Jon:
>
> As far as the lowest common denominator argument goes, I'm not sure what to
> make of it. The Beatles have sold about 20% more albums; does that mean
> they made music for a 20% lower common denominator? (I suspect there are a
> few folks who will answer "yes".) Out of the top 25 on that best-selling
etc.
Hitching the popularity of music to some sort of inverse proportion,
whereby more records sold equals dwindling quality is one of those
equations that has too damn many exceptions to be very useful. But I think
that if you state it this way -- "Just because something sells like
hotcakes doesn't mean it's any good" -- then you're on more solid ground.
And if you then explore the reasons why marketing and hype, and good ol'
arbitrary taste, can catapult an OK product to mass popularity -- anything
from Beanie Babies to Shania to the latest Keanu Reeves movie -- you can make
some sense of it. I don't know how many times I've had the following
discussion with my two girls, as they're watching MTV:
Eloquent dad: Man, that sucks.
Oldest daughter: Yeah, if it sucks so bad, why is it the top-selling
record in the country?
Dad: Well, honey, you have to understand the power of marketing. When they
pour millions of dollars... Hey, where you going?
-- Terry Smith
