Lunatique
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2008
- Posts
- 1,481
- Likes
- 385
Quote:
If your friend is very passionate about music and cannot and do not want to do anything else with her life, even if she wont' be able to make a decent living in music, then it's a sacrifice she'll have to accept. Also, if she's going the mainstream route, then she'll also need to accept the fact she'll have to deal with the politics, record company control, and probably be forced to be an all-around entertainer instead of focusing on music alone (such as acting, modeling, product endorsement, and so on). If she's going to be "serious" about music, then she'll likely not make enough money to even earn a proper living, but she'll get to concentrate on just music. If she's also talented creatively, she could also work behind the scenes as a songwriter, composer, arranger...etc, and it's possible to earn a decent living that way, although the money one makes will pale compared to many other normal jobs out there (unless you become a sought after name who's made one hit after another).
It's all kind of complicated, and while I was thinking about how to explain it all, I realized I can't do it without writing an entire essay on the state of the music industry, the difference between western and eastern audiences, the differences between mainstream and non-mainstream, the inner politics of the idol manufacturing business, the aspirations, priorities, and lifestyles of the idols vs. the "serious" musicians, how and why the music industry has changed since the internet and how it affects everyone in the industry, including how they earn their income, and how the entertainment industry works overall. Hell, it could be book-length by the time I'm done.
I'll talk about my general thoughts about the relationship between the audience and the music industry though. The whole mainstream pop vs. underground/indie/non-mainstream genres debate rests on one thing only, and that is the overall taste of the local audience. If a large percentage of the general audience dislikes your products, then you won't sell, period. So when stuff does sell very well, then it's simply a reflection of the general taste of the population. The truth is, the largest portion of the general audience has "average" taste, and average is synonymous with "mediocre." So, why are we even surprised that most of the music out there is mediocre? It's because they are catered to the mainstream audience, made up of mediocre tastes. It's not as if you give the mainstream audience something with much higher musical merit, they'll all of a sudden embrace it and have their tastes elevated--it doesn't work like that. A lot of what makes music more sophisticated is lost on the uneducated ears of the mainstream audience, and they can only understand the most obvious, soothing, and catchy approaches to melody and rhythm. That is what pop music does so well--obvious catchy productions that are also kind of soothing and fun. Add beautiful looking people with sex appeal, and is it any wonder it's remained the selling formula since the invention of modern media?
While I'm a "serious" musician, I can also appreciate how much work it goes into making really good pop music, and how hard the idol popstars must work in order to be the best at what they do--from training, rehearsals, to maintaining their looks, working insane hours, and always have great attitude and keeping the audience entertained and happy. I'm objective enough to know to separate the image from the music. I may find a popstar very attractive and charismatic, but if the music is not good, I won't listen to it--I'll just watch that person on variety shows and enjoy her charismatic personality. But the average person isn't that logical; they would accept that popstar as a whole package, and support him/her in every way.
S.E. Asian audiences are easily manipulated compared to Western audiences, because Asian culture emphasizes harmony and homogenization as opposed to individuality like the West. The pack mentality of "we" supporting "our" favorite popstar becomes a powerful force in promoting popstars. Idol stars are presented as idealized versions of what the opposite sex desires, and the audience has this tendency to "support" the popstar they are the most attracted to, and that includes buying their albums even if they aren't great singers, watching their movies and TV shows, even if they aren't great actors, and buying the products they endorse, because they want to feel closer to the person they worship and put on a pedestal.
There will always be the mediocre Popstars who just get by on looks (this seems to a more prevalent problem in the J-Pop industry than the Korean or C-Pop industry), have no real passion for music, only wants fame and attention, and are happy and content to be used as money-making puppets by the record company, as long as it keeps them famous. We can all tell who they are, as their singing is mediocre, and they have never expressed any real tangible passion for music in interviews or in their private lives. If the audience found that hard to stomach, they would simply vote with their wallets, but the fact these pretty faces with no talent are allowed to exist only proves that the audience is to blame for their shallow tastes. So next time, before you start pointing fingers at the music industry, you should turn to the people in your lives--your family and friends and co-workers, and ask them why they have such shallow tastes in music and why they continue to support bad music.
Even in the non-mainstream pop, such as the most current Japanese visual kei bands that were posted in this thread (the ones that look like they just walked out of a Final Fantasy video game) there's still that really shallow element, such as the clothes and makeup being so extreme that the members look like colorful transvestite clowns. If music was all that mattered, then why bother with the visual stuff in such an extreme manner? The West went through that phase in the 80's with the big-haired partying hard-rock bands, and when the grunge movement came onto the scene, it made all the big-haired bubblegum rock bands look like a bunch of clowns. People suddenly woke up and said, "Wow, we've been idiots for liking that transvestite clown look." The message behind the grunge movement also made the 80's big hair rock seem very shallow as well, and that also changed everything in the music industry. People became more sensitive to socio-political issues, and they cared if their music had meaning. But eventually, people got tired of being serious and wanted to have fun again.
