When we dislike modern music, are we forgetting the lessons history has taught us?

[The Funslinger]

I accidentally clicked on the red button again yesterday; seeing a bunch of Justin Biebers argue this is somewhat humorous.

OT: I think there's more to it than old fogey syndrome. The truth is, bubblegum pop has always sucked, and since the late 80's, it's been at the forefront of the music industry. The good news is that pop today is more like it was in the 80's and early 90's than it was in the late 90's and early 2000's, which was the real low point in pop music. Incidentally, the 90's sucked hard for most genres of music, much harder than the last few years have -- and this is coming from someone who was born in 1990 and grew up on the stuff. Seriously, though, compare Lady GaGa to Brittany Spears; one of them is a musician who happens to do pop. The other is a dancer with a pretty face that some record exec thought would look good in a music video. For rock, look at Wolfmother and then look at Nirvana. One is a band made up of musicians who have the chops to play whatever they need to, from the simplicity of Woman to the really complicated stuff that shows up on their later albums. The other is a band made up of people who look nice, who whack away at their instruments and mumble their lyrics, which would be incoherent even if you could understand them. If you honestly think Nirvana is better than Wolfmother, you aren't a fan of rock.

And it's that sentence right there that invalidates your argument and turns it into douche whining.

And before you claim anything, no, I'm not a fan of Nirvana, mostly because I've never bothered to listen to their stuff. However, they're pretty iconic in Rock, so I imagine I'd like them. I do like a lot of rock bands that were around in the 90's. Specifically, Red Hot Chili Peppers. They are basically 80's-present day. The 90's was a fantastic decade for them, they manage to have such a huge variety of music while staying inside of their genre. The only song of theirs I dislike is Porcelain, which grates on me like nothing else.

<youtube=xN6WnJ5tJec&feature=related>
<youtube=xzqTz_i1NXQ>

<spoiler=Nirvana><youtube=zYxkezUr8MQ>
<youtube=BJr-iFh1OZk>
<youtube=3fIqq5XVFKQ>

Note that I didn't say that Nirvana was absolutely terrible -- although I can't personally stand what their influence did to music for the last 20 years. What I said was that any fan of rock would be able to recognize that Wolfmother was better. Listen to both selections; if you honestly think the Nirvana song is better, I don't know what to say to you.

Edit: And to clarigy, those are Nirvana's three biggest hits, and Wolfmother's two most famous songs, plus a random one I pulled to get the same number of songs on both sides. I didn't cherry pick Nirvana's worst and Wolfmother's best.

Well hey, I like both bands, so thanks for that. I'll probably go and download me some new music now!

In any case, yeah, they're different. I'd have to say Nirvana is more... shall we say fast paced adrenaline music, which doesn't necessarily make it worse. Yeah, that's not your thing, but remember there's a reason people like it. That doesn't make their opinion lesser than yours, which is why I called you out.

Anyway, I'd have to say that of all six songs, I like "Smells Like Teen Spirit" the best. I've only heard a bit of it once before, so it was good to actually get round to listening to it properly! Anyway, don't just assume I like the lively rock music, I just generally like old rock. For a little variation, see:

Spoiler: tops them both in my opinion

 

[Mrsoupcup]

But pop has always sucked.

Well pop is an offshoot of disco, but with less dancing and more self indulgence....

 

[BonsaiK]

Unfortunately, with the low cost of production, music has become a low-risk industry

Oh, how I laughed.

Music is a higher-risk industry than ever before, and when you look at the success/failure ratio, one of the highest risk industries there is. Sure, it's easy enough to make music now, but to be part of the music industry? I can't think of any other industry with a greater failure/dropout/oops-I-ruined-my-life ratio with the possible exception of acting. Just going on percentages of the total, I certainly know more dead/permanently handicapped/mentally scarred/living in a world of complete delusion musicians than soldiers, police or firemen.

I am speaking strictly in terms of economics. Compared to any number of decades ago, music is becoming much cheaper to make with some bands becoming completely digital and releasing music strictly online to cut the cost of compact disks (which aren't very expensive anyways compared to the vinyls music used to made on). I am not at all saying you are not risking time, one can certainly waste a lot of time on music that will never be popular, but now, remember my Lady Gaga example: anybody could make an album cover as crappy as that, the same goes for most modern music videos which are now mostly about the artists as compared to twenty years ago when music videos were nearly at their zenith and the ratio of art to artist was in a beautiful 5 to 1 proportion.

So music for you is about what art is on the front cover, and the images in the music video, not the music itself?

 

[Drakmeire]

Popular music has always sucked. even led Zepplin was hated by critics who didn't enjoy the experimental style.
Lyrics haven't gotten worse either
This song was HUGE the year it was released (1968, which most consider a golden age of music)
<youtube=HkxAf6RxC-g>
we tend to only remember the good things since the bad is forgotten.
in several years no one will remember Justin Beiber, Ke$ha or Brokencyde, but things that will be remembered will be Kings of Leon, Mumford and Sons, and I really hope Foster the People makes it big
<youtube=SLK7hrRijes>

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

I agree with you on that. Music history is a fickle beast and it should be worth noting that sometimes when new music comes out that it's hated at the time, Stravinsky's Firebird Suite was hated when it was first performed.

Seeing as I like my little glass house, I'm gonna say I've done that too, but I will say I've been that critical with music that I've grown up with. I was never a fan of Nirvana when I first heard them and my opinion hasn't changed since then, but artists 'back in the day' I've been critical about without actually giving them a good listen. I have and I've changed my tune.

Now my problem with modern music is that it's not interesting to me and it sounds like they didn't even try. It sounds very cookie cutter and way too 'clean', and when I mean 'clean'in the technical stand point of it.

Ground breaking? That I don't know, you will have to see in a few years whether or not it is considering how the music industry works now a days.

 

[the Dept of Science]

But pop has always sucked.

Well pop is an offshoot of disco, but with less dancing and more self indulgence....

Pop has meant a bunch of things over the years, from stuff like Sinatra in the 40s and 50s, guitar bands like the Beatles in the 60s etc. Depending on how loose your definition of pop can be, it can include R&B acts, guitar bands, rap, AM pop, electronica etc.

I don't like this generations music because it's just crap. I just don't find any quality in it at all. The reason music was disliked in the past is because the newer generations were always to deviant for the older ones. The reason most people don't like music now isn't becuase it's deviant, it just isn't good.

I suppose everything has been done at this point....

Do you think that at some point all the talent in the world just fanished? Of course not, that would be ridiculous.

Do you think that everyone who likes good stuff nowadays just has bad taste? Because if thats what you think then I am personally quite offended, and many others would be as well.

Also, you posted Rappers Delight. Have you ever got to the fish verse in that song? I wouldn't blame you if you hadn't, I mean its 14 minutes long. However, its one of the worst things ever committed to tape. Furthermore, its not the first rap song and rap has been done much better since.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

In order:
I got 32 seconds into the first song linked.
Lolwhut? Got me one minute and two seconds into the second song linked.
30 seconds into the third song I got bored but for a few seconds I thought it was not that bad... Then I realised I was comparing it to the first two and killed it.

Those examples of Modern Music are not going to kill music. A hell of a lot of bad music came out of the 80's, along with a few gems. Like Twilight will not kill the Vampire genre, those examples of modern "Music" will do nothing in the long run.

Revolutionary? I do not believe they will ever be called such. They are a flash in the pan (Although I am happy to have been ignorant as to the existence of those bands prior to coming across this thread and the happy knowledge that none of my friends have tried to introduce me to those bands.) and well, given some time they will fade.

As for people hating on all modern music? Well, You covered that in your post so I will say nothing bar "What you said is right and I agree"

I do thank you for reminding me to give Arcade Fire a try, been meaning to get round to it for a while.

Some people were born old Fogies. I was raised on a diet of The Beatles (Being born in 92') and I am a massive fan of the Stones, The Who and similar, plus I have a rather large collection of Swing Jazz. Now I do look at modern music and I go "There is a lot of shit out there. Good thing I like Sabaton, The Flobots, The Decemberists, The Killers, Frank Turner, Franz Ferdinand, Scroobius Pipp" (Just trying to pick out bands that have been making music post-2000 or are post-2000 indicating that they are vaguely modern)

I can also safely say I don't just hate techno etc, I have been known to listen to some Basshunter, Tiesto and the like and I really like Dubstep.

I guess what I am trying to say is some modern music is shit but thats life, just avoid what is shit. Its all find to sit up on your highground and state that some people have bad music taste but who are you to judge? Call them morons but those people earn more in a year than most of us will earn in a lifetime. People have the right to like whatever crap they want.

And hell, Certain examples of modern pop aint that bad. I do like me some Bloc Party at times, some generic rock and metal is not so bad. So hating on entire Genres is also pointless (I used to say all rap was shit, then I found Scroobius Pipp)

-Snip-
If you honestly think Nirvana is better than Wolfmother, you aren't a fan of rock.

And it's that sentence right there that invalidates your argument and turns it into douche whining.

And before you claim anything, no, I'm not a fan of Nirvana, mostly because I've never bothered to listen to their stuff. However, they're pretty iconic in Rock, so I imagine I'd like them. I do like a lot of rock bands that were around in the 90's. Specifically, Red Hot Chili Peppers. They are basically 80's-present day. The 90's was a fantastic decade for them, they manage to have such a huge variety of music while staying inside of their genre. The only song of theirs I dislike is Porcelain, which grates on me like nothing else.

binnysboy, Just saying right here that I agree with you on the Chili's, bar the moment about Porcelain, which I love (Its actually one of my favourite Chili's songs.

Owyn_Merrilin... You are a tool bro. I like Rock and I dont really like Wolfmother. I really love quite a lot of Nirvana's stuff. Just saying. I am a fan of Rock that likes Nirvana. And Million Dead, Frank Turner, hell, quite a lot of other stuff.

You cannot judge others. Stop thinking you can. However, I can judge you based on how you judge others cause I am a self-declared hypocrite and this will devolve into "BUT X IS BETTER THAN Y LIKING Y MAKES YOU INFERIOR" I advise you go and watch the Jimquisition on Call of Duty.

Nirvana is good. Hurt is a beautiful song. (Cash covered it, not the other way around.) Rock is a varied genre, you do not have to like all of it to like Rock, nor do you have to like a particular band over another to be a fan of rock.

Who am I kidding? I am a fan of Music. And you are a tool ^.^

Or maybe I'm just annoyed that Nirvana's huge success killed classic styled rock for almost 20 years? If you'll notice, Wolfmother sounds a lot like Led Zepplin. Had Nirvana not been so popular that it pushed the kind of rock that actually requires the musicians to know their way around an instrument out of the picture for most of my life, I wouldn't hate them so much. As it stands, I fail to see how someone who likes non-punk based rock could listen to Nirvana and go "you know, I like what they did for the music industry."

 

[Mrsoupcup]

Snip

"Do you think that at some point all the talent in the world just fanished? Of course not, that would be ridiculous."

I don't think people don't have talent, I just think everything has been done.

"Do you think that everyone who likes good stuff nowadays just has bad taste? Because if thats what you think then I am personally quite offended, and many others would be as well."

I'm not totally sure what you meant by that..


"Also, you posted Rappers Delight. Have you ever got to the fish verse in that song? I wouldn't blame you if you hadn't, I mean its 14 minutes long. However, its one of the worst things ever committed to tape. Furthermore, its not the first rap song and rap has been done much better since".

I suppose your right there, I just don't listen to much rap. More Rock, Motown and Funk. So I just kinda posted the first catchy Rap song I could remember.

 

[the Dept of Science]

Snip

"Do you think that at some point all the talent in the world just fanished? Of course not, that would be ridiculous."

I don't think people don't have talent, I just think everything has been done.

Thats just not true. Find me another band that sounds like Animal Collective, Jonsi, Arcade Fire, Radiohead, Wilco, Modest Mouse or OutKast.

"Do you think that everyone who likes good stuff nowadays just has bad taste? Because if thats what you think then I am personally quite offended, and many others would be as well."

I'm not totally sure what you meant by that..

"I don't like this generation's music because it's just crap".
I like this generations music, so therefore I like crap music. Thanks man.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

"I don't like this generation's music because it's just crap".
I like this generations music, so therefore I like crap music. Thanks man.

I realized that was a bit harsh a while ago... I already removed it from post.

 

[Littaly]

the people that thought rock n roll would be the end of music, because they grew up listening to swing jazz?

Actually, it's even worse than that. The people who grew up on swing jazz got upset about bebop. So yeah, there was a time when the most radical thing you could listen to was more jazz.

