Non-musical aspects of music

[Noku]

I am designing a major internet-based music comminity site. My goals will be 1) offering bands best possible methods for promoting their music and getting contacts from the industry (studios, cd-press, labels, media...), 2) offering opportunities for people involved in music to gain reputation, resume and free-lance jobs (mixers, press people, event organizers...), 3) offer interactive interesting social environment for music fans, 4) to work as an indicator to get people more involved in music and strengthen local music scenes... 99) to offer advertisers best possible visibility (but not in cost of usability etc.).

When designing this kind of stuff you have to make sure that you will have the best possible understanding of non-musical aspects of music with some understanding what it has been and future visions of what it might become.

How I see the music today, it seems to be one of the things by which people identify to certain groups. The way some people look, the places they hang out and the people they are interested of meeting. Music has great influence in creating sex "idols" and some influence in attitudes. Inside scenes there are many "elite" groups who expand their "dissmissive" attitude from the outsiders to the insiders of the scene too ("they are phoney and we are so tr00").

Actually the way I see the music today is a bit too large concept to be put in launch post of this thread. I would appreciate having some of your thoughts about music as a social phenomenon in very depth. I promise to respond!

[Cain]

The degree to which popular music influences and is influenced by prevailing cultural trends is so enormous and far-reaching that I don't think anybody here can do much more than state the obvious about it, as you did in the threadstarting post. The conditions you have explained have, in their basic ways, been around ever since Western music transcended "folk" forms and became a widespread "serious" cultural art form in itself. As long as music has been commissioned, composed, and rewarded with mass popularity, adulation, money, and additional work, music has reflected times, politics, cultural mood, cultural climate, and the music of other people. Therefore, the conditions of "elitism," "sex symbols," etc. you mention, not to mention the categorization by musical genres of groups of people, have been around for ages.

So aside from those relative constants, I would say that any music that achieves any popularity grows out of its time period. Innovation occurs after periods of stagnation: cultural focus shifts based on prevailing political, social, and international relationships and moods and subliminally influence everything the public accepts and percieves to reflect something they find vital.

Your best bet would be to search not for what people "like," which will only get you so far, but what they "want" from popular music, or perhaps a national or cultural "want" in general. New music grows out of conditions like this, and the key is finding people adept enough at the craft of musical composition to translate these cultural desires for "more" into innovative musics will become the next big thing. The industry, I think, is quite flawed in its method of searching for the next big thing because it curiously seems to only respond to past models for success, and thus acts as though IT influences cultural taste rather than the other way around. Therefore, there's a lot of hit-and-miss business that could easily be avoided with a keen sense of the national or cultural pulse and what it WANTS to see.

[Scuba_Steve]

Music has great influence in creating sex "idols" and some influence in attitudes.


used to.


Back in the 60s and 70s musicians were turned into sex idols.


Now we turn out sex idols into "musicians."

[Noku]

Yeah you have some good points there...

I've had very much thought on the industry. I believe that we have kind of gone past the "hit-and-miss" business. Why? Well, it's not like the industry is even that interested of finding what is the demand of the culture. There are three kind of artists: 1) The ones which purpose is to be very marketed products. The demand for this music is artificially created by marketing and image building. 2) The ones which have gained already a good fan base and are unique enough as artist to become more popular with the aid of label. 3) The ones which are created or pulled from the scene as a response to other labels new artist which has unique enough style. This competition phenomenon makes things to go towards mainstream.

I also think that there is a reason why the industry works this way. I believe that outside of musician and music consumers/collectors sphere people are very lazy to find out new music. Music is listened to unite people or to differ from another group of people. Musicians and people interested in music in general are very willing to find new artists but people who use music for evoking that party vibe or getting something on the background are pretty lazy to search for something new. Even most of the musicians or music consumers aren't very active in that, unless they are running after status. The more people are putting money in music during a period of time the more diverse is their band knowledge.

The music industry is producing target products for people who are buying only several records a year, because that target groups opinnions can be guided through marketing and trends. I think that what the culture wants to see can be directed to certain direction, not only because music media is promoting only some artists. Even if there would be a media which would make finding new artists very easy I still believe that it wouldn't radically shape the structures of the industry because most people would still like what most other people like. In my opinnion music isn't individual experience, it is always social. Artists will appeal to people with similiar backgrounds and experiences and attract similiar people together.

I base this strongly to the way how books have become successful... by telling about something that everyone had almost in mind but were too shy (or some other way lacked the ability) to talk about.

Actually this is kind of chicken and egg situation. Who is the collective mind of music industry? I would say that the music industry has more to say than underground artists that make deep and beautiful songs with their own unique style that makes people ask "What is this?". These artists are the genepool of music industry and provides it with the ability to adapt in new environments.

Collective musical will is just an illusion created by naive musicians in my opinnion. It's not enough that you are good enough, if you are after success. Of course talent and other things appeal to some marginal groups, like musicians. In the end, guitar heroes like Satriani, Vai, Yngwie etc. are just as manufactured products as Britney Spears... just that they are targeted to bo idols of talented guitarists. I've seen better players in the internet, but no one gives a **** because not that many people know them. It's never the talent alone, even if people want to see "the best" guitarist in the world.

"Opinnions after opinnions, that's what the general public wants because it finds hard to form it's own ones..."

I could write a song about it :eek:

[Noku]

used to.


Back in the 60s and 70s musicians were turned into sex idols.


Now we turn out sex idols into "musicians."

Yeah, today it is a real chicken and egg question like I said... there are musicians, the industry people and general public. Each has their own goals.