too late for sucess

There's no need for apologies. The written word is often hard to get in the manner it was written.

Let's just keep on topic.

Hmm another thing to consider is that there are plenty of mediocre guitarists (at least 'skill' wise) that 'made it big'. So you don't even need to be that good to suceed.

Hmm, intersting. I saw on TV in an interview with Jimmy Buffett that he doesn't consider himself to be a very good guitarist. And I'll admit the stuff he plays is not all that complicated. still, he is extremely successful. he himaself admiyts that it is as much business sense and a bit of good fortune as it is anything else.

You don't have to be an amazing guitarist or singer to make it big. Look at Bob Dylan. I don't mean any disrespect by that, Dylan is one of my biggest influences and I respect the man to no end, but even he admitted he wasn't that good. A critic once criticized him that all his songs were the same 3 chords. His response was that you can write a song with one chord...with just one note. He was right, and today he's one of the world's most respected musicians.

Now if you are looking to make it big, all the more power to you. That's not my goal, Im gonna be a teacher, but I'll never put down my guitar. That's why I play, for my own enjoyment. Good luck in the music business. (sadly, that's what it is nowadays)

sadly, that's what it is nowadays

That's what it's always been. The market changes, the opportunities arise and fade away with new technologies and distribution methods, but no one ever hired a musician because they ran out of other things to do with their money.

There's an idealist here and there who backs someone for the fun of it, but they're extremely rare - and they weren't any more common in bygone days. When an investor backs an act because they have 'potential', they're talking about earning potential, not musical.

Note,

That's it, that's what it's all about. As long as there's a market for your "music" you can become a star if there's not then, you could be the best singer/songwriter/guitarist in the world and still not make a dime.

Music and "stardom" are not a black and white thing, just because you are the most competent person on the planet doesn't mean you'll make music that anyone is interested in hearing, yet there might be some hack out there that can only play three chords but happened to write some catchy lyrics, got great promotion and the next thing you know he's selling a million records. It's totally unpredictable and I agree it changes with the times.

Maybe this isn't the thread for it, but since the topic arose, I'll address it. I brought up the music 'bussiness' comment because I was involved in a debate on another forum about if modern music sucks.

I criticized today's mainstream music, and said I mostly listen to old(er) stuff. Yes there are talented musicians today, but they don't get the attention they deserve outside of their respective circles. I won't list artists that I think are talented, as that's speculation and opinion based on taste. Im also looking at past musical eras through a rose colored lens, considering I've only been around since the late 80's and couldn't tell you if there was just as much s--t on the radio then as there is now. Im just upset that in however many years I doubt we'll be able to pull any music out of this pop-culture cookie cutter mess we're living in. You look at every past decade and you can easily pick out bands whose work is "timeless" 60's you have the Beatles and early Dylan among others, 70's Zep, The Who, etc, 80's....I'll leave them alone, and so on. You get where Im going. But what timeless music will there be from today's pop music? I'd say some of the stuff I listen to deserves to fall into that category(again, personal opinion), but they don't get much respect today. Ok, enough of my ramblings.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled discussion.

I have to disagree that it's totally unpredictable. Up until about the 1940s, music was 'direct delivery' - people had to actually hear the live performance (even on the radio, they were largely live broadcasts). The musician WAS the product. Things changed with the widespread use of turntables... beginning in the late 40s/early 50s, people began to get more of their music by 'indirect delivery' - they were listening to something that was no longer live. The product for sale stopped being the musician, and it started being the recording of the musician.

Once you no longer actually needed to be a musician to reap some of the profits, marketers found that you can predict the market. First comes imitation: Beatles are big? Roll out the Monkees, Partridge Family (and the spinoff, David Cassidy). Girl band hits the top 40? Roll out the Spice Girls. You've got product line extensions: girl bands, huh? How about a boy band... enter Menudo (and their later packaged imitators). You can even reach the point of focus groups and modern marketing tools - Disney's got it down to a science. Britney, Christina, Hillary... a large segment of the market is quite predictable.

If you want to make a living in music (or any field, really), you have to recognize what the true products are, and how you can package them to an existing market. If you're the most competent singer-songwriter-guitarist in the world and you're not making a dime, there must be better singers, better songwriters, and better guitarists out there. Together they make a product more marketable than yours. The three-chord millionaire who 'just happens' to write catchy lyrics knows what his product is - it's not chord progressions. I'll bet his product doesn't just happen, either.

Being the best at something only makes a career possible IF you position yourself to an existing market. The world's best buggy whip manufacturer isn't making a very good living these days.... unless he decided his product is really leatherworking, and he's cranking out cell phone pouches.

