover probably would never know, but if you put some bullshit shock pop hook like “I kissed a girl” or “my lovely lady lumps” over some bullshit pro tools track, the song will be everywhere over night. The reason great music was made in the 60’s and 70’s is because the music that people were exposed to was great. Great tunes beget great tunes. Shit songs beget shit songs.

   The fact of the matter is that music as enduring art has been pushed off of the radar by corporations and likely won’t return until these corporations are no more. Having David Vandervelde or Elliott Smith reach the public ear is just simply not in their interest.

   First and foremost, musicians are music fans. And you can only be a fan of what you hear. And these corporations have for years been doing everything in their power to control what we hear & they’ve been selling us shit as gold for quite a while now.

   I grew up listening to Hootie & the Blowfish and Marcy Playground and a lot of painfully mediocre bands… ONLY because of the internet did I begin to understand what great music was & why the 60’s and 70’s were so important.

   Also, there’s no such thing as too much information. There is such a thing as not enough filtering of information. Or perhaps poor filtering. But to say that information should be out there is just ridiculous.

   Comment by Jon Cole — June 13, 2008 @ 10:29 am

3. KOAR, please consider replacing the poorly-written John Degrazio diatribe with Jon Cole’s comment.

   Comment by Stu Gots — June 13, 2008 @ 11:22 am

4. It’s easy to blame corporations for releasing crappy music and corporate radio for playing it and there is real truth in that. But, the reality is that we have also had a societal shift that has ushered in an era of bland music.

   In our society today, you don’t need achievement to have fame. Kids live in a world of instant gratification - some of it positive (like access to information on the internet) and some of it not (like access to information on the internet). The resulting information overload drowns out all but the loudest and most catchy of music.

   The same thing is true of politics, news, film…anything tied to mass media. In politics, people want soundbite solutions to essay questions. News if filled with sensationalism because people would rather read TMZ. Movies are made for the lowest common denominator.

   Sure, the corporations have made it more difficult to get great music to the masses, but consumers can demand anything they want and, sadly, they have demanded Paris Hilton, flag lapel pins, Hannah Montana and Nickelback.

   The people have spoken as sucky as that may be.

   Comment by Jeff — June 13, 2008 @ 12:56 pm

5. exactly jeff, blaming corporations is a simplistic view and not the entire cause. Yes, with the internet, people now have choices but apparently they want Paris and Lindsey!

   Comment by paramorefan — June 13, 2008 @ 1:38 pm

6. i think the problem with music is that a lot of it is lacking LOVE.

   who’s writing cool love songs? you can only hear so many angry tracks.

   it’s like anything else–music made without love is like food made without love– it tastes like crap (see “fast food”)

   sure, anger, resentment, etc is human emotion, and songs that are written than way are relevant…BUT

   all the greatest artists had cool love songs.

   i think that’s what is missing from new bands today.

   most of the artists featured on this site as “cool new bands” never have any cool love songs.

   just my opinion. and please, if you’re an artist reading this and feel in any way compelled to write a cool love song, please, make sure it’s cool. because

   there’s nothing worse than a cheesy love song.

   

   Comment by john lennon — June 13, 2008 @ 2:21 pm

7. 4 active bands right this second proving that the well has NOT run dry and you need to turn off your radio and tv IMMEDIATELY. Anyone who is bitching about music today lacking or no good love songs being written isn’t even looking, so here you go all you have to do is copy and paste.

   PROGRESS IN COLOR
   http://www.myspace.com/progressincolor

   STATELESS
   http://www.myspace.com/statelessonline

   INNER PARTY SYSTEM
   http://www.myspace.com/innerpartysystem

   SKY EATS AIRPLANE
   http://www.myspace.com/skyeatsairplane

   Comment by love? — June 13, 2008 @ 2:34 pm

8. oh yea one more. If you are dying to have your next pop star here he is

   http://www.myspace.com/kenna

   Comment by love? — June 13, 2008 @ 2:38 pm

9. hmm… not sure about those bands. prism 1 by stateless is a great song though.

   Comment by Keith — June 13, 2008 @ 3:53 pm

10. I agree on the love songs comment. But love songs are cheesy, it goes with the territory…so go ahead and be cheesy.

    Comment by Tim — June 13, 2008 @ 4:22 pm

11. Best love song and will win an award.
    Flame by The Vettes
    myspace.com/thevettes

    Comment by Lisa Bradley — June 13, 2008 @ 6:37 pm

12. 1) “the wannabe famous “artistes “ in the basement are flooding the airwaves.” Huh? Untalented Joe in the basement with a myspace page and a mbox is not getting on the radio.

    2) I don’t see the problem actually. There’s probably more good music available now, easily accessible, and “free” than ever before.

    I use metacritic.com and the cmj charts as my primary sources of new music discovery. And then The Pirate Bay with the bittorrent for the downloading.

    Over the last 3 months, I’ve gotten albums by Atlas Sound, Beach House, Be Your Own Pet, Black Mountain, Bon Iver, Coco Rosie, Crystal Castles, Cut Copy, Death Cab, Drive By Truckers, Elbow, Film School, Foals, Gnarls Barkley, Hercules and Love Affair, Ingrid Michaelson, Islands, Kaki King, Kate Nash, m83, MGMT, Meshuggah, Mudhoney, My Morning Jacket, Nada Surf, Nick Cave, Panda Bear, Raconteurs, Sun Kil Moon, The Black Crowes, The Black Keys, The Kills, Xiu Xiu. Many of those albums I didn’t listen to all the way through. Others, though I really like. I especially like Black Mountain - 70s style hard rock, lacking the dreaded compression, full of dynamics and 2 super long songs. If you had all those albums, I’m certain you’d find something you really like.

    I think what people are really complaining about when they say “today’s music sucks” or some variant of that is the songs on today’s radio suck, especially the “active rock” format.

    I think Jon Cole came closest when he railed against corporate ownership. But I’m not sure that hits the nail on the head. If you’re one of 100 (or so? maybe?) active rock stations owned by Clear Channel, or you’re an active rock station owned by a company that only owns one station, you’re in a business where the goal is to make money. Stations cost a lot of money to buy, to operate, and require advertising revenues to be profitable. PDs/MDs make low risk bets on what new songs to play. The goal is not to expose great new music to the listeners, but to pick songs that will keep the greatest number of listeners from changing to another station. They have determined that the best new songs for them are songs which sound like the songs that they’re already playing. When they do that, novel sounds aren’t played.

    Specific problems exist with the Active Rock format. The problem with Active Rock is basically that, how do I put this nicely, the listeners to active rock stations, now, in 2008, are stupid losers. It’s a ghetto for kids who got D’s in high school and have shitty jobs. Let’s look at one particular song “Never Enough” by Five Finger Death Punch, currently at #18 on Mediabase/All Access. Listen to the lyrics of that. Simply awful.

    Its always do this, do that,
    everything they want to
    I don’t want to live that way
    Every chance they get their always
    Pushin me away

    Sorry, but I gotta get away from this song as soon as possible. Most normal people are gone from this station, leaving only the people, truly fringe people,
    who agree with Five Finger Death Punch to listen. I suspect that the process with Active Rock station will only accelerate. The less stupid angry losers will be driven away by programming designed to appeal to the stupidest, angriest loser of all.

    So, in summary, the problem is with radio formats.

    3) Innerpartysystem - definitely yes there!
    Island has a hit on their hands! Way back in the day,
    1999-2000 or so, I did the website for D’arey October.
    The bassist of D’arey October, Steve Penta, is now the manager of Innerpartysystem, and the drummer of D’arey October, Jared Piccone, is the drummer of Innerpartysystem. So, I’m rooting for them. Go Innerpartysystem.

    4) And from somewhere else, yes, too to The Drama Club and The Hoodies.

    Comment by parocks — June 13, 2008 @ 7:02 pm

13. This problem has spread far and wide. You can point at the internet. You can point at the major labels. You can point at the US government. You can point at radio, or clubs or fans or even the bands.

    These problems have been going on for nearly 10 years and are only now being addressed. In that time, every facet of the industry has absorbed its share of the blame. It’s so deep now that any attempts made at addressing the issue cannot reasonably cover more than a fraction of what’s wrong with the music business.

    Everything in John Degrazio’s commentary is true. Everything in Jon Cole’s commentary is true. A ‘movement’ is needed, but it’s not going to happen from the ground up. The artists are not the ones who are going to fix this. The fans are not the ones who are going to fix this. Very large, very far-reaching problems like the total decimation of an entire industry needs help from the big guns. Unfortunately the big guns are lobbying for favorable legislation that would allow it all to continue to crumble without affecting their bottom line.

    Majors are in ’saving their own asses’ mode. Not in ’saving the music’ mode.

    Comment by AJ-KOAR — June 13, 2008 @ 8:19 pm

14. Ultimately, isn’t the label the top level filter? If an act is subpar, should it ever get sent to radio to begin with? It seems like… if A&Rs are doing their job, searching out talented acts & great songs, why would an act like Teddy Geiger ever even see the light of day?

    Obviously because it’s no longer about the music, it’s about psychology. It’s about figuring out what’s going to sell to impress your bosses. When blogs like Kings of A&R are raving about ridiculous acts that should only appeal to 13 year old girls (see I Kissed a Girl), something is a little off. When the same blog turns around & questions where all of the enduring music went, something is a LOT off.

    Sure, a lot of stuff has gone awry. But ultimately it comes back to the labels, the ones who deal the cards. The ones who are stacking the deck against enduring, classic art & in favor of a quick buck. Radio, tv, etc play along & compound the problem, but there’s a root & that’s the labels… the mentality of these A&Rs.

    Also, I agree that this essay was very poorly written.

    Comment by Jon Cole — June 13, 2008 @ 10:46 pm

15. “understand what great music was & why the 60’s and 70’s were so important”
    well it seems most here are young.the 60’s and 70’s had bad music too.time is the yard stick that tells if a song is good.anyone remember “Zebre” from the 60’s? a total rip off of the Beatles.does anyone remember “The Reviera”s” this band pushed the Beatles out of the top 40’s play list in the late 60’s.does anyone remember “Disco” ? back in the day (in Chicago) we had 10 “rock station’s playing these songs.today we have 1 alt rock station and 8 classic rock station.

    the point is that today we have a choice to find great music. i realy believe that the real problem at finding a good band is we need 10 million people to argree with us.

    Comment by larry anderson — June 14, 2008 @ 2:45 am

16. jon - you’re always contradicting yourself, I have seen you say that radio is crumbling and kids are connected to the internet. Then blame shitty music on major labels while forgetting about the internet. You need to stick with a position.

    Everything this article claims is true, maybe John missed some factors that contribute to shitty climate in music, but the cultural shift, easy access to recording records, sensationalism, free music, dwindling of live venues …are all part of the problem, no one argues this!

    Comment by koar — June 14, 2008 @ 8:30 am

17. As far as Katy Perry, I said the lyrics were cheezy but the chorus was well written and she has a unique voice. I give credit where credit is due. The track is now sitting #1 on the top 40 charts, (500,000 paid downloads to date) and of course 13 year old girls are loving this song to death…

    Comment by koar — June 14, 2008 @ 8:33 am

18. This isn’t a new problem, Dean. This goes back to A Flock of Seaguls… the one hit wonders, the “this will make us a lot of money!” attitude. Perhaps the point is best illustrated by the corporate co-opting of grunge… the pretty boy Nirvana immitators, the high fashion flanel, etc.

    The growing music community on the internet is, if anything, a symptom of this. As are a lot of the other issues mentioned (dwindling number of live venues, the drop in value of music, etc).

    I don’t see where I’ve contradicted myself. I still say the labels are piloting a sinking ship, that radio, who depends upon the labels, aren’t doing anything to help out, and that the influential music listeners have all moved to the internet & will continue to expand the internet’s slice of the pie.

    Comment by Jon Cole — June 14, 2008 @ 10:14 am

19. I take GREAT offense at calling Flock of Seagulls one hit wonders! Both Space Age Love song AND I Ran were hits.

    Comment by Brett — June 15, 2008 @ 11:21 am

20. Ok, for the most part, I totally agree with Jon. So, let me ask something – Are we saying that a ‘great’ song is defined by the volume of downloads? Or are we saying the reason why the great songs are NOT being charted or sold at high volumes is because of minimal exposure, being crowded out by the ‘mediocre’ songs?

    I’m guessing, based on Jon’s point, that even if you put the ‘great’ songs out there now, they would still get minimal downloads and plays because of..and here it is…what today’s buyers of music are used to hearing. Do they really know great music, or are they getting on the bandwagon of the Disney train, or being inundated by ‘My Humps’?

    A question – does anyone know the stats of what the age groups are that buy the most music now, and what that music is? I was thinking that most were the teenie boppers buying, but then The Eagles came out and kinda shot that down.

    Comment by Orlando Luckey — June 16, 2008 @ 6:24 am

21. sorry but this is a terrible article. What are you even complaining about? That ‘the masses’ don’t like the same music that you do? Or that you haven’t heard much you like recently? What is this ‘great art’ you talk of, and why are people (commenters, admittedly) looking for a new Dark Side Of The Moon? Move on, there’s more than one kind of music! I get the strong feeling from this article that by ‘music’ you mean ‘classic rock’, in which case you are complaining ‘why isn’t there any classic rock I like being made anymore?’. If that’s NOT what you are saying, then there’s never been a better time to be a music fan, since literally lifetimes worth of all kinds of music - more genres than there’s ever been, so I don’t know what your ‘end of creativity’ idea says to that - are available for free, instantly, on the internet. Yes, lots of shite too, but that’s why we have hundreds, thousands, millions of blogs and zines to help you wade through it, and music discovery services like Last.fm, Rhapsody and internet radio too.

    You also seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that ‘great art’ (whatever that is) necessarily engages ‘the masses’. A lot of people just don’t care much about music, much like I just don’t care about ballet or whatever. ‘Great art’ wont change that. For everyone whose life was changed by the Beatles in the 60s, there was 10 people who didn’t care a jot. Why should you care what ‘the masses’ enjoy? Listen for yourself.

    And even if your hypothesis was true, who cares? There’s already been more wonderful music made in the last 50 years (and beyond) than you would ever have time to listen to in your lifetime. So catch up a bit. Widen your listening circle. The musical universe is expanding exponentially, and most of it you can access for free. What on earth are you actually complaining about?

    Comment by Ally — June 16, 2008 @ 7:10 am

22. i like ally’s view. bump what everyone else “the masses” listen too. they are a bunch of idiots. there are so many great artists out there; past AND present. go out there and find them. i am obviously of the minority that thinks there are TONS of great artists making music right now. yo jon, i agree with most of your views generally, except for the dogging on duran duran, haha.

    Comment by longino — June 16, 2008 @ 9:50 am

23. There are a lot of reasons to be upset by the current state of music, Ally. I agree that there is no better time to be a music fan… the fact that I can log into Rhapsody & listen to millions of songs is pretty amazing. But the music industry exists to cultivate new music and to bring it to “the masses.” Not to find satisfaction in the body of work that’s been made thus far.

    There’s something unique about bands like the Beatles, Bob Dylan, Pink Floyd, etc. “Classic” isn’t a genre as much as it is a mark of enduring quality. There will be very few classic bands from this era. And while this is a culture-wide phenomenon, it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be addressed.

    When I say “another Dark Side of the Moon,” I mean “another album that will still generate significant interest 30 years after it’s release.” I used Dark Side of the Moon because it shot up the iTunes charts when they started selling 256kbps files. It doesn’t have to sound like classic rock… it could sound like MGMT or Of Montreal or Beck or Gnarls Barkley or whatever.

    With such a steep decline in the production & promotion of these types of albums, the implications begin to stretch pretty far. Album lifespans shorten, live venues begin to disappear… people just begin to care less.

    Truly the internet is a haven for those who still care, but the further great acts are pushed from the mainstream, the fewer & further between they’ll become in the future.

    The “listen & let listen” approach is hip & cool & PC & all, but if that’s your attitude I don’t know why you’re following a music industry blog.

    Comment by Jon Cole — June 16, 2008 @ 11:04 am

24. Music is free?

    Crazy!

    Guess I shouldn’t of ordered all those new records and cds online.

    Comment by Vez — June 16, 2008 @ 11:11 am

25. Lots of good, insightful comments here, so I’ll avoid yammering on endlessly (and redundantly) and comment only on one point: overcompression.

    The problem with horribly overdone compression is closely linked to another factor that was mentioned: a lot of (probably most) people listen to music on their computer speakers and/or the crappy earbuds that come with portable players. Among their other shortcomings (like poor frequency extension), these transducers tend to have limited dynamic range. They lose much of a song’s dynamic nuances. Paradoxically, compressing a song to within an inch of its life seems to mask this shortcoming. Instead of losing sonic information, heavy compression makes sure it’s all there…just improperly differentiated.

    I notice this when moving from either my project studio (flat-responding pro monitors) or my “real” stereo system (decent floorstanding three-ways) to my iPod (w/ UE Superfi 4s, a near-entry-level in-ear monitor). The latter works okay with heavily compressed songs that either of my non-portable systems reveal as sounding like shit.

    I think heavy compression is as much a reaction to changes in what people listen on as anything. And ferchrissakes, people…get better speakers.

    Comment by dkanderson — June 16, 2008 @ 11:16 am

26. John Cole is dead wrong. Corporations have controlled music for as long as people have been recording sound (Thomas Edison had a record label), and helped release all that “classic” ’60s and ’70s music everyone remembers so fondly. Most of the popular music released in those decades was crap anyway. Ever hear of the Fifth Dimension, how about Debbie Boone? They were releasing smash hits at the same time Pink Floyd were recording their over-rated cannon of swollen prostate rock, and not because the record labels were out to force them on people. People LIKE crap music. Always have, always will. The foolish thing to do as a music fan is to expect people to share your tastes. And don’t give me any of that music and arts in schools BS. Those programs inspired boredom and nausea, never taught any real artist anything, and were completely hopeless in trying to create a world of stodgy classical music and jazz snobs.

    Furthermore, saying the increasing accessibility of music production to amateurs due to internet technology has led to a decline in the quality of music is misguided. It is true that now more than ever bad musicians can put themselves out there, and be heard by people eager to hear bad music, but this only reinforces the fact that most people like bad music. It isn’t any wonder that we have a radio dominated by Souljaboys, Pussycat Dolls, and emo vomit. (Yes, this schlock does start online.) People like that sort of thing, and they have every right to. It’s also naive to expect internet tools to facilitate some sort of glorious amateur’s revolution; the technology and finances might change, but corporations are always going to try to make money off of music, and driven people are always going to go to them if they want to get exposure. Things seem dull now, but remember, nothing’s really changing, nobody knows what works, and it’s only a matter of time before someone picks up what’s laying around and runs with it. Until things do get interesting, just keep it like the song says- keep it off my wave.

    Comment by Nathan — June 16, 2008 @ 12:07 pm

27. Hello! I wrote about this last year for Exotic Underground (now called Underground) magazine, a free publication based in Seattle, WA. Seems we’re on the same wave length. Here’s what I wrote. Cheers…Rich

    “I fear the true rock star is a dying breed. The poseurs have taken over.” - Joan Jett
    “I can say with absolute certainty that you’ll never hear of Ben Gibbard being dragged by police from a Brazilian hotel in a haze of smoke, white powder caked on his bleeding nose, along with five teenage hookers, a midget, a baby seal, and Richard Simmons – all the while babbling unintelligibly about the invisible weasels that are gnawing on his testicles. And that’s too bad.” - Rich Evans

    Ladies and gentlemen, rock is dead. Sure - there are still rock bands, even some damn good ones. But the sad truth is that the medium has become a hollow parody of itself. On the grand scale, not only has rock music lacked any true innovation or original ideas for at least a decade (and that’s a generous assesment), but those who foist an increasingly watered down version of a once glorious genre on an increasingly apathetic public are almost universally as boring as the soulless “product” they peddle.

    Those of you who would disagree, and chalk this piece up to the rantings of someone too old to get it anymore especially need to pay attention. This is not a “blah blah blah…they don’t make ‘em like they used to…get off my lawn” thing. These are the rantings of a man who finds the current crop of supposed major rock bands tamer than even the vilified “corporate rock” bands of the 70’s like Styx and Foreigner.

    Don’t believe me? As I write this, Bruce Springsteen has the #1 album in the country. Now I’m a huge fan of The Boss, and feel that his credibility, songwriting, integrity, and all around rock star-ness are unimpeachable. But I’m a 40 year old white guy from New Jersey. Of course I’m a huge Springsteen fan. In an attempt to look at the situation objectively, let’s assume there should be some young bucks nipping at Bruce’s heels, waiting for their opportunity to knock him from his lofty perch.

    If you consider Matchbox Twenty to be these young bucks, you would be correct, as they have the #3 album. If you have any musical taste whatsoever, you wonder who the hell is buying Matchbox Twenty albums in 2007 - or ever. Matchbox Twenty is to rock and roll as wine coolers are to liquor - they’re weak, sugary sweet, and chicks dig ‘em.

    The rest of the Top 40 is littered with other grizzled rock vets such as Bob Dylan, John Fogerty, and Melissa Etheridge. Oh yeah - Foo Fighters are right up there too, as well the uber-lame Nickelback and the even lamer Dashboard Confessional. And that’s about it for the “rock” folks.

    The only thing they all have in common is that not a single one of these acts debuted after the year 2000. The same goes for other recently charting bands such as Modest Mouse or Death Cab For Cutie. And who had the most popular tours? The Police, Rush, Dave Matthews, etc…all dinosaurs. Even Van Halen is getting back in the game, now that David Lee Roth is back from exile and Eddie’s new hip is stabilized.

    But where are all the young challengers to the throne? There must be some band somewhere brewing up a sound that could reshape the musical landscape the way Nirvana did in the early 90’s. Unfortunately, even if there is such a monster in training, it’s highly unlikely you’ll ever hear them play a note. And even if you do hear them, they’ll never have the same sort of cultural impact as The Beatles, Elvis, or even Guns N Roses for that matter.

    There are several reasons for this. First, our ever expanding array of choices for entertainment and other cultural enlightenment have reached a point in which most anything is available at any time at the click of a mouse. Because of this, it’s highly unlikely that a universally shared pop cultural experience such as The Beatles first appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show is even possible given the diversification of our entertainment options. In those days, there were only a few TV channels, and a few radio stations. The technological limitations of those times meant that you pretty much took what you got when you got it. Therefore everyone saw the same thing at the same time.

    It also meant that with so few media outlets and opportunities to crash the airwaves, artists and those who would exploit them both had to spend a hell of a lot of time either honing their craft or convincing some fat cat that these kids got moxie eight ways til Sunday. Mediocrity was mostly weeded out in the process.

    Flash to present days: Any idiot with a laptop has the potential to have their “work” reach anyone in the world at any time. While the purity of the “art” in question may be unimpeachable, the quality often suffers. Now take into account the other billion idiots with laptops foisting their masterpieces on the world, hundreds of cable and satellite channels of music and video, and countless other options - electronic or otherwise for entertainment and its amazing any two people are enjoying the same thing at any given moment. It literally would take something like 9/11 for so many people to all be paying attention to the same thing at the same time. Even then they’d all be getting their news from different channels!

    Even more distressing is the superficiality of those that are fortunate enough to reach a certain level of success in rock. Lots of performers, regardless of time period, have either carefully crafted their images or had someone do it for them. Unfortunately the record industry has become so consolidated and cross collateralized (ie: the same people selling you records are also selling you clothes, booze, cars, etc) at it’s higher levels that it’s hard to tell what is being used to sell what. In other words, is the song selling the jeans or the jeans selling the song? And why do they both suck out loud?

    Sadly, it seems the days of true rock stars have passed. What made rock great beyond the music was it’s inherent swagger and implied sexual suggestiveness. In their place are a pathetic mix of whining, posing, and pop culture references. Bands that came to prominence in the Grunge years, while simultaneously spitting out several (though perhaps slightly skewed versions of) rock stars, ironically seemed bent on destroying that which they became. There was even a well knwn indie label that sprung from that era called “Kill Rock Stars”! In fact, it can be argued that Kurt Cobain killed all rock stars who might succeed him with the same shotgun blast that dislodged his own head.

    Oddly enough, it’s the popsters, once as squeaky clean as could be, getting down and dirty. They may be putting out different shit that stinks just as bad, but at least we can marvel at their utter stupidity.

    Yet “Rock Star” is one thing Britney and her ilk will never be. Mick Jagger is a rock star. Steven Tyler is a rock star. Axl Rose is a rock star. Led Zeppelin, Ozzy, Iggy Pop, Joan Jett, David Bowie, Alice Cooper, Motley Crue, even Courtney Love - all rock stars. True rock stars such as these would never be confused with the guy that makes your morning latte. Some may say the blurring of the line between fans and artists was inevitable, and possibly a good thing. But once all the mystery and excitement are removed from the equation, so is that intangible sparkle that separates the David Lee Roths of this world from the rest of us. What boggles my mind is that as days pass and the rock star as we know it runs headlong into extinction, no one really seems to notice - or care! As a result we’re stuck with inferior music made by boring people.

    True rock stars are hyper creative in all aspects of their lives. For example - any idiot can have kinky sex. Only a rock star would think to involve a mud shark. Lots of people go fishing. Only rock stars fish out of a Seattle hotel room.

    It’s kind of like if there were two guys that worked for a newspaper - one a regular Joe, the other with super strength, x-ray vision, and the ability to fly. Which do you think would break the bigger stories? And which would be the more interesting dinner guest? Regular Joe in his khakis, or the guy in the blue tights and red cape that regularly saves humanity from certain annihilation?

    In other words, rock stars SHOULD be Supermen in a world of Jimmy Olsens. We need our heroes to be larger than life. Otherwise we see nothing greater than ourselves to aspire to. And if our musical “heroes” are boring and muted, odds are their music is as well. This is why 50-something rockers are still the standard bearers. These artists still fan the flames that many current bands seem all too willing to extinguish.

    The only hope on the horizon lurks in the underground. Support your local music scene, and maybe someday you can say, “I knew them before they were rock stars.” But you would be wrong. Rock stars are not made - they’re born. Anyone can learn to play guitar. Not everyone can be a rock star. They are a breed apart, and a vanishing breed at that.

    In a musical landscape littered with corporate pop tarts, pseudo punks, and over sensitive whiners one thing is clear: Without a serious influx of brilliant music created by wildly creative people - pronto, rock as a genre will continue it’s death spiral into obsolesence.

    Comment by Rich Evans — June 16, 2008 @ 12:41 pm

28. Ahh one of my favorite topics..

    I agree with a lot that was in this article.You hit
    the biggest point, there are no “minor leagues” of
    music anymore. People from far and wide don’t have to
    have that devotion and passion to play before a live
    audience in L.A. or New York where they will be
    “discovered”. Those places along the Sunset Strip and seedy SOHO dives where musicians mingled and competed
    are gone. That extra bit of passion that drove people from far and wide to make the great leap out of their home turf is really underrated as a Darwinian filter.
    Then they were filtered again through the record label.
    Those little venues where bands either grew and thrived
    or died on the vine,split up, and reformed new groups
    had been a major player in music since the “chitlin
    circuit” of the 50’s,where rock and roll was born.
    Those are the places musicians learn to write songs,
    played before a crowd, get rejected and praised and
    pay their dues.Now it’s zero to fame or bust..
    and they could be partly the musicians fault, the
    unwillingness to do that.

