John Lennon was once asked why he made music, and he said it was to get laid. People aim their music at other people. If they didn't, having others hear their music wouldn't be so important. They'd simply stay in their rooms, and not make records or go on stage. It's all about reaching people, and getting that interaction. Ask any real musician.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
The Prosecution Rests Your Honor
- Thread starter landtuna
- Start date
John Lennon was once asked why he made music, and he said it was to get laid. People aim their music at other people. If they didn't, having others hear their music wouldn't be so important. They'd simply stay in their rooms, and not make records or go on stage. It's all about reaching people, and getting that interaction. Ask any real musician.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Lennon was renowned for his penchant for going for the funny punchline instead of the serious truth when asked a stupid question like that one.
And apparently, you don't recognize the difference between making music for all who want to listen to it and enjoy it, and pandering to a "demographic". One is being an artist, the other is being a whore. Are you calling John Lennon a whore?
He got laid, didn't he? So it worked.
Singing to a particular audience isn't the same thing as "pandering to a demographic," although the end result is the same.
Certainly Drake isn't making his music for someone like me. But if you ask him, he knows exactly who his audience is. Maybe not in scientific terms (although Drake is a very smart guy). But he's not making music for just anyone.
I once talked to Willie Nelson about that moment in his life when he changed from being a struggling songwriter in Nashville to becoming The Outlaw, the Red-Headed Stranger, the guy with the beard and pigtails. A lot of it came when he discovered who his audience was. That happened the day he left Nashville for Austin, and started playing at college festivals. Once he saw how the people responded, it changed his music completely. Now does that make Willie Nelson a whore? No, it makes him a very smart guy who knows that just making music without focus or direction is just an exercise in self gratification.
If we're talking about radio (and that was the context of my original comment), then we're talking about music that has a record label, a marketing department, a publicist, and a target demographic. And all of that is aimed at people. Sure, there probably are musicians who make music for self expression and for their own gratification, and don't think about what happens to it after they're done with it. But they're probably not the people we're talking about in this thread.
Last edited:
landtuna
Walk of Fame Participant
Oh please don't start that "you're not in the demo" BS again. I really doubt most musicians are as technically proficient with statistics as are the sampling company's. To them it means a contract to create an album or promote a tour. They could probably care less what demo they reach as long as songs are sold and people buy tickets to their concerts.
If there was something produced with equal attraction to me it would go into my library along with those golden oldies. I have no discrimination towards new music - I just don't hear anything I like the majority of the time. It would have to find me another way though because I won't hear it through the radio.
I don't have to tell you that young folks have different priorities than you. That should be obvious. They probably don't have the responsibilities or experience you have. So someone in their 30s is probably not singing or writing about subjects you're interested in. You've been there, done that, and survived. It's all still new to them. How interesting is that too you? Plus you know the riffs their songs are based on. People their age don't. To you, it's all derivative. To them, it's all original. So they're not writing or singing their songs to appeal to someone in their 70s. If you like it, that's great. But if you don't, it shouldn't surprise you. All music isn't for everyone.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
How many similar priorities are needed to enjoy a particular song? While not all music is for everyone, damn little good music is created for just a narrow target demographic. Really good music is timeless, and transcends artificial boundaries of age and "demographics".
The fact that there are some old farts who are so narrow-minded that they cannot recognize the quality in new music doesn't prove that the musicians aren't attempting to please those old farts. It just proves that those narrow-minded old farts are narrow-minded old farts.
This as come up many, many times in other threads. There are huge numbers of younger listeners who prefer to hear vintage (aka "classic") music than modern, disposable pop music. Yet back in the days when what is now "classic" rock was being recorded, there was also large amounts of disposable pop music being released and played on top 40 radio that few people want to hear today. Likewise, the disposable music of today has little appeal to those who prefer the timeless quality of classic rock music.
The problem is that there are old people who are so damn narrow minded that they can't tell the difference between modern "classic" music and modern disposable pop, so they assume that everything today is crap. But, since the suits who pick what modern music gets played on the radio have tin ears and rely on bogus testing techniques to decide what to play in order to appeal to their bogus ideas of what various "demographics" want to hear, most of what is on the radio today is disposable crap. The only way for the old farts to wake up and realize that the problem isn't that modern music is all crap, the problem is that the suits responsible for deciding which modern music gets played on the radio only select the crap.
And this statement, "So someone in their 30s is probably not singing or writing about subjects you're interested in" is probably the most asinine crap I've ever read. This year, those of us in our 60's are still listening to the outstanding classic rock written by songwriters who were in their 20's and 30's at the time they wrote their songs, even though both songwriters and songlisteners are now in their 50s, 60s, and beyond. How could it be that the songs that appealed to us in the 60s and 70s still appeal to us today if we now have a different perspective on life?
"Really good music is timeless, and transcends artificial boundaries of age and "demographics"." Generally, music is only "timeless" to the existing generation and a few stragglers. In a hundred years, no one will know who The Beatles were, let alone Frank Sinatra! Beethoven is "timeless", so far.
They appeal to you now because they return you to that time in your life. Listening to someone who is 20 years old now singing about partying with his friends doesn't relate at all, especially when he's singing about his tattoos and engaging in activities you'd consider irresponsible at your current age. But if Jimmy Buffett sings about it, it's probably OK.
I was listening to Brahms a few days ago, and it struck me what a stoner he was. The melodies he wrote were just so twisted. I think the thing that keeps Brahms and Beethovan timeless is the fact that they didn't write lyrics. If they wrote lyrics in the way people wrote books at the time, the songs would seem more dated than they are.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Hogwash! For one thing, I have discovered a treasure trove of really great album cuts from the 60s and 70s that were never on the radio, from albums I never heard in their entirety. I have stumbled across the music of bands from that era I never heard of when they were new, and their music sounds great!
As for all songs being about tattoos and partying, clearly your knowledge of music consists of only what gets played on the radio.
Then how is it that Handel's work is also timeless, not to mention the operas of Verdi and Wagner?
Why not just admit that you don't know shit about music, aside from what you've heard on the radio?
Typical elitism; only I know what's good, the unwashed masses are fools.
Lots of it doesn't get played on the radio because the language isn't allowed. But then again, you use that language on this board even though it's not allowed.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
For every song that doesn't get played on the radio because of language, there are hundreds of songs that don't get played because the suits who decide what does and doesn't get played have tin ears and no taste.
And gets away with it too, while the rest of us get called on it. What's the dealio?
Given the language you use on this board, you're in no position to talk about taste. You have none.
- Status