Anyway, I think this sums it up pretty well

I think the big issue is that you can listen to a classic rock station for some great music, and basically everything on a classic rock station has already been stamped for approval, but if you listened to rock 30 years ago, you would be hearing the terrible songs too and people forget that.

The best of today's music stacks up just as well to the best of yesterday's music. You just can't compare a crappy cash in teen sob song to some of the the greatest rock n roll ever made and think that's a valid comparison for time periods.

Today's popular music isn't necessarily better or worse than yesterday's popular music, it's just that we're in the middle of it.

 

[kloiberin_time]

Every genre has crap, every genre has gold. The problem is exposure. Since most radio stations (in the US at least) are owned by a hand full of companies we only hear what those companies decide to play, and they only play what will make them millions or what they think will make them millions.

My niche happens to be alternative. In the past decade we have had new albums by Radiohead, Depeche Mode, Wilco, Ben Folds, Muse, etc. ad nauseum. How much play do those get? What single came off of "The King of Limbs" "In Rainbows" or even "Hail to the Thief?" How many albums, EPs, LPs and collaborations did Ben Folds release between the singles "Rockin' the Suburbs" and "You Don't Know Me?" How much airtime does SoaD get besides things of "Toxicity?"

The music is out there, and it is not hard to access. We just need to find it in the sea of media.

 

[the Dept of Science]

Or maybe I'm just annoyed that Nirvana's huge success killed classic styled rock for almost 20 years? If you'll notice, Wolfmother sounds a lot like Led Zepplin. Had Nirvana not been so popular that it pushed the kind of rock that actually requires the musicians to know their way around an instrument out of the picture for most of my life, I wouldn't hate them so much. As it stands, I fail to see how someone who likes non-punk based rock could listen to Nirvana and go "you know, I like what they did for the music industry."

Except for the fact that the style of rock that Nirvana killed was 80s glam rock/hair metal. Metal still had a following in the 90s, its just there were less people baring out Motley Crue.
That style of music had grown pretty stagnant over the years anyways, whereas Nirvana gave a way for more fresh bands with good ideas to get some popularity.

Also, Nirvana didn't come out of a vacuum, they were the result of movement that was boiling for pretty much all the 80s, a slowly built up network of bands, labels and fans. So if you gonna hate Nirvana, don't forget to hate Black Flag, Sonic Youth, Fugazi, Beat Happening, Mudhoney, Mission of Burma, R.E.M. etc. as well.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Or maybe I'm just annoyed that Nirvana's huge success killed classic styled rock for almost 20 years? If you'll notice, Wolfmother sounds a lot like Led Zepplin. Had Nirvana not been so popular that it pushed the kind of rock that actually requires the musicians to know their way around an instrument out of the picture for most of my life, I wouldn't hate them so much. As it stands, I fail to see how someone who likes non-punk based rock could listen to Nirvana and go "you know, I like what they did for the music industry."

Except for the fact that the style of rock that Nirvana killed was 80s glam rock/hair metal. Metal still had a following in the 90s, its just there were less people baring out Motley Crue.
That style of music had grown pretty stagnant over the years anyways, whereas Nirvana gave a way for more fresh bands with good ideas to get some popularity.

Also, Nirvana didn't come out of a vacuum, they were the result of movement that was boiling for pretty much all the 80s, a slowly built up network of bands, labels and fans. So if you gonna hate Nirvana, don't forget to hate Black Flag, Sonic Youth, Fugazi, Beat Happening, Mudhoney, Mission of Burma, R.E.M. etc. as well.

It doesn't take away the sting of two decades of music which sucked much harder than any glam rock band. The entire purpose of both punk and grunge were to make it so that people who weren't exceptionally skilled musicians could make it in the industry. As a musician and a music fan, I have a problem with that; if you're going to go pro, you should know how to play your instrument. Just hammering out some power chords in a manner that anyone who has been playing for six months to a year can pull off doesn't cut it.

Edit: And yes, they killed more than just glam rock. Metal (aside from hair metal) was completely separate from rock by then, and has always been somewhat self contained. However, when you look at the music of the past two decades, it all goes back to grunge and its attempt at removing skill from the rock equation. Grunge, like punk before it, proved that it doesn't take musical skill to play a hit song. This led to the crap pile that was mainstream rock in the 90s and most of the 2000s.

 

[the Dept of Science]

-snip-

Except for the fact that the style of rock that Nirvana killed was 80s glam rock/hair metal. Metal still had a following in the 90s, its just there were less people baring out Motley Crue.
That style of music had grown pretty stagnant over the years anyways, whereas Nirvana gave a way for more fresh bands with good ideas to get some popularity.

Also, Nirvana didn't come out of a vacuum, they were the result of movement that was boiling for pretty much all the 80s, a slowly built up network of bands, labels and fans. So if you gonna hate Nirvana, don't forget to hate Black Flag, Sonic Youth, Fugazi, Beat Happening, Mudhoney, Mission of Burma, R.E.M. etc. as well.

It doesn't take away the sting of two decades of music which sucked much harder than any glam rock band. The entire purpose of both punk and grunge were to make it so that people who weren't exceptionally skilled musicians could make it in the industry. As a musician and a music fan, I have a problem with that; if you're going to go pro, you should know how to play your instrument. Just hammering out some power chords in a manner that anyone who has been playing for six months to a year can pull off doesn't cut it.

Edit: And yes, they killed more than just glam rock. Metal was completely separate from rock by then, and has always been somewhat self contained. However, when you look at the music of the past two decades, it all goes back to grunge and its attempt at removing skill from the rock equation. Grunge, like punk before it, proved that it doesn't take musical skill to play a hit song. This led to the crap pile that was mainstream rock in the 90s and most of the 2000s.

Oh, because if you are a musician or a "music fan", then you should have a problem with punk rock?

They may not have had so much technical skill but that only counts for so much. Alternative music has is generally way more interesting than standard rock. Most glam rock bands were just being like the Stones or the New York Dolls, just not as good. That stuff had been done before, better. The alternative movement had everything from twee pop to noise rock; it took influences from everything from classic rock and pop to modern classical and world music.

Its not even true that they were technically unskilled. Listen to Dinosaur Jr, J Mascis knows how to play a solo good as anyone else, or Built to Spill.
Just because they aren't like "hey man, look a Van Halen double tappy twiddly diddly doo" doesn't mean that they aren't good musicians.

 

[iDoom46]

While I agree with the theory, I think perhaps that a lot of modern music is not produced out of a desire to expression one's self emotionally, but out a desire to be filthy stinking rich and 'famous'. A lot of the good music you list above was written by the musicians and produced without the aid of autotuning; furthermore, at the time it wasn't backed by rich producing studios that want to manufacture homogenous 'music', but by a group of people who wanted to do something rebellious and expressive (which gives it a status as art, as opposed to a money making gimmic).

Perhaps I am being overly cynical, and I imagine that in the future a lot of this stuff may be remembered a ground-breaking music. But I hope not.

Regarding talent, I do love listening to a bunch of people who know how to make their instruments sing. However, I personally find music without being able to evoke anything beyond " he/she's talented" to be rather boring. I would take meaningful or playful over talented any day.

You've pretty much outlined my entire opinion on this topic.

From my standpoint, a lot of today's music lacks any real soul. When I listen to older music, I almost always get a sense that the artists were trying to put real meaning into their songs. Some songs were about telling a story, sometimes they had a lesson hidden within them. They would deconstruct the world around them, find the meaning, and then put it back together in a song that would act as a mirror to the world as the artist saw it.

Other songs were about expressing the complications of the human condition. Artists would try to capture pure, raw emotion in their songs, or write their songs in a way as to evoke an emotional response from the audience. They would try to understand what "makes us tick", what makes us human. They would take concepts and ideas that people had at the time and ask "Why? Why do we think this way?" and, in turn, try to get the listener to ask the same thing of themselves.

Today's music feels more sterile, more homogenized. Most music I hear on the radio these days is nothing but sappy love songs that have been done a million times over, or about partying, sex, drugs, violence, greed, and (a trend I've been seeing recently) being famous. While it was shocking for artists to do those songs in the past, because they had never been done before, now you hear it all the time because everybody is doing it, which is not the point. Now it just sounds like they're bragging (or doing some wishful-thinking out-loud) about their decadent lifestyle.

Plus, the songs are designed to be catchy and get stuck in the listeners head. They play it safe with the lyrics to not step on any toes and reach the widest audience possible. The songs pander to their specific audiences, rather than challenging their way of thinking or trying to broaden their horizons.
That isn't art, its science.

And it doesn't help pop-music's argument that most of the most popular songs for the past two or three decades have all been written by a single man.

 

[warthoggunner]

I like old and new music.

But mostly stuff none of you have probably ever heard of.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

-snip-

Except for the fact that the style of rock that Nirvana killed was 80s glam rock/hair metal. Metal still had a following in the 90s, its just there were less people baring out Motley Crue.
That style of music had grown pretty stagnant over the years anyways, whereas Nirvana gave a way for more fresh bands with good ideas to get some popularity.

Also, Nirvana didn't come out of a vacuum, they were the result of movement that was boiling for pretty much all the 80s, a slowly built up network of bands, labels and fans. So if you gonna hate Nirvana, don't forget to hate Black Flag, Sonic Youth, Fugazi, Beat Happening, Mudhoney, Mission of Burma, R.E.M. etc. as well.

It doesn't take away the sting of two decades of music which sucked much harder than any glam rock band. The entire purpose of both punk and grunge were to make it so that people who weren't exceptionally skilled musicians could make it in the industry. As a musician and a music fan, I have a problem with that; if you're going to go pro, you should know how to play your instrument. Just hammering out some power chords in a manner that anyone who has been playing for six months to a year can pull off doesn't cut it.

Edit: And yes, they killed more than just glam rock. Metal was completely separate from rock by then, and has always been somewhat self contained. However, when you look at the music of the past two decades, it all goes back to grunge and its attempt at removing skill from the rock equation. Grunge, like punk before it, proved that it doesn't take musical skill to play a hit song. This led to the crap pile that was mainstream rock in the 90s and most of the 2000s.

Oh, because if you are a musician or a "music fan", then you should have a problem with punk rock?

They may not have had so much technical skill but that only counts for so much. Alternative music has is generally way more interesting than standard rock. Most glam rock bands were just being like the Stones or the New York Dolls, just not as good. That stuff had been done before, better. The alternative movement had everything from twee pop to noise rock; it took influences from everything from classic rock and pop to modern classical and world music.

Its not even true that they were technically unskilled. Listen to Dinosaur Jr, J Mascis knows how to play a solo good as anyone else, or Built to Spill.
Just because they aren't like "hey man, look a Van Halen double tappy twiddly diddly doo" doesn't mean that they aren't good musicians.

It takes a certain amount of technical skill to be a good musician. No, you don't have to go in for shred-based guitar wankery, but to be a good musician, you do have to know what you're doing. There is a certain amount of foundational knowledge that the punk based genres do away with, and it's hard to call them good musicians without it. Looking up Dinosaur Jr., they seem to have that base level. Nirvana and the majority of their descendants? not so much.

 

[eternal-chaplain]

Unfortunately, with the low cost of production, music has become a low-risk industry

Oh, how I laughed.

Music is a higher-risk industry than ever before, and when you look at the success/failure ratio, one of the highest risk industries there is. Sure, it's easy enough to make music now, but to be part of the music industry? I can't think of any other industry with a greater failure/dropout/oops-I-ruined-my-life ratio with the possible exception of acting. Just going on percentages of the total, I certainly know more dead/permanently handicapped/mentally scarred/living in a world of complete delusion musicians than soldiers, police or firemen.

I am speaking strictly in terms of economics. Compared to any number of decades ago, music is becoming much cheaper to make with some bands becoming completely digital and releasing music strictly online to cut the cost of compact disks (which aren't very expensive anyways compared to the vinyls music used to made on). I am not at all saying you are not risking time, one can certainly waste a lot of time on music that will never be popular, but now, remember my Lady Gaga example: anybody could make an album cover as crappy as that, the same goes for most modern music videos which are now mostly about the artists as compared to twenty years ago when music videos were nearly at their zenith and the ratio of art to artist was in a beautiful 5 to 1 proportion.

So music for you is about what art is on the front cover, and the images in the music video, not the music itself?

Hardly, that's just the more risky aspect in terms of money (encompassing distribution as well). The actual art of the music doesn't cost anything, you just think and write and compose that, recording is cheap and everything else doesn't cost much at all because people avoid investing more than the minimum in it. The fact of the matter is, distribution of music is becoming the most expensive part.