When the filter process - at first, the expense and difficulty of attracting and releasing music, then the demise of non specialist radio and the Tip Sheet - collapsed, this was inevitable...

From Musicnews.com May 18/2010

The record industry was thrown a reality check at the NARM conference this week. 2 percent of releases made up 91 percent of sales from the 98000 releases of 2009.

What is even more of a concern, only 2.1% of releases managed to sell more than 5000 units.

The NARM conference also showed that people still buy the physical disc when it comes to purchasing an album. In the USA last year, 75% of albums sold were on CD.

The study also found that the older the purchasers, the more likely they were to buy a CD. Susan Boyle’s 'I Dreamed A Dream’ album sold 90.5% on CD.

It also points out that the industry may also be spending too much time focused on the wrong demographic. Purchasing power for music is in the wallets of the older generation. Susan Boyle sold more records last year in the USA than Lady Gaga.

Vinyl is making a comeback. 2.8 million albums sold as vinyl releases last year and 75% of those sales came from independent retailers.

The study found that 'fresh artists are staring at a near-zero chance of selling even modest amounts'.

Interesting stats there but I beg to differ that the lack of filter is the reason. The opposite is the case.

First of all it is a myth to suggest that releasing music today is cheaper than in the past. Recording music
arguably is but then again it depends how you look at it. It is certainly easier but not cheaper. Sun Records
was able to record poor black american artists as well as many white ones too and hiring a recording studio
plus musicians in those days was cheap (if you recorded rock and roll) and massively expensive for classical
or proper music as it is today. Only substitute electronica for rock and roll.

The filter is alive and well as far as mainstream music is concerned. You still need to spend marketing
dollars and the majors still have more of that and are using it to full effect. Problem is there is no longer
radio catering for non major label releases. They are only interested in your marketing spend and not the music.

The 90s was the most eclective and interesting decades for pop music. Even more so than the 60s.
The reason was the proliferation of indies. There were not too many majors in the 60s and there were lots
of indies bringing new music and new ideas to the charts. This carried through to the 70s and died a death
in the 80s which was more major label dominated. In the 90s the independent label scene was healthy and dominant.

The problem is RADIO. Most radio stations play the same old same old records and the commercial ones are most
guilty at that. But despite this, in the 90s, there was radio for different genres of music.

Kiss FM was Dance
Choice FM was reggae/soul/r&b
Classic FM was classical
Jazz FM was Jazz

etc

In the early 90s Choice FM was responsible for giving reggae a boost in the charts with the reggae
explosion of the 1991-92. Also I don't even need to talk about the role Kiss FM played in breaking
lots of dance music.

In truth there is no filter other than public opinion. In the past there were also passionate people making music
they loved and they promoted it. Pirate radio works with this principle as did the specialists until money
or lack thereof forced them to sell out to the commercial conglomerates.

In the 90s dance music was fairly simple to break. You made a record, you gave it to DJs, they played
it in clubs, it became a club hit, you licensed it to the majors or to one of the many indies springing
up and boom you had a hit. Truth was, even a corner shop with the distribution outlets would have made it
a hit. It was a hit as soon as the clubs played it to death.

Even as the music evolved in styles the formula was the same but there was now creeping some discrimination
and prejudice and it took a lot of hard bargaining for genres like garage to take off. Most clubs didn't
want to put garage nights on and they eventually played it on Sundays and it grew from there.

In pop you only had the cream breaking through because the charts were a lot more democratic in
those days and there was a lot of diversity. So you had to have the right pop acts and could NOT be a clone
of a previous band to succeed. Not the case today.

Then radios bubble burst. Kiss FM became more like Capital FM as did Choice FM and so on. They ended
up being run by half wits with cloth ears and then as a result we had the bandwagon jumping of the 00s.
No longer was a dance station playing dance music but they all morphed into similar clones of each other
with slight variations.

Producers also should hang their heads in shame. Whereas we had the likes of SAW mostly working with
their own acts, now it has become ridiculous beyond belief, with producers pimping their sound out to all and
sundry and we have the crazy situation where Kelly Clarkson and Beyonce have virtually the same
backing track for their songs, but are not on a Motown style label with its own factory sound.
Cue Pink and the Veronicas, Britney, etc etc etc. Pop has truly eaten itself.

Against a backdrop of a more choosy buying public and also against the backdrop of the freemium model which
NO ONE in music have managed to get a handle on, we're on a jumbo without fuel and time and is going "dahn'!

Quality speaks volumes still, but the needs of the public are very different. They want instant gratification
and are happy to get excited about songs, videos and games. So we need to evolve and meet them there.

The public have ignored radio for a long long time. Many sounded the trumpets on messageboards such as this one,
ROTD, Velvetrope but the people who hold the "filters" did NOT listen. They pushed their own ideas of what
they thought was what the public wanted and in the end the public revolted.

Some in the industry are accrediting all of Susan Boyle's success to Cowell but they are wrong. Cowell read
public opinion well and capitalised on it but I would argue that without the Youtube effect there will be
NO Susan Boyle. She is a good singer but not a remarkable one. The story of the Youtube views going into
overdrive caught the media attention and with his fingers in the media pies globally, Cowell was in the
perfect position to exploit the situation. the public broke Susan Boyle and it was a no brainer she will sell
bucketloads. Most bought her album as a gift for family and loved ones. I know I did lol.

To not give the public credit for being good judges is insulting and is the same mistake that killed the
music business. The rules have not changed just the arena has. Going back to the dance music scene, as a former
DJ I know that if you play a track the public don't want to hear, they will sit down and clear the dance
floor. Likewise I have my own theories on how to break a new act today without stupid amounts of money
thrown at it.

It is simple really but you need good music, passion and a good plan. Of course a hit is a hit is a hit and
will work all the time. Glee is proving this on a weekly basis.

Music has evolved and those who evolve with it will clean up. Sadly our record companies are stuck in the past
and don't have a clue as to where it is at!

I do agee with your point about majors focusing on the wrong demo. Here in Oz, Idol failed miserably because
it became all about young looking kids and could not compete with the likes of Masterchef, Biggest Loser etc all
of which are much better ratings winner than Idol ever was. The show also alienated lots of music fans who love
older music or older singers and it will be interesting to see how C7 do with Xfactor.

I will give Cowell credit. He knows when the game is up and when to change and evolve. He is shrewd at that and
i wish a lot more a&r people would think like him. He has his system, style and methods and kudos to him for
doing so. But as Glee is showing, alternatives will crop up but they need to use a bit more judgement.

You misunderstand me KZ - my "filter" argument is that it is now so cheap and easy to make music and to put it onto iTunes and You Tube that virtually anybody can do it; the result is that we are totally cluttered with dreadful music and can no longer see the wood for the trees.

Radio was always lazily programmed but the same filter processes that rejected bad music (and, you're quite right, a lot of good) told it - via marketing spend and chart hype - what to play. As, slowly, the majors got less and less able (and profitable) that filter process got worse.

So, as the 90s became the Noughties, there was more and more music, less and less filter - and the effects kicked in; slowly to begin with, then faster and faster.

JK - who did, of course, play a major part in Simon Cowell's career - would now be developing the new model as a filter - and running radio and TV outlets as a crucial part of it - if he wasn't 65, old, tired and running out of energy.

My "filter" theory is hard to understand. It is subtle and gradual. But allowing everyone to be heard sounds great but is, in fact, dangerous and negative. I fear the music giants of the noughties were Chocolate Rain and the fat guy who danced and mimed to that Euro hit. Instant or visual ideas with very limited musical quality, like Susan Boyle.