The Madness of Crowds and an Internet Delusion

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/science/12tier.html

There's not much in the article that hasn't been said or thought of already, but its still an interesting read. There were some good points though, specifically this one which caught my attention, because its a common gripe I have:

Mr. Lanier was once an advocate himself for piracy, arguing that his fellow musicians would make up for the lost revenue in other ways. Sure enough, some musicians have done well selling T-shirts and concert tickets, but it is striking how many of the top-grossing acts began in the predigital era, and how much of today

In regards to piracy, I agree that many people have deluded themselves into thinking that it's morally justifiable when it isn't. But I also think that our current system of intellectual property is not compatible with the new reality of digital communication. The internet isn't going away. Rather than paint some imminent dystopian future, there needs to be solutions.

Frankly, this guy seems a little misguided. After all, he envisioned a virtual reality. Instead, reality has become increasingly virtual.

I can understand what you mean by an "increasingly virtual" reality. That's definitely not going away, but I definitely share his concern over how that has and will affect us.

I sent the article to a friend of mine who had this to say:

"All of this is true, but this is also too little too late. Pandora has already left the box. Everyone expects it for free. This and other reasons is why I will change careers to something that REQUIRES work by hand. This will not guarantee that I will make more money, but this will give me more job appreciation."

Moving back into the "analog" world (not just in terms of music) is something Ive recently forced myself to do for reasons that revolve more around value than immediacy. My background is in media development and has been for the last 17 years. And as a some one who both works in the visual arts industry as well as a consumer of it, Ive seen this industry change just as much as the music industry has. Digital technology has definitely sped up the process by which I create graphics to almost absurd level. I cant say for sure that what I create has hit a point of stagnation but it has definitely lost its sense of accomplishment. What used to take weeks to do now takes just a few hours. Am I achieving the same thing? To an extent, yes. The only difference being is that now what Im left with something less tangible. Looking at an illustration on a computer screen and looking at an illustration on a large canvas are two different things. The same can be said about live music and mp3's.

I sometimes feel like digital can be a little too much in terms of excess. Too easy, too fast, too accessible, etc... it can become so overwhelming at times if you're not always plugged in. Which is one of the main reasons I'm trying to take a step back to do things as my friend stated "that requires work by hand". I don't ever see myself being completely becoming unplugged from the matrix... but in regards to the things I do for entertainment, especially those that involve music or art, I'm definitely enjoying being able to create again without the safety net and immediacy that digital provides.

having so much with so little effort changes the nature of your relationship with it. if I had not learned of the music i've come to love through word of mouth, scouring vinyl shops, taking chances, asking club DJs... would i still feel the way i do about it? no. i'd be like the kid in the youtube video who got a super nintendo or something and was like "meh, next".

really when you don't have to work for something, you don't give a {censored}. it's built into the human condition.... work = reward. you mess with that, you've {censored}ed up everything.

i guarantee too in ten years time going off line or even dial up will be seen as retro and cool or something like that. kids are going to realize they've missed the mystries of life by having it all layed out in front of them are going to find a way back to it, if only for a while..

Meh. People said the same stuff about the telegraph, then the telephone, then television, then email. Embrace it. It is not a bad thing that information is cheap, it is the next evolution of our species.

Think of right now as 5 years into the industrial revolution. We haven't even scraped the surface of the tip of the iceburg. The old ways are dying and they will be replaced. Some will grumble about the good old days, most won't.

The steam engine put a lot of people out of work. They probably didn't like it at the time. Does anyone miss it now? Hell no. Physical media is dead, and it couldn't have happened to a more deserving industry. Creative people will never stop making music. To complain that anyone can now do what used to be confined to an elite few is selfish and well.. makes a person seem like a prick.

EMBRACE TEH FUTURRRR

I

I agree with you that to complain that anyone can now do what used to be confined to an elite few is selfish. Everyone should have the opportunity to be creative with their art. But if you truly love and respect your art form, at the very least you should be forced to REALLY learn your trade and understand the roots of where it comes from. To me, thats what most music is lacking these days... it just sounds like it was put together haphazardly.

Not everyone today can do what the elite few did back in the day or even now for that matter. I can name plenty of bands from the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's that really took the time to care about their art form and you can hear it in what they did. I cant say the same about most music made in the last decade. Sure there are rarities but with all the technology and accessibility you'd think more incredible music would be available... and to be quite honest, I haven't heard it. I'm not trying to "grumble about the good old days", I'm just calling it as I see it.

