Music and Internet Ethics

Know of a great band you think we'd like to hear about? Got some music news? Or just want to talk about music in general? Post it here.

Moderators: Jonicont, mark lynn, Maluca3, Tequila Cowboy, BigTom, CooleyGirl, olwiggum

beantownbubba
Posts: 21799
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by beantownbubba »

tinnitus photography wrote:well, i think it conflates 'sharing and using' and 'exploiting financially'


Cheap bumper sticker cute it may be, but come on, tintin, it does not conflate those 2 things. It merely points out that one's views seem to depend a lot on WHO is being exploited financially. I know, I know, according to many on this thread musicians (and game designers) aren't being exploited financially when people steal, ooops I mean download, the products of their creativity and artistry. No point in rehashing all that. But it's way too easy to just dismiss this guy's observation.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7894
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

beantownbubba wrote:
tinnitus photography wrote:well, i think it conflates 'sharing and using' and 'exploiting financially'


Cheap bumper sticker cute it may be, but come on, tintin, it does not conflate those 2 things. It merely points out that one's views seem to depend a lot on WHO is being exploited financially. I know, I know, according to many on this thread musicians (and game designers) aren't being exploited financially when people steal, ooops I mean download, the products of their creativity and artistry. No point in rehashing all that. But it's way too easy to just dismiss this guy's observation.


No, I think it does conflate those things. Which is fair, because the corporations who are making out like bandits off this--Google is as fat as a tick off their revenues--are also conflating them. That's part of how they get away with (for instance) how YouTube started off--an illegal service that made enough money to become legal.

This has been a long-running concern of mine over open source software and other commons-oriented ideas: We live under an economic system that will chew anything up for money. If it can be exploited, it will be. I have a friend in Newtown who couldn't get her son to school--yes, that school--earlier this week because the media were thick as flies around it.
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

User avatar
tinnitus photography
Posts: 7264
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by tinnitus photography »

beantownbubba wrote:
tinnitus photography wrote:well, i think it conflates 'sharing and using' and 'exploiting financially'


Cheap bumper sticker cute it may be, but come on, tintin, it does not conflate those 2 things. It merely points out that one's views seem to depend a lot on WHO is being exploited financially. I know, I know, according to many on this thread musicians (and game designers) aren't being exploited financially when people steal, ooops I mean download, the products of their creativity and artistry. No point in rehashing all that. But it's way too easy to just dismiss this guy's observation.


if i tried selling mp3s i downloaded, then i would agree.

Bill in CT
Posts: 3491
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 3:37 pm

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by Bill in CT »

John A Arkansawyer wrote:I have a friend in Newtown who couldn't get her son to school--yes, that school--earlier this week because the media were thick as flies around it.


Those students haven't gone back to school yet. When they do, it will be at the location of a former middle school in Monroe, CT that hasn't been used in over a year.
The closer you get to the meaning
The sooner you'll know that you're dreaming

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7894
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

Bill in CT wrote:
John A Arkansawyer wrote:I have a friend in Newtown who couldn't get her son to school--yes, that school--earlier this week because the media were thick as flies around it.


Those students haven't gone back to school yet. When they do, it will be at the location of a former middle school in Monroe, CT that hasn't been used in over a year.


Whoops! Thank you, Bill. I got these two status messages from Facebook mixed up in my head:

My friend wrote:I implore the media to stay away from the new school when Sandy Hook starts back in Monroe

My friend wrote:Stuck on traffic trying to take [my son] to a play date for kids from his school and I can't get anywhere


I hate mistakes like that. Thank you for correcting me.
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

Bill in CT
Posts: 3491
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 3:37 pm

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by Bill in CT »

John A Arkansawyer wrote:
Bill in CT wrote:
John A Arkansawyer wrote:I have a friend in Newtown who couldn't get her son to school--yes, that school--earlier this week because the media were thick as flies around it.


Those students haven't gone back to school yet. When they do, it will be at the location of a former middle school in Monroe, CT that hasn't been used in over a year.


Whoops! Thank you, Bill. I got these two status messages from Facebook mixed up in my head:

My friend wrote:I implore the media to stay away from the new school when Sandy Hook starts back in Monroe

My friend wrote:Stuck on traffic trying to take [my son] to a play date for kids from his school and I can't get anywhere


I hate mistakes like that. Thank you for correcting me.


You're welcome. I figured it was something like you cite above that led to the confusion.
The closer you get to the meaning
The sooner you'll know that you're dreaming

User avatar
Tequila Cowboy
Site Admin
Posts: 20230
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:12 pm
Location: The Twilight Zone, along with everyone else

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by Tequila Cowboy »

Free Music, at Least While It Lasts

Interesting piece on the "culture of free" and it's impact on music.
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7894
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7894
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be


John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7894
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

dogstar
Posts: 2773
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: headed down to Oakie City in a slightly stolen car

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by dogstar »

Caught a bit of a programme on Radio 4 today about the decline of the music industry. Really interesting and the link below is to the BBC website, I think you guys in the US might be able to listen to the programme which is linked at the bottom.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/article ... ostradamus
"Guitars talk. If you really want to write a song, ask a guitar." Neil Young


John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7894
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

User avatar
Clams
Posts: 14873
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:16 pm
Location: City of Brotherly Love

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by Clams »

I don't know anything about the guy who wrote this (Bob Lefsetz) but this is pretty interesting stuff about old school vs new school and music streaming:

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/ ... es-top-50/
A funny thing happened on the way to streaming... Acts became bigger than their singles. The truth is if you're popular today, people want more of your music. And if it's good, they'll continue to play it. Even if it didn't all come from the same LP. Look at Drake, famous for dropping new tracks all the time. But the truth is his audience is listening.

Furthermore, radio is out of the loop. At best it's a place you get started. Kind of like the FM of yore.

For evidence let me point to the big winner, the Weeknd.

It's all about "Can't Feel My Face," right?

Wrong. The Weeknd has six tracks in Spotify's United States Top 50. That brings us right back to 1964, when the Beatles dominated the radio chart. Only today, you get paid when people listen. That's right, Capitol sold "Meet The Beatles" and the band only got paid once. Today, the Weeknd is cleaning up, as fans are streaming his tracks over and over again. The Weeknd dominates listening patterns in a way we either haven't seen or haven't been able to measure in eons. He's the biggest star in music listening. If anything, the hype has been too small. This guy is GIGANTIC!

As is Justin Bieber. He's only got two tracks in the Top 50, but "What Do You Mean" is sitting at number one. You lead with the track, without a hit you're nowhere. That's what got everybody interested in the Weeknd's album.

But you know who else is every bit as big as the hype? Lyor Cohen's Fetty Wap. It may have taken a long time for "Trap Queen" to break through, but listeners can't get enough of Fetty, he's not a one hit wonder on Spotify, Fetty has FIVE tracks in the Top 50!

And then there's Drake. The supposed downfall of Serena Williams. The Canadian has SIX tracks in the Top 50.

Ed Sheeran has three, although one is with the Weeknd, "Dark Times," you should listen to it, it's so far from Top Forty fodder you'll find yourself reconsidering your hatred of pop music. "Dark Times" is closer to underground FM than iHeart.

Not that every act has multiple tracks in the Top 50.

But what we've learned is if you've got the goods, the audience wants more than the single. You're only handcuffed by your ability to create great tracks. We've got listeners galore.

And then you wonder why everyone's bitching about Spotify payments...

The truth is acts like the Weeknd, Drake and Ed Sheeran are dominating listening. Don't argue with data, Nate Silver said no one had run for President this late and won but the press keeps telling Biden to jump in. The same way the press keeps trumpeting the low Spotify payment story. You don't hear any of these acts bitching about their Spotify payments, nor their cowriters. Max Martin is all over the Weeknd album...do you see him in the press complaining he can't make enough money? OF COURSE NOT!

The rich are getting richer and the marginal are being squeezed to the periphery.

Everything you know is wrong. Everything you've based your precepts on is kaput.

Once everything is available for one low price, or via a freemium tier, it turns out listeners want more than the hit. Look back, in the old days you had to wait for your favorite to come on the radio. And needless to say, ACTS DIDN'T GET PAID FOR RADIO PLAY! Most people never purchased the single, never mind the album. But once the act's repertoire has been unlocked online, people not only want the hit, they want so much more!

And sure, right now payments are relatively low, but they're only gonna grow as more people subscribe. And then the winners are gonna get paid ad infinitum, as long as you're listening, they're making money. With no shipping and no billing and no preorders, none of the junk clogging up the system in the past.

