-
I understand that, but it's not all about that & I never made it completely about that. I was the one who pointed out that the Spice Girls actually sold less than NKOTB.
And I don't think that it's necessarily a matter of major differences in the music, either. It doesn't matter if the only difference in the ingredients was a half a teaspoon of molasses instead of a half a teaspoon of honey: one deserves to be seen as the one that carried influence, and others do not.
What I was referring to so far as quality controls had to do with a never-before-seen shift as less emphasis was placed on the decisions of those whose expertise was considered to be music, as opposed to those whose expertise was considered to be business, or marketing. But that's only part of the story, and the ultimate issue is the end product, in this case being the album in question. 10 years ago was a time when there was a lot going on in terms of consolidation, beginning for radio businesses like Clear Channel & other media outlets, but also well underway for record labels, as they became subsidiaries of much-larger entertainment conglomerates.
But that's not even the point. The way I see it, there are straws to be grasped at when it comes to the musical aspect of this. The base was dance pop, but it was specifically teen dance pop. NKOTB had fizzled out, and, unlike the Spice Girls, there had been no explosion that had taken their place. In fact, at the time, the genre of teen pop, like hair metal, became passe practically overnight with the impact of Nirvana, grunge, Guns N' Roses, Seattle, and rave music (not to mention the eventual crossover of rap). It took a reinvention, and that's what the Spice Girls represent. Not necessarily new music, but music nonetheless, and influential music at that. How? Madonna was certainly an influence, though, as discussed, she was not, and never was, 'teen pop'. If anything, I think there was a conscious decision to be as little like Debbie Gibson & Tiffany--and Taylor Dayne, for that matter--as could be. There was some careful consideration to incorporate the Madonna-esque elements that could be realistically marketed to teens & pre-teens, with just a little of Alanis Morrissette's vinegar thrown into the mix: attitude, but of a specifically G-rated variety. I never said it was all that different from anything else, only that it led to an explosion that was unprecedented in music. Or, if you must, the music business. But the music business does not exclude 'music,' as 'business' all by itself does. That's just plain inaccurate.
Part of the problem is that the explosion I'm referring to took place in a genre that it simply not taken seriously. But I refuse to accept that it's ONLY marketing because the arguments that the 12-year-olds who buy the stuff have the taste of sheep & no knowledge, insight, or experience. They're still people buying music, and that so many of them did, so many copies, of so few records, by so few acts, in such a short period of time...how does one seriously argue that this does not constitute influence on music just because they're disdainful of teen pop?
Besides, it is successes like these that lead to the music industry's cynical version of R&D, and records that would otherwise never, ever see the light of day are put together by outfits that would never have been able to dream of a contract...if not for the money that the companies' business models restrict for new signings. Teen Pop sold HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of albums, and should be looked at as something that funded a new wave of signings, diverse signings that should've included roster depth that would've satisfied a lot of us. But this didn't exactly happen, now, did it?
No, and it's not likely to, at least not in the form that we recognize the music business, because, for the first time, they saw something that suggested that they wouldn't make a return on their investment enough to justify a new trip through the cycle that should've included higher A&R budgets, and more releases. The X-Factor that nobody saw coming was file-sharing, specifically Napster. From what I can see, one of the last major names that could be traced to the impact of the MUSIC of the Spice Girls, Avril Lavigne, saw great success about a year and a half prior to the RIAA unleashing a wave of suing their customers, which is something that has impacted on the music business in ways that I think 50 years from now may be viewed as being as significant as the impact of ALL of these picks COMBINED. Maybe that's a stretch, but we're about 7 weeks out from Vista...any of you follow DRM watch? Troy, I bet you'll be surprised to know that I'm now a MAC user. But it shouldn't surprise you that what I've read about DRM had as much to do with that decision than anything else.
But, while there are some arguments against the stance of the RIAA on illegal file-sharing that still make perfect sense, a cursory glance at the figures for weekly sales now, vs. weekly sales five years ago, are startliing. A good week a few years ago was a million or two, now it's maybe 1/10 that? I think there was a week recently where the #1 album in the country sold something like 87,000 units. So it's tough to accept that downloading didn't impact on sales, even if it didn't happen the say the RIAA said, and didn't happen that soon. It appears to have happened at this point.
The most successful period ever enjoyed by music, or the music business if you must, was during that teen pop explosion, when never before had so few sold so many in so little a period of time. If it was the marketing, then you have to levy the same charge at the Beatles. Even with an asterisk, it was the music, whether we'd like to admit it or not. That's what the kids were willing to buy. Oh, and I spoke with plenty of teenagers, Troy--nephews & nieces, but also some of my wife's former students, as well. And I'm telling you that the choices were wide enough to support my theory that peer pressure in having to have this or that teen pop album were was just not as much of a factor as something like having not missed this or that television show, or movie. Quotes from that sort of thing always, always had more of an impact, than lyrics, period.
Arguing a Beatles comparison is silly, I know. But I maintain that the music industry was impacted, changed, influenced, and massively, in the years 1997-2000, and maybe a year or two after that, by the impact of this album. They were the most successful years that the music business ever saw, and I say it wouldn't have happened if the Spice Girls didn't have the right combination of influences--specifically, influences from more adolescent & even adult musics made accessible to a teen and pre-teen audience--to see their potential impact fully realized. Oh, and then there is that other issue that I'll bring up one more time since it doesn't seem to have made much of a dent, either--this is a UK paper.
Anything else?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy
Nope, I don't buy that. Most people are sheep. Especially children. They buy what they are told to buy by the media.
