A good example of this is when somebody mentioned the song “Fireflies” by Owl City. When I listened to it, the first thing I asked was “Does this guy have trouble sleeping?” Sure enough, I went to Wikipedia and it mentions his insomnia. So understanding who the artist is as a person can be very important…but in my opinion, it is the artist who can convey something personal to him or herself without having to know something about him or her personally so anybody listening can relate to it is the sign of a good song and artist, and gives me a better understanding of who the person is as an artist, rather than the other way around. Which, in turn makes a song timeless and relateable to anybody listening, whether it be now or 100 years from now or whether they know anything personal about the artist singing it or not.

So in other words…I like a song that is geared toward a Universal audience that anybody listening can relate to, and that the listener of the song can put themselves or whomever they chose in the artists place, and that is timeless. And I would say those things are sorely lacking in much of today’s music. But that’s just me.

I think musicians from the past and/or publishers must be making more money b/c how many people scoured record stores looking to buy cd’s of the past b/c they like one or two songs???? I know there is NO WAY I would have purchased even half or one quarter of the music I have if it wasn’t available digitally… It’s almost too easy too… So, I think once they get the buying public on board, they’ll be all set.. plus I think every time someone hears a song they like they probably find and download more songs of the same artist as they are sampling and discovering the music of that artist.

As for the kids who steal, I don’t think that will stop until they get rid of those services who allow it… but maybe it’s providing some kind of marketing and sampling.. I do think they’ve eliminated a lot of it.. but it’s still a problem.. I know some teens who use limewire and steal all the time.. but these kids don’t have the money and can’t buy it.. but I’d bet they’d find a way if they had to.. they find a way to buy DVD’s of “one tree hill” or “the hills”… so they could if they had to…

Oh, and one more point I’d like to make about how the music of the past had more substance. It used to be that artists created themselves and defined a generation. Today, the Industry is basically doing that for the artist. They are looking for a person or persons to play the role they are looking for. So what ends up happening is, we get a bunch of copycat artists that sound the same. Believe me, I can’t tell the difference between Daughtry, David Cook, Lifehouse, Nickelback and the Fray when they come on the radio. And that’s just on the male side of things. There are no distinct voices today in music because the Industry is too busy trying to find someone who can copy someone else’s success. So the fact that artists are no longer defining a generation, and the Industry is doing that for them, leaves little room for anything creative or substantive to emerge from it.

Oh, and sorry this post won’t be quite as long as my last one. :)

Tim McGraw is not the same as Keith Urban.

This concept of image and personality is not new by any stretch of the imagination…image and personality has always been part of the music business (and practically every form of entertainment). But when the people who are running the music business are more interested in the money they can make from it, than the music that is created due to it, it leaves fewer choices and leaves out a great number of people who would otherwise buy their product. The article I linked above states that 58 % of the respondents were disenchanted by today’s overall quality of music.

The problem is because the Industry is promoting the image and personality side of it to the hilt, and marketing their product to a specific audience that buys into that, they are leaving out a number of people in the process who would otherwise buy their product, and leaves fewer choices for the public to choose from.

I have already blamed Reality TV and shows like American Idol for this problem. And the Industry seems to have taken to the idea that this is the only audience out there who buys music, just because MTV happens to play more Reality TV shows than actual music. Which again limits people’s choices as to what is actually out there musically. So let’s say 30 million people in America watch American Idol…there are 300 million people in America, and over 5 billion people in the world. It seems to me, they are missing out on a huge demographic of people they could be marketing their product to who don’t watch American Idol or MTV. And yet, they seem content on marketing their product to this audience exclusively who fall for this image and personality. And even though many music listeners don’t necessarily watch these shows necessarily, that is the audience the Industry is catering its product to on a grand scale.

In Country Music’s case, I know exactly what their strategy is. It is to bring in a new demographic of listeners who would otherwise not listen to Country Music. So they market their product to mothers and their kids hoping they will get hooked on Country Music and become fans of the genre for years to come. The only problem with this strategy is, they are ignoring a huge demographic in the process who end up spending their money elsewhere for their entertainment…and they fail to realize that these new fans are not really fans of Country Music, but rather, the “image and personality” that is masquerading as Country music at the moment. They are not loyal to the genre, only to their “favorite” flavor of the moment. 20 years from now they won’t be listening to Country Music…if Country Music is still around. The music industry is too short sighted though, and cares more about the earnings it will make this year, than the earnings it may lose in the future because of its decisions in the past, and need to appease its shareholders today.

Now, as far as CD’s go…I think it’s fair to say that many people would rather buy singles than a full album today. Gone are the days when you had to buy a full album just to hear the one song you wanted to hear in the first place. And now consumers have that choice where they did not in the past. So if the Industry wants to survive, they will have to make those singles appease a much bigger listening audience than they are now. And as Jim Malec said in one of his comments…make the life of the single shorter on the charts so more songs get released and are heard on the radio so more can be sold. Which of course, may or may not help the overall quality of music being produced (depending on whether or not these songs can appease a wider demographic of listeners). If they want people to continue buying albums and CD’s, they will have to either lower the price, and/or start marketing that product to a wider audience and promote the actual music over the personality singing that music. And right now they are doing the exact opposite.

And Karen…I understand what you are saying about marketing the Country male artists and female Country artists. However, you are looking at it from the perspective of how the Country Music Industry is marketing its product at the moment. They are more concerned about the image and personality side of it, rather than the music side of it, because that is the audience they are marketing their product to. It is harder for female Country artists though, not because of the image and personality so much as it is because Country Music has always been a fraternity of male artists, and they continue to follow their Traditional Country model. Until this changes, female Country artists will always have a harder time than the male Country artists of being successful. Don’t forget the fact that the music female Country artists are expected to make (even compared to the male Country artists) to appease the demographic that Country Music is catering to at the moment, and it makes it that much more difficult for them to be seen and taken as “serious” artists. Then add into it that they all try to copy and emulate what already worked for Carrie and Taylor just to get their songs on the radio (hence, we get bombarded by female revenge songs, or songs about how “it’s a girl thing”), and it becomes even that much more difficult to become successful because they are missing out on a huge demographic (not many guys want to listen to a female complaining about her personal problems on the radio…at least not that I know of). And then add into that, female Country artists are expected to bring in their own already established fanbase if they want any chance of getting their songs on the radio, and it makes it one big popularity and comparison contest between all the female Country artists. And those fans they are bringing in aren’t even necessarily the ones that Country Music should be trying to get in the first place. They should be focusing their attention on the fans they aleady had to begin with…

As far as is Top 40 music less substantive than it was 10, 20 or 30 year ago goes Sam…I would say yes. Only because the Industry today is marketing its product to a select demograpic, and the music back then was taylored toward a much wider demographic that more people (both male and female) could relate to. Plus, today many of the songs are more about who the artist is as a person rather than who the person is as an artist. Making the message and meaning of the song that much more difficult for the general listener to relate to unless they like the “artist” singing the song personally.

One last thing…and I have had this argument with my brother before. He says that I am just too lazy to go out and find music and artists that are out there on the Internet. My response is, I’m not about to go looking through millions of artists just to find one or two that I like. That is the music Industries job. And they are not doing it in my opinion.

Anyway, I think it is a good discussion…and I got off topic. But my original point was that artists should be blaming the Industry for piracy and not the general public. In the end, music is only worth what the listener is willing to pay for it. And the Industry gave people the mentality that music was free because they failed to do anything about it to begin with, and did not take advantage of new business opportunities they had when they had the chance. And the music the Industry and most of the artists are producing today gives me little reason to think its worth paying for anyway, let alone listening to. Which gives me no reason to buy the music or pirate it. Oh well, at least it saves me money and time.

Here is one last link to an article that was interesting…it was from almost 4 years ago…but I’m sure most of what it says holds pretty true today as well.
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/02/6103.ars

Do we know that the “industry” could do better than it is now by spending some money on promoting acts that would appeal to this “disregarded” audience? Would this “disregarded” audience buy music at a rate sufficient to justify such expenditures? Is it possible to market to this “disregarded” audience on radio — or are radio advertisers uninterested in buying ads on a station that attracts this “disregarded” audience?

Who, exactly, is this disregarded audience anyway? How do we know they are or aren’t buying music, anyhow?

As to the “image versus substance” claims: how do we know that “substance” sells more CDs than “image?” It seems that there are complaints that all forms of popular entertainment lack “substance,” and yet these forms have succeeded in attracting a large audience for years and years. Often it seems TV programs allegedly lacking substance seem to do better in the ratings than the more sophisticated fare on PBS, for instance. Many people spend hours watching YouTube videos that seem to have even less substance than the most vacuous country song ever written.

I’m not convinced that the public is eager to flock to music with “substance.”
But if this is the problem, and if “substance” would sell, then why aren’t the record companies putting out “substance?” Are record labels really so ignorant that they don’t see what Phil seems to present as obvious? Its hard to believe that. Might there be some barrier to profitably releasing music with “substance” to a mass audience that leads the labels to focus on “image” instead?

Finally, I’m suspicious of claims that top 40 country is less substantive and more image driven than it was 10 or 20 or 30 years ago. “Image” is nothing new: its probably essential to creating stars. Is “substance” down? I’m not sure the top ten songs on the Billboard country charts in 1985 were significantly more “substantive” than they are today. True, the topics sung about have changed, the music has changed, Maybe there is less substance today, but is there significantly less? I don’t see it, though my only evidence is impressionistic.

I’m not exactly clear on what is meant by “substance.” By substance do we mean songs sung by good vocalists? Songs that aren’t silly novelty ditties? Songs aimed drunks in bars rather than soccer mom in mini-vans? Songs about the pain of cocaine use rather than the difficulties of raising children?
All of these? None of these? Its hard to evaluate suggestions that the industry’s problem is a lack of substantive music unless we know what is meant by that term.
7
Perhaps my suspicions are unwarranted. Perhaps Phil is right. If he is, there should be a great business opportunity out there for someone who wants to promote music of substance to the masses.

Now for the girls that is the hard sell… how do you market these women? Will their music sell with just them and a cowgirl hat???? not likely at all….

I think the industry has to work twice as hard to sell these women and their music.. and most of the time it still doesn’t sell… at least not looking at those charts…

and look at Garth!!!! perfect example of a man’s man with a cowboy hat.. of course the music has substance, but he didn’t need any marketing I’d bet… I think it’s a real challenge.. and the women that are on the charts today have killer voices.. You’ve got Reba, Martina, Carrie, Miranda up there right now.. most of the men have a one octave range… it’s funny how that is…