As I watch Wilco and Feist perform together on Letterman – not on TV, mind you, but on YouTube, two days later – I’m laughing at my own comment about Indie music being one band with many voices. But as I look at the two of them and consider the long roads that lead them togehter, I realize it has become confusing as to what is Indpendent and what is just Alternative music that reached critical acclaim. It doesn’t really matter to me, so long as good music gets played.
Alt rock bands in my day were called College Rock, as they got played on the college radio stations. It wasn’t so much that they were independent as they were playing stuff that didn’t get on the corporate-owned stations. R.E.M., for example, and punk. That sense of being “outside the mainstream” and true to their own vision was appealing to me even back then, at the same time (probably not coincidentally) that the music industry was starting to harden its secret formula. Again, the silly putty metaphor – national radio starts getting squeezed, personal music pops up somewhere else. That’s not entirely different than what is happening today on the Web with artists that have no label at all. Substitute “college radio station” with sites like My Old Kentucky Blog and Gorilla vs Bear. Or even consider the role of the mix-tape for rap artists. It all amounts to the same thing: a distribution channel to match up fresh, interesting, different music with ears that enjoy it. If there weren’t a lot of people just like me, with my kinds of taste, those channels wouldn’t exist and thrive. Thankfully, music makers and music listeners always seem to be able to find each other.
It all hinges on a new kind of financial model where the “DJs” (now bloggers) are free to use their ear to choose what they play, where money is not leverage in that decision. The bloggers get their money from the ads on their site and the artists get their money from people who find them and buy their independent albums or tracks off of iTunes or go to their concerts. It is a symbiotic relationship insomuch as they DO NOT exchange money between them. This is the right model (and the same model we had before radio stations were bought by corporations who influenced what was played) as it eliminates the backroom deals that lead to compromises on quality that eat away at the genre, from the inside out to all the edges. So long as this stays true, we all win.
But the important part of it all (for me, of course), is that my kind of music has place to be discovered, promoted and played. And it’s not just my kind of music, it’s the kind of music that made music music. It’s freeing the songbird. The girl or guy who can express herself or himself better with a guitar in hand than with words or anything else. That person isn’t a business person, I don’t want them to be. American Idol (to agree with you, Hirp), promotes business music, where human expression is emulated, not felt. The contestants are egged on to have “that thing” which is a euphemism for “what emotion looks like,” not what emotion is. Some can fake it, some can’t. But make no mistake, nobody up there is singing about the human plight, or feeling the human plight. They are coddled in the sparkly glory of adoration, a part of the music-making process that should come last, not first. All part of the backwards model of success we’ve promoted these days where you are praised first and have an accomplishment later (or, as I used to call it, “Pretty Girl Syndrome”).
As the Wilco/Feist duet comes to an end and I hear that clapping, that real clapping, I am encouraged. Hooray for music that reaches into the soul and tells us we’re okay for being human, fallible, confused, angry, despondent or in love. Hooray for humans who continue to evolve and create revolutions in the arts, so we all can sing.
Going back to something you said on post #1, I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I guess I kinda might be. “
I loved runs from bands like The Police, The Clash, The Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, KISS, Queen, Tom Petty, Van Morisson and The Who.”
Those are classics to you, and many others. But are they really? Their music stands the test of time, but they have, for the most part, a very defined arch. The Police made their impact from what, 78-83? So a five year body of work is classic? Really, or is just that those songs bring you back to those years. That’s about as long as The Clash was together too. And the Stones, Kiss and Pink Floyd were together longer, but seems to me that most of their fans are more fans of what they did in the past. They stopped evoloving, for the majority of listeners. It’s almost like what’s happening with De Niro and Pacino now. They might as well do their own reunion tour, and just play old characters, since they’re mailing it in for paychecks anyway.
Now there was a guy in 1989 who was just like you, your age, and I bet he felt very similar about the state of music as you do now. We like to try and point our finger to where the change happened. Was it MP3’s? The in-dash CD player or just the cassette deck in the car? Should we blame those evil jerks in advertising, which helped musicians realize they can make it on singles alone, which gave way to the ringtone craze? Or is just a cycle, as A Tribe Called Quest said?
