Rhythm is an element of music, and if the mouth noise is done rhythmically, that's an element of music. But typically there's more to the performance than that. For example, Bobby McFerrin did the rhythmic mouth action you spoke of, but also hummed a melody, and added lyrics. That by definition is a song.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Formats: Rock dying
- Thread starter davideduardo
- Start date
Rhythm is an element of music, and if the mouth noise is done rhythmically, that's an element of music. But typically there's more to the performance than that. For example, Bobby McFerrin did the rhythmic mouth action you spoke of, but also hummed a melody, and added lyrics. That by definition is a song.
I fully agree and have seen saying as much for a long time. Sometime in the mid 80's we lost the truly skilled musicians and their ability to create songs that would be favorites of millions of people for a long, long time. We got grunge - a terrible waste of most everything. We got hair bands - nothing but noise. But mostly we got video which meant semi-skilled people could get acclaim for bad makeup, big hair, very loud guitars and weird acts that in a lot of cases were not close to an actual concert in the traditional sense. Classic case of the industry following the money - all driven by customers who didn't know music from their you-know-whats.
We now have "musicians" who can't actually sing without electronic gadgets nor can they compose anything worthy of listening. We have pop "stars" whose popularity is based upon.....their popularity. The gals and guys who were good at producing Rock have aged out or died off. Even the Stones sing, and strut, their old stuff.
Yes, but Bobby McFerrin was not considered a rapper. I haven't yet heard a rapper that sounded anything like McFerrin.
Back in the WWII era there was a drummer named Gene Krupa. He was generally acclaimed as the best drummer in the world. He performed drum solo's but I never heard his acts considered "music" unless he had a backup band. You could argue the fine points of drumming but most people would agree a drum by itself is not music, just rhythm. There are more components to music than just rhythm.
Consider one of the most popular bands of another WWII era band, Spike Jones. Most people would consider his music a novelty act as he made sound (or noise, if you prefer) out of things that are not normally part of a musical group. Things like doorbells, cow bells, gunfire. So there is a very thin line between just noise or the use of noise as part of a musical structure. Most people of the day considered Jones' band 'music' although it was definitely a different genre.
Back in the 50's I was part of a marching band. When we paraded we marched to the rhythm of the drums. Most people would not consider that music. Every once in a while we would break out into a song (usually some sort of march of course) and most people would consider that music.
I think that's wrong. The skilled musicians were here in the 80s, and they're here now. It's not about their musical ability. It's about their artistic taste. Those are two very different things. I've talked to highly skilled musicians who have taken their knowledge, skill, and talent, and applied it to a style of music that they love, and isn't particularly popular. For example, I spoke with the principle violinist of a major symphony orchestra. He's in his early 30s. He could make a lot more money playing popular music for millions of people, but he chooses to play classical music. I spoke with Drake, a rapper who is college educated, and is incredibly literate when talking about his music and his art. But he has chosen to apply his knowledge and skills to a style of music you don't like. Still, he manages to attract millions of people to what he does.
Should an artist, no matter how skilled or knowledgeable, be forced to play music he or she doesn't like simply because you don't like it? This gets to the difference between art and commerce. Just because a certain music isn't commercial doesn't mean it's not art. You're holding people to your definitions of what music is based on your taste and experience. That's not their taste or experience. They should be allowed to follow their own path and create the music that resonates with them and their audience, regardless of what you think.
Same with what happened to rock. The music changed because the circumstances changed. It went in a number of different directions. Some of it became extremely popular, some didn't. But that doesn't mean anything. It's just not "rock music" anymore.
One other thing: The music the author in the OP is writing about passed through a very narrow funnel. It was music released by a small number of record labels, to a small number of radio stations, and even smaller number of TV shows. But it was aimed at a mass audience. Once personal music devices became more widespread in the late 70s, the music became more diverse. Once the music became more diverse, the assumptions about the music started to change. For many years, it was assumed that rock music was more popular than country. Then Soundscan came about in the early 90s, and we could all see that country records were selling more copies than rock music. That's what created the country boom of the 90s. New data, new assumptions. That country boom in the 90s affected kids growing up at that time. They didn't grow up hearing protest music from the 60s. They grew up with different experiences. If they chose to play music, it was affected by those experiences. But once again, by the 80s and 90s, music was passing through a much wider funnel.
