Kerrang! Magazine

This weeks issue features a childline advert, which is fitting considering most of the kids featured in this magazine sport black eyes and torn clothing, Kerrang! needs to treat their subjects better. It's no surprise bands that get reviewed by Kerrang! seem downhearted most of the time, the magazine gives them poor ratings for dinner with a side of abusive language and disappointment for desert!

It makes me wonder why fans of these bands keep buying the magazine, oh wait, here's your answer, because the demeaning reviews are part of the measly amount of reading material, and kids these days buy it for the free posters. It's like a lucky dip with Kerrang!, some weeks might have something you want, the rest of the time it's just shit followed by more shit that ends with fans tearing up the magazine and feeding it to their hamsters.

Are Blackness and Whiteness useful concepts in the study of popular music?

In the early 20th century, black and white music had more relevance than it does today. Labels such as Okeh created music especially for black people branded 'Race Records'. Although this music was marketed towards black people it is likely that many white people purchased this music.

Some music has been more widely associated to a particular race, for example Gospel. This is often due to culture, religion or class rather than race.

John Tagg said the idea that black and white music exists is ideological, not only does the implied dictiology pre-ordain certain sets of feeling and behavior for one race and deny then to the other, it also turns overriding question of class into a matter of race (1989).

Overall, I don't believe that blackness and whiteness are useful in the study of popular music.

Can Popular Music Achieve Genuine Political Change?

Music is often used to try and send out important messages, such as anti racism and anti capitalism etc. It can also we used in the opposite way by extreme political groups, for example Resistance Records have produced records that praise Hitler's ideas.

Frith, Straw and Street (2001) said 'pop becomes the expression of its political and social context'.

Music has also been used to raise awareness and money for issues such as poverty, in the example of Live Aid and Band Aid. Band Aid's Do They Know It's Christmas sold around 10 million copies and raised 8 million pounds to help people living in poverty. This example makes me believe that political change is possible through music, perhaps not on a large scale to stop poverty or any other issue all together, but to help towards the change of these issues.

does the emergence of the digital download signal the end for the music industry?

The advance in technology over the past few decades has caused a major change in the music industry and the way that we consume music. With the rise of iPods and iTunes, came the decrease in the need for CDs, as it became easier and cheaper to download music from the internet. It also became easy for people to download music for free with file sharing sites such as Limewire.

These days, record companies are losing out on millions of sales due to people illegally downloading their tracks, sometimes before their release date due to leakages. I do not believe that this signals the end of the music industry, it just means that there will have to be major changes in order for it to stay alive. itune's success proves that there are still people buying music, and as long as this continues the music industry will survive.

(the link I took down didn't work! I must have written it down wrong is there any chance you can write it in the reply, as I can't get into uni until Wednesday and would like to take a look. Thanks and sorry!!)

What is World Music?

World music is different from both international music and local music. I believe that international music is music or artists that are popular in the majority of countries around the world. Local music is music that has not yet broken through into the rest of the world, such as bands that play in their local pubs and clubs. World music is different all together, it is music that is traditional to a country or culture. This may include Indian raga music and Japanese koto music etc. In music shops there is often a seperate section for World music similar to the World cinema section for films. World music has influenced many popular artists, and is often included in popular tracks we hear in the charts today. Some artists styles combine popular genres with world music such as the band Skindred which is a reggae-rock band.

Is Popular Music a Mass Produced Commodity or a Genuine Art Form?

When we discussing whether something is art, we first need to define what art is. I believe that it is a creative way to portray human expression, whether through music, painting, dance or drama etc.

Some people may say that popular music uses part interchangeability to streamline production costs, and therefore is primarily the same. In my opinion, all lyrics, and all music begin as art. The person that wrote or created it is the artist. In some cases with popular music, the performer did not write the song, and therefore I do not believe that they are the artist, merely an artists tool. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to believe that popular music does not fall into the category of art. Theodor. W. Adorno on the other hand, would say that popular music is 'an all consuming production line that churns out mass produced inferior commodities' (1941).

How useful is a production of culture perspective in understanding the birth of rock and roll?

Richard A. Peterson, in his book The Production of Culture (1976), said that there were six socio-economic factors that came together to create a platform on which 'something' new could emerge. The six factors are law, technology, industry structure, organisation structure, occupational career and market. In this instance, the six factors made way for Rock and Roll.

At first glance, it appears that Richard A. Peterson has answered for the birth of Rock and Roll, but upon closer examination we realise that there is one gaping hole in Peterson's theory, and that is the question of why? Why was it Rock and Roll that took of in such a powerful way, and not one of the other genres of the time?

Overall, I believe that Peterson's theory is useful in understanding the birth of 'something' but not as useful in understanding the birth of Rock and Roll in particular.