Yes, but . . . don't you think the Crickets were a response to the doo-wop groups, which were all, well, groups? The Orioles (early '50s), the Crows, the Drifters, the Flamingoes (I'll be Home era), the Turbans, the Cadillacs, the Eldorados, the Platters, etc.? Not bands, in that they didn't play instruments, but all collectives. And if you're going to cite Buddy Holly and the Crickets, what about Bob Wills and the Texas Playboys? I get your point, that individuals dominate today, but there are plenty of groups, still, even if they don't dominate the charts.
There was also the Band - perhaps the ultimate example of eschewing individuality for the group collective and ironically, perhaps also the textbook example of how the rise of the individual can tear a group apart.
Feb 27, 2022·edited Feb 27, 2022Liked by Ted Gioia
I wonder how much of this is reflective of life itself? Growing up, musicians hung out together, met at school, etc.
People who grew up as digital natives socialized, but do much of it in front of a screen, alone. People still collaborate on music too, but where my friends came to my garage (irl!) to play, my son makes music in his room, and sends it across town to his friend to listen to & tweak. Technology has facilitated a much more solo experience when it comes to making music.
I dunno. Maybe this is just a “get off my lawn” moment for me.
It's certainly happened for the Billboard, but I'd say that Bluegrass continues to embrace the Buddy Holly model. And if you've ever been to the Telluride Bluegrass Festival or especially Rockygrass you'll see and feel the spirit of coming together to create art and harmony.
This is depressing but accurate. However, there is also the role of the producer, which has changed drastically from the Mitch Miller days. How many individual artists are capable of actually writing, arranging and producing their own music? There is also the question of ownership of the music. Since Dylan and the Beatles career, most popular artists feel compelled to write (and own) their own music. In the era before rock and roll this was a rare occurrence. It is arguable whether this has been a positive development, e.g. how many artists are also excellent songwriters-producers and arrangers?
A characteristically fresh piece, depressing in some respects (at least to this reader born in 1948) but also exhilarating for its insights and its wit.
Thanks. I had actually been wondering recently about the parallel phenomenon in hip-hop. It was mostly groups that first broke out in the late 70's/early 80's, and mostly groups, or sometimes duos, that were big or influential through the late 80's/early-mid 90's (LL Cool J more the exception, w/ Sugarhill Gang, Run DMC, Public Enemy, De La Soul, etc. the rule). There began to be a shift of course, but even many solo rappers launched from groups (e.g., Ice Cube, Easy-E, Dr Dre, Tupac; Wu-Tang solos, etc.). Feels like it's been ages now since groups made it big (and ages since I thought much new hip hop was worth listening to).
My favorite example of the collaborative spirit is Parliament/Funkadelic, often called the P-Funk collective to this day. Through their hay day, they had dozens of musicians contribute w/ multiple spin off groups, solo efforts, etc., that much of the collective would contribute to. Between 1970 and 1983 there are roughly 40 albums falling under the P-Funk umbrella. Not likely to see something like that again soon . . . . .
Terrific piece, Ted, on a topic I've wondered about a lot myself. Let me add two thoughts: 1) Streaming rates are tiny. So if a solo artist releases a song, *maybe* she earns enough to eat. But if she has to split with 4 bandmates? No way. 2) 40 years ago, if you were a budding rock musician, you might play guitar, but you needed a drummer and a bass player to fill out your sound. But today, most music is composed & recorded "in the box" -- inside a single laptop. So perhaps the need for collaborators has declined?
Good piece, as usual. As a side note I believe the recent trend of newer artists naming themselves less like previous bands and more like forum lurkers is a matter of SEO to better ensure they stand out digitally. The Scottish electronic pop group CHVRCHES (pronounced like the religious building) were open about this back in 2013 iirc. Corrupting a generic if unusual phrase like 'dead mouse' (deadmau5) or 'juice world' so you have a unique character string in the algorithm really doesn't seem any more absurd than calling you and your bandmates insects; it seems more a reflection of the contemporary reality of promotion more than anything else. There's always post-punk groups like Dry Cleaning or Squid to take this attitude towards its opposite extreme though.
Very interesting piece, and it provoked some great comments in response. I would highlight the distinction between collaborative writing band and band per se. There was typically always a primary architect in most bands, and there are still plenty of bands. Wolf Alice comes to mind as what seems to be a pretty egalitarian writing group (and a kick ass band, not singer & fellas). Mutemath was a great band, Coldplay, War on Drugs, Radiohead, Dave Matthews (yeah OK those are now Dad's bands).
But yeah there's a lot of voice with samples on the playlists these days. There's always been plenty of "eye candy that sings". Technology enables this --it's so easy to put a full band together on PC without even playing parts at the same time. More than the death of bands, maybe it's the reversion to the voice with songs handed to them model, eg Beyonce. But really that's countered by a *lot* of very talented writer / singers with and without band backup.
