Why are there no more "mature" musicians?

[nageov3t]

This is an odd topic. My complaint about rock radio is that it is clogged with oldies stations with little room for new music. Hip hop/trance/dance stations are better about playing new stuff.

However, with digital download sales and the ability to browse and preview music before you buy, traditional music media outlets become less relevant and more celebrity gossip outlets than music promoters.

if you're in range of a college radio station, it's pretty much the best place to hear new music.

when stations don't have the money to pay RIAA royalties, the DJ's have to get creative and actually find music outside of the Top 40.

half the presets in my car are stations at the bottom end of the dial.

 

[tcsenter]

Piracy may change that. It used to be that younger people spent more on music than their parents, since parents have other priorities (among which was giving their kids money to buy music). But since younger people don't buy music, anymore, you may see a shift toward appealing to those who A) actually have the money B) pay for the music.

But then again, the cat may be out of the bag, in a manner of speaking. Those currently under 25 may never become a demographic who pays for music because they're accustomed to stealing it. Those currently over 30 may be the last generation to actually pay for any substantial portion of their music.

Also, trends in product co-marketing, sponsorship, and promotion for concerts became heavily skewed towards younger buyers in the 1980s and 1990s. I went to more than a dozen major-act concerts between the age of 16 and 23. Haven't purchased a concert ticket in over 15 years. You may notice that every concert tour these days is sponsored by Mt. Dew, Slim Jims, GAP, or whatever, shit that mature consumers don't buy.

I have noticed a sharp decline in small to medium venues for concerts in the past 25 years, which might be the best venues for off-peak mature/older artists and audiences. It seems as though promoters and sponsors don't want to bother unless you can fill a 5,000+ seat venue.

 

[Platypus]

There are, you just haven't found them because the fascist state of radio makes sure you only hear what they want you to.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

What?

The Beatles were around 20 when they exploded on the music scene...Elvis was 20 when he released Heartbreak Hotel... Rolling Stones were in their early 20's... same for The Who... Buddy Holly...

Edit: all the above performers were considered to make "kid music" in the early stages of their careers.

 

[Muse]

There are, you just haven't found them because the fascist state of radio makes sure you only hear what they want you to.

Try alternative radio: college radio, other non-commercial radio, even pirate radio. They are anti-fascist.

if you're in range of a college radio station, it's pretty much the best place to hear new music.

when stations don't have the money to pay RIAA royalties, the DJ's have to get creative and actually find music outside of the Top 40.

half the presets in my car are stations at the bottom end of the dial.

If you aren't in range, stream them. You can even record streams (e.g. to MP3) and listen later. I do.

 

[Platypus]

What?

The Beatles were around 20 when they exploded on the music scene...Elvis was 20 when he released Heartbreak Hotel... Rolling Stones were in their early 20's... same for The Who... Buddy Holly...

I think the OP is talking more about image than age here but I could be wrong.

 

[Platypus]

Try alternative radio: college radio, other non-commercial radio, even pirate radio. They are anti-fascist.

College radio is usually pretentious as fuck and satellite radio has a ton of stations that play nothing good. The music I want to listen to isn't found on the radio. I'd much rather just listen to my own collection on random.

 

[mugs]

Because people listen to crappy music now, and older musicians don't make that crap. That's why talented musicians like Lady Gaga make crappy music - because it's what sells.

Many of the great musicians of the 80s, 70s and even 60s are still making music today.

 

[Gibson486]

College radio is usually pretentious as fuck and satellite radio has a ton of stations that play nothing good. The music I want to listen to isn't found on the radio. I'd much rather just listen to my own collection on random.

College radio seems to have this, "oh, we found it, it's not famous, so it must be good" attitude.

 

[Beev]

I don't remember the last time I listened to the radio. It's a dead form of music delivery for me.

 

[Platypus]

College radio seems to have this, "oh, we found it, it's not famous, so it must be good" attitude.

yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup

 

[nageov3t]

Try alternative radio: college radio, other non-commercial radio, even pirate radio. They are anti-fascist.

If you aren't in range, stream them. You can even record streams (e.g. to MP3) and listen later. I do.

http://www.wfmu.org is pretty much the best thing since sliced bread. they have archives going back 10 years and an iphone app

my favorite programs are Cherry Blossom Clinic, Evan "Funk" Davies, and Teenage Wasteland... it's a lot of punk and 70's/80's garage stuff.

 

[KMFJD]

I enjoy Triple J from Australia, it plays a wide variety of music. I have heard them playing Slayer - South of Heaven 1 minute and the next song would be hip-hop, and best of all, no commercials.

http://www.abc.net.au/streaming/triplej.asx

 

[rivan]

Mass appeal requires image.

This is the biggest change.

In the 50s, the most you usually ever saw of an artist was an album cover. The 60s saw some artists getting magazine coverage, the 70s saw the dawn of music videos and in the 80s they exploded. Since then, the image of a musician has become more important than their music.

It's really driven the quality of music down, in my opinion.

 

[zinfamous]

Wait.....


....so you're saying that Justin Beiber is rubbish?


:hmm:





D:

 

[Platypus]

Wait.....


....so you're saying that Justin Beiber is rubbish?


:hmm:





D:

I heard from a friend that he was nominated for a BET award... that shit is pretty mind blowing when you step back and think about it for a second.

 

[kalrith]

I think the OP is talking more about image than age here but I could be wrong.

Yes, but I think that still applies to Elvis. We look at Elvis and think "mature musician"; however, when he was first starting out, society of that day saw him as the equivalent of Justin Bieber today. He appealed to the teeny boppers and not at all to the older crowd.

 

[zinfamous]

Yes, but I think that still applies to Elvis. We look at Elvis and think "mature musician"; however, when he was first starting out, society of that day saw him as the equivalent of Justin Bieber today. He appealed to the teeny boppers and not at all to the older crowd.

no adults are frightened of Justin Bieber, though. he's vanilla, and considered very safe, and non-threatening.

Elvis was a terror for the older generations. He was exposing the gentried WASP culture to the dark-sided music of blackies.

Elvis was a revolution for popular music. Justin Bieber is a hiccup.

no comparison, really.

 

[Thump553]

The top 40 hits have almost universally sucked since the the invention of the phonograph, with the exception of the Motown era and the British invasion. Pull out an old Billboard chart from 30 years ago and you'll see lots of junk. As time goes by you the crap gets forgotten and the classics continue to get played.

 

[Saint Nick]

I think it is interesting to see how record labels have defined what is "good".

Record labels have been controlling what is accessable to the media for quite some time. Unfortunately, this causes us to have to do a lot of digging to find some real good artists. But, they are out there...just takes some looking around!

 

[kalrith]

no adults are frightened of Justin Bieber, though. he's vanilla, and considered very safe, and non-threatening.

Elvis was a terror for the older generations. He was exposing the gentried WASP culture to the dark-sided music of blackies.

Elvis was a revolution for popular music. Justin Bieber is a hiccup.

no comparison, really.

You're missing my point. Platypus stated, "I think the OP is talking more about image than age here but I could be wrong" in regards to a statement about how young Elvis was when he started. I inferred that Platypus meant that even though Elvis was young his "image" was mature rather than young.

That's where my statement came in. I didn't mean that Justin Bieber and Elvis were a direct comparison (I think I'd be struck dead if I had meant that!). I meant that we perceive Elvis as a mature musician, but he was not at all perceived that way by the adults at the time he first started. In that way, I think Elvis started off as a young musician (like what tops the charts today) rather than the "mature musician" that the OP mentioned.

 

[jacc1234]

Umm, Phish is still putting out a ton of new stuff, touring and attracting new fans. They are all "mature" older musicians. Add to the list Widespread Panic, Gov't Mule, Phil Lesh and you know have a host of older musicians that still have chops.

: puts on flameproof hemp poncho :

 

[zinfamous]

Umm, Phish is still putting out a ton of new stuff, touring and attracting new fans. They are all "mature" older musicians. Add to the list Widespread Panic, Gov't Mule, Phil Lesh and you know have a host of older musicians that still have chops.

: puts on flameproof hemp poncho :

not one of them have market appeal, though. They don't sell millions of albums. I've followed those groups for many years now; believe me--I'm a fan.

But those kind of groups aren't relevant to the discussion of top 40, billboard, "radio tunes," blah blah.

also, the OP is talking about young musicians, at the start of their career, sounding more like teeny bopper gods than mature artists. Sure, the Beatles started out as teeny boppers, but groups like the Stones and Led Zeppelin sounded a bit more developed when they first started out.

 

[zinfamous]

You're missing my point. Platypus stated, "I think the OP is talking more about image than age here but I could be wrong" in regards to a statement about how young Elvis was when he started. I inferred that Platypus meant that even though Elvis was young his "image" was mature rather than young.

That's where my statement came in. I didn't mean that Justin Bieber and Elvis were a direct comparison (I think I'd be struck dead if I had meant that!). I meant that we perceive Elvis as a mature musician, but he was not at all perceived that way by the adults at the time he first started. In that way, I think Elvis started off as a young musician (like what tops the charts today) rather than the "mature musician" that the OP mentioned.

Yeah, I think that's the issue, though: how did the older generation perceive him? I don't think he was seen as young necessarily, so much as having a negative impact on the young. His music was of the older generation--he exposed whitey to a lot of rather old, quite mature tunes, but they belonged to a different class.

It's rather tough to address this argument today, b/c you do have to consider the cultural values of the day. It seems to me that his image was of a young musician with a very mature appreciation of music--both of these factors which enabled the kids to respect and look up to him--whose influence on the young generation was literally feared. Sure, he looked young, and his sound appealed to the young, but how I interpreted the OP, and what Platypus said, is that Elvis' music was anything but young. It had long been adopted and appreciated by generations of adults. Black adults.

The white parents simply didn't want that seductive sound and its evil dark magic to infect their perfect little god-fearing white children.

Elvis was a perfect storm of youth and mature artistry (I think) that was feared because of his potential influence.

Think about it: to branch out of the comfortable whitebread suburban music in the 50s and make a career out of it, knowing you're probably going to piss off the established class, takes a lot of balls and a more diverse musical influence.

 

[JMapleton]

U2, Springsteen, Bon Jovi, ACDC and Dave Mathews were among the top ten grossing Concerts tours of 2009. While they may not be topping the charts they are doing well were it really counts, making money for themselves not the Recording Industry

That's my point, they're not putting out good music anymore though, at least not as great as the music they previously put out.

I have little respect for artists who build a career on their past. It's like a former pro athlete making a living signing autographs.