Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Mind Control

There’s a huge gap between what constitutes art vs. entertainment. They really don’t even go hand-in-hand anymore.  Artistry is derived from creativity and a thorough understanding surrounding the usage of a particular medium. Art has the capabilities of transcending generations by inciting change or introducing a new style or idea created through personal revelations and experience.
Many aspects of pop culture seem to parallel the parameters of art. So well actually, that our culture, for the most part, thinks they encompass the same things. Pop music closely resembles legitimate art, but only by carefully picking apart the aspects of influential art, then utilizing the parts that seem to garner the highest monetary response in the consumers. What comes is music that incorporates some artistic qualities, but in turn completely loses its own creativity.
Producers of popular music follow trends. They find out what incites consumers to buy, and then they apply their findings to creating an album that will potentially sell millions. They find borderline (at best) talented potential pop icons then alter their personas to create an ideal image. Uglies and fatties need not apply. They then are paired with repetitious music that takes some of the qualities of actual artistically inclined music, but they alter those qualities beyond recognition to serve the purpose of selling more albums.
So now, that catchy, fast paced drum beat that say, Radiohead concocted, is now used throughout the entirety of a whole pop-album. It was proven that particular beat stuck in the minds of those who listened to it. So now they’ve not only taken a major original contribution to music and basterdized it by straining and hoarding the catchiest parts, but in turn have also completely lost any residual clout by voiding their own music of any originality.
On the surface this garbage is entertaining. When it gets stuck in the collective heads of an entire audience, it becomes familiar. When something is familiar, the audience is more likely to gravitate towards it. The multi-billion dollar industries that make and promote pop-music are not ignorant to this, they pioneered it. And they’re selling it and making billions. And we’re buying it.
Our culture participates in passive listening. Often times we can’t admit that this music does make a significant impact on us because we aren’t consciously aware of it. These songs sung by “the beautiful people” make the audience question their own physical appearances because they don’t match up with what they see on TV. These songs also tend towards sub-human levels of intelligence. How many songs can possibly be produced revolving around hittin’ the clubs or teenage quazi-love songs? These prevalent themes reiterate to their audience that these things hold actual importance, which they absolutely do not.
How many pop songs are devoted to say, expressing the satisfaction of hard work or pushing listeners towards personal mental expansion? Not many.

2 comments:

  1. I think "garbage" is in the eye of the beholder. Just because something is popular doesn't mean there is no value to it. Don't be a hipster!! :p

    ReplyDelete
  2. i think you need to pin down your definition of "hipster" laura. you said it was someone who likes something, then doesnt any more once it becomes popular. you know as well as i do that this is not the case here. i have never liked garbage pop music. my opinions arent ones of someone who appreciated pop music and what it stands for. it promotes negative ideals, and i dont think that can be argued. while i'm prefectly open to various viewpoints, i think tagging the word "hipster" to someone with a different opinion than yourself is a bit ignorant of all the facts.

    ReplyDelete