Does TV Programming Enhance Our Experience Of Music?

We can see a simple answer to this question as yes because it amplifies our experience of music via documentaries, music channels, and music programmes. Or no as it is just a superficial view of the music itself.
If we look at the X-factor for example we can see it enhancing people’s experience of music by making it active for the audience. As anyone can enter and viewers get to vote for their winner, therefore choosing what they wish to view, making it almost post-modern we get to see inside the finalists private life’s and find out their story, which creates an emotional response from the audience.
However we see that although the show appears to be open to everyone, by the finals the acts usually reinforce the ideology of youth and beauty. The show isn’t all about talent; money plays a major part and is exploited by ITV, with spin-offs like the Xtrafactor. The show itself is also an example of pseudo individualism as Theodor Adorno would say; it is another generic and manufactured show, much like that of its predecessors like Pop-idol.
Other TV shows show music in a slightly different manner. If we look at Jools Holland, it shows a whole variety of music, and allows for diversity in music tastes across ages, ethnicity and overall culture. We see examples from many genres like rock, folk, rap, pop, acoustic and many more. The show is much more informal than a show like the X-factor where the focus is on para-social intimacy, we see an arranged but relaxed program that is focused on interviews and live performances. The performances show us the true artist and takes away from generic manufactured music; Jools being a musician himself respects the artists that come on his show and acts like a guru.
A TV show like Pop-world is in much a contrast to Jools Holland. The focus is on humour and is presented as a sarcastic and very British music show. It gives the viewer a very narrow experience and only looks at the pop culture and doesn’t diverse into other genres. The use of British, sarcastic, dry humour is almost nationalist. It has come under scrutiny of mocking American artists as the interviews unlike with most shows are aimed at creating humour rather than enhancing the musician themselves. Unlike Jools Holland which is shown late at night, Pop World was shown on a Sunday morning. These times show the gap between target audiences and explain the different targets of both shows.
Music Videos give us another experience of music. The idea of videos acts as a promotion for artists and helps build on their star image. It gives a different look on music. It can be creative or can focus on the meaning, with visuals we can amplify or disjuncture instead of just the listener’s illustrative thoughts. Along with Auteurs, like Spike Jones and his ideas of transformation in the Bjork videos he has worked on, we can be taken into a much more post-modern interpretation of music.
Music videos allow the audience to watch voyeuristically, like with Britney being shown as a star, we see that sometimes the visuals of her music are more powerful than even the lyrics themselves, with her sexual representation appealing to the male audience, instead of her musical representations appealing to a younger female audience. We see that music videos often objectify women and create this media influenced role model for younger girls.
Music channels themselves allow the audience to be ambient or focused. We can choose what we want to watch when we want to watch it in an active way. But on other occasions we can also just leave a channel on to act like a background to our lives in a more passive manner whilst videos stream.
The problems with music videos are that they tend to pursue a capitalist ideology, and focus on consumerism for instance, American rappers who put emphasis on their money in their music videos.
Videos can also make or break a celebrity, a bad video can put people off a good song, so in some ways can hinder a good song, spoiling our experience of music. This is also apparent in videos with much smaller budgets.
Documentaries offer a different view on how we experience music. They allow us to get closer to artists then we normally can, creating para-social intimacy. We get to see behind the scenes of sets, like in the Oasis documentary we literally see the likes of Liam Gallagher sitting backstage playing guitar as if we were literally there with the band. This creates authenticity for the band and helps them to show off their live image. We also get to see the band perform live in concert and the angles used give us a better than life view of the band with angles that you couldn’t see if you were really there.
The problems occur by the fact that documentaries are bias pieces of work, they show you what the artist wishes you to see. So we see Oasis acting in a very typical rock n roll manner, by swearing lots and appearing jokey and casual along with heavy drinking. What we see is selected, the original footage will be heavily edited but it is made in such a way we are not meant to realise.
With the Madonna documentary we are made to know her and to like her, she comes across as a very down to earth person, and it is made to seem real with the camera following her along with the use of black and white and point of view shots. But overall the purpose is to show her in a good light and of course to make money. So it creates false visions of the truth.
Overall I think that in moderation, TV programming does enhance our experience of music. It allows us to view music and in ways that we could not have before, it is a creative and original medium. So although there is much focus on making money and the market is very saturated I feel it is still productive in engaging the audience and amplifies music as a whole.