In some states, add Trumpers trying to ban them from reading about our history.....
-
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
Is old music killing new music?
- Thread starter AbqAnonymous
- Start date
Completely off topic, so I don't want to go down a rabbit hole of generational debating, but my parents were depression era along with WWII. I think it's safe to say that their youth was probably more difficult than even 9/11 and the 2008 recession. Most of that generation turned out okay. In fact, I'd say those world-events probably made them more resilient, not whiny.
Only if it involves history about slavery, and the civil rights movement in general.
LANDTUNA:
"Of course my post is an opinion. It cannot possibly be fact unless there was a way to ask every consumer of old and new music which they think is better. My 'evidence' is anecdotal. Of all the posts I've ever read, and from many different sources (with very few exceptions) people of every age group (except possibly pre or early teens) have a similar opinion: they like the older stuff better.
I've spent significant hours this past two years in front of my computer browsing through the musical entries on YouTube and reading the comments. Without writing down a record of the responses I can say that the most common comment on an Oldies entry can be paraphrased as "they don't make music like that these days". Many more comments tend to be much more sparse and say simply "modern music is <insert derogatory term of your choice here>". Perhaps the supporters of modern music just don't bother to comment but somehow I doubt it.
And I am not saying that all Oldies were better than the new stuff. I don't know how anyone would quantify any specific song. We like what we like and don't like the rest. That's not scientific and never will be. I do know that listening to music radio in the old days, including the MOR stations, was a whole lot more enjoyable than today."
The level of quality talent isn't the same. Who today compares to Sinatra, Streisand, Nat Cole,
Johnny Mathis, Dean Martin, Tony Bennett, etc??? Bennett still draws rave reviews with the young
and old alike. Who will be remembered from today, twenty or thirty years from now????
The novelty of radio and television has worn off. The quality of the lyrics and writing isn't as
good. Look at the old television shows. The Rockford Files, I love Lucy, My three sons, etc,
etc most all had their own themes.... Hard to find any tv themes at all today.....
Past=Quality. Today=Quantity. The bullseye is increasingly harder to hit!!!!!!!
You could say the same about 90% of the bands/artists from the late 60's to today. Other than a dozen or so bands, like the Stones, just because your time is limited, doesn't mean you aren't/are popular.
It's about time, not about popularity. Generations die off and take their music preferences with them. 80's wave music are now considered oldies. As are 90's music. I'm sure you recognize these lyrics:
"Boy, the way Glenn Miller played
songs that made the hit parade
Guys like me we had it made
Those were the days
Didn't need no welfare state
ev'rybody pulled his weight
gee our old LaSalle ran great
Those were the days
And you knew who you were then
girls were girls and men were men
Mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again"
Worn off? No. Competition for eyes and ears has increase ten fold. That's all part of time marching on.
Again, refer to the lyrics above which would classify your thoughts.
The Grammys are nothing more than a concert with a few of the awards given out.
Which to me seems very catch as catch can way of getting your music "out there". Without the relatively broad audience radio gave, how do new artists get the word out? I will admit to being totally clueless when it comes to social media, but how DO people discover stuff that's only posted on one of the various social media sites? Do today's young people have unlimited time to just surf or is there some sort of aggregating point to direct potential fans to these posts?
Some do. But the fact is that artists who just throw their music out there are operating with a much smaller budget, and therefore smaller expectations. I've been to seminars where musicians are told if they just superserve a small group of fans, tour all the time, and keep cranking out new music, they can make enough money to quit the day job and devote their time to music. We live in a world where it's possible to become a millionaire making YouTube videos or playing competitive video games.
Yet if I hear any of those anywhere, I turn off the station or channel or leave the room. Different tastes.
Lots of today's artists will be remembered in the same what that yesterday's talents are... by those who were fans when the artists were doing lots of current production.
No, the novelty of certain distribution systems has ceased to amaze people. But I find there is plenty of novelty in my new devices that bring me audio and video services in better ways.
You are confusting the rhythm and beat of the song with the content. There are plenty of poetically good songs out there... just as there were plenty of "Who put the bomp..." songs back then.
Long intros were the staple of TV shows when there were three networks and nothing else. Replaying the intro over and over saved millions in production costs for every show... one scene less to film or record. Now, the intro is done after the first scene (at least) and is very brief so as not to drive viewers away. Viewers of older TV shows dislike the intros so much that many services have "press to skip intro" features.
I suspect that the big record companies really don't know how to effectively deal with the new paradigm, where they are increasingly being bypassed by artists who can record at a home studio and promote themselves independently via internet 'channel'.
Also, I think we are seeing what is effectively the slow dismantling of what we used to call "mass media". With the internet, everything is increasingly fragmented. I don't see that changing. In 40-50 years there will be no record companies, no radio companies, no big TV channels, no big new agencies. Those entities will still exist, but they won't be as big as they are now, except -- in the case of radio and TV channels -- perhaps in some countries where the government is running a lot of it. Even those societies may have issues dealing with the fragmentation. All because of the internet.
Or, possibly a massive retailer with incredible commercial power might try to dominate various media. We see that with Amazon, Apple, Google, FB and a few other Big Tech companies. But those companies don't always succeed in those efforts, and a lot can happen in a decade or two.
The other side of that is you're seeing the slow dismantling of big music stars. With reality shows churning out new singers every month, there's no credibility in the star making machinery. Everybody's a star. When everybody's a star, why do we care about these so-called "artists?" So it drives down the value of being a musician, and as a result, drive down the money they can make.
If you are referring to ad agencies, the proliferation of voices and channels will make the need for agencies even greater, as most advertisers will be overcome by the number of options and the complexity of obtaining the desired share of voice in their area of business.
Beyond creative, agencies will be depended on to determine the media mix as well as the appropriate choices in each medium.
Keep in mind that youth didn't really have their own musical outlet until the advent of rock'n'roll -- which the adults of the time were very quick to blame for juvenile delinquency and all sorts of moral depravity:
That assumes that those entities won't consolidate in order to improve profitability, and also to improve value to consumers.
Right now, the biggest problem with all of the OTT on demand video channels is the cost. People have to subscribe to all of these small, individual channels in order to watch their favorite shows. At some point, it's just a big PITA. People will look for ways to subscribe to multiple services across company lines, they way they enjoyed cable TV.
Same thing with radio. You have several ways to listen to radio. None of them are as easy, cheap, or convenient as OTA. So at some point, there will be some form of consolidation because of consumer demand.
As far as music and record labels, they are the banks. They provide the investment money for artists to get the attention of larger groups of fans. Sure, anyone can drive around in a van and build their own fan base, But at some point, even that becomes a drag, and artists are looking for a big pay check. That's what the record label provides. They handle all the stuff the artists don't want to deal with.
So I think we're early in the process. There will be more steps, and those steps usually involve consolidation.
It was a typo. Woops. 'News' agencies, i.e. the fragmentation of news sources, but your input on ad agencies is obviously just as important, especially to broadcast media.
It actually began with the WWII Bobby-Soxers (Swing) and you could also make a case for the 1920's Jazz dancers.
And just as with Rock & Roll there was a good deal of racism of white parents afraid of their kids being influenced by Black music. In the original color coding of RCA's 45 RPM records, R&B records were bright orange so parents could easily spot them in their kids' record collection.
I grew up in the West and didn't see or remember any of that. I do remember some parent's commenting negatively about Elvis and his hip shaking but I also remember my grandmother and her two sisters asking for a demo on the new music and dances. I think it took them back to the days of the Black Bottom because they seemed to get a kick out of it. And yes, they were White Protestant ladies (but apparently with a sense of humor).
I heard the long version of Benny Goodman's "Sing! Sing! Sing!" on KWXY. Not so different from today's hip-hop.
As someone born 5 days into the Boomer generation, I recall none of that . My parents were not fond of rock and roll, but still liked seeing Elvis on Ed Sullivan and learning what I was starting to like as a pre-teen in the 50's. And starting part-time work at 13 in 1959 at an r&b station, I heard nothing of that.
Oh, and some labels had different colors for all genres, such as country, r&b, rock and the like so record stores would know how to stock them. But that was in the era of 78's, not 45's.
I have an unconfirmed feeling that what you describe is Urban Legend, and not real. The RCA records I had back then were all the same standard label, including "r&b songs" that I loved. I never saw an orange RCA label, either in the promotional ones RCA sent to WJMO or on 45's I'd buy for myself.
Do you have any links that show the labels and explain the differentiation you describe?
- Status