# Contemporary classical music vs. independent/underground/alternative music



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

We are usually contrasting classical music only to popular music. But we tend to forget to see that there is a kind of music that is neither classical, nor popular - (not in sense like Katy Perry and Lady Gaga) - kind of music that is favored by sites such as Pitchfork media.

Some examples of such artists - Radiohead, Arcade Fire, Kate Bush, PJ Harvey, The Black Keys...

They all officially belong to umbrella of "popular music", but they are far from being popular or mainstream, and are usually musically much more sophisticated and artistic than popular top 40 hits.

So, this music is new, is experimental, independent, artistic and non-commercial. And it still has wider reach and is probably more socially relevant than contemporary classical music.

So, say, in 100 years time, what will historians of music consider more important and more influential on music in general, albums like "OK Computer", "Kid A", or "Funeral" (from Arcade Fire) or some compositions by contemporary classical composers?

What do you think, what is more important now and what is more alive, more influential, etc... Contemporary classical music or indy/alternative/underground music? And if you are to express your subjective opinion, what is better of those two for you?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Whistlerguy said:


> We are usually contrasting classical music only to popular music. But we tend to forget to see that there is a kind of music that is neither classical, nor popular - (not in sense like Katy Perry and Lady Gaga) - kind of music that is favored by sites such as Pitchfork media.
> 
> Some examples of such artists - Radiohead, Arcade Fire, Kate Bush, PJ Harvey, The Black Keys...
> 
> They all officially belong to umbrella of "popular music", but they are far from being popular or mainstream


Radiohead are not popular?
I think that the Radiohead are after Nirvana the most popular rock group of the last twenty years.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I think there will be music across all genres that survives the test of time. I think a lot of the music mentioned in the OP will go on to become classic, but so will a lot of contemporary classical music. All though this is a fragmented time in 'classical' music with a lot of different strands going in different directions at once, I still think the best music being made today is still music being produced loosely under the title of 'classical' or 'art music' and a lot of it will survive. I think a greater percentage of indie label type music will not survive, simply because so much of it is similar and/or rehash, and a lot of it is largely based on images the bands are presenting and fads of the day. There will still be the diamonds in the rough that will survive but a lot of it will become irrelevant and/or redundant. I think the concept of 'cool' is completely transient and meaningless, but a lot of younger listeners are drawn to these types of sounds largely because this style is considered 'cool' or socially acceptable right now to listen to. As fads die out, so will much of the music.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

The problem I have with contemporary classical music is not that it is too difficult to listen to, but the fact that I can't find any reliable information or guide to it. There are no reviews of new classical compositions, such stuff can't be bought, and it's even harder to find on the internet for downloading... And there are too many composers today, how do I know who of them is good, and whose music I might even like?

It's easy to find lists of the best albums in last 10 years, but where are such lists for new classical compositions?


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I definitely believe that what we consider 'contemporary classical' music will survive and the 'popular' musicians will not.
We've had our musical equivalent to Warhol's pop culture infusion in the likes of Gershwin, but now, like in the visual arts, we must look to composers who push and redefine our definition of music itself rather than merely blur the boundaries between different 'genres'.

In comparison; a composer such as Stockhausen added entirely new dimensions to the human experience of music, by innovating new electronic timbres, serialising all parameters of sound, spatialisation, taking harmony beyond tone/semitone into the frequential scale and many others - and did all this with great ingenuity, imagination, and frankly genius.
Radiohead is a group of men who adopted the set of instruments common to pop and rock music in that day, and began to create rock songs based on repetitive guitar riffs, much like any other pop music. The only reason they are even considered in this debate is because of a willingness to experiment with this standard model. The changes are only superficial though; redefining the roles of the instruments, introducing elements from other popular genres and perhaps a few other things. 

The bottom line is, Stockhausen made deep innovations into the very fabric of music, while Radiohead only made superficial adjustments to the 'popular' model.

No doubt though, that Radiohead is more alive than Karlheinz


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> The problem I have with contemporary classical music is not that it is too difficult to listen to, but the fact that I can't find any reliable information or guide to it. There are no reviews of new classical compositions, such stuff can't be bought, and it's even harder to find on the internet for downloading... And there are too many composers today, how do I know who of them is good, and whose music I might even like?
> 
> It's easy to find lists of the best albums in last 10 years, but where are such lists for new classical compositions?


Its true, contemporary classical is not ingrained into the popular culture, the marketing drives that exist to promote these 'albums' isnt there for the work of contemporary composers.

I would recommend just going to your local ensemble or orchestra when theyre playing some new compositions and finding out what you like for yourself.
To get a broader view, why dont you post some requests for recommendations here on TC. There are enough contemporary music fans here with the knowledge to point you in the right direction.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> The problem I have with contemporary classical music is not that it is too difficult to listen to, but the fact that I can't find any reliable information or guide to it. There are no reviews of new classical compositions, such stuff can't be bought, and it's even harder to find on the internet for downloading... And there are too many composers today, how do I know who of them is good, and whose music I might even like?


Have you ever Googled it?! I follow a number of sites that review the latest contemporary classical releases, as well as conducting interviews with modern composers.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

I can only see Pop music changing if America looses their grip on it.

Bearing in mind most of the world don't want it and have no idea who Lady Gaga is, it could happen.

If China and the Middle East warm to the west and Africa is developed American Pop will get some tough competition.

Perhaps the new cool would be African and Chinese pop music. Europe not being under the grasp of America would buy this music and certainly the countries it comes from.


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2012)

Whistlerguy said:


> There are no reviews of new classical compositions


asymmetrymusicmagazine.com


Whistlerguy said:


> such stuff can't be bought


My bank account says "not true."


Whistlerguy said:


> it's even harder to find on the internet for downloading...


My hard drive(s) say "not true."



Whistlerguy said:


> how do I know who of them is good


Listen and decide for yourself.


Whistlerguy said:


> and whose music I might even like?


Well, you don't know, not ahead of time, anyway. Listen and decide for yourself.



Whistlerguy said:


> It's easy to find lists of the best albums in last 10 years, but where are such lists for new classical compositions?


All over the net. Listmaking is a mania in more places than TC, you know!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Are we talking about really experimental rock bands or rap or something? Or IDM?


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Let's take a look at recent history. 

Is there any "contemporary classical composer" in the 60s who is as important in the social consciousness as the Beatles or the Rolling Stones or the Velvet Underground or the Sex Pistols or Metallica or AC/DC, etc, were? 

Radiohead, various Indie bands, etc, will be remembered, certainly.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> Some examples of such artists - Radiohead, Arcade Fire, Kate Bush, PJ Harvey, The Black Keys...
> 
> They all officially belong to umbrella of "popular music", but they are far from being popular or mainstream, and are usually musically much more sophisticated and artistic than popular top 40 hits.


I don't know what universe you are living in but all those are hugely popular and commercially successful bands/artists that get plenty of airplay as well as mucho kudos from newer artists as being highly influential.

To be taken seriously you need to have good knowledge of actual independent/underground/alternative artists. Drop some names like Nicolaas Jaar, Julia Holter, Emeralds, John Maus, Actress, Balam Acab, Jim O'Rourke etc. Artists that fall into that criterion more correctly.

But saying that, there is no doubt in my mind that pop music is more alive and relevant than contemporary classical, and also that I find much more interesting music coming out of the 'popular' sphere of music than contemporary classical. However, there is easily room for both in my listening.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> I definitely believe that what we consider 'contemporary classical' music will survive and the 'popular' musicians will not.
> We've had our musical equivalent to Warhol's pop culture infusion in the likes of Gershwin


Maybe it's not important but frankly, i can't think of a wronger comparison.
Anyway, as said by Argus, there's a lot more in popular music than radiohead.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> Is there any "contemporary classical composer" in the 60s who is as important in the social consciousness as the Beatles or the Rolling Stones or the Velvet Underground or the Sex Pistols or Metallica or AC/DC, etc, were?


Was there any classical composer in any period who had a comparable role in the 'social consciousness'?


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> The bottom line is, Stockhausen made deep innovations into the very fabric of music


That may be the case, but I'd still rather listen to musicians he influenced, like Kraftwerk and other Krautrock bands, than the man himself, and so would the majority of people who listen to music.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> asymmetrymusicmagazine.com


Thanks for recommendation, I have bookmarked it.



