Is that not just part of the common reaction of people not enjoying the newer music as much as what they grew up on?

That's quite possible, though one must also note that rap, metal, and hiphop are intrinsically terrible.

I don't believe so.

Which current artists from this millennia will be touring in 30 years, like Aerosmith, Metallica, Megadeth, Bon Jovi, ZZ Top and up until recently, the Eagles? Or AC/DC, Guns 'N' Roses, Billy Joel, Elton John, U2, The Rolling Stones? Tom Petty, Paul McCartney, Fleetwood Mac?

There are dozens and dozens, if not scores, of Legacy acts from the 60's, 70's and 80's that continue to sell out amphitheaters, arenas and even stadiums.

Which artists borne of this millennia will follow suit?

[QUOTE=DaneMcCloud;12284809]We'll have to agree to disagree. I find very little of this millennia's popular music, whether it's rap, hip hop, pop, rock, country and even metal, appealing in any way.

/QUOTE]

I mostly agree with this. I grew up with bands that spent months even years writing and producing richly textured music that meant something. Now days you have "artist" recording "music" into their computer, using a program to "mix" it and then releasing it the same day. :rolleyes:

Probably none. I think perhaps Taylor Swift can sustain though as she releases a lot of music and seems to have a pretty wide age range of people who like her music.

Personally I don't find the current music very appealing either, but musicians these days come and go so quickly and there is just so much more variety and options to be consumed than ever before (I think). The question I would have though, is the reason musicians come and go quickly and are not likely to be long lasting bands because of a lack of talent and creativity or because of how quickly trends change and how the current culture is much more geared towards the newest, regardless of quality?

I think it could also point to the democratization of content that was discussed in some other related thread. In "the old days" you fought to get to the top of the mountain, and once you were there you got lots of national attention and legions of fans.

Today there are a few people atop mountains, but for the most part bands are climbing atop small mounds of earth to be seen by niched groups of fans. They may simply not have the scale to be touring 20 years from now.

This one:

From my perspective, either an artist finds an audience or they don't.

What you're describing is what we "Disposable Music". Here today, gone tomorrow. And while music history is littered with "One Hit Wonders", that's occurring at a much higher rate this Millennia.

In my opinion, it's because of many issues, the most important of which is due to lack of artist development. Back in the day, record companies and publishers would often spend years developing a band's sound. The Producer was a very important component of that but so were band managers, A&R reps and even record company presidents like Doug Morris and Ahmet Ertegun. People were helped by professional songwriters and professional studio musicians. There was a massive amount of nurturing going on.

Today, that doesn't exist. Producers/Songwriters act as the Production Company, sign a "hot" artist, compose and produce the music for them, the package it to a record company. The label picks the best track to promote and if it doesn't fly, the Artist is dropped. But the Producer/Songwriter has already made his/her dough so they move on the next "Big Thing".

Bands are rarely given support. Sales are practically non-existent so budgets are crunched. It's fairly rare that a label will hire an Independent Promoter, someone who hits all the pertinent radio stations with the band in tow to do radio appearances, in-stores, signings, etc for a brand new act.

As Halfcan mentioned, people are producing records in their home and thus, most of what we hear on Pop radio is driven by computerized versions of classic drum machines and synths. It's pretty rare to hear a killer guitar tone with awesome sounding drums and vocals in a new band on the radio. That's become niche.

And I'm not even stating that people are less talented but they're not given the same opportunity to develop into a great artist because the attentions span has become extremely short and budgets have become extremely limited.

It's a Catch 22.

How ever much it ends up being, good for them. Deserve every penny.


I may be old
But I've seen
all the great
BANDS....:harumph:

I'm not a big fan of new music myself, but I can see several having 30+ year careers. Several are already in the 10-15 year range. Carrie Underwood, Pink, Katy Perry just off the top of my head.

Songwriters and Artists have never, ever received a "Lion's Share" of the revenue generated by album sales and publishing. As I've previously mentioned, 14% of retail selling price along with anywhere from 2 cents to 9 cents per song (before the Publisher's 25%-50% take) would not be considered a "Lion's Share" but it was certainly more money than anyone earns from Streaming.

As I mentioned earlier, Album sales and Performance Income are waaaaaaaaaay down and have been replaced by streaming. If streaming didn't exist, an Artist/Songwriter would receive approximately 20 cents per song per sale. Instead, they're receiving .0002-.0004 per stream, with albums sales not in the hundreds of thousands or millions but in five digit and low six digits.

With that said, to answer your question, yes, I think the quality of songwriter and artists would increase if streaming wouldn't exist or would pay as much as the traditional model because budgets would increase, collaboration between A&R, Producers, Mixers, Songwriters and Performers would increase.

Everyone involved would be given a longer leash, leading to meaningful development, which of course would lead to higher quality and better overall music.

There are a few, for sure but I doubt we'll see 50 or more acts capable of selling out amphitheaters, arenas and stadiums tour after tour after tour for the next 30-40 years as we do with so many legacy acts.

An accountant testified Tuesday that Page and Plant have received a combined $1 million in "Stairway" gross revenues since 2011. An executive for record label Rhino Entertainment Co. said the song brought in $3 million in sales and netted $868,000 in that period.

Jury deliberating after Led Zeppelin's Robert Plant says he doesn't remember band's early days

Jurors could rewrite a key chapter of rock 'n' roll history as they deliberate whether Led Zeppelin's Jimmy Page and Robert Plant lifted a riff from fellow rockers for its epic "Stairway to Heaven."

Federal court jurors deliberated for several hours in Los Angeles on Wednesday after closing arguments were completed, but they did not reach a verdict. They're scheduled to resume Thursday.

The trust for Randy Wolfe is seeking millions of dollars and a third of the songwriting credit for "Stairway," which it claims the band took from "Taurus," released by Wolfe's band Spirit in 1968.

A lawyer representing the trust of a deceased songwriter criticized members of Led Zeppelin for selective memories and convenient truths in testifying about the origin of Page's acoustic guitar opening of the 1971 rock anthem.

Plant, whose memory of creating "Stairway" was clear, claimed to recall very few encounters dating back to the band's early days.

Plant told a packed courtroom that he did not remember hanging out with members of the band Spirit after the American band played a Birmingham, England, show in 1970, though he said he and his wife were in a bad car wreck and he has no memory of the evening.

"I don't have a recollection of mostly anyone I've hung out with," Plant said as the courtroom roared with laughter. "In the chaos and hubbub, how are you going to remember one guy when you haven't seen him for 40 years."

Spirit's former bass player had testified to drinking beers with Plant and playing the billiards-like game snooker after a show at Mother's Club in 1970.

"He didn't tell you where he got the idea for the introduction," attorney Francis Malofiy said in his closing argument in federal court in Los Angeles. "It was a piece of music lifted from 'Taurus.'"

Led Zeppelin's lawyer, however, said the trust didn't own the copyright and the passage in question was a common descending chord sequence in the public domain.

Attorney Peter Anderson also said the plaintiff failed to prove a case that should have been brought more than 40 years ago when Wolfe was alive and Page and Plant would have had better memories.

"How can you wait a half century and criticize people ... 45 years later for the delay you caused?" Anderson said. "They should have sued in 1972."

If the jury finds that the "Taurus" copyright was violated, jurors would have a wide range of damages to consider.

An expert for estate trustee Michael Skidmore, said Led Zeppelin work that included "Stairway" earned gross revenues of nearly $60 million in the past five years. Some of that work, however, included other songs and could be part of a 2008 deal that's outside the statute of limitations.

Defense experts offered much smaller figures focused solely on revenues from the song in its many forms — as a digital download, ringtones, streaming and as a fraction of multiple albums.

A British accountant testified Tuesday that the gross revenues Page and Plant received from "Stairway" during that time period amounted to just over $1 million.

An executive for Led Zeppelin's label, Rhino Entertainment Co., said the song earned $3 million in revenue and a net profit of $868,000 since 2011.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...ml?intcmp=hpff