I completely understand what you're saying, Note. Maybe Im misdirecting my anger at the artists when I should be upset with the market. I'm guessing you have a few years on me, so maybe you can answer this question. Before the 80's, was the mainstream market overflowing with teenyboppers and whatever the equilvilent of the "unrepresented teen agnst" still dictating what was popular?

I understand how the market works, I just don't agree with it. Music is an art form. You don't see mass produced Van Goghs or Da Vincis or whoever todays top painters are (sorry, I dont follow painting very closely). There is still some pride in circles like that though. I'd follow that, except it doesn't interest me. And my talent lies within a guitar, not a paint brush.

And in the little downtime before your post, I did think of one band that might carry on, that being Radiohead. True, I am a fan of theirs and that plays on my opinion, but I think they have what it takes to leave their mark on the music scene while maintaining a sense of creativity and inventiveness (word?).

Before the 80's, was the mainstream market overflowing with teenyboppers and whatever the equilvilent of the "unrepresented teen agnst" still dictating what was popular

Yes.

"Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head". "Love Will Keep Us Together". "Have You Never Been Mellow". "Solitaire". "Tie a Yellow Ribbon".

Stop me. Please. :)

I read an excellent magazine article notto long ago regarding the current music inducstry, particularly the distribution of it- record sales, over the airwaves, and on the Internet. The author was trying to explain how so much more of the musig is watered down. Thier point is that now we have these mega-companies controlling everything- Clear Channel and Infinity owning miost of the radio stations. It used to be radio stations were fairly independent. And as far as CD sales- most of the volume nowe goes through the big discount chains like Wal Mart and Target. They're only intersted in selling CD's that are going to move in big volumes; they don't want ones that are going to sit on the shelf. same with the radio stations- they go for maximum listener base by appealing to the lowest common denominator. That's why you have these "classic rock" stations with these miniscule playlists so you are hearing the same songs all of the time.

So what this means is most people are now exposed to a very limited choice of music. Sure, there's lots of other great music being made these days, but it takes a little work to go out and find it. It's not going to hit you in the face. You're not going to find it on your local FM station or in the CD rack at Wal Mart.

Fortunately, the Internet and Satellite radio offer alternative channels for music. They've sprung up to replace the old Underground FM ststions and record boutiques of the 60's and 70's. Again, it's just that you have to go out and look for it.

I think exactly the opposite is happening - there's more music out there than ever before, largely due to the internet. CDs are dying as a medium - I give 'em no more than 20 more years and they'll go the way of 45s - but electronic delivery is fast, cheap, and bypasses the established distribution networks.

Even before the mega radio networks, there was an awful lot of 'sameness' to what stations played. Very few stations had no playlist at all (DJ free choice), and if you weren't on the list, you didn't get played. The best example I can give you is Grand Funk Railroad... I heard their stuff at a friend's house ages ago. They sold millions of copies, but for whatever reason didn't make the playlists. The first time I heard "I'm Your Captain" on the radio was within the last 10 years.

Radio stations are a business too... they're in the business of delivering advertising. The music/talk/weather/whatever is just the wrapper to deliver ears to the advertisers. They WANT to sound the same every day - if they do a lot of new stuff, people change the station. That's the way they've always been. Subscription radio will change that somewhat, but not a lot; radio has the advantage that it's free.

lol this thread just passed the 100 mark, it should become a sticky! :)

On the topic of what was it really like in the 60s, I lived through that so I can say from experience.

Yes there was an awful lot of terrible songs out there. And radio time in the UK was restricted to the BBC (until the pirate radios started in the late 60s) so the only time you could listen to 'pop' records (Beatles, Stones etc) was on the once a week top 20 on Sunday afternoon - we were all glued to the radio at that time. Later came some very good 30 minute TV programmes, but again only once a week for 30 minutes.

It was possible to listen to radio Luxembourg but the quality of the signal was terrible.

I remember a particularly bad song Chirpy Chirpy Cheep Cheep I think it was called, got a hell of a lot of air time. And there were loads of these.

It was the charts in the musical newspapers that made us aware of new songs (I subscribed to a weekly newspaper (NME - New Musical Express) and we watched the charts avidly for new music then went and bout the 45, both in the UK and the US.

I think is was mostly teenagers that were buying and liking this music, but I didn't mix much with the 'old fogies'.

But the music we did find was great. I remember the first day Sgt Pepper album was released, we put in on the turntable and played it non-stop for over 24 hours, just turning over one side and then the other.

Got thrown out of a pub for playing Sloop John B over and over on their juke box.

Most villages had a Saturday night dance and the bands (we called them groups) we often very good, still remember one playing Eddie Cochran sweat proing down his face, feet stomping to the rythm and the girls, - but I digress....