Response to Frith: Music and Identity - Kenneth

Simon Frith argues that music –including its production and performance – offer insight into the collective identity. Music is a part of a people and different communities have different forms of music that serve specific purposes. For example, rap in the African-American community has a different purpose than classical chants do among German Jews in Israel. Frith also discusses how the aesthetics of music identify a group of people. In other words, shared cultural activity helps people realize the similarities and differences they share with other people. In turn, this phenomenon of realizing likeness and dissimilarity gives rise to different genres of music, a genre of music being a kind of music that a group of people identify with and enjoy. Music tastes and styles correlate to specific classes, ethnic groups, & age groups. As time goes by, music genres are modified as class distinctions change, age groups shift, and tastes change. One of the more interesting motifs within Frith’s argument is the idea that music is not a representation of a people, but rather the embodiment of a people. I think such a statement makes sense since it suggests that music is a characteristic of a group of people, but rather, music is the identity of a group people.

Frith also discusses the role of popular music in a society. He indicates that popular music is the embodiment of contemporary society. Even though I agree with this suggestion, I found it unnerving to think of what popular music says about our society. By definition, I am assuming that popular music is that music which has the broadest appeal to people not only in the US but around the globe as well. Artists such as Madonna, Beyonce, Brittney Spears, U2, and other bands come to mind when thinking about popular music. If popular music is the embodiment of a people, then the overarching theme that these artists suggest about our society is materialism, in my opinion. Now some might argue that some of these artists do charity work, and their songs are anthems for the oppressed, and they represent the underrepresented which is all true but consider this: Frith writes that music is not limited to the final product but also includes the process of making the music and the performance. Today, music producers control the sound an artist makes, and record labels control which songs are released. My point is that music today is a business which is telling about our society, everything is about making more money. Record labels will do whatever it takes to sell more music: consider the fact that anyone can become a rich as an artist thanks to programs like auto-tune. Consider the mix of sex and music where the singers must be beautiful individuals or else their chances at success are diminished. We are a materialistic world and I think it is a sad and pathetic trend.