Welcome to the new musical middle class?

[Vauxhall95]

An interesting article on the leveling of the playing field between the old label system and the new music paradigm. As it relates to Morrissey, he seems to be a staunch proponent of the old system. During the seven year drought, he certainly could have released music directly to his fan base via the internet, but he chose instead to wait for a recording contract. Also, I've read in interviews where he complains that everyone seems to be making music (on this point I agree).

I think the article over simplifies the issue, as I've never heard of the bands they claim to be part of this new music revolution. I think being signed by a label gives you much wider distribution and access to a larger fanbase. Still and all, I do wish the man would embrace the internet and his fan base directly. Why make us purchase another "Best Of" when all we want are the two new studio tracks?



The Musical Middle Class Theory To Rebuttal
Posted: November 2, 2007
WORLD WIDE WEB (Hypebot) – THE NEW PARADIGM PART I - The digital music revolution has fractured media consumption into niches, shifted creation and distribution from the few to the many and nearly leveled the playing field between the powerful labels and the committed individual.

Welcome to the new musical middle class.

Musicians no longer need a big check from a label to record or a big promotional push to launch a career. With free software and a computer great music is being created in basements everywhere. On social networking sites and virally between friends and across the blogosphere unknown music is finding an audience.

Slowly but visibly many of these artists are inventing their careers. Not a career fueled by Krystal and delivered in limos, but rather one earned by practicing their craft, listening to their fans and delivering the results live.

The fans may only number from 20-100,000. But without greedy hands in the middle, the profits are enough. And mercifully, the results of this labor are not as ephemeral as in the past. If the artist's effort continues; fans stay loyal.

There will always be mega-stars and one hit wonders. But how hopeful it is for musicians, fans and for music, that there is finally a place for middle class of musicians proud of their craft and connected to their audience. And what wonderful opportunities await for the middle class of labels and other companies created to serve them.

Hypebot's New Paradigm series continues later this week with: Part II - A Global Perspective and Part III - The New Models.

Part 2

On Monday in the first part in a series called The New Paradigm, I wrote about what I see as "The Rise Of The New Musical Middle Class" some learned Hypebot readers questioned my premise and a healthy debate followed. Join the debate and tell us what you think.

Glenn @ Coolfer - "...I'd be more prone to call it a growing lower-middle class. There is an absolute glut of music online...As the audience becomes more fractured, each player's piece of the pie shrinks... As for increased loyalty, that will depend on the band's use of customer relationship tools. I believe success can be as fleeting as ever - look no further than the manner in which bloggers chew up and spit out bands at record rates..."

Bruce Houghton @ Hypebot - "In my own agency Skyline Music I see it in the organic growth of bands like Hot Buttered Rum and Toubab Krewe - neither of whom have never had real record deals and who now sell out enough 500-100 seat venues to make a decent living touring and selling music and merch direct to fans.

I also see it in former "label bands" like Over The Rhine. They are a fabulous band with loyal fans - but musically they don't fit anywhere neat in terms of radio or other media.

But by continuing to make quality music and using all the Music 2.0 tools, they can hold on to and grow their fans base and make a living doing it..."

Mike @ Radio Nowhere - "The Rise of the Musical Middle Class has been imminent for a few years now, but it's starting to seem like it's going to be permanently just around the corner.

When people talk about bands that are opting out of the old major label way of doing business and using this new-fangled internet to chart their own course, these bands almost always seem to be acts that I've already heard of...because they got some traction in the old system before they opted out of it. Your mention of Over The Rhine is a good example.

Don't get me wrong - I'd love it if 2008 were the year that the new paradigm finally arrived (in fact, I'm staking my own musical career on it), but just because the technology for Music 2.0 is here doesn't necessarily mean that the economics of the situation have changed. The theory makes sense, but in practice, the money and attention that talented musicians need to break out of obscurity still seems to be in short supply.

 

[Worm]

"You're so...middle class!" Bosie Douglas (Jude Law) to Oscar Wilde (Stephen Fry), "Wilde".​

Looked at from the perspective of slightly older music fans, the "new paradigm" the article describes seems like a golden dream: no outsized egos, no slobbering record execs, no greedy corporations, just musicians and audience.

Except that the music scene will resemble a flat, sprawling suburb of scattered musicians playing to scattered audiences. No peaks. No holy ground. No magic sites. Most of the best music of the last twenty or thirty years was made by artists who understood the pitfalls of the music industry but braved them anyway because they believed it was vital their music reached as many people as possible. They understood the "popular" part of "popular music" wasn't necessarily an exploitative idea made up by avaricious businessmen, but a term to be fought over and redefined on new terms. Morrissey has nothing in common with some singer/songwriter whose only ambition is to earn enough that he can quit his job at Starbucks and maybe afford a decent car to drive from gig to gig on his massive three county pool hall tour. And I don't think it's down to ambition only-- you can hear the difference in the music.

Wait until the older generation of bands have come and gone. See how many great musicians will be around, nurtured under the "new paradigm". I don't think there will be many left. The charm of niche bands will wear off pretty quickly when the music industry is made up entirely of niche bands. (They won't even be niche bands anymore.) It's not merely a question of power, means of production, distribution, etc. It's a question of inspiration and magic, and I don't see either flourishing in the new scale of things.

 

[Vauxhall95]

"Except that the music scene will resemble a flat, sprawling suburb of scattered musicians playing to scattered audiences."

It seems all media is heading in this direction. Television, news, the internet not only are broken up into niche markets but then "sub-markets." Not only can you get the sports package on TV, we have 5 golf channels, and 3 NASCAR channels, and on, and on. What worries me the most is: what are the ramifications of a generation brought up with media that only coincides with their own beliefs or re-enforces those beliefs? It would seem you would never think for yourself, challenge beliefs, or question anything because there will always be an outlet to turn to to agree with you. Strange times...

 

[Worm]

"Except that the music scene will resemble a flat, sprawling suburb of scattered musicians playing to scattered audiences."

It seems all media is heading in this direction. Television, news, the internet not only are broken up into niche markets but then "sub-markets." Not only can you get the sports package on TV, we have 5 golf channels, and 3 NASCAR channels, and on, and on. What worries me the most is: what are the ramifications of a generation brought up with media that only coincides with their own beliefs or re-enforces those beliefs? It would seem you would never think for yourself, challenge beliefs, or question anything because there will always be an outlet to turn to to agree with you. Strange times...

That's exactly right. "New media" or whatever are echo chambers. There are probably many consequences of this, some good, some bad, but ultimately I think it's indisputable that art will lose its power to enchant. Music, movies, and all the rest will become much more disposable than they have ever been. You already see that with MP3s.

Having said that, it's also possible-- maybe even likely-- that the future will be much more glorious than the present, just in a way nobody can predict. The human brain could undergo a dramatic re-wiring, perhaps for the better. Even if that's the case, so many aspects of our culture are clearly at a point of no return. You and I will probably never know if all these changes are for good or ill. But if I had to guess, well, I'm not optimistic.

 

[Danny]

Interesting conversation going on about this subject here: http://www.velvetrope.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=449825&page=1&fpart=1

I think it's simply that the shared pop culture that was centred on music is now centred on celebrity lives. Everyone knows who the lastest reality star is shagging but the pop music that the whole country shared in is a thing of the past I'm afraid.

As soon as the singles chart died that was inevitable. Pop music is going to have to set it's sights a little lower and pop musicians are going to have to accept just being musicians instead of international megastars. If you want to be a megastar a better way is to appear in a porn video on youtube, shag someone famous or make ringtones.

In some ways this could free real musicians from the tyranny of the mainstream. Maybe good pop singers will be like high quality boutiques, no longer having to compete with the high street shop type singer who panders to the lowest common denominator.

As far as Morrissey goes, I can't see him embracing anything to do with the new way of doing things. He's probably still thinking that downloads are going to be banned from the singles chart any day now because it was such a silly idea.

 

[Worm]

Interesting conversation going on about this subject here: http://www.velvetrope.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=449825&page=1&fpart=1

I think it's simply that the shared pop culture that was centred on music is now centred on celebrity lives. Everyone knows who the lastest reality star is shagging but the pop music that the whole country shared in is a thing of the past I'm afraid.

As soon as the singles chart died that was inevitable. Pop music is going to have to set it's sights a little lower and pop musicians are going to have to accept just being musicians instead of international megastars. If you want to be a megastar a better way is to appear in a porn video on youtube, shag someone famous or make ringtones.

In some ways this could free real musicians from the tyranny of the mainstream. Maybe good pop singers will be like high quality boutiques, no longer having to compete with the high street shop type singer who panders to the lowest common denominator.

As far as Morrissey goes, I can't see him embracing anything to do with the new way of doing things. He's probably still thinking that downloads are going to be banned from the singles chart any day now because it was such a silly idea.

As usual you make a lot of sense. I don't think the loss of music as a national enthusiasm would be bad in itself, but the trouble is that newer bands are not going to be popping up without those same kinds of music platforms (TV, radio, etc). I've read a lot about many of my favorite bands from the punk and post-punk eras in England and the U.S., as I'm sure many of us here have done, and in one way or another all of them describe the experience captured so memorably by Christian Bale in "Velvet Goldmine"-- being an adolescent, sitting in your living room, seeing someone like Bowie on TV, and having your entire life turned upside down by one perfect pop epiphany. Or a gig like the Pistols in Manchester-- that would have gone down as a "free streaming concert" on some guy's website Flash player. I don't think that spark of inspiration is possible for a thirteen year old kid watching a computer monitor.

But like I said, maybe it's just that the future is impossible to imagine for people like myself who are ANCIENT-- um, I mean, born in a more innocent age.

 

[Vauxhall95]

As usual you make a lot of sense. I don't think the loss of music as a national enthusiasm would be bad in itself, but the trouble is that newer bands are not going to be popping up without those same kinds of music platforms (TV, radio, etc). I've read a lot about many of my favorite bands from the punk and post-punk eras in England and the U.S., as I'm sure many of us here have done, and in one way or another all of them describe the experience captured so memorably by Christian Bale in "Velvet Goldmine"-- being an adolescent, sitting in your living room, seeing someone like Bowie on TV, and having your entire life turned upside down by one perfect pop epiphany. Or a gig like the Pistols in Manchester-- that would have gone down as a "free streaming concert" on some guy's website Flash player. I don't think that spark of inspiration is possible for a thirteen year old kid watching a computer monitor.

But like I said, maybe it's just that the future is impossible to imagine for people like myself who are ANCIENT-- um, I mean, born in a more innocent age.

"Velvet Goldmine." Classic movie. I'm a sucker for the soundtrack too. Now matter how much media distribution changes, I think we will all continue to harbor dreams. It is what makes life bearable.

I've never watched American Idol, but I hear people talking about it at work. I know Morrissey has come out against shows like these, but it seems like they have relevance and for the time being pop music still does have mass appeal. As does the celebrity obsessed culture we live in. I know I'm getting old because whenever I'm in the checkout line at the grocery store, I'm literally sickened by the scores of celebrity magazines. Worse, I know they must sell like gangbusters, but I cannot imagine why anyone would be interested in their lives.

 

[Vauxhall95]

"As far as Morrissey goes, I can't see him embracing anything to do with the new way of doing things. He's probably still thinking that downloads are going to be banned from the singles chart any day now because it was such a silly idea."

They only thing that really bothers me about his position on this is he has such a loyal, rabid fan base. Why not give back to the fans who have stood by him through good times and bad? A digital only release of a new song for free, or a proper studio version of so many of the "lost" songs in his catalog would be much appreciated. There is precedent for this kind of action. Billy Bragg did it with his anti-war song, "The Price of Oil," Radiohead is doing it with an entire album, and Prince has used the internet intensely to release material. Instead, he is set to release another "Best Of" compilation. Perhaps this was part of the new deal he signed, but he has enough by way of older songs and new songs to release a track or two for us die hards which would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Worm]

"Velvet Goldmine." Classic movie. I'm a sucker for the soundtrack too. Now matter how much media distribution changes, I think we will all continue to harbor dreams. It is what makes life bearable.

I've never watched American Idol, but I hear people talking about it at work. I know Morrissey has come out against shows like these, but it seems like they have relevance and for the time being pop music still does have mass appeal. As does the celebrity obsessed culture we live in. I know I'm getting old because whenever I'm in the checkout line at the grocery store, I'm literally sickened by the scores of celebrity magazines. Worse, I know they must sell like gangbusters, but I cannot imagine why anyone would be interested in their lives.

I think "American Idol" is more a case of mass narcissism, though, relating to reality TV and the like. People enjoy seeing fellow "regular folks" onscreen, especially with the lottery-ticket excitement of a nobody becoming famous overnight. And of course the shows are not merely talent contests but have contrived dramatic arcs, so in a sense they're just like any other narrative show on TV.

But it can't be regarded in the same way as, say, "Top of the Pops" or Morrissey's beloved Eurovision contest or things like that. "Idol" is not a showcase for artists. They have technically proficient singers doing songs they didn't write, which is very different and not at all relevent to the present or future of pop music. If anything it solidifies the accepted canon of popular music ("standards") and assures the entrenchment of greater obstacles for truly original artists to overcome. I don't think it's healthy in any way, even as a guilty pleasure, and has little or no relation to the popular music programs of the past.

 

[King Leer]

Bowie embraced the internet to the full extent, and even ran (is still running?) a successful pay site, which is a rarity on the net outside of pornography. But he's really everywhere and nowhere, which I think is what Morrissey is wary of. Moz likes seeing his name in headlines (in print) "Morrissey Signs to Warner Brothers," "Morrissey To Close Hollywood Palladium" etc. I can understand that.

Arctic Monkeys seemed to do it right, but they had the songs and still signed with a label. Combining DIY spirit with the backing of a label that isn't corporate to psychotic extremes can work.

And I don't understand why American Idol doesn't require the finalists to sing at least one original -- just to see what they've got outside of cover versions.

 

[Vauxhall95]

I think "American Idol" is more a case of mass narcissism, though, relating to reality TV and the like. People enjoy seeing fellow "regular folks" onscreen, especially with the lottery-ticket excitement of a nobody becoming famous overnight. And of course the shows are not merely talent contests but have contrived dramatic arcs, so in a sense they're just like any other narrative show on TV.

But it can't be regarded in the same way as, say, "Top of the Pops" or Morrissey's beloved Eurovision contest or things like that. "Idol" is not a showcase for artists. They have technically proficient singers doing songs they didn't write, which is very different and not at all relevent to the present or future of pop music. If anything it solidifies the accepted canon of popular music ("standards") and assures the entrenchment of greater obstacles for truly original artists to overcome. I don't think it's healthy in any way, even as a guilty pleasure, and has little or no relation to the popular music programs of the past.

"Mass narcissism." That's why I love your posts Worm, you always bring something new to me to the table. I would strongly agree with your lottery ticket analogy of American Idol; however I admit: I've never watched the show but have seen the adverts. Sadly, much of modern American society is predicated upon such dreams. The meteoric rise to fame and celebrity seems to be the opium of the masses. In my opinion, with outsourcing and the "global economy" the American Dream (now matter how cliché) is becoming harder and harder to achieve. As the rest of the world's standard of living increases, it would appear their is nowhere to go but down for us. America is still a land of tremendous opportunity, just be prepared for uncertainty and a complete career change every decade or so.

Your analysis of Idol seems right on. If anything, the "winners" seem like tools for the recording industry, and I dare say the music world is not a better place for their being "discovered." I think there is also a car crash mentality at work here, in which one can not help but stare as some poor slob makes an ass of themselves in front of millions of people.

 

[CrystalGeezer]

Wow! I love The Worm & Vauxhall95 Hour. More please.

 

[Vauxhall95]

Wow! I love The Worm & Vauxhall95 Hour. More please.

Vauxhall and the Worm airs weekdays for noon to 3pm on most NPR stations. We think we have compelling content: Morrissey, the new music paradigm, and the effects of global outsourcing.

 

[MILVA]

Morrissey wanted to become a pop star, and to become famous. He's stuck to that, since day -1234. The way the industry was (is) doing business was through control - and he's done that as well. He can't control the internet hypes, or the more diluted ways of becoming a celebrity for 4 seconds and a half. It simply is not his cup of tea.

For the rest, nothing new here - except the technology. Blues artists, jazzmen and folk artists have always relied on local audiences, and could even live without much recording work. That tradition still lives on and hasn't stopped being inspirational.

Pop music wanted to be grabbed by as many as possible, and therefore needs big distribution channels - be it the industry they helped create, or the new infotainment highways. And the latter can be as fake and phony as the former.

Music is still a live setting, a band, instruments, voice and a real audience. No matter how big.

For me, Morrissey's still off the beaten track: granted, he wants a record deal and the benefits of the industry; but on the other hand he tours without contracts or new records, just for the sake of playing live.

 

[Worm]

"Mass narcissism." That's why I love your posts Worm, you always bring something new to me to the table. I would strongly agree with your lottery ticket analogy of American Idol; however I admit: I've never watched the show but have seen the adverts. Sadly, much of modern American society is predicated upon such dreams. The meteoric rise to fame and celebrity seems to be the opium of the masses. In my opinion, with outsourcing and the "global economy" the American Dream (now matter how cliché) is becoming harder and harder to achieve. As the rest of the world's standard of living increases, it would appear their is nowhere to go but down for us. America is still a land of tremendous opportunity, just be prepared for uncertainty and a complete career change every decade or so.

Thanks, I enjoy your posts too.

America is clearly on the decline economically if you consider all the borrowing going on. And you can walk into just about any mass retail store and see that nothing is manufactured in the States anymore. As for the American Dream, in a way it's dead, but in other ways it's as wide open as ever. More chaotic, I guess you could say. People are still getting wealthy but in different ways. Ambition has never had a more accommodating environment in which to flourish, really, because if you're halfway clever-- and have no scruples whatsoever-- I don't think it would be tough to make lots of cash.

Your analysis of Idol seems right on. If anything, the "winners" seem like tools for the recording industry, and I dare say the music world is not a better place for their being "discovered." I think there is also a car crash mentality at work here, in which one can not help but stare as some poor slob makes an ass of themselves in front of millions of people.

Well, again, that goes back to the narrative of the show. In the classic Hollywood three-act movie structure, the first act sets up all the characters and explains the situation. It's less dramatically interesting but certainly more freewheeling. In comedies, you'll notice, the jokes fly fast and furious in the first twenty minutes or so and then the story kicks in. "Idol" is somewhat different, being a reality TV show, but the season is one big story which follows a similar path. In the beginning you have all the clowns and wannabes, which is simply the frivolous part of the story, establishing the dramatis personae so that the real story can get going after a few weeks of the competition. People are watching to sort out the heroes from the bit players; the contrast between the hopelessly untalented and the competent singers is really what matters, not simply the awful warbling of the vocally challenged. So in my view it's not explainable as a car crash scenario.

In short, even when people are enjoying the pleasure of watching amateurs fall on their faces, they are not at all detached spectators. They're already sucked into the show. Nine times out of ten those who say, "Oh, yeah, I watch that show, but I'm not into it, it's really stupid. I tune in to laugh at the people" aren't just hooked, they're thrashing on the deck of the fishing boat. It's all part of the plan. Simon's barbed comments in Week 1 are deliberately made to set up his comments in Week 10. Very little is left unplanned or unscripted. The term "Reality TV" is a misnomer. I mean, I know people who like those shows and although they're often surprised when I point it out to them, they're really no different than fans of "Lost" or "24".

In any case, as it relates to pop music, it can only be a bad thing for the future of the industry, as MILVA has stated very well.

 

[Danny]

I think it's a mistake to think of these reality shows as part of the music industry. They are TV shows and that's their primary purpose. I don't think they care whether they produce long term artists. When a single is released by one of these artists I'd compare it more to a soap star or children's tv show releasing a single.

As to Morrissey releasing songs free on the internet. Wouldn't that go against his philosophy that you should have to make an effort with pop music? If you get it direct to your desk and don't even have to pay for it, it's too easy.

 

[Vauxhall95]

I think it's a mistake to think of these reality shows as part of the music industry. They are TV shows and that's their primary purpose. I don't think they care whether they produce long term artists. When a single is released by one of these artists I'd compare it more to a soap star or children's tv show releasing a single.

As to Morrissey releasing songs free on the internet. Wouldn't that go against his philosophy that you should have to make an effort with pop music? If you get it direct to your desk and don't even have to pay for it, it's too easy.

A couple of thoughts, I've heard the women in my office describe a Kelly Clarkson concert as, "...one of the shows they'd been to in a long time." I shuddered and immediately petitioned for a transfer. Perhaps, we are the musical elite and look down upon these acts? I say justifiably so, but I do begrudgingly think their videos, appearances, and "music" have mass appeal. What that long term appeal is, we'll have to wait and see. However, I suspect you're right, and it's a whore-du-jour/flavor -of-the-month type situation.

As for Morrissey releasing music on the internet, I get it that it will never be a medium he will truly embrace. But again, his fan base his rabid and loyal. We are the PR that keeps him afloat and introduces his music to others. I think it would be very cool to see him release a song or two every six months for free on the internet as a way of saying thank you to his fans and maintaining interest. I'm not asking for premium material here, I mean a studio version of "Honey You Know Where to Find Me" would be a perfect example. Something his die hard fans would appreciate, while simultaneously keeping the interest level up. I don't think this is a radical idea. Instead, if anything it would gin up interest for the next retail only release. I think it would be a win-win situation for Morrissey and his fans.