http://wampus.com/2012/05/23/on-vince-gill-and-music-downloads/
 
After scaning Facebook today I found this article from a guy called Vince Gill, I'm sure the American's will know who he is...I don't-but there is a lot of discussions at the moment about the devaluation of music lately.  Including Nick Mason-Pink Floyd accusing USpew2 of devaluing music with the ifool travesty. 
 
I use to get into these discussions too, and routinely moaned but after doing quite a lot of research on music history this year, particularly the links between the classical avant garde and 60's art rock-which really was the last great stand of western art music...60's art rock does have clear links with the big three Bach, Mozart and Beethoven.  I have come to the conclusion we need to stop whining and find a way forward.  The music we create in the next 50 years will bare little resemblance to the last 350 years of art music IMO but we can ground this new music in structures and forms which are recognizable.  I think this is important, there is a need for people to recognize what they are viewing and here is the kicker...music will be viewed not listened to.  Musicianship is a fundamental too and this is something that needs to be instilled into the ipad generation.
 
Anyway this is a small essay I wrote on the subject surmising my research this year...feel free to chime in.
 
Yes, but all this says is the business model is broken.  When music was art...it was valued a lot more and the artists gained a lot more.  What we have now is mass entertainment.  Is it any wonder that people don't want to pay anymore than 99 cents for something that is thrown away? 
On the other end of the scale, look at Pink Floyds "Endless River" 30 bucks on iTunes and for CD format.  And 100,000 copies already sold, so for Pink Floyd the business model isn't broken.  Although we are still looking at 1994 prices and sales numbers.  But still not bad for an album that is essentially a jam album, and I have been looking forward to this as well. 
      Let’s look at a couple of facts, firstly "popular" music that is something you buy is only 100 years old, it never took off to the great heights until the late 60's and it only was that way for 15 odd years.  The reasons were, we were looking at proper artists, not musicians per se but proper artists, Townsend, Lennon, Barret, Mercury were all art school trained.  Around these 4 proper artists were the great musicians of the last 100 years,  people seem to forget that a lot of the late 60's "proper" musicians were classically trained or jazz trained.  These include Bruce, Fripp, Baker, Lake, Emerson, Krieger.  And around the proper musicians, the others learnt.  So all of a sudden, you have some very well trained renaissance people.  Top that off with Morrison and the film school stuff, the classically trained boffins at the best studios and you can start to see why music was worth something.   I'm also forgetting the literature based stuff too, very important...Dylan and the beat poets, Barret and English whimsy, these too are also super important, finally the connection with the classical avant-garde...Cage and Stockhausen (14 Hour Technicolour Dream Festival anyone?  Both Cage and Ono was at this event).   Unfortunately today none of this exists, the super-structure that sustained 50 years of art including music-is not there! 
     The technology is amazing but for all the whining, people still haven't cottoned onto the fact you need to fundamentally change the art we are creating and the way to present it.  In 1969 when Led Zeppelin hit the scene they created a sonic boom, so too The Beatles, this is when sonic rock gods straddled the stage and the world was in awe.  This era has links to classical antiquity because of this concept i.e. neo-classical rock or just plain classical rock.  Today this idea is not new and is boring, why would you want to see One Direction (Down the Toilet) or Lady Ho Ha on stage and submit to some sort of grovelling adulation?  It will not work...the world has moved on.  And the same could be said for pub rock, Oz's contribution to the world of music.  The venues are more or less gone, the infrastructure is gone and no amount of opining is going to bring it back.  This has a knock on effect because today's generation just don't care about going to the pub to see a band.  They are more interested in the ipad than the guitar. 
     So as artists we have to start to engage today's generation in a totally different way.  There are some fundamentals which are needed still, musicianship is one, and how to translate this to the ipad generation is the problem.  But again technology is the key, I use the Yourock guitar, and it fundamentally changes the style of music you can create, limits are a thing of the past. I'm going to hook up a fishman midi pick-up to my electric as well because the Yourock is not nice to play.  There is also a guy working on an acoustic synth hybrid. 
    But fundamentally verse, chorus, middle 8 won’t cut it anymore (sure there will always be a place for the troubadour), and so if that is all you’re going to offer, then 99 cents is about all your worth and less with streaming services.  Today you have to be a multimedia artist, this includes video, music, photography, possibly even computer graphics designer...although this last one is even beyond me.  Here is my latest attempt to meld high-art music with video and the latest music technology including: the Yourock guitar, Notion3 Orchestral Instrument (notice how I called it an instrument), DAW technology, granular synthesis and found sounds and video.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmNv25FxdBk 
     But if you want you art and this includes music to be valued more, then create art, not songs.  Here endth the lesson.
    
 
I suppose this is what I am talking about in regards to, mixing and mastering at the same time, creativity and various other things I muse about.  We are going to have to fundamentally change our mind set to get the best out of technology to create new art.  Those standing in the way are no better than the luddites.
 
Ben-Enjoy

Interesting article, but it does create the question in my mind of whether the percentage of musicians that are formally  trained now is less or more or is it a matter of perception?  I often find myself shocked at the musical backgrounds of some pop and EDM artists.  Yes, a lot come from non-formal backgrounds like dj, just like a lot of classic rock bands had people who had no formal knowledge of music.  At the same time some of these guys went through formal programs and top music programs and chose to make music that to many of us are just bleeps and blips.   I think your article, unlike many of the "music sucks now" types leaves open the possibility that art does not have to die but evolves.

dubdisciple
Interesting article, but it does create the question in my mind of whether the percentage of musicians that are formally  trained now is less or more or is it a matter of perception?  I often find myself shocked at the musical backgrounds of some pop and EDM artists.  Yes, a lot come from non-formal backgrounds like dj, just like a lot of classic rock bands had people who had no formal knowledge of music.  At the same time some of these guys went through formal programs and top music programs and chose to make music that to many of us are just bleeps and blips.   I think your article, unlike many of the "music sucks now" types leaves open the possibility that art does not have to die but evolves.

It's clear formal training is no guarantee. You can be an accomplished formally trained musician and still have little to offer in the way of creativity. I took a basic music theory night class at college many years ago and the teacher was an incredible pianist. She could sight read anything, no matter how complicated, and play it through perfectly the first time. She was also a very talented violin and French horn player. Yet when we asked her if she composed her own pieces, she just shook her head and said it wasn't anything that interested her. She only wanted to play other people's music. 
 
I think musical influence is more important than formal training. If someone has spent their life in love with good music and has the motivation to express the music they hear in their head, they'll get it out somehow. With or without formal training. 
 
As for electronic and pop music, well there are some exceptionally talented musicians in those genres, you just have to wade through a ton of crap to find them. I never stop wading. What with streaming services such as Spotify and YouTube it's never been easier. With the rise of the bedroom musician and people mixing and mastering their own tracks at little expense, there's never been so much music to choose from. Unfortunately most of it is instantly forgettable. With regards to electronic styles, I think a lot of people are instantly prejudiced against the genre and refuse to listen inside the bleeps and blips to perceive the music within. There are a few exceptionally talented artists working in these styles, but a lot of people would instantly dismiss them as musicians because of that style. An album like Matmos' "Supreme Balloon," for example, would immediately turn a lot of people off because of its bleepy-blippyness. But when you listen to it carefully it's actually a carefully crafted work of avant-garde genius which I'm sure someone like Frank Zappa would have approved of.  Sam Shepherd aka Floating Points is another one - his EP "Shadows" would, upon first listen, appear to be nothing more than the usual Garage beats of the type that would normally disgust anyone who prefers "real" music, but if you listen to it carefully with an open mind it's actually a beautifully composed and mixed tone painting, at the risk of sounding pretentious  And then you listen to his 16-piece band the "Floating Points Ensemble" and it's clear he's an accomplished jazz musician as well. 
 
It's never been easier to experiment with music. Some of the stuff I hear nowadays is nothing short of beautiful in terms of texture and timbre. There are electronic virtuosos out there if you're prepared to look, and their skills are incredibly versatile, including the whole gamut of music production from instrumental proficiency to synth programming and sound design, to composing and arranging all the way to mixing and mastering. What's more, these people are doing it without the pressure of some corporation with a bottom line breathing down their necks. The result is some insanely quirky and personal music which has been lovingly crafted by the artist at every stage of its production. A lot of them don't even care about the money. Sam Shepherd makes music in between studying for a PhD in Neuroscience. 
 
 

sharke

dubdisciple
Interesting article, but it does create the question in my mind of whether the percentage of musicians that are formally  trained now is less or more or is it a matter of perception?  I often find myself shocked at the musical backgrounds of some pop and EDM artists.  Yes, a lot come from non-formal backgrounds like dj, just like a lot of classic rock bands had people who had no formal knowledge of music.  At the same time some of these guys went through formal programs and top music programs and chose to make music that to many of us are just bleeps and blips.   I think your article, unlike many of the "music sucks now" types leaves open the possibility that art does not have to die but evolves.

It's clear formal training is no guarantee. You can be an accomplished formally trained musician and still have little to offer in the way of creativity. I took a basic music theory night class at college many years ago and the teacher was an incredible pianist. She could sight read anything, no matter how complicated, and play it through perfectly the first time. She was also a very talented violin and French horn player. Yet when we asked her if she composed her own pieces, she just shook her head and said it wasn't anything that interested her. She only wanted to play other people's music. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
You made a good point here, your theory teacher didn't want to write her own music...this is music type 1 or we shall call this type:  The Machine, they can replicate music and understand music to a very high standard but have no creative impetus.

Vs what we have today which is the technician/scientist which we shall call type two: The Technician.  This seems to be the prevalent type in the music industry these days and are creating a huge problem IMO, they have a certain creativity but vs the artist they lack an emotional depth.  It has to be this way because this is the way that "works" or push a button and it's still "music" some of the classical avan garde stuff comes into this realm.  Very important because without the boffins the technology can overwhelm the artist.  But the boffin needs the artist more than the other way round these days.  The artist can if not overwhelmed by the technology learn the craft an science of the boffin, and improve it because they are not ridged in their thinking.
 
This leaves type three: The Artist.  The Artist because of society and the current paradigm has been left behind somewhat.  In the 60's, the last great renaissance as I have mentioned there was a super structure which enabled all three types of musical creatives to co-exist and to learn from one another.  This is what created the renaissance and sustained it for a number of years. 
 
Without out this super-structure we're back to mass entertainment, and everybody clamouring for a piece of the pie.  Popular music and art music are intertwined without one or the other no technological advancement is possible, the artist pushes the technology to its limits and creates something new...the boffin learns how to use the technology so the artist can learn how to use the technology and the machine keeps the structures, history and context glued together, so the artist can learn proper melodic refrains and various other important music stuff.
 
Again, history repeats we are far away from the 60's renaissance in the middle of a new epoch.  A new classical avant garde needs to emerge, these are the intermediaries between the new renaissance and the old.  They have enough art, music, and technical skills to create something new but lack the popular music skills to disseminate. 
 
There is no point in opining about a lack of opportunities in music, there just has to be a revaluation and recognition of this.  It's a bit like the 20-mid 50's-the entertainers are there and will entertain but the days of yore are a distant memory and far on the horizon.
 
Ben          

One thing I recently heard that has stuck with me is a statement recently made by blind artist and musician, who is very successful. He said- " You are responsible for your own music career ". I agree with that comment. 
 
 

Ben, I respectfully disagree because again, I'm not sure what even an estimate of the numbers are of people who fall squarely into any of those categories. The widespread use of technology means that many young people trained to be type 1 are likely to have a good chunk of type 2 in them, which goes back to it ending up beingthe creative vs non-creative debate and even more ssubjective the artist vs non-artist debate. Pop music never hasbshown the complete picture and probably never will. Pop is typically an indicator of what labels feel they can market, with varying degrees of each type collaborating with each other. I don't see any proof that people are any more or less artistic. In fact, it may be easier to prove that there is a human tendency for people to regard what they prefer as being more artistic. Even within genres, I have observed this tendency which often leads to an plethora of subgenres like "intelligent dance music" or " conscious rap" for people within to categorize what they prefer as somehow being more artistic. Ironically, those outside that genre will still mostly lump it all together. I believe there are plenty of people who fit the avant garde profile you describe but it is a challenge for that vCard music to cross the barrier of common acceptance. Competition is stiffer than ever and the pop machine is more consolidated. It used to be somewhat easier to break into radio rotation on a level before radio station ownership was consolidated.

I guess I'm with sharke in believing that what you seek in terms of product is likely there but there is just more muck to wade through. I have seen some truly mindblowing youth who have a wonderful command of theory, technology, musicianship and creative spirit. The fact that these youth are not the faces of modern music does not indicate a lack of artist but moren of an audience problem. As we evaluate the artist, perhaps web should be collectively evaluatingb ourselves.

I believe that we are definately seeing a change of the guard, a revelution in the way music will be marketed and sold; and that we are in the begining stages of that change in process.  In my eyes, the best bet, to have some kind of success, is to write good songs.  Good songwriting in my eyes, will always be the main ingredient.  Followed closely by good musicianship and then good recording practices. 
 
I have an art degree as well Ben, but my professors always preached that you can follow your own artistic intrests, but in the end, if no one is wanting to buy what you have created, you will be a starving artist.

Interesting topic, Ben.  However, we are conflating a couple of lines of argument.  Music as business, music as art (or Art, I guess), and the types of people that engage in either.
 
Music as business goes back to the patron system, then gravitated to publishing written work.  In the 1920s suddenly there was a new form of popular distribution - pre-recorded music you could play even if you weren't a musician, the record.  "Artists" were selling millions of singles of a song throughout the 40s and 50s and it was big business, like Hollywood.  Put the popular in pop music, even if you just sold a CW song to every honkey tonk in the US.  Then, although it took a while, the advent of the LP brought in artists who used the whole 40 minutes available for a concept - even if a loosely constructed structure or underpinning.  Tommy is obvious, Dark Side of the Moon less obvious but no less so thematically.  Today, whatever you think of popular music (and I don't much) much of the local and lower scale artists can hardly eek out a living.  The big stars are richer than ever, but if you are a local artist/musician you can play as long as you don't mind not getting paid.  You can blame whatever you want, but a large chunk of money left because many people just won't pay for music - my kids being a prime example.  They download music for free, which pisses me off, but why kick against the prick.  That doesn't hurt too much if you are selling millions of units, but if you are working to get established, it means sales of CDs are limited to those that are bought at live gigs, and gigs don't pay enough to cover costs.  There never was a lot of money in establishing your "brand" (I had a lot of bands sleeping on my floor in NYC back in the 80s) but as Ben said, there was a touring infrastructure even if it did weed out the weak.  But music you don't pay for is disposable, and so what you get in the popular realm is a lot of disposable, formulaic music.  Nashville makes a lot of money, and a great living for many, but it is still living in the 50s w/ writers, producers and artists separate.  Country today is simply pop with a twang, as they say, and country stars are about as authentically country as my kids (who at least know which end of the saddle goes to the front of a horse).
 
Artists are not musicians, and musicians are not necessarily artists, at least with a capitol A.  As pointed out above, you can be a musical savant and have no other need to express yourself except through playing other people's music.  Still, that is legitimate Art.  I've worked with one of the best guitarists in Dallas and he doesn't like recording at all.  He prefers playing live and interacting w/ musicians.  Don't matter if it is on stage of in the living room.  That is his gig.  It is like pulling teeth to get him over to record, and only did it cause it was his girlfriend's song.  Conversely, I know people whose musicianship would fit that guitarist's little toe and yet come up w/ great, emotional songs.  They can barely play it, yet it rocks.  And great musicians who are well versed in music theory and, god bless 'em, try, but don't have an original thought in their soul (or head).  That makes some uninspiring product and even less Art.
 
@

Music used to be just one of a few home entertainment options
Today there are hundreds (or more) non music based entertainment options in our homes.
Has music been devalued due to the onslaught of media entertainment options
We need to discover new and unique ways to monetize music
Technology has changed the way we listen to music
Technology has always influenced the way music is created
Retain the joy of discovery in your music. Experiment
If you discover something new, pay it forward.
 
There are some serious shifting sands.  Things have changed.  The old model no longer applies.  Stop whining about it and look at what I have mentioned in bold above.  We need to find new ways to make money simple as that.
Royalty based library production music is the future.  In the past royalties could only be earned from 2 or 3 sources, the great news is that today it is more like 200 to 300 sources!  Find them.
 
If your music is really good you will always do well and make money.  (you just have to know how to market that music) Simple as that.  If it sucks then you won’t.  (the thing the teachers forgot to mention is that if you are a great artist and you are starving it is because you have not marketed your art properly. Art/Music tecahers don't have a clue about marketing. They are on a salary and they dont have to! They are basically lazy) 
 
The bar is high now.  I think we are in a very exciting time.  Think positive.
 
Two excellent books:
 
http://www.amazon.com/Demystifying-Cue-Thoughts-strategies-competitive/dp/1500686107/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415133302&sr=1-1&keywords=demystifying+the+cue
 
and
 
http://www.amazon.com/Music-Marketing-DIY-Musician-Executing/dp/1480369527/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0K3FBPX6N9Q9WCX1ZYNG
 
Demystifying the Cue is an excellent book for those interested in producing production library music.  This area of music making and earning is GROWING!!!!
 
The Marketing book is heavy going but essential.  The problem with many many many musicians is they have no idea how to market their music in today’s modern world.  Learn and do it!
 
U2 is a great band and anyone thinking otherwise is just plain silly.  The free album and the free idea was excellent.  It has created a situation where all their other album sales have gone up bigtime.  Smart.  They are making even more money. I like it!

Thanks for contributing guys...I was just musing whilst waiting for the next bus.
 
