# I'm inclined to agree with Bon Jovi



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 15, 2011)

...even though Steve Jobs just capitalized on what had already happened:

http://music.msn.com/music/article.aspx ... fid=100055


----------



## windshore (Mar 15, 2011)

It would make a difference if credits were easy to see and made obvious on iTunes. The way it is now, listeners have no idea who the bass player with a group is for instance.


----------



## c0mp0ser (Mar 15, 2011)

Love bon jovi, but he does come across a bit old-man curmudgeon. The ability to pay for and download music has saved the music industry, no? Walmart mp3 and Amazon mp3 is part of it too.


----------



## c0mp0ser (Mar 15, 2011)

Love bon jovi, but he does come across a bit old-man curmudgeon. The ability to pay for and download music has saved the music industry, no? Walmart mp3 and Amazon mp3 is part of it too.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 15, 2011)

That's not how he comes across to me at all, c0mp0ser, and I would say no. Every single song sale is a lost album sale, and the music industry as we knew it is gone.

Well, that may be hyperbole, but it is largely true.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Mar 15, 2011)

The music industry was halfway to death before the iTunes store even existed. If anything, iTunes probably saved the music industry.

I can see why he would miss physical albums, but SJ has little to do with them going away.


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 15, 2011)

Can't remember when the last time was that I actually WANTED to buy and/or listen to all 10 tunes on a CD. :( (film scores not included)

Sounds great / less filler. OK, doesn't sound great, but still no filler.


----------



## c0mp0ser (Mar 15, 2011)

High speed internet and Napster killed the music industry, iTunes restored it.


----------



## MacQ (Mar 15, 2011)

Used to be that recorded music was the height of consumer technology. People listened to music. Now, it's just one of a multitude of distractions, and has more or less been marginalized.

I could be listening to a record right now, but I'm posting on VI-Control. Can't blame Steve Jobs for that.

~Stu


----------



## EthanStoller (Mar 15, 2011)

I would be inclined to agree with Bon Jovi, except for the fact that record stores are still in business. Most major cities I've traveled to still have at least a few must-visit record shops. Here in Chicago, I can think of about twenty indie record shops still trucking along. I don't have the evidence, but I've heard that the death of the megastores like Virgin and Tower has benefitted local independent music stores.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Mar 15, 2011)

Bon Jovi is living on a prayer. Or, maybe on PR. "Look at me! Remember me? Bon Jovi? I'll grunt something about the good old days...blah blah..."

There are plenty of great rock bands that release vinyl all the time; Earth, Om, Melvins, Harvey Milk, Boris..tons of bands. 

I'm absolutely fine with the music industry that includes Bon Jovi going away permanently. In fact, the sooner the better. Maybe he'll stay gone this time.


----------



## mverta (Mar 15, 2011)

Actually, shitty, disposable, not-worth-paying-for, exploitative, non-music created by non-musicians, churned out by the truckload by corporations, to the exclusion of actual artists with ability, is what killed the music industry.

Killed film scoring, too, which is why last year's best score wouldn't have even registered on intergalactic radar, were it 1978.


_Mike


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 15, 2011)

I think there's truth in most of the above, except that the music industry is a fraction of what it used to be. It's not dead, but ten years ago the number one album would sell in the millions while today it sells 50,000.

So no, iTunes did not save it.

One thing I really disagree with is that nobody wants entire albums. The album is an art form. We used to sit down with the cover and listen to albums from beginning to end, and the whole thing told a story of where the artist was at the time. They were conceived as a whole most of the time.

Weather Report's Black Market, for example, was all about the cover art. Or maybe v.v., but it was a whole experience.

I miss that. And I miss the selection of great albums, like Mike is sort of saying.

I've probably posted this before, but go to Wikipedia and search for 1974 in Music, 1975 in Music, etc., and look at the list of great albums released every year. A lot of them are lasting albums that still stand up - in fact my 16-year-old daughter knows a lot of them.


----------



## madbulk (Mar 15, 2011)

Bon Jovi is right about most of it. All that stuff he's nostalgic for was great. But his pointy finger is misdirected. Apple made lemonade.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 15, 2011)

c0mp0ser @ Tue Mar 15 said:


> High speed internet and Napster killed the music industry, iTunes restored it.



kinda agree...

i think it cheapened music. now a song is a dollar. before you never thought of a song 
at that price or an album at that price... 

with that said.. 

why wouldnt be cheap? almost everyone with a computer can "make it" thanks to music technology being so inexpensive and affordable for many good musicians. 
still nothing beats a good produced album. but most of and being able to "make it" is about marketing muscle from the music biz.. 

also, now the same dollar amount a kid has to spend on music is in intense competition from a lot of other entertainment option, much of them already include "free" music. your iphone apps, video games console(s), TV shows, Tv shows on the web. the web and "free" music. ipod games and small devices apps. 
1000 channels of cable. etc etc etc/ 

before it was.. drugs , 4 channels of TV and hang out with friends


----------



## RiffWraith (Mar 15, 2011)

givemenoughrope @ Wed Mar 16 said:


> Bon Jovi is living on a prayer. Or, maybe on PR. "Look at me! Remember me? Bon Jovi? I'll grunt something about the good old days...blah blah..."



If what you say were true, then:

_Rockers Bon Jovi have grossed $146.5 million from their North American shows in the past 12 months, making them the highest-earning touring band of 2010_.

...would not be.



c0mp0ser @ Wed Mar 16 said:


> High speed internet and Napster killed the music industry, iTunes restored it.



More like: high speed internet and Napster killed the music industry, iTunes stomped on the graves.


----------



## rJames (Mar 15, 2011)

Sure, Steve Jobs did it.

I thought it was Charles Darwin... or God since he helps all those rappers sell enough songs to get a grammy award.

The real and true answer is Al Gore. He killed the record industry.


----------



## nickhmusic (Mar 15, 2011)

pointing the finger entirely at Steve Jobs is a bit harsh, but from my point of view - yeah - I miss albums.

I remember walking down to my local Tower and talking to the Pop/Rock sales guy there and asking him for some ideas for a new LP that had nothing to do with what I was listening to at the moment.

I went home with Appetite For Destruction by GnR. 

On cassette too! =o 

That sort of experience doesn't exist anymore - a kid going down to a record store and getting his first taste of a new band.

Outside of indie stores it doesn't anyway.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Mar 15, 2011)

RiffWraith @ Tue Mar 15 said:


> givemenoughrope @ Wed Mar 16 said:
> 
> 
> > Bon Jovi is living on a prayer. Or, maybe on PR. "Look at me! Remember me? Bon Jovi? I'll grunt something about the good old days...blah blah..."
> ...



Right, it's PR. It's his face and a quote popping up here and there and appealing to the misguided notions of his fans. It's advertising. Music is dead but look how much he made last year. It's b.s.



mverta @ Tue Mar 15 said:


> Actually, shitty, disposable, not-worth-paying-for, exploitative, non-music created by non-musicians, churned out by the truckload by corporations, to the exclusion of actual artists with ability, is what killed the music industry.
> 
> Killed film scoring, too, which is why last year's best score wouldn't have even registered on intergalactic radar, were it 1978.



I disagree. If the technology existed in 1968 the (White) album would have been the "What album?" 

And actually the award for best film score released in 1978 according to the academy was awarded to Giorgio Moroder; up against Morricone, Goldsmith and Williams. So looks like scoring hasn't changed all that much:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D63mryxOO3Q


----------



## madbulk (Mar 15, 2011)

Nah, you're being stubborn. 90% of the current pop/rock stars don't sell tickets any more than Giorgio Moroder. The old guard, folks that played instruments like Bon Jovi, still pack them in, often at very high prices. The biggest grossing acts have been mostly old rock bands for a long time now. It's not PR. It's content.

Steve Jobs is a errant footnote here. The point is we used to have albums and jackets and liner notes and now we almò Ö   )Ò´ Ö   )Ò


----------



## rgames (Mar 15, 2011)

I've had this discussion many times over the last 5-6 years:

What Bon Jovi is saying is correct - iTunes did marginalize music sales. Maybe not entirely by themselves but Apple did lead the race to the bottom through their massive marketing campaigns.

The reason is that Apple has never cared about selling music - they sell gadgets that play music. Music is a loss-leader for them and, therefore, a de-valued commodity. They'd give it away for free if they could make it financially viable. Jobs, himself, has admitted that iTunes doesn't make money, and he won't care so long as the iPod/iPhone/iPad keep selling.

iTunes is there to sell gadgets, not music.

If Apple were honest about the iTunes model they would add gadget revenues into the mix and use them as part of the basis for artist payments. Good luck getting them to do that. Capitalism at its finest, mostly at musicians' expense.

So musicians make music in their spare time and Jobs and a small handful of people get grossly rich off of it by selling iPods/iPhones/iPads.

And yet many musicians embrace the Apple brand as their own. Another example of the triumph of marketing over common sense...

rgames


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 15, 2011)

rgames @ Tue Mar 15 said:


> I've had this discussion many times over the last 5-6 years:
> 
> What Bon Jovi is saying is correct - iTunes did marginalize music sales. Maybe not entirely by themselves but Apple did lead the race to the bottom through their massive marketing campaigns.
> 
> ...



yep

+1

and to take a step (big one) further...

thats also the reason apple, as any other tech company does not care (much) about fighting piracy. as long as we keep buying the gadgets its cool, no matter if the gadgets are to play illigal music or software.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 15, 2011)

BTW... 

i think we are giving way too much thought to this article. our views (any ours) are like 10x better than bon jovis. 

he is saying that it used to be all about going to the record store and buying music just cause of the jacket art? 
are u fukin kidding me?!?!?! 

thats the worst argument every. why the hell you are going to buy a record cause of the art cover... (it does help once u know the music)
but spending $15+ on an art cover instead of the music?!?!?! 
fuk that. 
anyone arguing against me cause of this is pretty much not understanding my point. 

thanks god for itunes then if the argument is only about that!! 

in reality, things change.. now is music biz. 
kids nowadays do not spend their time just listening to music. they do a bunch of stuff at the same time they listen to music. 
its not ituens, its not stve jobs.. its the curent state of culture and technology. new era, new changes.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 15, 2011)

gsilbers, I used to buy albums because of the cover all the time and so did all my friends. The cover was a very important part of it.

You obviously weren't around in those days.

***

Richard, I was with you right until you turned the corner at the end. Apple makes great products, and that's why they're so popular - not because musicians other than you are all stupid.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 15, 2011)

By the way, gsilbers, I go between agreeing with you about the culture having changed and then reminding myself that people still "consume" music as much as they always did.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 15, 2011)

The truth is it is gotten worse, not better and it will get worse yet. Not just different, worse.


----------



## uselessmind (Mar 16, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Mar 15 said:


> gsilbers, I used to buy albums because of the cover all the time and so did all my friends. The cover was a very important part of it.
> 
> You obviously weren't around in those days.



I sure wasn't around in those days.
But is Apple really stopping you from going out and buying some cover art?
I doubt it.

Anyway, i bought albums because of the music of that album as a whole as opposed to just a bunch of songs. And if not that then at least because it was full of great music.
Both things i could rarely find even long before iTunes or Napster existed. At least the former got much easier to find for me thanks to the internet and digital sales.

Before that i couldn't have bought music from a musician or band from the other side of the planet that only two people in my country had heard of.

I agree with the devaluation of music, with it becoming just a commodity but that too happened beforce iTunes and Co. It is the logical result when you turn to mass production like the (music) industry in general does.
Something similar seems to happen to the games industry right now. I wonder how that will play out....


