Music vs. culture

[sabriel9v]

At one point in time it seemed as if music influenced culture. Blues and soul was popular in black neighborhoods and it was transformed into rock n roll via the help of certain edgy and marginalized black musicians and some very mainstream and likeable middle class white musicians. Once it hit the scene, people wanted to dress "rock n' roll", rebel, it scared some conservatives.

 

The same happened with mod music, jazz during the beatnik era, psychedelic rock, punk rock, rap music.

 

My question is this, does music influence culture anymore? Or is it the inverse, pop culture is influencing music and we're seeing a potentially permanent change in that direction. What do you think? I ask these questions because the music business will simply emulate what's popular and it always has. The industry gravitates towards what sells, but how do we explain which products are selling and why.

[paulz]

Music vs Culture....

 

I think of music as an aspect of culture.

 

so it's both 'influenced by' and 'influences' culture - but that staetment might not even be exactly how I feel 'cause it's still separating music from culture and saying they influence each other. I think it's more inseparable than that.

[Dancebass]

There is 'risk' involved with artists that could potentially impact the culture.

 

Our culture has become one that abhors risk. That leaves only decline.

[daddymack]

Our culture has become one that abhors risk. That leaves only decline.

 

sad but true...one of the base indicators.

 

I don't think you should call this Music vs. Culture, as music is but one component of a culture, and they should not, because of that relationship, be at odds with each other.

Sabriel, you made a presumptive statement that the music caused the changes you noted, but in reality, music is little more than a reflection of what is happening within a culture. Those shifts in society were not propelled by the music, they were, if anything, documented by it, or perhaps even, in a sense, defined by it...since we refer to things like the 'Big Band Era'...

 

Modern music is stagnant...because our culture is as well, not vice versa.

[sabriel9v]

 

There is 'risk' involved with artists that could potentially impact the culture. Our culture has become one that abhors risk. That leaves only decline.

 

 

That is true, we have become a culture full of paranoia and I think that contributes to us "abhorring" risks. You always hear about how the risks were far less detrimental back years ago. For instance, someone could pick up everything, move to a major city like NYC and literally re-invent themselves. Now people are afraid to do things like that. They think will I end up homeless? What happens if I get sick? Will I have any kind of support system there? All of these things put a quick halt to their decision and that decision quickly denigrates itself into a mere daydreaming phase.

 

In terms of music influencing culture and essentially being a part of culture, yes, I agree. Music is woven into the fabric of our culture as a nation and what happens in the musical realm is not necessarily separate.

 

I suppose what I was getting at is that there is less of an interest in the music and more of an interest in the controversy and wacky personalities in the industry. Many people don't even like Lady Gaga, they just like the stupid outfits she wears out in public. Before her there was Amy Winehouse and Amy Winehouse was truly talented (more talented than Gaga imo), but she had a serious drug addiction and people focused on that. I'm not exactly sure what I'm trying to get at, but I know things are different. I can just feel it, the music is not as influential in mainstream culture and it's taken a backseat to some other kinds of forces.

[BlueStrat]

 

Our culture has become one that abhors risk. That leaves only decline.

I respectfully disagree. The business climate now is averse to risk simply because the economy is bad. Once it turns around again, all kinds of people will begin risking capital again.

 

The music business avoids risk for a different reason-because their riskier investments don't sell enough to offset theft. Why invest in something that you know you won't get a return on?

 

 

For instance, someone could pick up everything, move to a major city like NYC and literally re-invent themselves. Now people are afraid to do things like that. They think will I end up homeless? What happens if I get sick? Will I have any kind of support system there? All of these things put a quick halt to their decision and that decision quickly denigrates itself into a mere daydreaming phase.

It wasn't one bit different in 1983 when I sold everything and moved to LA. Besides my wife, I knew 2 people when we arrived. I had to find a job, a place to live, get my bearings and so on. It hasn't changed any over the past 27 years and certainly wasn't any easier then.

[eventArgs]

 

I respectfully disagree. The business climate now is averse to risk simply because the economy is bad. Once it turns around again, all kinds of people will begin risking capital again. The music business avoids risk for a different reason-because their riskier investments don't sell enough to offset theft. Why invest in something that you know you won't get a return on?

 

Isn't that the same reason though? Business in general won't take risks because of poor market conditions, Music Business won't take risks because of poor market conditions.

 

Music businesses avoid risk for the same reasons as any other business. Investments in digital assets contain a higher level of risk right now than other investments, so the labels are investing in other areas besides artists at the moment.

[3shiftgtr]

?The question is not does music influence culture, the question is does music DEFINE culture....because in the world of popular music, THE CULTURE DEFINES THE MUSIC. Music VERY VERY VERY rarely sells without cultural significance. That significance must be sold before the actual significance happens, in order to be successful.

 

I don't think you can influence a cultural aspect of society with out being defined as influential first.

 

....that one good review...that one good article...that one good interview...and suddenly you are leading a movement.

[BlueStrat]

Isn't that the same reason though? Business in general won't take risks because of poor market conditions, Music Business won't take risks because of poor market conditions.

I suppose so, in a macro sense, but there is a major difference. When the economy gets better, most businesses will take on more risk. The music business will not, because their problem isn't the economy so much as lack of control of distribution. No other products being manufactured can be uploaded and distributed by someone else for free like music can. Few new groundbreaking acts will get a chance to benefit from development over a few years that major labels used to do. When their records get uploaded and stolen before the label can realize any return on them, they don't get a chance to make another one. That's just the hard reality of it, and it won't change until labels can figure out a way to keep their product from being stolen. The profits from the Madonnas and Michael Jacksons used to go to new talent development and push bands like SRV and the Police; now it goes to keep the lights on and to find the next Michael or Madonna. Newer music out of the pop mainsteam is just too risky for the return, but not because of the economy. The mass appeal safe dance club pop acts are doing very well because of the sheer volume the sell worldwide. Hence the glut of major label acts like Pink, Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus, Taylor Swift, Ke$ha, Akon, etc etc etc. They're the only ones (along with some country acts) currently able to outsell piracy and make their producers a profit.

[sabriel9v]

 

?The question is not does music influence culture, the question is does music DEFINE culture....because in the world of popular music, THE CULTURE DEFINES THE MUSIC. Music VERY VERY VERY rarely sells without cultural significance. That significance must be sold before the actual significance happens, in order to be successful. I don't think you can influence a cultural aspect of society with out being defined as influential first . ....that one good review...that one good article...that one good interview...and suddenly you are leading a movement.

 

 

I don't feel that music is nearly as influential within culture as it used to be.

1) It's hard to say who's culturally relevant in the long run because we just entered a new decade 2) in this new decade, just making good music is not enough to sell people on a interesting story or concept. It's not enough to create a socio-political movement,

[Scafeets]

While we're splitting hairs, let's compare fashion vs. culture.

Culture can be defined as shared values and attitudes that define an era. Fashion is a style that comes in and out of favor at any given time.

 

There was a be-bop culture in the 40s and early 50s. By the time the beats adopted it, it had morphed into as much style as substance.

 

There was a British blues culture in the early to mid sixties that spawned the mods and other fashonistas.

 

There was a punk culture that became the overly produced and highly stylized new wave bands that came after them.

 

There is a reggae culture that somehow careened from The Wilers to the style of Boy George.

 

There is a hip-hop culture that has, unfortunately, become a white, suburban style.

 

Go figure.

[paulz]

 

It's not enough to create a socio-political movement,

 

 

I'm not sure it ever really was -- Daddymack put it really well with his first post about reflecting and documenting.

[3shiftgtr]

 

I don't feel that music is nearly as influential within culture as it used to be. 1) It's hard to say who's culturally relevant in the long run because we just entered a new decade 2) in this new decade, just making good music is not enough to sell people on a interesting story or concept. It's not enough to create a socio-political movement,

 

 

I agree. It isn't.

 

But I think you kind of put the cart before the horse when you asked does music influence culture today.

 

Success in "Early Media Culture" as it is now defined (20's through the internet age), meant that you HAD to have cultural significance BEFORE you were presented to a mass audience. Today, you are not significant UNLESS you are presented to a mass audience.

 

And that is why 'scenes' are manufactured. Seattle/flannel/grunge is the first that comes to mind.

 

Music is, has, and always will be 'cultural' as it is produced my humans in society who REACT to their culture; personal, geographical, etc. Creating a cultural aspect, such as a 'scene' or a 'movement' has become a goal of many musicians. They do it to gain significance in order to gain presentation to larger audiences. When their music fails to create a "scene" they think they have failed as musicians. When they haven't.

 

When the musicians in Seattle were playing out, there WASN"T a scene. It was like any city, musically. It had a few clubs that drew crowds, and a few bands that could draw. But they just happened to wear flannel shirts and boots cuz it was cold. And sang angst-y rock music. Like most rock bands that weren't from L.A. And Sub Pop took it and ran with it in order to sell it. The bands didn't create the scene. Salesmanship did; someone within the group DEFINED THE CULTURE, and it's significance was born. It wasn't a scene until someone said it was.

 

The bebop movement as an example of the music creating the culture: the 'scene' existed no matter how it was presented. People went to go see it and hear it because they liked it. That's when the music attracted a group of people that was defined, large, and therefore significant. THEN it was presented to a large group. The clubs in Harlem were PACKED long before it got any national notoriety. It wasn't defined THEN presented as significant, when it's numbers were not significant at all, like with grunge.

[daddymack]

Daddymack put it really well with his first post about reflecting and documenting.

Thank you, paulz..