I like music, a lot. My iTunes contains over 5000 hand selected, and lovingly chosen songs. I also have the wonderful luck of understanding music. I know my theory, and understands what it takes to be a "good" band, how tight do they play together, mixing, so on and so forth. So I have a good skill set to evaluate music. Now, despite all of this, there was one band (well, ok, a lot of bands) that I had not gotten yet. I know its a travesty, but I had zero (that is none) Led Zeppelin. I have all the beatles albums, but no LZ. Let me explain why. I was waiting for the right time. I wanted every CD, in its entirety, at a high bit rate. It just took me a while, but I found a good source, and now I have the first four albums (thats I through IV). What does this mean? It means that I have an opportunity to listen to an amazing band with NO predispositions! With a band as famous as Led Zeppelin, everyone knows they're most famous songs, and therefore has a bias towards which songs are "the best". Especially anyone who grew up when they were huge, because then you listened to songs on the radio, and assumed those were the best.
I will be listening to the songs from start to finish. Here is the real question... What songs will I like best? I am curious to see if my favorite songs line up with those Led Z had the largest commercial success with. This grand experiment will actually be quite useful for myself.
See, I am of the opinion that the RIAA is evil, and more or less is HINDERING music (or in Led Zeppelin's case... Hindenburgering). CD sales are falling, and I am overjoyed. I hope for a day when new indie labels can spring up. However, there is a dissenting point of view that argues that these massive conglomerates who make up the music industry (the Warner Bro's/Sony Music/Virgin/Atlantic...etc) pay the bands tons of money up front. In the end, the band usually makes zero cash, while the label pulls in the $$$$. However, because they can offer up huge cash flows, they let the band "create". At least thats how the counter argument goes. With $2 million in your pocket, all you are supposed to focus on is writing good music. I would argue that all you need is a basement and a couple good mates, maybe an instrument or two. My argument is further strengthened by the fact that high quality recordings are becoming increasingly cheap to set up. The technology is making it easier, and cheeper than ever to make studio sounding recordings literally in your basement. The labels don't have a monopoly on album creation anymore, and therefore band don't NEED them.
The point is, if the songs that I like do indeed line up with what was a commercial success, it gives a sliver of creditability to the recording industry, that they are out to make music, not money, and don't pick songs or bands based on cash value, but on musical ability. I think thats a crockload of shit, but thats just me. Some would argue pure economics. The band that makes the most money is the "best" band. I'm not quite sold.
A better story for Led Zeppelin would have been for them to come up from no where, playing in tiny underground clubs in Leeds, only to make it big. This, of course, is not the case. This band was almost put together as a superband by the record labels. Originally, the band was to consist (possibly) of Jimmy Page, The rhythm section of the Who, and Steve Woodwind (at least thats a poorly paraphrased version off of Wikipedia). That superband never did take flight, but the band was defiantly an "industry-in" band. Unlike the Beatles, who (well... at first), were all "local boys".
What scares me about the record industry is the way in which they are very good at "creating" bands. They hand picked the boys for N'sync, and look at the commercial success that they were rewarded with. Had N'sync been some local band somewhere, I doubt they would have ever been signed. Obviously not. None of them can play any instruments, with the slight exception of JT, but even Helen Keller could have learned how to play piano if she would have had the decade that JT had to learn to play something. So the ability of the record industry to get band famous seems like bullshit. This is compounded by the problem that a good manager, and sound technicians and a trillion dollar budget (sadly), can make even a shitty band sound marginally ok. There obviously is a pretty clear line between an OK band and a band of genius, but look at Brittany Spears. Unlike the Backstreet Boys, or N'sync, she can't even sing. Here voice is pretty ~ mostly average. How did a girl like this ever make it big? Well, her CD's actually sound pretty good. Anyone who has listened to Toxic has to admit that it is a pretty good song. What part of it was her and what was the label hiring all the musicians to make the music? I don't know. Its worth thinking about.
I'll be giving this blog a follow up, I'll tell you my favorite Led Zeppelin songs, and we'll look at the top LZ tracks of all time. Until then, go support local music, and see a show. Buy a T-Shirt, or a CD for $10. All the money is going towards feeding them after the show, so its worth it.
Thanks,
Guthrie
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment