smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Seaman, Dave" <seamand@upmc.edu> |
| Subject | too much and or not enough |
| Date | Fri, 11 May 2007 14:09:31 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain us-ascii (3.1 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
<<<It does kinda seem like that nowadays with the number of bands out
there
available 24/7 on a million web sites - I know I can't keep up anymore.
I
think the cost of entry into the profession of being a recording
musician
has dropped too low. To use another fun analogy - it's like the sport
of
billiards - you can call yourself a player and all you need to prove it
is a
dive bar and some quarters. But try that with hockey! - or formula
one!>>>
I often think the same thing - seems like there are far too many people
out there playing music for me to get a handle on. In the 70s and 80s I
felt like I was able to listen to and grow to appreciate most releases
by most of the acts that played in styles that appealed to me. Now that
the digital revolution has made it possible for just about anyone to
record a collection of songs and get it out there for people to hear, it
seems like there are far too many doing it for me to even nearly keep
up. Also, it's difficult for me to grow with artists, because the
record companies don't often develop new artists like they did in the
past -- most bands put out one or two records, tank, divide and reform
with different bands, rename, reform and or just plain hang it up. It
gets confusing. (Thank goodness this list exists to help me!)
And the quality control is another issue. In the heyday of the major
labels, the record companies separated a lot of wheat from the chaff.
Nowadays, we have a lot more mediocrity and crap in circulation - which
is a bad thing... but on the flip side: the little guy who was ignored
by the labels, but is actually really good, now has an avenue to get
his/her work out there - which is a good thing. I'm not saying that the
old days are better than now, or visa versa - just making my own little
observation.
So this all makes me think about the period of the 60s thru the mid-90s
( i.e. the period from the start of the rock and roll boom years to the
time when digital all but buried vinyl) (?), and how it relates to the
periods before and after it - the current age, the early 20th century,
the big band era... basically every musical era back to the start of
recorded music. I wonder how the percentage of the western population
who have released professional product compares between eras. Likewise,
what percentage of the general public are/were musicians who make or
made a living on music? What is the number of releases per year in
relation to the overall census? Is the market oversaturated now, or is
it just my perception? What percentage of the average person's income
went/goes towards music? How rich or poor are/were musicians in each of
these periods? ...Record industry people?
A comparison like this would probably be difficult if not impossible to
construct - but it would certainly be interesting to see, at least to
me. Although it's my tendency to think that all musicians in the
current era (except for the rich buggers in the top .000001 percent) are
vastly underpaid, maybe history would show that musicians have always
been vastly underpaid and probably will always be vastly underpaid...
Dave
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.