Yes, but . . . don't you think the Crickets were a response to the doo-wop groups, which were all, well, groups? The Orioles (early '50s), the Crows, the Drifters, the Flamingoes (I'll be Home era), the Turbans, the Cadillacs, the Eldorados, the Platters, etc.? Not bands, in that they didn't play instruments, but all collectives. And if you're going to cite Buddy Holly and the Crickets, what about Bob Wills and the Texas Playboys? I get your point, that individuals dominate today, but there are plenty of groups, still, even if they don't dominate the charts.
There was also the Band - perhaps the ultimate example of eschewing individuality for the group collective and ironically, perhaps also the textbook example of how the rise of the individual can tear a group apart.
I wonder how much of this is reflective of life itself? Growing up, musicians hung out together, met at school, etc.
People who grew up as digital natives socialized, but do much of it in front of a screen, alone. People still collaborate on music too, but where my friends came to my garage (irl!) to play, my son makes music in his room, and sends it across town to his friend to listen to & tweak. Technology has facilitated a much more solo experience when it comes to making music.
I dunno. Maybe this is just a “get off my lawn” moment for me.
It's certainly happened for the Billboard, but I'd say that Bluegrass continues to embrace the Buddy Holly model. And if you've ever been to the Telluride Bluegrass Festival or especially Rockygrass you'll see and feel the spirit of coming together to create art and harmony.
This is depressing but accurate. However, there is also the role of the producer, which has changed drastically from the Mitch Miller days. How many individual artists are capable of actually writing, arranging and producing their own music? There is also the question of ownership of the music. Since Dylan and the Beatles career, most popular artists feel compelled to write (and own) their own music. In the era before rock and roll this was a rare occurrence. It is arguable whether this has been a positive development, e.g. how many artists are also excellent songwriters-producers and arrangers?
Interesting to note that David Byrne gets the profits from Talking Heads and Robbie Robertson gets the profits from the Band.
A characteristically fresh piece, depressing in some respects (at least to this reader born in 1948) but also exhilarating for its insights and its wit.
Thanks. I had actually been wondering recently about the parallel phenomenon in hip-hop. It was mostly groups that first broke out in the late 70's/early 80's, and mostly groups, or sometimes duos, that were big or influential through the late 80's/early-mid 90's (LL Cool J more the exception, w/ Sugarhill Gang, Run DMC, Public Enemy, De La Soul, etc. the rule). There began to be a shift of course, but even many solo rappers launched from groups (e.g., Ice Cube, Easy-E, Dr Dre, Tupac; Wu-Tang solos, etc.). Feels like it's been ages now since groups made it big (and ages since I thought much new hip hop was worth listening to).
My favorite example of the collaborative spirit is Parliament/Funkadelic, often called the P-Funk collective to this day. Through their hay day, they had dozens of musicians contribute w/ multiple spin off groups, solo efforts, etc., that much of the collective would contribute to. Between 1970 and 1983 there are roughly 40 albums falling under the P-Funk umbrella. Not likely to see something like that again soon . . . . .
Terrific piece, Ted, on a topic I've wondered about a lot myself. Let me add two thoughts: 1) Streaming rates are tiny. So if a solo artist releases a song, *maybe* she earns enough to eat. But if she has to split with 4 bandmates? No way. 2) 40 years ago, if you were a budding rock musician, you might play guitar, but you needed a drummer and a bass player to fill out your sound. But today, most music is composed & recorded "in the box" -- inside a single laptop. So perhaps the need for collaborators has declined?
Good piece, as usual. As a side note I believe the recent trend of newer artists naming themselves less like previous bands and more like forum lurkers is a matter of SEO to better ensure they stand out digitally. The Scottish electronic pop group CHVRCHES (pronounced like the religious building) were open about this back in 2013 iirc. Corrupting a generic if unusual phrase like 'dead mouse' (deadmau5) or 'juice world' so you have a unique character string in the algorithm really doesn't seem any more absurd than calling you and your bandmates insects; it seems more a reflection of the contemporary reality of promotion more than anything else. There's always post-punk groups like Dry Cleaning or Squid to take this attitude towards its opposite extreme though.
Thanks for these interesting reflections. Not sure how you were using “proves the rule” but it means tests the rule— as in proving grounds.
"I’ve sat on other committees that could have used a little help from above, and it never arrived." LOL
Very interesting piece, and it provoked some great comments in response. I would highlight the distinction between collaborative writing band and band per se. There was typically always a primary architect in most bands, and there are still plenty of bands. Wolf Alice comes to mind as what seems to be a pretty egalitarian writing group (and a kick ass band, not singer & fellas). Mutemath was a great band, Coldplay, War on Drugs, Radiohead, Dave Matthews (yeah OK those are now Dad's bands).
But yeah there's a lot of voice with samples on the playlists these days. There's always been plenty of "eye candy that sings". Technology enables this --it's so easy to put a full band together on PC without even playing parts at the same time. More than the death of bands, maybe it's the reversion to the voice with songs handed to them model, eg Beyonce. But really that's countered by a *lot* of very talented writer / singers with and without band backup.
An exciting read, re-validating, maybe subconsciously, why tech start-ups replaced music bands.
Interesting piece, and I’m already looking forward to the next quizzes! 😆
Another great piece. Do K-pop, J-pop etc. underline the cultural dimension?