Hacker News Reader

I think Bowie was the antithesis of this.

If you'll forgive the hyperbole, he is the archetypal outsider, the patron saint of the dispossessed. So for all those who don't feel that they belong, Bowie's activities provided a message - 'It's OK to be an outsider', and, curiously, through that message provided a sense of belonging - I'm going to get all metaphysical and say that that is alchemical / transformative in a very profound way for many people.

Bowie may have been an outsider, but consider that your exact feelings are social, those feelings of belonging and connection to an icon.

The music industry is just as adept at monetizing those feelings as they are of monetizing teen-age angst or adolescent her-worship of boy bands.

My point being, that while Bowie and many others can stand outside of the industry, I don’t believe the basic dynamics are going to change. Radio may go away. Physical media may go away. Apple may disrupt the labels.

Bt I believe that massive marketing machines will continue to slice and dice the market for music and continue to dominate people’s choices.

Remember, you only heard of Bowie because he played the game.

I totally agree with your points - the market economy finds ways to monetise and that's its job.

I'm not actually a big fan of Bowie, I'm a bit too young, but it's something I'm observing. I'm also aware that those feelings of alienation are keenest for teenagers and that the music industry exploits that. However, whilst the music machine exploits the latest pop star - if you were to compare and contrast say, Justin Bieber or Taylor Swift with Bowie, then there is a difference in what they symbolise for the fan, and, whilst the outcome of a sense of belonging is effected in both instances, Bieber / Swift do not represent the outsider, they are just more grist for the mill.

I only heard of Bowie because of The Labyrinth. :-)

"for all those who don't feel that they belong" < and the curious irony of Bowie's popularity: that's everyone.

>he is the archetypal outsider

While that may have been one of his target markets, make no mistake: Bowie worked his socks off to find a market that worked for him - in addition to quite an incredible musical talent - and it took years and years of hard, often unrecognised work, for his success to come.

I mean - his first hit was a novelty song about garden gnomes, his second was (admittedly, possibly slightly unfair to argue it) cashing in on the space race, and it took a further couple of years for him to figure out his marketing and reach consistent success.

I'm afraid I don't buy that. Music follows rules, rules that we all grew up internalizing. There's no "universal music", just music who's rules you are familiar with. Tweak those rules just enough and in the right way and you are innovative (see: The Beatles). Tweak them too much and you are simply avant garde (see: Captain Beefheart).

That means that music is without question a social construction. Simply look at how non-western music is so radically different from popular western music, yet still appealing within those cultures.

It's very possible Bowie could have been too avant garde or too much of an outsider, but what he excelled at was tweaking the establishment just enough (both musically and performance-wise) to find a huge audience whilst still being "outside" the mainstream.

What don't you buy?

>Music follows rules, rules that we all grew up internalizing. There's no "universal music", just music who's rules you are familiar with. Tweak those rules just enough and in the right way and you are innovative (see: The Beatles). Tweak them too much and you are simply avant garde (see: Captain Beefheart).

I can enjoy music who's rules I am not familiar with. I don't need to know the rules to enjoy tonal and rythmic arrangements.

> That means that music is without question a social construction

That means it's culturally specific, NOT a social construction.

> It's very possible Bowie could have been too avant garde or too much of an outsider, but what he excelled at was tweaking the establishment just enough (both musically and performance-wise) to find a huge audience whilst still being "outside" the mainstream.

Which is perhaps the point I am trying to make. Within a specific culture, his work (not just his music) had a broad appeal that helped people deal with the human condition. However it was achieved, the world is a better place for it.

> I can enjoy music who's rules I am not familiar with. I don't need to know the rules to enjoy tonal and rythmic arrangements.

Most people don't, hence western harmony is what sounds like music to most westerners and anything else sounds weird or like noise.

> That means it's culturally specific, NOT a social construction.

It actually means both. All culturally specific tastes are also social constructs.

>I can enjoy music who's rules I am not familiar with. I don't need to know the rules to enjoy tonal and rythmic arrangements.

You don't need to know the rules, but most people will enjoy music whose rules they are familiar with. It's entirely possible I can put on some Mahori music or Trout Mask Replica and you will enjoy it, but I strongly suspect you are in the minority. Most people (myself included) will need time to adapt to music that is radically different than what they are used to.

Which is why I don't think it's fair to call Bowie a "consummate outsider". There is no question he became a beacon for those who were outside of cultural norms, but he achieved that by working in one of the most culturally constricted artistic mediums available.

This seems like a youthful way to approach music. At some point in your adult life, you have enough of a self-identity that most of this no longer applies... in music, technology choices, or anything. To me, you are just describing how people first learn to engage with the world, not how older folk actually live it.

I guess that does parallel tech, though - the youth follow the trends, while labels/VCs drive certain cherry picked groups to success, while at the same time, us older folk live in quieter places, create our own works, do our own thing, and live satisfying lives, not really being impacted by whatever the tribes currently label as "mainstream".

If you look at the entire group of people who listen to music (and make music on their own), I don't believe this analysis fits very well. It may fit for some part of it, or for parts of the music industry, but music is more like film or theatre than it is TV or video games or other art forms.

You have a group of people who just want to hang out with their friends and whatever is popular with them is "good enough" to meet that need. This is analogous with multiplex viewers. Then you have people with specific tastes or interests. They are often willing to spend more (by an order of magnitude) than "typical" listeners and less likely to care if lots of other people come along with them or not. This is similar to art house film-goers judge what to watch. Finally, you have people who may be amateur or part time musicians themselves and appreciate a different take from everyone else. They can even be trendsetters in whatever new music that comes out. In the film analogy, they could be people who set up, run, review, and/or submit movies to film festivals.

The thing is, you may be able to influence one group of people with your approach to controlling and marketing music even if the music is self is mediocre, but those people also care less and are worth less than the other segments. And the way the music industry is going, they may not be worth much at all individually (which I think was the point of the OPs quote from David Bowie).

In tech, this would be the Bing.com approach to search versus alot of other startups which seek to grab the early adopters first and then pull in more mainstream stuff later. It can work, but not as well over time.

>But it’s also true that we self-identify in a tribal way with our choices, and that those choices have social import. Even if you brag defiantly that you’re a pragmatist who doesn’t care who does or doesn’t use a tool: That’s a lot like being a hipster growing a beard and putting on plaid.

Lol what? That's stupid. Some people listen to the music that sounds good to them, some people listen to music that brings them and their friends together, some people listen to music for other reasons.

Your analysis bad because you think you can group people so simply. Stop that.

> The vast majority of people wish to belong to the tribe of “The vast majority of people.”

This is not obvious to me at all. Would someone please explain?

I think it's a claim that a majority of people want to be part of a single recognisable mainstream. No idea if it's true. It's conceivable that a majority of people would want to each do their own thing, with only a minority choosing to follow the "mainstream" (which would then still be the single largest "tribe")