Recently, an old friend of mine (who is actually quite young, and a musician herself) introduced me to some newer tunes. She turned me on to Fleet Foxes and Greg Laswell, among others. It's not the sort of thing I typically listen to, but I really like them. I find that I am attracted to the sonic qualities and some of the lyrics. I bought 2-3 CDs on iTunes, and I'm enjoying them, particularly as background when I'm driving or having conversation with friends. It's good atmospheric music, in style and effect.
But, something keeps nagging at me. I can't quite put my finger on it, but there is something substantively different about these new indie-folk-pop-rock bands than the music I play and listen to.
In a NY Times article today, Jon Pareles gets at part of it when he explores the way music is being made today. It's not about songwriters and albums anymore--the instrinsic appreciation of the songs--it's about marketing. Before you assume I'm criticizing the artists, let me assure you I'm not. It is virtually impossible to sell music today. No one believes they should have to pay for music anymore; so, the best way to turn it into a financially sustainable enterprise is to attach it to commodities. Whether it's a Grey's Anatomy soundtrack, a car commercial, or sonic wallpaper for office buildings, music has to be sold differently than a decade or two ago.
Pareles asks the important question:
What happens to the music itself when the way to build a career shifts from recording songs that ordinary listeners want to buy to making music that marketers can use? That creates pressure, subtle but genuine, for music to recede: to embrace the element of vacancy that makes a good soundtrack so unobtrusive, to edit a lyric to be less specific or private, to leave blanks for the image or message the music now serves. Perhaps the song will still make that essential, head-turning first impression, but it won’t be as memorable or independent.After reading that, I may be getting a fix on part of what I was noticing about newer music. It is less specific...?
I have been told by a few people that a very personal song I wrote would be more commercially viable if I would take out the specific references and generalize it. I have not done that, probably as much out of laziness as anything; but, there is something about changing a song that tells my former brother-in-law's tragic, yet hopeful story, into a dramatic pop song. Nothing wrong with that. Might even be a better song. It's just something I am noticing.
I don't share the snarky perspective of Gawker, when Hamilton Nolan took Laswell to task for corporate "bootlicking" by selling his songs to hotel chains for lobby music, Pepsi and Amazon commercials, and nearly a dozen television soundtracks. I don't begrudge Laswell these moves, but I am still interested in how it changes the way music is made.
I wonder if songwriters and producers make room for more atmospheric spaces and less specific poetry so the focus can be on the product or the "feel" a potential buyer would want to get at with the sound.
For the record, let me say there is a difference between your music being picked up and used in a corporate context, and recording songs with a clear eye on that market.
I have several friends who have been delighted to find their songs have been selected for local commercials, national commercials, TV shows, and elevator music, among other commercial outlets; but I don't think that was on their minds when they wrote and recorded the songs. Maybe Nick Drake turned over in his grave when "Pink Moon" was used for that VW commercial, but I doubt it.
I saw a band last night that was a blast from my personal past. Fools Face, a local and regional phenom in the 80s, blew my mind last night. They were sensational, but they were pretty straight ahead rock and roll, with a nice selection of punk-influenced, new-waviness, and pop grunge in the mix. Don't hear too many soundtracks coming out of that, but it was tremendous music.
I guess I find myself at this mid-life point, where culture is changing around me, and I'm trying to make sense of it. I am not entirely unhappy with where pop music is going. It's just becoming something different than what it was. Isn't it? Hmm?
5 comments:
Perhaps I just don't know much about commercial viability, but I disagree. I think specificity is better than generality - also known as mushiness.
The economics of art. If you do it for the money instead of the love of the craft, maybe you get rich, but do you love what you do. Not that I'm passing judgment on anyone you mention in your post.
Maybe it's just a chicken and egg sort of thing. Artists/craftsmen have to find a way to support themselves. They have to feed themselves and their famlies but they also have to feed their souls, no.
Perhaps it's a question of where do they compromise? Do they compromise?
In closing, I must say that I wonder a lot about the economics of poetry publishing and similarly the economics of classical music and all types of art.
What prompts people to spend money on such things? And how is that related to the impulse that prompts people to create?
Perhaps I should add the economics of newspapers to the list of things that puzzle me.
Perhaps I just don't know much about commercial viability, but I disagree. I think specificity is better than generality - also known as mushiness.
The economics of art. If you do it for the money instead of the love of the craft, maybe you get rich, but do you love what you do. Not that I'm passing judgment on anyone you mention in your post.
Maybe it's just a chicken and egg sort of thing. Artists/craftsmen have to find a way to support themselves. They have to feed themselves and their famlies but they also have to feed their souls, no.
Perhaps it's a question of where do they compromise? Do they compromise?
In closing, I must say that I wonder a lot about the economics of poetry publishing and similarly the economics of classical music and all types of art.
What prompts people to spend money on such things? And how is that related to the impulse that prompts people to create?
Perhaps I should add the economics of newspapers to the list of things that puzzle me.
fools face was fun!
These kids today and their "music". Makes my head hurt. Whatever happened to sex and violence and rock-and-roll? Gimme a little Bob Seger, mix in an occasional Mellencamp and on rowdy days, Van Halen and AC/DC. Now that's rock.
And... "mid-life point"? Who are you kidding, dude? You're one foot in the grave if you're a day. C'mon, face reality. It's harsh, but you get used to it after a while...
Happy happy happy new year!
For some reason, The Merchants of Cool (which I watched in your class) comes to mind here. I'm not sure we can put our finger on what's happening in broad sweep, but I think the music "industry" (or, rather, world) is splintering in its responses to the phenomenon you described. On the one hand, you have media conglomerates (with producer and retailer merged) and contracts dictating a large segment of the popular music market. On the other, you have indie rockers more concerned with the communal experience of making and experiencing music on a more grassroots level, and less concerned with financial viability. You go to my show, buy my CD, I'll reciprocate.
On a different, but related note, I recently read that a disproportionate number of the world's contemporary geniuses—particularly artists of various stripes—are employed in marketing. It is the consummation of modernistic optimism: the tandem of genius inventors and producers of goods and services with the genius marketers of those services—an unstoppable force. Kinda creepy, isn't it?
Post a Comment