How Social Factors Affect Our Alternative Of Music

How Social Factors Affect Our Alternative Of Music

The music business has always been notoriously unpredictable, and the old A&R maxim that the cream at all times rises to the highest is far from a given. For any one band that makes a residing out of their music, there are no less than a thousand that by no means will - and the proportion of musicians that really turn into wealthy via their work is smaller still. There's, nonetheless, a normal feeling (if not an precise consensus) that those musicians who do make it are there because they're indirectly intrinsically higher than the swathes of artists left in their wake.

This is paying homage to Robert M. Pirsigs interrogation of quality - what makes something good, and is there really any goal commonplace by which such quality could be measured? Most people would say there may be, as they'll easily inform if a band is amazing or a bunch of expertiseless hacks - but when it comes down to it, this amounts to nothing more than personal style and opinion. Although one can point to certain technical qualities like musicianship, structural complexity and production values, music is more than the sum of its components - one can not dismiss the Intercourse Pistols for not having the technical genius of Mozart, no more than one can successfully rank the music of Stockhausen above or beneath that of Willie Nelson. It seems that in terms of music, it have to be instilled with a Philosophiok Mercury which is as intangible as it's unpredictable. The only barometer by which we can decide is whether or not we like it or not. Or is there something more?

Current history is littered with examples of works and artists that at the moment are considered classics (or have at the very least develop into enormously in style) which have been at first rejected offhand by expertise scouts, agents or trade executives. Harry Potter, Star Wars, the Beatles - all fall into this class, as does Pirsigs classic work Zen and the Artwork of Bike Upkeep, which was rejected 121 times. If phenomena of this magnitude might be overlooked, then what chance do merely moderately talented artists have of ever being noticed? However, the entertainment sphere is packed filled with artists who may never hope to be anything near moderately talented. So does the entertainment business really know what its doing, when so many of its predicted hits fail miserably and rejected unknowns maintain popping up with chart-toppers? Latest analysis would seem to suggest not.

Now that Web is in full flight, social media networks are changing the best way we access and perceive content. The digital music age is upon us, and the ease with which new music from unsigned bands can be obtained has created a new financial mannequin for distribution and promotion. Buzz itself is the latest buzz, and word-of-blog/IM/electronic mail has grow to be a very highly effective device for aspiring artists. Combined with the truth that single downloads now count towards a songs official chart position, the promotion and distribution cycle for new music can take place totally online. But does such bewebbed comfort make it easier to predict what will turn out to be a hit?

The standard method of major labels is to emulate what is already successful. On the face of it, this appears a wonderfully legitimate strategy - if you happen to take a woman who seems to be form of like Shania Twain, give her an album of songs that sound just-like, a similarly designed album cover, and spend the same amount of money promoting her, then certainly this new album may also be successful. Typically, however, this shouldn't be the case - instead, one other lady who possesses all these characteristics (with music of a simlar high quality) seems from nowhere and goes on to take pleasure in a spell of pop stardom.

This approach is clearly flawed, but what is the downside? Its this - the idea that the tens of millions of people who buy a selected album accomplish that independently of 1 another. This is not how people (in the collective sense) consume music. Music is a social entity, as are the people who listen to it - it helps to outline social groups, creates a way of belonging, id and shared experience. Treating a gaggle of such magnitude as if it had been just a compilation of discrete units completely removes the social factors involved. Whilst a single particular person, removed from social influences, would possibly choose to listen to Artist A, the identical individual in real life goes to be launched to artists via their friends, either locally or on-line, and will instead end up listening to Artists C and K, who may be of an analogous (or even inferior) high quality but that is not the real point. Music may be as much about image as about sound.