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

'Some critics have argued that the market for popular music recordings and therefore the pop mop music audience itself are essentially created by the music industry'(shuker)

In many ways I do agree with this, the music industry is incredibly powerful and can influence the audience in the same way that a newspaper con. The pop music industry has the power to control the majority of the music that is produced and distributed. Huge record companies such as Warner Bros, Universal and EMI are responsible for this and also have a great deal of smaller labels attached to them. Therefore like a spiders web they spin their way around the industry and in some ways poisoning the audience with the very similar kinds of music.

It seems that the music industry is so powerful as a media, that its not unreasonable to believe the audience is created by the industry. 'pop music is an economic product which is invested with ideological significance by many of the consumers'

NME magazine

NME – This magazine is one that many would consider to be pretentious and truly elitist for the scensters that role up to Shoreditch on a weekday night or to Brick Lane on a Sunday. This magazine focuses on a very specific reader that has true love for Indie music and an alternative dress sense. From traveling through a love affair with Morrissey and Ian Curtis in the early days of production to the new found love concentrating on Pete Doherty’s messy personal life, this magazine oozes cool.

It seems to consist of a lazy layout and design for a magazine yet is packed full of well-written, well articulated and punchy reviews from gigs and interviews with the newest rock romantics.

However for a magazine that attempts to avoid the main-stream it contradicts itself by the fact it has become fairly commercial, although I must admit I’m guilty of buying an addition every now and again.

Are blackness and whiteness useful concepts in the study of popular music?

Blackness and whiteness could arguably be seen as a way for the industry to catagorise music.

Although when you look deeper into the subject we can see that it is also about class rather than just black and white. All forms of pop music have different influences. Elivis made 'Black music'. This was due to the way he was bought up, attending Gospel churches and living in relatively poor multicultural areas. Sam Phillips stated " If I could find a white man who had the Negro sound and the Negro feel, I could make a billion dollars.” He found this in Elvis.

'Pop music has always deepened upon the interaction between white and black tradition” (Hatch) This would suggest that pop music is from black and white. Rock n Roll which may be considered white derived from the Blues. This can also be supported by the fact that black and white artists have covered each others music, again suggesting that whiteness and blackness are not useful concepts.

Can pop music achieve genuine political change?

Music and Politics don't mix. Music won’t ever change the public votes. The only musician in my eyes that has ever come close to successfully mixing the two is Dylan. 'Blowing in the wind' asks questions about peace, war and freedom yet doesn't provide any answers. If anything this encourages the public to think for themselves.

However some would argue that 'pop becomes the expression of its political and social context' (street in F.S.S) This has some truth, for example Live8.

Another criticism of music mixing with politics could be the fact that the artists and industry are quite hypercritical. An artist like Bob Marley giving a voice to a counter capitalist movement is met with the capitalist system making money from this.

At the end of the day I stick with my first point this music and politics don’t and shouldn’t mix. Yes artists should write from their heart and if that has political aspects then fine, but this won’t achieve political change.

what is world music?

To understand what world music is we should look at ‘local’ and ‘global’ music. It seems that both ‘local’ and ‘global’ music depend on their market. Frith explains how local music comes with ‘multinationals investing in local talent so as to thoroughly exploit local markets’. Where as ‘global’ music is explained to be ‘the expansion of major labels into an increasing number of world markets’.

However these two concepts can blur when we look to define world music. World music I think is music in every language and from every country. It’s a genre of music that reflects different popular cultures. This does however make it ‘local’ yet draws it further away from ‘global’ due to the lack of media and entertainment corporations trying to market the product.

It seems that it’s the only genre of music that doesn’t feel the need to buckle under the pressure of technology and media corporations.

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

‘Art is the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance’ (oxford dictionary). This would suggest that popular music is an art form. Popular music is, of more than ordinary significance, otherwise it would not be ‘popular’ music. Behind pop music and sometimes on the front line there are genuine creative people who get lost in the unfortunate illusion that pop music isn’t an art form.

However Adrono would argue that ‘The popular music industry is an all consuming production line’. The industry has one purpose and that is to churn out the next big thing make money and drop it as soon as the next fad comes along.

It seems like the creative minds of artists such as Dylan, Ian Curtis and Elvis have been replaced with money-making robots such as JLS created by pop mogul Simon Cowell.

How useful is a production of culture perspective in understanding the birth of Rock ‘n’ Roll?

As a theory it works well in explaining how economic, cultural and social factors produce a platform for something new. Peterson discusses how technology plays a huge role by looking at the Transistor and Vinyl. However the theory crumbles when it doesn’t go further than this. It doesn’t look at other and arguably more relevant technology such as the base guitar and amp.

It seems that this theory has one massive floor. It doesn’t take into account the music. It shows how a platform was built for something new but doesn’t explain why this new fad was Rock ‘n’ Roll. Therefore it is hard to understand how Peterson’s theory improves our understanding of its birth.

For me it is hard to accept a theory to do with music which in fact have very little to do with the music itself. Why wasn’t there a Jazz boom with Miles Davis instead of Elvis and Rock ‘n’ roll??

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

'Rolling Stone' magazine produced a list of the top 50 guitarists of all time, none of which are female. Bayton explains how "Lead guitarists are made,not born. The reason for women's absence are entirely social".

Bayton also goes on to explain how 'femininity involves a socially manufactured physical, mechanical and technical helplessness'. So therefore rock music is male gendered due to socially manufactured labels that stick to the classic male/female stereotypes. It seems that the electric guitar is an extension of the male body and this is due to labels society produces which are exclusive to men. If women do use an electric guitar it is seen in more of a gimmick and becomes far more mainstream, for example Avril Lavine.

Unfortunately this has a knock on effect with fans who more or less conform to the stereotype. "male fans buy a guitar, female fans buy a poster"(Bayton)

Can popular music ever really be unplugged?

Pop music can be unplugged but this would result in it being a lot less popular. To create music without electronic technology would mean, performing to a very small audience in a room with great acoustics. However 'without electronic technology, popular music in the 21st century is unthinkable' (P. Theberge)

The only band that i could think of doing this were the 'Libertines'. However even though the music itself was 100% unplugged they promoted it via electronic technology. It seems impossible for pop music to return to unplugged, with the invention of the microphone, amplifier and electric guitar stepping away from this is almost an insult to the modern 'popular' music. The computer is the Stratocaster of the 21st century and is another step away from unplugged music. However i think its sad to walk away from a style of music that is so intimate, never again will you find something quite as charming.

What is pop music?

Pop music in my eyes is music that is always in the public eye. Its music that has been hovering around the charts making a lot of money for artists and record labels, then very quickly moves onto the next phase similar to that of fashion or technology. However this slightly naive and narrow minded view has been created from growing up and watching 'Top of the Pops' on a Friday night where i always believed the 'cooler' bands would refuse to play.

However as time went on and I began to appreciate music more and more. It seems that my idea of pop music is focused towards all music, its difficult to put Artists under the pop music umbrella yet still i have a slight tendency to think that pop is a genre that follows the classic conventions of music to please the masses.