What Would Revitalize Popular Music?

#392: Old Music Has Taken Over

.........................

This article was written in 2022 and held back from being published.

.........................

Way back in 2019 I posted "What Corrupted Popular Music", in which I count down the top ten factors.

Today, I read Ted Gioia's article "Is Old Music Killing New Music", in the Atlantic.  Gioia makes the case that 'old music' now makes up 70% of the US market, and that percentage is growing.  Of course that data point counts anything beyond 18 months as 'old'.  Still, 70% and growing is a very large figure.  

And, as Gioia points out: "The current list of most-downloaded tracks on iTunes is filled with the names of bands from the previous century, such as Creedence Clearwater Revival and The Police."

I enjoyed reading the entire case, but what can be done about it?

What's probably happened is something like what happened to classical music: the centuries have separated the wheat from the chaff, and anything new that aims to be "a classic" has to be very good to compete.

But what if this distillation process, by which classics are canonized, could be replicated using millions of ears and a social media app?  What if artists and their new music could cut out the middlemen and be recognized as great a few days after being released?  Of course this happens to a certain extent.  There are websites that allow listeners to taste and buy new music. 

What I'm suggesting, though, constitutes a step beyond.  What happens in the normal course of events is that great art emerges when those whose opinion is most respected agree that the art in question is outstanding--the larger the number endorsing, the more emphatic the decision.  So, to compress this process from centuries to days would require that those listening to new music, themselves, be ranked by the respect they generate in expressing their opinions.

There are many ways this could be done; I can think of a few:

* Celebrities could be hired to feed their favorite new music to listeners, who further refine.

* Established music critics could be hired to pick new material.

* Established musicians could provide that same service.

* Listeners receive points when participating. They listen to new songs, then assign those points to the songs they think are winners.  If they've picked winners, their points multiply.  Or, if not, points are lost. The earlier the pick, the more the points.

Perhaps different feeds within a single website would indicate at which level a song is intended (say "pop" or"classic", with curators describing their categorical niche).  As with something like Substack, one subscription fee would be split between artists, curators, and the site (unlike Substack, the most respected participants could also be rewarded).  Plus, there could be a few 'free' options involving artists more interested in the recognition ("We'll make money once we're famous.")  Curators could add atmosphere and commentary in the hopes of bringing in paying listeners, perhaps revealing a weekly top-20 countdown, and 'best new song' award.  Just as important, each feed could have a weekly top-100 'most respected' listeners list.

Would the site eventually become an objective generator of musical excellence?  Or would the tendency be to reward the lowest common denominator?  It may be that the way to avoid "they'll love this", instead of "I love this" is to channel all new participants through the free feeds, where there's no danger of coming up empty-handed after paying for a subscription.  These free feeds then channel the most highly rated new music to the subscriber feeds where the most respected listeners are rewarded.  Eventually, this filter would likely promote excellence, especially if it's explained so that beginners focus on what they like.

Unless, of course, the real problem is the decline in musical taste due to lack of exposure and other depressors.  Which would lead us back to my article: "What Corrupted Popular Music".

I Discuss One Pundit's President Biden Article

#393: Is He Right?

............... 

Ian Leslie (most known for his writing on The Beatles) publishes a newsletter that I subscribe to.  Today's issue was titled "The Biden Conundrum", a short essay that presents a sober assessment of our current president.  Essentially, he argues, Biden's approval rating should be much higher, given his many successes.

First, I'm on the same page with much of what he writes.  There are, however, a few disagreements that I explore below.

*** To start, Leslie cites recent NY Times polls that show Trump beating Biden in key battleground states (like Georgia, Arizona, and Michigan).  He then admits:

"Polls taken a year or more out from a presidential election are notoriously unreliable, but there’s reason to think these are not just noise. First, they are part of a broader pattern. Not only are Biden’s ratings really, really bad - comparable to Carter’s at the same stage - they are ominously stable."

He's right about the unreliability, but not about Biden's ratings being all that bad.  Compared to his most recent predecessors at the three year mark in their presidencies, Biden's numbers aren't all that different.  See Kevin Drum's comparative chart.

And considering what happened to the 'sure' Democratic win in 2016, when Hillary Clinton had been the clear front runner in the polls, Biden being a slight underdog could actually be advantageous.

 *** On foreign policy Leslie writes:

"The manner of the Afghanistan withdrawal was a black mark...."

This is conventional wisdom with little to back it up.  President Trump had committed the US to exiting Afghanistan.  The hope was that Afghan government forces could take over the fight.  Evacuating US citizens and our Afghan friends would, however, have sent a signal that all was lost; thus, the messy exit when all hope was indeed lost.  It's only in hindsight that we know the end was nearer than we thought at the time.

*** Appearance:

"I’m sorry to say it, but Trump just presents as more dynamic than Biden. The man has demonic energy."

But the closer one looks, the more one realizes how limiting his grasp on reality is; he's hobbled by his own single-minded self-regard.  Most marginal voters are drawn to the vigor, initially; then many gradually recoil.

*** A Biden alternative:

"...there isn’t somebody obviously as good or better than him waiting in the wings. His choice of Kamala Harris for VP is starting to look like a tactical masterstroke. There is certainly no clamour for her to run in his place (although the NYT polling suggests that even she might now be a stronger candidate than him)"

and

"...he has already taken the decision to run and it’s almost certainly too late to reverse now. It would actually be destabilising and risky in all sorts of ways to instigate a succession battle one year out..."

Could be.  Or, the new year may bring a surprise.  What the Biden people can do is make it seem as though it's a team that's running for re-election.  Along the lines of a periodic fireside chat, have Biden, Harris and cabinet members engaging with the public.  Make these appearances entertaining and informative.  Invite celebrities.  It doesn't have to be all politics, just keep it interesting.  For example, I went down an internet rabbit hole upon hearing the old Simon and Garfunkel song "Scarborough Fair/Canticle" on Radio Paradise.  I discovered that the "cambric shirt" mentioned in the lyrics referred to a desirable fabric of the 16th century that came from India.  There, it was called "kambala".  Seems it was used for things like pajamas.  Imagine Kamala Harris presenting Paul Simon with a embroidered shirt, in a short segment with the song playing quietly in the background.  

Now imagine younger celebrities with strong feelings about issues, with Biden, cabinet members and experts discussing the issue in question.  In a group setting Biden can question, rather than declare, suggesting that authority is invested in the evidence and the group, rather than the leader. 

*** Overall:

"One reason America has ended up with a very old president is that so few Democrats under 70 are practised at the art of appealing to the median voter, rather than just to their own activists and donors."

Except this critique could be even more effectively used against the Republicans, whose fundamentalist voter base is almost never contradicted by their party's candidates.  Meanwhile, Democrats are known for their 'big tent' party.