A non-musical objection to NCS

Mike Perlowin · From: Los Angeles CA

In b0b's thread, people talked about the musical elememnts of NCS, but I have a different objection. The music had been transformed from art into a commodity. It's manufactured and sold like breakfast cereal, without any regard for quality.

In both country and rock, the greatest artists are the ones who came from the soil. Waylon and Willy, George Jones, Merle, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, The Beatles etc. These people were first and foremosts ARTISTS who sang and played as a means of personal expression. Sometimes they sang about their lives and their feelings. Sometimes they just had fun writing songs. But they always produced something from within themselves. They always created art.

Most of the people making hit records today are not artists expressing themselves. They are corporate manufactured sales gimmicks, and their music isn't art, it's a product designed and manufactured by accountants, for the sole purpose of increasing corporate profits.

Pete Anderson lives near me. We are not close, but we know each other well enough to say hello when our paths occasionally cross. Several years ago he told me that whenever he went into the studio to cut a record with Dwight, some suit from the accounting department would come down with a chart telling him that statistics indicated that more people whould buy the record if it had disco drums, or fuzz guitars or some similar element, and that he should add them to the recording. Pete first tried to say that they were trying to produce recordings with some quality and integrety. The bean counter couldn't care less. The ONLY way Pete could get the suits to leave him alone was to suggest that adding these elements might alienate Dwight's audience and cause the record to sell fewer copies.

There is a bumper sticker floating around L.A. that reads " Friends don't let friends listen to corporate rock." The same thing applies to country music.

Smiley Roberts · From: Hendersonville,Tn. 37075

Producer to Reba:
"Okay "Rebe baby",ya got a few # 1 country hits under yer belt. Now,we're gonna make ya a "pop" star!"

Reba sings(?):
"AWWR-AEEE-AISS-PIEE-AIEE-CIEE-TIEE"
(for those of you that don't remember,she used to open her show w/ Aretha's "Respect")

Poor "Rebe baby" (that's N.Y.C. producer lingo for "Reba honey") couldn't go "pop" w/ a mouthful of firecrackers!! But ya gotta give her an "A" for effort. She's been tryin' ever since. "You can take the girl outta the country but,you can't take the country outta the girl!!"

------------------

  ~ ~


  ©¿©          ars longa,


  mm         vita brevis 


 www.ntsga.com

Bobby Lee · From: Cloverdale, California, USA

I recent read Neil Young's biography "Shakey" (great book, btw). At one time, Young's contract with his record company paid him $1M per album. He was getting a lot of pressure from the company to make something more commercial. He renegotiated the contract so that he would only get $500k per album, and after that they let him do what he wanted.

Later on, a different record company sued him for making "uncharacteristic" music. They thought they had contracted "Neil Young the record factory", but they got "Neil the artist" instead. The stuff he was putting out didn't sell, and they thought he was deliberately being non-commercial. In fact, he was just following his muse, which only occassionally aligns his music with popular taste.

Neil Young's case is unusual, though. The record companies usually have the upper hand in these deals, and the artist must become a commercial craftsman to keep his contract. The situation is at its worst with artists who rely on radio-driven sales - the big pop markets. In the smaller vertical markets, constant touring and low-budget recordings are the order of the day. As always, if you are true to your art, you probably won't get rich.

------------------

Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (F Diatonic) Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6)

ajm · From: Los Angeles

I agree that music is mass produced today; it seems much more disposable for lack of a better term. But then again, so are movies and TV and on and on and on. Have you ever noticed how quickly movies disappear from the theatres?

I know a guy where I work who has a BSEE degree. His company title is "engineer". He's nothing special. We have to wear lab coats where I work. When we're around people, women in particular, he tells everyone he's a "scientist". I see how he makes the connection. I also know that our company has a title of "scientist" that they award to the best of the best. I know a few of the "scientists" and believe me, this guy is no "scientist".

That said, I kind of cringe when I hear the word "artist" used these days. Everyone is an artist; everyone from people who fling feces at a canvas to Subway, who even have "sandwich artists". It's a term that is used much too liberally, IMHO. I do use the word when talking music with people but I find myself hesitating for a split second before it comes out. I guess I just use it for lack of a better term or because we've been conditioned to use it. I guess everyone needs to feel important, and being called an artist or a scientist or whatever is their way of getting it.

