The Fault Is Not In Our Rock Stars, But In Ourselves

Some years back, one of the major television networks -- I don't remember which -- had a great slogan for its summer reruns. "If you haven't seen it, it's new to you." I loved this! When I was a record retailer, I dreaded the summer. People left the city, spending their weekends at the beach or elsewhere. Business was slow. New releases were few and far between. But the faithful record buyers would still visit and talk shop. Yet for some reason, they'd buy less, claiming, "I came here to shop, but there is nothing new out."

As a longtime record collector I can tell you, there is always something to buy. Always! You just have to want to. Cue rerun slogan. "Have you heard this Alejandro Escovedo CD? No? Well, then it's new to you." I can post 100 titles in this blog that I am sure the majority of you readers will have never heard before. And I'm not talking about some obscure Klezmer band from Poughkeepsie that just released a CD of Buffy Saint Marie covers. Have all you readers had the opportunity to listen to every Alejandro Escovedo release? Assuming you're a fan of Mr. Escovedo, why stop at just one or two of his CDs? Why not go deeper? There is plenty to choose from.

There have been countless articles on the record industry and it's foibles. So many in recent months that it has become exhausting and downright boring. It's like watching clips of Lenny Bruce go from important stand-up to a sad shell of his former self, reading from transcripts of his court case. The same way the crowd just wanted to laugh, music lovers just want to hear music.

My last post was about a group of philanthropists called the Threadheads, who for no other reason than the love of music, started a record label. It seemed no one else wanted to release the music they wanted to hear, so they decided to do it themselves. You can read about that here. Through all the changes, firings, downsizing, lawsuits, major-chain closings and downloading, people still listen to music. We shouldn't let the so-called bigwigs, everyone from Metallica and their common practice of suing their fans to the boarding up of the sorely-missed Tower Records stop us from buying CDs. Just ask Mom and Pop. I'm sure they'd agree.

We can still moan about how the major labels were charging $18.99 for Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears CDs, but no one put a gun to our heads and made us buy them. At that time, when CD sales began to decline, there was stlll plenty of affordable music to buy. How about thousands of CDs on the Warner Bros. label that were $11.99? Or Sony's back catalogue at $9.99? (Do you all have Bob Dylan's "New Morning?" It's a damn good record.)

The major labels may have soured the consumer into buying less and caring less, but come on people, we are adults. Just because we thought it was ludicrous to charge $18.99 for a CD by some boy band with one or two good pop tunes, we didn't need to fold our arms and pout and decide to not buy the thousands upon thousands of great affordable CDs that were still available.

As for Alejandro Escovedo, I must admit, he is an artist I never really explored. His new release, "Real Animal," which hits the streets/interweb on 6/24, is a killer. Produced by Tony Visconti (David Bowie, Thin Lizzy, T-Rex) "Real Animal" is a welcome surprise for me. Mr Escovedo has been making music since the 80s and it was this new release that made me want to explore his past. If nothing "new" is released in the next three months of summer, I know have plenty of Alejandro Escovedo to get me through the dog days. So how about starting with Alejandro Escovedo? Then, you can move on. Do you all know the catalogues of John Cale, Ian Hunter, Richard Thompson and T-Rex? How about John Boutte, Stanton Moore, Bonerama and Dr. John? Little Feat? Joni Mitchell? Tom Waits? The Posies, The Byrds, Jason Falkner? R.E.M.? Do you have EVERYTHING? Buy some CDs. It's not too late to save the music industry, one "super-saver" at a time.

Comments

[ShawnMichel]

In the postmodern dystopia of this consumerist society, absolutely no mention has been made here (or anywhere else, for that matter) of the infinite difference between consuming something, as Nunziato wants us all to do, and enjoying something, which only a few of us refugees from this hateful culture can do. The latter takes courage, and attention, and implies you're not a cog or automaton, the former talks about prices and goes on and on about the same apathy they're responsible for!

Wake up, folks.

[normathumb]

Been a collector for five decades. My house is filled with music and memorabilia. If I listen to four records a day I'll never hear them all again. Favorite pastimes is browsing. I buy 78's, LP's, the 45's, cassettes and CD's. I have never downloaded music.
If they market a true soulful artist, it is only coincidence. We have an industry of little more then "production values". It is more spectacle then art. The industry decides on a product, highers the help, the songwriters, the stage managers, the costumers. They bring in the marketers to work on product endorsements, the fashion lines and the media campaign. This is all in place before they settle on the little pop tart to bear the brand. With bands like the Archies, the industry was able to move a lot of product without even having a real band at all. A "Mogul" will decide on an image/storyline and audition the players ala the Spice Girls or Backstreet Boys. If a band gets in the door the first thing they do is massage the "image". None of that has anything to do with music. It is a business plan moving a product that incidentally involves music. The music is the least of it.
Today, any new music I buy is from people I know or from artists for whom a record sale of 35 to 50,000 copies would be significant. Other then that, I mostly expand my early jazz, blues and old timey collections.

