[Foolsgo1d]

Sell outs to me are the pop musicians who stick to the same tune until one of them figures out something else that gets a crowds attention.

Tiesto is an example of this.

Then you had the Spice girls and "guuurl powah!" How many girl/boy bands followed them in a similar vein? Then comes Xfactor.

Then comes Nikki Minaj and the RnB crowd taking off in urban culture of the UK. Same beats all over again.

You then have the Skrillex dubstep and the like. All the same with a few decent ones thrown in.


Now rock artists to me are more in tune with what music is and I enjoy it a lot more than any other genre.

KISS are an example of this. Look at how many merchandise they have but they are not known amongst my age group that well in the UK unless you like rock music and many don't because they prefer the pop tart crap.

So by the definition of bill hicks, KISS are a sell-out because they were smart. He is just a hater and should be forgotten.

[Christian McQueen]

The irony is if many of the famous musicians, actors and artists didn't 'sell out', you'd never heard of them.

It's not selling out. It's called being successful in your respective field.

I've never gotten that attitudes from people who think someone sold out.

Do dentists expect to work for free? Accountants? Plumbers? Politicians?

Artists should get paid too, if they sacrifice more than the average joe to make their music, films, etc.

[RexImperator]

I do think the concern with this is more of a thing for some Boomers and Generation-X'ers, and less so with Millennials and younger, who are probably more likely to admire someone like a tech startup founder (where the whole point is to "sell out") over an artist. So yeah, the internet...

I remember some controversy about Nike using The Beatles' "Revolution" in a commercial. Today, the songs are already commercials (in this case, for American Apparel underwear):

[Grit]

Name a popular mainstream male artist who is married to a no-name but incredibly cute girl.... the absolute lack of such cases, which should be a normal thing when you are a famous man, suggests that part of becoming a celebrity is selling out your personal choice of partner.

The most uncomfortable story would be X male celebrity ignoring dozens of 'empowered' actresses and 'equals' in pursuit of his own chauvinist interests, aka a young naive cutie.

[caracal]

(05-22-2014 04:31 PM)Christian McQueen Wrote:  

The irony is if many of the famous musicians, actors and artists didn't 'sell out', you'd never heard of them.

It's not selling out. It's called being successful in your respective field.

I've never gotten that attitudes from people who think someone sold out.

Do dentists expect to work for free? Accountants? Plumbers? Politicians?

Artists should get paid too, if they sacrifice more than the average joe to make their music, films, etc.

Yep. I used to hang out with a lot of people who were 'into' music. They named all of the obscure bands they liked as though it was some sort of great secret... Some of these bands went on to gain a lot of recognition/success and these 'fans' disowned them as if they had caught leprosy. It's artistic snobbery. Artists need to eat too and I have no issue with them becoming hugely successful.

The Internet has created a much wider paying field for artists of every type but an even greater number of competitors. Music can be delivered digitally to all parts of the world and amongst the truly talented people there are hundreds of thousands of people with mediocre talent that gain some recognition because they're the loudest. The Internet has been good as it's somewhat democratised the playing field, but before the Internet: a band would have to tread the pavement approaching record labels or at least take the effort to record a demo and send it in; a filmmaker would have to network in person to get their film made rather than putting it on Youtube; a screenwriter would have to physically post their screenplay to the Nicholl fellowship rather than delivering it digitally. These things still happen, but it's diluted by easier methods of delivery and communication.

Sites like Patreon are bringing the idea of patronship back to the arts, and I think we are heading in the right direction with crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter, Indiegogo and Pozible. There is also Government funding available but at least here in Australia that funding is being curbed severely, and what does get funded is often obscure navel-gazing projects that pander to minority groups and have no chance of commercial success (which should at least in part be the aim of Government grants - to help create a self-sustaining industry) To truly be great at your art, you need to dedicate yourself wholly to it - working full-time and doing it is extremely tough.

There is also the problem of unauthorised copyright infringement which is too detailed a subject to go into here and is a melange of competing issues and interests such as delivery model, recognition, lost revenue, royalties etc etc. The cream sometimes still rises to the top, but often it doesn't.

That's my rant for the day.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(05-22-2014 08:57 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Art: everyone has sold out now, nobody's doing anything good and new, most stuff is trite referencing of stuff done before. Music, film, visual and performance art.

There's a kind of cultural exhaustion, at least in the West. There might be room to do new stuff in places like China and the Middle East, where new freedom gives artists some space. But even those artists just end up borrowing old stuff from the West.

This is what absolutely everyone believes: everything that can be done in literature, art, music, film, etc has been done and there is nothing new under the sun anymore, nor can there possibly be anything that tastes and feels completely new and fresh.

We'll see!

[AnonymousBosch]

(05-22-2014 01:01 PM)soup Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:51 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  

^^ Exactly. Musicians complaining about being underappreciated and whatnot automatically get the eyeroll from me. It should be a hobby these days, not a profession.

You will drown in a sea of shitty music.

Rant mode.

This. The signal-to-noise ratio is ridiculous now. We are drowning in an ocean of utterly-average music, that the last 'new' song that challenged me in any way as a listener, (to the extent I had to run to the piano to figure out just how it was put together), was in 1999.

There's male hamsterisation going on here that music is somehow disconnected to everything else we're talking about.

Successful musicians are rationalised away as being 'talented' and not expect reward for their work. It's the old bitter shrug: "They can only do that because they're talented. I could do that too, if I had talent. It's just entertainment. It's not a job."

Bullshit. 'Talent' is simply the result of endless, unseen hours of hard work and effort. If you think the other way, you're just like a fat chick demonising fit girls for 'starving' themselves. "Oh, they just have good metabolisms," she says, eating a cronut.

There's thread after thread of people on here decrying the cowardice of people and organisations not standing their ground for their beliefs, due to advertisers instantly-folding to any pressure groups. Do you really expect any unpopular ideas to be given voice in music, if advertising owns it? Imagine if Roosh had a guitar, rather than a blog? Would you have heard of him in this climate? How quickly would he be dropped by a record label if he wrote a song called 'Water Takes The Shape'.

So, what we've currently-ended up with: rap guys and r&b girls both concerned with fame and conspicuous consumption, rather than anything political, like rap used to be. The guys are all alpha bragging about all the pussy they're getting and all the toys they can buy, the girls are all offering self-empowering crap: "you're a star! you're a firework! you're a starship! you run the world!"

The listeners hearing all this lose themselves in the fantasy, but knowing it's not the reality of their lives, are deeply-unhappy because of it. Unhappy people spend more. The aspirational brand names to be purchased to guarantee happiness are in half of the songs.

Do you really think you're hearing the best of what is on offer? Do you want to know how things really work now?

A famous old music writer mate once spoke to me about Delta Goodrem (Sony - hugely famous in Australia) before her success: "It doesn't matter what I write about her. It has been decided that she will be famous, so she will be."

A music producer mate: "You're called to meetings between the record company and the radio guys, and they listen to the music, and all decide who will be famous. There is no chance in this process."

The artist who pledges loyalty to the company and is the best team player is rewarded. Sound any different to your average feminist office drone?

My album producer, who was on a major in the 90's, after they'd spent a cool million recording his album: "I got called in by the label execs. They'd been focus testing my songs. Sat me down and said they'd consistently gotten 5 out of 5 scores from the testers. I think this is great. They shake their heads, and explain, 'no this is very bad. Radio won't touch you'. I asked why, they said 'they love your songs *too* much'. They explained the problem: when the song ends, the listeners are wondering who the song is by and wanting to find out, and not listening to the commercial after it. You can't be more exciting than the ads.

"What we want you to do now," they said. "Is to go back, and write some 3's."

Don't tell me the indie kids are going to save the day. Because it takes money to have any kind of career in music now, all you get are the bored, low-resilient dilettante children of the upper class: hipsters. Combine a life of comfort and lack of personal challenge and you end up with a bunch of solipsistic drivel, and a herd mentality. These kids are born sold out, and have no integrity to lose.

We are drowning in a sea of utter dreck. Venues now don't pay live bands: "It's good exposure for your band. We're doing you a favour." Most music reviewers are unpaid, ("good exposure"), so you end up with people with a casual understanding of music writing about bands who only have a casual understanding of music, meaning everyone's 'best band ever' or 'boundary pushing' has already been done, and better.

It's dark ages for music, man. I'm not sure why I'm putting a record out.

[The Lizard of Oz]

Good to see you here again AB!

[caracal]

(05-22-2014 08:02 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:01 PM)soup Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:51 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  

^^ Exactly. Musicians complaining about being underappreciated and whatnot automatically get the eyeroll from me. It should be a hobby these days, not a profession.

You will drown in a sea of shitty music.

Rant mode.

It's dark ages for music, man. I'm not sure why I'm putting a record out.

Post of the day.

[Pete]

(05-22-2014 01:00 PM)soup Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:45 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

I think it was Paul McCartney who said that for most of history - musicians didn't make any money. And that the money earned in music over the past 40 years is the exception and not the rule.

That bubble has popped and will never come back.

Not making money from music is the norm. It was only the rise of consumerism, teenage pop culture and the monolithic record companies that created this weird moment in time where pop music could be extremely profitable.

Music is going the way of poetry. Sure you have a handful of people who can make money from it. But the rest are supported by universities, private wealth or second jobs. Hell - my favourite poet was Philip Larkin - and he spent his life working as a university librarian.

I will mention that Bob Lefsetz has an amazing blog (which he updates everyday) about the state of the music industry. He gives some fascinating insights into how fucked the music business is - even for the likes of Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus.

The old music model is broken beyond repair.

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/

As for the future. It will be interesting to see how it pans out. Personally - I never understood why musicians wanted fame and fortune from their music? Music should be about trying to make the best music possible and trying to perfect a certain idea or vision.

I am a magician - and I know lots of geniuses who devoted their lives to pursuing magic for the pure love of it. Not only did they never make money (or win fame) from it - they were utterly uninterested in that in the first place.

That is how I would feel about music today. Unlike the past - it is quite cheap to record music to a high level. And as such - I am not sure why musicians want more than the simple satisfaction of creating a piece of art?

Sure anything else on top of that is a nice bonus. But it shouldn't be the core reason that drives you.

And besides - if you feel that society 'should' compensate you for your efforts, I would ask - why should they?

You chose to become a musician - and could stop at any time. Added to which -the world is already drowning in amazing music. So - I am not sure why the rest of us should be so grateful? Particularly when there are many other art forms and creative pursuits that people tackle purely for the love of it and nothing else.

Try being a great musician- it's a fulltime occupation.

Exactly. You won't be good at something if you do it only 10 hrs per week.

I make a living with music. I have a bachelors on CompSci, but I chose to work with music just because I love it. I tried to work and do music at the same time but I couldn't. I got home every day tired with no energy to get into the studio.

But those who say that musicians whine about this and that are the same people whining that today's music is garbage. Of course it's garbage. It's garbage because no one can afford to do it full-time unless they're rich.

Recording music is so cheap that anyone can do it. But it doesn't mean anyone can make a professional-grade recording.

Making a song isn't only writing. You need to write it(~100-500 unless you DIY), compose the musical arrangement(~300-5,000), mix all the instruments (~200-500), mastering(~50-300), paying to get it on itunes (~40), etc. And NO ONE can do every part of that process by themselves. Simply because you can be good at 2 or 3 of these things, but the other ones you'll fail.

I'm not saying every musician has to be paid and get rich. But if you enjoy music from X artist. You should buy his music and support him. Sadly no one does. People listen through spotify and services like that that pay a misery. To earn $0.01 your song has to be played about 3-4 times.

[Pete]

(05-22-2014 08:02 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 01:01 PM)soup Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 12:51 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  

^^ Exactly. Musicians complaining about being underappreciated and whatnot automatically get the eyeroll from me. It should be a hobby these days, not a profession.

You will drown in a sea of shitty music.

Rant mode.

This. The signal-to-noise ratio is ridiculous now. We are drowning in an ocean of utterly-average music, that the last 'new' song that challenged me in any way as a listener, (to the extent I had to run to the piano to figure out just how it was put together), was in 1999.

There's male hamsterisation going on here that music is somehow disconnected to everything else we're talking about.

Successful musicians are rationalised away as being 'talented' and not expect reward for their work. It's the old bitter shrug: "They can only do that because they're talented. I could do that too, if I had talent. It's just entertainment. It's not a job."

Bullshit. 'Talent' is simply the result of endless, unseen hours of hard work and effort. If you think the other way, you're just like a fat chick demonising fit girls for 'starving' themselves. "Oh, they just have good metabolisms," she says, eating a cronut.

