Why are bands dissappearing?

[happytheman]

This popped up on my Youtube feed this morning.. I like a lot of Rick's videos. While the information didn't surprise me it was interesting none the less.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_DjmtR0Xls

[Sputnik]

It's hard to argue with what he says in that video, however, this really only applies to the top of the pop charts. It seems to me there are tons of bands still out there, operating in smaller niches and finding success. Look at Wet Leg who actually won a Grammy a couple years ago, much to their surprise, I'm pretty sure.

I'm not sure it's such a horrible thing that various forms of rock music aren't locked into competing for chart space, especially if it means that they have to rely on external songwriters and often external musicians to play their parts to satisfy A&R people, exactly as Beato says.

Many musicians will still seek collaboration, and plenty of fans look beyond the Billboard Hot 100 for their music. In some ways it feels like we're back in the late 1950s with a lot of those manufactured artists and groups. In the end, creative bands rose up and appealed better to the audience. I'm not saying that will happen again, but a large number of people will never be satisfied with the milquetoast, and I think creative bands and artists will always have a place in the musical marketplace.

Bill

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

[Mister Triscuits]

Look at Wet Leg who actually won a Grammy

A duo, not a proper band.

[hippypants]

A duo, not a proper band.

That would surprise, Sparks. Tho I assume you are using scarcasm. Actually from Discogs there's five members if you count the synth programming person.

[Mister Triscuits]

That would surprise, Sparks. Tho I assume you are using scarcasm.

I am not. The whole premise of the video Beato is responding to is that the charts are dominated by solos and duos as opposed to bands. Obviously solo and duo artists still use backing musicians. Wet Leg is the duo of Chambers and Teasdale plus touring/session musicians. Sparks would be a gray area as they originally presented themselves as a quintet.

[Sputnik]

A duo, not a proper band.

So, The White Stripes aren't a band either, or They Might Be Giants? Atlantis Philharmonic? A rock band can have two members.

In the case of Wet Leg, the guys who toured also mostly played on the album, and a couple even had writing credits. Yeah, Teasdale and Chambers are the "face" of that group and the primary writers, but they present pretty strongly as a band, both live and in most of their videos, so even if the band only has two members, they operate more like an ensemble and come across a lot like Veruca Salt, who also had two women fronting the band.

However, if you don't like my example, how about boygenius, who won a grammy for best alternative album in 2024. Yeah, it's a "supergroup," but so was Cream and ELP. My point remains, bands can still achieve marketplace success and acclaim even if they're not charting on Billboard.

Bill

[Quinlya]

Streaming and social media have made it easier for new artists to emerge, but harder for established bands to keep up.

[Mister Triscuits]

So, The White Stripes aren't a band either, or They Might Be Giants? Atlantis Philharmonic? A rock band can have two members.

In the case of Wet Leg, the guys who toured also mostly played on the album, and a couple even had writing credits. Yeah, Teasdale and Chambers are the "face" of that group and the primary writers, but they present pretty strongly as a band, both live and in most of their videos, so even if the band only has two members, they operate more like an ensemble and come across a lot like Veruca Salt, who also had two women fronting the band.

However, if you don't like my example, how about boygenius, who won a grammy for best alternative album in 2024. Yeah, it's a "supergroup," but so was Cream and ELP. My point remains, bands can still achieve marketplace success and acclaim even if they're not charting on Billboard.

Again, the video this thread is about specifically differentiated duos from bands. Take it up with Osman and Beato, not me.

[Digital_Man]

So, The White Stripes aren't a band either, or They Might Be Giants? Atlantis Philharmonic? A rock band can have two members.

In the case of Wet Leg, the guys who toured also mostly played on the album, and a couple even had writing credits. Yeah, Teasdale and Chambers are the "face" of that group and the primary writers, but they present pretty strongly as a band, both live and in most of their videos, so even if the band only has two members, they operate more like an ensemble and come across a lot like Veruca Salt, who also had two women fronting the band.

