The following is long, but I think it's well worth reading, if only to get
another side of the picture.
On Sun, 13 Mar 1994, Dan Nicholson wrote:
quoted 2 lines I think 99% of the people here on IDM would agree with me that> I think 99% of the people here on IDM would agree with me that
> Richard James is much more talented than Eddie Vedder.
Apples and oranges. You can't compare a singer to a musician. Is Aretha
Franklin more or less talented than Stevie Ray Vaughn? You can't say. Not
only are they attempting to achieve completely different ends, but they
have completely different means for doing so.
quoted 5 lines As for who I am to say that> As for who I am to say that
> those bands are not making good music, I'm someone who has been exposed to
> far more different styles of music than the average listener, which is the
> main reason why I am convinced that everyone should be exposed to music
> other than the current mainstream norm.
Oh, well excusez-moi, Mr. I've-heard-more-styles-of-music-than-thou.
People *should* be exposed to what they want to be exposed to, nothing
more and nothing less. Has it occurred to anyone that, bad as most of us
think she is, some people actually *enjoy* listening to Mariah Carey?
Sure, I think that US radio should be less segmented and there should be
more experimentation, but just like every other art form, the high-quality
music *will* have an audience, whether it is large or not. It is only
those of us willing enough to take chances that will hear it, but
fortunately, for the most part, there are *always* enough of us to make
some quality form of music viable.
I'm sick and tired of the theory that "the masses are clueless; only we
know what good music really is." This delusional and condescending
attitude makes one seem like a complete snob, which turns people *off* to
the music you're trying to expose them to. When I give someone a piece of
music that I know is very different from what they've listened to, I will
usually tell them, "I happen to think this stuff is fantastic, but you
might not. It's (harsher/more ambient/noisier/less melodic/whatever) than
what you usually listen to, but if you give it a chance, you just might go
for it." And by far, more people have ended up giving it an open mind and
enjoying it than they used to, when I just handed them a tape and said
"This stuff is godlike; you're gonna love it."
I happen to think that Pearl Jam is making *great* music. I also think
that AFX is making *great* music. They are making *different* music, and I
make no attempt to compare one to the other. If I had to choose one or the
other to take with me to a desert island, I'd agonize over the choice for
days, end up flipping a coin, and not be happy with the choice no matter
which one it was, because I was missing the other.
And don't get me wrong. If _Selected_Ambient_Works_II_ goes
triple-platinum I'd be the happiest guy (besides Richard James :-) on
Earth. But if it doesn't I'm not going to fret about it because, well, it
couldn't be expected to accomplish such a thing, no matter how good it is.
quoted 4 lines He's unique. Commercialism and commercial appeal to myself, and to a great> He's unique. Commercialism and commercial appeal to myself, and to a great
> number of record company executives means more of the same old shit. Techno
> artists as a whole are totally going against that trend, which is why
> techno music is superior to current mainstream pop radio.
Oh, please. Dross is dross, no matter how you dress it up, and just as
there's tons of pop dross, there's tons of techno dross as well. I would
agree to the statement "Richard James' music is superior to *most* current
mainstream pop radio," but nothing more, and certainly not a blanket
statement like "Techno is superior to top 40."
quoted 6 lines Ok, I admit that this is an opinion. Some person totally off their fucking> Ok, I admit that this is an opinion. Some person totally off their fucking
> rocker (again, IMHO) might just prefer Robin S. or Pearl Jam to Scubadevils
> or Orbital. But I think a virgin listener (in the aural sense folks) would
> choose IDM over grunge. I refuse to believe that some people have genes
> that make them like grunge or 50 pop songs that sound quite literally the
> same.
This is the silliest thing I've ever read. One does not have to be "off
one's rocker" to prefer Pearl Jam to Orbital. And shame on you for
thinking so. You have *no* right to dictate to anyone but yourself what is
worth listening to and what isn't.
You just have to have a different frame of mind and expect different
things from your music. You can refuse to believe what you like, but I
think the numbers belie your conclusion.
quoted 5 lines Marketing. This is what I've been saying: *people don't have an> Marketing. This is what I've been saying: *people don't have an
> alternative*. I firmly believe that if techno artists were as well known
> and represented (on record labels with major distribution, heavy MTV
> rotation, etc) as rock and pop musicians most of this week's Top 40 songs
> wouldn't even be in the top 400.
Well, you're wrong. Point fucking blank. And do you know why? Because
record companies have *nothing* to gain by pushing one set of artists over
another *if* it is the case that either one will produce equal returns. If
Elektra *truly* thought that Moby could sell as much as Metallica, don't
you think they'd spend an equal amount of marketing dollars to make this
so, so that they could rake in even more money? Of course they would. But
they won't because no matter how good you or I think Moby is, the fact is
that his market is limited, and that limitation is much lower than that of
Metallica.
And now I'm going to make your argument for you:
Why is Metallica huge? Because Elektra started pushing the "One" video on
MTV relentlessly, leading to lots of plays for it, leading to an
introduction to the band, which carried over into massive success for
their next album. It was the accessibility that did it. Once they had
major label support and play on MTV, they automatically became popular.
The same could happen to Moby if Elektra pushed them enough.
This argument ignores a number of salient facts. First, Metallica signed
to Elektra in 1985, a year before the _Master_Of_Puppets_ album, long
before "One" was released. Second, the reason MTV played "One" so much was
by *viewer* request, not marketing. Third, "One" is an atypical song for
Metallica; most of their songs (ie, "Enter Sandman") are faster, heavier
and "dirtier" (for lack of a better term). If anyone listened to "One" and
bought _...And_Justice_For_All_ based on it, it is very possible they
would have disliked the album. This would not translate directly into
massive first-week sales for _Metallica_ (it debuted at #1 on the
Billboard chart). Fourth, while "One" was a popular MTV video and single
purchase, it did *not* by any stretch translate into airplay, because at
the peak of "One"'s popularity, it hit the mid-30s on the pop chart and
only *one* of the polled stations countrywide even had it in its playlist.
Its chart strength was almost *entirely* sales. (Which is also true for
"Enter Sandman," so that doesn't explain the big first-week sales for
_Metallica_ either.)
My point here is that while exposure *did* drive Metallica's popularity
somewhat, that exposure was not driven by Elektra (and *definitely* not by
top-40 radio) but by the American public. After all this time, they
decided they *wanted* Metallica, and Elektra was more than happy to give
it to them in large doses. But it was a happy accident more than anything
else.
Perhaps one of these days, the American public will tell Elektra, "We want
Moby!" But until then, don't expect Elektra to push Moby any more than
they did Metallica in their earlier days.
quoted 1 line I grew up listening to pop rock because it's all that was accessible to me.> I grew up listening to pop rock because it's all that was accessible to me.
So did I, and so did most people. So how come only some of us ended up
here, while the *vast* majority of people are still stuck in top-40-land?
Because we decided to test other waters, to see what else was out there.
Most people don't want to do that, don't have the time, or simply don't
care. I don't have a problem with that. It's human nature: stick with what
you know. I won't begrudge the masses their Madonna, as long as I can have
my Aphex Twin, and, as you can see, I'm getting it.
quoted 4 lines Quite frankly, nonexistent. Music made for the _sole_ purpose of making> Quite frankly, nonexistent. Music made for the _sole_ purpose of making
> money (and I've seen quite enough to convince me that most of today's top
> 40 is) is shite. I will just laugh if someone disagrees with that opinion.
> I guess that makes me an elitist of some form :)
Personally, I thought Sigue Sigue Sputnik's album was *brilliant*. :-)
Money-making ability aside, I think that most top-40 is crap too, but
strictly from a quality standpoint. I don't have to stand on the commerce
soapbox to make my point, because occasionally there's a cool track or
ten that makes the top-40 and I don't want to have to turn away from it
just because it's making money.
quoted 4 lines _No_. What i am saying is that these people like these groups because> _No_. What i am saying is that these people like these groups because
> they've never had the chance to hear anything better. The only reason these
> people believe this music is good is because they don't know of anything
> else out there. It's a commercial form of brainwashing.
You're giving people much less credit for their personal tastes than you
ought to. This is a disturbing characteristic of your entire email.
quoted 6 lines It *SHOULD* sell itself based on quality. However, my entire point is based> It *SHOULD* sell itself based on quality. However, my entire point is based
> upon the fact that music is currently selling itself largely upon
> *availability*. Also it's important to remember that millions of people
> aren't really making their own minds up about what they listen to: a select
> group of people in A&R positions are. It's these peoples' opinions that are
> dictating what becomes popular.
Ah, I get it now, it's the "grassy knoll" theory. Give me a break.
As many bands that become "popular" for a short period of time, there are
ten times as many failures. Bands that A&R people have pushed hard that
just didn't sell anything, because it just wasn't very good, or it wasn't
accessible enough, or whatever. Their CDs are available in mass quantities
for $1 at used CD stores (and for $5.99 in cutout bins) everywhere.
quoted 2 lines Not if no one hears the music! And this of course is the problem with the> Not if no one hears the music! And this of course is the problem with the
> elitist techno scene and the music industry as a whole.
Who's calling the scene "elitist"? Not me. You certainly fit into that
category, though.
quoted 6 lines Sad to say, but it's not the case. The market is not dictating the product.> Sad to say, but it's not the case. The market is not dictating the product.
> The product is dictating the market. As I said before, a tiny number of
> people in high places are deciding which artists will suceed and which
> won't. However, it's basically fact that technology will make these people
> obselete within the next twenty years and distribution will be as easy for
> you and I as for Moby and Madonna.
And I guarantee you that on that day, Madonna will still outsell Moby. By
a lot. And then your entire argument will disappear.
quoted 2 lines My opinion (g) is that any restriction can only hurt the culture> My opinion (g) is that any restriction can only hurt the culture
> and music.
True. But you are pretending that there are restrictions to techno
becoming massively popular, when I happen to believe that it's just about
as popular as one would expect.
- Adam J Weitzman
INDIVIDUAL, Inc.
weitzman@individual.com