There's thread after thread of people on here decrying the cowardice of people and organisations not standing their ground for their beliefs, due to advertisers instantly-folding to any pressure groups. Do you really expect any unpopular ideas to be given voice in music, if advertising owns it? Imagine if Roosh had a guitar, rather than a blog? Would you have heard of him in this climate? How quickly would he be dropped by a record label if he wrote a song called 'Water Takes The Shape'.

So, what we've currently-ended up with: rap guys and r&b girls both concerned with fame and conspicuous consumption, rather than anything political, like rap used to be. The guys are all alpha bragging about all the pussy they're getting and all the toys they can buy, the girls are all offering self-empowering crap: "you're a star! you're a firework! you're a starship! you run the world!"

The listeners hearing all this lose themselves in the fantasy, but knowing it's not the reality of their lives, are deeply-unhappy because of it. Unhappy people spend more. The aspirational brand names to be purchased to guarantee happiness are in half of the songs.

Do you really think you're hearing the best of what is on offer? Do you want to know how things really work now?

A famous old music writer mate once spoke to me about Delta Goodrem (Sony - hugely famous in Australia) before her success: "It doesn't matter what I write about her. It has been decided that she will be famous, so she will be."

A music producer mate: "You're called to meetings between the record company and the radio guys, and they listen to the music, and all decide who will be famous. There is no chance in this process."

The artist who pledges loyalty to the company and is the best team player is rewarded. Sound any different to your average feminist office drone?

My album producer, who was on a major in the 90's, after they'd spent a cool million recording his album: "I got called in by the label execs. They'd been focus testing my songs. Sat me down and said they'd consistently gotten 5 out of 5 scores from the testers. I think this is great. They shake their heads, and explain, 'no this is very bad. Radio won't touch you'. I asked why, they said 'they love your songs *too* much'. They explained the problem: when the song ends, the listeners are wondering who the song is by and wanting to find out, and not listening to the commercial after it. You can't be more exciting than the ads.

"What we want you to do now," they said. "Is to go back, and write some 3's."

Don't tell me the indie kids are going to save the day. Because it takes money to have any kind of career in music now, all you get are the bored, low-resilient dilettante children of the upper class: hipsters. Combine a life of comfort and lack of personal challenge and you end up with a bunch of solipsistic drivel, and a herd mentality. These kids are born sold out, and have no integrity to lose.

We are drowning in a sea of utter dreck. Venues now don't pay live bands: "It's good exposure for your band. We're doing you a favour." Most music reviewers are unpaid, ("good exposure"), so you end up with people with a casual understanding of music writing about bands who only have a casual understanding of music, meaning everyone's 'best band ever' or 'boundary pushing' has already been done, and better.

It's dark ages for music, man. I'm not sure why I'm putting a record out.

Agree 100%

[Sp5]

(05-22-2014 06:27 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 08:57 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Art: everyone has sold out now, nobody's doing anything good and new, most stuff is trite referencing of stuff done before. Music, film, visual and performance art.

There's a kind of cultural exhaustion, at least in the West. There might be room to do new stuff in places like China and the Middle East, where new freedom gives artists some space. But even those artists just end up borrowing old stuff from the West.

This is what absolutely everyone believes: everything that can be done in literature, art, music, film, etc has been done and there is nothing new under the sun anymore, nor can there possibly be anything that tastes and feels completely new and fresh.

We'll see!

I hope there is some new and fresh stuff coming. I know there was some hating and some appreciation on Lorde here in the forum, but "Royals" was one of the few things I've heard in recent years that sounded remotely new.

In Europe it's even worse. They are cranking out Europop with the same drumbeat I was hearing when I was in the US army there in 1976.

Most musicians are political retards, but the absence of songs with ANY political message on broadcast media is curious. Nothing about the wars, nothing about the financial collapse, nothing about politics. It is creepy and I ascribe it not just to selling out, but outright corporate control.

[shameus_o'reaaly]

Selling out? Well...
I hate those ads Iggy Pop did, but that's because they are crap.
And it did tickle me when I heard about Tom Waits suing and winning over unauthorised use of his music in commercials,
but that's because he's a maverick, and hardly anyone ever wins when taking on big companies in that way.
Selling out isn't making money, it's making money at the expense of your past principles.
A lot of whining about so-and-so being a sellout (i.e., Bob Dylan) were caused by fans realising that, from going to see their musical or comic heroes perform in a coffeehouse or dive bar where the door charge was $2? maybe 2'6? they now had to pay a hundred times that to get nosebleed seats and a beer that you always spill.

