|
Manufactured pop bands are not a recent phenomenon, they have existed ever
since there have been investment opportunities in the music industry, but
are they hindering the progress of more ‘genuine’ artists? Are they taking
over our airwaves with their repetitive drone? Or are they simply
representing our musical tastes, and at worst creating an innocent way of
spending 10 minutes?
The reason they are so popular is because there are strong arguments in
favour of manufactured pop bands. Bands like Steps and Hear’Say provide
pre-pubescent girls with harmless role models. Their music is happy and
entertaining and reaches out to them in a way that more ‘serious’ bands
cannot. The other attraction is the inoffensive boys/men in these groups,
who act as non-threatening sex symbols for them to stick up on their walls
and generally lust after. Even for those people who aren’t this way
inclined, there is also appeal. For the majority who only listen to the
radio or watch music on TV for brief spells- popular music should be bright,
uplifting and accessible. Perhaps the easiest way of vindicating
manufactured pop bands is consider the credibility of those who criticise
it. Many people who are in favour of replacing manufactured pop music are
those who enjoy listening to music to appreciate it as a complex art form
and who think pop music is intellectually inferior, when it is available
simply because it is the most sought after genre of music. Or is it?
These pop bands may be inescapable, but this does not mean that they are the
most appreciated style of music. Ideal for brief periods it may be, but for
people who would count listening to modern music as a leisure activity, the
appeal is short-lived, and the coverage they receive is infuriating. The
rich record label owners and managers of course flock to these manufactured
pop bands, as do radio stations because commercial radio and television owe
their existence to casual listeners, but to those who have a greater
interest in music, the lack of alternative music available is a problem.
The reason this situation has remained for such a long time is because of
the refusal of those with influence to make any effort to change the system.
It may not be that people actually enjoy listening to boy bands and
precocious stage-school brats, but that their dominance of the music
industry has become a tradition, and any attempt to change this would be a
high-risk business endeavour, with the competition for viewers/listeners
attention being what it is. If their dominance continues, there will be
little opportunity for artists representing other genres to receive coverage
in the future. The only people with control will be the businessmen
exploiting impressionable or passive listeners.
Perhaps, though, manufactured bands are not the sole menace in the music
industry. In theory, you could accuse Malcolm McClaren of actively
directing the Sex Pistols to be rebellious because he knew it would sell. A
lot of music is sold partly because of its accompanying image- ‘gangster’
rap and dance music being good examples. In fact, few are exempt from
having conformity and association as ulteria motives, some ‘Goths’ who claim
to be expressing individualism treat music as a fashion commodity.
However difficult it may be for new music to break through into the
mainstream, there is considerable validity in the claim that a lot of
British marginal music is simply self-indulgent and unexciting. While the
likes of bands in the Coldplay/Radiohead mould have artistic credibility,
their music is arguably uninspiring and perhaps does not present a wholly
convincing case against manufactured pop bands.
While there is some scope in denigrating critics of manufactured pop bands
and similar trendy music, the fact still remains that their suffocating
presence stops bands with integrity, energy and punk ethics from being given
coverage to a potentially appreciative audience who would possibly be
surprised that the Top 40 isn't the only source of talent.
|
