A Review Of MixMag In The Style Of MixMag.

So, you like clubbing. I hope I'm not jumping to conclusions here, but you definitely look like the type of person who likes clubbing. And, if my perceptions are correct, then MixMag is full to the brim of mind-melting, teeth-grinding, ball-busting excitement that will do all of the above to your various body parts. You like clothes? It's got 'em. All the latest clubbing fashions and styles. The most top-of-the-range, fresh-off-the-press technological wizardry? It's got that too. As well as being fit to bursting with reviews and news on all of the most up-to-date tunes and beats, and tips and tricks to make sure that your clubbing experience is firmly and completely detached from the metaphorical hook. I’m not going to lie, if none of these things appeal to you, you’ll hate the mag. But if this ticks any of your boxes, then pick up a MixMag. ASAP.

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

The concept of supposed "blackness" and "whiteness" in the field of popular music is a dated and ever-more archaic perspective, and the lines that divide them are growing more and more "grey", so to speak, by the second. The only usefulness that I personally can ascertain from their existence is within the area of marketing. Advertisers use the societal opinions of what constitutes "white music" and "black music" to their advantage, and very obviously and deliberately try to attract the desired audiences with advertising campaigns that they think will have the most effect, and will subsequently garner them the highest amount of profit. However, I strongly believe that our society, as a whole, has grown accustomed to such tricks and ploys, and I personally think we’ve adapted to this, and become intelligent enough to be able form our own opinions, free from criteria such as “blackness” and “whiteness”.

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

Popular music's status as either an art form or a money-making tool for the seemingly omnipresent and looming force that is "The Man" is, in my opinion, a purely subjective one, and leads me to reference a reasonably common coinage, which is: 'One man's trash is another man's treasure.' I fully believe that this quote can quite easily sum up my point, however, I still have to fill another eighty-or-so words, so I'll continue. There are, of course, musicians and record labels who are purely out to make as much money as possible, and will stick to various formulae that they know will make them rich. However, I think that if an artist or a band truly love what it is that they're creating, and they put their whole selves entirely into a song or an album, then, regardless of the outcome, it is a true work of art.

Is it reasonable to consider that rock music is gendered male?

Men have ruled rock music since its creation, over fifty years ago. Iconic figures like Jimi Hendrix, Jimmy Paige and Joe Strummer (plus, every single one of the Beatles) have filled the charts. Only very occasionally have women forayed into this male-dominated territory, such as Janis Joplin, Joan Jett and I'm sure a couple of others with too many J's in their names, but whenever they have, their gender has always been more like a quirk, or a selling point for their music. As opposed to... Well, their actual music. I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to state that rock music is gendered. Guitars are just bigger, louder phalluses which are okay to play with in front of large crowds, and much of the genres and sub-genres contained within "rock" almost exclusively deal in degrading women, so it's not hard to see why many consider it to be male-centric.

29/01/10 Lecture: Can popular music ever really be unplugged?

"Unplugged" is a word tossed around with relative frequency in this day and age of heavily produced, enhanced and distorted popular music. Normally used to describe more stripped down, intimate performances, "unplugged" is actually a highly inaccurate term. From microphones, to amplifiers, to PA systems; each and every one of these devices requires power of some kind, and certainly a connection which involves some form of "plugging". The only truly "unplugged" music nowadays takes place in bedrooms, and around campfires, and occasionally in hippy tents. But if that music is ever recorded, or distributed to increase its popularity, then it will subsequently be stripped of its "unplugged" status. So, if you switch the initial question around, and ask if truly "unplugged" music can ever be considered popular, then we're faced with another debate entirely. And one that definitely requires more than one-hundred and fifty words to answer.

22/01/10 Lecture: What is "Popular Music"?

So, I must admit, I'm one of those people who's of the elitist view that "popular music" almost exclusively covers over-produced, fully commercialised artists such as Britney Spears, and the Vengaboys, and other such travesties to the latter portion of the phrase people bestow upon it, ("Music," that is.) However, upon being exposed to various quotes from multiple sources - and after a brief delve into the etymological history of the world "popular" - I have come to realise that it actually serves as a blanket term for almost any and all music. One definition considers "popular music" to be anything created "by the people", while another speculates that it's any piece of music ever played with an instrument, which is a shame for a'capella groups, but I don't think they really needed anybody to tell them that they're not popular... All in all, there's no true definition; it's everything.