Has The Advent Of Video Clips Killed Musical Talent?

[Digger]

G'day Boys & Girls,

 

Now I'm not intending to be controversial but am interested in your opinions, and no doubt they will be varied.

 

Being an old fart that who is locked into the 60's and 70's musically, I contend that since the advent of video clips, the quality of music has constantly declined. Obviously there will be many exceptions, and music being so subjective there will be many differences based on taste, or based on the generation that you grew up in. There are no wrong opinions, just different ones

 

I am interested in our ideas whether you agree with me or not.

 

Dig

[daneman]

Did video kill the radio star? I dunno. Now you can see what they're playing,maybe even learn something from them.

[Parabar]

I think it's a little more complex than that, but I agree that MTV/music video has had a detrimental effect on the quality of music that gets mass exposure. The visual component became much more important than the sound, and consequently, only the young and "beautiful" (or the archetypally tattooed, pierced or attitudinal) are considered saleable. As Simon Cowell said on an early episode of American Idol, in today's market Aretha Franklin would not be given a contract, because how you look is more important than how you sound or what you have to say. Shocking and repulsive, but very probably true.

 

But many other factors play a part. The concentration of media ownership, with just a few mega-corporations owning all the record companies, radio stations AND the print media that write about music, is a huge factor --- so anyone who relies on mass media is only going to hear about the artists being pimped by the machine. Fragmentation of radio and TV stations into niche markets is another big one. In the 60's, you heard the Beatles, Motown, James Brown, Frank Sinatra, Burt Bacharach, surf music, soul, country, even some jazz all on the same station, so no matter what your favorite music was, you were exposed to other styles too. Now if you favor hip-hop, metal, emo or whatever else, it's very easy to avoid hearing anything else, which tends to keep listeners in their comfort zones rather than exposing them to something new and fresh --- which they just might like if given a chance.

 

There's also the reality that this is a different time. Those of us who came of age in the 60's and 70's had music as a unifying force. It was profoundly important to us in ways that are not true in the same way for young people today. I can remember summer days when a bike ride through my town would inevitably pass three or four houses with budding young bands playing in the garages --- now it's rare to hear one at all, and when I do it's more likely to be middle-aged guys than teenagers. A new album release by a major artist was an Event --- we'd all gather at each other's houses to listen together, study the album art, talk about what the music meant to us, what the artist was trying to communicate, etc. In the San Francisco Bay Area every town had at least one club that had live music, featuring local bands and touring artists, so local musicians could actually survive by performing. No more. There are few venues that hire local musicians --- and there aren't many people who come out to see them perform anymore. The few places left are either paying the same number of dollars per night that they did in the 70's, or charge bands to play there, with the bands responsible for selling their own tickets to make any money.

 

At the same time, I would submit that there is more good music of every style available today than ever before --- there's just a lot more crap to wade through to find it, and the burden is now on the listener to seek out the new and the worthy, because you probably ain't gonna hear it on the radio. Technology has made it possible for musicians to produce really good-sounding recordings at their home studios all over the world, and the Internet has made it possible to listen to samples, buy CD's and download songs directly from artists (or through sites like CD Baby) without the promotional mechanisms of the big record companies and radio stations. The hard part is finding the good stuff (whatever "the good stuff" is to you), because a band in Chicago or Chile or the Czech Republic may have something that would knock your socks off, but you won't even know they exist unless you go looking for them.

[daneman]

I stand corrected. And can I say Parabar,that was eloquent and informative,and I agree completely with your viewpoint.

