Ain't Getting no Satisfaction
A recent report on the Fox News site (We report - you decide!) indicates that the Rolling Stones are having trouble getting airplay - because, according to analysis of the writer (so I thought you would let me decide!) the music market is so fractured.
I have always had an interest in what went on in this industry, for was a rodie for a friend's band in high school (which went nowhere and broke up after a year). So I follow up, but I focus on different aspects of it.
Here is the reason why the Stones ain't getting any satisfaction, I mean, airplay. Few kids are interested in what their parents listened to - or watched. And certainly almost no kids are interested in their grandparents' entertainment tastes. I remember trying to run from the tv set when my grandma had Lawrence Welk on (who can be considered the Bon Jovi or Barry Manilow of his generation - i.e., a laughingstock for all those who came after their heyday). The only exception is sports, which does well to bind the generations together.
In our dynamic society, kids need to constantly create their own tastes. We are essentially a society devoted toward pleasure, unfortunately. Tastes are going to change within a twenty year period. This is the way things have been since about 1900.
There simply is no place to mass market new songs from this band anymore. They may consider themselves badass, but really, they are quite tame. Railing against George Bush and Republicans does not make you a rebel any more, especially when most of the entertainment community, much of the United States, and most of the world's population, purportedly hates W and the Republicans. They are far different musically than most rock bands today, "classic rock" stations do not play new stuff from old bands, and pop - top 40 - stations, who focus primarily on a high-school and younger crowd, rarely play any rock anymore, if at all.
And their audience, the majority of whom are over 45, is at an age when the accomplishments of popular musicians do not matter any more. Most people over that age have had far too many experiences to fill their head with such trivia. Stability and sameness, not new experience, is what they look for. They may still listen to "satisfaction," but having their own kids, as well as the fact they are at the peak of their careers, or retired, really makes such concerns juvenile. There has been far more interesting in their lives by this time than a music show. If some man wants to "relive his youth," he is going to search and pursue a 20 year-old bimbo, who certainly will not like the Stones.
Now, I never likes the Stones. I thought they were too slow, and were not hard enough. I never understood their appeal, like I never understood the appeal of Pearl Jam (in my opinion the Stones of the next generation, for they were too slow and not hard enough). Writing "Sweet NeoCon" certainly makes me dislike them more - well, maybe not. If they wrote a song that stated that George Bush is the greatest thing since sliced bread, I still wouldn't listen to it.
Sure, they are still touring, and more importantly, probably still getting groupies. But to most young women, they are probably nothing more than a bunch of dirty old men, which helps explain why their inability to get airplay.
By the time a musician reaches 60, as they are, they should stop focusing on making new music. If there is still money in it, they can keep doing reunion tours. This is the model that made the post 1960's Beach Boys a success. Ozzy has a similar model, the Ozzfest, which is quite successful. Notice that highly popular musicians like Frank Sinatra stopped mass marketing new material shortly after he "retired" in the early 1970's, and he was able to live happily until he died.
Yes, Mick Jagger wants to spout his political rhetoric. Fortunately, he is preaching to the choir. Especially while using profanity to do so, which does not sell anyone in the middle.
Someone noted that coming from them, their political ideas will have little influence. While most celebrities are incapable of spouting political opinions that make them look like bumbling idiots, Mick Jagger is not. He was studying at the London School of Economics before he was sure the band was going to be successful. So when this was the case, he practiced what he preached (economics preaches that someone should go into something that makes a lot of money) and got the band going.
Now, what does being an economist have to do with being intelligent? If you are going to study this field at an elite school, you must have an excellent understanding of higher mathematics in order to pass the higher level courses that get you the degree. The education system has still not figured out a way to make calculus intelligible to morons as yet. That is why all those who make Ahnold look stupid have little credibility with me, either, for that was his degree, at Wisconsin-Madison.
For this reason, Mick Jagger should act his age, and figure out a way to coherently, eloquently, and effectively state his political position - so that he gets some people on the fence to come over to his position. While I do not agree with Tom Hanks' political positions, he is one of the few actors who does have credibility with me (and I respect), as his explanations are thoughtful and he appears to have studied his positions before he says something. He is not one who has a bunch of idiotic phrases stumble out every time he opens his mouth, like a majority of the celebrities out there. Hence, he probably has an ability to get some people to his point of view who were in the middle, or maybe on the other side.
However, I don't think Mick Jagger will. This man will continue to go on stage and act like a monkey well beyond the age when it is acceptible to do so. He still may try to act like one in 20 years when he has to shuffle up there on a walker. For he is still stuck in his "rebel" mode despite very much being part of the establishment, and like any overgrown teenager, he will not listen to change his ways in a way that will make him more effective. Hence, I have nothing to fear from his rhetoric.
