Reading various responses in regards to today's music, I think it is interesting to note how certain formulas have not really changed, and how categorization of these formulas compare to genre classifications. Consider the following: Eurocentric and Afrocentric Rural and urban Life events Emotion Politics Novelty (Humor) Eurocentric and Afrocentric: With all due respect to the new "Latino" sound that seems to be on the horizon, the music industry still seems to be focused on the "white" sound and the "black" sound. The distinction seems to persist: music produced in Nashville tends to be quite different from other major recording cities, i.e., country and Christian makes up most of the music produced. Rhythm and blues, hip- hop, jazz, and gospel seem to be much of the black sound. Rural and urban: This seems to fall along similar lines as above, perhaps due to the fact that many African-Americans tend to live in the city as opposed to the countryside. If the "Latino" sound continues to gain ground, however, I suspect that the distinction will not last, since "campesino" sounds such as norteno seem to be more rural than urban. This is a broader distinction regarding music of culture. In ancient times, I would say rural covered the music of the peasantry, and urban that of the nobles. Today, what is now termed country and folk would fall more into a rural classification, although even the landscape has changed so much, and reflects more mixing of people. The fact that rhythm and blues, hip-hop, jazz, gospel, "classical," country/folk, and western have all traded material or merged with one another, i.e., rock n roll, rock n rap, country & western (new country), folk rock, protest rock, etc., etc. seem to indicate mixing of cultures. Life events: This could be as easy as a distinction between youth music and adult contemporary, since the music industry and other media seem to be racing to have kids consume styles once reserved for teenagers, and to keep baby boomers (at least) fighting to remain as youthful an outlook as they deem tasteful. It has been noted that there is much less of a generation gap between youth and adult music, even as new youth bands sample styles of the era before. Perhaps some contents of the music remain constant; there will always be songs about love and love lost, coming of age, sexual maturity, family, and death. Therefore, I think it rather humorous that many folks deride teen pop bands, because it's a formula that has been used for decades, at least since the beginning of the baby boom after WWII, and perhaps even before. Boy bands, girl bands, and sometimes mixtures of both, have always been a staple. They will *never* go away.. regards to whomever wished that in another post. Emotion: This coincides somewhat with the last classification. There is the lusty young soul, the angry young man (and woman, as a recent variant), the dreamer, the fraternizer, and the pessimist. Most of these will fall into the youth music category, naturally, although the fraternizer often appears in rural music, such as country, which has only recently adopted youthful attitudes and still caters to a number of adults (see comparisons of baby boomers and Gen X and Y). Politics: Often the angry young man sings about politics, but I think there are quite a number of artists who are much more subtle in their expressions. Novelty (humor): It would be a shame if Weird Al Yankovic became the last parody artist of our time. For some odd reason, novelty and humorous songs are not the stuff for today's record producers. Even Dr. Demento, who gave Weird Al a promotional boost, no longer has a live show-- from what I understand, it is relegated simply to syndication. Up and coming musical humorists no longer seem to have much place in the industry, and even those who have success on the Dr.'s show just wind up on the Rhino label, which covers nostalgic material as well as recordings covering the show. Seattle radio voice talent Jock Blaney started a trend ten years ago that didn't last, unfortunately. In the band 2nu, songs such as "This is Ponderous," "Two Outta Three," and "Spaz Attack" featured straight- spoken vocals by Blaney, and were popular for a time. There were other artists that tried the style, but it soon ended after "This is Ponderous," the album of the same name, was repackaged, minus "She" and with additional new tracks. The repackage was a flop. "Two Outta Three" was redone for a local spa radio ad, and the new album was quickly in the bargain bins. Even the radio station that promoted Blaney's material, OK95, eventually switched formats from Top 40 to new country. Fashion had changed. This might be the awkward ramblings of a wanna-be musicologist, but I still think the implications are noteworthy. The music industry seems desperate to protect its assets, not just in the oft-discussed items here regarding digital music, but in the fact that the industry has been pushing young blood for quite a while now. My conclusion is not that pop is to blame, but that the industry has been overcultivating new and young acts much to the point that there is not enough time for the sound to mature in many instances. For example, take pop at first. As for boy bands, 'N Sync seems to have held their popularity in the fact that they have taken more sounds from hip-hop and have effectively captured some of that market; the fact that they have captured the attention of Vibe should be a valid indicator. However, the once wildly successful Backstreet Boys seem to be on the decline. The music