From: Steve (scatanzaro4_at_cox.net)
Date: 2004-07-05 00:56:52
yeah mark... i knew someone would bring this up.
the "look @ damn britney" argument.
capitalists don't sweat it if people that the cogniscenti deem
"unworthy," i.e. britney, avril, and the like, are making their money.
capitalism allows "some" musicians to make money. socialism spreads the
misery around so everyone gets to share.
check 1 of your own playlists, mark. without the "fancy, hi-tech
equipment" (i.e., a sampler, turntables, pc and some software) there
would be no kyoto jazz massive, bugz in the attic, 4 hero, zero 7, and
whatever "nu-jazz" u care to mention, at least, not as we know it now.
and, you're view on capitalism making it harder to make music seems very
old-fashioned. my main point in starting the thread is that capitalism
has made "fancy, hi-tech equipment" de riguer and CHEAP. hell, 15 years
ago, making your own digital recording was like a dream... only frank
zappa and sting could do it... now, anyone with an old e-machine and
magix software can be ready to go. that's less than 300 bucks, and a 16
year old can earn that slinging pizzas for a couple months. that's the
REALITY. (of course in cuba, that's about 3 years income, but yeah...
schools are free.)
it is a MYTH that capitalism makes it harder to make music. It denies
the reality of what's happening at best buy or circuit city this very
instant, i.e., some kid is buying a $79 piece of software that, when
coupled with his mom's 3 year old computer, will have more functionality
in it than the $500,000 synclavier that sting used on "synchronicity."
mark, its true u don't need any of this stuff to make music, and u don't
need an internet to distribute it, and u don't even need electricity,
for that matter. u can just play congas, if u like. But if u play the
congas in a forest and nobody hears u, did u make a sound? isn't part of
making music sharing it with other people? this is another place,
distribution, where socialism totally drops the ball. capitalism has
made life lots easier for lots of musicians, whether they appreciate it
or not.
btw... let's talk about the charts and the lack of talent... the 2 top
selling artists out there right now are norah jones and usher. u may not
like their music... but do u really want to argue they have no talent?
besides that, look closer at the reality of the music business. Do u
really think everyone associated with a britney spears record is no
talent? britney is one piece of the puzzle. do u think the neptunes have
no talent? there are a lot of *very* talented people who are able to do
just what u say u want, i.e. put some money in the bank so they can make
their own music, just becuz they did a record date or a tour w. someone
like britney or justin or (gasp) barry manilow.
and, go back and look at the pop charts of the 30's, 40's, 50's, and
etc... see how many songs that were big hits in their day were
completely whack tunes with a shelf life of about 18 months. to say that
pop only sucks now is not historically accurate.
and finally, saying u blame the lousy state of pop music on capitalism
is kind of silly... because if there wasn't any capitalism, there
wouldn't even BE any pop music.