Death of guitar and youtube musicians - Tim and Pete show

Teetonetal

StuartMac290 said:

Teetonetal said:

StuartMac290 said:

In very simplistic terms:

50s - Chuck Berry / Elvis Presley
60s - The Beatles / The Stones
70s - Sex Pistols / The Clash
80s - The Smiths / REM 
          Stone Roses / Happy Mondays
90s - Nirvana / Pearl Jam
          Oasis / Blur
2000s - ???
2010s - ???

2000 Coldplay, Muse, Arctic Monkeys surely? all massive.
2010  TBD - Ben Howard, ALT J, war on drugs, St vincent? Certainly all have created some kind of buzz.


But the modern thing is the record company just is not as important as it once was in any kind of alternative music. So they focus on mainstream. It's more reliable.

None of those acts kicked off anything like the kind of cultural landslide we've seen so consistently in the past, because none of them essentially changed anything or brought anything particularly new or fresh. 

Ok, yup, I'd agree, but is cultural change, actually important or required?

As I stated before, the environment is so different now. Cultural change on a large scale was possible because music and other culture forms were not accessible, they could sneak up and gain momentum, there was a buzz due to the unknown factor. now, everything is available to everybody instantly. It's not that these things don't exist, it's just less likely to be a sea change movement.

The frame of reference today is completely different, as stated in the video, those who accept that, work with it and drive it, will be those who can make a living from music. 

Stardom has always been a media driven false construct. that is no longer important.

guitarfishbay

soma1975 said:

Youtube hasn't democratised anything.  It's the broadcasting arm of the largest company in the world and its sole reason to exist is to sell advertising. Which means the material that gets sponsored and pushed is the lowest common denominator stuff. Yes you can find the music you like if you want, but you could pre internet if you really wanted to. Except this time Youtube will post ALL THE CONTENT and if something becomes popular they already have it ready to go and be monetised. 

Not a dig at youtube as it's great there is content for me readily accessible there, but I'd be very wary of suggesting is is in any way an arbiter of democracy. If anything it is a bastion of 'money talks'. See the Logan Paul controversy recently to see how they don't act until they were financially incentivised to do so. 

You're completely discounting free will.

What I mean by democratisation is people can choose to watch what they want. There is no paywall, there is no scheduling.  Everything is available at all times.

How that is monetised is a different debate entirely, but if a person was interested in listening to guitar music there's nothing stopping them, or stopping them finding new bands either for that matter.

soma1975

I'm 43 this month and I don't think there was ever a time when I was stopped from listening to guitar music. There's always been a way even pre internet. Youtube has changed the distribution platform but not the intent. I was inspired when I had a VHS of 'Rolling Stone Magazine 20 years of rock n roll' which had 5 secs of SRV, Duane and Jimmy Page playing solos. Nowadays I can watch those clips online. My intent and 'will' is identical.  

Yes it's instant and more accessible, but it hasn't fundamentally changed people wanting to watch or listen to stuff. 

Modulus_Amps

StuartMac290 said:

In very simplistic terms:

50s - Chuck Berry / Elvis Presley
60s - The Beatles / The Stones
70s - Sex Pistols / The Clash
80s - The Smiths / REM 
          Stone Roses / Happy Mondays
90s - Nirvana / Pearl Jam
          Oasis / Blur
2000s - Nickleback, Marroon 5, Muse
2010s - Ed Sheeran, Royal Blood

Finished that for you, but I suspect you will never see movements like you did pre nu-metal, with the internet and youtube we all have so much more variety to select and associate with, guitar music is not dead, it is just more varied than ever which is great for the listener.

Teetonetal

soma1975 said:

I'm 43 this month and I don't think there was ever a time when I was stopped from listening to guitar music. There's always been a way even pre internet. Youtube has changed the distribution platform but not the intent. I was inspired when I had a VHS of 'Rolling Stone Magazine 20 years of rock n roll' which had 5 secs of SRV, Duane and Jimmy Page playing solos. Nowadays I can watch those clips online. My intent and 'will' is identical.  

Yes it's instant and more accessible, but it hasn't fundamentally changed people wanting to watch or listen to stuff. 

But it's made it damned easy to find everything. We've shifted from being told about music to asking for it.

Legionreturns

The current and probably the last generation or two have been programmed to equate music / success with singing and dancing...and not a lot else. Dross like x factor and the voice have essentially said "You don't need to learn an instrument, there are people that will play for you to sing over. You don't need to write songs either, there are people to do that. You just concentrate on singing, dancing a bit and having the right looks / image".

Whether we like it or not, that is most of the mainstream music scene now. Instant success on the back of the work of others. 

Given that, who is going to take the hard route and actually learn something when everyone thinks they are one audition away from mega stardom?

How many times do we see a singer on television with a single musician standing with them? Occasionally yes, but it's certainly not the norm. The concept of a band is long gone. It's now the cult of personality. 

soma1975

Teetonetal said:

soma1975 said:

I'm 43 this month and I don't think there was ever a time when I was stopped from listening to guitar music. There's always been a way even pre internet. Youtube has changed the distribution platform but not the intent. I was inspired when I had a VHS of 'Rolling Stone Magazine 20 years of rock n roll' which had 5 secs of SRV, Duane and Jimmy Page playing solos. Nowadays I can watch those clips online. My intent and 'will' is identical.  

Yes it's instant and more accessible, but it hasn't fundamentally changed people wanting to watch or listen to stuff. 

But it's made it damned easy to find everything. We've shifted from being told about music to asking for it.

I'm sure there are many that would suggest the act of searching or trawling through shops or market stalls or receiving fanzines or whatevers gave it a much deeper intrinsic 'meaning' to them. 

And it's damn easy to find something. Unless it is blocked in your country because of a copyright claim or because that Studio/Label is only covering a certain territory. Many many youtube channels looking at filmmaking have basically been shut down even though they are educational, by studios citing copyright infringement. Ditto teaching songs. 

Teetonetal

Legionreturns said:

The current and probably the last generation or two have been programmed to equate music / success with singing and dancing...and not a lot else. Dross like x factor and the voice have essentially said "You don't need to learn an instrument, there are people that will play for you to sing over. You don't need to write songs either, there are people to do that. You just concentrate on singing, dancing a bit and having the right looks / image".

Whether we like it or not, that is most of the mainstream music scene now. Instant success on the back of the work of others. 

Given that, who is going to take the hard route and actually learn something when everyone thinks they are one audition away from mega stardom?

How many times do we see a singer on television with a single musician standing with them? Occasionally yes, but it's certainly not the norm. The concept of a band is long gone. It's now the cult of personality. 

Always has been.

Stardom has primarily been focused on the individual. Even within bands one is normally singled out as the star (with a few noticeable exceptions that were other musicians, eg Slash, jimmy Page etc) but generally people en mass have only cared about the singer.

Mainstream music has often been about look and marketability, X-factor just came up with a way to extract a TV format for it.

guitarfishbay

Well being brutally honest you don't need a band to make music.  There aren't even 'real' instruments on a lot of the chart pop stuff, much of it is programmed.  The voice has always been the most important instrument in the majority of music styles anyway.

The irony is, this kind of means that keyboard players won as far as instruments go...

Guitar can't compete with what you can do with a MIDI controller and a bunch of software these days.  About the only thing it can't convincingly replace in a pop song is, also ironically, guitar.

Musicman20

To be honest I have seen thousands of young people at big gigs recently, even at Weller on Saturday.

The industry is changing but good bands are doing incredibly well. Especially now the 16+ group are buying music via vinyl and getting the download codes.

The youtube personaility thing is odd, but it is what it is. The bubble will burst eventually as the earnings will be stripped further back.

Even now I just think there are far too many review channels, and most of them are a waste of time.

I quite enjoy some of the Andertons content. But, as players they are not my style. I doubt I'd ever be interested in seeing any of them live or buying their music. Fair play for making a career of it....but if it was me I'd rather be writing, touring, recording, and generally having an amazing time on stage.

Teetonetal

soma1975 said:

Teetonetal said:

soma1975 said:

I'm 43 this month and I don't think there was ever a time when I was stopped from listening to guitar music. There's always been a way even pre internet. Youtube has changed the distribution platform but not the intent. I was inspired when I had a VHS of 'Rolling Stone Magazine 20 years of rock n roll' which had 5 secs of SRV, Duane and Jimmy Page playing solos. Nowadays I can watch those clips online. My intent and 'will' is identical.  

Yes it's instant and more accessible, but it hasn't fundamentally changed people wanting to watch or listen to stuff. 

But it's made it damned easy to find everything. We've shifted from being told about music to asking for it.

I'm sure there are many that would suggest the act of searching or trawling through shops or market stalls or receiving fanzines or whatevers gave it a much deeper intrinsic 'meaning' to them. 

And it's damn easy to find something. Unless it is blocked in your country because of a copyright claim or because that Studio/Label is only covering a certain territory. Many many youtube channels looking at filmmaking have basically been shut down even though they are educational, by studios citing copyright infringement. Ditto teaching songs. 

Maybe - but that's looking at the past again and saying my version of life is/was better and not accepting what today's kids do. Nothing wrong with either approach. Goal is the same. Find stuff that interests you. 

If you are a musician, you will always be able to put out content that does not infringe copyright law. Countries that restrict content, would do the same for records, dvds etc, most likely.

Freebird

Teetonetal said:

StuartMac290 said:

In very simplistic terms:

50s - Chuck Berry / Elvis Presley
60s - The Beatles / The Stones
70s - Sex Pistols / The Clash
80s - The Smiths / REM 
          Stone Roses / Happy Mondays
90s - Nirvana / Pearl Jam
          Oasis / Blur
2000s - ???
2010s - ???

2000 Coldplay, Muse, Arctic Monkeys surely? all massive.
2010  TBD - Ben Howard, ALT J, war on drugs, St vincent? Certainly all have created some kind of buzz.

Not to mention Arcade Fire, one of the best bands from any era, who emerged out of the post digital chaos.

StuartMac290

Teetonetal said:

StuartMac290 said:

Teetonetal said:

StuartMac290 said:

In very simplistic terms:

50s - Chuck Berry / Elvis Presley
60s - The Beatles / The Stones
70s - Sex Pistols / The Clash
80s - The Smiths / REM 
          Stone Roses / Happy Mondays
90s - Nirvana / Pearl Jam
          Oasis / Blur
2000s - ???
2010s - ???

2000 Coldplay, Muse, Arctic Monkeys surely? all massive.
2010  TBD - Ben Howard, ALT J, war on drugs, St vincent? Certainly all have created some kind of buzz.


But the modern thing is the record company just is not as important as it once was in any kind of alternative music. So they focus on mainstream. It's more reliable.

None of those acts kicked off anything like the kind of cultural landslide we've seen so consistently in the past, because none of them essentially changed anything or brought anything particularly new or fresh. 

Ok, yup, I'd agree, but is cultural change, actually important or required?

As I stated before, the environment is so different now. Cultural change on a large scale was possible because music and other culture forms were not accessible, they could sneak up and gain momentum, there was a buzz due to the unknown factor. now, everything is available to everybody instantly. It's not that these things don't exist, it's just less likely to be a sea change movement.

The frame of reference today is completely different, as stated in the video, those who accept that, work with it and drive it, will be those who can make a living from music. 

Stardom has always been a media driven false construct. that is no longer important.

Of COURSE cultural change is important and required! At the moment the guitar is completely irrelevant culturally, and if that doesn't change then that IS the death of guitar music as a significant cultural art form.

A bandmate of mine said this:

"Let's face it, we might have to accept that rock music is about to go the way of jazz, it'll become a specialist hobby for a niche audience and lose its significance in culture completely."

All very true, you might say - but he said it in 1992 not long after we'd been dropped by our label. A few years later, and guitar bands are all over the front pages again and on the 6 o'clock news, because we'd had another of those huge shifts.

Ok, my motivations are selfish, I care far more about great music and great records than I do about "great" guitarists, and I make my living working with bands making records every single day, but it's not too much to ask that someone out there is still striving to change things up a bit and make records that are significant, that folk will talk about and write about and listen to in 30 years' time!

And "stars" are important too, whether we like it or not, because that's what feeds the public's awareness in the first place. Oasis would not have been anywhere near as successful if the brothers hadn't looked fucking great and given brilliant copy.

Folk have ALWAYS been able to make a living making music one way or another, and a lot of the time it was a whole lot easier to do so if you WEREN'T doing your own thing - and that's fine. At the same time, the stuff that really matters, and gets discussed, dissected, revered and treasured, has always been the stuff that's kept rock music as the most popular art form in history, and the YouTube "celebrity" thing doesn't contribute to that at all.

Incidentally, the artist I manage makes enough from writing, playing, radio play and selling records to make a good living, and so far we've knocked back both the deals we've been offered, so I know it can be done! But everything is ten times harder than it's ever been, and a lot of that is down to the sheer lack of coverage in the mainstream press. One journalist from The Times wrote an article on her that they didn't print, on the basis that songwriters were too "niche". That's why it's important that rock music isn't allowed to become culturally irrelevant. If it does, there won't BE any new artists to get excited about.

Teetonetal

Musicman20 said:

but if it was me I'd rather be writing, touring, recording, and generally having an amazing time on stage.

Wouldn't we all.

Hands up those on here who have managed to make a living doing that.. it bet it's not so many.

soma1975

Not looking at the past and saying it was better. Looking at the past and saying it was essentially the same. Just the distribution methods have changed. 

Musicman20

Teetonetal said:

Musicman20 said:

but if it was me I'd rather be writing, touring, recording, and generally having an amazing time on stage.

Wouldn't we all.

Hands up those on here who have managed to make a living doing that.. it bet it's not so many.

I'm not so fussed about music for a living. I gave up on that idea when my bass tutor (I was about 13) told me it was an incredibly difficult career to make a living off, and that I should follow the academic route, which I have.

Since then I've toured, recorded, played live, written, etc....but out of my own back pocket.  Occassionally we just about covered costs.

I also tried the covers route but it isn't for me right now.

My next goal is to write the majority of the songs and get good friends together and enjoy it. I've not been in a good band for a few years due to work.

VimFuego

/\ /\ I know a fair few pro folk musicians and all but one or two make some or the bulk of their living from teaching rather than performing and selling CD's. 

Teetonetal

Musicman20 said:

Teetonetal said:

Musicman20 said:

but if it was me I'd rather be writing, touring, recording, and generally having an amazing time on stage.

Wouldn't we all.

Hands up those on here who have managed to make a living doing that.. it bet it's not so many.

I'm not so fussed about music for a living. I gave up on that idea when my bass tutor (I was about 13) told me it was an incredibly difficult career to make a living off, and that I should follow the academic route, which I have.

Since then I've toured, recorded, played live, written, etc....but out of my own back pocket.  Occassionally we just about covered costs.

I also tried the covers route but it isn't for me right now.

My next goal is to write the majority of the songs and get good friends together and enjoy it. I've not been in a good band for a few years due to work.

Yup, all good. I imagine that's what most of us on here are doing. Armature musicians, using another source of income to support our hobby. Nothing wrong with that in any shape or form. 

But I'm sure a lot of the social media names, are going on tour, are playing gigs, are writing and recording music. All the social media work does, is provide an income (either directly from you tube, or via knock on income via product demonstration, clinics and teaching etc) and, crucially give them a marketable name or awareness. I think the point in the video is a good, strong one. If you are trying to be a musician, then the better you are at social media, the better for you. Ignoring it is daft. Be that trying to get your band somewhere or just trying to put your name out.

Rocker

There is nothing or nowhere for a band to 'burst' onto the scene anymore. In days past we had TOTP, charts, radio shows etc where bands could present themselves and their music. Now we have YT with tens of thousands of videos all hoping to be discovered, to be the next big thing.

It is not just guitar that is in decline, and it is, but music in general. We played at a family event last summer. Almost all the young people there were amazed that we could make music on our instruments. Their experiences of music is someone singing on a video with the music happening in the background. The clothes worn by the artist is noted by the viewer, no images of the musicians are shown. Images that might inspire people to take up music and to try to learn to play an instrument.

Guitar, drums etc are going the way of CDs, DIY electronics, FM radio etc. No longer relevant in young people's lives. We might find it hard to take but that is how it is. And I can't see how this will ever change as once an interest slips down the publics' awareness and importance, it soon is out the back door.

Teetonetal

Rocker said:

It is not just guitar that is in decline, and it is, but music in general. We played at a family event last summer. Almost all the young people there were amazed that we could make music on our instruments.

Sorry, I can't (or don't want) to believe that.