Hold Music: An Institution No One Wants Around

You know how bad hold music can be. Maybe it's because you're waiting - sometimes in vain - just to talk to another human being about some problem you'd like to just have solved already. Maybe it's because the quality of the clips your ear gets blasted with sits somewhere between a water-damaged talking toy from your childhood and a mixtape of your older brother's from 20 years ago. Whatever it is, hold music is very often bad news for your sanity and musical taste.

Oh, and don't even get me started on the times you hear a song you like being mutilated. For 20 minutes.

Well, over on Neatorama, there's been a list compiled of some truly terrible hold music samples. Have a listen, but prepare to not enjoy them. Or at least, only enjoy them ironically, like aural trainwrecks.

I almost want to ask if there's some sort of cultural niche for hold music, like Muzak. But my kneejerk reaction is to say that there is not. Hold music doesn't really bring anything to the musical conversation. If you disagree, I'd love to hear a defense for it.

Until then, I'll be on the line, waiting.

Please kill me.

Viral or Successful?

Here's an article from the Guardian that looks at whether YouTube darlings OK Go are a successful band, or just a viral video sensation.

Yes, you know their videos "Here It Goes Again" and the new big smash "This Too Shall Pass". But do you know their music? That is to say, other than these two songs, how well do you know OK Go's stuff? Did you know their new album, Of The Blue Colour Of The Sky, came out in January?

Did you know it's sold fewer than 25,000 copies in the U.S.?

So everyone heralds OK Go for representing the magic of YouTube and viral video. But that formula hasn't turned into financial success for them. I have a feeling there are more fans of OK Go's video than their music. So is the YouTube generation going to work to the benefit of the artists?

Or do we just want it all for free, and for the time being?

The Money And The Future

So maybe you've heard of this Internet thing, where a lot of people get their music for free and only sometimes get busted by the RIAA - big time. Anyway, the bottom line is that less money is being spent on music - and that means musicians aren't making as much as they used to. So how are they getting by?

According to this BBC News article, they're doing something that's unthinkable for people creative enough to carve out a music career - they're being inventive.

I know, I could hardly believe it either.

Yes, be it signed EPs and thank-you letters from Allison Weiss (for a price) or a meet-and-greet with KISS (for even more of a price), musical artists are finding ways to connect with their fans. And their money, I suppose, but let's allow ourselves to romanticize this a bit. Artists are getting to attach personal meaning to their work for their fans. Can you imagine buying a digital version of the concert you were just at? Or better yet, getting a song sung about you? We could ALL be Lucy! In the sky! WITH DIAMONDS!!!

Anyway, here's an interesting idea from French tech company MXP4's Albin Serviant: In the next 10 years, the music experience will be revitalised in the same way that 3D has revitalised movies and innovations like the Wii and Rock Band have revitalised gaming.

Just think about it for now. And feel free to pay artists a little extra for that extra touch. It's not like they don't want to let you know you matter to them.

Out Of Hibernation

Blowin' the dust off. So much, SO much, I have noted in the music world in the last 5 months, and none of it have I posted here. Most of it, I have forgotten. But I will stretch these creaky old joints and drum up what I can.

FLASH: In a table-turn so ill it would make DJ AM (R.I.P.) proud, the big-four record labels are being sued for piracy! Turns out they haven't been paying artists for using their songs in compilations. Ah, the sweet smell of hypocrisy.

Alsowise, Rolling Stone magazine just released its list of the 100 Best Albums of the Decade. I'll ruin the suspense for you now and tell you that Radiohead took top spot, with their 2000 album, Kid A. While I am currently phasing in and out of a Radiohead kick, and this album has grown on me this year in a way that if Loretta grew on me that way, I'd say, "Yeah. That's nice,"* I'm more interested in the comment section of the article.
Scroll to the bottom and you'll find a ton of comments going somewhere along the lines of this: "You forgot [album]! Where's the love for [artist]?! This list is a sell-out, too mainstream, etc."

And they're definitely onto something.

I, too, found this list to be populated not with the innovative albums, not the music that's evolving what we hear, but more mainstream, mass-audience stuff. And yes, I am aware that "best" in the music business must take into account whether or not people actually bought the album. But there also seems to be an air of the panelists going through the motions. For example, Bob Dylan's Modern Times got 8th spot. The album is solid, but the honour feels like an obligation; as if to say, Dylan's a living legend, so how could his music not still be the absolute (8th) best of the last 10 years? Never mind that his creative peak was more than 30 years ago.

Anyway, it is a symptom of best-of lists that almost every reaction will run along the same lines. We all have music that's touched us more deeply than the music on this list, and it's hard to get ourselves out of that subjectivity and define winners. Then again, the only real winners are us, the people who get to listen to it all.

If I don't post again, happy holidays! Though I sincerely hope I do.

*Family Guy quote. Sorry it's so non sequitur.