Doesn't seem to be stopping those pesky female and black artists from coming up with something popular or new does it? Why can't white boys do the same? Oh apart from a lack of talent...
And finally, I am, or at least used to be a massive fan of all things indie. However I happen to believe though that most of the current scene is crap. I usually find the people that complain the most about how bad current music is and how bad it is that its all women and black people dominating the charts with vile "pop" are indie fans that just can't take the reality that what is really wrong is indie is sh*t now and there are few heroes left in that scene. Just because indie is bad now doesn't mean everything else is.
You seem to have gone off at a tangent (easy to do with these sort of discussions). The parlous state of indie music isn't the issue here. For what it's worth I still find a lot to enjoy and don't think it's all "shite" but that's an entirely subjective opinion. There's certainly little that's new or particularly exciting but the same accusation could be levelled at the pop charts which are largely uninspired and homogenous.
The discussion about the lack of significant male groups like we had in the past such as Queen or U2 or even soft stuff like Simply Red is possibly about changing tastes and public demand but it's also about the sort of acts which the record industry chooses to sign and promote.
The thread's original question was why do female artists get the lion's share of attention? The perception is that female artists dominate but actually they don't statistically represent the lion's share of chart music - look at a list of the number 1 singles from this year so far - out of 26 songs only 7 are by female artists (and a couple in collaboration with male artists) so that's hardly representative of a dominant female demographic, at least as far as chart-toppers go. This week's top 40 chart features about 13 female artists (as far as I can glean from the names - it's not always easy to figure out!)
But the perception is of female domination because they get a lot of press attention and a lot of column inches. I don't have a problem with that - the pop world is of no personal interest to me - but if you're looking for reasons then we do have to come back to the fact that it's at least partly visual and sex appeal which gets the attention because few of them actually have anything special in terms of talent which elevates them above their male counterparts. Additionally the record industry has a vested interest in promoting female artists because they are riding a wave of public popularity at present and the industry needs to milk that interest for maximum profit before people get bored and move their attention to something else.
For what it's worth I think more women in music is a good thing. Pop history has been male-dominated on the whole but the industry (my big beef...) seems interested in promoting a fairly narrow demographic of female artists like Kiesza or Ariana Grande or Rita Ora who make generic dance-pop and the same is true for most male artists and I think the industry is potentially missing out on a huge swell of talent which they're not interested in promoting - don't forget that Adele, for all her huge success, wasn't a major label puppet but was picked up by indie label XL after they heard her demos on her MySpace page. Anyway, that's another digression.
OK point taken, you're probably right that I am letting a few of my own personal ranty opinions out about indie Eraserhead. I guess I'm hoping somebody out there reads them and thinks f u Dragon idiot, I'll prove you wrong and makes some amazing rock/indie album that sets the world on fire!
As you say the figures don't necessarily suggest female dominance, Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams and Daft Punk (2 males and of course 2 Robots ;-)) enjoyed the best single sales last year.
I would say the perception that women are dominant is because they arguable make the best music around at the mo. And as you say when that's someone like Adele I'm more than happy with that.
And just to finish off the reason I don't entirely go along with the corporate evil of the music world being entirely to blame is whilst I fully acknowledge their are some awful people running the record companies making horrible decisions that put $£$£$£$'s before quality, the fact is I think the whole music biz is like that top to bottom. People can be pretty nasty within those grass roots music scenes too! Indeed I often get the impression that who does well and goes further is often less to do with talent and more to do with how good they are at making friends with the suits and working the old social media.
Take radio playlists; now decided by what advertisers want and how many hits on social media acts get rather than quality of music.
Music has always to an extent being image based and all music scenes, whether they be pop, rap, dance, indie, or rock people in those scenes, whether they be music label people, press, gig promoters and of course the fans can have horribly clicky attitudes about what they think is cool or not.
And then you've got the fact that today's kids expect everything for free and don't want to pay.
So all in all, I take my hat off to anyone who can make a successful career in music these days cause the odds are certainly stacked against them.
All in all its probably a big mix of all the things we've talked about on this boards. Sorry if that going slightly off the original topic again, but I kinda like it when boards do that sometimes, it makes them more fun.
OK point taken, you're probably right that I am letting a few of my own personal ranty opinions out about indie Eraserhead. I guess I'm hoping somebody out there reads them and thinks f u Dragon idiot, I'll prove you wrong and makes some amazing rock/indie album that sets the world on fire!
As you say the figures don't necessarily suggest female dominance, Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams and Daft Punk (2 males and of course 2 Robots ;-)) enjoyed the best single sales last year.
I would say the perception that women are dominant is because they arguable make the best music around at the mo. And as you say when that's someone like Adele I'm more than happy with that.
And just to finish off the reason I don't entirely go along with the corporate evil of the music world being entirely to blame is whilst I fully acknowledge their are some awful people running the record companies making horrible decisions that put $£$£$£$'s before quality, the fact is I think the whole music biz is like that top to bottom. People can be pretty nasty within those grass roots music scenes too! Indeed I often get the impression that who does well and goes further is often less to do with talent and more to do with how good they are at making friends with the suits and working the old social media.
Take radio playlists; now decided by what advertisers want and how many hits on social media acts get rather than quality of music.
Music has always to an extent being image based and all music scenes, whether they be pop, rap, dance, indie, or rock people in those scenes, whether they be music label people, press, gig promoters and of course the fans can have horribly clicky attitudes about what they think is cool or not.
And then you've got the fact that today's kids expect everything for free and don't want to pay.
So all in all, I take my hat off to anyone who can make a successful career in music these days cause the odds are certainly stacked against them.
All in all its probably a big mix of all the things we've talked about on this boards. Sorry if that going slightly off the original topic again, but I kinda like it when boards do that sometimes, it makes them more fun.
I am sure a Oxford undergrad could write a whole thesis on this, paragraph after paragraph.
But in the mean time a short footnote not sure what Rhianna stripping to her undies in a farmers field,Rita Ora stripping on stage,Miley Cyrus and Lady Ga Ga,s underwear collection being displayed in videos has anything to do with music.
After all artists like Judie Tzuke,Kate Bush,Sandy Denny and women with real talent in music did find no "Girl Power" looking like something from Razzle.:D:D
Yes but as others have mentioned there are successful female artists that don't strip you know. And out of the ones that do strip, some use their sexuality in an artistic way and others use it in a trashy sub porn way. Depends on the girl!
Plus I would point out Kate Bush wore some occasionally sexy (or at least for the time) outfits in her videos!
Yes but as others have mentioned there are successful female artists that don't strip you know. And out of the ones that do strip, some use their sexuality in an artistic way and others use it in a trashy sub porn way. Depends on the girl!
Plus I would point out Kate Bush wore some occasionally sexy (or at least for the time) outfits in her videos!
True but the funniest thing or one i saw in a newspaper was Rhianna being chased out of a farmers filed by the farmer after attempting to strip in his field .:D:D
Yes of course there are female arisits that do not strip but guess all the publicity goes to those that do.! which must in some part explain their "success"
Kate did wear some sexy outfits but they were not de facto almost porn though.
But i will admit in the 70s Hawkwind had a lady who stripped on stage during their act,but they are not a commercial act though and i think the lady in question used to be "tripping
"Do not know if you remember the all girl heavy rock band Girls School {my Genre of music} they never used their bodies to sell music,
And just to finish off the reason I don't entirely go along with the corporate evil of the music world being entirely to blame is whilst I fully acknowledge their are some awful people running the record companies making horrible decisions that put $£$£$£$'s before quality, the fact is I think the whole music biz is like that top to bottom. People can be pretty nasty within those grass roots music scenes too! Indeed I often get the impression that who does well and goes further is often less to do with talent and more to do with how good they are at making friends with the suits and working the old social media.
I agree entirely. While I do have a particular issue with the Big Three (Sony, Universal, Warners) especially in regard to how they have swallowed up a very significant chunk of the mainstream music industry, their tactics are not unique to the major players.
I have read many biographies of indie labels and while they did on the whole try to maintain an ethos of quality and individuality over commercial concerns there are still many occasions where struggling artists failed to find the degree of success they probably deserved through a mixture of naivety, poor management, lack of money and resources and sometimes because they simply didn't toe the party line with the label's management. Alan McGee of Creation admitted with hindsight it was a mistake to let the likes of the Jesus and Mary Chain and the House of Love go because of the lure of £££s from major labels. Any record label is still a business and needs to make money to survive and sometimes that means commercial concerns take precedence over artist integrity.
However it is also clear reading stories from industry insiders that the big majors do have a more cynical and profit-driven agenda, particularly in the US, and coming back to the thread topic that does mean that certain female artists do get a big helping hand where there is money to be made. That's not to accuse women of only being successful because they strip to their undies in a video and I'm not saying they are undeserving of success, much as I personally dislike dance-oriented pop music, but I just get the impression that today's pop charts are deliberately aimed at a fairly narrow demographic (young girls in particular) and I think that it's stifling variety and diversity in a market which used to be much more wide open and inclusive of a whole range of musical genres.
This will come across as a flippant (and probably sexist) reply, but the very simple answer is that there is always, always, always space in the newspapers, on TV or online for a well-dressed (or underdressed) attractive young lady, in a way that there just sn't for males.
It's a fact of life, maybe it'll change, maybe it won't, but for now, the media will always make room for another clip/pic of a pretty girl, and the record business is happy to take advantage accordingly, it is what it is...
Yes but then boys have the option of bedding pretty girls and getting headlines themselves (if they want to play the media circus game). So its a 2 way street if you want to play the papers and have the press machine behind you to do so. The likes of Robbie Williams certainly played that card to keep people interested in his unremarkable music.
And then you have to ask the question are a lot of these girls pushed into getting their kit off to have a career in the first place?
That shoot was the grand finale,’ says Cilmi. ‘Curtains close, applause, standing ovation. It’s quite funny when you think about it. I really went for it.’
She split with her management soon after. ‘There was talk about me doing an underwear campaign,’ says Cilmi. ‘I decided it was best for me not to be with any management.’
Yes but then boys have the option of bedding pretty girls and getting headlines themselves (if they want to play the media circus game). So its a 2 way street if you want to play the papers and have the press machine behind you to do so. The likes of Robbie Williams certainly played that card to keep people interested in his unremarkable music.
And then you have to ask the question are a lot of these girls pushed into getting their kit off to have a career in the first place?
There's probably a fair amount in that young girls are more 'malleable' and marketable.
The vast majority of pop music is consumed by girls now as well. That leaves room for pretty boy bands (1D, Five seconds of summer etc), but they also have a limited shelf life, as the members get restless and want to 'grow up' when they get into their 20s.
I guess guys aren't interested in music so much, they have movies which are marketed a lot more towards guys (superhero films for example), and especially computer games
I mean how many guys are really into Ed Sheeran compared with guys in the 90s being Oasis fans?
There's always going to be room for sappy singer/songwriters.
Very simple answer: because most current male solo acts and male bands are sh*te. Whilst many of today's current female artists are making outstanding music. Often with the help of boys, but its their vision that shapes things.
There are of course males making big hit tunes like Pharrell Williams and Sam Smith but I guess the indie sector don't like to credit people like that.
Boys need to try harder. A lot harder. Where are today's Beatles, Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Kinks, Who, Led Zep, Queen, Sex Pistols, Clash, Michael Jackson, REM, Pet Shop Boys, New Order, Duran Duran, Guns & Roses, Blur, Oasis, Nirvana, Radiohead, Prodigy, Dr Dre+ Eminem etc etc etc?
To be fair the women are trying very hard either - just stripping and releasing genetic pop written mostly by men isn't very inspiring.
Of course that's a very general stance - truth is there are talented female and male artists around, but currently we are in a period where popular music is dominated by throw away acts - but it'll turn round again, it always does.
Comments
You seem to have gone off at a tangent (easy to do with these sort of discussions). The parlous state of indie music isn't the issue here. For what it's worth I still find a lot to enjoy and don't think it's all "shite" but that's an entirely subjective opinion. There's certainly little that's new or particularly exciting but the same accusation could be levelled at the pop charts which are largely uninspired and homogenous.
The discussion about the lack of significant male groups like we had in the past such as Queen or U2 or even soft stuff like Simply Red is possibly about changing tastes and public demand but it's also about the sort of acts which the record industry chooses to sign and promote.
The thread's original question was why do female artists get the lion's share of attention? The perception is that female artists dominate but actually they don't statistically represent the lion's share of chart music - look at a list of the number 1 singles from this year so far - out of 26 songs only 7 are by female artists (and a couple in collaboration with male artists) so that's hardly representative of a dominant female demographic, at least as far as chart-toppers go. This week's top 40 chart features about 13 female artists (as far as I can glean from the names - it's not always easy to figure out!)
But the perception is of female domination because they get a lot of press attention and a lot of column inches. I don't have a problem with that - the pop world is of no personal interest to me - but if you're looking for reasons then we do have to come back to the fact that it's at least partly visual and sex appeal which gets the attention because few of them actually have anything special in terms of talent which elevates them above their male counterparts. Additionally the record industry has a vested interest in promoting female artists because they are riding a wave of public popularity at present and the industry needs to milk that interest for maximum profit before people get bored and move their attention to something else.
For what it's worth I think more women in music is a good thing. Pop history has been male-dominated on the whole but the industry (my big beef...) seems interested in promoting a fairly narrow demographic of female artists like Kiesza or Ariana Grande or Rita Ora who make generic dance-pop and the same is true for most male artists and I think the industry is potentially missing out on a huge swell of talent which they're not interested in promoting - don't forget that Adele, for all her huge success, wasn't a major label puppet but was picked up by indie label XL after they heard her demos on her MySpace page. Anyway, that's another digression.
As you say the figures don't necessarily suggest female dominance, Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams and Daft Punk (2 males and of course 2 Robots ;-)) enjoyed the best single sales last year.
I would say the perception that women are dominant is because they arguable make the best music around at the mo. And as you say when that's someone like Adele I'm more than happy with that.
And just to finish off the reason I don't entirely go along with the corporate evil of the music world being entirely to blame is whilst I fully acknowledge their are some awful people running the record companies making horrible decisions that put $£$£$£$'s before quality, the fact is I think the whole music biz is like that top to bottom. People can be pretty nasty within those grass roots music scenes too! Indeed I often get the impression that who does well and goes further is often less to do with talent and more to do with how good they are at making friends with the suits and working the old social media.
Take radio playlists; now decided by what advertisers want and how many hits on social media acts get rather than quality of music.
Music has always to an extent being image based and all music scenes, whether they be pop, rap, dance, indie, or rock people in those scenes, whether they be music label people, press, gig promoters and of course the fans can have horribly clicky attitudes about what they think is cool or not.
And then you've got the fact that today's kids expect everything for free and don't want to pay.
So all in all, I take my hat off to anyone who can make a successful career in music these days cause the odds are certainly stacked against them.
All in all its probably a big mix of all the things we've talked about on this boards. Sorry if that going slightly off the original topic again, but I kinda like it when boards do that sometimes, it makes them more fun.
I am sure a Oxford undergrad could write a whole thesis on this, paragraph after paragraph.
But in the mean time a short footnote not sure what Rhianna stripping to her undies in a farmers field,Rita Ora stripping on stage,Miley Cyrus and Lady Ga Ga,s underwear collection being displayed in videos has anything to do with music.
After all artists like Judie Tzuke,Kate Bush,Sandy Denny and women with real talent in music did find no "Girl Power" looking like something from Razzle.:D:D
Plus I would point out Kate Bush wore some occasionally sexy (or at least for the time) outfits in her videos!
True but the funniest thing or one i saw in a newspaper was Rhianna being chased out of a farmers filed by the farmer after attempting to strip in his field .:D:D
Yes of course there are female arisits that do not strip but guess all the publicity goes to those that do.! which must in some part explain their "success"
Kate did wear some sexy outfits but they were not de facto almost porn though.
But i will admit in the 70s Hawkwind had a lady who stripped on stage during their act,but they are not a commercial act though and i think the lady in question used to be "tripping
"Do not know if you remember the all girl heavy rock band Girls School {my Genre of music} they never used their bodies to sell music,
I agree entirely. While I do have a particular issue with the Big Three (Sony, Universal, Warners) especially in regard to how they have swallowed up a very significant chunk of the mainstream music industry, their tactics are not unique to the major players.
I have read many biographies of indie labels and while they did on the whole try to maintain an ethos of quality and individuality over commercial concerns there are still many occasions where struggling artists failed to find the degree of success they probably deserved through a mixture of naivety, poor management, lack of money and resources and sometimes because they simply didn't toe the party line with the label's management. Alan McGee of Creation admitted with hindsight it was a mistake to let the likes of the Jesus and Mary Chain and the House of Love go because of the lure of £££s from major labels. Any record label is still a business and needs to make money to survive and sometimes that means commercial concerns take precedence over artist integrity.
However it is also clear reading stories from industry insiders that the big majors do have a more cynical and profit-driven agenda, particularly in the US, and coming back to the thread topic that does mean that certain female artists do get a big helping hand where there is money to be made. That's not to accuse women of only being successful because they strip to their undies in a video and I'm not saying they are undeserving of success, much as I personally dislike dance-oriented pop music, but I just get the impression that today's pop charts are deliberately aimed at a fairly narrow demographic (young girls in particular) and I think that it's stifling variety and diversity in a market which used to be much more wide open and inclusive of a whole range of musical genres.
It's a fact of life, maybe it'll change, maybe it won't, but for now, the media will always make room for another clip/pic of a pretty girl, and the record business is happy to take advantage accordingly, it is what it is...
And then you have to ask the question are a lot of these girls pushed into getting their kit off to have a career in the first place?
Read this about Nothings Sweet About Me singer Gabiella Cilmi and how her major label career effectively ended at just 18 because she was didn't like how she was being pushed into doing sexy photo shoots:
http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/06/gabriella-cilmi-i-was-furious-when-i-saw-fhm-photoshoot-4174673/
There's probably a fair amount in that young girls are more 'malleable' and marketable.
The vast majority of pop music is consumed by girls now as well. That leaves room for pretty boy bands (1D, Five seconds of summer etc), but they also have a limited shelf life, as the members get restless and want to 'grow up' when they get into their 20s.
I guess guys aren't interested in music so much, they have movies which are marketed a lot more towards guys (superhero films for example), and especially computer games
I mean how many guys are really into Ed Sheeran compared with guys in the 90s being Oasis fans?
There's always going to be room for sappy singer/songwriters.
To be fair the women are trying very hard either - just stripping and releasing genetic pop written mostly by men isn't very inspiring.
Of course that's a very general stance - truth is there are talented female and male artists around, but currently we are in a period where popular music is dominated by throw away acts - but it'll turn round again, it always does.