I blame how pervasive the MBA/corporate finance mentality is and that we've allowed it to infect everything from healthcare to the arts. Slop is everywhere because that's how the finance schmucks who insist we base the health of everything on stock price want it. Edges aren't profitable enough, providing good healthcare isn't profitable enough, educating people isn't profitable enough, following finance laws isn't profitable enough. But slop, denying claims, letting schools wither, and beating the system is, so that's what has been incentivized by the types of people that we've made the mistake of letting take over.
If an artist came into a record exec's office with A Love Supreme or The White Album in today's world, they'd probably be laughed out the door. Because "how are we going to sell this to people who listen to Sabrina Carpenter??"
The dynamic you discuss here is the reason I hate the phrase "explain it to me like I'm five."
Many ideas worth discussing can't be reduced to be comprehended by a five-year-old. Some things require the reader to put in some work to get the full picture.
I mostly agree, but when has it been different? Sure, there is great music without audiences but that's always been the case. Music labels and radio stations used to be the gatekeepers, now it's algorithms. Either way, to become "popular" something had to appeal to a large audience that doesn't really have much in common - hence the sanding off of the edges.
I also suspect most people don't care too much. Most people just want something fun playing in the background and are not music experts. Most people want some cool pictures hanging in their homes but don't know much about art. Creative pursuits are just not very important to a lot of folks, other than shows on Netflix and those are much better than what we had on TV 20 years ago.
As much as it pains me to say it, the boomers did something right in the 60s with music. Lots of experimental music was promoted, and it stands up today. First part of this clip is great, honestly should show it to creative industry managers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZazEM8cgt0
There is experimental music promoted today (see: Childish Gambino, Kendrick Lamar, etc.) and it is promoted. It's at least as much as was promoted in the 1960s, when our favorite songs from that era weren't exactly main stream. I don't see much as having changed, although folks like Frank are definitely more bitter about the industry.
None of that is comparable in my mind, but there are plenty of jazz and electronic musicians doing interesting things still. I have yet to see any actually interesting music produced in recent times by a big label or in a promoted spotify playlist or any of that, they're not household names (Phish is closest honestly, but they were prompted decades ago). Thankfully you can opt out of such things and enjoy the long tail of musicians. The real test is will people still listen when the marketing machine stops. Many classical musicians pass this test. A lot of 60s artists do too. I doubt many (if any) popular artists alive now will. No way to gamble on this but it's one of those things if you sit with long enough you'll see is true. Play it to someone not in American culture who hasn't heard it (try a German friend they have proper aesthetic) I can guess the answer.
Kendrick literally performed at the Super Bowl? That seems pretty big and he's definitely a household name. I'm not sure why experimental hip hop wouldn't be comparable, the parallels to the counter-culture music of the 1960s is amazingly deep.
Definitely. But isn't that what mass marketing is all about? Finding the lowest common denominator and pushing it on the public. Now it's to the extreme because of technology and ridiculous if you want to live a life free of that constant assault on your mind and your life.
Not wrong, but it's one thing to use it to sell products, and it's another that so much of *culture* has been reduced to this. Our cultural industries should actually nudge everyone to be smarter, more optimistic, to aim higher. They aren't widget factories and to run all aspects of it like them is an incredible misunderstanding of creative fields and their potential.
I blame how pervasive the MBA/corporate finance mentality is and that we've allowed it to infect everything from healthcare to the arts. Slop is everywhere because that's how the finance schmucks who insist we base the health of everything on stock price want it. Edges aren't profitable enough, providing good healthcare isn't profitable enough, educating people isn't profitable enough, following finance laws isn't profitable enough. But slop, denying claims, letting schools wither, and beating the system is, so that's what has been incentivized by the types of people that we've made the mistake of letting take over.
If an artist came into a record exec's office with A Love Supreme or The White Album in today's world, they'd probably be laughed out the door. Because "how are we going to sell this to people who listen to Sabrina Carpenter??"
Strong points! It makes me feel better in a way...since my little corner of the internet is a virtual ghost town, I can take it as a compliment now!
The dynamic you discuss here is the reason I hate the phrase "explain it to me like I'm five."
Many ideas worth discussing can't be reduced to be comprehended by a five-year-old. Some things require the reader to put in some work to get the full picture.
I mostly agree, but when has it been different? Sure, there is great music without audiences but that's always been the case. Music labels and radio stations used to be the gatekeepers, now it's algorithms. Either way, to become "popular" something had to appeal to a large audience that doesn't really have much in common - hence the sanding off of the edges.
I also suspect most people don't care too much. Most people just want something fun playing in the background and are not music experts. Most people want some cool pictures hanging in their homes but don't know much about art. Creative pursuits are just not very important to a lot of folks, other than shows on Netflix and those are much better than what we had on TV 20 years ago.
As much as it pains me to say it, the boomers did something right in the 60s with music. Lots of experimental music was promoted, and it stands up today. First part of this clip is great, honestly should show it to creative industry managers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZazEM8cgt0
There is experimental music promoted today (see: Childish Gambino, Kendrick Lamar, etc.) and it is promoted. It's at least as much as was promoted in the 1960s, when our favorite songs from that era weren't exactly main stream. I don't see much as having changed, although folks like Frank are definitely more bitter about the industry.
None of that is comparable in my mind, but there are plenty of jazz and electronic musicians doing interesting things still. I have yet to see any actually interesting music produced in recent times by a big label or in a promoted spotify playlist or any of that, they're not household names (Phish is closest honestly, but they were prompted decades ago). Thankfully you can opt out of such things and enjoy the long tail of musicians. The real test is will people still listen when the marketing machine stops. Many classical musicians pass this test. A lot of 60s artists do too. I doubt many (if any) popular artists alive now will. No way to gamble on this but it's one of those things if you sit with long enough you'll see is true. Play it to someone not in American culture who hasn't heard it (try a German friend they have proper aesthetic) I can guess the answer.
Kendrick literally performed at the Super Bowl? That seems pretty big and he's definitely a household name. I'm not sure why experimental hip hop wouldn't be comparable, the parallels to the counter-culture music of the 1960s is amazingly deep.
Jurassic 5 way more talented if we're talking hip hop I would put them in my Earth music archive over Lamar
Cool, but I was talking about experimental music that is pushing the boundaries.
Definitely. But isn't that what mass marketing is all about? Finding the lowest common denominator and pushing it on the public. Now it's to the extreme because of technology and ridiculous if you want to live a life free of that constant assault on your mind and your life.
Not wrong, but it's one thing to use it to sell products, and it's another that so much of *culture* has been reduced to this. Our cultural industries should actually nudge everyone to be smarter, more optimistic, to aim higher. They aren't widget factories and to run all aspects of it like them is an incredible misunderstanding of creative fields and their potential.
I agree completely.
Thoughtful piece.