Recent discussion of the Grammys seems to have highlighted how recording
companies have dictated what a lot of the tastes in music should be, and
that the reasons for this are to do with commercial risk analysis. Whilst I
agree with much of what has been said I must also point out that widely
available commercially recorded music is still only a fraction of a living
art. Some of the descriptions of music companies remind me of supermarkets
here in the UK (and no doubt the US too) that try to dictate how curved we
want our bananas and how straight and equal length our French Beans should
be (not something, incidentally, that I have ever found when buying them in
France!). My choice is that I buy vegetables from a local farm shop, I shop
at my market whenever I can, and I exercise my freedom of choice in the food
I buy. If I don't like the "artists" performing at the Grammys (or even,
God forbid, The Brits) then I grab a local paper, run down the gig guide,
and go and support a local band playing live (without a recording contract)
and do some grass roots support. I do the same with local opera companies
(although I tend to end up singing for them!) My point is (and there is
one) that record companies cannot dictate what music you listen to. They
can only dictate what passive, uninformed and frankly lazy "customers" get.
They are the ones that give the record companies their power, and
subsequently they are the only people who can feel trapped by the monotony
of what is on offer. The rest of us have a choice!
Best wishes
Colin Reed, tenor
Newark, UK
|
