So I'll admit that I've been slacking off. I'm sure there is a TON of music industry news I could be commenting on, but I've been busy and work and busy with life so I haven't kept up. I will though comment on one of the most hilarious pieces of genius to ever stumble onto the MTV screen. If you really want to call it any of those things.
I don't know if anyone else has caught this show, but yesterday during a pretty crappy snowstorm I was working from my bed and casually left MTV on because surprisingly enough they had music videos on in the morning. I was preoccupied with my work and while digilently copy and pasting away I failed to notice that the music had stopped and my TV was now bombarded with a bunch of "toolbags".
Side-note - quite some time ago I was having a conversation with my mom about who knows what and casually in conversation mentioned that some dude or other was a total "tool bag". My mom proceeded to ask me what I meant by a "tool bag" and I moved to the metaphor "dumb as a bag of hammers". She had a sort of moment of realization but then mentioned that she thinks a tool bag would be quite handy. That's my mom for you folks.
Anyway, as I was saying about the music being gone and tool bags and such. So I info-ed this show that had sneaked up upon me and it just so happened to be titled "Tool Academy". A pretty fitting name for the bunch of drones I was faced with. I clicked the "guide" button on my remote to search for something a bit less ... well... awful, and came up empty handed. It was a battle between a disasterous bunch of daytime television programming. I contemplated turning off the TV altogether and just hitting play on my CD Player, but then some ridiculous comment was made and I was basically hooked. So I thought to myself, what's a couple minutes, at least it will provide me with some seriously humorous entertainment and maybe even an ironically deep look into our twisted culture.
So I watched, feeling a little guilty and embarrassed, but I watched. I dug to find the purpose and the objective of the mindless banter and somehow came up with this. I am pretty sure that the show was about a group of guys, in a house along with their girlfriends, and they were "learning" t0 be respectful, mature adults. basically. So what I saw, was a group of guys bad mouthing their women behind their backs and then in some therapy session having to reveal their fears and confessions to their beloveds. pretty funny to see these big muscle dudes with horrible MTV haircuts and fake vintage t-shirts try to "reveal" their feelings. One of them, I couldn't even tell if he was speaking english, but I do know that he kept referring to his bleach blonde overly tanned girlfriend as "dude" and looked like he was about to punch a wall.
So I know this is not good to do but I started kind of comparing myself to these people. Mostly because, minus the details, their confessions were pertinent to my own personal life and I've been doing a bit of soul searching concerning our human obsession with companionship. I actually started this internal debate while sitting in the Orthopedic Surgery waiting room. I was probably the only one there under 40 and also the only one that did not have a signficant other sitting by, hand on the knee or rubbing my back for comfort. How did all these relationships come to be? How did they find one another and how did they decide that they were both right for each other? Was it a compromise, was it a battle of wits or simply love at first sight? But I digress, per usual. In essence I find it contradictory that we all stive to be blossoming, strong, and independent individuals, but yet still crave the comfort of others and the validation of our thoughts and opinions. How does it all work, I have no idea. So I kept watching.
As I watched and thought about individuality in part with relationships I remembered how feverishly we depend on other people to define ourselves, which truthfully is obvious and redundant. But in furthering this thought, it's not just that we rely on others for our comfort and validation, but the experiences we share with these people and what these experiences mean to us. I think what I mean is that we take the experiences we have with people, whether it be good or bad - going to the movies, getting a beer, fighting and yelling, laying on the beach - doesn't matter. We take these experiences and we determine our opinions and reactions to them and thus use those ideals in other aspects of our lives. It goes past feeling validated, it's just .... you.
I'm not sure that makes sense, even to me who just wrote it.
I'm going to try and think up an example, mostly for my own clarification. So say you go to the movies with your boyfriend or girlfriend, or sisters, could be anyone. I went to the movies with a long time friend of mine recently and he's a bit cynical. Me, I'm a bit indifferent with movies. So we go, we eat dinner, see the movie and get some hot chocolate and talk about what we think as we've done maybe a million times before. Now I liked the movie, he didn't - what a surprise, but what's a good conversation without a conflict. So instead of letting him and his opinions and criticisms determine how I felt about my own, I simply thought about the joy of a good conversation and how being in that moment made me feel, regardless of the difference of opinion. I took that experience and when having a conversation with other people, refer back to it and remember the curiosity, the emotions, and the relevance to my own life. I let the feelings associated with the experience define my reactions moving forward. And it's ever changing.
I think this is becoming much more involved then I ever intended it to be. All this from a bunch of tool-bags.
So to try and loop this into my music theme and it's association with our culture. I don't know if anyone is a fan, but I am a huge fan of Kris Delmhorst. In my opinion she writes the most beautiful love songs and the difference that I find between her ballads and others is that she does not write the song as though without them she could not survive. There are a lot of artists who have love songs that I aboslutely love. Great example: "Hope For Me Yet" by Marc Broussard, one of my all time favorite songs. But in listening to his words, he relies on his recepient for validation. Don't get me wrong, this is an awesome song, I don't care who you are, where you're from, Marc Broussard rocks, but it's a good example of how pretty much all love songs are based. The singer always feels lost, lonely, sad, suicidal or something without the other person in their life. And it feeds our culture a great deal.
Going back to the tool-bags and why they still matter to this one - sided debate. These guys were clearly consumed with themselves, concerned with appearance, money and status. And from a woman's perspective, I'm sure their girlfriends felt the same way about most things, or they probably wouldn't be together. Not only does the culture breed lonely love-sick swooners, but to make the situation worse, we now have to worry about how we look, how much money we make and if our job is cool enough so that we can be moved out of the lonely pool and into the "validated by a fake relationship" pool.
With all this stuff to worry about it's no wonder we're an overmedicated culture of fear, insecurity, anxiety and depression. And this all affects how we respond to our music. We listen to what those musicians are telling us. We are their shoulder, because they are musicians and they are, by nature, typically sad, so we let them lean on us for a little while. We feel like we've connected and we feel like what this famous person has to say has got to be the right way to feel about the same situation in my life. I think a lot of musicians use this relationship to sell music and write songs that reach out into their market and not only touch their audience, but basically show them a "bathroom wall" kind of good time. The next issue is, did the listener pay for that good time? Our musicians have welcomed us into their lives, not just with the sad songs but with the happy ones too. We celebrate their success with them, their love and their good times. So even if we feel lonely we can invite ourselves into their world and find comfort in them.
Now I'm not going to sit here and tell people that this is a horrible way to live life and is totally void of any personal independence. I'm guilty of sitting alone in my apartment and singing along to sad songs and feeling a deeper emotional connection than if I weren't listening to the song at all. Our lack of the our sense of self is very obvious in everyday life. Straight from TV shows to our connection with music and then on to the relationships we rely on with the people in our lives. I'm proud of the relationships I have. As I said, I try and remember that they do not define me, but I would never say that sitting alone and simply being happy with myself is enough. At least for me it's not, I enjoy the outside world and relationships are very important.
When it comes to this subject, I think that people don't even think about it. I honestly believe that people grow up faithfully devout to the thought that they have to find someone that makes them happy enough and only then will they be whole. I watch my best friend do it everyday, and it's kind of wierd and unnerving if you ask me. But you're not asking, at this point you're probably asking me to just shut up. I could just go on and on forever when it comes to our obsessions with relationships, fulfilling or not. Has it all become about validation? About feeling like we're actually apart of this world and that we matter to someone, anyone?
Yes, I think it has. Honestly, I have felt more and more that I am a working gear in this broken down machine, as I am at my job and in my family. I don't need someone to tell me and the beautiful love songs... they are just so beautiful.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
iTunes Ebb and Flow
Well how do I seriously avoid writing about the most talked about Music Industry uproar for quite some time. The negotiation of a DRM free iTunes with variable pricing. Labels are expecting to come out ahead with this deal, but is that truthfully a realistic view? Possibly, but I'd like to dig a little deeper into the psyche of this agreement.
The biggest deal here is that some of the pricing on iTunes is going to change. A lot of popular music will undoubtly go up over the $1 mark, making the battle between your favorite song at this moment or the Big Mac that much more difficult. This will make the push for content bundling a little more necesary, because personally, we're already fighting a generation that is used to getting their music for free and if not for free, really cheap. Then you go and raise the price. Will this push more teens to make the extra effort to find a quick torrent to steal the song as opposed to paying more? The unfortunate thing, and this may be totally all made up in my head, is that I don't think that a lot of kids understand the whole point of paying for music and why downloading is considered stealing. They don't understand the copyright law, or that it's not just the artist that loses money, it's also all the people behind that artist that make them a success and bring them to your ear and thus, into your heart. The download generation is also considered, by me at least, to be a "damn the man" generation. And I know I've used this horribly cliche phrase before but it's quite examplory of the type of market so many obsolete label heads are trying to crack. This type of rebelious nature found in the download generation could cause one to think, maybe they won't like this $.30 price hike for their favorite tunes. But! they may also enjoy the $.30 price drop for something less noticed. Which, something the downloading "damn the man" generation also enjoys is finding brand spanking new music that mostly no one has heard before. I think it creates some sort of a feeling of being a trend-setter. Whatever helps you sleep at night kiddies.
