Slashdot Mirror


Elton John Says Internet is Destroying Music

Jared writes "Elton John says that the internet is destroying good music and "stopping people from going out and being with each other, creating stuff." He laments the way that the internet and the emerging industry of digital music has created a cold and impersonal world for artists to create new music in."

709 comments

  1. Sucks to be you, Elton by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 0, Troll

    Try creating music that people like.

    --
    Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    1. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by dbIII · · Score: 0

      Try creating music that people like.

      True, he hasn't done anything decent since Pinball Wizard.

      Yes, I do know Who actually wrote it, but Eltons version wasn't all that bad.

    2. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Try creating music that people like

      And sadly like most SlashDot nerds, you still sign along to the Lion King even though it makes you want to cry.

      Sadly kiddies on SlashDot have no clue of the impact Elton has on Music.

      Let's see, hmm, a true music writer with perfect pitch, ya that just doesn't work in today's Britney, lipsync crowd. ;)

    3. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by LouisZepher · · Score: 1

      Actually, Elton's cover of Pinball Wizard is, as far as I can recall, the only cover of a Who song that made the charts in the top ten.

    4. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course, making the top ten isn't exactly an indicator of "quality material."

      Elton's never done anything even remotely of the quality of Tommy; he's an aging pop personality looking for air time, that's all.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    5. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Buran · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hey, Elton's actually made music that isn't the same canned love-song crap. The songs he writes are autobiographical, about people important to him, about things important to his lyricist, etc. And he's an amazing live performer. Yep, I'm a big fan of his and I'm continually amazed by his live work.

      But "close down the internet"? That's just ridiculous. Not happening, and I don't agree. Sure, sometimes you get a lot of "me too" art of all sorts (drawings, music, whatever) but I think the fact that anyone can publish and create anything they want more than makes up for that.

      If it weren't for the big name behind this silliness, I doubt anyone would pay it any mind. And I think it's silly and not worth the electrons it's "printed" with.

    6. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Buran · · Score: 2, Funny

      Elton played the Pinball Wizard in Tommy -- all he asked in exchange for doing the role was getting to keep the shoes.

    7. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Sadly kiddies on SlashDot have no clue of the impact Elton has on Music."

      I would say had an impact. But today his impact resonates the same message as, "Get off my lawn!".

    8. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Buran · · Score: 1

      TLK is some of his best later work. While I don't care for his version of "I Just Can't Wait To Be King", Circle of Life and Can You Feel The Love Tonight are very good -- and the latter is very simple and easy to play but sounds fantastic, especially when he embellishes it in live performances.

    9. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by polar+red · · Score: 5, Interesting

      today's Britney crowd
      In my opinion, the new music world should be about choice The internet creates choice. And if that internet destroys the musicindustry(I'm talking about formatted music like britney's) GOOD: bring on all the new types of music!

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    10. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by sgant · · Score: 5, Informative

      You mean Bernie Taupin writes songs that are autobiographical, about people that are important to him. It's Taupin that wrote all those love song lyrics of the past...usually written to his girlfriend at the time. Elton put them all to extremely beautiful music.

      I know, you did say "things important to his lyricist"...but I just wanted to make sure Bernie Taupin's name got out there.

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    11. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Buran · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yep. Sorry about that; I should have credited him outright! You and I know all about him, fortunately.

      Some of the songs are from Elton's perspective (Someone Saved My Life Tonight is an example) but yes, many are Bernie's, such as Saturday Night's All Right For Fighting, which is about Bernie's time in bars when he was younger.

      Thanks for following up.

    12. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by kdemetter · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much Elton John actually know about the subject .Did he ever buy music online , did he ever listen to a song on youtube ?

      I fear someone's just telling him that saying ' internet is destroying the music industry ' will give him some attention . And for what i can tell , it's working : it made it to /.

    13. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by teh+kurisu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      FTFA:

      I don't have a mobile phone or an iPod or anything.

      I am such a Luddite when it comes to making music. All I can do is write at the piano.

      And there's the problem. He's stuck in his ways, and the internet is a threat to those ways. Lets be clear - the internet is helping new artists make music and distribute it (for free and for money) without requiring a restrictive contract with a record company.

      Consider The Boy Lacks Patience. He's an amazing performer, and he is all the things that you said Elton John is. Yet, despite that I lived in the same city as him for about five years, I would never have heard of him if it wasn't for the internet.

    14. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous+Poodle · · Score: 1

      But "close down the internet"? That's just ridiculous.

      How about we just burn down the mission instead?

      Sorry, couldn't resist.

    15. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, I do know Who actually wrote it


      - So who did?

      - Yes!

      (Sorry.)
    16. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Allison+Geode · · Score: 4, Funny

      he songs he writes are autobiographical, about people important to him, about things important to his lyricist, etc.

      where does Crocodile Rock fit into this, exactly?

    17. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

      True, I discovered all the music CD's I bought this year through internet radio. Before I started listening to internet radio, I didn't buy any CD's anymore because I didn't hear any music I liked. So personally, the internet has done just the opposite.

      I haven't bought any Elton John though.

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    18. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I can do is write at the piano.

      All I can do is to use a pc, and with piano I suck. But I don't go around suggesting people to ban pianos!

    19. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The Internet is destroying the music industry, the mass produced, factory production line, one hit wonder music, the crap that only the most inexperienced and susceptible to mass marketing techniques temporarily thought they enjoyed, good riddance.

      The rebirth of music, created by real human beings to be shared with real human beings, music that only represented the minority of content readily available in the 20th century will again become the majority and the only people to miss the parasitic music publishers will be the parasitic publisher executives.

      Elton is just isolated by wealth and mass media manufactured fame, and is lamenting his lost ability to share the creative process with the grass roots artists, as he approaches his end of times. The Internet will usher in a new era of live music in preference to dead recordings.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    20. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly kiddies on SlashDot have no clue of the impact Elton has on Music. As an elderly person I can state that Sir Elton has or had not much impact on music.
      And I started to actively listen and make music at late 60's.
      You confuse success in top 10 charts and money making for influence.
    21. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure. Mozart had an impact. Then he died when he was thirty five. We'll never know if he was really any good because we'll never know whether the stuff he would have produced when he was fifty or sixty would be just as good.

      Elton John is saying something much more interesting than the usual "file sharing is killing the music industry" line, and it's silly to dismiss him because he hasn't moved with the times onto hip-hop or something like that.

      What he's saying is that the music industry is in a creative crisis, and that the source of that crisis is a kind of breakdown in communication between artist and artist and artist and audience. This really is a different take on the problem. What makes it an interesting (not necessarily correct) viewpoint is that our tools for communication are better than ever. However the time-shifting convenience of those tools make the communication less immediate, less in the moment. It's like a chess grandmaster who stops playing tournaments and stays at home playing against a computer. He can spend every waking moment now playing chess, but he is no longer contributing to chess culture.

      Personally, I'm not sure I buy this. Have artists stopped playing in clubs? Or giving concerts?

      I think the biggest problem in music, at least in the US, is the end of independent ownership and management of radio stations. Radio is the most important tool for disseminating musical innovation, and once the distribution channels are centrally controlled, innovation is squashed by corporate gatekeeper. There is less room for individual advocacy, as local management and jobs disappear to be replaced by robot stations playing a predetermined format. Go any place in the country, turn on the radio, and you get just varying proportions of the following formats: Pop hits, oldies, country, sports talk, right wing talk, Christian radio. It's like every restaurant in the country had to be a McDonalds, Red Lobster, KFC, or Chili's.

      In this context, the crushing of Internet radio is the worst thing imaginable, because it is crushing the last legitimate outlet for individuality in music distribution. File sharing may be a problem for the music industry, but unauthorized sharing is really the only outlet left for individual music advocacy.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    22. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good to post as an anonymous coward knowing that some geek is logging my IP anyways and selling it, along with my soul, to the FBI.
      NO!!!! They can't close down the Internet!!!! Where else can I get free porn and free music after some geek violates the copyright rights and post it for free, along with some hidden application that is going to make my little crap laptop part of some ghost botnet?
      See, the funniest thing is that Internet people is just becoming another lobbying bunch with their own lobbying needs, like Elthon John and old songwriters and singers, or Elthon John and people that are married to people of the same gender, or Elthon John or people that live in Sidney. As an anarchist I feel sad for it. In the beginning, I thought that publish my alternative songs on the Internet was something revolutionary, whatever, whatever, now I just know that it made room for some geek kid that was not able to ask the cheerleader out to become a billionaire through selling some access to some crap "Social" Network. So, Internet people just want to have their own astronomic salaries and stay on their esoteric Linux conferences, and think they are still revolutionary. I think that Elthon John got his point for his lobbying group, and all the guys here trying to keep people downloading songs on the Internet so they can keep adding computers to their botnets and selling it to the Al Qaeda or to the Russian Mafia, I think those people they got their points too. In the end, nobody is right, they are all just lobbying for their own interests. Thanks to the Almighty Whatever-it-is that all this world is coming to a stupid end anyways, so they can all go lobbying in hell, or whatever is there outside.
      Me, myself, I will just keep posting things like this and be called a troll, by kids that used to pay my lunch at school, heh-heh

    23. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      What about "My generation" and "Behind blue eyes" by Limp Bizkit?

      The Who are great songwriters, it's not hard to make a hit using one of their songs.

    24. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by asuffield · · Score: 1

      He said "impact", not "influence". A genius influences. Roadkill impacts.

    25. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by HansF · · Score: 2, Funny

      Elton has a lot of leather shoes.

      --
      --> Insert Funny Sig Here
    26. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by asuffield · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think the biggest problem in music, at least in the US, is the end of independent ownership and management of radio stations.


      I'd say it's more than just that. The biggest problem in music is the end of independent ownership and management of everything related to music on any kind of large scale. You name it, it's either owned or controlled by the RIAA mob, or it's basically irrelevant to the majority of the industry. Plenty of small-scale stuff happens, all the way down to people just talking to each other about it, but none of it reaches the necessary critical mass for any of the ideas generated to travel far beyond the (social) vicinity of the place where they started.

      The root cause of all this is obvious: whenever anything significant starts to happen, people start thinking about how they can make money from it, and then they start thinking about how to maximise their profits from it, and then the RIAA mob makes them an offer.
    27. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by transiit · · Score: 1

      Back that truck up a second.

      Ok, so the popular meme is to say "The average slashdot reader this" or "The average slashdot reader that", but seriously, waxing nostalgic to a f#$@ing Disney film soundtrack?

      Really?

    28. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by somersault · · Score: 1

      "The Internet will usher in a new era of live music in preference to dead recordings."

      I think that's one of the most ludicrous statements I've heard all day.. while I enjoy live music sometimes, I much prefer spending my money on something that I can listen to over and over again, rather than spending 2 or 3 times as much on a one off performance. I used to be in a band and it was fun being out and hearing other bands play, but if anything the internet just stops me from going out and listening to bands, because I spend time playing games or posting on Slashdot/Bebo instead!

      --
      which is totally what she said
    29. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by leenks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree - I can browse through and LISTEN to music on Amazon on iTunes and then, if I like anything, either buy the CD or just get the tracks I want from iTunes or similar.

      Internet radio offers far more variety than the local radio stations here in the UK - I've lost count of the number of CDs I've bought after hearing them through Pandora or other more traditional online stations. I can easily find a station playing the music styles I want to listen to, rather than .

      Maybe Elton should consider the benefits the Internet can offer, rather than concentrating on the negatives such as illegal p2p filesharing that the record companies spoonfeed everyone.

      As a musician myself (piano/keys in a jazz quartet and also a corporate/party band) I really appreciate what the internet has done for us: we get lots of our gigs through people finding our website (or being directed there from other sites / recommendations / business cards) and downloading / listening to the live demo tracks. Granted, the site needs a major update, but without the internet I'd be stuck running off demo CDs and leaflets and posting them to agents / venues.

    30. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      - So who did?
      - Yes!
      So, was it Yes! or The Who?
    31. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      He's just jealous because he's a 900k and therefore got in after it was cool to be on Slashdot. Also, he's not really a nerd of any sort. He's just pretending to be one so all his friends online will think slightly better of him.

      --
      SRSLY.
    32. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      The Internet is destroying the music industry
      ..and loving it.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    33. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Curtman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The thing to keep in mind is, the internet is much more important than popular music. The music industry as it is today could suffer a horrible, painful death and we would still be better off than before the internet came around. Music was around long before "the industry", and it'll be around long after.

    34. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nein--Inch Nails!

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    35. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by rizzo420 · · Score: 1

      while the internet might be destroying the music industry (thank god), it's also, in a way, doing exactly what elton said. it's killing creativity. the music of the past was created through collaboration, through jam sessions, through actual instruments. the vast majority of the music on the internet is people copying bands they like and never getting better at what they do. getting out and performing in front of people, getting out and meeting others who also play music drives creativity. sitting at home writing songs that emulate what someone else did keeps the status quo.

      i have gotten bored with music because since the beginning of the decade, it has gotten boring. very few bands have vision. sure, elton john wrote the music for his songs and didn't write all the lyrics (though he did write some of them), but he had vision. the collaboration that occurred in the 60's and 70's when the bands all knew each other is gone, with the exception of what's left of the jam band scene (one of the more creative scenes at the moment, in large part because of the collaboration).

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
    36. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by geeber · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure. Mozart had an impact. Then he died when he was thirty five. We'll never know if he was really any good ...

      Mozart created a body of music that has survived over 200 years after his death. And you still won't say whether he is any good?

      DAMN your tough!!!

    37. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And he's an amazing live performer. Yep, I'm a big fan
      > of his and I'm continually amazed by his live work.

      Hahahahahaha - good one!

      I mean it was a joke... right?

      Personally I find his work indistinguishable from burlesque, the 'candle in the wind' Diana tribute was the pinnacle of his career. To his credit, he is flawless in his portrayal of a shallow, pretentious and egocentric performer.

    38. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try creating music that people like?

      dude.. youre missing the whole point to music

    39. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Wookietim · · Score: 1

      Music is a form of art - art should not always be what people like. When all that comes out from musical artists is what people want to hear, all we will get is Britney Spears bubblegum pop. We will only hear music out of the latest "American Idol" winner. There will be no more experimentation on the level of "Pink Floyd: The Wall" or "Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Band" or Bob Dylan.

      --
      http://timcol6.freehostia.com/
    40. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by FST777 · · Score: 1

      Whoa there, grasshopper!

      You seem to be implying that any person here who does not like Eltons music (or recognizes his influence in the same way as you do) is too young to understand him and is probably listening to Britney, Christina and Shakira all day long.
      Now that is a bold claim to make. In Eltons haydays, not every single person appreciated his work. And I have a hard time thinking about musical currents that were directly influenced by him. True, he is a true writer, and his pitch is near perfect. But that doesn't mean he is the only one, even now.

      Personaly, I don't like his work. But it is way better than the Britney-like lipsync crowd. But there is better music out there, and some of it is even fairly new and quite popular (at least here in Europe. Can't say about the other side of the pool...) Do not, ever, generalize geeks on a non-geeky field :-)

      --
      Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
    41. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that's the problem. What is important to him is not what is important to me.

    42. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Himring · · Score: 1

      Bernie Taupin's gf was Marilyn Monroe?

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    43. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by SkyDude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the biggest problem in music, at least in the US, is the end of independent ownership and management of radio stations. Radio is the most important tool for disseminating musical innovation, and once the distribution channels are centrally controlled, innovation is squashed by corporate gatekeeper. ....... In this context, the crushing of Internet radio is the worst thing imaginable, because it is crushing the last legitimate outlet for individuality in music distribution. File sharing may be a problem for the music industry, but unauthorized sharing is really the only outlet left for individual music advocacy.

      Your view is a bit apocalyptic. While it's true radio USED to be most important distribution channel, it no longer is considering the internet's ability to make music available. Crushing internet radio? Only if the music is licensed by ASCAP, BMI or other RIAA sanctioned licensing entities is affected. If a musician chooses not to license through the standard licensing outfits, his/her music can be performed publicly without compensation. There's no income from it, but that model is still being born. It's just not ready to stand on its own yet.

      Within a few years, music (or 'record') stores will cease to exist. Hundreds have already closed; more will follow. The internet will be the source and some brilliant person will eventually develop a business model that benefits the artists. It just won't be me 'cause I'm just not that smart.

      --
      == First cross river, then insult alligator.
    44. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Actually I was being a plain and simple smartass.

      I couldn't believe that people were discounting his music abilities because they didn't like his opinion. Either that or they truly are too young or stupid to have any understanding of him or his music. Sadly a lot of people think he only goes back to the Lion King, and yet some of the greatest modern melodies mixed throughout our societies are his creations.

      I personally am pretty eclectic when it comes to music, admittedly listening to Britney myself, but I also have some sort of sense of appreciation that goes beyond the latest Gwen or Fergie hit I also enjoy.

      I don't necessarily agree with Elton's views, but they really don't impact much and are just his freaking views, and they certainly don't take away from his 'influence' and impact on society through music.

      As for the poster above that claims to have been around 'a long time' and thinks Elton has had no influence, they are either lying or really sheltered. My grandfather was a country music star of the 40s and 50s, and even he acknowledges major impacts various non-country artists have had on the entire industry, and Elton is one outside the country industry he would name.

      Anyone that thinks Elton sucks at music or is a hack should look up an old episode of Inside the Actor's Studio, where he literally writes brilliant music to words from a textbook, impromptu.

    45. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Himring · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everything I've seen with him in the media over the past several years shows me he's turned into a bitter old man. He had the immature rant at the airport, had it out with Tina Turner (the dude is called a "diva"), and broke down in public at one point. He's entitled to his opinion, but other classic artists have embraced and revered changes due to the Internet. He's deciding to see the glass half empty, as it appears he's done in general anyhow....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    46. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      There will be no more experimentation on the level of "Pink Floyd: The Wall" or "Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Band" or Bob Dylan.

      All that is going on as we speak. If you have not heard lots and lots of `experimentation', well, you need to get out more...

    47. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woosh!

      Always wanted to do that

    48. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consider The Boy Lacks Patience. He's an amazing performer, and he is all the things that you said Elton John is. Yet, despite that I lived in the same city as him for about five years, I would never have heard of him if it wasn't for the internet. Isn't that the whole point. Because of the internet you never heard about him in your city. Elton is saying city culture is dying and the net culture is limited to uncreative ways. Had the net not existed it is assume you would me more involved locally and would of heard about TBLP from local culture.
    49. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by lilomar · · Score: 1

      the vast majority of the music on the internet is people copying bands they like and never getting better at what they do. The vast majority of anything on the internet is crap. That's why you have to look for the good stuff.
      The great thing about the internet (ok, one of the great things) is that anyone can put anything they want to online and it is available to the world. This is the reason we have thousands of mySpace kiddies band wanna-bes just regurgitating crap they think is music. But, there are also gems like Jonathan Coulton or some of the higher ranking artists on Garage Band. You just have to look.

      i have gotten bored with music because since the beginning of the decade, it has gotten boring. very few bands have vision. Might I suggest the links above?
      Really, go out and look for artists. They are out there. You just won't hear them on (non-internet) radio.

      The internet is saving the music, but killing off the music industry.

      Go internet.
      --
      The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
    50. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      Heh, I was just reminded of this...

    51. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 0

      But what would he have done if he had lived to a ripe old age ... ....Bach was for most of his life payed to produce a new piece of music every week, all of it brilliant..

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    52. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

      Making the top 10 used to mean something, back when pinball wizard was popular. Or maybe not. It's the same with having a New York Times best selling book. The fact that your book is on there, doesn't really mean it's top quality literature, just that it has mass appeal. Millions of people buy the newspaper every day. That doesn't mean it's intriguing. A lot of people buy books by Stephen King, Dean Koontz Tom Clancy, Janet Evanovich, J.K. Rowlings, and a bunch of other authors. That doesn't mean that they are literary masterpieces. They are just books that are fun to read, and don't make you think a whole lot. I think the same holds true for music. The stuff at the top 10 is just stuff that most people don't mind hearing on the radio, as background noise, played in malls, with a catchy tune you can humm to yourself.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    53. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by lilomar · · Score: 1

      I remember when rock was young
      Me and Suzie had so much fun
      holding hands and skimming stones
      Had an old gold Chevy and a place of my own
      But the biggest kick I ever got
      was doing a thing called the Crocodile Rock
      While the other kids were Rocking Round the Clock
      we were hopping and bopping to the Crocodile Rock

      Well Crocodile Rocking is something shocking
      when your feet just can't keep still
      I never knew me a better time and I guess I never will
      Oh Lawdy mama those Friday nights
      when Suzie wore her dresses tight
      and the Crocodile Rocking was out of sight

      But the years went by and the rock just died
      Suzie went and left us for some foreign guy
      Long nights crying by the record machine
      dreaming of my Chevy and my old blue jeans
      But they'll never kill the thrills we've got
      burning up to the Crocodile Rock
      Learning fast as the weeks went past
      we really thought the Crocodile Rock would last
      The only silly word in there is Crocodile. It's actually a rather touching song.

      (Yes, I know he didn't write the lyrics. Still a good song.) (BTW, I don't release Crock Rock into the PD, no matter what my sig says. For obvious reasons.)
      --
      The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
    54. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by MousePotato · · Score: 1

      Actually, Elton's cover of Pinball Wizard is, as far as I can recall, the only cover of a Who song that made the charts in the top ten. Behind Blue Eyes?
    55. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Yes it is about choice. 10 years ago, you'd be really hard pressed to find lots of independent bands in your local record store. Now you can just stroll over to eMusic, and there's more indie music than you can shake a stick at. However, that choice includes Britney Spears. As much as some of us may not like her music, it appears that a lot of people do. There's still room for all kinds of music, more now that ever. The RIAA just has to realize that some people would rather listen to some obscure track by some indie band, then their latest top 10 hit of the week.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    56. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by JasonNolan · · Score: 1

      I guess people creating and sharing music without having to pay the industry, or even worse, people creating, rather than buying music, is wrong.

      --
      https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2013.808365
    57. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by pinkfloydhomer · · Score: 1

      He has created music that people like. He has sold more albums than most artists.

      Now, I am not an Elton John fan, but I think he has a point. Some of the best music I know was made in the 70s. I am a huge Pink Floyd fan, and a band such as Pink Floyd (or their music) would never come out of todays music reality. The same goes for Elton John, I guess.

      Of course it is subjective, a matter of taste, but far more great music and far less bad music was made in the 70s than there has been in the 90s or the 00s (I love a lot of new music too, Radiohead for instance). It has become so easy to produce music and so easy to sell it to drooling morons, compared to then. Back then, it took some skill. /David

    58. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by neonmonk · · Score: 1, Informative

      Limp Bizkit's 'My Generation' wasn't a cover of a Who song. o_O

      Have you even heard Limp's version or alternatively The Who's original??

      Lyrics: The Who.
      Lyrics: Limp Bizkit.

    59. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by AGMW · · Score: 1
      Internet Radio, iTunes, hell, even mySpace has some tunes on it you can listen too. Perhaps not as well organised as Sellaband where an unsigned artist can put up some of their wares and punters who like it can "pre-buy" their next CD for $10 and when $50,000 is raised they get put into a top recording studio with top producers, etc. The punters then get a copy of the 5000 Ltd Edition CDs (one for each $10 part they buy) and they get a share of revenue from selling the ordinary CDs and from Ad revenue from the site which offers DRM-free downloads of the tracks for 50cents a piece, with 3 free (as in beer!) tracks.

      Two artists already have their CDs out
      Nemesea :- Produced by, amongst others Tony Platt who worked on a lot of early ACDC
      Cubworld :- Produced in the Bennet Studios in NYC by, amongst others, Kiyanu Kim
      ... and a bunch have theirs in production or nearly ready ... indeed Second Person's CD comes out next week.

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    60. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      the music of the past was created through collaboration, through jam sessions, through actual instruments.

      Which was still done "sitting at home" and not "out in the streets" marching and protesting (I mean, I presume that Elton John's piano sits in his home, and not in the street?)

      the vast majority of the music on the internet is people copying bands they like and never getting better at what they do.

      You've just described the vast majority of music of the 20th Century, and probably everything before that too.

      getting out and performing in front of people, getting out and meeting others who also play music drives creativity. sitting at home writing songs that emulate what someone else did keeps the status quo.

      I suspect that performers who get out and perform still first wrote their songs at home. And I suspect that those who use the Internet still get out and perform and meet people.

      The thing I love most is the way that Elton John uses the Internet to push these views (and apparentely charges $40 for access to his forum). Hey, Elton, how about you stop staying at home blogging, and get out in the street and write some music!

    61. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by lilomar · · Score: 2, Funny

      Alternately:

      Lyrics: xkcd

      --
      The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
    62. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by ProppaT · · Score: 1


      Did Elton have the impact or did his writer? Because, honestly, the man would have never gotten off the ground if he didn't have a great writer.

      --
      Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
    63. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Indeed, all these people who sit at home and play the piano - they're destroying music!

      They need to get out in the streets, march and protest, and actually meet some real people. You're not going to do that stuck inside on your piano.

      (To be fair, I don't think he's actually campaigning to ban the Internet, but suggesting it as a hypothetical experiment: "I do think it would be an incredible experiment to shut down the whole internet for five years and see what sort of art is produced over that span." - he's still a prize turnip of course. Clearly we don't need to do this experiment, because the experiment's already been done: we can simply look at that brief period of time when we didn't have the Internet, you know, almost the entire period of human civilization...)

    64. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      I think Producer concieved/performed music has done more to ruin music than the internet ever could.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    65. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not tough. He's stupid.

    66. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try creating music that people like

      Amen. I'm a geezer, I was 17 in '69 (seventeen in sixty nine should have been a song title), and Elton John's pathetic hackwork came out shortly after I joined the Air Force.

      Elton John is one reason I have hope for music in this century.

      Because with one or two exceptions, the early seventies' music sucked decaying donkey balls and Elton John was among the apex of the suckage. We'd had rock and roll get loud and exciting with the likes of Blue Cheer, Led Zepplin, Black Sabbath... and then they stationed me in Delaware. Lots of radio from several high-population areas (Maryland, DC, etc) and what did I hear? Elton John, Jethro Tull (a flute player is supposed to be rock and roll????), all sorts of whiney, "please cry for me life's so sad" bullshit that made me want to puke ("There's a hole in daddy's arm where the money goes...").

      I'd go back home to St. Louis on leave and KSHE was calling Lynard Skynard, Molly Hatchett, Allman Brothers, and others I would call country music that KSHE was calling "Real Rock Radio". I'd call it "country". But it was a hell of a lot better than Elton John or the Eagles!

      But that musical dearth only lasted a few years, and we started hearing ZZ Top, Aerosmnith, Ted Nugent, Montrose (with Sammy Hagar) and the like. ROCK ON!

      I was cheered and hopeful this century when I heard Buckcherry, but sadly they seem to be the only new major label band from this century that I could actually call "rock and roll". I'm in Springfield now, and "The Rock Station" here (WQLZ plays a mix of antique music (Zepplin, Van Halen, Def Leppard, Alice in Chains) and the 21st century garbage that is no more Rock than Elton John's pathetic bullshit.

      The internet isn't killing music. Simon Cowell and Clear Channel are killing music. Corporations shouldn't be allowed to own media outlets, and nobody shouold be able to own more than five broadcast outlets, period.

      But I thank Elton John's shitty early '70s pap for giving me hope that things will improve.

      -mcgrew

    67. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      You mean Bernie Taupin writes songs that are autobiographical, about people that are important to him. It's Taupin that wrote all those love song lyrics of the past...usually written to his girlfriend at the time. Elton put them all to extremely beautiful music.

      I know, you did say "things important to his lyricist"...but I just wanted to make sure Bernie Taupin's name got out there. So who do we blame for "Benny and the Jets?"
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    68. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      The Doctor.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    69. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by rizzo420 · · Score: 1

      There is a huge difference between copying and emulating. The musicians of the 60's and 70's were emulating. The crap you hear today is copying direct sounds from people. Listen to Jackson Browne's "Running on Empty" album. The whole thing was written and recorded on the road. The musicians in the late 60's and early 70's all played together and collaborated together. When they went down to actually write music and record, you can tell they actually put time and effort into it and found new sounds. Bands like the Grateful Dead, Phish, The Band, The Beatles... they all used sounds they heard from each other and were able to play a multitude of genres well. Bands today just don't seem to be able to do that. They call themselves a pop punk band and never try introducing other elements into their music because "country sucks" or "hip hop sucks" or "folk sucks" or "jazz is boring" or "classical is for old people". Those bands will never make it because they don't understand music. The vast majority of modern bands are exactly this way.

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
    70. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alternately: xkcd really sucks
      http://cu.nniling.us/274/
    71. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      Hey, Elton's actually made music that isn't the same canned love-song crap. The songs he writes are autobiographical, about people important to him, about things important to his lyricist, etc.

      But what had he done for us lately, other than make canned music for The Rat?

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    72. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      Hey, Elton's actually made music that isn't the same canned love-song crap.The songs he writes are autobiographical, about people important to him, about things important to his lyricist, etc.
      RRRRRRight, like how he changed the lyrics to candle in the wind for Ryan White and Princess Diana. Nothing says your important like a madlib song.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    73. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Khuffie · · Score: 1

      When I first read that comment (was it on digg or fark), I knew people were gonna make a big deal about this. It's been taken way, way out of proportion. He was talking in a 'wouldn't it be nice' sort of way, the kind of way you say "ahh, those were the good old days". It's not like he's running any campaign to shut down the internet, or pushing for it in any shape, way or form. Sometimes, net sites are just like the media, looking for stories where there are none (re: paris hilton).

    74. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      The musicians of the 60's and 70's were emulating. The crap you hear today is copying direct sounds from people. ...

      What music are you listening to when you talk about music today?

      It sounds like you need to listen to more music - there's plenty I like today which emulates, not copies, and introduces elements from a variety of genres. Some bands write on the road, others write at home - just like happened in the past. If your argument is that writing at home will destroy music, it's not sufficient to show one example of a band writing on the road, you have to show that all music in the past was written on the road (or at least show that music written at home was sufficiently poorer).

      I suspect you're doing the fallacy of comparing the greatest bands of the past, to the typical chart rubbish today - ignoring that chart rubbish existed in the 60s today.

      And this has nothing to do with the Internet, anyway. The Internet didn't create those rubbish pop bands. This is completely off-topic.

    75. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by addicted4444 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While I disagree with Elton, you guys are completely missing the point of his statements. Its like you never even read what he purportedly said. He is not talking about the market, or sales, etc. He is claiming that with the rise of the internet, people have stopped (reduced) communicating in person. And that will theoretically prevent good bands from forming, because music is created best in groups jamming out together. He is not saying that the internet is killing music because bands cant make money. He is saying that the internet is killing music because there wont be too many bands and/or they wont communicate with each other personally (which would help raise the quality of music) because they are too busy sitting on their computer blogging or creating music alone. Personally, while he may be right in a couple of cases, there are far more cases where a band has improved because of some obscure music they listened to on iTunes which they would never had access to earlier. I agree with other commenters here that the lack of quality music in the airwaves (TV or radio) is the real discouragement for new good music. I personally believe that the internet will actually help music get better for the many reasons stated in this thread. But dont dismiss Elton's (supposedly) comments as a selfish artist's greedy rants, because it is not that at all.

    76. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      but far more great music and far less bad music was made in the 70s than there has been in the 90s or the 00s No, you just don't remember any of the bad stuff. In 20 years we won't remember Britney. We'll remember Radiohead, we'll remember Pearl Jam, we'll remember the bands that don't suck.
      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    77. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So who do we blame for "Benny and the Jets?" "Cocaine's a hell of a drug"
    78. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Alice in Chains is antique?

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    79. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Read his remark: "it would be an incredible experiment to shut down the whole internet for five years and see what sort of art is produced over that span." Do you think that's a serious call to shut down the Internet? I don't. I think it's an off-the-cuff call for musicians to interact more with each other and audiences. Do I personally agree that the Internet will turn all musicians into Moby? Nah. Then again, Elton John might just have insight into the musical world that you and I do not.

    80. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      He's stuck in his ways

      Actually, I would amend this to say "He's stuck in his money-making ways." This isn't about technology, it's about money and a spoiled celebrity who doesn't want his gravy train threatened.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    81. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think it's perfectly natural that he should have written this epitaph for Diana. Who better to write a love song for a spoiled, overrated princess than another spoiled, overrated princess?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    82. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Ride+Jib · · Score: 1

      Yes, funny. I think the title of the article should read "The Internet Says Elton John is Destroying Music"

    83. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by dm0527 · · Score: 1

      Sure. Mozart had an impact. Then he died when he was thirty five. We'll never know if he was really any good
      Ummm...you do know that you're talking about one of the most beloved classical composers in history, right? I guarantee this: he did more in his 35 years than 99% of the worlds population will do in their entire life. Did he die too soon? Yep. So did a lot of people in the late 1700's. Could he have done much more if he lived longer? Yep. Would it have changed how we look at him? Possibly, but only to enhance a body of work that some people consider to be the most genius ever created.
      --
      - dm - The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity.
    84. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by rizzo420 · · Score: 1

      i'm talking about the vast majority of bands i've heard on the internet trying to be something they're not because they're not opening their minds to other music, but think they're great because they can just push their music on myspace or garageband or purevolume.

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
    85. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by db32 · · Score: 1

      I think his point is that people are sitting in basements playing with computers to make music, where before, people used to sit in garages get high and play music together and record it on analog tapes. The upshot is artists from all across the world can collaborate easily, the downside is that the "human" touch of that colaboration is lessened because its all just bits on a wire.

      I don't agree with him that its killing music, I do agree with him that the human touch is being reduced, but I think its just a growing pains issue and it will eventually work itself out. Sequencing notes on a computer is all grand, but the computer will play it perfectly every time with each note sounding exactly the same. I am going to go ahead and guess that you have never actually played with a band because playing with a group of people is ENTIRELY different...you can feel the music...literally. Drums, Amps, etc put out quite a bit of vibration, there is sweat and strain because you are relying on your eyes and ears and feeling (physical not emotional) to keep all of the music together. So he is 100% correct that the human touch is definetly being reduced by more people doing it online instead of in person, but I don't think its killing it. I don't think what he is saying has anything to do with "his lost ability" to do anything, nor do I think it has anything to do with the industry of recording and publishing and distributing, it has to do with creating.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    86. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      philadelphia fever.

    87. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by nomadic · · Score: 1

      I couldn't believe that people were discounting his music abilities because they didn't like his opinion.

      I could. It's standard operating procedure around here.

    88. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Back ripped off his own melodies on a regular basis. In one case he transposed a piece by Vivaldi and called it his own. "All of it brilliant" ignores the pedestrian music he wrote (there was plenty, we just don't hear it because of the good stuff).

    89. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To use an old observation:

      "I returned and saw under the sun that -
      The race is not to the swift,
      Nor the battle to the strong,
      Nor bread to the wise,
      Nor riches to men of understanding,
      Nor favor to men of skill;
      But time and chance happen to them all"

      Stuff happens. Good stuff dies an early death and bad stuff can survive.

    90. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 1

      Yes, what type of career would Bernie Taupin (songwriter for most of Elton John's songs) have had without someone to sing his songs? It takes both.

    91. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Chemicalscum · · Score: 1

      This old punk says, I hope the internet destroys Elton John's muzak.

    92. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by rspress · · Score: 1

      Is this why Eltons music has sucked since 1980? He was good in the 70's but since then he has sucked, pardon the pun. Is Sir Elton afraid the some kid in a basement studio will make a better album than his? Talent is talent no matter if it is a full band or some kid with a copy of Cubase or Pro-tools LE playing all the parts himself. Talent does fade in most people, leave just the gimmicks of strange glasses and over the top costumes. Sir Elton, the Vegas strip is calling your name, answer it.

    93. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by asilentthing · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I totally agree with this. Even most of indie labels are partially (and indirectly) controlled by their distributor which is, more often than not, owned by a major. The indies basically become a springboard for bands to get to the majors.

      --
      --- these days, what with business and stuff, you gotta get your emails...
    94. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Internet radio is nice, if you can get it...

      I still depend upon broadcast radio because the majority of my day is spent in places that I flat out don't have access to Internet radio. Internet access at work is heavily filtered and is it nonexistent when I'm traveling from place to place through public transit or in my car.

      When Internet access becomes ubiquitous, yes, you can say that it is the most important channel for distribution. Until then, however, radio is still the most important (and most accessible) form of access to music.

    95. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by ibbo · · Score: 2, Funny

      He will moan about the internet and music but he will praise the Internet when he's hunting for young lads to bugger.

      Elton is past his prime and thinks he can actually have a say in the world. he better of sticking to the BBC gay parades that nobody watches.

      So Elton if your listening take you candle from the wind and shove it where it fits (and it it needs to be sideways then so be it)

      --
      Linux user #349545 (GNU/Linux)iD8DBQBAzWjX+MZAIjBWXGURAmflAKCntuBbuKC WenpmXoA7LNydllVQOwCfdjyzXscd
    96. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Mr.+Bad+Example · · Score: 1

      >> Yes, I do know Who actually wrote it
      >
      >
      > - So who did?

        I don't know.

          3rd Bass!

    97. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by purpledinoz · · Score: 1

      I really don't understand Elton John's issue with the internet here. Is he complaining that musicians choose to communicate via the Internet (whether it be e-mail, blogs, etc) and there's less personal contact between musicians? It sounds like he has an issue with musicians, not the Internet.

    98. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a lot of music that's survived 200 years and is still crap. Just because we still have the music doesn't mean it's any good.

      I'll never get why people think Mozart was so great. He wrote maybe 40 or 50 great pieces of music, and then everything from there was just variations on a theme. Bach, on the other hand, was a genius. Maybe not in the eccentric 'I write all my pieces in my head' genius, but I'd take Bach over Mozart any day.

    99. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by BoberFett · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Elton John has the gall to say there's a breakdown between artist and audience when he's charging $150 per ticket to see him? Fuck the arrogant bastard.

    100. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Actually, what's killing music is the death of clubs like CGBG and others like them. Where I live, there used to be a vibrant club scene that had lots of little bars and clubs, many with live acts. Well, for the sake of morality and "think of the children" [TM] they had to "clean up" that area because it was just unsightly to have beer cans and cups on the street on Sat/Sun mornings. So thanks to some regulations and zoning changes, more than half the clubs closed within a 24 month period killing all dynamics of the music scene. Now a metro area of about 5M realizes only bedroom community bliss. My city has become anti-music because there's no place to go see small acts as they begin, there's no place to gather, no place to exchange ideas or have a changing lineup to find something that works.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    101. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Dash+Hash · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? Of /COURSE/ radio is a major distribution channel. Why, without it, my FM transmitter wouldn't work and I'd be forced to listen to my MP3 player (and its load of Internet music and all the new and good artists the Internet brings with it) through uncomfortable and awkward headphones whenever I'm driving.

      --
      Calling a sword by a pretty name is no more than adding perfume to poison.
    102. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by kiltyj · · Score: 1

      - So who did?
      - Yes! No, no... It wasn't Yes, silly. It was the Who!
    103. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "So, was it Yes! or The Who?"

      Guess Who

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    104. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by dbhost · · Score: 1

      I just LOVE the excerpts from the interview! "There's too much technology available.", and "I am such a Luddite when it comes to making music. All I can do is write at the piano.". Well let's look at this... According to this wikipedia article technology is defined as... "Technology is a broad concept that deals with a species' usage and knowledge of tools and crafts, and how it affects a species' ability to control and adapt to its environment." Music, in particular, is a "craft" that utilizes "tools" (musical instruments). So without technology of any sort, music beyond vocals would simply not exist. Even banging two rocks together rhythmically is using tools for the craft, hence, technology. So is Sir Elton going to give up his paino? I think not. Okay let's assume he is lamenting what would better be defined as digital technology. I doubt he would be willing to go back to the days of analog recording and unreliable vacuum tube amplifiers. He also completely misses the club, and garage scene. Many of us IT geeks that make our bucks at a computer keyboard, like to pick up a guitar, bass, drumsticks, microphone, or whatever floats your boat, and jam with friends after work, and on weekends. I can't even begin to tell you how many of the local bar bands in my area are filled with developers, system administrators, and engineers. Creative expression is not the exclusive domain of the recording industry insiders, and the explosion of cheap, easily available, and easy to use recording and distribution technologies through commodity hardware, software, and internet access has opened up a world of audience to musicians and artists that otherwise would never have had a chance to be seen or heard. Sure many of them are lousy. Some of them are fantastic! So if Elton thinks the internet is killing music so be it. What consequence does a washed up 1970s hack have on modern music anyway?

    105. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Perl-Pusher · · Score: 2

      Absolutely, record companies used to be run by people who loved music. Now they're multi-million dollar conglomerates and its all marketing. Chess records changed the music seen by introducing the blues to Europe. Sam Phillips brought rockabilly music. Motown etc. Unfortunately those days are history. Now corporations like Sony sell music. And market there crap along with MTV, TV series and Wrestling.

    106. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by djasbestos · · Score: 1

      Having been both a college radio DJ and unsigned band member, I have to agree. Independent radio is great, because both the station and the actual DJ's are permitted freedom in format and content of their programming. Our daytime was fairly strictly formatted to college rock, but in the evening, our specialty programs broke the mold (I had a show specializing in industrial for 2 years). I made an effort to get local bands some airtime, as well as lesser known national acts, both by playing their tracks as well as doing interviews (either via phone or live in the booth).

      I know of national acts (and I myself have done the same) that collaborate with other musicians across the country to produce some phenomenal music. "I am such a Luddite when it comes to making music. All I can do is write at the piano." I think that speaks for itself...if you're a low tech person, you're not going to be able to collaborate online. But for those of us who can record at home or are programmers, it's not only realistic, it's MUCH more cost effective when you aren't backed by an enormous recording contract. I don't mean to knock his composition method, but it isn't the only one that can produce excellent music. All the music from one project of mine is completely free (shameless plug: http://www.plasmacrash.com), and was all composed at the computer or sequencer deck.

      And considering the crap they play on mainstream radio, I'm proud not to be associated with it. I write music because I enjoy doing it for the sake of creating art (and I have an axe to grind)...this is why people should write music...not for sales or fame. I hate pop, but evenso, I recognize the importance and skill of Elton John...but he needs to wake up and smell the coffee of the internet age, where "good music" actually has a chance if it isn't mass-marketable...because niche markets will be so much happier, leading to more diversity and variety than the top 40 bubble-gum bullshit.

    107. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by lymond01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Read his remark: "it would be an incredible experiment to shut down the whole internet for five years and see what sort of art is produced over that span." Do you think that's a serious call to shut down the Internet?

      It might be a great experiment to remove copyright, makes songs free on the Internet, and have musicians only make money by performing. Musicians would be a lot poorer, but the listeners might find more music to listen to.

    108. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by sgholt · · Score: 1

      Just goes to show you that most musicians and entertainment people are just full of shit..just because Elton doesn't use a computer or cell phone, I am sure his huge staff is very well connected.
      He also shouldn't be talking about the state of music, as others have said, there is too much crap being released. Further more, Bernie Taupin helped or wrote most of his hits, buying talent like that seems to be kinda "cold and impersonal" to me....

      The larger picture here is that the famous and rich entertainment types have very little experience in the real world and expect the rest of us to follow them because they can write/sing a song.
      The fact that they are usually liberal idiots supports the fact that they have so little real experience.

    109. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by geobeck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sir Reginald is totally displacing here. The Internet is not the problem with modern music; on the contrary, it's the only thing keeping music alive. The large record companies are killing music by providing an endless supply of "marketable" pop claptrap. All of the musical innovation today comes from independent artists who have virtually no chance of ever getting a lucrative record contract. Guess where these indies distribute their music? Guess where they collaborate?

      When it comes down to jamming, they still do it in basements and garages, like they've always done, but the sharing of ideas is possible like never before because of the "problem" that Elton is complaining about.

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    110. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totally agree on all points. The radio is dead. There is no new music being played just the same junk over and over. No matter
      what type of music you listen too, it's the crap that the labels are paying to push instead of presenting a variety of stuff.
      Also, if a radio station doesn't play what they are supposed to play 8 million times a day, they get pulled all sponsorships
      and die. It sucks. I hate radio, I hate the big stations, I hate the RIA. Greed kills everything. I liked what someone said,
      music was never intended to make money. It was intended as a way to communicate a message and have people enjoy it.
      Greed killed it.

    111. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by cosinezero · · Score: 1

      "And there's the problem. He's stuck in his ways, and the internet is a threat to those ways."

      -->Let's be even clearer.

      Music has always been about rebelling against the established ways of writing music.

      Mr. B. Thoven was rebellious because he wrote music using his thumbs. The church found his music sinful.

      It's all the same. Elton should recognize it for what it is.

    112. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by dcarmi · · Score: 1
      It has eveything to do with this!

      Obviously the song is allegorical, harking back to days of youth when music was fresh an vibrant. Then:

      But the years went by and the rock just died
      Suzie went and left us for some foreign guy
      Long nights crying by the record machine
      dreaming of my Chevy and my old blue jeans

      shows how things changed. Suzy obviously left him for her PC and headphones and YouTube/MySpace (the "foreign guy"). Poor Elton no longer has anyone to go out and dance with. He most probably spends his evening alone, by his (expensive) record deck, listening to Crocodile Rock over and over again.

      The poor wee soul is left friendless, bitter and twisted with nothing but a wardrobe of wacky clothes and as many pairs of odd specs as you can imagine.

      The Internet not only killed music, it devastated his social life. Have some sympathy and respect please. ;-)

    113. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Bud+Dickman · · Score: 1
      You're comparing the Beatles to a sampling of bands you found on myspace? Wouldn't a more apt comparison be between a less revered band than the Beatles? You listed off the best of the best and you're making some vague comparison to an undisclosed list of bands you found on the internet. Not exactly scientific or concrete enough to argue with you about it. What was your point anyway?

      sincerely,
      Bud Dickman

    114. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by jcgf · · Score: 1

      Well, I think I remember that his writer only wrote the lyrics and John came up with the music. So it was more a team effort I think.

    115. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by HermMunster · · Score: 1

      What ruined music for me, at least in part, and I know it isn't PC but it is true, is that Elton was writing these songs for his male lovers. That just destroys it for me.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    116. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by highlander76 · · Score: 1

      We have an opportunity for the internet to rid us of the huge corporate media companies that push out music aimed at the lowest common denominator in order to maximize their profits. As publishing and promotion costs decrease more independent musicians and small music labels will be able to take more chances on the niche bands, letting the artists deliver their true visions rather than having some corporate weenie force them to add more cowbell because that's what was on the last big album so now every album must copy it.

    117. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by rizzo420 · · Score: 1

      I listed bands who toyed with other genres and sounds. Bands who collaborated and worked regularly with other artists and musicians. Sure, the Beatles are the best of the best, but I am not talking about them in that way. I don't want another Beatles, I want bands who just make decent music or strive for it rather than striving to sound like their favorite band du jour.

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
    118. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by jcgf · · Score: 1

      Are people with just slightly lower UIDs like you and I cool then? I always thought my UID was high but then I guess there are some 7 digit ones around.

    119. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by morcego · · Score: 1

      What he's saying is that the music industry is in a creative crisis, and that the source of that crisis is a kind of breakdown in communication between artist and artist and artist and audience.


      I happen to agree with him.

      In the past, those artists would have direct contact with the public. And I don't mean "I can write in his blog" direct contact. I mean "sitting on the same table". These days you record an mp3 and post it.

      Is that the only problem ? Of course not. It that the major problem ? I really can't tell. But it is a problem and should not be minimized.

      The Internet is not the only thing that is keeping the artist distant from his audience. The recording labels are doing their share too, trying to create "hit bands" out of the blue, which ends up amounting to the exactly same thing.

      "Manufactured artists", be by RIAA or by the easy of _indirect_ communication provided by the Internet is a big issue, and part and parcel of the reason we have so much crap.
      --
      morcego
    120. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by jcgf · · Score: 1

      I went to Jonathan Coulton's website and listened to some of his songs. The songs were ok, but his voice got on my nerves for some reason. I'd rather listen to elton john (at least his old hits anyways).

    121. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by luigi6699 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's interesting to hear this from the perspective of a very mainstream composer. Fascinating that he feels so disjunct from his listeners. Because for most independent and small artists, the Internet has brought them much CLOSER to their audiences. The increased communication, sense of community, and the niche culture of the Internet has been hailed as a boon by small artists. Suddenly the major label barriers to audience access have fallen down.

      Perhaps what Elton is really describing is the disconnect of the artist who does not concertize. Smaller, independents described above make the majority of their income in live performances. Online communities and media all drive these artists' fans towards the concert hall. Elton is still operating in the paradigm where the album is the primary unit of communication with your audience. You do concerts and tours, but really only to promote a new album. Fans' reactions are taken on a per-album basis. There's no question that this model is getting less effective, and that can feel like a disconnect if you're stuck operating that way.

      And BTW, Elton may be a real composer, but let's not compare him to Mozart. In his short life, Mozart revolutionized music. A poster here commented that he never got old enough for us to see if he was "really any good." As a classical musician, I can tell you that 600 compositions is MORE THAN ENOUGH to tell if a composer is "really any good". And Mozart was one of the greatest.

      --
      **** You never REALLY learn to swear until you own a computer. ****
    122. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm no elton fan for sure, but your comment was the most pathetic lump of ad-hominem wrapped up in reasonable-sounding phraseology I have read in some time.

    123. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by morari · · Score: 1

      Elton John is saying something much more interesting than the usual "file sharing is killing the music industry" line, and it's silly to dismiss him because he hasn't moved with the times onto hip-hop or something like that. Um, didn't he do a duet with Slim Shady, or Eminem, or whatever the douche's name is?
      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    124. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by qualidafial · · Score: 1

      I don't know.

      3rd Bass! 3rd Bass was a rap group. The bit you referenced is actually an Abbot and Costello skit called Who's on First.
    125. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by shillbot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "What he's saying is that the music industry is in a creative crisis"

      Oh please. Music sucked just as much in the early 70s as it does now. It's just that people selectively forget all of the utter shite, and then pine for the "good old days."

      I've got news for ya. There never were any "good old days."

      And people, PLEASE stop exaggerating Elton John's influence on music. I don't recall any band that ever claimed him as an influence. Of course, I think his music is crap, so I don't imagine that I would listen to a band that sounded even remotely like him...

    126. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 1

      Try giving people a platform to reach millions that doesn't require them to be screened by a record company filter first for corporate music formula approval

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    127. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by sleigher · · Score: 1

      I kind of have to agree. If someone really wants to know who makes really great music, one needs to ask their favorite artist who their influences are. Often times, in many different genres, Elton John is brought up as a primary influence. Elton John is revered as one of the greats. I personally do not really like his music, nor do I listen very often. I have played music for most of my life and it is not hard to see who a lot of mainstream artists influences are. I can fully see the value and genius that goes into a lot of Elton John's music, just not my cup of tea. It will be a great day when people can appreciate music for what it is instead of allowing themselves to be dictated to by the industry what they should think is good. If this could happen then the music industry we know today would be a very different thing.

      --
      All points of time and space are connected.
    128. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by YU5333021 · · Score: 2

      10-Yes, I do know Who actually wrote it

      20- So who did?

      30- Yes!

      40-I don't think that was a 'yes' song.

      50- I wasn't. It was Who.

      60-Who?

      70-Yes.

      80-You're a dick. Do I have to guess who did it?

      90-'Guess Who' didn't do it.

      100-Who?

      110-Yes!

      120-What? You said it wasn't them!

      130-It definitively wasn't 'Them'.

      140-So, who was it?

      150-Correct.

      160-you actually don't know who wrote that song!

      170-go to 10

    129. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      I know he's on Timbaland's album.

    130. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by sleigher · · Score: 1

      I will agree on one point. Today people are making music and musical careers on a computer without playing an instrument. I'll admit that most of the electronic music I hear I think is horrible. What happened to the days that a bunch of guys/girls could get together and play music, on instruments, and really create something. Even if they are emulating their favorite band of the time, it is WAY better to understand the individual components of what makes the music what it is. Understanding the chord progressions, harmonic major and minors, why one would use a diminished 7th in a certain location to conjure a certain feeling in the listener. I think very few musicians today understand these concepts and music is written generally to keep a melody in your head so that you will buy it.

      I am a little bitter but I really wish that people would start creating music for themselves instead of for the crowd. If people would forget for a minute what is selling at the moment, and make music that they truly loved the industry would change, and thus we would have better music.

      --
      All points of time and space are connected.
    131. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Mr.+Bad+Example · · Score: 1

      > 3rd Bass was a rap group. The bit you referenced is actually
      > an Abbot and Costello skit called Who's on First.

      Is there a word for the opposite of satori?

      Because whatever it is, I think you just inflicted it on everyone.

    132. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoosh.

      gp makes a point though -- would he have been a hack at 60?

    133. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by operagost · · Score: 1

      He's pretty much proved that he doesn't even know what the internet is. Last time I checked, Pro Tools and Sonar weren't internet applications. He might as well suggest that telephones are bad for poetry, because you might read poetry to someone over the phone instead of meeting them in person in a coffee shop.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    134. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Buran · · Score: 1

      I think he actually really is that clueless; I run into this kind of thing quite a bit. Lots of people, especially older people in Elton's age range (he just turned 60) didn't grow up with computers in their daily lives and so they don't use them as long as they don't really need them (and he doesn't. He's talented and doesn't need any assistance to write great music). If they are told by someone who they think does "get it", they accept what they are told, pretty much.

      So I think that this is an example of "older guy who doesn't get it thinks the internet will be the death of us all" followed by "press goes crazy about anything with a celebrity involved in it" (I mean c'mon, even ABCNews is covering all the celebrity junk these days it's ridiculous) but you have to blame Slashdot, too -- why is this worthy of the front page? Probably because of the "famous person says something ridiculous and we want to point and laugh" angle...

      Fortunately, not every older guy doesn't get it; my parents do more than Elton does (Dad really knows how to use computers) and both of them are older than Elton is. So I think it probably is a combination of age, upbringing, personality, and career (Dad's had to work with computers for years; he's a physicist).

    135. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by thesameguy · · Score: 2

      COMPLETELY agree. I know a number of other folks have made similar remarks, but this one caught my eye. The internet didn't have nearly the popularity it does today when the boy bands originally surfaced, and I'd say that was largely the beginning of the end. If you wanna blame someone or something for death of musical innovation, blame the folks who want to sell CDs and merchandize, and not art. Most everyone I know locally who is in a band locally got hooked up over the internet. CL ads, forums, mailing lists. It's not like you can go hang out at the local record store to meet music aficionados anymore, and the music gear megastores are too few and far between for younger people to get to & hang out. Internet-distributed indie groups, (dare I say it) MySpace, and internet radio (which is being killed) are what's keeping the good parts of the business alive. In fact, I'd say the internet is the only thing that allows individuals to be competitive anymore in *anything*.

    136. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Buran · · Score: 1

      Is there anything necessarily wrong with being stuck in one's ways, in this case, though? Computers have been ingrained so heavily into the process of making music these days that many bands can't perform live because they depend so heavily on postprocessing. Yet Elton's live shows are said by many (including myself) to be even better than what he produces in the studio. Real musical talent is like that -- I'm not saying that you can't make good music with technical help, mind; it's just not absolutely necessary. (Elton also runs his own label; his days of being stuck in a restrictive contract are long over. I've heard the music he did make when he was under the contract, though, and even that is largely great although of course there are some "dud" songs I don't care for, but that happens with any artist due to peoples' varying tastes).

      I also agree that the Internet helps us discover new music; I've learned of new artists myself that way. I just don't really think that "stuck in his ways" is really the problem as much as not really "getting it". The guy's 60 years old. Common problem for that age group, unfortunately. Most likely this is due to the resulting misconceptions of what people actually do online.

    137. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      Mozart may not be on the same level as far as music you'd want to listen to, but Mozart's music is consistently great fun to play. Eine Kleine Nachtmusik is my single favorite song to play on the violin, but I hardly ever listen to it.

    138. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Buran · · Score: 1

      It's our only chance of living; take all you need to live inside ... ;)

    139. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Buran · · Score: 1

      Nostalgia. Either that or someone had premonition dreams about this crazy guy named Steve Irwin. Crikey!

    140. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't know that Mozart was really any good or not, it's because you are dumb(tm). Elton isn't making a factual statement that the music industry is in a creative crisis, he's stating an opinion. The "music industry" will always be about making more money. So, when the current "whatever relationship is working that makes us the most bucks" vanishes, a new one will fill the vacuum. When that happens, his fat ass won't be able to go on $30M spending sprees anymore...that's why he is alarmed!

    141. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Buran · · Score: 1

      I thought it was a pretty nice gesture, actually. It was a well-known song when it was originally released, he's a well-known individual, he WAS her friend, and that's how he showed his respect and how he chose to mourn her publicly. Who are we to jeer and say that that's inappropriate? I don't think it's right to be arrogant enough to think we know any better.

      Losing friends is hell enough without idiots like us on the internet pointing and laughing.

    142. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Buran · · Score: 1

      Naturally, this being Slashdot, anyone who says something like "shut down the internet" is going to be taken way out of proportion. Especially if they're a celebrity.

      I'm mostly bothered by all the hate Elton seems to be getting. I'm surprised that there aren't lots of anti-gay remarks (although maybe there are; I'm just replying to the replies I got while sleeping, not re-reading the thread) and I don't know why more people can't respect artists they may not listen to. Honestly, if people don't like someone's music, they can just not listen to it. I like his music, I like it a lot (you should see how much of my music library is his work, including live stuff) but I don't hate on other artists.

      I know, I know, it's Slashdot, what should I expect?

      Eh ...

    143. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Buran · · Score: 1

      Plenty since then, plenty before that, and that "canned music" actually is quite well-liked by his fans. Don't like it? Don't buy it.

    144. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      What city is this? It might be time to move.

      I think the internet is only good for music, and this is another reason: when the music-friendly clubs close down, people stuck in that city can still communicate and form groups on the internet, and meet each other that way.

    145. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Khuffie · · Score: 1

      It's been ages since I listened to Elton John, but I do like him. My point is, why are we giving this any time of day just because he's a celebrity? He has absolutely no power or authority over the internet. Nothing he says or does will likely cause a 'shutdown' of the internet. These are the same people that whine about hwo much Paris Hilton is in the news because she's famous, and they do the same thing with something like this.

    146. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The biggest problem in music is the end of independent ownership and management of everything related to music on any kind of large scale

      I disagree. I find that the internet has personalized my music experience more than ever. I don't have to listen to sputum from Clear Channel. I don't have two or three radio stations I can stand to listen to. I have myriads of options. Lately I've been trying out Pandora, which makes an effort to personalize my internet radio to match my tastes. It's not perfect (tell Pandora you like a single song by the Scorpions and be prepared for an onslaught of really bad 80's hair rock), but it's definitely a step in the right direction: it's mostly music I like, plus lots of artists I would probably never otherwise have tried listening to. Oh, and the play songs from albums, not just singles.

      Maybe Elton isn't the phenom he used to be, but it's not fair to blame the internet. The internet just made Elton's little pond a lot bigger, that's all.

    147. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plenty since then, plenty before that, and that "canned music" actually is quite well-liked by his fans. Don't like it? Don't buy it.

      Brittany and JT fans can say this as well.

    148. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by slashgimp · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yeah; and he should stow his petty arrogance while he's at it. Quoting from TFA:

      Instead they sit at home and make their own records, which is sometimes OK but it doesn't bode well for long-term artistic vision. WTF? Does he mean that DJs like Kid Koala make music which is merely "OK" by this clown's standards? Maybe Elton should crawl out from under his pablum-encrusted career (Candle in the Wind, anyone?) and listen to some of the stuff he's dissing.

      whee.
    149. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Bud+Dickman · · Score: 1

      "I don't want another Beatles, I want bands who just make decent music or strive for it rather than striving to sound like their favorite band du jour."
      Now, much more so than any time in history, the range of music being created is so much more diverse I find it hard to believe that you can't find anything that's "decent music". Sure, there are plenty of bands that follow the pack but that's nothing new. Do you know why the whole disco thing happened in the 70s? Because bands climbed on board and started trying to sound like the favorite band du jour. Do you think Kiss made a disco album because they were really interested in experimenting with disco or could it be that they were following the other commercially successful bands in an attempt to make more money? I reject your implication that the current bands who are trying to emulate what is selling is a new phenomenon and I also reject your implication that there are no bands out there who do not experiment and try to hone their craft and create a unique sound.
    150. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't say Mozart revolutionized anything. He was quite happy writing music to please the contemporary audiences and nothing more. Haydn did more to change classical composition. (Symphonies, string quartets, etc..) Beethoven was far more revolutionary. Mozart was stuck in his own time, and perfectly content with that.

    151. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Buran · · Score: 1

      I *am* wondering why the heck this got approved AND on the front page, yes.

    152. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      It's in the same state as SXSW. Actually, there's 3 areas in 2 cities that have suffered the this fate over the past 15-20 years. And they wonder why areas effectively "die".

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    153. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by rizzo420 · · Score: 1

      i have said over and over again, not that there are no unique bands, but that the vast overwhelming majority of them are not creative. the phenomenon that we are experiencing now is not that bands are trying to emulate something, but rather that the internet is allowing more and more people to spread their music. there are probably more "bands" and "musicians" out there now than in the 70's pushing their music through sites like myspace trying to get a national audience rather than trying to improve themselves by going out and playing shows at local venues. yes, i know there are unique bands out there now, but those are the exceptions. sure, the uncreative bands existed in the 60's and 70's, but there were a lot more bands that were collaborations of artists from other bands (new riders, JGB, derek and the dominos, dylan and the dead, entire concerts performed jointly between multiple bands all playing together rather than one at a time). that doesn't happen as often anymore. the collaboration is not as prevalent.

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
    154. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Ubergrendle · · Score: 1

      The irony of big rock star musician vs his audience was probably best explored via Pink Floyd's The Wall. Roger Waters goes so far as to pain the audience as mindless sheep at a fascist pep rally (run like hell) and the fans at the concerts went nuts for that song. Cognitive dissonance at a macro level...

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    155. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      It's like those old trailers from when they were re-releasing the Star Wars trilogy in '97. Recorded music is kind of like trying to play Star Wars on that puny non-widescreen. You've not really seen Star Wars until you've seen it in all of it's glory on a proper screen with a proper sound system.

      Music worth listening to is just like that.

      Recordings are engineered to death these days. So even if you got over the technical limitations on music recordings and the fact that you've lost the visceral quality of the crowd and the performance venue and the fact that you could throw a tequilla bottle at the lead singer and throw him off tune, you've still got the problem that all the life has been sucked out of the music in the studio.

      One live show of a good band easily is more valuable than their entire recorded works.

      You can't really appreciate those overengineered recordings until you've heard the real thing.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    156. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Bud+Dickman · · Score: 1

      "but that the vast overwhelming majority of them are not creative."
      The same way it has always been in my estimation. And since "creativity" is a pretty vague definition, I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree on that one unless you've got a metric for measuring creativity that we can argue over.

      "there are probably more "bands" and "musicians" out there now than in the 70's pushing their music through sites like myspace trying to get a national audience rather than trying to improve themselves by going out and playing shows at local venues."
      I can guarantee that statement is correct since myspace didn't exist in the 70s, there were approximately 0 bands pushing their music through sites like myspace.

      "but those are the exceptions. sure, the uncreative bands existed in the 60's and 70's, but there were a lot more bands that were collaborations of artists from other bands (new riders, JGB, derek and the dominos, dylan and the dead, entire concerts performed jointly between multiple bands all playing together rather than one at a time). that doesn't happen as often anymore. the collaboration is not as prevalent."
      So what? Bands themselves are a collaborative effort since there are multiple people involved. Who are you to tell people how and in what manner they should create music? I really don't see your point. You mention Derek and the Dominos - that was 4 guys playing music together. How is that any different than any other rock band out there today? Oh - because it's a "supergroup" that somehow makes it a "super-collaboration" as opposed to the regular collaboration that any group of musicians that make up a band undertake! I see now. Brilliant.
    157. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by rizzo420 · · Score: 1

      musicians that came from somewhat different genres is what i meant by derek and the dominos. same goes for traveling wilburys. they all had their own careers that were successful and collaborated to come up with something different.

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
    158. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by sr.+bigotes · · Score: 1

      You must understand, there is a huge difference between having perfect pitch and being so bad at singing that you have to lipsync. In fact, most people with perfect pitch have a very difficult time singing in tune along with a group, because they base the notes they produce on some absolute standard, and not on the notes being produced around them. For example, let's say Mr. Elton John generally tunes his instruments to A = 440Hz. If it's a particularly humid day out, the pitch of the instruments might sneak a little bit higher after they've been tuned, say to A = 442Hz. Because he has perfect pitch, or so you imply, Elton will have a very difficult time singing A = 442Hz, because that would effectively be out of tune for him. He would probably be so bothered by this discrepancy that he might even consider lip-syncing for his own sanity. It's actually a fairly useless skill for a singer or composer of tonal music to have, and it has no correlation with one's musical talent at all.

    159. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by db32 · · Score: 1

      It is a growth problem, I think computers and the net will allow that. But it is a pretty new way of doing things...until it matures you won't see alot of quality. Suddenly 10,000,000 amatures show up...well over time at least some of those amatures through practice and learning will become professionals, but at day 1 almsot everyone is amature and the products suck :)

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    160. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by starwarsfans · · Score: 1

      No, Artists have not stopped playing in Clubs or giving concerts. And I know that was a rhetorical question, but it deserves to be addressed. The problem for the consumer is that they are charging us an arm and a leg to go see them live because they think everybody is trying to steal their music when they sell it in digital form. Before the Internet age, we could see a Major Caliber Artist for 20 bucks. Now, you can't get in for less than 100.

      However, even the smaller name artists are taking advantage and charging us 50-100 to see them. It's only going to get worse. The more they charge, the more people will try to get their music off somebody else, instead of paying for it.

    161. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "All of the musical innovation today comes from independent artists who have virtually no chance of ever getting a lucrative record contract."

      And they can't make money selling their music either, because it's instantly pirated.

      So, you get lots of small artists who are interesting, but never reach their potential, as they are forced to do it as a part time thing. So their ideas get ripped off again by the majors *and the public* and no one ever hears of them except for a few fans on their myspace page, which is buried among a million other band's myspace pages.

      "When it comes down to jamming, they still do it in basements and garages, like they've always done, "

      No you cant. Noise pollution, environmental health etc. Try jamming in your garage and see what happens. People are not tolerant of music nowadays.

      The thing Elton is complaining about is that the further you get from the physical world, the less you seem to be able to influence it. Seeing a band on a stage rocking affects people more than browsing a web site. Making music in a room with your friends affects you more than emailing stuff to each other.

    162. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by bwy · · Score: 1

      I think the biggest problem in music, at least in the US, is the end of independent ownership and management of radio stations.

      Agreed. I'm as strong of a capitalist as they come, and wlecome larger stores like WalMart, Costco and Best Buy. To me, buying deodorant or paper towels isn't some spiritual experience. It is a minor annoyance in my life that I'd like to handle as cheaply and as quickly as possible. I could care less about having some special experience with a mom and pop store when I'm buying commodities. I'm sure others will differ, don't really care to argue the point, I'm just explaining myself in order to make my next point:

      I used to live on the east coast, now I live on Kauai... one of the nicest things here is that the radio stations and movie theaters are still privately owned- no Regal, AMC, ClearChannel or other affiliations that I'm aware of. The result? Lets see:

      Radio stations play whatever they want, and basically whatever people want to hear. With less commercials. They don't have a requirement to play the latest Fergie or P-Diddy jingle every hour. One station's motto is "We play whatever we want."

      Movies? Hell, its like the good old days. You go in, pay your $7, watch a few previews and the movie starts. You're not overrun with advertising while you wait for the previews before the lights go dim, only to learn there will more more commericals before the previews.

      The big record labels have screwed stuff up equally as bad. But, things like iTMS have a potential to change this. People may not NEED a huge record label to earn a living anymore. They might not need to have their music at Best Buy and their song played every hour on every station Clear Channel owns.

      So, what do good capitalists do? They vote with their dollars. I'm pumping money into an independent theater, listening to independent radio stations, and buy music online that isn't associated with massive record labels. I encourage everyone to vote with their dollars, too, even if you're voting for different stuff than me.

    163. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1


      When is the last time you think Elton John sat at a table with someone from the random public?

      Another poster had it right when they pointed out that the music industry is actually headed back to it's roots, but with so much more potential. Back 'in the old days', actually already up to the early radio days, a bunch of people got together and started playing music. They started in a garage or warehouse somewhere, playing other peoples music that they all knew, and playing stuff that one, or more, of them had written. Then they got local gigs, and started forming a following. Folks in their fan base talked about the great music they were playing, and the fan base grew and more gigs were booked, and to larger audiences. When recording media became prevalent, they would record a couple songs and other parts of the country would get to hear it. Bands, singers, and songs became popular through a gradual gathering of support and a solid fan base.

      For decades now, a music executive finds a band he can sign cheap, that he can market into a pop sensation, blasts their music all over, so you have no choice but to listen to it, and most of the 'fan base' occurs simply because the majority don't have any choice or options.

      But now the Internet is taking us back to the time that you have to develop your fan base through personal contact and good music. Just getting people together and posting your music to a MySpace page isn't going to get you a fan base. there is too much music available for any appreciable number of people to find and listen to what you are doing. So you fall back on local gigs and developing a following. Then they go on their blogs and talk about your great music and can actually point people to your website and music. So you can develop a much larger, global fan base much faster, but it still requires that you get word of mouth out through personal interaction.

      Kelly Clarkson, Justin Timberlake, Brittany Spears, etc. Have never had to do club shows and actually interact with their fans.

      Most of the music I listen to now is from bands that I've sent drinks up to on the stage, and usually afterwards had a good social time with when their set was done. And most of them love to hear what those of us sitting in the audience really liked about particular songs, and what we didn't like so much. That is so much easier and more comfortable to convey sitting in the bar talking about it, than making an impersonal comment post on their blog.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    164. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by morcego · · Score: 1

      When is the last time you think Elton John sat at a table with someone from the random public?


      When it matted: the first years of his career. Which was kind easy to understand if you paid attention to what I said.
      --
      morcego
    165. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

      "
      Sucks to be you, Elton
      (Score:-1, Troll)
      "

      Wow. Who knew the Elton John Fanclub had enough members who were /. readers with mod points?

      See, Elton, the Internet CAN bring people together!

      GROUP HUG!

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    166. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Associate · · Score: 1

      I haven't heard anyone talk about THEM in ages. What ever happened to THEM?

      --
      Someone hates these cans.
    167. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Gridpoet · · Score: 1

      i was going to make a post, but then i read yours and it said everything i wanted to with more eloquence.

      i think i'm in love... in a totaly non-homoerotic way....

      okay, well maybe just a little

      unless your a woman... wait this is slashdot.... DOH!

      --

      -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      This is MY galaxy...go find your OWN!

    168. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Let's see, hmm, a true music writer with perfect pitch, ya that just doesn't work in today's Britney, lipsync crowd. ;)

      That's funny when you realize Elton writes almost none of his music, just the lyrics. Bernie Taupin is pretty exclusively the music writer.

    169. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by xeoron · · Score: 1

      Doesn't Sir Elton write a lot of his music with a long term friend that which is created together, but not in person and in fact far distances apart? If I am remembered correctly, then his whole arguement appears rubbish to me.

    170. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      That's funny when you realize Elton writes almost none of his music, just the lyrics. Bernie Taupin is pretty exclusively the music writer.

      Are you retarded? You have it exactly opposite.

    171. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by treeves · · Score: 1
      . . . 600 compositions is MORE THAN ENOUGH to tell . . .

      As another (amateur) classical musician, I never considered that he [hey!] might actually be dissing Mozart. I think he was just being sarcastic, saying you could judge Elton John fairly by everything he did before age 35.

      Of course, I'll agree, there's not much comparison, and it sort of forces you to imagine that somehow Mozart would have gone downhill and started writing stuff like Candle in the Wind after Don Giovanni, The Magic Flute, and the Jupiter Symphony. Not bloody likely.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    172. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      At the least, we are cooler than the 7-digit ones. The 5-digit guys are way cooler than us though. They got in before it was cool to be on Slashdot.

      --
      SRSLY.
    173. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by dbIII · · Score: 1

      today's Britney crowd

      She's made a huge contribution to society - mainly inspiring most women under 40 in the western world to wear less clothing.

    174. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One word: Podcast. It's like broadcast radio but better in every way.

    175. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by dbIII · · Score: 1

      But "close down the internet"? That's just ridiculous.

      I think it's a "bigger than Jesus" style comment that is not meant to be taken literally but is illustrating a point with a bit of exageration.

    176. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by dbIII · · Score: 1

      In a lot of cases he didn't do the lyrics but composed the music to go with them - just like a lot of other bands where one guy is really good at the lyrics and another can compose. I think he wrote it to go with what he felt from the words instead of what is written above.

    177. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Gah. I knew that, really. But yeah, I got it back to front. Sucks to be me.

    178. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by seabre · · Score: 1

      "Sure. Mozart had an impact. Then he died when he was thirty five. We'll never know if he was really any good because we'll never know whether the stuff he would have produced when he was fifty or sixty would be just as good."

      Ugh, chances are, you definitely have no idea what you're talking about.
      Considering Mozart, I'm assuming you're talking about W.A. Mozart, composed OVER 600 COMPOSITIONS

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Moza rt

      I'm pretty sure people who know what they're talking about have a good idea of his compositional abilities.

    179. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by PixelScuba · · Score: 1

      I'll attest to that. I've seen him live twice in my life (in the past decade... I'm a bit too young to have seen his 70s performances) and he puts on a terrific show. He plays to the audience, and really gets into the piano. No lip syncing, no flashy dancers... just Elton, his band and the piano. I even caught the Billy Joel Elton John tour, which was fantastic... the two of them played off each other very well. People talk about real musicians and artists... I don't think they come much more genuine than Elton John. Even if he made no money performing shows... I would imagine he would still be composing songs.

    180. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Wow, if I could give you a mod point I would. Rare to see anyone here go, 'oops'.

      Take Care...

    181. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      Where have you been?

      Elton has always been a bitter Queen, that is why a lot of people like him. :)

      - And I use the term Queen with lots of respect.

    182. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by Buran · · Score: 1

      That's the kind of job anyone would be lucky to have -- getting paid to do something they're talented at, and loving it enough to keep doing it even if there was no money to be made from it.

    183. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      I think there is a whole globe of people who do not have access to computers, so the human touch is temporarily waning in terms of US music, not in relation to the rest of the world. What really hurt music was a lack of live venues and a singular focus by mass media on just a few populist, as least according to mass media, performance artists (people to whom music means nothing apart from ego and greed).

      As the revenue departs from dead music so the focus will shift to live music shared between people having a good time ie, in the digital age, people will endeavour to seek greater personal social contact on their nights out.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    184. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by db32 · · Score: 1

      I pretty much agree with that, except I will point out the amusing irony of talking about digital music type folks seeking greater personal social contact on their nights out. I have worked for a few of these people, not just the using the computer to make music with software and maybe a few plugins, but the guys that have invested six figures or more into a wide array of digital whatnots that are all chained together through a computer. Dual screen with edge to edge monitors (the type with no border) so that they can use their editing and sequencing software better, with all manner of strange digital drumsets, samplers, converters, etc. The irony here is that you talk about these people on slashdot of all places like they actually endeavor to have nights out, let alone social contact on those nights out. I realize this is not the case for all of them, but as I said, having worked freelance for a few of these guys maintaining their rigs...well...they are certainly their own brand of geek and do kinda fit with many of the standard geek stereotypes.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    185. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Who was talking about the geeks and nerds on slashdot, I was talking about the general populace. Geeks and nerds have a too wildly diversified and spread range of hobbies, pass times, temporary fixations, bar of course, all things computers, to really discuss what they do and do not like, excluding of course pay to post trolls on slashdot and nobody cares what they do as long as they do it else where.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    186. Re:Sucks to be you, Elton by tv_dinners · · Score: 1

      there is too much music available for any appreciable number of people to find and listen to what you are doing. I couldn't agree more with your statement as well as nearly everything discussed in this thread.

      I was a small town DJ back in the early 70's and even then there was more music than we could possibly play in a week. The record companies would send us a huge box of singles every week and we only had time to listen to each record for maybe 5 seconds. We'd go throught stack and drop the needle down in various places. If it wasn't a potential hit or didn't interest one of several DJs it was tossed out the back door.

      We didn't have a play list, our sponsors didn't care what was played, only did the listeners call the request line and we played that.
  2. Sure, Elton, sure. by Kickstart70 · · Score: 5, Funny

    And Video killed the Radio star too, eh?

    1. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by sg_oneill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its the same old story. VHS killed hollywood (and betamax, lol :( ). Radio killed live music. Cassette tapes killed the music industry. So it goes.

      Someone really should go show old elton Myspace music section. There are ALOT of young local bands who are finally getting some exposure due to the internet.

      And thats from myspace, the most retarded site on the net. Put some money into something non retarded, and the possibilities are mind boggling.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    2. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by Aranykai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, and....
      - No one ever listens to the radio now that albums are available.
      False
      - No one ever buys music now that audio cassettes can be dubbed.
      False
      - No one ever buys movies now that VHS cassettes can be dubbed.
      False
      - No one ever buys music now that CD's can be duplicated.
      False
      - No one ever buys movies now that DVD's can be duplicated.
      False
      - No one ever buys media now that they can download it on the internet.

      Is there a trend here or is it just me?

