First things first, I guess:
Watch it buddy... I define those phrases around these parts.fossiltooth wrote:This thread is getting a little long winded and needlessly intellectual for my tastes....
....and I'm one of the leaders in long-winded, needless intellectualism on this board
Really though I felt one phrase well up in me that I just thought was so clever I had to share:
So if the record labels brought a handful of talented bands to millions of eager fans, then I suppose the internet is bringing millions of eager bands to a handful of fans.
To me, that seems like an ironic contradiction.
Is it really easier than ever for a band to get noticed, or is it harder than ever?
I mean, I know there will be lots of guys here who will tell me, "well lots of my favorite bands are little, local, unsigned, blah, blah, blah". To me, those are the exceptions that prove the rule - you're among the handful that found your one-in-a-million band.
But is there a band that has actually transcended the maelstrom of excrement and emerged victorious by virtue of their own entrepreneurship?
I'm not talking about someone who has been picked up by a major label, because that's not the promise of the internet or the dream of the anti-corporate, anti-label crowd. I mean is there a band that has sold 100,000 units from the pile in their garage, paid for via PayPal, and without the involvement of the traditional mechanisms? Not 100,000 friends on MySpace, or 1,000,000 plays either, but real sales to real customers without external intervention?
If so, then who?
But more important - if not, then why not?!?!?
If the promise of the internet to the musician is the ability to reach a broader public market almost instantly, then why isn't the public buying the product?
Could it be that the same democratization has made the product inferior?
Even if some of it is "the greatest music someone has ever heard", is it hard to find those tiny flecks of gold among the millions upon millions of grains of desert sand that are nothing more than bits of rock, dirt and dust?
Democratization is an interesting concept.
Consider that in history class you once learned that the single most important cultural phenomenon to the development of civilization was the division of labor. Farmers grow food for others so those others can be carpenters who build houses for others so those other can be soldiers who fight for others so those others can be musicians who play music for others so those others can be whatever they might be.
Fast forward and really divide the labor, and musicians were once able to be musicians because their label provided someone else to be the manager, the producer, the engineer, the marketing team, the choreographer, photographer, hair-stylist, wardrobe deisnger, or whatever the hell else they might have needed.
Bach had the church to pay his salary and allow him to create. Richard Wagner had King Ludwig II. da Vinci had Lorenzo de Medici. The Beatles had EMI. And regardless of whether you like her or not, Britney had Jive records to help bring her to the 123-million record buyers who eagerly purchased her products.
Without any kind of labels to help artists, guide them, and give them the resources to develop their art & product, the musician will be forced to retain a day job, and often work unassisted as composer, lyricist, performer, engineer, producer, mixer, graphic designer, manufacturer, distributor, and marketer.
If division of labor allowed civilization to advance, then what happens when labor is reconsolidated?
No, I'm not saying that MySpace music is going to bring down civilization, but taken as a whole it's an interesting question to ponder. If division of labor allowed for the advance of civilization, is there a limit to the division that is possible? Maybe the music industry became too divided for it's own good - I don't think so, but maybe that could be an explanation. But does that mean the labor should be consolidated or further divided?
-Jeremy
