Mr. Myers has written a book in which he espouses a theory that culture (both "high" and "folk") has been subsumed, if not eliminated, by pop culture. He defines "high culture" as that what we would associate with the "upper crust" of society. The great works of art, music, and literature that have survived the test of time. He defines "folk culture" as the material generated by a subset of society to depict and display their way of life. (Think of an Irish jig or bluegrass music or an oral legend). He tries to water it down, but in the end, it feels, at least to me, an attempt to lessen the sting of saying "low culture". High culture is for the upper crust, low culture (he says "folk culture") is for everyone else. This segregation of cultures is implicitly endorsed throughout his book. In so many words, he states that high culture isn't enjoyed by everyone because it takes effort to fully appreciate its greatness. However, according to Myers, whether culture is high or low is irrelevant because it is all be gobbled up by "pop culture".
I have several issues with his argument and how it is presented in the book. Myers seems to ignore and overlook several key issues which, if dealt with honestly, would in ways degrade his thesis. The first comes to what is "high culture". While there are many works of art, music, and literature that are recognized for its greatness immediately (i.e. Michelangelo's David), there are several others that take a while to achieve that greatness (Starry Night by Van Gogh). We hail the works of William Shakespeare today but at the time his plays were written, he was at odds with the "morality police" of his day.
There are often "periods" used to describe the overall nature of a work created during a specific time period, especially in art and music. For example, Medieval Music gave way to Renaissance which gave way to Baroque, which gave way to Classical and so forth. These periods rarely have a hard start/stop line and there was frequent overlap. A piece of early Baroque music wasn't known as Baroque when it was written. People knew it wasn't Renaissance. Only until the Baroque period was more firmly established did the earlier pieces of that period get its due. Who is to say that much of the discordant material being produced today is the start of a new period? I don't know.
I don't think pop culture "consumed" high/folk culture. I think pop culture is merely folk culture that found a larger platform. 400 years ago you could go to a tavern somewhere in England and hear bar songs being sung. You could then go to Germany, or Italy, or Russia, or China or anywhere else and you would find places that served alcohol and boisterous songs being sung by its patrons. These songs would fall under what Myers would call "folk culture" and one could surmise that these songs were probably very different in form, sound, and lyrics. A big reason why is the world was a much bigger place and it would be hard for a song, popular in an English tavern to make its way to a tavern in Italy. Radio changed that, television exploded that, and the Internet (which didn't even exist when Myers wrote the book) took things to a whole new level. "Folk Culture" historically enjoyed a broad appeal that had a limited geographical influence. Modern media allows the appeal to flow from one end of the globe to the next.
An artist needs a patron. If an artist wants to get paid for his work, he must find someone willing to pay him for his work. Vergil wrote "the Aeneid" for Augustus Caesar, Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel for the Pope, Bach composed the Brandenburg concertos for a German nobleman. You want to get paid, then you do something for your patron and you make sure they like it. You might hide a clever dig in the work (Vergil did with the Aeneid, Michelangelo had a few surprises in the Sistine Chapel) but overall you make sure your patron is happy with your work. The same is true today. One of the great composers of our time is John Williams, he writes great music for movie soundtracks because that is where the money is. His work is "high culture" in my esteem and I predict it will be known a 100 years from now. However, pop culture (which is in my opinion folk culture on a larger scale) has access to funding albeit in a different form. You make the music, if people like it, you get to make more, if they don't, you won't. How many "one hit wonders" have there been? Too many to count. Now, with the advent of iTunes and YouTube, you don't even need a record label to get your music out. If it is good, it can "go viral". How much of this will stand the test of time? That is hard to say for a moment.
Myers engages in a lot of "doom and gloom" about the demise of culture and specifically Christian influence on the culture. The book is very negative and frankly depressing. He laments for 10 chapters over the demise of culture. He tries to perk things up a bit in the 11th chapter but it is too little too late. He has already made his point, culture is doomed, we just need to bunker down. This is all the more interesting given that he wrote the book nearly 30 years ago. Ironic in that many of his chapter titles and most of the sub-chapter titles include pop culture references that many of our students today wouldn't get. He does try to "modernize" it a bit with an introduction that was updated in 2012 but even that is dated now. Social Media is far more pervasive than it was even just a half a decade ago. He has some good points but I think he misses the boat with how "folk culture" evolved into pop culture.