I've been gone and am way behind on email, so I just noticed this from last
week:
The original question was:
>So why are Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Britney Spears, etc., repeatedly played?
To which Steve Schwartz responded:
>In the case of Britney Spears, marketing, pure and simple. Most radio
>stations don't listen to the music they program. They read sales figures
>in trade magazines. If you ask why people buy in such numbers, I would
>respond again, marketing rather than music itself.
To which I resond:
I am a big fan of Steve's writing, and am constantly amazed by the breadth
and depth of his knowledge of music. Further, I don't own any Britney
Spears records and as the father of three little girls I have serious
issues with the whole Britney phenomena.
However, from a musical point of view, I have to disagree strenuously
with Steve. Britney's music is neither deep nor complex. But it is
well-crafted bubblegum. It is popular because it is catchy as hell. If it
weren't, all the marketing in the world wouldn't help. Yes, it's marketed
relentlessly and successfully, but if it didn't grab the kids, the
marketing simply wouldn't matter.
Is it Bach or Beethoven or Mozart? Of course not. Will she be anything
more than a footnote fifty years from now (assuming some semblance of
civilization still exists by then, of course)? I seriously doubt it. But
I don't think that's any reason to deny her the small amount of credit
she's due, or to denigrate the intelligence of the public that far. The
American public has proven again and again that they will not buy junk
just because they're told to--they buy junk because they like it.
Scott Peterson
[log in to unmask]
|