Death of guitar and youtube musicians - Tim and Pete show

Teetonetal

There has been a lot of talk on here recently about gibsons impending decline and the overall state of guitar.

There's also been a lot of comment on people like Rabea, Chapman et all with comments like "is that all people aspire to now" etc..

This Tim and Pete video discusses both topics and I think their take on social media use is bang on.

Get past the first jam and the discussion starts around 4 mins in.

I saw this in @ChrisMusic thread but thought the video warranted a thread of its own. Great video.

guitars4you

he nails it at around 8.30 when he ask 'how many guitars does the world need' - We are not a technology led product regarding the guitar itself - It is a big reason that Fender failed to float on the USA market as no future growth and product to create a fresh demand - IMO if Gibson, Fender, PRS etc had a 12/24 months shutdown there would be no shortage of nice guitars for sale

But there has not been a big band/buzz/theme for many years now that has created fresh interest on a sustained large scale - Not a movement like 60's pop, Indie, Brit Pop, Punk - I'm not saying the guitar is dead, but it has few mainstream hero's now that will generate the next big boom 

Even looking at Youtube hits, players like JoBo and Hendrix only hit low single digit million views, compared to Rhianna and other related singers that will hit 100's of millions of hits, even billions - Bands and the electric guitar is just not in today - maybe it will come back - Please don't throw back at me Ed Sheeran, as whilst he sales figures are good, he is not generating the level of buzz amongst potential new players buying guitars, certainly nothing like the epidemic Oasis etc did

Jonathanthomas83

Ironically, although I tend to agree with @guitars4you, Nuno plays for Rihanna! Arguably one of the best guitarists out there, certainly one of the most inspiring (for me, IMO, etc. etc.) :-)

Teetonetal

I wonder if our ability to find almost any music we like, over the entire history of music also means that sub genres like rock - Metal - Punk etc are high unlikely to bother mainstream charts on a consistent basis. there is no longer any need to have a "movement" if you like as everything is out there, in droves.

I actually thought the youtube musician part of the discussion more interesting though. Not too unsurprisingly, as musicians have embraced it, they seem to think it's a good thing and a big part of how new guitar players or musicians in general get recognized.

guitars4you

Teetonetal said:

I wonder if our ability to find almost any music we like, over the entire history of music also means that sub genres like rock - Metal - Punk etc are high unlikely to bother mainstream charts on a consistent basis. there is no longer any need to have a "movement" if you like as everything is out there, in droves.

I actually thought the youtube musician part of the discussion more interesting though. Not too unsurprisingly, as musicians have embraced it, they seem to think it's a good thing and a big part of how new guitar players or musicians in general get recognized.

I think you are right in that we explore youtube to find something fresh, but we are already converted - I recall some of your good links to inform us of unplugged acoustic cover tracks - But new acts via Youtube and it is almost as though it is an 'underground' band that only a few know about - I know youtube itself is massive but for each new band it is a needle in a haystack - It doesn't generate that instant 'explosion' that we all talk about at work etc the following day - As I mentioned many of our 'hero's today' like JoBo are only get a few million hits - Yet in the 60's bands like Yardbirds and Clapton were more under ground then mainstream charts toppers

a couple of points - Are youngsters today looking for instant gratification as their mind set is programmed that way via computer orientated games ? - You would struggle to play 1 chord after your first 1 hour lesson - On a PC game you've killed 100 and crashed 20 cars

Also many/all of us on FB are already converted, we've picked the guitar up and now play - But what influenced us to play - For me it was Top Of The Pops and Slade + T-Rex - Very rarely do any of us decide to pick up a guitar and play it because we saw Robben Ford, Larry carlton or Jeff Beck - The initial impact often comes from something far larger - Oasis, Clash, Sex Pistols, U2, Elvis, Beatles etc - None are teh greatest musicians, compared to R Ford, but they sell the trend

Clarky

very interesting discussion... thanks for posting that...

guitars4you

Jonathanthomas83 said:

Ironically, although I tend to agree with @guitars4you, Nuno plays for Rihanna! Arguably one of the best guitarists out there, certainly one of the most inspiring (for me, IMO, etc. etc.) :-)

agree but who have they paid to watch - I walked in the lounge the other day and my 15 year old daughter playing a Rihanna DVD - Just as I walk in Nuno is on the front of the stage ripping into a great solo - excellent but then drifted back to the rear of the stage - I commented to my daughter about the solo - Zero interest - More interested in Rihanna's trainers

soma1975

Re Youtube, I think it's a bit optimistic to expect the yoots to be as interested in music from half a century ago as they are music that is more current and that resonates with them. Also Jimi doesn't have a team of people to help him manipulate the streaming charts like Ed SHheeran. 

guitarfishbay

The YouTube model is about consistently releasing (quality) content. At least one video a week but most of the biggest channels release multiple per week if not every day.

That’s generally at odds with the traditional rock band format, where one album takes a while to write and record, and is promoted for up to a few years at a time.

I think this is why the larger guitar focussed channels are comedy and entertainment focussed, or at least that forms a lot of their content.

If a band released a serious song once per week it’d only take them a year to have released as much music as would take many pre YouTube bands a decade. Now there will be outliers who can do that, but for most musicians I know it’ll be hard to consistently maintain that creativity in keeping the quality up.

StuartMac290

In very simplistic terms:

50s - Chuck Berry / Elvis Presley
60s - The Beatles / The Stones
70s - Sex Pistols / The Clash
80s - The Smiths / REM 
          Stone Roses / Happy Mondays
90s - Nirvana / Pearl Jam
          Oasis / Blur
2000s - ???
2010s - ???

Key moments not just in musical history, but in cultural history, where typically a couple of guitar-based acts burst out who are so fresh and exciting they change the entire youth culture and by extension the entire cultural landscape. They didn't just emerge into the mainstream, they became it and defined it.

Record companies then sign a swathe of similar acts of hugely varying quality, the whole thing becomes a vast youth movement, young guys are inspired to flock to guitar shops, and the cycle continues.

Except...it hasn't happened since Britpop. I've been waiting for the next big shift, and it's not there. There are many factors - the fact the record industry is on its knees through downloading and streaming has meant they have become quite incredibly conservative about who they sign, and the resultant trend towards signing acts with independent sources of funds has closed the industry to the vast majority of young kids in bands. I have a couple of very good friends who are in top positions at major UK labels and one of them mentioned to me that over the last ten years around 90% of acts signed to the majors have been private school educated and able to self-finance to a massive degree.

I manage an artist and when we were signing her publishing, two of the four companies who put in an offer for her asked what personal savings she could put into "the project".

That's all very well, but it's not very inspiring for the very people who have kick-started these huge musical shifts in the first place, the kind of guys who could relate to The Beatles or The Pistols or The Roses or Oasis. Coldplay and Keane didn't quite cut it as role models, unfortunately. Arctic Monkeys were probably the closest we've come in a while

guitarfishbay

The other thing to consider is YouTube has democratised entertainment.

Anyone can watch or listen to almost anything they want, for free. Maybe guitar based music doesn’t rank as highly compared to all the other stuff, including non music content.

guitars4you

^^^^^^^ @StuartMac290 ; - very valid especially 

Key moments not just in musical history, but in cultural history, where typically a couple of guitar-based acts burst out who are so fresh and exciting they change the entire youth culture and by extension the entire cultural landscape. They didn't just emerge into the mainstream, they became it and defined it.

Record companies then sign a swathe of similar acts of hugely varying quality, the whole thing becomes a vast youth movement, young guys are inspired to flock to guitar shops, and the cycle continues.

Freebird

But there has not been a big band/buzz/theme for many years now that has created fresh interest on a sustained large scale - Not a movement like 60's pop, Indie, Brit Pop, Punk - I'm not saying the guitar is dead, but it has few mainstream hero's now that will generate the next big boom 

Can't see it happening myself, for a start guitar bands need to have something worthwhile to say, and anything worth saying these days would be considered controversial, then it would be immediately pounced upon and "banned" by YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc..   

