Is music a reflection of society?

[Shadowfax]

Shadowfax, you read me wrong. By education in music variety I mean being 'exposed' to all different genres of music.

Then I can't agree with this.

How many people receive an education in musical variety from a young age? Very few

Young people these days have access to youtube. Pink Floyd is a band most teens happen to recognise, and like. So is Elvis, Queen, The Beatles, The Doors etc. (I know it's shocking)

What influences the choice of the young is what their peer group go with as it is important to them to have an identity - which is generally by following within the safety of 'the herd.' The genre of music is basically chosen FOR THEM. Unless one chooses to be a rebel and be "different" but even then, they are still identifying with another herd.

The genre is directed at a specific target audience, but the target audience does not necessarily like the genre. Sales of a particular genre mimic what the target audience demands. It's not the other way round. In general, teens concern themselves with parties/relationships. So a genre targeting teens would encompass music along those lines. It explains why old grannies rarely listen to Rihanna. Suggesting that a genre of music is chosen for them (forced onto them by peer pressure/media) is like saying relationships are a result of peer pressure. This just happens to be the kind of things teenagers enjoy, again, in general. Teenagers are concerned with relationships because biology says so.

Those that truly appreciate music in itself dont necessarily go for the lyrics - a la early Elvis. As I said once before, ones taste in music should be progressive - as one matures - so does ones taste become more refined (unless, of course, you are stuck firm within the safety of the herd - a la Pink Floyd's comfortably numb). Pastabake understands where I am coming from. Shadowfax, you can be very picky!

Yes, but lyrics in a song may be what makes the person like the song. Lyrics and music aren't separate. Music is language, really.

I don't think appreciation changes. Experience changes selection.

Picky? How so?

MUSIC IS A REFLECTION OF SOCIETY IS A REFLECTION OF MUSIC

Music is only a representation of society. Society came first, then music. Music doesn't shape our attitude. Parties came first, then Miley Cyrus.

[Pastabake]

To be honest I think this is futile.

not all music is a representation of society's mindset

You are partly right, no music is a representation of societies mindset (hasn't been since 'society' was widened beyond the Aristocracy). Society isn't homogeneous and no single piece or even genre of music sells to more than a minority, how could it represent anything other than a very small subset ... transient buyers ... a fickle and fleeting crowd.

Teens obviously don't think pop music is bad, do they? (in general)

I don't think that they are even fully aware of the music, the music isn't what sells, it's not what they're buying. That's the whole point!

The question doesn't concern what music is classified as good/bad/original/unoriginal. I brought it up, not because I think it's terrific, but because it reflects a certain demographic's mindset.

I have no idea why you brought it up. It was wrong whatever. The 'image' created by marketing is what sells ... if the band isn't dressed and made up and reported as living a specific lifestyle then it simply doesn't sell.

Britney Spears could never become a heavy metal singer, irrespective of how well her vocal range and singing style fit the genre. Understanding this simple fact should be enough to realise that 'music' has very little to do with the sounds you hear or the words you can comprehend.

Marketing is not about selling stuff that the public want it's about packaging stuff that the public wants (intangibles) in another wrapper. It's not the music that the people are buying. It's the image, hope, desire, sex ... etc ... whatever the marketing team decides.

It makes no sense to supply music that society doesn't demand.

Should really be, you don't sell music if you can't create a demand.

Here's an analogy - a celebrity chef starts using offal in their recipes on a popular TV program, later that day all the supermarkets sell out of offal and double the price when they restock ... this continues until everyone has bought and tasted the offal and realised that it's not that great. Offal then goes back to being bought by a small minority. Do you see that? The demand wasn't for the offal any more than the demand is for the music.

Music stopped being sold as music sometime around the 1950's and all pretence was lost once the music video was invented.

The genre is directed at a specific target audience, but the target audience does not necessarily like the genre. Sales of a particular genre mimic what the target audience demands. It's not the other way round. In general, teens concern themselves with parties/relationships. So a genre targeting teens would encompass music along those lines. It explains why old grannies rarely listen to Rihanna. Suggesting that a genre of music is chosen for them (forced onto them by peer pressure/media) is like saying relationships are a result of peer pressure. This just happens to be the kind of things teenagers enjoy, again, in general. Teenagers are concerned with relationships because biology says so.

It would be truer to say that teenagers just don't want to listen to what their grandparents listen to. It has nothing to do with lyrics or the music. You do bring up an important point though ... Teenagers are concerned with relationships, but in general the type of relationships is very much defined by their social circle and not themselves.

