The WRD class Rhetoric of Popular Music was my first real introduction to rhetoric (and the WRD program), and it taught me a lot about how to be music literate. I generally prided myself on my music knowledge, seeing how my dad was a heavy metal rocker in the 80s and made an effort to make my music education well-rounded. But before this class, I had not actively considered the rhetorical moves that go into music, especially popular music, which helped me become more literate in the genre.
As a whole, music is not an isolated experience. Like all literature, it is a response and reflection of the context it is situated within. A specific example of this is the band Arctic Monkeys, which I wrote about for my final project. I claimed that Arctic Monkeys changed their musical sound in order to appeal to a growing audience with specific tastes. This required being able to understand the music industry on a few fronts: the genre of music, the industry itself, and the audience.
AM originally started as an alternative rock band, which is a very broad genre but generally adheres to the concept of ‘authenticity’. This concept means not changing sound or joining a large record company; in essence, don’t sell out if you want to keep the alt rock crowd.
The industry, while it claims it wants to make music and entertain people, is in fact a capitalist machine driven by wealth accumulation. It’s rhetorical moves, such as presentation, advertising, branding, etc, are all based around what will make the most money.
The audience shifted as cultures surrounding the audience did. In 2013, the time of AM’s significant musical sound change, hipster culture was on the rise.
This audience of hipsters needed music. The industry needed money. And AM sold out to fill both those voids, becoming the most recognized ‘indie hipster’ band.
I was able to construct that argument because I was able to learn the literacy of the music industry, learn the literacy of alt rock. Everything has a literacy.
I feel like I see this happen too often, and not only in indie and pop music. It seems as that unless if their person niche in sound doesn’t make them enough money, then turn to a more common sound that will do that for them. What attracts new listeners is having a specific sound so that when someone hears their music, then can say, “This sounds like (artist)”. What really kills me is what potential music could be made should a certain group had not sold out to monetary demands. But maybe selling out did lead to a group having a new sound and fanbase. It’s a fragile subject but it seems that filling voids is attracting even if it means giving up on personal beliefs.
As someone who attempted to jump on the Arctic Monkeys bandwagon long ago, I totally see what you mean! When I was trying to get into them I remember listening to their first album and being like wtf, this sounds different from album one that blew up. It was jarring. You always hear people talk about how certain bands/ artists sell out and complain about how x artist was better when they were less known/ famous, but I think that in this instance these comments are relevant and true.