Joshua Ellis has a very interesting discussion of the concept of 'taste tribes' which you will find quite worth reading. The short of it is that people tend to like and associate with those who share some of the same tastes, and that the online world is starting to increase the ability of large taste tribes to form.
I think he goes off the rails near the end, however, with a screed about how valueless Britney Spears' music is, and suggesting that the only reason she's successful is the millions of marketing dollars pumped into promoting her. While I have no real use for her music, he's making a fundamental error: believing that marketing money makes people buy things they wouldn't particularly like under normal circumstances.
This view is widespread, and it's false.
Look at last summer's two biggest box-office phenomena: The Hulk and The Cat In The Hat.
What do these two movies have most in common? 1) The studios spent literally tens of millions of dollars promoting them, and 2) they stunk so bad that people who saw them ran screaming from the theaters, warning everyone else off. Almost no one saw these movies as a result.
Some years ago, a group of economists did an in-depth analysis of the most financially successful and popular movies of the previous ten years (running from about 1987 to 1997, if I recall correctly). They concluded that there was absolutely no correlation between how much money was spent on marketing and the success or failure of any movie. Some of the least expensive, least-marketed movies were monster hits, whereas some of the biggest bombs of all time had spent some of the most marketing money.
We see the same phenomenon in politics. For most of the last year everyone has been talking about the Howard Dean phenomenon. He's raised far more money than anyone else. He's spending more money than anyone else. And he just got himself an embarassing ass-whupping in Iowa and looks to be down for the count in New Hampshire. This is because money does not, and never has, won elections. Countless politicians have learned this lesson the hard way--in the last decade, politicians named Steve Forbes, Michael Huffington, Ross Perot, and even George H.W. Bush have all learned this lesson, and Howard Dean looks well onto his way to having his hat handed to him as well.
For decades, Republicans routinely outspent Democrats in political campaigns, and routinely held a minority position in state legislatures, governorships, and both houses of Congress. Democrats didn't complain. Now that Democrats are in the minority position, they're inclined to blame all that Republican money, because they appear incapable (for the moment) of concluding that it's their ideas that aren't selling anymore, and that money's only a minor part of that equation. Indeed, conservatives used to be inclined to grunt about how stupid voters were--even when their candidates outspent Dems, they usually lost anyway! Now that Dems are often on the losing side, they're starting to grumble about how stupid and ignorant the American people are. Do you spot the pattern?
You cannot make people like you, agree with you, or enjoy something, with marketing money. You just cannot. What you need is a product people like (whether it's a politician, a food, a sound recording, a movie, or anything else), and then at least enough money to market that product sufficiently to raise awareness and establish credibility.
The rest will be up to the people.
What the online world's expansion of "taste tribes" has done has made it possible for people to start bypassing the traditional one-to-many marketing methods of record companies, movie studios, foods, politicians, and so on. This is fantastic. That certainly does not guarantee long-term success for any movie, music, politician, food, car or whatever, but it has made it possible for some products to gain widespread notoriety without so much marketing money.
Britney Spears' music is certainly not to my tastes, but it certainly does not suck. I'm just not her target audience. Her target is young teen and pre-teen girls, and some boys of that age. She doesn't have to be a good singer or songwriter; she's got producers and songwriters who help her craft simple, catchy tunes, with lyrics that appeal to what's typically in the hearts and souls of young girls. On top of that she's pretty and perky and, well, for want of a better word, "sassy," at least so far as "sassy" is defined by your average 12 year old.
That being the goal, Britney's music is exceptionally good. It's going straight to a "taste tribe" that neither Joshua Ellis nor I belong to, nor ever will belong to. That doesn't mean she sucks, it means we think she sucks. But our opinion has not been sought in the matter, and is not needed. Catchy, perky, simple music appeals to some people, especially very young people.
I fully expect that in years to come, there will be successful musicians self-distributing their music through the internet who are making music and creating images for themselves that are in no way fundamentally different from the formula Britney Spears uses, or that other popular girl singers like Cyndi Lauper, Tiffany, the Go-Go's, Melanie, Lulu, and so on have used through the decades. They'll just have more ways to reach their audience now. I also suspect that Britney will disappear like all of them did, unless she manages to do what Madonna did: grow and change with her audience as they age, thereby keeping their interest.
All that said, I think Ellis' point about taste tribes, and the way the internet is expanding what's possible for distribution, is right on the money. In fact, the very fact that this phenomenon of online taste tribes forming, and creating commercial successes, is still more proof of the validity of much that can be found in the Clue Train Manifesto.
The world of marketing products is indeed changing. Mostly in very positive ways.
(Via Gerund.)
she doesn't have to be a good singer or songwriter; she's got producers and songwriters who help her craft simple, catchy tunes ...
Which really reduces it to the fact that the music you're hearing isn't *Britney's* music at all, but music carefully crafted to appeal to a certain audience. She is just a tool.
And it also means that you confuse the fact that her music is *made* to be marketed, whereas the two examples you used (hulk and cat in the hat) were straight-jacketed to begin with.
Britney is the Bill Clinton of popular music - triangulation, as is Justin Timberlake and all the boy bands since menudo. But I think this is an apples and oranges comparison to movies. Movies are often crafted to appeal to a certain market and do so (cough-sandra bullock - cough), but not at the cineplex these days, more in the video stores.
Also, I think you are reaching a little bit to put Cyndi Lauper (and arguably the Go-Gos) in with the likes of Tiffany.
BTW, the word isn't "sassy" it's "slutty," perfected by Madonna and passed down by tongue-kiss on MTV.
Don't overlook the importance of name recognition, though. If you are trying to get votes from people who don't obsess over politics, it's a pretty good idea to make sure they remember your name when they get to the voting booth.
if money doesnt win campaigns then why do incumbents get more money than challengers and why do incumbents usually win??
Incumbents usually win whether they're out-spent or not.
Incumbents usually have more money because most--not all, but most--people who give money to politicians are people who watch politics regularly. Those folks are generally savvy, and are much more apt to donate money to someone they think will win than to throw it after what they see as a lost cause.
Incumbents do usually win, and this is for three reasons: 1) They've already convinced their constituents to do it once, so they know how to do that, 2) people don't like to fire someone who hasn't obviously screwed up, and 3) most congressional districts are gerrymandered in such a way as to give one party or the other an overwhelming advantage.
People who believe money wins elections have their reasoning exactly backwards. The candidate with the most money isn't the one most likely to win. It's the other way around: the candidate most likely to win has the easiest time getting people to donate to his cause.
No one wants to throw money at a loser.
This is another potentially fatal flaw for the Dean campaign, by the way. Their money is mostly coming from people who are not usually the type to give campaign donations or closely follow mainstream politics. Thus they don't have the same instincts as people who've been donating to campaigns for years and years.
Those who've been around the block know instinctively how to spot a potential winner. The Dean people are largely naive; they think that money and a badass attitude and a lot of sincerity is how you win--and they are so utterly certain of the rightness of their views that they think a majority of voters will be swayed if only they will listen.
It doesn't occur to them, very often anyway, that a perfectly decent, kind, well-informed person might completely and utterly understand their arguments--and reject them.
I believe that Howard Dean did not implode in Iowa. Rather, most Iowan Democrats were not paying much attention to politics, Dean had a lot of buzz in the press, and so when polled they said they were leaning toward the guy. Then when he actually got there, during the week or so leading up to the elections, they really got to know the guy and started to decide, "Hmmm. No, I don't think so."
It wouldn't have changed a damned thing even if he'd spent twice as much money getting his message out.
In terms of Howard Dean, my prediction is that he'll go on to lose New Hampshire and South Carolina and may never even win a single state. He'll probably continue through the whole campaign, though, hoping that he can use the delegates he wins to be a power player in the convention. He still might be able to wangle a spot on the ticket with some smart negotiating, and will be able to have an influence on the party platform regardless. He may also be able to get himself a cabinet post in a hypothetical new Democratic administration, if he plays his cards right.
I also suspect that most of his diehard fans will throw tantrums and either not vote in November, or vote Green in protest, and many will spend many, many years disillusioned by politics. Some will grow up and realize that democracy isn't about getting everything you want, and your ideas don't automatically win just because you believe passionately in them. Others will pout, and a few may never vote in another election again.
That's democracy for ya. Wrong message, wrong candidate, and you lose.
Regarding Brittney Spears and inane pop music in general, sometimes it is hard for those of us with 'good taste' to wrap are minds around it, but a lot of people like non-challenging, popular stuff. I mean, it is not literally crap, it is a carefully packaged product that is consumer-tested and is good enough for the common denominator.
Brittney Spears is like McDonalds food. It's not what I would eat, but it is clearly decent enough that a lot of people like it.
To paraphrase an old friend of mine:
Howard Dean has a better chance of seeing God than he's got of winning South Carolina.
Dean is toast. When the campaign started, I didn't think he would win, but I thought he would be the McCain of the Democrats.
He's not even that. After all, McCain actually won a state.
Spears' music does suck. It's trash of the worst sort thematically, musically, and lyrically. It's not even as good as junk food.
Her primary attraction is due to the classic "virgin slut" fantasy.
Which is really sad, because when she cleans all th at crap off, she is pretty; and if you watched the movie Crossroads* she can sing at least decently.
What's sad about it is that she's being pushed further and further into a literal burlesque of herself.
*Yes, I watched it. :) Ackroyd rocked BTW.
Her music sucks to you. Her fans--mostly teen and pre-teen girls--have their own feelings on the matter. If they didn't, they wouldn't buy her albums or go to her concerts.
Great. The old Vance Packard argument.
Mike Silverman:
"Regarding Brittney Spears and inane pop music in general, sometimes it is hard for those of us with 'good taste' to wrap are minds around it, but a lot of people like non-challenging, popular stuff. I mean, it is not literally crap, it is a carefully packaged product that is consumer-tested and is good enough for the common denominator."
Good taste but not good spelling of pronouns.
Sorry--that was obnoxious, but I do wish people would remember that lots of what we now think of as great art was churned out as furnishings for nobles, or published serially in (what were for the time) pulpy magazines, or whatever. The idea that an artist is an idiosyncratic personality pursuing his own vision is not applicable to large swaths of time and place in art history. With that in mind, it's entirely possible that future generations will find plenty of value in Britney's music--no, I don't expect them to, either--even if they don't see her as the driving force in creating it.
Besides, even songs with memorable melodies can be challenging in their way--Madonna wouldn't have quoted George Herbert and Walt Whitman on one of her albums if she were aiming exclusively at the lowest common denominator.
False analogy. The Renaissance stuff wasn't "churned out" to satisfy the lowest common denominator, it was written/painted/sculpted to the tastes of the sponsors, most of whom had halfway decent taste.
Catherine the Great excepted. :)
Her music sucks to you. Her fans--mostly teen and pre-teen girls--have their own feelings on the matter. If they didn't, they wouldn't buy her albums or go to her concerts.
Aah, one of the most difficult arguments to make is that taste matters. Whether Ms. Spears' music does or does not suck is not for me to say -- I haven't heard any of it except that Pepsi commercial.
But I do believe, and can argument at length and to the point of death (but won't), that there are aesthetic judgments that can be made, and that those who disagree with specific judgments do so out of bad taste, and those who agree do so out of good taste. I'll leave it to T.S. Eliot, who argued that there is such a thing as good taste, and that one of the roles of education was to correct bad taste and help people develop an appreciation for that which is good.
Elitist. Yes. Tough.
Because in the end, if you can't tell good aesthetic judgments from the bad, you will also not be able to make good epistemological judgments from the bad. And that would be a shame.
So it may sound good to toss a "to you" after everyone's opinion, but down that road lies nihilism, bad crappy art, emotional manipulation, pornography, political correctedness, power politics and eventually the gates of hell.
Not that I have strong opinions on any of these matters.
Just my two cents.
I think ya'll are talking about two different things, at least in part.
1)The skill with which certain desires are served.
2)That those desires are of uninformed people with bad taste.
I would also be interested in a female opinion on whether girl teenyboppers are as total a waste of intellect as most of us think.
Tadeusz
"they stunk so bad that people who saw them ran screaming from the theaters, warning everyone else off. Almost no one saw these movies as a result."
they both were number one at the box office despite reviews.
Raising money is like doing well in Iowa and New Hampshire. It convinces people that you're not a lunatic.
"Dean rocks on the internet. He must be a serious candidate"
"Kerry won Iowa, so he's not just a joke candidate"
"Hey, this Edwards guy is for real!"
However if you spend a lot of your own money, that scares people.
"Sure he's rich, but what if he's a complete nutjob?"
IB Bill said it exactly. I, too, am an elitist. If our culture survives, our descendents will still be listening to Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, long after all the popular music of today is forgotten.
I kinda liked HULK. I mean, it wasn't the greatest superhero movie ever made but it certianly wasn't the worst. However, I'll admit to hating the comic from which it was inspired so I suppose anything that moves away from that will be just keen with me. I also like Eric Bana. He was great in Blackhawk Down.
You want to see a crappy superhero movie? See The Punisher. No, not the one coming out. The first one with Dolph Lundren(sp?). Yeah... no one talks about that piece of crap. Oh! Or the never released Fantastic Four movie. I've never seen it but I heard it's a steaming pile of it.
I think Hellboy look kinda stupid. Well, that's not entirely true. I think the makeup effects for the Hellboy character looks stupid. Aside from that I'll give it a chance.
hmmm...how can I turn the discussion of this post toward homosexuality...?
I'd give up, big guy. You can't go from discussing fans of Madonna, Cyndi Lauper, the Go-go's (forgotten, my white butt, BTW!), and aesthetics in the Renaissance to discussing homosexuality without major contrivances. A pity.