However, if you don't like my example, how about boygenius, who won a grammy for best alternative album in 2024. Yeah, it's a "supergroup," but so was Cream and ELP. My point remains, bands can still achieve marketplace success and acclaim even if they're not charting on Billboard.

Bill

Don't forget Alaska who was the very first band to play at Nearfest. Also, A Triggering Myth. And then I suppose there was the Euyrthmics. Weren't they just Annie Lennox and Dave Stewart (no not the Egg/NH guy).

So what is the magic number for a band? Three? Then I guess Rush just makes it then. Phew. Close one.

[Mister Triscuits]

So what is the magic number for a band? Three?

There’s literally such a thing as a one man band. That’s not what the video is about. Has no one else actually watched it?

[Dana5140]

I listened to this, and I think Andy Edwards also ended up responding to it. I think Rick is pretty prescient. He has been making this case for some time, in different ways.

Sputnick, you said

Many musicians will still seek collaboration, and plenty of fans look beyond the Billboard Hot 100 for their music.

I wish this were true, but I fear it is not. I think too many people no longer live and breath music, as we did back in the day. There is a surfeit of product out there vying for attention, and I am tired of reading that, say, BIllie Eilish had a billion streams of some song I have never heard. I guarantee that of those billion streams, probably .01% were actually listening to it; it is just background noise for most.

I am enjoying Jinjer, the Ukrainian band. They are becoming more popular now- but not because of streaming. They had a savvy record label (Napalam) release one song on youtube- a well-picked song that garnered 86 million views, but Jinjer has done relentless touring, playing small festivals as openers, and as time went on and a few more good videos were made by Napalm, becoming headliners. It took years. But hey, Billie Eilish has one song with a billion views, right? Which way does the industry go, given this fact? Easy money or invest in the future? We know the answer.

[Sputnik]

Again, the video this thread is about specifically differentiated duos from bands. Take it up with Osman and Beato, not me.

There’s literally such a thing as a one man band. That’s not what the video is about. Has no one else actually watched it?

I did watch it, but I confess the mention of "duos" slipped by me. I understand your point, but I think you're making too much of my Wet Leg example, which I already sort of retracted. I'm not sure how Osman or Beato classified Wet Leg in their computations. If they classified them as a duo, I would take some exception to that for the reasons I mentioned above, but there are plenty of other bands out there that demonstrate the larger point about bands operating in the current marketplace. Let's move on from the duo discussion initiated my, at best, ambiguous example, and focus on that.

Sputnick, you said

I wish this were true, but I fear it is not. I think too many people no longer live and breath music, as we did back in the day. There is a surfeit of product out there vying for attention, and I am tired of reading that, say, BIllie Eilish had a billion streams of some song I have never heard. I guarantee that of those billion streams, probably .01% were actually listening to it; it is just background noise for most.

I'd agree a lot of those streaming numbers are a bit of a red herring, but I've argued that the Billboard charts are often misleading since I started listening in the 1970s. It's certainly a measure of sales, though whether that units actually winding up in consumer's hands is a bit sketchy. Remember that Tormato sold extremely well, but that was all based on preorders from stores. A bulk of those albums wound up in the cut-out bins. Streams could likewise represent a lot of things that don't reflect actual consumption of music, including bot farming and algorithms pushing music to listeners who aren't paying much attention.

However, I think it's a bit jaundiced to say that artists like Billie Eilish or Taylor Swift don't have passionate, committed fans who listen carefully to their music. Even back in "the day," tons of listeners simply consumed what was on the radio and it was a subset of the audience that delved deeper. That subset may be smaller now, but that doesn't mean it's not pretty large, or that changed methods and patterns of consumption are incapable of producing attentive listeners.

I am enjoying Jinjer, the Ukrainian band. They are becoming more popular now- but not because of streaming. They had a savvy record label (Napalam) release one song on youtube- a well-picked song that garnered 86 million views, but Jinjer has done relentless touring, playing small festivals as openers, and as time went on and a few more good videos were made by Napalm, becoming headliners. It took years. But hey, Billie Eilish has one song with a billion views, right? Which way does the industry go, given this fact? Easy money or invest in the future? We know the answer.

