Friday, February 1, 2008
The Bloodthirsty Television Generation.
Kids are starving in Africa; people are routinely being raped in Darfur. Our political standing as a country is in the process of plummeting. The world market seems to be on the verge of a recession. Maybe I should be ashamed, then, that when I'm asked what it is that concerns me the most, the first thing that comes to mind is the contemporary condition of pop culture. Still, I can't quell my disdain for what they play on the radio today, what the major record labels try to force down our throats, and the types of books that make the New York Times bestsellers list. I have mixed feelings about the decentralization of art that's occurring in this digital age of pirated movies, books, and music, but I definitely don't think that taking power from the hands of the record label giants would be a bad thing. Point in case: Soulja Boy. Why is everyone so taken by that superman song, when hardly anyone has even heard of Saddle Creek? And it isn't just bad taste -- I think the problem runs far deeper than that. Why do so many people watch Desperate Housewives? We pretend like Britney Spears is something to be ashamed of, but secretly, we're just a bloodythirsty television generation; the only thing we love more than a rags to riches story is a tabloid article about a giant toppling to the ground. No one could get enough of the Enron scandal, and I refuse to believe our fascination is a product of pure concern. No, our generation is a bloodythirsty one; it's sad, and it's something that has got to change.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I must say, i disagree strongly with several of your points. Allow me to go down your article, and point out my counter arguments.
Kids are starving in Africa; people are routinely being raped in Darfur.
This is true. I fully agree with this.
Our political standing as a country is in the process of plummeting.
Debatable. Several countries, France, for example, have recently elected pro American presidents.
Still, I can't quell my disdain for what they play on the radio today.
While that is acceptable, could you maybe cite a source? There are multiple radio stations that play many different types of music. I for one, listen mostly to classical music.
"what the major record labels try to force down our throats"
Force down our throats? Hardly. An occasional advertisement in whatever you happen to be watching or reading is not forcing it down our throats. Even if it is, anyone with willpower will simply ignore it.
"types of books that make the New York Times bestsellers list."
Interesting point. What kinds of books are making that list nowadays? Their is no source cited, unfortunately.
"I have mixed feelings about the decentralization of art that's occurring in this digital age of pirated movies, books, and music, but I definitely don't think that taking power from the hands of the record label giants would be a bad thing"
Interesting. That doesn't sound very mixed.
"Point in case: Soulja Boy. Why is everyone so taken by that superman song, when hardly anyone has even heard of Saddle Creek?"
That isn't "point in case." I hardly know anyone that listens to that song anymore. I for one, can't tell you who wrote Soulja boy, and I don't know about Saddle Creek either. However, some people would make that point in reverse, using Saddle Creek as the example for something that everyone has heard of.
"And it isn't just bad taste"
Why is liking Souja boy bad taste? Many people would say liking Saddle Creek is bad taste, but thats only opinion.
"Why do so many people watch Desperate Housewives?"
The people who do watch this probably watch it for the plot and character development, and what they think of as a well developed script.
"We pretend like Britney Spears is something to be ashamed of"
She isn't?
"but secretly, we're just a bloodythirsty television generation;"
That doesn't make us bloodthirsty, that makes us star struck.
"we're just a bloodythirsty television generation; the only thing we love more than a rags to riches story is a tabloid article about a giant toppling to the ground."
You are not innocent of this. In fact, in this very post you talk about how you feel like taking power away from major music industries (giants, if you will) would be a good thing.
"No one could get enough of the Enron scandal"
That may have been because a good deal of people lost a remarkable amount of money.
"and I refuse to believe our fascination is a product of pure concern."
Actually, I think you'll find people quite concerned if their is money involved.
"No, our generation is a bloodythirsty one; it's sad, and it's something that has got to change."
Although you claim this, you never actually support it with an example of our country being bloodthirsty, save the first few sentences of your post about Africa and Darfur. If anything, I would say, based on your post, that we are a star struck nation that is rather too immersed in new technology. But of course, all this is just opinion, and I look forward to your response.
While many of your points are very well taken and I'll be sure to think about them, I would like to clarify some things in defense of my own beliefs.
Many of my statements about music and the radio were extremely generalized and I apologize for that. I realize there are lots of different kinds of radio stations out there, and many of them play very good music; however, I don't feel like the top singles on websites such as billboard.com are fully representative of the full spectrum of their genres. I try hard to respect people with musical tastes that vary from my own, but it's hard to believe that someone who listens to Fergie (number 6 on the top one hundred, currently) for instance, wouldn't be able to find something else they liked better after exploring the rap/club/r&b genre.
I'm not trying to say that it's a crime to enjoy Fergie's music. Many people sincerely like it, and I think that's fantastic; however, I also think that they haven't had a chance to choose what kind of music they like from a very varied menu. You seem like an intelligent person, and as you may well know, Clear Channel Communications owns a substantial portion of existing radio stations. By doing so, Clear Channel essentially gets to determine which artists are heard on the radio and which artists are not.
I think that if radio was able to open up and play a wider selection of music rather than a small selection as set by one corporation, the general public would have a wider variety of music to choose from and to enjoy. I acknowledge that most people in this world are not music geeks, and they don't want to search around in periodicals and on the internet to find artists they like. I think that by opening up the market, people would find artists more suitable to their tastes than what the radio presents them with. There are many great independent radio stations and college radio stations, but most accessible radio stations are owned by Clear Channel.
