Does the audience play an active role in the production of meaning in popular music?

The music industry has slowly established itself as a major money making business and in order to this it has expanded into a number of sectors such as retail, press, technology, merchandising as well as the recording companies. The primary objective of these record companies is to maximise profits so the industry creates and recreates something that they know will sell, this can be illustrated many times by looking at certain artists or groups and hearing a similar sound or look between them, for example, Boyzone and Westlife, Busted and Mcfly, Ne-Yo and Chris Browne. All of these artists' music and styles are very similar as the industry has recognised the opportunity and the popularity and has manufactured similar bands and artists to make money from what the people like. It is unrealistic to suggest that popular music can exist entirely uninfluenced by the forces of the music industry, even now when some people suggest that new technologies and websites such as Myspace.com have seen bands become established without the help of record companies , their ultimate goal will to be signed to a record label so they can make money out of the music they make. The music industry monopolises the audience by using what they know will sell and marketing it in different ways. Sony for example, is a massive business and has expanded into all different types of markets, therefore if Sony have made a film, it is almost guaranteed that the artists on the soundtrack will be signed by Sony and even the television you view the film on or the stereo you listen to the CD on could also be made by Sony. If one of these products is successful it is likely to expand to the other parts therefore on one soundtrack to a popular film Sony can promote a number of artists which then increases the chance of the audience going out to buy some of the individual artists albums if they like their sound. The audience therefore has a minor role in the production of meaning in popular music because the industry are able to recognise what sells and bring out new artists with a similar sound and style, so the audience thinks it is something knew but careful analysis will show that they are just another form of someone else who has been before them that has also had popularity in the industry of the same genre of music.

Review of MOJO

The cover drawing representing their feature on '100 records that changed the world' immediately implies that the magazine is a music lovers must have - and, as the drawing illustrates, the magazines content covers a wide range of musical talent. Phil Alexander, editor in chief, definitely has a strong and knowledgeable team behind him to be able to cover and review the range of music discussed and reviewed, including music from the 50's. This magazine undoubtedly appeals to a male audience, as many of the adverts and content are aimed at men, but also any age group could be interested in this mag - those who grew up in the 60's are able to reminisce and see how the music they grew up to is still influencing and making an impact on the youth and music industry of the 21st century. For those with an open mind about music, this magazine offers insight into up and coming bands as well as established bands who do not form part of the commercial/mainstream music industry, therefore giving readers readers the opportunity to expand their own music library and include some unique content. With information on websites to sample music and details of recommended retailers across the UK, this magazine is jam packed of everything you need to know on how to take after the MOJO team and become a music expert all for yourself.

Are 'Blackness' and 'Whiteness' useful concepts in the study of popular music?

At the time when the music industry began to establish itself as a real money making business, when laws began to be introduced surrounding music and artists' rights, the division between black and white was a lot more polarised than what we are familiar with nowadays. People viewed black and white as completely separate in everyway, they each had their own types of jobs, cultures and ultimately music. Traditionally R and B was associated with the black community and more recently, hip-hop and rap music is considered to be part of the 'black' culture. Therefore, when studying popular music in the past, the use of the terms 'whiteness' and 'blackness' were useful concepts as there was a clear distinction between the two. Music companies set up there own 'Race Records' labels highlighting further that there clearly was a distinction between what black people liked and what white people listened to, (or so the music industry thought). However, nowadays the difference is not so clearly defined, nowadays it is more difficult to pin point black/white music because what is black music? or what is white music? Many associate black music with R n B and Hip-Hop but is this just because the majority of it is performed by a black artist? UB40 released tracks that were clearly reggae so in this sense it highlights the difficulty of defining what black/white music is in modern society. Nowadays what people listen to is more diverse and what type of music people are interested in is very different and therefore more difficult to define in terms of race. For example, I'm sure 50 Cent has a lot of white fans and Eminem black fans, showing that colour is not so important nowadays and is not as associated with certain genres of music. 'Whiteness' and 'Blackness' may have been useful concepts in the past but nowadays society and popular music are much more relaxed when it comes to associating certain races with certain types of music and therefore these terms would be irrelevant to use when referring to modern popular music.

Can Popular Music be a Genuine Force for Political Change?

Politics in popular music is often thought of as songs that express the struggle against dominant institutions such as the state and the economic system or they can be used to portray a sense of belonging, for example every country has its own national anthem. Many theorists have studied the issue of music and politics and discussed whether it can act as a source for social change. Foucault argues that in some societies, popular music is considered a powerful social force, but in the West the division between high and low culture represents popular music as meaningless entertainment in order to devalue popular expression and its political content. Therefore this view of music and politics suggesting that for people in the West music can be responsible for change but it acts in the interest of the dominant forces in society to make certain issues seem natural, rather than produced by a political system. Others argue that popular music always conveys certain messages, even if they are hidden and Adorno suggested that even the standardised beat of popular music serves capitalism by shaping the working class into a 'mechanized collectivity' of worker/consumers. Some songs have been released with explicit political interest, such as Bob Marley 'Get Up, Stand Up' and such songs call for a political change as well as reinforcing solidarity as the oppressed recognise each other and become more aware of the subordination. Special events are put on such as Live 8 which used popular music to raise awareness of the suffering in other countries and raised millions to help them as well as one country halving the debts owed by one of these less developed countries, therefore showing that through music changes can be made in the world. However, it is questionable whether music is a genuine force of political change as in the past groups such as 'Red Wedge' formed, an independent organisation which used popular music to promote the Labour Parties agenda for the 1987 agenda but the Conservative Party won the election despite their efforts and no political change was made. As well as this, political songs that are released and achieve mass popularity are often bought under control by the institutions they are fighting against. The music industry makes money when artists sell, no matter what the message, so even though their cause is good, they still participate in a broader system of exploitation. At the end of the day it is government decision on what changes are made in a society and while music can be used as a strong force to raise awareness over certain issues, if the message they are portraying does not have government backing, it is highly unlikely that any political changes will be made because of popular music.

Are youth subcultures genuine signs of revolt or simply the manifestation of syle?

Over the years there has been many subcultures all with distinct differences. The most popular form of subculture is among youths or young people who Parsons argues is their way of dealing with the transition from childhood to adulthood. But the real debate within this is whether the subcultures form as a sign of opposition towards dominant power or are they simply a expression of style? For many subcultures, i would argue that the main way of identification for them is the way that they join together to create a different or distinct style that is different to that of mainstream society, therefore rebelling against mainstream society. From the research surrounding sub cultures, many point to distinct ways of dress and interests in music as a way of identifying or distinguishing one subculture from another. Willis suggests that 'musical preferences are intimately connected to the nature of their lives, for example, rock 'n' roll music matched the restlessness and mobility of the motor-bike boys'. Furthermore, Hebdige claims that the styles expressed by different subcultures are a response to social conditions and experiences'. As a result, i would suggest that many subcultures incorporate both revolt and style into their ways of life, as a lot of them dress different and listen to different music as a way of expressing their revolt against society to show their oppression as a member of youth in society. However, many modern day subcultures are not showing signs of revolt but rather use there style as a way of fitting in to the life style surrounding them i.e many people suggest that students have a particular way of dressing and indie music is associated to them, and you can always spot a rude boy by his flat peaked cap and tracksuit and he would be listening to hip hop or rap music on his i-pod. Therefore, i would argue that the modern day youth subcultures are not as interested in politics or causing a revolt and form subcultures just as a way to express their style and interests in different things.

Is DRM the best way to save the music industry?

The technological advances of the last decade has innovated the way we use and purchase our music. The birth of the MP3 player allowed a significant decrease in the file size of music, therefore opening up a whole new way of distributing music by downloading from the Internet. This new format of music files opened the door to file sharing sites being introduced which some argue led to a 'culture of piracy', where people could now download tracks for free. The music industry saw this as theft and as a breech of the copyright laws to protect artists and as a result the DRM was introduced to try and 'save' the music industry. The way that DRM focuses on protecting the property aspect of music and tries to teach that file sharing is 'stealing' is only going to reach out to a number of people but not the majority. Instead, DRM should support this new entertainment culture and introduce other techniques that would go relatively unnoticed by the consumer, such as taxing on the products that allow files to be shared and discs to be burned. Instead of asking is DRM the best way to save the music industry, we should be asking does the industry need to be saved? A lot of the people using these sites to so to sample music before purchasing because many get annoyed at the cost of CD when there is only about 2 good tracks on them. It is even suggested that it would take 5000 downloads to displace one sale so i think that the music industry should embrace this new culture and accept that people nowadays have many options when listening and purchasing music. Overall the DRM is not the best way to save the music industry because most people are not using these sites to pirate music but to sample content and many people still go out and by Cd's as it is always nice to have something tangible especially if you are a big follower of that artist.

Can popular music ever really be unplugged?

Nowadays the music industry relies on technological advances to produce high quality sounds and some may argue that technology is so influential in the making of popular music, that the question has arose on whether popular music can ever really be unplugged. In our society it is very rare to hear music that has no technological influence and i would argue that popular music can never completely be unplugged as it still relies on technology to create that 'neutral' sound that we would assume to be acoustic. For example, they will use and position a particular microphone to create a specific sound that benefits their voice, and then if this performance is to be mass produced it relies on recording equipment and other technologies such as the television or radio to promote their seemingly 'acoustic' version. Although it is possible for a performer to stand in an acoustically designed arena with no accompanying instruments or a microphone, this would be on a rare occasion such as a concert where the performer has already used the technologies available to promote his music which makes people want to come to his concert in the first place. Many performers adapt the technologies that are available and use them in such a way that was never intended, for example, in the hip-hop or dance culture many DJ's scratch the vinyls to create a completely new sound which is not what vinyls where intend for. This again shows an example of how technology is used heavily in music today and is being constantly adapted to create new unique sounds which make the music popular. This therefore suggests that without these sounds or beats behind the artists vocals, the track would not be as popular as nowadays you may never hear a particular artist perform live and a lot of people buy music not because they like the vocal ability of the artist but because they like the music that they make. Overall then, it would suggest that it is unlikely that popular music can be unplugged as our society has become so familiar with hearing music without even listening to the artists voice which was not the case in the past, as well as this, there are a number of technological advances available which can improve the sound of a persons voice suggesting that producers who make a particular sound need a pretty face for the music to be appealing or popular regardless of their vocal ability.