themusiciansite.com

As I was perusing through some music news, I happened across this little number. The Jonas Brothers have just recently made it to the top of the Billboard 200 list. Their album called "A little bit longer," sold a modest 525,000 copies. They were third in sales for the year behind Lil Wayne and Coldplay.

Now to the point of my blog today. I wanted to ask all of you what you believe makes artists such as those mentioned above so successful? Surely there has to be some common denominator that allows people playing such different music to be so similarly successful. It is funny to me that there is such varied taste in music. Everyone seems to like music, but most people have differences in opinion about what is "good listening" and what is garbage. Those three bands I mentioned above might be on your ipod or you might hate every one of them. I just find it interesting that there is not one genre, which is far more successful than another. It seems as though there are serious record sales from pop, rap, rock and anything else you can imagine. It just goes to show that the American public is in fact a vast melting pot with varying musical preferences.

Here is the question of the day for you – what do each one of those bands mentioned above do that allows them to be so successful? Is it their looks, their sound, their marketing company, or a combination of everything?

Labels: music genre, success

The word "Rock" is a very interesting concept in modern music. Think about it for a second... Rock. Just by itself.... Rock.

Huh.

Man, what does it even mean? When I think of Rock... dude, Rock is damn near everything. Punk Rock, Alternative Rock, Folk Rock, Hard Rock, Metal which is basically Rock, Glam Rock, Grunge Rock, Emo Rock, Rockabilly, Classic Rock (wow, the wiki on that one is appropriately broad), Rock and Roll (like, "oldies" stuff), Surf Rock, Celt Rock, Ska Rock... ROCK. (You know how if you hear a word too often it just starts to sound stupid? ...)

When I hear the word "Rock", I'm inclined to think that what it means is dependant on what type of rock we grew up with, or what the context of the word is. When I hear someone talking about "rock", having been raised in with lots of '90s and '00s music, my mind jumps to Alternative Rock, or Modern Punk Rock, or even some Pop Punk (which, I realize, is not the same as True Punk... don't beat me with your '70s walkers, I like The Ramones too...). When I think of the word "Rock", I hear The Mighty Mighty Bosstones of the late '90s (Well, okay, I personally happen to love Ska), I hear Green Day's '94 "Dookie" album, I hear Nine Inch Nails, I hear The Killers and yeah, even Blink-182.

Of course, after that, if I'm really thinking about it, I'll think of '80s rock, and then '70s rock... interestingly enough, it really does kind of go back chronologically, now that I think about it. I'll think of Metallica, back to Twisted Sister, Motley Crue, Ratt (well, I'll think of Round and Round), AC/DC, back into Boston, into Zeppelin, Van Halen, Aerosmith, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles... my definition of rock is determined by what I grew up thinking Rock was and then - and I genuinely find this interesting, I'm just kind of realizing this as I write it here - I'll think back (mostly) chronologically in terms of when the sound happened, not when I heard it. It's not like I like '80s Rock more than '70s Rock (on the contrary, actually, and I like The Beatles more than most in any decade), but for some reason or another the names and the sounds just come to me that way.

Huh, that's pretty crazy. I just kind of had a little mini-revelation while making a blog post. It's interesting to note, though, that if you were to ask someone who grew up in the heart of Glam Rock what they thought of when you simply say the word "Rock" to them, what they think of. Do they start at like, Warrant, and branch from there? Do those who were raised in the '70s think of Boston and branch backward? Forward? Does it even branch or does it just jump? Maybe I'm just weird, in that it branches chronologically. I guess I wouldn't really have the perspective to know; I suppose my fellow bloggers might have better insight. So uh, yeah. I find that all very interesting.

This post had an entirely different point when I started it, but I'm just leaving it here.

Labels: music genre, psychology, rock

As I was thinking about my post for this blog I began to wonder what role formal musical training plays in the progression of a normal musicians skill. For instance, I would be interested to know how many people in this blog have taken music classes at school. Do you believe that these classes are very helpful? In my experience it seems as though great musicians can be born out of two circumstances. Some musicians are naturally inclined and learn only by listening to other musicians. Others are taught by personal and group teachers to hone in on their skills. My question is this: is one type of musician better than the other? In your experience are the musicians who are naturally inclined towards music and self taught more skilled than those who have trained and practiced with professionals?

These questions have stemmed out of a personal relationship that I have. A friend of mine has always been incredibly musically inclined. He plays the guitar, sings, and plays the drums. In high school he took courses on music and music theory ect. He then continued this education in college at Belmont University. I began to wonder about this because I also had another friend who never had a lesson in piano. Yet he could play any song he had ever heard. Even if he had only listened to that tune once. Also if you look at prodigies such as Mozart you will find that by the age of five they played famous works. Such skills cannot be taught but are innate. That is why I am asking whether you think the best musicians are innately blessed with talent or if they are the ones who work the hardest or if it is some combination of natural skill and hard work.

Labels: classical, mozart, music genre, musicians, musicians self taught vs trained, vs

I'm currently watching "Heavy; the story of metal" and it got me thinking...

What bands are heavy metal, and what bands are not? For example, a band like Motorhead is obviously metal... but what about Van Halen? I'd say they are more hard rock. But many would say they are metal as well.

Is metal a big enough style that it'll be around in 40 years? (obviously not in the form it is today.) Personally, I see metal as the one style of music teenagers will ALWAYS relate to. One day they are into hip-hop, then pop, unplugged rock (college radio, alternative rock type stuff,) and on and on... but metal has always been found in the hallways of high school America since the 70's and 80's.

Should they have their own hall of fame/awards show? Too many great artists get overlooked because the mainstream industry ignores them for what ever is popular at the time. Case in point. The Metallica/Jethro Tull Grammy award fiasco. Many of the hair metal bands are all sold short of their talent (Queensryche, Def Leppard, etc.) and of course Black Sabbath having to wait way too long before being inducted into the rock and roll hall of fame.

Heavy Metal is a lost art form. If those bands wanted air play they needed to sing a ballad and a lot of them caved in, while others didn't make much of their time in the spotlight.

Ok, but what about some of the bands of today... Disturbed is the new version of a metal band that could test time. They are just one great album away. Sickness was good, but it's far from being in the same category as "Master of Puppets" or "Paranoid." But before a lot of metal bands would keep on punching out albums without a ton of air play and make it. Now a lot of bands that don't get air play seem to quit after one song doesn't bring in the cash.

I think bands are given one shot by major record labels, and then they are given the axe which means no air-play, but they continue to produce albums. You just never hear about them again unless you are in an area they are based in. Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Black Sabbath all were established. I think Metallica did more for the "non-glam" metal then just metal overall, which is why I think so many of their fans became upset at them. Metallica was "ours" and not the masses. The masses were too busy listening to Ozzy, Ratt, Van Halen, and so on. So when Metallica went more commercial, a lot of fans felt they turned their backs on them. The people who built them and created all the buzz about a band who (at one time) had 3 albums on the top 100 without hardly any radio play. Then "And Justice..." came out, and with the song "One" radio took notice. Then came the commercially done black album. At that moment, the old fans could see the writing on the wall... Metallica was moving on, into a new direction. Then came "Load" and the deal was done. Metallica was no longer the great garage band that was making it... now they were just like every other metal act. And because of that, Metallica (as much as I still like them) will NEVER be the band they once were.

So with the "non-glam" bands, people started to branch out to bands like Megadeath, Anthrax and Pantera after finding Metallica. Which translated into those bands having hits as well as getting airplay?

So it begs the questions what is metal? Well metal may just be picking up your favorite axe and playing that heavy riff in your garage. Playing Iron Man or Seek and Destroy on a ESP LTD KH202 Kirk Hammett Electric Guitar may be just what Metal means to you... Metal is the chance to turn on that amp and pluck those strings. Metal is the chance to look authority in the face and say...well you know the rest!!!!

Labels: alternative rock, college radio, guitars, heavy metal, hip-hop, kirk hammett electric guitar, metallica jethro tull grammy awards, music genre, unplugged rock