Living Inside The Vast Wasteland
December 18, 2019 7:19 AM Subscribe
“ Our imaginations can no longer absorb a narrative in which Guy Montag is the hero, television the enemy, and his wife the tragic warning. The portals to this world were never on center stage, but they existed, in newsstands and zine racks, in books, in leaflets, in the boomboxes of high school parking lots. HBO, which has done more than most to make this world vanish, did nothing brave with its production of Fahrenheit 451. By scrubbing TV from Bradbury’s story, it papered over its own pixelated reflection and ours, sparing us from reckoning with the fact that we are all Mildred Montag now.” The history of the anti-TV movement, the backlash, and the lack of anti-blacklash R.I.P Kill Your TV (Baffler) How TV Became Respectable Without Getting Better (Current Affairs)
Yeah, Westworld sucks. The O.A. was transcendent but doomed by its own ambition.
Funny how that article erased all of the PoC in The Wire by saying it was about "angsty white cops." Two of the films it lauds as Better Than Television - Anomalisa and The Lobster - are about angsty white people, but somehow that is not relevant?
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:39 AM on December 18, 2019 [13 favorites]
Funny how that article erased all of the PoC in The Wire by saying it was about "angsty white cops." Two of the films it lauds as Better Than Television - Anomalisa and The Lobster - are about angsty white people, but somehow that is not relevant?
posted by grumpybear69 at 7:39 AM on December 18, 2019 [13 favorites]
it’s worth pointing out that a significant majority of critically-acclaimed, so-called “prestige television” shows are about angsty white criminals (The Sopranos, Breaking Bad), angsty white cops (The Wire), and angsty white ad execs (Mad Men)
Yeah, this officially lost me. Who the hell thought that the wire was primarily about white cops, only one of whom could be considered angsty? None of these shows have been on the air for five years, and that was Mad Men - which lessened in cultural relevance long before 2015.
I don't know if I agree that the current range of shows is worse in quality than the stuff that was coming out in 2002-2010, but it's certainly not a forgone conclusion. And I don't think the stuff that we're talking about as great television is as white and male as they're making it out to be - the only show that's popping up on Vulture's top 10 lists for this year that's primarily white dudes is Succession. The other TV shows that got mentioned multiple times - Fleabag, Russian Doll, Euphoria, Watchmen - they might have anti-heroes as leads or deal with crime, but I don't think they're supposed to "make us feel better about our own, more mundane foibles".
I'm cool with arguments about how prestige TV isn't as good as it says it is, but this isn't doing a great job with it.
posted by dinty_moore at 7:42 AM on December 18, 2019 [11 favorites]
Yeah, this officially lost me. Who the hell thought that the wire was primarily about white cops, only one of whom could be considered angsty? None of these shows have been on the air for five years, and that was Mad Men - which lessened in cultural relevance long before 2015.
I don't know if I agree that the current range of shows is worse in quality than the stuff that was coming out in 2002-2010, but it's certainly not a forgone conclusion. And I don't think the stuff that we're talking about as great television is as white and male as they're making it out to be - the only show that's popping up on Vulture's top 10 lists for this year that's primarily white dudes is Succession. The other TV shows that got mentioned multiple times - Fleabag, Russian Doll, Euphoria, Watchmen - they might have anti-heroes as leads or deal with crime, but I don't think they're supposed to "make us feel better about our own, more mundane foibles".
I'm cool with arguments about how prestige TV isn't as good as it says it is, but this isn't doing a great job with it.
posted by dinty_moore at 7:42 AM on December 18, 2019 [11 favorites]
I really enjoyed The Baffler article. I think a lot about what it means that I’m usually reading rather than watching television, but doing so on a screen (my phone or Kindle). The disturbing scene from the future I find myself dwelling on isn’t Fahrenheit 451, but the scene from Wall-E of everyone ensconced in comfy clothes in comfy chairs, eyes glued to a screen. We continue to think advancement in tech equates to making things easier and more comfortable (for people who already have things pretty easy, comparatively). If I’m sticking my nose in a book (on a screen) to avoid the discomfort of boredom and a searching mind, rather than using TV to do so, is it really any better? I guess that’s where the “cultural brainwashing” aspect comes in...
posted by sallybrown at 7:48 AM on December 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
posted by sallybrown at 7:48 AM on December 18, 2019 [7 favorites]
THE AESTHETIC OF THE HIT-Within the Context of No-Context, George W. S. Trow
To a person growing up in the power of demography, it was clear that history had to do not with the powerful actions of certain men but with the processes of choice and preference.
