Music from a sociological perspective.

Jan 16 03:40 UTC 2002

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).