It's strange that Mike mentioned all people who are immensely popular, well known and financially successful as artists. If these people had not been able to make a living, how many of them would have either gone to a day job or changed their style to make a living? Despite what they may say, we'll never really know because it didn't happen and they were not forced to make that decision. It appears that they were doing what they were put here to do, and it just happened to be what a lot of other folks wanted to hear, which means that they were able to make a living at it and keep doing it. On the flip side, how many one hit wonders were on the charts at any one time when the Beatles were at the top spot? How many golden oldies in all forms of music were churned out by our forefathers using the same assembly line process? Were Motown or Tin Pan Alley that much different? Was it really any different back then? Or has the constant bombardment in the form of the video medium made things seem different and more pronounced today? Or maybe we're all getting old and lamenting the absence of all of our old favorites. We don't remember how much we had to wade through to get to those few gems in our past. Or maybe we're doing something that isn't popular and/or accepted (PSG) so we need to draw attention to it.

I get the impression that most of us here are over 40, so add to that the fact that we just don't connect with the music that's out there today. Did our parents connect with that radical rockabilly and Beatles stuff with them long hairstyles? I started playing guitar from being drawn to music by Buck and CCR and the Monkees (I heard a few gasps on that one). I mostly grew up in the 70s and 80s. I liked the hard blues based rock during that period; not all of it, but a lot of it. I never cared what kind of hair or makeup they had. I grew up actually buying records based on LISTENING to them first, as opposed to watching videos. If we have anything to be thankful for, maybe it's that we grew up in a time when we were actually forced to listen to music BEFORE we saw what it looked like.

For my tastes, rock music essentially died (or at least went into hibernation) in the early 90's. I bought very few rock albums in the 90s. I do not relate to the punk/new wave/speed/thrash/death/whatever genre at all. Boy bands, girl bands, whiner bands, rap? Nope. Thankfully country had a major back to basics move in the early 90s so I had something to listen to. About 3 years ago it seems like that died, too. Luckily we have a good IMHO 70s-80s rock station back in LA again. But I know it's just a matter of time until they dump that format for the next big thing that comes along. Why will they do it? $$$$$$

IMHO there's nothing wrong with making money. There's also nothing wrong with making music that people like. (The two kind of seem to go hand in hand. I personally have no desire to make music that repulses someone and drives them away.) However, it seems like the record companies look around to find the one thing that seems to sell. And that one thing seems to be image. IMHO there's nothing wrong with being good looking either (not that I am, mind you). Then they just put out a ton of it and all copy each other. Since there is nothing else to buy, then people just buy what is given to them. I stroll into Tower Records with a wad of bills in my hand desperately searching for something new to buy, and there is NOTHING out there that interests me. So I buy Buck at Carnegie Hall or the Best of Johnny Winter (two recent purchases). Strangely enough I went to a concert for the first time in a long time last month (Hagar/Roth). I can hear the groans already. Yes, it wasn't much more than a greatest hits show, etc.... The point is that the place was packed with people who want to hear that sort of music, the acts are touring the country and doing well, and there must be bands out there doing that type of music, but why don't you hear them? If you're a boy band/girl band/rapper/NCS act they'll play you. Melodic rock, traditional country? Forget it.

I like some of the NCS. I play guitar as well so I can relate to some of it from a 6 string perspective. I like some of Shania's stuff. I understand hers' and Garth's popularity and have resolved it and understand it (at least in my own mind) and I like a couple of his songs. However, I also would never put them on the same shelf as a copy of Together Again/My Heart Skips a Beat. I don't own any of their records and probably never will unless I find them for a dollar at a garage sale. But those are my tastes.

To quote Mike, "Most of the people making hit records today are not artists expressing themselves. They are corporate manufactured sales gimmicks, and their music isn't art, it's a product designed and manufactured by accountants, for the sole purpose of increasing corporate profits." I understand your frustration, and I agree with some/most of it. But being the devil's advocate, you don't know that they're not expressing themselves. Someone surely is somewhere. And what exactly is art? As I said before, IMHO there's nothing wrong with making money. No one I've ever heard of has ever gone into any business solely to LOSE or turn down money. And can you blame some young boy band for taking a ton of money and fame and everything that goes with it to do something that's actually legal if someone offers it to them?

The Pete Anderson thing makes me laugh. I've always thought that and I totally agree. (I don't know if the words "quality and integrity" were Mike's or Pete's, though. In either case that is totally an opinion and debatable.) I don't believe that something can appeal to everyone nor does it need to. Dwight has his market, as do AC/DC and Shania and Stevie Ray and Brittney and Ice Cube and JLo and (fill in the blank). I'd just like to hear MY market being represented somewhere. My personal interpretation is that it sounds like what Dwight/Pete were really trying to say was "We're happy with what we've got, we don't really NEED any more, our audience likes it, we like it, and that's good enough for us, so don't screw it up".

Again, to quote Mike, "There is a bumper sticker floating around L.A. that reads "Friends don't let friends listen to corporate rock." The same thing applies to country music." Just another frustrated group expressing their emotions. It's OK, though. Maybe there's an idea here for a new business where we could make a zillion dollars. A custom bumper sticker company. "Friends don't let friends listen to (fill in the blank)." "Friends don't let friends watch (fill in TV show)." "Friends don't let friends root for (fill in sports team)."

Here's something that will land me on the SGF 10 most/least wanted list. I love our instrument, I love going to the convention, I love this forum, and all that other stuff. But I really have doubts as to whether the PSG is adaptable to all forms of music. At least not in a MAJOR way like the 6 string or keyboards, and probably not in our lifetimes. Guest appearances, certainly. Featured instrument in all genres/styles continuously, sorry.

I've seen Joe Wright at the conventions and he is one person that I will not miss. IMHO he is very talented, he actually makes an effort to entertain a crowd, and he offers something different from everyone else there musically. I have to admit that I have not seen Robert Randolph. I have not heard every player or recording to ever use a PSG. Sure, you can turn on the distortion and play a rock tune on the PSG, but the dynamics/tone/feel are not the same. It's much the same way with a B-bender Tele; IMHO it's cool, but it's NOT the same as a real PSG. I applaud these maverick players of the PSG for doing what they're doing, but I don't believe that we'll see the form of major acceptance that some of us would like in our short lifetimes. We just were not born at the right point in history. I'd love to be wrong about it, though.

As for me I don't need to see the PSG accepted everywhere. For now I'm happy just hearing it used mainly on good old country music. I'm happy to have our own convention every year where we can go and know that we're going to pretty much like every thing we hear for 4 days in an ideal location. I'm happy to play this exotic instrument that 99% of all MUSICIANS, let alone the general public, know nothing about.

Stephen Gambrell · From: Over there

Tommy Mottola is the white devil!!

Dave Boothroyd · From: Staffordshire Moorlands

I work in a college where there are a lot of young musicians and performers.
Most of our Students on the Music Tech Course are "Rock 'n Roll" if you see what I mean- they want to make their own way, do their own thing and to hell with anybody who says they are wrong.
That's fine - I know how they feel.
In the same college there are a group of Perfoming Arts students. They want to be famous, and they'll do anything to make it. The first thing they learn is never to think for themselves.
At a recent live gig that our people were engineering, one of the three stage mikes packed up during a number. Any of our Music Tech students would have moved to one of the other Mics, but no! The Performers had been told where to stand so they carried on, knowing that their Mic was not working and that the audience could not hear half the dialogue.
I've watched Pop Idol, and the people on there are typical Performing Arts /Stage school kids - they have had their sense of the ridiculous surgically removed.
A proper Musician is driven by something else. Whether from the soil or the suburbs, it is their message they want to get across.
An artist is a very different animal from a celebrity- and here today , gone tomorrow celebrity is the best that most pop acts will ever manage.
Cheers
Dave

Eric Jaeger · From: Oakland, California, USA

I don't mean to be cynical about Mike's thoughts, but the thought occurs that this complaint/criticism about the pre-planned, manufactured, artificiality of music has been around almost as long as there's been a music business.

I'm not suggesting the criticism is invalid, but I am suggesting that the tension between... what?... authenticity and crap?
is built into the business.

Donny Hinson · From: Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.

Well, the way I see it is that just about any attempt at expression could be called "art". While a previous poster said that the term "artist" may be applied too often, I don't really see it that way...and here is an example. When your 4 year-old (son, grandaughter, whatever) draws a picture and you post it proudly on the refridgerator, it's art. Now, it may not be "good" art (undoubtedly...it isn't) but it's an attempt at expression and creation, and therefore it can be categorized and accepted as "art".

But so many people today want to be "politically correct", and avoid offending other people. They believe that "all ______ has merit". While that's true, it's also true that said merit is not equal. This is one of the ways we have of "dumbing-down" our society. (It's also the way that purveyors of abstract art and mass-produced music foster a following, and become wealthy.)

