Industry Music, Does it Matter?

[Cyber]

Like many of my peers I was caught up in the craze in my teens of having favourite bands/musicians. It defined my identity and I would buy albums and go to concerts By the time I was 21 I realised while I still liked listening to music, I actually wasn't invested in the musicians anymore. I found having a "favourite" band or musician quite fake. I actually only got into certain music because of friends. But actually If I was being honest I liked all music types and genres.

I got the concept that music was an artform. Buying albums and going to concerts was like patronising an artist. But what are people listening to? Aren't literally all popular music basically created by teams of industry writers and music studios nowadays?

From the days of Elvis Presley and the Beatles weren't popular musicians and their music basically curated by image stylists, writers, marketing people and Studios? Aren't music fans just supporting giant industries and is becoming a "fan" healthy? given many become obsessed with musicians as celebrity icons rather than artists? Do they just like being part of a fandom screaming brainlessly at country, pop or metal concerts sand not care if the music is authentic or not, or just a joint effort by an industry studio team designed to appeal to fans?

One example is Taylor Swift, she has millions of young female fans around the world who form what is known as "Swifties". Since her new album "Diary of a Showgirl" accusations have been levelled her music is quite toxic and her fans have been known to attack anyone online and people in the media who say anything negative about Taylor. But she and her music are largely industry driven, infact her father who is in banking largely bankrolled her.

My question, is it healthy to be so invested in a popular musician if their music is not "authentic" and they might just be industry creations tapping into a particular genre to access pockets of a fandom who spend money, not only on music but also merchandise. Does it matter our culture and music is being created for us in corporate boardrooms?

 

[velociraptor]

If I like it, I listen to it. If I don't like it, I don't listen to it. I don't really pay much attention to the artists themselves and I've never purchased merchandise related to them.

 

[Judge]

Does it matter our culture and music is being created for us in corporate boardrooms?

Nothing new about that. Bob Rafelson would have and did wear it like a badge of honor.

Monday nights, 7:30pm 1967 on ABC:

And later in 1985, listen to Jefferson Starship sing about it:

Bottom line: More about bu$iness than the art of music.

 

[Yeshuasdaughter]

Yes it absolutely matters.

Overproduced music that was written by focus groups and engineered with an algorithm to maximize profits is nothing but soulless disco.

It means nothing. It's sung by phonies who perform live with autotune and a recorded backing track. It's nothing. It means nothing. It is nothing.

Three friends who can't read music and can barely play, who learn to play music together- that's where magic happens. In the poetry written at rock bottom, sung with a voice that shakes from the grief of remembrance- that's art.

Don't waste your time or your energy on posers. Look to the artists who actually believe what they say in the music. Who have lived the song. Who sat in a dim room late at night figuring out chords and scratching out lyrics, cleansing their soul.

Give me the guy with the big back pack, pants protected with a butt flap. Wearing a patched jacket, messy hair, and playing his heart out on a sidewalk, pouring out his soul.

That's real art, where magic is made, where relatability happens. Everything else is just a modern version of disco or hair metal. Nonsense.

 

[NB79]

What is 'mainstream' music today, those 'artists' that get billions of reproductions, are garbage for me,
i don't know why they are so popular.

 

[tkcartoonist]

I grew up with rock radio, and I stopped caring about it 20 years ago when I realized it either played the same few songs and artists over and over again, or on the off-chance they played newer stuff, it was awful (I still have an aversion to pop-punk and post-grunge to this day because of that).

I started exploring other music by lurking around the internet, and I found so much that I never looked back.

These days, if I bother listening to FM radio of any kind, I prefer a freeform college station format, as I like the idea of hearing something different depending on who's running the board.

 

[UFO]

My playlist of music has been stuck to songs I liked when I was less than 30 years old. I have been amused to notice that the radio station I used to call "granny radio" had moved to play my kind of music from late-70s, 80s and early-90s (that's still almost 50 years old stuff!). I have grown old...

Like many of my peers I was caught up in the craze in my teens of having favourite bands/musicians. It defined my identity and I would buy albums and go to concerts By the time I was 21 I realised while I still liked listening to music, I actually wasn't invested in the musicians anymore. I found having a "favourite" band or musician quite fake. I actually only got into certain music because of friends.

I skipped that fan culture part of my youth. In my mind, no-one is born to earn unquestionable worship. Everyone might do both good and bad music. Some do more one than other, and thus you can expect some people to do better stuff than others. But it does not fit to my head idolizing any artist (or style of music) only because he/she/they has/have bunch of good music among bunch of bad music. Thus, I have not been fan of an artist or genres, only fan of individual pieces of music.

