is rock 'n' roll dying, or is it already dead?

You have to wonder which came first, the chicken or the egg—is it fashion or a corporate force-fed industry? Any genre can be distorted and exploited out of all proportion by the "sausage factory."  That's why so much sounds alike. 

Edited by sherrynoland - July 04 2013 at 03:37

1. What came first was the egg factory. Mass produced popular music was all there was - tin pan alley was a mass-market music machine - back in the early 20th century the business was to sell sheet-music, the "pop" stars were merely the advertising barkers there to popularise a song so the publishing companies could sell the printed score. That's why copyright law is so archic and tied to "song lyrics", that's why royalties were originally for the composer of the melody and lyricist (not the drummer or the bass player or the rhtymn section) because they were the names on the sheet-music - who played  it (performance royalties) were not even considered until later. Remember non-mainstream music is a modern invention, yet let's not kid ourselves that that the music we listen to is high-brow escoteric "art" - it's still "mainstream", it's still "popular" music.

Dean wrote: 1. What came first was the egg factory. Mass produced popular music was all there was - tin pan alley was a mass-market music machine - back in the early 20th century the business was to sell sheet-music, the "pop" stars were merely the advertising barkers there to popularise a song so the publishing companies could sell the printed score. That's why copyright law is so archic and tied to "song lyrics", that's why royalties were originally for the composer of the melody and lyricist (not the drummer or the bass player or the rhtymn section) because they were the names on the sheet-music - who played  it (performance royalties) were not even considered until later. Remember non-mainstream music is a modern invention, yet let's not kid ourselves that that the music we listen to is high-brow escoteric "art" - it's still "mainstream", it's still "popular" music.

sherrynoland wrote: Dean wrote: 1. What came first was the egg factory. Mass produced popular music was all there was - tin pan alley was a mass-market music machine - back in the early 20th century the business was to sell sheet-music, the "pop" stars were merely the advertising barkers there to popularise a song so the publishing companies could sell the printed score. That's why copyright law is so archic and tied to "song lyrics", that's why royalties were originally for the composer of the melody and lyricist (not the drummer or the bass player or the rhtymn section) because they were the names on the sheet-music - who played  it (performance royalties) were not even considered until later. Remember non-mainstream music is a modern invention, yet let's not kid ourselves that that the music we listen to is high-brow escoteric "art" - it's still "mainstream", it's still "popular" music. Yes, evolution isn't a straight line, it's a spiral and sometimes we seem to be going backward. However successfully, some musicians strive to produce art; that is, they discipline themselves, learn their craft, and give everything they've got to step out of the way of the muse, and be honest and pure of heart in what they do.  That's art, baby.  And pop music CAN be art.  The Beatles should have proved that for everyone once and for all.

Yes, there is good music in every genre, whether pop or anything else; Dean's point is important because we like to bemoan the state of the pop music industry today but popular music has always been market-driven: from Tin Pan Alley to rock 'n roll to rap and hip-hop, and there have been certain eras where better quality music has been produced because of the state of the industry, but in the end it's up to individual artists and groups to make their own quality music; there's good and bad music in every style.  Like you pointed out, there's good stuff that comes out of the mainstream pop industry (from the Beatles to Adele).  What we need to get rid of is the illusion that "high art" made without regard to audience is somehow superior to "pop art"; I've heard this a lot (not as much here as in other circles) and it's ridiculous, most of the stuff people consider "high art" was music made by people looking to earn a living and please a wealthy patron.  In the end, labels like "mainstream" and "popular" and "high-brow" often obscure the truth; they might be necessary for practical purposes but in the end, all there is is music - and that music must be judged on it's own merits.

Darn, I'm starting to sound like Pedro

sherrynoland wrote: Dean wrote: 2. If your advances meet with a wall of indifference, don't blame the wall. Tell that to all the artists of the world, and they'll tell you you don't know what you're talking about.  Tell it to all the artists who died paupers, like Mozart and Van Gogh.  The status quo has always resisted art.  Thank god, artists who are met with indifference don't give up.  The world would be a poor place indeed. However, if you're talking about me on this site, I'VE LEARNED MY LESSON.  I'm not functioning in artist mode here.

Of course I'm talking about this site. We've been here long enough to know what pisses people off and we tried to warn you - spam the site and people won't like it  - but you knew better and regarded us as "hostile" (Bob is the least hostile person I've ever met online). 

sherrynoland wrote: I think, as with everything else, humanity is evolving towards more PERSONAL responsibility.  Now that we can find and share music so easily, and also steal it, we have to decide one person at a time whether will, or not.

Music is sound. You can't own sound, therefore you can't steal sound. I don't download music because I like owning a physical object like a CD or a record, and because I like to support the artist, but I don't think making a copy of a file I own is stealing any more than making a copy of key I own is.

But I digress...

thellama73 wrote: sherrynoland wrote: I think, as with everything else, humanity is evolving towards more PERSONAL responsibility.  Now that we can find and share music so easily, and also steal it, we have to decide one person at a time whether will, or not. Music is sound. You can't own sound, therefore you can't steal sound. I don't download music because I like owning a physical object like a CD or a record, and because I like to support the artist, but I don't think making a copy of a file I own is stealing any more than making a copy of key I own is. But I digress...

There's nothing illegal about making a copy of the file you own.  The illegal part is stealing the file in the first place.

^ Mozart had to beg friends for money the same way Ozzy probably had to between Sabbath and having hit solo records.   That doesn't mean he was a pauper.   Hendrix was working and selling a respectable amount of wax but was often cash-poor due all kinds of things as bad management, drug addiction, thievery, unwise contractual agreements.   John Lennon understood the realities of having to find "Money for dope", and not just for working class heroes.

It is romantic and simplistic to think popular artists are -  or are not, for that matter - in need of cash.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: thellama73 wrote: sherrynoland wrote: I think, as with everything else, humanity is evolving towards more PERSONAL responsibility.  Now that we can find and share music so easily, and also steal it, we have to decide one person at a time whether will, or not. Music is sound. You can't own sound, therefore you can't steal sound. I don't download music because I like owning a physical object like a CD or a record, and because I like to support the artist, but I don't think making a copy of a file I own is stealing any more than making a copy of key I own is. But I digress... There's nothing illegal about making a copy of the file you own.  The illegal part is stealing the file in the first place.

What if I then give that copy to friend? If I own it, I should be able to give it away, right? What if I make a thousand copies and give them to a thousand friends?

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: thellama73 wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: thellama73 wrote: sherrynoland wrote: I think, as with everything else, humanity is evolving towards more PERSONAL responsibility.  Now that we can find and share music so easily, and also steal it, we have to decide one person at a time whether will, or not. Music is sound. You can't own sound, therefore you can't steal sound. I don't download music because I like owning a physical object like a CD or a record, and because I like to support the artist, but I don't think making a copy of a file I own is stealing any more than making a copy of key I own is. But I digress... There's nothing illegal about making a copy of the file you own.  The illegal part is stealing the file in the first place. What if I then give that copy to friend? If I own it, I should be able to give it away, right? What if I make a thousand copies and give them to a thousand friends? I say that if you buy a CD or download an album, you own it; but you bought one copy.  What other formats you want to convert it to is your own choice, but once you start giving it away you not only presume to own the copy of the record but to own the intellectual property to the music itself.  I see this as not only illegal, but just plain unethical.

I don't see how you can own a sound or a thought. I also don't see how something can be stealing if you don't deprive someone of something they own. If I copy your music, you still have it. You have lost nothing, so how can it be theft. You will likely answer that you have lost potential revenue from your music, but how can you claim ownership of something that is only potential? People deciding not to buy your music doesn't violate your rights.