Rock critics, elitism and corporate culture

Originally posted by Skeeter:
It states that anything can become popular if you promote it enough.

The article says that is not true.

The theory was that anything promoted heavily could become popular, which is transparently false.

I think one point of the article is that mass acceptance should not be misconstrued as quality, but, at the same time, it shouldn't be misconstrued as simply being the product of corporate marketing acumen either.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by Skeeter:
It states that anything can become popular if you promote it enough.

The article says that is not true.

The theory was that anything promoted heavily could become popular, which is transparently false.

I think one point of the article is that mass acceptance should not be misconstrued as quality, but, at the same time, it shouldn't be misconstrued as simply being the product of corporate marketing acumen either.

You're right. My bad. Must be time to go home.

I wonder about the notion expressed in the subtitle of the Lessig book referenced in the article, "Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity."

Is the goal of "Big Media" *really* to "lock down culture…" or that stuff just a by-product of the true goal, to make profits? This subtitle implies that there is some active, sinister plot to squelch creativity…I think it's just an unfortunate coincidence

<img src="http://images.ibsys.com/2004/0302/2888676.jpg" alt=" - " />

I'm assuming the book probably goes into detail about how creativity isn't a problem until something interesting/creative starts posing a threat to big media. It's friday at 4:30 so I'm not about to spout off political rants, but you could argue some of what's happend to Howard Stern recently is relevant. Not to mention something like the Dixie Chicks (getting really far away from rock critic elitism here) where when they made their antiwar sentiments public they were demonized on a lot of clear channel owned stations…etc. Sorry…not coherent…must get outside…

Originally posted by Ball Girl:
This subtitle implies that there is some active, sinister plot to squelch creativity…I think it's just an unfortunate coincidence

I think less than a sinister plot, it's more a desire to be able to steer what is popular based on what the corporation has at the ready, under its control and able to yield the best results financially for the corporation. So that, a big company with a low-cost, high-yield contract with a young new band like O-Town would rather promote that band and see it hit the heights (bringing in big returns to the corporation) than see a DIY, outsider or seasoned performer (who retains a larger share of the profits, at the expense of the corporation's share) succeed to the same degree.

Further, if radical creativity turns the tides of what is popular, that may be again at the expense of the corporation as its roster of talent is devalued.

Originally posted by skonster:
you could argue some of what's happend to Howard Stern recently is relevant.

Or you could argue that Stern's ratings have been dropping for the past few years and there's nothing like a little self-generated controversy to get some free publicity.

Howard wasn't screaming censorship when he was on top of his game in 1995-1997 and the FCC was levying fines that dwarf his recent one.

Originally posted by skonster:
Not to mention something like the Dixie Chicks (getting really far away from rock critic elitism here) where when they made their antiwar sentiments public they were demonized on a lot of clear channel owned stations…etc.

Common misconception. The Dixie Chicks were demonized by right-wing pundits (big surprise there, huh), many of whom are on Clear Channel stations. However, Clear Channel the corporation actually increased spins of the Chicks album on its stations overall, and CC was also a promoter for the Chicks summer tour, much of which was booked into Clear Channel-owned venues.


I think Celeste is on the right track. It is far easier and more economically efficient for a corporation to attempt to dictate what is cool then to forecast and discover what the next "cool" thing is in a world of infinite creativity.

It's kinda paranoid to believe that corporations have war rooms or something where they plot how to actively stymie any creative outbursts that may potentially undermine their perceived control over culture.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Howard wasn't screaming censorship when he was on top of his game in 1995-1997 and the FCC was levying fines that dwarf his recent one.

Are you kidding? He put out a CD called "F*** the FCC." He was rabid about it back then (were you listening to him?), but in 2004 he sees it as part of an even more troubling and escalating shift to the religious right by the administration, rather than a more discrete FCC-manic issue.

I'm still at least somewhat interested in what the point of that reference book is, though. Maybe it will have a higher quotient of examples than the article. It's a difficult argument to make, and I can't see it relying on much more than tangential/circumstantial examples, though.

But dealing with 'indie' music though, a lot of the stuff I enjoy isn't really trying for the same thing as pure mass culture appeal. So when something sort of off kilter like modest mouse (for example) gets on a major label and has some success doing so (as they're doing now) some people don't know what to make of it. Obviously the label they're on wants them to do well and probably doesn't care what the message is.

System of a Down's 'Steal this Album' is put out by Sony…

Ok it's after five, i'm going to enjoy the weather now.

Originally posted by Bags:
in 2004 he sees it as part of an even more troubling and escalating shift to the religious right by the administration, rather than a more discrete FCC-manic issue.

Because that sells much better.

He can bring in the Janet Jackson thing (which I gather is based on the premise that before 2001 bare breasts on TV were a regular occurrence??) and tap into the Air-America market.

I disagree his current take is because it sells better. He came back from a vacation having changed his mind on Bush, talked about that extensively, then a couple weeks the FCC brouhaha began. He sees it as all intertwined in his case – political revenge rather than a concern with indecency.

As for tapping into the Air America market, I'm not sure how many *new* listeners are coming out of this, rather historical listeners are being moblized.

I'm not clear on your point about JJ's boob.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by Bags:
in 2004 he sees it as part of an even more troubling and escalating shift to the religious right by the administration, rather than a more discrete FCC-manic issue.

Because that sells much better.

He can bring in the Janet Jackson thing (which I gather is based on the premise that before 2001 bare breasts on TV were a regular occurrence??) and tap into the Air-America market.