Prince says the Internet is "over"

[landtuna]

Because I can see from what you've said that my "listening experience" is much broader then yours, therefore I'm more qualified to provide expert criticism of music without a personal bias. You're not. All you can say is you don't like their music, nor their behavior. Big deal. You have a nose, and so do they.

Your listening experience may or may not be broader than mine but that isn't the point. The discussion isn't about whether I like "their" music (or behavior) but rather the quality of their music compared to earlier decades.

And BTW, were you ever a musician? I was.

They're not selling pimple cream and sneakers with music from the 60s.

Of course not but then we weren't talking about selective marketing, were we? I, at least, was talking about general merchandise to multiple generations not Disney products to pre-teens specifically.

They are not using 40 year old music to sell products to people in their 20s.

Actually, yes they are. I continue to hear classic rock songs used to advertise cars, shoes, TV shows, and food.

A day will come when all the music of the 60s will be as familiar as Benny Goodman. It will all fade away like sand castles.

Someday maybe but it's interesting to note that 60's/70's music is still popular today - 40 and 50 years after it first aired. I'll bet you won't be hearing any of today's pop music 40-50 years from now - or even 10-15 for that matter. It will be flushed away just like grunge.

 

[TheBigA]

Your listening experience may or may not be broader than mine but that isn't the point.

It IS the point, because you criticize diversity and quality without knowing the full range of music available.

And BTW, were you ever a musician? I was.

That goes back to the personal opinion point. As a musician, you're biased to what you know and like.

Someday maybe but it's interesting to note that 60's/70's music is still popular today - 40 and 50 years after it first aired. I'll bet you won't be hearing any of today's pop music 40-50 years from now - or even 10-15 for that matter. It will be flushed away just like grunge.

I'm sure your parents said that about The Beatles. The first three Beatle albums were largely forgettable. Had they not grown as writers, they would have been as forgotten as all the other boy bands of the era.

Not everything from the 60s & 70s is popular today. A big chunk of it doesn't get regular airplay. The 50s is almost gone, except for Elvis.

Look: Benny Goodman and Frank Sinatra were still selling out venues in the 1970s, which was 40 years past their prime. Had Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington lived longer, they too would have had success 40 years after their prime. Music lasts as long as the generation lives. Once you die, you'll take most of your music experience with you, and the Taylor Swift generation will continue in your wake. That's just how the world turns. It has nothing to do with quality. It's about emotion.

 

[landtuna]

It IS the point, because you criticize diversity and quality without knowing the full range of music available.

What "full range" of music am I missing?

That goes back to the personal opinion point. As a musician, you're biased to what you know and like.

Everybody has biases but we're talking about opinions here. Mine is different than yours but is no less valid.

I'm sure your parents said that about The Beatles. The first three Beatle albums were largely forgettable. Had they not grown as writers, they would have been as forgotten as all the other boy bands of the era.

I don't know what my parents thought about the Beatles because I was a world away in Vietnam. I hadn't heard much of their music until I returned home in '66 and it didn't impress me all that much.

The Beatles didn't affect music as much as they did culture. Their early music was essentially generic early RnR but with an English accent. Their looks is what made them initially popular, especially with the ladies, and, as you said they went on then to develop their own music. But people forget the Beatles were essentially done as a performing act in the USA by '69 - five short years - and went on to individual careers.

Not everything from the 60s & 70s is popular today. A big chunk of it doesn't get regular airplay. The 50s is almost gone, except for Elvis.

You could make that statement about every music generation. There would be little interest today in Bubblegum or Protest Rock or Folk Rock just as Disco isn't popular except at dance clubs and you rarely hear Metal or Grunge. Much of the music of the late 50's and 60's was culture-driven (Payola in the 50's and Vietnam War in the 60's) and neither of those two events have relevance to today's youth (or even their parents).

Those of us who love the 50's music probably already have our collections built and do not bother to look for it on radio nor do we buy new issues since there are none. One indication of its popularity though is the Doo Wop and 50's Pop concerts that show up on PBS. They are always well-attended and result in some of the biggest promotion sales that PBS does.

Look: Benny Goodman and Frank Sinatra were still selling out venues in the 1970s, which was 40 years past their prime.

You're dating Sinatra a bit much.

I don't remember Goodman performing but Sinatra usually played Vegas. If there is anything I know about Vegas, especially in the 60's thru the 80's is was that you can fill any entertainment venue there no matter who is performing. Look at Wayne Newton for a classic example. As a popular singer Frankie was sliding in the 50's. His big money-maker thereafter was as an actor and stage performer.

Music lasts as long as the generation lives. Once you die, you'll take most of your music experience with you, and the Taylor Swift generation will continue in your wake. That's just how the world turns. It has nothing to do with quality. It's about emotion.

And all of that has nothing to do with Q-U-A-L-I-T-Y! Did all Swing music sound the same? Or 50's Pop? Or 60's Rock (including all its variations)? Or 70's and early 80's?

The answer to the above is no. But you can't say that about today's Pop. And that, my friend, is the definitive answer.

 

[TheBigA]

What "full range" of music am I missing?

The music that's outside the mainstream that you've been talking about. The stuff that doesn't get regular airplay on pop radio. There is a whole different culture outside of the mainstream, and it's very diverse. That's why it's outside the mainstream.

One indication of its popularity though is the Doo Wop and 50's Pop concerts that show up on PBS. They are always well-attended and result in some of the biggest promotion sales that PBS does.

Once again, that programming isn't aiming at people in their 20s, but people your age who are likely to become members of PBS for that kind of programming.

You're dating Sinatra a bit much.

The Sinatra thing was not about Vegas. He got regular airplay on WNEW, and he was the center of two syndicated radio shows in the 70s. Now he's largely off the radio. Same with the big band era. It continued into the 70s and early 80s, now it's mostly gone. That is my point, and that fate will befall the 60s acts in the next few years.

And all of that has nothing to do with Q-U-A-L-I-T-Y! Did all Swing music sound the same? Or 50's Pop? Or 60's Rock (including all its variations)? Or 70's and early 80's?

The answer to the above is no. But you can't say that about today's Pop. And that, my friend, is the definitive answer.

It's sounds the same to you because you're not the target of that music. You're outside the demo and don't recognize the nuance between one artist or another. The way some couldn't recognize the difference between The Beatles and the Bee Gees. Or the Four Seasons vs. the Newbeats. Depends on who is making the judgement, and at your age, you're not emotionally attached, for the most part, to music outside your demo. Those who are can feel the nuance and will remain attached to it for the rest of their lives.

 

[landtuna]

The music that's outside the mainstream that you've been talking about. The stuff that doesn't get regular airplay on pop radio. There is a whole different culture outside of the mainstream, and it's very diverse. That's why it's outside the mainstream.

Yes, and that's why it can't be considered "popular" (or it would be getting airplay). If it hasn't become evident to you after all these posts I have been talking (and comparing) music played on the radio.

Once again, that programming isn't aiming at people in their 20s, but people your age who are likely to become members of PBS for that kind of programming.

I never said it was popular among twenty-somethings. I said only it was popular and still being played after 40-50 years.

The Sinatra thing was not about Vegas. He got regular airplay on WNEW, and he was the center of two syndicated radio shows in the 70s. Now he's largely off the radio.

Sinatra was always much more popular in his home territory of NY/NJ than elsewhere. I know. I lived there. Not only was he still on the radio but his portrait hung in virtually every barbershop and neighborhood bar in the city. Elsewhere though he was mostly an actor.

Same with the big band era. It continued into the 70s and early 80s, now it's mostly gone. That is my point, and that fate will befall the 60s acts in the next few years.

Well hopefully, not the next few years but, once again, you are addressing something that isn't in the discussion. I have never disputed that the music of my generation will someday disappear. I am only saying that music was at a higher quality and accordingly has been popular, and played, far longer than today's music will be.

It's sounds the same to you because you're not the target of that music. You're outside the demo and don't recognize the nuance between one artist or another. The way some couldn't recognize the difference between The Beatles and the Bee Gees. Or the Four Seasons vs. the Newbeats. Depends on who is making the judgement, and at your age, you're not emotionally attached, for the most part, to music outside your demo. Those who are can feel the nuance and will remain attached to it for the rest of their lives.

