There's was an interesting piece in the New York Times on Sunday that essentially calls 1997 ground zero for the woes the music industry has faced for the past decade. In the piece, David Browne calls that year "the start of the last golden era of pop (if not its final one) and, more important, the beginning of the end of the music business as we knew it." He's certainly right, and he's not the only one to compare chart-topping sales figures from that year with this one. The top selling disc of the past year wouldn't have made the top 10 in 1997, for example.

His analysis, however, seems off balance. In passing out blame, he seems to give record label mergers and the rise of MP3s the same weight as the shift from career artists with something to say to look-oriented one-hit wonders with no message. While the former two factors contributed to the industry's fall, it was the latter greedy cash-grab that is most to blame. It can look to outside factors, but the music industry shot itself in the foot be looking at short-term gains to the detriment of long-term potential. Boy bands by their nature won't ever enjoy long careers. Cute doesn't last, and it's creepy to think of subsequent generations of teenaged girls swooning over increasingly grizzled pinup lads as they move into their 40s. Meanwhile, the potential U2s and R.E.M.s that could generate consistent sales over the long haul are cast aside because they don't make the cover of Tiger Beat.

Browne does make a good point at the close of his piece, writing that for most consumers, things have improved since 1997. I think he would be better to say "discerning consumers," as the mainstream, which still buys the overwhelming majority of music-related products probably doesn't take advantage of the benefits he outlines, but they are there: Downloading and cheap reproduction have democratized the marketplace to the extent that anyone has the opportunity to get their music out the masses.

Labels: criticism, music