What’s In A Name: Music Fans of Today Are Not Cheering For “What,” But “Who”
Music is such a polarizing subject in popular culture already. We love to love our music, and we love to hate everyone else’s. Music is what we use to identify ourselves culturally. It’s what allows us to find camaraderie with other people who are more likely to be like-minded with ourselves. It’s what we pride ourselves in to tell us that we’re better than others.
Much thought has been given over the years to why the music of today doesn’t resonate in our hearts like the music of old. 2015 was the first year in history that sales of older music outpaced the sales of newer music, even with the incredible sales numbers artists like Adele and Taylor Swift accrued. Some blame the advent of streaming and the devaluation of music in the marketplace, or consolidation in major labels and on radio, or a myriad of other factors of why the music of today lags behind previous eras in appeal.
But perhaps the true issue is something much more fundamental. We hear music from popular artists and wonder why anyone could ever find anything fulfilling from listening to such racket, when to the fans of certain artists, the music may not be the most important part of the experience. What’s most important is the artists themselves and what they embody through their image, expressions, beliefs, and sometimes their charitable or political activities.
The music is just the excuse. What consumers are really buying into is a specific cult of personality. A brand. Music has always allowed major superstars to rise up and become cultural icons with a sway over the masses as powerful of that of the American President. But it’s because their music was appealing on such a grand scale it united individuals across all boundaries of taste, cultural upbringing, and identity. The music was just good, and it didn’t matter what they looked like, how they dressed, or what they did offstage. Many artists of the past were not particularly attractive, and had tumultuous offstage lives. There’s always been manufactured music that attempted to resonate on a grand scale, or to put image or personality in front of art, but it rarely or ever has the lasting effect of something authentic. That’s why consumers continue to look more and more to the past for something more appealing.
Meanwhile the practice of selling an artist to the public before their music has become commonplace, and is strengthened by the stranglehold grip social network has on the consumer mindset and perspective. For example, Facebook has openly admitted that it looks to serve users content that they will agree with. Music used to be the forum to challenge social mores and dug-in perspectives. Now music is mostly used to reinforce them. It doesn’t matter how terrible an artist’s new single is because the appeal or quality of the music is irrelevant. Whatever the next single from Luke Bryan or Taylor Swift sounds like is inconsequential. It will shoot straight to #1 because people aren’t buying into the music, they’re buying into the people that are making it.
This is causing a wide proliferation of the “Stan” culture. “Stan” is the song by hip-hop artist Eminem about an obsessive fan. More and more you’re seeing scores, sometimes thousands of fans of a certain artist whose social network avatar is the image of said artist, all they ever post about is said artist, and no matter what that artist does in their personal lives or professionally, these fans will support them until the end. They’ve built their entire lives around a vicarious experience run through their favorite performer, and having put so much stock and effort into these artists over years, they can’t imagine questioning any of their actions.
It’s similar to cheering for laundry in sports. A certain player may be reviled by the general fans of a sport, but his team’s fans will overlook his personal or professional failings and blame the officiating, bad luck, or the perspective of a bias media on why they’re so hated. Their players from their favorite teams can do no wrong.
Similarly in music, if an artist releases a bad single, fans have so much devoted in their favorite artists, they’ll tow the company line, sing its praises, and push it to the top of the iTunes charts regardless of what it sounds like. There’s no checks and balances to measure true public appeal. How many singles have we seen where the initial public perception is extremely chilly, but it ends up at #1 anyway?
Furthermore, when criticism is levied against the music of these artists, instead of defending the music with salient points about its virtues, superfans, or Stan’s, cite the artist’s personal attributes as reasons they’re above reproach. So and so does so much for Cancer research, for the troops, for children, for animals, or for the environment, so how dare you call into question the quality of their music, as if this train of thought isn’t a glaring non-sequitur to a discussion about the quality of the music.
Most every major music artist in 2016 is going to have some significant charitable ties and pet issues they use to help define themselves and sell their personalities to the public, and many times these altruistic endeavors parallel the stereotypical appeal of their fan base. In country music, many artists support veterans organizations for example. Though this activity is great in itself, and artists using their high-profile pulpit to champion causes or promote the virtues of charitable giving is worthy of praise, the practice is so widespread, not a single artist is singular because they happen to give to charity. They all give, because of the way the tax system incentivizes charitable giving, and how it dovetails so perfectly with promoting an artist as someone fans can find a personal connection with. It can be argued that some artists even use charity as personal shields to counter-balance shortcomings in personal behavior, or the quality of their music.
READ: Bad Music, Good People / Good Music, Bad People
And this phenomenon of cheering for artists instead of music is far from isolated in the mainstream. If anything, fans of independent, small-time musicians can be even more fierce and dug in, to the point of being cultish, or even violent in nature towards dissent. “Scenes” work to crush dissent, and instead of fostering the creative process, they suffocate it from the lack of criticism. There’s no system in place to the best music to thrive, and the worst to get weeded out. Criticize someone in the scene, and you will be ostracized. And just as fans can be irrationally exuberant about an artist they like, they can be just as unreasonable with their hatred towards artists they dislike.
But all this affects the music by eroding the checks and balances on the output of artists by clouding public sentiment. It’s supposed to be up to the people to decide if music from a given artist is worthy of a wider ear. When so many loyal fans are dug in however, and refuse to hear criticism of their favorite artists, the overall natural appeal of a song or album becomes secondary. The buying power and sheer size of an artist’s fan base is what’s important. They could release 2:30 of static and their superfans would still buy it.
What, if anything, is a solution? As fans spend more time each day living life through the narrow perspective of social media designed to reinforce one’s preset beliefs, if anything, the problem only promises to persist, or become exacerbated as time goes on.
February 10, 2016 @ 10:09 am
People act this way with their favorite politicians, so why not their favorite musician/celebrity? Critical, independent thinking went out of style years ago.
February 10, 2016 @ 10:19 am
As stupid as I think this is, it’s pretty spot on. Whoever wrote this has all his ducks in a row.
But why do the peasants buy into the image of a loser like Jason Aldean?
I’ve spent enough money in advertising to know that as long as one convince’s a body of a truth, they’ll cling to that truth so long as you got to them first.
Is it Rodrigo Diaz de Bivar, or Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar? Depends on who you ask, and some historians say it could have been either, but some folks fight to the death over the spelling.
If people are convinced that Jason Aldean is a good role model, good luck unconvincing them, the peasants can be pretty stubborn.
Of course that’s to be expected when they subsist on base terrestrial radio. No class, no class at all. I consume my music the expensive way.
February 11, 2016 @ 7:36 am
Eye rote thiss. Thank yew sur!
February 10, 2016 @ 10:29 am
In other words, people are stupid.
February 10, 2016 @ 10:29 am
All good points, but it can’t have that much depth to it. Rather, think of monkeys slinging shit on a wall until the resulting stain resembles something that someone will give them a banana for.
Oooh, look! Elvis!! Good boy, Cheetah!!! Here you go!!!!
February 10, 2016 @ 10:35 am
This is not new to human nature or music. This is deeply engrained within human social psychology, just look at the current political climate. Identity is visceral component of humanity and to separate oneself from identity takes a highly introspective approach. Tribalism isn’t isolated to the music world and it won’t simply go away.
February 10, 2016 @ 3:03 pm
I agree very much with this, but also with Tom S’s comment above, that it does seem like this sort of thing has gotten worse. I’m pretty sure the “identity” and “tribalism” aspect of our culture has always been rampant, and always been a part of music too. But I do feel like, more and more, we as a culture have been devaluing actual thoughtful discourse in favor of attitude and posturing.
That said, I KNOW that in my life I have always been very susceptible to buying into the idea of an image. At least I can recognize it for what it is and not fall too far into the trap, but man, some marketing or whatever you’d call it is just so GOOD. lol.
February 10, 2016 @ 5:49 pm
Part of the reason for the increased tribalism is the internet and social media. Whether politics or music, it is so easy today to find hundreds and thousands of people who agree you on any topic and validate your viewpoint. Most people look for people who validate their viewpoint and not challenge it.
February 10, 2016 @ 7:51 pm
This is purely anecdotal thinking; most likely it’s the opposite. Humans can’t process the input of thousands of individuals. People will form a bias from just a handful and there’s actually data to suggest that once you get past a certain number the bias starts to get saturated. This argument that the internet makes people more close-minded isn’t baked up by any evidence.
February 10, 2016 @ 9:29 pm
I am out of my area of expertise but I have seen reports about how people usually search out groups, blogs, etc. that validate their position not challenge it.
February 10, 2016 @ 9:46 pm
Big difference between experiencing the internet and experiencing Facebook.
February 16, 2016 @ 7:01 pm
There could be something to this.
February 13, 2016 @ 11:51 pm
Interesting point. I hadn’t thought of it that way.
February 10, 2016 @ 10:53 am
Didn’t Taylor swift do that exact thing in Canada? Selling static that had nothing on the track, and it went to number one on iTunes.
Personally always try to seperate each track and music from the personal stuff. If I don’t like the music the personal stuff may be secondary to reinforce it.
February 15, 2016 @ 9:26 pm
I see some similarities between Taylor Swift fans and Donald Trump supporters. In both cases there is a cult of personality. In both cases there are millions of followers with deep seated insecurities who crave a charismatic cult leader. To their followers, “who” trumps “what”.
February 10, 2016 @ 11:24 am
That is some nice writing. Most of the music I see live is bluegrass and old-time, where the commercial and “Superstar” elements are not so pronounced. Even some of the ,”big stars” in that sky are pretty much just regular folks. It’s an interesting read.
February 10, 2016 @ 11:31 am
Well this is true but it happened in the past too.
Between 1964 and 1975 Loretta Lynn had like 25 top 10 hits in a row. Of course she was good, but lots of other artists were too. They just didn’t have the same appeal to the public and so didn’t have the same commercial success.
People always loved to stand by a certain artist. That’s just the way we are. This may be bad for some reasons, but I love it anyway. I love to cheer for my faves.
February 10, 2016 @ 12:27 pm
Cheering for an artist you like is fine. But the main reason for cheering them should be the music first.
February 10, 2016 @ 5:53 pm
And there is nothing wrong with criticizing your favorite artists. All of my favorite artists have done things I don’t really like and in some cases I think was outright bad. It seems to some people today, you can’t say that.
You can’t criticize the artist while begging them to follow you on Twitter. That seems to be the holy grail to many.
February 11, 2016 @ 4:22 am
I agree. Many of my favourite artists have released songs or even full albums that are, in my opinion, not very good. And that’s ok. And I can be rational if someone is critical of a song/album/artist that I think is good.
What frustrates me is when people lack the ability to accept criticism of their favourite artists and feel the need to defend the artist based on something wholly unrelated to the actual music or, even worse, label those who dare criticize the artist as “haters.”
February 10, 2016 @ 11:45 am
It’s the “cult of personality”, and it’s evident almost anywhere you look.
February 13, 2016 @ 2:46 pm
Like Mussolini and Kennedy…
February 10, 2016 @ 11:57 am
I agree withe the article, but don’t think that it’s necessarily a bad way to do business. I think it’s alright to have music that reflects your personal values and if the performer/artist is singing of a message he doesn’t believe or follow, it kind of makes him/her a fake. If Charlie Daniels sings something (even if it’s not his best song), I still feel that it reflects his real feelings and makes it genuine, whereas if Ty Herndon comes out with a kick ass song about women’s butts, I don’t even want to hear it because, ultimately, it’s fake and he’s probably thinking about a Roman bath house.
February 10, 2016 @ 12:15 pm
There’s nothing wrong with having comparable values to the artists you happen to listen to. But if you use those values to condone bad music, that’s another thing.
February 10, 2016 @ 3:06 pm
By that logic you would never get to enjoy a GREAT song – “Fat Bottomed Girls.” That would just be sad!
