Carrie Brownstein: Are we in the age of dabbling?
Gerard Cosloy: Dabbling? Definitely.
Mac McCaughan: You're right.
Gerard Cosloy: And the churn factor is severe; the public burns out on supposed faves very, very fast these days.
Mac McCaughan: To a certain extent, at Merge, we know all this but try to pretend it's not happening -- the churn factor -- seriously.
Carrie Brownstein: Are there any of your artists in particular who have suffered through this churn factor?
Gerard Cosloy: I'd rather not say. But I think it is fair to say that anyone who is making a second record is about to contend with it, to some degree.
Portia Sabin: Dudes, we are in the era of "I like everything," which translates to whatever is on the radio/on the iPod, which has always been the majority of music fans, in my opinion.
Chris Swanson: I feel like full iPods are an illustration that a large part of the population now consumes music like they did in the '60s. It's primarily singles-driven, or track-driven. It feels like a jukebox culture with iPods so ubiquitous. People are generally more into songs right now than bands, albums or labels.
Gerard Cosloy: Right on, Chris.
Chris Swanson: If it sounds great, people love it.
Mac McCaughan: I like songs, but I hate that trend.
[Robb Nansel from Saddlecreek Records joins the conversation at this point.]
Chris Swanson: Lots of folks still want to take it deeper, but I don't think it's necessarily a sign of a corruption of taste that people are stuck on a good song right now.
Portia Sabin: That unfortunately doesn't translate into careers for artists, though.
Maggie Vail : Yeah, I would say it's not new -- it's just in our world now, too.
Gerard Cosloy: Portia's right; it has always been the majority who thought that way. The difference is, there's no longer any cultural nudge-nudge to get anyone to think differently.
Maggie Vail : Yes.
Gerard Cosloy: Not on a mainstream level, anyway
lots of interesting things in here, but my first thought is that the imminent singles-driven musical culture that they all seem to be wary of is definitely where things are going, and my second thought is that this is going to be great for indie music, to be honest.
pop music is in such a weird place right now; the labels are all freaking out and sticking to the same types of sounds they've been pushing on us for the last 15 years or so, and i don't blame them, because they're running a business and when sales are down you stick to old reliable. this has only compounded the problem, of course, because as people get sick of hearing the 99th Nickelback or Avril Levine (or however you spell that), they seek out alternatives. there have always been people who sought out those alternatives, of course, but now they have a place to talk to each other and share information and self-organize, so the cat's much more out of the bag, and the labels haven't made really any effort to adapt.
(also, there's the rougher, more existential problem of the labels not really being needed by the artists anymore, what with online distribution and cheap recording technology, so the artists with antennae for this sort of thing are steering clear of them, thinning the already-lean major label talent roster.)
so. we have this whole historical moment happening, where the traditional pop merchants are eating out their own insides, the public listens to more music than they ever have before in goddamn HISTORY, and there's this "indie music" universe-thing that's gained all this momentum over the past 10 years or so because of the explosion of the internet culture, not to mention the fact that the largest generation in american history is all coming of age and consuming music faster than people can create it -- you can probably guess where i'm going with this.
the pop music industry is collapsing, and the indie artists are clearly poised to stage a full takeover of pop music culture, at least for a minute or two. but, in order to do that, the indie artists are going to inevitably start making their work a little more accessible. they're going to have to, really. "hits" are going to be a necessity. but, a "hit" is a broad category; indie music has been at various times conflated with strong antipop, anti-"mainstream" feelings, but there's no need to be afraid of a song or a video going viral. there's not a band or artist out there who wouldn't welcome that kind of juice.
and the listening public is curious. there's been a lot of buzz about this "brooklyn" thing, this "pitchfork" business; how many people have wandered over to pitchfork but been daunted by the scope of the indie ecosystem? how many people out there want to plug into this new scene, but have no idea where to start?
fellow indie musicians, listen to me, because i am so serious about this: we need to bring them in with pop songs. it will be good for everyone involved.
the 60s were mentioned above by the panelists, and it's a telling reference. is there a decade more associated with the marriage of pop music and musical and recording experimentation? the Beatles are everyone's touchstone, but the Beatles knew how to write pop music. they had to - otherwise people would forget about them; newer artists popping up every day. i personally think that the Beatles' understanding of pop music in all its forms and various genres was what made their songs so culturally monumental. when artists are forced to sort of "earn their keep," pop culture-wise, it keeps them from sitting around all day with their heads up their asses, for lack of a better way to say it. having to constantly write songs that will connect with people -- it keeps you honest. it's humbling, because for a pop song, there's only one goal -- for the song to be popular. the metrics are much harder. and ultimately, to keep making "hits" you have to be, on some level, in touch with the current moment.
but the good thing is, the future of pop is wide open, and there are no big bad labels to force artists to write these pop songs. rather, what's going to happen is, some artists are going to inevitably start filling the pop void, but on their terms. Animal Collective's "My Girls" and Grizzly Bear's "Two Weeks" are good examples of what i think is going to start happening more and more -- experimental indie bands slowly drifting toward a bigger, more accessible sound that doesn't compromise any integrity of the artists but instead merges old genres with new rhythms to create something people haven't heard before. we don't have the infrastructure yet to propel a song like "Two Weeks" into Billboard Singles chart heaven (or whatever the future equivalent is), but bands and artists are also going to have to come a tiny bit further in meeting the public. there is a new standard pop language that is going to evolve in the coming years, and it's going to probably be a teeny, tiny bit less obscure than those songs i mentioned above, but not that much more, to be honest. the two worlds are so close they're practically kissing right now.
