|
|
Post by 1 Guest on Jun 17, 2023 13:27:40 GMT -5
So how does that differ from the snobs who attend classical theater and operas with their noses in the air because it makes them appear as if they have a lot of class? Most people here have class, unfortunately it’s all low. 😯 According to fuddy-duddy BOGC, everyone who enjoys pop music is beneath him, low class and a tone-deaf imbecile. |
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jun 17, 2023 13:37:53 GMT -5
In other words, wealth depends on pandering to a lowbrow majority. That's why socialists succeed even though their approach is inherently broken, sheeple are too darn widespread. ... Oh, for the good old days when royalty and nobility supported the fine arts, and left the popular music to the peasants. You need a refresher class in economics. The capitalist system is the one where people get rich pandering to the majority. The richest singers are the ones who attract the most fans. The consumer is king. That is what capitalism is all about. "Oh, for the good old days when royalty and nobility supported the fine arts, and left the popular music to the peasants." But that's exactly the system we have now. Fine arts, like classical music and ballet are supported by the government and the 1% with their tax deductible contributions. Popular music is supported by the peasants, the 99%. I approve of capitalism, we just need to let Darwin apply at least as much to not keeping the ignorant alive as to marketplace wins and losses. Or improve public schools to the point that they (a) kick out the discipline problems and put them in boot+work camps until they realize that school is a vacation+investment by comparison, (b) get solid on the basics, and (c) in the arts, start with the fundamentals, which goes back to at least the Greeks AND some classical music, and kick out most pop until the more structured and disciplined material is somewhat understood. Repeatability and technique and even some theory must come first, for later improvisation to be guided by an effective sense of what works. And themes a bit more ambitious than bad ex or who can I hook up with need to be a starting point, too (people would always have romance and other normal life events without being motivated by rulers and bishops sponsoring arts, but grand visions, although sometimes deadly, take something that regular folks wouldn't come up with on their own). Most of the pop stars that studied music (more than you think, maybe) had to go through that. Non-profit status is a very modest support (which is all that's needed) that provides a lot more bang for the buck than a more direct subsidy (and a lot less politically influenced than something like the controversial National Endowment for the Arts) since donors choose what to support; and "lost" government revenues may not even be lost insofar as surrounding for-profit businesses (restaurants, hotels, etc) have more taxable profits when spenders have something attracting them to show up and spend. If there were no income tax and thus no deductions, donors would still donate. |
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jun 17, 2023 13:49:59 GMT -5
Most people here have class, unfortunately it’s all low. 😯 According to fuddy-duddy BOGC, everyone who enjoys pop music is beneath him, low class and a tone-deaf imbecile. Not all pop is cr@p, but a lot is; and most people want something that feels how they want to feel NOW, not to spend much effort widening their horizons; maybe tired and overworked is their excuse, or maybe they're just anywhere but the high 1/3 of the bell curve. Even if one supposes that the masses have some collective taste, wisdom, or reason for consuming oxygen (doubtful), looking at the weekly top 40 or even a year's top 10 isn't impressive. Look at the top 40 of a _decade_, and pick maybe five that balance a nontrivial message and masterful melody. I just looked at the top 10 for 2010-2020 and doubt that more than three meet the same standard as even the most boring classical music (which at least had rules and structure and message, without which anything else will almost always be cr@p). |
|
|
|
Post by Kill the Radio on Jun 17, 2023 15:20:29 GMT -5
It's hard to tell who is to "blame" for the top 40 list. Algorithmic capitalism that relies on data to produce more of whatever immediately sells just ends up feeding on itself. Prioritizing consolidation and capital accumulation over social responsibility leaves no room for art in that kind of system.
|
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jun 17, 2023 16:03:50 GMT -5
It's hard to tell who is to "blame" for the top 40 list. Algorithmic capitalism that relies on data to produce more of whatever immediately sells just ends up feeding on itself. Prioritizing consolidation and capital accumulation over social responsibility leaves no room for art in that kind of system. "Social responsibility" unlimited is at least as dictatorial as unlimited greed is; unlike mere greed, it seeks not only wealth but control (represented as for your own good, of course), and requires no relationship between power or wealth and productivity, which means it eventually collapses. Somewhere in between is a balance: self-interest but with a longer view, necessary for repeat business unless you sell junk food at a remote roadside rest stop, where there are no other choices nearby. But too-rapid and too-shallow feedback, whether in social media or the marketplace, produces a race to the bottom, or as has been said before, an echo chamber. And unfortunately it trains the customers to expect the equivalent of junk food in everything; formulaic (if otherwise undisciplined) noise for music, flimsy cheap goods that end up both costing more with replacements and generating more waste than something solid, etc. A small business _knows_ its customers. A big business collects data and takes surveys and does statistical analyses, does automated (naively - look at the errors even ChatGPT routinely spits out, since it doesn't reason, it just learns patterns and associations) targeted advertising, and then the folks in charge of it use those analyses to support whatever position they were going to take anyway - since probably neither they nor their board really understand correct and valid use of statistics, even if their data collection captured something as relevant to repeat business as is a real person knowing both the product and individual customers. Doing something right is hard, abusing shallow information to support shallow decisions is easy by comparison, even if the results aren't as good. Again, there are exceptions. And someone can use a formula for part of what they're doing, and then with talent and experience know when to break beyond the formula to make it really interesting. But they need to be fully aware humans, and not just biological machines, to do that. |
|
|
|
Post by Kill the Radio on Jun 17, 2023 16:41:54 GMT -5
I wasn't trying to ski down your slippery slope of unlimited social responsibility, but there is considerable value in social investment. I'm just saying that there's more to eat than what Big Whitey is trying to feed us. Literally, turn off the radio.
