If you have not read this, check it out.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/how-spotify-silenced-rock-bands/ar-AA1oBqPo?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=2324f97dc7a24e359bf10291faed2017&ei=25

I have been, for a long time against many of these "services" as not being helpful to many bands, even though the material is listed ... but those sites do nothing to help many of these artists, other than simply posting it on their websites.

The number mentioned, is scary as heck ... how 30 years ago you had some 140 songs mentioned and listed on the Number 1 lists, and in 2924? Just 3 and they were old stuff.

I have no issue with these being there, but a "new" streaming service needs to be created strictly for new bands, by new bands, with new bands, as a way to promote the music better ... I know that places like PA really help and show so many of these things, but I am not really sure that we're actually listening and buying the stuff ... which kinda suggests that the ability for that new stuff to be seen and appreciated, simply is not there.

PA, and I'm happy for it, has promoted a lot of things by just the mentions, but I kinda wish that there was a better solution for many of these bands to get a leg up ... and show up better, instead of being ignored because they are not mentioned very much, and in this sense Mike has been very good, even though I probably would like a list without numbers for "preference" ... but that's me, not Mike.

Something needs to change, to improve things, but perhaps, it is time that "record companies" take a god-damned jump off the pier into the raving ocean and die ... since the only folks getting any opportunity are the folks that don't need it, and this bothers me ... specially when Roger and Dave try to promote something that is far inferior than a lot of materials out there these days ... but I'm not sure that the listenership wants that much new stuff ... the sad side of "progressive" is how stuck we are in our old favorites ... ohh c'mon, I love Beethoven and Stravinsky, but I don't have to ignore the new music because of it!

Hi,

The article is more about new music and artists, and how they are not getting any help, in favor of the better known artists. 

I'm not sure that the streaming services give a damn, because of their own ownership, which no musician has EVER considered. Why would you use one of these services that is owned by a record company? You really think they are looking for talent? NO> They are making sure that nothing makes it through, so they can continue their 40 year story that the record companies are suffering. They are not suffering ... they waste just as much money as before in different ways ... that we don't consider, and worse ... don't give a damn.

Basically it's about taking a risk in a world where 'risk management' is all the rage. Record compabies want the same thing that sold yesterday and have little interest in innovation. It's not that new a phenomena though. Most prog artists don't make a living out of it unless they are seemingly very bloody minded and carry on with a dream that one day it will happen. Gregory Spawton (Big Big Train) had to wait over 20 years before he could give up his day job (BBT finally entered the UK album charts proper in 2019 for the first time). The IQ boys mostly have other jobs with Martin Orford being a music lecturer. The now almost famous Andy Edwards was the drummer in same band but now earns a living with his youtube channel. This is a guy that played in Robert Plant's band (no not that one!) but again has mainly made a living from being a music lecturer up to recently. Music just doesn't pay well and hasn't for a long time even before streaming came along.

Here's a clickable link to the original site with the article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/news/bands-music-oasis-blur-spotify-algorithm-wet-leg/" rel="nofollow - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/news/bands-music-oasis-blur-spotify-algorithm-wet-leg/

Not surprising that it is easier for an artist to make it commonly than a band due to splitting revenue. And doing it on your own is more convenient (a lot then need musicians to assist for gigs and recording). Pop and rock and Indie overlap -- can't say what might not have been considered that could be applicable.  My interests tend to do well in the charts anyway.  There have been bands basically forced to do covers to make some money at music.  Of course it is common for musicians to have day jobs not related to music and then do small gigs.

I don't know how much Spotify, and its algorithms, has affected music.  I do stream music a lot, but I use youtube and bandcamp the most.  Other than vinyl and some other merch, I don't really care about physical product.

One thing we could do do is to organise music festivals/ events (I'd start with local acts if one can).  I wanted to start a website that would aid this, put musicians in touch with each other and other things.  And also just getting the word out about bands (and artists) here or elsewhere, liking their videos and leaving comments can be encouraging for them and turn some others onto the music. 

Hi,

I think it depends on the area in the USA. In California, for sure, FZ and Rush were the darlings of most FM radio stations, and FZ mostly because of his bootlegs, that showed how incredibly good his concerts were. And the LA Free Press made sure everyone knew where Frank was! But the big "know" was ... that his groups were magnificent in concert and blew many folks away with it. Besides being funny/weird/andallthat, it was (probably) by far some of the best composed and performed music in all rock at the time. Just seeing the insanity play out was something that you hope to see once in your life!

It was rather neat, for me, watching the Daily Doug and state that FZ's band was incredible and that it was probably that everything was "scored" and "rehearsed". Rush was never one of my favorites but many of my friends at the time had a lot of their albums.

The payola side of things kinda got worse when the Rape of the FM Radio stations at the end of the 70's and all the new/progressive music that had been played was taken off the air. That's when some folks think that progressive "died", but many of those bands were already established and they managed to make it, but the top 5 situation was not nice ... those bands, kinda abused the privilege and I kinda think they took too much money out of any new bands. The fake news that the record companies used some of the money made from huge acts to help new acts in their stable was a joke. We had friends on Columbia that had a great history of sales, and they were one of the groups that were dumped ... they managed to survive and they are well remembered today (no at PA!!!! Nobody has handed me the plyers .... ) ... but I didn't get a chance to ask David Ossman when he was here in Portland about it ... it seemed like dead fish school!

Hi,

Now we talking ... count me in!

Hi,

There is a side to it, that is really important and it helps interpret the "art rock" of the late 60's and early 70's that became known as "progressive".

It's like telling folks to go see 2001 on a huge screen with the big sound like the old days at the Cinerama Dome .... fast forward a few years, and you find Coppola trying out the same thing with visuals that were not science fiction or make believe. A year later Star Wars started with 500 speakers all over the theater, and your butt felt all of it! Nobody today has ever seen, felt, or has much of an idea about that experience, which explains why so much stuff is not that great! It's presentation is cheap, poor and probably none of it, and all folks look for is another screaming guitar ... so to speak!

The idea was to shock your senses some ... into seeing something unreal and far out ... today, the only thing you can assimilate to this is the very loud concerts that some bands put on ... but their music does not have the effect that the films did, for example.

The Hi-Fi system, was valuable and important in the late 60's and early 70's ... it was the only way to hear the music, and the better the system, the better the music sounded. If you had stopped at a sound store and checked it out, you would be amazed ... bring your favorite LP (at the time) ... I did ... Phaedra ... and that's when I selected the ESS Heil AMT1 for speakers that cost me in 1975 about $550 for both speakers, and it required a strong receiver, and I got later a 500W Receiver to pump those speakers. Right after that you need a turntable and cartridge, because the quality of the needle in the cartridge makes a massive ... make that MASSIVE ... difference in the quality of the sound.

What folks hear today, would be equivalent to the FM radio signals these days ... which is as good as you can hear music unless you venture into a sound store. The mp3/flac (high end mp3, not the low like end Apple uses!) thing is not the endall/beall that it is made out to be ... in fact, I find it a real big rip off. A really good stereo system makes those things sound stupid and cheap. 

The only sad thing about most streaming stuff, is that the liveliness of the music itself is not present in most cases, and thus, your knowledge, or anyone else's about how good the stuff can be, is gone.

I do not think that the streaming ability will help the music for at least another 50 years ... the majority of all services are going to milk it as cheaply as possible, for as long as they can! 

I have not asked much, but I think only a handful of folks on PA are really aware of what a good/great Hi-Fi system can do for any music ... and let me tell you that Renata Tebaldi and Birgit Nilsson really make those speakers fly and then some ... you can't get that on your earphones, even with a set worth $500 dollars (because the source does not match or have it as good, see?), like most folks think these days!

But isn't vinyl 3 or 4 times the price of a CD?

I use Spotify a lot, but I also hate the way the UI is set up. It's really difficult for someone like me, who focuses on releases, to keep track of new music and what I've already listened to. 95% of all interesting new music from the Rock/Prog/Metal/Jazz domain is there, that's not the problem. It's sifting through all the stuff that I'm not interested in. And if I, with 40+ years of listening experience, have a hard time navigating it, I can only begin to imagine how hard it must be for a now 20 years old listener. 

Hi,

I was going to add that Spotify is not the only one, but you covered without having to name any of them. 

And some of the "suggestions" are ridiculous, and obviously were not heard, and made simply for the use of a word or two in its blurb on the service. And the hard part, as Mike suggests, many folks just gobble it up ... and sometimes even ignore PA or AwesomeProg or other sites and how some folks can actually describe/review the music.

I'm hoping that PA can create a more detailed area for newer bands ... so the ideas and discussions are not in the middle of the pond and no one (just about) reads it anyway. In a special area, it would become rather obvious very quickly who is helping these bands better. I tend to review the materials but won't review something I do not exactly see well, or understand. 

My main concern is that many of these "streaming services" are owned and operated by the same companies that have hurt progressive music the most ... and I am not exactly convinced that we care enough to do something about it, which is one of the reasons for asking for a special area, not just another thread on the board!

I don't think that is the case anymore. CD's are quite regularly priced around the £12-£15 mark with vinyl anything between £20-£30 for single vinyl. It varies a lot. I would say it's 2 times on average. I would rather have 1 vinyl record than 2 CD's when I am able to stream the other for a reasonable monthly subscription.

Hi,

It's a matter of time, and ALL music will only be available by streaming, or purchasing directly via the artist. The costs involved in a CD/DVD and a LP, are not going to get easier, and that will help new folks ... stream it directly, hopefully not by a site that is owned by the same people that have ripped us all for 60 years!

Floydoid wrote: I have never used any music streaming service. Like many others here I grew up listening to music by the album's worth, rather than individual songs. And as for any service giving recommendations (in my book that's attempting to think for you) that would just irritate me. I like to discover new stuff by conversing with like minded friends or on online forums such as this one, or by just reading music blogs or magazine style sites.

One can stream full albums and playlists of full albums.

I mostly use the rate your music charts for discovering music these days, but am still inspired by posts at PA.

Now I'm getting the code that so many do in my post, switching off the WYSIWYG post editor in my forum preferences.

EDIT: Restarting the backend now, to be on the safe side.

Thanks! AP has come a long way, but I absolutely understand if people still want to use RYM. 

And if you look at it that way, Spotify is not really "killing" anything. Ultimately it is the artists who decide how they distribute their music. Some put it only on Bandcamp, some put it on Spotify as well, and there are other solutions out there. I accept whatever they decide 

I've heard several new artists this year, Slift and Sykofant are amazing especially.

Ever since I've been mostly listening to Prog Rock/Metal/Jazz/..., but most of the time I focused on the bands I was already familiar with. It was like an 80/20 split between familiar and new, and for the last few years (since I started working on my website again) this has turned around 180 degrees, 80% of what I'm listening to are not only releases that I've never heard, but also typically albums which have just been released. 

And to tie these ramblings to the topic of this thread: Streaming services like Spotify (but also Apple Music previously) and Bandcamp were really instrumental in enabling me to sample all these releases.

Hi,

I don't think it should be a problem. We do go to see "concerts" by classical folks and they are STILL playing Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Stravinsky .... you name it, so why not a band that we have known a little about?

It's a part of the appreciation of the work that was created, and while, as an artist I might not like it and my family doesn't even get a dime off it, in the end, the preservation of the music and the feeling, is a good thing ... the issue that kinda gets me is that it might be TOO SOON to do these ... specially if the bands are still "alive", though .... seeing all the cancellations these days, a lot of these older things will end up in the hands of folks that appreciate it enough to actually play it live.

The one concern, and I am not sure it is actual valid is that it might add some new fans that do not understand the music and its creation time and era ... and this slight "disconnect" is often one of the poorest type of comments we get here, by "fans" that couldn't care less about anything else ... and it kinda reminds me one show, that has not been released or shown, that Edgar Froese stopped a concert to remove a drunk fan demanding rock'n'roll. The audience applauded when that fan was thrown out! 

I don't think that any of the redo acts are in it for the "money". I don't imagine many of them being as strong as we think, although there was a Pink Floyd one that was very good, and I think there was one that did Genesis, better than they actually did in concert which became a joke about "progressive".

I do pay attention to new bands mentioned here and others I hear about and listen to them first on you tube on a decent pair of Shure headphones before I buy them on cd usually.

I'm sure at my age now I will die still using cd and vinyl.  

Hi,

I think that is to be expected, but in the end, it says something about the "fans" and how they hear all the music ... I suppose we can say that many of them DON'T listen to a lot of music. But seeing the Rolling Stones rake in millions and and at least 1000 bands not getting a chance is a very sad sight, but that's the way it is, and has been for a long time. It was pretty much the same thing about classical music in its time, and it is being seen these days, without many classical concerts even being mentioned ... like no one cares, and the folks that are putting those on are not spending the money because there aren't enough fans to pay for it.

But, in my experience, a lot of conductors are the problem, as many of them are just trying to maintain the orchestra in one piece and only a few big ones have the ability to try and play new things, but the guy in Portland when I met him years ago, was upset that there was not a younger audience, to many shows, and I said he should play something more modern in the middle of it ... like what? And I even suggested, that Frank Zappa was a good example ... he gets played in Europe ... but ignored in America except for his guitar! 

In the end, I think the real problem with playing Frank Zappa is how tight and clean a lot of the performances are and the details are all scored. And it takes away the ability to play a part this way instead of that way, which many conductors over the last 75 years have made their names with. But someone that has no courage and is afraid to bring in a new audience to mix/match with the older audience, is probably not going to be around very much ... as the orchestras in America lose even more fans and funding. It will take a new person, and new material to make a difference, and right now ... ??? There is none! Or not enough for us to mention and discuss.

I think the rock thing about the huge star, like the Rolling Stones, is slowing down a lot. The Internet has brought out too many other bands that got big enough, and it has diluted the whole thing ... the Rolling Stones, will likely be the end of an era ... just like Pavarotti was the end of an era ... even Carnegie Hall is having a real hard time with selling out these days, and it tried to make do with all the "famous" this and that person to make it look like it was a huge event, and folks fall for it. It's called advertising.

But I think once the Rolling Stones stop, that a lot of the old folks will also stop ... already Neil Young is showing cracks as are many others. AND, it's time we give a new generation a chance ... and that's the main reason why I look at new things a lot more than I do yet another thread about Pink Flush or Genesisness or even Ian Tullip!