> Drop some names like Nicolaas Jaar, Julia Holter, Emeralds, John Maus, Actress, Balam Acab, Jim O'Rourke etc.


Well, I'm not very knowledgeable about independent scene, but I guess you all understood what I had in mind when mentioning these artists. I wanted to contrast them with Kesha, Katy Parry, Black Eyed Peas etc...


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Polednice said:


> Was there any classical composer in any period who had a comparable role in the 'social consciousness'?


Around the time of Enrico Caruso (and prior to that, obviously) but from the moment Louis Armstrong cut a record, classical composers have become part of the social unconscious, being ever present in both television and films but not really coming to the fore much.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> Was there any classical composer in any period who had a comparable role in the 'social consciousness'?


Of course there was, and still is. Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Brahms etc, are quite popular even among general public, even after so much time. Not mainstream, but still popular and well known.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

You can't have any social relevance without a steady beat and lyrics that make large groups of people want to get drunk and share their venereal diseases with eachother.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> Let's take a look at recent history.
> 
> Is there any "contemporary classical composer" in the 60s who is as important in the social consciousness as the Beatles or the Rolling Stones or the Velvet Underground or the Sex Pistols or Metallica or AC/DC, etc, were?
> 
> Radiohead, various Indie bands, etc, will be remembered, certainly.


I think its hard for us to gauge the social impact of these times because we are still living in times so near to them. During Schubert's life all the craze was Rossini, but after the dust has settled I don't think anyone makes the argument that Rossini's music is more relevant than Schubert's because it was more in the 'social consciousness'. The Rolling Stones and the Beatles are more or less so far into our consciousness at least in part to being rammed down our throats in the media and associated with pictures of young girls lustfully screaming. (seriously stop and analyze for a second how much of their mass popularity was based on this type of promotion? I think subconsciously millions of people get into this kind of music because it is tied to an idea it will bring them into more situations in which a sexual encounter is likely). They are marketed to younger audiences. I am not trying to say these bands are crap and have nothing to offer, but at the end of the day, the modern media has discovered sex sells, this is definitely connected with how popular these bands are/were in the 'social consciousness'.. Still throughout the '60's much great music by artists such as Rodrigo, Ligeti, Penderecki etc. was being produced that _did_ enter social consciousness in a big way, and I personally feel in time they will be looked at as greater giants of music than even (gasp) The Rolling Stones, and The Beatles.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> You can't have any social relevance without a steady beat and lyrics that make large groups of people want to get drunk and share their venereal diseases with eachother.


OK, this is not even funny. There are many very relevant bands and songs that are far away from this stereotype.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> Of course there was, and still is. Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Brahms etc, are quite popular even among general public, even after so much time. Not mainstream, but still popular and well known.


Sorry, I meant in their own lifetimes. By virtue of the fact that classical music dominated in Western Europe when there were no alternatives, yes, Beethoven et. al. were at the top, but knowledge and familiarity with their music did not trickle down to the people in society who are analogous to those who buy commercial music today to anything like the same extent.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Music like this doesn't help. "Hugely influential" (see wikipedia use of those words  ) Keith Rowe,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Rowe






_A Dimension Of Perfectly Ordinary Reality_  WTF?


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Second one just sounds like something John Cage would come up with.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Sorry, I meant in their own lifetimes. By virtue of the fact that classical music dominated in Western Europe when there were no alternatives, yes, Beethoven et. al. were at the top, but knowledge and familiarity with their music did not trickle down to the people in society who are analogous to those who buy commercial music today to anything like the same extent.


There was always street music, and folk music you play on the piano.

Mahler the conductor was huge in Vienna. All the important artists, etc, knew him, consorted with him.

The political elite, the artistic elite, etc, the power players and the captains of industry do not consort with the contemporary classical composers. The rub shoulders with Elton John or whoever.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> Let's take a look at recent history.
> 
> Is there any "contemporary classical composer" in the 60s who is as important in the social consciousness as the Beatles or the Rolling Stones or the Velvet Underground or the Sex Pistols or Metallica or AC/DC, etc, were?
> 
> Radiohead, various Indie bands, etc, will be remembered, certainly.


See the post from Polednice.



Polednice said:


> Sorry, I meant in their own lifetimes. By virtue of the fact that classical music dominated in Western Europe when there were no alternatives, yes, Beethoven et. al. were at the top, but knowledge and familiarity with their music did not trickle down to the people in society who are analogous to those who buy commercial music today to anything like the same extent.





brianwalker said:


> There was always street music, and folk music you play on the piano.
> 
> Mahler the conductor was huge in Vienna. All the important artists, etc, knew him, consorted with him.
> 
> The political elite, the artistic elite, etc, the power players and the captains of industry do not consort with the contemporary classical composers. The rub shoulders with Elton John or whoever.


Its all a political game. In todays society, wealth is spread much more evenly throughout the population and is not just held by certain demographics. To gain the favour of the masses, you have to associate yourself with their opium.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Someone needs to get HarpsichordConcerto a copy of David Sylvian's Manafon. Check out the personnel on that album:

David Sylvian - vocals (all tracks except 8), acoustic guitar (2), keyboards (3, 6), electronics (5, 7, 8), art direction, engineering, production, mixing. 
Burkhard Stangl - guitar (1, 5) 
Werner Dafeldecker - acoustic bass (1, 3, 5, 6, 9) 
Michael Moser - cello (1, 3, 6, 9) 
Christian Fennesz - laptop, guitar (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) 
Toshimaru Nakamura - no input mixer (1, 4) 
Otomo Yoshihide - turntables (1, 3, 4), acoustic guitar (right channel) (4) 
John Tilbury - piano (2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8) 
Evan Parker - saxophone (2, 7, 8) 
Marcio Mattos - cello (2, 8) 
Joel Ryan - tape signal processing (2, 7, 8) 
Franz Hautzinger - trumpet (3, 9) 
Keith Rowe - guitar (3, 6, 9) 
Tetuzi Akiyama - electric and acoustic guitar (left channel) (4) 
Sachiko M. - sine waves (4) 
Chris Bigg - design 
Atsushi Fukui - David Sylvian portrait and related drawings 
Yuka Fujii - art direction

It's like all his favourite musicians crammed into 50 minutes of music.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> There was always street music, and folk music you play on the piano.


Indeed, and that was not written by the big name composers.



brianwalker said:


> Mahler the conductor was huge in Vienna. All the important artists, etc, knew him, consorted with him.


Yep, but still not popular with your average Joe.



brianwalker said:


> The political elite, the artistic elite, etc, the power players and the captains of industry do not consort with the contemporary classical composers. The rub shoulders with Elton John or whoever.


I'm getting lost by your arguments. At one point, you're implying that the mark of greatness is popularity. The next, you're saying that the mark of greatness is rubbing shoulders with elites. I'm getting a whiff of inconsistency in an attempt to criticise contemporary classical music without having a substantial basis for it.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Indeed, and that was not written by the big name composers.
> 
> Yep, but still not popular with your average Joe.
> 
> I'm getting lost by your arguments. At one point, you're implying that the mark of greatness is popularity. The next, you're saying that the mark of greatness is rubbing shoulders with elites. I'm getting a whiff of inconsistency in an attempt to criticise contemporary classical music without having a substantial basis for it.


Contemporary classical has neither; neither popularity nor universal status conferred to it by the elite.



> In the face of this one may ask: Why does the great and universal fame of classical authors continue? The answer is that the fame of classical authors is entirely independent of the majority. Do you suppose that if the fame of Shakespeare depended on the man in the street it would survive a fortnight? The fame of classical authors is orginally made, and it is maintained, by a passionate few. Even when a first-class author has enjoyed immense success during his lifetime, the majority have never appreciated him so sincerely as they have appreciated second-rate men. He has always been reenforced by the ardour of the passionate few. And in the case of an author who has emerged into glory after his death the happy sequel has been due solely to the obstinate perseverance of the few. They could not leave him alone; they would not. They kept on savouring him, and talking about him, and buying him, and they generally behaved with such eager zeal, and they were so authoritative and sure of themselves, that at last the majority grew accustomed to the sound of his name and placidly agreed to the proposition that he was a genius; the majority really did not care very much either way.
> 
> And it is by the passionate few that the renown of genius is kept alive from one generation to another. These few are always at work. They are always rediscovering genius. Their curiosity and enthusiasm are exhaustless, so that there is little chance of genius being ignored. And, moreover, they are always working either for or against the verdicts of the majority. The majority can make a reputation, but it is too careless to maintain it. If, by accident, the passionate few agree with the majority in a particular instance, they will frequently remind the majority that such and such a reputation has been made, and the majority will idly concur: "Ah, yes. By the way, we must not forget that such and such a reputation exists." Without that persistent memory-jogging the reputation would quickly fall into the oblivion which is death. The passionate few only have their way by reason of the fact that they are genuinely interested in literature, that literature matters to them. They conquer by their obstinacy alone, by their eternal repetition of the same statements. Do you suppose they could prove to the man in the street that Shakespeare was a great artist? The said man would not even understand the terms they employed. *But when he is told ten thousand times, and generation after generation, that Shakespeare was a great artist, the said man believes--not by reason, but by faith. And he too repeats that Shakespeare was a great artist, and he buys the complete works of Shakespeare and puts them on his shelves, and he goes to see the marvellous stage-effects which accompany King Lear or Hamlet, and comes back religiously convinced that Shakespeare was a great artist. *All because the passionate few could not keep their admiration of Shakespeare to themselves. This is not cynicism; but truth. And it is important that those who wish to form their literary taste should grasp it.


Contemporary listeners lack faith; they no longer line up to see Brahms or Bartok because they are told that Brahms and Bartok are great; in fact, they no longer believe the Brahms and Bartok are greater, than, say, Radiohead.

This faith is what glues civilization and culture together.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Have you ever Googled it?! I follow a number of sites that review the latest contemporary classical releases, as well as conducting interviews with modern composers.


What sites are your favorite?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Music like this doesn't help. "Hugely influential" (see wikipedia use of those words  ) Keith Rowe,
> 
> _A Dimension Of Perfectly Ordinary Reality_  WTF?


No, man, that stuff helps.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

science said:


> What sites are your favorite?


NewMusicBox is my one stop shop for news, reviews and interviews; The Glass is a great resource for interviews with modern composers; I Care if You Listen has a more general take, including older music; and Sequenza21 is good both for listeners and writers of contemporary music.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> NewMusicBox is my one stop shop for news, reviews and interviews; The Glass is a great resource for interviews with modern composers; I Care if You Listen has a more general take, including older music; and Sequenza21 is good both for listeners and writers of contemporary music.


Polednice, thanks for the links, I will start exploring. I hope I will be able to grasp this new music and enjoy it, and I also hope this is not all like Xenakis


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

What's wrong with Xenakis?


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> What's wrong with Xenakis?


I probably haven't heard enough of his stuff, but with rare exceptions, what I have heard so far can be considered "pure musical art", or "sound art" but seems not the be "music itself". It's stuff that only can be listened to with extremely high concentration and with serious intent to understand what he wanted to say with a piece (be it some message, emotion, or just demonstrations of some new compositional technique, style, etc). Also, it's not quite enjoyable, and it tends to be quite noisy. And honestly, I couldn't really listen to this stuff regularly, for pleasure, for enjoyment, etc. His music seems to be just experimental stuff, I don't know. It seems like he is just experimenting and trying to prove some theories of his own through his music. What I'd enjoy more is if he come to some solid musical scientific knowledge through his experiments, so that others can use this science to make a real music out of it.

If we compare him to technology, he is something like LHC, just testing theories. But I prefer applied science, for example new cars, planes, computers, cell phones, landing people on the moon, such stuff. It would be impossible without fundamental science, but we can't use fundamental science in daily lives, we use its applications - all these gadgets and stuff.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

I think you're thinking about it too hard.


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

this got me thinking, besides stravinsky, what other composers are/were there that work with polytonality? Ive only ever really heard Stravinsky use it, and I cant find the transition from there to here


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Igneous01 said:


> this got me thinking, besides stravinsky, what other composers are/were there that work with polytonality? Ive only ever really heard Stravinsky use it, and I cant find the transition from there to here


I think that there are a lot that have experimented with it, from Ives to Ravel to Ellington and many others (a technique that as a listener i often find a lot more intriguing than pure atonality)


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Whistlerguy said:


> Some examples of such artists - Radiohead, Arcade Fire, Kate Bush, PJ Harvey, The Black Keys...


these bands fall into the mainstream hipster music genre; contradictory, but accurate.

hint: a good test for popularity is the amount of youtube views.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

Igneous01 said:


> this got me thinking, besides stravinsky, what other composers are/were there that work with polytonality? Ive only ever really heard Stravinsky use it, and I cant find the transition from there to here


Bartok and Ives are the two other big names I associate with polytonality.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

For perspective; Radiohead, The Black Keys and Arcade Fire are all regularly in the weekly 50 most played artists on last.fm, with the first two placing in the top 20 (Radiohead in the No. 2/No. 1 spot, usually neck and neck with Coldplay) and the third in the No. 36 spot. Kate Bush and PJ Harvey -while not on weekly top 150 charts- have 20,452,538 and 38,617,177 plays on last.fm respectively, and the latter even made the top 50 in the most played of 2011 list.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

This whole business of contemporary music being in the social consciousness is a result of...business! There's no promotion behind music artists today. All of the great record labels of the past were founded by entrepreneurs who loved music. These successful labels have all been bought up by the majors for their back catalogs. There is no active promotion of new, innovative music in any genre today. It's a time of transition, and artists and entrepreneurs are trying to figure out new business models and successful approaches to marketing their goods. And frankly, it's not working out too well right now because most of the music is being stolen.

The internet is a great way to get your music heard, but there's an awful lot of static. And good luck trying to get the majority to pay for it. Music forums like this one are a great way to find out about the new music that is out there. If I had to go to a site like CD Baby and try to find some great music, I've got to wade through 300,000 titles. It's impossible without some clues to what is worthwhile to listen to.

But ultimately it comes down to an investment in the future. If we want great artists to celebrate and remember, we have to support them. It's a matter of values. People will pay 3 dollars for a bag of potato chips, or 18 dollars for a pizza, but they refuse to pay for music.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

@some guy, polednice: Thanks for those links to sites that discuss contemporary music. For someone relatively new to exploring it's actually not so easy to find good information. I wish it were easier to hear new music as well. Even with the Naxos music library, youtube, and Spotify, I often find that I can't hear works from contemporary composers I'm trying to sample. That is an ENORMOUS difference from my early experience listening to the radio when I was young.



starthrower said:


> But ultimately it comes down to an investment in the future. If we want great artists to celebrate and remember, we have to support them. It's a matter of values. People will pay 3 dollars for a bag of potato chips, or 18 dollars for a pizza, but they refuse to pay for music.


Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!!!! What's frustrating is that music is cheaper today than it's ever been. People can buy tracks for US$1. Naxos and other lables make huge amounts of music available for under US$9. I don't know how to fix the problem of people not being willing to buy their music, but I hope things change in the relatively near future.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I think it has a lot to do with the infusion of cheap goods from China, etc. I read reviews on Amazon where listeners are complaining about paying 15 dollars for a 2 CD set. Well hell, in the 80s we paid 15 or more for one CD. It's weird! People want music in their life, but they don't want to pay for it. I suppose if they could illegally download Nike sneakers and Levi's, they 'd steal those too.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Perhaps it's because music is so ubiquitous everywhere we go that it feels ridiculous to have to pay for it - like having to pay for dirt.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

starthrower said:


> I think it has a lot to do with the infusion of cheap goods from China, etc. I read reviews on Amazon where listeners are complaining about paying 15 dollars for a 2 CD set. Well hell, in the 80s we paid 15 or more for one CD. It's weird! People want music in their life, but they don't want to pay for it. I suppose if they could illegally download Nike sneakers and Levi's, they 'd steal those too.


obviously some people's brains here haven't adapted to the new market. in the 80's... you mean 30 years ago? this is the new millennium: the age of the internet, mass advertisement and distribution. making an MP3 file and putting it on some server somewhere costs a virtually negligible fraction of its revenue, even if it were free. do you understand that facebook is a multi-billion dollar company? oh and it's free.

yeah nike, you mean the company that exploits children in asia? or perhaps apple/foxconn aka suicide city? please.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

^^^^^^^
I never mentioned downloads. I used Nike as an example of a product consumers desire. Your responses have nothing to do with the points I made. So "please" comprehend before responding.

What does Facebook being a billion dollar enterprise have to do with a consumer paying an artist for their work?


