Modern pop music is a more refined commercial industry than it was in the past. It's been sliding further and further away from art and toward the commercial. It is what it is.
"Art that doesn't sell is just a storage problem."
Had an artist tell me this once and it stuck with me ever since. He was referring to paintings, but has generally held for every other artistic endeavor.
Looking through history art has always been commercial - it's just the audience that changes.
For music, musicians who got paid used to be focused on the tastes of just the wealthiest folks who liked to go and be seen at symphonies. Nowadays, it's the artists who can fill stadiums (and get fans to buy lots of merch) that make the most bank. As such, it is often those musicians who provide a sellable brand that do best. To many, this can feel fake and plastic. But like any product designed for mass consumption, it's essential.
Looking at the symbiotic dance between artist and viewer/reader/listener is really something special, and helps to provide context for changes in trends.
You could be the best guitar player in the world, writing the best guitar solos of all time, but if you can't get people to pay for it, it's just a storage problem for your guitar.
>Looking through history art has always been commercial - it's just the audience that changes.
Well, not exactly in the same way. Commercial is not about "catering to an audience", it's about catering to mass audiences, and the compromises that entails.
For example, an "artistic" indie group catering to just a tiny minority is not just "as commercial" as a pop production, unless we stretch the term beyond recognition).
There's a huge difference in attitude and approach. The artistic group would rather lose money than incorporat some elements that aren't in their vision. A pop artist on the other hand would more often than not just do whatever the producer or writing team wants to get on the fads of the day and sell more.
It's not just the audience that changes, but the methodology, the marketing involved, the perception of their work by the artist, and most importantly the lack of the kind of defiance that characterized artists who'd rather lose lots of money and stay poor than compromise on their vision (or who even made a point of not selling out on purpose).
> For example, an "artistic" indie group catering to just a tiny minority is not just "as commercial" as a pop production, unless we stretch the term beyond recognition).
But that indie band is not necessarily more artistic.
I know the phrase "mass-marketed commercial pop by committee" produces a visceral reaction, but nothing about it is inherently inauthentic.
"Mass-marketed" just means that something is widely promoted. Many of the most creative, influential, and authentic musical groups are "mass-marketed".
"Commercial" doesn't really mean anything in this context, as presumably everything that you listen to on the radio/streaming services is commercial.
"Pop" is descriptive of the style of the music, not how it's produced (there are indie pop groups).
"by committee" means that multiple people contributed to it. Do you think the only valid creative process is one where somebody works in isolation? If so, that disqualifies pretty much every band / non-solo act from meeting your standards for authenticity.
> "Commercial" doesn't really mean anything in this context, as presumably everything that you listen to on the radio/streaming services is commercial.
It means dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. It means being told that instead of deeply personal, complex, and potentially offensive lyrics you're just going to repeat a word or small phrase over and over and over because that sells better doesn't alienate anyone with difficult words or things that might offended them, or might discourage the use (and sale) of that song in commercials, grocery stores, overseas markets, or film soundtracks.
Commercial interests (the desire for as much money as possible at the expense of all else) overrides what would have been deliberate artistic choices in order to maximize profits leading to a landscape of homogenized bland overproduced and unchallenging art.
We've seen many changes in music as a direct result of commercial interests overriding the preferences of artists (and listeners) including the loudness wars, the end of the album as a cohesive work to favor itunes downloads of single tracks, and the lengths of songs getting shorter and shorter to the point where bridges and entire verses are removed.
Not everything you hear on the radio has been fully compromised by commercial interests, but it's a good bet compromises were made and commercial interests have had more influence over what gets heard on the radio than any other factor (talent, skill, popularity, artistry, etc.)
> It means dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.
It literally doesn't though. Like, that's not the meaning of the word "commercial" in any sense.
Your favorite indie band is commercial. Your friends who charge $5 for their shows are commercial.
Your issues aren't with "commercial" musicians, they're with musicians who prioritize commercial success over artistic expression.
I don't think is a new phenomenon, and actually think it's a lot less prevalent now than it was in the past. With free streaming services, most people have easy exposure to a much wider range of music, and aren't relying on the radio to dictate their tastes.
There have been dozens of albums from the last few years that have had huge commercial success, and also taken big artistic risks. Happy to provide a list of recommendations if you're having trouble finding good new music.
"Artistic" in the sense "more concerned about art" not "having more art in their results" (which can't be measured anyway).
So, like "arthouse movies". An arthouse movie could be much worse done than a mainstream good movie (like, say, the Godfather). The art in the term is not about the level of artistry, but about the approach.
