This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think it's simpler. We might ask "is there a perceptible statistical relation between an artist's identity and the music they make?" I think the answer to this is clearly yes. This is probably most obviously true with with black people but it's not hard to suppose a case for others. Think about how much music is about love and relationships, for example. Might gay people enjoy a song more if the lyrical content was aligned with their own attraction? How many straight guys are singing songs pining for their lost love (another man)?
This isn't to say that only people of a particular identity can make a particular sound or that people of a particular identity must have a particular sound. Just that there is a perceptible relation such that consumers can use artist identity as a kind of crude filter for sound.
Obviously there's a strong correlation between one or more of an artist's various identity markers and the style of music they perform or its lyrical themes, but I don't think that implies that audiences are more likely to enjoy music created by people with whom they share identity markers. Jazz is a niche genre, but probably more popular among white audiences than black despite being a historically black genre; hip hop has been more popular among white urban audiences than country music for as long as hip hop has existed, and this was true even when hip hop was pretty much exclusively a black genre; K-pop is enormously popular among white girls and women; numerous gay musicians have found large followings among straight people and in some cases are even more popular among straight men than straight women (e.g. Elton John, Freddie Mercury of Queen, George Michael, Morrissey of The Smiths, Rob Halford of Judas Priest, Sam Smith, Boy George, Ricky Martin).
Sure. My point is that consumers use artist identity markers as a way to find kinds of music. Obviously the consumers don't have to share the identity markers to like the music.
More options
Context Copy link
Because country is red tribe identity music, and that’s the actual definition. Not ‘white’ identity music more broadly, because broader white identity doesn’t exist.
In any case I’d imagine the most popular music among urban whites is generic pop music.
Much of which is performed by ethnic minorities (The Weeknd, Bruno Mars, Olivia Rodrigo, Rihanna, Shakira, Usher).
Sure, but it bears as little resemblance to actual hip hop as Taylor swift’s most recent album does to Johnny cash.
Yes. So? Both pop music (created by an ethnically diverse range of musicians) and hip hop (traditionally a black genre; black musicians still create the preponderance of music in the style) are extremely popular among white audiences.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You're close to it - it isn't (necessarily) that the listener shares an identity marker with the artist. It's that the artist shares an identity marker with other artists the listener has previously enjoyed and they're taking that as a meaningful signal.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link