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

starthrower said:


> ^^^^^^^
> I never mentioned downloads. I used Nike as an example of a product consumers desire. Your responses have nothing to do with the points I made. So "please" comprehend before responding.


i'm pretty sure you said: "_People want music in their life, but they don't want to pay for it. I suppose if they could illegally *download* Nike sneakers and Levi's, they 'd steal those too._"

edit: but that's irrelevant, because most revenue from music is supposed to be made through downloads this year, if it hasn't already surpassed the cd.



starthrower said:


> What does Facebook being a billion dollar enterprise have to do with a consumer paying an artist for their work?


my point exactly, if you don't get the business model of advertising, you probably aren't asking yourself the right questions: why is the crappiest music of all time generating more money than has ever been amassed in the entire history of music? while so many talented and struggling artists are only seeing the downsides of that same market?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Philip said:


> i'm pretty sure you said: "_People want music in their life, but they don't want to pay for it. I suppose if they could illegally *download* Nike sneakers and Levi's, they 'd steal those too._"
> 
> edit: but that's irrelevant, because most revenue from music is supposed to be made through downloads this year, if it hasn't already surpassed the cd.
> 
> my point exactly, if you don't get the business model of advertising, you probably aren't asking yourself the right questions: why is the crappiest music of all time generating more money than has ever been amassed in the entire history of music? while so many talented and struggling artists are only seeing the downsides of that same market?


The first point is not irrelevant concerning independent artists. I know musicians who have released recordings only to find out that dozens of file sharing sites have distributed many more illegal downloads of their work than those obtained legally. I'm not comparing CD sales to downloads. I'm comparing music paid for to music stolen, and the "talented" independent artists are on the losing end due to theft.

As for why the crappiest music of all time is generating so much money? I already alluded to that in my original post. That's the music that is being promoted in this culture which is obvious to everyone. The music being created by talented artists is being ignored by the people with the power and money to promote it. It's the same reason there is nothing but crap on TV. The decisions are being made by ultra cynical people who care about nothing but the bottom line. So collectively speaking, as a society/culture we don't deserve to have great artists who will be remembered a hundred years from now. People don't even remember what happened ten years ago for chrissakes!


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

starthrower said:


> The first point is not irrelevant concerning independent artists. I know musicians who have released recordings only to find out that dozens of file sharing sites have distributed many more illegal downloads of their work than those obtained legally. I'm not comparing CD sales to downloads. I'm comparing music paid for to music stolen, and the "talented" independent artists are on the losing end due to theft.


i think these artists should take advantage of the promoting power of the internet (social media, blogs, interactive websites), by playing the same game the big companies are. you have to think outside the box and adapt. for now the only way to crack down illegal downloading is by doing it manually, sending emails, requesting files be taken off servers; countering it by making your tracks available in as many formats possible (compressed, lossless, cd) and on as many platforms possible (youtube, soundcloud, itunes, spotify, etc.).



starthrower said:


> As for why the crappiest music of all time is generating so much money? I already alluded to that in my original post. That's the music that is being promoted in this culture which is obvious to everyone. The music being created by talented artists is being ignored by the people with the power and money to promote it. It's the same reason there is nothing but crap on TV. The decisions are being made by ultra cynical people who care about nothing but the bottom line. So collectively speaking, as a society/culture we don't deserve to have great artists who will be remembered a hundred years from now. People don't even remember what happened ten years ago for chrissakes!


this is a side effect that cannot be avoided in a capitalist society. forcing people to buy digital media is not only going against the current business model, it's impractical and nearly impossible due to the nature of the product. adapt or perish!

edit: déjà vu?


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

ignore this


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Philip said:


> yeah nike, you mean the company that exploits children in asia? or perhaps apple/foxconn aka suicide city? please.


You know where those kids go if the factories close?

Anyway, I did the Napster and Limewire thing for awhile back in college, but ultimately - though I learned a lot about music through that - I didn't feel good about myself for it. Not because the corporations involved are virtuous or anything, but just because that seems to be the implicit contract between myself and the artists. When they intentionally release something without copyright protections, that's fine, I'll take it for free; but when they keep those protections hoping to be paid for their work, I'll either pay and listen, or not listen and not pay.


----------