February 10, 2016 @ 3:10 pm
Boom! 😉
February 10, 2016 @ 3:52 pm
I remember when Vanilla Ice came out singing about gangster stuff…The music wasn’t bad but nobody would be caught dead listening to it because it was fake. I don’t think a lot of South Central Crops blasted Vanilla Ice, do you? On the subject of Queen…yep, no credibility on things heterosexual. Now, if they instead sang “Big Pecker Boys,” I’d give them points for credibility. Still wouldn’t be my thing though.
February 10, 2016 @ 6:11 pm
I had to look it up. Fat Bottomed Girls was written by Queen guitarist Brian May, who is heterosexual.
February 10, 2016 @ 6:34 pm
Well, he’s never hit on me. so he must be!
February 10, 2016 @ 12:58 pm
I think you may be overstating the point or at least maybe just describing a minority of music fans, but I agree with you.
One difference between this and sports is that sports teams can objectively lose or having terrible years. Other than albums or singles not charting, there’s not much objectivity in music. And even then, its chart success isn’t necessarily a barometer on whether a song/album is good. A Cleveland Browns fan cannot pretend that his team had a good year if they went 4-12. But a Chase Rice fan can still consider a bad song good even if it flops completely.
It doesn’t help that music country music media outlets will never write a scathing review about a mainstream artist. I can’t remember the last time I saw a negative review on a site like Taste of Country or The Boot. You posted the story of the one writer who trashed a Jason Aldean concert and had to pull his article. If an artist is positively reviewed and reaches #1 on the radio, of course their fans will by into it. Especially when there’s not much of an alternative/diversity on the radio (you touched on this in you’re recent Stapleton article).
I agree its human nature to want to continue to root for things you already like/believe in. But in country music, there’s little to no checks and balances regarding the quality of music.
February 10, 2016 @ 1:31 pm
DEAR SLIM,
February 10, 2016 @ 1:33 pm
Great read. It should also be noted that this trend is often used by many of the same people (myself included) to illustrate why so-and-so is not worthy of someone’s time because they’re garbage, but make ostensibly good to great music (the perennial example of David Allan Coe, for instance). And I don’t guess I have anything concrete to go on, but my gut tells me that you’re overselling the “back in the day, people rarely looked for music that reinforced their established opinions” talk. Part of the reason we have different genres of music and cultures that are tied to those genres is because the music appeals to a certain demographic (along with whatever stereotypes are bred because of it). Not that every artist within a given genre shares the same opinions or viewpoints, but I highly doubt that too many Christian listeners ever sought out music with atheistic undertones in the past, and vice versa. Same goes with politics, etc. Some of us are able to put all of that to the background to appreciate what a song is trying to say, but more often than not it’s hard to shake any distaste for the message from the merits, given that the merits are usually seen as intrinsic to the message in and of itself.
As an example, I don’t think “A Country Boy Can Survive” is a great song because I disagree with it, and I don’t hate most rap music because I think it speaks the truth or spreads a wholesome message. That’s not to say that one has to agree with every single thing that a given song condones or illustrates (“I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die”, etc.), but when people draw lines in the sand, it’s usually not just because they don’t like being challenged or have poor taste. It’s because music more often than not is seen as a representation of oneself, and expression as the generic appraisal goes. If you virulently disagree with what’s being condoned in a given song, why would you want to support it?
Now, is this argument perfect? Not at all; I personally like the band Tool, for instance, but they can get a little unsavory on the religious side of things and it rubs me the wrong way. However, I can look past that to hear some great rock & roll compositions (most of the time, anyway). As for my favorite example of Nirvana, I don’t much care for their music, their lyrics are completely meaningless (despite what fanboys like to claim) and their fans irritate the heck out of me with the deification of Cobain. Does their music have merit? Having listened to their three studio and unplugged albums, I can concur. But no matter how many critics and keyboard warriors try to tell me that their music is “great” and “Kurt Cobain saved my life and yours with Nevermind,” I’ll never openly support the band. They condone a teenage angst and anger that I’ve never connected with and actively dislike, so I have no wish to partake of it, regardless of whether they’re “good music” or not. Same with the music I like that’s been decreed as “bad” that I still openly support. Blind artist loyalty is one thing, subversion of one’s taste is another.
Sorry for the ramble, but does any of that crap make sense?
February 10, 2016 @ 3:09 pm
Are Nirvana fans still a thing? 😉
February 10, 2016 @ 7:21 pm
I don’t guess I rightly know. But Kurt Cobain fans sure are.
February 11, 2016 @ 7:44 am
Touche!
February 10, 2016 @ 2:38 pm
The classics and what has stood the test of time is pretty amazing.
A lot of great music was created when the artists only focus was on music.
There was no cell phones, internet, 1000 cable channels, social media etc. Constant distraction.
People really became skilled in their craft. Techniques and styles were developed.
It is so easy to record these days.. The amount of crap out there is amazing..
People can put in thier one hand more technology than a lot of classic bands had in their entire studios when making quintessential albums.
These days we deal with way more garbage that has to be sifted through.
And this garbage is just constantly marketed to who they think will buy it. That’s why we see so much cliché out there.
And not that there wasn’t a lot of crap in the past. There has always been shitty music out there. But now every tom dick and harry can record in their freaking bedroom.
I think a lot was filtered more and the cream rose to the top and those really were distinct artistic achievements.. Distribution was so different. Now we just get hit with it all. Even in the past there was marketing and people just looking to sell records.
February 10, 2016 @ 3:52 pm
I think that just about sums up the situation.
February 10, 2016 @ 2:54 pm
I’m a a huge KC fan, but I am old school. I will let you know when I’m not happy with something you did, or with my overall experience. I posted something on his fan club website, and it was removed! Needless to say, I was furious, and told them I would not be joining again. You’re not allowed to even be slightly critical (I asked a legitimate question, probably about why he did or didn’t do something). Those vultures will either attack you or they will remove your comments! What good is a fan site when you can’t make a constructively critical comment? They’re not Gods. They’re people! I adore the man, but come on! Then there are those idiots on YouTube. They act like they are THE authority on their favorite artists, and if you correct them, they go nuts! God forbid you should actually have a legitimate criticism!
February 10, 2016 @ 5:54 pm
The squashing of dissent is a growing problem and goes part and parcel with this discussion. I find it interesting that the biggest perceived “enemies” of this site all have a zero tolerance to dissent on their social network pages. Say something negative, it will get deleted, you will be blocked, and you and your family and friends might get threatened or have their social network properties attacked. They are so full of self-righteousness they think anyone who does not like them must be destroyed.
I remember when Jason Aldean released “Burnin’ It Down,” and when Carrie Underwood Miranda Lambert Lambert released “Somethin’ Bad,” a lot of core fans were howling on places like Facebook. I don’t know if that would be allowed to happen today. The Band Perry was pretty publicly censoring disagreement with their new music.
February 10, 2016 @ 3:48 pm
What ever happened to rooting for the underdog?
February 10, 2016 @ 3:54 pm
“2015 was the first year in history that sales of older music outpaced the sales of newer music”
I think thats a good thing.
I hope this vill make artists think: “Maybe it’s time we got back to the basics of music”
This is a quote from a comment to one of the First Aid Kit Youtube videos. And I ‘ve read lots of comments to their videos similar to this one:
“…thank them for descending like warm angels upon cold,dreary Chicago one Saturday night and daze a cynical 40-some old guy, sick to death of auto-tuned and computerized music, with their performance.”
And I think this applies not only to the elderly people. But also young people want to hear more “organic” music.And see artist playing their instrument by themselves,and singing with pure unadulterated voices, regardless of which genre they’re listening to. A computer will never be able to replace a human voice…
This is link to an video. Recordet in Gothenburg. Three years ago.
https://youtu.be/QoXnHOnRwZk?t=41s
Sorry for the english…Hope you’ve understood at least some of it…
February 10, 2016 @ 4:19 pm
Along with the analogy of tuning into MTV to see videos and all you get is reality shows, I have a name to call the people that eat this crap up. Stan!
Thanks SCM.
(on a side note, to see the “Stan” theory in action, make the mistake I did and click on anything in social media mentioning the Super Bowl half time show. Then, read the comments.)
February 10, 2016 @ 7:16 pm
I picked up on another point, obviously you were speaking of the Jason aldeans who cheat on their wives, wear black face and make redundant souless music. But I felt a little as though you meant from our side of the spectrum as well. A lot of the rhetoric against other artists on this sitr, I think Is well founded. I don’t have facebook, or any kind of social media beyond a guitar forum and this comment section of my favorite web site. So I am not always up to date with the trends, but we all can easily see a day coming where you won’t be able to defend a Jason aldean for his crimes and when you make those people feel ignorant for trying they give up and move to the next fad. It may be a dirty tactic, but this is war. Well kind of, it definitely gets brutal. Ha-ha. But pick one side or the other and quit dancing back and forth across the lines, Chris, trigger, and all the other half way crooks. So quit trying to spare people’s feelings, there are ignorant, selfish, rude, lazy, weak, mean, racist, people in the real world and if fact they quite possibly make up the majority. Shoot, I am cold blooded when it comes to stupidity and morality, these people do not deserve an opinion beyond what they choose for themselves, be it politics, religion, or music. All the music I like is the best period! Lol
February 10, 2016 @ 8:03 pm
Honestly I can, and will put the blame on one person for all of this in country music for starting this, and I blame LUKE BRYAN. Before any of you guys try to write me off, listen to what I have to say because I was a teenager when he started becoming popular. As soon as he started to be popular, all that the girls would do in my high school is talk about him. Later, as more and more “cute”/”hot” country singers emulating Bryan came out, the boys in my high school, who had before dressed super preppy, started dressing and acting all country. It was kind of funny because some of them were the same guys who would make fun of me, and say I liked to f*** my horses and cows. What I am trying to say is simply put Luke Bryan made acting country seem like the cool thing to do, no matter what kind of background you have. I think that people have changed their identity so much to best fit any Luke Bryan or bro song that if someone tries to insult their favorite country singer, they feel insulted by that someone too. The marketers for country music sure as hell knew what they were doing, and I really have to wonder how long it will take to get rid of the whole “country is cool” stigma. One more point I would like to add is that the more any music industry tries to market to young people, the crappier the songs will be. I feel like as of recently the music has became so bad that even parents are having a hard time justifying liking it. That might be why Adele is popular because she appeals to both the kids and parents.
February 10, 2016 @ 10:28 pm
All so, so true. Witness last weekend at the Super Bowl. Beyonce performed and more or less did the exact same thing she does at every Beyonce show. She lip-synched a rather flaccid (and self-aggrandizing) new track, she did the same regular Beyonce stripper pole moves, nothing new or different on display there. Then, minutes later, the internet was all abuzz about her paradigm-shattering, SB slaying, re-defining performance, which must have happened while my head was turned or something. It was all so out of control it actually generated a backlash, not against the rather tepid performance itself but against the “importance” that was falsely assigned to it. If her army of “stans” hadn’t gone so completely overboard regarding the supposed “message” she was allegedly sending, it would have been forgotten ten minutes after it was over. But now it’s a whole huge meme, with her delusional fans on one side and “angry haters” on the other. Meanwhile she kicks back and counts the money.
February 10, 2016 @ 10:50 pm
Also product placement is HUGE. Young people especially tend to align themselves with artists who like or promote the same brands they support.
February 10, 2016 @ 11:20 pm
Yep, I agree. I mean I think it works that way for all people. When I saw your comment the first thing I thought of were Yeti coolers. I mean come on they are just freakin coolers. I am not spending a ridiculous amount of money on a stupid cooler, and I don’t care how good the damn thing is. Somehow though between the adds for them on TV, and the references to them in songs, it makes it seem like you cannot be considered a true redneck without a Yeti cooler. So, low and behold I see many people who use them, and even wear Yeti Cooler hats. It is just ridiculous to me, but who knows maybe I am really missing out.
February 11, 2016 @ 8:37 am
There is no solution. Humans have an evolutionary tendency toward the cult of personality. Usually, it’s just one part of who we are. But social media allows it to grow into all of what we are. Hence fangirls and boys.
I’m a forty something guy who did all the rock and roll stuff as a kid and young adult and I always thought that I’d be one of those ‘cool’ parents. And I was, until my kid turned 13 and got an iPhone. Now, I want to take my entire family and go live with the Amish. Until you’ve observed your white, upper class, A student, rural little girl greet her friends with ‘Yo bitches’ and sing along to stuff that would have made Too Short blush, you just can’t know what a sewer American pop culture has become. It’s thoroughly depressing, and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it. Take it away? That sure never worked with me.
February 11, 2016 @ 11:50 am
Obviously some great points in this article. Also some issues.
*While social media has made the issue more visible – if not exacerbated it – this is a phenomenon that has existed throughout time. Commercial music has always involved connecting with artists (and then passionately supporting those artists through thick and thin). The Beatles blew up because people connected to their personalities/image, not because their initial music was as good as the stuff from Rubber Soul on. There are people who will try and claim Led Zeppelin’s Fool In The Rain isn’t garbage. Madonna and Michael Jackson and plenty of other artists had automatic hits, regardless of specific quality.
There has never been a perfectly direct correlation between objective artistic quality (to the extent that such a thing can even exist) and chart performance.
*”Stans” do not at all support music unconditionally. Fifth Harmony has pound-for-pound the most passionate “stan” culture you’ll find online, but the “Harmonizers” allowed recent single I’m In Love With A Monster to completely flop. Radio wanted to play Ariana Grande’s dreadful “Focus” (it had one of the biggest “add weeks” ever at pop radio) but fans didn’t buy or passionately support it, and radio quickly had to let it die. Demi Lovato is one of the most popular and ardently supported celebrities you’ll find on social media, but people aren’t at all buying her music in droves.
Even with Luke Bryan, Kick The Dust Up — and his album — were shy of expectations. Yes, they were big hits compared to the market, but they should have been MUCH bigger hits given how big he is as an overall persona.
Taylor Swift’s “Out Of The Woods” is struggling, and it’s primarily due to poor sales numbers and audience response. There was also a dramatic difference between how Shake It Off and Blank Space performed compared to how Style performed.
These people will always have a baseline of support, and I think that’s okay. They earned it by virtue of connecting, which has always been — and always should be — important. Music is nothing without the human element.
But there are still performance hills and valleys based on factors like artistic quality.
February 11, 2016 @ 12:09 pm
And while one may be inclined to counter by noting that “these songs flopped because casual fans didn’t like them – not because the stans abandoned them,” I don’t really buy that counter. For starters, if you’re dialed into this “stan culture,” you’ll see a vast difference between how the fanbases support different songs. There were plenty of “Arianators” who complained about “Focus” – it wasn’t just critics who hated it.
Additionally, isn’t the “casual fan” sort of the “check” on overzealous stans? If appealing to that casual fan is a necessary precursor to scoring a hit, then stan culture is not exclusively responsible for “bad songs from big stars” reaching #1.
February 12, 2016 @ 7:47 am
I could be totally wrong about this, but I think there’s also another reason why so many fans cling onto some of these performers in this cult of personality and get so defensive that they have to resort to nasty attacks: They are not nearly as secure about their favorites as they pretend to be, and as such won’t tolerate even the most minute amount of criticism, legitimate or otherwise, to cloud their judgment, however blinkered others might think that judgment is to begin with.
If you are a fan and are secure enough to listen to a certain amount of critiquing that you don’t resort to knee-jerk reactions, then so much the better. But that’s not really what you have with certain fan bases, especially not among the bro-country sect (Jason Aldean; Luke Bryan; Florida-Georgia Line, etc.), because, at some level, they probably know that the “product” those guys are putting out is terrible, but they seem to feel the need to justify, however ludicrously one might think they are in doing so, propping up these acts as the second comings of Elvis, the Beatles, or Garth Brooks.
February 12, 2016 @ 10:01 am
Good point Erik. I definitely think insecurity can be at the heart of why people react with anger and aggression when someone disagrees with them, especially musically. Deep down some of these listeners know the criticism is correct, and so instead of trying to either rationalize through it or explain their perspective, they just say “haters gonna hate” and leave it at that.
February 14, 2016 @ 4:23 pm
Amazing article, such great points.