can manufactured bands ever be classified as

Can Manufactured Bands Ever be Classified as 'Good' Art? The
Effect of the Market
on the Construction of Music
Introduction
Manufactured bands now make up a major percentage of
chart music today,
not least of them Take That, Boyzone, Bad Boys inc., East 17 and
other all-boy
pop bands. In this essay I would like to discuss how the standard
of art has
been lowered by the capitalistic system of the music industry,
using a specific
example - "Upside Down", which is maybe the latest addition to
this genre of
music.
By this genre of music, I mean the all-boy bands which
have been
specifically manufactured and targeted at the 'teenybopper' age
class (and also
the gay market?).
Personal Opinions
To argue that this form of art is 'bad' art, one must
have a reference
point - a set of values by which to judge. This is almost always
a personal
opinion, and I would first of all like to explain my personal
opinion.
I believe that 'good' art has something to offer to the
individual
perceiver, be it painting, book, film, dance or music. These are
all different

forms of art, but one thing binds them all together - the fact
that they are
creations, created and crafted to the personal specifications of
the artist.
This makes the product original.
Two values by which I judge music are creativity and
originality. I
believe that good art provides 'food for thought' - that special
something which,
after the tape has finished, after leaving the cinema or closing
a book, leaves
an 'aftertaste' - something to think about, be it, 'how did
he/she play that' or,
'what was he/she trying to say with that piece,' the list goes
on.
Basic Market Analysis
For the purposes of this essay, I want to split marketing
into two
general strategies. The first of these is where the designers
make a "product"
to their own specifications and then look to see where and how
they will be able
to sell it in the overall market. The second strategy is the
opposite of the
first - the designers examine the general market, target a
certain area and
tailor make a product to fit this area exactly.
The latter of these strategies is the one employed when a
band is going
to be manufactured. The designers have studied the market and

worked out what
they think they can sell a certain group of consumers.
Hirschman's 'three market segments' model (see figure 1) can
be used to
explain which type of bands fall into which category. The first
segment is
titled "Self-orientated Creativity." The primary audience is the
person who
creates the piece and the primary objective is that person's
self-expression.
This is art for the sake of art and is sometimes called "selfish"
art. The
second segment is titled "Peer-orientated creativity"; the
primary audience are
peers and industry, the primary objective is recognition and
acclaim. The third
segment is "Commercialised Creativity "and focuses on the general
public with
the primary objective of money and profit.
The people who create art for the sake of art may not
even approach a
record label, as it is solely for themselves. This approach is
focused on the
product, made their way, not taking the commercial aspect into
consideration.
The people who fall into the category of peer-orientated
creativity do
want to publish their work but do not tailor their product to
increase its
marketing potential. An example of this could be any band that

has its own
distinctive style, e.g. Led Zeppelin, which when it was first
published,
definitely did not fall into the category of pop music. Although
they became a
success and sold millions of records, they did not compromise
their music to do
so.
The third group are one hundred percent commercially
based. Any music
made by a band in this category is produced for a pre-specified
area of the
market with the sole intention to make money. The product is
tailored according
to what the mass audience wants, therefore any aspect of art is
compromised.
Case Study - Upside Down
Upside Down fit perfectly into the third category in
Hirschman's Three
Market Segment Model. Put together by two managers, they use the
second of the
general strategies I have described above - first check the
market to find an
opening and then tailor a product to fit it.
In this case young girls aged roughly between 11 and 16 have been
targeted.
Having decided this, the next part of the process is, based on
what the managers
think the consumers want (or what they think they can tell them
they want), to

tailor make a product to suit the market. In this situation, the
question is,
"What do girls aged between 11 and 16 want to see when they go to
a concert?"
The answer is, having experienced the reaction to Take That,
Boyzone etc., that
they want young boys, in nice clothes, very good looking, very
sexy looking, who
are going to look great on their bedroom walls when they get
their posters out
of Smash Hits. So this is exactly what the managers design and
produce for them.
The four boys that were eventually chosen were picked
from the
applicants who had responded to this advertisement:
"Are you between 17 and 21 and good looking? (We're only
looking for
the best!)"
"Do you want to be in a teenage all-boy band sensation?"
"Do you want to follow performers like Take that, East
17, Bad Boys inc.
and Boyzone into the covers of Just 17 and Smash Hits?"
"Do you want to be part of a band selling millions of
records?
From the seven thousand applicants, a shortlist of 250
was drawn up from
their photographs alone. These 250 were auditioned in one day,
each audition
lasting about as long as it took for the managers to discuss how
the individuals

looked.
Once the four boys had been trained by a voice trainer,
the next step
was to find material for them to perform. Their first
single-to-be was bought by
the managers from a firm selling previously unreleased songs.
Several different
potential hits were played to the managers before they eventually
picked one to
record in the studio.
Upside Down's first studio sessions yielded a different
sound than their
released single. It was described in the documentary as having
nearly a white
soul-music quality, but the managers were not happy with it at
all. They
proceeded to record the single again with Stuart Levine - well
known for his
success in achieving a more 'commercial' sound for music of this
type, and his
was the recording that they finally used.
Upside Down's first public performance took place on the
Smash Hits Tour,
which, not surprisingly, was attended and practically consisted
only of girls
aged between 10 and 15!
Evaluation
Figure 2 is a diagram which can be used to define the
difference between an
object or work of art in the traditional sense (art for the sake

of music) and a
cultural industry (art for the sake of making money).
The horizontal axis represents the range of products from
works of art
which are aesthetically or artistically orientated to the works
of art which are
market orientated. At the right hand side, the product is
determined by the
market, and at the left hand side by the artist. The vertical
axis shows the
range from prototypes, i.e. a unique piece of work, through to
cultural
production on a mass scale.
As I described above, in the context of peer-orientated
creativity, Led
Zeppelin became a big-selling band, but did not compromise their
music to do so.
On the model, they would be represented by the 'Work of Art'
(upper left
quadrant) which would then move down to the lower left quadrant
where the work
is still orientated towards the artist, but reproduced because it
has become
popular (i.e. moved down the vertical axis).
Upside Down, on the other hand, stay firmly in the lower
right-hand
quadrant of the diagram, represented by 'Cultural Industries'. As
their product
is tailor-made for the market, and always intended for mass
reproduction, it

cannot be said that they have ever produced a prototype.
This whole attitude suggests and promotes the idea that
money is more
important than art. This (business) venture is geared towards
nothing else than
making money. In the documentary interview run by the BBC, The
managers stated
that their aim was purely commercial, to quote one of them,
"Launching a band is
launching a product. Identify your market, package your product
as nicely as
possible, target your audience and sell it to them." They also
stated that only
then would they have achieved anything when "Ten thousand girls
are screaming at
the boys on stage, some passing out from excitement and being
taken away by the
St John's Ambulance Brigade.
To create an image, the managers put the word out that the
four boys from
England's next Mega-band would be in such and such a place at
such and such a
time. They then turned up with the band in the designated places
and times to
allow the 'fans' to kiss or be kissed by, or get an autograph
from the stars of
the next biggest band in England.
The boys, however, are also in it only for the money, if not
at first then
definitely now. They were given an allowance (not very much), and

told that the
serious money would start rolling in as soon as the records were
starting to
sell. In an interview with the boys, just after they had had
several thousand
pounds worth of clothes bought for them, one said, "We haven't
really got used
to having all these expensive clothes bought for us yet, but
hopefully we will."
I find this approach to making music a very manipulative
one. The pre-
targeted market of eleven to sixteen year olds must be one of the
easiest to
manipulate. In this age, people are trying to find themselves or
make themselves
into the type of people that the media tell them they should be -
if someone
placed an advert in Just 17 or Smash Hits stating that every cool
teenager now
bought their fashion clothes from Marks & Spencer's, this store
would probably
record a 300% increase of sales in the Womenswear Department.
On the other side of the stage, however, the boys in the
band are also
being manipulated. They are still, after over a year of being
signed to the
managers, receiving the pitiful allowance assigned them by their
managers. They
have been led to believe that they will be very rich, have given
up university

studies and jobs to do so and yet have come no further
financially. The records
are selling but until a certain number have been sold, they do
not receive any
royalties, to allow the managers to recoup the quarter of a
million pounds they
have invested. And when that sum is reached, will they still be
around or will
the public have gone crazy about another four or five
sexy-looking boys who are
essentially no different, just something new?
Apart from the dubious financial situation, the band have
absolutely no say
in what they want their sound to be like. After the recording of
the single
(which, incidentally the band had no hand in picking), one of the
boys was asked
what he thought of the finished product; he answered, "I liked
the sound of the
first recording better - it was less commercial-sounding, but it
depends if
you're doing it for yourself or a prospective audience."
With his own recording technique, Stuart Levine obviously
managed to get a
more 'poppy' and commercial sound which the managers preferred.
This ties in
with one of Frans Birrer's definitions of pop music, "Popular
music is music
that is not something else. This ties in, in turn, to the
'McDonald's' Method -

McDonalds actually deflavour their burgers so that less people
will dislike
them. In exactly this way, and for exactly the same reasons,
Upside Down, or
their managers at any rate, have deflavoured their music -
diluted it so that no
one element is too strong for people's musical tastebuds.
What the band have also been led to believe is that they
possess a lot of
talent, and have accordingly acquired quite a high opinion of
themselves and
what they are doing:
"I think that masterminded bands are much better - it means
that the best
talent, from a large area, is brought together and
concentrated,"(!):
The performers themselves were obviously not chosen for any
musical talent
or creativity, but on the strength of their looks. During the
auditions, the
managers discussed the potential of the applicants. Comments
ranged from, "No,
absolutely not - I don't like his style," ; "Pity about him, he's
got a good
voice but look at his skin - we won't be able to do anything with
his acne," to
"Looks great - bad voice, but nothing the studio can't fix," or
"Yeah, he's not
bad, but I don't know about his hair. Maybe with some dye and
matching coloured

contact lenses…."
If the band were so talented, as they have come to think
they are, then
surely the managers would not have needed to send them to a
professional voice
trainer, when the only 'live' singing they have to do is in the
studio? (All
'gigs' are mimed) The voice trainer also did say,(rather
dubiously I thought),
"We-ell, they have hope; they aren't the worst I've ever had."
It seems that the managers have achieved one of the earliest
goals they set
themselves - "What we're basically looking for is four or five
good-looking boys
who are eager to be moulded, well, guided, you know - given a
helping hand to do
what we want them to do."
I want to conclude by saying that, based on my personal
opinions of what
'good' art should be, Upside Down are a good example of 'bad'
art. The art in
this venture lies not in the music but in the management. The
question is, is
management an art.?
References:
BBC Omnibus Documentary on the Process of Manufacture of Upside
Down, 1996
LEDA Circuit on New Opportunities for Employment Creation through
the Cultural
Sector, 1995

Phil Saxe's Notes on Marketing Strategies