G
goinghome
Guest
Morrissey wrote:
"As we all now know, the world of music is purely market-driven – not even youth-driven anymore. Talent or merit or songs do not enter the equation for a split second; the campaign is the thing, the campaign is what is discussed amongst the public, the campaign is what impresses the press, and the songs are never a factor. The labels will only push the "artists" that they themselves have discovered, and have no interest in the self-made, blah, blah..."
Hureharehure posted about this issue on the main page:
"I'm so happy to see that various sites/papers/etc. that have covered Morrissey's statement (e.g., Pitchfork, the Guardian) have quoted the part about the music industry being purely market-driven. Because unfortunately no one else as prominent as Morrissey seems interested in talking about such things. Instead they seem to take it for granted that its an immutable characteristic of modern life. Not just with music, with books and films and everything else ... it wasn't really that long ago that "news" about the highest-grossing movies and how much was spent on advertising them was considered to be of interest only to people who worked in the industry. Now it's apparently supposed to be interesting to everyone, meant to make them feel like insiders I guess. Likewise with book deals. It's disgusting and I could complain about it for hours. I won't, though ..."
Is this really so bad? Surely the campaign is important? Or does it mean we're all forced to work backwards to find the goods, leading to a sense that life's just too short and so the gems are overlooked for whoever has most resources to push ANYTHING down our throats?
"As we all now know, the world of music is purely market-driven – not even youth-driven anymore. Talent or merit or songs do not enter the equation for a split second; the campaign is the thing, the campaign is what is discussed amongst the public, the campaign is what impresses the press, and the songs are never a factor. The labels will only push the "artists" that they themselves have discovered, and have no interest in the self-made, blah, blah..."
Hureharehure posted about this issue on the main page:
"I'm so happy to see that various sites/papers/etc. that have covered Morrissey's statement (e.g., Pitchfork, the Guardian) have quoted the part about the music industry being purely market-driven. Because unfortunately no one else as prominent as Morrissey seems interested in talking about such things. Instead they seem to take it for granted that its an immutable characteristic of modern life. Not just with music, with books and films and everything else ... it wasn't really that long ago that "news" about the highest-grossing movies and how much was spent on advertising them was considered to be of interest only to people who worked in the industry. Now it's apparently supposed to be interesting to everyone, meant to make them feel like insiders I guess. Likewise with book deals. It's disgusting and I could complain about it for hours. I won't, though ..."
Is this really so bad? Surely the campaign is important? Or does it mean we're all forced to work backwards to find the goods, leading to a sense that life's just too short and so the gems are overlooked for whoever has most resources to push ANYTHING down our throats?