|
Post by scorpiodog on Aug 4, 2014 11:54:18 GMT
I think this is the right section. I don't think it's off topic. We've had a few threads about this stuff before, and I can remember one or two (notably one on the old forum that Adrian Legg contributed to and blasted us all out of the water with his robust yet partisan argument), but I've never really thought of comparing the music industry with tv. Here it isWhat do you all think?
|
|
mandovark
C.O.G.
Posts: 2,997
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Birds_eye_maple.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: ff003a
Mini-Profile Text Color: 05b724
Member is Online
|
Post by mandovark on Aug 4, 2014 14:15:44 GMT
Thanks for posting this, scorpiodog. Really interesting stuff. I wonder how far the TV comparison works. They're right to say that subscription networks like HBO tapped into a market that wasn't being catered to by more formulaic TV series, and now that they've shown it's possible to have big successes with complex tv shows like The Sopranos, Game of Thrones, True Detective, etc, the game is definitely being raised even for networks that have tended to go for more populist fare. What I wonder about is whether there is the same 'ignored' audience in the music industry. It isn't as if complex and challenging music doesn't exist: it just isn't (generally) what's being sold by the big record labels. I also wonder how well the model of investment in high production values and talent works as a comparison. Take a series like Game of Thrones. HBO can market it as unlike anything else on TV because they've backed it with a budget that allows them to do the special effects on a huge scale and to stack it with talent. Other networks (including the BBC) have tried to compete with cut-price knockoffs, which have usually failed because they look like, well, cut-price knockoffs. This doesn't necessarily work the same way in music. Throwing money at a musical project doesn't necessarily make it better than the alternatives. Think of it this way. To put on a concert, One Direction need light shows, dancers, costume changes, autotune, digital effects, etc. Martin Simpson needs a guitar and a microphone. TV networks can make money out of complex TV shows because they can sell them on quality: in effect, they can say to their audiences "watch cheaper TV if you want to, but it won't be as good as what we're showing". That isn't necessarily the case in music.
|
|
|
Post by scorpiodog on Aug 4, 2014 14:51:30 GMT
You make good points, Mandovark. But for me, the real nugget of truth in there, is that the Music Industry is promoting its output to the wrong demographic. I read into that the teenage market. And the reason it's the wrong market is that 1) teenagers have less spending power than other demographics and 2)They have the time and familiarity with technology to rip off the premium output.
So perhaps the best thing the Music Companies can do is to switch their marketing dollar from promoting One Direction (actually that's a bad example, because with One Direction they're actually selling sex appeal) into promoting Martin Simpson. Or Alfie Boe, or The Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra, or even Lulu or Blondie.
So perhaps there are not parallels with the TV industry, but certainly emulating their vision and bravery in radical repositioning may help the failing music industry. If they do nothing, their days are surely numbered.
|
|
mandovark
C.O.G.
Posts: 2,997
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Birds_eye_maple.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: ff003a
Mini-Profile Text Color: 05b724
Member is Online
|
Post by mandovark on Aug 4, 2014 15:15:44 GMT
So perhaps there are not parallels with the TV industry, but certainly emulating their vision and bravery in radical repositioning may help the failing music industry. If they do nothing, their days are surely numbered. I suppose the next question is whether that would be such a bad thing. Unlike TV, if the music industry collapses, it won't take music down with it. People will still go on playing and singing, just like they did before the major record labels existed. It might even turn out that the small, independent labels supporting more creative talent are better equipped to survive than the big multinationals. That doesn't sound like such a bad thing to me!
|
|
|
Post by scorpiodog on Aug 4, 2014 16:27:13 GMT
I cannot fault your logic, Mandovark. The current mainstream music industry is very little interested in music except as a commodity. But if independent labels become the norm (and that will only happen if the Sonys and Warners don't use their wealth and power to crush them), in the fullness of time, they will polarise into the large and the small. The large ones will attract managers for whom the only measure of success is profit and they will outperform the others. The whole thing will have gone full circle.
My pipe dream (and I realise how naive it is, but it is a dream) is that the music industry will change. That the music will come first and not the money. I firmly believe that that's a more long term lucrative model than the get rich now fiasco that's caused the Music Industry to get into the state it's currently in.
But anyway, my crystal ball's never worked properly. And you're probably right. For the whole sorry edifice to fall wouldn't be a bad thing.
|
|
mandovark
C.O.G.
Posts: 2,997
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Birds_eye_maple.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: ff003a
Mini-Profile Text Color: 05b724
Member is Online
|
Post by mandovark on Aug 4, 2014 17:03:45 GMT
My pipe dream (and I realise how naive it is, but it is a dream) is that the music industry will change. That the music will come first and not the money. I firmly believe that that's a more long term lucrative model than the get rich now fiasco that's caused the Music Industry to get into the state it's currently in. Hear, hear. One of the things that both amuses and saddens me about shows like The X-Factor is the number of contestants who go on it saying things like "music is my life" and "music is the only thing I've ever wanted to do", but it quickly becomes obvious that they've never learned to play an instrument, written a song, joined a band, played a gig, done an open-mic night, etc. They've absorbed the industry's way of thinking that "making music" is what you do after you've been discovered and signed to the big record contract. They also can't name any influence who isn't a recent platinum-selling singer. Compare that to musicians like Cream, Led Zeppelin, the Rolling Stones, Hendrix, etc, who were listening to obscure American blues players and figuring out new ways to interpret that tradition long before they became mainstream successes. It would be nice to think that it could still be possible to be both innovative and popular.
