Cry Like an Eagle

On Tuesday, the Eagles' Don Henley published an analysis of the state of contemporary music in The Washington Post. Titled "Killing the Music," it's filled with more boys of summer nostalgia than a hit single and its super-earnest, from-on-high tone will remind older readers that the shut-the-fuck-up/DIY ethos of punk exploded in part as a reaction to the posturing of self-important mainstream bands like the Eagles:

When I started in the music business, music was important and vital to our culture. Artists connected with their fans. Record labels signed cutting-edge artists, and FM radio offered an incredible variety of music. Music touched fans in a unique and personal way. Our culture was enriched and the music business was healthy and strong.

Whole thing here.

It's arguable that the music business is in trouble--certainly, they've clearly been at a loss as to how to shift from CDs to the next mass recording medium. But pace Henley, the record industry has always been an industry (see the Byrds' "So You Wanna Be a Rock and Roll Star," the anti-commerical tune that's been covered for decades by disgruntled rockers) and radio has always been a relatively restrictive venue (even in the brief era of free-form FM stations).

When Henley bleats, "Labels no longer take risks by signing unique and important new artists," he's studiously ignoring the contemporary music scene, where even major acts (pick your own favorites) bely his argument. What does it possibly mean to suggest that music is no longer "vital" to our culture? Now more than ever, we're drenched in a wall of sound that fills every minute of every day.

More important--and I say this as someone who thinks the big labels (and other big media copyright holders) have been acting badly, stupidly, and counterproductively regarding culture--Henley misses the enormous freedom of expression and distribution that music makers and (more important) music fans have now. However shitty most contracts are today, they're certainly no worse than they used to be--and there are more options in terms of boutique labels, do-it-yourself outlets, and potential income from touring.

But what's most impressive about today's scene is not that Clear Channel owns every radio station in America or that the RIAA is suing music fans. It's that you can get an ever-increasing amount and variety of music from an ever-increasing number of sources in an ever-increasing number of settings. When the Eagles started releasing records, most cars didn't even cassette players in them. Now, between the Internet and any number of other gadgets, you can stream music of all kinds anywhere. You can program whatever playlist you want and it's easy to even meld different songs together for something completely new. For no more than a couple of thousand dollars, you can create a professional-sounding studio in your bedroom.

Indeed, I think it's precisely the fact that the fan has been relatively empowered over the past 25 years or so that is really sticking in Henley's craw. "Simply put," he writes, "artists must regain control, as much as possible, over their music." In an age of cultural proliferation, in which end users are able to do what they well, that's just never going to happen.

Comments

[Jeff]

It reminds me of the SOuth Park episode where the boys are shown the horrors wrought on artists by illegal downloads - britney had to sell her gulf stream 5 for a gulf stream 2 and to make it even worse - it didn't even include a remote for the dvd player.

Half way thru reading the Henley peice I could already predict what his solution would be - seeking redress in legislation - government.

shocking.

[James Merritt]

I was a disc jockey on both AM and FM back in the 70s and 80s, and I have to agree with Henley somewhat: the early 70s and the early 80s were vibrant times for commercial, pop music, in a way that the 90s and the current decade seem not to have been. There is good music today: there has always been good music. But I don't think that the music industry powers-that-be are as in touch with quality, or provide as compelling a value-for-money proposition, as they did in the 70s and 80s (for all that the music industry has always been filled with piratical, exploitative people). Changes in the artistic and technological mix have neutralized the record companies' one-time advantages (ability to manufacture, distribute, and market slick mass-media) and brought their failings (greedy dependence on high margins; arrogance toward artists and consumers; groupthink, copycat mentality; general licentiousness and irresponsibility, etc.) into sharp focus. As has been pointed out, the consumer is now more in control of his or her own musical environment than ever before; the artists are able to go directly to consumers now more than ever before. I think that's a great thing for music, and Henley would do well to embrace the situation, master it, and quit his bitching.

As far as what will be the "new boss" to replace the "old boss" record companies: I nominate the search engines and their key portals. As more and more artists go directly to listeners, the key problem will be finding a way of "tuning the radio" so that you hear things you like, including NEW things that you don't like yet but may come to love. Many will probably put their trust in friends, or in human DJs via internet-streaming, satellite, and low-power broadcast radio stations. But perhaps many more will receive and act on the recommendations of robots: search engines, recommendation features of such services as Amazon, ebay, etc., and other similar facilities. I wouldn't be surprised to see headlines trumpeting a payola scandal at Google or Yahoo, one of these days.

Finally, if the artists and the record companies want to return to a vigorous commercial music industry, I have one tip for them: quit selling the music to advertisers. I cannot tell you how fed up I am to hear memory after memory -- in the form of a cherished pop song -- mangled and mutilated in the service of selling the products of whichever company can buy the rights. I'm not naive. I know the music business is a BUSINESS, and for some long-suffering songwriters, advertising income is the big reward at the end of a long, hard road. But what they are selling, unfortunately, is often direct access to the consumer psyche -- my psyche -- via the good mental and emotional associations that have become attached to various songs in the hearts and minds of people over the years.

If the artists are about the music, and the fans are about the music, fine. But to then turn the music into advertising's trojan horses is a betrayal of that arrangement. It becomes clear to people -- even the young and naive -- that letting a pop song into your heart is like loving a hooker. I think one of the reasons that the music industry was huge in the 70s and 80s was because, at some level, people took commercial music seriously, either in terms of lyrics (e.g., the works of the politically oriented singer-songwriters), or the raw emotive impact of the music itself. Music for profit, yes it was, but also songs for their own sakes. When the self-styled rebels and iconoclasts sold out to the establishment (or became the establishment!), in accelerating numbers as the years passed, it became common knowledge that music was a means by which the establishment owned the people, rather than vice versa. Is it surprising that the public began simply to develop immunity to that approach, to turn away in droves from the "mainstream" commercial media scene?

I think Henley was closer to the mark in his own lyrics, when he talked about the "deadhead sticker on a cadillac" (or, if you prefer the modern update, the "black flag" sticker). Music fans want tunes -- even stupid pop tunes -- that they can hold in their hearts, without worrying about whether and when those cherished old friends will someday hit them up to buy insurance, baked beans, or hemorrhoid cream.

[dhex]

oddly enough, i just saw a black flag sticker on a ford SUV heading down lex while on my lunch break.

huh.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Jean Bart, I think that you're probably not going to get a satisfactory answer to your question. I used to work with an very bright guy from Hungary who would occasionally ask me questions about American pop culture, and I sometimes found it was like trying to explain things to a Martian.

I think what's going on is that alot of kids in America spend their teenage years in a sort of youth culture cocoon that tends to add to the already natural isolation and tension they feel towards their parents and society. I have the impression that this is less extreme in Europe, that kids there don't generally feel the same sort of alienation from their own families that is so common here, but please correct me if I am wrong.

Anger towards the RIAA? I suppose it's because they seem to be willing to engage in any and all tactics to enforce their copyrights, many of which involve impinging on what people see as their personal freedom. You get the impression they'd be willing to shut down the entire internet if they could get a a bill through Congress to do it.

Hope that helps, but I doubt it.

[Gil]

Great post, James.

Changes in the artistic and technological mix have neutralized the record companies' one-time advantages (ability to manufacture, distribute, and market slick mass-media) and brought their failings (greedy dependence on high margins; arrogance toward artists and consumers; groupthink, copycat mentality; general licentiousness and irresponsibility, etc.) into sharp focus.

And it almost seems that those failing have not only been brought into sharp focus, but have been amplified. That the business end of the business has been refined to the point where groupthink and licentiousness, among other sins, is the industry's only option, as it has a successful and profitable track record.

I mean, I'm a cranky 36-year-old, and my perception is that the consumers of pop music are more than ever before being served their "youth culture" on a plate, with a more limited menu than ever before. Those who have developed a degree of musical sophistication and know that what they like isn't what the mainstream tells them what they like are indeed free to find the bands making the kind of sound they want to hear, and the Internet and indie record companies, among other things, make it pretty easy to find those sounds.

But Henley's right; the idea of music as a commodity has been perfected. And, in general, I don't think that's a good thing for the average music consumer.

[Mozart]

If more people learned to actually make music instead of stealing it and bitching about it, we would have a happy planet indeed.

[Phil]

Amending Doug Fletcher's comments, there's also the fact that the RIAA, MPAA and other American organizations have pushed Congress to modify copyright law to the point where everything created in at least the last 80-90 years has such a lengthy term that nothing ever enters the public domain anymore. It has stultifying effect on the development of culture.

JB: Are you familiar with an artist named April March? She's a punk rock singer who has a second career singing French pop music with an instrumental backing owing a lot to American pop/punk sensibility. Some material is her own; the rest is covers of material by the likes of Serge Gainsbourg, Jacques Dutronc and France Gall. Good stuff.

[beanie]

"Hotel California" was just a bite of "We Used to Know" by Jethro Tull, anyway.

Oh, and for good French music, Camille Saint-Saens!

[Brady]

These types of self-important rockers are just pissed that the music that they prefer and/or profit from is not mainstream. You are right, there are tons of different outlets for all types of music now, thanks to technology.

PBS had a good documentary a while back called The Merchants of Cool that did a good job of explaining how the media giants spin style and music into mainstream culture.

Sure, we could all whine and say mainstream sucks, but I've been saying that all my life. With a little extra effort you can find things like Pitchfork, KEXP,Emusic, satellite radio, etc.

When people complain about boy bands and wish things were back like the old days, I remind them they should blame the Beatles and Elvis, not cherish them. Musically they may have been more interesting, but the way they were packaged and sold to America was the beginning of this whole boy band crap.

I could go on about why mainstream music is in its current state, but I'm sure we all have our theories.

[tom wright]

(see the Byrds' "So You Wanna Be a Rock and Roll Star," the anti-commerical tune that's been covered for decades by disgruntled rockers)

Not to mention Pink Floyds cynical take on the music biz in 'Have a cigar':
"The band is just fantastic,
that is really what I think.
Oh by the way, which one's Pink?
And did we tell you the name of the game, boy,
We call it Riding the Gravy Train."

from http://www.lyricsondemand.com/p/pinkfloydlyrics/wishyouwereherelyrics.html#03

Copyrighted somewhere....

Tom

[Shannon Love]

I think that Henley is upset not because music is no longer "important and vital to our culture' but rather that rock stars are no longer important or vital.

The era that Henley idealizes was an era of mass reproduced music. The centralized nature of both broadcast and record production and distribution meant that economy of scale became very important to profitability. This lead to the promotion of a relative few artist at the expense of all others.
They seemed so huge and important because nobody could hear the other voices. These super/mega/hyper stars gained enormous prestige and adoration within the general culture. Their cultural and even political impact was enormous.

Media has become more egalitarian and democratic (consumers get to choose what music they listen to). This multiplicity of voices means that no elite few now rise far above all the others. It's the difference between a King in shinning armour and a grubby G.I. Joe. Henley's anger is the anger of an aristocrat dethroned by a uprising of the people.

[Jean Bart]

Perhaps I am wrong, but this reaction to music today seems a particularly American reaction. For the sake of clarifying, what are people upset over particularly? Nick, can you explain the debate, please? 🙂

[Joe Majsterski]

I think it's all quite amusing. I don't really ever listen to FM radio anymore, and I don't have cable TV. I pretty much either listen to things I've burned from my CD collection onto my computer, or I play any one of the hundreds or thousands of streaming music stations that one can find online. The variety and specificity of options is mind-boggling. I'm currently listening to a station called "Ambient Psy Chillout" with the subtitle, "Check out our trippy flaovors!" Oh yeah, and I hate the Eagles. 😉

[Bert]

I understand your problem, Jean Bart. If I grew up listening to Jacques Brel, Edith Piaf and Charles Aznavour, I'd also wonder why anyone would care so much about music.

[Steve in CA]

I agree that Don Henley is a pompous windbag. I hate him even more because I really, really love the early Eagles tunes, and the band went straight to shit as soon as started doing stuff other than drumming. Asshole.

But this post is an example of something that's annoyed me about Reason for the past couple of years -- basically, the attitude that listening to music (or consuming any art) is just as creative an act as, well, creating it.

OK, call me an old crank. I'm only 25, but it's probably true.

It's not a very big complaint. I still dig the magazine. But that one aspect of the cultural coverage rubs me the wrong way.

[Chris Puzak]

I think Henley is just bitter that he can no longer get groupies who don't have stretchmarks and cellulite. It's really not hard to find good music in all kinds of genres; it just takes a little effort. The same thing is true of books, movies, or anything else you can think of. The idea that you can just sit around and expect quality music to be dumped in your lap is ridiculous.

It's never pretty when major label artists start trying to sound Steve Albini, and this is no exception. A few years, Don Henley was dragging his rotten carcass across the country, charging concertgoers 125 bucks a ticket on the Hell Freezes Over tour so he could inflict "Hotel California" on them. And now he's claiming he's all about the music? Whatever.

