Thanks for posting this link Tree Tribe, I really enjoyed it.
But, I do want to make a response that unfortunately will take this thread off-topic *sigh*.
[quote author=“electrobot.808”]I think one of the reasons why the trance scene plods along and is ignored by the main stream [sic] is the fact that psy doesn’t appeal to the mass’s [sic] and you have to remember that the mass’s [sic] are basically square and there [sic] minds can’t cogitate anything more complex than the run of the mill dance shite [.] [SIC the entire run-on sentence]
At a somewhat general level I would agree with you, but I think it’s a bit more interesting than to just label people as cubic-static-objects. In otherwords, Psy doesn’t “appeal to the masses” because the masses have not actually been exposed to Psy.
All major corporations have a marketing department, and when looking at a major record label, they will have a marketing dept. and an A&R dept. (which if functioning correctly) that will work in concert towards the promotion and development, respectively, of a particular artist.
What I think (although I do not have factual data to support this theory) is that marketing and A&R, at the major labels, are flummoxed has to how to sell Psy to the masses; because, just as you assume “the mass’s [sic] are basically square”; so does marketing and A&R (at the majors) assume the same.
I therefore pose this logical exercise: What is easier to sell? Something that everyone is familiar with, or something that is new to the market (keeping in mind that 90% of new businesses or new products fail within 1-2 years)? The obvious answer is that it is easier to sell a product that is similar or familiar to an already existing product. Keeping that in mind, and as well as the implicit notion that major record labels actually have to return a profit for their investors, then it becomes almost self-explanatory that the majors are not going to look into alternative forms of music.
As I recall, the major labels in the US looked at massively promoting three different “electronic” acts during the 1990s: Fatboy Slim, Chemical Brothers, and Moby. The overall reaction from the consumer base was a big yawn. Yes there was and probably still is a fan-base for those acts, but the marketing for those three acts was rather haphazard, and in my opinion, done incorrectly: Hence the “big yawn”.
In otherwords, country, hip-hop/rap, alternative rock, and synth-pop (The Killers), seem to have been better marketed than “electronica” was, simply because those four styles are familiar products towards the average household within the US; much easier and simplistic to market those styles than a new “electronic theme”.
So then, where does that leave Psy? Well the obvious answer is that Psy will be marginalized; that is until a marketing genius finds a way to promote Psy that is palatable towards the aggregate of consumers in the US. Once that happens, then Psy will be common occurrence throughout the world.
But, the question I ask: Do you really want that to happen? To mainstream Psy? I personally don’t. I enjoy the fact that Psy is a marginal music genre; makes me feel extra special. Just remember this axiom: “Differentiation creates margin. Margin creates profit”