Is Prog Rock the New Folk?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=99493
Printed Date: April 29 2024 at 00:22
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Is Prog Rock the New Folk?
Posted By: chopper
Subject: Is Prog Rock the New Folk?
Date Posted: August 29 2014 at 13:01
|
Interesting article - apparently prog is about to become hip again. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/william-higham/prog-rock-folk-music_b_5000644.html?" rel="nofollow - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/william-higham/prog-rock-folk-music_b_5000644.html? Not sure about Richard Clayderman though.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: August 29 2014 at 13:10
|
Great blog indeed! chopper, thank you for posting.
|
Posted By: Metalmarsh89
Date Posted: August 29 2014 at 13:17
Can you imagine? A group of young hipsters sitting in a room, and one of them puts on Tales from Topographic Oceans, fresh out of the sleeve. 80 minutes elapse, and thus ends the prog revival era.  Great read though, thanks for posting. ------------- Want to play mafia? Visit http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com" rel="nofollow - here . |
Posted By: brainstormer
Date Posted: August 29 2014 at 13:42
|
When you look at what has happened to the "music" that is being fed the denizens of the TV, one could say that the people must revolt. It's like corporations think they can say what people should see as legitimate art and force feed us spiritual values of ???? Folk and labor music have a close relationship. Pete Seeger was an awesome guy (and wrote a great book, The Incomplete Folksinger). One can see the people's reason for prog in that it's music that is actually music in a historic sense of the idea of music. ------------- -- Robert Pearson Regenerative Music http://www.regenerativemusic.net Telical Books http://www.telicalbooks.com ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net |
Posted By: PrognosticMind
Date Posted: August 29 2014 at 13:53
This.
I can imagine that happening  ."Dude...  ...put on Tales..."Great link/read! ------------- "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous. Got me?" |
brainstormer wrote:
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: August 29 2014 at 14:21
| No. Simply put, the old folk or folk rock never went away. As much as the media and we in the prog community ignore groups like Bon Iver or Mumford and Sons, they are folk based music groups. In the United States, we are fortunate enough to have had the last strong holdout in both political folk and folk rock music in the works of the great Ry Cooder with albums such as My Name Is Buddy, Pull Up Some Dust And Sit Down, and Election Special, where Cooder slams everyone from Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney (youtube MUTT Romney Blues) to the state of Florida's Stand Your Ground gun laws. Cooder even made a string of concept albums 2003 to 2008 commonly referred to as his "California trilogy", that's more progressive than what most Progressive Rock groups actually produce at present. I'll put it another way, prog rock was never even the old folk to begin with. Who makes up this idiotic stuff, anyway? |
Posted By: Xonty
Date Posted: August 29 2014 at 14:32
I doubt it will become mainstream/popular, unless there's some incredible band or bands to come that can re-introduce prog to kids my age without alienating them. Prog's never really disappeared since the mid-70s anyway (Rush in late 70s, Peter Gabriel and Marillion in the 80s, Dream Theater and Porcupine Tree in the 90s, etc.) and definitely isn't fading into oblivion or anything. It doesn't need a huge revival or to be discovered by the public, because it's always there to be found for whoever wants to find it with the help of the Internet, so I won't be disappointed if this never happens. The whole Kate Bush thing might set off a spark if it's lucky, but that's the only real argument I can see in the article (Harry Potter and Lord Of The Rings have been around for about a decade now, and the only people I know who watch Game Of Thrones are more into reading and art than music). Would be very interesting to see what would happen if it did, but the chances are slim. Thanks for posting this though Chopper! 
|
Posted By: Metalmarsh89
Date Posted: August 29 2014 at 19:00
The prog bands wouldn't complain though. Dream Theater is probably one of the few examples of current prog bands that continue to sell out theaters and arenas (do they play outdoors) without any trouble. I'm sure prog bands wouldn't mind a little more cashflow. What I wonder is if a prog revival does happen, will it be a result of the media deciding that these prog bands play good music and should be the next popular thing? Or will it come from the other side, with already popular rock, electronic, or folk bands deciding they want to explore there sounds and abilities further, and entering the realm of prog that way. Muse comes to mind, being not only popular, but rather eclectic in their styles. ------------- Want to play mafia? Visit http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com" rel="nofollow - here . |
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: August 29 2014 at 19:02
|
No. ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: August 29 2014 at 23:58
|
I've seen bell bottoms come back in style, and I'm hoping to live long enough to see three-cornered hats come back in vogue again. I can see Prog becoming big again, easily. I'm not sure it's the best thing, because it'll eventually reach a point when it goes out of style once again. If it does become popular again, it needs to do so while still cultivating a cool underground status and presence. It'd be nice if Symphonic Prog came back in style, to eventually be replaced by the underground Canterbury style, which, in turn, would be replaced by the underground RIO/Avant. That's a real pipe dream, though. |
Posted By: Ambient Hurricanes
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 00:48
|
I'm not sure if I want progressive rock back in the mainstream. With the state of today's music industry, any innovation is going to be absorbed into the homogenous blob of mediocrity so quickly that a re-entrance of progressive rock into the "pop" world can only result in the compromising of the artistic quality of the music. Rock music is certainly due for the next "watershed" rock band, but the last mainstream band of that kind, Nirvana, accomplished remarkably little with regard to influencing the quality of mainstream popular music because the music industry, as it is wont to do, merely incorporated their style into its b*****dized version of rock music that has all the bells and whistles of real rock 'n roll without the artistic quality. Even the prog bands that are popular today are predominantly, for lack of a better term, "cult" bands; Dream Theater, (formerly) TMV, Rush, Radiohead and the like all appeal to a very specific, loyal fanbase and, despite their success, aren't widely appreciated or listened to in today's culture, more broadly speaking. ------------- I love dogs, I've always loved dogs |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 01:09
I've always seen it much differently: people listen to what they like. Whether something is hugely popular or culturally obscure doesn't really make a difference (beyond maybe exposure), Michael Jackson sold a lot of records because people think he's a great singer/entertainer. And they're right, of course. But even if they were wrong, Jackson is still who they'd want to hear. It's no accident ~ or conspiracy ~ that simpler, formulaic, catchy music does better than other styles. People can digest, keep up with, and enjoy it. I don't blame them. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 02:18
^ Exactly. Well put. Go with what you like ... as long as it has standards.  If the popularity of prog is really on its slow rise, then I can see that happening in the UK. I don't think it's going to happen in the US any time soon.