Teenagers are very much interested in music because it seems important, they want to fit in etc so buy whatever everyone else in their group buys ... as people grow older they become less influenced by their peer group in that way and statistically it is shown that their music buying plummets. Grannies don't listen to Rhianna because in general they don't buy music and they listen to radio stations that either don't play music or play the music of their youth.

The overwhelming majority of people have a very limited musical awareness.

It seems you have targeted the hip hop genre in particular, with your comment of rapping about drugs and dressing like gangsters while having no talent. The thing is hip hop was born in urban communities where gang bangers and drugs were a everyday occurrence, so it comes as no surprise that the style of music that originated from areas with gangsters and drugs would talk about gangsters and drugs.

I believe that the main buyers of Hip Hop have always been white middle class kids. Eminem just widened the market to include the poor white kids.

Unless you spend hours upon hours listening to all the music that's out there how can you provide relevant opinions on the subject?

Because the question was Is music a reflection of society, so the answer is a broad brush stroke ... no music isn't a reflection of society because there are too many genres and too few records sold to any one group. even more damning though is the fact that the overwhelming majority aren't even buying the 'music' they're buying something else.

[Shadowfax]

I brought up pop culture because it's kind of obvious this topic is referring to music of this kind, music that directly (through lyrics) reflects societies attitudes. You can't really say the same about ASMR or Hans Zimmer, for example. I'm just narrowing down the discussion, since music is a broad topic, and you're right, sub categories of music reflects sub categories of society. How else are people meant to address this question, without having to break it down a bit?

I don't think that they are even fully aware of the music, the music isn't what sells, it's not what they're buying. That's the whole point!

First of all, teenagers are aware of all sorts of music genres. It just so happens that one thing teenagers like is dancing. You can't really dance to 'Comfortably numb', but you'll find these days pop music virtually has the same lyrics/beat/style. It's suited for lively dancing. Clubbing. A commercial hype. I agree that some just want an image. But you can still like the music, can't you, as well as/or the image. The music (pop culture) is a reflection of a demographic's superficial attitude then. I just think it's a little unfair to suggest that all people who like Britney Spears, for example, are just after the image.

Marketing is not about selling stuff that the public want it's about packaging stuff that the public wants (intangibles) in another wrapper. It's not the music that the people are buying. It's the image, hope, desire, sex ... etc ... whatever the marketing team decides.

But you've forgotten that some people will just sit in their room and listen to the same stuff at parties. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean everyone else's taste in music is bad. You'll find most people, during the majority of the time, listen to music on their ipod. Not everyone has to know. They aren't always buying an image.

It would be truer to say that teenagers just don't want to listen to what their grandparents listen to. It has nothing to do with lyrics or the music. You do bring up an important point though ... Teenagers are concerned with relationships, but in general the type of relationships is very much defined by their social circle and not themselves.

Is it? Nobody can help who they are attracted to. You'll find superficial girls date superficial boys. Perhaps the reason they are in that clique is not because they care about the image, but because they share similar attitudes and values. People who try and 'fit in' are the minority. The majority either do or don't. In primary school there are cliques. Like kindergarten. I'm serious.

The overwhelming majority of people have a very limited musical awareness.

I thought it was the opposite. With a rise in media and sites like Youtube, people are actually expanding their musical variety.

[Pastabake]

How else are people meant to address this question, without having to break it down a bit?

I managed it. If you stop focussing on the trees you might be able to see the wood.

They aren't always buying an image.

You do realise that we're talking about the majority [of teenagers] here?

First of all, teenagers are aware of all sorts of music genres. It just so happens that one thing teenagers like is dancing. You can't really dance to 'Comfortably numb', but you'll find these days pop music virtually has the same lyrics/beat/style. It's suited for lively dancing. Clubbing.

I feel numbed, thanks. Teenagers in the whole are not aware of anything beyond a very narrow range. Most people just listen to whatever is on the radio and don't buy any music - this is proven by the industry figures - which show that it is the 45+ age range that buys the most music and most of what they buy is past catalogue stuff from the 50's,60's,70's and 80's.

I just think it's a little unfair to suggest that all people who like Britney Spears, for example, are just after the image.

I am under no illusion that Britney Spears would have become famous if (a) She hadn't been a Disney girl and (b) had worn Amish Clothing and stood still while singing. So you can think it unfair, but the reality is that those people are getting something out of it and the music is only a superficial aspect.

But you've forgotten that some people will just sit in their room and listen to the same stuff at parties.

How does this contradict any of my claims? I'm talking about the whole reality and you're bringing petty quibbles. I never said that there aren't people that are interested in music and actively hunt new stuff out. I said that sales figures show that even the best selling records sell an insignificant amount, so few in fact that it's silly to say that 'music' is a reflection of society.

Rather than being pedantic you could try to approach the subject face on. If what you are saying is that you believe that some people really do appreciate music then sure I have no problem with that. However, there simply aren't enough of those people to be classed as an accurate reflection of society.

Here I'll spell it out. Music does not reflect society as a whole in any meaningful way.

[Stormcloud]

Ok, Thinking Critical, we'll leave the "relevant opinions." Anyway, music is not necessarily a reflection of an individual's 'views' but is often as much about ones emotions which are the result of circumstances at a particular moment in time - referring only to the MUSIC, although you are right about the lyrics expressing a view, the hippie/peace era lyrics being an example (though not a reflection of society in general). Personally, I do not regard talking or raving one's views as music, but it seems 'anything goes' nowadays and one can interpret to suit one's self. Seeing as there is so much discord in so much of what masquerades as music we might as well say yes, it IS a reflection of much of society.

-- Updated November 28th, 2013, 2:15 am to add the following --

Alot of music/lyrics reflect....a soul crying out for something/someone.... and this is what hooks it's listeners. Shadowfax you ask how so? Well, I suggest you go over much of your comments - I find you uneccessarily disagreeable.

[Thinking critical]

Stormcloud wrote:

Anyway, music is not necessarily a reflection of an individual's 'views' but is often as much about ones emotions which are the result of circumstances at a particular moment in time

That's a good point, very true. I think this topic as with all critics of art stems down to opinion at the end of the day.

[Stormcloud]

Aye, Thinking critical, but let us take it a step further: What is the basis of opinion? Isnt opinion based on personal bias which stems from collective social and cultural conditioning? There is a difference between opinion and a viewpoint though we are free to be opinionated.

[Shadowfax]

I managed it. If you stop focussing on the trees you might be able to see the wood.

That's because you think music isn't a reflection of society. I said it was to some degree. This implies that not all music is a reflection, but some of it is, like pop music. I really do not know why you think this is an inadequate response to the question.

I feel numbed, thanks. Teenagers in the whole are not aware of anything beyond a very narrow range. Most people just listen to whatever is on the radio and don't buy any music - this is proven by the industry figures - which show that it is the 45+ age range that buys the most music and most of what they buy is past catalogue stuff from the 50's,60's,70's and 80's.

Well I disagree. The introduction of Itunes, Youtube, Amazon, Google play and Spotify suggest you are plain wrong.

Most people just listen to music on the radio and don't buy anything? Do you know what Itunes is? Industry figures show that the majority of people buying music from Itunes, are teenagers. Buying music doesn't mean you have to physically get out of your house and drive to the nearest JB Hi Fi. I suggest you take a look at this website.

theguardian.com/music/2012/aug/16/youtu ... oice-music

I am under no illusion that Britney Spears would have become famous if (a) She hadn't been a Disney girl and (b) had worn Amish Clothing and stood still while singing. So you can think it unfair, but the reality is that those people are getting something out of it and the music is only a superficial aspect.

This doesn't even matter. I'm not arguing why Britney Spears is famous, I'm saying pop music (a subcategory of music) reflects attitudes of society. What you think is only saying that teens are pretty superficial. This is a good indication that music (to some degree) reflects society (to some degree).

it's silly to say that 'music' is a reflection of society.

But it is to some DEGREE. Which is why I brought up pop music to begin with!

Here I'll spell it out. Music does not reflect society as a whole in any meaningful way.

So pop music, as a reflection of a demographic's attitudes and values is irrelevant?

[Thinking critical]

Aye, Thinking critical, but let us take it a step further: What is the basis of opinion? Isnt opinion based on personal bias which stems from collective social and cultural conditioning? There is a difference between opinion and a viewpoint though we are free to be opinionated.

Our view points most likely encourage our reasoning for having that particular opinion When our point of view changes so to do our opinions......or do they

Pastabake wrote"

Because the question was Is music a reflection of society, so the answer is a broad brush stroke ... no music isn't a reflection of society because there are too many genres and too few records sold to any one group. even more damning though is the fact that the overwhelming majority aren't even buying the 'music' they're buying something else.

