How we experience music

According to British research, the online availability of music has changed the way we experience music. Back in the 19th century, we used to value music as an art, but since about 20 years, we started to see music more and more as a product.

Do they have a point? Or is this nonsense? Or perhaps the logical way things like this go?

Just look at “cookie-cutter” pop stars like Brittany Spears, Hillary Duff–they basically fit what the public likes and/or wants. So, yes, it’s become more and more ‘product’ oriented. As a counter example, take Debbie Gibson: she is an extremely talented musician, lyricist and all, but once she broke from the “public expectation” on her 3rd album, her album sales were almost nothing, and since, she’s never enjoyed “success” like from her 1st two albums. The other albums were just as good and even better in some ways than the 1st 2, but because they weren’t the “product” people wanted or expected, she faded into relative obscurity–except for the occasional ‘news snippet’ on her performing in Broadway plays.

In general, look at the lack of real innovation and creativity. When rock was big in the 1980s, while there was a lot of imitation (big hair, etc.), there was a lot of creative lyrics and playing from groups like Whitesnake. But once “grunge” hit the scene, more groups added more and more distortion to their music, until guitar playing was basically more noise than artistic expression, and weaving a musical tapestry for effect was long gone. Now, “rock” is basically screaming into the mic and overly distorted guitar playing. Another proof of that is how much radio listenership declined in the U.S. because of lower-quality music. Even rap started out much more tamely and actually stated a civil message with the likes of M.C. Hammer. Now, it’s nearly all screaming about something in #$%*($#@ language, with raunchy words degrading women and drowning out any possible social message as a result. But that’s what people who really like ‘rap’ want to hear, so that’s what sells. :eek: Yes, music today is nearly all “product” instead of the creative and expressive art it used to be.

I think the music industry themselves have turned music into a mainstream product including lots of assecories and fan-based merchandise (example: The Spice Girls).

Since people tend to look up and look like their music idols the fashion industry has also been busy connecting famous pop stars to clothing and some of them even have their own clothing brand.

And it starts earlier and earlier. Nowadays there are four year olds who absolutely love music and want to have everything their god(s) also have.

I also think music has become a product, and sometimes i find it very difficult to tell which product they are trying to sell. Looking at the popular music channels here. MTV, TMF, The Hits. I often wonder if it is music or sex they are trying to sell.

Music sounds more like art when you are stoned. Dance around and feel the rhythm, oh yeah :iagree:

Music will always be art, well, according to my ID3 tags it is still the “Artist”. Art has been a product right from the time people started paying money for it thousands of years ago.

I guess the problem is saying where it is art and where a product. Is a print of a painting art? The original is. You could say then only the master disc is art, the CDs are products, but that doesn’t sound very logical to me. What about all the fan posters, T-shirts, mugs, hats and other crap sold to promote the music, is that art? I would say it was just a product. I guess just because music has become more commericial doesn’t make it any less art. I certainly think it makes the quality of the artwork poorer. It makes artists rush to meet record labels deadlines and fit there music to what the label wants, not to what they are best at.

A table is furniture, if it was made to sell or not. Music is art, regardless if it was made to sell or not.

There have allways been crappy artists working only for money, making what will sell so people will buy it. I do agree. Music is a very commerical form of art. I guess because it is so easily mass repliacted (perfectly with DVD-A discs). With other arts they cannot be replicated perfectly on such a massive scale. Art “Prints” are cheap(ish) and commerical, the originals are worth far more.

I think the problem lies in that the meaning of “Art” is very broad, most people differ on what they regard as art.

Art or craftsmanship! I really don’t care: “To me it’s basically the same thing”. There’s defiantly a huge industry, which feed on the artists/craftsmen: “may they rot in hell”. :a