Truth is, we are visual animals, and we care about how things look. Every genre of music has an associate look. Look at how classical musicians are dressed. Same with rock musicians, hip-hop artists, industrial/goth musicians, jazz musicians, punk musicians, and so on. How "normal" the look is doesn't necessarily reflect how "serious" the music is either. There are plenty of T-shirt and jeans musicians who make crappy music, and really theatrical looking bands making incredible music. The fact of the matter is, when I'm just listening to music, I can't see the visuals, and I only care if the music is any good. That is the real acid test for me--everything else is just added bonus or a distraction.
Today, with the democratization of the internet, we pretty much can find all kinds of styles of music, with each genre has its own niche audience, and continues to move forward despite whether they are part of the mainstream. The people who are making the music may not be able to make a living at it, but they continue to release music because it's what they love to do in their free time when they are not working a full-time or part-time job.
As for mainstream pop vs. "serious" music, I'll just say that in my music collection, the highest rated tracks span all genres, and in fact, I probably have more highly rated tracks in the mainstream pop genre than I do of classical or jazz--probably about the same number as underground/indie/film & game soundtracks. It is a misconception that pop music is easy to write. Mediocre pop music is easy to write, but excellent pop music is not easy at all. I know composer who are snobby classical and jazz guys, and I've seen them try to make pop music, and they sucked at it. There was no sense of excitement, no stylistic authenticity, the melody and rhythm was boring, and the arrangement was laughably dated sounding. But on the other hand, I've also seen pop musicians and underground musicians try to make more respectable music like jazz or classical, and they often sucked too. Many of them lacked the level of musicianship required to pull off those styles.
So in the end, I think genre doesn't really matter--it's quality that counts. In every genre, there are idiosyncratic knowledge and skills you need to have in order to produce superior or interesting results. Personally, I like well-rounded musicians. The more diverse and well-versed a musician is in various genres, the more well-rounded he is overall in knowledge and skill. This applies to singers too, such as being able to sing not just standard pop, but also jazz, rock, and other styles. This isn't to say that musical artists HAVE to have a wide range--it's simply something I personally find more interesting and have great respect for.
If your friend is very passionate about music and cannot and do not want to do anything else with her life, even if she wont' be able to make a decent living in music, then it's a sacrifice she'll have to accept. Also, if she's going the mainstream route, then she'll also need to accept the fact she'll have to deal with the politics, record company control, and probably be forced to be an all-around entertainer instead of focusing on music alone (such as acting, modeling, product endorsement, and so on). If she's going to be "serious" about music, then she'll likely not make enough money to even earn a proper living, but she'll get to concentrate on just music. If she's also talented creatively, she could also work behind the scenes as a songwriter, composer, arranger...etc, and it's possible to earn a decent living that way, although the money one makes will pale compared to many other normal jobs out there (unless you become a sought after name who's made one hit after another).
It's all kind of complicated, and while I was thinking about how to explain it all, I realized I can't do it without writing an entire essay on the state of the music industry, the difference between western and eastern audiences, the differences between mainstream and non-mainstream, the inner politics of the idol manufacturing business, the aspirations, priorities, and lifestyles of the idols vs. the "serious" musicians, how and why the music industry has changed since the internet and how it affects everyone in the industry, including how they earn their income, and how the entertainment industry works overall. Hell, it could be book-length by the time I'm done.
I'll talk about my general thoughts about the relationship between the audience and the music industry though. The whole mainstream pop vs. underground/indie/non-mainstream genres debate rests on one thing only, and that is the overall taste of the local audience. If a large percentage of the general audience dislikes your products, then you won't sell, period. So when stuff does sell very well, then it's simply a reflection of the general taste of the population. The truth is, the largest portion of the general audience has "average" taste, and average is synonymous with "mediocre." So, why are we even surprised that most of the music out there is mediocre? It's because they are catered to the mainstream audience, made up of mediocre tastes. It's not as if you give the mainstream audience something with much higher musical merit, they'll all of a sudden embrace it and have their tastes elevated--it doesn't work like that. A lot of what makes music more sophisticated is lost on the uneducated ears of the mainstream audience, and they can only understand the most obvious, soothing, and catchy approaches to melody and rhythm. That is what pop music does so well--obvious catchy productions that are also kind of soothing and fun. Add beautiful looking people with sex appeal, and is it any wonder it's remained the selling formula since the invention of modern media?
