Which is what your father said and his father before him and his father before him etc etc. You're a caricature.

 

When I look at pictures of my dad with his long hair and leather trousers going to rock concerts in the 70s and 80s, you can usually see him hanging around with a bunch of other men with long hair and leather trousers. When I look at pictures of my aunt in her punk days, she is usually hanging around with a bunch of people wearing a lot of denim with their hair dyed silly colors. Maybe each one of the men in leather trousers and each one of my aunts punk friends independently decided on their own that this look was ideal for them and set about creating their own style, only to discover, that shock horror, hundreds of thousands of other teens had made the exact same discovery.

 

Or maybe just like every other generation of humans they have had strong biological need brought on by millions of years of evolution to find a pack, blend in and assimilate. If you were different, well done you.

 

In those generations there actually were options to choose from in mainstream music genres, - hard rock, pop, dance, metal, punk, soft rock, alternative, disco, prog rock, R & B, rap, blues, hip hop, new wave, jazz, even some new age....

 

There was large numbers of people who would listen to many of those different genres, and songs from all of those genres became big. Variety. It was a great time for popular music. 

 

Nowadays, its mainly either hip hop, rap, dance, or growl metal. and thats pretty much it. Anything else is seen as "uncool" or corny by the sheep in that generation. 

---

In those generations there actually were options to choose from in mainstream music genres, - hard rock, pop, dance, metal, punk, soft rock, alternative, disco, prog rock, R & B, rap, blues, hip hop, new wave, jazz, even some new age....

 

There was large numbers of people who would listen to many of those different genres, and songs from all of those genres became big. Variety. It was a great time for popular music. 

 

Nowadays, its mainly either hip hop, rap, dance, or growl metal. and thats pretty much it. Anything else is seen as "uncool" or corny by the sheep in that generation. 

 

As its not aimed at you, I suspect you have no idea how many different options kids of today have when deciding what genre of music to like or what fashions to follow. Are you an expect on current hip hop trends? Do you know whats going on in the 'growl metal' world? I'm 29 and I don't have a clue.

---

Just to be different, Bortles.

As its not aimed at you, I suspect you have no idea how many different options kids of today have when deciding what genre of music to like or what fashions to follow. Are you an expect on current hip hop trends? Do you know whats going on in the 'growl metal' world? I'm 29 and I don't have a clue.

 

I'm the father of a 16 year old who holds a high level of disdain for the manufactured pop music that grinds out the Bieber type "artists".  The options she has at her disposal on a daily basis run the gamut.  She has just as many, if not more options to chose from musically than I did when I was her age. 

 

Like her, I was never a fan of the top 40 stuff.  She'll like a band all the way up to the point where they start getting a lot of air play on the radio.  Some bands endure, but once they start becoming popular with the kids at school, she's usually moving on to the next thing.  From hip hop to Indie, and all points in between, I hear it all.  I've been dragged to Skrillex concerts, and I've had to endure death growl metal (awful stuff).  She will listen to alt rock, punk, and even some "oldies" from the 80's and 90's.  The kid's musical interests are all over the place, probably because she grew up in a house where there's a wide variety of options.  She's definitely expanded our catalog considerably.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I still prefer purchasing a physical CD over some online crap that can be merely erased and lost. Yes, I know you back up your music or whatever, but with the physical CD thats the hard copy. No worries there, unless you actually scratch it or something. 

 

Plus, you also get the liner notes and lyrics and stuff. 

 

You sound like you are very old and fear change... lol

 

That aside. If you buy music from Amazon or Apple or Google Play it cant be erased. The purchase is stored in your account. I would argue ditigial music purchases are a much more stable and secure medium for content than losable, stealable, destroyable physical media.

---

You sound like you are very old and fear change... lol

 

That aside. If you buy music from Amazon or Apple or Google Play it cant be erased. The purchase is stored in your account. I would argue ditigial music purchases are a much more stable and secure medium for content than losable, stealable, destroyable physical media.

 

Plus, if you use one of the cloud services, you can get to your music anywhere without having to have it on your wireless device.

