First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Is Music Dead?
5379 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / F / Kuto-ko Tokyo Japan
Offline
Posted 5/30/16
music is not dead., music is in nature and so human also make their own music.
7427 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
48 / M / New England, USA
Online
Posted 5/30/16
I have to echo others sentiment hear. It's not so much that music is dead as it's people are becoming more picky due to what we're getting handed. We're in a bad economy these days with income more limited than it's been in decades. Why pay $15-20 for a CD when you can just buy the digital download on sale for $5 a week or two later? And to top that off, the days of studios forcing you to buy CDs with only one good song on them are gone thanks to single song purchasing. The biggest advantage, though, comes for fans of niche genres and performers though.While there are many groups that don't have enough of a following to be stocked heavily in stores many of these bands offerings can easily be found on digital download.
1231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / ya mum's house
Offline
Posted 6/4/16
music in itself isn't dead. It has just changed forms. Whether it has changed for good or bad is the argument. I'm traditional with my tastes. I think that musicians should personally play instruments or else they aren't really musicians. pop music has become shallow and lifeless and is only a business byproduct. Record companies aren't concerned with releasing good music, they are concerned with making money. With the new advent of downloading music, record companies make less from album sales so they have to rely on single song sales off of sites like iTunes. this has promoted a singles culture where songs are written to become popular and get radio airplay. Without singles, an album won't sell, not like albums really sell much anyway, and an artist won't gain any attention. For a single to get successful, it isn't up to the artist. It is up to the producers, mixers, and actual writers of the song, for those artists who don't actually write their own stuff, to make it sound nice and appeal to as broad a people as possible. With singles, a listener can't get the full experience of the artist. They only get the surface, the business side of things as it were. that is why I prefer album cuts. They sound the best to me because the artist is doing what they want because they don't have the pressure of making it sound overproduced so that it is played on the radio. Plus, there are some musicians that have complete control so they get to make the music they want to make. in the age of the internet, music is easier to find than ever. Good music still exists, but one has to be passionate enough to look for it. I think the true problem with the fact that talentless people make millions off of music that is garbage lies with the music listener. They only accept what they hear on the radio and don't take the time to look for new music themselves and realize that there are better things out there. I thought the 2000s sucked until I discovered the strokes, franz Ferdinand, arctic monkeys, Interpol etc. And the 2010s seem alright with bands like tame impala making music. All is well. Just keep searching!
Posted 6/5/16 , edited 6/9/16
I think there are still plenty of good musicians out there. I think it's people's taste in music that is dead? Maybe that's why we see so many so-so artists reaching such great success, although I don't think that's true of every popular artist. In any case, the good ones are still out there.
38 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / diáspora wixárika
Offline
Posted 7/19/16
how can music be dead when screamo is still thriving?
173 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 7/30/16
your just not looking in the right places
497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M
Offline
Posted 7/30/16

electricdoomfire wrote:

music in itself isn't dead. It has just changed forms. Whether it has changed for good or bad is the argument. I'm traditional with my tastes. I think that musicians should personally play instruments or else they aren't really musicians. pop music has become shallow and lifeless and is only a business byproduct. Record companies aren't concerned with releasing good music, they are concerned with making money. With the new advent of downloading music, record companies make less from album sales so they have to rely on single song sales off of sites like iTunes. this has promoted a singles culture where songs are written to become popular and get radio airplay. Without singles, an album won't sell, not like albums really sell much anyway, and an artist won't gain any attention. For a single to get successful, it isn't up to the artist. It is up to the producers, mixers, and actual writers of the song, for those artists who don't actually write their own stuff, to make it sound nice and appeal to as broad a people as possible. With singles, a listener can't get the full experience of the artist. They only get the surface, the business side of things as it were. that is why I prefer album cuts. They sound the best to me because the artist is doing what they want because they don't have the pressure of making it sound overproduced so that it is played on the radio. Plus, there are some musicians that have complete control so they get to make the music they want to make. in the age of the internet, music is easier to find than ever. Good music still exists, but one has to be passionate enough to look for it. I think the true problem with the fact that talentless people make millions off of music that is garbage lies with the music listener. They only accept what they hear on the radio and don't take the time to look for new music themselves and realize that there are better things out there. I thought the 2000s sucked until I discovered the strokes, franz Ferdinand, arctic monkeys, Interpol etc. And the 2010s seem alright with bands like tame impala making music. All is well. Just keep searching!


This. SSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOO much this. We just got to keep on going with the times to see what comes out of it. Music is not dead, nor is the mainstream music (it's just bad nowadays, but nowhere near being put to death, if you ask me). However, I would also like to point out that there was a singles culture back in the 1930s all the way to the early 60s, as people mainly bought the singles, as it were. The most popular songs of the time were all mainly singles, and nothing else. The rise of the Album Era in-between 1963-1967 singlehandedly changed all of that. And also, there will ALWAYS be people who don't dig in enough into a specific artist and find other, better artists all the time. Like you said, good music is easier to find more than ever, mainly due TO downloading and streaming music. There's also the effort of the person using their money to buy albums in general, whether it be physical and/or digital. It all has to deal with the music consumers, who are the biggest pro AND con the industry will ever have.
13825 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / In the rain
Offline
Posted 7/30/16
I still go out and by physical cds and I've probably spent quite a bit by now on cds to be honest. I don't think music will die it will just change. Gene Simmons said rock is dead but even that isn't true. Any form of music cannot be truly dead as long as there are people out there dreaming and striving. It cannot not die because there are still kids out there everyday picking up instruments and jamming the fuck out in their parents garage even if they aren't good in the beginning. Music is at a low point in the mainstream point of view but seriously look at local bands and artists because they are usually the future of music. This is why I think people should always support local artists because with them music can never truly die. Plus there are still bands/artists releasing new music all the time you just have to pay attention and be willing to support them because I can tell you I have albums in my collection that I bought for one or two songs but feel in love with the entire album. If you or anyone honestly thinks music is dying buy full albums, support the local music scene, buy cds from your local cd store, go out and see bands/artists in concert and buy merch from them. Trust me it may seem small but it does help in the long run.
1231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / ya mum's house
Offline
Posted 7/30/16

ricki451 wrote:

I still go out and by physical cds and I've probably spent quite a bit by now on cds to be honest. I don't think music will die it will just change. Gene Simmons said rock is dead but even that isn't true. Any form of music cannot be truly dead as long as there are people out there dreaming and striving. It cannot not die because there are still kids out there everyday picking up instruments and jamming the fuck out in their parents garage even if they aren't good in the beginning. Music is at a low point in the mainstream point of view but seriously look at local bands and artists because they are usually the future of music. This is why I think people should always support local artists because with them music can never truly die. Plus there are still bands/artists releasing new music all the time you just have to pay attention and be willing to support them because I can tell you I have albums in my collection that I bought for one or two songs but feel in love with the entire album. If you or anyone honestly thinks music is dying buy full albums, support the local music scene, buy cds from your local cd store, go out and see bands/artists in concert and buy merch from them. Trust me it may seem small but it does help in the long run.


One, screw gene simmons. Second, I also still buy cds and I enjoy buying them too. Me owning a cd represents how much I truly like the album or band because I'm careful with what I spend my money on. Buying the album is the highest form of praise I can often give to a band or an album. If I lived in an area where more bands came to perform, then I would definitely go see them, but concerts can be expensive. I'm always searching for good music to invest my time in too. I agree with everything you say.
1231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / ya mum's house
Offline
Posted 7/30/16

Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:

music in itself isn't dead. It has just changed forms. Whether it has changed for good or bad is the argument. I'm traditional with my tastes. I think that musicians should personally play instruments or else they aren't really musicians. pop music has become shallow and lifeless and is only a business byproduct. Record companies aren't concerned with releasing good music, they are concerned with making money. With the new advent of downloading music, record companies make less from album sales so they have to rely on single song sales off of sites like iTunes. this has promoted a singles culture where songs are written to become popular and get radio airplay. Without singles, an album won't sell, not like albums really sell much anyway, and an artist won't gain any attention. For a single to get successful, it isn't up to the artist. It is up to the producers, mixers, and actual writers of the song, for those artists who don't actually write their own stuff, to make it sound nice and appeal to as broad a people as possible. With singles, a listener can't get the full experience of the artist. They only get the surface, the business side of things as it were. that is why I prefer album cuts. They sound the best to me because the artist is doing what they want because they don't have the pressure of making it sound overproduced so that it is played on the radio. Plus, there are some musicians that have complete control so they get to make the music they want to make. in the age of the internet, music is easier to find than ever. Good music still exists, but one has to be passionate enough to look for it. I think the true problem with the fact that talentless people make millions off of music that is garbage lies with the music listener. They only accept what they hear on the radio and don't take the time to look for new music themselves and realize that there are better things out there. I thought the 2000s sucked until I discovered the strokes, franz Ferdinand, arctic monkeys, Interpol etc. And the 2010s seem alright with bands like tame impala making music. All is well. Just keep searching!


This. SSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOO much this. We just got to keep on going with the times to see what comes out of it. Music is not dead, nor is the mainstream music (it's just bad nowadays, but nowhere near being put to death, if you ask me). However, I would also like to point out that there was a singles culture back in the 1930s all the way to the early 60s, as people mainly bought the singles, as it were. The most popular songs of the time were all mainly singles, and nothing else. The rise of the Album Era in-between 1963-1967 singlehandedly changed all of that. And also, there will ALWAYS be people who don't dig in enough into a specific artist and find other, better artists all the time. Like you said, good music is easier to find more than ever, mainly due TO downloading and streaming music. There's also the effort of the person using their money to buy albums in general, whether it be physical and/or digital. It all has to deal with the music consumers, who are the biggest pro AND con the industry will ever have.


I guess my point about singles could have been phrased better. of course singes have always sold. However, it used to be that albums sold better than they do now. I don't know whether or not if it was easier to make music a living in the past, but labels are making less money and artists are making less off of pure album sales. Touring didn't use to be essential. Look at a band like steely dan for that note. Nowadays, touring is where most of the money comes from, so it is more essential than it used to be. There has never been a better time to be a music fan, but I don't know how it is to be a musician (that isn't regularly present in the billboard top 100) nowadays.
497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M
Offline
Posted 7/30/16

electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:

music in itself isn't dead. It has just changed forms. Whether it has changed for good or bad is the argument. I'm traditional with my tastes. I think that musicians should personally play instruments or else they aren't really musicians. pop music has become shallow and lifeless and is only a business byproduct. Record companies aren't concerned with releasing good music, they are concerned with making money. With the new advent of downloading music, record companies make less from album sales so they have to rely on single song sales off of sites like iTunes. this has promoted a singles culture where songs are written to become popular and get radio airplay. Without singles, an album won't sell, not like albums really sell much anyway, and an artist won't gain any attention. For a single to get successful, it isn't up to the artist. It is up to the producers, mixers, and actual writers of the song, for those artists who don't actually write their own stuff, to make it sound nice and appeal to as broad a people as possible. With singles, a listener can't get the full experience of the artist. They only get the surface, the business side of things as it were. that is why I prefer album cuts. They sound the best to me because the artist is doing what they want because they don't have the pressure of making it sound overproduced so that it is played on the radio. Plus, there are some musicians that have complete control so they get to make the music they want to make. in the age of the internet, music is easier to find than ever. Good music still exists, but one has to be passionate enough to look for it. I think the true problem with the fact that talentless people make millions off of music that is garbage lies with the music listener. They only accept what they hear on the radio and don't take the time to look for new music themselves and realize that there are better things out there. I thought the 2000s sucked until I discovered the strokes, franz Ferdinand, arctic monkeys, Interpol etc. And the 2010s seem alright with bands like tame impala making music. All is well. Just keep searching!


This. SSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOO much this. We just got to keep on going with the times to see what comes out of it. Music is not dead, nor is the mainstream music (it's just bad nowadays, but nowhere near being put to death, if you ask me). However, I would also like to point out that there was a singles culture back in the 1930s all the way to the early 60s, as people mainly bought the singles, as it were. The most popular songs of the time were all mainly singles, and nothing else. The rise of the Album Era in-between 1963-1967 singlehandedly changed all of that. And also, there will ALWAYS be people who don't dig in enough into a specific artist and find other, better artists all the time. Like you said, good music is easier to find more than ever, mainly due TO downloading and streaming music. There's also the effort of the person using their money to buy albums in general, whether it be physical and/or digital. It all has to deal with the music consumers, who are the biggest pro AND con the industry will ever have.


I guess my point about singles could have been phrased better. of course singes have always sold. However, it used to be that albums sold better than they do now. I don't know whether or not if it was easier to make music a living in the past, but labels are making less money and artists are making less off of pure album sales. Touring didn't use to be essential. Look at a band like steely dan for that note. Nowadays, touring is where most of the money comes from, so it is more essential than it used to be. There has never been a better time to be a music fan, but I don't know how it is to be a musician (that isn't regularly present in the billboard top 100) nowadays.