My question, is it healthy to be so invested in a popular musician if their music is not "authentic" and they might just be industry creations tapping into a particular genre to access pockets of a fandom who spend money, not only on music but also merchandise. Does it matter our culture and music is being created for us in corporate boardrooms?

Music being authentic or not is not the point or dividing issue by my opinion. Feeling of something being authentic is just one's own qualification for a good music, and no reason to generalize, as others (vast majority more likely) might disagree with single individual's qualifications. Even inside the genre.

What really worries me is the whole herd behavior of fans, as it is irrational and worrying on its own. If they are able to be fanatic about music, what about potentially destructive politics and ideologies? Especially if their beloved artists are pushing those politics and ideologies to them?

Otherwise I don't mind if people fall on the highly produced and calculated business of any kind. It is their choice, they are getting what they want, they enjoy it, and they are happy with it. Last one is important: I have no right to prevent anyone from being happy. I don't have any right to berate them for being happy.

What I am really worried about the commercial art, is that this highly produced and calculated business might devour all other kinds of business. In music, it is not that bad as creating, recording and distributing independent music is not expensive and can be affordable to a single person. But the independent movie industry can take a huge hit if only filthy rich individuals are able to afford producing their vision...

Don't waste your time or your energy on posers. Look to the artists who actually believe what they say in the music. Who have lived the song. Who sat in a dim room late at night figuring out chords and scratching out lyrics, cleansing their soul.

Give me the guy with the big back pack, pants protected with a butt flap. Wearing a patched jacket, messy hair, and playing his heart out on a sidewalk, pouring out his soul.

That's real art, where magic is made, where relatability happens. Everything else is just a modern version of disco or hair metal. Nonsense.

Heh... Certain attributes tend to come in same package, and the existence of some attributes is statistically good indicator that there are other attributes as well. But...

You just pointed out that hair-do affects the music... Or the music affects to a hair-do... And you made a same kind of list of external, well-defined, stereotyped signals of good music, that corps try to calculate when they try to min-max mix of characteristics of their next hit artist... And you indicated that these external qualifications should be admired even before hearing the music itself. That is just an another side of fan-culture coin.

(And to be clear: Yes, the characteristics you listed do make me to click an artist to hear a few seconds of his/hers music to see if I might like it).

 

[Yeshuasdaughter]

My playlist of music has been stuck to songs I liked when I was less than 30 years old. I have been amused to notice that the radio station I used to call "granny radio" had moved to play my kind of music from late-70s, 80s and early-90s (that's still almost 50 years old stuff!). I have grown old...



I skipped that fan culture part of my youth. In my mind, no-one is born to earn unquestionable worship. Everyone might do both good and bad music. Some do more one than other, and thus you can expect some people to do better stuff than others. But it does not fit to my head idolizing any artist (or style of music) only because he/she/they has/have bunch of good music among bunch of bad music. Thus, I have not been fan of an artist or genres, only fan of individual pieces of music.



Music being authentic or not is not the point or dividing issue by my opinion. Feeling of something being authentic is just one's own qualification for a good music, and no reason to generalize, as others (vast majority more likely) might disagree with single individual's qualifications. Even inside the genre.

What really worries me is the whole herd behavior of fans, as it is irrational and worrying on its own. If they are able to be fanatic about music, what about potentially destructive politics and ideologies? Especially if their beloved artists are pushing those politics and ideologies to them?

Otherwise I don't mind if people fall on the highly produced and calculated business of any kind. It is their choice, they are getting what they want, they enjoy it, and they are happy with it. Last one is important: I have no right to prevent anyone from being happy. I don't have any right to berate them for being happy.

What I am really worried about the commercial art, is that this highly produced and calculated business might devour all other kinds of business. In music, it is not that bad as creating, recording and distributing independent music is not expensive and can be affordable to a single person. But the independent movie industry can take a huge hit if only filthy rich individuals are able to afford producing their vision...



Heh... Certain attributes tend to come in same package, and the existence of some attributes is statistically good indicator that there are other attributes as well. But...

You just pointed out that hair-do affects the music... Or the music affects to a hair-do... And you made a same kind of list of external, well-defined, stereotyped signals of good music, that corps try to calculate when they try to min-max mix of characteristics of their next hit artist... And you indicated that these external qualifications should be admired even before hearing the music itself. That is just an another side of fan-culture coin.

(And to be clear: Yes, the characteristics you listed do make me to click an artist to hear a few seconds of his/hers music to see if I might like it).

Hair? I don't get it. What I meant in that statement was that a homeless guy playing music in a doorway on the street has more credibility as an artist than some glamorous manicured pop icon who sings of things that she never felt or experienced.

 

[UFO]

Hair? I don't get it. What I meant in that statement was that a homeless guy playing music in a doorway on the street has more credibility as an artist than some glamorous manicured pop icon who sings of things that she never felt or experienced.

A misunderstanding from my behalf. I read that you were describing, for an example, a stereotypical grunge character with a counter-culture hair-do as a contrast against polished, produced and stylized pop musicians.

I meant that if you are giving the credibility based on external factors (looks, background, living conditions...), you appear as a "fan" of (=admiring, respecting, giving them importance) these factors, and putting expectations about the music based on these factors, and you are more likely to give a chance to a person fitting to these factors. You wouldn't buy a pop-star (and be right to not do so), but you could buy this homeless person (because of your preferences about credibility)... If I were a marketing person in the music industry, I would now know what kind of an artist I could sell to you, personally tailored to your values. I find some irony in that

I hate when other people side-track from main topic, but now I myself did that. Sorry about that.

Any way... Back to the topic.

I realized that you were talking about "a soul"... I really believe that there is a concept of "soul" in the music, and that certain types of people are more likely to convey that soul to their music.

But I have observed that hearing (and respecting) that soul or authenticity is also much dependent of the listener's personal perception and taste of music. It is easier to feel music as authentic, genuine and good, if its performer is fit to one's perception and taste.

I don't want to (but I often do end up to) give credibility to an artist before I hear his/hers music and learn to know that I mostly like it. Because I do think that the produced pop artist can be as serious of his/hers music as the homeless guy is, even when not playing his/hers own music. Likewise, the homeless guy playing with a hat in front of him and with some coins in it, can be as much for the money as the most standardized pop star, while both are performing their own material.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

My question, is it healthy to be so invested in a popular musician if their music is not "authentic" and they might just be industry creations tapping into a particular genre to access pockets of a fandom who spend money, not only on music but also merchandise. Does it matter our culture and music is being created for us in corporate boardrooms?

Well... I am not sure I would describe some music as "not authentic" per se. We all stand upon the shoulders of others... even the greatest inventors, physicists, musicians, and artists do this. We are all creatively and thoughtfully influenced in some way.

To your point about "industry creations" and influence... sure, they are there to make money... plain and simple. They influence the artist in many ways to find that "special formula" that speaks to people in ways that allows them to connect... and want more of it... and make sales. Is it the artist, the influential record label/producer, or the consumer that dictates what music is listened to most often... or is it some collaboration? You may not be a Taylor Swift fan... that's OK... to each their own... but the music that she makes, regardless of influences upon final production, sells in the millions. The millions of fans... are they all "fake"? Probably not. Do those millions all have poor taste in music? Probably not.

My wife and I watch "The Voice" for example... and no doubt, there are some people that truly have a beautiful gift, but then the next question is, "Why do they not already have a record deal and a huge following?" There is beauty in making music for music's sake, but many would rather do it for a living... make a living wage doing what they love to do. Not many can do this independently... most will need a huge support system around them to make it all happen. Sure, sometimes that loss of control over one's artistry does cause some to walk away from it... or never pursue it at all.

Does it matter if major record labels have influence? I am thinking not. Taylor Swift is quite a phenomenon... an exceptional situation... and is not representative of "the industry" in 2025. All you have to do now-a-days is click onto any of the major music streaming platforms and there are a huge amount of artists that self-produce on their own label. Most of which you have never heard of. Most of which have one or two songs you like... the rest..."meh". That's OK.

 

[717]

Like many of my peers I was caught up in the craze in my teens of having favourite bands/musicians. It defined my identity and I would buy albums and go to concerts By the time I was 21 I realised while I still liked listening to music, I actually wasn't invested in the musicians anymore. I found having a "favourite" band or musician quite fake. I actually only got into certain music because of friends. But actually If I was being honest I liked all music types and genres.

I got the concept that music was an artform. Buying albums and going to concerts was like patronising an artist. But what are people listening to? Aren't literally all popular music basically created by teams of industry writers and music studios nowadays?

From the days of Elvis Presley and the Beatles weren't popular musicians and their music basically curated by image stylists, writers, marketing people and Studios? Aren't music fans just supporting giant industries and is becoming a "fan" healthy? given many become obsessed with musicians as celebrity icons rather than artists? Do they just like being part of a fandom screaming brainlessly at country, pop or metal concerts sand not care if the music is authentic or not, or just a joint effort by an industry studio team designed to appeal to fans?

One example is Taylor Swift, she has millions of young female fans around the world who form what is known as "Swifties". Since her new album "Diary of a Showgirl" accusations have been levelled her music is quite toxic and her fans have been known to attack anyone online and people in the media who say anything negative about Taylor. But she and her music are largely industry driven, infact her father who is in banking largely bankrolled her.