[Jean Bart]

Bert,

I grew up listening to American music as much as French musicians. 🙂 And I love such French artists as Noir D?sir, Christophe Miossec and Bashung. 🙂

Anyway, I am still waiting for an answer. 🙂

[Mark Draughn]

I don't even pretend to understand his arguments about the importance and vitality of music, but I can certainly understand how he feels musicians are being screwed. Much of the battle between musicians and labels is happening in legislatures rather than in the free market. That usually means someone gets forced to do something.

For an example of true wickedness, read about the record companies' attempt to circumvent the usually strict rule about work-for-hire:

http://dir.salon.com/ent/music/feature/2000/08/28/work_for_hire/index.html

[Jesse Walker]

I'd take Edith Piaf over the Eagles any day. As for the alleged good old days of the music industry, I think one of Don Henley's bandmates has a more convincing explanation for Henley's nostalgia.

[Jean Bart]

Jesse Walker,

Bonjour. 🙂

[MALAK]

Henley should shut the fuck up and cash his royalty cheques. Hmmm . . . maybe that's the problem. You think?

[Horst Graben]

I remember the 60's as being a time when parents and their aging recording stars were saying pretty much what Henley is saying.

On the Ken Burns documentary Jazz, he shows the oldsters of the 1940's saying essentially the same thing about swing and big band music.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Warren]

These are indeed giddy times. Watching the collapse of the old regime, seeing the labels loose their grip on money and power, it is most edifying. But it won't last of course. Alas, somewhere out there, forces are converging to create a new music empire.

"Meet the new boss -
Same as the old boss"

As for myself, I've turned away from contemporary music in middle age. I embraced Classical in my 30's. I will turn 40 in a couple of months and lately have been listening to Jazz Standards.

[steve]

Never has the movie "Spinal Tap" been more relevant. Oh, and watch U2's "Rattle and Hum" for some additional perspective (full disclosure: I actually like the music in it very much but it is oh so self-important).

The music was always better in "my day". Well, my kids are in their late teens and they have a nearly endless number of ways to hear music. They eschew the big box venues (a la The Stones in a 5 bazillion seat stadium) and instead go to small local shows that are inexpensive. Bills Bar in Boston will run three bands in one night - some great music and a great opportunity for the bands.

So to Don Henley I say "Cry me a river".

[Edith]

Non, rien de rien, non, je ne regrette rien
Ni le bien qu`on m`a fait, ni le mal
Tout ca m`est bien egal
Non, rien de rien, non, je ne regrette rien

[Andy D.]

I think Homer Simpson summed up the sentiment adequately with "Everyone knows rock'n'roll reached perfection in 1975".

[StMack]

Henley is just crying in his beer because HIS music in no longer important and vital to our culture.

An answer for Jean Bart,

We tend to debate this with such passion because music plays a role in the process of defining our identitiy as young adults. Our choices of music are one of the ways we begin to seperate our identities from our parents. Even if we leave a good deal of this behinid as our lives evolve, it still is a part of how we became who we are.

[Rob]

"They will never forget you 'til somebody new comes along..."

[Jean Bart]

StMack,

I understand the nature of music in one's life; what I am puzzled about is the controversy of the RIAA and such.

[BaBar]

Speaking of Don Henley's self-importance, I saw him on Late Night, or the Tonight Show, or something like that (where you only play one song) and during his entire crappy performance there was a choir of about 30-40 people at the back of the stage who weren't doing anything. Then at the very end they all sang along on the chorus with him for about 15 seconds. Rings a little hollow when he then pretends that he's all about the music. Seems like even the last time I saw Beck perform on TV he had three other guitar players on stage, maybe one of which was audible, so he could do some stupid dance during the song. Sorry to rant,but of all the people with zero artistic integrity to get on a high horse, Don Henley's fame must have isolated him pretty far from reality to not see what a complete ass he is.

[shane]

I wonder how long before George Lucas writes his op-ed lamenting disgruntled fans burning the original theatrical Star Wars films on DVD?

[trainwreck]

The RIAA is filing lawsuits against people who download copyrighted music from the Internet without permission from the copyright holder. Many people have built gigantic collections of music, all for free, by exchanging music on the WWW. This practice has hurt sales of music in stores and led to a downturn in music industry profits. This is a major controversy.

Obviously Don Henley is concerned about the future profits from the sale of his copyrighted music. Social security checks won't quite support his idea of retirement.

[Jim Walsh]

Don...

The big bad world doesn't owe you a thing. Get over it.

Sound familiar?

[Adidas Originals nederlands]

Very well done?I'm really enjoy it.