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

~~Soulflower~~ · 09-20-2014, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?

There's hardly any of those genres being sold by independent labels either. It's not the labels fault, there's just not much demand for it.
Music goes through peaks & troughs. Jazz was hugely popular in the 1950s and it's popularity plummeted in the 60s, it took Jazz fusion in the late 60s to re-establish it as a big seller again.
Those genres listed are in a decline, they might come back, they might not. But it's nobodies fault if there's not much demand for it.
You might not see much soul or R&B around but I see tons of soul jazz / acid jazz albums coming out, so clearly that must be the type of soul music that sells today. You might not be a fan of it but it's there.

That's what selling at the moment. In the 90s it was all boy bands, then the Spice Girls came along and suddenly you had tons of girl bands being marketed. Like I said before, you'd be a fool to use your budget on something other than what you stand to make a lot of money on. Record companies are businesses first, it's about product, not art.

You don't know that, I can remember loads of terrible stuff in the 80s that sold huge amounts.

Mainstream music is popular because it is easily accessible so if the industry chooses to market certain acts over others, the acts the industry markets will naturally be more popular not necessarily because they are more in demand but because they are being backed by a PR machine.

If an act is going to be popular, they are going to be popular because of the public not because of their overexposure which seems to be the latter for today's industry.

It appears in today's industry, the industry only wants to market 5 pop stars and limit the competition for whatever reason.

As a result, the public is force to accept these pop stars the industry only markets (for the people who rely on mainstream music)

Soul/R&B was mainstream in the 60's, 70's,80's and 90's but it currently is not now.

You are right. Record companies are a business first. However, in previous decades there was more of a variety when it came to the pop acts. There was a diverse representation of different musical genres in the mainstream.There also was artistic merit behind it as well although image of course has always been a factor for pop music.

The acts out now are mediocre and the only reason why they are popular is because there is no competition for them. They are the only acts the industry are marketing so naturally they are going to be popular by default. However, if this was the 80's none of them would be as big because there would be more of a variety for people to choose from.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 09-20-2014, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulflower

It appears in today's industry, the industry only wants to market 5 pop stars and limit the competition for whatever reason.

You are right. Record companies are a business first. However, in previous decades there was more of a variety when it came to the pop acts. There was a diverse representation of different musical genres in the mainstream.There also was artistic merit behind it as well although image of course has always been a factor for pop music.

It's interesting but I covered why this is happening and you totally glossed over it without a word.
There are only 4 major labels, all owned by multinational conglomerates that have blanket coverage over the media because they own record companies, film studios, TV stations, radio stations, print media, websites.... the lot.
This wasn't the case 20/30 years ago where there were many more record companies who's core interest was putting out music rather than being a small arm of a bigger company. Also because of that it was also easier for smaller labels able to make a bigger impact, that's why you had more variety back then.

The only reason you had more variety was because there were more labels, not that they did much different back then, they were all looking for the most marketable artists.

~~Soulflower~~ · 09-20-2014, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?

It's interesting but I covered why this is happening and you totally glossed over it without a word.
There are only 4 major labels, all owned by multinational conglomerates that have blanket coverage over the media because they own record companies, film studios, TV stations, radio stations, print media, websites.... the lot.
This wasn't the case 20/30 years ago where there were many more record companies who's core interest was putting out music rather than being a small arm of a bigger company. Also because of that it was also easier for smaller labels able to make a bigger impact, that's why you had more variety back then.

The only reason you had more variety was because there were more labels, not that they did much different back then, they were all looking for the most marketable artists.

Thanks!!!!! Good point!!!

However, if an artist like Adele can become a superstar overnight with a little industry push (keeping in mind she isn't the stereotypical pop star) what is stopping the industry from marketing others? What is stopping the industry from marketing other singers who do not fit the "stereotypical pop star type?" We can see by Adele's success that it is possible.

There are a ton of artists who could be as big Adele if the industry marketed them meaning play their music on the radio, nominate them or give them an opportunity to perform at an award show.

It just seems that today's industry has a hidden agenda.