      --
      If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
    3. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by kripkenstein · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Elton at least admits he is a Luddite. He's entitled to his opinions, I guess. Anyhow, not all artists are like him; for example, Therapy? bandmembers live in different countries, and much of their collaboration is done by utilizing the internet: sending each other MP3s of song ideas. Then they meet physically for a few weeks and record the stuff (see interview here).

      Considering that "One Cure Fits All" (2006) was among their better albums ever IMHO (and I have been listening to them since they got started around 1990), apparently this 'interweb' thing isn't necessarily as detrimental as Sir Elton believes.

    4. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by mrjb · · Score: 1

      More appropriately, Internet Killed the Video Star

      --
      Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    5. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by rjforster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It was the same for Stream Of Passion, except they did the recording over the net too. (Maybe not all, I'm not sure of the details, but at least some.)

      The band name came from the description of how they did the recording.

    6. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by aivankovic · · Score: 2, Funny

      If it kills his music, who cares?

    7. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by daBass · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, except that if you RTFA, you'll see that this is not a "piracy is killing music" stab; not at all. It is about people now making cold electronic music in their bedrooms rather than going out, getting together with other musicians and feed off each other creativity to make truly great music.

      And I think he has a point. Shutting down the internet may be a bit drastic, though.

    8. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by Air-conditioned+cowh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Quite right. A lot of things are supposed to "kill music" but cassette tapes didn't do it and nor will anything else.

      The only thing I can imagine would do it is some pandemic virus that makes everyone tone deaf. And even then, many tone deaf people still appreciate music.

      Does anyone really expect us to buy into the idea that music only exists due to the existence of the record and entertainment industry?

      Speaking of which another song springs to mind,
      "Got along without you
      before I met you.
      Gonna get along without you now!"

      Music existed before, during and after any industry.

    9. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 1

      He'd have a point if people didn't still make music "the old way". There's plenty of room for both methods to co-exist.

    10. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by Johnno74 · · Score: 1

      And Video killed the Radio star too, eh? Yep, and now internet is killing the video star...
    11. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When I was at school, a few of my friends were in various bands. Most evenings they would be involved in online jamming sessions, where they would make music with other musicians in different parts of the world (since this was the modem era, I presume they were streaming MIDI commands). They were feeding off the creativity of other musicians who they would never have had a chance to meet in the real world.

      Band web site with forums and even (*shudder*) MySpace provide a great way for bands to get feedback. If you play in a club, you have a very limited potential audience; the subset of people in a specific area who like your style of music. If you publish your music online then the potential audience is much larger, and so is the number of people who will provide feedback.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    12. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by postermmxvicom · · Score: 1

      Nice to hear from a musician. That's the first thing I thought. How does the internet "stop people from...being with each other"?

      --
      One last thing: Sometimes I wonder; "Is that someone's signature? Or do they type that at the end of each post?"
    13. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1
      Oh no, don't you get it? Through the "power of music," Elton John hopes to bring down the net.

      To bad for him that most people can't hear the difference between a phonograph record, a CD, and an MP3 or Vorbis rendered album. Better still, most people don't care -- if there is a musical revolution, the first thing that will happen is that it will become available in some format online.

      Sir John -- Please take time to talk to someone who doesn't know anything about music, or about technology, and find out how they actually live their life. -- Me

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    14. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only thing I can imagine would do it is some pandemic virus that makes everyone tone deaf.

      That's funny. Listening to what passes for popular music these days, I'd've thought that already happened.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    15. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by Andrewkov · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I play guitar in a gigging rock band. The Internet has been great for us. People can find out when we are playing from our website, and it's also our main promotional tool when we are looking for gigs.

      For me personally, over the years I've spent a lot of time on various guitar related forums (when not surfing Slashdot), I was able to learn a lot from other (better) players all over the world who I would never have had access to otherwise. I've collaborated with other musicians over the Internet by sending MP3's back and forth and mixing everyone's parts into one song. Hell, I even met my current band mates on an Internet classifieds site.

      However, there is no substitute for playing with other people in a real live situation, that's where you really learn very quickly from other players, but to say the Internet is hurting musicians is pretty stupid. It kind of reminds me of the old days when they said BBS's and the Internet were preventing people from being social, when in fact it was the opposite, people were spending all their time chatting online and emailing.

    16. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by Andrewkov · · Score: 1
      Through the "power of music," Elton John hopes to bring down the net.

      Does Al Gore know about this???

    17. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by malsdavis · · Score: 1

      RTFA!

      This has absolutely nothing to do with music piracy!

    18. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 1

      It's a bogus argument, because it looks at the wrong segment of music. There are still the same amount of musicians buying guitars, practising their drums, playing the piano, but now there's another whole group who dabble with new forms. The sum total of amateur musicians has gone up, thus making the proportion of acoustic/analog musicians smaller.

      I see more than enough local kids practising in the basement, playing at parties, and even went to a party where the bandleader was playing an original Hammond organ. Trumpet players, singers, sax and guitars, they're all still going strong.

      No, I think Elton is simply scared because now kids at home can tweak their recordings to sound "good enough", no longer needing an expensive studio or having to bust their chops. But I have little sympathy for his position.

    19. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      Yeah, except that if you RTFA, you'll see that this is not a "piracy is killing music" stab; not at all. It is about people now making cold electronic music in their bedrooms rather than going out, getting together with other musicians and feed off each other creativity to make truly great music.

      Absurd copyright laws probably have a much bigger share of the guilt in hindering people's feeding off each other's creativity...

    20. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by dealmaster00 · · Score: 0

      "It is about people now making cold electronic music in their bedrooms rather than going out, getting together with other musicians and feed off each other creativity to make truly great music." Yeah, but that couldn't possibly be the only way to make great music. It sounds like Elton isn't quite open to, or even afraid of, the huge change the Internet can bring to music.

    21. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by Superpants · · Score: 1

      Yes and Elton killed common sense and hopefully a large bomb will destroy myspace...

    22. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 3, Interesting

      However, there is no substitute for playing with other people in a real live situation
      100% agree there. I am also primarily a guitar player for the last 20 years. I've since stopped doing the band thing for right now and am composing/writing music on my own. While I definitely agree with you that there is no substitute for playing and collaborating with others, I think you'd probably agree that technology/computers have made the process of CAPTURING those magic moments that occur much easier and thus have contribute hugely to music creation as a whole.

      Now, when you're just "jamming" with some people, you can have a laptop there recording everything so that when someone does something "accidentally brilliant" 10 minutes into a jam session, you have it captured in a very clear, editable form. I don't know about you, but for me, this has been invaluable. There's nothing worse than doing something that just works for a song/piece and then never being able to do it again. One of the deciding factors in my buying my workstation keyboard (a Roland Fantom X6 incidentally) was what they call "skip back sampling". That is, it's constantly recording what you're playing, so if you do something great, you hit a button and boom, you've got a perfect digital copy of what you did. Many a great tune has been born out of an odd chord voicing, an interesting poly-rhythm, or the elusive "blue note".
    23. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by bellers · · Score: 1

      >> It is about people now making cold electronic music in their bedrooms rather than going out, getting together
      >>with other musicians and feed off each other creativity to make truly great music.

      >>And I think he has a point.

      I dont *see* his point. Artists still collaborate, online tools let them talk more than ever? Is he just pissed that people get high in their own parents basement instead of all going over to the drummers parent's house instead?

      I'm in the "Get off my lawn, you pesky kids!" camp here with respect to his argument. He simply no longer understands the world he lives in.

      --
      This space for rent.
    24. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by RocketScientist · · Score: 1

      Is music about performance, or is it about technology? Look at it from Elton's prospective for a moment: he's always been all about the show. And not the pyrotechnics, but just good, classic showmanship. You don't see that kind of showmanship in much of the new pop that's out.

      I went to a concert this year by a band called Mew, kind of Yes meets Modern Rock. They have a song that on one of their CDs that ends with a really nice a capella 5-part harmony. They did the same song, on stage, live, and closed the song with a really nice a capella 5-part harmony. Live. You don't see that much anymore, and that's kinda sad.

      Some people listen to music for the sound, and that's fine. I do that sometimes too. But for me, the more visceral music experience is the live sound, the sound of a musician doing the various bits of magic on stage or on a CD that make you go "wow, they really did just do that". The electronic bits are necessary, because the logistics and economics of porting around a small orchestra are overwhelming, but my preference is that production and gloss be kept to a minimum. If I can tell it's there, it's too much. So many songs I hear are just overproduced, vocal-off-key-corrected, Pro Tools nightmares. For the coders out there, Pro Tools is to modern music what a code generator is for writing a GUI. It's necessary, but overuse leads to dreck.

      Oh, and if you're into rock music at all, you really do owe it to yourself to look up Mew. Seriously. You'll be very angry the first time you hear it, because you'll realize how long you've been without it.

    25. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by MenTaLguY · · Score: 1

      How does one deal with latency when recording over the net like that, I wonder?

      --

      DNA just wants to be free...
    26. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      getting together with other musicians and feed off each other creativity to make truly great music. - oh, yeah, 'getting together'. Also rainbows are not the same color as they used to be. Rainbows and getting together under the rainbows.

    27. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah, except that if you RTFA...

      RFTA? Ewe muss bee knew hear! ;)

      My money says that "Jared" is either an alterpseudonym for "soulxtc" or has some other connection to "zeropaid". Even more of my money says that samzenpus didn't RFTA (well, he's NOT new here is he?), because TFA is an opinion piece about the real FA in the British tabloid "The Sun", which was linked from TFA!!

      Hell, I should start blogging again (actually my blog was usually more like this) and submit them to slashdot!

      I mean, shit, the stories I submit to slashdot (which are posted once in a while) I find radomly on the internet. I should do a little more self-p1mpage!

      But anyway, eye muss bee knew hear two because I RT original FA from The Sun. And Mr. John is a fucktard.

      "The internet has stopped people from going out and being with each other, creating stuff.

      "Instead they sit at home and make their own records, which is sometimes OK but it doesn't bode well for long-term artistic vision."
      Er, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't his friend (or whatever) Bernie write the songs that he recorded by himself? I mean, it wasn't "Elton and the Jets" now, was it?

      And he's incredibly ignorant. There are not only still recording studios, there are shitloads of professional recording studios. In this little burg of 100,000 people there are several!

      Elton should actually get on this intarweb thing that he has never been on that he wants shut down. Maybe he would find some friends of mine, a band with 2 CDs recorded in a recording studio of music completely unlike anything Elton is likely to have heard. There is a link from their page to SHNs and FLACs and OGGs of their live shows on archive.org. But you know, I think old Elton would HATE The Station.

      Nothing like judging something you are completely ignorant about, is there?

      -mcgrew
    28. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      As for Elton, time and wealth killed his musical creativity.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    29. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong with electronic music, which has been done for about 50-60 years now, so it's not like it was invented two years ago or something. Tangerine Dream's stuff from the early seventies to the eighties is some of my favorite music (I have 11 albums and one 5-disc compilation so far).

    30. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by jesterpilot · · Score: 1

      It is about people now making cold electronic music in their bedrooms

      One of the greatest stylistical breakthroughs of the 20th century, was the invention of cold electronic music. An industrialised, techological world needs cold electronic music. And when it comes to dancing, i sometimes wonder how people were able to dance before the invention of the synthesizer & drum machine. And by the way, it was there before the internet. Just because many people love this music. Kraftwerk anyone?

      --
      Trust me, I work for the government.
    31. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      The only thing I can imagine would do it is some pandemic virus that makes everyone tone deaf. That's funny. Listening to what passes for popular music these days, I'd've thought that already happened. "In my day, we didn't have fancy e-lectronic gizmos for playing music. To listen to music at home, we had to walk 20 miles, return with a hired band of musicians, and listen to them play by candlelight!

      "That's the way it was, and we liked it!"
    32. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by malsdavis · · Score: 1

      As someone who also plays guitar I have found the internet extremely useful for downloading sheet music (TABs).

      This seems like a good thing, of course, but on the other hand before I started using the internet I would learn songs by just jamming for hours and hours with friends. Jamming sessions required organization, traveling and effort, but it was the only way we could learn new songs so we did it and we would improvise the bits no one knew and end up creating some pretty awesome music (IMO, although probably no one elses). Nowadays the need is no longer there and as a result I (and I suspect many guitarists) no longer jam nearly as much. Of course when we do show up, we now know the songs better because we will have emailed each other a link to the TAB but I definitely think we are somewhat less "creative" as a result so I think Elton Jon has a point.

      It seems to me therefore that the internet is probably both a help and a hindrance to music creativity.

    33. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Then as now "popular music" usually translates to "sex symbol that sings". Go all the way back to Elvis' hip movements and before to the latest half-naked "easy listening" girl with a provocative music video. And don't tell me the boy bands aren't playing on the same thing, even when you just hear the music you think about the artist. The only difference now is that instead of their real voice you've got it all fixed up with computers so they're always on key and on tone. Technically, it's probably gotten better not worse. It's just that you've started to listen to music with your big head instead of your little one.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    34. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2, Funny

      In _my_ day, we only had white keys, and could only afford one octave. Sharps and flats hadn't been invented yet.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    35. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Except in the old days, when the process wasn't completely driven by corporate marketing, occasionally something interesting, truly creative or outright weird would become popular. Back in the days when payola was the exception instead of the status quo creativity occasionally emerged from the morass.

      Back when some artists actually had talent and weren't just by-products of a marketing machine, something unique could possibly evolve. People used to deride the Monkees for not playing their own instruments (at first), but those guys had some talent were virtuosi compared to what's being churned out now. People forget they went on do real work without Bryce and Hart, or session musoes. Besides, prefab or not, they packed more fun and harmony in a single song than the entire Top 40 in this post-melodic age of ours.

      It's a good thing that there is the Internet, because despite Sir Elton's Luddite and naive complaints, _good_ music is thriving _because_ of the Internet, not despite it. He's got the credibility to comment on "real music" because he was putting out "real music" before most of us were born, and has produced more truly good material all by himself (well, with his pal Bernie) than whole genres these days. He can do more _music_ with a single piano and his voice than an army of production engineers armed with ProTools and more Macs than Steve Jobs. But in this instance, I think he's completely wrong. Of course anyone can produce music now. Hell, _I've_ composed and produced some songs. And a lot of it is utter crap, but with a little diligence, you can search the crap to unearth real gems more numerous than at any time in history. You just won't hear it on the radio but real music by real musicians is easier to find than ever, if you are willing to look past the plastic-fantastic prefab Madison Avenue zombie fodder. Turn off the TV, turn on an independent radio station, join a mailing list for your favorite group, Google "independent" or "progressive" music, explore places like eMusic.com (free samples, but not free to download, no DRM) or Jamendo.com (free, Creative Commons-type licensing) and you will find a whole world only glimpsed by a few but richer than you have ever known. iTunes sucks... I can't even find some stuff I consider "mainstream" leave alone actually explore music on iTunes or Napster or the other mainline music retailers.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    36. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by Adambomb · · Score: 1

      Shouts of "DAMNIT! AGAIN?! We need a better provider!"

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    37. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 1

      In _my_ day, we only had white keys, and could only afford one octave. Sharps and flats hadn't been invented yet. So you listened to nickelback, eh?
    38. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by Marillion · · Score: 1

      Elton is deeply insightful on one topic and woefully misinformed about another.

      He clearly does not understand what the Internet is and what it does. He says as much in the article. His lack of experience with the Internet has led him to a limited and myopic view of what the Internet is. He claims the poor music quality being released on the Internet. I don't agree. I blame the focus groups, marketing "geniuses" who chose what gets published for the poor quality.

      Where he absolutely nails it and I agree completely is that music is best created by flesh and blood people who come together as musicians and create music. To that end. This weekend, I challenge everyone who takes the time to read this remark to get out and see a live musician. It is refreshing how much better music is from a flesh and blood as compared to focus groups.

      --
      This is a boring sig
    39. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

      Which old days, exactly are we referring to? The term "payola" is cited as originating in the late 30s or early 40s, depending on the dictionary, to describe a practice that had probably been going on since nearly the birth of public broadcast radio stations.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    40. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by Zakko · · Score: 1

      There's a fair amount of discussion regarding this type of network use within Internet2. Fine Arts schools and departments have really become much more interested in internet technology to do things like online jam sessions, master classes, etc. using live, high definition video feeds with low latency. The ability to really do this stuff well online is potentially not far off, even for the standard Internet, if politics and corporate interests don't get in the way too much.

    41. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by Skip666Kent · · Score: 1

      There was dancing long before the advent of the beat-box and 'house-music', I can assure you!

      I have since come to really appreciate a lot of electronic music, but in the mid/late 80's it was really kind of depressing to go to what used to be an up-beat new wave / rock club and be subjected to 20-minute-long barrages of BOOMchikBOOMchickBOOMchikBOOMchik at 180bpm or whatever and very little variation, no 'chorus' or anything like that aside from a few 'diva' soundbites or whatever, only to have that followed by...another 180bpm masterpiece that goes--you guessed it---BOOMchikBOOMchickBOOMchikBOOMchik for another 20 minutes.

      In the context of an actual rave where people are running around half (?) naked and lit up on X or whatever that sort of music is great, but for dancing? What's the point? No change, no variation aside from the occasional laborious 'breakdown'.

      Hey, whatevah. I like dancing to songs, not cut-and-paste sonic wallpaper.

      That said, electronic music HAS gotten a lot more varied and interesting. Even now, though, I enjoy it from a 'how'd he do that?' production standpoint much more than an actual visceral musical one.

      --
      **>>BELCH
    42. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Never heard 'em... but I've listened to the Ramones! :-)

      Ten times as cool with half the chords.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    43. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is about people now making cold electronic music in their bedrooms rather than going out, getting together with other musicians and feed off each other creativity to make truly great music.

      Don't forget about getting sued for an unauthorized public performance or being sent to jail for possession of lyrics.

    44. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by Jarik_Tentsu · · Score: 1

      Up until this year, I was part of a band. Unfortunately, due to the pressures of Year 12, we decided to disband for the moment and focus on school.

      But we used GuitarPro for writing all our songs. Our guitarist, is doing amazingly in his musical life - he writes music almost daily on GuitarPro. He comes up with some amazingly unique music, then he sends it to me over MSN and asks my opinion.

      He has two projects - a Black Metal project called Dies Nefastus, and a Progressive Blackened Death Metal project called Carcaroth. Now, if he had to WAIT for us to get together in real life for us to record anything, he'd currently have nothing.

      Instead, he has been recording his own vocals, guitars, keyboards and using a drum machine (for the moment, until I can fully play his impossibly fast drums and I can record it with my own drum mics). He has put these up on MySpace and has gotten huge popularity to the point some smaller record companies have been talking to him.

      Now let's imagine the internet wasn't there. He wouldn't be able to ask me opinions for his GP tabs. He wouldn't have online exposure. He wouldn't be able to record everything himself and wouldn't have any thing besides some ideas in his head.

      Without any offense internet, Elton John is just another old man who doesn't understand the internet and is working on some assumptions he probably came up with in his head.

      ~Jarik

    45. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell us another story grampa!

    46. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by gevantry · · Score: 1

      I think Elton isn't getting out enough into the new bands circuit. People who love to make music love to make it with other people who also love to make it. Hasn't changed a bit, as far as I can see. My two sons are really keen on computers and programming as tools for making music, but when it comes time to play, they get their guitars and drums and congas and tablas and gamalans and their laptops, and get together in a room with their friends who also bring similar equipment, and they jam together, and create tunes and light shows. I think it's fantastic.

      Making music, they say, isn't worth it if you can't share the making with others. The point is to have some fun at it, right? And it's a lot more fun to have fun with others who are having fun with you, than it is trying to have fun all by yourself, isn't it? I don't think the web has corroded this one bit. I do think--I have seen--that the internet has given a lot of musicians chances at inexpensive wide exposure that they would otherwise never have been able to get 15 years ago.

    47. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

      > Where he absolutely nails it and I agree completely is that music is best created by
      > flesh and blood people who come together as musicians and create music. To that end.
      > This weekend, I challenge everyone who takes the time to read this remark to get out
      > and see a live musician. It is refreshing how much better music is from a flesh and
      > blood as compared to focus groups.

      1) The world has gotten uglier. Go out to a small nightclub in the big city, and you risk ending up riddled with bullets. I'll stick with internet radio at home to hear different music.

      2) I have "sensitive hearing"... and I'd like to keep it that way, thank you. Why is it that most bands *INSIST* on blasting the room with 120 decibels of noise? I find "live music" actually painful. Again internet radio is nice, because I get to control the volume knob on my speakers.

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
    48. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by realkiwi · · Score: 1

      In knew he was old but that old...

      Elton darling, you stopped making good music yourself last century. Go have someone make you a cup of tea poor old dear...

      --
      realkiwi
    49. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by Nadsat · · Score: 1

      It's actually not the same old story. Look at the bigger picture.

      What Elton is referring to not merely one format replacing another (not digimax vs beta, not radio vs tv, etc) but rather the compartmentalization of human interactions. The community aspect of creating music is disappearing.

      Le Tigre - Get Off the Internet (2001)
      And I'm crazy
      Where are my friends

      (Get off the Internet!)
      I'll meet you in the street

    50. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      It kind of reminds me of the old days when they said BBS's and the Internet were preventing people from being social, when in fact it was the opposite, people were spending all their time chatting online and emailing.
      Sorry, but chatting online and emailing is not the same thing as talking to real people, in precisely the same way that sending people MP3s is not the same as playing in a live band.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    51. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by empty+cities · · Score: 1

      I think what he meant to say was "The Internet is killing the current music industry." I'm pretty sure that Elton John knows exactly what MySpace is doing to music and it scares the poop out of him. He (and many other popular musicians) have a vested interest in making sure that there remains only a small number of musicians who make up most music sales. They don't want to expand creativity, they want to keep making money for themselves and their small number of record labels. The more bands we have access to (thank you MySpace, at least you aren't all bad) the fewer of us will continue to listen to only a few musicians. Whether the small bands are good or not, they'll still draw our money away from Sir Elton and his buddies and spread it around more. No more monopoly. New model for popular music that makes it harder for some people to become horrifyingly wealthy.

    52. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by empty+cities · · Score: 1

      "The community aspect of creating music is disappearing." I disagree. While the Internet (and particularly social networking sites) has made it easy to only find music at home and only listen to music by yourself, it has also made it easier for musicians and fans to find each other. I'm in an unsigned band organizing a tour around the east coast right now. All of our shows are happening at small venues that we would not have been able to find without the Internet. Music communities for unsigned artists are not just neighborhoods or cities anymore. Our few fans outside of our actual group of friends that we have found us on MySpace and we communicate directly with them regularly. That's community.

    53. Re:Sure, Elton, sure. by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      The point I'm trying to make is that everything is payola today. Programming lists are all determined by the media companies and popularity is manufactured rather than emerging from, you know, people actually liking stuff. It's nothing new, but it's far more pervasive than ever.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  3. Nick Burns by TheDarkener · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Oh, it's the Internet that sucks, and not you, right? RIGHT?"

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    1. Re:Nick Burns by legallyillegal · · Score: 0, Funny

      the internet's alright for fighting, the internet's alright alright ALRIGHT?!

      --
      ?giS
    2. Re:Nick Burns by Swampash · · Score: 1

      I have obtained more enjoyment from the music I have created by sharing tracks, ideas, and inspiration with people I have never met - over the Internet - than from anything Elton the media whore has done in living memory.

  4. This states it better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    In other news Music has stated that Elton John is destroying it.

    1. Re:This states it better... by kdcttg · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly.

    2. Re:This states it better... by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      Doing public performances of pirated music lowers the cost of creating events by not having to pay for the music ... as long as you don't get fined. By making events smaller and more personal, you allow increased social interaction and can increase the frequency of social gatherings.

      The internet is just decentralizing culture. English speaking countries have created an enormous contribution to the creation of English culture and language through the Internet. It might not necessarily be "quality" or appeal to everyone, but who cares - you have the freedom to go find what interests you, and if you've reached a point that all art you see today is terrible, maybe you should be creating what you do find appealing. The Internet has also allowed me to be exposed to music from other countries and allows me to appreciate art from countries that don't speak English that I would have otherwise never have been exposed to.

      Elton John, you're not the only artist on this planet.

      I'm sure his work wasn't created in a vacuum, and he has probably been influenced by other artists. Increasing one's exposure to the works of your peers allows one to learn and be inspired to create. I see it as self-empowerment through enabling technologies.

  5. Sir Elton may be right, but who cares? by laddiebuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sir Elton may be right, but fundamentally, the Internet is far more valuable than the transient phenomenon of pop music. Most of yesterday's tastes are outdated now, and as for what survives, it's enough to tide us over until the Internet and the creative classes evolve to a more beneficial relationship with each other.

    1. Re:Sir Elton may be right, but who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      He is right. Where were the Spice Girls and Britney Spears before the Internet? Oh yeah, they didn't exist! And what happened as ARPANet was getting popular? John Lennon got shot! I think the cause is obvious.

    2. Re:Sir Elton may be right, but who cares? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Well it seems to me he lived his life like a candle in the wind but I think his candle burned out long before his ego did.

    3. Re:Sir Elton may be right, but who cares? by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      He just needs to say

      Goodbye to the magnetic tape world.
      Where the sharks of the RI-double-A howl.
      Then throw out his copy of gay penthouse
      And show him how to surf up some pron.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    4. Re:Sir Elton may be right, but who cares? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Moderators! Can you make an exception and make it 6 for the parent?

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  6. Elton John ..Music Called by wizardguy · · Score: 0, Redundant

    They want it back (not that you ever had it)

    1. Re:Elton John ..Music Called by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wanted what back? If you're going to use a tired old meme like that, at least get the format right.

  7. Oh no! by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are we not fawning over "celebs" enough? Not constructing enough temple record stores, to be preached to in a condescending manner if we pick up the wrong album? Are we actually daring to put their music in the same store as a lesser known artist? Or, perhaps his music might even be sharing the same server on itunes as one of us common ruffians?

    What's been lost is trivial to what's been gained. I had a grin a mile wide when I realized that some of my favorite artists, talented but not at all well known or mainstream enough to get a label's attention, could be purchased from the same itunes interface as the latest plastic pop idol.

    --
    Everything will be taken away from you.
    1. Re:Oh no! by Buran · · Score: 1

      While Elton is hardly "the latest plastic pop idol", I agree; see #20082281 above. The "anyone can be heard/seen/whatever" aspect of the Internet is one of the best things about it. Until the Net came along (and cdbaby, etc) it was often difficult to get heard if you were a smaller band. Now, indie bands can be on emusic, itunes, whatever they want to expand into.

      I read the article (I know, I know) and Elton admits he doesn't have a cell phone, etc. etc. etc., and it's been my (personal) experience that people who don't find it easy to bring technology into their lives often don't really appreciate what that technology can offer to those who do appreciate it.

      I've bought every one of Elton's albums on hardcopy CD (and he's the only artist I do that for, and otherwise I don't really buy new music, or download it either) but I have only taken each out of the case once -- to rip it. So I'm somewhere in the middle. But I've used iTunes before, and downloaded indie music from eMusic, and ... I forgot where I was going with this, so that's all for now.

    2. Re:Oh no! by EvilNTUser · · Score: 1

      "What's been lost is trivial to what's been gained."

      To this I'd like to add that it's more than just music that's at stake here. What's being destroyed is the environment, and it's people like Elton John who are doing it. I will never buy or put music on a plastic disc again, and it's about time governments start applying their environmental laws to tax these people who insist on using yesterday's polluting technology.

      Hydrogen cars may be out of our reach for now, but we sure as hell have a solution for this.

      --
      My Sig: SEGV
    3. Re:Oh no! by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 1

      But... but... they're so shiny! You can't take my shiny!

    4. Re:Oh no! by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      Are we not fawning over "celebs" enough?

      Fawning over celebs is one thing; paying attention to someone who not only has talent but far more experience than you and I put together will ever have -- and who knows? perhaps even some expertise, too -- is quite another.

    5. Re:Oh no! by lilomar · · Score: 1

      Vista User?
      /joke

      --
      The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
  8. Yeah, blame technology by _merlin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Antisocial people can make music by themselves without the need for the Internet. Sociable people will make music together with or without the Internet and may even use the Internet to help communicate when collaborating on a project. Technology is a convenient scapegoat, as usual.

    1. Re:Yeah, blame technology by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And it doesn't even have to be one or the other. We moved into a new town fairly recently, and it only took a few weeks for my wife to join a band here. Nor did that fact stop her from continuing to market her solo stuff online. Much in the same way that I can use a telephone on occasion, and yet the scary technology doesn't in any way prevent me from talking to people in person. I'm just hoping that I don't wind up like so many old people when I reach that age, railing against technologies I don't understand.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    2. Re:Yeah, blame technology by _merlin · · Score: 1

      And music that people make by themselves isn't necessarily bad.

    3. Re:Yeah, blame technology by syousef · · Score: 1

      Antisocial people can make music by themselves without the need for the Internet. Sociable people will make music together with or without the Internet and may even use the Internet to help communicate when collaborating on a project.

      Well I always find making beautiful music works much better with 2 people, and Mrs Palmer and her 5 daughters don't count.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    4. Re:Yeah, blame technology by CaseyB · · Score: 1

      Bang on.

      The guy creating music in his basement with Garageband and selling it on the web isn't someone that would otherwise have been sharing with his fellow musicians in a wonderful collaborative utopia. He's someone that would otherwise have been just another guy working at a bank his whole life, his creative abilities unknown to the world and perhaps even to himself.

    5. Re:Yeah, blame technology by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 1

      And music that people make by themselves isn't necessarily bad.

      That's exactly right. Frank Zappa did some unbelievably complex composing with no one but himself. Trent Reznor is a master of it as well (in a very different vein). Aphex Twin is another who is pushing the musical envelope with just 1 person, I could go on and on with examples.
    6. Re:Yeah, blame technology by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Babies aren't music.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    7. Re:Yeah, blame technology by pohl · · Score: 1

      True, but music is the culmination of hundreds of millions of years of evolution of the animalian sexual-overture subsystem. In that context, Elton is just observing that the internet encourages masturbation, teledildonics, and cheap anonymous hookups instead of real meatspace action. And this is news for nerds.

      --

      The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

  9. It's the circle of life.. by hosecoat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    though i think the riaa has had a pretty good crack at destroying music.

  10. Television by sanmarcos · · Score: 1

    The same thing could have been said about Television decades ago. It is not that the means of information propagation distort content, but it is that the market desires to listen to rap, hip-hop, and all the music that is considered "bad" by some people. Suplpy and demand. Elton, you should try making content that people like.

    1. Re:Television by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      any asshole can do "rap", ripping off soundtracks from others, & simply "talking", because that is ALL that shit is Don't make me laugh, you condescending prick. I'd like to see you try and rap. You'd probably make Vanilla Ice look like Rakim.

      A lot of people think they can do it. As evidenced by the majority of what's on the radio and TV, very few actually can.
    2. Re:Television by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think we need to stop calling music 'content' - that's the RIAA's language.

    3. Re:Television by walnutmon · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I guarantee it is easier to produce a "pop rap song" today, than it is to create something like what Elton John has done. There are several reasons... and just so you know, I am talking about POPULAR rap, or "hip hop".

      1. Most of the people who listen to it-mainly club-goers, girls age 13-25, and guys trying to impress said girls-are not focusing on the message, but the beat. Now the beats we are talking about here, are not particularly hard to create. You need a beat, and SOMETIMES a catchy melody to play over it, but often you will find that recent hip-hop doesn't even have that. It just has a "kickin" basebeat that is easily danceable.

      2. What is hard about rap is not the actual rapping, but the creating of long interesting poems that are filled with pleasing linguistic tricks (Eminem is probably the best example of such a talent)... And while some rap artists are awesome at this, and have a ton of talent, the average pop rap song is filled with cliches and repetative thug talk that really doesn't give any kind of interesting message, at least not one that is even remotely thought provoking not to mention original.

      3. I said that the rapping part isn't that hard, but it isn't for everyone, certain voices can pull it off easy, but rapping is not that difficult(at least to do at the level of an average "hip-hop" star) and the ability to do so is not so rare (like perfect pitch, for example)... I have several friends that are not rappers in any way shape or form, but give them some drinks and you will be shocked at how well they can mimick the best in the business.

      Now, I know that there are people that are all like "underground yo!"... and while I hate them for completely different reasons, they don't all fit into the reasons stated above... The parent was talking about popular rap music, which is, in general, absolute corporate garbage-with a beat that people dance to.

      Generally speaking, the people who like the underground rap scene are just massive douche bags, who are miserable and melencholy and have tendencies towards violence since they don't, themselves, have any good ways of expressing themselves. I hang out with a bunch of these guys, and while I don't mind them, their whole underground rap thing is pretty stupid. Like hardcore music, it's for angst filled 20 somethings.

      --
      You take it, I don't want it...
    4. Re:Television by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fell in love with rap when I was a kid (10 or so) and followed it for a while, I also had love for all types of music. Jazz, Rock and even classical. But I have fallen out of love with rap now mainly due to reasons stated above. Rap its self is just negative music. But its positive twin Hip-Hop is going places and expanding into all types of areas. It may stay underground it may go mainstream I don't care. What I love about hip-hop is its mainly sample based it also has NO RULES what so ever.
      You could take 60's rock and turn it into hip-hop.

      The vocal part of it is indeed a talent. The skill is not really in the voice but more or less in the words and the flow. While eminem is a good example he really isnt the best. His type of vocals doesn't hit the soul, it only hits the brain. A better example would be Edan who is much like Daedelus in terms of music. He is a white MC who went to Berkley to study music and currently works with Stones throw who are a great source of music. I would suggest listening to his "Beauty And The Beat" album.

      2 main labels to watch for great hip-hop is stones throw and ninja tunes.

    5. Re:Television by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not all Hip Hop is bad. Check out The Hiphopapotamus

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Television by lilomar · · Score: 1

      the language is that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
      ~Gandalf, FOTR
      --
      The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
    7. Re:Television by jesterpilot · · Score: 1

      I guarantee it is easier to produce a "pop rap song" today, than it is to create something like what Elton John has done.

      Is this actually relevant? One could also argue that it's much easier to produce an Elton John hit than to create something like what Godspeed has done. Apples and oranges, you know. Stupid music today doesn't prove yesterdays music was better.

      --
      Trust me, I work for the government.
    8. Re:Television by AdamThor · · Score: 1

      80% of everything is crap, and that includes rap (pop or underground). But don't pretend that Bluegrass, folk, metal, new age, lo-fi, electronic, 70's music, or your favorite genera are any different.

      You can pretend that the artists of yesterday were all super-awsome, but the fact is that you are not remembering the music that isn't memorable. There was plenty of crap in the 70's ( 80's, 60's 30's, 17th century, whatever), but nobody keeps it around because it was crap. All that's left from the past is the stuff someone thought was good. The illusion this creates is that music today is lame. It's like watching a sports highlights reel from the 70's and then watching a random game from today and being dissapointed that there isn't the same sense of narrative or drama.

      Personally I blame the movement to genre-homogenious radio station formats for the quality of pop music, but that doesn't mean people aren't making good music in every / any genre. And just because you don't like rap doesn't mean it sucks in an absolute sense any worse than whatever it is you like to listen to.

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
  11. artists are having a hard time not being heard. by benow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's _ALOT_ more out there, and now there is selection where once there was only Elton John and other mass distributed mediocraty. You want to make a change, you do something about it. If you cant, work with it and stop bitching about things you don't improve. Bitching is noise. Progress is beautiful.

    1. Re:artists are having a hard time not being heard. by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And I think that's exactly what a lot of people are terrified about. I've bought a fairly large amount from itunes, and none of it's been from a riaa label. Pandora, lastfm, and word of mouth over the internet actually give me the chance to discover new music that would have been locked in a garage or small town ten years back. And itunes, and similar, the chance to purchase from them. It's a win for the consumer, but a huge loss for both the labels and the select few they decide to favor.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    2. Re:artists are having a hard time not being heard. by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      The local RIAA-like in the Netherlands has put a nice stop to all that "discovering new music" nonsense and such; Pandora detects whether the IP is from the Netherlands and then blocks their music application. Too bad since I found a lot of new music there.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    3. Re:artists are having a hard time not being heard. by Lunarsight · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm also tending to steer clear from the RIAA labels. While there are some bands I respect enough to overlook the fact they have the proverbial devil's mark, I really have a hard time giving money to corporate slimeballs who sue everybody frivolously. However, I think I do understand what Elton John is saying. It sounds like his qualm about the internet is it separates musicians, leaving them 'disconnected', rather than co-existing in the same space to make music together. With that said, I don't agree that this is a big problem - there are a lot of online musicians that probably would have never crossed paths if it weren't for the internet. (Try^d, for instance.)

    4. Re:artists are having a hard time not being heard. by benow · · Score: 1

      Well, yes and no. It's perhaps of less benefit for the larger labels... polished crap for the mass market gets old quickly. The small labels are loving it, tho. Suddenly there is demand for niche works from niche artists doing what they love. That is what the smallers bring... a networking of like minded, like intended. There are alot of listeners out there. The biggies are just pissed that their most blatent marketing and distribution strangleholds have been undermined. The irony is that the swamp of mediocrity is what helped to push internet distribution and started their demise. And, of course, they'd be screwed were it not for (digital) technology in general. If you live in a glass house don't throw stones.

    5. Re:artists are having a hard time not being heard. by JonathanR · · Score: 1

      My interpretation is that Elton believes (fears?) that the widely distributed and thinly spread nature of the internet music audience means that local bands will focus on this international market in preference to pandering to a local cult following.

      I guess the question is whether a rise in indy artists and the demise (if ever) of the big labels will level the field, with fewer big-name stars, and the widely dispersed (global) audience perhaps preventing sufficient critical mass in a given location for a band to financially justify a tour.

      But then again, until the total demise of free-to-air radio (and payola), I don't see any signficant changes afoot.

    6. Re:artists are having a hard time not being heard. by geeknado · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but dude, do you know how hard it is to acquire indie cred now? Everybody heard that goddamn Sister Sex Cauldron album when you did. How's a man to sort out the poseurs now? HOW?

  12. fossil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A fossil from a dead era whining about the internet? no shit, really? Ugh.. he sounds like my dad. He thinks that music isn't 'real' unless it's a single acoustic guitar recorded on analog equipment. Hippies...

  13. As long as its the crap music you make who cares by lordperditor · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The world can do without the repeated tripe he churns out.

  14. Wrong generation? by otter42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe Elton John just doesn't get the new ways to create, play, and distribute music? To be fair, Elton John's generation and those before destroyed live music in the household, as who needs Joe-Fred johnson to strum his banjo when you can hear professionals first on record, then radio, then TV, etc... So why shouldn't we move the music to another "space"?

    I wonder if someone were to give Elton John an internet literacy test how he would do. Considering the British judge Justice Opensha had to ask what a website was while presiding over an internet "terrorism" case, I wouldn't be surprised if Elton John considered the internet nothing more than a Kazaa screen.

    --
    www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
    1. Re:Wrong generation? by zafo · · Score: 1

      I am of the same generation as Elton John, but his age isn't the problem. I agree that he doesn't get the Internet. I am personally excited by the positive impact of the Internet on the field of music. When I was young, my exposure to music was the Top 40 of local radio stations, and weekly TV programs like American Bandstand. Decisions of what I heard were in the hands of 'professionals'. Now, I have access to excellent music from all around the world. Good groups, barely making a living playing in local bars, can now create their own label and market their music on their website, or others like CD Baby or eMusic. I live in Austin, Texas (and blessed with a wide availability of music here) but now also have access to previously local artist's music - in Minneapolis, Nashville - or even Soweto or Amsterdam. I can get an instant biography, check tour dates and see what albums are available for any group I run across.

      I can see how all this is disconcerting to someone who has made a lot of money under the old system. But for most musicians and all music fans, the Internet is a completely positive thing.

  15. Wrong by Schnoogs · · Score: 0

    Elton John beat the Internet to it years ago

  16. Exposure by Tykho · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There's so many bands I wouldn't have started listening to if I hadn't heard samples or web broadcasts of them on the net. It's certainly broadened my musical taste having digital distribution of music so easily available.

  17. Should we get off his lawn too? by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 5, Informative

    Seriously I'm seeing acts both prosper and thrive due to the internet. Even the more established groups like They Might Be Giants have done well thanks to the internet in reaching their fans. If anything there's probably a larger danger of background noise in the amount of chaff produced, but seeing various internet "memes" pop up from time to time I'm confident that the good stuff will always rise to the top.

    Taking an even more commercial example, I wouldn't have heard much about pop-artists like Rogue Traders unless I'd seen an excerpt of Dr. Who from the UK which lead me to wiki the Aus act and find more info than a lone single - which is only reaching US market AFTER 2 YEARS - would provide. The single is available from iTunes - but I'll eagerly await the full album.

    In the retro column, 80s artist Thomas Dolby released a live set recorded in front of a live audience in San Francisco onto iTunes a while back. He's got several businesses and projects going but it's nice to see him quickly produce and bring to market (thanks to the internet) some new material. This wouldn't have gotten the time of day by the traditional business model.

    Good riddance I say.

    BTW - check out SeeqPod. It's cooler than snail snot and the mobile client is SWEET. I've not only found hard to finds, and music out of circulation, but excellent mash-ups that would NEVER BE ALLOWED TO BE DISTRIBUTED BY THE CURRENT OUTDATED RIAA BUSINESS MODELS.

    1. Re:Should we get off his lawn too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeqpod. Ugh, what a terrible non-intuitive UI. I did a "discovery" and got a ton of hits with a weird icon that looked kinda like the knobs on a guitar, couldn't do shit with those hits, couldn't move them to the play list, couldn't get their actual URLs. Didn't really know wtf they were suppossed to be. Plus its got bugs all over it, pixel.quantserve.com and another one like statcounter, no thanks spyware site.

    2. Re:Should we get off his lawn too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mash-ups that would NEVER BE ALLOWED TO BE DISTRIBUTED BY THE CURRENT OUTDATED RIAA BUSINESS MODELS.

      oh, you mean recordings that break copyright laws? stop blaming the riaa for everything. it's getting old and it only supports the idea that most music downloaders neither understand the business model nor do they care to understand it.

      place the blame where it belongs and stop shouting like a 14 year old who thinks that not being able to use his heelies in a crowded mall is unconstitutional.

    3. Re:Should we get off his lawn too? by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

      Copyright laws as they apply to music are wholly behind notions of creating new works based on prior work. In the fine-art world, collages are accepted and created everyday. Oh but music! That's a no-no. That's what I was refering to as unavailble for distribution due to the illegalities of producing works assembled from other works. Speaking of shouting 14 year olds I think I'm responding to one right now. You're as astute as a grapefruit.

  18. OTOH by Odin_Tiger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's all well and good if you happen to be in or very near one of the small handful of cities that are 'music centers', but for would-be musicians who aren't in those places and have no reasonable means to get there, the music industry was just as cold before the internet as it is now, if not colder.

    --
    Unpleasantries.
    1. Re:OTOH by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 1

      the music industry was just as cold before the internet as it is now, if not colder.

      Just curious, why do you think it's just as cold if not colder? I'm not trolling, I'm seriously asking your opinion. I am an independent musician myself, and I have done the "indie label" thing. I also live in an area that is definitely NOT one of the 'music centers'.

      That said, I think that if anything, the internet has made the music industry irrelevant. That is, now instead of having to go to extraordinary lengths to get my music heard by people (i.e. playing lots of shows "on the road", mailing press kit after press kit, trying to get on the "solicited" list of record labels, getting magazine/zine write-ups, etc) I can create my own website, or put my music on any of the artist oriented sites to get the word out. I've actually been able to get in touch with (and work with) several filmmakers through my website which I would not have practically been able to do without the involvement of some professional representation if it weren't for the internet.

      Personally, I find the internet very liberating as a medium for conducting music business in that it allows me to choose whether or not to involve anyone else (like a manager, agent, accountant, producer, etc). If I choose to allow one of my pieces to be used in an independent film, I can negotiate the terms directly with the filmmaker(s) rather than have the terms dictated to me. I also am free of the obligations that come with even the most liberal contracts that are rampant in the music industry.
  19. Sigh by Xaivius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Blaming the transmission medium for making the environment "cold and impersonal" is like blaming high HIV transmission rates on semen. fairly silly. The environment is what you make of it.

  20. Sorry, it was by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Funny

    the two guys who created the Spice Girls that killed good music, and that was before teh Intarweb had gained rampant popularity. It's all been downhill from there.

    1. Re:Sorry, it was by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      Bah. The Spice Girls were little more than a female, post-Madonna version of Menudo.

      Holy shit! A reference to Menudo on Slashdot! Who ordered that?

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
  21. Rizzap by Joebert · · Score: 1

    Cold worlds didn't hurt Rap any.

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    1. Re:Rizzap by mjwx · · Score: 2

      Rap,

      I thought we were talking about music here.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:Rizzap by Joebert · · Score: 1

      Rap's no different from any other music.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    3. Re:Rizzap by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      True. In fact, half the time it IS other music with an extra beat.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  22. I didn't know teh tubes existed in the early 80s by noewun · · Score: 1

    Cause that was the last time Elton released anything worthwhile. And if he thinks no one goes to hear music any more, it only means no one goes to his shows.

    --
    I am a believer of momentum and curves.
  23. hahaha completely wrong by deathtopaulw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    what is he talking about
    just because he doesn't understand how to use the internet to meet people, doesn't mean he can make stupid statements like this

    I have an entire network of friends who, using only their computers, instruments of choice, and the internet, make great music between each other
    we're literally friends, and this is real music

    if anything the internet is what will finally set music free
    giving everyone an equal chance to put their stuff up

    it may dilute it all a bit (an effect I hope for with a lot of genres)
    but in the end we'll have more options as listeners
    and musicians will have more options for making money

    1. Re:hahaha completely wrong by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      he DOESN'T want that to happen, in his mind that is not "artistic" that everybody can be an artist without devoting their whole life to it, he wants it to be a privilidge.. for whom, i don't know. maybe for asshats with stupid glasses. he wants to be the ONLY freak.

      elton says:"Instead they sit at home and make their own records, which is sometimes OK but it doesn't bode well for long-term artistic vision."

      elton doesn't even know what kind of different, very different, musical styles computers have enabled and to which internet has enabled distribution. so how can he say that the world would be better off musically without "internet"? he is a pompous asshat, thats how. just as pompous asshat as the asshats who said that electric guitar is the work of the devil. i wonder if he will even ever realize that he suggests that in an orwelian society you'd get more diverse music, how stupid can you get? cut off communications and think that it would improve arts? i guess they had pretty good acid in the 60's. if he thinks that would really improve it then he should ship himself off to some remote island with his piano and leave us alone.

      music now is in my opinion much more intresting than before internet, more genres(even very niche stuff can find enough listeners/community), more diversity. for some weird reason, elton thinks that there'd be more diversity without it? I just don't get why. now there's a lot of musical styles that are on top, instead of just one dominant genre like disco.. funnily enough, isolation from other creators and listeners and having to only rely on big labels(and on being profitable) for influence doesn't improve diversity. music now doesn't even have to be profitable, plenty of artists who don't rely on it for their daily bread - and even they can get their stuff heard!

      elton john like many others don't get that internet actually improves communications.. the communication being "cold" or any shit they want to spin on their it-incapabilities only depends on the persons communicating.

      it all started before internet too anyhow, it's more about computers than about internet. it started with tracker music and disc swapping(via post) way before internet hit the homes, enabling creating, collaboration and distribution on the cheap.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  24. I suggest by Oddster · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Elton John check out The Foreign Exchange's album Connected. Take note:

    North Carolina-raised MC Phonte, one-third of Little Brother, and Dutch producer Nicolay formed the duo and crafted the ethereally lush hip-hop album without ever meeting face-to-face. Using the marvels of modern technology, the group traded verses and tracks over the Internet.

    Your move, Elton.
    1. Re:I suggest by Inner_Child · · Score: 1

      I would have gone with a more well-known example, such as The Postal Service (if you think you haven't heard them, you're probably wrong), but you're absolutely right. The internet allows collaborators - who may have never connected through traditional methods - to create great music together, from thousands of miles away.

      --
      Today is red jello day - all workers must eat all of their red jello. Failure to comply will result in five demerits.
    2. Re:I suggest by absolut_kurant · · Score: 1

      Wow thanks so much for this tip. This is good stuff - I am ordering the CD right now.

      --
      Yes.
  25. And rock n' roll singlehandedly killed communism by sakonofie · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I have this sneaking hunch Elton John doesn't have a very normal outlook on reality. From TFA:

    We're talking about things that are going to change the world and change the way people listen to music and that's not going to happen with people blogging on the internet.

    Hopefully the next movement in music will tear down the internet.
    Let's get out in the streets and march and protest instead of sitting at home and blogging.
    I do think it would be an incredible experiment to shut down the whole internet for five years and see what sort of art is produced over that span.
    You know that old quotation "When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail". Well I guess when your life is devoted to ridiculous sunglasses, Disney soundtracks, outrageous/silly costumes and mediocre pop music, you start to get an overinflated sense of music's role in society.

    Next week on slashdot: sculptors suggest we rip out highways so that people can better appreciate sculptures and fountains.
  26. I am full of "what if" stupidity by pesho · · Score: 1

    I do think it would be an incredible experiment to shut down the whole internet for five years and see what sort of art is produced over that span.

    No need to run experiments like that. I can tell you what kind of art you will get in this case. It's called "cave art". Hell we can use stone axes too. Try figure what art will come out of that.

    And what does "I mean, get out there -- communicate." is supposed to mean? I thought communication is all that internet is about.

    1. Re:I am full of "what if" stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, ya gotta admit that face-to-face communication enables all kinds of possibilities that Internet communication just doesn't offer. I'm sure you can think of a few.

      Oh, wait. This is Slashdot. Never mind.

    2. Re:I am full of "what if" stupidity by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Face to face communication is superior in a number of ways, but it's a false dichotomy. The Internet enables easy (if limited) communication with people with whom face to face communication is not possible. I'm typing this in Wales. Statistically, there is a large probability that you are in the USA. On average, a few thousand people, mostly from the USA but with a lot from the rest of the world, will read your comment and mine. Having this kind of communication face to face would not be possible. In a few minutes, I am going to go to salsa practice. Doing that over the Internet would not be possible. With access to the Internet and the real world I can do things that would not be possible for someone with only access to one of them.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  27. Democracy and former kings by KrunZ · · Score: 1

    Internet is democratizing the process of making and distributing music.
    The former king doesn't like democracy and miss his court.

  28. Musicians are the problem by Animats · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but when you go out to a club to be with people, those really annoying guys get on stage and make so much noise you can't talk to anybody.

  29. I will file this under "A Tale of Two Cities" by Glowing+Fish · · Score: 1

    It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, ...in short, the period was so far like the present
    period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its
    being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree
    of comparison only.


    So, this is just another example of someone predicting that the internet is the end of the world. It will be balanced out tomorrow, when someone predicts that Web 2.0 will revolutionize human life for the better.

    --
    Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
  30. Poor guy... by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think the lad's gone old on us.

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  31. Ted Stevens' style by theefer · · Score: 1

    I wonder if someone were to give Elton John an internet literacy test how he would do.

    Maybe he, too, is attracted by viewing the internet as a series of tubes.

    --
    theefer
    1. Re:Ted Stevens' style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...attracted by viewing the internet as a series of tubes.

      yeah, tube steaks...

  32. He's just cranky that it's Decentralized by zephmode · · Score: 1

    I think he and others in the mainstream music industry are just cranky because they have less power now that the internet has decentralize the hierarchy of music source. Before your only source as on the radio where everything is playlisted. Ever artist is carefully handpicked to appeal to the majority. Basically, the music industry is upset for their lack of control on what to feed to people. Nowadays, people have so many other sources of finding new music. Bands can easily reach more fans without spending so much money. Music lovers know more about how the album they are buying sounds like. People have more tailored tastes. Things like Last.fm are changing the way people find new music and people are finding music that they actually like... and it's probably not Elton John.

    1. Re:He's just cranky that it's Decentralized by Andrzej+Sawicki · · Score: 1

      Things like Last.fm are changing the way people find new music and people are finding music that they actually like... and it's probably not Elton John.
      Ditto for http://www.last.fm/

      Haven't heard so much good, new stuff (new to me, and new as in: made in the last couple of years) in a long time. Hint: Look in your musical neighbours' playlists.
  33. Internet is killing the hardware sales... by NWprobe · · Score: 1

    Since the rise of filesharing of music as MP3 the CD sales has dropped. On the upside more people than ever are going out to conserts and listen to live music. It makes perfect sense. Music is more available, so people spend more time and money at it. Not just buying CD's, but going out to see the artists. As a results the artist is making more money, the record industry less.

    I won't cry for their loss. Even though it has been a demand for buying online music for a decade now, I still can't buy music online without some DRM I have to buypass so I can transfer it to my mp3 player. I've stopped buying music. I don't download illegal music. As a result I have becomed less interested in music, and spend less money on it.

    --
    #find /dev/brain find: no such file or directory
  34. Pardon me by jsse · · Score: 1

    "stopping people from going out and being with each other, creating stuff."

    I hung around for meeting with 30+ guildmates in guildmaster's castle for the entire morning; then led a group of mages and archeries to shoot the assholes in dungeon deceit who looted my body earlier; then I created a war hammer of vanquishing on my way home.

    Who is going to stop me from going out and being with each other, creating stuff? I'd chop him to death.

  35. Internet says Elton John is destroying music. by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1

    (I am so, so sorry)

    --
    "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    1. Re:Internet says Elton John is destroying music. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia jokes, one does not apologize!

    2. Re:Internet says Elton John is destroying music. by rikkus-x · · Score: 1

      Why are you sorry? It's exactly what I was going to post, then I checked to see if someone already had.

    3. Re:Internet says Elton John is destroying music. by Peet42 · · Score: 1

      ...and I had.

    4. Re:Internet says Elton John is destroying music. by rikkus-x · · Score: 1

      ...so I didn't.

  36. Ticket prices by timmarhy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Right Sir Elton, i'd love to be able to afford to see my bands live, but most of them are assholes like you and charge $150 a ticket, hence it's not possible to see more then a couple a year at best.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:Ticket prices by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      Yup.
      Sir Elton John is an old buzzard who thinks anything beyond his understanding is bad.
      Typical like House of Lords.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    2. Re:Ticket prices by jez9999 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Come on, have some sympathy. First Slashdotters say that big artists should make most of their money from live performances. Then why they try to make millions that way, you deny them that too!

    3. Re:Ticket prices by timmarhy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      that would entail dropping all the lawsuits and charging a MUCH lower price for downloaded and cd music. which hasn't happened, so they can jam those tickets right up their arseholes.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    4. Re:Ticket prices by couchslug · · Score: 1

      I point to the Grateful Dead as an example of a band that made their money from live performances, cared for their fans, and had that loyalty returned to the tune (pun intended) of millions of dollars over many years.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    5. Re:Ticket prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      One of my favorite bands, the flecktones, have toured more or less every year since the early 90s, and have never charged more than (gasp!) $30 a ticket.

      And yet, every one of those guys is doing quite well in the financial department as well as the musical-innovation department. They have around 10 albums by now, and hundreds, if not thousands of live shows under their belt. Plus they all have their own solo projects.

      And get this: they allow (and even encourage) taping at their shows and the free exchange of those tapes between fans (as long as money isn't involved).

      How do they do it? Must be a miracle!

    6. Re:Ticket prices by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Come on, have some sympathy. First Slashdotters say that big artists should make most of their money from live performances. Then why they try to make millions that way, you deny them that too! Sympathy for the asshole? Perhaps the Stones could do something with that lyric.

      Where is it written that musicians deserve millions of dollars? Elton can command that kind of cash because his audience consists of baby-boomers with lots of disposable income. It also shows that he's not interested in providing any access to fans who do not possess that kind of cash. For me, the solution is obvious: the guy is a putz, don't listen to him.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    7. Re:Ticket prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sympathy for the asshole? Perhaps the Stones could do something with that lyric.

      Like stop farting so loud. That Jagger sure can rip one.

    8. Re:Ticket prices by tiananmen+tank+man · · Score: 1

      Come on, have some sympathy. First Slashdotters say that big artists should make most of their money from live performances. Then why they try to make millions that way, you deny them that too!


      I have no problem with artists earning a living by what they do, I have a problem with artists thinking that they deserve big money for a one time performance or making a album and living off that for whatever number of years it is now.
    9. Re:Ticket prices by damiam · · Score: 1

      No offense, but you and everyone who modded you up are ignorant of basic economics. It's unfortunate that the market price of big-name concert tickets has gotten so high, but there's not much that artists (or anyone) can do about it: concert seats are a limited resource. Artists can charge market value for those seats, ensuring that anyone who wants to pay can get one, or they can lower prices and create an artificial shortage because there would be far more people wanting to buy seats than there are seats available, which seems to be what you're advocating.

      The problem is that this doesn't actually lower the market value of those seats. Nothing Elton John can do (short of sabotaging performance quality) will change the fact that there are enough people to fill a hall willing to pay $150 to see him. Even if he lowers prices, these people will still want tickets, and they'll still be willing to pay top dollar for them; this is a scalper's dream. Every possible non-market-based system for allocating limited tickets is exploitable by scalpers, and if Elton decided to lower prices to $30/seat, scalpers would snatch up every ticket and then start reselling them for $150. A few normal people might manage to get cheap seats, but the net effect would be that most seats would still go for $150 or more, and it'd be the scalpers getting the profit instead of the musicians/techs/venue/etc. That's not really good for anyone except the scalpers.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    10. Re:Ticket prices by monxrtr · · Score: 1

      No offense, but you and everyone who modded you up are ignorant of basic economics. It's unfortunate that the market price of big-name concert tickets has gotten so high, but there's not much that artists (or anyone) can do about it: concert seats are a limited resource. Artists can charge market value for those seats, ensuring that anyone who wants to pay can get one, or they can lower prices and create an artificial shortage because there would be far more people wanting to buy seats than there are seats available, which seems to be what you're advocating. The supply of tickets for big-name acts was artificially limited by artists themselves relying on copyright royalties rather than working a regular gig year round. The big-names were getting money from record sales. Now, if they want to make the same amount of money they used to do, they can do three or ten times as many live shows as they used to, rather than lounge around for most of the year living the good life. And they can do shows in smaller more intimate venues too.

      Of course, knock off, Brand X, cover band competition has been restricted as well. There's no way tickets would sell for $150 if supply wasn't massively limited. Are you talking two to three shows per major city every two to three years? If Elton John was playing as often as Tony and Tina's Bif Fat Italian Wedding, ticket prices would be much less.

      Surprise, surprise! Copyright restricts not only the available competing supply, but restricts the incentive to increase the supply by those creating the supply. That's 180 degrees contrary to the alleged economic artistic incentives copyright allegedly was supposed to bring. And that's exactly what occurs, artists become fat and lazy, living off the royalties of work done years ago (even deluding themselves that fat and lazy is art itself), rather than continuing to work in live performances or continue making new material, especially when you are typically talking about 3-4 quality songs packages with filler fluff material.

      But sure, concert ticket sales is how artists should earn their money, not by artificially restricting the freedom of others to copy whilst those same artists hypocritically copy other artists themselves. If they have to get out there and earn, through voluntary mp3 purchases, patronage, or concert ticket sales, the incentive to increase quality and increase supply (of good live music) comes back into play.
      --
      "From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
    11. Re:Ticket prices by damiam · · Score: 1

      The supply of tickets for big-name acts was artificially limited by artists themselves relying on copyright royalties rather than working a regular gig year round. The big-names were getting money from record sales. Now, if they want to make the same amount of money they used to do, they can do three or ten times as many live shows as they used to, rather than lounge around for most of the year living the good life. And they can do shows in smaller more intimate venues too.

      I guess that depends on the artist. My last concert was Roger Waters a few weeks ago in Boston at the Banknorth Center. He's been touring more or less constantly for the past two years, this was his third show in Boston in that time, and yet it was still sold out and even the decent tickets cost $100 (and were well worth it, by the way). Front-row seats (through scalpers) were going for much, much more.

      What more could you possibly expect him to do to lower prices? Traveling to a new city every day and putting on a show every night is extremely taxing and very few people can keep it up for any extended period of time. Even ignoring the stresses of performance, touring takes artists away from their families and distracts them from writing and recording new music. Sure, most musicians enjoy performing, but you've got to have downtime too. It's extremely impressive if an artist can pull 100 shows a year, and that won't even cover North America/Europe once over with any thoroughness.

      Besides, the idea that musicians owe you anything in terms of a number of performances is a little bit ridiculous. If I'm a successful musician and I want to take ten years off for myself to build a family, go back to school, whatever, and I've earned the cash to do that, who the hell are you to stop me? Would you then berate me for high ticket prices if I decided to put on the occasional concert? Also, keep in mind that playing smaller venues only increases ticket prices, since the experience is better and the seats are even more limited.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  37. The Internet is helping me make it as a musician by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I've been a software engineer for twenty years, and I'm sick to death of it. But I have always had a great love of music - I taught myself to play piano by ear starting back in 1984, and learned to improvise. I composed several songs by improvising, and with the help of a pro audio friend, recorded them back in '94.

    But at the time all I could do to distribute my music was to manually duplicate cassette tapes. I just gave a few to friends and family. CD burners were still horrendously expensive, as were CD-R blanks.

    When I got my own website, I offered some free downloads in Sun's old .AU format. I think it's 8-bit, so it didn't sound that good, and the downloads were quite large. But MP3 and psychoacoustic compression was still a ways off.

    The copyright on my music said "All rights reserved" at first, and I specifically forbid sharing my songs over the Internet, but instead requested that those who wanted to share my music direct others to my website.

    But I had always been a big fan of Richard Stallman and Free Software, and I knew that the right thing to do would be to copyleft my music.

    I'm not signed with any record label, not even an indie one. I'm completely on my own. But my music gets downloaded by hundreds of people each month, with the downloads growing over time.

    By learning to play by ear, I didn't learn to read sheet music. But for several years now I've been taking piano lessons and learning to read music, with the aim that when I can pass the entrance audition, I will enroll in music school to major in musical composition. I want to compose symphonies someday.

    The Internet is, frankly, a miracle to me as it is enabling people throughout the world to get to know me and my music. When the time comes that I play professionally - or hopefully, symphony orchestras play myy compositions - I expect that there will already be a base of fans who will buy tickets to my performances.

    Please download, share and enjoy:

    I call it "The Rough Draft" because I always intended to compose more pieces for at, and when the time came, to re-record it and to have a "glass master" CD pressed.

    The lot of it is under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 2.5 license. There are various formats as well as sheet music in PDF and Lilypond (source code) format. (I would be honored if any of you learned to play my music.)

    I've been playing at Open Mics for a couple years now. I recently moved to Silicon Valley, and often visit Santa Cruz on the weekends. If you'd like to hear me live, check my live performance schedule. (It presently says I'm in Vancouver, but I'll update that in the next day or so.)

    I'm also planning to buy an amp so I can play my keyboard on the street. When I do, I'm going to have a sign hanging off of it advertising "Free Music Downloads", and will have a box of my free music download handbills.

    Last weekend I spent four hours walking up and down Santa Cruz' Pacific Garden Mall passing out the handbills. I got many reactions - most people think it's too good to be true, that there is some kind of catch, but most who accept the handbill are quite delighted.

    You could really help me out if you shared my music over the Internet.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.
  38. the internet is destroying music? by doktorjayd · · Score: 2, Funny



    so his issue is more a demarcation dispute?

  39. Elton John? by gaderael · · Score: 1

    Is he still relevant?

    --
    Anyone got a light for my sig?
  40. Dinosaurs... by msimm · · Score: 1

    Of course it looks that way to him. But how long has it been since he had to hit the street? Promote himself? I'm sure it is terrible for the old guard. Hell, even confusing. Too bad they stick with their old habit instead of listening a little bit more. Not only is music more interesting today, it's more diverse with artists collaborating in ways Elton never could have. Bringing real people together and real bands. Tonight I listen to a collaberation between a singer from Sao Paola and a French musician/producer. It's wonderful, not stale fusion. On my way home it was German glitch pop and another French producer working with a Japanese singer.

    I'm sure this globalism goes right over his head. But while our governments are making all these sleazy arraignments another type of globalization is happening. It's created an amazing music scene in Guadalajara and given them the opportunity to be heard the world over.

    And I'm not talking about traditional music. Contemporary pop. Like hip-hop from Sweden. The amazing Icelandic music scene. Places you might never even think about. There are so many creative people.

    And to think, he laments. Ironic.

    I think it's really just sad that he's missing this. There's more energy out there right now probably then ever before. Every day I'm amazed. I work with artists and I tell them this. He needs to sit down with someone who can show him. The styles have changed. But that's always the case. It's the creativity. The emotion. The honesty and heartbreak that goes into it. Even the blemishes.

    A day doesn't go by I don't think about this. Makes me laugh a little hearing such a thing. Doesn't surprise me. He's missing the world. Too bad, he has a kind of talent too.

    --
    Quack, quack.
  41. What is he talking about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "stopping people from going out and being with each other, creating stuff."
    Creating stuff like babies?

  42. Re:Fuck! The Dude is, like, a 100 now by Buran · · Score: 2, Interesting

    People who "try" to commit suicide and fail that badly (can't gas themselves, don't cut their wrist in the right place, whatever) are generally doing it to try to get attention and try to get help with some issue they can't just outright tell people about, not to actually kill themselves.

    Sadly, I've known people who cut themselves up for attention-whore purposes ... so I can't really jeer at it that easily.

    I like a lot of his newer stuff, but then, musical tastes are very much an individual thing.

  43. He's not even right by abb3w · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Check the Sun article

    "In the early Seventies there were at least ten albums released every week that were fantastic. [...] Now you're lucky to find ten albums a year of that quality."

    Now, where did I hear something like that before? Oh, yes: Spider Robinson's 1983 Hugo Winning Short Story, "The Melancholy Elephants"

    "I do not know the figure for the maximum number of discretely appreciable melodies, and again I'm certain it is quite high, and again I am certain that it is not infinity. There are sixteen billion of us alive, Senator, more than all the people that have ever lived. Thanks to our technology, better than half of us have no meaningful work to do; fifty-four percent of our population is entered on the tax rolls as artists. Because the synthesizer is so cheap and versatile, a majority of those artists are musicians, and a great many are composers. Do you know what it is like to be a composer these days, Senator?"
    "I know a few composers."
    "Who are still working?"
    "Well . . . three of 'em."
    "How often do they bring out a new piece?"
    Pause. "I would say once every five years on the average. Hmmm. Never thought of it before, but--"
    " Did you know that at present two out of every five copyright submissions to the Music Division are rejected on the first computer search?"
    The old man's face had stopped registering surprise, other than for histrionic purposes, more than a century before; nonetheless, she knew she had rocked him. "No, I did not."
    "Why would you know? Who would talk about it? But it is a fact nonetheless. Another fact is that, when the increase in number of working composers is taken into account, the rate of submissions to the Copyright Office is decreasing significantly. There are more composers than ever, but their individual productivity is declining. Who is the most popular composer alive?"
    "Uh . . . I suppose that Vachandra fellow."
    "Correct. He has been working for a little over fifty years. If you began now to play every note he ever wrote, in succession, you would be done in twelve hours. Wagner wrote well over sixty hours of music--the Ring alone runs twenty-one hours. The Beatles--essentially two composers--produced over twelve hours of original music in less than ten years. Why were the greats of yesteryear so much more prolific?
    "There were more enjoyable permutations of eighty-eight notes for them to find."

    Sir Elton John's musical talent may be argued either way, but it doesn't change that he still is an Ignorant Idiot.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    1. Re:He's not even right by Yoozer · · Score: 1

      That is an excellent story, and thank you for bringing it to my attention. Quite visionary, too.

    2. Re:He's not even right by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but that story is just naive. Your average song isn't just about melody. It's about rhythm, lyrics, arrangements, vocals, instruments... to think that, somehow, today there's just less music to find, is flat out ridiculous in the face of all the variables one can alter. Sure, if music was comprised solely of a single sequence of notes, one following the other, the author may have a point. But it's so much more than that.

    3. Re:He's not even right by abb3w · · Score: 1

      Your average song isn't just about melody. It's about rhythm, lyrics, arrangements, vocals, instruments... to think that, somehow, today there's just less music to find, is flat out ridiculous in the face of all the variables one can alter.

      True, changing the lyrics of the song can change its interpretation; "Greensleeves", "What Child is This", or "The Resurrection of the Rump" cause deeply different reactions... but, as far as copyright goes, do not change that royalties must be paid to the melody's composer if the work has not fallen to the public domain yet. Ditto playing it on different instruments, with "vocals" being a special case of instrumental (combined with lyrics). Changing the rhythm can do more (I vaguely remember learning a particularly obscene drinking song to the rough tune of another well-known hymn, but I can't recall it; alas, I was drinking at the time...), but is certainly enough for a "derived works" lawsuit unless within the Parody exception.

      You need to re-read the story from the beginning, and remember: "Large" is not "Infinite". I'll also note that John Barnes anticipates the same phenomenon (albeit further down the road) in the Interstellar Metaculture of his series about Giraut Leones.

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    4. Re:He's not even right by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      but, as far as copyright goes

      I don't care about copyright. I'm reacting to the (IMHO, silly) idea that The Beatles, for example, were more prolific because there was just more music to discover. That's BS. The Beatles were simply exceptional. And they aren't even that exceptional (there are plenty of highly prolific musicians out there). As for large != infinite, while that's true, for all practical purposes, it really doesn't matter.

      The "uniqueness" test for copyright is BS, IMHO, but that's a legal/political issue, nothing more.

    5. Re:He's not even right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That's just stupid. The Beatles weren't any more 'exceptional' than any other band, they just got to write/buy those songs/melodies first. (and therefore copyright them until what feels like the end of time)

      There simply was more music to discover, as far as writing is concerned. Songwriters today don't have the liberty to write whatever comes into our heads, we have to check it against a whole wealth of crappy pop songs to find out if we're accidentally ripping someone off.

      I've written many songs that I've later found out matched melodies with Beatles/Stones/Floyd songs. If what you're saying is true, then I'm truly exceptional, just like those bands. I honestly don't think that's the case. I've lost the ability to use those melodies, even if I came up with them on my own.

      The "uniqueness" test for copyright is BS, IMHO, but that's a legal/political issue, nothing more.

      Wrong again. I can't use those songs I wrote without modifying them significantly. If I don't, and release them as-is, I will be sued by Sony/Universal/Warner/EMI.

      They've killed the music industry, and have led people like you to believe that everything's ok.
    6. Re:He's not even right by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Wrong again. I can't use those songs I wrote without modifying them significantly. If I don't, and release them as-is, I will be sued by Sony/Universal/Warner/EMI.

      No, that's precisely why it's a legal/political issue. It's fucked up, yes. And I'm not sure what gave you the impression I think it's okay.

      But the fact the laws are fucked up doesn't mean that the frontiers of music are, somehow, smaller, other than in a legal sense.

      So if your argument is that artist's productivity is *artificially* limited by simple-minded laws, then fine, I can buy that. But the idea that there is less music to discover today than there was 50 years ago? That's pure BS, plain and simple.

    7. Re:He's not even right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The words "nothing more" gave me the impression that you didn't think it was a big deal. You've now made things more clear.

      So if your argument is that artist's productivity is *artificially* limited by simple-minded laws, then fine, I can buy that. But the idea that there is less music to discover today than there was 50 years ago? That's pure BS, plain and simple.

      I fully agree. There are way more bands and musicians making music these days than ever before.
    8. Re:He's not even right by gowen · · Score: 1

      In the early Seventies there were at least ten albums released every week that were fantastic
      I love this quote.. Simple arithmetic tells us that between 1970 and 1975, somewhere in the region of 2,500 FANTASTIC ALBUMS were released. Now, I love 70s rock, from Lynyrd Skynryd and ELO to Kraftwerk and Patti Smith, and I've been a record collector for twenty odd years (vinyl baby, vinyl -- anyone have a spare B&O MMC5 stylus?) and I can't even begin to list 2,500 albums from that period, let alone 2,500 FANTASTIC ALBUMs.

      Elton John is a fucking idiot. All that cocaine has destroyed his critical faculties.

      Oh, and "Captain and the Kid" sold poorly because it, like almost everything else Elton's done since 1977, was complete tosh.
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    9. Re:He's not even right by Rakarra · · Score: 1
      FTA:

      "In the early Seventies there were at least ten albums released every week that were fantastic. [...] Now you're lucky to find ten albums a year of that quality."

      Umm... no there weren't, not in the early 70s or any other era I can think of. Elton needs to put down the rose-colored glasses for awhile.

  44. Too Late... by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1, Redundant

    internet is destroying good music

    Too late Elton, the recording industry already did that.

    --
    If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
  45. Age and wisdom by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

    I respect older people who are technologically knowledgeable more and more every time an article like this comes down the pipes. Listening to Dawkins talk about how much fun he had anonymously watching and speaking to people, who were watching a recorded speech from him, online was literally awe inspiring. At a fairly high age as far as what the world was like in his youth, he's still seeing more to it than most of the western world's youth. And then, on the other hand, here we have someone so terrified of the new that he wants to tear it all down rather than figure out ways of letting it serve as a medium to further develop his craft.

    --
    Everything will be taken away from you.
  46. What about the record companies? by forgoil · · Score: 1

    They are the guys that fuck people over royally, not the internet, nor the people on it. Try to explain creativity to people who *only* care for the mighty $$$...

    The internet has the possibility of setting music free, and for artists to find new nice ways of making a living, without record companies. Is that what old artists and record companies find so horrific about the internet? That they are *gasp* being replaced? Or can it be that the biggest myspace page isn't /SirEltonJohn ?

    It is what people do, not what the "internet" do...

  47. Elton's already jumped the shark by Whuffo · · Score: 1
    Elton may see that the current scheme of things doesn't have a place in it for him. That doesn't mean that the system is broken, it just means that his day in the sun is over and it's time for new talent to take their turn in the spotlight.

    Such is the way things are and the way things always have been. The old giving way for the new is the way the circle of life works.

    The RIAA and their way of doing things are also part of the past, not the future. They'll thrash and scream as they're relegated to the past - but they'll go, willing or not, into memory. Much as they'd like to turn back time their fate is already upon them and the final chapter can't be rewritten or altered.

    Music is and always has been a part of humanity. It's been performed and distributed in numerous ways over our history and there's strange and mysterious things yet to come. But even in that brave new world, music will still be a part of humanity and it'll resist attempts to subvert it to serve someone's corporate goals.

    And 100 years from now some has-been artist will complain that the new technology has killed his golden goose. It'll never cross his mind that the market no longer finds him relevant. It won't matter then, either. The circle of life goes on...

  48. Poor Elton... by jasquigl · · Score: 1

    "stopping people from going out and being with each other, creating stuff." All those fresh young boys are staying at home out of reach.

  49. Doncha Just LOVE Slow News Day on /. by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1
    You know it's a slow news day when Slashdot articles:
    • Quote some random blogger
    • who quoted from "some random trashy tabloid" (aka The Sun)
    • about "some random music industry has-been" who thinks too much of himself just because he has a knighthood (aka Sir Elton)
    And of course it's anybody/anything else's fault that "pop music" today pretty much bites much arse and not due to:
    • Many (some would say most) Artists today are whiny teenagers with no real "talent" (for any given value of "talent")
    • many people are sick to death of being constantly shredded by the RIAA and have taken up READING BOOKS to entertain themselves
    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
  50. Gay guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you mean trisexual? Three things that he likes: Men, women, being ignorant! Wait, that just makes him be gay again, so I guess that you're right...

  51. Re:Elton John? - Old school hacker! by lawrencebillson · · Score: 3, Funny

    Very; he is especially qualified to comment about Internet affairs. Elton demonstrates many hacker type qualities. Especially his code re-use skill. He was able to use the same bit of code for songs about two different celebrities that had almost nothing in common. Brilliant!

  52. Judge != Elton John by Flying+pig · · Score: 5, Informative
    Sorry, but I really felt the need to respond to this. British newspapers like to make out that judges are ignorant because it plays to the prejudices of their readers. In fact, the judge had to ask the question because both sides were talking about "websites" but without any definition, and (as any fool on /. knows) websites can be many different things. Judges are not allowed to intervene and tell the court what things are, they have to get the information into the trial record by asking questions.

    In the same way a judge was once ridiculed for asking "Who are the Beatles", but it was necessary because again they were being talked about in a trial, but anybody subsequently reading the trial report would not get a clue what "Beatles" were. Because of the way the British legal system works, on case law and precedent, judges have to assume that a judgement may be brought up many years in the future - when, say, the word "website" will be long gone but the thing itself still exists.

    Incidentally, in that case the question did show that the lawyers on both sides were themselves unclear what they were talking about - not unusual in these cases.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
    1. Re:Judge != Elton John by otter42 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info. Here is a site which goes into a bit more detail, including defending the judge as completely computer literate: http://www.out-law.com/page-8062

      I think the original point still stands that some people (e.g. Ted Stevens) are hopelessly lost when it comes to understanding the internet and what it means. The wrong example (good correction!) but the right anecdote.

      --
      www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
    2. Re:Judge != Elton John by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      Speaking of British newspapers, this is one of the worst:

      In a story from the British tabloid newspaper "The Sun," music legend Sir Elton John has posted comments online that call for the internet to be closed down.

      The source is crazy. A tabloid journalist selectively quoting from comments posted online? The photo of Elton John is probably stock footage, only placed there to make people think that he was interviewed or something.