A couple of things AT, The big stars are richer than ever but they're fewer and far between.  For every Jay Z and his Mr's...there is a Lady Who Ha, who apparently almost went bankrupt a couple of years ago (don't get me wrong I would have laughed if that had happened).  And apart from the for mentioned Jay Z I'm struggling to come up with a new artist...Bieber sure-that is in the uber rich category or is even close.  I think a lot of the "new talent"-lol look flash but it's all show.  Without record sales no amount of touring replaces that steady stream of income. It was amazing at how rich the "artists" of the 60's 70's and to a lesser extent, early 80's became because of CD re-issues...they're still trying to do it.  Shakes head. (Oh the humanity to get the "new" Queen song "Let me into your heart" which actually is a good song, albeit nothing new...you have to buy the whole ****ing greatest hits collection).
 
Touring is the big money earner but even this is not as lucrative as it seems...for every Rolling Stones there is Lady Who Ha (sorry) she went out and toured (tortured) and for all intent and purposes, it was a flop.  Paul McCartney is raking in the doe, and even though 130 million is a lot...a lot of money he is having to slog it out because he can't sell out the 50,000+ arenas anymore (although some would 18,000 seat stadiums are doing all right).  The man is 72 and is doing the workload of a teenager.  But again it's the big artists who are raking in the cash.  It's the grand dad brigade as the are being touted that are doing well.  I'm again struggling to name a big artist-who took the world by storm apart from Bieber who is doing well in this current climate.  And the Bieber thing is over 4 years old now. 
 
I think this highlights the struggle the music industry is facing and why we have to start thinking differently again.  In fact we need to stop thinking about the music industry all together and start thinking possibly about the three categories as the starting point for what is to come.  And even here lies a problem...music is no longer the main only form of entertainment and sound reproduced and live is no longer exciting and new.  These two incontrovertible facts have to be considered seriously. 
 
Even the machines-the savants are going to struggle soon and I'm already seeing that in the two conservatoriums I've attended here in Oz.  Both conservatoriums are going steadily broke.  There is only so many times you can see a Beethoven or Mozart piece.  It is the elites and the government...particularly in Oz which is keeping the old system alive.  Look at this graph and the disparity between the funding of orchestras and opera and the rest.  http://artfacts.australiacouncil.gov.au/overview/support-15/ov-fact76/ it is seriously demented.
 
This will have serious consequences, because as I have said, artists need technicians and machines need technicians and artists.  At the moment the technicians with a few others are building the digital equivalent of Hadrian's wall and we saw how this ended for the Romans.
 
Again I don't know what the solution is...probably an amalgam of some of the arts...i.e. music/video and photography would be a good start.  It is no longer good enough to be just a "musician" or for that matter an "artist"- you have to be all things and I think we need to start thinking about this.
 
So for the boffins who inhabit these boards I suggest, rather than tell up and comers you cant mix and master, or you need a proper studio or whatever outdated antiquated notion they have in regards to musical art, stop filling people's head with nonsense.  Your digital Hadrian's wall wont stop the march of progress.  Perhaps it is time for the boffins to update their skill set and get on board and teach what is needed to create great art from what we have...which is better than anything the greatest artists of the last 100 years have had. 
 
The ubiquitous black box may not be a 100 thousand dollar console, but it is relatively noise free and used properly, sonically neutral.  Use one of the many console emulation devices to add flavour and colour.  Heck the ubiquitous black box with a Redd console emulator is probably better than the real thing because it is cheaper, probably has less noise and everyone can access it.  Why not understand how to mix with a set of cans, come up with a formula to teach newbies how to use a set of cans to mix and master.  Don't just sit there with your outdated notions and say...tut tut it is wrong and no you can't.  ****...I know it is ****. 
 
We as musicians (because I'm actually a very competent musician-scales-music theory-history, not just artist, photographer or video artist) also have a part to play.  We need to encourage newbies the joy in learning an instrument-yes a real one, learning some theory-more fun and more importantly musical context...history and culture.  Then how to digitize this...analogue musical art.  And here lies the fundamental problem, teaching how to digitize analogue musical art.  Once you know an instrument or play an instrument intimately (I've used the same acoustic guitar for 23 years and same electric for 14 both have been refurbished and am planning to do so again soon), you can turn your DAW into an instrument.
 
If we started to implement some of the ideas I have suggested...rather than buy into the various propaganda campaigns, which permeate the various media streams, musical art might just be saveable.  But again there needs to be a wide spread push to incorporate a wider art into music and a deeper understanding of the need to hybridise the different roles which were once a team effort but are now a solo effort.  To opine for the days of yore, will do nothing but see the fall of the empire.  
 
Ben