OK, this is not a totally new idea, but I just stumbled accross these two articles by Wired magazine editor Chris Anderson. Very thought-provoking, I thought. This seems a pretty good overview of the changes happening in the music/entertainment/media industries.
The first: "The Rise and Fall of the Hit" is shorter, and an easier read.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.0 ... il_pr.html
The second: "The Long Tail" is an introduction to Anderson's book of the same name, and is a bit more involved.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.1 ... topic_set=
Waddaya think?
The Long Tail: Music and the Net
-
Pitch Black
- Posts: 6722
- Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 2:18 am
- Location: New Zealand
- Contact:
The Long Tail: Music and the Net
MBP M1Max | Sonoma 14.7 | Live 12.1 | Babyface Pro FS | Push 3T | clump of controllers
Soundcloud
Ableton Certified Trainer
Soundcloud
Ableton Certified Trainer
I found "the rise and fall of the hit" the more interesting read, it seemed to contain more information. The other piece was OK but could have served as filler in a mainstream sunday supplement.
Some of the conclusions are speculative to say the least, I really don't think we can draw such easy conclusions as "credibility now rises from below". the reality being - PR companies now manufacture credibility in a different way.
The interesting part to me is the parallel fall in audience of other traditional media. 'Traditional' meaning 20th C.
A few years back I wrote 3/4 of a large essay on the future of performance in the digital age. A time when our social networks are becoming more 'virtual' to use teh phrase of the time, and much less geographical. As technology becomes more transparent, 'being' with virtual comrades will (and must be) less like the laughable pain of Secondlife and more like a William Gibson novel.
During the process of researching that I discovered a lot more about the history of our performing arts - both music, dance and theatrical . The interesting part being : it was all historically very interactive. Shakespearian plays (for example) were a free for all, actors had to battle for attention with prostitutes and wares sellers. The average Shakespeare play was more like going to see Rocky Horror with people shouting out and throwing things at the stage, than it was a reverential church visit.
So, the 20thC era of performance, the era of ' sit and listen', eroded that previous tradition, which we are only now returning to .
Art is once again becoming participatory - but this is unfortunately presented as generally too-wanky digital "Interaction" , which requires much chin stroking and discussion. It shouldn't and never used to!
Only when our modern interaction rises to the easy level of an 18th C playhouse will we see what we are dealing with here.
Unfortunately the big old media houses are doing their best to put barriers in the way of a descent into that fabulous raucous noisy mess. it interferes with their idea of a nice orderly money factory.
But their idea is doomed by their own actions
As the article points out - people are actually prepared to pay for entertainment, but as they cannot bring themselves to do business with their competitors they will always be selling to slim a range - leaving it open to third parties (such as Apple) to license. Essentially becoming the Google for Music is the method, because ease of access is the difference between payment and non-payment. The labels are limiting access and therefore driving consumers away.
Ha ha ha.
yes, I could ramble on like this forever. I was supposedly some kind of "New Media" advisor to EMI and Virgin during this "hit" period 1998-2002 and they pretty much did the opposite of anything I suggested so I do like having a chuckle at their downfall.
Some of the conclusions are speculative to say the least, I really don't think we can draw such easy conclusions as "credibility now rises from below". the reality being - PR companies now manufacture credibility in a different way.
The interesting part to me is the parallel fall in audience of other traditional media. 'Traditional' meaning 20th C.
A few years back I wrote 3/4 of a large essay on the future of performance in the digital age. A time when our social networks are becoming more 'virtual' to use teh phrase of the time, and much less geographical. As technology becomes more transparent, 'being' with virtual comrades will (and must be) less like the laughable pain of Secondlife and more like a William Gibson novel.
During the process of researching that I discovered a lot more about the history of our performing arts - both music, dance and theatrical . The interesting part being : it was all historically very interactive. Shakespearian plays (for example) were a free for all, actors had to battle for attention with prostitutes and wares sellers. The average Shakespeare play was more like going to see Rocky Horror with people shouting out and throwing things at the stage, than it was a reverential church visit.
So, the 20thC era of performance, the era of ' sit and listen', eroded that previous tradition, which we are only now returning to .
Art is once again becoming participatory - but this is unfortunately presented as generally too-wanky digital "Interaction" , which requires much chin stroking and discussion. It shouldn't and never used to!
Only when our modern interaction rises to the easy level of an 18th C playhouse will we see what we are dealing with here.
Unfortunately the big old media houses are doing their best to put barriers in the way of a descent into that fabulous raucous noisy mess. it interferes with their idea of a nice orderly money factory.
