Is the internet stifling new music?

[Don]

The internet may have been a miracle for music fans, Duran Duran star John Taylor says, but instant access to decades of recordings and artists' inner thoughts is not all good.

In an extract from a speech marking the 40th anniversary of the first message sent over the internet, Taylor explains why the likes of Twitter and YouTube may harm future pop and rock stars.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8347178.stm

By John Taylor
Duran Duran bassist

I hated being a teenager, until I discovered just how powerful the world of popular music was. It helped me find an identity and find myself.

Not just the notes and beats, but the icons and the haircuts and the clothes and the liner notes. Music saved me in a way, or at least it gave me a sense of direction of how life could be.

I became a teenager in 1972. In 1972, I was listening to music that was almost exclusively made in 1972. Some of it had been made in 1971, but that was about it, with few exceptions.

Something the internet has most definitely done is bring more music from more places and more eras into the hearts and minds of us all, but young people in particular, which is great.

Most students I know have an extremely broad appreciation of music. Far broader than I did. Obviously classic rock is very popular, but so too are all sorts of vintage and world music.

My stepson is at New York University (NYU) and he was telling me how he's currently into Cole Porter, music from the 1920s and swing music from the 40s. So the availability and accessibility of music on the internet today is truly incredible, and I applaud anything that can inspire interest or curiosity in anyone.

But this also means that those of us who before would have been looking towards the current culture for inspiration are now often to be found, like my stepson, in various backwaters of older music.

This relative lack of need for current, innovative culture can cause, has caused, is causing - maybe - the innovative culture to slow down, much as an assembly line in Detroit slows down and lay-offs have to be made when the demand for a new model recedes.

And the speed and growth of new technology, which has been so heralded and so much fuss has been made of, has actually served to disguise how little real growth is taking place at the artistic level.

In September 1972, Roxy Music appeared on prime time TV in the UK. It was their first national TV exposure, a three-minute appearance performing their first single.

And the way they looked and sounded stunned me, and a generation of mes.

But we had no video recorders, and of course there was no YouTube. There was no way whatsoever that I could watch that appearance again, however badly I wanted to. And the power of that restriction was enormous.

The only way I could get close to that experience was to own the song. I lived in the suburbs, so I had to ride my bike for miles before I could find a store that sold music, let alone one that had the record in stock. It was a small trial of manhood and an adventure.

But once I had that song, I could play it whenever I chose. I had to go on a quest of sorts to get it, but my need was such that I did it.

The power of that single television appearance created such pressure, such magnetism, that I got sucked in and I had to respond as I know now previous generations had responded to Elvis Presley on the Ed Sullivan show, or The Beatles, or Jimi Hendrix. I believe there's immense power in restriction and holding back.

When artists today are asked to Twitter their every thought, their every action, to record on video their every breath, their every performance, I believe they're diluting their creative powers, their creative potency and the durability of their work.

And in the long run I believe they're also diluting the magical power and the magnetic attraction that they can or will ever have over their audience.

I wonder - if I'd had unlimited access to that first Roxy Music TV appearance, if I'd had unlimited access to knowledge of their personal quirks, if I'd been able to access film footage of every performance, every rehearsal, every interview they gave that year from around the world, then I believe the bubble of my obsession would have burst a long, long time ago and I'd have ceased being a fan a long time ago.

I'm still buying copies of that first Roxy Music album, I'm almost embarrassed to say - import copies on premium vinyl, anniversary CD copies, Japanese imports with paper sleeves, iTunes downloads when I'm on the road and need a fix. Such was the power of that initial strike.

John Taylor originally delivered his speech at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) on 29 October.

[Deb]

I wonder - if I'd had unlimited access to that first Roxy Music TV appearance, if I'd had unlimited access to knowledge of their personal quirks, if I'd been able to access film footage of every performance, every rehearsal, every interview they gave that year from around the world, then I believe the bubble of my obsession would have burst a long, long time ago and I'd have ceased being a fan a long time ago.

LOL, don't agree with this. Love acquiring all the audio and video of my faves. Youtube junkie here. I mean where else can you "virtually" go on European/Japan tour with your faves. Silent thank you to all those great souls who share show footage on youtube.

[Ehwmatt]

I have to say no to this. Part of the reason people look back so much is because objectively, the quality simply is not there today. Bands have no staying power either because they aren't good or because the label doesn't give them a chance to grow and sustain a long career, or in many cases today, both factors are at work. Back in the 60s, 70s, and even the 80s, you had groups of vastly divergent genres appealing to much of the same fan base... why? Because the music was well-written and performed very well for the genre it was in. The 70s belie this like no other decade, just think of some a few bigger bands: Boston, Sly and the Family Stone, Bee Gees, The Eagles, America, The Four Tops, Black Sabbath... how different can those get?

Maybe he's onto something with the whole tearing down the mystique thing as far as the masses are concerned, but for me, if it's good music, I'll buy and listen to it over and over.

[StevePerryHair]

Hmmm, interesting take he has. My 15 year old is very much into older music and has an interest in making music if his own. But he is giving new artists a try too. Technology is definitely changing things. Will be interesting to see the affects as time goes on. Could be scary too I guess! I'm sure there will be things lost.

[S2M]

I agree with this. And I think the posters who have responded so far didn't actually get his meaning.

What he means is overkill, exposure. You hardly ever saw a band tour every year, hit song played 3 times an hour, SEEN(the biggest exposure) the amount of times artists are now - back in the day. At ANY time one can open youtube and see JSS, or Nickelback, or Coldplay.

Back in the day it was awesome if you saw your favorite artist, band....etc at all. So the less you see of your favorite, the longer the mystique lasted. You literally went apeshit if Kansas was going to be on TV that ONE time in 1977....today's youth is bombarded with so much media concerning music that it is easy to get 'burnt out' with thngs. At least that's what *I* think.

The more accessible music is, the less attraction it has....and the less power it has to hold your interest. Like he said, no longer do kids yearn to ride their bikes to the 'music store' , excitedly, to get the latest release(on vinyl) on new release day.

[StevePerryHair]

I agree with this. And I think the posters who have responded so far didn't actually get his meaning.

What he means is overkill, exposure. You hardly ever saw a band tour every year, hit song played 3 times an hour, SEEN(the biggest exposure) the amount of times artists are now - back in the day. At ANY time one can open youtube and see JSS, or Nickelback, or Coldplay.

Back in the day it was awesome if you saw your favorite artist, band....etc at all. So the less you see of your favorite, the longer the mystique lasted. You literally went apeshit if Kansas was going to be on TV that ONE time in 1977....today's youth is bombarded with so much media concerning music that it is easy to get 'burnt out' with thngs. At least that's what *I* think.

The more accessible music is, the less attraction it has....and the less power it has to hold your interest. Like he said, no longer do kids yearn to ride their bikes to the 'music store' , excitedly, to get the latest release(on vinyl) on new release day.

actually, I did get that and said it would be interesting to see the affects of it and if he's right. Although so far I don't see my son getting burned out and he loves going to concerts with his friends. But he's still young, so we'll see.

[Ehwmatt]

I agree with this. And I think the posters who have responded so far didn't actually get his meaning.

What he means is overkill, exposure. You hardly ever saw a band tour every year, hit song played 3 times an hour, SEEN(the biggest exposure) the amount of times artists are now - back in the day. At ANY time one can open youtube and see JSS, or Nickelback, or Coldplay.

Back in the day it was awesome if you saw your favorite artist, band....etc at all. So the less you see of your favorite, the longer the mystique lasted. You literally went apeshit if Kansas was going to be on TV that ONE time in 1977....today's youth is bombarded with so much media concerning music that it is easy to get 'burnt out' with thngs. At least that's what *I* think.

The more accessible music is, the less attraction it has....and the less power it has to hold your interest. Like he said, no longer do kids yearn to ride their bikes to the 'music store' , excitedly, to get the latest release(on vinyl) on new release day.

I get that overkill argument, it's just I think there is more to it htan simply the Internet exposure of artists. The fact of the matter is that music is not the entertainment vehicle it was back in the days of Elvis, The Beatles, or even seeing the Midnight Special in the 70s.

[S2M]

I agree with this. And I think the posters who have responded so far didn't actually get his meaning.

What he means is overkill, exposure. You hardly ever saw a band tour every year, hit song played 3 times an hour, SEEN(the biggest exposure) the amount of times artists are now - back in the day. At ANY time one can open youtube and see JSS, or Nickelback, or Coldplay.

Back in the day it was awesome if you saw your favorite artist, band....etc at all. So the less you see of your favorite, the longer the mystique lasted. You literally went apeshit if Kansas was going to be on TV that ONE time in 1977....today's youth is bombarded with so much media concerning music that it is easy to get 'burnt out' with thngs. At least that's what *I* think.

The more accessible music is, the less attraction it has....and the less power it has to hold your interest. Like he said, no longer do kids yearn to ride their bikes to the 'music store' , excitedly, to get the latest release(on vinyl) on new release day.

I get that overkill argument, it's just I think there is more to it htan simply the Internet exposure of artists. The fact of the matter is that music is not the entertainment vehicle it was back in the days of Elvis, The Beatles, or even seeing the Midnight Special in the 70s.

I diagree wholeheartedly. Perhaps the qulaity of today's music isn't on par with yesteryear, but the music industry is biger X100. It has grown so exponentially, that there are stations(TV) that broadcast 'music' 24 hrs a day. Couple that with shows like 'Family Jewels', 'Rock of Love'...etc....and there goes the bubble you had if you were a KISS fan, or a Poison fan. After seeing Simmons(although it did not do this for me) and Michaels in these type settings, the has-beens that they are - the bands that they founded loses most of their cache', sorry to say.....and the music shows back in the 70s were classy, if not a bit corny. Todays music shows are just plain classless and crude.

The current state of the music business is a sad sight indeed. No matter what 'they' tell you. The quality of music, and the way in which it is produced, marketed, and shoved down kid's throats is deplorable....Perhaps it is a cycle: We couldn't stand our parents Big Bands, or Donovan, or Paul Anka....we thought our music was the shit. And they couoldn't stand most of ours....But today! I think it goes further than that dichotomy. Today's music(especially the rap) is just plain and utter shit. Besides the late 60s - early 70s - music wasn't too much of a cross-culture....today? Music influences almost every aspect of a young adult's life.....and most of the time in a not so positive way.

[Blueskies]

I agree with John Taylor. People being exposed to broader ranges of music is great but the overexposure of artists is not. Good speech.

[Ehwmatt]

I agree with this. And I think the posters who have responded so far didn't actually get his meaning.

What he means is overkill, exposure. You hardly ever saw a band tour every year, hit song played 3 times an hour, SEEN(the biggest exposure) the amount of times artists are now - back in the day. At ANY time one can open youtube and see JSS, or Nickelback, or Coldplay.

Back in the day it was awesome if you saw your favorite artist, band....etc at all. So the less you see of your favorite, the longer the mystique lasted. You literally went apeshit if Kansas was going to be on TV that ONE time in 1977....today's youth is bombarded with so much media concerning music that it is easy to get 'burnt out' with thngs. At least that's what *I* think.

The more accessible music is, the less attraction it has....and the less power it has to hold your interest. Like he said, no longer do kids yearn to ride their bikes to the 'music store' , excitedly, to get the latest release(on vinyl) on new release day.

I get that overkill argument, it's just I think there is more to it htan simply the Internet exposure of artists. The fact of the matter is that music is not the entertainment vehicle it was back in the days of Elvis, The Beatles, or even seeing the Midnight Special in the 70s.

