Is popular music a commodity or an art form?
Many people believe that music is produced for one reason and one reason only... to make money but the fact is, everybody is different. Admittedly, there are people out there who do create music solely for the money but there are others that thrive on creating music. Adorno firmly believes pop music is a commodity and that pseudo individualisation and interchangability in songs are put in place to disguise the music’s similarities. To a degree this is true but these beliefs can be compared to any medium. For example, Duchamp’s adaptation of the Mona Lisa. Although this masterpiece had already been created, it is still being portrayed in a different light and is symbolising Duchamp’s views. Art can be defined as a product of human creativity. The moment music is created, in my opinion, it is art. Music is a medium created by humans in an artistic manner and although it can be used directly for money purposes, all music remains as art. The expressing of a person through the form of music. These performers aren’t called artists for nothing!
Thursday, 6 March 2008
Thursday, 28 February 2008
Richard A. Peterson
What are the strengths and weaknesses of Peterson’s ‘production of culture’ approach, to the birth of Rock ‘n’ Roll.
Richard A. Petersons beliefs of the evolution of Rock ‘n’ Roll are very well established but there are gaps in his theory. He does talk firmly about the genre taking over swing and growing in a very short space of time after World War I and how the use of radio pushed the market in the right direction which forms a strong point. In my opinion, he leaves many other different angles out whilst making his point. He basically puts the development of Rock music down to the development of television and the change in the use of radio and doesn’t really express himself on many other possibilities. He fails to go into depth on key elements like how pivotal acts like Elvis Presley actually were in promoting the newly found genre of music. Although his theory is very strong, I think his beliefs are slightly one dimensional and could involve slightly more on the issue of culture. For instance, how teenagers at the time were looking for rebellious material and culture was crying out for ‘Rock’.
Richard A. Petersons beliefs of the evolution of Rock ‘n’ Roll are very well established but there are gaps in his theory. He does talk firmly about the genre taking over swing and growing in a very short space of time after World War I and how the use of radio pushed the market in the right direction which forms a strong point. In my opinion, he leaves many other different angles out whilst making his point. He basically puts the development of Rock music down to the development of television and the change in the use of radio and doesn’t really express himself on many other possibilities. He fails to go into depth on key elements like how pivotal acts like Elvis Presley actually were in promoting the newly found genre of music. Although his theory is very strong, I think his beliefs are slightly one dimensional and could involve slightly more on the issue of culture. For instance, how teenagers at the time were looking for rebellious material and culture was crying out for ‘Rock’.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)