smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Sager, Greg" <greg.sager@bankofamerica.com> |
| Subject | Re: what you wish for |
| Date | Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:30:25 -0500 |
[Part 1 text/plain (3.3 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
> From: kcronin <fiatluxury@yahoo.com>
> To: audities@smoe.org
> Subject: Re: what you wish for
> Message-ID: <20030425215014.92662.qmail@web21405.mail.yahoo.com>
>
> So you are content that power pop is not popular,
> > because it would upset
> > your world as a power pop fan.
>
> I don't actually think Greg was saying that: I think
> he's just pointing out what is an quirk of lots of
> under-the-radar-music fans I know: that they
> reflexively like it less if lots of people like it.
>
Exactly. Speaking for myself, a mass-market power pop revival
wouldn't burn my cookies one bit. But I know lots of music devotees (some of
them Auditeers) who live by that inverse popularity-to-acceptability ratio,
whether they own up to it or not.
>
> That's not to say it's correct, but I don't think one
> can deny it happens. And it seems to happen a lot on
> here - see kyle vincent argument, but please leave it
> dead - whether that's more than in other niche genres
> or not I couldn't tell you.
>
I think that it's most prevalent among punkers, because punk's
original DIY ethic was almost an article of faith. Major labels were
strictly verboten in old-school punk. Plus, punk in its classic form was
opposed to the masses. A lot of the punk ethos has to do with alienation --
and how are you going to be alienated if everyone else is alienated, too?
> ...if p pop were big,
> > maybe some of the better
> > current p pop cult artists would actually make some
> > money, enough to stay in
> > the business, quit the day jobs, stay together, make
> > better work more often,
> > grow and evolve, afford more time in better studios
> > with a higher level of
> > production, engineering, talent - now wouldn't THAT
> > be great?
>
> maybe, though i don't necessarily equate more money or
> a better PR push with better music...what if they make
> some money, quit the day jobs, lose touch with their
> fans, start to kowtow to major league requirements,
> become dissolute and unimaginative and churn out the
> same record for the next 20 years? Essentially I
> agree with you here, but I don't think you can
> generalize TOO too much about the quality of what
> might come down the pike...I don't know if it wouldn't
> just water it down a bit.
>
Kelly makes a great point. There are always tradeoffs involved in
the music industry in terms of moving up the money ladder. Bigger deals with
bigger labels mean that artists get more financial reward for their efforts,
more studio time and with better equipment, tour support, radio and
promotional access, etc. And I think it'd be great if some of the acts in
the power pop underground got that, because, like Dave Seaman, I also
wouldn't mind feeling a little more connected to the musical zeitgeist at
times, and I would like to see the cult artists favored by Auditeers not
have their creative efforts be crippled by a lack of access to money or
distribution (as Jeff Tolle cited, re: Mitch Easter). But the tradeoff is
that more money invested in the artist means more hands on the tiller.
Bigger labels mean more outside demands placed upon the artist in terms of
content, which can be just as debilitating to the artistic vision as the
other drawbacks Kelly mentioned.
Gregory Sager
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.