Is the audience for popular music created by the music industry?

It is obvious that the music industry has a big role to play where ditribution is concerned, but it is then up to the public to decide on whether they enjoy that music. To say the music industry created popular music is undermining the consmers. Without the audience there would be no popular music becase no one would buy it. People will buy the music they like weather its popular music or just a local band from down the street. The music industrys job is to promote artists work to boost the sales to the target audience so realisticly it would be fair to say it is 50/50 part music industry part audience. 
        As Shuker mentions‘even artists who have reached a certain status still rely on the structure put in place by the industry to reach their audience’. Popular music wouldn't be popular without a huge team behind it making it what it is, it also wouldnt be popular without the fan base so its a combination of both.

Are blackness and whiteness useful concepts in the study of popular music?

It is hard to define black and white music, obviously stereotypes can define it for us with black music being R n B and Rap and white music being opera and hillbilly, but how much is it that we agree with this anymore. Stereotypes originate from many years ago so why now do we still use it in our culture.  Music is now multi cultural, it has an aim to a much larger target audience. 1950's  was the ultimate change to black music with a white audience, artists such as Elvis Presely started writing songs which were largely influenced by black artists. "Pop music has always depended on the interaction between black and white traditions"(Hatch & Milward 1987). Music could now be defined as 'mixed race' white artist make black music such as Eminem a hugely successful rap artists, and black people make white music. Not only that but genre's now mix to make a hybrid genre. It keeps music catchy and fresh. Blackness and whiteness is therefore only useful in describing history of music not our current society.

Does the emergence of digital download signal the end for the music industry?

Since 1877 when the first patent recording system evolved the music business has been on an increase with year by year technology's progressing and the industry evolving. By 1979 the first portable cassette is brought out meaning the music industry is thriving. It only then took the industry 10 years to produce the mp3 then apple releases the ipod in 2001. With the music industry evolving so quickly file sharing was the ultimate boom. File sizes decreasing and internet speeds fastening mass internet distribution is then viable. The problem that then occurs is the question of why would you pay for something if you know you can get it for free? Everyone would pay if it wasn't free therefore if the music industry went on decline I feel our culture as it is today would support the industry and forget the free downloads. Our culture thrives of music, if we were to face paying for music or loosing music I know which one i'd choose!!

Can popular music achieve genuine political change?

Popular music is probably never going to be strong enough to expedite political change. Saying that political campaigners do use the influence of music in their parties to sway voters. But weather popular music as a whole can achieve political change is debatable. The Red Wedge formed by Bill Bragg, Paul Weller and Jummy Sommerville in 1985 hoped to be able to shift the Thatcher party from parliament and form a labor party agenda using popular music, they organised tours with big names but as much as they tried their party proved unsuccessful and weren't voted into parliament. Artists such as Bob Marley a hugely recognized artists emphasizes his view on anti capitalism through his music, selling millions of records which then profit back into the capitalists system. Whilst it is obvious popular music certainly makes a change in political awareness, popular music is not strong enough to change any real political change.

What is world music and why do we have such a category?

World music is quite simply a genre,a genre in which defines music that is 'indegenious' and does not fit into the Anglo American genre. Shuker proposes that distribution of popular music, fashions and style  from dominant countries has lead to inferior countries forming a culture imperialism.  This therefore leads onto Anglo American music becoming the standard global template. It was then for the 'indegenious' artist that were adamant to hold onto their culture identity that the birth of world music happened. Case studies show that this theory is outdated as we live in an increasingly globalized world where music from mixed cultures are being mixed to create fussed sounds. My view of this is that world music is a hard genre to define within the music industry it doesn't have a place in any other category, for records to sell on things such as iTunes it has to be defined for buyers to be able to search for it. Categories are simply a selling mechanism in the music industry.

Is popular music a mass produced commodity or a genuine art form?

Art is a product of human creativity, so when considering what music is a genuine art form, popular music doesn't get taken into consideration, every artist and single song is each to its own. As a whole popular music is a commodity due to it's industrial intake of marketing and aim to make a profit. This is much like what Adorno would argue, that music that is produced for the popular music industry is manufactured much like machines. Some artists that within the popular music industry such as lady gaga have had huge success and gained a huge profit, yet she is original and unique with her style and music. She is popular for her originality, therefor it could be argued genuine art form comes from within the performer not the market.  Popular music can therefore be expressed as a mixture of both, popular music should be judged singly not as a whole, music that has musical value and originality deserves the tag of art, music that is created simply for value is therefore a commodity.   

How useful is a production of culture perspective in understanding the birth of Rock and Roll?

Is it reasonable to consider that rock music is gendered male

On an overlook of rock music many people would straight away gender it male, this has to come from a more in depth social structure.  Charlotte Greig mentions that for a woman to become successful she must become ‘masculine. This concept is interesting looking up female rock artists on Google provides a strong back up of this, these women are very masculine with their dress code, hair and bodily feature. But also the male rock stars play on there masculinity pursuing an almost dominant character over there audiences with the whole sex drugs rock and roll theme. It would not been seen as appropriate or sexually appealing to see or hear of a female into sex and drugs.  Pushing this aside the whole social structure starts from when you are kids and what is the norm, for example musical instruments. Many kids especially in earlier era's were brought up to play instruments, it was standard for girls to play the piano and boys to play the guitar. In that sense it was almost unheard of for females to be rock artists as there background did not compliment the genre. Now our culture is different and a lot of females play guitar and drums, but most females that play guitar use it for acoustic purposes. It is therefore comprehensible to say from the way we are brought up right to the way that  our gender is to be seen has an effect as to the way music is gendered especially rock music. 

Can popular music ever really be unplugged?

Amplification IS music, music in our current era and decades through to the early 19th century create their music through the idea of amplification. Being brought up around music such as Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson, both huge public figures their music was a huge success due to the editing and amplification that they were able to use. After a creation has been found why then would artist not choose to use it? My personal taste in music is RnB. This music has a lot of base and without the base it would not be half as catchy or unique. Although saying this, many artists do choose to do acoustic versions of their songs. Therefore in my personal opinion, no it can never and will never be unplugged as technology is constantly evolving so why turn back to less technology if you can improve your music with more.

What is 'pop' music?

Pop music to me is music that makes it into the charts, whether that is classical music to RnB it is 'pop' music.  Music which in the words of Robert Burnett is "Commercially Orientated" well know music that has alot of radio air time. Throughout the years the view of 'pop music' has been seen in a variety of ways due to the connotation of the word 'pop'. Only in the 18th century did it start becoming a posotive connotation. Is pop due to beeing accessible? I wouldnt say so, due to so many variations of media technology access to varieties of genre music should not be discriminated as means to be biased to pop music . Music as a whole has become profit orientated, yet pop gets the connotation for money being a primary aim. 'Pop' an abbreviation for popular. Popular music will always be the music prifting in the industry.