Youth Culture

musicismylife78

Whats your take on it? Whats your take on it being sold to children? We constantly here about the violence, sex and drugs marketed through the media to kids at a young age, but what effect does the commercialization of youth culture have on teens themselves?

I have mixed feelings. As a kid grunge was marketed to me, and I dont know if I would have known about nirvana and pearl jam if they werent marketed to me. Everything Gen X back then, marketed to teens, was worthwhile, beavis and butthead, ren and stimpy, lollapalooza, alt rock etc... All stuff I was and am happy to watch and listen to.

That said, commercialization of youth culture isnt a good thing. It ruins it. Its the flavor of the month. Something that was pure, soon turns and becomes about the money. Seattle wouldnt have been as horrific in the 90's ie heroin, drug abuse, and suicide if youth culture hadnt of been marketed and mass commodified.

I think we all would agree that pearl jam being number one on the billboard charts would be a cool thing but it also could be a bad thing.

In the 60's and early 90's it seemed youth culture was an expression of outrage at the culture at large, was pure, and raw and not about money and fame. hendrix, dylan, the beats, and the grunge scene are examples from both decades. But nowadays it seems the stuff that is popular is void of any true expression, and is forced.

Is the commodification of youth culture good or bad? Is their a youth culture at all? or are teens merely buying into the media image of what is cool, and therefore we see a circle here.

Byrnzie

I think Youth culture is a healthy thing. There doesn't appear to be one these days though.
There used to be Teds, rockers, skins, mods, rockabilly's, goths, punks, e.t.c. What do kids have to identify with now? Chavs?

dunkman

Byrnzie wrote:

What do kids have to identify with now? Chavs?

its probably more Emo or some other non-descript gothesque movement...

musicismylife78

but what do you think of my statement at the end:
are kids indeed discovering things that are cool and then mtv or vh1 or rolling stone or nike or whoever finds it and milks and ruins it.

or

are kids looking at processed stuff, stuff that the MEDIA itself deems cool, and then the kids themselves call it cool

its and interesting question and its interestion I havent heard anyone in the mainstream media discuss it.

An example would be controversial low strung pants worn by young teens. Its a cool thing. Its the cool thing. But is it cool, and a part of youth culture, because the teens themselves all think its cool, or because the companies that sell the pants and the music stars and movie stars who wear such pants deem its cool.

the other conundrum would be, what started and birthed what. Did the media look at kids and say "hey they are all wearing low strung pants, lets feature this on tv" or did kids say "lets wear these pants because the media thinks its cool" What came first?

musicismylife78

violence in music and movies is also another issue. We live in a violent culture. Are tv and movies showing us reality? Or are they excessive and gross and wrong?

catefrances

not all youth culture is commodified. what the general society knows of 'youth culture' is a bastardised version. if something pops up that the corporate world feels they can exploit then they will do so. it is usually at this point that such 'youth subculture' manifests itself within the consciousness of society.
as you said che you would not have been into nirvana or pearl jam if 'grunge' had not been marketted to you. it still would have existed, but within its geographic home. and it probably would not have been labelled as grunge.the minute the media and corporate music companies got involved it became something other than its original intent.

not all youth culture was an 'outrage' at the parent culture. it was merely an expression of 'youth' trying to find something to call their own, to express what they were about. comparing it to that parent culture makes it deviant and thus at odds with society. which in turn diminishes its worth.

musicismylife78

catefrances wrote:

not all youth culture is commodified. what the general society knows of 'youth culture' is a bastardised version. if something pops up that the corporate world feels they can exploit then they will do so. it is usually at this point that such 'youth subculture' manifests itself within the consciousness of society.
as you said che you would not have been into nirvana or pearl jam if 'grunge' had not been marketted to you. it still would have existed, but within its geographic home. and it probably would not have been labelled as grunge.the minute the media and corporate music companies got involved it became something other than its original intent.

not all youth culture was an 'outrage' at the parent culture. it was merely an expression of 'youth' trying to find something to call their own, to express what they were about. comparing it to that parent culture makes it deviant and thus at odds with society. which in turn diminishes its worth.

you make some good points. But I disagree too. Take the hippie movement. The youth culture back in the 60's. You know, like the whole hippie scene. It was sort of bought and sold. It was indeed a reaction to the parent culture


I cant think of too many youth subcultures that arent outraged at the parent culture. The hippie scene was, the punk scene was, the grunge scene was, goth was, indie rock is, hip hop is, etc...

Most youth by nature dont like their parents or the system in general. Its inherent. Thats the stereotypical image of a teen. A teen isnt obedient, loving, nice, kind, gentle, soft, does what he or she is told, follows rules. The teen in real life is the opposite of all those terms. So any culture that arises of that would have to be anti parent culture

While I agree not all youth culture is commodified, when you have Bobby Seale, former black revolutionary selling cookbooks and grills, you know something is horribly wrong.

I mean, the image of a hippie, rebellious, angry, and protesting, now is an image used to sell cars. Car ads now sell you cars that are "rebellious" or "radical" or "revolutionary"

Was the grunge scene, eddie and kurt and others antiparent culture, I would say yes. Sure they were expressing their hopes and fears and ideas, but they werent saying "I think the world is crap, but we love and honor our parents". hell no, they were saying the world forgot about us, and are parents are jerks, they abused us, and harassed us, ignored us, and this is time for us to take over.

catefrances

define anti-parent.

Ahnimus

I think it all stems from the mass pressure put on the individual. I must say it's a lot easier being a 26 year old self-sufficient adult than it is to be a teenager dependent on parents for support and ultimately under their direct influence, or attempted control. I believe this is the cause of rebellion which leads to these atrocities like death metal and goth or emo trends. They want to be different than their parents who pressure them daily. The corporations exploit this rebellion obviously.

I mean "Just do what you are told!" is probably the worst parenting. It doesn't teach anyone anything except to submit to perceived authority and essentially becomes brain-washing. A tyrannical form of parenting, in my opinion. If there is a conflict between people, it means that mutual understanding is lost and that needs to be corrected. Then both people are adaptive free-thinkers, considerate of each others views and understanding. But I feel the plight of the parent is determined by their own delusions passed down through centuries of ignorance.

catefrances

youth as we define it is not a universal concept. it is a construct.

decides2dream

catefrances wrote:

not all youth culture is commodified. what the general society knows of 'youth culture' is a bastardised version. if something pops up that the corporate world feels they can exploit then they will do so. it is usually at this point that such 'youth subculture' manifests itself within the consciousness of society.
as you said che you would not have been into nirvana or pearl jam if 'grunge' had not been marketted to you. it still would have existed, but within its geographic home. and it probably would not have been labelled as grunge.the minute the media and corporate music companies got involved it became something other than its original intent.

not all youth culture was an 'outrage' at the parent culture. it was merely an expression of 'youth' trying to find something to call their own, to express what they were about. comparing it to that parent culture makes it deviant and thus at odds with society. which in turn diminishes its worth.

VERY well stated. i do not think the youth of today are any more commodified than my generation, or the generation before that....we're ALL being marketed to, endlessly. yes, maybe it gets easier and easier with technology to exert influence, or try to exert influence....but there are SO many influences out there, who's to say what or whom wins out? i think the information being out there...in all forms...for all to discover...and then to make their own choices..is a good thing.