I'm in complete accord with what MetroSonus stated. I couldn't have said it better myself. Ive hypothesized about that exact point and the main reason I think music took a dive in quality. Back in the day people who where actually extremely serious about making music took the time to invest in things like learning an instrument and buying expensive equipment. You wouldn't just drop a few grand on a sampler or a keyboard purely on whim alone. The fact that you took time to save up and purchase something that expensive showed your commitment to your art form. Now a days anyone can download software instruments without any investment, hit a couple of keys on a keyboard, slap a couple of pre-made loops together and bam... instant mediocrity. Is that wrong? Of course not. Like I said, everyone should be allowed to be as creative as they can be. But I also believe that there should be a level of quality in music that all artists should aspire to, not just to treat it as a disposal commodity.

Here's a question.... what artist(s) in the last decade have produced an album that is on par with some of the best selling albums of all time in terms of quality... and I say quality because the best selling albums of all time have the unfair advantage of exactly that... time. So with that in mind, what artist(s) do you all feel have the potential to stand on their own as being the next Pink Floyd or Rolling Stones or Michael Jackson for future generations?

Do we need these megastars in the first place?

Personally, I'd like to have a gatekeeper for my music access whose choice doesn't depend on his monthly paycheck.

sadly there are no contenders.

there will be no more "Black Side of The Moon", "The Wall", " In the Court of the Crimson King" etc just cheap, quick productions to satisfy the masses...

I don't need megastars, but I do enjoy musicians who are experts in their craft; the jaw dropping crazyamazing ones.

But I'm confused about your gatekeeper. Expand, please?

bloc party

the postal service

skinny puppy

immortal technique

death cab for cutie

amon amarth

There is a ton of newer good music out there. The fact that we don't have rock gods anymore has nothing to do with the quality of music and everything to do with the availability of music. Rock gods are the creation of corporations. You had to have the backing of rich people to record, distribute and promote music back then, so the pool of music to choose from was a lot smaller... less to choose from, more people love the fewer bands, the best ones become superstars. It's supply and demand, nothing more. Think of how much more great classic rock would be out there if every excellent band that never got signed had access to the technology we have now...

This is one of the few debates that I believe has a clearly defined right and wrong side, and the wrong side is the one that gets misty eyed over record companies owning us. Who cares if ease of access makes it easy for anyone to try their hand at putting out music... if you don't like what they are doing, don't listen. The cream will always rise to the top, you will hear about the good stuff, and discover good stuff on your own to tell others about. Or maybe you just don't like anything but Led Zeppelin... that's fine too, but don't say technology is the reason why acts like that don't exist anymore. Music is an expression of culture, and the culture of today is vastly different than the culture of the era that produced that kind of music. The bands I listed above have all put out incredible albums in the last 10 years, easily on par creatively with the best of *any* era, and half of them couldn't even have existed under the old system, let alone made it to my ears if they had.

Ditto. Thing is, all the "pandering to the masses" complaints aren't necessarily about them and don't mean that everyone's out there selling out.

The reason whether something was released with a record company was thanks to an A&R manager, who has the skill to determine whether something would be marketable. That is a questionable criterion for musical quality. They are the gatekeepers of the music; without their approval, you'd have no way to make yourself heard unless you'd do self-publishing.

Since self-publishing doesn't cost anything anymore, there's a dearth of music out there; filtering it requires new gatekeepers. Since those are usually recommendations based on friends and fans, they don't depend on marketability that much, so the chance that I'll actually get something I like is bigger.

This is a wonderful thread, full of thoughtful, insightful comments and I've enjoyed reading everyone's comments. Thank you all.

I think a more appropriate term would be POP gods because this is the genre in which the singer or group are created and molded by the record companies according to their proven formula.

I believe years ago, the great groups like the Rolling Stones, Zep, etc were considered Rock gods because of their talent, musicianship and the gift of writing great material.

Today's technology is both a blessing and a curse imo. The ability to record infinite amount of tracks, undo, cut and paste in a professional digital environment allows artists to avoid the whole record company thing, bypassing the need to rent a studio, distribution, etc and through the internet expose their music to the masses.

But for many this technology is more a game than an art, it allows someone without much talent to assemblemusic through the use of loading prearranged bass, drum parts, leads and pads into their DAW and BINGO one has assembled a quite ordinary song that can be near equal to much of the drivel formulated music that is so abundant today.

Granted there are some who are talented who learn this technology, become masters of it and may produce interesting music.

We have a generation where the idea of creating music is to play a part while watching Rock Band.

Music is a passion for me, and the idea of more people who used to be excluded in the music process other than listening to it,are able to become involved in it, is exciting to me but there is a danger music in general becomes watered down because the standards have been lowered.

Another "modern music sucks!" bitch thread.

Why do I bother posting?

So many great points in this thread, pro and con. A large part of what's being said is more philosophical musing than rants against technology.

Yoozer hit the nail on the head mentioning "gatekeepers." The DJ is another example of that -- his art is not so much in the creation of the songs he plays, but in the act of listening to the overwhelming number of songs out there, filtering out what he wants to present and where/when in the mix, all with an ear to what is turning his audience on. Dime a dozen DJs get left aside, bigger name DJs have many factors making them popular, but better presentation/choice of material or maybe even composing their stuff themselves makes them bigger than the other DJs.

Music is indeed an expression of culture, and we can't fault technological progress so much for that. More at fault is culture itself. We can and should bemoan the state of culture as it is. This is something larger than the few decades-old argument "aw, quit whining, when your parents were kids they were saying the same thing..." Some telltale signs are when you get more enlightened younger generation peepz saying new stuff sucks, old stuff rocks.

Music production HAS become more quantity, less quantity, and that's a sign of the success of progress. But at the same time, it likely on average has DECREASED the level of musical proficiency in terms of masters of their art (knowing and understanding and creating the music theory). Modern artists are more technical wizards than they are musicians. Certainly, the natural talent of a great artist will shine through the $hit. Superb tools like computer software unshackles many requirements for production, and so the common person can relatively easily create something meh, something passable. The great artist, given the same tools, will create something spectacular, and maybe end up producing for big budget movie making (Juno Reactor).

The problem is that while so many fewer will know what's a Neapolitan sixth or what contributions Beethoven made, it is substituted by more knowing what the difference is between emo (Sunny Day Real Estate) and screamo. The lines become blurred between dilettante and connoisseur, between consumer/prosumer vs producer/composer/artist.

So it's NOT just, "ah get over it, progress happens." Yes, it does. But we already see the consequences (global warming) from the Industrial Age of rampant technological progress without a compensating philosophical framework; only decades later did we stop abusing worker and work conditions (child labor and asbestos), to come to the modern era of Google-like employee flextime and health insurance co-opts.

Personally, I feel outdated sometimes with the small set of hardware I've invested in over the past couple years. I keep telling myself that I'm going to spend years, like we used to on an actual musical instrument (trombone, bass guitar), to really learn the nooks and crannies and flexibilities of these under-rated machines. I'm going to thumb my nose at gadgets (Karma) and gimmicks and marketing ploys that only water down quality and make culture dumber (hip pop). All the while, the part of me like a kid in a candy store is ogling over the latest software (Omnisphere, Melodyne) like decent physical modelling and impulse reverbs.

There is a balance, a payoff, between mastering both the technical/theoretical aspects of your art form and also the intended audience. Unfortunately, things are changing so fast that by the time you formulate an opinion or concensus, some new whiz bang development in the global world at large makes all this irrelevant, so yesterday... =/

Another "modern music sucks!" bitch thread.

so it has to mean something hasn't it?

never heard anybody saying old music suck...even my son listening to Rap music appreciates old music from where they've stolen melodies...

The DAW lowered the standards. The synthesizer lowered the standards. The sampler lowered the standards. Distortion on guitar lowered standards. Nursery rhymes lowered the standards. Profane music lowered the standards.

There haven't ever been standards.

Yes, I can see your point. But it almost seems your saying everything is up for grabs, everything is equal, there are no values higher than others, especially in music.

Surely that's not what your arguing. I think you're just taking an opposite stance to make a point. Which, I agree, may be need to be made sometimes, esp with old-schoolers who see nothing good in today's stuff.

But please tell me you don't think the state of today's musical culture -- from a theoretical and aesthetic perspective -- as totally defendable, that "it's all good..."

I think you are over thinking my comment but I do appreciate you selecting my quote because I do value and respect the knowledge you share here, or are you trying to make a point, which at the moment I don't get.

Should I have used a different word? my somewhat fuzzy morning brain cannot find another term.

If you want to suggest guidelines of quality are merely relative to one's viewpoint than yes I would agree to a point.

My parents generation saw rock n roll as loud, noisy, immoral and pure junk without any musical merit, just as their parents saw the Big Band, Swing music as loud noisy immoral junk music.

standard >noun 1 a level of quality or attainment. 2 a required or agreed level of quality or attainment. 3 something used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations.

I would hope many of us would agree the level of quality in a Britney Spears song is not the same as a Lennon/McCartney song.

so it has to mean something hasn't it? never heard anybody saying old music suck...even my son listening to Rap music appreciates old music from where they've stolen melodies...

That's because no one hears the bad stuff anymore. Nostalgia = filter.

These oldies regularly make the top bad songs of all times lists people compile for instance:

[YOUTUBE]JuNZapJGxPM[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]8QN6p66AtDc[/YOUTUBE]