----------



## lux (Mar 16, 2011)

Managers killed the music industry from within.

3-4th generation managers are scared as hell, young and manipulable, have no idea about what theyre dealing with and are only great in cost-cutting. So they just clone, as its the best thing they can do. And theyre not helped out by anyone because they dont want anyone to help them out.

Still costs arent part of any music catalogue. So basically there is quantum leaps between their minds and the art scene. How are they supposed to judge/pick what to finance and what not?

If we look behind and see whats the shape/form many of the top artists started, they would never be choosen today, as they were ugly, badmouthing, not suited for any reality-talent-show and expecially not controllable. Still they sold hundreds million copies together as they had a bunch of talent.

I've seen that so many times that couldnt be counted. 

Now, real questions are: how could we influence actual industry assets? Should we start dealing with small industry and help out buildin up a new artistic sense? is there no chances?

Luca


----------



## midphase (Mar 16, 2011)

I'm just happy that whenever I get that itch for the good old days, I can head over to Amoeba and get my fix:

http://www.amoeba.com/


----------



## autopilot (Mar 16, 2011)

Hang on - I thought video killed the radio star...


----------



## SergeD (Mar 16, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Mar 16 said:


> Jobs, himself, has admitted that iTunes doesn't make money, and he won't care so long as the iPod/iPhone/iPad keep selling.
> rgames



Gadget sellers + internet providers = lot of money. Come on Steve, iTunes does not make money with 30% income from each sold song ? o/~ 

SergeD


----------



## madbulk (Mar 16, 2011)

This is an aside but, yeah, it's increasingly hard to see how they're not making money on music. They initially saw it as a loss leader, yes. The best one of all time probably. And they still don't make a big deal about the money it takes in, speaking about the numbers more with regard to the impact it has on the development community's reach -- do gooders, they. (They don't break out the music sales in the annual reports -- it gets lumped in with apps and now the bookstore too. And that's way more info than we used to get.) But it's widely believed that itunes is profitable now and getting more so every day.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 16, 2011)

> But is Apple really stopping you from going out and buying some cover art?
> I doubt it.



Believe it or not, I'm only a half-wit, not a total freaking quarter-wit. 

You have totally missed the point and are quoting me to imply I'm making an argument I'm not making.

Other than that I agree.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 16, 2011)

Mike Connelly wrote:



> And while I agree the album is an art form, I'd argue that few albums as a whole today rise to the level of "art".



Well, most albums sucked back in the day too. So do most films for that matter. What's important is the thousands of great albums that are a gift to humanity!

Having said that, I agree with you. And it's a self-perpetuating symptom of the problem. There used to be a minor league system for developing artists - for example the Beatles played hours and hours a day for years in Germany. A&R people really find and develop talented groups. Then they'd spend months in the studio working on albums.

The total misses are an important part of the system, because only a small percentage of anything is great.

***
And by the way I really do think that the demise of the music industry started with the end of the album cover. I used to buy albums because the cover looked interesting, but also because of the studio musicians playing on them. Were any CTI records a bust, for example? I have dozens of them.

CDs are more durable, and they don't develop crackles the way records do even if you track them under 1-1/2 grams and keep them clean. But other than that I'm not sure they were an improvement over vinyl.

Digital files are a separate question, of course.


----------



## John DeBorde (Mar 16, 2011)

IMO, MTV had as much to do with killing the music industry as any of this other stuff. Or at least was the first nail in the coffin. Used to be that it didn't matter so much what a band looked like. Nowadays it seems like being good looking is a prerequisite before your music is even considered.

EG: A local youngun that I know was contacted to audition for a band that's had a modicum of success. They asked to see his head shot before they even wanted to hear him play. 

And the whole takeover of the industry be megaconglomerates looking to make a fast buck rather than developing talent...

I really don't want to go on anymore than I have already, but hopefully you get the idea.

And yes, I LOVED album covers. I wish I had as much time to sit around and listen to music as I used to. Now back to writing it....