|
|
|
Post by vikingblues on Aug 4, 2014 18:17:01 GMT
Interesting post scorpiodog. I suppose how well the TV comparison works depends on where we live and what access we have to paid networks. I do get the feeling that TV in the USA has made much more positive steps to try new things in recent years than the UK has. But even then that is a handful of shows amidst the huge sea of utter crap. I've almost given up watching TV due to the poor UK quality and we stopped the Sky subscription quite a while back as we got fed up with how few programs were on so many channels - a lot of repeating loops and a lot of dross at that. HBO is mentioned quite prominently in the article, and they've always been more quality driven than the major networks, as evidenced by The Larry Sanders show all those years back - a quality of comedy alien to most major networks before, during and since that time. My youngest son has an interest in a lot of those USA "ground-breaking" shows that were mentioned in the article and I've seen quite a few because of that. I generally have admired the risk taking being done in exploring new angles more than I have actually enjoy the programs as a viewer though. I wanted to enjoy them more - just getting old and grumpy maybe. The music business depresses me. I feel the word music needs to be in very small font and the word business needs to be massive and in bold and in red - it has been like that for decades though. It really has nowt to do with music, as artists who try to change musical direction find when the label gets to hear of their intentions. Perish the thought that an artist should create the sort of music that they want to. The possibility of Sony and Warner stopping using their power and muscle to kill off the small independent labels seems remote to me. Hell - this is making me depressed! I'd love to see them crumble to dust. Fair enough - as the article says there's been a move by some younger buyers to move to vinyl because of the poor musical attributes of the digital devices. However I can't see it being anything more than a minority interest and so it'll not change the thinking of the "business". Many, many more of the general public would need to get really interested in what music has to offer beyond just what channels through from the reality shows and celebrity madness and I have seen little evidence to make this possibility even seem as good as an outside chance. Aaaaarrrrgggghhh! Mark
|
|
missclarktree
C.O.G.
Posts: 2,425
My main instrument is: It varies
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"1979e6"}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 100605
Mini-Profile Text Color: 020a12
|
Post by missclarktree on Aug 4, 2014 18:55:44 GMT
Interesting thread. I'm afraid that the music industry will continue to target teenager because, if half my work colleagues are at all typical, it isn't just young people who like young people's stuff. I was called, in a good-humoured way, the "grump in the corner" because I groan when my colleagues in their forties and fifties rave about children's films, such as 'Transformers' and 'Planet of the Apes'. I'm one of those grumpy old women that see everyone around me becoming more juvenile every day. Even programmes like - oh dear, I've forgotten - the archaeology programme where they have three days to complete the dig, can't present archaeology without leaping around, jumping up and down and putting an artificial time limit on the excavation. No, I'm afraid today's 'teenage' years extend in many cases well into the forties, so they do have a lot more money spend on rubbish.
I'm afraid that being able to show off the latest thing to your friends is more important than sound quality or durability.
I don't know what it's like in America, but if subscription TV is anything like the British version, I don't hold out much hope for it.
|
|
mandovark
C.O.G.
Posts: 2,997
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Birds_eye_maple.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: ff003a
Mini-Profile Text Color: 05b724
Member is Online
|
Post by mandovark on Aug 4, 2014 20:35:56 GMT
Interesting thread. I'm afraid that the music industry will continue to target teenager because, if half my work colleagues are at all typical, it isn't just young people who like young people's stuff. I was called, in a good-humoured way, the "grump in the corner" because I groan when my colleagues in their forties and fifties rave about children's films, such as 'Transformers' and 'Planet of the Apes'. I'm one of those grumpy old women that see everyone around me becoming more juvenile every day. Even programmes like - oh dear, I've forgotten - the archaeology programme where they have three days to complete the dig, can't present archaeology without leaping around, jumping up and down and putting an artificial time limit on the excavation. No, I'm afraid today's 'teenage' years extend in many cases well into the forties, so they do have a lot more money spend on rubbish.
Reminds me of an ongoing argument with a friend who likes Strictly Come Dancing. My position is essentially that it's formulaic crap designed to provide employment for D-list celebrities, self-promoting politicians and retired athletes trying to break into television. Her position is that it's really all about dancing and that the dances are complicated and difficult to learn. I suggest that this is ample reason to watch it performed by skilled professionals rather than Joe Calzaghe and Victoria Pendleton.* She offers the rejoinder that if you want to watch dance, there aren't many options on TV. I point out that while this might be true, one week the Bolshoi ballet were on BBC2 at the same time, yet she still chose to watch Strictly. At this stage, she suggests that I perform an action that would seem to require a contortionist rather than a dancer. * That said, I will definitely start watching if the BBC decides to reverse the format and make Anton du Beke go 12 rounds with Joe Calzaghe
|
|
missclarktree
C.O.G.
Posts: 2,425
My main instrument is: It varies
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"1979e6"}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 100605
Mini-Profile Text Color: 020a12
|
Post by missclarktree on Aug 5, 2014 8:38:50 GMT
On the whole I tend to agree with you about Strictly, but it's not the worst of those kind of programmes by any means. At least the 'celebs' have to commit themselves to learn something new, unlike Big Brother and Eating Cockroaches in the Jungle.
|
|