I diagree wholeheartedly. Perhaps the qulaity of today's music isn't on par with yesteryear, but the music industry is biger X100. It has grown so exponentially, that there are stations(TV) that broadcast 'music' 24 hrs a day. Couple that with shows like 'Family Jewels', 'Rock of Love'...etc....and there goes the bubble you had if you were a KISS fan, or a Poison fan. After seeing Simmons(although it did not do this for me) and Michaels in these type settings, the has-beens that they are - the bands that they founded loses most of their cache', sorry to say.....and the music shows back in the 70s were classy, if not a bit corny. Todays music shows are just plain classless and crude.

The current state of the music business is a sad sight indeed. No matter what 'they' tell you. The quality of music, and the way in which it is produced, marketed, and shoved down kid's throats is deplorable....Perhaps it is a cycle: We couldn't stand our parents Big Bands, or Donovan, or Paul Anka....we thought our music was the shit. And they couoldn't stand most of ours....But today! I think it goes further than that dichotomy. Today's music(especially the rap) is just plain and utter shit. Besides the late 60s - early 70s - music wasn't too much of a cross-culture....today? Music influences almost every aspect of a young adult's life.....and most of the time in a not so positive way.

Your second paragraph is exactly what I said a post or two above, today's music is objectively not very good from a performance, writing, longevity, or diversity [of style] standpoint... at least not in the mainstream.

As for it [the industry] being "big" today, maybe, but not on a record sales level. The shows today you cited aren't based on music, whereas the shows of yesteryear were. I don't think the music industry is bigger in any way. The conglomerates dominate and drop bands that don't make it on their first album in a second.

Back in the day it was bigger because there were so many more smaller and medium sized labels. You had a chance to saturate the market over the course of three albums. The music industry is more exposed on account of a lot of what was discussed in the speech, but bigger? Not a chance.

[bluejeangirl76]

John Taylor used to be really cute!

Anyway... I agree with him about the overexposure, certainly. The selfish part of me loves YouTube because I get to see things I missed, from the older bands I love but wasn't around for, or was too young. But what goes on today... everyone has digital cameras and cell phone that take video and everything is on youtube practically AS it happens and everyone is attached to twitter and facebook every minute of the day. I'm not so involved that I need all this information as it's happening, and frankly it makes it hard to find things I WANT. Everything is on youtube and myspace now and that has its goods and bads too it.

If I want a video from a show that happened a few days ago, I search and then sort by most recent... and I get every single idiot's 28 second clips of violently shaky distorted nothingness just because everyone needs to be the one to post it and say "look what I have!! 28 seconds of somethig that you can take my word for is Anthony Kiedis interacting with a fan in row 2!" Piss off with that! And I have to weed through all that b.s. just to see IF what I want even exists. There's too much out there.

As for celebs and twitter and reality shows... again, way too much out there. The world is so much more tabloid gossip hungry than ever before, and the quality isn't even - ok well, there IS no quality. It is all mindless crude CRAP! Those Flavor Flav shows had to be the most disgusting display of low-class trash I think I may have ever seen. I don't watch stuff like this, only saw the Flavor Flav one one or two times and haven't seen the recent ones, so I don't know if it was worse than the other ones like Rock of Love...

(Hi Bret!


)


...but they're all crap and I hate hate hate the fact there are people who can't find better things to do with their time and their minds than watch that awful shit.

I think it takes something huge away from the music. I don't want to go to a show for musical enjoyment and have the image of the lead signer or whomever making out with 6 whores on TV.

I have a mixed opinion on twitter because it's selective (yeah I know, everything is ultimately selective, but...). The celebs who DO it, well, they're choosing to put their thoughts out there or communicate with fans or use it for promotion (which is what most of it is) or whatever the case. The people who read it, well they're choosing to read it. I follow a few celebs that I find entertaining for whatever reason... (for you twitter people - follow Brent Spiner... he's a douche and it's really funny to read!)... I used to follow Kevin Smith untill he started flooding my page ranting about the New Jersey Devils and burying all my other tweets. But it's just there for entertainment while I'm logged on. That's why I also follow the tweets of a house spider.