Old music is outselling new music for the first time in history
Despite the massive success of Adele's album
25, which
sold a whopping 7.4 million copies in only six weeks, 2015 marked the first time in U.S. history that new releases were outsold by catalogue albums. Seems like everyone's been feeling extra nostalgic lately.
http://www.chartattack.com/news/2016/01/...n-history/
That's because modern music is terrible.
Quote:That's because modern music is terrible.
Oh don't start that circle jerk.
Quote:Oh don't start that circle jerk.
Once they started letting that Elvis guy wiggle his vulgar hips it's never been the same.
Younger listeners don't buy music the same way young listeners bought music 30-40 years ago.
That being said, it's not wrong that most new music doesn't stand up to music in the past.
Quote:That's because modern music is terrible.
Though, to be fair, the article states
catalogue music ("old music" according to the title) to be anything over 18 months.
So technically modern music would still be in the "old music" category
How do rhythmic chants and heavy beats compare to tonal harmonics accompanied by melodious instrumentals? In my humble opinion, modern music is more of a heavily defined structural arrangement than true artistry. The fact that people become semi-celebrities and make decent money as DJs indicates to me actual music virtuosity is waning. Or at least its appreciation.
I have not one artistic bone in my body so take it as you wish.
Quote:That's because modern music is terrible.
There's still a lot of good stuff out there. Stay away from the radio and you'll find it. That's the main reason I think old stuff sells better. It is harder to find the good artists and musicians when so many are in tune with the mainstream of culture.
If there was more of an effort to focus on talent at a level like Adele, Amy Winehouse, Gary Clark jr. etc. instead of pushing pop group after pop group, the music industry would move back into an era where albums become indispensable, as opposed to something catchy that loses its shine after a few weeks.
That being said, I like some pop music, it just doesn't have lasting power.
Quote:That's because modern music is terrible.
Careful. There was terrible music then and there's terrible music now but that doesn't mean there weren't great artists whatever the era. The problem today is that music has become so commoditized that the artists don't have nearly the incentive they used to (unless they're like in the upper 1%) and to get there they usually (not always) have to compromise their art.
When people say "music sucked in [insert era here]" what they usually mean is that they have a limited appreciation for music in general.
Quote:Though, to be fair, the article states catalogue music ("old music" according to the title) to be anything over 18 months.
So technically modern music would still be in the "old music" category
On top of that old music is a lot easier to find now thanks to the internet. In the days of record stores, even if you could remember that song you heard twice in the summer 73 there was virtually no chance of finding it in the store because there's a good chance it's out of print and even if it wasn't, the stores only had a limited stock. With digital purchases through Amazon or iTunes you can find and buy songs like that with minimal effort.
Most of the good artists are in-between albums right now.
Quote:Careful. There was terrible music then and there's terrible music now but that doesn't mean there weren't great artists whatever the era. The problem today is that music has become so commoditized that the artists don't have nearly the incentive they used to (unless they're like in the upper 1%) and to get there they usually (not always) have to compromise their art.
When people say "music sucked in [insert era here]" what they usually mean is that they have a limited appreciation for music in general.
And this is referencing to things that are considered "mainstream" too. I've found a plethora of amazing artists that you won't find on tops hits. And even with that, there are plenty of artists that certainly have maximized their moment to shine.
To name a few that I would consider true artists of this generation are: Phillip Phillips, Allen Stone, Bruno Mars, Adele, Coldplay, Tor Kvammen, Matt Henry, Sarah Simmons, Julie Ervick, etc. Andrew MchMahan, Alt-J, and Arcade Fire are really good bands to boot as well. Personally that's my kinda vibe when it comes to music and I think that's what it is. People are all going to differ in music and their personal tastes and preferences. There's nothing wrong with a little Jimi, Janis, or Led in the mix either.
Quote:That's because modern music is terrible.
There are many songs being played today that debuted 30, 40 years ago and are considered classic music, just good old fashioned music that's great to listen to.
How much of today's modern music will still be getting played in the next 30 to 40 years?
Quote:There are many songs being played today that debuted 30, 40 years ago and are considered classic music, just good old fashioned music that's great to listen to.
How much of today's modern music will still be getting played in the next 30 to 40 years?
But you see, that's the same thing they were saying 30 and 40 years ago. I can remember my parents saying that groups like The Beatles and Stones were just a fad that would quickly fade away. On the other hand, 40 years ago you also had artists like Terry Jacks and Starland Vocal Band. It's all about perspective.
Quote:Younger listeners don't buy music the same way young listeners bought music 30-40 years ago.
That being said, it's not wrong that most new music doesn't stand up to music in the past.
Younger listeners don't actually pay for their music most of the time. They stream it, or they download it off sites for free. My daughter subscribes to one of the premium sites to get the new music streamed. Occasionally she'll buy a song, but it's rare these days.
The more mature audiophiles tend to actually buy music because that's what people do. I can't tell you the last time I actually bought a CD from a store. It's been a few years. I have thought about snapping up vinyl while it's trending back into popularity though.
My wife worked in the music business for years, and that's the direction they've been taking it over the past couple of years. People want the vinyl, and if you look at sales, the albums they're buying actually go back to the vinyl age in the majority of cases. Go into an old music stores like FYE and they're ditching shelf space once designated for CDs and putting album racks in. People will download the music electronically, but there's something about buying an album that still appeals. I've got an old turntable and a lot of old vinyl boxed up in a closet that I've been tempted to pull out of there, but I ditched the high end stereo system years ago for a set up that works with the TV and doesn't require giant tower speakers. I'd have to go out and reinvest in stereo equipment just to enjoy records again.
Of course, music retail has really bottomed out in the age of the digital download. That's why stores like Sam Goody and Record Bar have all disappeared, and the companies that still remain have had to rebrand themselves to include movies, games, more tee shirts, and crappy collectibles like you'd see at Spencers or Hot Topic.
Quote:But you see, that's the same thing they were saying 30 and 40 years ago. I can remember my parents saying that groups like The Beatles and Stones were just a fad that would quickly fade away. On the other hand, 40 years ago you also had artists like Terry Jacks and Starland Vocal Band. It's all about perspective.
Yeah, I don't think it's the quality of the music that's driving down sales of new music. I think it's the accessibility through a variety of means that is doing that. When you can buy premium streaming services for $10 a month to listen to new music non-stop and commercial free, that's where the market is heading. The music industry needs to figure out how to monetize that for the artists.
Quote:Younger listeners don't actually pay for their music most of the time. They stream it, or they download it off sites for free. My daughter subscribes to one of the premium sites to get the new music streamed. Occasionally she'll buy a song, but it's rare these days.
Screw those sites. Give me vinyl-quality lossless, not that hot mastered crap, or keep your damn music to yourself, Internet.
Quote:Yeah, I don't think it's the quality of the music that's driving down sales of new music. I think it's the accessibility through a variety of means that is doing that. When you can buy premium streaming services for $10 a month to listen to new music non-stop and commercial free, that's where the market is heading. The music industry needs to figure out how to monetize that for the artists.
Agreed. To be honest, if I'd had that option back in the day, I would have definitely gone the streaming route. As it was, I'd line a tape recorder up next to the radio speaker and press "record" when the DJ stopped talking.
That and the Columbia Record and Tape club is how I got most of my music back then.