Whoops, here I go again. I gotta say, this ambient techno stuff really is
conducive to writing long passages about the music industry. The last one
was on Cabaret Voltaire's _Plasticity_; this one's on Moby's _Ambient_.
On Mon, 14 Mar 1994, djkc wrote:
quoted 10 lines Adam J Weitzman wrote:> Adam J Weitzman wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Is that quoted theory from someone's post? Or are you putting words in
> someone else's mouth?
>
> The masses *are* clueless...
OK, so I'm quoting from your post now. :-)
quoted 1 line due to the their ignorance of a wider musical spectrum.> due to the their ignorance of a wider musical spectrum.
Ignorance is not cluelessness. The two are not synonymous. Cluelessness
implies some familiarity with the subject matter, ie, a person who says
"all techno sounds the same to me," or when presented with any piece of
techno says "turn that techno shit off" within ten seconds without
allowing it to develop, is clueless. The average top-40 radio listener has
not been exposed to much techno at all, and is thus ignorant.
quoted 2 lines We're just saying that Top40 rarely gives way to alternative/experimental> We're just saying that Top40 rarely gives way to alternative/experimental
> stuff, which means the masses stay ignorant to the stuff.
This is a tautology.
quoted 1 line Nobody is saying "only we know what good music really is."> Nobody is saying "only we know what good music really is."
Dan Nicholson, who said "someone completely off their rocker might
prefer Pearl Jam to Orbital," was definitely making a statement that the
average person does not know what really good music is, whereas he does
(and, by extension, the people who like what he likes).
quoted 5 lines The masses shouldn't have to blindly (or rather deafly) buy music they aren't> The masses shouldn't have to blindly (or rather deafly) buy music they aren't
> sure about, or be required to have a friend to give them a sample (as you
> say you do, but this isn't mass exposure or distribution). The masses
> only stick to what they know. Most people don't arbitrarily try out new
> stuff in a music store unless they've been exposed to it...a lot.
True. But it's not necessarily in a radio station's best interest to do
this. Let's try and live in the real world here. It's a self-perpetuating
circle, but it starts with the consumer, not the record company.
quoted 4 lines And to give the masses a choice, the music currently not being exposed as> And to give the masses a choice, the music currently not being exposed as
> much should be given atleast equal exposure. I'm not saying be in the charts
> regardless of popularity, but it should all be given as much chance as the
> "One" video did.
The people have to ask for it. At one time, "One" was only played during
Headbanger's Ball, just as "On" will likely only be played during 120
Minutes unless there's an outcry for it.
quoted 4 lines BTW, How do you know that is was *viewers'* choice that> BTW, How do you know that is was *viewers'* choice that
> made that video play so much?? It's very possible that a video can be
> paid-to-be-played so many times that it's driven into the heads of the masses.
> And much of the *clueless* masses *will* buy into it.
Because MTV hardly ever played it except during their Top 20 Request
Countdown at the time. (Of course, nowadays, they hardly play anything
except during their top 20 request countdown. I don't know when people are
seeing videos that they then request later on, because I sure as hell
never do when I switch on MTV.) Before the requests started rolling in,
"One" was not being played during the day. It was in its specialized
compartmentalized show until lots of people phoned up MTV and told them
that they wanted to see it more often, during the day. And that drove it
to #1 on the Top 20 Request Countdown, and after *that* they started
playing it in a "regular" rotation.
Of course, Sire could do the easy thing and pay MTV to make "On" a "Buzz
Clip" or something (and I'm sure this is how clips get into that
situation), but they obviously feel that it won't come back to them in
record sales. What does that tell you?
quoted 2 lines other varieties of music don't get equal exposure and thus> other varieties of music don't get equal exposure and thus
> don't seem "popular". Masses do go with the flow.
True. But there's certainly enough spanners in the works to show you that
that isn't *always* the case.
quoted 2 lines Your argument is that each music deserves the level of popularity that it> Your argument is that each music deserves the level of popularity that it
> currently has...that techno deserves to be right where it is...
No, I said nothing about *deserving*, I was talking about *expectation*. I
fully expected techno to reach the current level of popularity it has now,
and it would surprise the hell out of me if all of a sudden Moby, The
Aphex Twin and FSoL were crashing the US Top 40. I would be elated, to say
the least, but I would be surprised as hell.
quoted 4 lines My argument is opposite. It's NOT the masses which make the music popular -> My argument is opposite. It's NOT the masses which make the music popular -
> - it's the music which makes the masses popular: Stick to the norm, conform,
> fit in, go with the flow. Well, it is a little bit of both, but MORESO the
> latter than the former.