I'm not trying to say, "My musical tastes are right and yours are wrong," by any means. I'm sorry if it came across that way. I'm merely trying to encourage people to delve deeper into music than the billboard top 100. Saddle Creek is a relatively under-appreciated (in my opinion) record label; I don't think that everyone would like the music Saddle Creek releases, or even that everyone should. I do, however, believe that people should move beyond major record labels and explore smaller labels and lesser known artists.
It might not have seemed so from the way I wrote, but my feelings about pirated music and movies are very mixed, actually. I do think that smaller labels gaining more prevalence would be a good thing. I hope that by decentralizing the recording business, we would see more people appreciating a wider variety of music. Again, I realize that there are a lot of people in this world, and those people listen to a wide variety of music; but I'm speaking from the perspective of a high school student, and I perceive that a majority of my classmates don't branch very far out from the type of music in the billboard top 100. That having been said, I definitely wish this could happen in a way less damaging to the market than through digital piracy. While I think that smaller labels should have more prevalence, I fear that pirated music could make it far harder than it is today for an artist to make money, and I acknowledge the importance of the music industry remaining profitable for its own sake.
Without a doubt, I could have better phrased my remark about bad taste, but I did sincerely mean it when I said that I don't think that the problems with contemporary pop culture are not bad taste related. I realize that one's taste is just one's opinion, and I think that's O.K. Again, I just wanted to encourage people to delve deeper into the music industry than what I perceive actually occurs.
As far as people watching Desperate Housewives, I'm sure many people do watch it for its plot and character development, but I also think that many people, even intelligent people watching it for its plot and character development, are entranced by the "train-wreck" nature of the plot. I wasn't trying to criticize the quality of the show - I just wanted to raise a question about what human beings naturally find entertaining.
The mere existence of tabloids substantiates my point. I don't think that the amount of attention the media pays to celebrity's like Britney Spears can truly be attributed to our star struck nature. I typically associate the term "star struck" with admiration. I don't think many people admire Spears; I think the nation as a whole is ashamed. Still, I think that somewhere deep down people are fascinated with the train-wreck nature of her existence, similar to the reasons why Desperate Housewives is so popular.
I think this sort of train-wreck fascinated mentality is a natural thing for human beings to have, and I don't want to try to pretend that I'm immune to it; however, I don't equate my desire for a heightened prevalence of smaller record labels with this sort of mentality. My belief in the importance of independent music isn't because I simply have disdain for the larger record labels' power, nor I do I disdain the power of Clear Channel simply for its own sake; I legitimately believe that a rise in independent music would be a good thing for music itself.
My reference to Enron wasn't well thought through, and I apologize for that. I think you're absolutely right in what you said. I also sounded disdainful and disrespectful of other people's taste in music and art, and I didn't at all wish to come across that way. I do however, stand by my assertion that our society as a whole is obsessed with and entertained by other people's problems. I think that the types of shows on the television, the media's obsession with certain celebrities' problems, and the existence of tabloids can attest to that. I also stand by my belief in the value of independent music. I don't perceive that a majority of people truly explore the world of music. While major record labels don't literally force things down our throats, I'm not sure that most people will ever go beyond the billboard top 100 so long as the labels producing the music on the billboard top 100 dominate the music industry.
I'm sorry that my response got to be a bit lengthy, but I sincerely hope that you read it all. I truly do respect your opinion, and I'm excited to hear back from you.
I'm very happy to have read your reply, and I certainly agree with many of the sentiments expressed therein-I also believe that people usually don't go beyond what is trendy. However, their are a few points I want to address-first and foremost being your statement about Clear Channel (for the record, I didn't know about this company). I would be very interested to learn how, exactly, they choose which songs go on the top 100. Do they vote, do the listeners vote, or is their some other method?
More importantly though, I found myself drawn to your comments about Desperate Housewives, and the idea of a trainwreck mentality. To that I would say absolutely. Humans crave violence, and the proof of that is everywhere, from the simple proof of people slowing down to look at a car wreck to the fact that any minor crime is usually given higher priority in the news then any heart warming story. Remarkably, a recent study has claimed (although I don't know how credible this is) that humans crave violence in the same way they crave sex-a burden we will have to bear.
"The mere existence of tabloids substantiates my point. I don't think that the amount of attention the media pays to celebrities like Britney Spears can truly be attributed to our star struck nature"
While its true that tabloids pay special attention to stars who ultimately fail, they arguably pay as much attention to stars who have not yet reached that point. Tabloids thrive on anything and everything celebrities do, not just the drugs and sex aspect of certain stars. This, I feel, gives credibility to my claim that we are a star-struck nation-it's further proven, I feel, by the sad fact that things like a star's dog gone missing are placed higher in news priority then other, arguably far more newsworthy things-celebrities sell.
My last point is this;
"My belief in the importance of independent music isn't because I simply have disdain for the larger record labels' power, nor I do I disdain the power of Clear Channel simply for its own sake; I legitimately believe that a rise in independent music would be a good thing for music itself."
We must be careful which such things, since it may beget a cycle. Ergo, what would happen if the number of independent record labels rose? Some of them would undoubtedly become more popular then others, and some of them would fall by they wayside. Would not then the more popular former independent record labels become the new "top 100" if you will, while the less popular fade into the background, perhaps starting over from square one of the cycle? Simply put, stars are not born stars.
I hope we can continue this-its remarkably interesting. I look forward to hearing from you.
Post a Comment