[Tony Sachs]

There were few bands promoted more aggressively, or marketed as more of a gimmick, than the Beatles. Or did you forget that? And since when has any pop star NOT had an image? And why is that so wrong?

Music wasn't some sort of charitable enterprise until 1995; it's always been a BUSINESS, first and foremost, and anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain silly. Take the showbiz out of the music biz and you've got a lot of faceless wonders with about as much charisma as REO Speedwagon. Why is that a good thing? Beats me.

[davidly]

Music is not a business. Music is art. The selling of music is a business.

[jaygatsby]

As ye sow, so shall ye reap. I bought all the vinyl back in the seventies. Then I bought some 8-tracks and cassettes to play in cars of the day. Then I bought a whole new collection of CD"s. And even some new vinyl so I could have it in analog. I"ve got 4 different formats of the Beatles, Floyd and Dylan (yes I have New Morning). I am never, ever paying for another copy of anything as long as I live. I agree it"s a shame because it stifles new artists who now have to make their money touring and perpetuates the monopolies such as clear channel and ticket master. But, Money doesn't talk, it swears. And frankly I"m fleeced.

[recless]

Doesn't it depend on what you want? Truth be told, I can't seem to find much that's put out by major record lables to excite me. Hate pop music with a passion. I've been much more successfull with finding bands through MySpace and other online sources. And I never download for free (except a few off the artists sites that offer it for free). If it were not for the internet I'd probably have lost a lot of my interest in music. Of the seven CDs I've bought this year only one (In This Moment) was a US band. Maybe if US companies put out better acts they might get more business. I know everyone likes to complain about what is happening to the industry, but I still think lack of quality is the core cause of the demise of the big companies.

Also, I don't get the need to have every album of an artist. So far, there's only one artist that I have every almum for.

[RedDogBear]

Sorry, I don't buy the "death of the music industry" argument. Or rather I'm hoping the music industry as it is does die and something better will take its place. People still buy music. Some times they want something right away, the quality of purchased music is often better than what you can download, etc. So people are still making music and making a living off of it. What I hope is dying is the industry that tried to push garbage down our throats by spending more on promotion and packaging then went to most of the artists. Digital music makes it possible for people to be more creative and focus on the music and to eliminate a lot of the middle man infrastructure that was required. If it makes it harder to create superstars so much the better. Most of them are just over hyped no talent posers anyway. I can be quite happy in a music world with no more Michael Jacksons.

[Tony Sachs]

Just because the people running the music industry have screwed up a lot in the last decade or so doesn't mean the industry itself sucks.

Was it so bad when "the industry" hyped Benny Goodman, Frank Sinatra, Elvis, The Beatles, Dylan, Hendrix, Fleetwood Mac, Michael Jackson, Prince and Nirvana, and sold a ton of their records? No, it was a good thing!

Would it have been better if the Beatles had sold a couple hundred thousand records through their website instead of selling hundreds of millions -- and touching off a pop culture revolution in the process? Somehow, I don't think so. The industry can be a force for good, IF we have the right people running it. Hate the players, not the game.

Thank you, Sal. Now excuse me while I go shopping for some Xavier Cugat CDs....

[davidly]

Ask Prince if it was a good thing and I'm sure his answer won't be that simple. The game is the music. The players are the musicians.

The question for the industry is whether or not you and Sal and those who run out shopping mindlessly for overly hyped musical product will be enough for them to keep from taking their last gasp. Somehow, to me, it doesn't matter, but I'm glad that the artists are able to seek out viable alternatives to traditional contracts with major labels (and their underlings often referred to as independents).

[pizzmoe]

Spot on, Sal. As an old fart who still buys CDs, not only will I buy the latest releases from my favorite bands, but although I've been collecting for a long time, i can always find gaps in the collection, and that includes records from any era that I may have missed.

[davidly]

Why do I need to "buy cds" from "the industry" in order to explore new/old music? I find and explore all we need through the artists directly--the industry's promotional advantages, not withstanding--and pay the artists directly in many cases. Only the lazy allow to have dictated to them what is worthy, that is, essentially dictating their taste.

