Before I reply, I wanna say that it's hard to tell sometimes from the tone
of my posts if I'm for or against - agreeing or disagreeing - with certain
points. This is most likely due to my being hardcore about a debate or topic,
just so all the meaty points come out.
Dan Nicholson wrote:
quoted 17 lines _No_. What i am saying is that these people like these groups because> _No_. What i am saying is that these people like these groups because
> they've never had the chance to hear anything better. The only reason these
> people believe this music is good is because they don't know of anything
> else out there. It's a commercial form of brainwashing.
>
> It *SHOULD* sell itself based on quality. However, my entire point is based
> upon the fact that music is currently selling itself largely upon
> *availability*. Also it's important to remember that millions of people
> aren't really making their own minds up about what they listen to: a select
> group of people in A&R positions are. It's these peoples' opinions that are
> dictating what becomes popular.
>
> > If quality is good demand rises, and popularity is inevitable.
>
> Not if no one hears the music! And this of course is the problem with the
> elitist techno scene and the music industry as a whole.
>
[...]
quoted 7 lines Sad to say, but it's not the case. The market is not dictating the product.> Sad to say, but it's not the case. The market is not dictating the product.
> The product is dictating the market. As I said before, a tiny number of
> people in high places are deciding which artists will suceed and which
> won't. However, it's basically fact that technology will make these people
> obselete within the next twenty years and distribution will be as easy for
> you and I as for Moby and Madonna.
>
I agree with 99% - if not all - of what your talking about here!
Commercial brainwashing, and the A&R people controlling what's pumped into
the heads of the masses. It's sad to think that there's people who listen
to music mindlessly. IDM is all about the opposite of this. But I'd say
we on this list are more into loving music than those mindless masses are.
I mean, these masses I speak of have more important things to do & think
about than being critical about music. Music is more background to them
than it is to us. And it would be really great if Aphex were to make them
stop, open their eyes, and see the light! :)
Well, atleast make them pause and pay attention to the music and possibly
realize that they've been brainwashed until now...
But with this A&R 'conspiracy' in mind, if Aphex Twin became as hardcore
Top40 mainstream as "Rhythm is a Dancer," would you still buy & listen
to him? I assume yes. But then, wouldn't his repertoire be a part of the
'conspiracy'? He'll be pumped into every club, radio, ears just like
"Rhythm is a Dancer." So you're against the elite power held by the people
who select what's gonna be popular (is it soley A&R?), unless it's Aphex
Twin...then you'll condone what the 'conspiracy' stands for? See this is
where a kind of contradiction comes in. "Brainwashing is bad, unless it's
Aphex!" :) It's all opinion...
But I see what you mean about the product dictating the market...and about
technology taking over distribution. And I suppose it *IS* about how much
promotion, exposure, and distribution the artist and his/her music get.
Imagine: What if promotion, exposure, and distribution of ALL forms of music
were the same in the states here...equal number of copies of whichever
recording medium is being sold...same pricing and all...and equal exposure
for all artists...then where would the wind blow? Who would be the most
popular, and where would Aphex fit in? What would this (hypothetical)
market be like?
Something to think about... :)
-djkc
p.s. - If I make no sense at all, or contradict myself, it most likely
would be due to the fact that it's 6:20am and I've been up all night!