Well, that's the way it goes. Billie Eilish's music resonates with a lot of people. You can't really fault her for her success.

More interesting to me is your example of Jinjer who are achieving acclaim and success within the industry without the benefit of charting (I assume) or of ranking highly in numbers of streams. This is exactly what I'm talking about! I think there are still plenty of bands that operate at this level, and if you ask, "where did all the bands go?" the answer is that they now operate at a smaller, more organic level with the support of smaller labels or companies committed more equally to artistic as well as commercial concerns. There is still obviously an audience for this kind of music, Jinjer proves exactly this, and I see no reason that there won't continue to be one.

Bill

[Rarebird]

I listened to this, and I think Andy Edwards also ended up responding to it. I think Rick is pretty prescient. He has been making this case for some time, in different ways.

Sputnick, you said

I wish this were true, but I fear it is not. I think too many people no longer live and breath music, as we did back in the day. There is a surfeit of product out there vying for attention, and I am tired of reading that, say, BIllie Eilish had a billion streams of some song I have never heard. I guarantee that of those billion streams, probably .01% were actually listening to it; it is just background noise for most.

OK Boomer.

You never listened to the radio, or to an album while doing your homework?

And well, now there are other things people can do for their entertainment, like videogames (which I think all have music).

[veteranof1000psychicwars]

"OK Boomer" = "I cannot make a reasoned argument to refute your points"

It is also reductive and insulting.

[Rarebird]

"OK Boomer" = "I cannot make a reasoned argument to refute your points"

It is also reductive and insulting.

Considering I'm from 1959, that would probably make me a boomer as well.

Still I'm getting tired of people always claiming that everything from their past is far better than nowadays. Well, live with it, things change. That doesn't make them worse, or better, but just different.

[veteranof1000psychicwars]

Considering I'm from 1959, that would probably make me a boomer as well.

Still I'm getting tired of people always claiming that everything from their past is far better than nowadays. Well, live with it, things change. That doesn't make them worse, or better, but just different.

That is kind of a weak justification. If you wear glasses, it doesn't make it okay to call someone "four eyes".

And as you know this is largely an opinion- and feelings-based forum. If you have an opinion that differs from someone, you are free to state that differing opinion. It is not anyone's place to try to negate someone's point of view by saying "live with it".
That isn't going to change how anyone thinks or feels, and if you are "tired of it", there are a few hundred other threads on here to read, or millions of other chat groups, for that matter.

[hippypants]

I think I disagree with Osman that a duo or even single person isn't a band. I guess one can argue what defines a band? ie. Is Billy Joel a band? I think so, even tho he's just comprised of session musicians. It's would be hard to define. I think the other things too is that Rick Beato is pretty much a constantly on YT/ social media and searches for content to keep himself an audience daily, so he has to come up with topics all the time. No biggie if you enjoy him.

The other point is that he was referring to the British charts, but even so I'm sure if you looked beyond the popular charts you could find enough Brit musicians still producing work: Porcupine Tree, Coldplay, Oasis, etc. Are there less than way back when? Yes probably so, I'd could probably agree with that. We've all just shifted and moved in different directions as society.

[Rarebird]

That is kind of a weak justification. If you wear glasses, it doesn't make it okay to call someone "four eyes".

And as you know this is largely an opinion- and feelings-based forum. If you have an opinion that differs from someone, you are free to state that differing opinion. It is not anyone's place to try to negate someone's point of view by saying "live with it".
That isn't going to change how anyone thinks or feels, and if you are "tired of it", there are a few hundred other threads on here to read, or millions of other chat groups, for that matter.