|
Posted By: PrognosticMind
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 06:12
I have to chime in and say that I agree to an extent with what you're saying here, but one of the greatest axioms of ALL forms of marketing is: 1. Most people don't know what they want, even if they tell you they do (what they think they want and actually want are two different things) 2. Repeated exposure to something perceived as big, popular, generation-changing etc (by huge record labels with massive budgets and marketing interests/influence) biases their thinking into adopting that "this is what I like!" I definitely agree with what you're saying that some of us more intelligent folks will know what we like and not require any direction, but the billions of people making lowest-common-denominator corporate music and trends so popular prove us to be the exception rather than the rule. I won't argue the popularity of simpler, catchier music to more complex stuff - but there is still a lot of grey area that gets glossed over IMHO. Yes, there are plenty of corporately-backed investments that tank in the market which should have taken off. I won't argue that point. The key here is the ones that do take off are well-calculated and rooted in human psychology and behavior to exploit emotional biases and desires to the maximum for that bottom line. I can't help that feel MJ's performing capability (he's one of my faves, btw) wouldn't be nearly as massive to the pop community if he wasn't getting HUGE pushes, Pepsi commercials, John Landis-directed music videos, the best multi-million dollar production on his records (Dangerous had an insane budget for 1991, and the production and mix is still incredible 23 years later). Where did Madonna go after being pushed in the late 80's/early 90's? Yeah, she had some huge hits here and there in the late 90's early 00's, but they weren't hit after hit like in the older days. People need to be hammered over and over with things to "buy into" the idea that "this is big!". This is for mainstream stuff, not underground. Everything that gets pumped and pushed in the moment gets perceived as "talent and success". Go back to '98-'00; it was all Backstreet Boys and NSYNC everywhere you looked. What the hell happened to everyone except Timberlake...? There is no conspiracy: it's simply marketing, and marketing done damn well IMHO. Not arguing with you my friend, I just always have to chime in when I see statements regarding the illusion of people genuinely believing they "like" something as huge and corporately pushed as MJ. If he wasn't big, you wouldn't even know who he was (nor care - and that's the entire point), and probably overlook him entirely. That's a hard example to use, because he probably would still sell quite a bit without a huge push - my argument is that he'd be nowhere near where he was in popularity and success without said push, though. Most of my favorite bands have incredible songwriting skills and musicianship that are just as good if not better than massively popular acts. The only thing lacking is billion-dollar pushes to convince everyone and their mother that they're equally worth buying. ------------- "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous. Got me?" |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 06:32
|
No problem, debate away, that's the best part of the forums. And I must fundamentally disagree though you make convincing points. It is the 'billions making corporate trends so popular' who I mean when I talk of people listening to what they like. Maybe a bit troubling to you and I, but the exposure heaped upon the pop market is based on what the majority truly and sincerely enjoy. It's unfortunate but true. On the other hand sometimes the people get it right when they buy the Beatles or Santana or U2 or Prince or Peter Gabriel or anyone else of quality who's enjoyed big sales. As for Jackson, well, he's just great: a phenomenal vocal range and ear, great sense of drama. Nothing wrong with that, and it sold. If the Beatles are allowed an indispensable producer that made their stuff better, so is MJ. Those early Jackson 5 singles are first-rate pop and he was never in better voice. At times, Jackson could even be progressive in the context of high pop music. As for Madonna, harder to defend because she's nowhere near the same musical league as Michael, but if you've ever seen Truth or Dare, you see why she she became so big. It also happens to be one of the best music docs ever made. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: PrognosticMind
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 07:07
|
Perhaps it's just semantics then, because I feel like we're agreeing on similar points, but disagreeing on the minor details. Corporately-backed and pushed multi-media most definitely caters to a consumer need or desire, and capitalizes for maximum ROI - that's the entire nature of the game. Perhaps I should have clarified that at the beginning of my last post. I guess the part that was irking me is when people claim "this is the best" without ever doing any real research or comparing similar artists. They just eat what's handed to them without thinking "Hey! If I like this type of music/artist...I wonder if there's MORE of this that I'm not seeing in the mainstream!", kind of like a one-shot deal type thing. I have no problem at all with majority demand; I'm just a passionate psychology nerd at heart  .------------- "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous. Got me?" |
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 09:29
You've obviously never been to the UK. I'd also question whether Folk was ever particularly popular recently but then I live in Chav City (Birmingham) and have never paid much attention to the hipster parade. ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005  |
Posted By: notesworth
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 12:04
|
I'm in Mississippi, and every "cool kid" I know is into Avett & Sons. The "hipster country" genre. Country music for city people. Real country people don't listen to Avett & Sons, they listen to Luke Bryan and other chart country. I'd love to see prog get big again, but I'm a cynic so I doubt it. Most people my age have never heard of it. They've heard of Pink Floyd, and they may have heard of Rush or Dream Theater. This kind of music simply does not exist to a lot of people I know.
|
Posted By: brainstormer
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 17:02
|
Helping others less "educated" get into better and better forms of art is a heroic action. Put on a superheroes movie and dream big. ------------- -- Robert Pearson Regenerative Music http://www.regenerativemusic.net Telical Books http://www.telicalbooks.com ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 17:25
| Popular tastes are not mainly about what people genuinely like. They're what people are exposed to. And what they are exposed to is highly limited and mainly what suits corporate strategies. As an analogy, look at food. What can it possibly mean to say that the people in Lawton, Oklahoma prefer a diet of fast food to other types of well regarded cuisines. That's virtually all there is here. Popular likes and dislikes are a cultural (and corporate) artifact. |
Posted By: progbethyname
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 17:54
This. ------------- Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣 |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 18:05
|
Hey, executions by beheading and stoning are back in vogue, so anything is possible. I can hardly wait to have my barber pull a tooth or relieve my sanguine humour with leeches. ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: PrognosticMind
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 19:11
This is more or less what I was getting at in my posts above. ------------- "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous. Got me?" |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 19:37
Yeah I don't think so. I love fast food and I also love healthy food. I live on the westcoast, not the midwest, and whatever the good people of of Lawton eat is probably affordable and sustaining them through hard times. I also have no doubt they like it. Who doesn't enjoy a nice Wendy's burger now& then or some Popeyes with biscuits and slaw. You think if there was, what, a "Pasta Pomodoro", or better yet a Chez-Panisse, that Oklahomans would stop eating fastfood? I very much doubt it. It is part of American culture the same way other hot, greasy, inexpensive things like Fish & Chips are part of England or grilled capybaras are a part of Venezuela. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: DBJetsman
Date Posted: August 30 2014 at 19:38
No and I hope not because I'll still be able to say that I'm more inteligent than 99% of 18 year olds because I like 60s/70s/80s rock while they're too busy listening to Beyonce  ------------- "...we hope to give you something far more substantial and fulfilling. All you need to do is sit back, and acquire the taste." - Gentle Giant |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: August 31 2014 at 00:34
Indeed, I thought so.
They like it, sure. But liking here is meaningless. It is not constructed out of choice. I keep ordering diet Pepsi or diet coke at restaurants. Is it because I like it? No, I hate colas. My parents raised me on root beer, but if you want diet at a restaurant, that's your only choice. Even if someone does like colas it's meaningless to say someone likes their limited alternatives. Even when there is a choice cultural conditioning and practicalities such as time or money or other such things influence the choice. Liking has little to do with such choices, although we tend to grade our likes and dislikes on a curve. Yeah, I'll enjoy my diet cola because it's better for my day to day sanity than not enjoying it. |
Posted By: Prog_Traveller
Date Posted: August 31 2014 at 00:46
|
If we are to consider that prog might be hip again then we wouldn't compare prog to folk we would compare it to indie rock. There is already some crossover with indie stuff. However, I don't see this happening. I don't see young hipsters getting into prog in a major way unless they are bands like Sigur Ros or the Mars Volta or progressive bands that have some kind of hipster "street cred." I hate to say it but I think your average 20 year old would probably lump Yes and Genesis etc in with Boston, Journey, Foreigner, Tom Petty and any other classic rock band that their parents listen to. Yes I admit I am a bit cynical.
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: August 31 2014 at 00:48
But you still don't like it and you know you don't like it. The difference is people who like Lady Gaga sincerely like her; her music, her costumes, her bold attitude. They see an artist doing something new, or what to them is new, and they respond. They can't really help it, and you can't judge that as being ignorant of better music simply because you don't appreciate the poor choice of diet softdrinks in your area. One thing has little to do with the other. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: Prog_Traveller
Date Posted: August 31 2014 at 00:54
|
Anyway, I disagree with the premise of the article that prog is about to have some sort of big revival. For one thing you could say it already has although it's arguable that it has been a big one. For another, the internet has been around for over 20 years now. If prog were to have some sort of big comeback it would have happened by now. File this under the wishful thinking category. :) Also, I find it interesting that the writer doesn't mention one newer prog band.
|
Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: August 31 2014 at 01:41
|
Don't forget, we are not talking about Yes and Genesis, and all that 50 years old records, some of us believe is god giving. We are talking about a new generation of music makers, creating new music, in a prog rock sort of style. That is what has happened with folk, is not like Joan Baez have sold a ton of records lately, it's new bands doing new music, more or less inspired by a folk tradition. ------------- Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours |
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: August 31 2014 at 05:53
I think the point is not whether or not they like the current choices but the lack of exposure to a wider variety. Even with a greater exposure to the widest possible range of choices there will always be those that keep to fast food or it's equivalents in whatever area of interest you care to name, but those with a propensity to explore and look for something new, at least to them, should have the chance to do so and not have it dictated by corporations telling people whats cool today. And since none of this is mutually exclusive it doesn't stop someone liking the occasional burger or Lady Gaga as well. ------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005 |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: August 31 2014 at 10:11
I think Sleeper's comment did my post justice. I think we may be disagreeing on what percentage of Lady Gaga's or other pop star's audience sincerely like their music. Some will, sure, there are all sorts of people out there, but that's exactly why I can't absorb the idea that people have flocked to any given popular music without social/commercial/peer manipulation. Some people go with what is popular just because it's popular. This can be intentional on some people's part, then it's annoying. Or it can be passive and naive, then it's sad. If you reshuffle the deck of popularity, you change what they like. This is not sincere in my notion of sincerity. To tie this to the topic of the thread, let me say that I think that if Prog became popular again, we would win some new converts, but we would also see a lot of fellow "fans" whose interest was a mile wide and an inch deep. |
Posted By: PrognosticMind
Date Posted: August 31 2014 at 10:14
Impeccable timing with seeing all of this, and I couldn't agree more with these last two posts.
------------- "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous. Got me?" |
Posted By: Prog_Traveller
Date Posted: August 31 2014 at 13:08
Newer bands creating a kind of prog rock(to paraphrase what you said)meaning a more modern version of it has already happened. In fact this very idea started a little over 30 years ago with the neo prog scene. Did neo prog become huge? No not really. Most US music fans still have no idea who Marillion is and they are considered to be probably the biggest neo band. So yeah, a kind of newer form of prog is not a new concept at all. You might even put Radiohead in that category and it could be argued that they were the forerunners of it. Did they become big? Yes they did. Did they make prog super huge(again). No, not really. I'd say if Radiohead can't do it then nobody can. Another example might be Mars Volta. They got pretty big too but didn't convert tons of prog fans. My point is if it was going to happen it would have already happened by now. Prog did have a bit of a comeback starting around ten to twelve years ago(at least in a significant way). The problem is that prog is just not radio friendly. Other than that it just doesn't get exposed other than a few magazines and on the internet. I'm not sure if there is still a stigma attached to it(maybe still a small one)but regardless prog doesn't have much of a chance of being hip or mainstream just by the qualities that make something prog(ie long songs, complex time signatures etc). And if we water it down too much and it make it more radio friendly then it's no longer true prog and just art rock at best.
|
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: August 31 2014 at 13:15
|
In a word....no.
I don't think prog rock in general is going to ever get much 'bigger' than it is now or was in the past.
It simply doesn't appeal to the masses who listen to pop music for the most part. ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: Metalmarsh89
Date Posted: August 31 2014 at 13:50
Why does listening to prog (or old rock music) make you more intelligent than someone who listens to Beyonce? ------------- Want to play mafia? Visit http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com" rel="nofollow - here . |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: August 31 2014 at 14:03
|
Not sure what this has to do with the whole thread, but I can see one thinking that a "famous" this or that can not do anything with a rock band or singer. That's grossly unfair. These collaborations are seen a lot more in Europe than they are in America where the media has a tendency to pigeonhole people in the desert! And you might check the mixes of artists in music and film in Germany and Japan in the 60's, 70's and 80's and 90's. But America is (at least) about 5 or 6 countries and music will never get the pat of the ba ck of the arts, because in Nashville they don't like loud guitars (hahaha!!!) and in New York, they think twangtwing is stupid and cheesy and bad music! And in LA, it doesn't have enough rap bullets! And New Orleans thinks that music that doesn't have a black beat, ain't no music! For the most part, any art scene that was worth its mettle, and is still heard, all it means is that the artists and work was VALUABLE ENOUGH for it to be heard more than once and still be appreciated 40 to 50 years later. That's a lot more than some of the crap pop music write ups for the majority of these rock fans and reviewers, whose "favorites" won't be remembered tomorrow at all! But saying that we don't have a Woody Guthrie, or an Arlo (for that matter!) or even a Bob Dylan, to tell us that we're not smart enough, and we're too entranched in our toys to give a damn about the meanings and the art forms, is kinda boring, and no one, even at PA will listen to it, or bother to read it, specially if it comes from me, of course!!! Part of the problem is that we think that the "western world" history only exists where we know the media was. Since the media was not present at the Basques, in Munich, in Rhodesia, in Reykjavik, in Lithuania, it means that there is no one that wrote any meaningful music to you and I, or expressed their opinions, as Joan Baez, Country Joe and others, did for a whole generation, will be validated by folks like you or I ... because we don't think that we're valuable or important or have anything to say, any more than that person did on some publication! It's a tough discussion all around, but I find it insulting when it thinks that only a handful of people can represent it, and that is the part that is sad. Progressive and Prog music, is much bigger than London and the US ... but we wouldn't know that here, or believe it unless we saw some stupid newspaper article by another John that came from Melody maker or the New Music Express ... to tell us that someone's glasses were cool, and yours weren't! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: August 31 2014 at 14:53
|
IMO all what is needed to achieve Mr Clayderman's predictions, I mean what contemporary (2010s) prog really needs that it's gonna be launched in height, it's just ONE prog band who will be the first to break the ice; i.e. a young prog band who will get their place in CD collections and hearts of people who do were not listen to prog before, or rarely, but who have desire for a good music on some degree. That supposed band have to be what we call crossover prog (with some of prog-folk element which is always welcome) but very original, with great charisma, strong emotions and passionate approach to the whole thing. Their background also has to be such that it touches the hearts of non - proggers. An important thing is that these non-proggers are going to start to widely enjoy in prog with that supposed band - not in something that could be called also as pop or something, as for example some journalists misguidedly were called Coldlplay "new prog". I think such a band will slightly open a door through which the bunch of others will pass in, and that's already the moment when the guys from the music industry will do their job. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: August 31 2014 at 19:38
Prog's popularity was a flash in the pan, Pop music's is not. There's a reason for that. Nobody "goes with what is popular", that's an assumption. I'm afraid you have it backward. Popular is popular because people go to it. And unless you wanna accuse the music business of working with the CIA on mind control, there's no basis for thinking that a lack of exposure ~ which seems to be your main thesis here ~ is what prevents people from becoming jazz or classical or art music fans. Why is it so hard to accept that the world does indeed dance to its own tune? The fact that we don't much like the tune doesn't mean the corporations are in control of tastes. They are not the taste-makers, we and the journalists we like are. We spend the money, we support the artists, we are the dream seekers, and we are the ones the corporations are watching. They respond to the mass market, not the other way around. I know that's a shock, but in reality far truer than most realize. People who don't like jazz know they don't like it, people who don't like electronic music know they don't like it. Maybe someday they will, but until then no one's going to spend their hard-earned money on something they don't like and won't listen to. Period. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: Metalmarsh89
Date Posted: August 31 2014 at 22:41
 ------------- Want to play mafia? Visit http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com" rel="nofollow - here . |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 01:35
Well, hopefully this discussion is interesting enough, hopefully everything is good with you aside from debating with me and a couple others. Anyway, to your points:
No, corporations do more than respond passively to the mass market. Again, I'll just refer you to the thread I spoke of above.
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 02:14
|
Okay let's imagine this: for a time, say a few years, the
world is widely and equally exposed to all kinds of musics through all
kinds of current media-- the airwaves are filled with as much Steve Reich and Fred Frith as they used to be with Katy Perry
and Maroon 5. You're postulation is that there would eventually
be fewer pop fans and more avantgarde fans? I find that unlikely and in fact would expect many
to start clamoring for some old fashioned songs. Don't be too presumptuous about people and their taste, they aren't sheep and they know what they like, just as you and I do. To assume differently verges on arrogant. But who knows; It certainly would be a very interesting experiment. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 02:23
What about e.g. Loreena McKennith? She has sold more than 14 million records worldwide. |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 03:08
As you laid it out, there would be only a marginal increase, I would guess. There would still be a sincere preference for accessible music over inaccessible music, I have no doubt about that (some Prog is accessible, some isn't). However, corporate entities would still have an interest in picking the winners for each genre and promote them at the expense of the others. A lot people might indeed want old fashioned pop, but there would be no consensus on what that is. Pop music would fracture endlessly until the corporate entities create a consensus for them. |
Posted By: PrognosticMind
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 07:30
|
I don't think the true point of this lies in arguing over "what's popular is somewhat controlled and delivered" - but in that those who have the money and influence don't play games - and run on statistical probability rather than the "chance" of enough people who "just so happen naturally/genuinely like something" being enough to maximize an ROI. "What's going to maximize our ROI; Close to The Edge, or Katie Perry's new record?" There are a lot of complex factors that go into unraveling the uncertainties of a target audience, and something like pop music does a fantastic job of sweeping a lowest-common-denominator market. It hits all the right places in all the right ways, maximizing what humans "hook" onto in regards to music. Short songs, catchy lyrics with sing-along verses and choruses (especially), and images that sell sex like hotcakes. All of these things hit the human psyche in just the right ways, that said corporations almost don't even have to worry about anything else most of the time. This is just intelligent marketing and business perpetuating itself through the music industry. It's no different than McDonald's being popular because 1. It's fast and easy 2. It's affordable 3. It's everywhere you freakin' look. That third point right there reinforces #s 1 and 2, and increases their power beyond their own means alone. And I'm actually going to argue not in favor of there being conspiracy - but rather intelligent, intended planning ofcontrolled results (as controlled as they possibly can be, anyway) - because that's all ANY business is. Calculated risk. If a sales rep is coming to your door selling anything in general, is he not planning or intending to potentially (and hopefully) make a sale off of you? He's not conspiring to do harm to you - but he's most definitely intelligently strategizing a way to market his product so that you convince yourself on an emotional level that this is what you want. That's the entire function of marketing itself. Conspire/conspiracy is a misdirecting word. Intelligent planning towards a controlled outcome is more accurate. When PR/AR/R&D folk meet to discuss how to set up, organize, and operate ANY business or endeavor WHATSOEVER - they are organizing intelligence. There is no way around this. You can call it negative, you can call it positive, or you can look at it neutrally as it truly exists. It's just business, and businesses have plans for profiting. It can be hamburgers or Katie Perry - but there is a plan in place to maximize ROI. If you truly believe that these very organizations just put products out there without testing the market, using statistics, and molding products and services to yield the highest return - then I don't know what else to say. Pop music is the single-most fabricated and manufactured form of music that exists. It is the culmination of well - organized, strategized, and implemented marketing intelligence to a T. It's the pinnacle or apex of such an example, for me. NOW, in regards to consumers genuinely liking said product once it's released - that's much more complex and harder to lasso. I think statistically, it wouldn't be too far off to claim that most people only like it because it's perceived as popular, like in the McDonald's example above. Accessible, affordable (most of the time), and freakin' everywhere (repetition is the single-strongest marketing tool in existence). This doesn't negate the groups of people who genuinely DO like the music, regardless of its popularity. I think to deny the former and claim the latter as the "reality" of this situation is incredibly naive, and doesn't take into account strategized marketing intelligence of those with a plethora of resources at their disposal. Take that as you will, but it's pretty obvious that most (not ALL) consumers WILL only choose from a shallow pool of options - rather than taking the extra time to go online, look up bands/products, and wait to have them shipped to them. Instead, they'll succumb to the immediate-self-satisfaction offered by whatever the popular market is selling at the moment. Notice how I said MOST and not ALL - that's the entire point. MOST = enough to ensure a high ROI for the big cats. The rest of us can do what we want, as that doesn't affect their ROI (for the most part) - so ironically, that's where the freedom of choice you're assuming to be apparent genuinely comes into play. The free market is free in the sense that those with resources to influence it and create waves can essentially do whatever they want (within the legal bounds of regulation, of course). This discussion/debate is awesome btw, ladies and gents. No hard feelings and no personal jabs here whatsoever!
------------- "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous. Got me?" |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 09:52
|
And again...a topic gets analyzed to death by the erudite members of PA.
------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 10:00
|
yay! Not guilty for once. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Metalmarsh89
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 10:21
I will sit on the sideline and throw smilies in too. ------------- Want to play mafia? Visit http://www.mafiathesyndicate.com" rel="nofollow - here . |
Posted By: PrognosticMind
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 10:42
To erudite-ty...and beyond ------------- "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous. Got me?" |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 11:08
------------- What? |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 11:15
This.  Well...I'm referring to the original post where the formatting worked out right. WTF? 
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 11:19
|
Not that.
This. ------------- What? |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 11:40
Frankly, there probably isn't a forward or backward, but rather a feedback loop. Both PrognosticMind and I have acknowledged that the consumer is at least in part complicit in what's popular, but viewing it as that alone is far too myopic. I also must say that we drifted inadvertently toward laying all the manipulation at the doorstep of the corporate element, but originally we were also including social manipulation as well. |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 11:51
Clannad. I've been trying to figure out where I know them from. Is that the group that did the backing music to that British Robin Hood series from the 80s? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 11:55
Yup ------------- What? |
Posted By: Rednight
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 12:22
| What? |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 14:48
You really need to study and read about music that comes from non-commercial and oppressed systems, when the arts are the most important facet and force of information and opinion.
Since you are well versed in America and England, I have no say in your opinion, but I am not a great fan of the thinking that commercial societies ARE THE _______ DEFINITION OF ALL THE ARTS! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 18:24
The basic premise that everyone is arguing in this thread is false. It is not an issue of complicity and manipulation but of simple demographics. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 18:33
-------------  
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 18:42
You just might be. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 20:24
Maybe, though your reaction seems defensive. But what are you defending? We currently live in a time when alternative musics are more accessible than ever, which is of course a good thing. In fact it's a real breakthrough in artistic liberty, both for the artist and the observer, and it's our responsibility to support that new reality as best we can which most here seem to do. And so the fight for what we want and think is great ensues as it always has, each artist scrambling for attention or for that new innovation, and each of us passionately consuming it. To return to the food analogy (as I think it's something everyone can relate to); some of us like gourmet food and microbrewed beers, some prefer a cheeseburger and a coke. I myself have had my fill of haute cuisine and genuinely don't care for it. It no longer tastes good to me nor is satisfying. But it's not because of ignorance or lack of exposure. Just the opposite. Does that make me an unsophisticated slob? Probably to some people, but they'd be mistaken. It's the same with anything else including music. One may assume the person who's favorites include Paul Simon and Sting don't know any better, when they may be much farther along their journey than we think. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 21:45
|
No, it's the new disco.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 21:48
|
^ Well then it's really doomed.
------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: Prog_Traveller
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 22:05
| Hmmmm. Well I have heard people think of prog in the same way you would jazz or classical. Both jazz and classical aren't particularly popular(especially among younger folks)and yet both have been around for a while and both have staying power. Lots of genres have a resurgence but prog doesn't need one. As Nick Barrett from Pendragon said "it's never out because it's never in." |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 22:17
|
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: September 01 2014 at 22:50
|
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: September 02 2014 at 01:40
|
Posted By: PrognosticMind
Date Posted: September 02 2014 at 05:36
All hope is lost! ------------- "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous. Got me?" |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: September 02 2014 at 06:21
It was - if you read the music papers at the time, the albums from bands like Yes and Pink Floyd were massive sellers and the various members of Yes, ELP etc used to win all the musician polls in Melody Maker.
|
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: September 02 2014 at 13:51
|
Some of you are interpreting it as whether Prog might become as popular as Pop. This will never happen and did not happen in the 70's either. When we say that 'Prog was huge' we mean that it was relatively popular, there were some radio stations playing Prog and a few bands filled stadiums. It was popular perhaps as we can say that Dream Theater has been popular in the last 15 years. They can fill big venues but it's not what you will likely hear from the car sitting next to you at the traffic lights. Look at the hits of the 70's (pre-punk) and what you will find are the Jacksons, The Bee Gees, Simon & Garfunkel, Diana Ross, Rod Stewart, Clapton, Don McLean, The Stones, Boston, Peter Cetera, Bonnie M, ABBA, Gloria Gaynor, Village People, Patrick Hernandez.... shall I continue? Pop and Disco (and a bit of mildly hard rock such as Purple, The Who etc) were by far THE popular music. Yes perhaps you will find Lucky Man, Peter Gunn and Roundabout among all those, but Prog was still a 'niche'. What could certainly happen is that among some social group, such as university students and artsy young folks (as it was mainly the case with Prog) as a counter-reaction to the extreme commercialism of late Pop, a trend develops to appreciate more complex music, and in the right circumstances (such as big spreading through social networks, or someone seeing the commercial opportunity and investing in it) it might come back as a hype in certain limited social strata. A certain form of 'elitism' among the youngsters, 'hey, we appreciate culture and art'. And most certainly it would not be like the old Prog, but new music sharing some of its attributes. Or, given the popularity of TV shows such as 'Who can dance', 'Idol' etc, were really talented people are exposed in a popular format, there could be some TV producer who decides to try with instrumental virtuosos, and although it would probably be also in highly commercial formats (short songs, catchy...) a revival of appreciation for virtuosism might favour more complex music. But forget suites of 20 minutes, I'm afraid.
|
Posted By: Rednight
Date Posted: September 02 2014 at 14:19
|
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: September 02 2014 at 15:31
Yes, I do know that. I'v been kidding..
|
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: September 02 2014 at 15:38
| "Is Prog the New Gangsta?" should be the question. And until it's gets that type of street level feel of hip, it will not be the New Folk, sorry. |
Posted By: Master of Time
Date Posted: September 05 2014 at 02:06
You know I just wanna say, I was going to try and jump into this argument somewhere and give my two cents but you have been able to articulate every point I would have made (and points I have tried to make in the past) perfectly. It's a pleasure to read your opinions as I have not found anything you've written that I haven't agreed with wholeheartedly but you seem to be able to put things much more intelligently than I ever could.
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 05 2014 at 05:12
|
Popularity is relative. Back in the seventies when Prog was at its most popular in terms of record sales, gig attendance and fan following, Pop Music was more popular; and some would say 70s Pop was just as bland, contrived and pre-fabricated as it is today, if not more so when you consider what was topping the hit-parade back then. The decade that brought Genesis and Yes into the public awareness also spawned the Donny Osmond and The Bay City Rollers and a whole wave of Soul and R&B artists from Stax and Motown that would lead to the rise of Disco. Prog Rock wasn't even the most popular Rock genre of that decade, Glam Rock sold more records, what we would now call Classic Rock of bands like Fleetwood Mac, The Allman Brothers, Lynyrd Skynyrd and Aerosmith had a bigger following on all levels; and at grass-roots level we had Pub Rock and Garage bands and a plethora of Blues Rock artists. What we had was a demographic ('A particular sector of a population') that favoured Progressive Rock (but not necessarily elusively so). That demographic generally did not buy Pop, and by the same argument, the demographic that bought Pop generally did not buy Prog. They were two distinct and separate sectors of the population and no amount of advertising, record label manipulation or extensive radio plugging would ever sell Can's Tago Mago to the teenagers that bought David Cassidy records and vice versa. The demographic that bought Prog in the 70s is pretty much a constant through history - the educated, erudite, middle-class, predominantly white, mainly teenage, single, male sector of a population in every generation are those that seek-out culture from the fringes of the mainstream while not necessarily fully immersing themselves in it. In one generation they were those that liked Jazz in the 50s but also dug rock'n'roll, the next generation bought into psychedelia of the 60s but without the hippy culture. In the late 70s the same demographic eschewed the simplicity of Punk yet found something of merit in Wire, Talking Heads, Television and Joy Division and in the 80s they would ignore the fashionable popularity of the New Wave and Synth Pop of bands like Duran Duran and Culture Club for the less popular and less commercial sounds of Bauhaus, Modern English or The Sound. Each generation has its own demographic of bright young men who know what they like when they hear it, and they don't buy Pop music. The people that made up that demographic in any generation became a different demographic (older, employed, mortgaged, married) and the gap they left was filled by the next generation of educated, erudite, middle-class, predominantly white, mainly teenage, single, males and they sought out their own niche market of music and culture. This is the demographic that today buys Animal Collective, The Dear Hunter, Fleet Foxes and The Decemberists and that is (or at least should be) the target of the Huffington Post article. These are not the people that buy Pop music and no amount of exposure to the groups they like will ever make those bands popular to the teens that buy Katy Perry or Sam Smith records (and vice versa). Those that buy into the modern trend of "indie folk" are not immersing themselves in "contemporary folk" of Woody & Arlo Guthrie, Tom Paxton, June Tabor or Ewan McColl; it's less of a folk revival (or continuation) and more a reinvention. (However, I guess the exception could be increasing interest in Nick Drake in recent years). The article gets it wrong, and that is not unusual in a business that abounds with myth and fallacy, there will not be a "revival" of anything and no pundit has ever successfully predicted one - there could be a resurgence of interest in something from the past but that will be triggered by something new and it will not be a revival. For example for some people Gothic Rock never went away and it has experienced several resurgences of interest since the mid-80s, yet the bands and artists that triggered those re-awakenings bore little or no resemblance (or connection) with the "classic era"; pundits have frequently predicted a Gothic Rock revival but it has never materialised. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Xonty
Date Posted: September 05 2014 at 14:48
Definitely! It's always puzzled me why a lot of these modern progressive bands who are taking music to "different places" or "pushing the boundaries" rarely make a full-time living out of it, yet pop artists playing the same 4 chords moulded by the same producers, written by the same songwriters are pumping out millions. The media and music business is more than content with the money they're getting from all the publicity, so I doubt they'll change directions to something as radical as prog unless there's some magical band that unites progressive and pop music even better than say the Beatles with Sgt. Pepper. Muse are probably one of the few current popular artists closer to this more sophisticated eclectic music, but they're not going to have the freedom from the people above them to be releasing 20-minute epics compared to something risky enough as "Supermassive Black Hole" (probably their biggest song which never really made to the public past the intro riff). Iamthemorning's a band which I thought could have made it into the charts when I first heard a song like "Burn" a couple of years ago. Much more organic, lyrical, and better written than the Ellie Goulding song (of the same name) that made it into the #1 slot. All Iamthemorning's missing then is a cheesy pop video, repetitive chorus, a totally unnecessary over-production, plus a sh*tload of promotion.
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 05 2014 at 20:13
Shock the Monkey was 1982, that's way out of the classic era by half a decade. When referring to the era from 1968 through to 1978 very little Prog was Pop - we had Robert Wyatt doing a cover of I'm A Believer and the occasional Pop-rock single from Jethro Tull (when they weren't off doing 40 minute two-part epics). I know nothing of Styx but my understanding is they started out less Pop and more Prog and slowly became more commercial and mainstream (the opening track on their début album is a 13 minute four-part suite based on Aaron Copland's Fanfare for the Common Man). If there was deliberate "manipulation" (which I doubt) then it was in the opposite direction to what you have suggested, they just did it sooner than Genesis. However, Styx, for all their faults, are not the kind of Pop that everyone infers with they talk of simple, fabricated and manufactured, 4-chord talentless pop records, and no one would put Styx into the same category as David Cassidy or Donny Osmond.
------------- What? |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: September 06 2014 at 14:46
|
^Okay. I actually deleted my post shortly after I posted it because I didn't think it was as brilliant as it could have been (and, unlike now, I was working off my iPhone, which got to be a bit fatiguing). I guess you got to it anyway - no problem. Entirely true about the time of Shock the Monkey (1982) and certainly not a news flash to me. I presumed we were talking about the make up of things in principle, since the thread is ultimately asking us to conjecture about the future. I just picked the first thing that popped (no pun intended) into my mind. (I love PG's album, Security.) Yes, very few individual Prog tracks were commercially successful. Then again, very few individual Pop tracks become commercially successful either. There were plenty of Prog songs that were intended for widespread consumption beyond the Prog niche, and generally they did not get the necessary promotion (e.g. Genesis - Dusk, Harold the Barrel, Harlequin...up to quite a few on the Lamb, Jade Warrior - Joanne, May Queen, Demon Trucker, and several others, several from JT, as already mentioned). Of course there was plenty that were not for widespread consumption too. I'm just saying that there are plenty of bridges that cross the river that separates them, figuratively speaking. As far as the subject of manipulation, I continue to be baffled as to why some continue to think that what we like cannot be manipulated. It is happening right now with the excessive amounts of sodium generally added to our processed foods. As one comedian once said with regard to the Admiral's Feast at Red Lobster, the only time in our lives when we actually consume more sodium is when we are drowning. I love the Admiral's Feast, and yes, I have been manipulated along with many others to like high sodium food. The concept is not necessarily snobbish as Atavachron kept trying to promote. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 06 2014 at 18:29
Sorry, my bad. I didn't spot the delete - I've amended my post accordingly.
I think your assessment more-or-less right but your conclusions and assumptions are wrong. Just because a Prog band wrote shorter, simpler songs it does not necessarily mean they wrote them deliberately for widespread consumption, for example Dusk is a short song but The Knife was the single taken from Trespass - surely a band vying for an audience beyond Prog would have picked the more accessible track to promote as a single.
You seem to be continuing a discussion that we never had but hey-ho. Where is the "manipulation" in the amount of salt in processed food? Processed foods are high in salt - I get that - salt is a preservative and flavour enhancer - but how is this manipulating us? I really don't follow this line of reasoning at all. ------------- What? |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: September 06 2014 at 21:11
|
There is manipulation on a macro level, due to so few organizations controlling most of mass media. We certainly have more access to more music from around the world, but one has to actively go out and seek it. But most folk are as lazy in seeking good or at least alternative forms of music as they are in their TV viewing habits. Hence, the Kardashians. Hmmm....lazy, or perhaps stupid. ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 07 2014 at 00:06
That's very nice of you to say, thank you. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: September 07 2014 at 00:54
Fair enough.
My bad then this time. Besides, I told myself that I was going to just drop it, as all sides are entrenched, but I was poor in my discipline. (Kudos to The Dark Elf, though)
The increasingly high sodium content has amped up the general population's baseline taste for sodium. Anyway, I thought what the Huffington Post had to say about modern acceptance of fantasy themes was interesting. No one's commented on that yet. |
Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: September 07 2014 at 04:14
|
That's an interesting angle I'm also disappointed this thread didn't
discuss more. The last 200 years' history of Western art and culture
often appears to have been an ideological tug-of-war between
romanticism/symbolism and modernism/realism. It really is a "history
repeats" scenario if you for instance look at how the Impressionist and
Art Nouveau movements foreshadowed the psychedelic aesthetic of the
1960s and 1970s. I think that backlash against the "true art is realistic" mentality accounts more for metal's return to mainstream popularity than progressive rock's, though. At the very least that's the case here in Europe, since it seems to be by far a bigger and more active genre if you look at the amount of new groups active as well as the amount of concerts held and new records released. It also might be relevant that a lot of the biggest names in progressive rock right now either have one foot in the metal stylistically or connections to the metal scene. I wager that after the original generation of progressive rock fizzled out in the mid/late 1970s, the at the time burgeoning heavy metal movement became the refuge for technically involved and ambitious guitar music with fantastic themes. This is in a Danish context somewhat ironic, because a lot of Scandinavian prog/psych-rock musicians looked down upon the early hard rock earlier in the late 1960s/1970s. Even today the progressive metal scene seems kind of culturally segregated from the rest of the genre, and a lot of people in the metal underground are suspicious of overtly intellectual music. I suspect this also has something to do with how beginning with the NWoBHM, there was this DIY subcultural infrastructure built up in terms of specialized fanzines, record labels and so on even if it wasn't as independent as punk's. Then there's the fact that we're right now facing the same kind of horrific socio-economic situation as the classic 1970s/1980s metal groups did. ------------- "The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 07 2014 at 04:52
But that isn't manipulation as that would imply deliberate intent and collusion on the part of the food producers. We buy processed foods for their convenience, they contain high levels of salt as a preservative and to stop them tasting bland - I don't see how this is manipulation. Our need for salt in food is not the result of conditioning and manipulation by the food producers, our palates may have adjusted to food with high-sodium content but that is a consequence of our high consumption of processed food, not a deliberate ploy by the manufacturers. They make food that appeals to our tastes, they do not manipulate our tastes to like their products. When making bread I use a fraction of the salt recommended in the recipes but if I leave it out completely it tastes bland, we like salt in our food and always have. I made ragu bianco last week and while I made it to perfection (even though I say so myself) using natural salt-free ingredients I deliberately didn't to add salt during the cooking as I was finishing the sauce with two spoonfuls of marscapone cheese (cheese is a processed food that normally has a high salt content, when using naturally salty ingredients like dairy and seafood I don't add extra salt). When we came to eat it, it lacked flavour and tasted bland so we had to salt the meal after it was served, later I realised that the marscapone I'd used was a low-salt, low-fat variety. Cooking food (or producing music) is a matter of balancing flavour and seasoning to appeal to our palate. Manipulation in music exists, this cannot be denied, but I question the perceived intent of that manipulation and the degree to which it occurs. As David has said, we have it backwards, the music is manipulated to our tastes, our tastes are not manipulated to like the music. This is most evident in Progressive Rock where the artist deliberately produces music to appeal to their audience and this happens on all levels not just by those artists who re-hash a winning formula in the hope of continued success (Rick Wakeman, Ian Anderson, Steve Hackett, Mike Oldfield, etc.). Pop (and Rock) producers have found winning formulae that appeal to the tastes of the masses and they exploit those tastes but it is the music that is being manipulated, not the tastes of the buying public. The homogenisation of music is a consequence of over-applying a formula (seasoning) to enhance the natural talent (ingredients) of the performer - I believe it is a fallacy to assume from that that Pop performers and artists lack natural talent just as it is a fallacy to assume that the audience can be manipulated into liking a talentless performer.
------------- What? |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: September 07 2014 at 13:15
Intention is not necessary. Manipulation can occur entirely unintentionally from over zealousness or whatever. The dictionary definitions I have looked up require that the managing of influence be "skillful" but require nothing about it being intentional. Intention is a pragmatic inference that we may or may not make and may or may not be correct. Social manipulation is normally unintentional. Marketplace manipulation can be financially skillful yet so self-interested that the manipulation is not realized. The issue with sodium came up on a past NPR (National Public Radio) coverage of a congressional hearing with food producers, I don't know when it was; sometime in the past year when I was driving to work. The claim that has been made that the amounts of sodium used in processed food are excessive, and that is changing our taste with regard to what we find minimally acceptable. I think you concurred with this, but assigned the change to our high consumption of processed food. My understanding is quite the contrary, that the amounts of sodium in products have increased over the years, but I don't speak from direct knowledge or any sort of research. Yes, people can get around it by consuming less processed food, but some people also have less access to unprocessed food. I might also add that you can't use "bland" by itself as an explanation. A particular Native American population I live with generally prefers bland food, and those most entrenched in the culture do not like any of the flavorings that the Western World regularly adds. (There's even a religious prohibition against Peyote men adding salt on meals before and after Peyote Meetings). Those who are less entrenched in the culture by spending time in other locations are more in line with the Western attitude toward flavorings. I bring this up to once again try to point out that the things we like are not absolute and are not wholly generated internally from individuals independent of outside influences. Back to music. I'm afraid I do think not only that music is often manipulated to our tastes, but that our musical tastes themselves are manipulated by a wide variety of culprits; the music industry generally, our social environments, MP3s, the context in which we hear music (during workouts vs. in the car), and so on. http://www.npr.org/2014/08/07/338606558/your-favorite-songs-abridged" rel="nofollow - NPR Headline Aug 7 2014: Your favorite songs abridged "Last Friday, a Top 40 radio station in Calgary, Alberta, introduced listeners to a new format. As one on-air stinger put it, "90.3 AMP: Now twice the music." When they say "twice the music," though, they actually mean half the song." "When you think about why songs are the length that they are, why are they generally between three and five minutes. It goes back sixty years. And if you were a musician back then, you wanted radio airplay, you needed to have a 45. So artists complied and created three to five minute songs. Really what we are trying to do is redefine what listeners want." -Steve Jones, vice president at the Canadian radio firm Newcap. Potential thread relevance: Prog will not flourish if Steve Jones' experiment catches wildfire. Perhaps some forces will be available to counterbalance it. I don't know. |
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: September 07 2014 at 13:28
|
^ It's a tricky question because people do genuinely like what they like, but I have to come in some support to Hacket Fan in that what people like is subject to manipulation. Fashion is one of the most obvious areas, especially women's (not because they are more manipulable but because they tend to be more interested in looking good). Do you like wide trousers or tight? bright and lively colours or pastel ones? well, what the public 'likes' changes every year, so one might ask, did they genuinely like what they were wearing last year? if so why do they wear different things this year? surely one's tastes can not change from one year to another can they? This illustrates the point, of course they did like what they wore last year and they like what they wear this year. They like what the industry has set as the trend, not any particular fixed look, but they like looking trendy. Of course the spectrum of clothing styles is very large and everybody will change according to the trends but within 'his / her own broad style'. Regarding food a commonly discussed case is soy, which received huge investment in advertising it as a miraculous healthy food in the 90's (mostly in the US) resulting in a revenue increase from US$ 300 million to 4 billion for the soy industry in a few years. Everything suggests that this industry did not make all this effort out of genuine concern for the health of the population but because soy is highly profitable to grow compared to other legumes and cereals. Publicity is the intentional manipulation of people's tastes, impressions and opinions, and frequently people are encouraged to like what is most profitable for its producers, and the music industry is no different. Lots of money are dedicated to this, so pretending that intentional manipulation of people's tastes does not exist is naive. Of course manipulation does not work to the same degree with everybody and it causes counter-reactions as well, but if it works for a large enough number of people it's good enough for the industry.
