"Genericization" of music

[Skaadvik]

So here I am writing another paper. I wanted to bring this subject here to spark discussion both because it's something I care about and because it'll help me with my direction with this paper.

Basically, as the title implies, my paper is about the "genericization" of music and the effect it's having on music as a whole. The two main things I'm talking about are Muzak (interestingly, the corporation holding this name filed for Chpt 11 bankruptcy not too long ago http://blogs.wsj.com/bankruptcy/2009/02/10/its-time-to-face-the-muzak/ ) and big record labels churning out artist after artist, trying to form each one to the current "fads" in music.

My personal feelings are that this we are basically ending up with an inundation of relatively worthless crap that makes it harder and harder to hear good music, music that's made for the sake of music.

So... thoughts? I'll prolly write more in response to people's thoughts too.

[Tiraline]

As with any major art form, you have the difference between the mass-produced (cheap, fast, easy, and relatively similar barring QC issues) and the artisan-quality (expensive, often custom, takes a long time to produce, but each product with its own unique qualities).

You'll see something of the same discussion in food: McDonalds vs. Chez Ritz, for instance.

As far as the tendency of the music industry to produce "more of the same," they've been doing that since before the rock 'n' roll era. I realize this reveals me as a total nut, but the Monkees are a prime example of mass-produced music marketing; much of their early stuff was really them being spoon-fed and then cut out of any decision-making. Two of their "musicians" were really actors, not musicians, but they sure were supposed to be good-looking.

(Not to say I don't occasionally enjoy something from their third and fourth albums. Nesmith is quite the musician in his own right, and when he took over, it showed.)

The recording industry is ultimately a business, and they make money by producing product. There aren't enough really unique voices out there to merit selectiveness, so they resort to copy-paste. Also, there's a lot of risk involved in investing in a unique voice, as it were; the tried-and-true, "Oh, they liked Linkin Park so let's get Joey Spazziola here who can imitate him" is a lot less of a gamble. This is PARTICULARLY bad in the "Christian" recording industry; they seem to go out of their way to copy the style of existing secular bands. (Note the scare quotes on "Christian"; there's very little Christianity in the way those businessmen act, much of the time.)

*shrug* Art and make-a-buck don't go together, not really. You might compare that to the days of the "patronage" system.

[Gorvena]

This has been going on for a long long time.

Gene Vincent anyone? He wasn't bad, he was just some record label's attempt to cash in on the Elvis wave.

The Monkees. Formed via want-ads to be the American Beatles.

And the list continues.

Now before anyone has a coronary, I realize that the members of the Monkees as well as Gene were capable enough musicians, but they "made it" because they fit into the hole that was looking to be filled by some a&r rep.

This tapered off a bit during the heyday of Arena Rock, but came screaming back with Hair Metal and New Wave/Punk. And it continued through the Grunge era into Techno and continues on today, which is why you need an Info key on your radio to tell who is singing all of that crap that they play since it all sounds pretty much alike.

If you are truly original, you have to have either a really good gimick or an assload of fans/money to get anywhere.

[Tiraline]

Great minds think alike, Gorvena. We both thought of the Monkees.

[Skaadvik]

Thanks for the input so far. You guys pretty much nailed the problem as I see it. This isn't something that's really going to change much, unfortunately.

I think the Internet is changing things a lot though, especially in the past 5 years or so. It's easier than ever to find any obscure music you could want, though it does take a bit of effort and personal drive to do so, but I guess that always has been and will be the case.

[Szordrin]

Actually, Tir.. Generalization of music has gone on for centuries.

It mostly has to do with whether or not you want to be an artist for a living or an artist for your heart. You can be both, dont get me wrong. But if you look at the works Beethoven used to further the music being made at the time in comparison to what was commissioned or played the most during his age, there is a distinct difference.

I think it is more apparent now that you have the internet to really open someone's mind to art that you wouldn't normally find locally. It's far easier now than ever to be able to find your niche in music and perhaps that is why genre's are being born left and right.

Like I said, you can push the edge of music and still make a living. Radiohead is an amazing example of that. Now, for those who want to market to a larger audience and really cripple themselves in artistic integrity or value, Miley Cyrus is the best example for that. Her audience are tiny little girls who have yet to been exposed to a lot of different music. Media is the problem for this or at least mass media like the Disney Channel. Miley doesn't write her own music, mind you, but the people who do are well aware that the quality of music they are writing is poor. Why do they write it? Because it's marketable to younger children which is her target audience/market.

So, I think the reason you have such general music is that someone will make a hit using lets say.. A cowbell during all of their chorus' or perhaps just a few singles. And yes, there are TONS of songs that utilize the cowbell as soon as the chorus comes. Look for it sometime. Or, lets say, using a midi program on the vocals. You, Skaad, know what you like to listen to and from what I can judge, have looked deeper into the genres you like for gems that haven't made it mainstream or perhaps don't want to. I think that's the big player here. Sure, there are networks like Fuse or MTV.. 8?(rofl) that just utilize music now but they're few and far between. Internet is becoming a larger role in creating variety but when it comes down to it, it seems like whatever keeps the investors still putting money in at each quarter is if the label is making a profit. It's sad and I don't like it at all but that's what you get when harsh capitalism meets the arts.

[Raziel]

Our nation isn't the only one that does this. This occurs in every continent. Yeah, North America is sort of the originator of a lot of these ideas, due to our biggest export being culture, but other nations' companies see the profit this turns out, and so they emulate it. Check the Scenes in Mexico, Japan, Korea, India, Western & Eastern Europe, Russia, and even Argentina (as it's the only non-Third World nation in South America) and Australia and you'll see the same things.

[Szordrin]

Oh of course. I meant to mention that but figured with talking about Beethoven I crossed the seas.

It's kinda like... alot of people like icecream, but not everyone likes phish food from ben and jerry's

[Gorvena]

Good point Szo. Just watch Amadeus; true, it's "fictionalized," but the fact is that the only money Mozart made was off of his commissioned work, and even then he wasn't "popular" because his music was too challenging for the masses.

[Moknim]

Good point Szo. Just watch Amadeus; true, it's "fictionalized," but the fact is that the only money Mozart made was off of his commissioned work, and even then he wasn't "popular" because his music was too challenging for the masses.

This.

Everyone has hit the nail on the head - but don't forget, this has been going on since long before America. Composers wrote for their patrons (they wanted to do new and innovative stuff, but they also wanted to eat).

As an example, I have a friend who is a songwriter in Nashville employed by Tim McGraw's (and a bunch of other country artists) to write songs - he has to put out 5 new songs a week and used to spend tons of time on chord changes and the like to make them interesting (his background is in Jazz). One week he was running behind and wrote, as he described it, "bubble-gum crap" - the manager loved it and had only given him moderately positive reviews on his earlier stuff. Whereas he used to send 50 hours a week working on 5 songs, now he spends about 10 hours a week and they like this stuff more because it fits the pop sensibility of Nashville.

[Malebrignon]

Yep. It's pretty much all been said already. Even with my own band, I try to write music that sells and let my brother be the artist. Since no record company really tries to release every song off an album, there's room for both. A lot of bands will make sure there are several commercially viable "hits" on their album and then add in whatever else they want.

And then there's bands like Nickelback who just sit down in the studio with their tried and true formula and two weeks later have finished recording an album full of songs that essentially sound like everything else they've ever done.

I will never criticize the artists for doing this. Any way you can find to get paid to play music rather than working a real job is a great idea in my book. The real jerks in the situation are the people who actually want to hear the same song recycled 10-15 times on an album and criticize the bands when they try something different. Look at the flak Metallica caught for their black album. The three albums prior to that all essentially followed the same formula, though the production on each makes them moderately distinctive from one another. As soon as they changed the formula and tried something new, they got ridiculed by a large chunk of their long-time fans.

[Gorvena]

But McTallica was always just a watered-down Motorhead fan-band...