I have said here before that "there is good music and bad music, and if you're not willing to make a distinction...don't get miffed when someone else does". I need to stress, however, that music that is "successful" and "popular" is not necessarily "good music". (Those who are profiteering from it may feel that way, but they're a little jaded by their own interests)

In the recording industry today, the "fat cats" still call the shots. The boss may not always be right, but he is the boss. It's probably safe to say that no major recording star today "calls all the shots" in their own career. (The last ones to do that were probably Sinatra and Streisand). Like any other job, you can't do whatever you want when you don't own the business. The mega-bucks recording industry is not unlike the business of prostitution. There's a pimp-type guy in the background that gets rich off the "talents" of those in his stable. He sees that they make a good living, but never quite good enough to start their own enterprise, and he lets them know "who's boss" by threatning them with the oblivion of being "dropped". And who (of the many out there who have been exposed to the "fame and fortune") would want to give it up? Very few, I suppose.

Yes, now that I think of it, that's an excellent analogy...prostitution.

Make 'em pretty and sexy, let the public see 'em and get "hooked", and then "turn as many tricks as fast as you can". It's a business of volume, and not one of quality. Like McDonald's and their hamburgers, they know they don't have the best product, but they take solace in the fact that they have fame and fortune granted by sales to millions.

The many "small-timers" and unknowns out there, be they making music or hamburgers, are probably much closer to doing exactly they want than any of the "big guys".

Del Rangel · From: Clayton, NC

I agree with Eric Jaeger's assessment as well as Mike Perlowin's. The corps are only out to sell product so they can make money and make sure the stock is worth something. Yet it does seem the tension between art and product/commodity has always been built in to the equation. Even a Renaissance man like Leonardo and a musician the caliber of Thelonius Monk were fated to pleasing their patrons so perhaps every now and again they could actually do what they wanted. Chas Smith put it in perspective the other day. For myself, I have to learn to quite spending money I don't have so I may actually get to do what I want someday. In the meantime I have to keep my mouth shut so my respective patron doesn't cut me off.

[This message was edited by Del Rangel on 05 August 2002 at 07:06 PM.]

Eric Jaeger · From: Oakland, California, USA

I'm still thinking about this one (the sign of a good topic).

There's the old H.L. Mencken quote about "no one losing money betting on the stupidity of the American People", but I'm neither that much of a cynic nor quite so contemptuous of my fellow-citizens. But... WHY does what Mike calls "corporate manufactured sales gimmicks, and their music isn't art, it's a product designed and manufactured by accountants, for the sole purpose of increasing corporate profits" sell so effectively? Or put more generally, how is it that insincere "product" sells so well?

Do the majority of people in the "mass market" have a different relationship to music, emotional or otherwise? Is it simply a matter of using music as "aural wallpaper"? Or are they such casual "users" of music that they lack the tools to discriminate, and therefore can't actually tell good from bad, real from synthetic?

I'm sure marketing dollars have a lot to do with it, since if you're exposed to 125 playings of Eminem and no playings of underpromoted indies you may never know there's anything better. But to me marketing alone can't sell crap past a certain threshold, so something else is going on.

John Steele · From: Renfrew, Ontario, Canada

Eric, interesting question.
Although I'm not sure I agree with there being any threshold that marketing can't surpass (Pet rocks, anyone ?). I think it's the non-musical qualities of such artistic statement (?) that sells it.
I think Eminem should be congratulated for a double-whammy; he's raised lyric writing to a new high by brilliantly rhyming "Me" with "Me" and "Me", while propelling obnoxious narcissism to new olympian heights all in the same chorus. People actually have money to spend on this stuff.
The only threshold they have to cross now is the intelligence of the music buying public. It's a short step.
-John
p.s. The people in the dance clubs who sing along with this stuff with upraised fists... What are they all so ticked about, anyway ? Have we run out of real things to be upset about? I think they should all put on an Erroll Garner record and get over themselves.

Dave Birkett · From: Oxnard, CA, USA

While I agree that country music is not as healthy as I'd like it, I wonder why jazz has been able to avoid this state and be so successful. In Los Angeles, not a traditional hotbed of culture, there is a thriving jazz scene. I think the answer is the record companies. While country music went for the bigger bucks and, hence, to the big labels, jazz, on the other hand, has remained with small labels who give their artists much more, if not total, freedom. They don't have huge investments at stake. Also, jazz radio stations are not programmed by a central authority. Ray Price's new CD is on a small label. I hope he has success because it could encourage others to put out more of the music that we love.