    And I also heartedly agree that the need for “instant
    fame” (”American Idol” et. al.) is trumping the quality. The bandwagoning of personality and looks over
    actual skill and musical ability has choked off everything. We have been awash in “divas” who can crackle over any canned musical background noise, or a power strumming trio of teenage boys who can’t write a song with that isn’t just two chords, or a rapper
    whose rhyme is basicly just more of the same schlock
    about mysogony, drugs and violence.

    I DO NOT blame the “industry” for the same reason so
    many angsty flannel clad 90’s Seattleites do. Their premise is phoney and gimmicky and I won’t even go there..But I will blame the music industry, and this
    includes the much beloved “independent labels”,
    for signing every band in the Cascade Range that sounded like crap and took a lot of heroine.The
    minor leagues of music were emptied out when
    the clammer for “instant fame” started.Anyone that
    could pick up a guitar was signed in hopes they would be the next big hit and everyone could be “riding the gravy train” (thank you Pink Floyd).Then to make things
    even worse, throw in a big helping of payola
    (a.k.a. pay to play). The record labels lined the
    pockets of the now consolodated radio markets. They
    could pay off one or two execs and get their artist
    in every market in the country.

    The consolodation of FM radio has pretty well destroyed Top 40. The traditional Top 40 chart of Dick Clark and Kasey Kasem has been oblitorated.Now it’s so fractured into genre and niche bits that it’s useless. The national cohesion of having “top 40 hits” that were
    #1 from coast to coast disappeard. There was a lot
    to be said about the psychological link we had
    as a country when everyone had the same tunes in their
    head. The radio stations target marketed with narrow
    formats.When one or two companies own all the FM in
    a region, they don’t need to compete, they can
    aim down and target their playlist for the advertiser, instead of the other way around.

    All of these things coming together with computer
    assisted recording so anyone could put out a song
    has pretty well saturated the market with garbage.
    The wheat is lost in the chaff..The artists dont want
    to be judged, but wants to be famous, the recording
    industry wants to be cheap and ride any
    rising star they can to make the biggest buck for
    their shareholders,and the radio stations don’t care,
    they can ride the catlogs of the last 50 years of
    music as long as their shareholders are happy it
    doesn’t matter what goes between the commercials.

    I asked a younger friend, 20 something, to try to pick
    artists that made a debut between ‘95 and 2005 that
    would still be musically relevant in 10 years,
    and he is pretty musically astute and tuned into a lot
    of “indie” artists.He really couldn’t come up with
    anything..

    Comment by Z — June 16, 2008 @ 1:08 pm

29. I am upset at the current state of music as much as the next guy. I mean, even the “indie”, “underground”, “alternative” or what have you, is lacking in awesomeness. Hit or miss as it may be, you can still find some serious jams among the poo. However, I do tend to go backwards to find the best “new” music. New to my ears anyway. Years ago, I discovered the idea of post-punk, in my opinion one of the most fruitful times in the history of rock music. Now it’s co-opted by bands I think are garbage, i.e. Bloc Party. But for every Bloc Party, there is a band like Orange Juice or The Slits. And for every Rhianna, there is a Syreeta. So I would be in the demographic that says go back and enrich your knowledge of musics past, and then you can more easily sift through the shit that is modern music.

    Comment by Michael — June 16, 2008 @ 1:28 pm

30. The the person who wrote the article, I have a couple of questions, which don’t need to be answered here. Do you go to see artists perform live? Do you dance to the music that you like to listen to?

    And about the live venues dwindling, thats not because people don’t listen to music. That’s because we live in an increasing ‘fun police state’ where you have cops waiting for you after a show out side the venue to ‘disperse the crowd’ and act like an asshole with a taser. So basically, what I’m trying to say here, is that were not allowed to like music.

    There, enjoy.

    Comment by Fluffy — June 16, 2008 @ 1:42 pm

31. I think there are a couple of interesting developments this blogger overlooks in the music world. For one, the concept of the iPod (and iPod-like devices) and randomized playlists I believe has made people more naturally eclectic with their tastes. 15-20 years ago it used to be a point of pride that one could say they appreciate both Hip-Hop and Metal, or Metal and Classical. That’s no big deal now (and no, its not because of Fred Durst or Therion, either). Most people now listen less judgementally to what makes them happy, and are more open to be exposed to different kinds of music, simply because its very convenient to do so. The major music festivals around the country, such as Coachella, or Bonnaroo, have a wide variety of artists playing side-by-side. On terrestrial radio, the Jack FM playlist format (a hodgepodge format if ever there was one) is quite popular. These are very good things, even *if* Panic at the Disco! can still sell a million albums.

    You know what else the devaluing of the studio album means? It means that outside of the Ashlee Simpsons of the world, more musicians than ever who play to survive, will have to play even better to survive, because the live venue will become the arbiter of who is good and who is not. And speaking of live playing, the point about there being less live venues is ridiculous. Thanks to myspace, it’s easier now than ever to network with similar bands and find places to play. There are tons of bands doing week/two-week self-financed mini tours that are playing in front of new people at every stop. That was a hell of a lot more difficult to do in the 80’s and 90’s.

    To the ultimate argument: People seem to conevniently forget that every era of modern rock had its bubblegum tripe. And with that load of bubblegum tripe is a fresh load of curmudgeons who will argue that the old tripe or old ways are better. How can you assess the historical significance of an album when you’re directly in the context of the time it was released? It seems pretty specious and useless to argue that there won’t be enduring albums like _DSOM_ (which I happen to think is a bloated musical travesty, btw) coming from this decade of music, unless you can bend spacetime.

    Comment by Bob — June 16, 2008 @ 1:42 pm

32. I stand with Ally and Longino as opposed to Jon Cole on this, provided it’s made clear that there is a lot of great new (as opposed to old) music being made today.

    This great new music is easy enough to find, through the
    “millions of blogs and zines to help you wade through it”
    Find blogs or zines who share your musical tastes and check out the records they recommend. It’s real easy.

    I recommend metacritic, cmj.com charts, and the CIMS chart. Real easy.

    Jon Cole makes a somewhat valid point with “the further great acts are pushed from the mainstream, the fewer & further between they’ll become in the future”

    It that were true, it would certainly be a problem. However, the cost of making records has gone way down.

    If a band can make a record for almost nothing, and pitchfork loves it, and others agree, the record can make money, and the band can make money on tour.

    Look at Fleet Foxes - http://myspace.com/fleetfoxes .
    A relatively new band who released their first EP within the last year and their first full length within the last month. It’s getting a lot of positive buzz, selling a lot of records (#2 on CIMS chart week ending 6/7/08) and they’re playing all over the place. What’s most interesting about Fleet Foxes is the level of surprise and excitement manifested on their myspace page about their recent, apparently unexpected, success.

    What is likely to increasingly happen in this new internet age is there will be more Fleet Foxes and fewer Pink Floyds.

    Every week there will be a hot new band with a hot new record, and sometimes it will approach “great art” The best of those hot new band of the week will survive long term and make truly great art.

    Yes, it’s true that mainstream music sucks pretty bad these days, but look at bands like Death Cab. They’ve gotta be making mainstream money, and some might call their stuff great art.

    Certainly, some other things are also true.

    The top acts aren’t selling the number of records they used to.

    The labels aren’t making the kind of money they used to.

    Bands that sound like the bands on active rock radio and alternative rock radio, but a bit better, a bit more interesting, aren’t getting signed with huge advances and saving music and making people happy, etc etc.

    Bands that sound like the bands on active rock radio and alternative rock radio are having a pretty tough time of it these days. Those bands pretty much need radio to get them to public attention. And they pretty much need to be signed to get on the radio. Blogs and zines don’t really care about bands that sorta sound like music that’s on the radio. (Kings of AR is a bit of an exception). These “like radio” bands have a tough time touring, mainstream people want to hear bands that are on the radio (not bands that are good enough to be on the radio, could be on the radio if they were signed and then actually put on the radio). Indie people want to hear bands that are hyped by blogs and zines, play SXSW, etc (or sound like the bands that are hyped by blogs and zines - hypothethical). There just really isn’t a tour route for “like radio” bands. Indie bands have an established network of venues, “like radio” bands don’t. Because the venues for “like radio” bands don’t exist, “like radio” bands don’t tour much. When a “like radio” band wants to tour, it’s tough for them to find bands to tour with. Like radio bands can tour, but it’s much tougher than for indie bands.

    Comment by parocks — June 16, 2008 @ 1:51 pm

33. Well, I’m glad the comments are far more insightful than the article. OPEN YOUR EYES! Just because there isn’t an easily defined “mass movement” of music that can be heralded as great in the past decade doesn’t mean there haven’t been widespread adoptions of some great music out there. With so many fans with unlimited hard drive space, so many artists who can record music for practically free, and so many distribution methods to get that music heard, there’s no wonder you can’t put your finger on a single sound as easily as in the past. And I for one think that’s a good thing. Do you really want someone telling you what’s “hot right now”?

    Comment by tywhite — June 16, 2008 @ 2:20 pm

34. There seems to be a great deal of “wasn’t it great when” hindsight at work both in the column and in a number of the posted responses.

    There is plenty of “non-corporate” music, a ton of good bands that aren’t massively famous, many good independent music labels that exist to provide music for music’s sake to fans who are interested and willing to find it. It’s not going to come to you, never did, and never will.

    If you grew up listening to Hootie and the Blowfish or other middle of the road drek, if you lived in the middle of nowhere you might have an excuse, but if you were anywhere near a major urban center that had at least one independent music store, you’ve got no excuse.

    Finding good music is a process, and it requires having an open mind, an open ear, a willingness to look, read, explore, take chances, take notes and heed the advice of friends and artists you already know and respect — and most importantly, the ability to make a decision about something based on its own merits and to use your own judgement — and then stick to it.

    Sure, your friends might not want to go see Johnny and the Strangulated Beat-offs with you at some dive bar downtown, but if you like them and you want to go see them — go. Engage the culture you like, and forget what everyone else thinks. If you think about what you like, most of the people around you other than your circle of friends have “bad taste” — so why do you need the agreement of faceless music fans to decide that something’s worth your time?

    The wonderful thing about the Internet is that it provides a free venue for performance and exhibition that would otherwise be unavailable for a band that isn’t constantly on the road or hasn’t found a well-placed fan in a DJ booth in a big entertainment marker. It makes it possible for artists and fans to connect directly, rather than having to rely on an A & R stooge from a major label. Musicians who are really there because they love to write, create, and perform are the ones who benefit most from a more open cultural environment and the ease with which they can get their stuff out there. I’m a pretty well-versed music fan, but the advent of the Internet and digital music has made that so much easier — I don’t know why anyone wants to go backwards.

    There is a veritable ocean of crap out there, to be sure, and you’ll have to wade through tons and tons of it before you find a pearl or two worth hanging on to, but that’s half the fun of music; don’t get whiny because it’s not handed to you on a plate. In the end, too, for the bands you like and for the bands that matter, it’s worth the work.

    Comment by Klaus — June 16, 2008 @ 2:54 pm

35. “Ultimately, isn’t the label the top level filter?”

    No. The public is.

    I’m 53. Grew up in the radio reach of Motown. Music has always been free. We didn’t have to pay to hear the Temptations, Stevie Wonder, Beatles, Rolling Stones or anything else. It was everywhere.

    I haven’t heard a new song on the radio in years.

    The “top level filter” that the labels provide is where the requirement of “compress it until there are no dynamics” came from. The filtering process assumes that those making the decisions have the ability to differentiate the wheat from the chaff. If mainstream music sucks, the filter is broken. Maybe if were manned by musicians instead of lawyers and accountants…? Nah. That would never work.

    Music sales are down because the labels told us not to listen to their tunes. Many of us did as we were told. Some of us will never buy a major label CD due to the lawsuits, a number that probably increases by 20-30 people as a result of each new subpoena, as the accused shares this information with everyone in their social circle.

    Radio cover bands will always have a place to play in bars across the country that can’t afford name acts.

    But this comment from parocks intrigues me:

    “Bands… aren’t getting signed with huge advances and saving music and making people happy, etc etc.”

    No offense intended, but there is a world of difference between saving music (and making people happy) and saving the music industry. Musicians now understand that the “huge advance” may be the only check the label ever writes to them.

    Musicians have considered the reality that any outlet for music that takes less than an 85 percent cut is potentially more advantageous than handing over the rights to someone who would sue people for listening to it.

    Those who demean home recording seem to miss the fact that this describes Paul McCartney and Sting.

    Music will be fine. The business, not so much.

    Comment by GZiemann — June 16, 2008 @ 3:04 pm

36. I hate when people talk about the great music of the 60s and 70s and how the music business used to be blah blah blah. I’m a musician myself and you know what I say to all that? WHERE ARE THE UGLY PEOPLE? Think about. If music was all about the music in the 60s, how come there were very few ugly popular musicians? Jim Morrison? Hendrix? Bob Dylan? All attractive males. Give me some examples of ugly musicians you wouldn’t see today. You could say Mama Cass, but you could point to Fat Joe. You could say Janis Joplin, and I’d aim you at Alanis Morisette. The music business has ALWAYS been this way. Pop music will never lose its power. There’s just a changing of the guard and the old people can’t deal with it.

    And what I don’t get is how no one is applauding that we’re back in the age of the 45. You go on iTunes, you buy one song. Just like the old days.

    Comment by Michael Yaeger — June 16, 2008 @ 5:10 pm

37. Here’s another argument as to the lack of truly brilliant music these days. This is another piece I wrote for Underground, which appeared just a few months ago….

    AXL’S LITTLE HELPER

    We all know about the connections between rock music and drug use. The story usually goes something like this: Artist uses substances, artist becomes successful. Use becomes abuse, artist briefly becomes even more successful. Abuse starts to rage out of control, artist either dies or checks into rehab. If artist survives, their newly clean mug ends up on magazine covers, record sales briefly spike, and their true artistry goes down like a drunk cheerleader at a frat party. Eventually they end up on some retarded reality TV show with other has beens. If they die, they become legendary and end up on millions of wayward youths’ T-shirts, while the meaningfulness of their actual contributions to their chosen media as a whole are often greatly exaggerated.
    A well worn cliché, I know. Yet lately another breed of drug user has made their presence known on the rock scene: the rocker on prescription anti-depressants.
    The nationwide surge in anti-depressant use in the last 20 years or so has had a profound effect on both modern rock music and those who enjoy it. Whether used by artists, fans, or both anti-depressants have served as sort of a double edged sword.
    Let’s start with the musicians. On one hand, anti-depressants have enabled musicians teetering on the edge of sanity to reel in their more self-destructive impulses. This allows them to keep pumping out product, showing up to gigs on time and sober, and to perhaps not beat their personal assistant half to death with a wah-wah pedal.
    The problem is that an artist on anti-depressants often loses their edge, as well as their ability to create anything at all. Case in point: Twenty years ago Axl Rose had a major hand in creating one of the best rock albums of all time, Appetite For Destruction. Appetite touched on dark themes such as addiction, violence, and paranoia with a side order of deviant sexual abandon, and wrapped it all up in a tight, blisteringly loud, radio-friendly package. Rose and his band mates’ true life experiences heavily informed this album, making it’s brutal honesty stand head and shoulders (and Aqua Net) above all of the rest of their similarly coiffed peers. Swagger and arrogance, necessary ingredients for any great rock album, also played major roles in the creation of this masterwork.
    As Appetite ran its course commercially, Axl was diagnosed as bipolar, or manic depressive and prescribed medication to control his often volatile mood swings. Depending on who you believe, the meds (when he stayed on them) did their job. Yet Axl ( having a lethal combination of huge ego, low self esteem, persecution complex, ingrained need to piss people off, and a seeming hopelessly chemically imbalanced brain ) still often confounded supporters and critics alike with his erratic behavior. But if nothing else, he kept us all interested.
    Whether through chemistry or other means, eventually Axl’s demons were held in check enough to complete the Use Your Illusion albums. While there were still flashes of musical brilliance, (though a lot of that could rightfully be attributed to the overlooked and underrated contributions of guitarist Izzy Stradlin ) Illusion was mostly a sprawling, repetitive mess. If you listen closely to these albums in comparison to Appetite, it seems that Axl suddenly felt as if he needed to both overdo the vocal vibrato while simultaneously having the engineer remove any traces of “S” sounds in the mix.
    So while it’s debatable whether the meds actually worked (or even if he took them regularly) in this time frame, the one thing we all can agree upon is that before and perhaps in the beginning of Axl taking anti-depressants that he was truly onto something that briefly changed the face of rock music as we know it.
    Flash to present days: Axl has not only alienated the rest of Guns N Roses proper, but scores of replacements (including, oddly enough, an actual Replacement, Tommy Stinson!) He also claims to have been working on the big G-N-R (if in name and vocalist only) comeback album, Chinese Democracy, for the last ten years or so. Aside from a few decidedly mediocre leaked tracks and sporadic live performances, the only other signs of this album actually existing come from hopeful third parties and forever teasing press releases promising that, yes, the album is coming out sometime between tomorrow and the end of days.
    Is it possible that the now apparently reclusive Rose in the quest to quiet his demons has handcuffed the very things that made him so creative in the first place? Have the drugs rendered Axl incapable of making a final decision on anything musical, leaving the album in some sort of unfinished limbo? Is he even still on the meds? Has his prescription changed over time? Is he perhaps just out of ideas?
    But let’s not beat up too much on this one time uber-icon who now seems to be viewed as much a punch line as a rock god. The truth is that the rock music recent generations have been fed has little in common with what traditionally is thought of as rock. How else can you explain T-Shirts with AC/DC’s Highway To Hell cover art sharing rack space at Hot Topic with others featuring My Chemical Romance? Apparently the youth of today find the rock of thirty years ago (or at least its iconography) as cool or cooler than its current incarnation. It’s not unusual to see a 16 year old kid in an Iron Maiden T-Shirt in 2008. But it should be!
    By way of comparison, think of any period in the last few decades. Let’s use the mid 80s as an example. The kids wearing Iron Maiden shirts in 1985 weren’t listening to nor displaying the iconography of Elvis or Chuck Berry. That was their parents’ music. Yet many kids today, perhaps realizing how utterly devoid of originality and inspiration the music is that’s being pushed on them by major media outlets, are actually gravitating toward stuff they should rightfully be rebelling against. Seriously – how many of you raided your parent’s music collection at age 16? I’m guessing not many.
    As more and more people ingest their happy pills to make them more able to submit to the humiliating grind of a seemingly meaningless existence, there seems to be a collective hankering for a return to the raw feelings, reckless abandon, and outright decadence of previous generations. As of yet, it hasn’t happened. Quite frankly, this is the first generation that older folks look on not with dismay over how crazy they are, or how their music is too loud, or how they dress funny. Actually, many people old enough to remember the 80s or even the early 90s find the youth of today a bunch of boring, apathetic, muted pussies.
    The prevalence of anti-depressants in modern society most certainly plays a role in this de-balling of not only our youth but current rock music. Any behavior outside societal norms is seen as a reason to medicate. As a result, creativity is often stifled. Even some so called alternative forms of music have been distilled to a formula in which any deviation means commercial death. Is it any wonder then that on a grand scale rock music hasn’t had a true artistic and cultural upheaval since Nirvana in the early 90s?
    Now before you get the notion that I’m against the use of anti-depressants, I should disclose that I’ve been taking them for several years. Fuck – how else am I gonna get through these dreary Seattle fucking winters without either slitting my wrists or gnawing out some passive aggressive douche bag’s jugular vein right out of their throat? You think I’m obnoxious now? Just try to imagine the self-righteous vitriol that spews from this mind unmedicated!
    Before finding the pill that was just right for me (ie: one that allows me to wake up every day for work but doesn’t turn my brain to apple sauce and / or turn my schlong into a shriveling, useless appendage) I had to endure the living hell of experimenting with various pills that affected my brain and body chemistry in sometimes unpredictable ways. Sometimes I’d seemingly spend days in a dark room listening to “Blood and Roses” by The Smithereens or some other depressing shit on a continuous loop. Other times I’d obsessively clean my apartment while chattering on endlessly to my roommates about how Sonic Youth was responsible for all the world’s ills. My sex drive would range from zero to hump anything with a pulse. My appetite swung wildly as well – sometimes voracious, sometimes non-existent.
    At times during these periods, my creativity ranged from sometimes off the charts to sometimes barely-existent while not medicated, to completely stunted on certain meds, to over-analytical on others – you get the point. Now imagine that I was some sort of budding icon and you can easily see how this could become problematic when juxtaposed with the realities of a career in music or any other creative art.
    As I started experimenting with anti-depressants right about the time I was pursuing a music career hard core, I’m both happy that I was able to make it through the harder times of a continuing struggle and angry that the same medication that kept my head out of the oven possibly sabotaged any hope of maintaining the high level of musical creativity I feel I experienced unmedicated. So in essence, I chose life and sanity over a lifestyle gamble that could possibly have yielded great creative and financial rewards. As such, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that if I feel my modest creative talents took a hit as a result of these meds, that several potential musical geniuses have likely been waylaid creatively in the name of quieting the voices in their heads.
    Some may argue that blaming modern medicine for a lack of creativity in one’s self or society en masse is a cop out. And for all I know, they may be right on a grand scale. Maybe we’re just in some sort of calm before a storm of rampant, unbridled musical brilliance. Or maybe, though unlikely, I’m so out of touch with reality that newer rock bands actually are releasing earth shattering works in which I’m somehow deaf to their brilliance.
    But the evidence as I see it points to a fairly recent sea change in which overall creativity and artistic risk taking by those who we charge with the task of musically entertaining the masses seems to be sorely lacking. From my personal experience, I know that anti-depressants can shut down seemingly entire sections of the brain while exciting others. I can only speculate what that means extrapolated all the way out to whatever reigns high on the charts these days.
    My feeling is that there is a significant connection. Or maybe that’s just the meds talking…

    Comment by Rich Evans — June 16, 2008 @ 5:29 pm

38. tl:dr

    Rich, KOAR has also been covering this subject for years now. Please don’t post your articles as comments. A link will suffice.

    I like GZiemann’s comment. Music WILL be fine. There is no shortage of music and everyone seems to agree that there is good stuff out there. The question is, how long can great bands survive without any kind of industry?

    I’m afraid the answer is ‘not very long.’ Now, there have always been small and mid level bands who maintained careers for many years without being signed to a label. That’s nothing new. What is new, however, are prohibitive gas prices. That is the number one issue for any artist, signed or unsigned. Since signed artists have more opportunity to generate income and reach a broader audience, paying back a label for higher gas prices is slightly more possible. An unsigned band finding that money upfront is significantly more difficult.

    Now I am not claiming that gas prices are killing music or anything like that. I just want to point out that no matter how good or bad a band is, there isn’t much opportunity for advancement in the ‘old school’ method of just playing your ass off to anyone who will listen.

    The internet is supposed to save them. The internet is supposed to make it possible for an unsigned artists to reach a broad audience and generate income by investing reasonable amounts of money, rather than the massive amounts required to tour and hand out fliers and promotional items. But the internet isn’t doing that.

    I have written often and optimistically about the new world of opportunity the internet provides. However, over the years it seems any time some major advancement is made or some great idea is uncovered, it is either bought out or strangled. Streaming radio is a brilliant idea. It’s free and the playlists are massive. They don’t have program directors who feel some kind of obligation to the labels who service them. It is better than radio, and it generates very little money. They are now required to pay royalties. Terrestrial radio isn’t paying a dime.

    Any website that uses any kind of music or is related to music in any way is held to a different standard than equivalent services off line. The internet cannot ’save the music’ if the internet is controlled by major labels.

    Comment by AJ-KOAR — June 16, 2008 @ 7:31 pm

39. I wish I still cared about this kind of shit.

    Comment by Joe — June 16, 2008 @ 7:50 pm

40. Overall I suspect this article is borne of the writer’s Mid-life Music Crisis. This happens to a lot of people who were obsessed with music as teenagers and then get to a certain age, get disillusioned by a few bands, and then notice there are other important things in life. “Why has modern music lost so much impact” may as well be continued “…to me?”. Well the answer is - because you’ve grown up, congratulations. The rest of us are still pathetically in thrall to repetitive beats and meaningless lyrics.

    As for Jon’s search for another album that will “generate serious interest 30 years after release” like DSOTM, there are plenty! Every single year there are several albums, 20 or more perhaps, that will be remembered in 30 years time - not by 30 million people like DSOTM, but as I said before, who cares about that? Are you looking for an ‘event’ release? A consensus-builder? I really don’t understand your point. My favourite album of all time is Marvin Gaye’s What’s Going On, but I don’t sit around wondering where the next one is. It’s been 37 years!

    The canon isn’t set in stone, it’s created by all of us just as much as it’s created by Dave Marsh and Jann Wenner. All it takes for a ‘new Pink Floyd’ is for a lot of people to love a few albums - look at Radiohead, give Arcade Fire a few more years (PS not everyone likes Pink Floyd).

    Comment by Ally — June 17, 2008 @ 2:40 am

41. Here’s some random thoughts of a 52 year old.

    I went through my “new music sucks” phase for a while. I blame it on terrestrial radio. I commute to work is is 80 miles round trip. Plenty of time to listen to stuff. Terrestrial music radio had gotten so bad I switch to talk radio. For 10 years it was Imus in the morning and NPR on the way home. So, where was the good music?

    Where was the good music what I was a teenager? It was in the same place it is today. You have work at finding it. I grew up in Fairfax Va., a fairly large metropolitan area. There wasn’t much good on most radio then either. The good stuff was on obscure, very low powered, FM stations. I would dig into my dad’s electrical engineering books and design my own, high performance, antenna so I could hear them. That’s working at it.

    I think when you are younger you have more friends to turn you on to stuff. I remember when a friend came over with this album by some guy from New Jersey named Bruce Springsteen. It was “Greetings from Asbury Park”. Wow that is some good stuff. It got no radio play. Little Feat was a similar experience to me. Friends are good for that. Now that I’m over 50 I don’t seem to have as many friends. I think we are so busy with life stuff that we don’t have time to sit around and listen to records and watch TV with the sound off.

    Local record stores are gone. Ever go to Wal-Mart and bull shit with the clerk in the music department? I think not. Back then, there was this place called the Penguin Feather in Herndon Va. It was an old house converted into a record store. You could go in and BS with the folks that worked there and they would turn you on to some great music.

    I used to love to go out to see bar bands. Think NRBQ, George Thorogood, and The Nighthawks. They didn’t have police checkpoints at 3 AM back then.

    All that brings me to now. Imus got fired. Now what will I do? That was a major impact on my routine of drudgery. Especially my morning routine. I get really pissy when my morning routine gets disturbed. I decided to try music again it can’t that bad. I upgraded the stereo in the commuter beater and added XM radio to it. Wow, great idea. I have discovered a world of great music. I have actually found myself listening to music with the sound down on the TV. Thanks, Don.

    If you’re in a music rut try some of these; Reel Big Fish, Flogging Molly, The Horrorpops, Dropkick Murphys, Goldfinger, and Rancid.

    P.S. I don’t like Pink Floyd either.
    P.P.S WTF is “A&R”

    Comment by oilyfishhead — June 17, 2008 @ 6:14 am

42. “Sonically, music is waaaay too compressed and loud, making it very fatiguing to the ears for any extended period of time- the burn-out rate is fast….”

    I LOVE hyper compressed music…
    When I was young I would listen to obsessivly to radio jingles for they were the hardest thing compressed on the very compressed FM dial;

    So you see, something new IS happening….

    THE AUTHOR IS JUST TOO OLD AND OUT OF TOUCH TO “GET IT”

    Please dont take that as an insult, author, I dont wish to insult you, I just mean that right about now you sound like a Grandad from the ’60s talking about how distorted/crazy/loud/obnoxious Electric Guitars were.

    COMPRESSION IS AMAZING…OVERCOMPRESSION…AN ART (if done well)

    Rick@WinkSound.com
    WinkSound.com
    Brooklyn, NY

    Comment by Rick — June 17, 2008 @ 9:59 am

43. I do agree that most of the modern music on the radio is far superior to old styles and genres. If you are still trying to find some good old music check out http://www.myspace.com/aerosmith. DONT GIVE UP ON OLD MUSIC- you just need to find some that suites your musical taste!

    Comment by Steven Tyler — June 17, 2008 @ 11:23 am

44. My opinion:
    Music (and the music industry) will never be the same.

    My reasoning:
    Digital media has destroyed the music industry’s business model. There isn’t much incentive to paying $15 to $20 for some crappy CD that probably has 2 or 3 good songs on it when you can download it for free. By prosecuting these downloaders, the record industry has proven that they’re only real concern is getting paid.

    Some of the artists have accepted this and have begun giving away their music for free online. I guess they figure that they can make their money off of merchandise and live performances. This might work for Radiohead or Nine Inch Nails, but newer and less established bands will have a much harder time with this.

    Now, I don’t know if I’d say that music isn’t progressing, but I definitely wouldn’t say it’s getting better. Realistically, it isn’t hard to become a musician these days. You can write and record on your PC using software like GarageBand or FruityLoops, start up your own MySpace “band” profile, and upload your songs. Now all you need is a few pictures of you and your friends in your most emo-looking outfit and about 50,000 MySpace buddies. As Mr. Degrazio stated, there are tons of these “bands” out there… too many for the average person to even begin to separate the good from the bad.

    As for the pop stars and rap artists, I’m sure they could care less about releasing crappy music, or about people downloading it. If the song is popular enough, every company out there will want it featured in their movie or in the TV commercial peddling their crappy product. They’ll recoup their expenses by licensing the music. And usually the “music career” is little more than a marketing campaign to propel them into the limelight so they can get into acting.

    So, what is the solution? Accept the inevitable: the music industry will die, and it will not be pretty. Accept that you will continue to hear crappy, generic music on the radio and MTV, because that is all that these people know how to make and sell. And, in 10 or 15 years, when all the kids in garage bands out there wise up and realize that you can’t become a millionaire by being a rock star anymore, they’ll throw down their guitars and microphones, and the only people left will be the ones writing and recording music to do something original and inspire people.

    Comment by EC — June 17, 2008 @ 12:01 pm

45. Impact in = Impact out. Tireless efforts of our predecessors have softened the “impact” of this world. It’s what civilization’s goal is.

    Comment by Jarvis — June 17, 2008 @ 12:33 pm

46. I don’t think the issue has ever been whether or not great bands are out there, or even necessarily what they sound like. There’s always a handful of records every year that blow my mind. I listen to a lot of modern music. Music is probably better than it’s been in a long time, actually.

    The issue, which I think is what has lead to the proliferation of blogs & alternative zines like Pitchfork, is the ever increasing amount of focus on the formula in what is mainstream.

    Then again, maybe I’m just young & naive and these acts, just like the cheese acts of yesteryear, will be forgotten & these times will be viewed with rose colored glasses like the 60’s & 70’s. But if that’s the case, certainly a lot fewer great acts will be remembered in the mainstream from the late 90’s & 00’s.

    And maybe Dylan was photogenic, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t have substance first. Same with Janis Joplin. The Pussycat Dolls, however, have no substance to speak of. Being marketable & being created solely to be marketed are two completely different things. That’s my issue.

    But as has been said, music will always survive. And so long as “The Beatles” is still fighting with “Coca Cola” as the most recognized proper noun in the world, there will still be great music.

    Comment by Jon Cole — June 17, 2008 @ 3:20 pm

47. Reply to GZiemann - I wasn’t arguing that it was necessarily a bad thing that it’s not like the old days,
    with the big advances, huge rock bands with huge record sales. It seems that others are unhappy that there aren’t as many huge rock bands as before, and the money going to the biggest rock bands isn’t as big as before.

    It seems as if it’s a recurrent theme of sorts here at kingsofar.com - where are the huge rock stars, who are the new breakout artists and can you name them? There is a belief that there should be new huge rockstars again who everyone knows and every one geeks about. Sure, that would be good.

    Yes, it’s problematic for the industry if they insist on making expensive records that have to sell a ton to break even. It’s hard for rock acts to even go gold these days.

    But my opinion is basically that it’s cheap to make a record these days, and easy to get people to hear about it. So, the good stuff will rise to the top. The best acts will make enough money to keep making records.

    We’re pretty much in agreement, and your quote from me was my characterization of a position I don’t hold.

    Comment by parocks — June 17, 2008 @ 5:42 pm

48. Very nice article with great comments. I wrote up a post about it here:

    The Lost Impact of Modern Music - A Response

    Quoting from the post:

    “Something does seem to be happening to music, though I am not sure that there is a degradation of quality. Rather, it is likely the relationship between the increased accessibility of music in both production and reception and the limited resources of time and attention for the individual listener that is the hub of our concern.”

    Comment by Kourosh — June 18, 2008 @ 7:52 am

49. To: John Degrazio

    Have you even tried listening to modern music? Or any music whatsoever?

    What I am trying to say, is that how someone of such apparent musical knowledge would associate the value/quality of music with popularity. Bands will never be as “popular” as they once were.

    There are many ways to get exposed to music now, as opposed to the relatively slim options of the “Classic Rock” periods of the 60s and 70s. In the past everyone loved the Beatles, not only because of there great music, but because that is what was played on the RADIO. They (for example) couldn’t hear it on movie soundtrack, check the credits, search the band on the internets, and find out what else people with similar tastes listen too.

    Yes, the internets has diluted the popularized form of music that you knew, but it has also opened the ears of many to wonderful sounds old and new. There are so many options to listen to that I can understand how confusing it must be to you, that you would have to wade through the bad stuff to find the true gems. Of course that never happened in the old days did it?

    But please note, they are out there. Good music does exist, just not in the “mainstream” rock radio format. I hear great new music all the time that 10 years ago no one ever would have heard of, just because they are not attached to major labels. In reference to this response promoting newer music, I love “classic” and “modern” music.

    It must take a true music lover to appreciate a wide range of musical styles.

    Rock is not dead.

    Radio is dead.

    Try the internets http://woxy.lala.com/
    (not all good, but it is definitely there)

    Thanks to all!

    P.S. To all you Dark Side fans, Wish You Were Here is sooooooo much better…

    Comment by JCM — June 18, 2008 @ 8:58 am

50. Two points –
    1) “Joy” — how much of what is on the radio today either demonstrates or inspires joy?
    2) “The Long Tail” — the Internet has made it economical to re-release recordings from the deep deep archives of record companies, studios, and others, introducing new generations to the wonderful music of the past.

    I find myself totally cold to the drivel played today, but excited by fun and sophistication of loungecore. YMMV.

    I would argue that the long tail overhang is the biggest competiton that faces new musicians. They must compete against the back catalog of every band before them.

    Comment by m — June 18, 2008 @ 9:13 am

51. Age is definitely a huge factor. I’m nearly 60 now. I was around for the very first feedback, for Woodstock, for Elvis, for everything no one ever heard before that you now take for granted. I made –and still make–my living in the music biz, spent ten years on the road as a guitarist, and have watched it from both the inside and the outside. Once thing for certain: unquestionalby, it’s all about youth. When you’re young and untried and untested, not yet whipped by social constrictions or conventionalism, your innocence, naievity and hopes and dreams still shining and intact,not yet crushed by the machine or simply too jaded, the music is EVERYTHING; it is the soundtrack of your life. It speaks to you, with you, at you, and most of all, for you, in more ways than you can imagine. It both creates and reflects your style and your pathways and your attitudes. You literally NEED the music, and because of that undeniable need, regardless of the industry or the condition of the business or the phonics or sonics or sound engineering or who’s out there doing what, that unquenchable need drives you to find the music. It’s always been that way and it always will be. After a few decades go by and you’ve hacked your way through the jungle of life and forged your own path and created yourself, the music is like a trusty walking cane instead of a total suit of armor. You’ll still love it, but it will be less important, and that will be OK, too. You’ll see; beleive me, you’ll really, really see.) So what I say is this: the Impact of Music today is NOT lost; youth keeps the impact eternal and evolving. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Comment by jefferson — June 18, 2008 @ 11:18 am

52. As far as radio is concerned it’s always been about one in ten songs were O.K. and the rest sucked.As far as live music is concerned my band gave it up a few years ago,We Got Tired,but we still write and record thru the magic of the interwebs.Bottom line the cream will always rise to the top and rock music isn’t going anywhere,
    Bob

    Comment by Bobnormal — June 18, 2008 @ 2:15 pm

53. I quit listening to radio over a decade ago when I heard the SAME SONG on my morning commute, at lunch when I drove out to get a burger, and then on my evening commute home. I switched over to the classical station and never looked back. The passage of time and the march of technology, however, have made it increasingly easy to find music of all stripes that I enjoy, thank god, because the radio stations sure weren’t doing anything in that regard. Look, your big culturally relevant acts were a product of the technology and the culture present at the time. Instead of millions of fans being fed what some record company executives like, we now have millions of fans able to seek out and listen to what exactly suits their tastes, why shouldn’t this mean a far greater number of less well known acts? I’d be surprised if it hadn’t come to this.