----------



## John DeBorde (Mar 16, 2011)

or in other words, _"It used to be about the music, man!"_

can't remember where that's from...


----------



## uselessmind (Mar 16, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Mar 16 said:


> You have totally missed the point and are quoting me to imply I'm making an argument I'm not making.



If thats how it seems i am sorry. What argument did you make though?

I never cared that much about cover art.
In some cases they are very much part of an album for me. Only once i picked up an album because of its cover art, Faith no Mores Angel Dust.
Listened to it and bought it because of the music, but i might have never have done that without its cover art appealing to me.

These days i usually don't look at cover art anymore until after i bought an album. 
But i could still go to a record shop and look at albums, shop around, look at and read trough the booklet etc if i wanted.

So if you miss all that, why? Because i would think the option is still there right?


----------



## lux (Mar 17, 2011)

i agree that the album as an art form has been a great loss. First thing which comes to mind is great concept albums, where cover, songs and lyrics were integrated in a sublime way. Too many examples to mention even one.

Still probably there would be hundreds chances to create "concepts" with todays formats and just move the early concept to the new century. I think no extimable efforts are really taken to do that.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Mar 17, 2011)

I agree with Bon Jovi.


----------



## dpasdernick (Mar 17, 2011)

Anybody that downloads "Money" off of Dark Side of the Moon and thinks they experienced the best part of that album are sadly missing out. Add to that the lossy mp3 format and you get a double dose of missing the experience... PLUS you could shag your girfriend to the entire album. If kids are shagging to mp3's today there must be a lot of frustrated girls out there. 

I'm happy I had the opportunity to hang out with real people talking about music at a record store than sitting like a monkey in front of a computer clicking on song titles... (like I am now...)

If you haven't bought an album cover soley based off of the cover you haven't lived. Genesis Live and Teenage Head. Two fantastic albums I got based on the covers.

Lastly the experience of putting on a set of headphones and listening to The Wall or Ziggy Stardust was a religious experience for me. You really focused on the music. Heard every note, every inflection. As mentioned in some of the above posts kids are doing other things while listening to music like playing video games or guitar hero etc. To me that is sad. I doubt they're really hearing the music like we used to.

In summary, it was better in the old days. For me. Maybe you too. I'm glad I had those great moments.


----------



## madbulk (Mar 17, 2011)

Hans Adamson @ Thu Mar 17 said:


> I agree with Bon Jovi.


Heh. Ages ago on Bill Maher's early Politically Incorrect, Kevin Nealon in the heat of some argument says, "No no, Meatloaf's right!"
Had the same ring to it.


----------



## Hal (Mar 17, 2011)

gsilbers @ Tue Mar 15 said:


> c0mp0ser @ Tue Mar 15 said:
> 
> 
> > High speed internet and Napster killed the music industry, iTunes restored it.
> ...





that is a nice way of seeing things


----------



## Hans Adamson (Mar 18, 2011)

madbulk @ Thu Mar 17 said:


> Hans Adamson @ Thu Mar 17 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with Bon Jovi.
> ...


That's over my head.


----------



## Markus S (Mar 18, 2011)

I remember a quote from Arnold Schoenberg saying that the radio is really rubbish (not his wording, of course), because it destroys the enjoyment of the work being performed in a concert hall. Now Schoenberg is one of my all the time favorite composers (he's just an incredible talent), but I think he really saw it the wrong way. Kurt Weill approached it in a far more positive manner and saw in the invention of the radio the possibility of cultural education of the masses, that don't have access to the concert hall and even wrote specific works for the radio. Time moves on..


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 18, 2011)

I agree with dpasdernick. And I can shag my girlfriend before the end of "Money."

Don't tell my wife.

***

Markus, some rambings (not arguments, just comments).

The kind of change you're talking about is quite different from what we've experienced. But one thing that really stuck with me from the history classes I took at Berklee is how art is an expression of human civilization (not that I wasn't sort of aware of it before!). It's never isolated; it's what we leave behind for future generations.

