"The music lover doesn't have much of a choice. We either buy the music that is presented to us or give up listening to it."
Music lover? I think a very limited amount of the music I listen to these days has been 'presented' to me. I found it through friends, through the net, through a million and one places. But rarely the radio, TV, advertising or other mass market strategies. So quite frankly, that is nonsense. To me a music 'lover' would be somebody who finds out about new music without needing for it to be presented to them.
The assumption that bands sounding like other bands is a bad thing is rubbish as well. Without some form of homogeneity scenes wouldn't exist. Northern Soul, Motown, Staxx, Blues etc. Punk. Techno. Drum and Bass. Goth. You name it. In fact, it is often more damaging when bands are berated for sounding similar, esp when that scene has only a few figurehead bands. Take goth for example, how many upcoming bands never got beyond 'Level 1' because they were mercilessly ravaged for sounding a "bit like the Sisters" or Cure or Nephs by some useless hack after a cheap pot-shot? Does all metal sound like Black Sabbath? Or ACDC? Led Zeppelin? Do all industrial guitar bands sound a bit like NIN or Ministry? Undoubtedly you could look in from an observers point of view and say they do. But if you look at the industrial scene there are many many bands all with unique points but with a similar overall sound that if they broke through into the public conciousness could be compared to a bigger name band. Trip hop...everyone sounded like Portishead, regardless of whether they did or not. As a result the trip-hop scene was built up and crushed in a very very short space of time.
Markovian processes? This of course implies that an 'extinct' band no longer has any influence over the gene pool of new music which is quite clearly untrue. Nor does an artist necessarily have a direct anticedant within music. A million and one things could influence an artist, not least of which is other music, but it isn't the sole influence either. Punk was more driven by a disaffected population than any direct musical precident.
"In conclusion then, I think there has to be an acknowledgment by the people who sell the music that they play a significant role in determining the public's musical taste........ Thus, the industry, through a markovian evolutionary process, facilitates its own demise, and contributes to the progressive senility of our society. It is as much a truism in music, as in politics: If you offer the people nothing but mediocrity, you will create a mediocre people."
Yes, I agree that the music industry has a significant role in determining the publics musical taste. But it is not the be all and end all. Yes, it is guilty of creating 'superstars' and short term careers over long term investment in good music. But oddly enough, they are businesses. Anybody who believes that the upper end of the music industry these days has some kind of rose tinted love of music propelling them is insane. They are driven by profit and maximising those profits. In fact, for a company with shareholders it is illegal in the US not to do so.
Does that mean that 90% of music is homogenised crap? Absolutely, but has anything really changed? There are still good bands. There are still crap bands. Do most people listen to those crap bands? Yes. That is always going to happen. That is a normal distribution curve applied to a societies music tastes. In fact, that is society in a nutshell, most people ARE mediocre. They aren't all Mr or Mrs Average, but they certainly fit within the 'bell'.
I think that is utter rubbish! Well it was certinaly meant to provoke opinion.
I think what he means by presented is not so much given to you, but presented by the artist on that CD/record ie that music is how they have chosen to present their thoughts/ideas etc in that form. I don't think it has anything to do with how you get it whether that be by shop or friend.
This of course implies that an 'extinct' band no longer has any influence over the gene pool of new music which is quite clearly untrue.
A good point brought up by both you and Sunna [Hydra] which for some part I certainly agree with as some bands do take influence from musical acts from the past. However, I think his statement is true of a lot of todays acts because no matter what they state their influences are, they are only pushing their music to sound the same as what is currently around them, not what has come in the past. Whilst the following is a one-sided view, I find that almost every Hardcore band sounds almost exactly the same - there is nothing new going on.
They are driven by profit and maximising those profits. In fact, for a company with shareholders it is illegal in the US not to do so.
That almost contradicts this I think:
Yes, I agree that the music industry has a significant role in determining the publics musical taste.
Because they are a business out to make a profit they are going to sell what they want which is why they already have countless numbers of boybands and pop acts lined up that we don't already know about. It's cheap and can be exploited easily in order to maximise a profit and when one act has lost its charm another one exactly the same is thrown out and because it has different and cuter members is taken in with open arms.
A great many people are driven by fashion and the latest fad - who do you think tells them what fashion is? It's certainly not them. Tell them something is fashionable and they'll do, wear or listen to it. Remember that not everyone is like you or I.
Whilst I agree that there are definately still some good bands out there (otherwise I'd have a non-existant CD and mp3 collection) I don't particularly think there are a great many innovators at the moment.
"I think there has to be an acknowledgment by the people who sell the music that they play a significant role in determining the public's musical taste. By overlooking unique artists in the search for superstars, and by forsaking long- term development in lieu of instant one-hit wonders, industry executives actively winnow the choices of the musical styles and images that are presented to the public. "
I think what he is suggesting is more a push or pull scenario. Most people receive music by having it pushed upon them via media, marketing, promotional devices etc. A far smaller minority pull their music from wherever, those who actively search out music rather than waiting for it to be given to them (probably because they don't like what is on offer).
I'm pretty sure what he is refering to is that the music industry controls what is presented to the public. Remember, most of the people that make up the record buying public discover new music by having it pushed upon them. Now if the music industry pushed different music, ie: real music and not 'product' then his theory is that people would buy that too. It is known fact that people are more likely to like (and purchase) something they have a familiarity with, that familiarity being forced upon them. But what happens is that record labels reduce their risks by pushing similar product to that which they know sells well so we end up with generic/forumlaic music swamping the marketplace.
"The music lover doesn't have much of a choice. We either buy the music that is presented to us or give up listening to it."
Music lover? I think a very limited amount of the music I listen to these days has been 'presented' to me. I found it through friends, through the net, through a million and one places. But rarely the radio, TV, advertising or other mass market strategies. So quite frankly, that is nonsense. To me a music 'lover' would be somebody who finds out about new music without needing for it to be presented to them.
The assumption that bands sounding like other bands is a bad thing is rubbish as well. Without some form of homogeneity scenes wouldn't exist. Northern Soul, Motown, Staxx, Blues etc. Punk. Techno. Drum and Bass. Goth. You name it. In fact, it is often more damaging when bands are berated for sounding similar, esp when that scene has only a few figurehead bands. Take goth for example, how many upcoming bands never got beyond 'Level 1' because they were mercilessly ravaged for sounding a "bit like the Sisters" or Cure or Nephs by some useless hack after a cheap pot-shot? Does all metal sound like Black Sabbath? Or ACDC? Led Zeppelin? Do all industrial guitar bands sound a bit like NIN or Ministry? Undoubtedly you could look in from an observers point of view and say they do. But if you look at the industrial scene there are many many bands all with unique points but with a similar overall sound that if they broke through into the public conciousness could be compared to a bigger name band. Trip hop...everyone sounded like Portishead, regardless of whether they did or not. As a result the trip-hop scene was built up and crushed in a very very short space of time.
Markovian processes? This of course implies that an 'extinct' band no longer has any influence over the gene pool of new music which is quite clearly untrue. Nor does an artist necessarily have a direct anticedant within music. A million and one things could influence an artist, not least of which is other music, but it isn't the sole influence either. Punk was more driven by a disaffected population than any direct musical precident.
"In conclusion then, I think there has to be an acknowledgment by the people
who sell the music that they play a significant role in determining the
public's musical taste........ Thus, the industry, through a markovian evolutionary process, facilitates its own demise, and contributes to the progressive senility of our society. It is as much a truism in music, as in politics: If you offer the people nothing but mediocrity, you will create a mediocre people."
Yes, I agree that the music industry has a significant role in determining the publics musical taste. But it is not the be all and end all. Yes, it is guilty of creating 'superstars' and short term careers over long term investment in good music. But oddly enough, they are businesses. Anybody who believes that the upper end of the music industry these days has some kind of rose tinted love of music propelling them is insane. They are driven by profit and maximising those profits. In fact, for a company with shareholders it is illegal in the US not to do so.
Does that mean that 90% of music is homogenised crap? Absolutely, but has anything really changed? There are still good bands. There are still crap bands. Do most people listen to those crap bands? Yes. That is always going to happen. That is a normal distribution curve applied to a societies music tastes. In fact, that is society in a nutshell, most people ARE mediocre. They aren't all Mr or Mrs Average, but they certainly fit within the 'bell'.
Reply
Well it was certinaly meant to provoke opinion.
I think what he means by presented is not so much given to you, but presented by the artist on that CD/record ie that music is how they have chosen to present their thoughts/ideas etc in that form. I don't think it has anything to do with how you get it whether that be by shop or friend.
This of course implies that an 'extinct' band no longer has any influence over the gene pool of new music which is quite clearly untrue.
A good point brought up by both you and Sunna [Hydra] which for some part I certainly agree with as some bands do take influence from musical acts from the past. However, I think his statement is true of a lot of todays acts because no matter what they state their influences are, they are only pushing their music to sound the same as what is currently around them, not what has come in the past. Whilst the following is a one-sided view, I find that almost every Hardcore band sounds almost exactly the same - there is nothing new going on.
They are driven by profit and maximising those profits. In fact, for a company with shareholders it is illegal in the US not to do so.
That almost contradicts this I think:
Yes, I agree that the music industry has a significant role in determining the publics musical taste.
Because they are a business out to make a profit they are going to sell what they want which is why they already have countless numbers of boybands and pop acts lined up that we don't already know about. It's cheap and can be exploited easily in order to maximise a profit and when one act has lost its charm another one exactly the same is thrown out and because it has different and cuter members is taken in with open arms.
A great many people are driven by fashion and the latest fad - who do you think tells them what fashion is? It's certainly not them. Tell them something is fashionable and they'll do, wear or listen to it. Remember that not everyone is like you or I.
Whilst I agree that there are definately still some good bands out there (otherwise I'd have a non-existant CD and mp3 collection) I don't particularly think there are a great many innovators at the moment.
Reply
"I think there has to be an acknowledgment by the people
who sell the music that they play a significant role in determining the
public's musical taste. By overlooking unique artists in the search for
superstars, and by forsaking long- term development in lieu of instant
one-hit wonders, industry executives actively winnow the choices of the
musical styles and images that are presented to the public. "
I think what he is suggesting is more a push or pull scenario. Most people receive music by having it pushed upon them via media, marketing, promotional devices etc. A far smaller minority pull their music from wherever, those who actively search out music rather than waiting for it to be given to them (probably because they don't like what is on offer).
I'm pretty sure what he is refering to is that the music industry controls what is presented to the public. Remember, most of the people that make up the record buying public discover new music by having it pushed upon them. Now if the music industry pushed different music, ie: real music and not 'product' then his theory is that people would buy that too. It is known fact that people are more likely to like (and purchase) something they have a familiarity with, that familiarity being forced upon them. But what happens is that record labels reduce their risks by pushing similar product to that which they know sells well so we end up with generic/forumlaic music swamping the marketplace.
Reply
OK I'm a fucking idiot, I misread that as don't agree. Apologies.
Reply
Leave a comment