 

I put all of my music out on the cloud, whether I bought it from iTunes or not.  Whether it's off CD or album, I'll put a copy out on the cloud so I can access it easily.  Keeps the clutter to a minimum in the vehicle, at the office, or on the bike.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

You sound like you are very old and fear change... lol

 

That aside. If you buy music from Amazon or Apple or Google Play it cant be erased. The purchase is stored in your account. I would argue ditigial music purchases are a much more stable and secure medium for content than losable, stealable, destroyable physical media.

 

Not very old at all. 

 

Fear change? I wouldn't say that. Just appreciated all the different choices and quality of music there was in mainstream when I was younger. 

---

You also get the liner notes in a pdf file usually.  I can't own a CD.  If I even look at one it will instantly break into a hundred pieces.

---

Not very old at all. 

 

Fear change? I wouldn't say that. Just appreciated all the different choices and quality of music there was in mainstream when I was younger. 

What I quoted had nothing to do with the music itself. I quoted your comment about online crap.

---

Plus, if you use one of the cloud services, you can get to your music anywhere without having to have it on your wireless device.

 

I put all of my music out on the cloud, whether I bought it from iTunes or not.  Whether it's off CD or album, I'll put a copy out on the cloud so I can access it easily.  Keeps the clutter to a minimum in the vehicle, at the office, or on the bike.

I do the same thing. All my old physical CD's have been uploaded to Google Music. And I have a handfull download to my phone and tablet and the ones I don't I stream. I like not have a giant CD album in my car nor have CD cases just lying around everywhere. The quality is fantastic... Not sure I can personaly hear it being better but I believe the bitrate on digital mp3's is much higher than what ever came on CD. I could be wrong but I believe that is the case

---

Not very old at all. 

 

Fear change? I wouldn't say that. Just appreciated all the different choices and quality of music there was in mainstream when I was younger. 

 

You do know the music you listened to when you were younger is still available for people to discover and buy today and is more easily and freely accessible than ever don't you?

---

Just to be different, Bortles.

This is a complete and total non-story. (sorry Drifter)

 

The article is referring to physical copies.  Not downloads.  (or pandora/spotify plays)  

 

Almost no one buys physical copies anymore.  This is an industry-wide issue. Not only pop music.  Physical sales are down across the board in every genre, style, period, whatever.

 

It sucks for musicians because so many people use pandora or spotify or a similar digital service and they get away with paying a fraction of what they should in terms of royalties.  

 

Example:  A good friend co-wrote a song on an Amy Winehouse record. His quarterly check from downloads is still several hundred dollars.  His check recently from pandora?   $9.72

Yup.

 

Pop music's still popular.  CDs aren't though, especially amongst teenagers.

---

This is a complete and total non-story. (sorry Drifter)

 

The article is referring to physical copies.  Not downloads.  (or pandora/spotify plays)  

 

Almost no one buys physical copies anymore.  This is an industry-wide issue. Not only pop music.  Physical sales are down across the board in every genre, style, period, whatever.

 

It sucks for musicians because so many people use pandora or spotify or a similar digital service and they get away with paying a fraction of what they should in terms of royalties.  

 

Example:  A good friend co-wrote a song on an Amy Winehouse record. His quarterly check from downloads is still several hundred dollars.  His check recently from pandora?   $9.72

 

This is why I don't 'download' music anymore.  I buy from Amazon even though I could get it by other means.  My son is an aspiring musician and I see how much work him and his band mates put into writing and performing a song.  It opened my eyes to the outright theft of musician's efforts and the realization that most people who take music give it no thought but would pitch holy hell if they worked a day and were paid nothing.  

---

I still buy CDs, because I like to get the cover and liner notes.  I also get a digital "copy", because I buy them from Amazon.  So, I get both.  But I don't but tons of music anymore, anyway.

---

This is a complete and total non-story. (sorry Drifter)

 

The article is referring to physical copies.  Not downloads.  (or pandora/spotify plays)  

 

Almost no one buys physical copies anymore.  This is an industry-wide issue. Not only pop music.  Physical sales are down across the board in every genre, style, period, whatever.

 

It sucks for musicians because so many people use pandora or spotify or a similar digital service and they get away with paying a fraction of what they should in terms of royalties.  

 

Example:  A good friend co-wrote a song on an Amy Winehouse record. His quarterly check from downloads is still several hundred dollars.  His check recently from pandora?   $9.72

 

That's pretty awful. I remember reading something about the pandora's and spotify's and how they were screwing over the artists like that.

