I had an entire blog post written and ready to publish when a heated argument sparked in the center of my childhood kitchen. The premise of the argument was, "Does Britney Spears deserve all of her fame and fortune when her latest album had 22 songwriters for 16 tracks and her voice was modified or sharpened through the means of auto tune and studio machines?" Or in other words, has the music industry lost the product it initially set out to play?
In the right corner was my oldest brother Nick and myself, with the argument that the Music industry has sold out in producing albums like Britney Spears'
Femme Fatale (where little to no input was actually put in from the so-called 'artist') or Paris Hilton's atrocious monstrosity
Paris (who was rumored unable to tour because of her lack in vocal power to resonate through the stage speakers
), when it's initial intent was to create a type of art through the talents of actual musicians that can either sing, write music, or play an instrument.
In the left corner was my mother, with the argument that 1. Britney, Paris, and others alike have to have some stroke of talent to make it in the music industry (which was refuted with the fact that in the entertainment business a pretty face goes a long way) and 2. it is the consumers fault for driving the success of the aforementioned 'no talent' artists.
 |
Our Femme Fatale joins
millions in puffing nicotine
(photo: PopularSmokers) |
In my mothers first argument she claimed that "millions of people couldn't be wrong" about the actual talent of artists that have the ability to make multiple albums. My brother and I decided to bring up a few stats about certain albums (cough cough,
Femme Fatale) that are carried along by their
auto tuned studio backing and
22 songwriters for 16 tracks. We also went on to use the analogy that, in fact, "millions of people CAN be wrong" which is quite obviously shown through the success of tobacco companies. It's nearly impossible to not know the dangerous effects of tobacco and nicotine, yet "millions of people" still smoke (as do "millions of people" purchase albums from people that actually lack musical ability). And moving so effortlessly in refuting her second argument, the success of certain artists alongside the popularity of cigarettes is quite possibly driven by the spoon fed propaganda of the music industry and tobacco companies.
Granted, much of this argument, from both corners, is based on opinion of what "good music" is and what makes an artist worthy of record sales, but what it brought to my attention was the question of what drives the success and popularity of music. Is it the talent and creativity behind an artist or is it the music industry's backing of the "sex sells" business model and it's ability to tell the consumer what is good music, or what we want to listen to.
Frank Zappa was an American composer, singer-songwriter, guitarist, record producer and film director for 30 years. Needless to say, he is an icon within the music industry and has a significant opinion when it comes to the direction of the music industry. Although he passed in 1993, he was interviewed on the difference between the old time record producers that trusted in the talent of the groups on whether the album would make money as opposed to new age, young and confident producers that spoon feed the masses on what is a "hit."
the previous video proceeds with
Radiohead going on to support Zappa in the idea that it's the Music Industry that points fingers on who to blame for the lack in artistry of today's music, when in reality, it's the industry itself that is producing the "music" from "artists" that need to
lip-sync during live performances either because they don't have the vocal talent to perform live or need to save their breath to dance rather than sing. Or how about the idea that radio DJ's used to pick and choose the songs they played based on emotional attachment to the sounds or lyrics and have now turned into programmed play lists with DJ's discussing the next celebrity scandal during hourly play list breaks. Has the radio even forgotten what music is all about?
I think this is an endless debate worth getting into for anyone that is passionate about music. I want to end this with a comparison of two current rappers. One of which is popular beyond belief for his Lil' Wayne like vocals and songs featuring other major artists like Kanye West and Eminem, who only took a single to hit the top of the charts, Grammy nominations and Grammy performance invites, Juno awards and
Rap Recording of the Year versus another rapper that has worked with some of the same artists but hasn't taken home the popularity or award nominations and trophies : Drake vs. Kid Cudi.
Rappers used to be (and in my humble opinion, should be) rated on their lyrical talent and ability to freestyle with ease. According to the following representations of freestyling ability, the success of Drake and Kid Cudi should be reversed as both artists were given the opportunity to show their talents on the same radio show and Kid Cudi clearly wins the freestyle battle...
We are all entitled to our opinions of what good music is, or who should be topping the Billboard charts. What should be noted, through this depiction of the music industry, is whether we are taking the opportunity to formulate our own opinions, or if the music industry is forming them for us. You be the judge, but this is what I think (backed by some respectable opinions and a few statistics).
Come what may,
Lindsay Taylor
