[LiamN]

I have my own theories, but I'd like to know each of your theories as to why mainstream music isn't educational. Please don't say "because it's not cool." That's bosh to those of us who understand. If you put a "great beat", even to 'organic chemistry', and clever lyrics it could easily be considered "cool".

I've noticed the mainstream media(as a whole- tv shows, films, news, etc..) are intentionally 'reprogramming' natural human behavior to a downward spiral. In fact, this is extremely clear to me...

Predictive programming, neuro linguistic programing, etc...

Then one must ask the eternal question "Why?". That, I know...

And here comes the philosophical input. PLEASE delineate your thoughts!

Thank you.

[TheTinMan]

I think it has more to do with just pumping out a product. The quicker you can get a song put together, the quicker you can be gettin paid, I'm sure there's a formula for it by now. I have little faith that the performers in mainstream music have much to do with the song writing process, I think the producers have most control. Most of these songs are just meant for clubs/radio and serve their purpose for as long as they need to. There's too much business in the mainstream for anything of substance to come from it, imo.

[LiamN]

Originally Posted by TheTinMan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think it has more to do with just pumping out a product. The quicker you can get a song put together, the quicker you can be gettin paid, I'm sure there's a formula for it by now. I have little faith that the performers in mainstream music have much to do with the song writing process, I think the producers have most control. Most of these songs are just meant for clubs/radio and serve their purpose for as long as they need to. There's too much business in the mainstream for anything of substance to come from it, imo.

You're correct that the producers have control. Now think of what would be a profitable motive... Not only that, but a bigger 'agenda' perhaps. Speculation one could say, but still contending with reasoning!

[deconspire]

No artist ever made much money selling albums. You make money by touring and selling merch. For example, the Rolling Stones have made a little over a million in record sales, but they have made over 100 million touring.

The reason that a lot of sophomore recordings are so much worse than the first recording is the pressure to fulfill contractual obligations. You can take years and years to perfect that first album, but you have to pop that 2nd one out quickly, many times while you're touring. So the producers often take more control over the product while you're too tired to fight them and you just think, "fuck it, we'll just do what they say, we have to get this album out".

To the record companies, it's like writing a bestselling work of fiction. There is a method, and it works. We can really only blame ourselves.

[Othesemo]

Originally Posted by deconspire To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

No artist ever made much money selling albums. You make money by touring and selling merch. For example, the Rolling Stones have made a little over a million in record sales, but they have made over 100 million touring. The reason that a lot of sophomore recordings are so much worse than the first recording is the pressure to fulfill contractual obligations. You can take years and years to perfect that first album, but you have to pop that 2nd one out quickly, many times while you're touring. So the producers often take more control over the product while you're too tired to fight them and you just think, "fuck it, we'll just do what they say, we have to get this album out". To the record companies, it's like writing a bestselling work of fiction. There is a method, and it works. We can really only blame ourselves.

This is more or less my take. I think that an emphasis is placed on selling the music, rather than creating good music and letting people come and buy.

It's not necessarily a bad thing, but the end result tends to be closer to marketing than art. One of the main reasons I generally avoid modern music.

[LiamN]

	Originally Posted by Othesemo To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is more or less my take. I think that an emphasis is placed on selling the music, rather than creating good music and letting people come and buy. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but the end result tends to be closer to marketing than art. One of the main reasons I generally avoid modern music.

Wrong. You are all missing the point. And what you're saying doesn't 'stick'.

[Zodd]

Yeah, what deconspire and othesemo say I don't believe and don't agree with at all.

[Fishism]

When art becomes a "product" and an audience becomes a "target market", generic, store brand "stuff" will always sell most because it will appeal to the largest group. It can also be mass produced and take advantage of economies of scale. I don't believe that the human animal is being deprogrammed into a downward spiral. I believe it was already there and somebody simply decided to target it. It's a Walmart world, so why shouldn't our music and television be mass produced, simplistic crap? There's 350 channels to spread that crap around on and anyone can steal a song for nothing! Why waste money on quality?

[Warrior]

Can you give an example of educational music?

[deconspire]

	Originally Posted by Zodd To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yeah, what deconspire and othesemo say I don't believe and don't agree with at all.

What part?

[Zodd]

Musicians don't get much money from touring also, I've read, and I think people (used to) spend almost equal as much on albums as on concerts. Plenty of record labels don't push much, you could also think a succesfull first album won't let the label push much towards what they want but the people who wrote the first album. There are other reasons for why first albums are better than the ones after. It isn't that everything mainstream is bad and isn't made by good musicians. Touring and albums go hand in hand, the better your album does, the better your show sells and vice versa.
The Stones only earning 1 mil for their albums seems more to do with a bad manager than the music industry. But yeah, with mainstream you're mostly right I think, except that the touring is much more money, which I doubt.

---------- Post added 07-27-2012 at 06:42 PM ----------

It also greatly depends on what music you play and how much you are touring.

[deconspire]

Well, it would be more accurate for me to speak in less empirical terms and say that the potential to make money as an artist with a major label contract is much much higher in touring than in album sales. You get more of a cut from ticket sales and t-shirts than you get from an album. Now if you are more DIY, or with epitonic or matador or someone, the game is changed a bit. Major record companies basically spend way more money on promoting you, but they pretty much take all that same promoting money out of your album sales.

As far as the 2nd album not being as good as the 1st...well, you're right, there are lots of reasons and many times the sophmore album is as good or better - I'm just trying to highlight the pressure bands face on a major label contract.

Note: i'm also only talking about US labels, not familiar with any others.

[Kyvan]

You should read's Horkheimer/Adorno's "Dialectics of the Enlightment", most specifically the section about cultural industry. I read it for school when we were studying the effects of the media.

Basically it says that the market creates specialised products for certain groups with only a few different characteristics and then convinces people into accepting that it is the best (through advertising) or that is what they need/want, thus making the masses spend their money in something that was cheap and easy to produce in series, reaching a wider range of the population. They indeed try to reprogramm the public, just as you say.

There are educational cultural products, yet they are not displayed in the mainstream because the groups to which they are aimed are smaller and they probably can be reached in other ways.

[Still Standing]

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Can you give an example of educational music?

I was wondering about that too. I'm pretty sure it's not like a rap song that helps you memorize all 50 states and capitals in alphabetical order.

[ModernLit]

...the subliminal advertising? and over-processed quality? the lack of singing ability?

i'm an indie girl. not a hipster. there is a difference. bleh! :b