quote:

Originally posted by Scrittah Oh, I completely agree. It's a shame that the truly innovative musicians are often stuck at the bottom, when they have so much to offer. What I'm saying is that if you can produce music for the sake of the music, and don't expect to be famous, then you should do what you enjoy. My music certainly isn't anything original, but I also can recognize that and not expect to make it huge. For the vast majority of us, music should be for music's sake.

Innovative doesn't always mean good though. There are plenty of noise producers who probably think they're making amazingly creative music, but to most people it's just shit. Then you have the people who make something completely revolutionary, which can nonetheless be enjoyed by a huge number of people. That's talent, and having that makes it very unlikely you'll be stuck at the bottom for long. Great music promotes itself, though not infinitely.

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Complaining about shit music flooding the dance market is like complaining about Lady Gaga flooding the airwaves, anyway. If people didn't like it, buy it and support it, it wouldn't continue to exist. So essentially Goldmann is saying there are not enough people around who like "good" music. Which is, again, totally objective.

The thing is that people are not really buying these crappy tracks. People are putting them out in hopes of exposure, DJ credibility, pride, etc. It's not necessarily to sell the tracks and make money.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by dj_alfi change your avatar for fucks sake.

quote:

Originally posted by iammesol People will do what makes them happy, and that's completely awesome. I just am so damn tired of people asking for Eric Prydz's email and such because they're that desperate. Jeremy Olander got to Pryda Friends because he was producing his own (well mixed) style of Eric's niche sound - something everyone else wasn't doing. If someone really wants to make a dent in the scene, they have to take a look at themselves in a completely humble and transparent way. One may be able to fool a couple of people, but unless you have the money and sold soul of someone at a major, you're not going to make it if you're not doing something original and groundbreaking!

Are you saying Pjanno and Call on Me are groundbreaking?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by dj_alfi change your avatar for fucks sake.

quote:

Originally posted by Beatflux Are you saying Pjanno and Call on Me are groundbreaking?

In comparison to 90% of melodic house in their respected years, yeah.

Groundbreaking is all about what the overall marketplace is offering. Give people something well produced that they've never heard before and they will come.

quote:

Originally posted by Euforix "Maybe it will come"

I won't argue that. Fair point.

quote:

Originally posted by Beatflux The thing is that people are not really buying these crappy tracks. People are putting them out in hopes of exposure, DJ credibility, pride, etc. It's not necessarily to sell the tracks and make money.

Is that so? Have you looked at Beatport's sales charts recently?

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Innovative doesn't always mean good though. There are plenty of noise producers who probably think they're making amazingly creative music, but to most people it's just shit. Then you have the people who make something completely revolutionary, which can nonetheless be enjoyed by a huge number of people. That's talent, and having that makes it very unlikely you'll be stuck at the bottom for long. Great music promotes itself, though not infinitely.

Also a good point. It all depends on perspective, really.

___________________
My Soundcloud
My Bandcamp

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Is that so? Have you looked at Beatport's sales charts recently?

Are you talking about top 100 crap? I'm talking about the tracks that just get lost in the sea of mediocrity. Bottom of the barrel shit.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by dj_alfi change your avatar for fucks sake.

Great article!

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated I read this a couple of days ago, and I'm still not sure what I think about it. On one hand, he has some interesting things to say. On the other, he's being a whiny little bitch and reiterating a lot of things people already know. Apart from that, he seems to write with total disregard for irony, in that he positions himself as one of the people making "good music". My guess is that someone like Umek or Funkagenda possess similar views; that the market is being flooded with crap and that all the uncreative people with no artistic integrity need to go away. These things are in the eye of the beholder. It's extremely arrogant to take such a view of yourself, regardless of how good your music actually is. Complaining about shit music flooding the dance market is like complaining about Lady Gaga flooding the airwaves, anyway. If people didn't like it, buy it and support it, it wouldn't continue to exist. So essentially Goldmann is saying there are not enough people around who like "good" music. Which is, again, totally objective.

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who had a similar view in regards to this article.

I've read the piece a couple of times now, and I always end up with the same thought: "Thank you, Captain Obvious." Anybody with the smallest amount of common sense will tell you that, in any art form whatsoever, being unique and going against the grain will get you noticed. This is just common knowledge. You're correct about the irony; while some of Goldmann's music stands out compared to many of its contemporaries, much of it just plain sucks. But, as you say, that's a totally subjective viewpoint.

