The Rockologist: The Invincible And The Inevitable
Published August 31, 2008
Michael Jackson turned 50 this weekend, and I can't help but feel a certain irony there.
You see, as much as the Michael Jackson of 1983 symbolized everything about a music industry riding the crest of a perfect wave way back then, the arrogance of the way he called the last album he put out Invincible (despite circumstances proving otherwise at the time), epitomizes how and why that same industry finds itself barely on life support now.
There is a definite parallel there.
The record business Jackson's album Thriller did so much to revitalize in the early eighties is as dead in 2008 as Jackson's career. At least in the sense of the old school model that revolved around getting your song played on the radio or MTV, and having your album sold at an independently owned record store — or even a hip retail chain like Tower Records once did.
No big revelation there, right? The signs have been all around us for at least a decade if not more, so this is hardly front page news. You already knew that.
The fact is, we could analyze what brought the once "invincible" record biz to its current somewhat sorry state (and in fact we will probably do at least a little bit of that here just to put things into proper context) until we turn blue in the face. We could also debate to death the various arguments as to the merits and curses of retail exclusivity deals.
Ditto for the wisdom (or lack thereof) behind how and why the business once again became driven by the single song (thanks to MP3s, iPODs, and the like), as opposed to the full length album for the first time since at least the early sixties.
But rather than content ourselves with merely repeating a long laundry list of the causes which many of you reading this already know all too well, I'd like to open this up a little. Since we've already got a pretty good idea of what got us here, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at where we could be headed next.
There is a very interesting article in the current issue of Rolling Stone that once read between the lines, actually offers clues to both questions (what brought us here and where we may ultimately be going).
On the surface, the article is about the lineup of big releases that the labels will be rolling out this fall. To that end, get ready for new albums by Metallica, AC/DC, U2, Eminem, Beyonce, and maybe even that ten years in the making Axl Rose album being pimped out as a new Guns N' Roses release.
- The Rockologist: The Invincible And The Inevitable
- Published: August 31, 2008
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Music
- Filed Under: Music: Business, Music: Classic Rock and Oldies, Music: Downloads, Music: History and Appreciation, Music: Recording
- Part of a feature: The Rockologist
- Writer: Glen Boyd
- Glen Boyd's BC Writer page
- Glen Boyd's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
it is an interesting (if sad) musical business landscape out there. i too am not convinced that it's downloading that's killed of the major label portion of the business. it used to be that their were so many outlets for ear to hear new music, now there's almost nothing (mtv, etc.)
the other thing is that there are only so many entertainment dollars to go around. when Michael Jackson was at his peak, kids weren't spending gobs of money on things like dvd's and video games. somehow, all of this stuff is related.
"...there are only so many entertainment dollars to go around."
I went with my family to see Paul McCartney in concert in 1994 and tickets were around 30 bucks, which, at the time, seemed pretty steep. In 2002, my family and I saw him again and tickets cost nearly $300 each. That kind of price hike, in a span of twelve years, is insane.
of fer gawdsakes, you're bringing up ticket prices in the presence of mr. boyd?!! yikes!!
;-)
I think the general poor taste of our society is also a contributing factor, as well as the lack of artistry the recording industry continues to push on the public.
by "the industry" i'm assuming you mean the major labels?...i ask this because i think there's a ton of great music out there, but most of it's unknown to the general public.
Yes, indeed - my mind has been read and my intent discovered. That's what I meant - just too rushed to type a half decent paragraph recently. Hi, y'all - I miss your commentary - gotta star getting back into the swing of bc again.
It seems like there is a great leveling going on and I don't know that the change is a bad thing. I much prefer a greater access to material that I get on the Internet than the system we had before of a limited number of local radio stations with a finite number of formats. I don't need an album I like to go multiple platinum. I just need to like it.
Is there piracy? Yup, but the labels should have done a better job reacting to it. Offering access to other content like videos and whatnot is good, but a brand new, super-duper deluxe reissue for twice the price with six shitty songs that didn't make the cut for a reason isn't the way to go about it. Touring seems to be where the real money is at, and those who embrace the Grateful Dead model are going to be the ones who succeed.
That McCartney price hike isn't insane; paying those prices is. I would much rather use that money to throw a great party for friends and spin McCartney discs than spend it at a freakin' concert for two or three hours. If you have a problem with high prices, there is no one to blame but the people who foolishly pay and continue to drive them up.
Neil Young is coming (close) to town, but good seats are about $175 plus service charges etc. and the cheap seats need binoculars. Luv Neil, but think of how many of his albums or DVDs you could get for that kind of money.
It might be a bad time to be in the industry but its a great time to be a fan. Where 15 years ago I had to rely on radio/MTV and magazines to tell me about what music was out there now with the internet we have so many more options.
Sites like this one tell me what new music is being released and review a great chunk of it. Thanks to the Internet I can now download samples (or even the whole thing if I prefer) for free to test the music before I buy. If I like it I can easily find an online store and order the whole album.
Look at an album like Yankee Foxtrot Hotel. Wilco was dropped by their label for making a brilliant album. Thanks to the Internet people heard it, recognized its brilliance and they ultimate were able to release it. Would that have happened during the "glory days?"
The music industry is being shook up for sure, but as long as I'm able to have access to all this great music, why should I care?
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/80672)
A few years back, Bono was on CNN and he was asked his opinion on how to curb illegal downloading. "Make better music," he said, which pretty much sums up my opinion as well. If artists and bands want to keep selling albums, they need to write and record enough songs to make it worthwhile for the consumer.