Value of music dropping?
 

I attended a seminar a while ago hosted by Moses Avalon. His stance is that music is no longer valued as much as it was in the past. I questioned him on this because, to me, it didn't make sense. People seem to be obsessed with music now more than ever, and with the convenience of iPods etc, people can listen constantly.

His answer was that since music is mostly digital these days, there is nothing tangible that people can hold in their hands and truly love and care about the way they used to. Even for physical CDs, they are really nothing like old school vinyl with beautiful artwork and the quality analog sound.

Thinking it over, I tend to agree with this. I also notice that since so much music is made only for selling, it doesn't carry the same depth of meaning that it used to. Instead we just hear the same trash over and over again until we can't help but have it in our heads. More focus is now placed on the artist (or so-called artist) than on the quality of the music, and more time is spent sensationalizing his or her quirks, relationships and dirt.

It's actually a really sad thing considering what a true artist puts into his or her work, and what people are truly getting when they pay for it.

What do you guys think?

Read some of the journals here, get to know some of the guys and girls and you'll soon see he's talking crap. Who is he anyway? How can one man make a sweeping generalisation like that? Those of us who care about music will care about it whether it comes on acetate, vinyl, digitally or pumped directly into our cortexes. The media doesn't matter, it's the music that does. I love music now as much as I did when I was amassing a huge collection of vinyl LPs, later CDs and now on my PC in MP3 format.

The value of music does not decrease according to the medium that carries it: the value only decreases when people begin to lose interest in it, and even for the crappiness of the music involved, shows like the X Factor and Top of the Pops, and MTV, are still as popular as ever they were.

As long as people need and enjoy music, it can't be devalued.

There has always been mediocre, shallow music throughout history. Go back 250 years and there's a plethora of composers that history has forgotten because their music was dull knock-offs of others'. Same goes with focusing on the artist instead of their music, gossip just travels faster now. Hell, there are people today debating Beethoven's sexuality.
As far as valuing the physical recording goes, I think that's irrelevant to appreciating the actual music. Outside of convenience, I personally don't give a crap if it's on cassette or MP3.

i still love buying a CD a """album"""" from a band that i love so i disagree ...IM still a CD person :P

No, I would say the value of satin baseball jacket wearing executives is dropping and this is exactly what this Moses Avalon character sounds like.

Also, keep in mind that I don't think that Soundscan has been used in a lot of Indie Record stores, where people who care about music still buy records from, although I could be wrong now. I still believe that not EVERY sale is counted. The chart service was criticized for favoring the mega stores when it was first used officially back in '92 (Many Indie stores possibly did not have computers with UPC readers, or at least had them but not connected to the system then as well - I wonder how much it was to join the system then as well). The way sales were counted needed a shake up, but did it need to shake off some stores who's customers are more Independent Minded just to set the system up (at least at first)?

Damn, I wish I had Bruce Haring's book Off the Charts still in my collection, it had a nice write up on Soundscan! Haring also wrote a book called Beyond the Charts about the MP3 era.

http://www.amazon.com/Off-Charts-Rut.../dp/1559723165

Moses Avalon wrote the book Confessions of a Record Producer and has a site on this stuff. My guess was that he had some time in the Industry as a Producer before moving onto other vocations, more business related.

As I think that the general public started to abandon Music as a must have luxury since the Nintendo days, Music as a stand alone industry has slowed down anyways. Hell, I remember a Melody Maker story back around 92 with an imagined 10 years later cover of Sonic and Tails instead of a musician (MM closed up shop in 2K I think, so we never got to see if their prediction was true). It's safe to think that Music as a major interest is more in the hands of those who seriously listen to it, and a good number of those who do don't have their voiced heard. There will be some success stories, yes, but you know what I'm trying to get to.

My take on his views that he focuses on the Mainstream side, but as far as real Indie goes, there's not too much focus from what I have read from his reports so far. Still, he seems to be very critical about anything concerning a lot of what goes on the Internet in my opinion.

He's got a few points, but seems to resemble someone who yearns for days that will never return.



Here's the site...judge for yourself.

The Future of Music: Moses Supposes

Music wont lose it's value. Things change all the time.

How do you define a 'true' artist? Shouldn't they be the kind of person that creates simply for the sake of creating rather than expecting commercial success and material wealth?

Avalon's stance kind of reminds me of something that my father recently said in regards to music and fame. Back in his day there was only one star and it was Elvis, then the Beatles / Rolling Stones came along, but now everyone seems to be a big star, there are too many of them to keep up with. While I don't agree entirely I can definitely see where he's coming from. The exposure to artists was significantly more limited prior to cable TV and definitely more limited prior to the internet, minimizing the exposure made it a lot easier to control the stars and how the mainstream perceived those individuals.