So the bigs are having trouble with the Brittany contingent? Condolences. So your bored with reading about the demise of the dinosaurs that are the major labels? Might mean you're getting used to the idea, which is a big step. Congratulations.

[Nunziato]

Davidly,
It is truly commendable to find new music by way of artists' My Space pages and thru the artists personally. But just as I don't believe a loaded Blu-Ray copy of "Untraceable" with Diane Lane is a suitable replacement for a new CD from David Bowie or Coldplay-- an argument which is often used to illustrate one of the reasons CD sales are down, other means of entertainment---not everyone satisfies their musical hunger with a 6 track downloadable E.P. from Joe Indie & The Pocket Protectors.

The industry has made some big boneheaded moves over the years, and I am not defending them. I'm just saying, it does no one any good to beat the dead horse. There has always been affordable music available to all, and this post was simply a shout out to the "lazy." The $18.99 list price drove many away, when all it should have done was stymie the sales of those high ticketed items. Instead, the consumers just stopped altogether.

Some people are happy with simply finding new unsigned bands, or critically acclaimed indie artists through outlets like eMusic. But what if that is not your cup of tea? What if you are a fan the big name acts? Or classic rock? Or 50s jazz? It's out there and it's affordable and it's not compressed and it doesn't sound like crud.

And finally, to PSF---"ethical and moral arguments" are two pretty good reasons to buy CDs.

[davidly]

Imploring people to "buy CDs" seems silly to me, if what you mean is "go buy from the bigs." I know several bands, live venues, independent labels and distributors who sell records and CDs at a decent price, and the artists gets the biggest cut. They're no longer on the road "in support" of their latest, rather playing to entertain the audience, which I realize helps sell their product; the difference is, they aren't doing it to pay back irresponsible advances.

"What if you are a fan the big name acts? Or classic rock? Or 50s jazz? It's out there and it's affordable and it's not compressed and it doesn't sound like crud."
And some of it's available on vinyl, and you can find it if you want,.but that ain't gonna support the industry either. It'll support some mom & pops, though.

The musical examples you site as a counter-argument to alternatives to the major means of distribution seem to be an attempt to imply that music is crap unless it comes from a major label. My guess is that "Joe Indie & The Pocket Protectors" is meant to be humorous, but what they sound like to me is what the industry would try to pawn off as independent music. Hell, they've made their share of money off of the Indie genre they created as if it were a musical direction. Still, I doubt the proverbial J & the Protectors have seen much of that money.

[Tubby]

The "rock 'n roll" of the past decade simply stinks. Today we can select the music we want to hear on the radio or internet or cable tv with the flick of a clicker (early 60's rock, anyone?).

[fermata]

subtle for precedent in '08

[seawolf77]

I've seen rock stars. These guys and girls are posers. And it is a stretch to call it music.

[NoSillyName]

seawolf, I'd be interested to know who you consider to be "rock stars".

The famous musicians I've seen, met, or photographed are incredibly talented.

I'm not interested in no-talent poseurs.

Who are you talking about?

[pizzmoe]

Could you be any more vague?

[psf]

not for nothin', but you've given exactly no reasons why one should buy a record rather than download it for free. (and believe me, i know all the ethical/moral arguments, and frankly i'd be more impressed with them if the record companies hadn't lost that class action suit over those $18.98 cds a few years back. it's tough getting a taste of one's own medicine).

[Eoin45]

"but you've given exactly no reasons why one should buy a record rather than download it for free." How about so the artists who created the music can make a living? How the hell would you like it if I could devise a way to take whatever you do for free without asking your permission? I don't think you do know all the moral ethcial arguments and frankly I don't give a s**t what you'd be impressed with.

[psf]

first off, most "artists" don't get paid based on record sales directly, they get paid and then the record cos. try to recoup what they paid the "artists" by selling their records. as to your question, i wouldn't like it, but i wouldn't whinge and complain about it or allow it to continue, i'd find another way. and if i couldn't find a way, i'd have to find another profession. the fact is the technology that makes it possible to do what offends you so much exists and isn't going away, regardless of all the moral/ethical arguments in the world (ethics and morals that are in flux, btw). incidentally, did you get this worked up when the record companies were engaged in price fixing? what do you think of the ethics/morality of an industry that for the most part rips off both artists and consumers alike? (many artists get ripped off by record companies, and the profit margin on a cd that costs