Also, the older generation had the MC5, Dylan, the Stones, the Beatles etc to push the notion of revolution, freedom and dropping out, and they started calling their artistic heroes "sellouts" because the musicians made money off their naivete and politically, nothing changed.
If someone thinks "sellout" is an insult, most of the time it's because they regret paying for that persons' art, or they don't think they should have to pay now that prices have gone up.
If some 60's icon who espoused free love, growing marijuana on a commune and not working or going to school was married now, making a fortune from speaking engagements and registered in the Caymans, and holder of two degrees and an MBA, he might be a sellout. But what does that make people who bought his books and swallowed his ideas? Buyouts?

Quite a lot of people will be insincere or lukewarm about principles they espouse, especially if they think there's a quick buck to be made. But then they're hypocrites, not sellouts-Ted Haggard, Jesse Jackson, etc.
Like McQueen says, artists need to get paid as much as plumbers or dentists. If you don't want to pay, you don't think much of their work.
Having said that, ticket prices are pretty insane now, but the artists see relatively little of that anyway.

[El Chinito loco]

(05-23-2014 05:01 AM)shameus_oreaaly Wrote:  

But what does that make people who bought his books and swallowed his ideas? Buyouts?

Suckers.

Quote:

Quite a lot of people will be insincere or lukewarm about principles they espouse, especially if they think there's a quick buck to be made. But then they're hypocrites, not sellouts-Ted Haggard, Jesse Jackson, etc.
Like McQueen says, artists need to get paid as much as plumbers or dentists. If you don't want to pay, you don't think much of their work.
Having said that, ticket prices are pretty insane now, but the artists see relatively little of that anyway.

I agree that talent and ability should be rewarded just not at the scale that we're seeing now in modern history. I think we're in the only time in history where entertainment is worth exponentially more than actual productive skill that benefits man kind. Like I said, the ancients viewed aentertainers on the level of prostitutes and such I think that's pretty much right...

[Architekt]

I'm working on potentially starting a publishing business that actually supports artists. Royalties and bonuses and marketing hype stuff that a lot of aspiring artists can't necessarily afford should be made available in my opinion. I want to offer that service at reasonable rates to the people who need them. This shit needs to be accessible to everyone at a price they can't refuse while still giving the artists a chance to put food on their plate

[TigerMandingo]

Here on RVF, you will find a lot of criticism of those people who choose useless college majors and end up broke/unemployed. Why can we not apply the same sort of logic to artists/musicians? The world is changing. Oh, you worked hard to learn how to play guitar? Should have went for a STEM degree instead. Am I wrong here? Look at thedude. He plays music, learns guitar etc. but has a valuable set of skills which enable him to earn a good living.

[soup]

Cunning linguist must have a very boring iTunes.

[FilipSRB]

What technology giveth, technology taketh away.

The concept of rock stars, was only made possible with the invention of vinyl records, which made music available to a whole bunch of people for cheap, which made the artists rich, and created big record companies. Now the technology took away the easy source of income, and returned everything to the previous state, which is, only a handful of musicians can make a decent living, and mostly through live perfomances.

But there is an obvious catch. First, there are now generations of kids growing up with the idea of living the dream of being (semi)famous musicians, so it is hard to go back to status quo. Second, even if people's perception wold eventually be reverted to previous state, "the dream" is kept alive by the record companies, cause they reaaally love all that money, and they will do all that they fucking can to keep the illusion up, which in the end results in only them making money, and having pop stars serving as nothing but pawns, and good actors. Even the biggest acts cant compare with what they are making, music wise at least, to previous generations, and there comes all other non-music ways of profiting on your name, which previous artists werent forced to do if they wanted to live a millionaire's life.

[cardguy]

(05-22-2014 08:14 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Good to see you here again AB!

Great to see AB back again - and on fire.

His post is the perfect example of the intense intelligence and equally intense passion that I love about his writing.

@AB - would be curious to know what that song back in 1999 was that impressed you? One of my upcoming projects is to try and study music theory. I am not a musician myself - but recently there have been some books which try and explain some of this ideas at a simple layperson level.

[soup]

(05-23-2014 01:13 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 08:14 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Good to see you here again AB!

Great to see AB back again - and on fire.

His post is the perfect example of the intense intelligence and equally intense passion that I love about his writing.

@AB - would be curious to know what that song back in 1999 was that impressed you? One of my upcoming projects is to try and study music theory. I am not a musician myself - but recently there have I think there have been some books which try and explain some of this ideas at a simple layperson level.

If you are interested in how music works, I recommend the book "Sweet Anticipation" http://www.amazon.com/Sweet-Anticipation...0262582783

"Noise" is also interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise:_The_...y_of_Music

[cardguy]

I love a lot of the old Motown, Elvis Presley and Brian Epstein records.

The reason I mention it is because I came across an novel insight into this sort of music.

You see the song would be written by a songwriter - and then handed over to a performer to sing.

From an economic perspective this introduces division of labour and specilalisation. So from a purely economic perspective - one would expect this approach would result in better music than simply having a band or singer write their own music (which was the fashion for the past 30 years).

Interestingly - we are moving away from that model to the original one again with the rise of X Factor. But - that isn't about making the best music possible and instead is about churning out products by the latest 'reality star'. Since these shows are more about reality TV than music.

Still - this division of labour approach to music can still be found in other places today. And can produce some amazing songs.

Look at Elton John and Bernie Taupin. Taupin writes the lyrics and gives them to Elton John. Who adds the music and sings them. It is pretty funny since it means that even to this day, Elton John is none the wiser as to who 'Daniel' is...

And any mention of Elton John means I have to mention his famous party trick. Elton John can take any written words - and turn them into a song. On the spot.

Here he is turning the instructions to an oven into a song:

And here he is turning some dialogue from a play into a song:

[WD-40]

The oven song is awesome!!!

I just got a new ceramic cooktop for my kitchen, does he have a song for that too?

[cardguy]

Of course - for a true genius of improvisation - you have to look the work of Keith Jarrett.

This album was the first million selling solo Jazz record. As with many of his concerts - he sat down at the piano, with no idea what he was going to play. And just made the whole thing from the top of his head.

And at the Koln Concert he produced some of the most extraordinary piano music ever created. If you listen to the record - you will actually hear him groan throughout the record as he gets caught up in the ecstasy of his own inspiration.

[kapitaw]

(05-22-2014 08:02 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Don't tell me the indie kids are going to save the day. Because it takes money to have any kind of career in music now, all you get are the bored, low-resilient dilettante children of the upper class: hipsters. Combine a life of comfort and lack of personal challenge and you end up with a bunch of solipsistic drivel, and a herd mentality. These kids are born sold out, and have no integrity to lose.

It's dark ages for music, man. I'm not sure why I'm putting a record out.

AB that was a great post an you made some compelling points, but I really think you're dismissing independent music too easily. Although the internet does lead to over-saturation of the music scene, there are countless musicians that have been able to build a solid fanbase through the internet that they wouldn't have been able to reach before. I'm not sure what kind of music you're listening to but I can't help but think that anyone who says they haven't been challenged as a listener since 1999 simply isn't looking in the right places.

I hear at least 3-4 albums a year that are refreshing and challenging, and they're usually independent or from small time labels. It's hard for original and well produced music to go unnoticed nowadays. It may be more difficult for musicians to make a living, and perhaps that's what your dark ages comment is referring, but I believe it's easier nowadays for true talent to be recognized and appreciated. I wouldn't call it a golden age of music, but I'm really content with the amount of new, high-quality music that is available to the public.

Also, it seems that you might be dismissing certain music based on a "hipster" stigma or the artists' background. That's your choice, but as I explained above, I like to approach the musical output/art separately from the artists. So if a beta pussy spoiled rich white kid in Williamsburg comes out with a good album I can enjoy it regardless of who made it. This mentality allows me to check out more music and ignore the stigmas, reviews, and politics of the industry.

Again though, I think you're approaching this topic as a committed musician while I'm thinking of it as an avid listener. I can only imagine how difficult it is nowadays to be a musician, but I guess that's the price you pay for (admirably, IMO) choosing art.

[Architekt]

Not sure where the hate for musicians is coming from. Last I checked, the famous ones slay a whole lot more pussy and earn a lot more than I presume most of you do. Being the best is hard in any field, let alone one that has a million new candidates every day. If you don't like what you're hearing on the radio, then look somewhere else. There are plenty of amazing tunes coming out