Is the audience of popular music chosen by the music industry?

Unfortunately, i believe that the music industry is largely responsible for what is considered popular music today. Considering the fact that the music industry (Magazines, record labels, DJ's) are responsible for what bands are advertised, they ultimately have control over what music we are exposed too, and therefore like.

If EMI suddenly decide to invest in promoting and distributing UK Grime artists instead of Heavy Metal, its extremely likely that the majority of people would buy into what was being advertised. Furthermore other record labels might 'cash in' on what may be the 'next big thing'.

Its no coincidence that when a successful artist comes through, we soon see cheap imitations trying to share the limelight (during the 90's we had a succession of boybands attempting to follow in the success of new kids on the block: backstreet boys, n*sync etc)

The only comfort we can gain from this is the simple fact that ultimately, despite trends and fads, people will always like what they enjoy. However, the power of the music industry means that some original or ground breaking artists may go unnoticed.

Review of the NME (march 20th 2010)

This weeks addition of the NME is jam packed with more indie antics and obscure "hip" bands, that anyone who is anyone is listening too. Nothing new there then.

The main story covers indie Cyndy's "MGMT", and there new album 'celebration'. The mag insists that, despite every critic panning it, including the band itself, features hidden gems and levels of music that although obscure, should be appreciated.

It would seem that once again the NME are sticking up for less then mediocre talent in order to claim some sort of credibility. Or as I believe: music snobbery.

The magazine is constantly backing bands that are clearly awful or just rip off's of other successful indie bands. All fitting the skinny jeaned, Camden socialite persona.

It's high time the magazine removed its head from it's arse, and stopped trying to prove to everyone that they know what they are talking about. Because they dont.

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

To understand where music has come from, studying it's ethnic origins can be useful. For example, rock n roll, although dominated in todays world by white artists, original started with the blues scene.; originated by black artists.

However to judge, or analyse pop music today as white or black is wrong. The great thing about music today, is that there is so much dillution in regards to ethnic origin. Not only do we have bands fusing different genres and ethnic backgrounds, we also have artists tackling music of other ethnicities.

Hatch and Milward: "pop music has always depended upon the interaction between white and black".

Music has evolved to a point where labels of white or black cant exist.

Eminem is white. Rap is black?

Phil Lynott is black. Rock is white?

How can we make such assumptions when there constantly proven wrong?

Can popular music achieve genuine political change?

Rock and pop are usually politically anti establishment. As John Street explains, "Pop becomes the expression of it's political and socoal context".

Songs themselves rarely achieve political change. For example Eminems 2004 anti establishment song "mosh" failed to prevent George Bush winning a consecutive term in office.

It would seem the artists themselves have more power due to their high profile status'. Artists like Bono and Bob Geldoff have helped raise millions for charity and have thus increased political awareness. However despite the aid, no actual political changes have been made.

Political change doesn't necessarily have to be positive. In the early 90's the associations of drug culture with rave music forced a new criminal justice act. Banning large scale raves, proving music can force political change.

If a band sings songs slating the government, causing a young fan not to vote. Is that not a political change?

Does the emergence of the digital download signal the end of the music industry?

Piracy in music is nothing new. Generations have found ways of enjoying music without paying for it for years. In the 70s and 80s children recorded songs off the radio, rather then paying for the singles or albums. At the time it was seen as the biggest threat to the music industry, much like illegal downloads today. But does the fact the industry recovered once before, mean that are concerns over downloads are pointless?

Illegal downloads pose a much greater threat as its choice is both vast and of good quality. However it is wrong to say that the music industry will end. itunes reached its 10 billionth sale in february 2010, proving that people still want to buy music.

However what is clear is that the quality of music will suffer. Emerging bands and artists will inevitably find it harder to support themselves through live sets alone. Causing good quality music to die.

What is World Music?

World music is a genre like no other. Artists fall under this catagory not because they follow similar musicall patterns, but because they make music that is linked to the identity of a certain country or peoples.

Native music from all over the globe features in this genre, regardless of how different they are. World music is music that doesn't conform to cultural imperialism, namely America and the United Kingdom. Instead of making music that would prove popular in the American and English market, world music artists make music that stays true to their roots, more often then not, representing their country of origin.

Pop acts sample so much music from around the world, that its origins can become diluted. World music exists as it represents the countries purest form of music, without being corrupted by the need to make money. It acts as a historical record.

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

Adorno claims that popular music cannot be considered art as it is an example of pseudo individiualism. He beleives popular music is a business, rather then creative expression, and therefore not an art form.

His ideas, which hold some truth (consider the X Factor) fallshort however with closer analysis. Many artist use music as a genuineform of expression reflecting social and political ideas. Others use it to evoke emotions, or tell stories.

Inevitably some of these artists get popular. Like :

• Notorious B.I.G.

• The Smiths.

• Metallica.

All these artists are extremely popular, and undeniably more then just cash cows. There are expressive artists making art.

Adorno sees pop as a commodity but doesn't clearly define what is pop. Making it easy to prove him wrong.