Explain "Grunge", then.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
And I don't think that it's necessarily a matter of major differences in the music, either.
Then what the hell is the point of this list?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
But I maintain that the music industry was impacted, changed, influenced, and massively, in the years 1997-2000, and maybe a year or two after that, by the impact of this album.
Yes, a large impact on the industry with just a little change in the music itself, that's my whole point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
What I was referring to so far as quality controls had to do with a never-before-seen shift as less emphasis was placed on the decisions of those whose expertise was considered to be music, as opposed to those whose expertise was considered to be business, or marketing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
I never said it was all that different from anything else, only that it led to an explosion that was unprecedented in music. Or, if you must, the music business. But the music business does not exclude 'music,' as 'business' all by itself does. That's just plain inaccurate.
My point was that description is not a musical one, it's all industry related. The Guardian itself was rather dismissive with phrases like "Motown-lite" but they put it on the list because it sold. It's as if the more an album sells the less relevant the music is to the discussion. But if the discussion is about music, not the industry, then the music is what's relevant. And yeah, you CAN separate the music from the industry. Not exclusively, of course, but it's essential in determining, or at least discussing, what is worth a damn and what is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
But I refuse to accept that it's ONLY marketing because the arguments that the 12-year-olds who buy the stuff have the taste of sheep & no knowledge, insight, or experience. They're still people buying music, and that so many of them did, so many copies, of so few records, by so few acts, in such a short period of time...how does one seriously argue that this does not constitute influence on music just because they're disdainful of teen pop?
Because the music was not significantly diffferent or better or worse than the teen dance pop that came before, it was basically more of the same. I'm not as dismissive of twelve year olds as Troy. Hell, he and I were listening to Yes & Jethro Tull and all kinds of stuff at that age. I was listening to Zeppelin and Steppenwolf and the Beatles when I was nine in 1970. As life went on I found out that was a rare exception. Somehow I instinctively knew this music was new and different, I suppose largely because my grandparents weren't listening to it. But when you combine the relative naivety of youth with the influence of visual imagery you've got a powerhouse combination. That was my point about Duran Duran and how the kids heard it but didn't buy it unless they saw the video. So yeah, you CAN sell crap music with a video because the purchaser is also buying into the visual imagery. And that's not always a bad thing, either. Without the much despised flash-cut editing that arose from MTV there would never have been a film trilogy like Lord Of The Rings, the damn thing would've been 24 hrs long. So, put the right package together and you can sell a ton of music that's not significantly different than what came before. And if that spawns more teen pop that sounds very similar then you're only two degrees from where you started no matter how much it sells. In other words, you can be influential and still not "change music". As for the careful calculation that undoubtedly went into the Spice mix, I see it more as the culmination of the whole Cool Britannia pop culture movement than anything musically distinct. I hate to defend Madonna but at least in her case you've got Camille LaPaglia saying she culturally liberated an entire generation of Japanese girls and historian Garry Wills writing an essay on how she was not a true artistic leader. But what do we get with the Spice Girls? Industry analysis.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
Please tell me if you think that the teen pop acts that followed the Spice Girls--Britney Spears, the Backstreet Boys, 98 Degrees, Christina Aguilera, 'NSYNC, Avril Lavigne, et al, what were they known for? The sales of music, or stocks?
Sales
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty Chalk
Explain "Grunge", then.
Same thing really, though no one in the Puget Sound area called it 'grunge'; it was just 'underground'. Media called it grunge. Hell, there are certain circles which hold the music I like in the same contempt that I hold for top-40-pop. Not all top-40-pop is bad. But the stuff that's obviously prefab like N*SYNC and Spice Girls, et el...
"This horse is not only beaten past his expiration, he's now a fine paste suitible for a tasty equine sandwhich spread."<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-LockBox
Same thing really...
Whut? You lost me. Same thing as what?
Grunge came out of nowhere -- no-one in the music industry predicted that grunge was going to get as huge as it got. I mean, don't get me wrong, there were a lot of scouts looking for the next big thing, and some of them picked Nirvana and Pearl Jam and etc., but no-one predicted it was going to totally dominate the way it did. That was virtually unprecedented in this day and age of targetted marketing driven sales. I.E. that the amount of sales is almost directly proportionate to the amount of advertising that a given album receives.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty Chalk
Grunge came out of nowhere.
I guess on a national scale it did, but by the time Nirvana hit it big, a lot of bands were a tad disgruntled that Nirvana was representing the Seattle music scene and not bands like Mudhoney or the Melvins, who'd been around since the mid '80s, when the Seattle underground movement really started. Label execs were looking for something new anyway, since the hairy metal thing was on the wane. I guess since I was living here at the time, it didn't seem like an explosion for me like it does others.
"Same thing" as in, got co-opted by suits who eventually started pushing some very bad imitations of the Seattle sound. I knew some guys who were in bands around the early nineties who said that it was hard to get a gig if club owners didn't think you were grunge enough; everyone and there brother were moving to Seattle to try to be discovered as the next big grunge thing. No, it wasn't prefab like top-40-pop, but a lot of what came after it hit was a near parody of it (StoneTemplePirates). But besides, grunge stayed on the national consciousness how long? 3 to 4 years? It ran its course and was starting to become a joke. Espresso stands lasted longer than most Seattle 'grunge' bands. Between 'grunge' and the considerably large lesbian population in the Puget Sound area, you couldn't find a new flannel shirt if your life depended on it in the mid '90s.
|