    But I think it says a lot about the state of music today that I found a band’s myspace page in this very thread (Fleet Foxes) who I had never even heard of before today whose tracks I’m about to purchase from Amazon.com’s MP3 service. They didn’t have to engineer their sound for radio play, or to impress “the masses” or by extension some dude at a record company. AND I’M GLAD THEY DIDN’T HAVE TO. They got to make exactly the record they wanted to, the kind of music they were passionate about, and they stuck it out there so that me, the guy who ultimately gets to determine what I like and what I don’t, could hear it and judge for myself whether it strikes a chord with me. And I love hearing what they made. And to top it all off I’m going to leave a comment on the band’s page about how much I like their music. Yeah. I think I, as a fan, like this modern music industry just fine.

    Comment by fnc — June 18, 2008 @ 2:53 pm

54. Honestly I think it is a lot to do with the major record companies being on a severe downwards slope, as they have been for a while. I feel that the problem is that as record companies profits continuously drop, they stop taking any kind of risks with the artists they sign because they’re worried that if they sign an artist that is going to try and innovate and do something different then they won’t sell records and they’ll end up losing money on them. As a result they end up signing a bunch of one-hit wonders that don’t buck the trend but instead just latch on to what is popular, maintaining the status-quo and lending to the situation we have at the moment. Of course that’s not to say that record companies haven’t always signed one-hit wonders and trend followers, but it’s become much more abundant than previously, because they can be sure of at least making a quick buck off of them, because nowadays for the major labels it’s not about the music, it’s about the bottom line. And of course, the music industry is dominated by three or four major record labels, if they all follow the same trend and refuse to sign original and interesting new bands, then the industry will continue to be flooded with mediocrity.

    Thing is, I get very tired with people saying that claim the problem is that the mainstream music listener can’t appreciate genuinely in-depth and interesting music, but that’s rubbish. Some of the highest selling and most enduringly popular artists of all time have experimented and innovated in their music, for example The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, and in recent years the likes of Nirvana and Radiohead. All of these artists are hugely popular and have sold millions of records yet they are/were all innovators. They way I see it, most people are capable of appreciating “quality” music, it’s just that the major labels aren’t putting any of it out there anymore so unless you’re willing to trawl through your local record shop or the depths of the internet looking for genuinely exciting new artists, you’re probably just going to have to put up with what the mainstream has to offer.

    Essentially, I blame the record labels. But that’s just my opinion.

    Comment by Rob — June 18, 2008 @ 5:28 pm

55. This entire discussion has provided some pretty thoughtful and intellectual criticism about popular music today and I am thankful that a world of critics like myself exists. And it is because of people like us that good music will be safe and there will be room for good music in the future.

    One of my main contests with music today is its consumability. Some of you have touched on it already but music today has been packaged and prepared to satisfy America’s insatiable apetite for another ite on the dollar menu. However, I hate to think that this is a generational problem. This is not something that just jumped onto our radar and it isn’t even something that happened in our lifetime.

    The late 50s and 60s saw some of the worlds greatest music, but it also saw the beginning of packaged and processed rock. The formula was simple: Take rock chord progressions, a cute teen idol type singer, and have him sing a (now aforementioned) cheesy love song. For a quick reference google calendar girl by Neil Sedaka. This was the product of about 30 men in a room with keyboards at their office at RCA records. (I’m not intentionally pointing fingers, but this is what began the pop culture mess as we see it today, but for further examples, examine the rise and fall of blues music and Sun Records). It was an interoffice competition to see who could produce the most consumable pop song. This is not what inspired John Lee Hooker and Robert Johnson to write songs. At any rate this was just one example of rock’n'roll gone pop and it was successful so it caught on.

    The point is that this awful, uninspired, and really just awful music has been produced and consumed for us, the farm animals, who line up and eat whatever slop is in the trough. It began far before Neil Sedaka and all the other pop/rock junkies in the 50s. The rancid, off-rock, unemotional music that arose just after the advent of rock ruined “good” music. Miles was still in his prime, but jazz had come and gone. Rock was the new pop music and it was becoming more popularized. It was this formulaic music that inspired John Cage to write his famous piece 4′33″ in 1952. He saw very early on that listners had forgotten how to listen and began to simply hear whatever came out of their radio’s speakers.

    In short this is not a new problem. There have been “musical droughts” as long as music has been around, but out of these have emerged great artists and musicians. Hendrix emerged from the early fifties pop/rock and Zeppelin from the Neil Sedaka crowd, so there is hope. But it is we who are in control of the fate of music. If we support (financially and morally) great musicians, record companies will invest in good musicians. Once again we have to bow at the feet of the industry, but I would rather bow on hands and knees than suffer through one more Pussycat Dolls album.

    Comment by TheKevinSmith — June 18, 2008 @ 8:50 pm

56. I haven’t read all the comments, but I’ve been wondering the same thing. I grew up with “big” artists… Elton John, Billy Joel, Rod Stewart, Bowie… Even in the ’80s there were “big” artists… Depeche Mode sold out Dodger Stadium in 6 minutes, I believe. I was a huge fan. Can’t take more than about three songs today, and I’m done with them, but still, whether they “sucked” or not, they were big. New Order, Pet Shop Boys, Nine Inch Nails, Duran Duran. They had multiple albums and huge fan appeal. It seems like there hasn’t been a new band with such huge fan appeal for a long time. I like a lot of different songs, but I haven’t really gone nuts over a band to the point that I bought an album without hearing even one song, but just because of who made it.

    Comment by SoCalJeff — June 19, 2008 @ 1:22 am

57. I hear everybody ALWAYS pushing the blame onto something, someone, somehow:
    “the music sucks”,
    “labels suck”
    “radio sucks”
    “A&R sucks”
    “internet sucks”
    “myspace sucks”
    “illegal downloading sucks”
    “gas prices suck”
    “clubs suck”, etc.

    I could go on forever. The negativity on this blog can be overwhelming at times. But I’ve never heard anybody ever say “I suck.” Because, ask yourself, “What am I doing to change the industry?” “What am I doing to make a positive impact?”

    …All very good analysts, but not very good “do-ers.”

    You think music sucks? Go ahead, Einstein, pick up a guitar and you write/design the next ground-breaking style of music. Post it on here when you’re done.

    You think gas prices suck? Write to your local politicians, and protest, etc. If you don’t do it, I don’t want to hear you bitch. That’s your democratic choice.

    You think clubs suck? Go open one.

    You think Myspace sucks? Don’t go there.

    Get the drift?

    The voice of this blog can be decently powerful, but all I hear are problems, not solutions. Everybody is pointing the finger.

    Imagine if half of the time that was spent bitching was spent on trying to make a positive impact. The results might be staggering.

    Comment by Scott — June 19, 2008 @ 7:28 am

58. Hell yea Oilyfishhead!!!!!!!!

    Oh, and to throw in my two cents…. the fuckin “Politically Correct” movement has crushed all kinds of creativity…

    you have one group who tries very hard not to offend anyone or anything

    and you have another group that solely goes out to offend and shock people and things

    Who gives a crap about who is/isn’t offended, what people do/don’t like… Just do what makes you happy.

    Comment by Angela V — June 19, 2008 @ 7:45 am

59. You need to shut up. There is plenty of new music and experimental things going on. (Especially in electronic music.)

    Anyone who is a teenager or in their early 20’s will tell you that music is not dead at all. I’m 19 and I know for a fact that in high school and college almost everyone listens to music and identifies with a genre or trend that is related to a genre of music.

    The truth of the matter is that music HAS changed. The ways we listen to music has too.

    Fact of the matter is, I bet the guy who wrote this is 30 or older and has no idea what the music scene is today.

    Music now isn’t about having a hand full of mega selling artists. (Like The Beatles or Led Zeppelin.) Kids have a nearly limitless selection of artists and sounds to choose from.

    In my opinion its all a generational gap. People think the music industry is supposed to be the way it was when you were a kid. This also relates to the sound. If you think music hasn’t progressed in sound. WOW. Sorry I can even say anything to you except:

    http://www.myspace.com/thefalloftroy
    http://www.myspace.com/teramelos
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkZV7DIXsRM
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ps7trr_EbM

    Sorry but if I am not mistaken… People weren’t making music like this even 10 years ago.

    Finally, GOOD “pop” or, “popular music,” is dead. It is made for people who don’t have the time or don’t care to listen to music actively. However, for everyone else who wants to put some time