January 6th, 2013
Welcome to 2013. Half a century ago, a relatively successful
record industry was about to explode with the combined 1-2 punch of the Motown
phenomenon and the British Invasion, led by the Beatles—forces often imitated
but never ever to be replicated. Ten years prior, the one-off singles market
filled jukeboxes
with one-hit wonders. "-tions" and "the"
doo-wopper's were all satisfied to just hear their songs on the radio. If any
singer songwriter was called an "artist', the hyphenated modifier
"starving-" probably preceded it.
To put things in their truest light, the early Motown and
British Invader acts followed the same formula. But along the way, the
successes of the Beatles (and other Brit art school dropouts, starting with
Beatle-to-be John Lennon to members of Pink Floyd to Freddie Mercury to
"the other Davy Jones"—a.k.a. David Bowie to etc.) became creative
license for high art creative experiments that created cults of album devotees
and the FM deep cut professor dee-jays high priest. Meanwhile still bound to
the proven business model, singles ruled. Most consumers bought their records
to serve as sonic semi-subtle background entertainment. This led to the growth
in sales of the so-named "LP's". Dance party people still preferred
to spin just the hits, so the singles were still flying off shelves.
Then deep cut discovery jocks began touting their own
B--side discoveries. "For you naturambic natives of Iainthipsville"—to
quote Shrinegelk Gurglefurt, singles most often had the sure-pick song lathed
on the A-side and a throwaway nothing song on its B-side.
…A-list/B-list…A-Grade/B-Grade, etc. As Lennon-McCartney's bubblegum
top-charting achievements bought them their freedom and right to become
"real" composer/producers, the concept album evolved and every track
was in play. Label after label followed suit. There were fewer throwaways on
B-sides of singles; and on some single releases, the B-sides either replaced
the A-side hit or was made an A-side re-release. A notable instance of such was
the Kool & the Gang "Ladies' Night" 45 that had the eventual hit
ballad "Too Hot" as its B-side.
How has the demise of the 45s preeminence changed music?
Well first of all, around the time vinyl was eclipsed by CDs, digital downloads
soon after eclipsed everything via iTunes and the likes of the now infamous
Napster file-swapping site; the music culture changed. No, not just Pop music's
taste consensus, but the value put on music itself. There's a famous story of Motown
founder and then chairman Berry Gordy establishing a quality criteria for their
releases. According to legend, if someone hearing a record had only enough
money to either buy lunch for the day or buy the record, a hit would get the
nod over the meal. Then the relationship dynamic between record maker and
record buyer was a symbiotic one of performer and patron—literally singing for
many suppers. When music is free, there is no such criteria. I educate many of
the young folks who come into my studio (Lake Gennesaret SPS, Inc.) about the
supply/demand aspects concerning today's music market. I tell them that way
back in the 70’s when I was a teenage record collector, someone with as few as
three hundred albums would be thought of as a fanatic or at best a
super-dedicated music collector. The comments I would get about my 300+
collection were those such as: "Wow. Do you listen to all of them."
"You must really love music." [duh] …and "Man…You spend a lot on
records." The last line is the difference. This was the peak of the
pay-to-play era. Back in that time, many recording artists complained that
based upon ostentatious sales successes they weren't getting paid what they'd
earned. The uncaring industry scoffed; the labels were getting theirs. But in
similar sentiment of Pastor Martin Niemöller's (1892–1984) "…they came for
me" quote, technology and its generational progeny grew up understanding
music recordings to be things one downloads for free. One could pay if feeling
charitable, but if you can get it for free without sounding an anti-theft
alarm, it's free, right? Pay if so led, but it is in effect no prerequisite. As
desktop HDDs, iPods, and sundry smart wireless devices grew in memory capacity,
a 300-album collection was just the start of music library. Moreover, the time
that it would once take a teenager to raise the funds to buy 300 $6 records is
considerably more than the time it takes to download 4000 MP3's. Where this is
significant is with the listening-time consideration factor.
By the time a seventies teen has bought 300 LPs he's
listened to friends' collections and listened to his more affordable 45s found
on some of those albums. In the beginning, 45 rpm singles were mostly what I
could afford. I would play the A-side of a single until I was tired of it, then
flip it over to love to learn the song there until I could afford to buy
another 2-sided single. I listened to "I'll Take You There" as long
as I could, then "I'm Just Another Soldier"
What B-sides all of what I've written thus far makes this
NOT a pointless sentimental rant? The answer is: what has come of all this EZ-take
it music. If suddenly gold could be made from snot, one cold season and it
would no longer be precious. When a three-hundred album collection represents
half a decade of acquisitions, it reflects the specific times it reflects. When
music loving future composer/songwriter-producers have listened to their
money's worth of A-sides, B-sides, and all the deep album cuts, they possibly
grow up to be more inventive and reflective constructors of assimilated
melodies and lyrical styles that build onto tried and true traditions—creating
more timeless works than those without such cultivation.
It's 2013. If trends are truly cyclic and if we do things
right, maybe by 2065—giving ourselves two years to rehabilitate popular
music—they'll look back on these times as the millennium's glory years.
SiDizzzouttt!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment