www.theotherpress.ca

OPINIONS.

 

Corporate meddling is killing music

The recording industry
needs to emphasize
long-term creativity, not
short-term cash and flash

Clive Ramroop, Contributor

“Today's music ain't got the same
soul, I like that old tune rock and
roll” — Bob Seger, “Old Time Rock
and Roll”

hen Kanye West cancelled

his rescheduled concert
due to a damaged video screen,
my friend cracked, “Remember
when artists performed with
only their talent?”

I lamented, “I remember
when we had artists, who had
talent.”

In our technologically
advanced society, we have tools
capable of creating works that
could outperform anything from
the past, but technology doesn’t
equal creativity. A Lamborghini
is useless without a fuelled tank
and a skilled driver; likewise, a
multi-million-dollar studio with
high-end audio software won't
magically transform users into
virtuoso composers.

Perhaps the reason so many
hits of the last generation have
rehashed (sorry, sampled) older
hits, is that many performers
today can’t compose their
own original, memorable
melodies—a notion reinforced
by over-reliance on gimmickry,
autotune, and shock value
to mask their shortcomings.
There’s nothing wrong with
enhancing a performance with
special effects like screens and
pyrotechnics; but when those

enhancements supplant the
music to become the show

in order to sell albums or
downloads, something is very
wrong.

Part of me feels that the
record labels must shoulder
some of the blame. They insist
that downloading drains money
from their coffers, like they
claimed in the campaign Home
Taping is Killing Music at the
turn of the 1980s. But recording
radio broadcast tunes via stereo
tape decks didn’t send sales
into decline. The industry just
wasn't putting out quality music
worth buying, while competing
with a fledgling video game
boom. Today, it’s common for
a popular tune to be in heavy
rotation for months, but ignored
the following year. I can’t prove
it, but it makes me wonder if the
conglomerate labels are banking
on milking rapid bursts of short-
term profit with each hit, rather
than cultivating stars to create
memorable tunes that could
draw long-term money over
years, and even decades.

This isn’t to say that the
business should completely
abandon profit in favour of
a purely artsy approach. The
purpose of a business is to make
money. But the bean counters
fail to grasp that music is an art
form. While other generations
practiced sonic experimentation
and innovation, music today
risks becoming a mere pawn in
air-brushed, slickly packaged,
corporate-run franchises.
Albums considered truly great
were once crafted. Now, bite-
sized tracks are manufactured
assembly line-style with
little soul or substance,
homogeneous in their sound,

except—compared to other
music genres—easily disposable
to make room for the next
promotional fad.

That doesn’t mean
everything in the past was
better than today. The decade
that spawned “All You Need is
Love” and “Hit the Road, Jack”
was the same one that gave us
“Wooly Bully” and that deeply
cerebral lyric, “Who put the ram
in the rama-lama-ding-dong?”

It also doesn’t mean there
are no good modern artists.
Adele earned six Grammys for
her sophomore album 21, which
has sold more than 20-million
copies worldwide. But in the
iTunes age where great albums
seem to be on the verge of
extinction, few of its tunes look
to be enshrined as cultural
touchstones.

Critics slammed Queen for
their bombastic style, yet fans
still chant “We Will Rock You”
at sporting events. “Thriller”
is still played every Halloween
30 years after the eponymous
album hit the shelves. And
one could surmise that, if the
industry of the 1950s was run
like it is now, no one would
have heard of Elvis Presley.
That's a scary indictment.

As it’s said in The Phantom
of the Opera, “my managers must
learn that their place is in an
office, not the arts.” The music
industry severely needs new
innovators, and a new business

model allowing them to flourish.

Luckily, there are some standout
artists today thriving on talent.

 

Photo illustration by Joel McCarthy

 

Kids will be kids—if we let them

How are scheduled
activities affecting
your childs life?

Julia
Siedlanowska
Staff Writer

Brcvere knows that a kid’s
job is to play, but it’s easy

to forget. While activities keep
kids out of trouble, there is such
a thing as overkill. Activities
provide a place for children

to go in circumstances where
parents may not be available for
after-school care, but parents

and guardians should be careful
when soccer practice just isn’t
fun anymore.

It hit me after I had
scheduled my cast of 10-13-year-
old kids for a six-hour rehearsal.
“What was I thinking?” |
exclaimed as I hit myself over
the head. In the busyness of my
own current schedule, I forgot
who I was dealing with.

When I was arranging
rehearsals I was shocked
to hear one talented young
girl’s schedule: “I have ballet
on Mondays and Tuesdays,
singing lessons on Wednesdays,
gymnastics on Thursdays, St.
John’s ambulance training on
Friday afternoons, and Sunday

school.” This was all on top of
her regular sixth grade classes.
When rehearsals were finally
scheduled and underway, the
girl was often being rushed
from one activity to the next,
with time enough to eat while
commuting. Although she was
happy enough in the beginning,
her attitude slowly began to
change.

Kids need time to be kids.

Extracurricular activities
are meant to raise confidence,
challenge, encourage, and
expand kids’ minds. But is it
any wonder that sometimes the
children we're working with
(or God forbid, raising) have an
attitude? The child’s benefits

should be at the forefront of
parents’ decisions regarding
scheduling. Of course we

want our children to try many
different things, but if a child

is acting out, their grades are
dropping, or they’re getting sick
or fatigued, it may be time to
reconsider the benefits.

I wish today that my
parents had given me singing
and piano lessons. But looking
at kids now, I’m wondering if
we are passing on our habits
as a time-poor society. Is eating
on the go a habit that really
needs to be embedded this early
on? How great is the half-hour
sacrificed to a sit-down meal?

I’m sure your child will

learn as soon as they try
balancing university life with a
part-time job. For now, are we
robbing kids of the only time
where doing sweet nothing is
acceptable? Parents are shoving
iPads in kids’ hands in the car,
while sending them from school
to dance to homework with

a trip to Subway in between.
What will they have to reminisce
or compare to when they are
adults? Perhaps in between

all those stimulating activities

is also time for thought and
compassion. Just a half-hour or
so for kids, and for ourselves.

15