At this point the quantity has expanded to the point where the value of the individual 'stars' is less but that doesn't mean that music in itself has lost value, only that society and the masses of mainstream listeners don't funnel all their disposable money into a small handful of options anymore.

Quite frankly hearing any sort of exec complaining that music is going down or that it's failing is simply a reflection of some douche-y suit getting old and not noticing how long ago the 90s really were.

And of course, these seminars and lectures are all free. Come one, come all... what? They're not? He charges??? The mist begins to clear... :)

To get some of the more interesting stuff outside of the cities in The US, you had to be lucky to be in an area where there was a decent record store, a TV station that had a good late night line-up (Usually UHF - That's Channels above 13 in The US to those asking), or a halfway good radio station - usually the lower Nielsen rated the better.

In the small dot on the maps, it was usually finding a Cut Out - records would get dumped into the Sale Bins at the Woolworths, K Mart, and Rinks WAY back in the day. The original meaning of Devalue if there ever was one, although the Music itself would still be worth more than the price usually.

Actually for the artist how knows that they will not be part of the "fraternity," it's certainly better today. Usually, if one such artist gets picked up by a label, it was usually the same old story - resistance from DJs and PDs, no acceptance in the Midwest apart from a few people, the "sorry we can't have you around" notice, usually a heavy debt to pay off. Sometimes in The 70's, it would lead down to what's known as a Taxloss (or "Tax Scam") label, where the albums would be released unannounced and just plopped in a few places buried under a lot of other albums. Although it's just as hard now, at least the price to pay if one decides to go beyond the free route is at least better known, and the exposure is far better.

The Mainstream is not the end all be all, and times always change.

I would say the peddling of crap is probably more pervasive than ever but if you ignore the marketing hype and take the time to look for good music there is plenty out there. It is somewhat changed in not having physical media to hold onto but digital music allows for educated consumers to source a wide variety of music from anywhere with an internet connection.

As long as humanity exists, music will never deplete in value.

Now, the context of 'value' is up for debate. Sentimental and/or tangibility. Orrin has a point.

With technology becoming more readily available, it is much easier to come by creation and production/mastering software. With piracy on the rise, artists lose out on cash from their music, but retain royalties. However, with adblockers, they lost out on some of those royalties they gain on YouTube and other social media websites.

The seminar the OP went to sounds like a load of horse crap. All I see is some pretentious guy wearing a black turtleneck with a giant headset preaching pseudo sanctimonious platitudes to a bunch of gullible people (no offense to the OP). The value of music will never ever die. All it can do is evolve, and as humanity has clearly demonstrated - we will adapt.

Just my two cents..

Exactly right. Anyway, who decides the value of music? If music gives you pleasure, then it has value to you. That's unlikely to change (the artistes/genre might) throughout your life. If music affects you, moves you, inspires you, it probably always will; if it never did then it may never do. Trying to qualify the value of music is like trying to qualify the value of religion, or sport, or television, or anything else that can matter in people's lives. Whether some Suit thinks is has value or not is entirely and completely irrelevant, and for him to try to make out he's the authority on the subject is another word ending in -ant, but beginning in arrog.

Music will always have value, as a medium for pleasure, relaxation, reflection, to aid sleep, to dance to, to inspire and incite political/social debate, and to help express our feelings in a way we often can't or aren't comfortable with. Music will be here, and being listened to, long after we all have turned to dust. Even now, it's heading out to space aboard a probe, carrying some of mankind's greatest music beyond our solar system and out of the galaxy.

In the end, music may very well be the last imprint we leave on this life, and will remain a signpost for future civilisations to what we were, what we did, what we achieved and how we interpreted the world around us.

Here is my take on this: There has always been bad music. Even in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, there were some awful records however the difference between then and now is that there are more awful records than in the past. Like I always said, music especially Western Music were at its best from the 1970s up to mid 2000s before all the Lady Gaga wannabes and T-Pain copycatting started. The reason why the music business is in decline has nothing to do how many artists are there but what is the music today. Now the music these days especially if you want to popular mainstream person is to copy some rock group, Lady gaga or T-Pain (in the sense of Autotune). Copycatting has become a bigger thing now than it was in the past. Back then you knew when it was Prince, Ac/Dc, Madonna, Michael Jackson, Van Helen. You knew how those artists sounded. Now especially in pop music, there is very little to no more diversity. If you want great music today, underground is the best solution 75 percent of the time.

Music is easier available now than before, so what? Isn't that a good thing? You don't have to go to the store and ask for an album, you can just buy the MP3 online!

Oh no, I was speaking on the music itself. I was not speaking about access of getting music.

I replied to the first post.