Via maura

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/musical/2007/10/22/071022crmu_music_frerejones

- I would imagine there'll be lots of blogtalk about this one. It feels to me like he's fighting old battles, or maybe telling old war stories that aren't quite as tightly relevant to now as they should be. But the point about the shift from imitator to fan seems an interesting one.

Meanwhile there's still a couple of hours to vote in the Pop Open.

Comments

[blue-russian.livejournal.com]

i think that sort of misses the point, kat, in that indie's domination of music (or at least non-black music) is achieved more through the proliferation of bands on myspace, in commercials, in clubs, etc. and what records chart (or are bought) is kind of irrelevant.

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

Well yes, but it still means major labels are losing money everywhere except mum-rock (indie labels never make any money to begin with!), and hence are very wary of funding more experimental artists whose target buyers are going to be teenagers/students/music savvy types who nick stuff off the interwebs. The market for the experiemental stuff is almost certainly much wider if they were given the chance, but the majors just can't risk it in the current climate. This is totally moving away from the black/white question but might explain the lack of experimentation compared to 10, 20, 30 years ago.

[pot80.livejournal.com]

Well, it depends on what you call "indie labels" -- Matador, Subpop, and Merge are all doing quite well and have modest, profitable successes with artists like Arcade Fire, Spoon, Cat Power, New Pornographers, Belle & Sebastian, Iron & Wine, the Shins, etc. Those labels are doing very well for themselves right now.

[blue-russian.livejournal.com]

my point was just that if ALL 100 skinny white boys want to be either death cab for cutie, mcr, or pavement, by definition those three bands will get signed and those three bands will chart. sort of law of averages. whereas if you start from dcc, mcr, and pavement being signed, then it's entirely possible that the 97 other bands that aren't signed are different and better. and sfj's argument (=generalizing=) is that they're all the same, not that we're only getting to hear the crap ones.

i think your questions makes more sense in the context of radio, though: given the accessibility of recording technology nowadays, there shouldn't be any lack of high-"quality" music of all kinds. we can understand why major labels don't want to sign something that won't sell, and why stores don't want a huge inventory of stuff that doesn't sell. but why isn't there a market for more diverse radio. it doesn't cost these stations anything since they essentially get their "inventory" free.

(yes, i know we've discussed these issues before, too, but anyway...)

[katstevens.livejournal.com]

For US radio, definitely - UK radio barely seems to play any music at all :( But that's for another thread.