Anyway, the main purpose of music as a medium was never to be listened to in isolation. That gaining popularity in the second half of the 20th century is an anomaly, and even then there was a social component to it, with people sharing and discussing music. Sub-cultures of this period were heavily tied to music. Without that social component, there would never have been any rock stars. The decline of the music industry is in part due to increasing social isolation, which weakens shared cultural phenomena.Post edited on 8th Oct 2024, 3:12pm
I think what certainly amplifies this trend, is that most music is made to be listened to in solitude. Most can't be played on a single, simple instrument like a flute or a guitar and be sung to, but instead require an extensive technical setup. While of course big concerts, that couldn't be replicated easily, always have been a thing, it's still a unique thing these days, that most music just cannot be reproduced with simple, low-tech means by a single person or a small group of people. Maybe it requires a whole suite of electronics, just to be played or maybe, and that's where a lot of music falls into, it cannot be played at all with real instruments at all and is entirely made in Fruity Loops or something similar and is solely produced once and then distributed over the internet.
>>2948 >that's where a lot of music falls into, it cannot be played at all with real instruments at all I'm pretty out of touch with what's popular. It makes sense that kind of music is common, because it's the most accessible for people to produce. My gut tells me the most popular(i.e. profitable) music can be performed live, even if with heavy reliance on a backing track, and has a human face to it(like Taylor Swift). Her concerts must cost a lot to produce though, so yeah, I can see how people's expectations from a live performs make things inaccessible for a traditional band.Post edited on 24th Oct 2024, 9:35pm
View catalog