|
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: September 07 2014 at 15:13
| ^Well put, definitely. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 07 2014 at 16:55
|
It was well put but unfortunately not relevant, well they are relevant in the sense that it is a complete misreading of what actually happens, but apart from that neither are examples of manipulation of peoples tastes. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 07 2014 at 18:52
Manipulation that is unintentional is not manipulation, if you mean the unintentional change in people's taste then you cannot use the word "manipulation". Manipulation is a deliberate act, so in being deliberate it is therefore intentional. The dictionary definitions that I looked up use words such as shrewd, dishonest, deceiving, unscrupulous and unfairly ... all these denote intent. In the context we are using the word manipulation with regard to Pop music it can be nothing but intentional.
You need to provide proof to backup any kind of claim, especially one heard on talk radio. Try this:  ...what that shows is an average 3.4% decrease in sodium in processed food between 2005 and 2011, but as you can see from the graph, over a third of foods had no change while other foods showed an increase. (in case you're interested the food products that showed a marked increase were salad dressing and barbecue sauce). Either way this does not support your claim of an increase the changing levels of sodium.
This is irrelevant (and demonstrably false, but that is so woefully off-topic I'll not expand on it further)
Yes I can use the word "bland", because I did. If salt did not enhance the flavour of a food then we wouldn't use it as a seasoning. Your example illustrates so that perfectly I struggle to see what your objection is.
But... none of those are examples of manipulation. These are changes in listening but not necessarily changes in taste
This is an attempt at change and is indeed an example of attempted manipulation, but it is not an attempt to change people's taste in music. Jones admitted that "I think the country radio would be a terrible place to try this. I also think that classic rock songs – it would be very difficult to present listeners who have, for decades, heard the songs a certain way."
 Prog is not the kind of music that features on Top 40 radio in Calgary, I see no relevance in this what-so-ever.------------- What? |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: September 07 2014 at 21:35
This is becoming a somewhat circular discussion, but to expand upon the soy analogy: Who ever said that the Soy Industry was doing what they did out of 'genuine concern for the health of the population' ?. That would be a bit naive. Most of us live in a consumer based culture. Whatever the motives of the evil Soy People are is completely irrelevant, they invested in soy, they took the commercial risks, they both lost and, eventually, gained. Well, so what? That's how it works. To accuse anyone (other than maybe Big Oil and the like) of being any more manipulative than your local grocery chain pushing seafood over beef is a misunderstanding of a market society. I think what we have here is a political disagreement; a socio-political dissatisfaction among many with the culture in which they live. They, the largely caucasian working or middle class (as Dean has pointed out) are the most susceptible to this. Nothing wrong with that, but it is politically motivated rather than rationally considered. It is people who made the current eating trends what they are, the health culture that arose in the 1970s (I was there, I know), not some invisible evil secret corporate think tanks shoving what they wish upon the people. Do you think the rise of the electric car is being manipulated? Or could it be that it was demanded by those who see the obvious-- that electric transportation is the future. And of course, eventually, Tesla will be accused of "manipulating the people". But if you've ever seen the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car?, which came out a mere eight years ago, you'll see that, though compelling and certainly important, the film has become immaterial. The very real possibility that the car industry may have tried to quietly sabotage electric car technology doesn't really matter anymore: We now have the very real option of buying one for ourselves, saving thousands in gas and helping to curb harmful emissions. We won. And now the car makers are scrambling to keep up. ------------- "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy |
Posted By: Prog_Traveller
Date Posted: September 07 2014 at 22:22
Interesting how we go from soy to electric cars in only two paragraphs.  Anyway, electric cars aren't exactly selling like hot cakes so to speak so to me I don't see that as a good example of the consumer getting what it wants. I'm not sure about the current state of electric cars but for a while there was a popular opinion that they could not go faster than 50 miles per hour. This by itself was enough to sabotage the industry(or at least partly so). I think when people heard this it made them loose interest in wanting to own an electric car. We do very much live in a "here today gone tomorrow" kind of world so the next big thing better be an improvement(or at least be perceived as one)in order for a trend to settle in or even a demand for something even if it's not the most popular. In other words something still has to have selling power in order for it to be an available option. I don't really see a strong connection to prog here though. The music industry has changed a lot and prog is in a position to gain a lot more fans but in my opinion it has stalled. It missed the boat at least as far as being super huge or mainstream but I view that as a good thing. Prog is already starting to get too watered down. What passes for prog now would probably not have passed for prog 35 to 40 years ago. I'm an open minded music fan so it's not that big of a deal but I don't like the idea of young kids listening to a bunch of experimental indie bands and calling themselves prog fans when they have no clue who ELP, YES, KC, Flower Kings, Marillion, early Genesis and all the other bands commonly known as prog are. That is just how I feel though. In other words I don't want the definition of prog stretched too much just so it can appeal to those who would normally not give a crap about it. Again that's just me. ;) No one expects classical, jazz or bluegrass to change so leave the prog a lone also. :) The bottom line is prog had it's peak in popularity in the early to mid seventies. Many people still see it as a 70's genre and thus as a genre that is "time locked." I don't see that changing anytime soon. It has a dedicated medium sized following now and I am happy with that. Let's leave well enough alone and as King Crimson might say "be happy with what we have to be happy with." It is true that industries and corporations do manipulate public opinion and play a role in shaping tastes. This is because they have a lot of money and can buy advertising. The prog scene is where it is now in large part because of the internet. It has an underground kind of following and as such has not been a victim of commercial manipulation(unlike say in the seventies). I say the fewer prog bands on major labels the better. The more prog becomes commercial the more it has to live up to the standards of those promoting them. I like it just the way it is now(for the most part). |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: September 07 2014 at 22:26
I see that a lot is falling upon the meaning of 'manipulation'. I disagree wholeheartedly with your inclusion of intention as a necessary condition in the word's meaning. Intention is a pragmatic inference attached the word. I pulled the following instances of actual word usage off Google and Google Scholar. None of these instances involve intentionality, and each sounds fine to me: “All of this design information is necessary to translate Figure 1 into Figure 2, as the C ++program has the same general design, but makes explicit that the program is manipulating points, calculating distances, computing averages, and so on.” (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=%22is+manipulating%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,37) “Nanotechnology is manipulating matter at nanometer level and the application of the same to medicine is called nanomedicine.” (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22is+manipulating%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C37) “Otherwise, the MMP is manipulating a valid ACM message and must process its body one line at a time, beginning at decision block 610.” (http://www.google.com/patents/US6256666) I do appreciate your investigation into sodium increases in processed food for both its educational value and the effort you put into it. Clearly, as things stand, the analogy I attempted does not apply. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 08 2014 at 01:29
Erm, we are actually discussing the noun 'manipulation', not the verb 'manipulating', however all of your examples the thing doing the manipulating is not doing it by accident or as a consequence or by-product, the intention of the [person who wrote, designed or invoked the] program/technonolgy/MMP is to handle, change and/or alter the data-points/matter/ACM message. These are not pragmatic inferences, they are semantic inferences. When we have two or more possible meanings for a word we apply the meaning that is appropriate to the context in which it was used. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: September 08 2014 at 03:11
Coming back to this for a moment, Steve Jones is wrong about why songs are the length they are because he also "has it backwards" - 45s (and before that 78s) were chosen to be that size to accommodate the average length of a single song, which were around the 3 to 4 minute mark long before the invention of the phonograph. This is the only reason why 45s were 7-inches in diameter and 78s were 10" in diameter. Edison's phonographic cylinder could only record 2 minutes of music and it failed because of the competition from the 10" 78 that didn't require the songs to be abridged to fit on the record. Folk songs, sea shanties, hymns, carols, gospel songs, operatic arias, art songs, music-hall/vaudeville songs are all of similar (short) length, in 20th century popular music (and not just pop music) this was predominately of the AABA or 32-bar form and that length was determined independently of the medium (in the early part of the century this medium was sheet-music not the phonographic record). This fallacy of causation is not uncommon, even Wikipedia gets it wrong as they state that the 10" 78 was determined by the use of synchronous electric motors having a rotational speed of 3600 rpm with a 46:1 gear ratio giving 78.26 rpm on the turntable platter - unfortunately that is only valid in the USA that has a 60Hz mains frequency, in Europe where the mains frequency is 50Hz those motors spin at 3000 rpm so a 38½:1 gear ratio was required - there is no magic in a 46:1 gear ratio and it is not a technological limitation, gear ratios can be practically any value. The size of the disc at 10" was not determined wholly by the rotational speed, they could have been 12" or 8" or any size they liked, 10" was chosen because at 78rpm it gave 3 minutes play time to accommodate the average length of a song at the time, to illustrate this 12" 78s were produced for longer songs. Similarly when the rotational speed was decreased to 45rpm they could have kept the size at 10" (there is no technical reason why not) but chose to reduce the diameter because that is how long songs were. The later improvements of microgrooving and disc mastering meant that 7" 45s could accommodate longer songs (in excess of 7 minutes) - that format has been the standard since the mid-60s yet most pop songs remained between 3 and 4 minutes in spite of this. Jones is presenting a specious argument. ------------- What? |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 08 2014 at 07:08
|
I think manipulation is too strong a word to use and assumes condescendingly that most people are sheep. No, they are not, but at the same time they are not necessarily spending all the time in the world looking for the solitary needle in a haystack. They want the kind of stuff they like delivered on a platter. Corporations try to second guess this and push more and more quantities of say the particular genre or sub genre that is enjoying a wave of popularity at that time. It would be pretty deluded to believe they don't and just randomly produce albums hoping for success. They don't hope, they are usually fairly certain of succeeding and that is why unsuccessful entertainers don't get too many chances to make a comeback. "A singer is only as good as his last concert" holds good here (that no singer, in reality, is that perfect and good here only implies commercial success is a different issue). And the more unpredictable their reach, the more conservative the corporations get. Today, big production houses in India are able to cover a lot of screens at a low cost due to digitization and hence don't mind taking a few risks once in a while. But in the 90s, when physical prints still had to be transported to every cinema hall and cinema halls only had one screen, they were hyper-conservative and made us watch practically the same film with a few minor re-arrangements of the cliches over and over again. And films still ran well. In fact the biggest hits of that time achieved an ROI that would be unthinkable today because films now get yanked off screens within a few weeks at the most. So it's not as simple as people either loved it totally or disliked it totally but were hypnotised into watching those awful films. It's more 'grey'. We didn't have very many avenues for entertainment then so we used to grin and bear with these films or simply throw logic out of the window and have a hearty laugh to figuratively get back our money's worth (and tickets were also much cheaper then). If you look at the way the music industry has evolved too, you don't see MJ-like worldwide superstars anymore. When MJ came over to Mumbai in the 90s to perform a show, there was a lot of buzz. I have no doubt that Bruno Mars would not be able to generate even a mere iota of that mania. That is, the diminishing aura of superstars (as opposed to album sales) has nothing to do with piracy; it is simply a reflection of the fact that people can find a lot more things to do with their time than just listening to music. And pop music with its ephemeral, flavour of the moment appeal, bears the brunt of this more so than other genres. It is quite possible that corporations have responded to the emerging unpredictable nature of current music culture with heightened aversion to risk. And because it is pop music, it will continue to find a large market because it is accessible enough to attract people who want to listen to music but don't necessarily want to search far and wide for it. Again, to say so does not imply that they are prepared to be satisfied with what is mediocre. It is simply that a better advertised and promoted product has a better chance of winning in the marketplace. You can make a great car that offers the ultimate value for money but if in order to do so, you skimped on advertising expenses, you may find to your dismay that people are not aware that such a product even exists and you fall miserably short of your sales projections. Just because Suzuki sells way more cars in India than Fiat doesn't mean they make far better cars or customers would not like Fiat even if say it was sold through Suzuki dealerships. It's just that Suzuki's dealer and service centre footprint is far greater than Fiat and it also commands a reputation of reliability so that people would almost unhesitatingly gravitate to Suzuki products without bothering about the value other manufacturers may or may not offer. Likewise is the scenario in pop music v/s well, less mainstream genres/artists within rock.
|
Posted By: Gerinski
Date Posted: September 08 2014 at 07:28
|
I'd say that there is a non-trivial difference between the sentences 'people consume what they like' and 'people like what they consume'. I'm not a letters man, let alone in English which is not my mother language, but I hope you will get my point if I say the following: Can the industry influence what the consumers consume? I don't think anybody would answer 'no', otherwise all the millions spent in advertising and marketing would be wasted money. Do people like what they consume? (more than what they do not consume for the same price). The general consensus here seems to be a 'yes'. People are not completely stupid puppets, they genuinely like what they consume, they have choice. If we combine both in a transitive form, we get: 'can the industry influence what people like?' And so the answer turns to be a 'yes'. People without particular interest in music are buying now stuff which is quite different from what they bought 5 years ago or 10 years ago. They liked all of it at the time they bought it, but they bought (and therefore 'liked') mostly what was put in front of their nose. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 08 2014 at 08:00
Exactly. As Liam Gallagher once put it crudely, "If you are not on the charts, you don't exist." That's not far off in describing how the large majority of listeners 'consume' music and they have valid reasons to do so. They have a certain set of priorities which are likely very different from those of music snobs.
|
Posted By: Prog_Traveller
Date Posted: September 08 2014 at 09:55
|
[I think manipulation is too strong a word to use and assumes condescendingly that most people are sheep. ] Ok. How about "control" then? If people aren't being manipulated then they are being controlled in some way. They are led to believe that these are the only options they have by only showing them the options they want them to see. This is how the music industry was able to sweep prog under the carpet. If it was invisible to the masses then hardly anyone knew about it and therefore they didn't need to promote it or worry about it. |
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: September 08 2014 at 10:12
|
They are not led to believe anything in particular nor are they being controlled. They just don't care. They don't HAVE to deal with whatever is not at the top of the charts and prog isn't. Of course, prog fans don't like the implied inference that most music listeners are simply indifferent to prog (rather than being somehow hypnotised by the media into believing it doesn't exist) but that's how it is. There may have been a time and a place when prog was popular but that time is long gone and changes in the tastes of listeners are at least as much responsible for that as the corporations. Large numbers of people didn't so much like prog rock as they did a few popular prog rock bands. When these bands either lost audiences or just went commercial, no new bands, barring Rush, were able to take their place commercially speaking and in the meantime punk and new wave happened which caught the fascination of the public. And there's nothing particularly baffling about why prog is not popular anymore. Even jazz is not as popular as it used to be up to the 60s and that's hardly because jazz itself began to suck. It's just that tastes change. Corporations may have contributed to the acceleration of such change, compared to the pre-recording era, by facilitating the availability of, on the one hand a studio with equipment and on the other the ability to reach a large audience, to new bands interested in performing whatever music gets popular at that time. This may have reflected in 'migration' of audience to the new music on a larger scale and much more quickly than what may have happened before. But that's simply because the new music gets assimilated faster and I personally would not attribute any conspiracies to that.
|
Posted By: PrognosticMind
Date Posted: September 08 2014 at 12:22
|
Influencing and biasing free-will decisions towards a preferred outcome is how I've always thought of it. That's all marketing is. Even if you're selling a very good product, you still need to convince people of the benefits (and communicate said benefits effectively) in order for them to understand WHY it's a good idea to buy it. The less they understand or feel this product is for them, the more their decision is biased to not buy both the idea or the product, and vice-versa. ------------- "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous. Got me?" |