Are Some Big Name Bands Learning from Internet Musicians?

[Jim of Seattle]

True enough. But historically, the rabble have always been here. The recording industry has sharpened our ears and raised our standards for what is "good" music, by only serving up the elite. 200 years ago when people wanted music they sat around and sang for each other. You think they were any better than we were?

I'm also not saying it's a good or a bad thing. I guess I just interpret the writing on the wall a certain way. About once or twice a week I get a song for free from SF that I'd have willingly paid for back in the old days. Most of what I hear isn't good enough, but I listen anyway.

[jb]

the whole idea of "fame" is relatively recent and is also going away to a large degree or at least morphing into something new. It's even in my signature below.

Allow me to be the first to cry bullshit on that one. The idea of "fame" is the driving force behind leadership, and is probably why we have a civilization.

The first caveman to stab the most giant sloths and become Chief because he's the best food provider achieved Caveman Fame. Then there's Socrates... Phaeroh... Caesar... Jesus... Popes... Kings... anywhere a minstrel sang a song somebody got famous... Michaelangelo... Franz Liszt... Benjamin Franklin... Sandra Bernhardt... One might even argue that the ancient Gods were "famous", since it appears that they were considered to be roaming around the planet sometimes, causing their mischief. How far back do you need to go before it's no longer a "recent" phenomenon? I think that calling an aspect of modern society a "relatively recent phenomenon" is something that sounds good in conversation or coming out of the mouth of a tv pundit, and is one of the first tactics used when predicting the end of that aspect of modern society. But I bet it's actually a "recent phenomenon" less than half the time.

As far as the topic goes, I don't think it's the "Pros" learning from us internet-musicians as much as it is all of us musicians exploring the possibilities of the internet together, for our own reasons. Wasn't Chuck D streaming his music online several years ago? I think the evolution of the professional musician on the internet might mirror that of the amateur, but on a smaller scale. Just as Song Fight kind of mirrors the life cycle of music in the "real world".

[Jim of Seattle]

How many people knew of Socrates in his day? Or Michelangelo? Or Shakespeare? Very, very few. How many people could just about anyone in the U.S. list off and be reasonably sure that anyone else in the U.S. would know who they are talking about? Hundreds if not thousands. Many of those people are famous merely because they're famous, not because they're even particularly deserving of that fame. Terry Schiavo was famous and she wasn't even conscious. Modern communications like radio, TV and movies have fostered this huge shift in the world, so yeah, it's a recent phenomenon.

You can't say "Look, the fact that we all know who Don Knotts is is just like how everyone knew who George Washington was." The comparison is absurd.

[jack]

i hear what you're saying jim, but it's give and take. while it's easy to hate the recording industry and all the "non musician types" working in it, these non musician types sometimes do have a purpose. maybe they design the CD artwork. maybe they pester radio stations to play the song. it's still a job to these people. someone's gotta do it.

the artist should also view and embrace the technology by understanding that IP may not be as easy to control as it was before, and may not be worth sweating over as much. maybe that's just become an occupational hazard these days. but if there's one thing that i can say as fact, it's that we aren't going back to the old ways. that will never happen. so in that sense, you are right, we are on the cusp of something new and cool, and lets hope the kinks will work themselves out eventually.

i do think brad is an excellent example of someone who understands this very well.

[c hack]

I'd venture a guess that EVERYONE knew who Atilla the Hun was in his day. Or Alexander the Great. Or King Henry VIII. Don't even get me started on the pharoahs. You get my point.

[jb]

How many people knew of Socrates in his day? Or Michelangelo? Or Shakespeare? Very, very few. How many people could just about anyone in the U.S. list off and be reasonably sure that anyone else in the U.S. would know who they are talking about? Hundreds if not thousands. Many of those people are famous merely because they're famous, not because they're even particularly deserving of that fame. Terry Schiavo was famous and she wasn't even conscious. Modern communications like radio, TV and movies have fostered this huge shift in the world, so yeah, it's a recent phenomenon.

You can't say "Look, the fact that we all know who Don Knotts is is just like how everyone knew who George Washington was." The comparison is absurd.

I think you'd be surprised how many people knew of Socrates and Shakespeare. And the "fame" of Terry Schiavo doesn't compare to the "fame" of someone like Bruce Springsteen, who struggled for years before achieving success like he has today. There's a difference between notoriety and fame. And the infamy of someone like Cromwell.

The length and breadth of fame today is much greater than it used to be, and the sheer number of people involved is larger. But people have been famous-- and very-- all through history. The way it is today is an evolution of how it used to be, utilizing the technology available today. No longer must we rely on traveling troubadors to find out who the Saxons raided this time (the Saxons were famous you know). If you won't recognize that fact, you're just being a stubborn ass. If you think everybody in the country didn't know who Abraham Lincoln was, then you're more ignorant than I would have thought. Fame is a societal thing, relying on the means of communication available within that society to promote those of note.

It's not that the fame of Paris Hilton is exactly the same as the fame of Benjamin Franklin. These days you can trip into fame seemingly more easily (although she is the heir to a multibillion-dollar fortune, remember). But your original comment is that "fame" is a "relatively recent phenomenon". And my response is that no, it's not.

[Jim of Seattle]

I don't hate the recording industry, and I never said so. I agree that they offer a lot of value. But they are becoming less and less necessary, and I don't think the industry will survive in its present form. It's kind of like Amtrak the way I see it.

[jb]

I don't hate the recording industry, and I never said so. I agree that they offer a lot of value. But they are becoming less and less necessary, and I don't think the industry will survive in its present form. It's kind of like Amtrak the way I see it.

I agree with you here. Regardless of your opinion of its merits, the recording industry as it has existed for the last 50 years or so is dying because of a variety of factors. Whether we're going to miss it when it's gone is a separate discussion.

[erik]

I'm not talking about stealing music at all. I'm talking about basic economics. Supply and demand. Supply has been kept down over the past century because of this whole recording bottleneck. Digital music and people like us mean that the supply is increasing and will continue to. Prices will drop.

The whole idea of "fame" is relatively recent and is also going away to a large degree or at least morphing into something new. It's even in my signature below.

I know this will invite amusingly derisive posts, but I honestly am a little surprised that more people aren't seeing things my way here. Hmmm...

Well which is it, are prices going to drop, or is music going to be free? If you say that music will be cheaper, well duh. But to intimate that musicians who want to be paid for making something are part a soon-to-be obsolete way of thinking is ridiculous. Non-rhetorically speaking, what things are going to happen to make people stop charging for a product that people have shown they will spend money on?

People allign themselves with record companies not because it's the only way to <i>record</i> music, but because they offer a way to get people to <i>notice</i> your band. Being Fugazi is a fuckload of work, and at the end of the day, less people hear your music. I remember back in the day when Sonic Youth signed to a major label, and were getting lots of shit over it, and they basically said that they being on a major label would open their music to a wider audience, because the label would push them into spaces where more people would be likely to hear them.

The internet doesn't do the same thing. The internet is like a thrift store: lots of different stuff, with more crap than good, where you have to search to find quality items, with the overall quality of goods being less than the overall quality of goods at the mall. Pointing fingers to one or two examples of people who are nondependent musicians making quality music doesn't negate the fact that there is so much crappy nondie music on the internet. Gawd, wading through mp3.com was a nightmare.

Is the supply of music greater now? Sure, but the majority of people want a way to find good music easily <i>that other people have heard of</i>. The internet, as it stands now, sucks in this regard.

[Jim of Seattle]

I think you'd be surprised how many people knew of Socrates and Shakespeare. And the "fame" of Terry Schiavo doesn't compare to the "fame" of someone like Bruce Springsteen, who struggled for years before achieving success like he has today. There's a difference between notoriety and fame. And the infamy of someone like Cromwell.

The length and breadth of fame today is much greater than it used to be, and the sheer number of people involved is larger. But people have been famous-- and very-- all through history. The way it is today is an evolution of how it used to be, utilizing the technology available today. No longer must we rely on traveling troubadors to find out who the Saxons raided this time (the Saxons were famous you know). If you won't recognize that fact, you're just being a stubborn ass. If you think everybody in the country didn't know who Abraham Lincoln was, then you're more ignorant than I would have thought. Fame is a societal thing, relying on the means of communication available within that society to promote those of note.

First off, settle down, this is getting flamier than I anticipated.

Yeah, of course those people were famous, and there have always been very famous people. My point is that there were a lot fewer of them back then than there are now. 50 years ago, for example, if you were a regular on a TV show, you were very famous indeed, because there were so few of you. Now there are thousands of programs, each with their own people on it, who are also famous for being on the show, but way less so due to the sheer volume. I guess I just see that trend continuing in the future, where more and more people will become famous to a smaller and smaller group.

We can argue the point of Shakespeare and Socrates forever, but I hold that the vast majority of people in Elizabethan England or ancient Greece were peasants who struggled though their difficult lives in brown clothes and ignorance and whose exposure to the arts or philosophy, or at least Shakespeare or Socrates' brands of it, was exceedingly small.

[Jim of Seattle]

See above - trying to keep posts smaller

So far, maybe.

I think the music will be cheaper because there will be a lot of free music available. How hard would it be for someone to take "The Best of Songfight" every week and post the songs on their own site and get lots of hits and eventually become a source for thousands of people to get free music they knew was going to be good because someone took the time to filter the chaff out for them at no charge? It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see the possibilities here.

It's like saying "newspapers will never be replaced by the Internet because there is so much crap posted on the Internet." Yes, there's a lot of crap, but there are also a lot of people who filter that out for me and give me real news for free. I haven't bought a newspaper in years.[/i]

[jb]

more and more people will become famous to a smaller and smaller group.

Remember that there were just plain fewer *people* even 50 years ago.

But I agree with the above sentence, and it is very relevant to the thread topic.

[erik]

50 years ago, for example, if you were a regular on a TV show, you were very famous indeed, because there were so few of you. Now there are thousands of programs, each with their own people on it, who are also famous for being on the show, but way less so due to the sheer volume. I guess I just see that trend continuing in the future, where more and more people will become famous to a smaller and smaller group.

1) Trends don't continue forever. Shit happens to fuck them up. In the future there will not be an infinite amount of people. In the future people will not be able to run a mile in 30 seconds. In the future, not everyone will be famous, not even close. There is some level of scope below which you're not "famous", you're just "well-known". And below that, you're just "someone that people have heard of or recognize". There are more people know that people have heard of or recognize, but that does nothing to dilute the power of celebrity.

2) If those thousands of programs were all good, then you might have a point. But so much of them are just crap. The sheer volume of competetition doesn't make Jennifer Aniston any less famous in her time than the dude who played Fred Mertz was in his time.

[Mogosagatai]

Hey 15-16, you're agreeing with Jim but saying it differently. When he says "famous" he doesn't mean like Jennifer Aniston or even Fred Mertz; he means more like the Blind Mime Ensemble, Add, or WreckdoM, but perhaps even to a subtler degree...

Jim, I agree with everything you've said in this thread.

[roymond]

more and more people will become famous to a smaller and smaller group.

But I agree with the above sentence, and it is very relevant to the thread topic.

Ditto.

I don't agree with some that the established industry will go away. There is nothing "free" yet that will replace huge promotion campaigns. There will always be Britney Spears, Madonnas, U2s. They thrive on huge promotion, and there will always be an audience and buying public to eat it up. But, as Jim points out, there will be very successful artists who don't rely on that corporate machine. And they will collectively become a powerful force, or at least a distracting alternative, to the current record industry.

I've been listening to the Fake Science Lab Report podcasts lately. They cover a lot of this from different angles, mostly "indie will rule". This is the hype. Feels a lot like 1998. But they have created a nice forum for discussion and an *almost* professional presentation of news, music and interviews around digital music's future.

IndieFeed.com is another great model for distribution, via podcasts, etc..

[Jim of Seattle]

Trends don't continue forever.

Yes, that's true, and you're right, that it isn't going to move indefinitely, but I think it's a good model for the trend. We're heading that way, though we'll never reach the end, and over things will happen in the meantime, like you said, to throw wrenches into the works that we can't anticipate now.

2) If those thousands of programs were all good, then you might have a point. But so much of them are just crap. The sheer volume of competetition doesn't make Jennifer Aniston any less famous in her time than the dude who played Fred Mertz was in his time.

You're right. She's probably more famous than he was. But she's at the top of a much larger pyramid that he was. A big pyramid piled high with famous people. (There's Bob Saggett's leg sticking out over there.)

[Jim of Seattle]

Well said, Roymond.

And may I add, yours is by far my favorite avatar in the history of Songfight. Every time you post I have to stare at that avatar for 5 seconds at least.

[erik]

See above - trying to keep posts smaller

So far, maybe.

I think the music will be cheaper because there will be a lot of free music available. How hard would it be for someone to take "The Best of Songfight" every week and post the songs on their own site and get lots of hits and eventually become a source for thousands of people to get free music they knew was going to be good because someone took the time to filter the chaff out for them at no charge? It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see the possibilities here.

It's like saying "newspapers will never be replaced by the Internet because there is so much crap posted on the Internet." Yes, there's a lot of crap, but there are also a lot of people who filter that out for me and give me real news for free. I haven't bought a newspaper in years.[/i]

Well, your sample size of one isn't really convincing me. People still buy newspapers. And the fact that you may be able to stop purchasing music and find free legal downloads doesn't mean that people aren't still buying cds. Lots of them. Less than in years past, probably, but still millions of cds a year get sold raking in billions of dollars. Not everyone has tastes which will be sated by music made by amateurs. Not everyone will be content listening to a handful of songs here and there by musicians that no one else knows about.

[Jim of Seattle]

Hmmm... perhaps. How long do you think it will be before some free-only Internet band "breaks out" and starts getting airplay on non-commerical college radio stations, starts to tour, gets some notoriety, and never sells a single CD in a record store? Maybe that will never happen, and maybe things won't change. But it's a vision of the future of music that doesn't take me a lot of stretching to imagine.

[jack]

....... starts getting airplay on non-commerical college radio stations, starts to tour, gets some notoriety, and never sells a single CD in a record store? Maybe that will never happen, and maybe things won't change. But it's a vision of the future of music that doesn't take me a lot of stretching to imagine.

hm. sounds a bit like the grateful dead to me.

[jb]

Not everyone has tastes which will be sated by music made by amateurs. Not everyone will be content listening to a handful of songs here and there by musicians that no one else knows about.

These statements are separate points, and very true.

That's a thing about paying people to make music-- it lets them make music instead of flipping burgers. Plus, that some people get paid for it motivates those who aspire to that to work that much harder at the music they're not yet getting paid to make. Think of this even in terms of Song Fight. How many of the best songfighters have been paid to make music, or have gone to school with the intention of some day getting paid to make music, or are at this very moment trying to get paid for their music? I can't think of any.

The other point speaks to an aspect of music that these discussions usually ignor-- it's a social activity. Concerts are the obvious example, but there is always music at a bar. Plus, how much of your weekly conversation revolves around talking about music? That's social. How much satisfaction would that conversation give if you had no common reference points with the people you were speaking to. Sometimes it's nice to talk to somebody who likes a completely different type of music than you. But usually it's boring for both of you. People love to relate to each other through music, by liking the same song, the same artist, hating the same song, listening to the same style of music, etc.

Look at Song Fight as a "thing" unto itself. We gather here, we talk about the music here, we have favorites here, we relate to each other, and people who say they see nothing of value here we consider to be fools.

People are going to seek this experience, this commonality out, no matter how fractured the musical landscape gets.

But that's not something the pros learn from us, rather the opposite.

[erik]

Hey 15-16, you're agreeing with Jim but saying it differently. When he says "famous" he doesn't mean like Jennifer Aniston or even Fred Mertz; he means more like the Blind Mime Ensemble, Add, or WreckdoM, but perhaps even to a subtler degree...

Jim, I agree with everything you've said in this thread.

I really don't understand this. It sounds like you're saying "he doesn't mean Korean like Margaret Cho, he means Korean like Miles Davis". Famous implies that a LOT of people know who you are. Elvis is really famous. David Hasselhoff is famous. Shawnee Smith is arguably famous.

But the Blind Mime Ensemble ain't famous, they're just "on the internet".