That's what record companies would like you to think. Counter-example, Milk Records, Melbourne. It's might be a record company but it looks so much like a startup.
- http://messandnoise.com/features/4666617
- http://diymag.com/2015/03/23/courtney-barnett-its-like-turni...
It's the same thing musically (though admittedly there is a bit more, not a huge amount more, of cultural influence here); there is a formula for music that most people find really satisfying. The record companies have software that analyzes songs and scores against the common patterns that produce hits. Of course, the business of music is about more than just the music, it's about the whole package.
The worst thing about both kinds of products is that they destroy local diversity and teach people to consume things that are worthless at best and actively harmful at their worst.
Do people want to do drugs as much as possible? Yes. Do people want to pretend that candy is normal food and eat candy for every meal? Yes. Coke and McDonald's are supplying the latter demand. It doesn't absolve them of responsibility and it doesn't mean they're not manipulative or dishonest. It just means that there is a real, physiological desire backing their products that's not artificially created by cartoon clowns or polar bears.
All other things (e.g. marketing budgets) being equal, much better music could be in the top 10. In the 60s and 70s, before MTV and tightly controlled playlist radios, it was.
Remember though, that SEA is just part of Asia. China and India are huge music markets. Additionally, Japan and Korea have very strong, local music scene as well.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_music_industry_market_s...
On the same topic, sports is a religion. If you disagree, or don't yet understand, please compare and contrast the two for me.
Here are some differences: sports fans don't think that their team is capable of supernatural feats. I don't think I've ever seen a fan of one team try to convince a fan of another to change allegiance, or proselytizing on a street corner. Sports fans know that the teams of the other fans exist, while religious people usually deny that other gods exist. Similarly, religious people don't have to worry about whether Yahweh could beat up Vishnu, but sports fans get to actually see what happens when their teams compete.
thinking that something is capable of supernatural feats is not required for something to become a religion.
Quite on the contrary I present you exhibit A: "forum atheists", non-believers that believe so strongly in the non-existence of anything they haven't personally seen that they will hijack any thread that is remotely near using any religious word.
To be fair, IMO a whole lot of atheists are great people. A few of them though seems to be more religious and more proselyting about it than almost any other religious group. Which is so ironic it would be quite funny if it wasn't so annoying.
Edit: removed dumb Meh
I basically agree, but I think the concept of "religion" invokes a lot of correlated things, and belief in the supernatural is one of the main ones. I expect most religions to differ from the 'prototypical' religion in a few ways, but I think sports differs in lots of ways.
(edit: or perhaps better, "beliefs about the supernatural". Religions say something specific. Atheists believe something specific. Sports teams make no claims one way or the other.)
> non-believers that believe so strongly in the non-existence of anything they haven't personally seen that they will hijack any thread that is remotely near using any religious word.
This seems like another example. I've seen that behavior from atheists and from religious people. I haven't seen it from sports fans.
People who dislike sports, on the other hand...
--- What does this have to do with the supernatural? Secondly what does this have to do with religion. If religion was 'people who feel strongly about something' then the definition of the word would no longer represent what it does.
But I will still argue that whenever I see people proselyting atheism because "big bang, stupid" and it is clear they haven't studied to much of neither physics or biology, then we have:
* proselytizing
* stronger belief than many Christians and Muslims
and I will argue that they qualify as religious even if they don't have a deity.
Then again I think atheism is a religion too.
And why is atheism a religion. Isn't its definition a lack of religion?
In numbers, yes.
> Isn't its definition a lack of religion?
I thought it was defined by the lack of belief in deities / supernatural powers. I might be wrong.
Precisely. A lack of belief.
> A lack of belief.
In deities and supernatural powers.
In other aspects I find many forum atheists to believe strongly in theories that are way above their heads.
It's a social and organizational concept, not theological or philosophical, relating to gods or otherwise. For example, environmentalism is a type of religion.
That's just not true. While the very few artists that do sell albums nowadays (Taylor Swift, Adele, Kanye West, etc.) are on major labels and do have promotion from major labels, these artists are also already successful enough to have done their own promotion if they wanted to.
On top of that, these successful artists by todays standards are selling what would have been considered disappointing numbers for artists at their levels 20 years ago. In the 90s Hootie and the Blowfish (an act with no staying power) sold 16 million albums in the US. By comparison Adele's 25 which is a huge hit by today's standards has only sold 3 million copies in the US (though 16 million worldwide.) In the 90s many albums sold tens of millions of copies, nobody does that any more.
Bowie was 100% right.
The data says exactly the opposite of what you're saying.
Spotify actually made discovering music way easier to me.
BTW there was one website that I used very often. It was called "We are Hunted"[1] and unfortunately it was acquired by Twitter, and as we all know Twitter Music is dead. That website had a playlist of emerging new tracks and I found a lot of good music there (and I heard some artists just 1-2 years before they became very famous)
Not true in my case. (I've had Pro for a long time, not sure which if any of these are Pro-only...) I can audition as much unheard-by-me recommended-by-Spotify music as I want through its Weekly playlist, its various curated genre "browse" playlists, its "trending" playlist (where you will often hear things that only become "visibly" popular MONTHS later, the playlist content is actually determined via algorithm to spot trendings super early)
[0] http://www.radiosurvivor.com/2016/01/05/why-american-indepen...
IMO Spotify/Rdio/Pandora could only ever hope to go the advertising route over subscription because they couldn't crack the much harder distribution problem (e.g. the HypeM's, SoundCloud's, Drip's, etc).
EDIT: it stopped working after 15.04. Something with an old version libgcrypt. I didn't care enough to debug it.
The difference between now and the 60s through early 90s was that labels were willing to put their weight behind more oddball artists like Bowie. He wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of achieving the same fame if he were starting now. We're in a weird time where mainstream music is the most timid and cynically commercial it's ever been but the fringes are exceptionally vital.
So, you can look at it as Mercury took a chance, didn't succeed and dropped him. RCA tried again and succeeded. But, he changed his approach and style around this time in an attempt to market himself better. Then, EMI would reap the rewards again in the 80s for Let's Dance which hit number 1 in a half-dozen countries and close to it in a few others.