While I'm a "serious" musician, I can also appreciate how much work it goes into making really good pop music, and how hard the idol popstars must work in order to be the best at what they do--from training, rehearsals, to maintaining their looks, working insane hours, and always have great attitude and keeping the audience entertained and happy. I'm objective enough to know to separate the image from the music. I may find a popstar very attractive and charismatic, but if the music is not good, I won't listen to it--I'll just watch that person on variety shows and enjoy her charismatic personality. But the average person isn't that logical; they would accept that popstar as a whole package, and support him/her in every way.
S.E. Asian audiences are easily manipulated compared to Western audiences, because Asian culture emphasizes harmony and homogenization as opposed to individuality like the West. The pack mentality of "we" supporting "our" favorite popstar becomes a powerful force in promoting popstars. Idol stars are presented as idealized versions of what the opposite sex desires, and the audience has this tendency to "support" the popstar they are the most attracted to, and that includes buying their albums even if they aren't great singers, watching their movies and TV shows, even if they aren't great actors, and buying the products they endorse, because they want to feel closer to the person they worship and put on a pedestal.
There will always be the mediocre Popstars who just get by on looks (this seems to a more prevalent problem in the J-Pop industry than the Korean or C-Pop industry), have no real passion for music, only wants fame and attention, and are happy and content to be used as money-making puppets by the record company, as long as it keeps them famous. We can all tell who they are, as their singing is mediocre, and they have never expressed any real tangible passion for music in interviews or in their private lives. If the audience found that hard to stomach, they would simply vote with their wallets, but the fact these pretty faces with no talent are allowed to exist only proves that the audience is to blame for their shallow tastes. So next time, before you start pointing fingers at the music industry, you should turn to the people in your lives--your family and friends and co-workers, and ask them why they have such shallow tastes in music and why they continue to support bad music.
Even in the non-mainstream pop, such as the most current Japanese visual kei bands that were posted in this thread (the ones that look like they just walked out of a Final Fantasy video game) there's still that really shallow element, such as the clothes and makeup being so extreme that the members look like colorful transvestite clowns. If music was all that mattered, then why bother with the visual stuff in such an extreme manner? The West went through that phase in the 80's with the big-haired partying hard-rock bands, and when the grunge movement came onto the scene, it made all the big-haired bubblegum rock bands look like a bunch of clowns. People suddenly woke up and said, "Wow, we've been idiots for liking that transvestite clown look." The message behind the grunge movement also made the 80's big hair rock seem very shallow as well, and that also changed everything in the music industry. People became more sensitive to socio-political issues, and they cared if their music had meaning. But eventually, people got tired of being serious and wanted to have fun again.
Truth is, we are visual animals, and we care about how things look. Every genre of music has an associate look. Look at how classical musicians are dressed. Same with rock musicians, hip-hop artists, industrial/goth musicians, jazz musicians, punk musicians, and so on. How "normal" the look is doesn't necessarily reflect how "serious" the music is either. There are plenty of T-shirt and jeans musicians who make crappy music, and really theatrical looking bands making incredible music. The fact of the matter is, when I'm just listening to music, I can't see the visuals, and I only care if the music is any good. That is the real acid test for me--everything else is just added bonus or a distraction.
Today, with the democratization of the internet, we pretty much can find all kinds of styles of music, with each genre has its own niche audience, and continues to move forward despite whether they are part of the mainstream. The people who are making the music may not be able to make a living at it, but they continue to release music because it's what they love to do in their free time when they are not working a full-time or part-time job.
As for mainstream pop vs. "serious" music, I'll just say that in my music collection, the highest rated tracks span all genres, and in fact, I probably have more highly rated tracks in the mainstream pop genre than I do of classical or jazz--probably about the same number as underground/indie/film & game soundtracks. It is a misconception that pop music is easy to write. Mediocre pop music is easy to write, but excellent pop music is not easy at all. I know composer who are snobby classical and jazz guys, and I've seen them try to make pop music, and they sucked at it. There was no sense of excitement, no stylistic authenticity, the melody and rhythm was boring, and the arrangement was laughably dated sounding. But on the other hand, I've also seen pop musicians and underground musicians try to make more respectable music like jazz or classical, and they often sucked too. Many of them lacked the level of musicianship required to pull off those styles.
So in the end, I think genre doesn't really matter--it's quality that counts. In every genre, there are idiosyncratic knowledge and skills you need to have in order to produce superior or interesting results. Personally, I like well-rounded musicians. The more diverse and well-versed a musician is in various genres, the more well-rounded he is overall in knowledge and skill. This applies to singers too, such as being able to sing not just standard pop, but also jazz, rock, and other styles. This isn't to say that musical artists HAVE to have a wide range--it's simply something I personally find more interesting and have great respect for.