  53. Come on in, the internet's fine! by ronrib · · Score: 1

    It just looks cold

  54. Wasn't he the guy who also claimed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...back in the '70s that consumer tape recorders and audio cassettes would destroy the music industry?

  55. Leave it to /. readers.... by servognome · · Score: 1, Redundant

    to not read the article, jump in with their personal bias as comments, and miss the interesting points that are made.
    Though I disagree with the idea that music is being "destroyed" there is some validity to the change in the communication and connection between people. The internet allows us to communicate with many more people, but we do not make the same interpersonal connections that physical proximity promotes. The change in how people relate is what will change music and art.

    --
    D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    1. Re:Leave it to /. readers.... by closer2it · · Score: 1

      I'm a musician and I see internet as a tool to promote my work, not only a way to meet new people. Obviously I need the "real world" for inspirational purposes. Internet is not my muse it's my highway (sorry about this lame affirmation, but is true).

      Every time I step out that door, a simple bee passing by, it can be music to me. Good artists knows this.

      If an artist doesn't get it, maybe it's not that smart...

    2. Re:Leave it to /. readers.... by servognome · · Score: 1

      It's not about smart vs dumb artists, it's about the fundamental change in how people communicate and how that is changing culture. Kids prefer texting each other, even though it is often cheaper and faster to just call. People are increasingly socializing with avatars rather than in person.
      Perhaps you are not affected by the shift towards a more cold digital culture, but it will impact the next generations.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  56. What Music ? by q256 · · Score: 0

    Music is stagnant IMO due to the record companies and songwriters. Shame on those like Elton who will sell out his music for the pretty boy or girl front singer who doesn't have the talent to open a twist top on their bottled water. There are some good bands out there but karaoke is the popular path - looks sells - screw the songwriting, musical abilities... both can be rented like a used whore . . . and if she might be able to sing too (bonus).

    Most, not all, but many of the older bands that still tour and play today would never really get signed today. Many of them really had no scale to their vocals, some where down right ugly, limited musical skills outside their own style... but when staying within their skills (and music), they did kick ass because there was talent.

    When looks out way talent ... yea - that $18 + cd looks pretty, but sounds like ?

    --
    Once upon a time, a soon to be mommy and daddy loved each other very much (the lust was strong as well as the drinks)
  57. RIAA versus everyone by zoomshorts · · Score: 1

    It is time for artists to realize that the RIAA and
    similar organizations exist to steal money from the
    artists themselves.

    There needs to be a new organization, one which NO member
    of , or prior member of ,the RIAA et al, can be a member of,
    and it should replace all such previous organizations.

    The RIAA claim to work towards getting the artists the
    royalities from their creations, but the RIAA gets more
    than the lions share. They are organized extortion. Pure
    and simple.

    Suppose the RIAA legitimately catches someone making a
    copyrighted work downloadable, or makes copies for some
    friends. The RIAA gets a huge judgement for the most part,
    and the artist gets his/her $0.07 per copy royality?

    What is fair about this? This is a protection racket
    and nothing more. Organized and criminal in intent.

    The threat is legal action, litigation you cannot possibly
    afford, as Joe Average. If you fail to pay the extortion
    you are SLAPPED with lawsuits. They will nickle and dime
    you to death with court appearances. They will force you
    to hire a lawyer to help control the charges and judgement.
    They will cost you dearly unless you give in to their
    demands. If not extortion, what is it? Blackmail???

    Sound about right?

    Now let us turn this same racket into something that will
    benefit the artist.

    Send a simple demand letter to obvious infringers*, you
    know who you are, asking for the removal of the material
    and $25.00 to this new organization.

    The difference would be this, the new organization can
    only get $5.00 of the $25.00 as a fee, the remainder
    would be disbursed to the copyright owner. Same threats
    of lawsuits, just a more reasonable outcome.

    This would do several things :

    Reimburse artists

    Give the new organization the impetus to go after larger
    numbers of infringers.

    Reduce the money to be made by questionable organizations.

    * Obvious Infringer, someone with a ftp site with titles
    ending in {Complete Album} or {Full Movie} in the file names.
    Doh!

    1. Re:RIAA versus everyone by monxrtr · · Score: 0

      Send a simple demand letter to obvious infringers*, you
      know who you are, asking for the removal of the material
      and $25.00 to this new organization.

      The difference would be this, the new organization can
      only get $5.00 of the $25.00 as a fee, the remainder
      would be disbursed to the copyright owner. Same threats
      of lawsuits, just a more reasonable outcome.

      This would do several things :

      Reimburse artists The thing is the artists would be mailing those letters to themselves, as there is no single piece of music anywhere on the internet, or anywhere else, that has not copied some previous or other musician's work somehow someway. You only learn and study to become a musician by COPYING. There's absolutely no other way. And if they were to request "removal of the material" they would be requesting the death absence of music. Nope, they can beg. They can court voluntary donations. If that doesn't pay the bills, they can play music in their leisure time after they get off their day job shift.
      --
      "From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
  58. That;s Billy Joel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You may remember him from his roll on Welcome Back Kotter. He played Whoreshack.

  59. Experiment? by Tim+Browse · · Score: 5, Funny
    From TFA:

    "I do think it would be an incredible experiment to shut down the whole internet for five years and see what sort of art is produced over that span."

    If only there was a period in history when the internet didn't exist, so we could make a comparison to it.

  60. What happened to the whole point, Rocket Man? by wintermutex · · Score: 1

    Two points to make:
    Elton John wants people to go out and be with each other and creating things? He should check out http://www.blogotheque.net/takeawayshows/ , a phenomenon that would not be possible were it not for the internet, the very goal of which is to get emerging (or even, in some cases, famous) bands in public performing live in impromptu venues (like elevators) in major cities all over the world. Imagine that... truly creative people finding a way of utilizing their technology to create new things, or perhaps old things in new forms in pace with a changing world. What's that? Oh, the point of much art? Oh yeah.

    Which leads to the second point. Marshall McLuhan had a lot to say about the unique nature of artists: "The artist picks up the message of cultural and technological challenge decades before its transforming impact occurs. He, then, builds models or Noah's arks for facing the change that is at hand... The ability of the artist to sidestep the bully blow of new technology of any age, and to parry such violence with full awareness, is age-old." (Understanding Media, 1964)

    Elton John as an artist is clearly not of the breed that McLuhan insists "is the man of integral awareness," and "who grasps the implications of his actions and of new knowledge in his own time." This reactionary, Luddite philosophy of his marks him as not only behind the times, but as a man of the most dangerous artistic influence, given his mass appeal and status. Art should not tear down the inexorable technological developments of any age; video may have killed the radio star, but then again, maybe it had the technologies of writing, painting, and sculpture that preceded it that grounded the human mind in a predominantly visual mode, anyway. Who knows. But regardless (anyone notice the guy who agreed with Elton John use 'irregardless'?), the blame game is not for artists of any caliber.

  61. Re:And rock n' roll singlehandedly killed communis by hxnwix · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sir, do not trivialize this. Surely, you must understand that

    MUSIC IS GOING DOWN THE INTERTUBES!

  62. Elton is part of the empire by Cathbard · · Score: 1

    Of course Elton John doesn't want things to change, he's done quite well out of the current regime. He can hardly be called a neutral observer.

    --
    "A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist" - Sir Humphrey Appleby
  63. He plays by himself anyway by alexibu · · Score: 1

    Anyone who leanrs to play the piano and sing, like Elton, doesn't exactly look like they are going out of their way to do stuff with other people.

  64. Perspective by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

    Thanks to the intertubes I'm always listening to albums and seeing shows for small indie bands that I would've never known about before. You're not going to find good music coming out of the TV, the radio, or Elton John anymore, but you will find it on the internet. And the internet will lead you to where that music exists in world where people are made of meat, not 1's and 0's.

    Elton John needs to stop partnering with lame top-40 bile during The Durito's Nacho-Cheesier Half Time Specials of the world. He needs to possibly start listening to something like the All Songs Considered podcast, or start using the intertubes to follow the local music scene.

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
  65. I guess that's why they call it the blues... by Howzer · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...Time on the 'net could be time spent with you
    Clicking on banners, searching for lovers
    Sneaking my laptop under the covers
    And I guess that's why they call it the blues

    Ah, Elton, always on hand with crappy lyrics badly modified for current events...

    1. Re:I guess that's why they call it the blues... by St.Anne · · Score: 1

      He should put up a Myspace site! He might even get more fans!

    2. Re:I guess that's why they call it the blues... by isaac · · Score: 1

      Ah, Elton, always on hand with crappy lyrics badly modified for current events...

      You mean Bernie Taupin.
      --
      I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
    3. Re:I guess that's why they call it the blues... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I guess that's why they call it the blues

      That was excellent, but you really should have changed the above line to:
      And I guess that's why they call it the tubes

  66. His old stuff is awesome by tjstork · · Score: 3, Informative

    And by old, I mean, pre-1976

    Tiny Dancer
    Levon
    Madman across the Water
    Goodbye Yellow Brick Road
    Crocodile Rock
    Don't Let the Sun Go Down on Me
    Someone Saved My Life Tonight
    and I'll take Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters up against any song the Who ever did, period.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:His old stuff is awesome by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      Crocodile Rock
      Bzzt! Wrong Crocodile Rock is pretty much just pop bubble gum music. The other songs you listed have some redeeming qualities but Crocodile Rock is crap

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    2. Re:His old stuff is awesome by rbochan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...and I'll take Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters up against any song the Who ever did, period.


      As seen in the intartubes somewhere:
      If the Who's "Live at Leeds" album doesn't make you want to go downtown and throw bricks through windows, it's time to join AARP and move to Florida.

      --
      ...Rob
      The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
    3. Re:His old stuff is awesome by lundbergaj · · Score: 1

      I personally welcome the new music inspired by our new cold impersonal world, and hope some high quality cold impersonal music will result. We just haven't had enough cold impersonal music being created for those of us who prefer that sort of thing. And, by the way, I always thought the title of that other song was spelled: Don't Let The Son Go Down On Me

    4. Re:His old stuff is awesome by splatterboy · · Score: 2, Informative

      You realize "his" old stuff isn't "his" any more than Pinball wizard... Ever hear of Bernie Taupin? Their fallout was basically the reason he fell off the charts, he didn't write the music - Bernie did. The punk rock culture shift didn't help...

      --
      "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." ~The Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan
    5. Re:His old stuff is awesome by dwye · · Score: 1

      > he didn't write the music - Bernie did.

      Actually, he wrote the music, to Bernie's lyrics. His own were ... underwhelming, shall we say? They still ARE underwhelming, but now he has the nerve to occasionally publish them.

    6. Re:His old stuff is awesome by hosecoat · · Score: 1

      i guess elton is right, since the internet came along his music sucks.

    7. Re:His old stuff is awesome by Buran · · Score: 1

      You got that backwards; Elton writes the music, Bernie the lyrics ... and ... they're still collaborating together. The latest album "The Captain And The Kid" is all about that.

      (the Rocket Man CD is just a greatest-hits compilation intended to get his name out there and expose listeners to his music again who may not have heard of him, or not have heard his older stuff).

  67. new tag request by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    where is the 'oldfart'-tag when you need it ?

  68. "Goodbye England's Rose" by Swampash · · Score: 1

    Hear that, Elton? That was the sound of you becoming irrelevant to anything creative musicians are doing.

  69. Re:Fuck! The Dude is, like, a 100 now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Newer stuff? Can he go a day without b*itching at everyone he sees to do new stuff? Used to be he did two albums a year, year after year. Then he went to R.S. magazine in his underwear and a stripped soccer shirt and before you knew it, he turned bi (later it was found out that he actually a full-blown gay) and that was the end of that. I'd rather see Madonna kick his fat cow-hating ass, but you take what you get and on slash dot, it's slim pickins.

    Headline: EJ Calls Internet Disgusting Fat Cow!

  70. ironic by Floydius · · Score: 1
    It seems a little ironic that he would be making these comments (purportedly) from a forum on his own website. (The article didn't seem to be able to substantiate that the quotes actually came from El-Jay himself.)

    These are quotes from the article:

    Instead they sit at home and make their own records, which is sometimes OK but it doesn't bode well for long-term artistic vision.

    It's just a means to an end.

    We're talking about things that are going to change the world and change the way people listen to music and that's not going to happen with people blogging on the internet.

    I mean, get out there -- communicate.

    Hopefully the next movement in music will tear down the internet.

    Let's get out in the streets and march and protest instead of sitting at home and blogging.

    I do think it would be an incredible experiment to shut down the whole internet for five years and see what sort of art is produced over that span.

    There's too much technology available.

    I'm sure, as far as music goes, it would be much more interesting than it is today.

    I don't have a mobile phone or an iPod or anything.

    I am such a Luddite when it comes to making music. All I can do is write at the piano.
    How can you make these comments in the form of a forum post??

    Anyway, as others have noted, I like how the internet allows little guys to get their music out. One of my friends is an incredibly talented musician. I'd wager myspace has driven his exposure and fanbase far more than his coffee shop gigs.

    One more pointless observation... It used to be that the only way to get your music out there was to get really popular, playing bars and other small gigs relentlessly at the expense of your family and/or personal health. Now you can keep playing coffee shops at your leisure while gaining popularity on the internet. As for me, I've played for small groups of friends, and i've played for larger audiences (no more than 1500), and I prefer the smaller groups hands down. For those that seek to distribute their music, they can continue to play smaller venues and let the internet do the footwork. I don't see a problem with that. Pop was getting crappy long before the internet became popular.
  71. Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, Elton John is predicted to be dead in 30 or 40 more years. The internet is still in good health.

  72. not quite.. by yanyan · · Score: 1

    I think the Internet is making possible lots of new and wonderful ways of making music. For instance, i happen to be a member of a musician-oriented forum. Once in a while, somebody would compose a drum track or some other backing track and then pass it around to members. Those who were interested to add to it are free to do so, and i've heard a lot of excellent musical ideas from people who otherwise would've had no avenue of expression. Suddenly, you don't even have to have a band living in the same town as you are: your bass player could be living somewhere in Europe while the singer could be in Japan and the rest of the band in other places. Taking it one step further, the really prolific could now create full albums and a website from where they could sell CDs, completely bypassing the greedy record labels.

    For me, what IS destroying good music is the empty-v culture of all flash, no substance. Ever sat down to watch for at least 5 minutes or so? It's nothing but the same big name, big production, no talent crap over and over.

  73. Get with the program, Elton! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cry more noob

  74. This might already have been said, but.. by pixeltrasher · · Score: 1

    "Let's get out in the streets and march and protest instead of sitting at home and blogging." And he said this in his comment he wrote on a webpage, as opposed to saying it in a demonstration in the streets? I rest my case...

    --
    Don't get me wrong -Just get me right!
  75. Elton's Right About One Thing by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Today's music sucks compared to the best of the mid 1960s through the mid 1970s. It's just true. Artists in that era incorporated a wide range of sounds and styles into their work to create a discography that is often remarkable and most likely impossible to duplicate today. The other thing, too, is that major artists of that era were expected to produce an album at least once a year, and, more often than not, every six months. That's an impressive amount of material. Nowadays, you'll hear new albums from major acts more like every two to three years.

    Elton confuses digital music and the internet. Digital technology puts the recording technology that only the Beatles could afford to use onto everyone's PC, and could theoretically be used to make some genuinely great albums. However, the Internet and today's musical delivery methods place such an emphasis on individual songs, that it often makes little sense for an artist to even bother with the concept of an album.

    The problem is, ironically, that back in those days, an album was considered a work of art by itself and so it was appropriate to use the latest in studio technology to create sounds and songs that are impossible to play live. When I was a kid, radio stations wouldn't just play songs, they would play entire albums, start to stop. That just doesn't happen but rarely anymore - and then only on college radio.

    Nowadays, a major act by a major company doesn't have the artistic freedom to do a good album as a whole - as there's so much emphasis on forcing a band to retain the same "sound" to keep loyal listeners, and, since tours are now big money makers too, the pressure to make an album that is playable live is even more immense.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Elton's Right About One Thing by monxrtr · · Score: 0

      Artists in that era incorporated a wide range of sounds and styles into their work to create a discography that is often remarkable and most likely impossible to duplicate today. In other words, artists COPIED. To even be a musician, you must COPY. Sorry, I just had to point that out, again. With a ginormous increase in the availability of musical sources and ideas, thanks to the internet, the artists you hail had but a drop in the bucket of comparative inspirational ideas.
      --
      "From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
  76. I'm An Old Duffer Also But I Disagree by pandrijeczko · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Over here in the UK I read a magazine called "Classic Rock" because I'm a middle-aged old duffer into Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, Black Sabbath and, yes, even the occasional (classic 70s) Elton John album.

    A couple of months ago, a freebie brochure-cum-mini magazine fell out listing all of the rock music festivals going on in-and-around Europe over the summer - no lies, but there were *at least* 70 music festivals!

    I guess one reason for this is the ludicrous prices of concert tickets and the rip-off sellers like Ticketmaster that charge *extortionate* booking fees simply for putting a couple of tickets in the post - the fact is that a festival is going to give you "more bands for your money".

    I don't like a lot of the modern music but I don't see any shortage of live gigs to go to and the whole live music scene is very vibrant - hell, even heroes of mine like Uriah Heep and Magnum, all of them approaching their 60s, are touring quite regularly *and* charging reasonable amounts for tickets.

    The sad fact is that Elton John is a "has-been" and has now become more media celebrity than musician - these days, he's more known for his gay marriage to his partner, wild parties & sucking up to Disney to write film soundtracks rather than the classic music he did during the 70s like "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" and "Captain Fantastic".

    Nope, I can't stand music downloads & most modern music either but the fact is that I can still buy CDs at reasonable prices (not in rip-off stores like Virgin or HMV) and there is more than enough live music for me to go and see - so what anyone else does is up to them, I'm in my 40s and well catered for...

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    1. Re:I'm An Old Duffer Also But I Disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anybody else remember a 1974 EJ song called "Ticking"? http://www.eltonography.com/songs/ticking.html

      I think it's the most moving piece he ever did.

  77. You always gotta have an enemy by tuxliner · · Score: 1

    I remember reading an interview of John Felice from the Real Kids where he said their aim was to destroy Elton John.
    BTW, as far a Rock'n'roll is concerned, the Real Kids were much closer to the bone than sir Elton.

  78. wow just wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "stopping people from going out and being with each other, creating stuff."
    let me correct that, from experience
    "helping people to connect with each other, creating stuff that would never have been possible before."
    unless hes talking about myspace, then i completely agree.

  79. Old Fart in the Wind by konohitowa · · Score: 1

    Goodbye Reggie Dwight,
    Though I never liked you at all
    You had the technophobia
    To lash out at us all.

  80. I say... by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1
    ...Elton John is destroying music.

    Or perhaps that should have read: The internet says Elton John is destroying music.

    Either way, the guy is one "artist," so I don't give a poop about what he says. He knows nothing of economics or how the music or internet industries work and support each other. He can record all the crap he wants, and morons can buy it, that's fine. But he is not qualified to comment as an expert on this subject, and we should not take his comments as anything more than a flame from one disgruntled salesman who hasn't yet been able to rake in an infinite amount of money.

    If Sir Elton and the crap artists he listens to were cleaning-up in regards to their online sales, I doubt we'd hear a peep out of him, other than that the internet is a great, logical new market.

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  81. The internet didn't do it, the industry did. by Peebert · · Score: 1

    Too bad, Elton. I guess that's why they call it the blues.

  82. Silly old queen, by Simulant · · Score: 1

    The internet is destroying traditional distribution methods. Nothing will ever destroy music.

  83. Chinese Whispers much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So this is slashdot reporting that zeropaid are reporting that the sun is reporting on some online comments apparently made by Elton.

    Gosh, that's real first-hand stuff. Let's make a big deal out of it!

  84. gfhfghfg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck you elton john

  85. My god by Dasher42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Clearly Elton John hasn't listened to the radio for the past fifteen years. Ignorance is bliss.

    But for the internet, I'd never have discovered the amount of music I have that actually has real art value.

    1. Re:My god by iainl · · Score: 1

      No, Elton probably doesn't listen to the radio that much.

      However, the last I heard he continued to buy EVERY major and most minor CD releases each week, and everything he then liked in a few more copies, one for each house. The guy has got a totally insane collection, and someone employed purely to keep it under control.

      I think quite a few people here are misjudging how in- or out-of-touch he actually is.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    2. Re:My god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally agree with this. I discovered an artist on the internet named Holly Miranda. She has the most soulful, powerful music I've heard in a very long time. The stuff I've downloaded was mostly acoustic rock, and fairly well recorded (sounds like a home studio). If you like acoustic guitar, and dig rock music with a touch of blues, I would recommend her to you.

      Try it out Elton.

  86. He may be wrong by fan+of+lem · · Score: 1

    in saying that the Internet is destroying good music, but that it "has created a cold and impersonal world for artists to create new music in"? Maybe he has a point.

    Then again, this may be good news for fans of 80s electronic pop. Domo aregatu, Mr. Roboto!

  87. He's right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's shut down the internet. It's about time. The experiment has clearly failed: all what it has achieved is demonstrating just how petty and stupid people are. The internet is nothing but a gigantic container filled to the brim with shit, and constantly expanding.

    Shut it down. Close the servers and scrap them. Uproot the lines. Take the hard drives containing all the data stored in it and melt them in a smelting furnace. Erase it from existence.

    Let's go back to REAL life, REAL things, REAL achievements. I know it will hurt the loser generation that has no life but "online" hollow pursuits, but it's not like those stupid teenagers could do anything about it anyway. They'll whine a bit then they'll get used to it. If they ever get too loud, we'll simply beat them up, they're wimps anyway.

    Let's go back to a Real World for Real People. Nerds will be drowned in shit, like they deserve. A world without nerds is an objective worthy of pursuing.

    So, Elton John is right. Anyone who disagrees is a turdbrained nerd who can either shut the fuck up or get the crap beaten out of him.

    Case closed.

  88. Re:And rock n' roll singlehandedly killed communis by Zoop · · Score: 3, Funny

    I do think it would be an incredible experiment to shut down the whole internet for five years and see what sort of art is produced over that span. Right--we did it for ten years, already. It was called the Seventies. It started with the Beatles and ended with Disco, and Elton John helped that transition.

    Let's just all be quiet and hope he goes away.
  89. Looking at this bass ackwards by Genda · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't be too critical of Sir Elton...

    Transformative technology doesn't unfold smoothly. The dominant paradigm is shattered, twisted, shocked by the changes inflicted upon it. To the person born to and comfortable with the dominant paradigm, it would look like the death of everything they know and love. They would be quite rightfully frightened and saddened by what they see. But that is born of their devotion to the past, and their inability to see the future. To the catepillar, butterflies look like the end of all things.

    In this messy, rattle-trap process of revoltion, evolution, many new things pop into and out of existence overnight and the new stable state, the new paradigm begins to develop. It is not a pretty process, and the along the way, it's easy to become judgemental and lose sight of why people moved down this path to begin with.

    I can only imagine what it will be like when great artists can meet together virtually, collaborating with hardly more than a moments notice, anywhere in the world. What amzing art they will make for the ears, and the eyes, and all the senses, and the spirit, and the mind. What will be the possibility of an artist who can sing neural songs of profound thought and experience, and what will be possible for our children's childen when they have access to every beautiful thing ever devised at almost infinite speed and resolution. The internet of today is a tinker toy. It's an externalization of the human brain, still in it's most primative state. Nobody is surprised that a salamander or even a gopher is not sufficiently sophisticated to be a channel of great artistic beauty. Why should it be any any wonder that as amazing as it is, our ability to truly connect is stil l terribly limited, that our ability to "ART" is constrained by this tiny, narrow channel. The possibility however, that is something an artistic soul should rejoice in.

    Relenquish nothing, instead we need to push forward faser, harder, we need to stop thinking small. Watching the enterprise of of today's technology wasting precious time and energy polishing turds and calling it business... this is the real trajedy. Let's build something worthy of human artists, worthy of the art of being human. That would be the fulfillment of real transformation. That would be a worthy aspiration for a true network of human beings.

    1. Re:Looking at this bass ackwards by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      Transformative technology doesn't unfold smoothly. The dominant paradigm is shattered, twisted, shocked by the changes inflicted upon it. To the person born to and comfortable with the dominant paradigm, it would look like the death of everything they know and love.
      Are you sure you don't just need to leverage your synergistic paradigms into a new horizon of business communications? What about monetizing ubiquitous communities in order to architect real-time functionalities?
  90. Listen to him, he knows what he's talking about by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    After all, Elton John has been destroying music longer than anyone!

    The Music industry lived it's life like a candle in the wind...

    He's awful enough to write songs for Disney!

  91. Oh well by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    The world keeps changing, you have to adapt. My future children won't be able to enjoy 8-bit game systems or home computers the way I did either. Or be able to pick up a Pong console at a garage sale and think it was the coolest thing ever.

    I realize now that not everyone has to do things the way I did to have an interesting and enjoyable life. But what kids do these days that is exciting and interesting I have almost no idea.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  92. Absolutely Correct! by crhylove · · Score: 1

    Kind of like how the written note destroyed music.

    rhY

    PS Nice Boots.

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  93. Maybe he should check with Trent Reznor... by holiggan · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Seriously, I think that NIN (and Trent) is the perfect example of a new and creative way to make and promote music. Just check out the buzz and ARG around their last album, Year Zero.

    Besides, Trent released a couple of tracks in a format that alows anyone (ANYONE) to mix it, remix it, cut it, mash it, to basically get a taste of what it feels like to play with the "source code" of music. Trent even said that the draft of the album was made up while they were touring, with a laptop, on buses and planes and all.

    Heck, they even "leaked" selected tracks via USB pen drives on bathrooms on concerts, and I think that the objective was to spread them, using (you guessed!) the internet!

    Now, could any of this be possible without the internet? Maybe, but the thing is that the internet is a new "tool", to wich the artists either adapt, or will violently bash against (like in the case of Sir Elton).

    5 years without internet... the thing is that a lot of people (like Sir Elton) just don't get it, today the internet is becoming more and more a "essential" service on the civilized world, much like telephone, gas, electricity and the likes.

    --
    "A sysadmin is a cross between a detective, a police officer, a gardener, a doctor and a fireman"
    1. Re:Maybe he should check with Trent Reznor... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      Besides, Trent released a couple of tracks in a format that alows anyone (ANYONE) to mix it, remix it, cut it, mash it, to basically get a taste of what it feels like to play with the "source code" of music.

      Sorry, but I've never understood this "music must be interactive" crap.

      Either you're a musician that creates original and interesting music or you're not a musician in which case you listen to it.

      If you need to "fiddle about" with it, then it probably wasn't perfect in the first place - in which case you're not listening to the right music and probably need to go off and do some more research to find better music.

      Call me old fashioned but I pay for *finished* products. When I go into a burger bar, I do not expect to have to dive over the counter and add more pickles or put the cheese beneath the burger instead of on top of it.

      Remixing has *NOTHING* to do with music or art - it is *PURELY* clever marketing to sell more product by making you believe you have some kind of input into it's creation, nothing more. It's about fashion and fad, so get used to it.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  94. a pose, aren't we? by sepiroth · · Score: 1

    > I don't have a mobile phone or an iPod or anything.

    You are so free, how I envy you. Wait Elton, doesn't your manager have a mobile phone?

  95. downloading some more now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The more these dipshits complain about the internet and downloading, the more Im downloading.
    Whatever, gonna download some more now and it def wont be any gayass Elton music.

  96. Two reasons to ignore this by cocoa+moe · · Score: 1

    This was pubished by brittains rainbow press. The Sun would write (and has probably written) about a giant mole eating up the whole earth, if necessary to catch readers attention. This article is assembled from quotes that seem to have been properly removed from all irritating context and assembled in such a fashion, that Joe Random will get pissed, before the article is over.

    Second, the article states that Elton John does neither own a cellphone, nor an iPod. If this were true (which I doubt to some extend) it would make him almost unqualified to talk about the web, as he lacks all key devices that take modern media out of your home. To me such a statement is symtopmatic for a disconnection with the way young people manage their lifes and how they make and experience music.

    So what is the news? "Dead Elvis did't like the new Superman movie."

    Yeah, whatever.

  97. Rocket Man is not a rocket scientist by TwoBeans · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When someone like Mr. John here admits he's making an uninformed opinion, "I don't have a mobile phone or an iPod or anything", its kinda hard to give his words any weight no matter how much of an icon he is in the music industry.

    Just because he personally doesn't use a tool doesn't mean it needs to be completely done away with. I could point to many uses of the internet as a means for musical collaboration. For applications there's Ninjam for one, FL Studio has Collab, and there's also many online communities of artists working together and feeding off each other's inspiration and creativity.

    The candle hasn't burned out long ago, Elton. There's just more sources of light that you haven't bothered noticing.

    --
    -2B
  98. Re:The Internet is helping me make it as a musicia by Carlinya · · Score: 1

    Considering the topic, I'm not surprised to see someone advertise their music.

    Congratulations. And all the best!

    --
    1 + 1 = 3?
  99. Inverse is also true by AllanVanHulst · · Score: 1

    Most of the internet says Elton John is also destroying music

  100. Not necessarily by moosesocks · · Score: 1

    The internet has undoubtedly reduced the number (and quality) of superstars and celebrities out there (you can also blame the record industry and clearchannel for the quality plunging through the floor).

    On the other hand, music as a whole has benefitted greatly and considerably increased in diversity. Chances are that there are more than a few bands that match your tastes out there, and odds are that they actually have a pretty significant following.

    Over the past few years, the indie circuit has become more and more and more diverse to encompass just about every genre, and has even spawned a few genres of its own (or at the very least, greatly popularized previously obscure styles such as Post-Rock and french-influenced funk/electronica a la Justice).

    Quite a few artists that have risen up through the indie circuit over the past few years are currently considered to be amongst the most talented popular musicians of our generation -- Sufjan Stevens stands out in particular as being an absolute genius. I have a feeling that Sam Beam of Iron & Wine will likely receive quite a bit of attention once his new album is out.

    This past year alone is pretty widely considered to have been one of the best ever for the independent music scene, and has arguably produced as many memorable albums as all of the 90s did. Artists and Albums that have risen through the indie circuit, standing out as being particularly fantastic to my mind include (in no particular order) The Arcade Fire, Death Cab for Cutie, The Decemberists, Of Montreal, Iron & Wine, Sufjan Stevens, Calexico, Spoon, Final Fantasy, Patrick Wolf, Andrew Bird, Feist, The National, Bright Eyes, Okkervil River, Neutral Milk Hotel, 65daysofstatic, Justice, LCD Soundsystem, Jose Gonzalez, Josh Ritter, Elliot Smith, Nick Drake, and the list goes on and on....

    The awesome bit is that the above list encompasses almost every genre imaginiable. Apart from the usual Indie Rock, there's some electronica, a few singer-songwriters, a folk musician, a southwestern ensemble, two solo violinists, an instrumental post-rock band, and some electronica.

    The music industry seems to have lost the ability to find people these days who make both good celebrities and good musicians. David Bowie stands out as doing a particularly good job of both. Other "superstars" of today have indeed climbed to the top purely on accord of their own talent -- Coldplay and U2 stand out in this regard, and seeing Mark Konpfler perform with a few former members of the Dire Straits a few years back was an absolutely amazing experience. Apart from that, though, the top 10 is more or less absolute garbage.

    Elton can say what he wants, but the music scene is the absolute best it's been during my lifetime.

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  101. Elton has NOTHING to do with the lyrics by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Elton has absolutely NOTHING to do with his lyrics.

    They arrive in the post and he writes music for them. There's no discussion and no input at all from Elton.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Elton has NOTHING to do with the lyrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Elton has absolutely NOTHING to do with his lyrics.

      Except that he SINGS them.

    2. Re:Elton has NOTHING to do with the lyrics by Buran · · Score: 1

      While that is true (and it's an unusual arrangement, I think, in the music world), I would guess that he probably receives more lyrics than actually are turned into music, so he likely does have a lot of input as to what we (the public) finally end up hearing. It seems to be a workable method, so I don't see anything wrong with it. It's a good way to combine different talents.

  102. He's partly right! by Nomaxxx · · Score: 1

    stopping people from going out and being with each other, creating stuff.

    The fact is that lots of people stay home in front of their computer instead of going out; bars, clubs, theaters, arcades and small record shops suffer from this. Nobody can deny it.

    Now, I don't agree about:

    the internet is destroying good music".

    Musicians still can meet on ICQ and setup meetings to create music together. And Internet helps spreading creations. Both good and bad. So if more music tracks reach you, there's a great chance that a bigger part of them is crap. But that doesn't mean there are less good quality songs.

  103. The Irony... by hAckz0r · · Score: 2, Informative
    ... as he gives his interview to be published on the Internet.


    The cause and effect he imagines just isn't there. The 'cold place' he sees was just hidden during the past. He never had the chance to meet the mobs of people out there without the power of the Internet before, except when he traveled on tour. And I am sure he stopped to talk to them all. The new technology merely allowed him to know about the world he never saw before, and any existing problems he never realized.


    Yes, the Industry is "colder" today, for him, as that is just in his own frame of mind. The Industry has always been a cutthroat place where contracts rule, not the artist. The "people" don't make it colder, they just make it possible for a sinking artist like him to make a living and get their interviews published on the Internet, and to drive up sales.


  104. I'ts about creativity by tcornelissen · · Score: 1

    For the people who dit not read the article: Elton is saying that people are sitting behind the computer screen alone instead of making music together. This wil kill the music. As a software developer I've made software with people all over the world, thanks to the Internet.

    It should be possible for musicians to work together over the Internet. You can contact more musicians over the Internet than ther are in your town. I would assume the collaboration will increase the quantity and the quality of the music.

  105. The more thing change... by 6-tew · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is this news? An ageing, and increasingly irrelevant musician is upset that the industry is our pacing his technical understanding and/or taste. I know someone out there is a fan of Mr. John's music, I'm not, none of my friends are. My parents hate his music and are from the generation that launched Elton's career. I've always wondered who was buying his CDs. It's a matter of opinion. I think EJ had done more to make music crap than the Interweb could.

    Have not the record companies failure to build a truly kick-ass online business model, combined with there terrible taste in music lead to a decrease in the overall quality of music? I'm not a music geek, but I never listen to top 40 radio. I'm tuned to public (CBC) and college, mostly because of the whole quality thing. I'm not a musician. Maybe that's the problem?

  106. Shoot the messenger, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think this tells us a lot more about Elton John than you might suspect at first. For one thing my impression about the man behind the music has sure cooled quite a bit. Its the typical reaction toward something you don't understand yet think you can comprehend enough to pick up what it stands for and what the results are.

    In a way I can understand his reaction. Just take a look at all the music and Internet related articles on slashdot. The majority will focus on the RIAA which is busy with witchhunts for people who are doing, what? Share or copy music. Which is what we all (or most of all) have done when we were kids. The only big difference being the media being used. Back then I had audio tapes (ran a whooping 90min, 45 on each side) which we used to copy. Ofcourse the quality got worse with each copy but hey; as long as you could recognize something in it all was good. And now kids have the big Net. Different media, same "problem".

    However, what makes me think less of Elton John right now is that he's shooting the messenger. Has it ever occurred to him that its not so much the Internet but the people actually using this net which have changed in their attitude towards music? And that this changed attitude might be a big influence in the way they perchieve and respond to music ? I'm not a big music lover, but having said that I have to say to be constantly suprised to see a lot of songs from the last decennia being played over and over again whereas most music from this century has mostly vanished. You still hear Elvis, you hardly hear modern popstars.

    The Internet? No, the people.

  107. ooh, pretty by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

    i daresay he can make all
    the stupid statements he wishes
    he is as entitled to his opion
    as you are to yours

    but on to the real reason
    for my post: the structure
    of your comment made it into
    an exotic visual
    poetry

    1. Re:ooh, pretty by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      And people wonder
      why poetry all sucks now
      This is the reason

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  108. Re:The Internet is helping me make it as a musicia by DerCed · · Score: 0

    Too bad your music is really not very good at all. :-( Listened to it, but basing it on "repetition" seems very cheap to me. It seems more like an April Fool's joke to me..

  109. He is right about BLOGGING by Shohat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He has something right about blogging - the current state of affairs was made possible by the Internet. People think that they protest by expressing thoughts online, commenting and writing. Newsflash - you don't protest by blogging, or commenting, or making videos. You protest in the streets.
    The reason why you have less angry people on the streets, protesting and marching against RIAA, against the Wars, against bad leaders, is because the Internet creates an illusion of "we are doing something by getting together and expressing it everywhere". It's just an illusion. People that would otherwise make a huge difference by marching, protesting, suing, find it much more comfortable to Blog, which is just meaningless masturbation.

    1. Re:He is right about BLOGGING by monxrtr · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You are oblivious that you are standing right in the middle of the Boston Tea Party 2.0, and this time we are dumping all the tea content into the public domain sea. Even back during the American Revolution in the 1770s, protests we're largely organized through print communication. Too many people don't yet realize what a Berlin Wall downfall moment the internet really is. People are becoming better educated to the political corruption in far less time than decades of traditional mainstream broadcast media has done. That's what a massive world-wide competitive arena of ideas will do. The public will eventually snap after taking too much for too long.

      --
      "From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
    2. Re:He is right about BLOGGING by El_Smack · · Score: 1


      "People that would otherwise make a huge difference by marching, protesting, suing, find it much more comfortable to Blog, which is just meaningless masturbation.
      --
      My Starcraft 2 Blog [sc2blog.com]


      You are correct, and my comment here should not lessen your point, but..
      Dude, I've got tears from laughing at this confluence of post and sig.

      --


      There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
    3. Re:He is right about BLOGGING by khallow · · Score: 1

      Newsflash - you don't protest by blogging, or commenting, or making videos.

      Actually, yes you can. Let's give an example. Compare the effect of the Millions More movement versus the video of Howard Dean's "yell". The latter helped keep Dean from getting the democratic nomination while the former was a feel good assembly that as far as I can tell had no lasting effect (unlike the Million Man March which it commemorates).
  110. That's not even relevant by Poromenos1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm tired of whiny (star) musicians being all like "Wah, the internets ate my moniez". If they really loved music, they'd make it even if they had to pay for it, like most of us who like to program/mess with computers and do it even if it costs us money (open source/new gadgets/etc). This just shows me that they're in it for the cash and have no regard for the music they make.

    --
    Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
    1. Re:That's not even relevant by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      You are right, but you gforgot one reason he did this. It is, once again, an another attempt to make everyone believe that musicians were always highly paid and treated as royalty. That is actually a very weird change that started in 1950, before that Musicians and songwriters were generally blue collar and mostly poor.

      the first 60,000 years of music, the musician was very poor, typically traveled town to town to play at pubs, hotels, or the street for a few coins. They wrote songs, and when they were good other musicians would steal the songs and play them as well.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:That's not even relevant by drdaz · · Score: 2, Informative

      Me too, but that doesn't seem to be what Elton John is upset about here. He seems to be saying that he doesn't like the way the internet is changing the way music is made - from a physical-social activity to either an individual or virtual-social activity.

    3. Re:That's not even relevant by rbochan · · Score: 1

      Ate his money? The has-been charges $250-300 USD for a seat that's almost a half mile from the stage in a 60,000 seat stadium (ref: Carrier Dome). The saddest part is that people still pay it when they could spend $3 to walk into a club show and see a starving artist, like Elton once was, pouring every ounce of their sweat and their souls into what they play.
      Once upon a time Elton John was considered, and might actually have been, a brilliant musician. Now he's just a whore.

      --
      ...Rob
      The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
    4. Re:That's not even relevant by SerpentMage · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What I am tired of is people who don't look at history, or read the freaken article. EJ is not saying that he hates the Internet because he is not making enough money. Elton John a few years ago said he quite recording. What Elton John is saying is that he is tired of the lack of creativity that the Internet is spawning. In fact on that level he is 100% right.

      Let me compare this to something I am much more aware of visual art:

      There have been many art movements: expressionism, surrealism, abstract, etc. Yet all of these movements predate 1950! Since the 60's there has been no major visual art movement in anything! It is a rehash of everything we have done in the past. If anything this era is predicated on taking the stuff already thought of and mixing it up. You could argue that, the act of mashing up art is a new art movement. Though I would agree with Elton John in that there is very little new ideas and thoughts coming up in art.

      In music I have been watching the VH-1 classic music channel, and it is interesting: 50-60's rock, 70's hippies, 80's bad hair day, 90's all against the world, 2000's? Paris Hilton? Britany Spears? You have got to be kidding me. Yes there are good artists in 2000, but they are not gaining the traction that good artists used to get. It seems that the people are not interested in quality, but quantity, and that I feel is the problem Elton John is harping on.

      He talked about getting rid of the Internet, would that be a bad idea? Considering that I make my money with the Internet I actually think it is a good idea. I grew up loving the outdoors since I grew up in cottage country (late 80's early 90's). Yes we had video games, and electronics, but it did not match up the excitement of windsurfing, fishing, ice skating, swimming, water skiing, etc. Yet how many kids do that these days? In Canada recently they discovered that young kids do move around quite a bit. It is once they reach the teens that they stop doing anything. Once teens becomes teens only 15% remain active. That has to scare you quite a bit. And what it implies is that teens don't use their brains anymore. They just consume, consume, consume... Creativity comes from having to exercise your brains and experiencing things that are not packaged in nice neat bundles.

      So you see Elton John does have a point...

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    5. Re:That's not even relevant by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Since the 60's there has been no major visual art movement in anything! Go talk to Paul Graham. It's because visual art has become so corrupt that you can't be good and get loved by the art community at the same time. As for music, I'll just remind you that Michael Jackson topped the charts in the late 1980s and in 1990--basically until "Smells like Teen Spirit". The most popular album this year was the soundtrack for a musical. It's a cyclic phenomenon. Stylistically it's pretty much always been about a combination of styles.
      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    6. Re:That's not even relevant by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...2000's? Paris Hilton? Britany Spears? You have got to be kidding me....

      Perhaps you do not travel in the circles that I do, or perhaps you are simply trying to compare to "popular" music, in which case you can be forgiven for such lines of thought, but there are whole worlds of music out there that can fill entire stadiums, that will never make it to the airwaves simply because they are not "radio friendly."

      Check out bands like Bathory, who created the Black Metal music scene, or Destruction, credited with the Thrash movement. Examine Thyrane, or Mayhem, or Children of Bodom, perhaps ...And Oceans for a good example of the merging of Black Metal and Symphonic orchestras.

      It's simply amazing what one can find once one turns off the radio.

      --
      So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    7. Re:That's not even relevant by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      Well tough shit for him. The effect on music is a minuscule aspect of the overall benefit of the Net. "shut it down for 5 years, just to see"? That's insane.

      Sorry someone pissed on your lawn, Dame Elton. We're not going to close the whole street to stop it happening again.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    8. Re:That's not even relevant by ben+there... · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There have been many art movements: expressionism, surrealism, abstract, etc. Yet all of these movements predate 1950! Since the 60's there has been no major visual art movement in anything! It is a rehash of everything we have done in the past. If you're looking for a well-defined, mainstream movement, you're probably not going to find one. With the decentralization that the web has caused comes a fragmenting of the singular movements we may have had in the past. Though one could argue in the past there were undercurrents of various other movements in any genre of art you may cite, now the majority is able to participate in those smaller movements, because no matter where they live, they can find something that interests them more than what they are fed through TV, radio, etc.

      Yes there are good artists in 2000, but they are not gaining the traction that good artists used to get. It seems that the people are not interested in quality, but quantity, and that I feel is the problem Elton John is harping on. And they likely will continue not gaining traction. What is left on TV, radio, or any other discernible mass-distribution source is the lowest common denominator. An obvious parallel can be drawn to mainstream news. When more and more people started getting their news from the internet, the quality of news from mainstream sources went from professional, unbiased, and investigative to pure sensationalist, fear-mongering, biased crap. The same thing happened with radio stations as people got iPods and started getting more music from the web. If you don't like what's left on the radio, stop listening to it like everyone else. It's not nearly as relevant as it once was.

      Once teens becomes teens only 15% remain active. That has to scare you quite a bit. And what it implies is that teens don't use their brains anymore. They just consume, consume, consume... Creativity comes from having to exercise your brains and experiencing things that are not packaged in nice neat bundles. I'd argue that finding new music and downloading it from the web requires more creativity and deciding what your interests really are. Experiencing things that are not packaged in nice neat bundles is a good description of what they are already doing. Elton John can too, if he puts a little time and effort into it.
    9. Re:That's not even relevant by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      >In music I have been watching the VH-1 classic music channel, and it is interesting: 50-60's rock, 70's hippies, 80's bad hair day, 90's all against the world, 2000's? Paris Hilton? Britany Spears? You have got to be kidding me. Yes there are good artists in 2000, but they are not gaining the traction that good artists used to get.

      And in 10 years, someone just like you will be writing, "the 00's? Alternative... but the '10's? Who is any good? NOBODY. Yeah, there are okay artists today, but nothing like the ones we had just ten years ago."

      You're watching the *classic* movie channel. Ask yourself what *classic* means, and part of the definition will certainly be "withstands the test of time". Of course there aren't any classic things from the last five years, because they're still new.

      The problem I think you're trying to address is encapsulated in "not gaining the traction that good artists used to get" and that, in my opinion, is a strength of the Internet, not a failing. Think of this as being something like information asymmetry, where the seller knows more about the product than the buyer, so can use that knowledge to manipulate the price to the seller's advantage. In a similar way, when the only means for the buyer to find music is by a push technology, the seller determines the market, but as the market changes to a pull technology, it is *possible* for anyone to hear any band. It doesn't happen uniformly, but it could. So what DOES happen is that people, instead of relying just on what they hear on the radio, begin to rely on what other people listen to (popularity lists) and what their friends are listening to. This makes the market vastly broader, so many more bands are getting exposure, and the consumer's money is A: better spent (more music per dollar, especially with single-track downloads) and B: more widely spent, meaning fewer mega-rock-stars.

      While I'm at it, I'm not going to argue that Britney's a great artist, but twenty years ago I wouldn't've argued that Cher or Captain&Tenniele (or however you spell it) were great artists either, and they sure were selling a mess of albums.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    10. Re:That's not even relevant by raddan · · Score: 1

      I don't buy it. From my vantage point, music is more vibrant than ever. But if you're getting your music from the traditional channels, i.e., radio and TV, it looks like teh suck-- you don't see it. The reason is that the big players in the music industry have lost their traction with artists-- they don't have good bargaining chips anymore. Why lock yourself into a contract that is more likely to land you in bankruptcy hearings than provide you with a way of writing and playing music for a living, especially when you can now self-publish and self-publicize your own music for a fraction of what used to be the cost? Artists who don't "fit the mold" aren't put on the radio, and few of the new artists fit the mold. This is why the industry is in desperate straits.

      So what's "the mold"? It's whatever genre the stations are playing. This goes back to what you were saying about the 60's being about rock, the 70's hippes, 80's bad hair day and so on-- since the music industry has lost their lock on creativity, they cannot dictate what music is "about". All of those supposed music "movements" were just mass-manufactured fads. I'm not saying that many of those artists didn't have legitimacy, but come on-- I hated pop music in the 80's, and it was very hard to find things that I did like from the mainstream. The 90's was a relief to me, because the music I loved became widely available, but I have friends who missed the 80's music and hated the 90's stuff! Now, why exactly did one style have to disappear? It's because the music execs realized that there was this huge market in people who hated the 80's shit. But they made the same mistake again, and threw out one style for another.

      But the Internet changes all that. Your fanbase isn't limited to your geographic area. You can actually make money on record sales. The Internet allows distributors to make money on fringe items. So the people who make these claims about "creativity drying up", they're the old school. Elton John is completely in the dark here. It's like your grocer switching to a model where they deliver food to everybody's door, but you keep going to the supermarket... but it's closed down. And you're screaming "I'm starving!", but there's such an obvious wealth of food if you bother to look in the right places...

      So my conclusion is that Elton John really is a grumpy old man. He's part of the establishment. He sees his record sales drying up (yeah, probably because of piracy on the Internet), and he doesn't see anything original coming down the pipeline. But if he would really bother to get "out there", he would see things differently.

      BTW, on the subject of kids being outdoorsy. Growing up, I could hike for days without seeing people; I have to go out of my way now to do that. Places like the White Mountains are having to come up with new wilderness management strategies to deal with the impact. I can't say what kids themselves are doing, but there are definitely more people "out there" than there were before...

    11. Re:That's not even relevant by toddestan · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Check out bands like Bathory, who created the Black Metal music scene, or Destruction, credited with the Thrash movement. Examine Thyrane, or Mayhem, or Children of Bodom, perhaps ...And Oceans for a good example of the merging of Black Metal and Symphonic orchestras.

      I'm not that familiar with the Black Metal scene, but didn't most of those bands get their start back in the 1990's? If anything, I think the 2000's are going to be known for hip-hop going mainstream. It's true that hip-hop also predates the 2000's, but today's hip-hop is really a mash of hip-hop music with pop and rap, and sounds really different from what was being made 15 years ago.

    12. Re:That's not even relevant by Conesus · · Score: 1

      There have been many art movements: expressionism, surrealism, abstract, etc. Yet all of these movements predate 1950! Since the 60's there has been no major visual art movement in anything! It is a rehash of everything we have done in the past. If anything this era is predicated on taking the stuff already thought of and mixing it up. You could argue that, the act of mashing up art is a new art movement. Though I would agree with Elton John in that there is very little new ideas and thoughts coming up in art.

      Are you kidding or are you just so far behind the times that you never bother to crack open an Artforum or Art in America? OK, let's think about everything that came after the year 1950.

      Let's see, have you ever heard of Andy Warhol, Pop artist? Jackson Pollock, William de Kooning, Mark Rothko, Arshile Gorky, all part of the Abstract Expressionism movement? Robert Smithson, Robert Morris, Sol LeWitt, Donald Judd, Dan Flavin, all part of the movements Earth works, Conceptualists, and Minimalists?

      Art is explosive in the postmodern era. Sure, even I wrote my thesis on an early 20th century modern artist named Edward Hopper, but you still come into contact with a glut of new, famous, and talented artists creating new visual art that is well beyond (and far removed) from the past, including our modern compendium of the art you mentioned.

      Art, like music, changes rapidly. Art today is nowhere near the visual definition of art a century ago. Elton john is lacking the very perspective that allows him to see that his musical art form is also changing. There is so much new music, created by talented musicians, that sounds so good. It's just not coming off the radio. It's coming out of the tubes. Hell, even the Zune Marketplace is a great place to find music.

      --

      Don't eat your soul to fill your belly.
      conesus.com
    13. Re:That's not even relevant by bishiraver · · Score: 1

      Of course, he doesn't use technology so he doesn't really know what's out there on the internet!

      Look at Priestbird ( http://myspace.com/priestbird ), Mono ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(Japanese_band) ), Godspeed! You Black Emperor ( http://www.pandora.com/music/artist/a205af6552256a 1b ), Miasma & The Carousel of Headless Horses ( http://www.pandora.com/music/artist/miasma+the+car ousel+of+headless+horses ) .... all highly creative bands that myself (a fan) would have never found or listened to without the internet. Godspeed! I first heard in 28 Days Later - but never would have found out who they were if not for the internet. All the others I've found via Pandora - and bought albums of from iTunes - and have even seen one live, since (Priestbird, formerly Tarantula AD).

      Without the internet, these artists could never have expanded their fanbase to a varied population.... it's just not the type of stuff that gets played on the radio at all! (I mean, really - go listen to The Peacock & The Heretic by Miasma et. al. and tell me which station would play that..? )

      Two other miscellaneous points: the blogger used "irregardless" - argh! .... also, is it just me, or is it strikingly ironic that a blogger is writing about Elton John ragging on bloggers -- and (mostly) agreeing with him?

    14. Re:That's not even relevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet all of these movements predate 1950! Since the 60's there has been no major visual art movement in anything! It is a rehash of everything we have done in the past. If anything this era is predicated on taking the stuff already thought of and mixing it up. You could argue that, the act of mashing up art is a new art movement. Or you could argue that all creativity ever has used ideas from the past and rehashed them.
      The new art movement seems to be installation art, but I'm not tracking art movements. If you like 2 meter high conical piles of salt, or false white walls installed recessed 1 foot from the original gallery walls titled "nothing to see here" then I suppose you'd already know about this art movement you claim doesn't exist. Most psychedelic art came from the 70s not 60s, so you could even be wrong on that count.

      I'm not going to argue about any other parts of your post.
    15. Re:That's not even relevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > There have been many art movements: expressionism, surrealism, abstract, etc. Yet all of these movements predate 1950! Since the 60's there has been no major visual art movement in anything!

      You're forgetting lolcats.

    16. Re:That's not even relevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And pancake rabbits!

    17. Re:That's not even relevant by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

      In my original posting I said that there were good bands... BUT, and this is the big difference they are not coming to the foreground in popularity. What you may like is probably esoteric and I could argue horrible, but you like it and that is ok. What I am arguing about is pop music... Pop music was better...

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    18. Re:That's not even relevant by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

      > I'd argue that finding new music and downloading it from the web requires more creativity and deciding what your interests really are. Experiencing things that are not packaged in nice neat bundles is a good description of what they are already doing. Elton John can too, if he puts a little time and effort into it.

      I would counter that argument in that nobody is doing what you are saying. If they were then there would be more sites to download music. Yet where do most people buy their music? iTunes!!! So if your music ain't on iTunes it ain't anywhere...

      No I think people are not looking...

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    19. Re:That's not even relevant by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

      >And in 10 years, someone just like you will be writing, "the 00's? Alternative... but the '10's? Who is any good? NOBODY. Yeah, there are okay artists today, but nothing like the ones we had just ten years ago."

      Wrong.... When Michael Jackson was big people knew Michael Jackson would be big. You knew it during his day. When the Who was big you knew that the Who remain big. Queen? U2? When Elton John was big you knew that he would be big. The list continues, Whitney Houston, Celine Dione, etc, etc.

      Ok, so who is it today? Let's look at the music charts: http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/chart_displa y.jsp?g=Albums&f=The+Billboard+200

      #1 is Various artists...
      #2 is sound track to hair spray
      #3 is Prince, and well he doesn't count.
      #4...

      Look at the charts and you would be very hard pressed to find those artists that will stand the test of time. Linken Park maybe.. A couple of others maybe as well. But there are none that scream, "I AM SO GOOD that I will be listened to in 20 years..."

      The Internet is not increasing diversity because if it were iTunes would not be #1. The reality is that people are sucking up more packaged artists by the day.

      >more widely spent, meaning fewer mega-rock-stars.

      Missing the point of Elton John again. Elton John was talking about quality, not mega stars. There are plenty of mega stars... Just not very good mega stars.

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    20. Re:That's not even relevant by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

      My comment: Since the 60's...

      This means from 1960 onwards....

      - Jackson Pollack died 1956
      - Andy Warhol started his stuff in the 50's, and the Pop art movement started in the 50's (UK).
      - Rothko paintings in the 1950's...
      - Francais Bacon 53...
      - conceptualism became popular in the 60's, but first reared its head in 1917 by DuChamp.

      and the list goes on... And my point is still valid...

      What I think you might be thinking about is that in the 60's the art center moved from Paris to New York and thus you might get the impression that many modern art movements started in 60's and later.

      The only one I will concede is minimalism... It did start in the 60's...

      My point is that there are very few truly innovative artists pushing the boundaries. The last truly interesting and unique artist I ran into was this Dutch guy who created walking tubes that worked by the power of the wind. Truly neat and interesting...

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    21. Re:That's not even relevant by ben+there... · · Score: 1

      I would counter that argument in that nobody is doing what you are saying. I hate to even bring up the site here, but just about everybody I know finds new bands on sites like Myspace. Almost none listen to the radio. You're obviously correct that most music is downloaded from iTunes, but that's not really relevant. While iTunes top 100 plays a role similar to the radio station's rotation, people are still free to look for something that interests them more (and often do), contributing to the fragmentation of a singular popular style of music, as I've already mentioned. And even if they just find the music on their own (rather than hearing it in a radio DJ's playlist) and buy the CD rather than downloading, it still supports that idea. In other words, it is like the difference between push and pull technology.
    22. Re:That's not even relevant by MaXimillion · · Score: 1

      Yes we had video games, and electronics, but it did not match up the excitement of windsurfing, fishing, ice skating, swimming, water skiing, etc. Yet how many kids do that these days? In Canada recently they discovered that young kids do move around quite a bit. It is once they reach the teens that they stop doing anything.
      *snip*
      And what it implies is that teens don't use their brains anymore.

      No, it means they don't use their feet anymore. Being outdoors is not a requirment for using your brain.
    23. Re:That's not even relevant by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      The first time I heard a Christina Aguilera song I knew she was going to be big. Ditto Pink, and to a lesser extent Avril Lavigne.
      *YOU* are still listening to The Who and Led Zep, but I've heard my girlfriend's friends say "who?" when I mention them, and I've heard radio callins where teens and people in their early twenties were saying that The Who and Led Zep had no more relevance than Buddy Holly or Billie Holiday. In twenty years, those kids will be listening to Pink and Christina and complaining about how all new music sucks.

      I don't really understand what you're arguing, frankly. If you consider 'quality' to be mega-stars then Led Zep, U2, and Britney all have quality. If you consider quality to be 'music that people will listen to in twenty years' -- as much as I hate to say it, I bet there'll be a lot of people still listening to Britney because that's what they listened to when they were forming their musical influences. Modest Mouse and Arcade Fire started out as indie acts that nobody had ever heard of -- I first ran across MM like seven years ago -- and now they're touring some of the larger venues in the US and getting songs and albums well up in the top twenty charts. Does that mean they suck, because they're mega-stars? Does that mean they have quality? Does that mean people will listen to them in twenty years? The first two depend on your definition and the third depends on what happens in the next 20 years. But defining 'classic' in the present tense is a contradiction in terms.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    24. Re:That's not even relevant by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      I thought about it some more and I can see what you're saying. (You were pretty clear: I was just in a hurry leaving work.) One of your major points is, as you say, that we knew MJ was huge even then. But I *still* disagree, coz, hey, this is slashdot.
      Do you remember the two years when Hootie and the Blowfish was HUUUUUGE? You could barely turn around without running into stuff about them. Or how about when Rolling Stone put the Talking Heads on the cover, with "America's Best Band" as the title. I love TTH but they're not exactly standing the test of time. This might be before your time, but do you remember when "Eric Clapton Is God" was spraypainted on walls all over the place, and Cream was the biggest thing since the Stones? Find me anyone under the age of 30 who can name, sing, or even whistle a single Cream song. And they were really, really good. Or how about Peter, Paul, and Mary? They were enormous and people were crying because of the depth and power of their (stupid hippie) songs. Or Brad & Jeremy, who were supposed to be bigger than the Beatles...
      I think there are two different things going on here. One: good bands don't really lose fans even when they start turning out crap, so they tend to stay huge. Consider NIN: people are still buying Trent's records even though he hasn't had one good thing to say since he got rich. Ditto Connor Oberst, imho, yet I know a dozen teens who think that Bright Eyes is the best band since the beginning of time. So, what you get is these lumbering bands with enormous followings, who had a few great, "classic" hits, when they were young, and because they're still crashing about like arthritic monkeys (Elton John has a great way with words, I have to say) people are still listening to them. Groups that are only five years old don't have that fan base. Two: selective memory. Yeah, Floyd and the Beatles and Zep were fantastic, but there were other groups that were huge and cranking out good, well-written stuff at the same time, and we don't list them because we've forgotten about them -- Kansas, Supertramp, Iron Butterfly, The Scorpions, come to mind. By what measure are The Rolling Stones better than Cream? Only one: they're better-remembered. I argue it isn't because they had higher quality, just because they were bigger and productive for longer.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  111. Reality check by eiapoce · · Score: 1

    I have the feeling that good artists are too many and can rise a unwanted competition to the million dollar cows that the industry feeds on.

    Make a reality check here http://downhillbattle.org/ and read about some of these golden cows here:
    http://www.forbes.com/2007/01/17/richest-women-ent ertainment-tech-media-cz_lg_richwomen07_0118womens tars_slide_2.html?thisSpeed=29000

  112. Jurassic by Bl4ckM4gic · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't think for a minute that it's destroying music or the personal feel of it. It's giving people a chance to find their OWN idea of good music instead of being spoon fed packaged stars through the label-to-media system. The UK has definately had a noticable change of taste in the last 5 years and I have to think the internet has had a significant part in this. People have been able to hear things they normally wouldn't. Artists have found platforms that were impossible to stand on before. If anything, I'd say the amount of music people listen to and the time they spent with it is much higher than before because it's so accessable and easy (iPod etc). As far as I know, concerts are also still selling out and a night out to see a band/artist is still as popular as ever. The numbers are spread to more areas than before. Music hasn't been hurt, it's the old dinosaurs with the loud voices and their model of how things should be that has been hurt. Music's evolved, come with us - you might like it! :P

  113. Internet Says... by StarQuake64 · · Score: 1

    ...Elton John has Destroyed Music

  114. His old stuff is awesomely gay by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Interesting

    and I'll take Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters up against any song the Who ever did, period.
    Puh-leeze.

    Happy Jack
    My Generation
    Substitute
    I Can't Explain
    The Kids are Alright
    Magic Bus
    I Can See for Miles

    And these are all before Tommy.

    Your only excuse would be if you're female.
    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:His old stuff is awesomely gay by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Funny

      By the way, by "gay" I am not referring to sexual orientation. If I have any respect for Elton John at all it's because he was one of the first big pop stars who was man enough to come out of the closet.

      His music, not so much. I had a girlfriend who liked Elton John, and this is when I was deep into my Raw Power period. She was fine, but ultimately, I had to keep my priorities straight and kick her to the curb. A guy can only take so much, and having to maintain an erection while "Tiny Dancer" is playing on the stereo is beyond the pale. Soon after, I met someone better at a Mott the Hoople show at (get this) the Aragon Ballroom.

      She gave me a dose, but it was worth it.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:His old stuff is awesomely gay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      She was fine, but ultimately, I had to keep my priorities straight and kick her to the curb. She was fine, but ultimately, I had to keep my priorities straight and kick her to the curb. A guy can only take so much, and having to maintain an erection while "Tiny Dancer" is playing on the stereo is beyond the pale. Soon after, I met someone better at a Mott the Hoople show at (get this) the Aragon Ballroom.

      She gave me a dose, but it was worth it.


      Ooh, you are a playa, aren't you? Whatever, you weasly slashdork. If by "kick her to the curb" you mean that you ordered a new blow-up doll, and by "she gave me a dose" you mean that you got a dick blister from whacking off so many times, then yeah, I guess your story is true.

    3. Re:His old stuff is awesomely gay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If by "kick her to the curb" you mean that you ordered a new blow-up doll, and by "she gave me a dose" you mean that you got a dick blister from whacking off so many times, then yeah, I guess your story is true."

      That still sounds like a better time than listening to anything by Elton John. I wonder how you'd feel about his music if you knew they played it to detainees at Guantanamo...

    4. Re:His old stuff is awesomely gay by bigdavesmith · · Score: 4, Funny

      having to maintain an erection while "Tiny Dancer" is playing on the stereo is beyond the pale
      I'm getting back in bed. Things are looking rough today...
    5. Re:His old stuff is awesomely gay by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, by "kick her to the curb" I mean I told her I was working undercover for the National Security Agency on a project so sensitive that I could no longer allow my feelings to interfere with my work. I told her that I just cared too much for her to put her in danger by letting her get close to me, and that perhaps, when all the world was free and I was no longer bound by my oaths of allegiance to my agency and the country, I would look her up, but until then, it was best for her own safety to not see me any more.

      Being an Elton John fan, she believed me entirely of course.

      Isn't anyone going to respond to my initial assertion that the Who contributed more great music before they recorded Tommy than Elton John did in his entire career? Townsend, Entwistle and Keith Moon were gods of Rock's Second Era, and Elton John was a schmaltzy singer-songwriter whose work was just a few steps above Christopher Cross or Morris Albert. Bernie Taupin was a skilled lyricist, but even he knew when it was time to hang 'em up.

      And now Elton John is pissed and is blaming the Internet because he's not still able to support his lavish lifestyle from royalties on stuff he recorded 35 years ago. Boo friggin' hoo.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  115. Personally, I'm worried. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if Elton convinces Al Gore to turn off the Internet?

  116. I think you may have missed the point by jesterzog · · Score: 2, Informative

    Are we not fawning over "celebs" enough? Not constructing enough temple record stores, to be preached to in a condescending manner if we pick up the wrong album? Are we actually daring to put their music in the same store as a lesser known artist? Or, perhaps his music might even be sharing the same server on itunes as one of us common ruffians?

    He's not commenting about music distribution, or about music cartels that manufacture awful music and buy radio stations to reduce people's choice.

    What he's saying, in his own opinion, is that he thinks musicians are communicating less because the recent technology has been making it so much easier for people to produce things on their own. He thinks this is having a negative effect on the quality of music being produced, because the composition process has changed in such a way that musicians aren't getting as much feedback from each other. Celebrities, temple record stores or more competition between artists really have nothing to do with what he said.

    I'm sure he couldn't care less if artists still used the Internet to distribute their work, if they worked together more frequently when producing it in the first place. (Actually I'm sure many already do, but clearly Elton thinks that many aren't.) Saying the Internet should be shut down for five years is just a provocative statement to get attention. It's a random idea to get people to think about how things might change if they ditched some of the technology they're using in their creative process.

  117. Well... by adagat · · Score: 2, Funny

    You don't have to be particularly clever to be a pop star...

    1. Re:Well... by tomstdenis · · Score: 2, Funny

      Win.

      I don't get why people look to the "stars" for advice and shit. Personally, I only like a few Elton John tracks and think the rest are blatantly "faggy." We get it, you munch on cock, doesn't mean you're an artist, nor does it mean we should listen to ya.

      As for the net killing socializing, I suggest he go to comic con, defcon, HOPE, toorcon, etc, etc, etc... Tons of people there who meet more or less only via the net, get together in common interests. Wow...

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  118. Deja Vu by ChemE · · Score: 2, Informative

    This story reminds me of a BBC panel show I heard a couple of years ago when they played a recording from the '60's (?) of a music expert complaining about what things would happen if cassette tapes became widely available.
    I also remember when video players first came out, it was said that people would quit going to movie theaters and that would in turn make people socialize less.

    1. Re:Deja Vu by cyborg_zx · · Score: 1

      Conclusive proof that luddites need to shut the fuck up with their chicken-little shit.

  119. Sir Paul feels differently by dontknowdidley · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wow, two knighted musicians with completely different views of this new fangled contraption.

    Sir Paul McCartney, you might remember him as the one with weird haircut from the Beatles, thinks record companies don't get the internet and are killing music. He's abandoned his label and is pushing forward on his own.

  120. Is it a cliché or is it wishful thinking? by Morgor · · Score: 1

    In soviet russia, the internet destroys Elton John...

  121. Re:The Internet is helping me make it as a musicia by Maelwryth · · Score: 1

    Unsure whether I am feeding a troll or not, but I suggest you listen to Moonlight Sonata and then go through your music collection and throw out all the music with repetition. That would leave you some Indian music and .....errrr....? Sure the recording wasn't the finest but the song name Emergence goes very well with the music. Feel free to post some of yours though, and as a special thankyou, I will post some of mine and you can see what bad music is really like :).

    --
    I reserve the write to mangle english.
  122. People are becoming fat and lazy too by krygny · · Score: 1

    ... because we don't have to chop wood to stay warm or run from the saber-tooth tigers.

    --
    Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
  123. Re: BLOGGING and effectiveness... by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nope.

    Street marches have the data content of an Atari 2600. You get about 20 signs, 5 leaders who know their stuff, and a whole lot of extraneous violence which requires real police to break up. Then that day's rally is over, and no one cares *any more*.

    A sharp, accurate protest blog backed by just a little luck and money can take down titans. Sony is one example. Don Imus is another.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  124. Ahhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Makes sense since Billy Joel is a queer, too.

  125. Internet says Elton John is Destroying Good Music by perky · · Score: 1

    That is all

    --
    "The new wave is not value-added; it's garbage-subtracted" - Esther Dyson, Dec 1994
  126. I don't have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the article: "I don't have a mobile phone or an iPod or anything."

    He doesn't have one, because his army of assistants and producers carry them for him.

  127. Consider the source.... by richieb · · Score: 1

    I don't know how reliable the SUN is. Is there a link to original post? If not, I'd be little skeptical....

    --
    ...richie - It is a good day to code.
    1. Re:Consider the source.... by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know how reliable the SUN is.

      Not particularly. A similar level of sensationalism to Fox I believe. Highly sensationalist and very much inclined to take things out of context. Elton probably commented in an offhand way that he didn't really like the internet much and the Sun decided to extrapolate.

    2. Re:Consider the source.... by Weedlekin · · Score: 2, Funny

      "I don't know how reliable the SUN is."

      The only reliable thing about The Sun is the fact that every issue will have some pictures of topless women. This is also the only thing that makes it remotely worth looking at for anyone with an IQ that can't be expressed on the fingers of one hand.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    3. Re:Consider the source.... by richieb · · Score: 1

      Link!? :)

      --
      ...richie - It is a good day to code.
    4. Re:Consider the source.... by Weedlekin · · Score: 1
      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
  128. Oh shut up Elton! by Fuzzypig · · Score: 1

    What about all the musicians who are now able to communicate and create music in disparate places across the globe? I've lost count of the number of metal bands who now say in interviews, that they only get together to sound check and then tour. Niche music like metal doesn't make the musicians overnight millionaires, they have to keep down regular jobs to pay for the music they make, the internet allows them to feed their families with a regular job and still have a career in music, selling thousands of albums. If Elton just took his f**king head out of his pompous millionaire's arse and actually took a serious look at what real musicians are doing in the real world, perhaps he wouldn't be so quick to mouth off about sh*t he knows nothing about!

    --
    Windows guys please stop pissing on everyone and the Linux guys stop pissing in the wind, hoping to hit Windows guys!
  129. Actually a very good question. by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My first reaction when I read about that judge was to think 'what a plank' (British English euphemism for the stupid or ignorant).

    However the more I thought about it the more I realised it was a very good question. Just think about some boundary cases. A mirrors. Two different domains on the same IP. Two subdomains on the same host or different host machines. Two different domains with different NIC/IP on the same host machine. Two different user domains on the same host. Wiki's, forum, static and dynamic content on the same domain, on different sub-domains, or on different hosts and/or NIC/IPs. A web front end to usenet, chat, aggregator or RSS feeds.

    I would moderate the Judges Question insightful.

  130. Music is a Business by SkydiverFL · · Score: 1

    I've been writing code for 25 years, have a degree in Recording Arts, have built and sold several companies, and do not have an illegitimate song anywhere in my 9,947 song iTunes library. In short, I have a rather qualified viewpoint on this. It is my opinion that all music should be DRM-free.

    When it comes right down two it, people make music for only two reasons: "Musicians" make music becuas they want the financial reward (studio musicians, etc.). "Artists" generally make music because of the passion or enjoyment. With that said, if you want to make music for the enjoyment, then do so and stay quiet about the money. However, if you are chasing the dollar than you must conceed that music is a commodity. And, just like anything else affixed with a pricetag, you must create something that the buyer is willing to pay for.

    At the end of the day, the fact is simple: NO business, vendor, or manufacturer can continue to pump out the same widget or service and expect for the public to keep paying the same price... or, for that matter, to keep paying at all. Eventually, they will find a cheaper version, one with better quality, or a replacement that they can generate themselves. If you want to keep their business you MUST continue to develop your product in such a way that the customer or client will AGREE that he or she must pay the requested price. Music is no different.

    In the end all DRM efforts will always fail. People will always shoplift your music. If you want to keep them paying, then it is the MUSICIAN that must increase the value of the conventional CD or DVD to keep consumers wanting to pay.

    (This wisdom came after spending $70k US on a degree in Recording Arts, only to find that the money was better writing software. The school never told me that because THEY are a business as well.)

  131. Yes, but...Internet is how I found musicians by Webcommando · · Score: 1

    What he's saying, in his own opinion, is that he thinks musicians are communicating less because the recent technology has been making it so much easier for people to produce things on their own.

    I understand how he might feel this way. However, with sites like http://www.milwaukeerocks.com/ (if your in WI) for finding musicians and http://netmusicmakers.com/ for collaborating (yes, it's beta and slow sometimes), I've been able to actually find musicians to collaborate with more than ever.

    Back in the day, you had to be part of the music "scene", hang at music stores, etc. to find people looking to jam or needing someone for the band. Now, much easier to find musicians or send songs back and forth to my old bandmates for critique or suggestions.

    Now if there was an easier way of sharing DAW software files between different packages with the timing and tracks complete....heaven.

    --
    I love the sound of distortion in the morning -- webcommando
  132. All of you didn't get it!!! Just RELAX and THINK! by Bragador · · Score: 2, Interesting
    See, I know this is Slashdot and everybody wants to flame everything but you have to relax and think for a minute here. He HAS a point. More and more mainstream artists are solo artists that are using a prerecorded song made on a computer and THIS is what he means buy "digital music". He's not simply talking about music files. If you care only about the money, it is not profitable to be in a band. Going solo as a singer and using digital music is the way to go but on the other hand it kills a whole part of music: fun.

    It's an incredible experience to you play with others and to actually build on each other's sound. There is an immediate sense of fulfillment. Also the audience loves to see people struggle to make their sound. It gives a good show. A digital solo at 220 BPM is nothing like a live solo. Nobody cares about the digital solo because nobody sees any skills in that while a guitar player, and even some bass players, can actually show what they are doing while dancing and moving around.

    With the current level of technology, you don't need the guitar, bass, drum, orchestras etc. You could have an orchestra of synthesizers and the keyboardists could do the same thing and even more for less money. Yet, I think everybody would be bored and would wonder why they didn't simply listen to it on their computer. Eventually though, all of the instruments might become simple toys to play around a fire. A bit like how the harmonica was quite popular and practical once and now nobody cares about it.

  133. I disagree with Elton on yet another level... by dbmasters · · Score: 1

    I finished an E.P of my own stuff last year. As a 40ish guy in the US that can't sing, I got some GREAT vocals done by a 16 year old kid in Europe and one 20-something in the UK do vocals for me that I had met on my home recording web site. I never would have found these guys otherwise...and my music would have suffered. The internet gains as much as it looses, it's all how you use it.

    --
    dB Masters
  134. lol by Weezul · · Score: 1

    It's not about his music being good or bad. It's about him not understading technology. He's very very far removed from the world younger people live in today.

    If your a writer, why take advice about computer use from some famous writer who doesn't use one? Elton doesn't even use a mobile phone or ipod. Can you say irrelevant advice?

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  135. To the tune of... Candle in the Wind by DontScotty · · Score: 0

    Goodbye Elton J
    You had the nerve to hold yourself
    While those around you grew
    You crawled out of the 'would-work'
    And then posted on a board
    'I'm such a Luddite'
    And you said we should stop the Internet

    Well it seems to me your $220 seats
    Sell out on totaltickets.com
    Never knowing which side butter clings to
    As your cash rolls in

    And I would bet the buggy whip manufactures
    Feel the same as you
    Your talent and ideals burned out right before
    Your relevance also did

    Music Business got rough
    The message trolled you posted
    Hollywood had a superstar
    Now pain was the sound you inflict
    Close Down The Internet -
    Oh my God, just look at you!
    You made your cash, now you want
    To choke off Marilyn, and bands that came since then

    Goodbye Elton J
    From the music fan in the Ethernet
    Who thinks you something as more than da hypocrite-
    And less than a Stone Aged Pal

  136. Re:I guess that's why they call it ... honkey cat by PCeye · · Score: 1

    Let me try...

    They said Alt+back that Compaq
    Better get back to the page on Tiger Woods
    Well I quit those days and my p0rn0 ways
    And oh the "refresh" is gonna do me good

    You better Alt+back that Compaq
    Living with a dotcom ain't where it's at
    It's like trying to find gold in a T1 line
    It's like trying to make millions from a SPAM of mine

    eh, not as good as yours...

  137. Enjoy the web while you can [link] by tenzig_112 · · Score: 1

    from:
    Internet to Shut Down Following Elton John Complaint

    For one thing, he feels that the Web is ruining "good music," though he was later forced to admit that he hadn't made any himself since 1974. Moreover, he worries that the Internet is preventing people from going out and interacting socially. People should walk away from their computers, he advised, and "go out to a cafe" because, as we all know, coffee shops like Starbucks have been suffering mightily since the rising popularity of the Internet forced its customers to stay home.

    Worst of all, the Internet makes it easier for people to make their own music. Not only does this DIY material fail to measure up to Elton's high song-smithing standards, it tends to sell better as well, which is all the more galling.

  138. just like home sewing... right? by JucaBlues · · Score: 1

    oh yeah! Just like... "home sewing is killing the fashion industry", right?

  139. Old ways aren't invalid any more by wembley+fraggle · · Score: 1

    So, I read the article. It seems more like a "kids these days" rant more than anything else. There's nothing about technology that prevents people from actually going to venues and meeting people and making music the old-fashioned way. It's just that technology allows people new ways to do it as well.

    As a matter of fact, there are new websites and assorted technologies that allow aspiring singer-songwriters to hook up with session musicians from anywhere on the internet. It actually enables people who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford to produce their single to see it through.

    Did you know that, when pencils came into widespread use in schools, teachers and pundits (if they had pundits at the time) were concerned that people would use their pencils to write things down, thus making them less able to practice their memory skills?

  140. Hardly Destroying Anything by codeviking · · Score: 1

    I have several hundred CDs in my collection, and I'd say about 90% of them are bands that I first heard about online. Most of these bands I have never seen in a CD store, and so without the internet I would never have even heard of them, let alone bought their stuff. The only people crying about the internet's affect on music are the people who aren't making quite as many millions as they'd like to.

    --
    My way back has been erased.
  141. you vermin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sir elton john here. yes, just because i'm a luddite doesn't mean i can't switch on my spiffy new macbook and surf to your grubby little page.

    you've said some pretty hurtful things about me so first off lets get it straight that you dirty little virgins, tapping away in your parents basement, really don't know the first thing about music. i've had countless number one hits in my time & given pleasure to countless millions with my music. nothing but nothing that you irrelevant little swine can say or do will take that away from me.

    truth is that if it wasn't for me and my influence then you wouldn't have any of your rap crap to listen to.

  142. iPod by boris111 · · Score: 1

    Didn't Apple give him a lot of money for his iPod endorsement. And where would an iPod be without the internet tubes to support it. Artists get hypocrytical in their old age. Good innovative music for his time, but John you're losing touch sorry.

  143. Say it isn't so! by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

    Old-fashioned artist complaining about how music was better back in his day when he was creating it? Say it isn't so!

    Seriously, it's all well and good to have your own luddism privately, but this guy is calling for the end of the internet. That's right. If you RTFA, that's exactly what he does. And all because music these days isn't catering to his tastes, and that for some reason, his tastes trump everyone else's. Pathetic.

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  144. Huh... by BrknPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Why does Elton John hate America?

  145. DO the Kikki Dee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We shouldn't go breaking his heart with our bad, bad, internets - D@mn you AL GORE!!

  146. Actually Phil Collins already did... by ndtechnologies · · Score: 1

    when he gated his snare...that was when music was destroyed.

    --
    I have nothing clever to put here...
  147. Re: BLOGGING and effectiveness... by Shohat · · Score: 1

    Do not refer to such microscopic and non-influential issues such as Sony rootkit or some radio host's comments as important things. That's another illusion created by the blogosphere - since most bloggers are often media or tech guys, certain issues get massive coverage credit and exposure without having any influence on the real world.

  148. Analogy... by Assassin+bug · · Score: 1

    music industry = wooly mammoth

  149. Yay! by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

    Let's bitch and whine a lot on online forums about the internet we so clearly loathe!

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  150. Granpa Elton is just WRONG by flyneye · · Score: 1

    Music will go on long after industry lackeys like him have quit making money with only mediocre talent.
    Promote open source like music copyrights,make money off touring,and FREE THE MUSIC!(kill the industry is a good thought too.)

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  151. He's part of a dying industry by suprl33t · · Score: 1

    If Elton doesn't like the Internet, he is welcome to stay off of it.

  152. Internet keeps the Air Guitarists in the Air by Raineer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How can the young music industry be worse in a day when any average Joe can make their music instantly accessible to millions or potential listeners? Gone are the days of making hundreds of demo tapes and hoping one will end up in the right hands

    People who want to create still create. People who just want to listen to music (and have no business playing, like myself) can make their own CD's and playlists/mixes from other's work.

  153. Re: BLOGGING and effectiveness... by east+coast · · Score: 1

    Don Imus is another.

    Are you claiming that without blogging we'd still have Jimmy The Greek? Oh sorry... Imus had zero chance with or without blogging. Please get over yourself here.

    And from where I sit Sony is doing just fine.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  154. whats so good about yesterday?? by itzdandy · · Score: 1

    so my comment to this is, how is the new digital world worse than the old way of 'bar life', late gigs for $50 a night in smoke filled rooms playing to drunkards? I just happen to be a formerly aspiring musician and the digital age has pulled me right out of the bar sceen. in fact, youtube and p2p file sharing has given me more connections and a more appreciative audience! i certainly dont feel the digital age is a 'cold' play for a new musician.

    I guess that the only way I can agree is that if you are an older musician, and computers are intimidating, then it may be disheartening.

  155. Only sampling is very restricted, actually. by daBass · · Score: 1

    That is not the kind of feeding off each other I was talking about, I mean writing songs and recording them *together*.

    But to address your point, sampling is very much restricted by law indeed and needs prior written consent from the owner of the recording you are sampling.

    But if you want to cover a song, you need no permission. (they just get all the writing royalties) And if you just want to use a guitar riff or baseline someone else came up with and play it yourself in your song, that is fine too and you just have to give part of the writing credit and the part of the royalties they are due because of it.

  156. Finding band members by Bayoudegradeable · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Funny, Elton... Backpage and Craigslist helped a buddy and me find a bass player, a drummer and a singer. We now have a band with our tunes on MySpace which gives us more exposure than we could ever have without the net. So, find new members, share your music, find the best deals on musical gear, tout your gigs, reach the world, download software to help recording... How is that killing music Sir Platform Heels and Funny Glasses?

    --
    Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
    1. Re:Finding band members by dintech · · Score: 1

      Excellent point good sir.

    2. Re:Finding band members by swinginjohn · · Score: 1

      what's the name of your band? why haven't I heard of it? I sure know who Elton John is though.

    3. Re:Finding band members by timeOday · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're only a counter example if you don't suck :)

    4. Re:Finding band members by yourlord · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The point he's making is that the internet isn't killing music. It's fostering it's creation and it's dissemination to the world.

      It may wind up killing the species of "musician" who get unbelievably filthy rich off a couple of hits and then can sit around the rest of their life commenting on how technology is destroying the vehicle they rode to their destination. But that's a small price to pay for the swell of music now available at humanity's fingertips.

      The internet is not killing music.

      It's only killing corporate dominance of music.

    5. Re:Finding band members by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      Backpage and Craigslist helped a buddy and me find a bass player, a drummer and a singer.


      craigslist could also be used as a counter-example for his other complaint.

      stopping people from going out and being with each other


      notice, I didn't say a good example, I have never tried to know.
    6. Re:Finding band members by Endo13 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You missed what I believe he was trying to imply. With the internet, yes it's easy to find more band members, equipment, etc. Yes it's easy to get your music available for millions of people to listen to. The problem is, it's not in the public eye. It's just on some obscure MySpace page. Yes, anyone with internet access who wants to listen to it could potentially do that, but first they have to find it. And that's what makes radio so effective even now. Anywhere you happen to be, there's only so many stations you can pick up. And if you're the type of person who listens only to FM, where most music is played, that number drops down to only a few dozen. So if your tune gets on the radio, you know that the people interested in hearing the type of tunes you're playing will hear it.

      And with so many bands playing and releasing their music on the internet these days, that's never going to change, even if someone made a website to function as a central depository to catalog music. There's just simply way too much of it available. Chances of more than a few hundred people ever hearing your music are pretty much non-existent, unless it's heavily promoted.

      So I guess that's why he's saying the internet is killing music. Yes, it gives you a world-wide venue, but it makes it harder for people to find it. Of course, making your stuff available on the internet does not automatically preclude your band also having a local presence, but it often happens by default as it's so much easier to simply upload your music than it is to find local gigs, haul your equipment around, etc.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    7. Re:Finding band members by yourlord · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So I guess that's why he's saying the internet is killing music. Yes, it gives you a world-wide venue, but it makes it harder for people to find it.


      I have a hard time swallowing this, as before the internet gave my band a relatively easy way to make our music readily available to the world, there would have been absolutely NO way for most people to find it. If the major labels didn't pick you up, the only people who would ever know about you are the neighbors you piss off while practicing, and maybe those who saw you at a gig. That's it.

      We have people in England who have heard our music, that would never have happened if not for the internet.
    8. Re:Finding band members by SyscRAsH · · Score: 1

      Agreed. This to me is a classic case of old school meets new school. And he just doesn't like it. Wah.

  157. In related news... by Peet42 · · Score: 1

    The Internet says Elton John is destroying music.

  158. All I heard was.... by Hydrophobia · · Score: 1

    All I heard was, wah wah wah people aren't doing it the way that I did it when I was kid. And the rebels come full circle to being traditionalists.....

  159. the best part by circletimessquare · · Score: 1
    excerpt:

    We're talking about things that are going to change the world and change the way people listen to music and that's not going to happen with people blogging on the internet .

    I mean, get out there -- communicate.

    Hopefully the next movement in music will tear down the internet.

    Let's get out in the streets and march and protest instead of sitting at home and blogging .


    first sentence:

    In a story from the British tabloid newspaper "The Sun," music legend Sir Elton John has posted comments online that call for the internet to be closed down.


    pffffffffft

    kind of like driving a Hummer in an environmental awareness protest, eh Mr. John?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  160. Elton John irrelevant old fogey - news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Elton is just out of touch, out of date.

    It's perfectly possible for older male artists to "get" the internet - look at Trent Reznor, David Bowie, Peter Gabriel. He doesn't.

    The internet is the best thing that has happened to music in a long time - I'm more IN TOUCH with other artists (even if I suck) than ever before, and they are notieceably more directly IN TOUCH with their fans from a wider area (I hesitate to claim I have any fans) than ever before possible. None of us even bother with "the industry" that defines and shapes Elton's old world of music any more. Their purpose in life has devolved to serving as a lesson of what not to do.

  161. Revisionist history much? by Otis2222222 · · Score: 1

    I remember when CDs were first released and everybody lamented about how cold they sounded in comparison to records and cassette tape Um, I don't know what planet the writer of this article lived on when CDs were first released in the early 80s, but the first time I ever heard one I was absolutely stunned at the audio quality being miles ahead of anything I had ever heard before. Everyone I knew at the time had the same opinion. I never heard one person "lament about how cold they sounded".
  162. opposing forces by DriveDog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can't fault his observations, except that he's not observing everything. Recording companies already took most of the profit for artists out of selling records, so that performing live has been their means of making money. Now free sharing and the splintering of the market has finished record profits off, so that the only means of making money is performing live. So I think that on balance the end result will be more live performances rather than fewer, and in smaller, more intimate venues. What's not to like, unless you're hell bent on becoming a zillionaire? Smaller venues smell more like art to me.

    1. Re:opposing forces by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smaller venues smell more like piss and vomit to me, but maybe I'm just going to the wrong venues.

  163. Look out guys by nickspoon · · Score: 1

    Elton John is going to be taking down the internet.

    I have far more music right now than I would have without the internet - and not all of it is pirated. There are plenty of artists who distribute their music through digital channels and can do so for very little cost, and these artists, unlike Sir Elton, are not writing to sell or writing to the masses. They are writing about whatever they like, and often this comes out for the better. Not only that, but a wide range of genres appear - the constant onslaught of "R&B", rap and music which sounds the same as everything else becomes much more diluted when you venture to sites like http://www.jamendo.com/ and http://www.garageband.com/. Artists like Josh Woodward and Kray Van Kirk offer a refreshing change from what the mass market is doing, and they offer it for nothing - for the love of music. The internet has breathed new life into a dusty old motive beyond the record labels and the lawsuits, and if Elton John can't see this then he knows nothing about the internet.

    And has Elton John looked at his download sales figures recently?

  164. Reminds me of by AvitarX · · Score: 1

    This is like the dinasours complaining that mammals were ruining life.

    They made it all warm and fuzzy, nobody just sat on a warm rock all day anymore.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  165. For the love by fozzmeister · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Best music is done by people who just want to play. It may well be destroying it commercially, but who ever said it was good for companies to own our culture?

  166. Its NOT the Internet. Its the DAW. by torpor · · Score: 1

    Digital Audio Workstations make it too easy for people to polish crap music. So many musicians put a lot of effort into their DAW setup and learning all the 'professional' tool that they forget that making music is a highly emotional experience.

    Ever watched someone use Pro Tools? Its the most boring, utterly ludicrous activity around the process of music-making that you can ever witness. DAW's in general have removed all the need for performance and practice from the modern music-making process; leaving boring, musically un-interesting results to be polished and primped and cut and pasted into place ..

    If you're a modern musician, my advice (been writing or 20 years) is to get rid of the DAW as the main focus in your environment, and do something truly unique in this day and age: Learn to Play Your Instrument Well, first and foremost ..

    A good show is always going to be more interesting than a polished recording. Get the live thing nailed first, and then focus on all the DAW technology; you might be surprised, after you've learned to play well, just how little you really need to invest in the technology side in order to sound good and attract a sufficient following to demonstrate that your music is of interest. Most pro's really don't need Pro Tools.

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  167. Personal on a worldwide level by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

    Sure releasing your music on the Internet might mean that you don't always interact with your fans on a one-by-one local level, but it means that you can interact with many more fans on a national level.

    To give an example, I recently purchased two songs from Enter the Haggis on AmieStreet.com. (The Barfly and No More Stones from http://amiestreet.com/enterthehaggis in case anyone's interested.) The band is based in Toronto and I would never have known that they existed had it not been for music fans on Amie Street posting recommendations (RECs) for their songs. I listened to the song previews, loved what I heard, and proceeded to buy a couple of their songs. I'll now be on the lookout for new music that they release and would even consider going to a concert that they played at if they came to my area. (Which, admittedly, is unlikely.)

    I could easily take "Enter the Haggis" out of the paragraph above and replace it with any of the 18 other bands whose music I've bought from Amie Street. None of these bands had to go to the major RIAA labels and sell their musical souls in order to get their music to my ears. If that doesn't help music, I don't know what will.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  168. American Idol by ryanw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would think shows like american idol are destroying the music industry. They are putting out so many new artists each year of mediocre talent. All the ones that are runner ups have albums, and the winners get albums, etc. And even the winners are questionably deserving. Sure there's been Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood... but to get those two talented people we've seen well over 80+ american idol's being pushed in the market place. This distracts from other musical artists.

    1. Re:American Idol by Rakarra · · Score: 1
      All the ones that are runner ups have albums, and the winners get albums, etc.

      Actually I would say the American Idol runner-ups are often quite better than the eventual winners. This last season is a perfect example where the third place winner, Melinda Doolittle, far out-classed the 1st and 2nd-place contestants. She gave some.. pretty amazing performances, better than any I'd seen in my somewhat spotty viewing history for the show, and better than the "professional" musical acts you'll see hyped so much. She was older than the other two though, and the Idol voters skew young and superficial, so they went with the less talented 17-year old and a boy who was outclassed by them both. Yeah, so.. ignore the winners' albums. The runner-ups are usually better musicians but might not always match up to the "teen pop star" ideal.

  169. Ruins of a 60,000 year old pub.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh no, wait, there wasn't shit around 60,000 years ago...maybe you meant 6,000?

  170. RAP IS CRAP, and I would not LOWER myself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL! Hell, I wouldn't LOWER myself to that stupidity - drug money laundering is all it REALLY is, taking advantage of the fact that most kids are followers, not leaders. Judging by your STUPID reaction, something I said absolutely "struck home" with a chord of truth that YOU KNOW is how it is, thus, your pitiful defensive reaction (so easy to see thru, lol).\: RAP IS CRAP, and you KNOW it.

    Question: How come there are so many RAP "ARTISTS"? Because any asshole can do it is why AND YOU KNOW IT.

  171. Real-life performance is good, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If Internet collaboration can convince starting musicians that playing with other people is great, then I'd say Internet is a great medium to have people start collaborating in real-life. I think the problem is when your ONLY method of delivering music is through the internet when you are completely capable of playing outside.
        Sure, people may e-mail some good comments about your music, but something about it is fundamentally different than the moment when you finish your improv on the keyboard and hear the enthusiastic cheer of the audience. I want as many performers and audiences to experience this kind of interaction, and be mesmerized by the sound being generated in front of them, real-time.
        If the performers or the audience won't get any special feeling from it, then they can go back to listening to MP3s or recording tracks in Cubase. That's completely their choice.

  172. Huh? Piano man said wha? by johnarama · · Score: 1

    The internet is, on the contrary, making it easier to discover and share new music. I'll bet he's never even been online! Get on GigaTribe, Elt, and share some of your tunes with your friends, in an encrypted environment: http://www.gigatribe.com/ ;-) "...yellow brick road..."

    1. Re:Huh? Piano man said wha? by ckolar · · Score: 1

      I completely agree. The fact that new artists have access to channels to get their music out is incredible. Most of my myspace contacts are bands and musicians who I would never have heard of, gone to see, or bought their music had it not been for this. And WRT the social dimension, that would have to be the #1 means of quality stuff disseminating, through word of mouth and the various social networking sites.

      I think the problem is that EJ and the way he is used to working is largely irrelevant, time for him to step aside or put his money where his mouth is and speak out to keep sites like Pandora online.

    2. Re:Huh? Piano man said wha? by ckolar · · Score: 1
      Funny, but I just rain across Micheal Caine talking about his new album at http://www.michaelcaine.com/Projects.php

      My record "Cained" comes out in September. It was weird the way this record came about, I was having dinner with Elton John at his house in Nice and he had on background music and as we were going through the dinner several of my favourite Chill records were played and I kept naming the tune or the artist much to Elton surprise and he asked me how I knew about this kind of music and I told him and he got me a three record deals. As they say in show business it is not what you know it is who you know. Have a listen I hope you like it.
      So EJ tells MC to do an album, and now it is being promoted on the Internet, and .... Nice timing.
  173. Re:Fuck! The Dude is, like, a 100 now by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

    People who "try" to commit suicide and fail that badly (can't gas themselves, don't cut their wrist in the right place, whatever) are generally doing it to try to get attention and try to get help with some issue they can't just outright tell people about, not to actually kill themselves.

    Sadly, I've known people who cut themselves up for attention-whore purposes


    Really getting off-topic - but self-harm is nothing to do with attempting suicide, nor is it usually about attention-seeking (consider the lengths many go to hide it, and the stigma associated with it - it's usually just assumed that if you don't hide it, you must be attention-seeking). I.e., it's a fallacy to assume that the only two possible motives are "suicide" or "seeking attention".

  174. Just not true by styryx · · Score: 1

    That's just not true is it, Elton?

    Chocolate rain is original right here.

  175. Ouch. by BForrester · · Score: 1

    I guess it goes without saying that you can't feel the love tonight, Chris. (It is where we are).

  176. The ego paradox by athloi · · Score: 1

    The more we have it "our way," as individuals, the less we need or want to be with others, and so the more we're alone. That's what Elton John is talking about. People are spending time in front of their telescreens, talking about themselves to people they'll never meet, and making dumb chintzy music with MIDI instead of learning to play. We have turned life into Second Life. It's obvious now that George Orwell was wrong. We don't need a master state to force us to monitor ourselves with telescreens. Tell us that it's having it "our way," and we'll do it voluntarily.

  177. Take it easy on us, Elton by wezeldog · · Score: 1

    After all, it's hard to write a song with bitter fingers.

  178. Keep musicians young... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure. Mozart had an impact. Then he died when he was thirty five. We'll never know if he was really any good because we'll never know whether the stuff he would have produced when he was fifty or sixty would be just as good.

    Seems that so many of the best musicians put out their best art when in their younger years, and slide downhill after that.
    Maybe in order to become a musician you should agree to go to Carousel when you hit 35*. Then we won't have to put up with whiney old frootloopy musicians.

    (*yeah I know in the book it was 21 and the movie was 30, but what the heck.)

    1. Re:Keep musicians young... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Maybe in order to become a musician you should agree to go to Carousel when you hit 35*.

      (*yeah I know in the book it was 21 and the movie was 30, but what the heck.)"

      And in the book, there was no Carousel.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  179. The quality of the sound... by realsilly · · Score: 1

    While I disagree that the internet is killing the music industry, I say that the quality of the music is going downhill.

    The idea of putting sound on files and then compressing them to a small number of bytes is tearing apart the quality of the sounds that initially produced the music.

    Any person who has ever seriously played an instrument know how the notes mixed together from various instruments can reach ranges that no electronic device can capture.

    Digital is not always better.

    --
    Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
  180. Also: by Corbie · · Score: 1

    Internet Says Elton John already Destroyed Music

  181. Nothing more than Background Noise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is all that music is. Mood setting? Perhaps. But mostly just another form of static. The heavy emphasis people seem to place on music and creative art associated with the music industry and education is PATHETIC!

    And to have this sullen fag calling for the tear down of one of mans greatest achievements to date and bemoaning the fate of music? In a couple of words, PISS OFF! Music died not because of the internet, but in spite of it... because people like him want far too much money for their 'creative efforts' (so they can subsidize their grandiose lifestyle of bizzare sex, drugs, and massive excess) the industry started to go to less 'creative' (what ever, it is almost ALL UNIVERSALLY CRAP anyway) and cheaper, throw away stars and acts so they didn't have to prop up the Elton Johns and Madonnas of this world. He and his giant salary killed music as much as anything else, so he can take his whining in the wanning days of his 'career' and STFU.

  182. And I say by Shaltenn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And I say Elton John is a shill. :P

    The internet has not 'destroyed' music, nor will it ever 'destroy' music -- unless the music is bad or the band/artist does something horrendously stupid. The internet allows people to come together to share and create new mediums - exactly the kind of thing he's saying it prevents or limits. Suffice it to say I'm very confused. It may be preventing people from 'going outside' or whatever the hell he said, but we're still mixing creatively and there are definetely more choices now than there ever were.

    Then again maybe that's the real problem he has with it. There are more choices and he's worried that his dated styles will be chosen less and less than the newer styles. *shrug*

    --
    If you were offended by anything I said... No, I'm not sorry. Please lighten up.
    1. Re:And I say by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Oh man, you must have missed it. Music was destroyed yesterday.

      People have been coping by turning to Rap.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    2. Re:And I say by Shaltenn · · Score: 1

      Rap 'music' has it's place... ... in the garbage or fueling the fire at home. :P

      People talking about being 'gangsta', killing people, drugs, abusing women, etc... It makes me sick. And the excessive use of racial slurs. Oh that's right, I forgot. It's not a racial slur unless a white guy says it. /sarcasm.

      I hate rap. Sooooo much.

      --
      If you were offended by anything I said... No, I'm not sorry. Please lighten up.
  183. Money by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    The real reason he's pissed at the internet is that he's made so much money through the record companies and has his own label (Rocket) he's a corner-stone of the old "record company" institution so of course he's going to hate whatever they hate.

    INTERNET USE IS OPTIONAL. No one is forcing him to use it in connection with making his music.

    Actually in his case there is probably much less stopping him than other musicians getting together in person with whoever he wants to make music. He has enough credibility and money to get a bunch of top musicians to fly round the world to come to his home studio. How is the internet ruining that?

  184. obligatory. by polar+red · · Score: 2, Funny

    Its like you never even read what You must be new here.
    --
    Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
  185. Yes, I did RTFA: by therufus · · Score: 1

    First of all, who is going to listen to someone who's real name is Reginald Dwight (look it up if you don't believe me)

    Secondly, internet is neutral in music IMHO. Artists are being ripped off because people steal their music (if getting jabbed in the proverbial by a record company isn't bad enough), but it also helps new artists become popular (acid planet, myspace, need I go on?). I make my own music in my little studio in one room of my house. I use a keyboard, a guitar and (OMG) a computer. So Sir Dwight, are you saying my music is not as good as someone who plays live in front of people? Quite a generalization I think.

    If anything has killed music (particularly interaction between musicians), I believe TV (Australian/American/Wherever Idol) and record companies (pre-packaged eye candy who can't really perform and have no musical skill whatsoever - you know who you are...) have killed music. And it's sad really. The best bands are out there unheard, unsigned, all because they're not what the record companies want to market. Taking a 'risk' these days is too hard because the pop market is too profitable.

    My hope is one day we, as an audience, will break the cycle and start wanting real music again.

    --
    You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
  186. You're wrong about PROTESTING by roystgnr · · Score: 1

    Not only did tens of millions of protesters fail to stop the Iraq War, they didn't even stop its authors from being re-elected.

    Weblogs and protests share the problem that they are only effective at communicating to people who are already receptive to your cause (and who therefore don't immediately close your webpage or dismiss your marchers as crazies). At least with weblogs you can give those people long, complex arguments linked to supporting evidence. With protests you'd better hope that your message can be effectively conveyed by 20 letters on a cardboard sign.

  187. Re:The Internet is helping me make it as a musicia by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

    I could have sworn Indian music had a lot of repetition in it as well.

    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  188. Anyone ever heard The Postal Service? by Tyr_7BE · · Score: 1

    "The Postal Service is an American electronic indie pop band featuring singer Ben Gibbard of Death Cab for Cutie and producer Jimmy Tamborello of Dntel, Headset and Figurine
    [...]
    The name "Postal Service" was chosen due to the way in which the band produced their songs. Jimmy would write the music then send DAT tapes to Ben, who would edit the song as he saw fit, adding his vocals along the way, and send them back to Jimmy via "Postal Service"."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Postal_Service

    How do you like that, Elton? Here's a group who's creating new music that's quite well done, and they didn't once meet face to face! The article itself quotes Elton as saying "I am such a Luddite when it comes to making music. All I can do is write at the piano." Sounds like someone's a little upset that this new-fangled technology seems to be becoming more and more ubiquitous, and he's being left in the dust.

  189. Here's yer salt... by poptones · · Score: 1

    This is THE SUN we're talking about. How do we even know Sir Elton said these things? Or said all of them? We don't.

    I like lots of Elton's old stuff; I've owned several copies fo Goodbye Yellow Brick Road and can't consider my hard drive operational without that particular collection of FLACs onboard. But even if he said these things I don't see that somehow making these statements any more a reflection of the reality.

    Look, I'm almost 45 and I hear LOTS of new music I think is truly great. Yeay Yeah Yeahs, Smashing Pumpkins, Mumyi Troll, Linda, Bjork, Outkast - hell, from what I see there hasn't been a better time for music in this country since the early punk era of the late 1970s.

    I have a hard time believing Elton John has never heard any of this stuff, or believes it all to be so much squat. Or maybe he's just sitting home listening to old Billy Joel albums and singing his own stuff at the piano. Or maybe he, too, is as clueless as those others who still think "radio is the most important tool for disseminating musical innovation..."

  190. Biased opinion by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Elton has a bias against technology. He says so in the article. He doesn't use it. So how can he possibly know what its affect on music is? His reputation carries a big weight because of his past brilliance, but we have to be careful that we understand the limits of his insight.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    1. Re:Biased opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we have to be careful that we understand the limits of his insight.


      Of course your insight knows no limit...
    2. Re:Biased opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Of course your insight knows no limit..."

      Thank you.

    3. Re:Biased opinion by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, I've been having some problems with my insight recently. The other day I was unable to insee what was on the other side of something. But I think the mods have it correctly, I'm only about 50% insightful, although highly underrated. I think even they underate my underatedness.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  191. The record already did this by desideria · · Score: 1

    The The commercial record already did this in the 20s. Ordinary people slowly went from being performers of music to being consumers of music, ceding control of popular music to the recording industry and its mouth pieces, such as Elton John.

    If anything, the internet is bringing us closer to the times when normal people made and shared music together. Just a few minutes on youtube will yield videos of lots of ordinary people playing renditions and variations of their favorites songs. I think this is hundreds of times less "cold and impersonal" than, say, attending an Elton John concert in an arena packed with tens of thousands of people.

  192. Re:Sucks to radio. by webdog314 · · Score: 1

    Radio? Damn, I can't remember the last time I turned on my radio to listen to music. Why would I want to? When technology has provided me the means to listen to what I want when I want it, anywhere I choose to, why should I be forced to listen to 90% crap for that lucky ten percent I DO like? Something new?? Maybe, but word of mouth influences what I look into WAY more than suffering through hours of listening hell ever would. The radio paradigm is DEAD.

  193. See Songfight, other collab websites by Xtravar · · Score: 1

    People who never would have collaborated to make music ARE making music in creative and new ways.

    Maybe Elton John isn't seeing this because he's involved in an industry that creates music like it's mac & cheese: pre-packaged, plain, and consistent.

    The industry of course is going to use technology to shit out junk faster.

    The artists are the ones who use technology to do cool things. There are online jamming applications, forums for people to pool their talents, etc.

    --
    Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
  194. Finding Studio Musicians by allthingscode · · Score: 1

    There was a story on NPR about how the internet is allowing people to find stage musicians without having to be in the same location. A guy wrote the lyrics and the lead guitar for a song and recorded it. He then sent it to someone over 1000 miles away who added drums, another guy to add base, and then to a guy to make sure it all sounded good together. And he found all of this online.

  195. awesome post! can i trackback you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i would love to get this discussion going on gather, myspace, facebook, etc.
    do yo uhave a url i can link to?

  196. Well, Elton by trailerparkcassanova · · Score: 1

    What new artists have you taken under your wing? When was the last time you went to a club to see an new artist?

    1. Re:Well, Elton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right on!! What he's really concerned with is not making more money, not the music, just plain greed.

  197. When you create music on the net ... by HW_Hack · · Score: 1

    nobody knows if you're a nobody ... or if you have big hair or spandex or wear outrageous outfits (with big glasses). I respect him for some of his music - but the net and easy digital recording has leveled the playing ground for creative people of any age. You don't need to "be outrageous" (and lucky) to be able to get your music out there via some corrupt music company / agent etc.

    Rock On !

    --
    Its not the years, its the mileage .....
  198. And what's good lately? by tjstork · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I mean, the biggest act of GenX - Nirvana, was an overrated distortion band built around the central premise that Daddy was too mean in my posh suburb and so I had to go and shoot myself. What a bunch of drivel.

    And then, Pearl Jam is even worse... It's like, they have that song "Better Man", singing some sympathetic song that's supposed to make me feel sorry for her. But for me, I like to sing that song saracastically... "Ahhhhh pity party..... she lies and still loves him, can't find a better man", like, I'm supposed to feel sorry for her because she's a liar.

    Stupid broad, go find a better man, that's what I say.

    No amount of distorted sound can correct the whiny nature of today's male music. John Lennon rolls over in his grave at the sound of these p----ies.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:And what's good lately? by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 3, Funny

      I mean, the biggest act of GenX - Nirvana, was an overrated distortion band built around the central premise that Daddy was too mean in my posh suburb and so I had to go and shoot myself.

      [citation needed]

      --
      I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    2. Re:And what's good lately? by toadlife · · Score: 3, Informative

      "...around the central premise that Daddy was too mean in my posh suburb..."

      I'm not sure where you came up with that. The only member of Nirvana that might have grown up in a "posh suburb" was Dave Grohl, and he just pounded the sticks.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    3. Re:And what's good lately? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sorry but the P has it right. Kurt had stomach pains and couldn't do heroin anymore because Courtney said so. Many would like to believe that he shot himself and is a weak little pussy, the truth is that the only way Courtney would ever achieve the stardom she so desired was to see Kurt dead.

    4. Re:And what's good lately? by ResidntGeek · · Score: 2

      Don't listen to popular music! There's plenty of good music available today - Opeth and Dream Theater and Pelican if you like metal, or a million different indie bands if you like that, or Gov't Mule and Phil Lesh & Friends and Widespread Panic if you like jam bands. Most cities also have local blues and jazz bands that you can watch any day of the week if you feel like it. And, a lot of older acts are still going - ZZ Top, Megadeth, Ozzy Osbourne, Heaven and Hell, The Who, Roger Waters, Eric Clapton... the list goes on and on. If you can't find good modern music you're not looking very hard.

      --
      ResidntGeek
    5. Re:And what's good lately? by tjstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The point is, you didn't have to look at all a few decades ago. Good music was pervasive. Now the music that is pervasive is Britney Crapola, and the good stuff is underground or Indy. If the likes of Phil Lesh and other good bands were actually what the music industry pushed - then, I doubt people would feel so negatively about a recording industry that really was once held in much higher esteem. Back in the day, you could feel like a record producer was a part of the revolution, and now he or she is just another suit of "the Man".

      So basically, RIAA really ticks people off because they've come to represent music that honestly isn't worth paying for anyway. I mean, give Britney Spears money? Heck, I could bore you for a longer time with my lousy game. Give me $15 instead. Or you could just wait a month until I port it to Linux and open source the thing anyway.

      So yeah, screw RIAA.

      --
      This is my sig.
    6. Re:And what's good lately? by toadlife · · Score: 1

      Sorry but the P has it right... The "P" never said what you said.
      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    7. Re:And what's good lately? by ResidntGeek · · Score: 1

      I agree with your assessment of modern popular music, but I think your memory's a bit selective. A few dacades ago, the record industry was pushing Niel Sedaka, Styx, Journey, the Eagles, Michael Jackson, and other such pop and corporate-rock acts. Even excellent groups like The Who and the Yardbirds made shamelessly exploitative pop music in the mid-60s, and same for groups like Black Sabbath and Blue Oyster Cult in the '70s and '80s.

      --
      ResidntGeek
  199. Elton is lonely.... by pentalive · · Score: 1

    Perhaps we should all send him emails...
    kindly emails wishing him well and commenting gently on his recent work
    so he would not feel so all alone.. (oh wait that's another song isn't it..)

  200. Too fat an happy to be creative... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    I think that Sir Elton has lost touch here. I think he should drop by Ozzie's place and have a nice little chat about the environment he grew up in before joining Black Sabbath. Most relevant artists grew up and thrived creatively in cold and harsh environments. It's part of what seems to drive the creative process. Raging against the cold and heartless machine (meet the new cold and heartless machine, same as the old cold and heartless machine) will give this generation of musicians something to rag about besides drugs, booze, sex, infidelity and gang related crime.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  201. Internet says Elton John is killing Music! by RingDev · · Score: 1

    Or maybe he, too, is as clueless as those others who still think "radio is the most important tool for disseminating musical innovation..." I would argue that it still is... for now. Not that I expect it to remain so for much longer, but it is currently. Heck, 10 years from now the FCC will probably be auctioning off all FM frequencies. (Who would have thought in the mid 90's that UHF/VHF frequencies would all get auctioned off?)

    That said, the internet is the future. As others have mentioned, at what point in history have so many musicians, fans, and managers been able to communicate so directly? To attempt to motivate musicians to stay away from the Internet is akin to telling musicians to stay in their garage. So in that respect, Elton John's comments are (IMO) more damaging to the music culture of this world than the Internet.

    -Rick
    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  202. Not Exactly by Khammurabi · · Score: 0

    Elton John a few years ago said he [quit] recording. What Elton John is saying is that he is tired of the lack of creativity that the Internet is spawning. In fact on that level he is 100% right.
    Wrong. The internet is a low-cost medium for creating shared content, period. The fact that at least 90% of this content is rubbish is irrelevant. I'd wager about 90% of all musicians out there are rubbish as well. Elton is just used to having all his music pre-filtered for crap by the record labels.

    In the past, our access was limited to what the a record label deemed profitable. As such almost all music essentially had to be picked out of the 10% of musicians who were 'good' and had mass appeal. Picking a niche musician who would appeal to a million sparsely distributed people was not feasible previously, since distribution is impractical.

    All the internet has done has removed the 'record label / distributor' role out of the mix. The cost of distribution is so low now that record labels will likely die out in the next few years. A 'producer' role is still needed to create high quality content in studios, but artists that were previously denied a spot in the marketplace can now occupy their own small niche. It will be much more difficult to become a multi-million dollar rock star in the internet world, but it should be much easier to become a profitable musician.

    All we are witnessing are the death throes of the record labels. But die they will. And for people like Elton, there are websites (and will be websites) that will help with sorting through the available music for gems.
    1. Re:Not Exactly by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      This is probably the most intelligent discussion of how the Internet and music distribution intertwine that I've seen as text. Thanks for putting this on Slashdot. Now, if we could just get this in front of regular people.

  203. Oh, I thought it was... by rAiNsT0rm · · Score: 1

    The corporate, bland, image-only crap being "produced" as music these days. It's pretty amazing but real artists and bands are flourishing right now.

    What is killing music, and videogames, is the desire to mimic Hollywood, as if that were some sort of holy grail. Hollywood is in the shitter, and so are these other forms of mass-produced, soul-less junk.

    Indie films that then become popular rake in cash, while standard crap aims for one or two big opening weekends and could care less about longevity or staying power. Same for current "music." There is a reason Pink Floyd's Dark Side of The Moon is still in top charts, or Bob Marley, or Clapton/Dylan/Zepplin etc.

    I seem to have a collection of NOFX CD's from when I was in H.S. until today that I have bought and they have never been on TV, MTV, or Radio. Sigur Ros, Ben Harper, Tinariwen, and on and on.

    Look at Jack Johnson, he showed how people today still will buy and can appreciate a solid singer/songwriter beyond just one hit. John Mayer to some extent as well.

    The entire system needs a "reset" rather than a guy shouting "This is why I'm hot" over and over or "my lip gloss is hot" and managing to own 4 Bentley's and a "Crib" maybe we could just get back to MUSIC!

    --
    http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
  204. Slashdot readers discussing Elton John's opinion by Interested+Spectator · · Score: 1

    That's what's interesting..uh, funny.

    --
    jg
  205. I trust him... by JAB+Creations · · Score: 1

    I trust him as much as I trust his taste in women.

  206. Elton has already done his part... by patiodragon · · Score: 1

    in destroying music. Why not give the other guys a chance? The whole intarweb couldn't do much more damage than
    Reginald Kenneth Dwight has done.

    1. Re:Elton has already done his part... by utopianfiat · · Score: 1

      What the fuck does Elton John know about "good music"? He's just another singer-songwriter whose idea of "originality" is changing up the lyrics and playing a slightly different tune- no, the reason music is dead is BECAUSE of the example Elton John gives; that if your lyrics are interesting, you have "artistic talent" and "musical vision".
      Music was dying long before the internet, long before MP3s and writable CDs- this death is a natural consequence of the nature of rock and pop music; that eventually the attractive essence of the music will be harnessed and xeroxed 500 times in facsimile while people out of touch with music aren't paying enough attention to tell the difference- people stop caring about music because there's nothing to care about anymore! Any asshole can press a CD- hell, any asshole can press an LP, although most except dance, rap, and indie rock artists forego the vinyl format, but it's still of no consequence at the point where no single artist is concerned enough with the quality of their record to produce groundbreaking rock music as was seen in the 60s and 70s. The advent of Pro Tools has destroyed pop forever- when you can give a swine with laryngitis a voice like Judy Garland, the legitimacy of good music goes out the window.
      Read Squarepusher's Musical Philosophy

      --
      +5, Truth
  207. absurd by adidas1200 · · Score: 1

    Mr. John, I'm sorry if you haven't figured out how to use the internet to your advantage but I have the internet has completely changed the way I create and distribute my music. It has opened new doors of opportunity and given me idea's I would have never dreamed of. it isn't destroying music it's just that Elton John comes from a generation that doesn't realize it's true potential. Used properly it's an extremely effective tool. if it wasn't for the internet I wouldn't be hosting radio shows and broadcasting my music in other countries. if anything the RIAA is the one destroying music.

  208. That icky Internet thing... by MadMacSkillz · · Score: 1
    Elton's point about getting out of your house and playing music is a good one.

    Like many songwriters, I was convinced I could sell CD's and establish a music career online exclusively. Like many songwriters, I read books about getting fans on myspace, marketing your CD online, getting your CD onto iTunes, etc. Like many songwriters, I followed the steps to the letter and yet sold practically nothing.

    But my songs were getting downloaded thousands of times where I'd put them up for free downloading.

    I finally realized that it was more important to me that people heard my music than for me to try to make money. At that point I started using the Internet to locate places near me to play, and now I'm starting to gig in the Tampa area a bit and I've met lots of really cool musicians. True, I'm playing in coffee houses with my acoustic and there's not much (if any) money involved, but it's a hell of a lot of fun. I still sell CD's via iTunes and at live shows, but once I stopped caring whether they actually sold, I started having a whole lot more fun. And playing in front of 20 people is a lot more satisfying than having 2000 people download one of my songs.

    As far as shutting down the Internet, well... that has to be the stupidest thing I've heard in at least the past ten years.

    --
    Music - www.richardmac.com
  209. Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I personally know two people who use the Internet so they can collaborate with a large community of researchers and scientists on solving the AIDs crisis. Quit your whining.

  210. Don't tube it, squirt it by Snarkhunter · · Score: 1

    See, this is what Microsoft has been TRYING to tell us! Don't be so cold, so lonely. Interact with people! Don't "upload" or "share" your music, squirt it at people! That's warm and human! Eventually, if everyone squirts enough music, we'll all be waist deep in music goo. That's the utopia Microsoft and Elton want for us.

    To paraphrase the walrus:
    "I hope someday you will buy a Zune, and then the world will squirt as one."

  211. In Soviet Russia by spammacus · · Score: 1

    The internet says Elton John is destroying music.

    Actually it's just me saying that. I don't really enjoy his stuff :)

  212. Qui bono? (Who benefits?) by MsGeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It may wind up killing the species of "musician" who get unbelievably filthy rich off a couple of hits and then can sit around the rest of their life commenting on how technology is destroying the vehicle they rode to their destination. But that's a small price to pay for the swell of music now available at humanity's fingertips.

    You hit the nail right on the head.

    Who has been agitating for more and more protectionism for a small group of tycoon musicians? Why, the tycoon musicians, of course! Most musicians do NOT make it into that small charmed circle in which people like Sir Elton and Sir Cliff live. Most musicians work day jobs and try to sell recordings on merch tables at small clubs.

    The Internet and sites like CD Baby are allowing musicians who would otherwise labor in obscurity a bit of international visibility. It might hurt a few who played the game and won the RIAA lottery but the vast majority of musicians actually benefit by the low barriers to entry and possibility of making modest income.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
    1. Re:Qui bono? (Who benefits?) by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I dodn't like his music much but it did take years and a lot of effort for him to get to where he is today - it was certianly not "unbelievably filthy rich off a couple of hits".

  213. I Respectfully Disagree by The+Excluded+Middle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Musicians certainly do get together in order to record music. If he's only thinking of the single musicians that work in their studios, he's not really exploring the internet. The band that I'm in has released over 200 songs for a project called Song of the Day. We're releasing one song for every day of 2007. And we've collaborated with over 30 musicians to do it. My band gets together at least a few times a week just to write and record music.

    We would never have taken on this project if we didn't have the internet to distribute it. In fact, that's all the internet has done: it has made worldwide distribution possible for every artist. It lets fans decide what they want to hear, rather than music executives.

    We released what we think about file sharing and worldwide distribution on our website here, which I am copying below, because it's what I would say to Elton if I had the chance to talk to him.

    Reframing the Debate

    Peer to peer file sharing of music recordings has brought a crisis to the music industry as it stands today. As we will prove in the File Sharing section of The Survival Guide, file sharing is inevitable, and has signaled the death of the CD. But the problem with the discussion about file sharing is that the major labels and editorial writers are calling it literally the end of music itself.

    The current debate intentionally ignores the single most basic fact about file sharing: File sharing only directly effects recorded music. While this is an obvious statement, very few, if any, of the pundits, seem to want to have a full discussion about the effects of file sharing on a musician's income by looking at the whole picture. This is partly because it's complicated to do this, and doesn't make a nice neat editorial. But the other reason is very simple: The major labels make most of their money off of recorded music, so they have shined their spotlight on this single aspect of a musician's income. Since the labels are themselves media organizations, some of them are part of news organizations, it's not surprising that the discussion has been simplified. For the current players, losing income based on recorded music is the end of music itself.

    Note that even major musicians don't make any money off of recorded music. It seems to be the major labels that have the real stake in this. Consider this snippet of an interview with David Byrne:

    XJ: How do you feel about the fact that some of your fans are downloading your music for free?

    David Byrne: It's a mixed bag. Sure, I would love to have compensation for that. But the argument of record companies standing up for artists rights is such a load of hooey. Most artists see nothing from record sales -- it's not an evil conspiracy, it's just the way the accounting works. That's the way major record labels are set up, from a purely pragmatic point of view. So as far as the artist goes -- who cares? I don't see much money from record sales anway, so I don't really care how people are getting it.

    -Boing Boing, David Byrne launches internet radio station.

    If an artist like David Byrne can't make money off of recorded music, independent bands certainly aren't doing it either. And the file sharing that occurs usually doesn't take away from the most common forms of income from CDs, namely the albums sold at concerts. We will discuss this later, after introducing file sharing's economic effects, but we need to pan the camera back, and turn on the house lights so that we can see the rest of the stage regarding a musician's income.

    On peer to peer networks, users download music recordings, but not any other aspect of music that can make money for a musician. For example, there is no way, over the Internet, to steal a live concert. Even if someone records it illicitly and sends it over the Internet, the musician stil

  214. He has a point, I think by Cleon · · Score: 1

    I think sometimes Sir Elton is just grumpy and raving, but this time I think he has a point.

    Music, especially when it comes to the major record labels, is becoming less and less an art form and more and more a simple factory production process designed to appeal to as many people as possible. The bland, inoffensive song (which is about as poetic as the morning's stock price listings) is written by someone with no name (who often as not is not even credited as such), the "singer" is someone chosen more for looks than talent (singing voice can be adjusted electronically), and much of the music production is done by computer. Where actual instruments are required, they are often recorded separately.

    The internet helps this along, but it's really not the Net's fault. The Net, if anything, is fighting against this by giving musicians, consumers, producers, and independent labels a new way to find each other without relying on the recording cartel for distribution. There are real musicians and bands who get together and jam, who write songs together in basement studios, who really try to put the art in their music. There are musicians and bands like that, but you won't find them watching MTV.

    --
    Gifts for Geeks - Stuff that really matters!
  215. Lilly Allen by cerelib · · Score: 1

    The Internet has opened up new opportunities that the previous generation does not understand. Pop singer Lilly Allen practically launched her entire career through MySpace. The Internet is leveling the playing field and drowning out all of the "middle men" (i.e. the Labels).

  216. What the hell does Elton John... by psykocrime · · Score: 1

    ... know about good music?!??

    --
    // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
  217. Hmmm by Vexorian · · Score: 1
    • The internet can give you music.
    • Music cannot give you internet
    So, I pick the internet.
    --

    Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
  218. And Television killed Picasso too? by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Gee I wonder?

  219. Hypocracy, Elton is thy name by omalley-the-alley-ca · · Score: 1

    All this comes from a man who's web-forum requires a "$40 fan membership" and who's website features purchase-able ringtone downloads. For someone as opposed to the internet as EJ claims to be, he doesn't seem to mind milking it for all he can.

  220. In the Future... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All restaurants will be Taco Bell

  221. Maybe EJ is just missing by 12357bd · · Score: 1

    his own times, were really good musicians meet to share ideas.
    It's internet stopping people to share ideas? No, quite the contrary, but then, what's happenning to our society/music lately? It's a very usual opinion that the global quality of actual music is far worse then 50's-90's.

    --
    What's in a sig?
  222. Morari Says... by morari · · Score: 1

    That Elton John is destroying good music. Have you heard any of his Beatles covers?!

    --
    "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
  223. I Might Take This Seriously... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    I might take this seriously,
    if it wasn't Elton doing the complaining.

    I like my music my way.
    Not the way Elton thinks I should be forced to listen to it!

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  224. he is SOOO wrong by mozkill · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I play a certain style of music, which up until the internet started, was very hard to access, since it is European, and in about 1998 the style exploded because of the internet. If it wasn't for the internet , in bringing a previously separated group of people together, this style of music, called Gypsy Jazz, which died in the late 50's, might never have re-emerged from the dark ages. Countless guitar players cite Django as an influence, especially once Django became popular.

    --

    -- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
  225. Re: BLOGGING and effectiveness... by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you get any significant number of people to get off their ass and protest something, you get press. Certainly much easier than trying to make the press take interest in your blog, if you're trying to do something locally. No, it's not exactly very high data content, but it's a fairly effective way to broadcast a simple and clear message the press can parrot for you.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  226. Never was, never will be by poptones · · Score: 1

    Ok maybe that's not entirely true - radio was important in the 50's and 60s. It might even have been important through the 70's and 80s. But where do you find "innovation" on the radio today?

    Television isn't going away, the spectrum is just evolving. Radio could go away today and the only people it would really affect are christian shutins and right wing talk radio fanatics.

    1. Re:Never was, never will be by RingDev · · Score: 1

      Ahh, I see, I was interpreting the word "innovation" completely differently. (read: wrong) I have never listened to a song on the radio, and been inspired by it to create a new song, or to attempt to innovate a new styling of music. So in that sense, you are correct, radio has never been a major source of musical innovation, But.... Radio is still the primary means through which the majority of people listen to and discover music. So it is the primary was for the population at large to discover the innovation of the artists.

      And if Radio went away, I would be very very sad. I would lose http://www.wjjo.com/ one of the best rock stations in the US and http://www.themic921.com/ who host both the Stephanie Miller show and most of the Air America lineup. Sure, both of those stations have web broadcasting, but the place I listen to the most music is my car. And its highly unlikely that I'll keep a WiFi signal running on my 30 mile commute out into the country side every day.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  227. I have another theory by namekuseijin · · Score: 1

    I think the biggest problem with music nowadays is precisely *because* it is an industry, pumping out cheap garbage down consumers throa... err, ears.

    Please, let talented musicians make music rather than performers, dancers, top-models or junkies.

    --
    I don't feel like it...
  228. My silly questions by General+Lee's+Peking · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What does Sir E.J. have against people putting together their own music? Just because he thinks they should go out and buy somebody's CD sold by a big record company instead? I thought pop music was about entertaining the people (``pop'' meaning popular, of course), not about making somebody else wealthy or wealthier. If people are entertaining themselves with their own music, isn't that more creative not less creative? And if someone is entertained by an amateur's YouTube video how is that necessarily less legitimately enriching than being entertained by a commercial artist?

    As for going out and playing with other people, that's great, but who here imagines Sir E.J. goes to a local bar to jam with the average joe as the average joe's equal on Blue Mondays? When he plays with other people they're usually under his direction which, with respect to musical communication, means he's essentially playing by himself. So then he says he doesn't have an iPod or mobile phone as if that means no one else should have or even want them. Well, I don't have a mansion and wouldn't want one even if I could afford it so I don't think he should have one.

    As for protesting versus blogging, couldn't you put together a much more coherent argument for your point of view in a blog than you could on a protest sign? And who ever said a blogger is less likely to protest than anyone else?---Oh yeah, Elton John did. That means a lot.

    As for the blogger writing to say Sir E.J. has a good point, how many negatives is enough? ``Regardless'' is good enough for me, but if you're going to use ``irregardless'' why not use ``not irregardless'' or better yet ``not hardly irregardless''? Anyway, not hardly never irregardless of whether Sir E.J.'s music is good, bad, or indifferent, after all the attention his music got in the past, I think he's looking to blame something for the relative lack of attention his music gets now.

  229. When did the opinions of musician's matter? by mibalzonya · · Score: 1

    If they had something brilliant to say then they would be writers. I watched a documentary on a band I like. I realized that as much as I liked the music they produced, I really didn't care how awesome they thought they were. I guess his point is somewhat relevant because he is in the industry, but this has been blown way out of proportion.

  230. We used to say the same thing by rholland356 · · Score: 1

    When "Bennie and the Jets" was all the rage on the air back in the mid-70's, we used to say the same thing about his music, that it was ruining rock. How ironic that Elton should now be worried about his legacy!

  231. Don't count your chickens before they're hatched. by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    The internet is not killing music.
    It's only killing corporate dominance of music.


    No, it's merely attacking corporate dominance of music -- which will end up stronger or weaker for it.
    My current money, based on trends in IP law, IP law enforcement, and the prominence of DRM and industry consolidation is on it ending up stronger for it.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  232. I disagree by themusicgod1 · · Score: 1

    Imho, Michael Crawford is actually fairly good. I mean, if you go in expecting guns & roses or tool or something, you may not be impressed, but the same mathematics(metamathmatics?) that is inherent in his music is the same stuff that makes guys like Bach and Beethoven still worth listening to after all these years. It's Not just repetition. It's pattern with depth.

    In my experience some musicians just have natural talent, and you can tell because even before the formal training beats it out of them. They just sound good. Michael is one of those artists. Him and Asenath Waite(sp?) (...by SERVER, I wish I could find her now that she's had a few years to work on her music, but I digress.)

    It's a shame he's done so little, but he sounds like a busy guy. I wish I could go back and do more music, too, but life kinda gets in the way

    --
    GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    1. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it's that great yet because of dead spots and a few harmonies that disrupt the repetition in a non-repetitive way (and feel "wrong"), but it seems like a great scrapbook for something in the future! Repetition is what makes something out-of-place feel right in music, but this multi-movement work feels weird outside of its better, more emotional moments. (Use of solo piano can also bring out jarring instances that can normally be covered up through clever orchestration in multi-instrument works.) If you listen to some others (Reich, Glass, or Gamelan improvisational drumming), there is a different consistency in the manipulation of tension and release.

      I think the work is a scrapbook because extending a few places (extending the feel and atmosphere) that sound out of place and moving around or axing some other bits would add a lot of polish. I think it would be interesting for the guy to move from getting this work out to polishing the work (or delving into the electronic music scene with this work orchestrated for a variety of synthesized sounds) and adding more recorded, improvised sessions to the website.

      Mozart was one of the few who left few or no revisions of most works, but other composers did really well by revising, revising, and revising some more. Crawford already improvs and performs for audiences, and I'm sure he's performed this work with changes, so it would be great to hear some of those performances, too. One can always manipulate the application of the formal idea (recursion) to make the music flow between tension and release in an optimum way. (See how convoluted Webern's, Babbit's, or Crumb's use of 16th and 17th century--Bach and Palestrina--forms are to see how little form matters relative to application of content that fits the form.)

      The great thing is that it's easy to distribute revisions online. It would be great for Crawford to use this work as a starting point for a project that lets people mashup and branch the work (alla an rcs-controlled project).

  233. how long... by thesilverbail · · Score: 1

    before the internet says elton john is destroying music?

    --
    I have found a truly wonderful proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, but unfortunately this sig is too small to contain it.
  234. He's dead wrong and does not know it. by twitter · · Score: 1

    Sir Elton may be right, but fundamentally, the Internet is far more valuable than the transient phenomenon of pop music.

    The choice is false because better communications are providing more and better music than the MAFIAA could ever hope to own. Sir Elton simply has no way to parse the stream and remains ignorant of great work going on. It's not his job anyway, his masters are supposed to do that and have failed.

    He's also dead wrong about the internet keeping people apart. It should be pretty obvious to anyone that communications networks bring people together, as we sit here and chat. It's not so obvious that this better communications will not keep people from getting together physically in music clubs, but that's going to keep happening as long as people have spare time. When they do get together, what they will see are acts that are far better informed of wold music trends than ever before. People are co-operating as never before, sharing lyics, melodies, tabs and other things the RIAA would like to shut down.

    Sir Elton's stand against the future is not surprising. The past has been good to him and he's surrounded by people who will fill his head with bullshit. Garbage in, garbage out.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  235. How much has he benefitted from downloads? by HockeyPuck · · Score: 1

    I wonder how much $$ he's made from people downloading his songs? I seem to recall that he's had quite a few downloads from the downloading of Goodbye England's Rose (Candle in the wind remake for Diana's funeral).

  236. Music is dying??? by dr.g · · Score: 1

    O rly?

    People who say "Music is dying" are often:

    a) Old, and officially entering curmudgeonhood. The old telling how things were golden in the old days and crap nowdays is itself as old as human civilization. And with three thousand years of such steady descent, we should have reached more of a 'bottom' position today than can actually be observed, doncha think? Or maybe the geezeers (including Sir Reginald here) are guilty of nostalgic romanticization.

    3) "Subtly" trying to point out that what everyone ELSE listens to is crap, and only they and their fellows are initiates into the The True School of Cool Music.

    vi) Observing change and mistaking it for "death". Frankly, if the music company-dictated winner-take-all star system declines, I for one welcome our new musician overlords. If nobody ever again sells 10 million copies of something, it hardly means music is dead.

    Killing music is like destroying water. You can break an ice cube, but there's still water. You can steam it out of pan, but there's still water, and even if it's in a form you can't see, you'd be mistaken to say it's gone.

    I tend to listen to 'folk music', which is, I guess, music made by folks. Unamplified instruments sometimes. NOT dependent on record companies, or radio, or the internets. Sure, none of these porch pickers is Bryan Sutton, or Bela Fleck, and none of the fiddlers are Mark O'Connor...but maybe I missed the part of the definition of music that's about 'winning'.

    --
    "To be fair, I was left completely unsupervised." ~Anon
  237. Let me simplify the idiot point. by twitter · · Score: 1

    What he's saying, in his own opinion, is that he thinks musicians are communicating less because the recent technology has been making it so much easier for people to produce things on their own.

    Amazing new communications media keeps people from communicating!

    The idea that an increased ability to share knowledge and culture should somehow make us "colder" and less rich is absurd. People are going to take advantage of things and make better music for it.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  238. Rap: "The Symphony of Destruction" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My GOD, look: "IT TALKS!" lol... or, (inquiring minds want to know), is it (c)rapping a reply here (lol!)?

    "Just like the pied piper, led rats thru the streets - Dance like Marionettes, swaying to the symphony (of destruction)!!!" Megadeath

    The difference in this type of music, vs. (c)RAP? It's protest AGAINST injustices, & lunacy, vs. preaching it is "GOOD to be a corrupter of others, or killer of others" etc. et al... (generally).

    (YOU ought to listen to that tune instead which I quote a lyric from sometime, because it describes people like you, perfectly! The tune's a warning & especially because of what I write below about kids, daughters especially... especially to young folks!)

    "Don't make me laugh, you condescending prick." - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02, @02:51AM (#20082343)

    First of all: Obviously, since you *THINK* I am even able to 'condescend to you' as you put it? You obviously have INCREDIBLY LOW SELF-ESTEEM, thanks for that clue, first of all!

    Secondly: AND, why not make you laugh, Dr. YO? You're making ME laugh, hugely, with your "(c)rap lyric reply", rotflmao! No mind follower's like you always do, "Dr. YO!", lol!

    Pigeon/Follower (whom I shall now laughingly call YOU, "Dr. Yo", for your calling me names first)?

    You're doubtless complete with a 'sidewalk surgeon chemistry degree', earned "@ UNIVERSITY", lol, while working furiously in his 'crack lab' no doubt ("to mix up that latest batch", lol, & ALL while listening to his "music")?

    Thank GOD for fools like you, & here is why I state that:

    "A lot of people think they can do it. As evidenced by the majority of what's on the radio and TV, very few actually can" - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02, @02:51AM (#20082343)

    AND, a lot of people can't THINK FOR THEMSELVES (especially youth, who are 'brainwashed by following' too, into thinking this is 'music')!

    So... Let's ask Tupac Shakur about your "POV", & his successes, ok?

    (Oh, yea, that's right: We CAN'T, because he is dead in a box rotting is more like it)?

    Sure, it's NOT isolated to blacks like Tupac, or really (c)rappers either as to a crook life... but, it does tend to be a HUGE thing they "preach" as (c)rappers, to their listeners (like it is something we all ought to be doing & living like).

    You CAN make it, playing BY SOCIETY's RULES, if not eventually... but, you have to be patient @ times, make good decisions (when to hold a hand, OR fold it & move on) & work hard + realize MONEY is not "ALL".

    Anyhow - See how TUPAC ended up (tell me, where is HE, now AND more importantly, why?).

    AND, since you like to toss names, because your sensibilities are offended by simple truths (truth, nothing hurts like it now, does it?)?

    Listen up, Dr. YO:

    You seem to feel (from what I read of your reply) some need to emulate these "heros" of yours, as some pitiful welfare case 'ghetto boy' wannabe MONKEY (complete with Shug Knight organ grinder making you "dance to his money laundering tunes", the 'symphony of destruction') dealing drugs & "living the life" (not):

    Thank GOD, for "wannabe thugs", like you! Why? Well - you are not going to be my competition in this life, because simply put?

    You are f'ing yourself up everyday with that (c)rap, & probably all that "nice things" that surround it & its 'great message for the masses', especially the youth out there (so easily influenced while they look for their identity): AND, for that??

    Thus, I have to thank you, seriously.

    (Thanks for ruining yourself w/ your "hood" life + belief system, & knocking yourself out of the game of a decent life, pigeon.)

    And, "Dr. YO"? (lol) My guess is THIS - you're probably just another "wannabe ghetto man thug", from suburbia most likely, talking out of his A$$, lol, (c)rapping as he replies here... I know kids in my area who want OUT of that life, as they did NOT choose it (inner urban ar

  239. Sir Elton's £30m spending spree by mojoNYC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    from the Beeb: Pop superstar Sir Elton John once spent £30m in just under two years - an average of £1.5m a month, the High Court in London has heard. The singer's lavish lifestyle saw him spend more than£9.6m on property and £293,000 on flowers between January 1996 and September 1997. Time's is hard, 'ay Elton? Flowers and knightships don't come for cheap!

  240. Good luck by SilverBlade2k · · Score: 1

    So much commerce is done over the internet now that 'shutting it down' would be the end of our economy. Oh...and I think the military uses the internet too....oh wait...shut down the net and the military can't operate..

  241. Re:And rock n' roll singlehandedly killed communis by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 1

    Sir, do not trivialize this. Surely, you must understand that

    MUSIC IS GOING DOWN THE INTERTUBES!


    Like a candle in the wind? (yes, I went there, and I'm still standing...heh, did it again)
    --
    Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
  242. Afternood delight! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    The 70s made as much or more terrible music as any other era.

    Need I remind you of Disco? The Starland Vocal Band? The Beatles? They all sucked balls in the 70s. It wasn't all Led Zeppelin.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re:Afternood delight! by pinkfloydhomer · · Score: 1

      I think you will find that there is a million times as many records released in the last decade compared to the 70s. Even if the proportion is the same (and I doubt it), there much more bullshit.

  243. Smart move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Elton John has now cemented his place in history as a relic.

    An old school composer would have said the same thing about records, except they wouldn't, because I doubt they would be that dumb.

    It's called progress. Get over yourself and let go of your nostalgia. As an artist, you should be familiar with surfing the trends. Don't bitch about the waves that gave you name recognition. You're just pissy because YOUR music is dead.

  244. Who's Missing What Point? by Canar · · Score: 1

    It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's a change. Never has it been as easy to do it all yourself as it is now. I can produce, record, and master music all by myself. Right now, it is trendy to do it all yourself. Eventually these trends will shift. Music gains depth with multiple contributors, but it is never has the artistic integrity of a work produced by only one person.

    What I'm talking about are two different production paradigms: individualistic production and group production. Each produces music of a different sort. To say one is objectively better or worse is asinine. Music is appreciated on a subjective level, not an objective level. I would have thought someone with as much experience behind him as Elton John might realize this. Then again, experience does not necessarily imply wisdom.

  245. Re:Fuck! The Dude is, like, a 100 now by Buran · · Score: 1

    True. It does come from seeking attention or crying for help quite often, but by no means was I actually attempting to point out that that's the ONLY cause.

    In this particular case, though, that's what it did turn out to be. I don't understand why anyone would resort to that instead of simply calling off an engagement (he was having cold feet about getting married), but since I'm not Elton, I don't think I should try to make a guess. I just don't feel that it's anyone's business other than the person in question regarding this kind of thing; never have.

  246. 80's Pop Music by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you listened to 80's pop music? It's sounds about 1000x more "manufactured" than today's music, even the music quality sounding more artificial. This is pre-internet. The internet has NOTHING to do with music quality. If anything, the internet has enabled me to find lots of new music (both artists AND styles) that I otherwise would have NEVER heard.

    The OLD way to find new music was to scan through albums and if a band name or album art kind of fit the clichés of a particular style you liked, then you opted to listen to it to see if you liked it, *IF* the store had listening stations (something that didn't really become common until the early 90's) or if the store accepted returns, you would bring the CD home for a listen first.

    Contrast this to today's ability to connect with people and content in ways previously unimaginable... Elton John is just a bitter old douche.

  247. Elton Has It Backwards by popejeremy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Elton John says:

    "I do think it would be an incredible experiment to shut down the whole internet for five years and see what sort of art is produced over that span."

    I say, "I do think it would be an incredible experiment to shut down the whole entertainment industry for five years and see what sort of art is produced over that span."

    1. Re:Elton Has It Backwards by dreadclown · · Score: 1

      Mod parent insightful!

  248. What tripe by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

    Sounds like the ramblings of a dinosaur to me.
    The Internet has the potential to be one of the best things to happen to music, and is already delivering on it's promise - it brings distribution and sharing to the common people in a way undreamed of during Elton John's heyday. He's just pissed because he won't be able to slap crap songs in with a few decent singles and sell the whole package for $17 for much longer; the Internet is bring back the "single" in a big way and helping to cut out the filler and undeserved profits.
    Truth is, the Internet is just another tool, albeit a very good one, and for anyone to finger out a tool as being detrimental, rather than the way it's used, is blind stupidity. But I wouldn't expect a lot more than than this coming from the over-hyped queen of yesteryear, though. I mean, I was a young teenager when he was in his heyday, and he was no better or larger than any other performer of the era, like Steely Dan, Carly Simon, or Aerosmith. Why is he treated like a God all of sudden? Is it just because of the gay thing? Heck, he didn't even write his own lyrics.

    --

    Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
  249. mod system not sufficiently granular by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 3, Funny

    See, posts like that... that's why we need more mod options. Like "Unintentionally funny because the poster is such an obvious dork" and "It would be funny if the poster hadn't revealed such deeply rooted and disturbing psychological problems" or "It would be funny if I hadn't had exactly the same experience with a girl who loved getting stuffed to "Tiny Dancer". Of course, then mods would be forced to choose the best of several options. I suppose the current way is better, after all. Troll it is, then.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    1. Re:mod system not sufficiently granular by synaptik · · Score: 1

      First there are the insightful/funny/informative/interesting posts that prompt one to dole out +1 mods as an expression of appreciation. Then you have the even better posts that tempt you to forfeit those mod powers to join in and contribute to the dialogue. But above all those, are the comments & threads that are just *so* good, you bookmark/copy them at redundant geographical locations and media, just to ensure that you can always refer to them again and again, whenever the notion arises.

      Thank you (and thank PopeRatzo for his comical misogyny... whether he meant it to be funny or not.)

      --
      HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
      NO CARRIER
    2. Re:mod system not sufficiently granular by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I am honored, sir, but I don't think it appropriate to call me a misogynist just because I don't like Elton John.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:mod system not sufficiently granular by synaptik · · Score: 1

      I am honored, sir, but I don't think it appropriate to call me a misogynist just because I don't like Elton John.
      ROFL!

      I am sorely tempted to assume that this latest reply of yours is intentional irony, because if so (or even if not!) it is superb, delicious icing on the 7-layered cake of this already entertaining thread.[*] But just in case you were serious... even though I take guilty pleasure in some of Elton John's Disney animated movie ditties, by and large I agree with your sentiments about his work, especially as compared to that of The Who. (I mean, isn't that Bernie guy the unsung (sorry) wind beneath his wings, anyway?)

      (Phew, I believe this is the most off-topic I've ever gotten on slashdot. As penance I will remove my +1 karma bonus, and accept whatever further punishment the mods choose to give me.)

      [*] I must have been channeling The Tick with that sentence.
      --
      HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
      NO CARRIER
  250. Another possibility by BanjoBob · · Score: 1

    Now if we could just destroy Elton John and get on with the music

    --
    Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
  251. This just in!! by chinard · · Score: 1

    The internet is saying Elton John is destroying music.

    there.. now we're even :p

  252. Orly? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    "Elton John says that the internet is destroying good music and "stopping people from going out and being with each other, creating stuff."

    So it's impossible for musicians to collaborate over long distances?

  253. Meanwhile, in other news ... by PPH · · Score: 1
    ... the Internet says Elton John is destroying music.

    Perhaps its music that is destroying the Internet.

    If you have a business model that can't coexist with an infrastructure/distribution channel that many others find essential to their livelihood, perhaps its your business model that needs to die.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  254. I am so glad... by CowboyCapo · · Score: 1

    That I've never listened to an entire song of our dear Mr. John. After all, the few clips I've heard him sing on YouTube sucked harder than Enya, and that's going some.

  255. Mozart by YetAnotherBob · · Score: 1

    You may not listen to a little nightmusic, but I do. Mozart after 230+ years is still more popular than almost anything you can hear on the pop/rock stations right now will be in 2 years time. Let alone 50 years time. Amadeus is not just better, he's orders of magnitude better.

    In his day, he was straining against the standard way of doing things too. If he were alive today he would definitly be releasing over the net.

    --
    Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
    1. Re:Mozart by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      I missed a word -- I meant to say Mozart was not on the same level as Bach for listening, and it looked more like I was comparing him to Elton John.

      But yes, I think you're right about what he'd be doing now.

  256. Re:The Internet is helping me make it as a musicia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck me, that's shit!

  257. The internet is not destroying good music by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1
    The internet is destroying the oppressive music industry and the iron grip it has on the distribution channels.

    There are plenty of good songs that never get played on the radio or can be found in traditional CD retail channels. The internet is changing the way music gets heard. There is a world of great music out there if you turn off the radio and the TV, and LOOK FOR IT!

    Last I heard, the automobile was destroying the horse-n-buggy but the world economy didn't collapse. Get with the program, Sir Elton.

    --
    Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
  258. Let' see by LuisAnaya · · Score: 1
    With the internet I've been able to:
    1. download classical guitar scores written by other guitarrist.
    2. receive news from the NJ classical guitar society via email. In this way I know when they meet every month for jamming sessions.
    3. listen recording from other ukulele players and give constructive criticism for their work.
    4. attend an intimate concert with an independent artist.
    yeah, destruction allright... :-/
    --
    Vi havas e-poston.
  259. If you ask me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Sir" Elton's been destroying music for years

  260. Re: BLOGGING and effectiveness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Entropy is not how you measure influence.

    Pressing the President's Big Red Button (which I know doesn't actually physically exist) is a single bit of information. It would also destroy modern civilization.

    On the other hand, thousands of seemingly well-written blog posts get written every day and do jack squat to change the world.

    Protests work, at least some of the time, because the biggest thing anyone in government fears is citizens in the streets in large numbers, and it convinces people with direct influence that this cause has a large number of serious followers who care enough about the issue to join a protest.

  261. Stop imposing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shut the fuck up, Elton John! If some of today's artists want to make music over the Internet, then let them! Stop imposing your blanket will on the public!

  262. Re: BLOGGING and effectiveness... by khallow · · Score: 1

    So you don't think the issues are important. That doesn't matter. These are successful counterexamples to your argument and they indeed had influence on the real world despite your claims to the contrary.

  263. what's worse? by Type-E · · Score: 1

    And gay people destroy humanity.

  264. This is all hype for his new single.. by w0lver · · Score: 1

    "Candle in the Tubes" Relevance ran out long before, you bandwidth ever did...

  265. Elton should get a MySpace Page or a YouTube Page by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    Like Anto Drennan and Keith Duffy of the Corrs and many other artists. I see Anto and Keith logging into their MySpace pages DAILY - unlike some other artists who are computer illiterate and need someone else to do it for them (Andrea, are you listening? - Probably not since you just learned how to use email in 2005!) And these guys are trading comments back and forth with other artists.

    Half their friends on any artist's MySpace page are other artists.

    So Elton is wrong when he says the Internet is having a negative effect on artists hanging out. Artists hang out all over the world now! It's not just hanging out in a Dublin pub when they happen to be in town.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  266. another incorrect use of "music" by brre · · Score: 1
    Sir Elton of course means the recording business.

    Music is not destroyed. We have several centuries of music and not one note of it is at issue here.

    Media and money are at issue here. Not music.

  267. Elton John is a whiner. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Adapt or die. Get the sand out of your vagina, Elton.

  268. mv SirEltonJohn /dev/null by kramulous · · Score: 1

    nuff said

    --
    .
  269. Elton John's music should be killed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Elton John's music should be killed.
    I just need my Clapton, Boston, Bad Co. and Van Halen collection to be happy - music-wise.

  270. And it wasn't his crappy music... ???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    C'mon, this guy is no genius. He crafts a few pop tunes and makes some money. A few hundred years from now, he's not going to be looked at like Mozart or Beethoven...

  271. Without those giant paychecks... by DaedalusLogic · · Score: 1

    Who could afford the diamond studded butt plug that inspired "Can You Feel the Love Tonight"?

  272. cold and impersonal world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Old boy dotter out to a lot of raves, has he?

  273. Internet Says Elton John is Destroying Music by HunkyBrewster · · Score: 1

    seriously

  274. See you later Elton by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 1

    Goodbye yellow brick road.

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
  275. without the internet by neminem · · Score: 1

    I'd never heard of half my favorite bands. Take that. I've then gone out and bought the majority of said cds (unless they're owned by an RIAA subsidiary - then I just pirate them, and wait for them to play live near me).

  276. Dear Elton, please add some warmth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... by releasing your music under a Creative Commons licence and then post it up on http://ccmixter.org/ .

    What?! ... you want to not share it and make royalties from your full copyright.

      Cold, Elton... cold.

          To share is human.

  277. No, no, no, no... by Tug3 · · Score: 1

    ...internet is killing the music industry (as we know it). And I'll drink to that!

    Internet couldn't kill Music, even if we all tried very hard. People are social creatures and will always want to play music too. Add these together with internet and it just gives unknown artists a new route to tell about themselves. It allows bands to distribute themselves without enslaving themselves. It allows fans to find out about these newcomers. Even when allowing people to download your music for free, they still want to see you perform live - if you're good and interesting enough.

    --
    When will we people understand that music is a service, not a product?
    --
    If all else fails, pull the plug and get out...
    The Life is out there...
  278. Re:The Internet is helping me make it as a musicia by Lunzo · · Score: 1

    Let's see if I got this right:

    1. Learn to play an instrument
    2. Give away your songs for free on the internet
    3. ...
    4. Profit

    I'd work on step 3 before quitting my day job if I were you.

  279. Re:And it wasn't his crappy music... ???? by PermanentMarker · · Score: 1

    it's more likely that clasic music will not be remembered, or will be seen as something from the past and some freaks

    --
    I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change.
  280. Who is destroying music? by dangoebel · · Score: 1

    The internet is not destroying music, the fact that every Elton John song sounds the same is destroying music. D

  281. Re:The Internet is helping me make it as a musicia by Maelwryth · · Score: 1

    Maybe now. My father hitch hiked down through the middle east in the sixties and ended up becoming a monk in India for a couple of years and one of the things he said to me was that Indian music (traditional) had far less repetition in it than western music. I used to listen to some of the tapes he recorded when I was a child and he seemed to be right. It was a bit like pi, you think you have worked out a theme and then it wandered off into another "almost" theme. That was 25 years ago now, so maybe I would listen to them differently now (the tapes died a long time ago). It really only sticks in my memory because it was one of my assumptions he knocked over (ie; that music had to have repetition ).

    --
    I reserve the write to mangle english.
  282. Re:Fuck! The Dude is, like, a 100 now by mark-t · · Score: 1

    People who "try" to commit suicide and fail that badly (can't gas themselves, don't cut their wrist in the right place, whatever) are generally doing it to try to get attention and try to get help with some issue they can't just outright tell people about, not to actually kill themselves.
    The person could also just be incompetent when it comes to such things. A person doesn't typically plan to merely _attempt_ to commit suicide, because if they don't succeed, they will have to live a while longer with the consequences of that choice, which can easily put them in a worse position than whatever got them to the point of considering suicide in the first place. And bear in mind that not everyone who would think this through to that point is also likely to be successful at killing themselves should they attempt it, it only means that they inaccurately estimated their own ability to succeed at the attempt.
  283. Re: information vs. purpose by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    The two sides of comparison are live protest to persuade leaders to change a policy, or writing a blog to persuade a leader to change a policy.

    The President's Button is a red herring, because that would be a leader SETTING a policy.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  284. Re: Boosting protest signal strength by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    These two forms of public response operate in different spheres of influence. Protests have a higher chance of being covered by a local reporter, and have to work to boost the awareness across a larger geographic range.

    Blogs cover geography effortlessly, but push against dilution from competing media. The blogger has to network his blog message among other bloggers until the critical mass is reached.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  285. whinge whinge whine by bandmassa · · Score: 1

    Elton's just an aging prima donna. IMHO he had one good song and he prostituted that to sentimentalism 10 years ago. Who cares what he thinks?

    --
    "I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
  286. You are the one that does not know history. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Artistic movements of any kind become clearly identifiable much later after they occur.

    When I was studying music in the 80s it was still unclear if Shostakovitch was the heir to the classical tradition (Bach-Mozart-Beethoven--Wagner-Stravinsky- Shostakovitch?), check dates and you'll see that he wasn't even news anymore.

    Similarly it wasn't clear if twelve tone music, random music, minimalism or any of the many other movements would become the one to remember when talking about 20th century music (it may be minimalism, Steve Reich is a genius and desrves its place after Mr Shostakovitch in the queue above).

    We are in no position to judge what is worthy culturally and artistically speaking when it comes to the last 15 years or so, we will have for one or two generations more to disintangle that.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  287. Street protest is so 19th century. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Frankly, what has street protest changed?

    In the UK the biggest demonstration ever, against the war in Iraq, changed squat. The idiotic Tony Blair even got a job as peace envoy in West Asia, it would be funny if it wasn't tragic.

    Ditto with the loonies defending fox hunting, they managed to gather many thousends of people and thankfully that did not change anything and fox hunting was banned.

    Ditto for all the empty headed anti globalization protesters that are not part of the political folklore but that nobody take seriously.

    In the other hand blogging may be the catalyst to movilize people in effective ways, and most importantly, to know what some people are complaining about.

    If I see a bunch of retards on TV bashing a Macdonalds during an international summit, I have no idea why hey do it and the only thing I want is their sorry ass sent to jail.

    If I get to know about their blog or website I can see they are a bunch of retards all the same, but at least I know about their ideas, what they support and if I was brain dead they could gain a sympathizer and use the power of the internet to organize themselves efficient and effective political action.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  288. Absolutely. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    When my dad heard for the first time CD he went back home, packaged is vinyl collection (500 disks or so), went to sell it to a second hand dealer and went back to the shop to the shop to buy a CD player and 3 disks :-)

    20 something years later it is still working!

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.