Your statement does have some merit but it is much more than just a "nuance". I did an experiment a few weeks ago with my two twenty-something daughters. I took two very new pop released by two different female singers and played both for each daughter asking them if they could identify the singer. Both missed. I then showed them the accompanying video and, of course, they identified both easily. I'm guessing kids today get "imprinted" because the artists video's are at least as important as the recordings at getting them exposure. Groups in "the old days" did not have that advantage, at least not the immediate exposure.

BTW, since I manage both daughters music libraries and maintain their players I am aware of what they listen to and how long they keep most music. Both have virtually turned over their libraries several times over the past five years. They still recognize older songs from several years ago but don't actively listen. And I'm not talking about just their portable music but rather their total library. I think that is the future.

 

[TheBigA]

Yes, and that's why it can't be considered "popular" (or it would be getting airplay).

This may come as a surprise, but there's a lot of stuff that's popular that doesn't get airplay. For lots of reasons. That's a whole other issue.

Sinatra was always much more popular in his home territory of NY/NJ than elsewhere.

The syndicated shows featuring his music were popular everywhere. As was the music of his era. That all died at the end of the 80s when his audience died. And then he followed.

The 50s are mostly gone now. The first half of the 60s is gone. The rest will follow soon. And the boomers will scream and complain, but it won't matter. And your quality argument won't matter either.

I am only saying that music was at a higher quality and accordingly has been popular, and played, far longer than today's music will be.

And I've said that quality is not the issue, because the music of the previous generation was popular for the same length of time. It's not a function of quality but emotional attachment. The current generation will be equally attached to their music when you're dead. And we all may be surprised by what music lasts and what doesn't. For example, I expect the boy bands like N'Sync and Backstreet Boys will last longer than people expect. But clearly Beyonce is creating timeless music, like Whitney Houston and Mariah Carey did 20 years ago, that will last for the next 40 years.

They still recognize older songs from several years ago but don't actively listen. And I'm not talking about just their portable music but rather their total library. I think that is the future.

That's typical behavior for their age. When they're married in their 30s, they will come back to the music they loved in high school. I've seen that pattern over and over for the entire century.

 

[landtuna]

This may come as a surprise, but there's a lot of stuff that's popular that doesn't get airplay. For lots of reasons. That's a whole other issue.

By definition, pop music that doesn't test well doesn't get played, hence, unpopular.

The syndicated shows featuring his music were popular everywhere. As was the music of his era. That all died at the end of the 80s when his audience died. And then he followed.

Aside from one or two of his biggest hits I don't remember hearing Frankie except on Standards stations programming to retirement villages. And I used to spend a fair amount of time listening to Big Band/Swing/Standards when I lived within reach of one of those stations.

The 50s are mostly gone now. The first half of the 60s is gone. The rest will follow soon. And the boomers will scream and complain, but it won't matter. And your quality argument won't matter either.

Perhaps on the radio but not in the culture. And early 60's (pre-British Invasion) has never been popular, even with Boomers. I guess you'll just have to wait for the answer to my quality "argument". I really don't care whether you agree or not. It is my opinion and will not change.

And I've said that quality is not the issue, because the music of the previous generation was popular for the same length of time.

Really? How long did 20's music last? 30's? Swing? Big Band? (Both were the popular music of their day.)

How long did late 40's/early 50's pop music (what we call Standards today) remain popular on mainstream radio (or recording sales for that matter). I remember hearing some in the early 60's but virtually none after that. Those all became niche music in less than 15 years.

For example, I expect the boy bands like N'Sync and Backstreet Boys will last longer than people expect. But clearly Beyonce is creating timeless music, like Whitney Houston and Mariah Carey did 20 years ago, that will last for the next 40 years.

That must be why a significant number of people close to and within the industry constantly make fun of boy bands.

As for the others, Beyonce doesn't bring anything new to music - just a very nice looking female getting popular mostly because of that attribute. Whitney Houston is a screamer - all she's got are pipes and an inop volume control.

That's typical behavior for their age. When they're married in their 30s, they will come back to the music they loved in high school. I've seen that pattern over and over for the entire century.

My generation didn't but then we had really good stuff to listen to in our 30's.

But I'll give them your message. They will be amused.

 

[TheBigA]

By definition, pop music that doesn't test well doesn't get played, hence, unpopular.

Did I use the word "test?" No. It isn't a function of testing.

Aside from one or two of his biggest hits I don't remember hearing Frankie except on Standards stations programming to retirement villages.

Once again, you're trying to make judgements based on your personal experience, which, as I said, is fairly limited. This proves my point.

I really don't care whether you agree or not. It is my opinion and will not change.

I think that really says it all.

 

[landtuna]

Did I use the word "test?" No. It isn't a function of testing.

Of course it is. Either by formal testing or by listener feedback. How else is the PD going to determine what music is acceptable to his listeners - divine intervention?

Once again, you're trying to make judgements based on your personal experience, which, as I said, is fairly limited. This proves my point.

I provided one personal experience but it is not the only one nor is it limited to me.

I think that really says it all.

Or it says nothing at all. I gave you my reasons and yours differs. Happens all the time.

 

[TheBigA]

Of course it is. Either by formal testing or by listener feedback. How else is the PD going to determine what music is acceptable to his listeners - divine intervention?

How many years have you worked in radio? How many formats? How many major markets?

 

[Drucifer]

The internet hasn't even started...

 

[GeneSavage]

This is a mind-blowing thread to read through; seriously.

Let me throw this out there, though: I work with a 20-something who has discovered the local "Gen-X' station. She's just beginning to hate all the current artists on top-40, but is going CRAZY over this station that plays grunge, hair bands, rap, & dance from the late 80s through the early '00s.

She sings along to Pearl Jam, Nirvana, & Alice In Chains. She squeals with delight when an early Eminem song comes on, & raps right along with him. She's belting out the lyrics to CeCe Peniston, Crystal Waters, & Ace Of Base.

These are HER oldies. These are the soundtrack of her school days. She complains about how radio stopped playing all these great songs, but thankfully THIS radio station has brought all of these timeless classics back. She now listens to them exclusively.

...Sound familiar?

She HATES the "sappy" music of the 70s, is bored with the 60s, and says the 50s were more than half a century ago. She wants HER music. The good stuff, you know: Sir Mix-A-Lot, Gin Blossoms, Backstreet Boys...

She's not alone. The numbers are in... and the listenership is UP.

BTW, this is a station that abandoned 60s & 70s to go Gen-X. Make of THAT what you will. They were dying in the ratings and dying in the revenue department, too.

I understand the belt-tightening days are over.

Oh, and before you go complaining TOO much about today's teens listening to mp3s... let's not forget how many of us heard our first Elvis, Beatles, or Elton John on a little two-inch speaker in a transistor radio run on a 9-volt battery (& taped to the handlebars of our bikes, in many cases).

Better yet, go try one of those white earplug-things they included with all radios, it seemed... how DID they make those sound so bad? It was like it.. broke... the sound... into little pieces, made it sound like shattering glass. I've never heard anything like those, before or since.

Bad popular music?

90s - Vanilla Ice - Ice Ice Baby
80s - Starship - We Built This City
70s - Debbie Boone - You Light Up My Life (biggest song of the DECADE!)
60s - Bobby Goldsboro - Honey
50s - Debbie Reynolds - Tammy
40s - Bing Crosby - Swing On A Star
30s - Kay Kyser - Three Little Fishies (Itty Bitty Poo)
20s - Helen Kane - I Wanna Be Loved by You

Frankly, each decade could have had their own "top 40 worst" countdown.

One of the weakest arguments I've heard in this thread is that today's music doesn't have the "quality." Quality has very little to do with the music people will love for the rest of their lives.

Another weak argument I've heard is, in the past there was great variety. Really? Because when Elvis was on the charts, everybody from Andy Williams to Conway Twitty was doing their best Elvis impersonation! Oh... and having HITS sounding like Elvis, too.

Music is not selling today like decades past because kids have the internet, DVDs, cable TV, smart phones, video games, and on and on to take their attention away. Also, songs are not as much a shared experience anymore. What one kid may like, another may not even be aware of. It's a dynamic shift away from the collective experience you and I had growing up.

Every generation (the research HAS been done to back this up) "hates" the music of the next generation. And, every generation points to one or two examples of someone in the next generation liking their music as proof that their music is "better" than the current music.

The perspective is almost all age-related.

The comment about liking a "wide" variety of music reminded me of a Soul Train interview I saw decades ago. Don asked the performer about what kinds of music he liked.

"Oh, I like a huge variety of different styles: R&B, hip hop, rap, soul, gospel, blues, Motown..."

Um... variety. Yeah.

Tell me you're into classical, gangsta rap, & country... and I'll say you have a wide variety of tastes. ;D

Oh, OH... and my dad used to say (as you said about rap) that "country music is an oxymoron." He also believed no rock and roll singers could actually sing; otherwise, they would be doing standards.

BTW, Britney Spears' "World" just sold 117,000 downloads in three days; her previous song, "Hold," sold 411,000 copies in six days; not bad for a no-talent hack creating disposable music, huh?

 

[Drucifer]

This is a mind-blowing thread to read through; seriously.

Let me throw this out there, though: I work with a 20-something who has discovered the local "Gen-X' station. She's just beginning to hate all the current artists on top-40, but is going CRAZY over this station that plays grunge, hair bands, rap, & dance from the late 80s through the early '00s.

She sings along to Pearl Jam, Nirvana, & Alice In Chains. She squeals with delight when an early Eminem song comes on, & raps right along with him. She's belting out the lyrics to CeCe Peniston, Crystal Waters, & Ace Of Base.

These are HER oldies. These are the soundtrack of her school days. She complains about how radio stopped playing all these great songs, but thankfully THIS radio station has brought all of these timeless classics back. She now listens to them exclusively.

...Sound familiar?

She HATES the "sappy" music of the 70s, is bored with the 60s, and says the 50s were more than half a century ago. She wants HER music. The good stuff, you know: Sir Mix-A-Lot, Gin Blossoms, Backstreet Boys...

She's not alone. The numbers are in... and the listenership is UP.

BTW, this is a station that abandoned 60s & 70s to go Gen-X. Make of THAT what you will. They were dying in the ratings and dying in the revenue department, too.

I understand the belt-tightening days are over.

Oh, and before you go complaining TOO much about today's teens listening to mp3s... let's not forget how many of us heard our first Elvis, Beatles, or Elton John on a little two-inch speaker in a transistor radio run on a 9-volt battery (& taped to the handlebars of our bikes, in many cases).

Better yet, go try one of those white earplug-things they included with all radios, it seemed... how DID they make those sound so bad? It was like it.. broke... the sound... into little pieces, made it sound like shattering glass. I've never heard anything like those, before or since.

Bad popular music?

90s - Vanilla Ice - Ice Ice Baby
80s - Starship - We Built This City
70s - Debbie Boone - You Light Up My Life (biggest song of the DECADE!)
60s - Bobby Goldsboro - Honey
50s - Debbie Reynolds - Tammy
40s - Bing Crosby - Swing On A Star
30s - Kay Kyser - Three Little Fishies (Itty Bitty Poo)
20s - Helen Kane - I Wanna Be Loved by You

Frankly, each decade could have had their own "top 40 worst" countdown.

One of the weakest arguments I've heard in this thread is that today's music doesn't have the "quality." Quality has very little to do with the music people will love for the rest of their lives.

Another weak argument I've heard is, in the past there was great variety. Really? Because when Elvis was on the charts, everybody from Andy Williams to Conway Twitty was doing their best Elvis impersonation! Oh... and having HITS sounding like Elvis, too.

Music is not selling today like decades past because kids have the internet, DVDs, cable TV, smart phones, video games, and on and on to take their attention away. Also, songs are not as much a shared experience anymore. What one kid may like, another may not even be aware of. It's a dynamic shift away from the collective experience you and I had growing up.

Every generation (the research HAS been done to back this up) "hates" the music of the next generation. And, every generation points to one or two examples of someone in the next generation liking their music as proof that their music is "better" than the current music.

The perspective is almost all age-related.

The comment about liking a "wide" variety of music reminded me of a Soul Train interview I saw decades ago. Don asked the performer about what kinds of music he liked.

"Oh, I like a huge variety of different styles: R&B, hip hop, rap, soul, gospel, blues, Motown..."

Um... variety. Yeah.

Tell me you're into classical, gangsta rap, & country... and I'll say you have a wide variety of tastes. ;D

Oh, OH... and my dad used to say (as you said about rap) that "country music is an oxymoron." He also believed no rock and roll singers could actually sing; otherwise, they would be doing standards.

BTW, Britney Spears' "World" just sold 117,000 downloads in three days; her previous song, "Hold," sold 411,000 copies in six days; not bad for a no-talent hack creating disposable music, huh?

I'm taking notes...

 

[Jay Peninger]

BTW, Britney Spears' "World" just sold 117,000 downloads in three days; her previous song, "Hold," sold 411,000 copies in six days; not bad for a no-talent hack creating disposable music, huh?

Today's music while entertaining is still very mush disposable and this is why artists like Drake Ke$ha and yes even Miss Spears put out records every few months... They have to in order to remain relevant and earn the kwan....

Today we have #1 albums that don't even sell 100,000 copies and back in the day 100,000 wouldn't have barely gotten you noticed on the chart...

If you seriously think Britney Spears selling 100,000 downloads of some over produced AutoTuned to death song equates to even the likes of a Billy Joel you are nuts....

Miss Spears doesn't even make the top 50 in career sales, in fact no modern day artists are near the top of the list....

Miss Spears could sell records for the next 40 years and I would venture to guess she still wouldn't come close... Why? Because her music like 98% of the other over produced crap out there isn't timeless in fact accept for a small percentage of songs it is all downright forgettable...

And in contrast you have the Beatles who are #1 on the list with a bullet and have not made a record in almost half a century and they sold millions of downloads the first week their catalog hit iTunes and they will probably be the first artists to sell 200 million albums in the US.... Why? Because unlike Miss Spears and her contemporaries their music is timeless and it gets proven generation after generation as they rack up sales....

 

[Drucifer]

I'm going to paint this with a broad stroke. If we will give the listeners what they want...they will listen! I know...DUH!

 

[landtuna]

Today's music while entertaining is still very mush disposable ...

I know it was a typo but very apropos anyway. ;D

 

[GeneSavage]

You're trying to tell me the Beatles DIDN'T put out a single every few months????
http://www.jpgr.co.uk/i_beatles7_date.html

...And, lookie there... despite your protests to the contrary, there's an artist from 1991 with the #8 biggest selling single of all time. Not new enough for you? How about "disposable" Shakira from 2006 at #9?

Worse yet: #10 & #11 are from 2009!!! The Black-Eyed Peas, & your dreaded Ke$ha.

Finally, at #12, the Beatles get a top selling single. Yay!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_singles_worldwide

In fact, there's not ONE single from the 60s that made it into the top 10.

Tell me again how great the music of the 60s was vs. how terrible today's music is, how today's doesn't sell, and the 60s artists sold like crazy?

Even 70s superstar Elton John's biggest selling song (@ #2, congrats) is from 1997. The 70s don't have a best-selling song until #7. In fact, based on sales, the 30s were the best decade of music.

...Want to try again? ;D

 

[johnnyu]

I know he's mainly talking about internet distribution of music, not radio, but it's an interesting interview:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2010/07/05/prince-world-exclusive-interview-peter-willis-goes-inside-the-star-s-secret-world-115875-22382552/

He's taking a lot of heat about this interview. The comment about wanting an advance seems so 20th century. But Prince is from a different time. He wants control of his music. The problem is that control is not the way to become popular. The way to become popular is to give up control. That's not in his nature.

He's a brilliant musical genius, but even Prince can't fix what's wrong with the music industry. He needs to just make music and leave the rest to others. Am I chomping to hear his new music? Truthfully I'm curious, but like everyone else I'll hear it for free at some point.

Who is Prince?

 

[landtuna]

Tell me again how great the music of the 60s was vs. how terrible today's music is, how today's doesn't sell, and the 60s artists sold like crazy?

The true test of a song and artist is whether they continue to be played/enjoyed/sold after their initial success. We'll have to wait awhile to determine whether today's pop "music" is as good as the 60's or 70's (or even some of the 50's) but I'm willing to bet that the new "artists" of today will be but a dusty relic of history within a generation.

BTW, I have a dog named Prince. She can't play worthwhile music either. ;D