Which is a more influential vehicle for social change? Music or movies?

[FMJeff]

I was thinking about this over the weekend. Which, in your opinion, has more power to effect social change today? Yes, you could go back to the 60's and 70's and say music and I wouldn't even bother debating you. But in a society where anyone can make their own movie or burn their own music album for pennies and distribute it worldwide for next to nothing, I feel the dynamic is completely different from even, say, the 90's. I don't even include books in this argument, and I have a feeling you may agree with me on that decision. We're a visual society, and the printed word is quickly becoming an antiquated communications medium.

So what do you think? Music or movies?

I honestly have no idea. You could argue movies are more powerful because they can have songs in them, but when you stick a song in a movie, it becomes a background player to the visuals, an aesthetic...like lighting or camera angle it sets a mood. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a song in a movie only to find it more powerful when I listened to it on its own. I'm sure that's happened to you as well. But does that mean the message is more powerful in music? I've also experienced it the other way around, where I'd hear a song like "Across the Universe" and then see it set to imagery in a movie like "Pleasantville" and the connotations change completely. The visuals enhance the music, making them more powerful.

I don't even know if there is an answer, just thought I'd float the question.

[Snacks]

I would say music. It seems that music can bring people together and create a social message. Movies can do this but I cant thing of a movie that has really impacted a social change. But music is universal and crosses all religions, race and wealth. When people are sad they listen to music. when they are happy they listen to music. Just listening to a song can bring all types of emotion for people.

[Plethora]

Music, and I'll tell you why --

... We're a visual society, and the printed word is quickly becoming an antiquated communications medium.

Nevermind.

[Neckbeard]

and the printed word is quickly becoming an antiquated communications medium.

Completely false.

In my opinion.

[FMJeff]

Completely false.

In my opinion.

Newspaper and magazine circulation are way down...employing budget cuts, buyouts and mergers to stay afloat, book sales are down ( google book sales down http://www.boingboing.net/2005/05/24/book-publishing-stat.html )

The proof is in the numbers. I mean the printed word is going the way of the dodo...yes we will always READ, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the commitment required in reading a novel in this attention-deficit society of ours is slowly becoming to great. Do you honestly think more people our age commit to a long novel or bouncing from video, to blog, to myspace profile, to online news article, to whatever they feel like doing at that particular moment....jerking off, whatever. Maybe I'm pessimistic about the next generation.

I'm reading Kitchen Confidential right now, I have to literally pry myself from the computer to read it. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the book, but the fact that it's a printed collection of pages make the experience feel like something medieval to me.

The other day I noticed my penmanship is awful. I was writing a note to someone and realized how fucking long its been since I wrote something down on paper.

But that's another thread. Let's focus on this one.

[Plethora]

I imagine that similar grim words were used about books with the advent of Phonographs, Radio, Movies and Television as well.

But like you said, the topic...

For me, I think it would always be the Music. It's more basic, primal. It can hit you on a deeper fundamental level in the ole brain box. I think it can affect you more easily on a subconscious level than a movie can.

And (hopefully) not to derail the thread -- but if you did a "name a movie that changed society" vs "Name a song that changed society" I think that the songs would win pretty handily.

[But... Neil Young sez Music Can't Change The World (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18810518) (anymore)]

[PapaBear]

I think music probably had more influence on social change in the past. I think modern music only influences short lived style trends, now. I don't think movies ever caused social change, but more reflects it.

[Neckbeard]

I imagine that similar grim words were used about books with the advent of Phonographs, Radio, Movies and Television as well.

Exactly.

Mediums and media evolve and expand, but the printed aspect is never going away. The idea that people won't read books at all is absurd. Jeff, just because you have trouble focusing on them hardly mean that's true across the board. People having less time for everything recreational these days impacts this far more than simply abandoning medias.

[FMJeff]

I think you're looking at it from your perspective and not from a kid growing up in the Youtube/Myspace age. That's why I'm not bothering going back in history and discussing Bob Dylan or John Lennon. If Imagine came out now, it would get a month or two of radio airplay and fade into memory.

I guess a better question would be, do you think music or movies even have the power to influence modern society?

[Plethora]

If Imagine came out now, it would get a month or two of radio airplay and fade into memory.

Balderdash. Just because some view things as disposable and temporal doesn't mean most folks do... The good sticks, always.

I guess a better question would be, do you think music or movies even have the power to influence modern society?

Yes. That is to say, art affects society. Always has, always will. It's a fundamental.

[FMJeff]

Baulderdash. Just because some view things as disposable and temporal doesn't mean most folks do... The good sticks, always.



Yes. That is to say, art affects society always has always will. It's a fundamental.

I have to disagree with you there. I really honestly think a song like Imagine would not resonate with 2008 america like it did in '71.

[Plethora]

I have to disagree with you there. I really honestly think a song like Imagine would not resonate with 2008 america like it did in '71.

It would probably be interesting to debate whether some music is distinctly of its time... Song X could not have gotten over at anytime other than Y, and so forth. You just happened to select a very particular song that is for lot a folks considered a timeless classic. Very possibly the perfect example of such a song really...

[patsopinion]

Aristotle once said that all other art emulates music

maybe it wasn't Aristotle but it was some asshole like that

personally i think video games are more influential then either
better story arc(longer then movie/has ending (hopefully unlike tv(lost))) and is more engaging/interactive

the way we currently see games will slowly be merged into what film was and film will have its place still
but it, along with non interactive tv, will go the way of broadway, the written word, and radio; which it appears is on its last legs

[sailor]

Aristotle once said that all other art emulates music

maybe it wasn't Aristotle but it was some asshole like that


off by about 2000 years: (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00EEDA1039F931A25752C0A9619582 60)

You can see the roots of the relationship in the belief of 19th-century Romantics that all art should aspire to the condition of music. Delacroix, the ultimate Romantic, called Chopin ''the purest example of a true artist that I have ever known.'' (Chopin liked Delacroix but loathed his paintings.) Following the Romantics, Baudelaire prescribed that poetry and painting emulate music; he said that Wagner's music ''painted'' space -- that even without their librettos, his operas would possess ''all the qualities which go to make a well-constructed poem.''

i think in the internet/information age it's easier to spread information/propaganda via the written word than ever before. i'd imagine countries involved in internet censorship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People's_Republic_of_Ch ina) block cnn far more often than itunes.

[donnie_darko]

movies and music mean nothing if you don't have a charismatic figure to deliver the message.

and i can't think of a single case of music of a movie influencing social change, can you give some examples?

and to the person who said the printed word is antiquated?

Company North American Sales
Barnes&Noble / B. Dalton1 $4.61 billion
Borders / Waldenbooks $3.41 billion
Amazon Media $3.58 billion
BN.com $433 million
Total $12.03 billion

explain that.

stupid people don't read, and never will, if anything the disparity may be growing as our population becomes more demarcated, but it in no way means that people are going to somehow stop reading books.

[TeeBone]

You beat me to the punch, Darko. I could not agree more with you. The day movies and or music are used as vehicles for social change will be just crazy anymore.
One could argue that the 60's counterculture movement was a vehicle for social change but things aren't the way they used to be. Musicians and filmmakers of the late 60's jumped onboard when they could and profited form the social changes of America's youth.
These days, things just aren't the same; especially with music. I don't see Amy Winehouse shifting the world's view of free-trade, civil rights and widespread social change. If anything, she's influencing people to use drugs and make hit records. The dork lead-singer of Coldplay tries real hard, but C'mon. And please, don't even start with Bono.
Moreover; Fahrenheit 911, the movie that was supposed to be an earth-changing art that shaped the minds of Americans was the biggest failure and prime example of how a disingenuous propagandists cannot alter an outcome of an election. People see through the lies now more than ever. The music and film business is just that; BUSINESS. We are simply the fools who are walking down the midway, licking up the cotton-candy that are CDs and movies.

[booster11373]

Music is a lot more accessible then movies therefore more applicable to social change. My example is the anti-apartheid movement while films came out during those times music was in the fore front as far as bringing the conditions of South Africa under that system to me a average white boy from the suburbs.
Internal political and social movements all over the world are more likely to have some local songwriter or poet taking about them then a film maker there to trumpet the cause

[Snacks]

You beat me to the punch, Darko. I could not agree more with you. The day movies and or music are used as vehicles for social change will be just crazy anymore.
One could argue that the 60's counterculture movement was a vehicle for social change but things aren't the way they used to be. Musicians and filmmakers of the late 60's jumped onboard when they could and profited form the social changes of America's youth.
These days, things just aren't the same; especially with music. I don't see Amy Winehouse shifting the world's view of free-trade, civil rights and widespread social change. If anything, she's influencing people to use drugs and make hit records. The dork lead-singer of Coldplay tries real hard, but C'mon. And please, don't even start with Bono.
Moreover; Fahrenheit 911, the movie that was supposed to be an earth-changing art that shaped the minds of Americans was the biggest failure and prime example of how a disingenuous propagandists cannot alter an outcome of an election. People see through the lies now more than ever. The music and film business is just that; BUSINESS. We are simply the fools who are walking down the midway, licking up the cotton-candy that are CDs and movies.

I disagree 100%. All types of Art form have helped change or started discussions of change. You may think it hasnt happened since the 60's but you are wrong. The hip hop revolution from the 80's even til now has created a more social change and understanding. It has changed how America has looked at black youth, some bad but mostly good. All artist like Amy Whinehouse arent always the greatest roll models, but sometimes they have a message that is at the root a change for the better. Some kids might copy her and become a drug addict. but more will learn from her mistakes and most will not to be like that.

And to defend Jeff. I think he means media, newspapers when he talk about written word. Of course books will always have a place in the world. But media outlets like newspapers and magazines continue to lose subscribers. People are getting their news from the Internet or tv. Getting their entertainment gossip from the web. Even porn purchase in both magazine format and dvd/video are losing out to online availability. I used to subscribe to Playboy, Sports Illustrated, Entertainment weekly and a few more. I havent had a magazine subscription in 5 maybe 6 years. I dont know a person in my circle of friends and family who subscribes to magazines or newspapers anymore. Why pay for something that is quicker and free?

[TeeBone]

I disagree 100%. A


I know, I know...

I just like seeing how easy and quick it is to stir the pot on rf.net. I think the internet been more influential in social change than either movies or music, no?
The great communicator seems to be on-line based now.

[realmenhatelife]

It's definately music.

When you meet someone new and want to find out about them how likely are you to ask 'what kind of music do you like?' We draw alot of conclusions from the answer. I don't think people go for music for it's actual appeal nearly as much as they go for music that affirms and advertises their own self image.

Music is faster and cheaper than movies. It can be more responsive to social change and take more risks because it's alot easier to distribute DIY.

Music relies on a live interaction with its fans, a band will personally speak to significantly more people than a director/writer/producer/actor. Not to mention that a musician's vision and goal can be significantly more focused than a filmmaker because of how many more people it takes to make a film.

Music will always have an underground quality because so much of it is unadvertised. Anyone living in a town with atleast one venue can make a list of bands that draw that the rest of us have never heard of. The climate of music is clique-ish and secretive, excluding the status quo.

[Neckbeard]

I have to disagree with you there. I really honestly think a song like Imagine would not resonate with 2008 america like it did in '71.

Why would it be made in 2008 as opposed to 1971?

Songs come out when they do and have the impact they do due to the factors of that time. You can't just hypothetically transplan it to another time as if that somehow proves your point. They don't exist in a vacuum.

[DolaMight]

Music.

Movies never had the power to influence the way people dress, talk, and walk the way music still does. People label, judge and then associate with each other based on what music they listen to. Emo, Punks, Rappers, Bangers, Bollywocks, Ravers, whatever, it will never change, there will always be something. People who label themselves something become proles and love to follow the leader. Ask Pepsi, they know how to exploit it.

[FMJeff]

Music.

Movies never had the power to influence the way people dress, talk, and walk the way music still does. People label, judge and then associate with each other based on what music they listen to. Emo, Punks, Rappers, Bangers, Bollywocks, Ravers, whatever, it will never change, there will always be something. People who label themselves something become proles and love to follow the leader. Ask Pepsi, they know how to exploit it.

Movies never had the power to influence the way people dress or talk? Saturday Night Fever? Godfather? Scarface? Those movies didn't effect how people dress? Speak? You never heard people do a Borat impression, or say something in that Napoleon Dynamite inflection?

Why do you think ad agencies use celebrities hocking product over musicians? Movies are HIGHLY influential in that way. People see a car James Bond is driving, sales of that car go through the roof. Dumb example, but to say movies have no effect is naive.

[midwestjeff]

Music.

And if Neil Young is reading this, I would like to tell him that perhaps if he didn't charge $90 a ticket to see him, then maybe more people would be reached and effected by his message. Your old road is rapidly agin'.

[DolaMight]

Movies never had the power to influence the way people dress or talk? Saturday Night Fever? Godfather? Scarface? Those movies didn't effect how people dress? Speak? You never heard people do a Borat impression, or say something in that Napoleon Dynamite inflection?

Why do you think ad agencies use celebrities hocking product over musicians? Movies are HIGHLY influential in that way. People see a car James Bond is driving, sales of that car go through the roof. Dumb example, but to say movies have no effect is naive.

I never said they weren't influential, obviously they are but just not at the same level. When people were influenced by movies it was as a fan, doing impressions, using references, and saturday night fever's influence was disco, the movie can't take credit for that. People being influenced by music happens on a whole other level, music changes people on a unconscious level. When kids in Iowa started walking with a limp it wasn't because they saw Boyz in the Hood. It was the way they saw Method Man walk in a video. They don't even realize they look retarded. Movies can't touch that.

Sure they're both influential but music influences everything one does in life.

[Bulldogcakes]

I'd say neither. Music and Movies tend to reflect popular culture, not set the tone. Even if a song with a message becomes a big hit, or small Indie movie gets huge and has some message attached to it, it only means that it tapped into some appetitte that the public already had for something. They're reflective, not influential.

[Chip Vaughn]

I don't know if it has been stated already, but I apologize if it has. Most newspapers and magazines can be read on the internet, the ones you subscribe to online are most likely still accounted for in their numbers, but the free ones are still being read plenty. Plus the countless ones that were made strictly for the internet...free, that attract a micro-niche. I personally believe that more active people listen to the spoken word and interpret/discuss it, thus are more likely to be swayed into change, or at least talk about it.

I believe listening to Ron & Fez has made me a better listener. I also believe that television has made for less knowledgeable and all around worse sports fans. Even though every baseball game I want is on television, I still like to sit and listen to Mike Shannon on AM (now XM) radio broadcasting the Cardinal games. It forces me to think and picture things in my own mind and remember what a guy did in his last at-bat, remember how the pitcher is doing, or who made/screwed up a play.

/can't wait for baseball season...