From Kacy D. Wiggins Sent Mon, Jun 7th 1999, 15:03
From Kacy D. Wiggins Sent Mon, Jun 7th 1999, 15:03
a lot of valid and solid points have come up in discussing this article. but i have to say in all fairness that we should not critique the article because it isn't the article we would have writtern. some of the critiques are a critique of the forum as much as it is the article. the primary audience for the new york times is american-- thus the US-centric perspective of the article. the piece was not written for anyone likely to read and post here regularly. all of the details that might have been fascinating to us would have gone over the heads or just not have been of much interest to a general audience. when doing arts and society type reporting this last point is important since the piece is not necessarily about journalistic ethics or guidlines. it is about getting the readers interest long enough to read a brief but informative piece. to do all the interviewing and background would bogg down the general reader and make it a piece better suited for a more special interest music mag. and i as i said before i am not dismissing the points that others have raised. i asked my self similar questions and thought of similar points. i just think there is only so much we can expect from a piece in the sunday times.... -kacy np-- stevie wonder innervison Alex Reynolds wrote: > Simon Reynolds' NYT article > (http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/artleisure/electronica-ads.html) skims > over/ignores several important points re: use of electronic music in a > commercial setting that would have otherwise made it an interesting read: > > == > > Ads fight for a few seconds of your brain's attention. In a society with a > short attention span, a video editor must resort to a number of blatant and > subliminal editing tricks to catch you. The quick "cut-and-mix" style of > the music is currently the best means for distract-and-refocus, as well as > purchasing-data-loading into your brain. > > Why didn't the article explore this avenue of the electronic artistic > culture in more detail: that area that "sells out" to make this type of > subtly manipulative "wallpaper" -- interviewing the people who make this > stuff (Fatboy Slim, Orb, Crystal Method, etc.)? I'd have been really > interested to read what Alex Patterson has to say on the matter. > > == > > What leads to the perception of no "overt meaning" in the music? Who gets > to make that decision: the listener or the record exec or ad agency, and > why is that important in terms of what motivates the (dis)use of > "political" or "subversive" music in commercials, i.e. who gets to make the > decision? > > On the flip side, what real lessons are gleaned from the latest angry band > of the day (Korn) -- other than that youth angst is a marketable > demographic? Is there really any other possible message? If so, why weren't > the fans interviewed? It doesn't seem proper journalistic technique to > interview businessmen about the politics of music. Particularly when it > involves record execs talking about platinum-selling bands. > > == > > "Is this use of electronica as aural wallpaper by MTV and other channels > like Bravo contributing to the trivialization of this once alien music?" > > A better question would be: "What other role could 'electronica' (ugh) play > in a consumerist economy that wouldn't have trivialized it anyway?" > > I'm surprised that a journalist like Simon R. was not a little more > critical on this matter, given that he has written a number of > "politicohistorical" accounts of the "electronica" scene, with drug use and > the gay club scene as anathema to the oppressive culture around them. > > Toning it down just to get printed in the NYT is kind of sad, but I guess > you have to pay the bills. > > -A. > > __________________________________________________________________________ > Alex Reynolds / Biology IT Support > SAS Computing > University of Pennsylvania > Philadelphia, PA 19104 > V +1 215 573.2818 > F +1 215 898.8780 > http://www.sas.upenn.edu/biology/