Music, Fans, and what's "in."

Thoughts on Sarah's and Abby's blogs about music and fans and what's "in".

Musicians are artists, and art breaths, it changes by the hand of the artist. When an artist has fans, musician, whatever artist really, the only thing the artist owes their fans is to continue creating... what and how, is up to the artist. If particular fans do not like the new art, the consistently changing art and how its created, then they can find a new artist to be a fan of. As long as a musician creates music, I do not think they owe their fans anything. They are putting themselves in the spotlight to be criticized and taking the risks, the fans get to sit back in their home, secure and unknown to consistent camera exposure and enjoy the music. Fans do not know what the musicians go through and I do not think can complain unless the musicians ceases to create music.


Record companies and those in control of putting music on the radio and on TV (MTV) and in CD shops around the Nation make sure the certain music has a certain look for money making. A lot of people especially naïve to music, all music, listen to the small percentage of music produced by these record companies, because they do not research other musical artists/groups that are not in the realm of popular music, because either the record companies do not want them or have not found them, they do not experience what they may really like, they experience what they are told to like. Of course some people truly prefer a certain music without the influence of record companies, I think music listened to can be more appreciated when it is discovered through searching rather than from passivily watchign MTV and it coming on. Especially in one-digit grade school, children thrive on the "popular" scene and if you do not partake, you do not belong. A good example is the Simpsons episode: Lisa goes to a new school… three populsr girls come up to her and ask her about a pop star, "Alaska Nebraska"- referring to Hannah Montana- famous pop-culture star especially for youth. Lisa did not know who that was. Lisa like Jazz music and classical, Lisa plays instruments and likes instrumental music, she doesn’t seem to be into a few beat chorus and verse with a bunch of lyrics, (many pop stars just sing or lip sink, they do not create the music-- of course there are good pop stars out there.) Lisa felt horrible when the girls made fun of her, because she did not parade after the popular road of music listening. Children get peer pressured into accepting music and I think half rebel later on, listening to heavy, more talented-induced music, a quarter actually like the music and continue listening to it and a quarter continue listening to popular music because they are trying to fill popular shoes. So I think to answer the question of who decides what's "in" for music, what's popular. The music industry makes what's in and makes it very available and repetitive. People and children listen to it because they like it or listen to it so that they can be "in", they can be popular, if they listen to popular music, what's "in". Same goes with clothes and brand names, some people like the brand names for a variety of reasons and some like them so that they seem with all their popular brand name apparel listening to what's "in", themselves to be "in", popular, making themselves feel better. Which is okay until they throw others out on the margins of respect because they are not within the realm of popular realms.
MY QUESTION: If peer pressure was not entangled within listening to whatever music, would music that is "in" have more range and variety. Would more music be "in", more types and styles of music.