D-

[slagg]

"rock is dead.long live rock be it dead or alive"(the WHO).you cannot kill the music but you can kill the artist.i don't think the artist gets his due in today's world.record co's. don't like to spend and too many people downloading the stuff for free.it was hard to be back in the early day's now its a flash in the pan and your gone.i think stuff like american idol has destroyed just about all of it.THANKS SIMMON!***,anything for a buck

[PP_CS336]

Parabar, as Daneman said (after he stood corrected...must be all that beer he's been drinkin' tonight after a hard work week in the Corporate world. LOL!!! Hey Daneman, you know I love you), you hit the nail on the head. In today's world, any Joe-Smoe with some technical savy (may not be the greatest musician) can load his computer with the latest/greatest music software and cut his/her own Indie and put it out on the web. Yeh, and there's a lot of stuff to sort through before you find a golden nugget. I'm a musical product of the 60's-70's myself (I had an older brother and sister so I got to hear the 50's stuff, too). Yeh, I remember, too, when I was in Jr. High and High School that when one of our faves new album came out it was like a total digestion. The music of the 60's (Beatles, Stones, Byrds, Bob Dylan, the Animals, Kinks, Who, Jimi Hendrix, Cream, Early Grand Funk Railroad, Simon & Garfunkel, the Doors, etc....just to name a few) was not just for listening. It was a whole social commentary, lifestyle, etc. As you said, not only the music, but the album cover design, posters, what the lyrics were saying and how the f**k are they getting that sound? Remember the whole Psychedelic era ("I Had Too Much To Dream Last Night"- Electric Prunes). I could go on and on. But as you said, you could go by houses and hear teenagers in garage bands trying to emulate the sounds of their Rock idols (I know I was one of them). In fact I'm still doing it today. I have some friends with whom we've put together a band playing the soundsof the 60's Garage, Rock, Pyschedlic, and Surf music. As you mentioned, clubs don't pay any more today than they did when we were first playing out and dreaming of becoming the next Rock Stars. But today we do it just for fun. We play some good music, drink some good beer, make a few bucks and go back home knowing that the corporate world we work in all week doesn't totally have us spun in the web they weave. They use us to make their millions and we use them to make the money to buy the toys that keep us happy, like guitars. I may not wave my freak flag any more, but I have not put up the white flag of surrender to the corporate moguls. When it's all said and done, without music, this would be one, big boring world. And like life, you have to have variety in music to give it spice. Not everyone likes the same thing.

[volt1281734017]

I think that video clips can improve the quality of the musician, or at least make it easier to learn some aspects of playing. Nothing like being able to watch an expert musician playing. I have learned a few new things by watching some professional and even some non professional guitarists.

 

As far as the quality of music allegedly declining, it's all been done. If you've ever tried to song write, it's very very difficult to come up with something new. Many times I thought I had a good original song on my hands only to realize that so-and-so had already done the same melody.

However, there have been a bazillion 1-4-5 progressions over the years and all that was changed was the artist and the lyrics.

[Digger]

Thanks Fella's,

 

Some very thoughtful and articulate replies....I was wondering if it is just me.

 

Like you music has had a profound effect on my life and certain songs seem to punctuate different periods in your life and to stick in your mind associatiating specific music with a time and place.

 

Give you an example, 1969 South Vietnam, The Animals hit "We Gotta Get Outta This Place".....thanks for finding the word Eric, they were spot on!

 

Thank you all again for offering your opinions.

 

Dig

[Insideout]

I guess I kind of see it as an evolution. I totally agree that when music video's first started coming out and all through the 80's it really seemed like the focus was on the "statement" of what the video was showing, and less focus on it actually being a good song. I think however, that it has definitely started shifting back. In the 80's, in order to be a rock star, you had to have "the look". Skinny, long hair, no facial hair, spandex etc. But look at what the grunge movement has done. You got guys who are fat, skinny, long hair, short hair, clean shaved, or any kind of crazy facial hair... it doesn't really matter any more. There's some really ugly people who are making it pretty big in the music business today. So I guess even though the music video's are more elaborate than ever (inevitable as technology zooms along) I still think since there isn't a "formula" for how you have to look, the focus is back on the music. Don't get me wrong, I'm a product of the 60's 70's era as well, and that music will live forever, but there's some pretty great stuff coming out today too. I think Simon Cowell's comment about Aretha Franklin only applies to POP music. Certainly not the modern rock scene. Just my $0.02

[RSDx]

Hard to say anymore .... the "original" MTV and VH1 channels rarely play music videos. I find a well made, well thought out video of a good song worthwhile..... I find the idea of HAVING to make a video to promote any pos pap that comes along a rather sad state of affairs. I'm one of the old pharts here, remembering back to the days of scouring every inch of the lp jacket for "info" (relevent or figments of great imagination), listening to the music and having to figure it out yourself and attach a personalized meaning of the song, as opposed to being spoonfed some director's visual idea of what a song may be about. I've spent many a good evening with good friends gathered around a stereo, rolling joints using the album cover to clean the weed on, just discussing and enjoying the music. Those days appear to be long gone, with videos and everyone isolated in their own damn i-pod worlds....

 

 

not that there's anything wrong with that - I'm just a crochety old bastard at times.

[Prospero]

The thing that bothers me is when they stop being "musicians" and start being "recording artists". The emphasis shifted from playing music live in front of people on a stage, to the isolation of the recording studio (and these days, with cheap technology to the further isolation of your own home.) I've always felt that music suffers dearly when recording takes precedence over performance.

[garyelcrrt1281733995]

Goes even farther than that, Prospero. We've gotten past rock's infancy, which coincided with the explosion in popularity of recorded music. And that explosion of popularity did the same thing every other fad has done in human history. After the innovators, and the true believers, there are the converts (who think only THEIR way is right), the wannabees (who drive up prices and cheapen everything), and the cynic (who see only a way to get rich quick and easy). One or two more generations should see it completely past this phase and allow true artists, afficionados (and wannabees) to re-inherit.

 

Its, like, just the way it is, man. (Or dude if you're younger than 40).

[daneman]

RSDx, I'll bet you couldn't roll em on an Ipod either!!!And forget about album art and liner notes too!

[NikOlas]

There will always be a lot of corperate pap to wade through to find the artist in music who seems to be doing something that speaks to your soul. . .

 

I was cruising through the San Juaquin Valley listening to a Fresno radio station that was airing a replay of Kasay K's Top 40 countdown from 1971 and there was a lot of crappy pop mixed in with the occasional "classic". So really, not a lot has changed in that perspective. Good music/bands will stand the test of time. There is a lot of good stuff out there, the stream's just gotten a little wider and deeper to wade through.

 

What makes it to the screen on your box or the attena of your radio is a very small, weak representation of what's going on in music. I work with kids and a good majority of them are into playing, listening, or attending shows. And they have noses, they can smell krap just like the rest of us, even when it has nice hair. . .

 

N

 

"You can't drive around and hear your favorite song on the car radio"

--X

[charlie brown]

Well, as has been stated, it's a lot of personal choice/taste, etc. BUT,

also being a "child of the '60's," I too remember the furvor over the newest LP,

by our hero's, and how our imaginations played such a vital role, in OUR interpretations

of what the artists were saying, or eluding to.

 

One problem, with "video's." even at the outset, was it gave one, someone elses inturpretation, and after enough viewings, you get kind of "brainwashed" (for lack of a better term), by the visual, as opposed to

the lyrical/musical context. This is a tactic used by not only the music industry, anymore, but all of Corporate America.(IMHO) Just look at "Advertising," of ANYTHING, nowadays.

Picking up technical information, on how a musician played a certain lick or passage, was rare...because, unless it was "concert footage," most of the video's were mimed at best, and quite often, had nothing to do, with the actual song. They were little "movies!" Very "creative," a lot of them, for sure! But, all too often, abstract...to the song(s). The songs, were little "soundtracks," to the budding film director's "Film!" Is that bad? Not necessarily, in that context. But, for the listener's imagination, and our being "transported" by our imaginations, to places WE wanted to go, yeah!