Since the 80s, people have been able to pick and choose the music they hear. They aren't limited to what's available on the radio or TV. That has changed everything. Music isn't created with the assumption that it will sell millions. That's not the goal or the intent. The goal is that music will find its audience, however big. So labels sign more artists, release more music, target more platforms than ever before. As I said, traditional means of measurement no longer matter. People aren't buying records, they're hearing songs. They money paid is a fraction of what it was when people bought music. They're not owning music, they rent it for one play. Not unlike a personal jukebox. So it's all very different because it's not as concentrated around that narrow funnel. The mistake to make is that the music that was heard under those circumstances was better than the music heard now. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it's all colored by the circumstances and the experiences. I see this when sports people make "Greatest of All Time" lists. It's hard to do, because the circumstances were different. A player may have achieved certain things because of the team he was on, or because of different rules that no longer exist. The same applies to music. So to say "rock is dying" is only statistically correct if one views things the way this author does by defining rock as the music created in a certain time.
Since the 80s, people have been able to pick and choose the music they hear. They aren't limited to what's available on the radio or TV. That has changed everything. Music isn't created with the assumption that it will sell millions. That's not the goal or the intent. The goal is that music will find its audience, however big. So labels sign more artists, release more music, target more platforms than ever before. As I said, traditional means of measurement no longer matter. People aren't buying records, they're hearing songs. They money paid is a fraction of what it was when people bought music. They're not owning music, they rent it for one play. Not unlike a personal jukebox. So it's all very different because it's not as concentrated around that narrow funnel. The mistake to make is that the music that was heard under those circumstances was better than the music heard now. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it's all colored by the circumstances and the experiences. I see this when sports people make "Greatest of All Time" lists. It's hard to do, because the circumstances were different. A player may have achieved certain things because of the team he was on, or because of different rules that no longer exist. The same applies to music. So to say "rock is dying" is only statistically correct if one views things the way this author does by defining rock as the music created in a certain time.
There's a certain cultural bias inherent in that statement. In Western (European) music, melody is nearly always present, with rhythm playing a secondary role or no role at all. African musical forms, including those that migrated to the Americas, place a stronger emphasis on rhythm, although there are many purely melodic genres as well, and a considerable portion of music originating iin Africa is pure percussion. All of this is music, as are Asian forms and indigenous styles of the Western Hemisphere and Oceania.
In my parallel universe, I once had a long conversation with Daddy Yankee, one of the two singers on "Despacito", the video that is now around 6.5 billion views and the most watched ever.
We ended up analyzing his roots and influences, which included salsa and Afro-Caribbean styles, but which also included the very traditional country / folk music of Puerto Rico, including the décima and the controversia, music forms involving spontaneous creation of rap-like rhymes to music; it's an old and very deep connection to the musical roots of the Island and the Caribbean.
Sidebar: the Puerto Rican "controversia" musical style and structure can be dated back to the Greek form of declamation with the same name, dating back to Seneca the Elder around 2000 years ago. There, a proposition and a hypothesis are argued against each other by two proponents. This was later set to music, and the subject matter included everything about life. So current Latin American Hip Hop, called Reggaeton, is in part based on ancient Greece and part on the music that slaves from Africa brought to the New World going back nearly 500 years.
This artist knew exactly which colors he had on his palette, and he knew enough about his personal roots to draw on his and his country's and his culture's heritage going back centuries to refine his music.
These are a different group of musicians. They are skilled, whether by training or through their incredible abilities and inspirations. They are as bright and capable as any I have seen since I first heard that deeply poetic and skillfully orchestrated masterpiece, "How Much Is That Doggie In The Window" back in 1952.
Last edited:
And many people say that certain forms are "not music" because, for cultural reasons, they sound dissonant to them. Music is a cultural expression. Slaves in the fields of the old South did not have musical instruments, so they improvised by having some of the singers replace instruments; while the rich had their chamber music ensembles, with fine European instruments, we got a much stronger part of what is Americana today from those improvised musicians in the fields and tenements.
Muddy Waters and Aaron Copland were both fine musicians, but we understand that their styles and influences were very different.
Can you imagine Benny Goodman's "Sing, Sing, Sing" without Krupa's drums? Would it have had the effect it had? Fast forward 30 years to Ginger Baker. His drum solos really changed the way people looked at drums. He could entertain without other instruments, and his bandmates recognized that, and allowed him his artistic space to express himself. Imagine someone telling Ginger Baker "That ain't music." Consider Michael Shrieve's moment at Woodstock during Soul Sacrifice. It was it's own song. The drums were such a core part of rock in the 60s that two bands, the Grateful Dead and the Allman Brothers, each had two drummers, and give them featured moments during their shows. In fact it's hard for me to imagine rap and hip hop being accepted by rock audiences without all of the examples I just gave.
In the case of a concert you have already paid your ticket so the performer doesn't much care if you sleep or not (unless the sleeper is put on a live stream). The performer has his money. The promoter has their money. And you just missed the concert of your life.
In the case of streaming the listener doesn't pay anything (or perhaps only a fraction of the cost). The stream host pays. Therefore, for me as a stream listener it costs me nothing to play that song over and over and over and over. As a result I personally believe those spins counts are grossly inflated as compared to the old days.
And, commenting on your final sentence, you don't know my daughter or you might have a vastly different opinion.
My earlier comments were applicable to Rock genre only. The subject was "Rock is Dead" (or something close) and I was agreeing with those people who said Rock killed itself. Of course, radio helped because radio always chases what it thinks most popular. We all recognize it is a mass medium.
I was not criticizing any music genre "because I don't like it". Like everyone else I have an opinion and my opinion says spoken word is not music and neither is drumming (only) or rap. Additionally, I will admit that Grunge is Rock but that it is so much garbage that it helped kill Rock. That is my total point.
You think people didn't listen to music while they were sleeping in the old days? Really? This is nothing new. They're not "grossly inflated" because of your daughter. With the millions of people in the world, she's barely a speck.
But as I said, it doesn't matter. You're taking the word "listening" too literally. If they're in the room, and music is playing, they are counted as listeners. You can disagree, but for all the reasons I gave, it doesn't matter. And if the stream host is paying, you can bet that at some point, so will you. No one is in this business for free.
That is exactly what I am saying. Rock did not proceed itself. It became a genre sometime between the late 50's and mid-60's and it remained perhaps the most popular of music genre's until the mod-80's. It then blew itself up (mostly because its artists had little to no talent for music but did have skills putting weird video's and wild hair together) into dozens of sub-genre's - which those of us who were around when the original Rock would not describe as Rock.
A 1932 Ford is still a 1932 Ford in 2019 but the two are not anywhere near the same vehicle. It is still called a "car" but that simple definition no longer works if trying to describe the two vehicles to someone who hasn't seen either. Same with Rock. 1960-1980's Rock isn't the same genre as the junk of today. (Not everything back then was great either so excuse the generalities.)
I am defining Rock according to the genre that came into being back then. There is no other valid definition.
I'm the one who said that, and the reason I said it is because, in the context of the article, the music started to change once the Vietnam War ended. No war, no reason to protest. Nixon goes, no reason to sing "Four dead in Ohio." It's not like they stopped being political, but that it no longer had impact. It was rock music that was open to other influences, and other styles of music. That's how The Eagles became rock music rather than country music, or Charlie Daniels and the Allman Brothers were rock music, not country music. Now country music is the big melting pot, accepting other styles of music the way rock did in the 60s and 70s. But what killed rock was the splintering into lots of sub-genres, sucking the audience away from the mother ship. What was once a narrowly defined genre is now very broad. So in that way, the definition in the OP has changed.
Only in the context of that time. Rock itself broadened its own definition with the styles it accepted in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. They didn't ask your permission. An artform that doesn't evolve and change as time and new generations come is destined to be relegated to the museum. This is not to say there aren't current musicians who make music in the original style. But they're not considered current.
You may be surprised but I did the same thing as a teen that my daughter is doing today. As a youngster I would be listening on my headset to radio on my crystal set. A few years later I would leave my transistor radio playing. Then my big tube radio. Sometime in my high school days I quit. Judging from comments from my boyhood friends this was very popular. Still seems to be today.
Let's say it generally took me 10-15 minutes to fall asleep. I would have heard 3-4 songs and 1-2 commercials (if I was lucky). The remaining 8-9 hours nothing would have sunk in whether I heard it or not. If I was not aware of it I didn't hear it. Simple.
If I'm in the bathroom doing my business and the TV is running a commercial did I hear or react to it? I think not. That listener event is null and void. But the monitoring services don't have a way to measure reactions to aired events unless that listener picks up the phone or hits a button on their PC. Common sense tells me a substantial number of "listeners" or not actually listening. Therefore, IMHO, those stats are grossly over reported.
I know people who leave their TV sets on all night long just so there will be "some noise" (their words) in the house or apartment. Are they counted? Who knows?
If they have a Nielsen meter attached to the TV set, yes they are counted. There is no other way to do it. The meter can't assess the state of the person in the room. If it could, that would be called spying, not research. So yes, for statistical purposes, people in a room, whether awake or not, are counted. While I personally didn't conduct the survey in the Forbes article I linked, there is a factor one can work into the numbers to allow for sleeping people. But it's not a very big number. So as I said, the numbers are not "grossly inflated" because of a few sleeping people. Just basic logic should tell you that.
I seem to remember some descriptions were called "Country Rock" (Eagles & Daniels) and "Southern Rock" (Allman Brothers). Very, VERY small niches and you could probably count the bands on the fingers of two hands. To me the Eagles were Country and the Allman's were Rock. Way out on the edges perhaps but there was no reason to create unique genre's unless you were promoting something new to sell. Radio called them "cross overs" but that didn't change what type of music they played. Nitty Gritty Dirt Band began as a 60's pop band then morphed into much more pure Country. Seems the music promoters and radio in general had no good way to compartmentalize them. Listeners didn't care. Would you call Don Williams a Country artist or a balladeer? How about Burl Ives? Willie Nelson?
I agree with you that Rock killed itself by splintering into diverse and generally terrible forms of music.
There was no one named 'Rock'. Nobody asked me, or anyone. The movers and shakers of the music industry decided what they would call a genre and what artists belonged to that genre. The more outlandish performers, the louder the noise, the more the music consumers of that day would slurp it up and the more money the suits would make. There were other genre's that held to their traditional music styles but Rock sold its soul to pursue the money. It still does.
Basic logic tells me we don't know. If it isn't measured it is just a guess. You may believe the Neilsens. I don't. I've personally witnessed too many people sitting in front of a live TV set......reading a book. In fact, as I write this I have my TV on. Obviously I am not paying attention to it.
But it IS measured. And the way its measured has been authenticated by a panel of experts. Once again, it doesn't matter if they're awake, having sex, or reading a book. None of that matters, they get counted, and because they get counted, money gets paid. This is scientific, and not guesswork. Just because you personally don't accept it doesn't mean anything. You get put into the "world is flat" group. Which is fine. It's not that "we don't know," it's that YOU don't know. And you won't take the time to find out. So you stay in a state of blissful ignorance. Just like your view about today's musicians.
In this argument, you are forgetting the important basic term of advertising: impressions.
Advertisers buy "impressions" in passive media. Billboards are sold based on how many pedestrians or cars or passengers go by each display each day. Direct mail is sold by number of pieces sent. Newspapers and magazines are sold by the number of copies sold at retail and by subscription.
Yet most people don't consciously remember most billboards. Nobody knows if the page your ad is on gets read or if your mailing goes right into the trash.
It does not matter, as advertisers measure the results of campaigns, even multi-media ones, and learn by extensive data mining what media and in what mix gets the best results.
With electronic media like radio and TV they know that many people hear but don't listen. TV viewers exit the room; DVR viewers may watch later and skip the ads entirely. Radio listeners may be doing other distracting things. But the advertisers know that a finite percentage of these events occur, and it is part of their measurement of the effectiveness of their advertising.
While Mom and Pop's Natural Vitamin Store on Main Street may not spend the billions of dollars on marketing research that, collectively, big advertisers do, they know that certain advertising brings customers and they have this device called a "cash register" which tells them if this week's advertising works or not.
The starting point for all advertising is some form of statistic that establishes a price to value relationship. In radio it is Nielsen. All national, regional and most local ad agencies buy the service (it is really really cheap for agencies) and trust the numbers to determine the best stations for their purposes based on their audience size and the kind of listener they are seeking.
Within the constraints of how much radio stations are willing to pay for ratings, the results are well within the acceptable margins of error for an advertiser. Since radio pays almost all the costs of ratings, they decide on a sample size that is good enough for advertisers and they don't pay for any bigger sample than that as there is no gain to be had.
Agencies in a sense do not care if a station is #1 or # 3 or # 8.... they usually buy several at a time and they pick among the top stations those that deliver the desired age group or gender or ethnic group at the best "price per listener".
In fact, in the most recent 3-book Nielsen average in Phoenix, four stations are #1 with a 0.4, five are #2 with a 0.3 and 8 are number three with a 0.2 rating. So you have 17 stations at a 0.2 or over, and agencies pick the ones that deliver at the best rating vs cost, boiled down to Cost Per Point.
We have known all the cautionary things about ratings, circulation and the rest since the 30's and we take it into account, so for the purpose of ad sales, Nielsen ratings are a perfect product even if occasionally there are glitches along the way.
You are about 90 years behind the times in bitching about radio ratings.
- Status