Those numbers are alarming to hear & a very interesting video. So thanks for posting that. But it is also worth remembering that this refers to artists in the charts. It's not like there are no *new bands. There are thousands of them. Good ones too. I like to think I listen to a healthy mix of bands & solo artists. Although I never really registered solo artists as "solo" as they almost always have a band behind them. So the video may nudge my thought process slightly when listening in the future. The vast majority of the artists I listen to self-promote which is really hard to do when behemoths like Gaga, Swift, Beyonce, & Eyelash swamp the radio waves for the trillionth time because (as Beato also says) they are easier to brand & promote. All that noise drowns out some truly amazing emerging talent. That's something i find a lot sadder than the apparent absence of bands in the charts. Charts aren't really a good metric for artists anymore. Haven't been for many years. They're a metric for record labels & music promoters. & a minor note for Rick Beato. "Selling FEWER records."
I think also it is a lot easier for artists these days to do everything themselves – technology has progressed where needing other people to realize a particular style of music isn't a necessity (drum machines, synths, sequencers, etc).
What changed since 2000 is that being a "solo" artist with a backing band for live performances is seen as ok for audiences, and that started a loooong time ago.
To claim that "bands" don't exist anymore is a bit ridiculous. They may not chart as often because of the fragmentation of how people find new music – it's harder for artists to get noticed – but lots of great bands are out there.
To claim that "bands" don't exist anymore is a bit ridiculous. They may not chart as often because of the fragmentation of how people find new music – it's harder for artists to get noticed – but lots of great bands are out there.
This^^^^^^ New bands especially are usually confined to college radio stations & obscure internet stations that don't exactly get as much exposure as national/ commercial stations who play the same 12 songs seemingly on a loop all day. KROQ used to be a powerhouse for emerging acts. Now they just suck. In the UK, the BBC has an "Introducing" network that operates on a local/ regional level. However 6Music has a dedicated introducing show that cherry picks from the local stations & broadcasts nationwide & they seem to think it should be on at....wait for it......4am on a Monday morning. For 1 hour. Seriously? Is it any wonder nobody gets to hear &, perhaps, embrace bands if this is the sort of exposure they get? &, although the show is available on demand on their player & their sounds app, they don't exactly shout it from the rooftops. I don't know how other countries platform bands, but the example I mentioned is shameful for a national station that used to trumpet its standing as a home for new, alternative artists. Bands exists. They never disappeared. You just have to actively hunt for them because no-one's going to play them on the radio & people have become lazy & are content to be spoon fed the garbage that spotify pipes into their ears constantly. That isn't exposure & that certainly doesn't remunerate the artists fairly which makes it incredibly hard for them to make newer material.
To claim that "bands" don't exist anymore is a bit ridiculous. They may not chart as often because of the fragmentation of how people find new music – it's harder for artists to get noticed – but lots of great bands are out there.
This^^^^^^
In the UK, the BBC has an "Introducing" network that operates on a local/ regional level. However 6Music has a dedicated introducing show that cherry picks from the local stations & broadcasts nationwide & they seem to think it should be on at....wait for it......4am on a Monday morning. For 1 hour. Seriously?
At least the BBC is trying. Real people sort and pick that music, not AI.
This is why I hate spotify, pandora, amazon, even apple music – they are all platforms that "personalize" the music you hear by algorithms that look for the MOST POPULAR music that is similar, decided by – you guessed it – another algorithm. Not real people that have an ear for interesting and good stuff.
In the UK, the BBC has an "Introducing" network that operates on a local/ regional level. However 6Music has a dedicated introducing show that cherry picks from the local stations & broadcasts nationwide & they seem to think it should be on at....wait for it......4am on a Monday morning. For 1 hour. Seriously?
This is why I hate spotify, pandora, amazon, even apple music – they are all platforms that "personalize" the music you hear by algorithms that look for the MOST POPULAR music that is similar.
I hate this, I use Spotify, and I'm not going to try and hide that, but it's so annoying... it can't recommend me anything or generate a playlist because it will always show you the same thing.
I know songs like London Calling and Making Plans for Nigel are extremely popular and I do like them, but I don't want them shoved into every different "radio" or "playlist" I select.
It's also funny when I select "artist radio" on a small artist I've never listened to... and it basically just throws in my top played artists, which many are also small.
If I want a good playlist, I have to make it myself, and to find new music I have to stalk steve's Youtube scour the internet.
This is why I hate spotify, pandora, amazon, even apple music – they are all platforms that "personalize" the music you hear by algorithms that look for the MOST POPULAR music that is similar.
and to find new music I have to stalk steve's Youtube scour the internet.
hahahahahaha ME TOO!! All hail Steve's Sonic Selects!