Out of curiosity pastabake how do you conclude that record sales give an accurate reflection of the actual music market? The majority of music these days is downloaded, then people copy there mates downloads e.c.t down load music from Youtube and put it onto there I-Pods (surprisingly easy to do), it's estimated that up to 70% of all music is downloaded illegally making it extremely hard to make any genuine claims based on record sales alone.

[Pastabake]

That's because you think music isn't a reflection of society. I said it was to some degree. This implies that not all music is a reflection, but some of it is, like pop music. I really do not know why you think this is an inadequate response to the question.

Everything is a reflection of some part of society by virtue of the fact that nothing is outside of society. I thought the question was asking something more interesting that the patently obvious.

Lyrics are pretty much the same across genres and across time. You wont get more bawdier, sex obsessed and drink and party till the morning than those from the medieval period. Likewise political and angst based lyrics have been around for almost as long. Would we really say that society is the same today as it was 800 years ago? If not then how can we say that music reflects 'society' in any meaningful way.

Well I disagree. The introduction of Itunes, Youtube, Amazon, Google play and Spotify suggest you are plain wrong.

This is what I mean by pedantry and not seeing the wood for the trees. It doesn't matter how many ways you have to sell music, official sales figures put it into context.

Most people just listen to music on the radio and don't buy anything? Do you know what Itunes is? Industry figures show that the majority of people buying music from Itunes, are teenagers.

Unbelievable. Sales figures show that the people who buy the most music are the 45+ age range and they predominantly buy catalogue. Now Teenagers do a lot more concert going. That's from the official figures.

I wont mention the irony in highlighting iTunes when I'd previously pointed out that people like music for other reasons than music ... and here you are claiming that those that have bought into design and marketing over substance somehow avoid this flaw in their personality when choosing music.

This doesn't even matter. I'm not arguing why Britney Spears is famous, I'm saying pop music (a subcategory of music) reflects attitudes of society. What you think is only saying that teens are pretty superficial. This is a good indication that music (to some degree) reflects society (to some degree).

No you weren't. You are changing the subject. If the reason Britney Spears became famous wasn't because of her music then her success is not a reflection of it and therefore it would be a MISTAKE to think that her music was a reflection of society. See that? I'm pointing out that you're looking at the wrong thing.

But it is to some DEGREE. Which is why I brought up pop music to begin with!

This is prime pedantry.

So pop music, as a reflection of a demographic's attitudes and values is irrelevant?

Lets remind ourselves of the OT "Is music a reflection of society" ... not is pop music a reflection of a small demographic.

Of course, even if we wanted to look at this small demographic I'd be loathe to generalise and claim that just because one was a pop music fan it meant you (a) had no taste in music and (b) were of low intelligence.

I just don't see 'pop' music as being some amazing homogenizing force that can allow you to say anything important about the people that like it let alone society in general that you couldn't do more accurately without the imposition of an arbitrary 'music' label.

The similarities between Britney Spears fans are far fewer than the differences.

Just to bring something currently newsworthy into the fray - the LostProphets have split and their back catalogue has just become practically worthless, now this has nothing to do with the 'music' but because it turns out that one of the members of the band was a sicko and two of the fans just as much so ... do you think all the fans were? Do you think the music was about or promoting such behaviour? Or do you think that the fans and buying public are incapable of separating the 'music' from everything around it!

Out of curiosity pastabake how do you conclude that record sales give an accurate reflection of the actual music market? The majority of music these days is downloaded, then people copy there mates downloads e.c.t down load music from Youtube and put it onto there I-Pods (surprisingly easy to do), it's estimated that up to 70% of all music is downloaded illegally making it extremely hard to make any genuine claims based on record sales alone.

The music industry might well say that up to 70% goes unrecorded. Most non partisan reports say it's considerably lower. I'd say that anyone who was a real fan would either appear in the figures by buying the music or by attending concerts. Otherwise we could say that their interest was as transient and irrelevant as the artists career may ultimately be.

I have a modest music collection, that spans most genres, some in great depth others sparsely, but one that is of a size that (a) It says very little about me other than I like music and (b) That it would take me years to listen to every track.

If I like something enough to listen to it more than a few times I buy it, and I take a purchase to be a sign of actually liking something enough to do so. I have plenty of un-bought stuff and anything that I like I eventually buy ... which means my bought collection is a reasonable representation of my musical tastes.

Now I'm not talking, or expecting that people should have to pay for every live concert, best of etc ... but if you've never bought an album by a band you claim to like then you are either a homeless bum or someone who doesn't really like their music.

The point that I've been trying to make all along that we can analyse the music buying or listening public but what we end up with is not information that reflects society by music but something else.

Here's an example - on TV recently there has been a series of shows where old 'girl/boy bands' have been reunited to play comeback shows and hopefully (for them) reboot their failed careers. So what we can say is that even though these bands were considered big at the time, they quickly and inevitable disappeared. Seems to me that such things talk not about the music but about other things altogether.

Of course, if we can't even compile accurate or trustworthy figures for music consumption, how the heck can we say anything important about that consumption and what if reflects?

[Shadowfax]

Everything is a reflection of some part of society by virtue of the fact that nothing is outside of society. I thought the question was asking something more interesting that the patently obvious.

The question is asking what the question is asking. It's also impossible to make a statement like this: Music shows no reflection of society. Because the topic is so broad to begin with! It's like saying art is a reflection of society. Well obviously it is. But some parts more than others. In music, I'd say pop is the most reflective of society, because it conveys aspects of society's attitude, which other music doesn't encompass, as strongly.

Lyrics are pretty much the same across genres and across time. You wont get more bawdier, sex obsessed and drink and party till the morning than those from the medieval period. Likewise political and angst based lyrics have been around for almost as long. Would we really say that society is the same today as it was 800 years ago? If not then how can we say that music reflects 'society' in any meaningful way.

Well exactly. Those lyrics directly reciprocate what concerns society. Sex/alcohol/parties will still be on the agenda of people in a century, because humans (in general) like those things. Yes but political songs will be about whoever is in government at that time.

800 years ago I doubt females would be allowed to sing about parties/dancing/sex and owning the house/rules. Society has changed, it shows in the lyrics.

This is what I mean by pedantry and not seeing the wood for the trees. It doesn't matter how many ways you have to sell music, official sales figures put it into context.

What kind of official sales are you talking about? As far as I'm concerned, buying music is exchanging money for a song. In store, online, same thing.

Unbelievable. Sales figures show that the people who buy the most music are the 45+ age range and they predominantly buy catalogue. Now Teenagers do a lot more concert going. That's from the official figures.

Where are you getting your figures from? The site I posted doesn't support this. Besides, it doesn't matter who's buying the music, it's who's listening to it. Thinking Critical posted a good point, that illegal downloading happens to severely distort your figures.

If the reason Britney Spears became famous wasn't because of her music then her success is not a reflection of it and therefore it would be a MISTAKE to think that her music was a reflection of society. See that? I'm pointing out that you're looking at the wrong thing.

But music has many purposes, like art and literature has many purposes. I'm not looking solely at the sound aspect of music. Music is for relaxation, enjoyment, propaganda, entertainment, allusion and can also make a statement about society. It's like art, but instead of being visual, it's auditory. I am talking about statement. What other kind of music makes a statement about society?

Lets remind ourselves of the OT "Is music a reflection of society" ... not is pop music a reflection of a small demographic.

DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW BROAD THIS TOPIC IS? To address this question with the argument I chose, I gave an example. That is all.

Of course, even if we wanted to look at this small demographic I'd be loathe to generalise and claim that just because one was a pop music fan it meant you (a) had no taste in music and (b) were of low intelligence.

So those who like pop music are tasteless and stupid. What synaptic process brought you here? Actually I don't want to know.

I just don't see 'pop' music as being some amazing homogenizing force that can allow you to say anything important about the people that like it let alone society in general that you couldn't do more accurately without the imposition of an arbitrary 'music' label.

Well along your argument we can safely say society is pretty stupid and shallow. How much more homogenising can you get, by forcing people to buy an identity?

The music industry might well say that up to 70% goes unrecorded. Most non partisan reports say it's considerably lower. I'd say that anyone who was a real fan would either appear in the figures by buying the music or by attending concerts. Otherwise we could say that their interest was as transient and irrelevant as the artists career may ultimately be.

It doesn't really matter who's an avid fan or who's not. It's who listens to the music, and can relate to the music. That is, the aspects of that type of music can be something a listener relates to (values and attitudes).

Now I'm not talking, or expecting that people should have to pay for every live concert, best of etc ... but if you've never bought an album by a band you claim to like then you are either a homeless bum or someone who doesn't really like their music.

Yes but it's not about who likes the music. With art, you don't have to like the artist or the artwork. The artist/artwork is making a statement about society.

Here's an example - on TV recently there has been a series of shows where old 'girl/boy bands' have been reunited to play comeback shows and hopefully (for them) reboot their failed careers. So what we can say is that even though these bands were considered big at the time, they quickly and inevitable disappeared. Seems to me that such things talk not about the music but about other things altogether.

Well a) their statement wasn't a concern to society b) it didn't sound good.

Of course, if we can't even compile accurate or trustworthy figures for music consumption, how the heck can we say anything important about that consumption and what if reflects?

Looking at Youtube is actually a pretty good indication. How many views/likes/dislikes. These statistics don't lie because you don't need to buy the music to listen to it.

[Thinking critical]

Pastabake wrote:

Now I'm not talking, or expecting that people should have to pay for every live concert, best of etc ... but if you've never bought an album by a band you claim to like then you are either a homeless bum or someone who doesn't really like their music.

Your just preaching your opinion, the illegal downloading of music costs the music industry billions of dollars a year in loss profits. Just because some people pay for music and got to concerts to support there favourite band, it doesn't mean that a large majority still loves music yet they obtain it illegally because it's so simple to do.

Any way as I said earlier this topic is pointless, is all based on meaningless personal opinion, I think this, well I think that.

[Stormcloud]

@Thinking Critical, my viewpoint is enlarged by sharing the viewpoints of others. My viewpoint stems from direct experience rather than reason, therefore an opinion is irrelevant. My viewpoint does NOT change - it enlarges by the addition of others' views contributed from different angles (Holistic) rather than divisive which opinions are. I would have thought that...when our viewpoint is enlarged our need for opinion diminishes as personal opinion offers nothing to an expanding viewpoint; opinions encourage only argument which is circular and binding. This does not mean I ignore opinions - I see them for what they are - the ego's attempt to dominate - which I am equally guilty at times (of trying to push my own bias). By the way, can you tell me how to 'highlight' part of someone's comment that one wishes to respond to as I am fairly computer illiterate?

[Pastabake]

Your just preaching your opinion, the illegal downloading of music costs the music industry billions of dollars a year in loss profits. Just because some people pay for music and got to concerts to support there favourite band, it doesn't mean that a large majority still loves music yet they obtain it illegally because it's so simple to do.

No I'm not preaching my opinion. On the otherhand you are preaching yours in saying that we should only listen to the Industry when it comes to 'illegal downloads' and pretend that they have no agenda in exaggerating the figures.

I'm not interested in the illegality of downloads, I don't know why the thought of it gets your ire and I don't care. I most definitely don't want to read your ill-informed views regarding them, so lets try to stay on topic.

You miss the point that we have to take into account all views/listens and critically assess how they fit into the picture in terms of "music reflecting society". So it's necessary to point out that (a) the figures are exaggerated and (b) we have no real idea of the impact of such downloaded music on the listener.

I have suggested that for the purpose of this discussion that it is more than reasonable to make a sharp distinction between the downloader, radio listener, Youtube viewer and | The 'fan' that goes to the effort of buying a CD, or seeing an act in concert and has clearly shown an allegiance to the 'artist'. Thus they can be seen as identifying strongly enough with the act for it to be considered a reflection of them.

Any way as I said earlier this topic is pointless, is all based on meaningless personal opinion, I think this, well I think that.

Gosh, you've been interested in philosophy for how long, and you've only just realised this.

[Belinda]

I believe that music does reflect society. Music has a social component simply because people express themselves by making music. There is no music without people, and even natural sounds such as bird song are not appreciated by birds aesthetically as we appreciate natural bird song. Musical form is inseparable from human societies. Folk music, although now commercialised , was a genuine expression of communal aesthetic and beliefs, and the very instruments that accompanied the human voice were made as cultural artefacts. Much folk music , the minstrel ballads , was the way in which the history of the social group was recorded and recited.

This still occurs as when commercial pop reflects the current sexualisation of the young. 1940s pop was sometimes blatant propaganda. Bach was influenced by the German tradition of sophisticated church music with its polyphony and musical instruments. The big orchestras of the Romantic era with their thick textures were needed by people who newly wanted extravagantly to express feelings. Even now we have sacred music which is needed for patriotic events or life events.

What I want is for rap to make people aware of what really matters. Not to reflect but to change.