Yeah, and these musicians that're in the Hot 100 nowadays probably most of their profits from sponsors and advertising along with the touring. Also, the Beatles were pretty much the ones that proved the "touring isn't essential" idea in the first place, so a band like Steely Dan doing something like that made sense for them (since Fagen and Becker hated doing it in the first place, as the Beatles were starting to in 1966 as well). However, I may argue that touring was also much more focused on during the 50s and 60s, mainly since that I think the artist had to play 2-3 gigs all in a day (they had very short setlists compared to today), you know?.
Posted 7/30/16
No.
1231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / ya mum's house
Offline
Posted 7/30/16

Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:

music in itself isn't dead. It has just changed forms. Whether it has changed for good or bad is the argument. I'm traditional with my tastes. I think that musicians should personally play instruments or else they aren't really musicians. pop music has become shallow and lifeless and is only a business byproduct. Record companies aren't concerned with releasing good music, they are concerned with making money. With the new advent of downloading music, record companies make less from album sales so they have to rely on single song sales off of sites like iTunes. this has promoted a singles culture where songs are written to become popular and get radio airplay. Without singles, an album won't sell, not like albums really sell much anyway, and an artist won't gain any attention. For a single to get successful, it isn't up to the artist. It is up to the producers, mixers, and actual writers of the song, for those artists who don't actually write their own stuff, to make it sound nice and appeal to as broad a people as possible. With singles, a listener can't get the full experience of the artist. They only get the surface, the business side of things as it were. that is why I prefer album cuts. They sound the best to me because the artist is doing what they want because they don't have the pressure of making it sound overproduced so that it is played on the radio. Plus, there are some musicians that have complete control so they get to make the music they want to make. in the age of the internet, music is easier to find than ever. Good music still exists, but one has to be passionate enough to look for it. I think the true problem with the fact that talentless people make millions off of music that is garbage lies with the music listener. They only accept what they hear on the radio and don't take the time to look for new music themselves and realize that there are better things out there. I thought the 2000s sucked until I discovered the strokes, franz Ferdinand, arctic monkeys, Interpol etc. And the 2010s seem alright with bands like tame impala making music. All is well. Just keep searching!


This. SSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOO much this. We just got to keep on going with the times to see what comes out of it. Music is not dead, nor is the mainstream music (it's just bad nowadays, but nowhere near being put to death, if you ask me). However, I would also like to point out that there was a singles culture back in the 1930s all the way to the early 60s, as people mainly bought the singles, as it were. The most popular songs of the time were all mainly singles, and nothing else. The rise of the Album Era in-between 1963-1967 singlehandedly changed all of that. And also, there will ALWAYS be people who don't dig in enough into a specific artist and find other, better artists all the time. Like you said, good music is easier to find more than ever, mainly due TO downloading and streaming music. There's also the effort of the person using their money to buy albums in general, whether it be physical and/or digital. It all has to deal with the music consumers, who are the biggest pro AND con the industry will ever have.


I guess my point about singles could have been phrased better. of course singes have always sold. However, it used to be that albums sold better than they do now. I don't know whether or not if it was easier to make music a living in the past, but labels are making less money and artists are making less off of pure album sales. Touring didn't use to be essential. Look at a band like steely dan for that note. Nowadays, touring is where most of the money comes from, so it is more essential than it used to be. There has never been a better time to be a music fan, but I don't know how it is to be a musician (that isn't regularly present in the billboard top 100) nowadays.


Yeah, and these musicians that're in the Hot 100 nowadays probably most of their profits from sponsors and advertising along with the touring. Also, the Beatles were pretty much the ones that proved the "touring isn't essential" idea in the first place, so a band like Steely Dan doing something like that made sense for them (since Fagen and Becker hated doing it in the first place, as the Beatles were starting to in 1966 as well). However, I may argue that touring was also much more focused on during the 50s and 60s, mainly since that I think the artist had to play 2-3 gigs all in a day (they had very short setlists compared to today), you know?.


the beatles mainly stopped touring because of all the crazy fangirls. i know i'd get tired of all the preteens screaming and not being able to walk outside. I brought up steely dan because of how long they didn't tour. They were a studio-only band for many years. I guess that is what makes them notable. Also, i get what you were saying about more focused touring. I did a research paper on jimi hendrix and i found out on one tour that he played a different area practically every few days. Being a musician takes work with that kind of schedule.

497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M
Offline
Posted 7/31/16

electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


Progrockdude wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:

music in itself isn't dead. It has just changed forms. Whether it has changed for good or bad is the argument. I'm traditional with my tastes. I think that musicians should personally play instruments or else they aren't really musicians. pop music has become shallow and lifeless and is only a business byproduct. Record companies aren't concerned with releasing good music, they are concerned with making money. With the new advent of downloading music, record companies make less from album sales so they have to rely on single song sales off of sites like iTunes. this has promoted a singles culture where songs are written to become popular and get radio airplay. Without singles, an album won't sell, not like albums really sell much anyway, and an artist won't gain any attention. For a single to get successful, it isn't up to the artist. It is up to the producers, mixers, and actual writers of the song, for those artists who don't actually write their own stuff, to make it sound nice and appeal to as broad a people as possible. With singles, a listener can't get the full experience of the artist. They only get the surface, the business side of things as it were. that is why I prefer album cuts. They sound the best to me because the artist is doing what they want because they don't have the pressure of making it sound overproduced so that it is played on the radio. Plus, there are some musicians that have complete control so they get to make the music they want to make. in the age of the internet, music is easier to find than ever. Good music still exists, but one has to be passionate enough to look for it. I think the true problem with the fact that talentless people make millions off of music that is garbage lies with the music listener. They only accept what they hear on the radio and don't take the time to look for new music themselves and realize that there are better things out there. I thought the 2000s sucked until I discovered the strokes, franz Ferdinand, arctic monkeys, Interpol etc. And the 2010s seem alright with bands like tame impala making music. All is well. Just keep searching!


This. SSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOO much this. We just got to keep on going with the times to see what comes out of it. Music is not dead, nor is the mainstream music (it's just bad nowadays, but nowhere near being put to death, if you ask me). However, I would also like to point out that there was a singles culture back in the 1930s all the way to the early 60s, as people mainly bought the singles, as it were. The most popular songs of the time were all mainly singles, and nothing else. The rise of the Album Era in-between 1963-1967 singlehandedly changed all of that. And also, there will ALWAYS be people who don't dig in enough into a specific artist and find other, better artists all the time. Like you said, good music is easier to find more than ever, mainly due TO downloading and streaming music. There's also the effort of the person using their money to buy albums in general, whether it be physical and/or digital. It all has to deal with the music consumers, who are the biggest pro AND con the industry will ever have.


I guess my point about singles could have been phrased better. of course singes have always sold. However, it used to be that albums sold better than they do now. I don't know whether or not if it was easier to make music a living in the past, but labels are making less money and artists are making less off of pure album sales. Touring didn't use to be essential. Look at a band like steely dan for that note. Nowadays, touring is where most of the money comes from, so it is more essential than it used to be. There has never been a better time to be a music fan, but I don't know how it is to be a musician (that isn't regularly present in the billboard top 100) nowadays.


Yeah, and these musicians that're in the Hot 100 nowadays probably most of their profits from sponsors and advertising along with the touring. Also, the Beatles were pretty much the ones that proved the "touring isn't essential" idea in the first place, so a band like Steely Dan doing something like that made sense for them (since Fagen and Becker hated doing it in the first place, as the Beatles were starting to in 1966 as well). However, I may argue that touring was also much more focused on during the 50s and 60s, mainly since that I think the artist had to play 2-3 gigs all in a day (they had very short setlists compared to today), you know?.


the beatles mainly stopped touring because of all the crazy fangirls. i know i'd get tired of all the preteens screaming and not being able to walk outside. I brought up steely dan because of how long they didn't tour. They were a studio-only band for many years. I guess that is what makes them notable. Also, i get what you were saying about more focused touring. I did a research paper on jimi hendrix and i found out on one tour that he played a different area practically every few days. Being a musician takes work with that kind of schedule.



Yep, it always has been that way. And not to mention, for the Beatles there was also the fallout in the Philippines with declining Imelda Marcos' dinner offer (later to be called a "betrayal" in the press). It was all just pathetic. Oh yeah, and this "we're more popular than Jesus" comment pretty much made things worse (made more public 50 years and 2 days ago as of today). All of the Christians of the day were outraged and started protesting the band throughout (including the fucking KKK, for Christ's sake (no irony intended)). Pretty much the precedent of the feminazis, SJWs, and the Regressive Left (firm believer in the horseshoe theory, by the way. I sometimes like to call myself "The Horseshoe Dickrider" because of it LOL. Take that what you will).
Posted 7/31/16 , edited 7/31/16
No, you're just getting older, and refusing to get with the times.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.