Drake puts out a steady stream of music. Bieber doesn't wait until he has an album to put out a track. The Weeknd started off without a label, giving away his music for free. They're harnessing the new system while idiots like Keith Richards are missing what's going on.

In the old days, it was all about the first week number. To get press and reorders. But today press means ever less. And physical retail is essentially irrelevant. The only criterion is whether people listen. And by that standard Keith Richards's new album is an abject failure. Many of the tracks on "Crosseyed Heart" don't even have 100,000 listens. The Weeknd has multiple tracks with TRIPLE DIGIT MILLION LISTENS! Keith's got 17,242 followers on Spotify. The Weeknd has 1,768,752. As for the demo... Let me remind you, it's oldsters with deep pockets who can pay for Spotify. As for physical...where are you gonna find it? As for digital, Keith's album is number 11 at the iTunes Store, but we've got no idea how many people are actually listening to it, never mind that sales of albums at the iTunes Store are anemic.

So it all comes down to listens. Which are not about the first week but the long term. If Keith Richards's album is in the iTunes Top 50 six months from now I'll eat my hat, but Major Lazer's "Lean On" is still number 7 on Spotify and it came out MARCH 2ND! Proving if you make it, you've got a long listening life, a long time to make money. It's not like the old days where when a record fell off the chart its financial life was history.

As for Major Lazer... Diplo is also represented at number 13, with Bieber and Skrillex. Turns out the public is not stupid. They know it's the same guy. Or maybe they don't, maybe they just know a hit when they hear it.

And it's always been about hits. Cream did not break big until "Sunshine Of Your Love" crossed over to Top 40. You may love the niche act, and that's fine, but when they complain they're broke the truth is not that many people are listening to them. And if not that many people "buy" a product it makes little money, it fails in the marketplace. Windows Phone is pretty good, although stiff in the marketplace, are you complaining that Microsoft has been treated unfairly, railing against app makers who won't write for the platform?

Of course not.

This is the reality.

Repeating once again...

1. It's about listens, everything else is irrelevant.

2. It starts with the hit.

3. If you've got a hit, people will check out more. If it too is good, they'll play it, irrelevant of whether radio or any other gatekeeper has anointed it and is exposing it.

4. Longevity counts. That's how you make money in the new world. A rocket ship to the moon is not a good financial plan. Used to be, you could move tonnage/sell product for a week or two and who cared what happened thereafter. But now there's little upfront bump and if you can't sustain... You're Keith Richards and Tom Petty and every other has-been who gets old media ramped up and then fails in the marketplace.

5. Old media is dumb and beholden to the marketers who are also antiques in many cases. Just because they write about it, that does not mean anybody cares. You don't get paid for press, you get paid for listens.

6. With enough listens you end up with sponsorship and live/touring opportunities. It's not what feels successful, but what IS successful. You point to your listens and the game begins. Then again, if you've got the listens the advertisers and promoters will be beating down your door, they understand numbers, they know more about the new paradigm than the labels, never mind the acts.

7. You're a winner or a loser. You're on the chart or you're not. Complaining is worthless. Everyone can't be a doctor and everyone can't be Mark Zuckerberg. Stop bitching when you can't make it in music and do something else.

8. Good is not good enough. The Spotify Top 50 is laden with hooks. And that's why they call them hooks, BECAUSE THEY HOOK THE LISTENER! This ain't gonna change, if you're making music today it must hook the listener instantly, otherwise people push the button and move on. If you can't make me pay attention in five seconds, I'm outta here. Don't shoot the messenger, face reality.

9. Bigger acts are coming. You can go to the record store and feel left out, no one can buy everything. Same deal at the iTunes Store. But on streaming services everything is available. And once the charts become more well known, people are gonna click over to find out what's going on. And what is happening will become even more successful. In an era of chaos, we gravitate to the winners. The oldsters complain, but the youngsters know this is the game.