 

In "The '60's (early 70's, too), prior to Disco, and later MTV, Dylan, The Beatles, and others...etc., not only brought

out social issues, conscience, etc., but...provided a wonderful soundtrack, as well. It was a more idealistic (hopeful?) time, as well. That social context (responsible, or not) was a BIG factor, in our lives, of that time. In fact, the government, itself, was very suspicious/scared, of the power, that Rock & Roll, seemed to have. Things were being brought to light, that they would have just as soon, not had revealed. Consequently, some artists had some "hassles" because of it. Individuals, families, small towns, as well as the cities, were humming, with change. Some of it, woefully idealistic, but...that was our hope, and dream. Our parents wanted "better" for us, than they had it. WE wanted better for us, and the world. Music, seemed to make that possible. And, there was some killer bands, of all types, back then...that we're all (every age group) still listening to, and loving. You could tell, by a bands individual stylings, and sound, who they were, immediately.

 

Somewhere, along the way, a LOT of that was lost! (IMHO) Bands (because of pressure, from the "Corporate

Music Insdustry suits"), started to take on a more homogeneous sound/feeling. Bands suddenly (or not so

suddenly?) started to sound too much alike! All, to sell records. Kurt Cobain railed against this, but even Nirvana (somewhat) "sold out," in the end. Of course, "Selling Out," has been an industry standard, for as long as there's been an industry. It's (unfortunately, for too many good musicians) a fact of life. Of course, "Pop" music, has always been "Pretty, or Handsome," even in the '50's...(the pretty boys, Fabian, Pat Boone, etc.) Elvis was pretty, too...but he had (in the beginning, at least) a "rawness," that was "Cool!" Even Elvis, however, was compromised, more by his manager, seemingly, that he himself. And, music industry corruption, has been a factor, before, as well. Some "old farts" here, may remember "Payola!"

 

Suffice to say, good music (and good musicians) will ALWAYS be around. And, I think it's right, that there are more of them, than ever before. But, personal tastes aside, it might be harder to find, due to shere volume, Corporate greed, and agendas, as well as ways of access, and having to wade through all the BS, to ge to it. But, it's out there, for sure! Anyway...just my 2-cent's worth.

 

Charlie B.

[Ron G]

I thought about this one a lot before posting. Perhaps MTV and the like have made mediocrity more visible (and perhaps saleable) but it's always been around, especially in popular music since the 50s. It's easy to think of countless records/bands/ one-hit wonders that have given us absolute crap (and we might have even liked it) that was as far from musicianship as can be. When I look back at the big band era of the 30s and 40s (my dad's music), I see real musicianship - Benny Goodman, Charlie Christian, Harry James and the like. You had to be a real musician to make it to the big time. Of course there have been many many fine musicians since then but the buying public has become less discriminating. Personally, I blame a lot of the crap since the 80s on Nirvana and their ilk. It seemed anyone who knew three chords on a high-distortion guitar could sell a million records. I say ignore the crap and listen to the good stuff.

[SoloTy]

It seemed anyone who knew three chords on a high-distortion guitar could sell a million records. I say ignore the crap and listen to the good stuff.

 

I can see exactly what you are saying there, and I whole agree somewhat. But what if along with those three chords, there were some amazing lyrics or some incredible singing, maybe both?

The way I see it, a song doesn't have to be super technical and challenging to play... Complexity is not what equals god music.. Sure, complex music can really help... Alot of the Beatles stuff was complex and amazing...

What I'm saying is, someone could write a "three chord" song thats simple to play, but if the lyrics speak to you and are extremely well thought out, are you going to automatically condemn this song because it's too "simple"?

Neil Young is my favourite example hear.. Alot, if not most of his songs were insanely simple, but the man had a knack for song writing... and his voice was so unique.. the songs spoke to people, me being one of those people... And just cause they are simple doesn't mean they aren't "good" by any right...

My 0.02...

(Ducks for cover)

[Dave]

Youtube videos have been a great source of boost to the guitar genre. Lots of kids are learning from the old guys who post classic rock videos and guitar instructional videos. It kills me to hear the "new" rock guitarists who grew up listening to the guys who said guitar solos are too showoffy and just quit learning to riff. They play a few inside chords or 3 notes over and over and call it a lead solo.

 

I prefer the old stuff. Give me Skynyrd, ABB, Credence, Govt Mule, and Clapton any day.