But their idea is doomed by their own actions
As the article points out - people are actually prepared to pay for entertainment, but as they cannot bring themselves to do business with their competitors they will always be selling to slim a range - leaving it open to third parties (such as Apple) to license. Essentially becoming the Google for Music is the method, because ease of access is the difference between payment and non-payment. The labels are limiting access and therefore driving consumers away.
Ha ha ha.
yes, I could ramble on like this forever. I was supposedly some kind of "New Media" advisor to EMI and Virgin during this "hit" period 1998-2002 and they pretty much did the opposite of anything I suggested so I do like having a chuckle at their downfall.
I also find it interesting, the parallel decline of blockbusters in other media markets. Strange, since it's clear that the media industries have become more and more monopolized in recent years. (The exception being some of these digital music stores and internet radio.)
Generally, when mega-corporations monopolize, they limit choices and make it easier to manipulate the throngs, keep them hypnotized to the drum of consumerism, and heavily influence public opinion and emotion. This helps in keeping the dissentors down.
Who have been the great rebels in recent Western history? There is a great centralization of this energy in musicians and music. Hiphop has seemed to have superstars in recent times, but not in Rock n Roll, not singers. When all the repressed anger in people gets channeled by one superstar, if that superstar has the gumption to challenge presidential administrations, they can. (See The U.S vs. John Lennon.) I somtimes wonder if the splintering of the "hit market" into thousands of mini-markets, although seemingly good for up-and-coming musicians, was not helped along by "the man" in order to keep mass-movements more controllable. Who knows. But the end result of the collapse of the music industry? Keeping almost all of the artist/musician/rebellious types very broke, with no chance of ever getting massive exposure, and having to fight hard to create and maintain local or regional followings. There are some brilliant some super-talented and intelligent outspoken writer/singer/shaman kids (of which there are probably hundreds at the genius level- I know a few) , whom the world will never know, and this is a dis-service to audiences, and to the artists. But it serves "the man", I imagine.
The old way (mass market vs today's niche markets) could serve the great P.R/Advertising/Propaganda Machine better, because everyone is tuned into the same message at the same time, and there's alot of enrgy there. But the wild card for them is that there is then alot of energy in the unification of the rebellious sector, too.
As far as mini-niche-markets being good for us musicians, I wonder what the numbers really are.
Generally, when mega-corporations monopolize, they limit choices and make it easier to manipulate the throngs, keep them hypnotized to the drum of consumerism, and heavily influence public opinion and emotion. This helps in keeping the dissentors down.
Who have been the great rebels in recent Western history? There is a great centralization of this energy in musicians and music. Hiphop has seemed to have superstars in recent times, but not in Rock n Roll, not singers. When all the repressed anger in people gets channeled by one superstar, if that superstar has the gumption to challenge presidential administrations, they can. (See The U.S vs. John Lennon.) I somtimes wonder if the splintering of the "hit market" into thousands of mini-markets, although seemingly good for up-and-coming musicians, was not helped along by "the man" in order to keep mass-movements more controllable. Who knows. But the end result of the collapse of the music industry? Keeping almost all of the artist/musician/rebellious types very broke, with no chance of ever getting massive exposure, and having to fight hard to create and maintain local or regional followings. There are some brilliant some super-talented and intelligent outspoken writer/singer/shaman kids (of which there are probably hundreds at the genius level- I know a few) , whom the world will never know, and this is a dis-service to audiences, and to the artists. But it serves "the man", I imagine.
The old way (mass market vs today's niche markets) could serve the great P.R/Advertising/Propaganda Machine better, because everyone is tuned into the same message at the same time, and there's alot of enrgy there. But the wild card for them is that there is then alot of energy in the unification of the rebellious sector, too.
As far as mini-niche-markets being good for us musicians, I wonder what the numbers really are.
Life is Good
nowtime wrote:I also find it interesting, the parallel decline of blockbusters in other media markets. Strange, since it's clear that the media industries have become more and more monopolized in recent years. (The exception being some of these digital music stores and internet radio.)
Generally, when mega-corporations monopolize, they limit choices and make it easier to manipulate the throngs, keep them hypnotized to the drum of consumerism, and heavily influence public opinion and emotion. This helps in keeping the dissentors down.
Who have been the great rebels in recent Western history? There is a great centralization of this energy in musicians and music. Hiphop has seemed to have superstars in recent times, but not in Rock n Roll, not singers. When all the repressed anger in people gets channeled by one superstar, if that superstar has the gumption to challenge presidential administrations, they can. (See The U.S vs. John Lennon.) I somtimes wonder if the splintering of the "hit market" into thousands of mini-markets, although seemingly good for up-and-coming musicians, was not helped along by "the man" in order to keep mass-movements more controllable. Who knows. But the end result of the collapse of the music industry? Keeping almost all of the artist/musician/rebellious types very broke, with no chance of ever getting massive exposure, and having to fight hard to create and maintain local or regional followings. There are some brilliant some super-talented and intelligent outspoken writer/singer/shaman kids (of which there are probably hundreds at the genius level- I know a few) , whom the world will never know, and this is a dis-service to audiences, and to the artists. But it serves "the man", I imagine.
The old way (mass market vs today's niche markets) could serve the great P.R/Advertising/Propaganda Machine better, because everyone is tuned into the same message at the same time, and there's alot of enrgy there. But the wild card for them is that there is then alot of energy in the unification of the rebellious sector, too.
As far as mini-niche-markets being good for us musicians, I wonder what the numbers really are.
whoa! interesting perspective!!!!
-
kent_sandvik
- Posts: 489
- Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 6:45 am
This is what I find so exciting about social networking sites like http://www.last.fm (although it has now been acquired by Sony).
I have been discovering loads of music on there, purely based on what I see other people listening to. I can also buy non-mainstream music magazines like Wire here in the UK and then go on to Last.fm and have a listen. It is also very effective at promoting live music events.
There are also links to buy an artist's music from a variety of sources. And, for getting your music out there, it's fantastic. Check out my (Ableton-produced) stuff at:
http://www.last.fm/music/TimeShapers
On a tangential note: The Long Tail may be about to hit the highest level of politics, especially where the 2008 US Presidential elections are concerned. Without digital media (YouTube, etc. ) and the Internet, a candidate like Ron Paul in the US would have no chance against the candidates the main party machines are churning out (nutcases or bland War Party drones like Giuliani, Romney, Billary or Obama). The major news outlets such as Fox can continue to deny the appeal of Paul's message to a majority of Americans but Internet news sources can still deliver those messages in a variety of media formats to the electorate.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com
I have been discovering loads of music on there, purely based on what I see other people listening to. I can also buy non-mainstream music magazines like Wire here in the UK and then go on to Last.fm and have a listen. It is also very effective at promoting live music events.
There are also links to buy an artist's music from a variety of sources. And, for getting your music out there, it's fantastic. Check out my (Ableton-produced) stuff at:
http://www.last.fm/music/TimeShapers
On a tangential note: The Long Tail may be about to hit the highest level of politics, especially where the 2008 US Presidential elections are concerned. Without digital media (YouTube, etc. ) and the Internet, a candidate like Ron Paul in the US would have no chance against the candidates the main party machines are churning out (nutcases or bland War Party drones like Giuliani, Romney, Billary or Obama). The major news outlets such as Fox can continue to deny the appeal of Paul's message to a majority of Americans but Internet news sources can still deliver those messages in a variety of media formats to the electorate.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com
I know what you mean!Haven't read the articles yet but what Angstrom said about interactivity in shows got me to thinking. I know Live isn't fool proof but it's as close as we can get for now. There's all kinds of arguments on here about what artists are or aren't doing on stage and I have a feeling that is a closely guarded secret by most electronic artists. Why not exploit Live and that stigma by skillfully crafting part of your set where you could bring a random person on stage with you and have them jam out the track with you. They could just be firing off clips or tweaking knobs while you chase and adjust what they are doing. Talk about that danger factor. Do this enough times and be known for it and people will just show up to see how great or fucked up that part of your show turns out.
There have been good posts about using the "dance dance revolution" pad as a giant midi controller - let the audience dancing actually control the music produced.beats me wrote:Haven't read the articles yet but what Angstrom said about interactivity in shows got me to thinking. I know Live isn't fool proof but it's as close as we can get for now. There's all kinds of arguments on here about what artists are or aren't doing on stage and I have a feeling that is a closely guarded secret by most electronic artists. Why not exploit Live and that stigma by skillfully crafting part of your set where you could bring a random person on stage with you and have them jam out the track with you. They could just be firing off clips or tweaking knobs while you chase and adjust what they are doing. Talk about that danger factor. Do this enough times and be known for it and people will just show up to see how great or fucked up that part of your show turns out.
I'd like to see a video of that (no, not just a video of somebody using the DDR controller). It sounds like it would be utter chaos if you have a whole group of people stomping on the thing with their drunken asses. I think I would sooner trust somebody's hand and arm movements more than I would trust their feet. It also seems limiting and more "safe" and comical....but maybe I just need to see a video of it before I decide I can't take it seriously.pulsoc wrote:There have been good posts about using the "dance dance revolution" pad as a giant midi controller - let the audience dancing actually control the music produced.beats me wrote:Haven't read the articles yet but what Angstrom said about interactivity in shows got me to thinking. I know Live isn't fool proof but it's as close as we can get for now. There's all kinds of arguments on here about what artists are or aren't doing on stage and I have a feeling that is a closely guarded secret by most electronic artists. Why not exploit Live and that stigma by skillfully crafting part of your set where you could bring a random person on stage with you and have them jam out the track with you. They could just be firing off clips or tweaking knobs while you chase and adjust what they are doing. Talk about that danger factor. Do this enough times and be known for it and people will just show up to see how great or fucked up that part of your show turns out.
dunno about a video, but I imagine it depends on what kind and how much control you will assign to a stranger in the crowd, whether they are stomping their feet or clicking your mouse.beats me wrote: I'd like to see a video of that (no, not just a video of somebody using the DDR controller). It sounds like it would be utter chaos if you have a whole group of people stomping on the thing with their drunken asses. I think I would sooner trust somebody's hand and arm movements more than I would trust their feet. It also seems limiting and more "safe" and comical....but maybe I just need to see a video of it before I decide I can't take it seriously.
Here's what I'm seeing as problematic and/or comical with a DDR controller. People stomping on something are going to be proned to jumping all around frequently having little or bad affect. They'd be starting and stopping clips way too frequently (or whatever you have them mapped to) and they would look physically stupid in the process.pulsoc wrote:dunno about a video, but I imagine it depends on what kind and how much control you will assign to a stranger in the crowd, whether they are stomping their feet or clicking your mouse.beats me wrote: I'd like to see a video of that (no, not just a video of somebody using the DDR controller). It sounds like it would be utter chaos if you have a whole group of people stomping on the thing with their drunken asses. I think I would sooner trust somebody's hand and arm movements more than I would trust their feet. It also seems limiting and more "safe" and comical....but maybe I just need to see a video of it before I decide I can't take it seriously.
I wouldn't hand somebody a mouse and just tell them to click on whatever they want. You could however have a controller mapped to quantized clips or samples and I think if they were using their hands they wouldn't feel the need to be pressing shit every 2 nanoseconds like a 5-year-old. You could also have a little more "coaching" with them standing next to you instead of having to throw your shoe at their head so they'll stop jumping up and down like a retard.
Although handing a controller to someone in the crowd is a nice idea, I am looking a little further forward.pulsoc wrote:dunno about a video, but I imagine it depends on what kind and how much control you will assign to a stranger in the crowd, whether they are stomping their feet or clicking your mouse.beats me wrote: I'd like to see a video of that (no, not just a video of somebody using the DDR controller). It sounds like it would be utter chaos if you have a whole group of people stomping on the thing with their drunken asses. I think I would sooner trust somebody's hand and arm movements more than I would trust their feet. It also seems limiting and more "safe" and comical....but maybe I just need to see a video of it before I decide I can't take it seriously.
The idea of Live Gigs is just one area of performance, in future we have to assume that communications technology and media/mediums will continue to improve. I'm not talking about a webcast via realplayer here - I mean what will a 'performance' be like if we take our cues not from the old model but from the new model.
the biggest growth industry in entrtainment is most likely Massive multiplayer online role play games. They are derided as nerdy, and TBH I have no real experience of them, I have avoided them as time eaters - Evercrack is rightly named as it finished the career of a really good Junglist producer duo I know (yes, really!)
But anyway - just take a casual look at MMPORP games and forget the general public conception "nerdy 15 year old boy wannabe gandalf" and instead think of the phrase "audience paying a subscription model and making people rich here".
Now I'm not going to do your thinking for you, but examine the mediated world we live in, are people more or less comfortable with computers and networked devices (phones, handhelds, etc) as a way of socialising/being entertained/networking than in the past or not.
Is technology improving? Are hardware manufacturers trying to make the technology more 'transparent' ... is there a need for entertainment for this medium, etc, etc
I think the exciting future and profit does not lie in handing out M-Audio product to a physical audience member but , elsewhere.
Just think about how people are drawn into 'games', think about 'are they really games as such or are they real life conducted via a digital rather than physical medium? Are they really less valid than a CD, or are they more valid?
ah hell figure it out for yourselves.