What Schoenberg was talking about is the difference between live and recorded music. And he's only talking about classical music. Besides, the sound quality of the radio wasn't all that great back then.

Throughout the 20th century (or maybe from the middle of the 19th to the middle of the 20th), technological innovations changed us from an agrarian society to our modern one. Radio is obviously part of that, and that helped lead to recording and production becoming an entire artform of its own.

Pop production is quite different from acoustic recording, of course, and Schoenberg probably made his comment before that happened. I went to Berklee just before the digital revolution, but they now treat Recording Engineering and Production as an entire academic discipline, a degree major. (As you know, pop recordings do much more than emulate live performances.)

Rambling on: while there were 78s originally, 45s took over, and after that someone got the idea to bring out 33-1/3 LPs to sell more songs. The intention probably wasn't particularly noble, but it turned out to be a big advance and mankind ended up with some great works because of it. (Again, as far as I'm concerned that's what it's all about - contrary to what Bill Maher said about art being a diversion last week. I usually agree with him, but this shows he's missing a major spiritual compartment.)

So those are evolutionary changes.

What we're talking about now is de-evolutionary change, at least what's going on in the mainstream. A friend of mine - a producer in Nashville - says that music is now returning to its historical level of importance in our world, that the music industry is all through. I sure hope he's wrong.

Now, there is still some great stuff being created, no question, but to me pastiche by untrained musicians isn't a replacement for true creativity from people who spend their lives learning about music. Either is the business model of single songs for $.99, because it doesn't produce income enough to support musicians or serious productions. That may say something about our times, but somehow I don't think it's a good thing or something you can write off as things moving on.

In my opinion.


----------



## dpasdernick (Mar 18, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Mar 18 said:


> A friend of mine - a producer in Nashville - says that music is now returning to its historical level of importance in our world, that the music industry is all through. I sure hope he's wrong.



Nick,

Can you elaborate on your friend's comment? Is he saying that music's historical level is at an all time low? I have often pondered the fine line between the club singer who never got a break and someone like Gloria Estefan (I know, weird choice but as benign as I could think of right now) Both would have a decent amount of natural talent, charisma and a good voice but one goes on to make millions with her music and one stays a waitress singing in the evenings. The point being there is a fine line between one of us making scads of dough and another one (possibly equally as talented) starving.

Go back further to the minstrel days when a dude wandered the countryside singing for his supper. What is music ultimately worth? What has it been worth throughout history? Have these past 4-5 decades been a crazy spike on the graph that depicts musician's salaries? Is this a leveling off of the playing field becuase no one deserves to make 147 million dollars (like Bon Jovi) in a year for playing music. Especially when there a ton of us that would do it for 100 million?  or free?

The internet and the computer revolution has made a lot of people self percieved "artists". There's so much content out there. Some of it Garageband loops, some of it full blown VSL renderings of beautiful original compositions. They used to say that the cream would rise to the top but I fear that there is too much content now to even see the cream. It all gets lost in the cacophony of our modern society.

Now I'm like Bon Jovi pining for the old days... 

Darren

PS And I hope your friend in Nashville is wrong as well...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 18, 2011)

I think you get what he's saying: before the music business took off in the...what, 20s?...music was part of the world but it wasn't such a mass-market business. He's saying it's going back to its historical level, with minstrels and court composers and all that but no insanely rich superstars.

It's part of the phenomenon of people being more interested in social media (in which everyone gets to be important) than in stars. He points at reality TV, in which stars make fools of themselves rather than living idealized lives.

And he thinks that's not going away, it's evolving - i.e. if people get tired of Twitter (which I find totally inane by the way) they'll move on to something else.

I personally see truth but not the whole truth in what he's saying.


----------



## dpasdernick (Mar 19, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Mar 18 said:


> And he thinks that's not going away, it's evolving - i.e. if people get tired of Twitter (which I find totally inane by the way) they'll move on to something else.



Hopefully they'll move on to music


----------