You're not limited. The single is just a starting point. People want more if you're great. Very few are.
If you don't run you rust

User avatar
Tequila Cowboy
Site Admin
Posts: 20230
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:12 pm
Location: The Twilight Zone, along with everyone else

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by Tequila Cowboy »

I read Lefsetz from time to time. He's an asshole, that's his schtick. Sometimes he makes good points, in this case I think he tells the truth but makes it sounds like everyone else is an douchebag for not liking the status quo. People aren't listening to the acts he names because they're making good music. That's all the popular bullshit for people who don't like music. Hell yes I'm an elitist music snob. The problem now is that the game is rigged in favor of the acts that have the gigantic motherfucking publicity machines, that used to be the label but aren't anymore, at least not substantially. These pop stars he names, Bieber, Drake, The Weeknd (I don't even know who this motherfucker is but can you please buy a vowel?) are not selling music their selling a BRAND. He talks about the Spotify market being dominated by an older demographic and that's all well and good, when did 40 somethings become exempt from being marketed to or from being assholes for that matter?

Listen, I really kind of wrote the above in Lefsetz' style of verbose assholery for a reason. Swearing and acting like a jerk to make a point about how the rich get richer doesn't win any points with me, particularly when he's equating good with popular. Money can make you popular, money can't make you good. I understand that it's always been this way and that the old record company formula wasn't much better, but to say that these folks shouldn't fight for a bigger share is mean spirited and wrong.
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved

Bill in CT
Posts: 3491
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 3:37 pm

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by Bill in CT »

"Who the Hell is Bob Lefsetz?"

http://www.wired.com/2012/02/mf_lefsetz/
The closer you get to the meaning
The sooner you'll know that you're dreaming

Bill in CT
Posts: 3491
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 3:37 pm

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by Bill in CT »

I can't stand Bob Lefsetz. He's a failed music biz guy who wishes he was still in the music biz. As TC says, he's an asshole.
The closer you get to the meaning
The sooner you'll know that you're dreaming

User avatar
Clams
Posts: 14873
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:16 pm
Location: City of Brotherly Love

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by Clams »

Bill in CT wrote:I can't stand Bob Lefsetz. He's a failed music biz guy who wishes he was still in the music biz. As TC says, he's an asshole.
Well as I stated at the top, I don't know who he is. But if you guys think he's an asshole, that's good enough for me. Fucking dick. I hate him. Plus his family and all his friends too. :)
If you don't run you rust

User avatar
tinnitus photography
Posts: 7264
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by tinnitus photography »

Once everything is available for one low price, or via a freemium tier, it turns out listeners want more than the hit. Look back, in the old days you had to wait for your favorite to come on the radio. And needless to say, ACTS DIDN'T GET PAID FOR RADIO PLAY! Most people never purchased the single, never mind the album. But once the act's repertoire has been unlocked online, people not only want the hit, they want so much more!
yeah, no one bought records in the 70s and 80s...

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7894
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

Can Facebook and Apple Kill the Internet? Part 1

Image
Josh Marshall wrote:The music business is perhaps the most extreme and visible example. I love iTunes and I love Spotify (though I'm considerably more conflicted about the latter since it's a disaster for artists). But the upshot of both has been to take an industry which generated huge amounts of money for record labels and real money for artists, dramatically reduce the amount of revenue anyone makes from music, and then engross a huge amount of what's left for companies who either didn't used to exist or had no role in the music business in the past at all. I don't put this forward as a moral evaluation. It's just a demonstrable fact.
For those of us who like or make "content", it's a system failure. For those who profit off those of us who like or make "content", it's working just fine.
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7894
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7894
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

If someone with the patience for listening to a podcast happens to listen to this one, let me know if there's anything interesting. I've followed O'Reilly for most of my technical life and find their work stimulating and interesting.

Music and Tech are not enemies.

I actually agree with the headline. On the other hand, music and the tech industry aren't exactly besties.
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

Zip City
Posts: 17313
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:59 pm

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by Zip City »

And I knew when I woke up Rock N Roll would be here forever

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7894
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

John A Arkansawyer
Posts: 7894
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
Contact:

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by John A Arkansawyer »

Image
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be

User avatar
lotusamerica
Posts: 1067
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 4:30 pm

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by lotusamerica »

This is an old thread, but I didn't join in and the time and then forgot about it.

I'm in the gym, listening to Spotify. I would happily pay double, maybe more, but I don't feel bad at all for what I'm doing.

I'm listening again to Todd Rundgren's latest, which works pretty well in the gym. I've bought a lot of his stuff in the past, but I don't buy personal copies of music anymore, well, unless I can't stream it or it is so important to me that I want to finger it. My ears are old, CDs pretty much or entirely sound the same to me as streaming at a high rate, and after investing some thousands into high end digital, the fuckers pretty much dropped all the formats right when bluray could have broken through.

Somebody like Todd or DBT can earn money from me when he comes by a plays, which unlike many older artists he continues to do. I still even buy tshirts and posters and shit, and those are probably almost pure profit. So maybe you could argue some reason I should feel bad, but I don't. In the meantime, I'm happy to buy CDs from underdogs on living room tours, or just leave some extra money in the bucket. I've also dropped some dollars through artists websites, sometimes buying a download, and a few times just because they made a PayPal link available to do so.

If anyone can articulate a reason this way of living is unethical, I'd be happy to listen. But I think the era of personal music libraries is pretty much ending except for a niche here or there or for the popular acts big enough to insist on it or small enough to not make it online.

At the same time, I support lowery and others taking it through the courts, though I could give a fuck if he thinks badly of me and don't consider his insults of people like me to mean a thing.

User avatar
linkous
Posts: 1383
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:46 pm
Location: scotland

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by linkous »

http://www.factmag.com/2016/01/09/us-fa ... ng-to-pay/

Here is my prediction.In five years time it will only be 30 year olds and older who will think they should/might pay for music, in 10 years time albums will be donation based because physical formats like CD and vinyl will be obsolete, as archaic as cassettes. Artists will rely on the goodwill of fans to pay a voluntary payment for downloads, the main income will come from gig tickets. Record comapanies will die out hopefully, after being the architects of their own downfall by phasing out CD and vinyl in favour of digital formats when costs become prohibitive. The internet and touring will be used as tools for promotion, home studio recording will be the way to go to save on costs for the artist.

I'm not saying this is my preferred outome, I just think it's inevitable - you can't stop progress.

User avatar
lotusamerica
Posts: 1067
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 4:30 pm

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by lotusamerica »

linkous wrote:http://www.factmag.com/2016/01/09/us-fa ... ng-to-pay/

Here is my prediction.In five years time it will only be 30 year olds and older who will think they should/might pay for music, in 10 years time albums will be donation based because physical formats like CD and vinyl will be obsolete, as archaic as cassettes. Artists will rely on the goodwill of fans to pay a voluntary payment for downloads, the main income will come from gig tickets. Record comapanies will die out hopefully, after being the architects of their own downfall by phasing out CD and vinyl in favour of digital formats when costs become prohibitive. The internet and touring will be used as tools for promotion, home studio recording will be the way to go to save on costs for the artist.

I'm not saying this is my preferred outome, I just think it's inevitable - you can't stop progress.
But why even download when you can stream? I think the whole era of personal music collections is largely coming to an end.

beantownbubba
Posts: 21799
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:52 am
Location: Trying to stay focused on the righteous path

Re: Music and Internet Ethics

Post by beantownbubba »

lotusamerica wrote:
linkous wrote:http://www.factmag.com/2016/01/09/us-fa ... ng-to-pay/

Here is my prediction.In five years time it will only be 30 year olds and older who will think they should/might pay for music, in 10 years time albums will be donation based because physical formats like CD and vinyl will be obsolete, as archaic as cassettes. Artists will rely on the goodwill of fans to pay a voluntary payment for downloads, the main income will come from gig tickets. Record comapanies will die out hopefully, after being the architects of their own downfall by phasing out CD and vinyl in favour of digital formats when costs become prohibitive. The internet and touring will be used as tools for promotion, home studio recording will be the way to go to save on costs for the artist.

I'm not saying this is my preferred outome, I just think it's inevitable - you can't stop progress.
But why even download when you can stream? I think the whole era of personal music collections is largely coming to an end.
The only constant is change, right? Nobody can predict the future w/ precision but these seem like reasonable scenarios. The kicker, as always, is the impact of the application of the inevitable law of unintended consequences. What you're describing is in many ways the commoditization (is that a word?) of music. If/when people are less invested in music both literally and mentally, when NEEDING to have an album is replaced by "i can always check that out later," when music is just "around" w/out requiring any kind of thought/effort what will be the consequences for music as a viable way to make a living and to music's place in the culture, particularly pop music in the teen/young adult culture? I don't have the answers but I do know (believe?) that the changes will be profound in ways far beyond the changing nature of the distribution channels.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard

Post Reply