This is an opinion threat, I just have a different opinion and I'm not really into the in the past everything was better, the music was better and the youth was better behaved and all that kind of nonsense. I don't like purists either. Things have always been changing and they always will be. Sinatra and Elvis didn't write their own songs. We've had Tin Pan Alley and the Brill Building. We have had the American song book, so there is a long history of composers writing popular music for others. In classical music composers also wrote mostly for other people to perform their music.

And just because I don't agree with something doesn't mean I should't give my own 2 cents.

[veteranof1000psychicwars]

This is an opinion threat, I just have a different opinion and I'm not really into the in the past everything was better, the music was better and the youth was better behaved and all that kind of nonsense. I don't like purists either. Things have always been changing and they always will be. Sinatra and Elvis didn't write their own songs. We've had Tin Pan Alley and the Brill Building. We have had the American song book, so there is a long history of composers writing popular music for others. In classical music composers also wrote mostly for other people to perform their music.

And just because I don't agree with something doesn't mean I should't give my own 2 cents.

I respect that, and other people have opinions too, which they are attempting to share without being insulted (if you think "OK Boomer" pisses me off you are correct, even though it wasn't directed at me). In addition your "live with it", read as "shut up and don't discuss it."
We all know we live in a world where culture, technology, and all of society is constantly changing, and it is human nature to discuss how and why these changes occur, and how we are affected by them. Pretend this is a Sociology class in college, because it is exactly the same thing.

[Poisoned Youth]

Let's move on from the Boomer thing, please. Renate's been on the forum over 20 years and she's not in the business of name calling. I understand the nuance where the comment came from when I read it, and not everything has to be reacted to as if it were offensive.

[Poisoned Youth]

I am not a big fan of Beato. As some who deals with content creators all the time, Beato seems to be at the phase where staying relevant is more important than the messages he is conveying. I generally find him as usually a bit of a Captain Obvious or someone whose general grievance is that it's not yesteryear.

That said, I did watch the video. This one would fall into the "Captain Obvious" camp for me. Perhaps that is because I, like most here, are music enthusiasts. The trend towards "solo" artists has been slowly developing over the last 25-30 years and also somewhat mirrors the narcissistic trends we see in today's culture and society that go beyond music, where a person is a BRAND first and foremost. In theory, one could argue it's easier to promote 1 person - especially if they have a personality or a character - as a brand or celebrity, even more so in the era of social media and attention economy.


On a side note, I notice these days how many bands playing the bar/club scene these days are tribute/cover bands for one single artist/group.

[Rarebird]

I am not a big fan of Beato. As some who deals with content creators all the time, Beato seems to be at the phase where staying relevant is more important than the messages he is conveying. I generally find him as usually a bit of a Captain Obvious or someone whose general grievance is that it's not yesteryear.

That said, I did watch the video. This one would fall into the "Captain Obvious" camp for me. Perhaps that is because I, like most here, are music enthusiasts. The trend towards "solo" artists has been slowly developing over the last 25-30 years and also somewhat mirrors the narcissistic trends we see in today's culture and society that go beyond music, where a person is a BRAND first and foremost. In theory, one could argue it's easier to promote 1 person - especially if they have a personality or a character - as a brand or celebrity, even more so in the era of social media and attention economy.


On a side note, I notice these days how many bands playing the bar/club scene these days are tribute/cover bands for one single artist/group.

I watched the video as well. And things have changed, like recording equipment. It's easier for one person to make a complete recording. When I was young, I was very happy when I aquired my 4-track cassettedeck. Now I own a 12-track digital recorder (I only use 2 tracks, because everything is played at the same time by the computer.

[wilcox660]

Area 51 is involved.

[dropforge]

Don't forget Alaska who was the very first band to play at Nearfest. Also, A Triggering Myth. And then I suppose there was the Euyrthmics.

Seventh Wave. Two guys (drums/vocals/keys and keys/vocals). They "cheated" by hiring extra personnel like Hugh Banton and Brian Gould.

[boilk]

And well, now there are other things people can do for their entertainment, like videogames (which I think all have music).

Even videogames are way down in popularity, apparently. Social media is what is in, like it or not.

Neil