I have always had an interest in what went on in this industry, for was a rodie for a friend's band in high school (which went nowhere and broke up after a year). So I follow up, but I focus on different aspects of it.
Here is the reason why the Stones ain't getting any satisfaction, I mean, airplay. Few kids are interested in what their parents listened to - or watched. And certainly almost no kids are interested in their grandparents' entertainment tastes. I remember trying to run from the tv set when my grandma had Lawrence Welk on (who can be considered the Bon Jovi or Barry Manilow of his generation - i.e., a laughingstock for all those who came after their heyday). The only exception is sports, which does well to bind the generations together.
In our dynamic society, kids need to constantly create their own tastes. We are essentially a society devoted toward pleasure, unfortunately. Tastes are going to change within a twenty year period. This is the way things have been since about 1900.
There simply is no place to mass market new songs from this band anymore. They may consider themselves badass, but really, they are quite tame. Railing against George Bush and Republicans does not make you a rebel any more, especially when most of the entertainment community, much of the United States, and most of the world's population, purportedly hates W and the Republicans. They are far different musically than most rock bands today, "classic rock" stations do not play new stuff from old bands, and pop - top 40 - stations, who focus primarily on a high-school and younger crowd, rarely play any rock anymore, if at all.
And their audience, the majority of whom are over 45, is at an age when the accomplishments of popular musicians do not matter any more. Most people over that age have had far too many experiences to fill their head with such trivia. Stability and sameness, not new experience, is what they look for. They may still listen to "satisfaction," but having their own kids, as well as the fact they are at the peak of their careers, or retired, really makes such concerns juvenile. There has been far more interesting in their lives by this time than a music show. If some man wants to "relive his youth," he is going to search and pursue a 20 year-old bimbo, who certainly will not like the Stones.
Now, I never likes the Stones. I thought they were too slow, and were not hard enough. I never understood their appeal, like I never understood the appeal of Pearl Jam (in my opinion the Stones of the next generation, for they were too slow and not hard enough). Writing "Sweet NeoCon" certainly makes me dislike them more - well, maybe not. If they wrote a song that stated that George Bush is the greatest thing since sliced bread, I still wouldn't listen to it.
Sure, they are still touring, and more importantly, probably still getting groupies. But to most young women, they are probably nothing more than a bunch of dirty old men, which helps explain why their inability to get airplay.
By the time a musician reaches 60, as they are, they should stop focusing on making new music. If there is still money in it, they can keep doing reunion tours. This is the model that made the post 1960's Beach Boys a success. Ozzy has a similar model, the Ozzfest, which is quite successful. Notice that highly popular musicians like Frank Sinatra stopped mass marketing new material shortly after he "retired" in the early 1970's, and he was able to live happily until he died.
Yes, Mick Jagger wants to spout his political rhetoric. Fortunately, he is preaching to the choir. Especially while using profanity to do so, which does not sell anyone in the middle.
Someone noted that coming from them, their political ideas will have little influence. While most celebrities are incapable of spouting political opinions that make them look like bumbling idiots, Mick Jagger is not. He was studying at the London School of Economics before he was sure the band was going to be successful. So when this was the case, he practiced what he preached (economics preaches that someone should go into something that makes a lot of money) and got the band going.
Now, what does being an economist have to do with being intelligent? If you are going to study this field at an elite school, you must have an excellent understanding of higher mathematics in order to pass the higher level courses that get you the degree. The education system has still not figured out a way to make calculus intelligible to morons as yet. That is why all those who make Ahnold look stupid have little credibility with me, either, for that was his degree, at Wisconsin-Madison.
For this reason, Mick Jagger should act his age, and figure out a way to coherently, eloquently, and effectively state his political position - so that he gets some people on the fence to come over to his position. While I do not agree with Tom Hanks' political positions, he is one of the few actors who does have credibility with me (and I respect), as his explanations are thoughtful and he appears to have studied his positions before he says something. He is not one who has a bunch of idiotic phrases stumble out every time he opens his mouth, like a majority of the celebrities out there. Hence, he probably has an ability to get some people to his point of view who were in the middle, or maybe on the other side.
However, I don't think Mick Jagger will. This man will continue to go on stage and act like a monkey well beyond the age when it is acceptible to do so. He still may try to act like one in 20 years when he has to shuffle up there on a walker. For he is still stuck in his "rebel" mode despite very much being part of the establishment, and like any overgrown teenager, he will not listen to change his ways in a way that will make him more effective. Hence, I have nothing to fear from his rhetoric.
posted by EricMatthew at 8:16 PM
<< Home