smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Michael Bennett" <mrhonorama@hotmail.com> |
| Subject | Re: Here's the Low Down on Owsley |
| Date | Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:46:14 -0600 |
[Part 1 text/plain (3.1 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Jack Rabid of The Big Takeover has written a lot about the vacuity of the
chart toppers of the last few years. He asks a interesting questions --
what songs from the past few years will we be hearing on oldies stations 20
years down the line? Is there that much enduring music that is selling a
gazillion copies?
This may explain, in part, the sales decline -- many of the artists on whom
the record sales were built simply weren't long term propositions. By not
investing in artists whose careers will grow, the majors have bitten
themselves in the ass. This is not to say that there aren't some acts who
have that staying power -- Eminem, Missy Elliot, in the guitar music field
Dave (Eccch!) Matthews and Coldplay (not my favorites, but their success is
encouraging -- of course, if "Yellow" hadn't hit, would they have gotten the
push for the new disc?). But there just might not be much out there for
many of the buyers who plunked down cash for that 98 Degrees disc.
What should really scare the bejeezus out of the majors is trying to figure
out how to generate back catalog sales out of many of the best sellers of
the late-'90s. The Britney Spears Anthology???
Mike Bennett
Record reviews and more at http://fufkin.com
>From: matty karas <mkaras@mindspring.com>
>Reply-To: audities@smoe.org
>To: audities@smoe.org
>Subject: Re: Here's the Low Down on Owsley
>Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:40:57 -0500
>
> > 2) The music sucks.
>
>but i won't buy that. if you're going to argue that the industry is tanking
>because it's making bad music, then you're going to have to be prepared to
>argue that when the industry was soaring, it was making good music. which
>means you're going to have to argue that the greatest music ever made was
>made in the late 1990s, 'cause more records -- way more records -- were
>sold in that era than at any time before or since. you're going to have to
>further argue that, even though music sucks in 2003, it sucked that much
>more in 1966 or 1967 or 1977 or 1984 or (pick your favorite year), because
>a lot more albums are being sold in 2003 than were sold in any of those
>years.
>
>i have a funny feeling that's not where you were trying to go.
>
>the music sucks? tell that to 50 cent fans, or eminem fans, or jay-z fans,
>or no doubt fans, or wilco fans, or rapture fans, or white stripes fans, or
>missy elliott fans, or felix da housecat fans, or ceee-lo fans, or
>soundtrack of our lives fans, or ... you get the drift. it's all pop
>music, and they're all pop fans, and though you may not like all of it, and
>you certainly as hell don't have to, it *doesn't* all suck, and it
>certainly as hell isn't why the industry is tanking. i mean, yeah, paul
>mccartney made a nearly unlistenable live album last year (i tried
>listening; i really did), but i don't think the industry was counting on
>that one to save it's sorry ass.
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.