Leroy Riggs · From: Looney Tunes, R.I.P.

quote:
"AWWR-AEEE-AISS-PIEE-AIEE-CIEE-TIEE"

My gosh, Smiley., I think I've heard that sound on her records!!

Earnest Bovine · From: Los Angeles CA USA

Jazz gigs pay as low as country gigs, and maybe less.

Patrick Ickes · From: Upper Lake, CA USA

I remember my Mom telling me she quit playing bluegrass in the Bay Area because it was "costing her too much money". Too many bands and too few venues.
If you got a meal or a drink out of the deal, you were doing pretty well.
Pat

John Steele · From: Renfrew, Ontario, Canada

quote:

I wonder why jazz has been able to avoid this state and be so successful.

Just my arguable opinion, but I'd say it's because jazz is for the most part without boundaries, and is one of the musical forms that is still developing.
Some may argue NCS as a "new development", but (at the risk of repeating a point from the other thread) I can't see how adding pre-existing elements from other styles makes anything new. Some feel that it in fact destroys the integrity of a music form that is, indeed, guarded by boundaries. And, I'd agree.
-John
p.s. With regard to "success", I'm not talking financial. Earnest speaks the truth.

[This message was edited by John Steele on 10 August 2002 at 01:11 AM.]

Eric Jaeger · From: Oakland, California, USA

Hmmm, could jazz be avoiding marketing pollution *because* no one expects to make a bazillion dollars on it? Is success itself the sh*t drawing all the flies?

John Macy · From: Rockport TX/Denver CO

Quote:

"It's probably safe to say that no major recording star today "calls all the shots" in their own career. (The last ones to do that were probably Sinatra and Streisand). "

One that comes to mind immediately is Garth. He owns his own masters, and has held them hostage to the record company (holding back a release) to even restructure the company to his needs/wants. He and Allen Reynolds certainly are not answering to anyone when they cut records...consequently cutting the most organic/least processed records to come out of 'schville in the last few years, like 'em or not...

Bobby Lee · From: Cloverdale, California, USA

Dave wrote:

Henry Nagle · From: Santa Rosa, California

I know that station b0b! Dentist office music, I call it. I think that serious jazz fans are at least as opinionated and divisive as serious country fans. Or any genre/sub-genre for that matter. I think that one of the problems with modern mainstream music is that its' audience is not made up of people who really care about or think about music. It's more about looks and hype and of course, money.
Doesn't it seem like yesterdays' crappy music was much better than todays' crappy music?

Bob Hoffnar · From: Austin, Tx

John McGann · From: Boston, Massachusetts, USA * R.I.P.

This is what happens to culture when MBAs call the shots.

------------------
http://www.johnmcgann.com
Info for musicians, transcribers, technique tips and fun stuff. Joaquin Murphey transcription book, Rhythm Tuneup DVD and more...

Kevin Hatton · From: Buffalo, N.Y.

Bob Hoffnar, your post is right on. Satelite radio is fast becooming the new alternative to commercial radio. Clear Channel's and Infinity Broadcasting's monopolization of the radio market amounts to nothing less than corporate propaganda on a mass level. Its truly a scary thing that people let this happen through deregulation, which is a fancy term for corporate facism. You would think with country music market share dropping to some where around 7% the suits would get the message. I find that most of the music on CMT is in fact warmed over blues and not country at all. It looks like cultural genocide by people who hate country music and country people. I can't believe alot of the garbage coming out of Nashville these days.

[This message was edited by Kevin Hatton on 02 January 2005 at 12:13 PM.]

David L. Donald · From: Koh Samui Island, Thailand

Aparantly I have been gone so long I don't KNOW what NCS music IS..

Kenny G. nearly killed the true meaning of jazz for the public.
But there is still some nice stuff in between the drek on FM 101 jazz stations.It just ain't bebop.

Leslie Ehrlich · From: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

"But I really have doubts as to whether the PSG is adaptable to all forms of music."

I disagree with this statement wholeheartedly. I did not buy a pedal steel just so I could play country music.

Forum Index > Music	Goto page 1, 2 Next	Next oldest topic :: Next newest topic