THE AESTHETIC OF THE HIT
The power shifted. In the phrase “I Like Ike,” the power shifted. It shifted from General Eisenhower to someone called Ike, who embodied certain aspects of General Eisenhower and certain aspects of affection for General Eisenhower. Then it shifted again. From “Ike,” you could see certain aspects of General Eisenhower. From “like,” all you could see was other Americans engaged in a process resembling the processes of intimacy. This was a comfort.
THE AESTHETIC OF THE HIT
The comfort was in agreement, the easy exercise of the modes of choice and preference. It was attractive and, as it was presented, not difficult. But, once interfered with, the processes of choice and preference began to take on an uncomfortable aspect. Choice in respect to important matters became more and more difficult; people found it troublesome to settle on a mode of work, for instance, or a partner. Choice in respect to trivial matters, on the other hand, assumed an importance that no one could have thought to predict. So what happened then was that important forces that had not been used, because they fell outside the new scale of national life (which was the life of television), began to find a home in the exercise of preference concerning trivial matters, so that attention, aspiration, even affection came to adhere to shimmers thrown up by the demography in trivial matters. The attraction of inappropriate attention, aspiration, and affection to a shimmer spins out, in its operation, a little mist of energy which is rather like love, but trivial, rather like a sense of home, but apt to disappear. In this mist exists the Aesthetic of the Hit.
posted by Iridic at 8:26 AM on December 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
The truffaut film it's gorgeous and amazing. I saw it for the first time about five years ago and was dumb founded that I'd never heard of it before that. It presages the Wes Anderson look, and certainly has no omission of the telly...
posted by kaibutsu at 8:29 AM on December 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by kaibutsu at 8:29 AM on December 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
The Baffler one is probably the best because it gets that the point is not necessarily about the content. It peters out a bit at the end though. Lately my reaction to stuff like this
where brain scientists on the bleeding edge of the new TV-internet paradigm target precise coordinates in our lateral prefrontal cortex to facilitate brand memory encoding.
tends to be - yeah, those paid "brain scientists" sound like hucksters.
posted by atoxyl at 8:44 AM on December 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
where brain scientists on the bleeding edge of the new TV-internet paradigm target precise coordinates in our lateral prefrontal cortex to facilitate brand memory encoding.
tends to be - yeah, those paid "brain scientists" sound like hucksters.
posted by atoxyl at 8:44 AM on December 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
There was a link I saw here a few days ago to compilations of near identical instagram pictures. The comments that went along (in the linked place) with them were salted with derisive language "Soooo creative...lol" such that it felt like viewers found duplication synonymous with doltishness. With the number of clever humans on the planet newly endowed with the ability to self publish and the terrifying concentration of wealth seeking return being splashed around on ANYTHING that might conceivably make a buck it seems unavoidable that to our novelty seeking brains the world will seem less and less satisfying.
For the record I have seen like 1 episode of The Sopranos and The Wire combined and don't know what an "Avengers End Game" is, (seriously, it is like when I first heard the phrase "Super Mario Brothers" I could not make sense of it.)
posted by Pembquist at 8:45 AM on December 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
For the record I have seen like 1 episode of The Sopranos and The Wire combined and don't know what an "Avengers End Game" is, (seriously, it is like when I first heard the phrase "Super Mario Brothers" I could not make sense of it.)
posted by Pembquist at 8:45 AM on December 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
The Baffler article is good, as are the books it talks about by Manders and Postman. (I also appreciated the footnote about Postman's somewhat ungenerous response to Manders book, not that either of them is issue free.) The ignored question though is that of what they hold to be the "right" or "better" base of society that TV is supposed to have helped cost us. In McKibben's case, that obvious enough, wandering about in privileged contact with nature, which certainly sounds good and to the extent of protecting the environment, indeed an imperative, but it doesn't address the level of privilege that sits so righteously in so much of McKibben's writing. For better or worse, "TV", whether actual television or streaming videos, is now central to society and talking about removing it without providing some reasonable sense of what it is one expects to find "underneath" our viewing that is, what?, purer humanity?, is its own kind of wishful thinking that doesn't actually speak that well to lived concerns of people who are so greedily devouring video content.
That isn't of course to dismiss the concerns raised, but to say they can't be addressed purely by attack on the medium as delivery system, but need to be seen by what it does provide for so many viewers, which is closer to an aesthetic issue. There are some hints raised about that element in the Baffler piece that the Current Affairs article tries to take on more directly, but sadly hits its targets only glancingly, focusing on similarity of style and, mistakenly, claiming more likeness to the old than holds up under scrutiny. The article feints towards more substantive issues, like that of the endless deferment of resolution that drives people to keep watching without any real end goal in mind other than in the speculation of what comes next and where will it lead, which is so often to disappointment as the promises of something "big and bold" can't be upheld by the workings of the format very often.
It's not difficult to see why people say the current age of TV is better, we're taught by movies and other social circumstance to enjoy money being spent. Much of what makes current TV seem so impressive is just that, more money being put into the productions which provides more visual stimulus than old shows could even dream of providing. Accompanying that was the opportunity for cable TV and then the internet to deal with themes, language and visuals that the traditional broadcast networks couldn't touch. The ability to make shows that could talk and look like movies with "mature" subject matter gives TV the illusion of added depth just by being able to show sex and violence more explicitly regardless of whether those things actually add any greater thematic depth to the works.
The sheer amount of TV certainly has made for more shows with some aesthetic merit, how many and which is of course debatable, so it won't do to pretend there is no change for the better in that regard. But that same sheer volume of material also means there is soooo much more that isn't significantly better other than in production values, sex, and violence as well and we're spending ever more time sorting through all that dross to reach something that might add up to a meaningful experience, binge watching whole seasons of shows that go no where just in hopes of one maybe paying off in the end. All of that goes back to the Baffler piece about the medium itself and leaves the questions of what is it we want, are getting, and what we'd have were it all not there (along with video games and movies and all the other like media) and would we actually find that better? I'm not sure what the answer is to that last question, but I think the complaints are worth taking seriously as a way to maybe gain a better vantage point on the issue overall.
posted by gusottertrout at 9:05 AM on December 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
That isn't of course to dismiss the concerns raised, but to say they can't be addressed purely by attack on the medium as delivery system, but need to be seen by what it does provide for so many viewers, which is closer to an aesthetic issue. There are some hints raised about that element in the Baffler piece that the Current Affairs article tries to take on more directly, but sadly hits its targets only glancingly, focusing on similarity of style and, mistakenly, claiming more likeness to the old than holds up under scrutiny. The article feints towards more substantive issues, like that of the endless deferment of resolution that drives people to keep watching without any real end goal in mind other than in the speculation of what comes next and where will it lead, which is so often to disappointment as the promises of something "big and bold" can't be upheld by the workings of the format very often.
It's not difficult to see why people say the current age of TV is better, we're taught by movies and other social circumstance to enjoy money being spent. Much of what makes current TV seem so impressive is just that, more money being put into the productions which provides more visual stimulus than old shows could even dream of providing. Accompanying that was the opportunity for cable TV and then the internet to deal with themes, language and visuals that the traditional broadcast networks couldn't touch. The ability to make shows that could talk and look like movies with "mature" subject matter gives TV the illusion of added depth just by being able to show sex and violence more explicitly regardless of whether those things actually add any greater thematic depth to the works.
The sheer amount of TV certainly has made for more shows with some aesthetic merit, how many and which is of course debatable, so it won't do to pretend there is no change for the better in that regard. But that same sheer volume of material also means there is soooo much more that isn't significantly better other than in production values, sex, and violence as well and we're spending ever more time sorting through all that dross to reach something that might add up to a meaningful experience, binge watching whole seasons of shows that go no where just in hopes of one maybe paying off in the end. All of that goes back to the Baffler piece about the medium itself and leaves the questions of what is it we want, are getting, and what we'd have were it all not there (along with video games and movies and all the other like media) and would we actually find that better? I'm not sure what the answer is to that last question, but I think the complaints are worth taking seriously as a way to maybe gain a better vantage point on the issue overall.
posted by gusottertrout at 9:05 AM on December 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
What Is Monoculture? (Vox)
My immediate response to that is, yeah, they're probably right, but then, nah, it's just shifted to the actual news. Trump etc, Climate Change, apocalypse in general -- we're all increasingly glued to the same breaking stuff.
posted by philip-random at 9:10 AM on December 18, 2019
My immediate response to that is, yeah, they're probably right, but then, nah, it's just shifted to the actual news. Trump etc, Climate Change, apocalypse in general -- we're all increasingly glued to the same breaking stuff.
posted by philip-random at 9:10 AM on December 18, 2019
it's just shifted to the actual news. Trump etc, Climate Change, apocalypse in general -- we're all increasingly glued to the same breaking stuff.
This is an important point because it points to the rapidity of change and how that evokes a feeling of uncertainty and fear among people, which they seek to combat by turning to things of comfort, like TV or spending an extra few dollars on a cab ride or take out food, while at the same time fear tends to make people with resources retrench and worry about themselves and their immediate family and circumstance which leads towards conservatism; protect what you have in the face of an unknown tomorrow. TV exacerbates anxiety and then pretends to relieve it, only to further the feeling as nothing else is getting taken care of. That's at the heart of Trump's success, scare people by making the whole world seem incompetent an corrupt, making "change" itself seem frightening, so the uninformed keep going back to the known.
posted by gusottertrout at 9:30 AM on December 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
This is an important point because it points to the rapidity of change and how that evokes a feeling of uncertainty and fear among people, which they seek to combat by turning to things of comfort, like TV or spending an extra few dollars on a cab ride or take out food, while at the same time fear tends to make people with resources retrench and worry about themselves and their immediate family and circumstance which leads towards conservatism; protect what you have in the face of an unknown tomorrow. TV exacerbates anxiety and then pretends to relieve it, only to further the feeling as nothing else is getting taken care of. That's at the heart of Trump's success, scare people by making the whole world seem incompetent an corrupt, making "change" itself seem frightening, so the uninformed keep going back to the known.
posted by gusottertrout at 9:30 AM on December 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
My immediate response to that is, yeah, they're probably right, but then, nah, it's just shifted to the actual news. Trump etc, Climate Change, apocalypse in general -- we're all increasingly glued to the same breaking stuff.
I'd argue that it's not the case for News, and that is to democracy's detriment. There's tons of memes showing the differences between what's being shown on Fox vs. the other major news networks in the US - and that splintering goes even further when other, more niche news sources are taken into account. It's difficult to debate and convince others if your points if you don't agree on basic truths or reliable sources.
posted by dinty_moore at 9:30 AM on December 18, 2019
I'd argue that it's not the case for News, and that is to democracy's detriment. There's tons of memes showing the differences between what's being shown on Fox vs. the other major news networks in the US - and that splintering goes even further when other, more niche news sources are taken into account. It's difficult to debate and convince others if your points if you don't agree on basic truths or reliable sources.
posted by dinty_moore at 9:30 AM on December 18, 2019
there is a split. No question. So maybe we should be talking about duo-cultures when it comes to news/current events ... certainly from a western, mostly American perspective.
posted by philip-random at 10:32 AM on December 18, 2019
posted by philip-random at 10:32 AM on December 18, 2019
I think the Baffler piece could have gone more in depth about the recap culture and the paradoxes of having ten thousand shows on. In the 00s we had all this writing in the likes of Wired about "the long tail." That's explicitly the tail of a power-law distribution, but people put a certain upbeat spin on it - there's room for everybody in the long tail, because it's long! Somehow they never got around to talking much about what the head looks like, but of course the answer is that the most popular things are more popular than ever. As a result, for all its diversity in theory, the media landscape still feels very monoculture.
posted by atoxyl at 10:48 AM on December 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 10:48 AM on December 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
Which is why the articles about GoT being the last gasp of TV monoculture were odd to me. You mean the last until the same dynamics produce another one?
posted by atoxyl at 10:49 AM on December 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 10:49 AM on December 18, 2019 [3 favorites]
We're also rounding down "monoculture". Just under 20 million people watched the GoT series finale, whereas around 30 million people would tune in to a random episode of ER. "Monoculture" in 2019 and "monoculture" in 1994 are not the same.
posted by Automocar at 11:04 AM on December 18, 2019 [13 favorites]
posted by Automocar at 11:04 AM on December 18, 2019 [13 favorites]
As a result, for all its diversity in theory, the media landscape still feels very monoculture.
maybe. But from my perspective (born in 1959, so acutely aware of pre-internet culture and its rather solid limitations and boundaries), I find it much, much easier to avoid the monoculture(s) of now. Because, as per the longtail noted above, there are just way more options, and they're not hard to find. There may be little or no money in it for the creators, but the stuff is nevertheless overwhelmingly available, and very easy to get lost in. Meanwhile, I've seen exactly one of the top fifty grossing movies of the year (so far) and don't think I could name a single album, good bad or stupid -- and television, what is television anymore?
But then I'm single, don't have kids. I'm pretty much free to wander where I please ...
posted by philip-random at 11:07 AM on December 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
maybe. But from my perspective (born in 1959, so acutely aware of pre-internet culture and its rather solid limitations and boundaries), I find it much, much easier to avoid the monoculture(s) of now. Because, as per the longtail noted above, there are just way more options, and they're not hard to find. There may be little or no money in it for the creators, but the stuff is nevertheless overwhelmingly available, and very easy to get lost in. Meanwhile, I've seen exactly one of the top fifty grossing movies of the year (so far) and don't think I could name a single album, good bad or stupid -- and television, what is television anymore?
But then I'm single, don't have kids. I'm pretty much free to wander where I please ...
posted by philip-random at 11:07 AM on December 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
Somehow they never got around to talking much about what the head looks like, but of course the answer is that the most popular things are more popular than ever.
If we're talking about straight television (and ignoring movies and other media where it's more of a monoculture than it was twenty years ago), that's not quite true, either. The Game of Thrones finale had 19.3 million viewers. Seinfeld's finale had 76 million. Now, there are plenty of people who watched Game of Thrones timeshifted or illegally downloaded it or whatever, but the numbers for what's considered a popular TV show have definitely changed (Buffy was a fairly niche, struggling show and pulled four to six million - The Good Place pulled 2 -3 million people in season three). There's still a pretty big head at the top of that tail, but it's not quite the same as it used to be. There is a conversation to be had about tastemakers and reviewers and how one decides what we watch - the taste makers of yesteryear were pretty racist, but the algorithms of today were also programmed to be racist, so algorithm suggestions don't quite help.
What the Monoculture article was talking about was pretty similar to the algorithm was similar to the Gangam Style problem that YouTube had - where for a while, every youtube video left on autoplay would eventually lead to gangam style. Then Youtube changed their algorithm so instead of leading to more and more popular videos, it'd lead to more niche videos. . . which lead to the rise of the alt right. So, Netflix suggestions being skewed for monocultural popularity aren't the worst thing.
posted by dinty_moore at 11:11 AM on December 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
If we're talking about straight television (and ignoring movies and other media where it's more of a monoculture than it was twenty years ago), that's not quite true, either. The Game of Thrones finale had 19.3 million viewers. Seinfeld's finale had 76 million. Now, there are plenty of people who watched Game of Thrones timeshifted or illegally downloaded it or whatever, but the numbers for what's considered a popular TV show have definitely changed (Buffy was a fairly niche, struggling show and pulled four to six million - The Good Place pulled 2 -3 million people in season three). There's still a pretty big head at the top of that tail, but it's not quite the same as it used to be. There is a conversation to be had about tastemakers and reviewers and how one decides what we watch - the taste makers of yesteryear were pretty racist, but the algorithms of today were also programmed to be racist, so algorithm suggestions don't quite help.
What the Monoculture article was talking about was pretty similar to the algorithm was similar to the Gangam Style problem that YouTube had - where for a while, every youtube video left on autoplay would eventually lead to gangam style. Then Youtube changed their algorithm so instead of leading to more and more popular videos, it'd lead to more niche videos. . . which lead to the rise of the alt right. So, Netflix suggestions being skewed for monocultural popularity aren't the worst thing.
posted by dinty_moore at 11:11 AM on December 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
Twitch and YouTube always seem to be missing from these conversations about content and mindless watching experiences, but really - I think they need to be considered in the same bucket as streaming television.
posted by dinty_moore at 11:21 AM on December 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by dinty_moore at 11:21 AM on December 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
That's true. I spend about as much time watching Twitch and YouTube as my mother does watching network television, probably.
posted by Automocar at 11:24 AM on December 18, 2019
posted by Automocar at 11:24 AM on December 18, 2019
I spend about as much time watching Twitch and YouTube as my mother does watching network television
Oh completely. My young son & his classmates don't even think in terms of "television". Most of them watch Youtube as their main media consumption point. Even the concept of watching a show or a movie that isn't time shifted in some way is baffling to them.
posted by Ashwagandha at 11:48 AM on December 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
Oh completely. My young son & his classmates don't even think in terms of "television". Most of them watch Youtube as their main media consumption point. Even the concept of watching a show or a movie that isn't time shifted in some way is baffling to them.
posted by Ashwagandha at 11:48 AM on December 18, 2019 [1 favorite]
Now we know that Mildred was using her Seashells to listen to podcasts recapping the shows she had just finished watching.
posted by betweenthebars at 12:31 PM on December 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by betweenthebars at 12:31 PM on December 18, 2019 [4 favorites]
Oh completely. My young son & his classmates don't even think in terms of "television". Most of them watch Youtube as their main media consumption point. Even the concept of watching a show or a movie that isn't time shifted in some way is baffling to them.
yeah this is what I was getting at with ...
and television, what is television anymore?
because Youtube is definitely my TV replacement. I go there, eyeball the RECOMMENDED stuff, check a few subscriptions. But mostly I just wander ... as I used to surf when I owned a TV. I do live in a house right now that has one, and every now and then I'll watch a live sports event ... until the commercials scare me away. That's about it.
posted by philip-random at 1:07 PM on December 18, 2019
yeah this is what I was getting at with ...
and television, what is television anymore?
because Youtube is definitely my TV replacement. I go there, eyeball the RECOMMENDED stuff, check a few subscriptions. But mostly I just wander ... as I used to surf when I owned a TV. I do live in a house right now that has one, and every now and then I'll watch a live sports event ... until the commercials scare me away. That's about it.
posted by philip-random at 1:07 PM on December 18, 2019
Nice to see Gerry Mander recalled. A powerful book.
I'd like to emphasize the theme of tv news aspect here. While the best tv might be excellent, cable news is awful.
posted by doctornemo at 3:44 PM on December 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
I'd like to emphasize the theme of tv news aspect here. While the best tv might be excellent, cable news is awful.
posted by doctornemo at 3:44 PM on December 18, 2019 [2 favorites]
As per PBS & youTube: "Over 100 PBS local stations start streaming today on YouTube TV"
posted by aleph at 3:55 PM on December 18, 2019
posted by aleph at 3:55 PM on December 18, 2019
the monoculture is simply that we are all sitting on our asses staring at screens. that the narrative content or packet size is different is somewhat irrelevant. we're all watching and they are taking copious notes.
there's some more subtlety about pricing models and money flows that separates movies and tv that neither article seems to talk about. internet seems to be more like traditional tv, where the shows were filler to get you to watch commercials, on the internet, all content is filler to get info about you to sell you stuff. traditional movies were pay per piece. no reason to sell you more stuff. although the lines have blurred a lot and stuff is being sold in movies too...
somewhat analagous to dining. item on the menu vs all you can eat buffet and the motivations for quality and sales of add-ons that go with both those models...
posted by danjo at 4:52 PM on December 18, 2019
there's some more subtlety about pricing models and money flows that separates movies and tv that neither article seems to talk about. internet seems to be more like traditional tv, where the shows were filler to get you to watch commercials, on the internet, all content is filler to get info about you to sell you stuff. traditional movies were pay per piece. no reason to sell you more stuff. although the lines have blurred a lot and stuff is being sold in movies too...
somewhat analagous to dining. item on the menu vs all you can eat buffet and the motivations for quality and sales of add-ons that go with both those models...
posted by danjo at 4:52 PM on December 18, 2019
If we're talking about straight television (and ignoring movies and other media where it's more of a monoculture than it was twenty years ago), that's not quite true, either.
A fair point. Honestly I've spent the most time pondering this in terms of music and there it seems like money and sales are just very much contracted overall, but with a handful of artists who maintain pre-2000 levels of stardom and success and publicity. TV is probably different in several respects.
posted by atoxyl at 10:18 PM on December 18, 2019
A fair point. Honestly I've spent the most time pondering this in terms of music and there it seems like money and sales are just very much contracted overall, but with a handful of artists who maintain pre-2000 levels of stardom and success and publicity. TV is probably different in several respects.
posted by atoxyl at 10:18 PM on December 18, 2019
Yeah, with music I don't have a great feel for how it's changed in the last twenty years, because I'm currently living in a place where local music is currently A Thing with a lot of smaller venues that are a point of local pride and radio stations that are dedicated to playing local music (but we don't have a hometown record label, and we're not well situation for national tours), and twenty years ago I was in a major transit hub but the local hometown hero was . . . R. Kelly. Also, I'm officially An Old.
There's also a difference between money, consumption, and cultural relevance. There's definitely less money being made overall in music than there was twenty years ago, and Kids Today(TM) recognize songs, not artists or albums. It's easier to pull up a random song or music video to play it than it was twenty years ago, when you'd try to get someone to pay $3 to play it on The Box, or hope they had it set up for listening at Tower Records - if you were in the right market - and everyone in that market had to watch it again and again. My impression is that we're consuming more of a variety, but there's not very much money in it and it's less culturally relevant. More like music is becoming publishing.
I don't think we're heading to an all chill beats to study/relax to future - that seems to be greatly ignoring why chill beats exist (even though it's in the name!). It's elevator music for a new era, something unchallenging for the background. Yelling about smooth jazz is nearly a century old now, the only things that have really changed are the goalposts on what is deemed 'acceptable' music. I don't think that all created work must necessarily be challenging or uncomfortable to be worthwhile. However, if we're talking about the overall monocultural zeitgeist, we might be heading towards static, then blips of Lizzo, and then suddenly Old Town Road, over and over again. . .
posted by dinty_moore at 12:39 PM on December 19, 2019
There's also a difference between money, consumption, and cultural relevance. There's definitely less money being made overall in music than there was twenty years ago, and Kids Today(TM) recognize songs, not artists or albums. It's easier to pull up a random song or music video to play it than it was twenty years ago, when you'd try to get someone to pay $3 to play it on The Box, or hope they had it set up for listening at Tower Records - if you were in the right market - and everyone in that market had to watch it again and again. My impression is that we're consuming more of a variety, but there's not very much money in it and it's less culturally relevant. More like music is becoming publishing.
I don't think we're heading to an all chill beats to study/relax to future - that seems to be greatly ignoring why chill beats exist (even though it's in the name!). It's elevator music for a new era, something unchallenging for the background. Yelling about smooth jazz is nearly a century old now, the only things that have really changed are the goalposts on what is deemed 'acceptable' music. I don't think that all created work must necessarily be challenging or uncomfortable to be worthwhile. However, if we're talking about the overall monocultural zeitgeist, we might be heading towards static, then blips of Lizzo, and then suddenly Old Town Road, over and over again. . .
posted by dinty_moore at 12:39 PM on December 19, 2019
Technically Adorno was yelling about not-smooth jazz but whatever, he was yelling about the smoothest jazz available to him in 1936.
posted by dinty_moore at 12:47 PM on December 19, 2019
posted by dinty_moore at 12:47 PM on December 19, 2019
I remember an old Jimmy Stewart movie where he played a trombone player that became a Band Leader. But early in the film the musicians were talking/complaining how everyone wanted them to play "Sweet". It seemed to be an early form of chill. :)
posted by aleph at 2:12 PM on December 19, 2019
posted by aleph at 2:12 PM on December 19, 2019
« Older Can you rewrite a museum? | Digging up Cotten Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Ipsifendus at 7:37 AM on December 18, 2019 [9 favorites]