If you're in the market for a vision of American Psycho-inspired consumer hell, then this recent New York Times article on "music stylists" should do the job nicely. It's a profile of companies such as Muzak and Audiostiles, who are hired to create "audio architecture" for people who don't have the time or inclination to select the music they want to listen to, but do have the money to get someone to do it for them. Though it started as a corporate phenomenon, these companies will now select songs to fit in with personal lifestyles - opera for Aspen, Latin jazz for Palm Beach. The locations they've chosen as representative examples should tell you all you need to know about the people using the service.
Though compiling mixtapes for a living is any music geek's dream job, it's baffling that people are willing to pay for this. If music means so little that its emotional connotations can be neatly summed up by a stranger, wrapped up and delivered to your beach hut in Belize, then why bother at all? Is it part of an image, something these clients are trying to be, or at least be seen to be?
Whether we choose to admit it or not, musical tastes have always been about how we want to be perceived, the difference is that now it's becoming more shameless. Last.fm scrobbles our listening habits for all to see, and the fact that pop stars like Britney Spears are among its most-deleted artists shows just how wary people are of being seen as uncool. The people who use these "audio architects" aren't really any different from those who spend £32 on a Sonic Youth T-shirt from Urban Outfitters. They only confirm that there's nothing rock'n'roll about rock'n'roll any more.
.png?w=600)
