Why does the mainstream industry only want a select few to be popular?

~~Soulflower~~ · 09-21-2014, 03:46 PM

So far Urban is the only one that has given great points as far as the obvious lack of variety in today's mainstream market and I appreciate your feedback and everyone else.

****

To argue otherwise is just being naive especially since the only pop stars that is being marketed is only 6-7 compared to previous decades where there were like 20 artists simultaneously being marketed at the same time.

To some that might not seem like an "agenda" but this is obviously a big difference compared to the past and this lack of variety has been going on for almost a decade now.

It would be one thing if these 6 pop stars were different.... but they all market the same thing which leads me to believe in my opinion there is an agenda behind it. In the past decades, there wasn't 6 pop stars marketing the same brand or image. So in my opinion, I think the industry wants to only specifically market this particular image.

I feel sorry for this generation because this is a bigger issue and I think there is an underlining message behind it. Music has a bigger influence more than what people give it credit for and the industry is not stupid and it is sad that...well...the general public is.

~~Soulflower~~ · 09-21-2014, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gigantic Debaser

Btw about the sexualization of the modern pop market:
I think this has a lot to do with the rise of YouTube and similar websites, which have become the main media through which music videos are viewed. The artists' official channels are monetized so that the money made from the music videos are calculated through number of views. Before sites like YouTube came into prominence an artist wouldn't make more money from having a lot of people watch their music video; it was merely a promotional tool. But with the monetization system, on the other hand, you bet a video with Nicki Minaj's butt in the thumbnail is going to get clicked on a lot merely because of that. Many people are also more likely to watch an overtly sexual video all the way to the end just on account of its sexiness, making the label the highest amount of money from each single view, so in these cases, the music no longer is the most important thing, since the main function of the music video isn't to promote the music that goes along with it. So in short, the noticable increase in sexualised music videos can also be tied in to a question of economics.

Excellent points!

GD · 09-21-2014, 03:49 PM

^Thank you.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 09-21-2014, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulflower

To argue otherwise is just being naive especially since the only pop stars that is being marketed is only 6-7 compared to previous decades where there were like 20 artists simultaneously being marketed at the same time.

Yes, because there are only 4 record companies

wedoitfortheloveofmusic · 09-21-2014, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Francis

@wedoitfortheloveofmusic

I agree with you to an extent especially the part when you said we use to have more variety but not all radio stations play the same hits so you can't really say all the mainstream media is just recycling the same stuff.

Beyond good or bad taste i think the main influence that drives the mainstream is simply popularity and you can't decide for ppl what should be popular so boycotting popular music is a bit elitist and besides, what are you gonna replace it with? won't their replacement continue the same cycle?

It seems no matter what genre or group that becomes part of the mainstream is gonna be opposed by somebody so i think even if you got what you desire out of mainstream music another person would make another thread just like this one.

You're right but a majority of the popular stations within their genre nationwide, whether they be rock, hip hop, electronic, etc. etc. play the same schedule of songs across the nation. Sure they'll sprinkle in some popular regional artist but for the most part they play the same schedule. The sad truth is the djs/radio personalities on these radio stations are obligated to play this pre-planned schedule or risk their jobs.
Also I don't mean to boycott radios stations or popular music. I'm not one to, draw a line in the sand, people are forced to take sides and very little is accomplished. In addition I support radio and I'm a true fan of music, no matter the genre, mainstream/underground, new school/old school I just love music. The point is to encourage variety on radio stations. If you're one that is tired of the same 4 artist on the radio station, then call in and request new artist. Believe it or not radio stations will listen once they've received enough requests. Some radio stations spurred by radio personalities dedicate segments, usually late night, to "local/new" artist but due to the poor results and support often times they're forced to abandon the project. Sure its arguable that part of this is due to it's segment time. Although if one is tired of the same 4 artist on the radio station, as is the person who started this thread as well as myself, then you need to take action and encourage the behavior that you want by supporting these segments and these radio stations that break the mold. It's no more their "fault" as it is our "fault" as the consumer for supporting this limited behavior.
So for the most part I agree with what you have stated, I do question what influences mainstream. In it's purest form, we would hope popularity due to talent or perceived talent drove mainstream but this is not entirely the case. What I'm going to say is a general statement and may be a bit contradictory to what I've previously stated above but I don't feel anything is just this or just that (black and white). It's a constant pull between the two forces, similar to the Yin and Yang. Mainstream and what is popular is more closely driven by, "the formula and money." Basically mainstream is driven by what big companies perceive will make them the most money. What we define as mainstream is what has been drilled into our brains through very successful marketing campaigns. For example believe it or not radio stations are paid to play music, commonly referred to as payloa. It is illegal to pay to play, but there are ways around this or they just flat out do it. Big record companies pay radio stations to push their artists. Now if all you hear on the radio is Lil Wayne, Sam Smith, and Avicii all day, all week, then your perception of mainstream is Lil Wayne, Sam Smith, and Avicii. If popularity due to talent or perceived talent was our drive for mainstream, we would hear Tech-N9ne, Arcade Fire, and Louis the Child who have huge fan bases and are quite popular but do not have the financial backing that Lil Wayne, Sam Smith and Avicii has through their major record deals. So though popularity can break an artist, especially with the avenues the internet has opened up for artist, generally speaking it takes the backing of a record label or tons of money to become mainstream.

wedoitfortheloveofmusic · 09-21-2014, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlo

"The mainstream industry could be so much bigger if they simply market other artists"

Don't underestimate the influence of the (young) public and the trendy social media

Partly it is also general trend: the bigger ones get bigger

.

