The Music Industry Marketed Non-Politicized Folk Music to the Mainstream
Contents
A look at how the music industry marketed non-politicized folk music to the mainstream during the 1960s.
The music industry’s history of marketing non-politicized folk music to the mainstream
In the past, the music industry has taken non-politicized folk music and marketed it to the mainstream. This was most notably done in the 1960s with the folk music revival. The music industry saw an opportunity to sell records and made a decision to capitalize on it. As a result, many folk musicians found themselves thrust into the spotlight whether they wanted it or not.
The music industry’s use of the term “folk” to sell music
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the American folk music revival sparked a renewed interest in the music of earlier generations, leading to the emergence of a number of singer-songwriters who were influenced by traditional folk music. These artists recorded and released a number of politically charged songs that addressed social issues such as racism, poverty, and war. However, the music industry began to market these artists and their music as “non-politicized folk music” in order to sell it to a wider audience. This shift away from politicized folk music was evident in the change in terminology used by the industry—from “protest songs” to “message songs” to ” topical songs.”
The industry’s focus on selling non-politicized folk music to the mainstream continued into the late 1960s and early 1970s with the release of a number of commercially successful albums by artists such as Simon and Garfunkel, James Taylor, and Carole King. Although these artists were still occasionally able to record and release politically charged songs, the overall tone of their music was considerably more apolitical than that of their predecessors. As a result, the politicized folk music of the early 1960s became increasingly marginalized within the mainstream music industry.
The music industry’s focus on white, male, and middle-class performers
In the past, the music industry has been guilty of marketing non-politicized folk music to the mainstream. This was most evident in the 1960s when the music industry was dominated by white, male, and middle-class performers. While there were some notable exceptions, such as Bob Dylan and Joan Baez, most folk musicians were marketed as apolitical and easy-listening. This practice changed in the 1970s as more politicized musicians, such as Bruce Springsteen and Patti Smith, gained popularity. In recent years, the music industry has become more diverse and inclusive, but there is still room for improvement.
The music industry’s recent marketing of politicized folk music to the mainstream
The music industry has been marketing politicized folk music to the mainstream for the past few years. This type of music generally has a message that is critical of the government or society, and is often associated with left-wing politics. The industry has been successful in marketing this music to a wider audience, and it has become popular among young people.
The music industry’s use of the term “folk” to sell music
The music industry began using the term “folk” to sell music in the early 2000s. The industry used the term to describe a subgenre of music that was popular at the time, but that did not fit neatly into any other genre. The industry hoped that by using the term “folk,” they would be able to sell more music to a wider audience. However, the use of the term “folk” to sell music was controversial, and many people felt that it was misleading. The controversy surrounding the use of the term “folk” to sell music came to a head in 2006, when it was revealed that some of the songs that had been marketed as “folk” were actually written by professional songwriters and recorded by professional musicians. This revelation led to a decrease in sales of “folk” music, and the industry eventually stopped using the term to sell music.
The music industry’s focus on white, male, and middle-class performers
The music industry has been marketing politicized folk music to the mainstream for the past few years. This focus on white, male, and middle-class performers has led to a decline in sales of music by black and Hispanic artists.
The industry’s focus on white, male, and middle-class performers is also evident in the number of Grammy Awards given to these groups. In 2013, only four percent of the nominees were black or Hispanic. And in 2014, only three percent of the nominees were black or Hispanic.
This lack of diversity is not just a Grammy issue. It’s also an issue with the music industry as a whole. In 2012, only eight percent of the topgrossing tour dates were headlined by black or Hispanic artists. In 2013, that number dropped to seven percent.
The music industry’s recent marketing of politicized folk music to the mainstream is problematic for several reasons. First, it perpetuates the false idea that white people are the only ones who care about social and political issues. Second, it reinforces stereotypes about black and Hispanic people being uninterested in or uninvolved with politics. And third, it fails to represent the wide range of musical genres and styles that exist within these communities.
If the music industry is truly interested in promoting diversity, it needs to start by diversifying its own ranks. Only then will we see a more representative representation of America’s musical landscape.
The implications of the music industry’s marketing of politicized folk music to the mainstream
In the mid-20th century, the music industry marketed non-politicized folk music to the mainstream. This had a number of implications, the most significant of which was the potential for the music to be used as a tool for political protest. The music industry’s marketing of politicized folk music to the mainstream therefore had the potential to change the course of history.
The music industry’s use of the term “folk” to sell music
The use of the term “folk” to sell music is a marketing strategy employed by the music industry. The music industry uses the term “folk” to sell music that is not overtly politicized. The use of the term “folk” to sell music is a marketing strategy employed by the music industry to sell music that is not overtly politicized. The use of the term “folk” to sell music is a marketing strategy employed by the music industry.
The music industry’s focus on white, male, and middle-class performers
The whitewashing of the music industry is not a new phenomenon. In the 1960s, when Dylan and others began to politicize folk music, the industry’s response was to focus on white, male, and middle-class performers, who were perceived as less threatening. This trend continued in the 1970s and 1980s, when punk and hip hop emerged as political forces. The industry again focused on white, male, and middle-class performers, who were seen as more marketable. In the 1990s, when grunge and alternative rock became popular, the industry once again shifted its focus to white, male, and middle-class performers. This pattern is evident in the way that the music industry has marketed politicized folk music to the mainstream. By focusing on white, male, and middle-class performers, the industry has effectively whitewashed the genre.