I don't really like how he whines about artists not getting much money. Please don't get me wrong, I feel that an artist should certainly receive some sort of compensation if s/he creates something that is valuable to people. Having said that, it is only within the past hundred to two hundred years that artists received a notable level of compensation for their work. He also must remember that dance music is significantly less popular than most other varieties of music out there. Pop artists get paid more because they attract larger groups of people. In many cities, DJs have a hard time attracting even crowds of two hundred, and I've seen many huge-named DJs fail to fill tiny venues countless times. When there are only two hundred or a thousand people buying your records, a hundred-fifty people going to each of your shows, that's because that's how many people are interested in it. Therefore, you're only going to be compensated on that level.

I do agree with him when he laments about how disappointing it is for many artists to achieve just a mere six months of fame before being tossed away like last nights leftovers. It sucks. But, it comes with the territory and is not a trend that is unique to dance music. Pop music, visual art, film, they all have artists who come and go at the snap of a finger.

To me, this article just feels like Goldmann ranting about how "over it" he is when it comes to dance music. He seems to want to make it his sole source of income but is having a tough time doing so. Most interviews that I've read with todays relevant artists have them talking about holding down a day job during the week, and these are artists who are putting out quite unique music that stands out above the rest, thereby negating Goldmann's point about how artists don't have enough time to make good music if they're holding down a full-time job.

My point is, this is dance music. It's hard to make money when it comes to something that's not wildly popular, and dance music will never be at that level. In addition, your career will be shorter when even less people are paying attention. He either needs to accept it and find a way to deal with it or quit whining and get out of the game.

quote:

Originally posted by idoru Most interviews that I've read with todays relevant artists have them talking about holding down a day job during the week, and these are artists who are putting out quite unique music that stands out above the rest, thereby negating Goldmann's point about how artists don't have enough time to make good music if they're holding down a full-time job.

Any examples of this artists?

quote:

Originally posted by idoru I'm glad that I'm not the only one who had a similar view in regards to this article. I've read the piece a couple of times now, and I always end up with the same thought: "Thank you, Captain Obvious." Anybody with the smallest amount of common sense will tell you that, in any art form whatsoever, being unique and going against the grain will get you noticed. This is just common knowledge. You're correct about the irony; while some of Goldmann's music stands out compared to many of its contemporaries, much of it just plain sucks. But, as you say, that's a totally subjective viewpoint. I don't really like how he whines about artists not getting much money. Please don't get me wrong, I feel that an artist should certainly receive some sort of compensation if s/he creates something that is valuable to people. Having said that, it is only within the past hundred to two hundred years that artists received a notable level of compensation for their work. He also must remember that dance music is significantly less popular than most other varieties of music out there. Pop artists get paid more because they attract larger groups of people. In many cities, DJs have a hard time attracting even crowds of two hundred, and I've seen many huge-named DJs fail to fill tiny venues countless times. When there are only two hundred or a thousand people buying your records, a hundred-fifty people going to each of your shows, that's because that's how many people are interested in it. Therefore, you're only going to be compensated on that level. I do agree with him when he laments about how disappointing it is for many artists to achieve just a mere six months of fame before being tossed away like last nights leftovers. It sucks. But, it comes with the territory and is not a trend that is unique to dance music. Pop music, visual art, film, they all have artists who come and go at the snap of a finger. To me, this article just feels like Goldmann ranting about how "over it" he is when it comes to dance music. He seems to want to make it his sole source of income but is having a tough time doing so. Most interviews that I've read with todays relevant artists have them talking about holding down a day job during the week, and these are artists who are putting out quite unique music that stands out above the rest, thereby negating Goldmann's point about how artists don't have enough time to make good music if they're holding down a full-time job. My point is, this is dance music. It's hard to make money when it comes to something that's not wildly popular, and dance music will never be at that level. In addition, your career will be shorter when even less people are paying attention. He either needs to accept it and find a way to deal with it or quit whining and get out of the game.

Well said. I more or less agree with that but didn't have the necessary brainpower to get it down myself.

___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide