So bands are over (for now)?

There's more reasons than Rick Beato noted...

In terms of popular music, bands are over.

Everything in the 2020s is about solo artists and songs. And this has been observed and charted for a while now; we didn't need Rick Beato to confirm it for us (following Richard Osman's lead); the writing was on the wall after Grunge and boybands fizzled out.

Mind you, old bands still make a dent on total monthly listeners and plays. Queen, The Beatles, Nirvana… nostalgia & legacy acts can make serious dollars on tour. But bands as a model for musical craft and success is done with. For now.

And as with all modern problems, there's a tapestry of reasons to explain why; an intersection of culture and economics.

Rick points to these:

• the difficulty of being in a band (egos)

• bands play in genres that aren't popular right now (shifting tastes)

• the number of songwriters expected to be involved

• and the technology of recording.

There's probably a host of additional reasons:

• the peak Band Era was the 60s: that concept-model of making music doesn't really hold any more

• the romance of bands (a bunch of misfits against the world etc) is archaic and corny

• songs are released singly and serially, not focused on albums (hence playlists over band experiences). In the content era, all culture is flattened to its lowest common denominators, which in music is songs

• touring is now ridiculously expensive (and monopolised by LiveNation); only the biggest drawcards break even

• the economics of music have shifted radically; the sustainability of being in a band likewise

• everyone wants the attention pie (and dollars) for themselves, hence going solo etc.

If I had to point to a connective ringleader in the above, the core reason connecting the others, I'd say Technology broadly. On the small scale, in terms of how easy it is to produce and share high quality music; on the larger scale, how screens and Spotify have changed the consumption of music. Which then affects income and viability. So that success means streams and visibility, not hard units sold and bums on seats and uncanny craft. New technology for old; and bands are old.

A solo artist is a more compact economic & creative unit. Because it's about songs (singly, repeatedly). All they need is a producer (or several) and/or decent songwriters and/or similar collaborators/musicians etc. Fewer people on the payroll, greater agility and output, right. And a pickup band if you go touring.

But that's also part of the problem right there. There's no true "solo" artists: they're all dependent on collaborators.

Billie Eilish is really a duo. Harry Styles is the front for a gang of producers and writers. Morgan Wallen depends on session musos and multiple co-writers & producers.

[Related thought: Marvin Gaye produced the ultimate solo-collaborative album. There'd be no What's Going On without David Van De Pitte, various co-writers, James Jamerson, the rest of the Funk Brothers and multiple players, engineers etc. So really there is no 'solo' artist.]

A band on the other hand, is a pre-formed collaboration unit. Yes they depend on producers too, but maybe here's the rub in all this: it's about creative decision-making and efficiency:

• A band can make quick artistic decisions when writing and recording. They just need(ed) a producer and engineers to facilitate access to studio technology. But it's a reliable creative unit. Need a quick drum loop or serious fills? Sit Ringo down. Need a guitar solo? Ready, Paul.

• Whereas the current solo artists have access to great technology, but they depend on producers and songwriting collaborators to help facilitate artistic decisions. It's a different team model, a different production model, but with a single figurehead.

Technology and people. The storefront changes, but I'm willing to bet the average number of people involved in creating a pop song (whether band or solo) is roughly the same.

For live music, which will always be the crucible for serious performance craft, this means it's a great time for backing musicians. But the magic and depth of live interplay only comes with seasoned bands, the players who've lived in a van and steadily built a level of musicianship that's greater than its parts, and has more heft and humanity than a produced pop act.

And plus: we're just talking about popular music and chart hits. We're not talking about independent bands, indie-level success and below. And we're not talking about jazz, non-Western ensembles, hybrid performance acts, folk music etc. Bands will become popular again, it's inevitable; but they might have to put a bit of work into building new genres and styles, new movements and communities. They have to drive change if they want to break into the charts again.

Endnote

The dark backing lining music today is the fact that everything is content. Music is marketed and shared as content, it's consumed as content, and measured as content. Which is sad and depressing in all sorts of ways, and pushes the kind of metrics-driven music that's all about virality and plays as opposed to feels and substance.

My music production teacher noted how many of his students (aged mostly 17-25):

...prefer listening to music from the 'old' days... they're into 'grunge' (the last great revolution in music). Just last week alone I saw students wearing Smashing Pumpkins, Dinosaur Jr and Radiohead T-shirts. Perhaps this is a clue as to what made music real and how our current generation are not being fooled.

Yes, they're all bands. But what does that say? These bands peaked before music was merely 'content'; it was about feelings, vibe and creative expression and identification. Heart and soul, if you will. A connection to craft and the product. Substance.

Now you can respond to solo acts in the same way - identity and expression. But I wonder if the substance and craft of modern pop acts is as rich or humane...

Maybe 'bands' just implies a smaller, more concentrated audience. Think: Radiohead.

To my mind there will always be room for another Can, Funkadelic or Khruangbin.

[Are these lazy Gen X conclusions, vaguely nostalgic callbacks to youth? Let me know below.]

---

More thoughts on the current and future state of music: