While I think the author is a bit ambitious about undermining the already-existing coolness creator (aka the entertainment industry) and creating one to replace it, he does have a point about putting the power of the music back into the hands of the people--particularly for the artists.
Personally, I hate the idea of being spoon-fed a steady diet of this band or that artist and told this is cool and that is not. And well, I won't bow down to that. But I think what is important for us to grab from this article is not "how do we change who determines what is cool (a la GPL type music referral system), but rather to give a wake up call to the people.
Our society is built upon this whole money-driven system that determines what music is hot, what trends are cool, what clothing you just gotta buy and even what car to drive. If our society really wants to have this life of individuality, then it also needs to start thinking and purchasing for itself--not driven by marketing and advertising types. One of the most pathetic examples of being driven by marketing and advertising was seeing someone driving down the street in a gray Ford Focus with the license plate "Duuude". That's great and all if they honestly did that out of their own volition, but really now... it was just a commercial.
And regarding one other user's comment:
Well, there are three major corporations that manufacture all American cars. And only a couple of major U.S. banks. And only a handful of large retailers left. And only a couple telcos left. And so on.
Consolidation saves money. That's how things are done, and all the bitching in the world on Slashdot isn't going to change things. Fighting the music companies is a lost cause because they will always win.
I'm not sure if I agree with you. Every Goliath has its weak spot. The only way they can continue to win is if we continue to buy into their crap. I hate to use this example, but I'm going to anyway: in the movie A Bug's Life, when the ants realized that there were more of them and less of the grasshoppers, they were able to overcome the grasshoppers. Ambitious, yes. A big ideal, most certainly. But far-fetched, perhaps not.
But I guess if you are content being spoon-fed crap, then by all means buy into the recording industry's crap. But there is much freedom in exploring the artists who aren't well-known and who create and perform music because it's their PASSION, not necessarily their JOB.
As much as mp3.com and Vitaminic may have a lot crap on their sites, they've also got a lot of great artists who just have little visibility. Take some time and check out all the great indie artists out there. Seriously!
First off, I must say that I'm pretty impressed by the two articles posted thus far on the music industry and its history. I've been doing a lot of research on my own to aid in furthering my music career and in some respects find it somewhat frustrating because of the issue of saturation.
While the independent music market has been revolutionized with technologies that allow the indie to create, publish and promote their music, we've seen such an explosion in the industry that I think it has become increasingly difficult to be heard.
If you take mp3.com, they've got thousands upon thousands of artists in their system; and unless you've got the cash and working extra hard to promote your music, website, etc., you're just a drop in the bucket of hundreds of thousands of independent artists. Not only is that an issue for the independent artists, but also for the end consumer. With so many choices--and many of them poorly produced, recorded, written, etc.--the independent artists out there are generally given (or contributing to) this stereotype of a less-than-professional and poor-quality music category... the indie. (like the kid down the block who just downloaded a hacked version of Acid and Cool Edit Pro, bought a cheap radio shack microphone and is now a self proclaimed artist).
While there are a number of quality independent artists out there (and I've worked with a number of them on various projects), there are infinitely more artists out there who do a half-assed job at presenting their art. Does the technology really revolutionize the industry? Sure it does, for the hard-working and refined artists out there. But I think that it has created this illusion, that just because indie's have the power to create, publish and promote their own material, quality can be overlooked as merely an optional element in their music.
I think the indie artists of today need to ask themselves some pretty tough questions; questions like:
What makes my music unique enough that there would be a demand for it?
Am I prepared to invest money into this (and we're not just talking payola here, but advertisements, marketing at music trade shows, etc.)
Am I willing to hire other people to help produce my material? With our own biased ears, we hear what we want to hear and not necessarily what others hear. Consider getting others involved in the process
And there are dozens of other questions that independent artist really out to ask themselves before pushing their product to the public. But I think the big challenge that technology has created for artists today is the saturation factor, which poses the issues of too many choices available to the consumer and insufficient visibility (when constrained by your budget and the resources available to you).
Good article! Keep up the great work exposing the current music industry for what it is.
Michael dock72 music group committed to the development of today's artist
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I hate the idea of being spoon-fed a steady diet of this band or that artist and told this is cool and that is not. And well, I won't bow down to that. But I think what is important for us to grab from this article is not "how do we change who determines what is cool (a la GPL type music referral system), but rather to give a wake up call to the people.
Our society is built upon this whole money-driven system that determines what music is hot, what trends are cool, what clothing you just gotta buy and even what car to drive. If our society really wants to have this life of individuality, then it also needs to start thinking and purchasing for itself--not driven by marketing and advertising types. One of the most pathetic examples of being driven by marketing and advertising was seeing someone driving down the street in a gray Ford Focus with the license plate "Duuude". That's great and all if they honestly did that out of their own volition, but really now... it was just a commercial.
And regarding one other user's comment:
I'm not sure if I agree with you. Every Goliath has its weak spot. The only way they can continue to win is if we continue to buy into their crap. I hate to use this example, but I'm going to anyway: in the movie A Bug's Life, when the ants realized that there were more of them and less of the grasshoppers, they were able to overcome the grasshoppers. Ambitious, yes. A big ideal, most certainly. But far-fetched, perhaps not.
But I guess if you are content being spoon-fed crap, then by all means buy into the recording industry's crap. But there is much freedom in exploring the artists who aren't well-known and who create and perform music because it's their PASSION, not necessarily their JOB.
As much as mp3.com and Vitaminic may have a lot crap on their sites, they've also got a lot of great artists who just have little visibility. Take some time and check out all the great indie artists out there. Seriously!
Free Your Mind.
Michael
dock72 music group
While the independent music market has been revolutionized with technologies that allow the indie to create, publish and promote their music, we've seen such an explosion in the industry that I think it has become increasingly difficult to be heard.
If you take mp3.com, they've got thousands upon thousands of artists in their system; and unless you've got the cash and working extra hard to promote your music, website, etc., you're just a drop in the bucket of hundreds of thousands of independent artists. Not only is that an issue for the independent artists, but also for the end consumer. With so many choices--and many of them poorly produced, recorded, written, etc.--the independent artists out there are generally given (or contributing to) this stereotype of a less-than-professional and poor-quality music category... the indie. (like the kid down the block who just downloaded a hacked version of Acid and Cool Edit Pro, bought a cheap radio shack microphone and is now a self proclaimed artist).
While there are a number of quality independent artists out there (and I've worked with a number of them on various projects), there are infinitely more artists out there who do a half-assed job at presenting their art. Does the technology really revolutionize the industry? Sure it does, for the hard-working and refined artists out there. But I think that it has created this illusion, that just because indie's have the power to create, publish and promote their own material, quality can be overlooked as merely an optional element in their music.
I think the indie artists of today need to ask themselves some pretty tough questions; questions like:
And there are dozens of other questions that independent artist really out to ask themselves before pushing their product to the public. But I think the big challenge that technology has created for artists today is the saturation factor, which poses the issues of too many choices available to the consumer and insufficient visibility (when constrained by your budget and the resources available to you).
Good article! Keep up the great work exposing the current music industry for what it is.
Michael
dock72 music group
committed to the development of today's artist