In past you had to have musical talent to become a musician. People would come to watch the artist create the music.
Today the only requirement is a pretty face, or slick image. The studio could make my cat a rockstar.
Because of that many 'live' shows are now pre-recorded, or just shit.
Great musicians busk for coins in the subway, while untalented hacks, with big racks, collect all the rewards from media.
punk
I think the punk umbrella of styles could be the exception. Punk often prioritizes live music over studio, so it blows my complaint to shit.
It's the exception that makes the rule.
There are others too, like post rock, sometimes shoegaze. In general I would agree though.
I think production quality got too high, it's even an issue with some punk bands. One explanation of why the live thing happens is because there is more money in touring compared to album sales than ever before. Larger rock/pop groups can afford to be shit, but a punk band playing a 30 show tour to 50 people every night can not.
Larger rock/pop groups can afford to be shit, but a punk band playing a 30 show tour to 50 people every night can not.
In one sentence you've just explained why small budget independent bands often have more quality and talent.
If you're an 'opening act', the only thing that will keep you afloat is good performances. And those require skill if you lack the budget.
In addition to that, I don't think record labels want too much talent in their products. If a singer could make it without the studio, that gives them bargaining leverage.
An untalented person can be made to sound good, but will work for peanuts and never leave.
I know what you're getting at, but remember there's a difference between a musician and and an entertainer. We could discuss the subject for a long time, but allow me to point out just a few to exemplify what I mean.
JJ Cale: Though he deliberately avoided the limelight his influence as a musical artist has been widely acknowledged by figures such as Neil Young and Eric Clapton, who described him as "one of the most important artists in the history of rock". "After Midnight", "Cocaine", "Call Me the Breeze", "I Got The Same Old Blues" to name a few.
Miley Cyrus: Tried to ride the coattails of her father and her TV show, a great example of the Pop-as-a-product record company focus-group management devoted entirely to profit. With much less talent, they tried to update the Madonna style of shock and lewdness as an asset.
Two of the extremes, what about the middle ground? One example might be Steven Tyler. An extremely accomplished vocalist, he puts on one hell of a live show. Mugging and flamboyant in concert, he still had the talent to listen to. Or how about ZZ Top. I remember seeing their Antenna tour. They played their music expertly as always but were almost motionless on stage, depending on a large backlit screen with a scantily-clad girl dancing. Great music but largely unentertaining (to me). Also Eric Clapton. Saw him about 2 years ago. He clearly was just calling it in, maybe just for the money. No audience contact. Sat through most of his concert playing the required hits, very little interaction with the audience or the other musicians. Not very entertaining but musically superb.
Remember, I'm not discussing these particular artists as their abilities/talents or even the single concerts. I'm just expanding on what you brought up by the topic.
You're absolutely right.
The definition of good, or talent is highly subjective, and I have greatly simplified things while ignoring the many edge cases.
But that's how circle-jerking works!
:)
Miley is an example of at least two extremes. The Pre-whore years she displayed that she has a lot of talent. In singing and performing.
But I guess nothing is ever enough, so she sold her integrity to the studios and now whores out her image.
Best of both worlds, but still unbearable to me.
I'll always pretend she got hit by a bus after recording Jolene
Because she's dead to me now.
Ugh. MIley was more talented than I actually realized. What a great cover of Jolene. She could have had, at worst, a respectable country music career. Instead she went for broke and sold her soul to pop. Now where is she? :(
No, absolutely not.
-1981 Rolling Stones Tattoo You tour. Sucked complete ass.
-1982. Van Halen Diver Down tour. Sucked complete ass.
-1985. Greatful Dead tour. Sucked complete ass.
I have never been to another show since.
Go back further.
The ship had set sail by then.
Some still do bro. Greta Van Fleet. In fact I'd argue they sound better live than produced.
Those guys are clearly from the early 70s. I mean look at that bassist! Those type had faded away by mid 80s at the latest.
These guys are not proof of modern day talent.
They are proof of time travel.
Honestly, the vast majority of bands I listen to sound better or as good live, though I guess that's just a quality that punk and other genres have.