---

This is a complete and total non-story. (sorry Drifter)

 

The article is referring to physical copies.  Not downloads.  (or pandora/spotify plays)  

 

Almost no one buys physical copies anymore.  This is an industry-wide issue. Not only pop music.  Physical sales are down across the board in every genre, style, period, whatever.

 

It sucks for musicians because so many people use pandora or spotify or a similar digital service and they get away with paying a fraction of what they should in terms of royalties.  

 

Example:  A good friend co-wrote a song on an Amy Winehouse record. His quarterly check from downloads is still several hundred dollars.  His check recently from pandora?   $9.72

 

Anymore, it seems that musicians bread and butter is playing live.  There's no way for anybody to download that experience.  It's like you do an album in hopes of attracting people to see you live. 

---

That's pretty awful. I remember reading something about the pandora's and spotify's and how they were screwing over the artists like that.

http://www.mtv.com/news/1453754/online-r...ty-debate/

 

 

It's a very hot topic in my field these days.  

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'freight-sans-pro';font-size:19px;">The war over online royalty rates is grounded in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act passed in 1998. It essentially states that when a song gets played over the Web, both labels and artists should get paid. This creates an additional expense for Net stations, since they, like conventional radio stations, were already paying a royalty rate to publishing organizations like ASCAP and BMI. Terrestrial stations do not pay anything directly to labels and artists.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'freight-sans-pro';font-size:19px;">One of the few things online broadcasters and their adversaries, the labels and artists, agree on is that they don’t agree with the CARP’s proposed rate. While the broadcasters view the rate as too high, the labels and artists think it’s too low.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'freight-sans-pro';font-size:19px;">An alternate petition is being offered by SoundExchange, an organization composed of industry executives and artists that counts among its boardmembers Aimee Mann, Recording Industry Association of America President Hilary Rosen and former Recording Academy President Michael Greene. SoundExchange’s form letter to Congress reads in part:

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'freight-sans-pro';font-size:19px;">“Congress should not interfere with the results of the CARP process, which Congress established to set the royalty rate. … I ask you to oppose any attempts by the webcasters and broadcasters to persuade Congress to interfere with that arbitration — and in particular to Arbitron’s request for a congressionally imposed moratorium on the new royalty.”

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'freight-sans-pro';font-size:19px;">The letter also claims several points raised by webcasters are exaggerations. One of its main points is that webcasters and broadcasters pay for all their other operating costs, such as bandwidth, marketing, personnel and software, so why should their content be viewed any differently. It also blasts webcasters for overstating the royalties they would be required to pay by basing projections on audience sizes they don’t actually have.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'freight-sans-pro';font-size:19px;">The U.S. Copyright Office, which appoints members to CARP, is expected to vote on the proposed rate by May 21.

 

---

That's pretty awful. I remember reading something about the pandora's and spotify's and how they were screwing over the artists like that.

The market will always find a way to change. There are also advantages for musicians today like making music extremely accessible and being able to buy without leaving your home.

---

The market will always find a way to change. There are also advantages for musicians today like making music extremely accessible and being able to buy without leaving your home.

 

Exactly.  Accessibility is far better today for bands than it was a decade ago.  A friend of my daughter's has an Indy band that plays a lot of gigs in the region, from Jacksonville down to Tampa.  They're not bad at all.  They have enough original tracks that they've put together an EP and uploaded video to YouTube of live footage. 

 

The exposure they got from the videos actually helped them to get their EP out on iTunes.  The combination has allowed these kids to pick up additional gigs, and to develop a nice following. Amazingly, they're actually making a little bit of money from this endeavor with a self published EP and a little bit of savvy.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Anymore, it seems that musicians bread and butter is playing live.  There's no way for anybody to download that experience.  It's like you do an album in hopes of attracting people to see you live. 

Unfortunately true.   (Only because of the time away from home and family.) I know of a number of bands that are playing 100+ shows per year and spending more time touring than at home lately. 

Heck - I've got 34 out of town shows between May 24 and August 4.  

---

By the way, I've never much understood why people download music illegally for free.  It seems to that if you enjoy the music a band or person creates, wouldn't you be interested in them creating more?  And if so, doesn't that seemed better served by purchasing their music, rather than stealing it? 

---