I love music.
I love making music, and I love listening to music.
And these days, almost all of my music is digital. I rip CDs into iTunes, I download music from blogs, I watch music videos on YouTube, and I can stream online radio stations from around the world.
But digital technology hasn’t just changed how many of us listen to music, it’s also changed how music is written and produced.
This morning, Nora interviewed Jay Frank, the author of Futurehit.DNA: How the Digital Revolution is Changing Top 10 Song. Jay’s book is all about how we listen to music now, and what effect that’s having on how pop music is created. A shorter version of this interview will air on an upcoming episode of Spark, but you can hear the full, uncut interview below, or download the MP3. [runs 29:09]
Play audio:
You can also download a free excerpt of Jay’s book at his website.
If you like hearing these extended interviews, why not subscribe to Spark Plus? You’ll get regular weekly episodes, plus additional blog-only content like this. [Subscribe via RSS] or [Subscribe with iTunes]
[Original image by aloshbennett]
One point, his book WILL further homogenize music – it's already happened and it will continue.
Commerce and business are the same thing – and they're in the market of selling songs for short-term enjoyment.
Back in the 60s, labels tooks chances on more experiemental music because the kids were on drugs, and the white old male label heads had no idea what the kids liked, so they threw all their money at everything, hoping something would stick. It created one of the weirdest times in popular music. Then Hendrix and Joplin died, The Beatles broke up and it had to start over.
It didn't happen again until 1992, when Nirvana broke – nobody planned it to happen…the industry had no idea why they were popular, but they didn't figure out why, they just signed everything they could that might possibly take off that had any aspect of DIY in the music. Again, it created one of the most exiciting popular music scenes in a long time, but it happened by accident.
Today, if the intent of most songwriters, producers and whatnot is to get that 'one hit wonder' then it will kill any further musical growth, as all that music produced will be strictly for financial reasons. Nothing is left to accident, and chance. Sure ear-worms are pleasant, but nothing will change.
For additional reasons, we will never have another Nirvana and we'll be stuck in shuffle play with songs that really only have 90 seconds of music in them.
Am I too old at 38?
Hi Lee, thanks for sharing your insights. I wonder what you make of Jay's argument that if labels make more money, they'll take a chance on artier or more experimental acts.
I wonder when the last time was that we had a really surprising breakout band/artist?
There are many things he said I agreed with, but this "trickle down economics" theory wasn't one of them.
The reality is that with the cost of recording/reproduction and even marketing of music being cheaper due to changes in technology, the need for these "specialised banks" known as recording labels is diminishing. In what I have seen the more money that the labels get, the less money the composers and performers make.
That isn't to say that some of the other services also offered by labels won't be necessary, but that the relationship will change where the composers/performers take their rightful dominant position in the music industry with labels being the "hired help" when (and if) needed.
The cost of failure is being reduced, and that — not money in the hands of old-economy intermediaries — is what is going to allow more experimental acts to exist and possibly become lucrative.
Hi Nora – well, my belief (based on current business models) is that if the labels made more money, they would NOT invest it in more experimental acts, simply because they don’t have to, nor do they want to.
If they make money doing something, they just repeat the formula to make more money. That’s how they’ve made all their money in the first place. The majors are not entities who take chances, especially now.
And even if there was an experimental musician who became a hot property, they mostly likely subscribe to an experimental ‘content delivery system’, and not a major label, eg Radiohead.
BTW, I also find it funny that Jay loves Radiohead and doesn’t want them to read his book – so who did he write the book for then? Artists he has contempt for?
This was an incredibly interesting interview (especially the extended one). While I count myself more of a fan of indie rock and more obscure stuff from the electronic world, it was interesting to understand why the music industry isn't getting it right, in Jay's opinion. After working in commercial radio (which incidentally I got laid off from along with a lot of other people) it became all too clear to me that radio is in trouble. Most of the people I've talked to are choosing the internet and ipods over radio for exposure to not only new music but also info about those artists (ie podcasts, blogs etc). Public radio seems to be gaining in this area too, as an example Sound Opinions on Chicago Public Radio. A podcast (and local radio broadcast) about rock and pop music that doesn't answer to any record company or advertiser and often bites the hand of the music industry. They recently did a podcast about songs praising the power and potential of radio (most of those songs were pre-1980). I have largely accepted that my local commercial radio station will not play rock music I am interested in, nor have commentary that is insightful, informative and engaging…blah blah blah commentary (info off internet)…overplayed, overproduced "safe" rock single…cue commercial, earn a buck. This formula would make any thinking person feel that they aren't part of the process. Wash, rinse, repeat. No wonder people turn radio off, the listener doesn't matter. Ad buys are down too…people aren't listening to your content so they don't hear your commercials.
Maybe as having worked in the industry I bitterly see commercial radio as lately driven by the a corporation, its sales dept. and advertising mostly. The music is an afterthought (I've even heard its the filler between ad blocks which makes me laugh). This was not always the case. I grew up in the 80s and CFNY was at the time radio that you turned to because the hosts were engaging, charismatic, the ads were entertaining and the music was so unique you might not even be able to buy it for awhile. They seemed to get it right for so many years…cue big corporate buyout = homogenized modern rock evermore.
It would be great to hear a series of episodes covering the future of broadcasting, the internet, ipods and what direction radio will take. I also think your interview with
James Cridland was a great accompanient to this discussion.
Keep up the great work.
- Steve
That's really the trend. The top 10 leader board keeps changing so rapidly. And as expected, music lovers can always keep track of the music on top.
The Beatles Sgt Pepper Action Figure Set of 4 by McFarlane collection incorporates John, Paul, George as well as Ringo attired in Sgt. Pepper outfits coming from the film. Every single Beatle is packaged accompanied by a extra character belonging to the motion picture, presenting consumers two figures for the price of 1.
The corporations will always run music and this is why it will always remain so commercial and boring!
Sorry to be a stick in the mud but it's true!