|
|
|
|
Post by amg1977 on Jun 17, 2023 17:05:48 GMT -5
According to fuddy-duddy BOGC, everyone who enjoys pop music is beneath him, low class and a tone-deaf imbecile. Not all pop is cr@p, but a lot is; and most people want something that feels how they want to feel NOW, not to spend much effort widening their horizons; maybe tired and overworked is their excuse, or maybe they're just anywhere but the high 1/3 of the bell curve. Even if one supposes that the masses have some collective taste, wisdom, or reason for consuming oxygen (doubtful), looking at the weekly top 40 or even a year's top 10 isn't impressive. Look at the top 40 of a _decade_, and pick maybe five that balance a nontrivial message and masterful melody. I just looked at the top 10 for 2010-2020 and doubt that more than three meet the same standard as even the most boring classical music (which at least had rules and structure and message, without which anything else will almost always be cr@p). I've said this a few times. 90% of everything made in every genre and every era is garbage - including classical. It's just the latter has had more time to whittle it down to that 10%. You won't figure out what is good in any music until the generarion that created it dies out and our view is no longer blinded by nostalgia. Most of the garbage from music prior to the 20th century has already been filtered. But it was mostly garbage then as well. |
|
|
|
Post by amg1977 on Jun 17, 2023 17:22:08 GMT -5
It's hard to tell who is to "blame" for the top 40 list. Algorithmic capitalism that relies on data to produce more of whatever immediately sells just ends up feeding on itself. Prioritizing consolidation and capital accumulation over social responsibility leaves no room for art in that kind of system. It is actually better than in the past. Prior to the last decade and a half, you had to have a label contract or go tremendously in debt to put your music out to the public. Now anyone with a computer and the right software can produce music up to their level of talent and put it out there inexpensively. It may not get played on the radio but you can reach an auduence and get noticed. There is more music out in every genre than ever before and with streaming you can give it a listen without investing anything other than your time. Your tastes are only determined by the radio gatekeepers if you want it that way. |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jun 17, 2023 17:26:18 GMT -5
Not all pop is cr@p, but a lot is; and most people want something that feels how they want to feel NOW, not to spend much effort widening their horizons; maybe tired and overworked is their excuse, or maybe they're just anywhere but the high 1/3 of the bell curve. Even if one supposes that the masses have some collective taste, wisdom, or reason for consuming oxygen (doubtful), looking at the weekly top 40 or even a year's top 10 isn't impressive. Look at the top 40 of a _decade_, and pick maybe five that balance a nontrivial message and masterful melody. I just looked at the top 10 for 2010-2020 and doubt that more than three meet the same standard as even the most boring classical music (which at least had rules and structure and message, without which anything else will almost always be cr@p). I've said this a few times. 90% of everything made in every genre and every era is garbage - including classical. It's just the latter has had more time to whittle it down to that 10%. You won't figure out what us good in any music until the generarion that created it dies out and our view is no longer blinded by nostalgia. Most of the garbage from music prior to the 20th century has already been filtered. But it was mostly garbage then as well. But social media is the biggest filtering factor that they didn't have a few years back. You had to listen to who ever the labels and radio stations wanted you to listen to. Now no matter how good they think someone is the general population has a much better and bigger field to pick from, plus you don't need a big label or lots of money to produce a record or CD. Almost anyone can get on Spotify and like music streaming sites. The big labels still have the advantage of getting you on the big talk shows like "The Tonight Show" and such, but the playing field is a lot fairer now. |
|
|
|
Post by Kill the Radio on Jun 17, 2023 17:47:05 GMT -5
I've said this a few times. 90% of everything made in every genre and every era is garbage - including classical. It's just the latter has had more time to whittle it down to that 10%. You won't figure out what us good in any music until the generarion that created it dies out and our view is no longer blinded by nostalgia. Most of the garbage from music prior to the 20th century has already been filtered. But it was mostly garbage then as well. But social media is the biggest filtering factor that they didn't have a few years back. You had to listen to who ever the labels and radio stations wanted you to listen to. Now no matter how good they think someone is the general population has a much better and bigger field to pick from, plus you don't need a big label or lots of money to produce a record or CD. Almost anyone can get on Spotify and like music streaming sites. The big labels still have the advantage of getting you on the big talk shows like "The Tonight Show" and such, but the playing field is a lot fairer now. It won't be long before the gatekeepers take control of the major music streaming sites. Just between 2019 and now, T.Row Price and Morgan Stanley have acquired about 18% of Spotify. Sony and UMG own about 7%, and many more are hidden behind other names. The so-called "owner" of the company only controls 18%. The sound of clicking padlocks will drown out whatever music the little people have to offer soon enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Kill the Radio on Jun 17, 2023 18:21:14 GMT -5
I don't mean to be all doom-and-gloomy, but miracle bedroom-breakthroughs like Billie Eilish and her brother are few and far between. I'm sure heads rolled at many labels when they realized they had fallen asleep, but they're not going to just roll over. We've already read about labels wanting artists to go viral before they get a contract, and the wall street firms that are stepping in to fill gaps aren't going to let the algorithmic sweet spots in their newly acquired streaming services remain open to un-proven artists.
In other words, the discerning music consumer will still have to do the equivalent of thumbing through the stacks of obscure record stores just like they used to. YouTube remains the most promising way to make magic happen, but I don't know, it seems impossible to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by amg1977 on Jun 17, 2023 20:30:08 GMT -5
But social media is the biggest filtering factor that they didn't have a few years back. You had to listen to who ever the labels and radio stations wanted you to listen to. Now no matter how good they think someone is the general population has a much better and bigger field to pick from, plus you don't need a big label or lots of money to produce a record or CD. Almost anyone can get on Spotify and like music streaming sites. The big labels still have the advantage of getting you on the big talk shows like "The Tonight Show" and such, but the playing field is a lot fairer now. It won't be long before the gatekeepers take control of the major music streaming sites. Just between 2019 and now, T.Row Price and Morgan Stanley have acquired about 18% of Spotify. Sony and UMG own about 7%, and many more are hidden behind other names. The so-called "owner" of the company only controls 18%. The sound of clicking padlocks will drown out whatever music the little people have to offer soon enough. The problem has rarely been the labels as they just want to make money and don't care how they do it. The real problem was radio conglomerates like Clear Channel who decided who would get played and that was the only way to get an audience. The labels actually do better under democratization. They don't have to guess at potential ... they just sign artists who have already built an audience on their own and put more money behind them. You don't need a Clive Davis who can spot the next big thing ... you just wait for someone to break out on their own and throw money at them. Radio is becoming irrelevant when it comes to breaking out stars. Social media - particularly YouTube and TikTok - make music stars and radio plays catch up. |
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jun 17, 2023 21:59:47 GMT -5
But social media is the biggest filtering factor that they didn't have a few years back. School age kids always had social media. Before there was social media, there was the phone. And before that, there was the original of Face Time, when they saw each other at least five days a week anyway. The filtering factor there is not one person, government, or company telling you what you should like, but it IS peer pressure, not to like anything that others think would be better left to parents, grandparents, or nerds. Teens often are in their own way tyrannical SOB's. |
|
|
|
Post by Smart on Jun 17, 2023 22:26:12 GMT -5
Finally some smart posting for a change.
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jun 17, 2023 22:37:17 GMT -5
But social media is the biggest filtering factor that they didn't have a few years back. School age kids always had social media. Before there was social media, there was the phone. And before that, there was the original of Face Time, when they saw each other at least five days a week anyway. The filtering factor there is not one person, government, or company telling you what you should like, but it IS peer pressure, not to like anything that others think would be better left to parents, grandparents, or nerds. Teens often are in their own way tyrannical SOB's. Olivia Rodrigo has 38 million followers on instagram and she is new at it some heavy hitters like Billie Elish and Taylor Swift have in the 100's of million's . Try calling that many people up on the phone or Face time them which is fairly new itself. they could get by probably just using their social media, once they announce something the media automatically picks it up. There are so many that got their start off social media that could not have done it by using the phone are any means back in 1990's. With out Youtube Jackie never would have gotten on AGT in the first place as that is really where she got her start not AGT. Several have became singers because they had a good size following in other areas and just put some video on Youtube. Youtube didn't start until 2005. As I said before you pretty much show why Jackie current fan base will never except a younger base as they have their noses in the air somehow thinking they are better then them. Jackie's age group for the most part will go see Billie Eilish, Olivia Rodrigo and similar artist and let Grandpa go to Jackie's concert. |
|
