Anyone remember Cecilio and Capono from the middle 1970s? Tht is only one example of awful, awful music. How does this stuff get released? Really, I want to know.
Bad groups make bad music and get albums made and released and marketed, yet there are worthy groups that languish. Where is the justice?
Really, anyone know the answer?

I'm from the UK, so my perspective is based around what I see there. The rules governing the release and promotion of music in America appear to be a little different. Bare with me...

There are many reasons why crap music is on the increase - It's why most amateur musicians find it so hard to get anywhere. Given that the overwhelming majority of music is crap, the powers that be are aprehensive about signing it and the general public have little interest in hearing it. I used to think there should be quality control in force, but if we're dictating what art should be, that's hardly fair.

One reason this music gets released is contractual. An artist will either be obligated or forced to make questionable music. I know of one band who were totally at the mercy of their record contract. The label refused to release their album unless it met certain criteria - they'd send the master and it would come back with a list of criticisms. This really pissed the band off. It took 2 years to finish and sounded like a mess on release. No-one from either the record label or the band believed in it. The band and the label ended up hating it.

Another reason for crap music is the increase in indie releases. Anyone can release music now, so when EMI don't come knocking on your door, you can simply release your own records. Unfortunately, this has opened the floodgates for a wealth of amateur musicians who just aren't that good. Lest we forget, releasing your own records used to be very expensive. With the internet, this cost has lowered considerably to a point where you can do it as a hobby. I'm not saying it's all bad, but there's a lack of quality in an awful lot of it. Before I get accused of being an 'indie hater', I should add that I'm referring to indie as 'independent release', not a style of music.

Low quality music is also created through the use of modern recording equipment. Not so long ago, making an album meant rehearsing for weeks on end, hiring a studio at considerable cost and recording live onto reel-to-reel tape. If you made a mistake or dropped a note it would end up on the final take. Consequently musicians put more effort into getting it right - if you flaunted this you had WAY too much money. Although home computers can make amazing recording tools, there's a great temptation to edit mistakes and compositional errors afterwards - there's no need to write or rehearse anymore. Unfortunately, some bands just record a mish-mash of random nonsense and cut & paste it afterwards - some of these songs end up on the radio. In the UK, they often top the charts in the guise of novelty records, or horrific 'clubbing anthems'.

I could talk about this for ages...

Suffice to say, there's all kinds of reasons. We have good music too, but it's always buried under a mountain of poo.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Duncan Black,

quote:

Originally posted by rockthief:
Bad groups make bad music and get albums made and released and marketed, yet there are worthy groups that languish.
Really, anyone know the answer?

Because people hate to be challenged. They'd rather listen to something simple, repetitive, and monotonous than something they might actually have to think about. RIAA labels know their audience. Major labels release just as much garbage as indies, only you don't hear much of the indie garbage, while the major label sh!t gets payola'd into soundtracks, commercials, and sporting events till you have nowhere to hide from their puss oozing musical discharge. Seriously, what the hell was the macarena? Major labels release most of their music based on trends, not talent, and that is responsible for all the garbage floating around the used CD bins at Salvation Army.

I actually had a um...interesting convo with someone recently about this, how apparently an increasing amount of people pick up a guitar and "think they're a god without practicing and learning chords." And I mean I hate mediocrity as much as the next guy but here lately my emphasis is shifting a lot more to honesty/expression in art rather than technical prowess. Even if it sucks who am I to say somebody shouldn't be playing from their heart? I can always not listen to it So yeah, seems like Duncan Black got it pretty right, interwebs/future world in which we live make the entry point a lot lower/easier and all the people that WANTED to make shitty music before now are available to! Yay?

good replies. thank you.
I am old enuf to remember the recording a song in one take was a huge thing. It meant tht the band was right on, tight and smooth, and in the groove. It came across in the music too. Listen to Louie, Louie. It was recorded with one mike in the middle of the room and damn it sounds great. Who cares or even knows what the lyrics are? Music history is fascinating and I think we have latched on to a bit of it here with these few posts.

it doesn't help that our society is becoming more and more obsessed with image.

quote:

Originally posted by Fitz:
it doesn't help that our society is becoming more and more obsessed with image.

Yeah, I think you nailed it. If you ain't pretty enough for MTV you're not gonna make it far in this business. Video killed the radio star indeed.

That said, constructed image in popular music has been with us since the late 1800s and ragtime.

I think a bigger worry on this subject is the spectacle of reality TV destroying the mystique of music. The image of the 'pop star' is now an endlessly repeated 'rags to riches' story, laid out on TV for all to see. Mainstream audiences are being encouraged to care more about the televised process of getting famous than the music itself (which is consistently dreadful).

The more we are entertained watching fame-hungry prima donnas throw themselves on the alter of celebrity, the less we care about what they are actually doing. This means endless cover versions and celebrity status being diverted to judges, management moguls and critics. These idiots end up more famous than the artists themselves. I can remember the names of Simon Cowell, Sharon Osbourne and Paula Abdul, but I can't name one artist, much less a song title.

This is dumbing down music in a massive way.

Singers are competing in a sort of 'vocal olympics', judged by people with very questionable taste in music. This is not helped by the fact that the majority of all big budget pop records are auto-tuned. Humans can't physically sing like that - which makes it great fun to see singers humiliated on national TV when they fail to do so.

The net result is an elitist view of popular music, where as long as you sing in tune and have personal trauma on TV, you're OK by us. Music? Was there music? I didn't notice.

Talent shows ignore major factors in pop music which make us want to hear it. As a consequence, popular music is dying a horrible death. Britney Spears is now more famous for shaving her head and leaving her knickers at home, than her records.

Before we console ourselves with indie, metal, jazz and other 'alternatives', it should be noted that Gene Simmons and Sharon Osbourne have already muscled in on metal and jazz is creeping into the spot light slowly but surely (there've been numerous cheesey jazz singers on talent shows).

It's only a matter of time before they rape and pillage indie too. Music and TV is a hugely destructive union in terms of producing good records.

quote:

It's only a matter of time before they rape and pillage indie too. Music and TV is a hugely destructive union in terms of producing good records.

how so? independently produced music almost has a non-image.

and still, even if you can convince me that "indie" can be destroyed, alternatives will always rise out of the ashes.

I already discussed the confusing definition of indie and got into a lot of hot water with it!

Suffice to say, there appear to be 2 main lines of thought -

1) Indie is merely a statement of record label status (Independent label). Style, genre and sound are irrelevant.

2) Indie is a style of music and there is a certain 'sound' associated with it.

In debates, a lot of people who posted on the subject believed that indie was indeed a style of music (as much as I beg to differ). I've debated it to a point where I have exhausted myself on the topic.

Given those terms of reference, I refer to indie as a style of music when posting on this board, for no other reason than to avoid argument.

Sooo.... (bare with me)

If indie is a style of music, then it is something that commercial media can emmulate easily. Commercial stereotypes are already found in metal, jazz, country and western and even classical. Moreover, commercial indie stereotypes are already with us in popular music culture.

'Indie' styled vocalists have appeared on British talent shows and they proved popular. I've also seen bands marketed as 'indie', who clearly have major label backing. These bands are marketed using advertising strategies more commonly used in popular music.

Going back to the Britney argument, Pete Doherty (Libertines/Babyshambles) is more famous for taking heroin and being with Kate Moss, than he is for making music. Again - this shows an apathetic attitude towards music as an art form, from the tabloid press, the marketing people and ultimately the general public.

Everyday people don't really care about Doherty's music - but the public are entertained by his self-destructive antics and buy newspapers to read about it. I think you could say the same about Britney Spears at this point in her career.

Although Doherty is featured in TV news reports and tabloid papers like the Sun, he is also an indie icon in magazines like NME, who's readership is undeniably 'indie'. These people read the same magazines, wear similar clothing, go to similar concerts and buy similar records.

All of this suggests that an indie stereotype exists and it can be successfully exploited by the media for financial gain.

If left to evolve, this will ultimately dumb down the indie genre, until we are left with a blueprint for a 'musical style' and little substance beyond that.

Lest we forget, genres like emo had very dignified beginnings in the likes of Fugazi, but the scene is now over populated by bands who sound indistinguishable from each other. Once the commercial stereotypes are in place, it can spell death for the integrity of a genre.

I stress that not all indie music is commercial, but a significant amount of it is commercial. Once the general public have embraced it as a style, it will be sold back to them in abundance.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Duncan Black,

To emphasise the point I'm trying to make here, check out this TV clip from a British talent show called Fame Academy. It's from 2003 and shows 2 self-styled 'indie' artists doing a totally cringe-worthy rendition of 'It's cold outside' -

Please do not view this clip if you have an aversion to embarrassment. You may have to get your buttocks surgically unclenched afterwards.

Link

The sad fact is that less intellectual members of the British general public thought these artists represented 'indie' music (as did the tabloid press). We can only hope this clip doesn't represent the future of indie in the eyes of the public.

In the same way that the word 'gay' has had at least 3 different meanings over a century, so too have musical definitions - goth, new wave, emo and hardcore have all meant different things at different times.

As far as I'm aware, 'Indie' has already gone through 2 distinct phases, though the full blown commercial hijacking of the term is not in force yet (Thank God for small mercies if that video is anything to go by).

quote:

Originally posted by rockthief:
Anyone remember Cecilio and Capono from the middle 1970s? Tht is only one example of awful, awful music. How does this stuff get released? Really, I want to know.
Bad groups make bad music and get albums made and released and marketed, yet there are worthy groups that languish. Where is the justice?
Really, anyone know the answer?

Speaking of bad music, this may be the funniest review I ever read. Billy Joel in an acid rock band? That's right. Anyone actually hear this album? I almost want to check it out.

I dunno. I guess my point is that whatever style is bastardized by the mainstream media, a fresh alternative will be born to replace it. that's what history tells me, anyways.

quote:

Originally posted by musicfanatic:

Speaking of bad music, this may be the funniest review I ever read. Billy Joel in an acid rock band? That's right. Anyone actually hear this album? I almost want to check it out.

I've heard it. It's not too good but not as bad as it's made out to be in the amg review. I've definitely heard worse.

quote:

Originally posted by rockthief:
Anyone remember Cecilio and Capono from the middle 1970s? Tht is only one example of awful, awful music. How does this stuff get released? Really, I want to know.
Bad groups make bad music and get albums made and released and marketed, yet there are worthy groups that languish. Where is the justice?
Really, anyone know the answer?

I don't listen to any music I consider bad and don't worry why it was recorded and released. There's too much good music to listen to. Passing the word on about good music you purchase and catching those artists live is as good a way as any for having some "justice".

quote:

Originally posted by Fitz:
I dunno. I guess my point is that whatever style is bastardized by the mainstream media, a fresh alternative will be born to replace it. that's what history tells me, anyways.

Very true - That's the evolution of music.

When a music scene starts, there is no specific term for it - It's all about the music.

Then the media and the press invent a catchy label and a loyal army of followers appear out of nowhere. The big business people move in and sell it on a grand scale.

Then the fashion police decide it was never cool in the first place. The albums end up in bargain bins and people switch to new trendier movements.

Years later, when it's all but forgotten, a collective of 'retro' musicians decide to start a revival.

And so it goes on...

That be the truth and nothing but the truth Duncan.

quote:

Originally posted by Duncan Black:
loyal army of followers

You mean zombies. No brain, and follow the source of food, or, err, music.

I blame 'cool hunters.'

Rick Springfield is coming to a casino near you!

alot has to do with record companies and radio.....

music has become a commodity and the job of the record company is to sell that commodity to as many people as possible.

independent artists has more freedom because they have less financial backing can take more risks.

I have seen some great bands dropped by record companies because they have did not sell enough albums, some after only releasing their debut or major label debut
some of these bands have been praised by critics

Bono once stated in an interview that if U2 had released their first few albums now they probably would have been dropped by their label, in fact their label was debating about dropping them at one stage, before Joshua Tree.