Of course there's a fad element here, but for the most part, I don't think
that people buy music because all their friends have it or that it is
being rammed down their throats on MTV. No matter how much MTV (or WFNX,
the station I listen to most here in Boston) plays "Laid" by James, I'm
not going to like the song and I'm not going to buy the single/album/
whatever. And this is not to say that all music consumers think like me,
but it makes sense that, over the long haul, you buy what you like.
quoted 4 lines it's corporate conspiracy. A big reason why techno is not up> it's corporate conspiracy. A big reason why techno is not up
> there in the Top40 is because it's on SMALL labels run by SMALL businesses,
> rarely corps. Aphex is getting recognition (exposure) know because he's on
> a BIGGER label, not because the viewers/masses requested him.
Uh, excuse me, but, just how did The Aphex Twin end up on that bigger
label, hmmmm? It couldn't be because he was selling lots of records and
Sire wanted to cash in, hmmmm? Just maybe? Or perhaps they're taking a
loss on him and are doing it just for street cred? (NOT!) This is a
*company* with a bottom line, and if they didn't think AFX was/would
be popular they wouldn't have signed him.
quoted 2 lines So he's being> So he's being
> given a chance like Metallica did, but there will be unequal exposure...
Until he proves himself, yes. Just like Metallica. And just maybe, seven
years from now, Sire's investment will pay off and RDJ will sell 450,000
copies of _Selected_Ambient_Works_IX_ in its first week of release. These
things take time, though, and you can't expect it to happen overnight.
Remember, Elektra had Metallica for four years before they even released a
video or a single. (And "One" was the second single from _Justice_.)
quoted 4 lines Popularity of music is not due totally to the interest/disinterest of the> Popularity of music is not due totally to the interest/disinterest of the
> masses; it's moreso due to the industry. Only a small number of people even
> heard of Aphex Twin. This is due to the industry! Not because the masses
> don't request it! HOW CAN THEY REQUEST SOMETHING THEY HAVEN'T HEARD???
The industry cannot possibly exert as much influence over the consumer
market as you think they do. They sign what they think will become popular
so that they can make money. It cannot possibly be that they sign someone,
and force everyone to buy their record, thereby making them popular. This
is just backwards. Now granted, the label definitely has some star-making
capability, and a little marketing goes a long way. I'm not denying that.
But you guys are talking about it like it's the norm, and it just ain't
so.
I agree that the label has to give the music exposure, but you can't
expect them to do so if they don't think the music will succeed on a sales
level. Somewhere, the expectation of what the artist can do for the label
has to enter into the equation. If Sire thought that _SAW2_ would sell
5,000 copies, they never would have signed him. Obviously, they are going
to make some sort of attempt at making his music gain some level of
popularity. But after that point, he's on his own. They're only going to
sink so much marketing capital into him before they decide they're
throwing money down a hole, and he has to make up the difference by
selling to a wider market. This is simple economics, folks. If Sire thinks
they can sell 300,000 copies of _SAW2_, you can be darn sure they'll try
to do it, because it is very much in their interest to do so. They gain
nothing by "holding him back," so to speak.
quoted 2 lines Anyway, I hope at least some of this post has valid points which disprove> Anyway, I hope at least some of this post has valid points which disprove
> your theory that "techno deserves to be right where it is."
It does. Except that was never my theory to begin with.
quoted 3 lines How can it deserve to be there when the ladder hasn't been raised to give> How can it deserve to be there when the ladder hasn't been raised to give
> it a chance to climb??? The major force which raises this ladder is the
> industry, not the music quality or choice of the masses. That's my argument.
And it's a valid one, and I agree with you. What I'm disagreeing with is
the notion that the record companies somehow drive the consumer to buy
certain things, which makes them popular. There are far too many
exceptions to the rule (both successes that had no label backing and
failures that had tons) for it to even be considered a rule. Yes, the
label gives it a push, sometimes a big push, but in the end the consumer
makes the choice. Elektra had to *beg* Metallica to make a video for
"One," and they did so because they thought that if Metallica had more
exposure, they could sell 2 million copies of _Justice_ (as well as a
healthy number of "One" singles). And they were right. They didn't beg
them to make a video for "Orion" or "Disposable Heroes" (songs from
_Master_Of_Puppets_) because at the time it would not have made them any
more popular and would not have sold any more records. Now, they may have
ben right and they may not have, but it's kind of like the stock market:
some of it is guesswork and some of it is self-fulfilling prophecy.
Sure, deciding how to push a band is an art, not a science. But it's a
consumer-driven art. The consumer builds the canvas on which the record
companies must paint its favorite colors on. Sometimes, different canvases
demand different colors. I think it's obvious that now, the labels are
seeing the value in techno acts, so that when the consumer canvas demands
techno colors, they'll be ready to splash it on in large amounts. This is
the buildup here, folks. They obviously think they can make it happen, as
the signings of Moby and The Aphex Twin clearly indicate.
- Adam J Weitzman
INDIVIDUAL, Inc.
weitzman@individual.com