Is the audience for popular music created by the music industry?

Roy Shuker argues ‘that the market for popular music recordings, and therefore the pop music audience itself are essentially created by the music industry’ and to some extent, I agree. Within today’s society, music is largely regarded as an economic product with record companies striving for maximum profits. Shuker claims that this has lead to homogenous music style, which shows little variation but will always ensure success. Specific trends within music styles however is not something, which can be predetermined and so one could argue this reduces the amount of homogenised music within mainstream culture. Audiences do highly depend on the music industry for their music consumption, however it is unrealistic to say styles are forced upon them.

When looking at both popular music artists and audiences it is clear that the music industry is a predominant influencing factor. The structure adopted by the industry always insures success for consumer and commodity.

NME review

For any indie snobs that regard themselves as too cool for school, NME offers a strong insight into the indie/alternative music scene. Seen as the figurehead within its genre, a certain superiority is maintained with the foreseeing of future artists, which are set to dominate the ‘NME stereo’. This mag immediately shunts out the weak and non-familiar and quickly redirects them back to like the likes of smash hits and other such delights. It raises the bar with its passion for both current and old school sounds, creating an insistent love affair for ‘genuine’ music fans. Its ‘involved’ writing form and ‘tell it as it is’ attitude connotates a style with substance approach, which anyone would find difficult to argue with. Finally with its mixture of artists reviews, gig-line up’s and quirky adverts, any self respecting indie enthusiast would be crazy not to regard NME as nothing less than the bible.

Can popular music achieve genuine political change?

Regarding the relationship between pop music and politics, it is obvious that specific context and events emphasises the reception and impact maintained within society, and I believe this to be extremely fickle concerning matters to inspire change.

Ultimately it seems that an artist needs to have a hypocritical stance in order to create a following and express viewpoints, which fundamentally conform to the hegemony of the music industry.

Don’t get me wrong, there have been numerous attempts made by artists, which raise ‘both consciousness about and funds for political causes’ (Shuker) such as ‘band aid’ which ‘proved to be more successful than any of those involved had anticipated.’ (Street) However you have to question whether it’s the music or self serving performers that influenced impact.

It seems that if something will evoke moral panic, then politicians will enforce change, if only to maintain a certain ideology within today’s culture.

Does the emergence of the digital download signal the end for the music industry?

The introduction of the digital download has profoundly changed the way in which people consume music. This has come as both a hindrance and a positive contributor to the impact of the music industry, where the consumer market determines profitability.

Although held negatively responsible, the phenomenon of Napster as a means of ‘sharing’ commercially produced and copyrighted music files, implied revolution due to its portable format and extensive variety. In some cases minority artists may not have received the same success and exposure without the aid of such software.

Despite the introduction of Itunes in 2003, its true success within the market came with the removal of DRM on songs, which ultimately encouraged consumers that the legal download was more appealing.

In conclusion it seems that when the industry was more willing to comply with the prevailing technology, that they were really able to dominate the market and regain their receding power.

What is world music?

The controversial relationship between 'local' and 'global' within popular music must be considered when defining 'world' music. ‘Local music’ is described as indigenous music, which is specific local surroundings, where as ‘global music’ in contrast sees major labels projecting talent to a global market and audience. It is from globalization that cultural imperialism has arisen, where prevailing nations influence dominant ideologies through certain marketing functions. This causes concern towards the seemingly homogenous music creating a threat to ingenious music types.

Peter Manuel’s ‘case of the Indian cassette’ argues against this opinion. His study found that with the introduction of the cassette, new independent markets encouraged diversity in available genres, to large amounts of people, and so weakened the mass monopoly created by predominant companies.

Ultimately global music corporation’s extensive control on information within the market means that any diverse music type can gain popularity with ease due to mass monopoly.

Is popular music a mass produced commodity or a genuine art form?

According to Adorno, ‘The popular music industry is an all consuming production line that churns out mass produced, inferior commodities.’ He believes that the structure of popular music is standardized and presents the ‘illusion of uniqueness’; something, which he declares, could never be applied to classical music and so automatically creates a hierarchy.

In response to Adorno’s viewpoint, Gendrum argues that ‘popular music privileges different criteria to European classical music’ so therefore this notion excludes the idea of inferiority within music, as there is difference on the focus of production.

Although popular music ‘accentuates similarity’, the way in which it is consumed is differentiated from other mass commodities. Just like other art forms, which emote individual expression, music can ultimately never be reproduced. Although many music artists may be seen as highly commercial, a song that someone has written, which expresses feeling, in my opinion conforms to an art form.

How useful is a production of culture perspective in understanding the birth of rock and roll?

When looking at the birth of rock and roll, Robert Peterson states ‘we cannot effectively understand culture unless we analyse in the context of the producers’. Peterson adopts six key features that contribute to the emergence of rock and roll, and these predominately focus upon economic factors of the time. These only concentrate upon industry related circumstances and the way in which they evolved together to create the opportunity for new music to be established. The understanding of this perspective is highly questioned however. The main flaw within Peterson’s concept means he does not actually address the music itself. His theory does not specify why rock and roll music maintained the success that it did and why it was regarded as it was. Personally I don’t believe that culture perspective can ultimately define the birth of rock and roll, and feel it is essential to combine social factors to its influence.

Is it reasonable to consider that rock music is male gendered?

Within the entire concept of rock music, it is obvious that there is a gender hierarchy, in which men are dominant. Female presence within this area has been minimal, with most performers being known as ‘singer songwriters’ showing emphysis on lyrics rather than instruments. Stereotypically when women are featured with guitars, only sexual connotations are implied and focused upon. This suggests that it is ‘necessary to become one of the boys’ (1) in order to be regarded as having a similar musical ability. Female audiences are also objectified in this way, with ‘language suggesting sexual subversion and male dominance’ (2) within music making. Some female performers have tried to break the mould by trying to use their sexuality to their advantage, however I think this further objectifies them in comparison to men, which shows little progression within the music scene. Just like their instruments, women will always be a novelty.

(1) Frith and McRobbie

(2) Amanda Sloat

Can popular music ever really be unplugged?

Technology is fundamental to our understanding of music and ultimately shapes the types and styles that can be created. Popular music could never achieve the same acknowledgment without the advances technology has offered. Recording and distribution, I personally think are the two biggest contributors, resulting from technology. The use of recording ultimately allows audiences to hear music in the first place and without this process, most popular music could never be established. Distribution furthermore alters the perception of music. Without the introduction of amplification, many common popular music types with specific sounds would not even be in existence and the accessibility of hearing these music types would be extremely limited, resulting in a small audience feedback. In order to be successful, popular music relies strongly upon large audiences and their consumption. Because of this I conclude, “Without electronic technology, popular music in the twenty first century is unthinkable” (Paul Théberge)

'What is popular music?'

It is difficult to give a precise definition as to what popular music is actually considered to be. The term ‘popular’ is coined as ‘from and of the people’ which automatically creates a hierarchy within its ‘common’ connotations. People may argue that because popular music is usually enjoyed by the masses, automatically it is pigeonholed into one specific music type. ‘Nessun Dorma’ sung by Pavarotti is one such example where something that was usually classed within a high music culture was regarded within a popular music status due to its connection with the 1990 world cup. This song entertained the masses however couldn’t be seen as going against high culture because it was a part of it. Popular music can be seen as a product from ‘music traditions, styles and influences’ (Shuker) and is ultimately determined by the values that society projects and is experiencing at the point of creation.