this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
88 points (97.8% liked)
Asklemmy
43833 readers
846 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm guessing but maybe music was less industrialised 50 years ago.
My understanding is that a lot of money goes into producing the music we hear on popular media.
Protest songs can't be commercialised.
Unfortunately, protest songs could absolutely be commercialised.
While not exactly protest songs, the grunge movement of the 90s was a reaction to what was seen as shallow, packaged pop music of the late 80s.
Once their snouts smelled profit, the usual middlemen rushed in to wrap that discontent in plastic and sell it to kids at Walmart, chewing up musicians along the way.
I think it's simply that protest songs are more difficult to wring profit from compared to creating pop music using the formula that sold the most last time.