machine's decision to gradually turn their clean-cut image to grittier, more street-haggard tones seems to have backfired, as there aforementioned competitors have not done so. Even Britney Spears seems to be expressing what so many fantasized over for so long: emerging sexuality from ingenue innocence. There are already comparisons being made to Madonna, although Britney didn't start from an already street trashy image. I wonder how long she can keep on the razor's edge. The media would have us believe that her self-awareness of the contradiction might be vague or somewhat clear; but in any instance, she acts as if it is all a put-on show. At any rate, I don't doubt that her success is largely a response to the blatant sexuality of Madonna that had reached its overkill. Perhaps Britney will last longer, but I am not sure if her balancing act will be forever. Rock seems to have suffered a temporary burn-out, since bands like Staind, Saliva, and Lyncoln Park (sp?) are on the rise again. Here too, the genre seems to have been revitalized by a foray into hip-hop; Kid Rock, Limp Biskit, and Rage Against the Machine apparently have given audiences time to favor purer metal rock again. However, the trend does not seem to be reversing itself, especially as this idea wasn't a new one: I've heard rock bands that seem to be following the old styles of the Beastie Boys. I am not sure if country will keep to its new bubblegum agenda, either. At first, there was complaints of the old school artists that they weren't getting enough airplay, and then the media noted a fairly new artist that wasn't following the formula of keeping women under 45 happy. Keeping to the subject, well, we haven't heard much from LeAnn Rimes lately. Even the comeback of Carlos Santana and Tony Bennett seem to suggest that old artists still have desirable sounds, and sometimes, all that's needed is a new marketing angle. For Santana, I think the consensus I got from many of my friends was pairing him with contemporary singers was just the trick: Carlos Santana and his old band doesn't sing very well. As for Tony Bennett, well, it would seem he had suffered some burnout-- he was addicted to drugs and alcohol, and he came back, taking time when needed to pursue his quite profitable hobby of paiting. Most people I've talked to seem to like him exactly as he is: one said he was appealing because he was the "King of Cheese." So, maybe the new kids like him because he's cheesy. At any rate, he chooses not to eschew MTV, as he has been making appearances for a while in recent years. There also seems to be other indicators that turnover in the industry is happening much too quickly. The creation of the "Now That's What I Call Music" by a minor British music label, and its more recent success in the States, would reflect the fact that people enjoy purveying music of past Top 40 lists. There has also been quite a bit of collections under a particular theme, such as "Monsters of Rock," "Monsters of Rap," "Monster Booty," etc. www.musicspace.com and www.bowandrazortie.com seem to becoming music warehouses unto themselves, as they no longer advertise merely such themed collections. It all keeps the talent recycling, but it's still not an ultimate solution. Napster and other digital music services seem to indicate that people are consuming music, in some part, much the same way they are consuming television. The rise of the mp3 format, RealAudio, and even satellite music channels would indicate that people want to pick and choose music at whim, much as they would channel surf. The various formats, of course, would be closer or farther away from such a comparison, but it seems that the main industry is losing touch with the demands of the consumers. To tie my earlier comments back into my statement, it also seems clear that genre classifications used as a marketing tool may not be as effective as was once supposed. Yes, it may be true that many might quickly identify their tastes by such a label, and maybe such a recording artist, but I find it interesting that MSN Music, at least, if not RealAudio, has features that direct users to music that sounds like the artist they're listening to. For the most part, I'm sure many would say 'that is just the effect of the Internet on the world of music,' but I'm not sure that it's even as direct as that. Rather, I would say that the Internet is providing tools that help people find what music they prefer a bit more effectively. The main industry is grappling with the problem of how to turn that into money, and the main argument with obtaining mp3 files by free means is that it takes away money from established acts. However, I think it's absolutely ludicrous that people do so intentionally, as it exposes quite a bit of new acts, and formerly, college radio was the best place for such acts to do so. Perhaps the industry is upset that their power of marketing has been subverted. Again, these are only my opinions at the moment, and the best of the thoughts that I could come up with at the time. It is partially a response to an attempt to digest some of the drier parts of this cf (but no ill will intended).12 responses total.
The penultimate paragraph first: Marketing has long been about directing people to things like the one they are buying right now. Columbia Record Club was doing it, by mail, in the '70s. Elvis Presley borrowed from the 'Black' sound of his time to create rock-and-roll. Cross-fertilization of 'styles' has been going on for ever. None of which invalidates the above comments.
Interesting essay. I would also say one of the trends is that small independent radio stations are getting pushed out more by big conglomerates such as ClearChannel. The big stations want to have similarity from market to market, so more and more of the same stuff is getting played in more areas.
Re the last sentence of #2: I don't think the majors necessarily want similarity between markets. I think it's a side-effect of their way of doing business. If you have several hundred radio stations you'd obviously use the same playlist, promotions, and even air talent over as many as possible to cut production costs.
resp:1 well, I don't think it was just Elvis Presley. There was Carl Perkins and Bill Haley, among others, that were fusing the 'black' sound somewhat with the western swing style that what's-his-name and his Texas Playboys had created. There's a big discussion on how rock and roll was conceived, I believe, on the old music cf. The term was originally coined by a DJ in order to get more 'race' or 'rhythm and blues' played on the station that had currently banned it. resp:3 No, of course I don't think Clear Channel or other major networks intentionally create similarity. Scott's right. The biggest thing to understand about the music industry (and I am including a lot of business areas) is that they are all about keeping profits high and costs low. The fact that radio formats also tend to be similar is also likely to reflect the fact that appealing to the lowest common denominator, in most cases, is going to maximize profit. Billboard's categorizes tend to be what the formats are: Top 40, Adult Contemporary, Urban/dance (used to be funk/disco, I think), Rock, and Christian. There is also retro: Classic Rock, Best of (insert 2-3 decades here). Of course, with the Mexican radio I hear out here, there is a plethora of campesino stations, along with a few, I think Let me turn in a different direction, albeit slightly, to college radio. When I was finishing up at Central Washington University, there was a big debate regarding the fact that a number of DJs were starting to play some current Top 40 and the like. Of course, you realize that an unwritten and somewhat sacrosanct rule of college radio is that it is mostly reserved for acts that have not yet broken into mainstream sources. Although the station indubitably receives government funding, I am sure that the station looks for means of support. There are internships, club scenes, etc. I'm not sure if I got the whole scoop, but I suppose it is impossible to keep all college radio stations completely independent of the mainstream. Rats, I should have done my homework.. I'm not sure if the university media kept good coverage on it.
(Bob Wills was the leader of the Texas Playboys, I believe..)
yup. whats-his-name....jeeze.
Bob Wills. Hey-- I don't always have a music encyclopedia at my side, you know. What, you gonna critize because I couldn't remember the name? =)
you forgot the name of bob wills...now prepare to die.
Actually, I think I'm with happyboy on this one.. :-p
see?
I can speak some on the Novelty/Comedy scene. As the owner
of about 8 feet of CDs of Novelty/Comedy/fun/Funny CDs, there is
a *lot* of artists with material out there. Finding it in the
record bins at 'skim the top of the market' stores (like K-mart,
Wal-Mart, Target) is hard.
Back in the early days of Rock and Roll radio (actually
true Top 40 radio) it seemed that there always was one funny tune
in the playlist any particular week. That is rare today. Lack
of airplay is in-part from the narrowing from the Top 40 sound to
Adult Contempoary (chicken-rock), Rock, Classic Rock, Oldies, Rap,
Urban and more. Other reasons include:
*) Radio stations follow each other. As we have larger
conglomerates, the more likely one is likly to have the same
playlist at the other. Even before the multi-station conglomerates,
many stations would subcribe to programing services ("consultants").
Any song a consultant gave the green light to would suddently be
getting airplay on 100 stations. The lower the local decision
making, the lower the variety.
*) Funny records get noticed, and when they do make it on
a station, gather a lot of requests. So much so that the song
can quickly burn out. Itself and the auidence that heard it
enough.
*) Radio personalities want to be funny and the focus of
the fun. Someone else being funny takes away from this. The
latest consultant approved method is for the DJ to keep the
mic open while playing something funny, so that 'e may talk,
laugh or what-not while it plays, making it part of 'is funny
bits.
*) Right, many record produces by-passed Weird Al, saying
he had great stuff, good talent, but would not produce it.
That is, they did not see it as Top Twelve material, thus
would not gamble on it. Weird Al's last CD, Running with
Scissors was a hit (Top 20) CD in the summer of 1999. It is
still in the record bins today, while others from the summer
of 1999 have already gone thru the clearence racks. Back in
time, it was Mel Blanc doing funny stuff for Capitol Records
that sold more copies than comptenporary Frank Sinatra records.
maybe more discussion later...I've done my keatsworth.
thank you, sir-- I gladly expected you'd say something on that topic.
You have several choices: