A couple weeks ago, pre-Virginia Tech tragedy and, presumably, during a lull in controversial new stories, Don Imus made a rude comment about the Rutgers' Women's Basketball Team. Because I'm certain that almost every person in America has heard about this story, I won't go into detail. Suffice to say, Don Imus made a racially and sexually offensive comment directed at a specific group of black women who had recently triumphed over hardship to play in the NCAA championship basketball game.
The comment was then broadcasted over all forms of possible media communication -- the radio, the internet, the television. Friends showed friends, the news repeated the story ad nauseum and we even spent an entire class at school discussing the issue. Don Imus is a radio personality that has been broadcasting every morning for the past twenty years on CBS radio. He has made derogatory comments directed towards specific races, genders and sexual preferences for years. It's no secret to anyone who is entertained by his show that he aims for a certain shock factor in order to gain an audience. He seems to have little to actually say, which has not been a problem previously since there is not exactly a huge audience listening to his show. So, why was this comment so widely blown up, up and away?
Rap singers, such as more recent stars Nelly and Akon, have been calling women "hos," "bitches," "sluts," "n*ppy-headed," and many, many more derogatory comments since they began their careers. Some may even say that without these terms, their careers wouldn't exist. As an example, the most popular rap song downloaded off of iTunes is "Give it to Me" (Timbaland ft. Nelly and Justin Timberlake). Both the men and women speak of women's promiscuity and sexual desire in explicit language. Women are sexual objects, as seen in numerous rap and hip-hop music videos where women are nude and gyrating on each other and men.
While I do not condone Don Imus' comments, I feel there is an unjust double-standard in our society. Black men can call all women "hos," but when a white man calls a black woman a "n*ppy-headed ho," it is absolutely inexcusable. Why are more women not outraged as the Rutgers' women were? If a statement like that is cause enough to fire a radio personality, it's cause enough to take rappers off the air.
Popular rap and hip-hop is much more widely available and publicized than Don Imus ever would have been had the media not grabbed the story and run with it. Children are exposed to sex, drugs and explicit language earlier than ever. If parents don't censor it, they can be seriously negatively influenced. As an article in the Harvard Political Review states, children are becoming desensitized to this type of language in a dangerous way. They are more likely to participate in violent acts and women are more likely to engage in promiscuous and demeaning relationships.
Do musicians not bear any responsibility as role models? Should women stand up for themselves as the Rutgers' women did? Have these terms simply infiltrated our vocabulary to the point of now being meaningless? If so, where is the line? And who determines where it is?
It's hard to determine if women have moved forward or backward since radical feminism of the 1970's. With a mother who participated actively, I have been raised with a strong sense of female self. I feel unaffected by rappers' comments and scantily clad female singers because I choose to ignore them. I don't relate to the music, so I don't feel the lyrics apply to me.
Unfortunately, young girls don't necessarily have the capability or guidance to analyze this for themselves. They are following a fad. In a journal article from Popular Music and Society, Melanie Lowe discusses the impact of Britney Spears' provocative performance on young girls. She states that moms raised in the '60s and '70s are rightly nervous about the direct correlation between image and audience. Young girls are clearly not decoding the image as one used to, but rather taking it at face value. (Article available here on USC's server).
Looking to the future, it is difficult to hypothesize where music trends will go. It is certainly true that digital media has and will continue to have a tremendous impact on the youth of America. It will make popular music much more easily accessible to young kids without necessarily the right parental supervision. Interestingly, though, an article on tolerance.org points out that rap and hip-hop have historically not been the only genres to denigrate women -- the Rolling Stones and Kid Rock have done it for years. Regardless of whether it has worsened, popular music has always had an element of female objectification. If history is any indication, it will certainly continue to.
For feminists and women alike, perhaps this common vernacular of derogatory comments toward women will begin to die out. Women could decide to take a stand or continue to passively ignore it. Either way through total attention or total lack thereof, the popularity of such vocabulary and treatment of women could fade into the background as simply another garish, laughable trend.
On the other hand, the next generation could have been so influenced by the media of today that they treat women as the singers portray them. Feminism could backslide rapidly. The overexposure of explicit videos and obscene lyrics could cause the younger generation, girls and boys alike, to deem this behavior normal.
The fact of the matter is that Don Imus should not have, under any circumstances, said what he did. However, for the media to react the way it did is unbelievably hypocritical given the content played on a daily basis. As Matt Taibbi of RollingStone.com put it, the Imus scandal was a media blitz -- designed to use one man as an example instead of looking to seriously revise content.
If we take Imus off the air, we should reprimand popular musicians as well. If you hold one person accountable, hold all persons accountable -- particularly those that have the most influence on the generations of tomorrow.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Feminism in Music
DEFINITION:
əˌnFeminism fem·i·nism - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fem-uh-niz-uhm] –noun: 1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men; 2. (sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women; 3. feminine character. (dictionary.reference.com)
CONNOTATION:
Feminism: "In my heart, I think a woman has two choices: Either she's a feminist or a masochist." (Gloria Steinam). The social and political movement encouraging equal rights for women at the expense and questioning of social norms. Once called "bra-burners," they are 'perceived as simply anti-family, anti-marriage, anti-children, and perhaps even anti-religion, not to mention anti-men.' (www.friesian.com)
Throughout the 1960's and 1970's, female singer-songwriters campaigned for women's rights. They wrote about women's equality and redefining social stereotypes. It was a time for women to go to college to begin a career, not just a family. To be a woman was not to be a victim, it was to be a strong member of society -- just as strong as a man. They paved the way for the women of the following generations, including mine. They struggled to climb the ranks in the work force, and faced discrimination constantly.
Women of today's generation no longer face the same sort of outright discrimination. We have the equal ability to gain an education, we have the equal ability to apply for any job we want, we have the choice not to get married right away or ever, we have the choice to bear and raise a child alone; the women of the '60s and '70s earned women of succeeding generations the opportunity to gain respect. Previous stereotypes were shattered and we are on the eve of the first presidential election that could elect a female president. It is a new day for women.
Or is it? Take a look at popular music trends and you might find an entirely different world. One of women portrayed as sex objects, called "bitches" and "hoes". Women can be bought with expensive jewelry, souped up cars, and famous names -- at least that's what rappers like Nelly say. As much as the women of the '60s and '70s influenced today's generation, what kind of influence is this music having on the generations of tomorrow?
I believe feminists do still exist in contemporary society. The feminist of the 21st century is much different that that of the 20th, but it remains, nevertheless. As Wendy McElroy of ifeminists.com states, 'she is the estimated 17 million women who control their own self-defense by owning guns; the mothers of children who are schooled at home; the stay-at-home moms who sacrifice careers to pursue more personal values; the entrepreneurs and career women who rise through merit and reject the concept of "victim."' Moreover, it could be anyone -- male or female -- that believes women and men deserve equality in the eyes of the law and society.
It's hard to say if these are the type of women that can lead the next generation by simply acting through example. Should they not be just as outraged at the way rappers speak about women as the way the Rutger's basketball team was at Don Imus? How has the word "ho [whore]" or "slut" become popular vernacular? Women use them with each other almost as often as popular music male artists use about them.
Some women make the argument that, much the way black people use the "n" word in music lyrics, women use the words "ho" and "slut" as a form of empowerment. Using it about yourself or your people is different that using it against others. The former is empowerment, the latter is discrimination and degradation. On getcrafty.com, Kate Taylor the
By all means, I agree with
Rather, I agree with the nemesis of her argument, Ariel Levy of The New Yorker. She believes that women are debasing their sexuality. By participating and going along with disgusting, degrading, embarassing activities such as these, they send the message that women today are okay with being treated as sex objects. We deserve more. We deserve better role models for children. By acting like strippers or porn actresses, you show young girls that this is an acceptable way to act; but moreover, an established expectation of successful, attractive men. It is simply demeaning. Women can own their sexuality without selling it.
Feminism has changed. Women and men can be considered feminists if they act in a manner reflecting respect for women's equality and sexuality. Music videos do NOT showcase feminists, they exploit women with low self-esteem. It's clear that we need more role models in the industry not afraid to write music and speak publicly about respect and equality for women if we want to maintain the standards set so high for us by previous generations of women.
As Betty Friedan said, "Man is not the enemy here, but the fellow victim. Men are not the enemy, but the fellow victims. The real enemy is women's denigration of themselves."
Sunday, April 8, 2007
More on the DRM Debate
In my previous post I discussed my personal sentiment on this week's announcement by Apple and EMI. Since blogging earlier in the week, I've done some research on the blogosphere's reaction the the announcement. It seems that there is similar backlash but for a wider variety of reasons. The drawbacks I failed to mention were keenly caught by several other bloggers that I will share.
To start, engadget.com congratulates EMI for taking such a bold step. However, it points out that if Jobs was truly committed to launching DRM-free downloads, then why does he not offer the Disney catalogs? After his acquisition of Pixar last year, he became a huge shareholder in the Disney conglomerate. It's intersting that Hollywood, Lyric Street, Disney and Mammoth Records all still remain encrypted. Additionally, while in theory DRM-free music is more easily distributable, the new downloads are AAC only. Several mp3 devices do not even play AAC encoded files.
On theinquirer.net, Charlie Demerjian points out that the new files are not backwards compatible. Meaning: if you bought the file with DRM, you're stuck with it. You can't prorate what you've already bought -- you have to spend the $1.29 for the new file. Essentially, you're spending $2.30 for a song. Does this sound like a great deal to you? While clearly editorializing on the announcement, he makes a good point that this announcement seems like a huge media blitz. It's not actually better for the consumer, it merely makes Apple and EMI out to be great innovators simply because they finally took a step in allowing consumers to actually use the music they pay for.
P2pnet.net also mentions that it's no secret Jobs wants to ease the pressure off of himself in Europe. Norway, Germany, France... all have singled Apple out as illegally monopolizing the industry with DRM. It's in Jobs' best interest to drop DRM and distance himself from the issue as much as possible. By doing so, he stands to lose little and gain a lot of great press. This would also explain why he hasn't leapt to eliminating DRM from his own catalogs.
Still other sites like TidBITS.com cynically predict that Apple will find some other way to "watermark" consumers to track their filesharing and distribution habits. Some way, somehow, the RIAA will figure out how to sue their law-breaking consumers.
To say the least, consumers and bloggers are not convinced that this agreement is the change the industry needs. The other major labels are still firmly opposed to DRM free music and peer-to-peer free filesharing still exists. It certainly remains to be seen if this is the balance between the opposite ends of the spectrum.
To start, engadget.com congratulates EMI for taking such a bold step. However, it points out that if Jobs was truly committed to launching DRM-free downloads, then why does he not offer the Disney catalogs? After his acquisition of Pixar last year, he became a huge shareholder in the Disney conglomerate. It's intersting that Hollywood, Lyric Street, Disney and Mammoth Records all still remain encrypted. Additionally, while in theory DRM-free music is more easily distributable, the new downloads are AAC only. Several mp3 devices do not even play AAC encoded files.
On theinquirer.net, Charlie Demerjian points out that the new files are not backwards compatible. Meaning: if you bought the file with DRM, you're stuck with it. You can't prorate what you've already bought -- you have to spend the $1.29 for the new file. Essentially, you're spending $2.30 for a song. Does this sound like a great deal to you? While clearly editorializing on the announcement, he makes a good point that this announcement seems like a huge media blitz. It's not actually better for the consumer, it merely makes Apple and EMI out to be great innovators simply because they finally took a step in allowing consumers to actually use the music they pay for.
P2pnet.net also mentions that it's no secret Jobs wants to ease the pressure off of himself in Europe. Norway, Germany, France... all have singled Apple out as illegally monopolizing the industry with DRM. It's in Jobs' best interest to drop DRM and distance himself from the issue as much as possible. By doing so, he stands to lose little and gain a lot of great press. This would also explain why he hasn't leapt to eliminating DRM from his own catalogs.
Still other sites like TidBITS.com cynically predict that Apple will find some other way to "watermark" consumers to track their filesharing and distribution habits. Some way, somehow, the RIAA will figure out how to sue their law-breaking consumers.
To say the least, consumers and bloggers are not convinced that this agreement is the change the industry needs. The other major labels are still firmly opposed to DRM free music and peer-to-peer free filesharing still exists. It certainly remains to be seen if this is the balance between the opposite ends of the spectrum.
The Next Step is a Misstep
This past week, Apple and EMI announced their intention to release DRM free music. For "just" $1.29 per song, customers can purchase songs from EMI's entire digital catalog of music that's available through iTunes. The increase of $.30 also includes an upgrade in sound quality from previous digital tracks -- deemed to be practically indistinguishable from CD quality.
Steve Jobs declares on the Apple site that he thinks the "customers are going to love this." Apple and EMI believe themselves to be innovators and taking the first steps to completely revitalize digital downloading.
While Jobs has admittedly been on the cutting edge of the digital music industry over the past few years, this seems to be a departure that will have questionable success. True, for rare music fanatics and those that strongly desire the ability to share their music this is a great change. However, those consumers are few and far between. If my classmates are any indication, less than 10% felt this was a positive step for the digital industry. The resonating response was that this agreement will most likely have little to no effect on illegal file-sharing. What little effect it may have will be negative.
For those that purchase music, they do so for particular reasons: immediacy, convenience, morality, guilt, fear of the RIAA, quality, etc. For those that don't purchase music, they also do so for particular reasons: lack of consciousness, impatience, lack of money, the feeling that they
deserve free music, etc. This new deal with EMI doesn't truly affect any of these reasons. Instead, it merely makes those that already purchase music spend more for the ability to distribute the music freely. Quite honestly, if one wants to do that DRM-free, all he/she has to do is burn the track to CD, burn it back to the laptop and upload it wherever he/she wants. Granted, it does take longer -- but not that much longer, and 30% more is a significant price increase.
Additionally, an increase in sound quality is unfortunately not that attractive to many consumers. Yes for music fanatics, it does matter. However, I can count on one hand the number of my friends in college and high school who can even tell the different between an mp3 and a CD track. Is it really wise to presume they will pay more money for a difference they can't even hear?
In my opinion, if Jobs, EMI and the other major labels wish to make waves in the digital industry, they should go to high schools, colleges. Talk to the kids that are going to be buying the music in upcoming generations. They should realize their target audience is full of people that can't afford a price increase, don't necessarily realize that stealing music online is like stealing music from a retail store, and don't listen to their music quality as closely as previous generations. If we're talking competition, peer-to-peer filesharing is still the best alternative for them. Consumers aren't likely to backtrack after being able to speedily acquire a huge library of music at no cost.
Steve Jobs declares on the Apple site that he thinks the "customers are going to love this." Apple and EMI believe themselves to be innovators and taking the first steps to completely revitalize digital downloading.
While Jobs has admittedly been on the cutting edge of the digital music industry over the past few years, this seems to be a departure that will have questionable success. True, for rare music fanatics and those that strongly desire the ability to share their music this is a great change. However, those consumers are few and far between. If my classmates are any indication, less than 10% felt this was a positive step for the digital industry. The resonating response was that this agreement will most likely have little to no effect on illegal file-sharing. What little effect it may have will be negative.
For those that purchase music, they do so for particular reasons: immediacy, convenience, morality, guilt, fear of the RIAA, quality, etc. For those that don't purchase music, they also do so for particular reasons: lack of consciousness, impatience, lack of money, the feeling that they
deserve free music, etc. This new deal with EMI doesn't truly affect any of these reasons. Instead, it merely makes those that already purchase music spend more for the ability to distribute the music freely. Quite honestly, if one wants to do that DRM-free, all he/she has to do is burn the track to CD, burn it back to the laptop and upload it wherever he/she wants. Granted, it does take longer -- but not that much longer, and 30% more is a significant price increase.
Additionally, an increase in sound quality is unfortunately not that attractive to many consumers. Yes for music fanatics, it does matter. However, I can count on one hand the number of my friends in college and high school who can even tell the different between an mp3 and a CD track. Is it really wise to presume they will pay more money for a difference they can't even hear?
In my opinion, if Jobs, EMI and the other major labels wish to make waves in the digital industry, they should go to high schools, colleges. Talk to the kids that are going to be buying the music in upcoming generations. They should realize their target audience is full of people that can't afford a price increase, don't necessarily realize that stealing music online is like stealing music from a retail store, and don't listen to their music quality as closely as previous generations. If we're talking competition, peer-to-peer filesharing is still the best alternative for them. Consumers aren't likely to backtrack after being able to speedily acquire a huge library of music at no cost.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Idolizing Idol
What does the success of American Idol really say about the future of the industry? With the advent of the internet, listeners are growing accustomed to getting what they want when they want it -- legally or otherwise. Record labels are being phased out in the face of peer-to-peer file-sharing and social networks givings new bands opportunities to play and earn money.
Now shows like American Idol, not record labels, are breeding divas. Once again, it seems that major record labels are only interested in signing acts that already have a fan-base. In an American Idol's case, a fanbase of millions of people, a fan and producer in Simon Cowell, a new look thanks to Idol's make-up artists and stylists, and advertisers clamoring for endorsements. It's hard for the average band to compete with that kind of following. What results are cookie-cutter pop artists born and bred in a vacuum.
The show began in 2002 under the auspice that the show was looking for the best singer in the country. In reality, the show was really looking for "realistic" entertainment. More than the show is about good singing, it's about the terrible singers and auditions the show encounters along the way, as well as what the judges will rip on the singer for next. Viewers don't want to see good singers, they want to see bad singers or good singers mess up. Further, and most importantly, viewers like the sense of competition and the ability to participate in the process.
This should say something to record labels. Viewers and listeners want to be apart of the process. They enjoy feeling as though they are cultivating the underdog. Much the way a teen discovers a local band on Myspace, downloads their music, purchases their merchandise, and continues to follow their career, American Idol viewers feel they are helping the artist by calling in and voting.
The difference seems to be in the generation. My little brother, 18, downloads the band from Myspace; my mom, 55, watches American Idol and calls in. Regardless of the medium, it's clear that this idea of "supporting" the artist resonates with viewers and listeners. Perhaps if there was a way to instill this feeling in the listener in terms of purchasing music or listening to terrestrial radio, they would be much more inclined to do so.
Much the way it's important to reward a dog for completing a trick or giving a student a good grade for sacrificing their time to study, positive rewards are necessary in all aspects of life. If the RIAA could somehow understand that by providing incentive or appealing to listeners positively they would be more likely to achieve the results they desire: people paying for music. Punishment is not enough. Give viewers and listeners what they want -- an opportunity to participate in the process.
Now shows like American Idol, not record labels, are breeding divas. Once again, it seems that major record labels are only interested in signing acts that already have a fan-base. In an American Idol's case, a fanbase of millions of people, a fan and producer in Simon Cowell, a new look thanks to Idol's make-up artists and stylists, and advertisers clamoring for endorsements. It's hard for the average band to compete with that kind of following. What results are cookie-cutter pop artists born and bred in a vacuum.
The show began in 2002 under the auspice that the show was looking for the best singer in the country. In reality, the show was really looking for "realistic" entertainment. More than the show is about good singing, it's about the terrible singers and auditions the show encounters along the way, as well as what the judges will rip on the singer for next. Viewers don't want to see good singers, they want to see bad singers or good singers mess up. Further, and most importantly, viewers like the sense of competition and the ability to participate in the process.
This should say something to record labels. Viewers and listeners want to be apart of the process. They enjoy feeling as though they are cultivating the underdog. Much the way a teen discovers a local band on Myspace, downloads their music, purchases their merchandise, and continues to follow their career, American Idol viewers feel they are helping the artist by calling in and voting.
The difference seems to be in the generation. My little brother, 18, downloads the band from Myspace; my mom, 55, watches American Idol and calls in. Regardless of the medium, it's clear that this idea of "supporting" the artist resonates with viewers and listeners. Perhaps if there was a way to instill this feeling in the listener in terms of purchasing music or listening to terrestrial radio, they would be much more inclined to do so.
Much the way it's important to reward a dog for completing a trick or giving a student a good grade for sacrificing their time to study, positive rewards are necessary in all aspects of life. If the RIAA could somehow understand that by providing incentive or appealing to listeners positively they would be more likely to achieve the results they desire: people paying for music. Punishment is not enough. Give viewers and listeners what they want -- an opportunity to participate in the process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
