the argument being raised here totally undermines the role of the individual actor to make their own decisions.
people would still drink coke if they liked it even if it was on sale without any advertising or marketing whatsoever. the marketing and advertising just means more people are aware of it.
and if we're going to push this music as product thing then obviously if dubstep was all over daytime radio then more people would be into. but as many people who are into the pop records?
to what extent is taste a factor in this? you can't rule it out. popular culture is popular for 2 reasons: because it is mass marketed but also because there is some mass consensus about it. i don't believe that this consensus is entirely manufactured rather just exploited. it is commodified to such an extent (most likely to the detriment to the 'value' of the music in relation to this argument) because money can be made out of it. but it doesn't mean it's bad.
so should one not like a pop song because it has been produced with the intent of profit? should one like a song which has been produced purely for the sake of making music?
dub-u's hip pop youtubes got me thinking in more detail. andreus huyssen:
just as art works become commodities and are enjoyed as such, the commodity itself in consumer society has become image, representation, spectacle. use value has been replaced by a packaging and and advertising. the commodification of art ends up in the aestheticisation of the commodity. the siren song of the commodity has displaced the promesse de bomheur once held by bourgeois art, and consumer odyseus blissfully plunges into the sea of commodities, hoping to find gratification but finding none.
adorno and horkheimer's theory of the culture industry is interesting here:
popular culture is akin to a factory producing standardized cultural goods to manipulate the masses into passivity; the easy pleasures available through consumption of popular culture make people docile and content, no matter how difficult their economic circumstances. Adorno and Horkheimer saw this mass-produced culture as a danger to the more difficult high arts. Culture industries may cultivate false needs; that is, needs created and satisfied by capitalism. True needs, in contrast, are freedom, creativity, or genuine happiness.
the question is how this related to whether or not you should like something regardless of its intent. for me i like music for what i hear, not what i represents.
adorno was a notorious snob, he despised jazz for instance and makes for an interesting example in this thread. he raises some interesting points:
advertising becomes information when when there is no longer anything to chose from, when the recognition of brand name has taken the place of choice, when at the same time the totality forces everyone who wishes to survive into consciously going along with the process.
but surely all culture is self determining. pop tracks wouldn't be popular if people didn't enjoy them surely? do i like the timbaland because of his ubiquity or because he makes sick beats?
i guess for me, i view all music on a equal level. i like it , or don't, for what it is. and not what it represents. most people on here, because they like dubstep, don't just go along with the process. but going against the process is useless, especially when considering music or any art. which you should like if you like it and don't if you don't. there are no guilty pleasures.
i should probably think this through a bit more before posting it but what the hell.