[MUSIC] THE SAVAGE ANIMAL "Did Social Media Kill Rock and Roll?"
06.06.12
BY MIKEY MIGO
I’m going to preface this with a mild warning. I’m going to ramble a lot here. I find myself making a lot of “back in the day” and “now a days” references. This isn’t an attempt to write some sort of “back in my day things were better” rant. As much as I’m getting older, I’m still looking forward. And I really don’t feel that rock and roll is dead. It’s just on life support…
Over the past twenty years we’ve seen a huge technology boom. We’ve solved some problems, made life more convenient, and made the entire world accessible. At 28, the things I’ve seen show up since I was a kid have been amazing. Hell, things in the past ten years to come out are pretty mind blowing and a little unbelievable. We should be proud of how things have progressed and how we’ve evolved in this area.
The technology advancements have been beneficial for many fields. We can pretty much do whatever want now. With a copy of Final Cut, ProTools, or Photoshop we can creatively compete with the big boys. The money isn’t there, but the cream always rises to the top… Right? Seriously… right? Not too fast. In the early 80’s MTV played the video “Video Killed The Radio Star”. For a band to be on top at that point they HAD to have a video or two in serious rotation. As time went on music videos lost their novelty. It happens.
Certain aspects come and go. But how about entire styles of music? Outside of a small handful, newer rock bands breaking into the mainstream vernacular is damn near impossible. I know this stuff cycles. Rock music will have an upswing again once the current hip hop and hipster/indie craze fizzles out. It’ll never be like it used to.
Sadly, Rock and roll’s biggest enemy is the internet.
Let me explain…
SOCIAL GATHERINGS vs. CONCERTS
Watching something on YouTube is not a real experience. We’ve all saw the Tupac hologram online, but I can only imagine the goose bumps of those were there live. That’s just one of a billion examples. Being at a live show is a rush of adrenaline that is really hard to reproduce. Watching it on a screen is not the same thing. The upsetting part is that it’s becoming harder and harder to even get to see a show anymore.
The individual tour is a thing that’s on its last legs. We’ll be able to see the A-list level bands play arenas for sure, but we’re seeing a lot of more “co-headlining” tours pop up. Bigger cities just aren’t pulling in crowds. More and more middle-level rock acts are skipping markets like Chicago because there is no appeal or money being made. Hell, we went months without a modern rock radio station. I’m sure it’s like this in more places. Festivals, the one-offs and the touring ones are the shows more likely to get the crowds. I understand people want the most for their money and this is a good chance for them to see a good amount of bands for one price and one trip. That’s not a problem.
Why do the festivals all seem to bring in the same acts every year?
Be it Bonnaroo, Coachella, Lollapalooza, or any of the bigger American festivals… the line-ups are always REALLY similar. It’s mainly the same headliners and virtually the same support. Hell, if a tour includes stand-up comedians they’ll bring in the SAME ones too. I understand that’s how it works because of band’s schedules and promotional tours. There just isn’t much of a variety. It narrows the playing field for newer acts to get a chance to showcase at such a huge show.
That sucks, therefore…
NO CHANCES TAKEN ON SUPPORTING ACTS
When we went to concerts in the past we’d show up and be forced to sit thought hours of mediocre supporting acts. In most cases you’d only be able to hear one or two songs of the band if at all. You went into it taking a risk and gambling with your time. The tickets were already paid for because wanted to see the headliners. So why not go and check out other bands? This often led to the hells of impatiently waiting. Once in a while there would be a stand out. A band would strike your interest and you’d go out of your way to check them out. It was a cool discovery. The second stage at tours like Ozzfest was perfect for this kind of thing. So many bands broke out on those second stages.
With social media, a band’s entire essence is on display. You can watch live performances of songs that you’ll see at the show. You’ll see a band’s stage lay out. You’ll know their set list. It’s all out there… for free! Why wouldn’t you want to check out bands before you go see them? I get it and I do it myself. That doesn’t change the fact that we’re missing out on the mystery dish that used to be tour support.
It doesn’t end with the concerts…
SINGLE SLICE… PLAIN CHEESE.
You never hear the question “What’s your favorite Rihanna B-side?” With the rise of the internet, fans get to pick and choose their tracks. For a buck you can get the one song you heard on the radio and be done with it. You can listen to the same song over and over again on your ipod until the next new single gets out there. The “ring-tone single” has taken over.
This was always a complaint and shitty situation. You’d hear a song or two on the radio of a new band. You’d go out of your way to buy their album. You’d get the album home, listen, and be really disappointed. The only songs that didn’t completely suck were the single you heard. At the same time, a well done full length album can be a great experience. What would a concept album be if we’re only listening to singles? The tracks should melt into each other and carry on a story. Imagine Pink Floyd’s “The Wall” or Nine Inch Nails’ “The Fragile” is they were stripped down and all you heard were the individual cuts.
Some bands are even going the shorter album/longer single route. These EPs will have like four songs and get a new band out there. Whatever works, I guess. I suppose it works if you’re already established and just want to put something out there and let it promote itself. But this would go into a whole isolated “niche-market” dilemma that I’ll get into more later.
The thing that should be noted is that it costs the same amount of money to promote a full length $10 album as it does to push a $.99 single or a $3.99 EP. Is it more profitable (financially and fan-wise) to release a single to the “A.D.D. Me” Generation or get an album out there? The cost is what gets me…
THE FINE LINE OF PROMOTION
If you’re in a band and aren’t taking advantage of social networking then you’re missing out on a big opportunity. I know that’s a really weird thing to say considering the title of this column, but hear me out. There is a fine line of how one promotes themselves on the net. It’s almost become an art in itself. You have to keep your fans engaged, plugged in, and informed. Sadly, there are plenty of folks who can’t get this right.
There are two main ways for bands to screw themselves over. We’ve all experienced both of these happenings. On one hand a band will set up their profiles, but it’ll be a ghost town. The band doesn’t update or interact at all. It’s there, but it’s not being utilized at all. The other side of this is the overbearing promotion whores. The same shitty flyer is posted over and over. The same YouTube video is put in your feed over and over. This does more damage than anything. It annoys people and makes them less likely to pay attention in the future. I guess like in most situations, it’s a quality over quantity effect.
How much an artist should really let the fans in is up for debate…
THE MYSTIQUE IS GONE
Don’t let TMZ fool you. It’s not THAT hard for a celebrity to stay out of the daily tabloids. I know paparazzi are inevitable, but there are plenty of A-list artists who aren’t tabloid fodder every single day.
As a fan, I enjoy the idea of being able to know things about the artists I like. I think it all goes to the idea of wanting to relate. But the question I have is what is too much? As fans, we want more. As celebrities, they want more. Most artists of any variety do what they do as a shared expression. They want attention and appreciation. The difference is that artists will want that respect and acclaim for their work. A lot of celebrities today are cool with skipping that “work” part and just taking on as much attention as possible.
There is no mystique. I think the last two big idem of “mystique” in rock and roll was the whole “Siblings or Lovers” confusion about The White Stripes. As a single entity, the days of Marilyn Manson shocking rumors out of people are over. A single google search can give us any information we want.
We can have things shoved in our faces all the time, but at the end of the day we’re only as saturated on things as much as we allow ourselves. If want to be a fan boy I can go to a few websites and know way more about an artist than my father could in his days with assorted interviews and appearances. This excess access has ended the idea of a mysterious artist. Where is the mystique in a retweet or hash tag?
A NEW STANDARD OF CREDIBILITY?
It’s my soapbox opinion, but rock and roll has become a nostalgia novelty. The term “rock and roll” is now an overpriced “vintage tee”. Innovation has been pushed to the side in favor of rehashing the classics. When was the last time someone did something innovative in rock that actually broke out in a big way? I love the sound of Jack White’s projects, The Black Keys, and others but one of the main selling points is how it sounds like a “throwback”. I’m not saying these guys aren’t creating original art; it’s just their using the same brushes of their influences. I’d like to see things expand a bit.
As time and trends change, so does the loose definition of “credibility”. It seems the new “credibility” is to have a lot of followers on-line, be pro-active with internet issues, and in some cases innovate how we use the internet. A lot of it centers around the internet. If you were in a band and didn’t have a MySpace page in 2008 then you weren’t taking yourself seriously. I know for a fact that a band’s “friend count” on MySpace was something the labels wanted to know. It became important and a new standard.
But think about MySpace now. The trend has passed and a lot of people abandoned their pages or just flat out cancelled them. People moved on to Facebook and then twitter. At that point, the race began again and bands and artists would to be re-establish their following all over again. This is apparently the new cycle.
A friend compared it to the movie “The Warriors”. There are going to be little devoted groups of people making up a “scene”. No “Cyrus”. For those who aren’t as cool as us, I’ll explain the comparison. Our discussion was about how bands are going to get their own isolated fan base and never get a chance to be accepted in a bigger plateau. The demographics are dissected over and over. It’s all niche-markets of subgenres. Being a band with mass appeal is a thing of the past. The charts and ticket sales are proving this. But yeah… keep tweeting!
SKYNET’S REVENGE!
The technological advancements and leisure’s the new and upcoming artist get to take part in is great. There is also a chance this technology will annihilate us all.
We’ve already established that it’s harder for a new band to get onto bigger shows. A band will typically make its money on the road, but it’s damn near impossible to get to the level of those who have that much demand to make a living doing like that. Those who do, cycle through the system. They’ll stick to the standard of releasing a video and single, the album, and then touring to support that. Rinse and repeat.
Enter Hologram Tupac.
The social media era bands are now going to have to go head to head with hologram versions of artists, who will without a doubt, make them look like shit. That hologram of Tupac had more talent than 95% of the living rappers I’ve seen and heard since his passing all those years ago.
This is going to go too far. Bands of old will reunite with dead members, pop stars will set up duets, and before we know it Nirvana, The Beatles, Queen, Elvis, The Doors, NWA, and others all getting “back together” for a part-human/part-hologram tour. People will go see that stuff. I would. I’d like to take my chances with “as close to as possible” than “not at all”. It wouldn’t be the same, but it would be an experience I’m sure.
The sad part is that it’s clear that LIVING musicians will end up taking advantage of the hologram technology themselves. Why go on tour when you can sit at home and collect? People are dumb enough to fill an arena to watch a hologram of Lady Gaga for sure.
Imagine it… A hologram jukebox. You put in $5 and pick a song. Then hologram versions of The Beatles come on the stage and play a random single. They finish and then hologram Frank Sinatra comes up… Is this is where we’re headed?
Thanks, technology!
BLOGS
- DLP News - The Savage Animal - Random Movie Review - rant/n/rave - PreView:ReView - Worst Case
Scenario
