Is DIY ruining music?
How could DIY possibly be ruining music? Many if not most listeners would see it as the opposite: independent music’s only savior in the face of corporate and consumer music culture. The truth is that the DIY movement is having many negative effects on music today, mainly based in the simplicity of digital recording and the immediacy of the Internet. On the surface, these two elements appear unquestionably positive; they remove the corporate and financial barriers that once existed between musicians and their potential listeners, but I wonder if they haven’t succeeded in making things too easy, or too complicated. Let me explain.
Not too many years ago, a filter existed between musicians and their audience. This filter took the form of record labels, which controlled music’s accessibility and also possessed the capital to pay for expensive studio time needed to make proper recordings. This allowed record labels to decide more or less who would be listened to, or at least, whom it would be easier to listen to. (We’re not talking about mainstream music here, but smaller bands, and smaller labels.) The system delegated by labels was extremely exclusive; and also made it more necessary, or at least useful for bands to know what they were doing before they put records out. The result was music that was more “trend-based”; labels that were more “genre-based” and overall, less accessibility for listeners. It also caused very much great music to get overlooked. This all appears to totally contradict my argument, but now let’s look at what’s happening now.
The filter that once existed has been removed. Musicians can now produce their own music on their terms at home, at very little cost and “release” it, at least online immediately. Therefore, everyone has equal initial access to every listener that has Internet access. This ease has had several very detrimental effects. First of all, it has produced an unbelievable flood of new music, of high to terrible quality. This extreme abundance has ill effects on listeners and the music press. Listeners now are in the position of filter. There are no longer labels delegating what they hear, but they also have to sort through everything to find what they like. This can be so time consuming, that it may result in greater exclusion of the listener and this has been exacerbated by the trend within labels to diversify their acts in order to compensate for the multiplication of trends, and their rapid succession.
In a desperate attempt to keep up to date, listeners and labels turn to the music press. The press has changed also though. Now centered online; the music press can update their information constantly, changing the focus from bands of the week/month to bands of the day. Tied up in this is the attempt to discover new and exciting acts to constantly satiate confused music fans and increase their legitimacy within the industry. This continual need for new talent has resulted in music prospecting that is detrimental to music fans. The music press is now tempted to endorse bands on characteristics other than their music and so the press is dominated now by “story bands”, “gimmick bands”, “genre bands (or throwback bands)” and side projects. The paradoxical thing about many of these projects is that while they are borne of this “DIY” ideology, it is often used in the exact opposite way than one would expect: in the creation of limitations rather than options. Working at home opens things up hugely for musicians but often now, the use of or rather, the refusal to use certain types of instruments/equipment/approaches produces a sound that is almost immediately confined; unable to live beyond the buzz created by the band’s two member rule, their refusal to use keyboards, or their “analog only” creed.
But why is this bad? First of all, it isn’t always. Some great artists have come to light through their “nonmusical” characteristics. (Though I believe that good music will always find its way to people’s ears). This is bad because many of these bands simply aren’t very good. They suddenly gain popularity (often very soon after forming); make one interesting album (maybe) -mostly based in their story or limitations- and then a bad one, and then disappear. This creates a musical landscape that changes daily, constantly losing the consistent and developing acts that one could follow for fresh talent –or if not talent, fresh names. Overlooked now are more “serious” bands that have existed for years but are now considered boring because they are not new.
The irony in this is that so much of independent music today is centered in the aspiration to replicate the movements that were truly DIY. These are the genre bands, the throwbacks, and the story bands. They are founded in a deep respect for no-wave, psych rock, or freak folk and attempt to reinvent the spirit and creativity of their predecessors by imitating them. There are two huge differences between the old and the new movements though. First, the old movements were inventing things. And second, the old movements were truly communities of artists working towards a common creative idea. This does not exist now. The explosion of music today has caused a fragmentation that causes all to suffer and it will fail to produce a history beyond the brief life of today’s trend bands.
http://www.mediafire.com/?tg2tqj5j2m0
