Do you have taste in music?

[isitatomic]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

However, musicians mostly make music as a job, and as most consumers are 12 year old girls, the evolution of pop. It's kind of like artistic Idiocracy.

I could start writing a tome in response to this having been engaged academically/personally/socially with the topic, though not so appropriate here. I'll do my best to simply and briefly disagree (hah).

Here:

"Music as career" has indeed, loosely and generally speaking, always been the case historically, though along with the other arts it was pretty much a practice driven by more primary factors, say, you were born into it (gypsies, castes, etc). Performance is tied to social role, spirituality, etc. Accumulated wealth was consequential. That dynamic still exists in some respects, most akin to forms of folk music.

This, however, is where it gets more complicated. Folk music in that sense cannot be consumed (key word of yours btw) by an audience of any considerable size, so... yep, you have to record it. The paradox: accessibility, variety, exposure and the like increase; while the ability to package and distribute (and we all know that commodification leads to alienation!) goes up as well.

Now your evolution of pop takes the stage (lawl). Without audio recording and the creation/marketing of genres, pop music doesn't exist. A few things first though - Most consumers are definitely not 12 year old girls, BUT kids ARE the most impressionable audience. The receipt from each box of Fruit Loops and Jonas Brothers album is nestled inside a parent's wallet, so yeah there is a special focus on them. That's kind of beside the point though, as marketers have crafted oodles of terms and price-tags for EVERYONE and EVERYTHING imaginable. Chalking up the creation of popular music to teenagers driving tendentiously paycheck-seeking musicians is a bit of a dead end, especially given that "teenagers" didn't even exist until marketing execs created them. It also ignores cases like the inception of punk, or even the entire underground music scene of a nation like China, where seeking wide distribution (or "selling out") is not only faux pas, it's not even a viable job option because the "market hasn't yet matured." There is no paycheck to seek.

There's that saying, "You can't call yourself a musician/actor/artist until you get PAID to do it." I can't prove it, but I'd bet all of my jaw harps on the argument that this gained currency *after* the marketing of recorded media.

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad

Most people listen to music for entertainment. Musical appreciation is what you're talking about, and that is generally reserved for musicians themselves or people who give a shit.

Absolutely, but the whole radical and disproportionate division between populations of appreciators and entertainment-seekers came about for the reasons mentioned above. Reifying a dichotomy that registers as flaming BS to us is counterintuitive!

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by isitatomic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"Music as career" has indeed, loosely and generally speaking, always been the case historically, though along with the other arts it was pretty much a practice driven by more primary factors, say, you were born into it (gypsies, castes, etc). Performance is tied to social role, spirituality, etc. Accumulated wealth was consequential. That dynamic still exists in some respects, most akin to forms of folk music.

Well, don't get me wrong, there are millions of amateur musicians in every country of the world who do it for the love. However, I was referring more to those bands who get exposure to a broader crowd. 99% of those people are in it for the biz.

Originally Posted by isitatomic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This, however, is where it gets more complicated. Folk music in that sense cannot be consumed (key word of yours btw) by an audience of any considerable size, so... yep, you have to record it. The paradox: accessibility, variety, exposure and the like increase; while the ability to package and distribute (and we all know that commodification leads to alienation!) goes up as well.

The interwebz is doing a good job at forcing change to the model. More amateurs are now able to get their music out. They've always been able to, but the record corps have been forcing them out of the game for some decades now. Something had to give, eh?

Originally Posted by isitatomic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Now your evolution of pop takes the stage (lawl). Without audio recording and the creation/marketing of genres, pop music doesn't exist.

Disagree. See: patrons of the arts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage

Originally Posted by isitatomic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A few things first though - Most consumers are definitely not 12 year old girls

Bullshit. Go look at any reliable source of demographics for who consumes the most albums. Go look at what bands sell the most records across the world. It's all teeny bop bullshit dude. I have some education in this subject, and I can definitely assure you that even some of the "harder" bands out there cater their music to a teeny-bop audience.

Originally Posted by isitatomic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

BUT kids ARE the most impressionable audience. The receipt from each box of Fruit Loops and Jonas Brothers album is nestled inside a parent's wallet, so yeah there is a special focus on them. That's kind of beside the point though, as marketers have crafted oodles of terms and price-tags for EVERYONE and EVERYTHING imaginable. Chalking up the creation of popular music to teenagers driving tendentiously paycheck-seeking musicians is a bit of a dead end, especially given that "teenagers" didn't even exist until marketing execs created them.

Regardless of where they came from, the result is the same. Propaganda-laden advertisements loosely couched as music, aimed at opening mommies purse.

Originally Posted by isitatomic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It also ignores cases like the inception of punk, or even the entire underground music scene of a nation like China, where seeking wide distribution (or "selling out") is not only faux pas, it's not even a viable job option because the "market hasn't yet matured."

For sure there have been some great underground artists that have made it in spite of the system, such as The Offspring. Taking that example one step further however, you can listen to their music pre-label and post-label and clearly see that they started making records for young girls. Young girls rule the world dude. Daddy spoils them, their boyfriends spoil them, etc. I can't believe I even need to argue this, it's like you're ignoring a pink elephant in the room with us and talking about the weather.

Originally Posted by isitatomic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There is no paycheck to seek.

There is always a paycheck dude. Even if it's not in front of you. I'm not trying to discount amateurs who do it for the love, please don't get me wrong. ..but people in China know who NSync is, and I guarantee you that for every underground band coming out with dope shit on their own, there are a dozen chinese boy bands who are trying to use the same model to get ahead in life.

Originally Posted by isitatomic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There's that saying, "You can't call yourself a musician/actor/artist until you get PAID to do it." I can't prove it, but I'd bet all of my jaw harps on the argument that this gained currency *after* the marketing of recorded media.

Disagree. See: patron of the arts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage

Originally Posted by isitatomic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Absolutely, but the whole radical and disproportionate division between populations of appreciators and entertainment-seekers came about for the reasons mentioned above. Reifying a dichotomy that registers as flaming BS to us is counterintuitive!

Disagree. Concert halls have always been filled with a large amount of revellers out to show off their style/cash/women, and to drink and have a good time. Likewise, pubs have always been full of dancers/revelers/drinkers who don't really give a shit about the skill of the musicians playing for a couple coppers. There have always been true appreciators of skill, but these have ALWAYS been far outweighed by people who enjoy music for the atmosphere and a chance at grabbing some ass.

[isitatomic]

This is delayed a bit. I've been... uhh... preoccupied with something else.

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The interwebz is doing a good job at forcing change to the model. More amateurs are now able to get their music out. They've always been able to, but the record corps have been forcing them out of the game for some decades now. Something had to give, eh?

I really like this idea, but people I talk to and things that I've read generally signal the exact opposite. Means that have cropped up throughout the supernetz for exposing your musical talents (or lack thereof) to the world are, as I understand it, to be avoided like the plague. Putting your ballads up on Myspace Music or some such is an awesome way to be totally ignored. The incentive to hit the road and craft a unique performance has gone up quite a bit. *shrug*

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Disagree. See: patrons of the arts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage

Wha? If you're saying pop music is very old, I'd say you're making a no-no that my Asian Civilization prof would go nuts over: Projecting into history. Pop music didn't exist until something was actually called "Pop music". Patronage is something more akin the National Endowment for the Arts, which in fact is probably more likely to fund Alvin Lucien making music using a long wire suspended inside of a cathedral than it is to fund John Mayer's new hit single.

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Bullshit. Go look at any reliable source of demographics for who consumes the most albums. Go look at what bands sell the most records across the world. It's all teeny bop bullshit dude. I have some education in this subject, and I can definitely assure you that even some of the "harder" bands out there cater their music to a teeny-bop audience.

Going to have to counter-bullshit this bullshit. Maybe you looked at the Billboard ratings and noticed that within the last decade the groups for tweens have started to claim the charts. That's not the entire picture, though:

consumers over 45 accounted for 25% of music sales last year, more than twice the share of any other age group, and up from 15% a decade ago.

three-quarters of digital music buyers are age 25 and older

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

..but people in China know who NSync is, and I guarantee you that for every underground band coming out with dope shit on their own, there are a dozen chinese boy bands who are trying to use the same model to get ahead in life.

The last part is certainly true, but nobody really knows who NSync is. Imported media comes in through a miniscule heavily regulated tube. Backstreet Boys from the US and Westlife from Europe. There are guys in their twenties who have totally legit (fully heterosexual) love for both of those groups, I shit you not.

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Disagree. See: patron of the arts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage

I see what you mean this time, but being a patron just meant you were a sort of paid political mouthpiece for a specific elite audience, it didn't mean that everyone else played for free (though some surely did). It's similar but different in at least one major aspect: patron artists sold out for an elite audience, while pop artists sell out for the masses. Flip flop!

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Disagree. Concert halls have always been filled with a large amount of revellers out to show off their style/cash/women, and to drink and have a good time. Likewise, pubs have always been full of dancers/revelers/drinkers who don't really give a shit about the skill of the musicians playing for a couple coppers. There have always been true appreciators of skill, but these have ALWAYS been far outweighed by people who enjoy music for the atmosphere and a chance at grabbing some ass.

I like this paragraph the most, maybe I just wasn't concise enough. Limiting folks to two groups sounds like one of them "false dichotomies", and however many groups you can think up I don't believe they are mutually exclusive, even if it appears so today more than ever.

*whew*

And without further ado: Techniques in Advanced Dance with Tom & Whoever This Kid Is

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by isitatomic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is delayed a bit. I've been... uhh... preoccupied with something else.

elloellin!

Originally Posted by isitatomic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I really like this idea, but people I talk to and things that I've read generally signal the exact opposite. Means that have cropped up throughout the supernetz for exposing your musical talents (or lack thereof) to the world are, as I understand it, to be avoided like the plague. Putting your ballads up on Myspace Music or some such is an awesome way to be totally ignored. The incentive to hit the road and craft a unique performance has gone up quite a bit. *shrug*

See: Die Antwoord

Originally Posted by isitatomic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wha? If you're saying pop music is very old, I'd say you're making a no-no that my Asian Civilization prof would go nuts over: Projecting into history. Pop music didn't exist until something was actually called "Pop music". Patronage is something more akin the National Endowment for the Arts, which in fact is probably more likely to fund Alvin Lucien making music using a long wire suspended inside of a cathedral than it is to fund John Mayer's new hit single.

Eh, I see what you mean, but I think you're sidestepping my point, which was that music was tailored for the audience, rather than being purely from the soul.

Originally Posted by isitatomic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Going to have to counter-bullshit this bullshit. Maybe you looked at the Billboard ratings and noticed that within the last decade the groups for tweens have started to claim the charts. That's not the entire picture, though:
consumers over 45 accounted for 25% of music sales last year, more than twice the share of any other age group, and up from 15% a decade ago.
three-quarters of digital music buyers are age 25 and older

Yeah.. Did you know that seventy three percent of all statistics are made up on the spot 93% of the time?
This trend started really with the Beatles, and really hasn't stopped since. All you have to do is examine the path of musical evolution to see the truth in that, but if you google REEEEEEAAAALLY hard, you can find out I'm on target that way too.

Originally Posted by isitatomic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The last part is certainly true, but nobody really knows who NSync is.

Thou shalt not argue semantics with me, sir! I see you!

Originally Posted by isitatomic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Imported media comes in through a miniscule heavily regulated tube. Backstreet Boys from the US and Westlife from Europe. There are guys in their twenties who have totally legit (fully heterosexual) love for both of those groups, I shit you not.

Those men are hiding something about themselves.

Originally Posted by isitatomic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I see what you mean this time, but being a patron just meant you were a sort of paid political mouthpiece for a specific elite audience, it didn't mean that everyone else played for free (though some surely did). It's similar but different in at least one major aspect: patron artists sold out for an elite audience, while pop artists sell out for the masses. Flip flop!

Difference noted. They do share a common thread, however.

Originally Posted by isitatomic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I like this paragraph the most, maybe I just wasn't concise enough. Limiting folks to two groups sounds like one of them "false dichotomies", and however many groups you can think up I don't believe they are mutually exclusive, even if it appears so today more than ever.

Eh, it's not an either or, it was 2 examples. ..and I've studied enough about "classical" and "folk" (not woody guthrie, but like irish folk music or gypsy music), to know that there is a HUGE difference in where they were coming from in both making and performing music, and the differences in the audiences. You sidestep a lot you slippery snake!

*whew*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVQukw8DkaY