“I said, well daddy don’t you know that things go in cycles
The way that Bobby Brown is just ampin like Michael
Its all expected, things are for the lookin
If you got the money, Quest is for the booking.”
I think it really comes down to us turning into our fathers. Who, at the age we are now, were saying the same things we say, only they didn’t blog. Michael Jordan was no Dr. J. This music was nothing like the Beatles or Elvis. What the hell is MTV, anyway?
Then again, they didn’t have to suffer through Miley Cyrus or Jonas Brothers. I’d rather walk up hill, both ways, in three feet of snow.
I think we might be saying the same thing, or the very least, I confess to the accusation. When I say “classic,” I am only referring to classic to me and within that time period you described. I fully admit that there are artists since the 80’s who have had runs, and good ones, full of interesting music. As a whole, though, not as many and not as interesting. It’s not like I don’t listen to it, the way it seemed like our parents’ “turn that crap down!” generation did. It’s just that any kid born in the 80’s didn’t have Vietnam, Korea, women’s rights, Watergate, MLK assassination, two Kennedy assassinations and a lot of other heavy shit going on in their amniotic fluids. When you’re born into Reaganomics, that’s just a different kind of root system. I’m not judging. But maybe a little.
It seems to me “classic” music is defined individually by whatever you’ve invested in emotionally and otherwise. In the really old days, when I was coming of age, you could only hear music on the radio or on your record player or at a concert performance, the latter two requiring a big investment in time, effort and money. But that investment paid off a thousand-fold because you played that single or album over and over and over, until it was part of your DNA. So for me and others of a certain age, “classic” popular music is represented by Frank Sinatra, Miles Davis, Elvis, Ella Fitzgerald, Chet Baker, Bob Dylan, and others of that ilk. And remarkably, 50 years later, some if not all of these artists are still being listened to by you younger folks.
I think one of the problems with trying to define “classic” now is that since the advent of MP3s, music has become disposable: it’s cheap, there’s no investment in it, and it has the life span of a fruit fly. The term no longer applies.
I’m just saying…
Interesting points about all the heavy shit that went on before the 80’s. Maybe all of today’s crap will give us some great music in the near future.
Regan paved the way for Nirvana to happen.
Clinton laid, well everyone, but also probably set the tone for the age of bling. Perhaps his biggest crime.
W? He might just be the catalyst for the return of great music. Bout time he did something useful.
It’s an interesting point about lack of investment. There is a jaded quality to music listening now. Rarely do you hear someone talk about “loving!” a band. And it does coincide with everything moving online and to MP3 format. But it also coincides with this era. I can think of some current bands with longevity and a culturally relevant following, but the list starts to really dwindle after about 15 – 20 bands. That’s sad, in comparison to the 60’s/70’s, where it’d be hard to limit to under 50.
I mean, seriously, just think about the influence of: Bob Dylan, Otis Redding, Bob Marley, Miles Davis, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Janis Joplin, Pink Floyd, The Who, David Bowie, Marvin Gaye, Patti Smith… pretty good list so far, right. Okay, here’s who I haven’t even mentioned, yet: The Beach Boys, Aretha Franklin, Joni Mitchell, The Stooges, The Clash, Stevie Wonder, Jimi Hendrix. I could keep going. It’s not even close, especially when you factor in those bands’ influence on OTHER bands. No way you could create a list like that from the 90’s/00’s. You’re right, Hirp, grunge probably happened in response to what was happening in the 80’s, but beyond Nirvana, who’s still relevant today from that crowd and do you really think that 20 years from now, people will be putting on entire Goo Goo Dolls albums, drinking wine and talking about old times? Maybe I’m cynical, but I don’t think so.
I agree, but I can’t help but wonder: if those acts came out in todays climate, would they still be as well thought of?
Hirp, I think the difference is that you actually DON’T separate out the music from the climate back then, whereas today you do. Music + Climate = Classic. Music – Climate = American Idol.