Thought Sausage

In one of my "can't get to sleep to save my ass" bouts, I stumbled on an interview my friend did earlier this year here. It's basically about the project he's doing right now (see Microwaved for details). While they go on to talk about the various things he's been involved with, the interviewer poses that question that none of us really have an answer for, yet always seemed to get asked: "What trends do you foresee"? (I know this because I was asked that at least 150 times from various sources between 1998 and 2003).

Nevertheless, it got me to thinking (which is a scary thought @ 6:40 am on humpday). The fact here is that I haven't really been out touring/playing in over two years now which is really a scary thought. I've recorded a few ideas here and there, but nothing tangible (although I may jump back in the fray again, but to what capacity is yet to be determined). My frame of reference on "trends" as being one who is down in the thick of it dates back two years or more. During that time, a lot seems to have changed (other than me being in Chicago vs. Iowa). Some for better, some for worse. But rather than think about specific trends, what is interesting to me is the things that go into fostering the artists who develop these trends (and ultimately the companies who market and promote said artists to the general public, who doesn't know real talent from a 2x4 upside the head rendering the value of a trend pretty much moot). Therefore, I started thinking about the ingredients that foster trends and how they can engender 'the next big thing'.

Per your consideration:

TECHNOLOGY- Technology is always one of the key factors in new music (and ultimately art) trends. Chamber orchestras, trap drum sets, electric guitars, synthesizers, drum machines, computers etc etc. I think artists have thought of themselves as computer savvy for a long time, but the technology is finally allowing them to reach this potential. We have reached a point in the timeline where a single person can truly create an entire band via synth and one would not know the difference (check out Chris Randall's song "Be There Tonight" on Komposi 3 as proof of this). Human quantization, samples and user interfaces for the software to make such things go has become so user friendly that you don't have to be a goth computer geek who hates life to manipulate them. I think this means people who may otherwise have to go find a guitarist, drummer, bass player, and whatever indie hipster instrument is hot right now player may simply take the shortcut and produce all those sounds themselves. If you've got a laptop, a copy of Fruity Loops, Cool Edit. T-Racks and a decent soundcard, you can pretty much make that happen (contrary to what all the audiophiles will tell you because that undermines their whole purpose in life). In fact, that's exactly how 99% of the bullshit cookie cutter pop music is produced. Just that they do it with a 500k laptop, and a 250k/year engineer. This isn't (and hasn't been for awhile) necessary. Software has evolved (along with people's computer savvy) to the point to where somebody like Fred Durst can wax poetic about how cool Garageband is and how "easy it is to use" (brah yeah! Brah Get It! Gonna be a problem? Nadabrada!). Oh sure there will always be a place for the professional studio and professional engineers (although not as much room as Fullsail Brochures would have you believe). But the undeniable fact is that the process of creating music has been simplified to the point to where any joe with a passable musical vision and rudimentary music skill can create music on par with what their friends will coin "good" without stepping out of their bedroom.

So that's one component of technology. The other is the actual performance of music. This is usually the part where purists will say no matter what you still need a band. I would agree. I've been to DJ gigs. As much as they'd like to think otherwise with various degrees of dazzling lighting and bass that makes your eyeballs rattle, its not that fun to watch a guy jack off a laptop for an hour. It's not even that fun to watch a guy tickle keys with fake drums. And its especially not fun to watch 3-4 of 'em do a circle jerk with old skool DX-7's. You need a band IF you are actually going to play live. Does an artist really need to play live to get their music heard? Well one thing I can say for certain is that people definitely do not go out to shows like they used to. In the early 90's when I was just getting into this, getting a few hundred people to a show with bands they'd never heard of was certainly not a problem. In retrospect, some of those bands were spoiled with the audiences that were handed to them. Now, its a lot of work. My answer to this is that there's just so much other shit to do, coupled with the fact that bands don't really put on worthy shows anymore. I definitely feel the difference between an Iowa show and a Chicago show when I see regulars on the scene here in Chicago (that aren't cover bands, a whole issue I won't even honor with bitchslapping). It always seemed like in Iowa, shows still had that "event" vibe. I remember playing in bigger markets like Minneapolis, here and Madison and seeing the total look of indifference on people's faces. To some extent, even though they thought 'industrial music' was something steel machinists listened to, playing out in the sticks was actually more fun. Because even though those people didn't know shit about your scene, they sure as fuck appreciated the event. It's probably only a matter of time until that ilk doesn't give a shit either. My point in this whole rant is that bands at zero don't attract fans by playing shows anymore. It used to be if you could at least get on a bill with somebody who had a draw, you could get 50-60 signups on your email list (provided you didn't suck) and go from there. Now you can't even get that because there aren't 50-60 people at most local shows and even they don't give enough of a shit to fill the thing out (i've watched). Even major artists have trouble making money because its so expensive to tour. Basically, unless your band has a name that rhymes with Leonard Skeonard and your fanbase is a bunch of NASCAR loving/education hating 'poundin' Coors, you probably aren't going to see any money from touring.

Enter more technology. Thanks to websites like CDbaby and Tunecore, artists can actually get their music out in the digital realm without actually having to release a CD. It could lead to a whole new singles revolution. selling digital downloads is NOT all that unrealistic for an unsigned band. Sure it takes quite a bit of time to get into the services, but the six months of waiting around to get listed, verses six months of playing shows to 3-5 people comes out a wash. Think about it. itunes all but spoonfeeds genres to you when you sign on. If you are an industrial artist that has even a passing similar sound to anything Wax Trax put out, there's a good chance your music will get heard by rivetheads around the world seeking out new stuff via itunes. Most of those rivetheads don't even go to Neo anymore, let alone a place that has bands (and that's just chicago!). And at 99 cents a song, its not that unreasonable to give something a listen, and plunk down a buck to have the right to listen to it whenever/wherever you want. Its happening all the time. In fact I know a few artists here in Chicago that haven't played a single show that are on the verge of eeking out a middle class income through digital distribution and publishing (a whole other rant). They aren't widely known other than myspace and facebook, but who gives a shit when mainstream America would rather watch American Idol and professional wrestling than seek out anything meaningful? Punks have known this for years and while it always seems like the punks are doing things in the stone age, they always end up doing what's right when everyone else is doing what's wrong (even if they still hold true to 7"s and swear of CD's). Don't get me wrong, if you love playing live, then by all means do it. I'm just saying that for the sake of promotion, its totally not an essential ingredient (oh wouldn't that be great? If live music only comprised of people who do it because they actually like it?).

So I think because of technology, we will see more isolation in music. Hopefully the people who play out because they have grand illusions of becoming the next big thing will peter out. And those who do it because they truly love to do it regardless of who is in the audience will stand tall and hopefully regain the crowds they rightfully deserve.