Far be it from me to try to define art, but at some point I imagine an artist must stop and ask him/herself "Is my work an original thought? Am I telling a story here, sending a message, engaging with an idea, being provocative, being honest, making my audience feel something, or is my work... mass-produced background mall muzak? A soulless sculpture for some corporate headquarters?" Pop music has always been right in the middle, toeing close to that line between "mostly art" and "mostly commercial product". Where the difference between what the artist wants to say and what the audience wants to see/hear is blurry. I'm sure when you enter that world, surrounded by producers, business people, investors, execs, marketing, focus groups, event organizers, you feel the pressure to go along with the flow and just build a formulaic consumer product.
I don't think art that doesn't sell is lesser than art that does sell. I know, tell that to an artist who wants to make a living... but I really think you have to measure a work along more than one axis. How good something sells is a different dimension than how good something is. If that wasn't true, Thriller would be the best music ever and the Toyota Corolla would be the best car in the world.
> "Is my work an original thought? Am I telling a story here, sending a message, engaging with an idea, being provocative, being honest, making my audience feel something, or is my work... mass-produced background mall muzak?"
One of your questions aligns with my personal definition of art. Art is 100% subjective i.e. personal. For me music needs to touch me emotionally, and since i love to dance it is a huge plus if it makes me move too. Visual art needs to astonish me, in one word: Wow!
Music is entertainment, if we leave music for spiritual rituals. Some of the highly revered classical music of Bach or Händel was background or dance music for parties hosted the nobles who employed them.
You'd like to think that the music (that became popular) didn't start out that way though. You'd like to think that the Beatles were emulating their Black American heroes, writing songs that got the kids along the Reeperbahn to kick up their heels and belt a few more lagers. That it found a larger audience and caught on is what made it "pop"ular.
It's art when it moves the needle of what we think "commercial" means.
Wasn't there a Beatles anecdote where Lennon says to McCartney "let's write a swimming pool!" People get good at music because they love it, but just because they love it and we love them, don't assume they aren't in it for the money.
Exactly. That's what differentiates it from folk: Both are music of the people, but pop music was explicitly written for a commercial purpose, and it's existed in that form since before audio recording existed, as another poster mentioned.
As someone who has played in several original but not monetarily motivated pop bands, I have to somewhat disagree. If I showed up to a folk festival I'd probably be booed off the stage.
I think the more salient difference is that folk music is accessible to produce (simple, common instrumentation). Pop music is accessible to consume (catchy melodies, danceable beats). One could say these traits co-evolved with the contexts the genres serve (cultural tradition vs. commercialization).
"Folk" I think also carries the connotation of traditional instrumentation and musical style, whereas pop is allowed to evolve. I'm not sure whether there's an umbrella term for music in modern musical style with accessible modern instrumentation.
> "Folk" I think also carries the connotation of traditional instrumentation and musical style, whereas pop is allowed to evolve. I'm not sure whether there's an umbrella term for music in modern musical style with accessible modern instrumentation.
This is a very good point. I think it would be like folktronica or indie folk or neo-folk or something else that's considered a folk subgenre.
Yes, you are right. Though, I think the idea is that pop music has become more of an industry now than it was before, in the sense that every aspect of it is optimized and all those optimizations are pushed to the extreme over any artistic merit, far more than 30 years ago.
Frank Sinatra was probably close to the original "Boy Band(tm)". Singers were originally an appendage to the orchestra who was the big name. With TV, being young and attractive became much more important than the music and that equation flipped.
Sinatra, Elvis, The Beach Boys, The Beatles, etc. All of them relied on being "boy bands" to spread their music initially. Sure, many of them became more sophisticated with time, but much of their initial catalog was ... extremely derivative. There were a bunch of contemporary groups who sounded just like Elvis, The Beach Boys, The Beatles, etc.
Without being Boy Bands who could move records, they never would have lasted long enough to get better and become the legends we now know them to be.
If there's been an indie/garage wave of music since grunge swept hair-metal out of the top 10 I guess I missed it. I had come to enjoy the reactionary waves of music like folk, punk, college-rock, grunge: the music that often started in small venues or at parties, that somehow broke through to find an large audience that were sick of the commercial dreck that studios and labels were pushing.
It's definitely happened. The biggest example that comes to mind has to be Lil Nas X's "Old Town Road". I guess he was 20 when it blew up, so not a teenager, but close enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Town_Road
Except on re-run channels where they speed up the credits 100x to get them over with. Kind of like the drug interactions or terms and conditions at the end of ads.
Sorry for the snark in advance. Sounds like a justification/rationalization to me. Being able to persuade people to buy mass produced things they don't need makes you what exactly? Art needs to make me feel something, 100% subjective. A print of a can of of soup leaves me very unimpressed. Where is the Wow Factor?
