After reading Blogsauce's blog "It's a mad world" it got me thinking about when niche is no longer niche. For me the word niche equals unique or special. It is niche because it is not generally accepted by mainstream culture. I am a self professed music snob. As soon as a band gets noticed by the masses it's no longer special to me anymore. I'm no longer interested. In fact my love soon turns to annoyance and even hatred.
The interactive and participatory nature of the internet through online communities, DIY music production and file sharing networks, as well as media convergence across a variety of platforms including the proliferation of music into television shows and movies has allowed niche artists to gain a larger audience. But does this audience truly appreciate the unique and special nature of what they're listening to? When a band is popular with the masses they seem to lose a part of who they are. They're just another "hit" played 10 times a day on commercial radio, listened to by teeny boppers following the latest "hit" like sheep. Ironically, 106.9's slogan is "sounds different". What's different about it? All they do is play the Top 40 on repeat. That's not different. That's not niche. That's not unique.
There are countless examples of when niche artists are scooped up by mainstream media and transformed into artificial shells of their former unique selves. Snow Patrol's rise to fame through the use of "Chasing Cars" in the Grey's Anatomy Season 2 Finale is one example. My cousin used to be a huge fan of Snow Patrol but has since lost interest because she was so outraged when people came into her music store the day after Grey's Anatomy and asked her "Do you have that song 'If i lay here...something something' ooh i can't remember it". It's offensive towards the band and what they represent when their rise to fame comes in such an artificial mainstream way. Mark Everett, better known as "E" from The Eels said that allowing the movie "Road Trip" to use his song "Goddamn right, it's a beautiful day" was the greatest regret he ever made in his career. "I didn't want this brand new song to be associated with a frat-boy movie, of all things. That's not a beautiful day, and not a good first impression for my new song and album." (Everett, 2008, p170). He said that the feeling of maintaining his integrity was worth more than the millions of dollars to be gained from "selling out" (Everett, 2008, p171).
Anderson says that we've entered the rise of the niche nation. However, to truly "make it" in the industry musicians more often than not still have to conform to the "hit" style. Perhaps the bigges t sell out of 2007 was Kate Miller-Heidke. Take a look at her before andafter videos. The most ironic part about it is that one of her songs pokes fun at Australian Idol for producing artificially created musicians. On a recent tour in Brisbane, Melbourne up and coming musician, Whitley, introduced his song on NOVA 106.9 as "Hi i'm Whitley. You're listening to more spoon fed commercial crap for the masses". It's frustrating that for musicians like Whitley to really make it in the music industry they have to enter the "dark side" and participate in the mainstream culture that they hate.
According to Anderson "The Niche is now King". But is it more a case of the King being able to find the niche more easily and then turning it into the traditional commercial mainstream "hit"?
Reference
Everett, M. 2008. Things the Grandchildren Should Know. London: Little Brown.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Great blog! This is the point I was trying to make in mine but you definitely articulated it better. Your angle about bands reaching commercial success via mainstream radio, is the same as the television success I was speaking of. (I don’t have any connections to mainstream radio - therefore the issue doesn’t reach me).
After a quick google, the term ‘selling out’ is claimed to mean ‘the compromising of one’s integrity, morality and principles in exchange for money, success or other personal gain (Wikipedia, 2008). However, who are we to judge that a band is ‘selling out’? Everyone wants to be popular and liked. And if their music is still good then where is the harm? This question has been a constant and contentious issue for as long as music has existed. If we have a look at history we can see classic artists have all supported the commercialisation of music as a means for promotion. The Beatles, U2, The Ramones, The Who, Bob Dylan, The Clash have all at one time willingly used their music for commercial purposes and they are all still highly regarded within the music community (McMartin, 2005)
I think it depends on what the music gives you, to determine how much the 'selling out' factor will be prominent. For example, a band is popular in some niche community but that popularity then spreads to commercial success. If the band loses their initial fans along with their image we can gather that they either weren’t that good in the first place, or their original fans only liked them for their ‘unknown’ status and image. Which is pretty poor form I must admit. However, if a band is truly great shouldn’t we want to share their brilliance with everyone we know? Referring back to DCFC, when they gained slight commercial success from repeated appearances on the O.C, I was pretty happy that finally people were getting excited about a band that is definitely worth getting excited about. It can be annoying when bands gain commercial success and start being shoved in your face 24 hours a day. However it’s equally annoying when great music does not get the recognition it deserves, as well as the money they work damn hard for. Keith Richards even commented in a 1989 Forbes interview that the more money the band makes (usually from commercial success) the more benefits that will have for their fans, with cheaper ticket prices and such.
Music has always been about the image. But surely the music plays a part in there too? When is image more important than the music itself? To what degree is it important to like a band that’s fairly crap… but is cool within a niche group because nobody else knows them? I think it’s important for people to like the music that appeals to them based on sound (and a slight degree of image) but not the other way around.
References:
Wikipedia. 2008. Selling Out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selling_out (accessed Wednesday, 14 May 2008)
McMartin, T. 2005. M&C Music Features. The Balancing Act Between Art and Commerce. http://www.monstersandcritics.com/music/features/article_1045700.php/The_balancing_act_between_art_and_commerce (accessed Wednesday, 14 May 2008)
I think the argument that Emmy is trying to make is that when a band like Snow Patrol becomes flooded into mainstream radio it is adopted by mass audiences not because of the quality of the music, but because amongst peers, it is considered ‘cool.’ These fans have a superficial relationship with the artist, prepared to drop them the second they are out of the spotlight.
I also feel that as an artist moves into the mainstream, their music tends to become standardised and lose what made it unique and gain supporters in the first place. About 4 years ago, I was introduced to the Presets, fairly unknown, with a really unique sound. Now they are a widely known, played repetitively on commercial radio and somehow their music has lost its originality and appeal.
The reason this aggravates fans who have stuck by the artist from the outset is because they have to compete with superficial fans and almost defend their reasons for liking the artist. Sure they want the artist to do well, but not at the expense of their support and changing what they liked about them in the first place.
Post a Comment