Yes these are interesting points. I think that as fans of an artist/ group we tend to buy products associated with them either as a show of appreciation/ novelty or, as you say, as a form of advertisement to other people with similar preferences. I think that the latter form of fan consumerism is fuelled by the fact that, for a period of time, almost everyone is exposed to a very limited variety of music (and I would argue the same for film) but, not only is the variety limited, but so is the quality. During this time, then, when the quality of the products are almost equally low, preferences are developed based almost entirely on social factors (e.g. peer-pressure, image, fashion etc.), and people use these to justify their preferences. I personally for a while listened to various music by Eminem, AC/DC, Muse, Kings Of Leon, even Metallica. However now I can’t stand them and my current favourite piece of music is Beethoven’s 5th Piano Concerto. Clearly this is a major change in taste. I think that my early tastes in music can be attributed to limited variety and (in my opinion) poor quality of music available and I therefore pursued music which was either pursued by others or which communicated a desirable image. However, my change in taste can be attributed to a combination of natural maturing and broadening of knowledge through encouragement from my family (who also listen to classical music). In my opinion, the desire to buy self-advertisemental products can be explained through evolutionary psychology, that is the desire to be part of a group/ ‘tribe’ stems from the basic instinct of our ancestors to remain as part of a group as this increased the chances of both survival and reproduction.
However, I think it’s likely that for most people these social influences eventually fade and we develop genuine preferences which are based much more heavily on the quality of the original product rather than the social implications, after which buying merchandise linked with the artist/ group becomes more of a show of appreciation/ novelty rather than an advertisement. It’s interesting to consider the nature of the merchandise; I agree that buying a P Diddy aftershave is more likely to be bought as a form of advertisement rather than appreciation whereas a mug/ anorak/ waterbottle is more likely to be bought as a show of appreciation/ novelty.
It’s interesting, however, to consider why music is like this while other art forms are not. From the producers’ point of view, it’s clear that they want to make more money, as you say revenue from music sales is decreasing, but does this also show that the music industry can be more easily exploited than others? Or could others be exploited in an equally powerful way? After all, the producers are in a sense exploiting the human social instinct to belong. I would argue that this process can also be seen in the film industry, where the quality of product is being systematically lowered, forcing audiences to split into social niches waiting for the next tailor-made product to suit their manufactured ideologies. On the other hand, as I said, for most people this probably occurs in a few years of teenage vulnerability, after which they may broaden their horizons.
An excellent discussion going on here regarding collective identity and defining one's personal identity/individualism as you mature. When I was young I wore all the hippy regalia to include most clothes bought at 2nd hand stalls to signify my rejection of capatilsm, an ideology popular to certain groups of my generation -the competition was how little your paid for your clothes not how much!! I also sported a carrier bag with the North Vietnamese flag on it to indicate my opposition to the Vietnam war. Of course I attended pop festivals etc, but was always into classical music as opera is strong in my family so that was part of "me" not a lifestyle choice. We were as tribal when we were young as teenagers are today and what we wore strongly indicated which group we belonged to!!!
Yes these are interesting points. I think that as fans of an artist/ group we tend to buy products associated with them either as a show of appreciation/ novelty or, as you say, as a form of advertisement to other people with similar preferences. I think that the latter form of fan consumerism is fuelled by the fact that, for a period of time, almost everyone is exposed to a very limited variety of music (and I would argue the same for film) but, not only is the variety limited, but so is the quality. During this time, then, when the quality of the products are almost equally low, preferences are developed based almost entirely on social factors (e.g. peer-pressure, image, fashion etc.), and people use these to justify their preferences. I personally for a while listened to various music by Eminem, AC/DC, Muse, Kings Of Leon, even Metallica. However now I can’t stand them and my current favourite piece of music is Beethoven’s 5th Piano Concerto. Clearly this is a major change in taste. I think that my early tastes in music can be attributed to limited variety and (in my opinion) poor quality of music available and I therefore pursued music which was either pursued by others or which communicated a desirable image. However, my change in taste can be attributed to a combination of natural maturing and broadening of knowledge through encouragement from my family (who also listen to classical music). In my opinion, the desire to buy self-advertisemental products can be explained through evolutionary psychology, that is the desire to be part of a group/ ‘tribe’ stems from the basic instinct of our ancestors to remain as part of a group as this increased the chances of both survival and reproduction.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think it’s likely that for most people these social influences eventually fade and we develop genuine preferences which are based much more heavily on the quality of the original product rather than the social implications, after which buying merchandise linked with the artist/ group becomes more of a show of appreciation/ novelty rather than an advertisement. It’s interesting to consider the nature of the merchandise; I agree that buying a P Diddy aftershave is more likely to be bought as a form of advertisement rather than appreciation whereas a mug/ anorak/ waterbottle is more likely to be bought as a show of appreciation/ novelty.
It’s interesting, however, to consider why music is like this while other art forms are not. From the producers’ point of view, it’s clear that they want to make more money, as you say revenue from music sales is decreasing, but does this also show that the music industry can be more easily exploited than others? Or could others be exploited in an equally powerful way? After all, the producers are in a sense exploiting the human social instinct to belong. I would argue that this process can also be seen in the film industry, where the quality of product is being systematically lowered, forcing audiences to split into social niches waiting for the next tailor-made product to suit their manufactured ideologies. On the other hand, as I said, for most people this probably occurs in a few years of teenage vulnerability, after which they may broaden their horizons.
An excellent discussion going on here regarding collective identity and defining one's personal identity/individualism as you mature. When I was young I wore all the hippy regalia to include most clothes bought at 2nd hand stalls to signify my rejection of capatilsm, an ideology popular to certain groups of my generation -the competition was how little your paid for your clothes not how much!! I also sported a carrier bag with the North Vietnamese flag on it to indicate my opposition to the Vietnam war. Of course I attended pop festivals etc, but was always into classical music as opera is strong in my family so that was part of "me" not a lifestyle choice. We were as tribal when we were young as teenagers are today and what we wore strongly indicated which group we belonged to!!!
ReplyDeleteA great topic to discuss.