Teetonetal

guitars4you said:

Teetonetal said:

I wonder if our ability to find almost any music we like, over the entire history of music also means that sub genres like rock - Metal - Punk etc are high unlikely to bother mainstream charts on a consistent basis. there is no longer any need to have a "movement" if you like as everything is out there, in droves.

I actually thought the youtube musician part of the discussion more interesting though. Not too unsurprisingly, as musicians have embraced it, they seem to think it's a good thing and a big part of how new guitar players or musicians in general get recognized.

I think you are right in that we explore youtube to find something fresh, but we are already converted - I recall some of your good links to inform us of unplugged acoustic cover tracks - But new acts via Youtube and it is almost as though it is an 'underground' band that only a few know about - I know youtube itself is massive but for each new band it is a needle in a haystack - It doesn't generate that instant 'explosion' that we all talk about at work etc the following day - As I mentioned many of our 'hero's today' like JoBo are only get a few million hits - Yet in the 60's bands like Yardbirds and Clapton were more under ground then mainstream charts toppers

a couple of points - Are youngsters today looking for instant gratification as their mind set is programmed that way via computer orientated games ? - You would struggle to play 1 chord after your first 1 hour lesson - On a PC game you've killed 100 and crashed 20 cars

Also many/all of us on FB are already converted, we've picked the guitar up and now play - But what influenced us to play - For me it was Top Of The Pops and Slade + T-Rex - Very rarely do any of us decide to pick up a guitar and play it because we saw Robben Ford, Larry carlton or Jeff Beck - The initial impact often comes from something far larger - Oasis, Clash, Sex Pistols, U2, Elvis, Beatles etc - None are teh greatest musicians, compared to R Ford, but they sell the trend

Yes, because there is nothing to explode.. there is no hype or anticipation, there is no mystery or discovery. Gone is that ability to be the only person in your class at school who has a copy of the record. the whole way music is consumed is completely different, except one aspect. Live shows.

At least round my way, you can find every kind of music played live you could care for - mainstream acts, Jazz, Blues, Country, Folk, Metal - it's all available and all popular. 

I believe the instant gratification idea is false, to a point - I used to be a guitar teacher and I had loads of kids who stuck at it for 5+ years, these days I don't teach guitar, but I am involved in winter sport and mountain biking. when something appeals, kids have sticking power and generally push the boundaries. Look at the Olympics etc sport moves on, it gets faster, further, bigger etc -  and it's always the next generation doing it. I know some guitar teachers now who do great things with their kids, running shows, recording, getting kids into bands by hooking up with other local teachers etc. Kids are always motivated by experience, if you can get a subject under a students skin, they will buy into it and love it.

The point about getting to guitar is an interesting one. For me it was a combo of my dad playing and being taken to a concert. At that time I didn't really have a concept of modern music.- that came in my teens.

the Youtube thing, for me, is less about new music - I think the point they are making is that if you want to be a musician and earn a living from the guitar, then youtube, instagram and all are a hugely important tool in getting your name out there, getting seen and proving what you can do. Youtube stars get derided on here fairly regularly but I think that misses the point that these guys are finding away to play a guitar for a living. It may proove to be a stepping stone to better things, it may not - but it's just another way of being seen and heard. 

I think it's quite easy to sit here, as guitar players and guitar loves, and mistake the changes in the industry for the loss of an industry, our own past colours our perception dramatically . I think music has changed completely since 2000 - how we find gear, buy gear, find music, listen to music, how we create music, even how we learn to play is all totally different and yet music and live is still incredibly popular and with better access than ever before.

Teetonetal

StuartMac290 said:

In very simplistic terms:

50s - Chuck Berry / Elvis Presley
60s - The Beatles / The Stones
70s - Sex Pistols / The Clash
80s - The Smiths / REM 
          Stone Roses / Happy Mondays
90s - Nirvana / Pearl Jam
          Oasis / Blur
2000s - ???
2010s - ???

2000 Coldplay, Muse, Arctic Monkeys surely? all massive.
2010  TBD - Ben Howard, ALT J, war on drugs, St vincent? Certainly all have created some kind of buzz.


But the modern thing is the record company just is not as important as it once was in any kind of alternative music. So they focus on mainstream. It's more reliable.

StuartMac290

I think there's one other massive, massive point that we're missing a bit here too: YouTube guitar channels and stars appeal to guitarists. Rock stars and pop stars appeal to EVERYONE. 

It's the problem with forums like this, really. The YouTube stuff is a closed shop, a dead end.  If we really want guitar bands to be culturally important ever again the artists HAVE to have appeal far, far beyond the guitar community!

Teetonetal

StuartMac290 said:

I think there's one other massive, massive point that we're missing a bit here too: YouTube guitar channels and stars appeal to guitarists. Rock stars and pop stars appeal to EVERYONE. 

It's the problem with forums like this, really. The YouTube stuff is a closed shop, a dead end.  If we really want guitar bands to be culturally important ever again the artists HAVE to have appeal far, far beyond the guitar community!

But the number of people who are actually Rock Stars is and always has been very, very limited. 

Most musicians need to find away of scraping together a living - Youtube is another shop window to put yourself in. Some of these guys have 10's of 1000's of hits. this is not a small number. How on earth could you reach that many people in 80's for example? Compare the reach you, as an independent artist can now find today vs any  other point between 1950 and 2010.

I think your slant is that it's important to have hugely successful acts, or to be hugely successful, I don't think it's true - I much prefer the variety we now have, vs the acts the industry pushes on us. Sure, a huge act, will inspire, it kind of has to, but I don't think it's anything like as important as it once was.

StuartMac290

Teetonetal said:

StuartMac290 said:

In very simplistic terms:

50s - Chuck Berry / Elvis Presley
60s - The Beatles / The Stones
70s - Sex Pistols / The Clash
80s - The Smiths / REM 
          Stone Roses / Happy Mondays
90s - Nirvana / Pearl Jam
          Oasis / Blur
2000s - ???
2010s - ???

2000 Coldplay, Muse, Arctic Monkeys surely? all massive.
2010  TBD - Ben Howard, ALT J, war on drugs, St vincent? Certainly all have created some kind of buzz.


But the modern thing is the record company just is not as important as it once was in any kind of alternative music. So they focus on mainstream. It's more reliable.

None of those acts kicked off anything like the kind of cultural landslide we've seen so consistently in the past, because none of them essentially changed anything or brought anything particularly new or fresh. 

guitarfishbay

I agree to get big they’d need to appeal beyond the guitar community. However YouTube itself is a gigantic community. So is FaceBook, Twitter etc. This forum isn’t even as big as some guitar brand specific FaceBook groups.

Younger people socialise online these days. And they’re in charge of their own entertainment choices through that as well. 

If a number of the bigger YT channels can consistently get a million plus views a day then it shows the engagement numbers are potentially there. Mobilising that is a different thing altogether. I already posted above I think original music channels are at a disadvantage regarding being able to generate quality content at the speed at which YouTube generally moves at.

guitars4you

There was an article recently about the intro and guitar riff is dead/diminishing - based on the likes of digital media in that many can/will turn off that new song within 20 seconds if it has not grabbed their attention - Therefore it needs that instant grab you moment - Hotel California would not have got of the ground on that basis and probably likewise Stairway to Heaven 

soma1975

Youtube hasn't democratised anything.  It's the broadcasting arm of the largest company in the world and its sole reason to exist is to sell advertising. Which means the material that gets sponsored and pushed is the lowest common denominator stuff. Yes you can find the music you like if you want, but you could pre internet if you really wanted to. Except this time Youtube will post ALL THE CONTENT and if something becomes popular they already have it ready to go and be monetised. 

Not a dig at youtube as it's great there is content for me readily accessible there, but I'd be very wary of suggesting is is in any way an arbiter of democracy. If anything it is a bastion of 'money talks'. See the Logan Paul controversy recently to see how they don't act until they were financially incentivised to do so.