Advertisement
We all have our opinions on why the music "industry" is sliding on CD sales. This is my question to you: Has anyone mentioned MTV's lack of video play as a possible cause for a slide in the music biz? MTV is on almost every cable network in the US. It could still reach kids instantly if they used this as a medium. -- KingLeer
I'm sure someone's mentioned it. Everyone certainly bitches about it. Of course, MTV cut back on video play ten years ago or more, long before CDs sales fell lower than Britney's panties, and it didn't kill the business then, so it's hard to attribute the slide to just that. And I'm doubting that pumping videos 24/7 on MTV will solve the problem. (You know file sharing and digital copying is the real problem, right? And also, in case there are any Boy Scouts reading this, it's wrong and illegal!) The problem here is that MTV is in the business of selling advertising, not selling music. They can draw more eyeballs with The Hills or Pimp My Ride than they can with Justin Timberlake or Lil' Wayne videos. So that's what they program. Some people say the real problem is the music itself. That if there were a great artist now -- a new Cobain, or Tupac -- then people would buy CDs again. But if there were a new Cobain or Tupac, wouldn't he just screw his record company and leak his music online the way Lil' Wayne does? Just asking.
Advertisement
Not an original question, but if you could take only one artist's/band's oeuvre to a deserted island, whose would it be? -- Mel
Pavement.
Isn't the economical solution to falling album sales to simply lower the prices? When a DVD's sales begin to slow down the price begins to drop until it ends up in a $5 bin. When an album drops it may sell for about $10 then go back to $13 or $15, regardless of who the artist was or how successful the album sold. How can the industry justify selling a pop album with maybe two or three popular tracks for the same amount, if not more, as a movie that took $200 million to produce? -- Chuck
Doesn't the same thing happen with CDs already? There's a bargain bin at Virgin. It's pretty crowded. Look, you're right. The industry can't justify jack shit. The industry is desperate. They tried lowering prices. I think it's called iTunes or something like that. Not solving all their problems, but it will allow you to buy two or three popular tracks for $3 instead of $20 (and albums for less than $20, too). Pricing is an issue, but it's not the whole issue, or the whole answer. A few years ago I was in the office of the president of major label and he put it this way: How do you compete with free? It's true. No matter how low they make the prices, free is still cheaper. By the way, he also told me he believed people still listened to music on stereos (in his defense, this was pre-iPod), which will come as a surprise to anyone listening to music on their computer while reading this. I'm mentioning that just to let you know that there are bigger problems in record companies than CD prices.
Advertisement
Why has the music industry completely sold out? The only thing we ever hear about are performers, not artist, that are marketed to the 14 year old girls and Ryan Seacrests of the world. Adults have money and enjoy music too! I'm only 24, nothing I see or hear has any appeal to me at all. And after reading comments posted across the internet regarding the state of music I'm definitely not alone on this one. -- Bukowski
The record companies want to sell records. They'd be thrilled if the Yeah Yeah Yeahs and Rilo Kiley outsold the Pussycat Dolls and the High School Musical soundtrack. Really, they would be -- most of those people started working at record companies because they love music. And they did sign the Yeah Yeah Yeahs and Rilo Kiley. But they do need to sell records, and they are desperate, so they'll keep doing what works until it doesn't work anymore. And their desire to sell lots of records also gives us great pop albums that aren't just for 14 year old girls -- Beyonce and Maroon 5 are two examples off the top of my head ?- as well as the wide world of hip-hop, which is beset by its own problems, but still produces great music. And the music industry does know that adults have money and enjoy music, they just think they all buy their albums in Starbucks or something.
Advertisement
Why do people constantly ridicule older rockers for staying out there and doing what they do! When no one thought an 80 year old Frank Sinatra was weird? It's music . . . this is what they do, right? -- Muck muck
Well, actually, some people did think an 80-year-old Sinatra was a little weird ?- Dean Martin found it weird enough that he jumped ship on one of the "final" tours. And some people might argue that Sinatra's material and delivery was inherently more adult than rock & roll (even in the Bobby Soxer days, when he was all about the teen audience). But the simple answer is that people make fun of older rockers because they're young and they don't know what getting older is like. It is music, and it is what they do. But it's also true that while many of them continue to do it well, many don't. Without naming names, I think we can both admit that there are one or two dudes out there who look a little middle-aged crazy trying to keep on keeping on. If there weren't, there would be hardly any shows on Vh1.
Advertisement
Why don't you put real musicians on the cover when they release new music? I can think of many artists that could have been on the cover this year, such as Conor Oberst, Trent Reznor, Wilco, Queens of the Stone Age, Rilo Kiley, etc . . . Instead of those, you've chosen a band from the 80s and a teen that is idolized by my 10 year old sister. -- ARB
I know this will shock you and cause the most emotional amongst you to weep openly, but the cover is meant to sell the magazine. Ergo most of the artists on the cover are those with broader appeal. (In technical terms, this is sometimes referred to as "mainstream" appeal.) The band from the '80s in question -- Guns N' Roses -- always had that broader appeal and still does. The teen idolized by your ten-year-old sister -- Zac Efron ?- stars in the biggest pop-culture event of the year so far, which also generated the biggest selling album of last year. It was too big to ignore, however much you (and I) might wish otherwise. That said, I agree with you about Conor Oberst.
Advertisement
Who do you predict is going to win on September 11, Kanye or 50 cent? -- Mitch
At first I thought 50, because he wants it more, and he's making singles in order to get it, as opposed Kanye, whose stuff seems weird and wonderful, but who seems to be putting art first. But now I think Kanye. I think it's like Prince in the '80s -- Kanye's figuring out what the audience wants before the audience knows it wants it. 50's giving the audience what it's already said it wants.
Advertisement
What should matter more to an artist -- critical acclaim or radio airplay? You can only pick one.
-- Zenidog
Depends on the artist. I don't think we would have gotten, for instance, the first Madonna album if she'd been worrying about critical acclaim. And I don't think we would have gotten the Velvet Underground's White Light/White Heat or Black Flag's Damaged if they been stressing about radio play. But as much as I like White Light/White Heat and Damaged, I like popular culture, which is what created the context those albums explode. And a great pop artist, from Chuck Berry to Eminem, wants radio airplay. Not because it sells records (though they want that, too). Because it puts your music in front of audience, and interacting with an audience is what a great pop artist is all about.
When will the Dylan documentary "Eat the Document" be
commercially released??? Thanks.
-- Bruce Dalrymple
So far as I know, never. If you've seen a bootleg copy, you know why. If not put "Bob Dylan John Lennon" into YouTube and you'll see.
I'm Theo, 22, and I just started exploring the world of rock
n' roll (I know, what a tragedy!) Anyway I'm really into it but I
have no idea how to start exploring the past. All I know is that I
like bands like U2, Coldplay, Oasis but also Greenday, Nickelback
and a couple of others. I've checked their past and I liked it
(most of it). But how do I start learning the history of rock?
Should I just take your list of best albums or artist and start
listening to all the songs? I just hope that you can show me where
this thing starts and show me the way and I will follow. Thanks for
your help!
-- Theo
When I was 16 my dad gave me a copy of The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll. It's a pretty great collection of critical and history essays, and one of the reasons I ended up working here. (Though it hasn't been updated since the '90s, so you won't learn squat about Coldplay, Oasis or Greenday from it.) That was my way of working through the history of rock, and I bought a lot of records because of that book. Since you asked (sort of), off the top of my head, here's a list of favorite records. I'd make a different list ten minutes from now (and it goes without saying that everyone should own Dylan's Blonde on Blonde, the Stones' Sticky Fingers and whatever Beatles they want), but most of these would be on it:
Van Morrison, Moondance
Television, Marquee Moon
Pavement, Wowee Zowee
Al Green, Call Me
Arcade Fire, Funeral
Luna, Penthouse
Pet Shop Boys, Introspective
James Brown, Startime
Irma Thomas, Sweet Soul Queen of New Orleans
Ramones, Rocket to Russia
And before I get upset about leaving off the Smiths and John Prine, current favorite albums (in no particular order):
Common, Finding Forever
M.I.A., Kala
LCD Soundsystem, Sound of Silver
Of Montreal, Hissing Fauna, Are You the Destoyer?
Feist, The Reminder
Rilo Kiley, Under the Blacklight
The 1990s, Cookies
Justice, Cross
Taken By Trees, Open Field
Kanye West, Graduation
Advertisement
Why does Rolling Stone, after all these years, continue to have such a bias against Rush?
Sean
Portland, OR
You're confused. We love Rush. It's Bush we hate.