[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
“Selling out.” What a great hilarious line!
We should start a thread on other quaint usages from the past that haven’t had any meaning in decades. 23 Skidoo! Mad as a hatter! Not worth a plugged nickel!
Hours of fun!
:smack:
[/QUOTE]
The term still does have meaning as long as there are artists who aren’t willing to do it. Just because the majority of musicians have no problem cashing in by licensing their songs to sell products doesn’t mean it automatically removes the ethical considerations implied by the term “selling out”.
[QUOTE=DudleyGarrett]
Ah, your assumption was incorrect. What I meant by it is that they sell out individual venues when they go on tour.
What I wrote was:
“Seeing the Rolling Stones touring at 60+ (and selling out) and having their music in car commercials makes me sad.”
See what’s in bold.
Further, I really don’t care if a musician sells their product for commercial interests. What I am saddened about is that this relatively old music is still thought of as good enough bait to attract consumers for cars (and other things). The statement quoted above was more a testament to the fact that mainstream music is just not very good and hasn’t been for such a long time, that we still find bands like the Rolling Stones as relevant as we do.
[/QUOTE]
I think a large part of the Rolling Stones’ appeal is not that they are still relevant, but that they also have a nostalgia appeal. Baby boomer types who rebelled to the Stones in the 60s can now afford to lay down a couple of hundred bucks for tickets (or whatever they go for these days). This nostalgia is probably why companies use the Stones’ in their commercials - advertisers hope that the fond nostalgia boomers feel for the Stones will be linked to their product. I’m sure in twenty or thirty years they’ll be using Eminem songs to sell luxury cars to the aging Millennials, and it will have nothing to do with whether or not the music is still ‘relevant.’
Will “classic” rock music be played in the future the way “Classical” music is performed today? There are groups today that do cover versions of entire albums, and scores of “tribute” acts. Is that how people will experience the songs of the The Stones, The Kinks, The Who, or Pink Floyd in fifty or sixty years?
For a while, 60s and 70s music will be played in nursing homes and bingo parlors. Then gradually, all memory of the baby boomers will fade away, except among enthusiasts akin to those who (in our own time) love to collect CDs of old-timey radio shows like Jack Benny and Fibber McGee.
[QUOTE=Koxinga]
For a while, 60s and 70s music will be played in nursing homes and bingo parlors. Then gradually, all memory of the baby boomers will fade away, except among enthusiasts akin to those who (in our own time) love to collect CDs of old-timey radio shows like Jack Benny and Fibber McGee.
[/QUOTE]
I came in here to mention that bands like The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, and even The Beatles are going to become “Old Fogey Music”, they way we* think of Perry Como or Bing Crosby or Dean Martin…
Kinda like that episode of Futurama:
“And now, here to lay down some Old, Old, Old, incredibly Old School beats… The Beastie Boys!”**
*as society as a whole, not as members of the SDMB
**Busting Mad Rhymes with an 85% success rate, which I believe qualifies as “Ill”, at least from a technical standpoint.
[QUOTE=LiveOnAPlane]
Either that, or we will have Quadraphonic sound.
[/QUOTE]
I know you were making a joke (at least I think so), but there are now some classical SACDs on the market that actually reproduce quadrophonic recordings from the 1970s if you’re interested. They’re on the Pentatone label.
[QUOTE=woodstockbirdybird]
The term still does have meaning as long as there are artists who aren’t willing to do it. Just because the majority of musicians have no problem cashing in by licensing their songs to sell products doesn’t mean it automatically removes the ethical considerations implied by the term “selling out”.
[/QUOTE]
“Selling out” may have had a meaning for a few fleeting moments in the 60s. (I’d argue against it even then. The Jefferson Airplane did Levi’s commercials as early as 1967, IIRC.) It was then laughed out of existence as soon as musicians found they could make some real money and have a real career out of what they were doing. Any ethical considerations are removed the moment you put your music up for sale.
DudleyGarrett, Sorry if I misinterpreted your sentence, but I think you can see why I did.
Rewarding creativity with money and so forth actually destroys the creativity. The drive to create music should come from the love of music, not the love of money. Internal vs. external motivation, call it what you will.
[/QUOTE]
Should? Who are you to say what a person’s motivation for making music should be? Or that it has to be pure an untainted “for the love of it”?
Anyone who’s been paid for their music is having their creativity destroyed?
I think that your premise writes off most of the music you have ever heard as being uncreative and done wrong.
There will be a transformed and greatly reduced role for record companies, as technology further erodes their efforts to maintain a stranglehold on the means of recording, distribution and marketing. They will continue to exist, but they will have to trade on their ability to arrange and promote live events, co-ordinate media access, offer talented PR efforts and so forth… in other words, things that may constitute an attractive deal for an artist, but have less and less to do with the actual production and dissemination of music.
[/quote]
I think this is pretty much how the record companies will have to change to survive. Nowadays a band can do all the things a label used to do for them, but if they don’t have a label, they have to do all those things. And as we all know, specialization and trade make things work much better than everyone trying to do everything.
I’m not so sure about this. I may want to listen to something unusual, and someone may be recording that unusual thing, but if I can’t find them and they can’t find me, I’m not going to listen to their stuff and support them. Search costs are going to become a huge problem for artists and fans of obscure styles, and the various recommendation software that’s out there today just isn’t going to cut it.
[QUOTE=DudleyGarrett]
Seeing the Rolling Stones touring at 60+ (and selling out) and having their music in car commercials makes me sad.
[/QUOTE]
Why is it a joke when the Stones does it, but admirable when BB King does the same thing in a slightly different genre?
When Muddy Waters made Hard Again with (whichever) **Winter ** brother back in '77(?), it was hailed as brilliant. MW was 64 at the time. BB King is 82 and still performing and **John Lee Hooker ** opened the nightclub Boom Boom Room when he was 80. He was about to embark on a European tour when he died at 84. Take Johnny Cash. Was he stupid to cover **Nick Cave ** and U2 at the eve of his life and career?
The kind of music the Stones play is the music of *their * generation. That it’s been adopted by people younger than them is not their fault. What should they do - swift to hip-hop to stay in tune with the times or be forced to play the polka circuit? They enjoy what they’re doing, they’re making money and there’s still an audience that wants to see them. Why is this sad?
I did an OP a while ago about r’n’r going the way of the dodo. I still think that’s the case and I wish I’d brought *this * argument to that thread where I seem to remember being a minority of one. Anyway, most of what’s become mainstream and popular has started out with poor black guys. Earlier, it got hijacked by white artists, nowadays, the black artists seem to be doing fine on their own. I don’t like the bling/gangsta rap and much prefer the earlier grittier kind, but this old geyser knows that each new generation of teenagers needs its own soundtrack to its teen rebellion.
If you want to know what will happen in the future, check the housing projects in a big metropolitan area.
An aside, I find that most people revere what they got hooked on in their early teens. The OP mentions the syntheziser craze of the early 80’s and seems to like it. I, who was in my 20’s by then, think the 80’s is the worst decade for music since 1950 and I’m glad **Nirvana ** with Nevermind kicked the balls of all the hair metal bands, the dx7 masturbation acts and sent the Fairlight to the musical trashcan where it belongs. Even if **Nevermind ** was deravative.
[QUOTE=Charlie Tan]
Why is it a joke when the Stones does it, but admirable when BB King does the same thing in a slightly different genre?
When Muddy Waters made Hard Again with (whichever) **Winter ** brother back in '77(?), it was hailed as brilliant. MW was 64 at the time. BB King is 82 and still performing and **John Lee Hooker ** opened the nightclub Boom Boom Room when he was 80. He was about to embark on a European tour when he died at 84. Take Johnny Cash. Was he stupid to cover **Nick Cave ** and U2 at the eve of his life and career?
The kind of music the Stones play is the music of *their * generation. That it’s been adopted by people younger than them is not their fault. What should they do - swift to hip-hop to stay in tune with the times or be forced to play the polka circuit? They enjoy what they’re doing, they’re making money and there’s still an audience that wants to see them. Why is this sad?
I did an OP a while ago about r’n’r going the way of the dodo. I still think that’s the case and I wish I’d brought *this * argument to that thread where I seem to remember being a minority of one. Anyway, most of what’s become mainstream and popular has started out with poor black guys. Earlier, it got hijacked by white artists, nowadays, the black artists seem to be doing fine on their own. I don’t like the bling/gangsta rap and much prefer the earlier grittier kind, but this old geyser knows that each new generation of teenagers needs its own soundtrack to its teen rebellion.
If you want to know what will happen in the future, check the housing projects in a big metropolitan area.
An aside, I find that most people revere what they got hooked on in their early teens. The OP mentions the syntheziser craze of the early 80’s and seems to like it. I, who was in my 20’s by then, think the 80’s is the worst decade for music since 1950 and I’m glad **Nirvana ** with Nevermind kicked the balls of all the hair metal bands, the dx7 masturbation acts and sent the Fairlight to the musical trashcan where it belongs. Even if **Nevermind ** was deravative.
[/QUOTE]
I already explained the statment in a different post. Please read the whole thread.
[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]
I came in here to mention that bands like The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, and even The Beatles are going to become “Old Fogey Music”, they way we* think of Perry Como or Bing Crosby or Dean Martin…
[/QUOTE]
Somehow I doubt it.
I’m 26 and I love The Rolling Stones. I also really love The Beach Boys and I think The Beatles are pretty good.
My wife is 22 and she loves The Beatles, John Lennon’s solo stuff and Johnny Cash. She got me into Johnny Cash.
An ex-girlfriend is 23 and she also loves The Beatles.
My cousins are 24, 26 and 28 and when they were in their teens they named their dog Zeppelin because they love the band.
A former co-worker is 23 and she also loves Led Zeppelin. She loves them so much she got her best friend (also 23) and her brother (17) interested in them.
You can expand this out to any number of teens and 20somethings to show that classic rock is not really going anywhere. People used to joke about how “cool guys” in future based shows used to show how cool they were by listening to rock music from the 60s and 70s. We laughed, but that music will be remembered for generations to come.
[QUOTE=woodstockbirdybird]
The term still does have meaning as long as there are artists who aren’t willing to do it. Just because the majority of musicians have no problem cashing in by licensing their songs to sell products doesn’t mean it automatically removes the ethical considerations implied by the term “selling out”.
[/QUOTE]
Strongly disagree here. “Selling out” is when a musician (or anyone, really) actively betrays their stated beliefs for money. Ergo: when Justin Timberlake’s music appears in an ad, it doesn’t bother me because he’s never taken an anti-commercialism stance or never spoken ill of using art to sell product. Whereas when George Carlin rails against TV advertisements in various routines only to shill for 1-800-CALL-ATT (haven’t thought about that for a while), then, well, that’s selling out.
“What I am saddened about is that this relatively old music is still thought of as good enough bait to attract consumers for cars (and other things). The statement quoted above was more a testament to the fact that mainstream music is just not very good and hasn’t been for such a long time, that we still find bands like the Rolling Stones as relevant as we do.”
“What I am saddened about is that this relatively old music is still thought of as good enough bait to attract consumers for cars (and other things). The statement quoted above was more a testament to the fact that mainstream music is just not very good and hasn’t been for such a long time, that we still find bands like the Rolling Stones as relevant as we do.”
[/QUOTE]
But that statement requires new mainstream music to suck, which is obviously false. So the whole statement can probably be disregarded.
[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
But that statement requires new mainstream music to suck, which is obviously false. So the whole statement can probably be disregarded.
[/QUOTE]
I think there will be more cross-pollination between Latin music and the current forms of American pop music. They’re still more separate than one would expect, given the Latin American population of America, but I don’t think that will last.
Rap will morph into something more melodic; it’s already happening. Actually, the background to rap music has always been fairly interesting, but has been buried by the vocals.
Somehow guitar-based rock will keep going; it’s due for another of its periodic rebirths.
Mainstream country will continue to suck for quite some time. Those people are incredibly hidebound. The Austin sound will be the same as it ever was: better than Nashville, but without enough broad appeal to really break through. Maybe a great crossover artist like Emmylou will come along and rescue the whole thing.
There will be a significant place for 60s though 80s rock for at least the duration of my life. An awful lot of it is just too good to go away.
And my feelings about you are not appropriate outside of The Pit.
Saying “all mainstream music today is terrible” is like saying “all TV today sucks” or “all movies made today suck.” They’re idiotic statements that no rational person can believe.