My question, is it healthy to be so invested in a popular musician if their music is not "authentic" and they might just be industry creations tapping into a particular genre to access pockets of a fandom who spend money, not only on music but also merchandise. Does it matter our culture and music is being created for us in corporate boardrooms?

I personally have not problem with music that is professionally produced. I actually have an appreciation for it, I like to learn about the writers, the composers, the production, the choreographers, the people that write the scripts for the videos, the image coach that choose the outfits... for me is fascinating to see so many talented people in such a variety of disciplines come together and produce an album. Most of the time I find out that things appear superficial but actually have some deep.

I mean, look at the list of song a guy like Max Martin have wrote during his career... is it bad that he have writen so many?

Max Martin production discography - Wikipedia

You say it is all decisions by corporate boards... and what they decided? to have Max write a song and have Taylor Swift sing it? OK so they decided to assemble a team of talented people...

 

[Mary Terry]

These days, if I bother listening to FM radio of any kind, I prefer a freeform college station format, as I like the idea of hearing something different depending on who's running the board.

I listen to a local historically Black university's radio station in the mornings when I have to drive somewhere in the car. They have a couple of hours of traditional jazz programming that I really enjoy. I change the channel when the rap music comes on.

I don't like teeny-bopper music like Taylor Swift. All her songs sound the same to me. I guess she projects a "clean image" for young girls, a better role model than Bad Bunny, etc. Some of my granddaughters love her but their parents haven't taken them to any concerts. I refuse to buy fandom stuff for them but maybe I should. Old Beatlemania stuff is valuable and who knows if Taylor Swift stuff will appreciate over time.

 

[717]

Give me the guy with the big back pack, pants protected with a butt flap. Wearing a patched jacket, messy hair, and playing his heart out on a sidewalk, pouring out his soul.

I understand what you are saying, but unfortunately there is more than just music talent... Imagine you get this guy you talking about to perform a concert, and you sell the tickets, and the day of the show he call you from jail because he was drunk and got into a fight, so now you have to bail him out with your own money so he can be at the concert, and when he shows up, still drunk, he says something like he does not think he is getting paid enough for his talent and he wants more or will not sing... then what? you lose a lot of money on this guy and he is back in that sidewalk gig... and you start to look at the other guy that maybe is not as talented but does not give you all this problems.

 

[Judge]

I've always felt as if popular music fell off a cliff after 1989. Small wonder I listen only to music of earlier times. Seems like most music these days is all under the banner of pop, rap and country music.

I mourn the loss of prominence of rock and soul music that once dominated the air waves. The only radio station I listen to is a classical/jazz station operating on the campus of University of Nevada Reno.

I could recognize Taylor Swift or Lady Gaga passing me on the street, but I probably wouldn't recognize one from the other when it came to their music.

 

[Dagan]

I've proven that quality content can be produced by just one person in their bedroom. I play all instruments (or in the case of the drums, I program them beat for beat). I do the vocals. I mixed and mastered everything myself. That's just one half of the equation, and sadly, it's not the integral part when it comes to making a profit.

The business side / hard part to break into is indeed the "industry" of it all - agencies, management and marketing firms and overall distribution.

I've talked about it before in regards to filmmaking, too. It's the same thing exactly. Anyone can make a movie and do it quite well - same quality of movie making is capable to all. Will it ever be seen or promoted like the mainstream ones? Nope. There are literal gatekeepers when it comes to what will or won't be seen / heard because that means profits, and all of the business folks do everything they can to control it all - they want their cuts.

Yeah, every once in a while, someone comes out of nowhere on their own and makes a huge mark, and they do it without any help at all. Pay attention, though. It doesn't last long. They are always scooped up into the big league machines in no time. Why? Every single time, it comes down to touring and/or playing the big venues / huge events (and in the case of filmmaking, showing in all of the major festivals). No one just gets onto a big event or tour or wide release schedule because every such venue hosting said events/tours mandates insurance premiums and all kinds of other business related guidelines, guarantees, dues, etc. What's the easiest way navigating all of this forced paperwork and red tape? Hire the people who created and control it all, of course! Get an agent, an agency rep, and then get manager(s), tour hands, etc. etc. etc. You'll find that there's all sorts of guilds and groups of finding and hiring these people, as well. It's just a long domino effect of people that have to be involved and palms that have to be greased. So, you can either be someone who wants to dive head first into such a life and forever (or as long as you can handle it) sell yourself to it in full........or you just end up like me.....quite on the outside looking in, still, but I'm comfortable, I can still make slight profit here and there, I'm my own boss, but I won't know the super-stardom level of it all because I won't cave in to the "machine."

 

[Cyber]

All very good points, thank you.