Agreed!

Tubby Tate · 09-22-2014, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wedoitfortheloveofmusic

You're right but a majority of the popular stations within their genre nationwide, whether they be rock, hip hop, electronic, etc. etc. play the same schedule of songs across the nation. Sure they'll sprinkle in some popular regional artist but for the most part they play the same schedule. The sad truth is the djs/radio personalities on these radio stations are obligated to play this pre-planned schedule or risk their jobs.
Also I don't mean to boycott radios stations or popular music. I'm not one to, draw a line in the sand, people are forced to take sides and very little is accomplished. In addition I support radio and I'm a true fan of music, no matter the genre, mainstream/underground, new school/old school I just love music. The point is to encourage variety on radio stations. If you're one that is tired of the same 4 artist on the radio station, then call in and request new artist. Believe it or not radio stations will listen once they've received enough requests. Some radio stations spurred by radio personalities dedicate segments, usually late night, to "local/new" artist but due to the poor results and support often times they're forced to abandon the project. Sure its arguable that part of this is due to it's segment time. Although if one is tired of the same 4 artist on the radio station, as is the person who started this thread as well as myself, then you need to take action and encourage the behavior that you want by supporting these segments and these radio stations that break the mold. It's no more their "fault" as it is our "fault" as the consumer for supporting this limited behavior.
So for the most part I agree with what you have stated, I do question what influences mainstream. In it's purest form, we would hope popularity due to talent or perceived talent drove mainstream but this is not entirely the case. What I'm going to say is a general statement and may be a bit contradictory to what I've previously stated above but I don't feel anything is just this or just that (black and white). It's a constant pull between the two forces, similar to the Yin and Yang. Mainstream and what is popular is more closely driven by, "the formula and money." Basically mainstream is driven by what big companies perceive will make them the most money. What we define as mainstream is what has been drilled into our brains through very successful marketing campaigns. For example believe it or not radio stations are paid to play music, commonly referred to as payloa. It is illegal to pay to play, but there are ways around this or they just flat out do it. Big record companies pay radio stations to push their artists. Now if all you hear on the radio is Lil Wayne, Sam Smith, and Avicii all day, all week, then your perception of mainstream is Lil Wayne, Sam Smith, and Avicii. If popularity due to talent or perceived talent was our drive for mainstream, we would hear Tech-N9ne, Arcade Fire, and Louis the Child who have huge fan bases and are quite popular but do not have the financial backing that Lil Wayne, Sam Smith and Avicii has through their major record deals. So though popularity can break an artist, especially with the avenues the internet has opened up for artist, generally speaking it takes the backing of a record label or tons of money to become mainstream.

A great point, well made.

~~Soulflower~~ · 09-23-2014, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?

Yes, because there are only 4 record companies

Very true!

However,

Is it really ONLY because of the lack of record companies?

Is it really ONLY about making money?

Surely if the industry has a platform that can reach a wide audience I would imagine they would take advantage of that influence.

I don't think conspiracy is the appropriate word but it seems the industry certainly is trying to manipulate a certain message but then again that is what marketing/media is designed to do anyway so it is absurd to just ignore that point as well.

**Janszoon** · 09-23-2014, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulflower

Is it really ONLY about making money?

Yes, it's really only about making money.

~~Soulflower~~ · 09-23-2014, 11:38 PM

I think it is obviously a business but the business is also perpetuating images and stereotypes as well. It is really absurd to ignore that point whether it is a small point or not.

09-21-2014, 03:49 PM	#253 (permalink)
GD ???pp? ??snW Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: NO Posts: 686	^Thank you. __________________ lasty\|rate-y music-y

09-21-2014, 03:46 PM	#251 (permalink)
~~Soulflower~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 2,304	So far Urban is the only one that has given great points as far as the obvious lack of variety in today's mainstream market and I appreciate your feedback and everyone else. **** To argue otherwise is just being naive especially since the only pop stars that is being marketed is only 6-7 compared to previous decades where there were like 20 artists simultaneously being marketed at the same time. To some that might not seem like an "agenda" but this is obviously a big difference compared to the past and this lack of variety has been going on for almost a decade now. It would be one thing if these 6 pop stars were different.... but they all market the same thing which leads me to believe in my opinion there is an agenda behind it. In the past decades, there wasn't 6 pop stars marketing the same brand or image. So in my opinion, I think the industry wants to only specifically market this particular image. I feel sorry for this generation because this is a bigger issue and I think there is an underlining message behind it. Music has a bigger influence more than what people give it credit for and the industry is not stupid and it is sad that...well...the general public is.

09-23-2014, 11:38 PM	#260 (permalink)
~~Soulflower~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 2,304	I think it is obviously a business but the business is also perpetuating images and stereotypes as well. It is really absurd to ignore that point whether it is a small point or not.