Our culture has fueled such a war between the downloading generation and the labels. The more the labels fight to get whatever dollar is owed to them, the less and less young adults are likely to give it up. There is a feeling of trying to screw over the industry simply because it gave you a glimpse of file sharing and now it's out there and easily accessible, but they don't want you to have that. First things first, the labels (obviously) did not give anyone any type of file sharing capability. To be perfectly honest, and because I work for a label and worry about these people all day, I don't think anyone of the heads of a department would know the first thing about staring a file sharing website. And what would be the sense! You'd literally be taking your own money out of your own pocket. But that is all needless to say, we know that these handy file sharing sites are created by bored, jobless teens that are looking to piss someone off, whether it be helping people steal their product or setting the neighbors cat on fire. Or is that a stereotype, oops, sorry.
But I digress, per usual. Back to the subject at hand. Will the variable pricing help or hurt the industry. For a someone that works with a small label which has a good number of artists that feed themselves purely on their tour sales, the discussion that has already somewhat happened is "are we going to get screwed because we don't turn out crazy pop hits". And it's very very likely. Simply because our artists do not generate serious dollar bills like some, they will probably suffer and be placed with the $.69 crowd. Thus, we suffer and the deal is counter-productive. And whether or not I think that kids are going to be just as willing to pay $1.29 as they were at $.99 is arguable. I personally think that it will irritate a lot of kids and they will find other ways of buying/sharing their music. Then there is the up-side that they will think "what's another $.30" and just pay the extra without a question.
The real truth will be seen once the prices start changing and the fluctations in sales numbers is visible. The labels are hopful that this will create some much needed revenue for them, but I can't say that I feel as warm and fuzzy about it. Granted, I am young, and technically considered a part of that "downloading, damn the man" generation. There are others that have the experience of sea tortoises in this industry. But if you look at the past few years, you can see where that experience has gotten them; cowering and scared of a bunch of 16 year olds wearing short skirts and snow boots (I know I don't get it either).
So to keep this entry short and sweet because I have to go home, this is no longer a battle between digital and physical. It's now become a battle between legal dgital and illegal digital. And I think that if iTunes asks for a good deal of titles to raise their prices, the illegal side may not exactly win, but it may gain yet another advantage.
Just pay for your damn music people. Oh sweet irony.
The biggest deal here is that some of the pricing on iTunes is going to change. A lot of popular music will undoubtly go up over the $1 mark, making the battle between your favorite song at this moment or the Big Mac that much more difficult. This will make the push for content bundling a little more necesary, because personally, we're already fighting a generation that is used to getting their music for free and if not for free, really cheap. Then you go and raise the price. Will this push more teens to make the extra effort to find a quick torrent to steal the song as opposed to paying more? The unfortunate thing, and this may be totally all made up in my head, is that I don't think that a lot of kids understand the whole point of paying for music and why downloading is considered stealing. They don't understand the copyright law, or that it's not just the artist that loses money, it's also all the people behind that artist that make them a success and bring them to your ear and thus, into your heart. The download generation is also considered, by me at least, to be a "damn the man" generation. And I know I've used this horribly cliche phrase before but it's quite examplory of the type of market so many obsolete label heads are trying to crack. This type of rebelious nature found in the download generation could cause one to think, maybe they won't like this $.30 price hike for their favorite tunes. But! they may also enjoy the $.30 price drop for something less noticed. Which, something the downloading "damn the man" generation also enjoys is finding brand spanking new music that mostly no one has heard before. I think it creates some sort of a feeling of being a trend-setter. Whatever helps you sleep at night kiddies.
Our culture has fueled such a war between the downloading generation and the labels. The more the labels fight to get whatever dollar is owed to them, the less and less young adults are likely to give it up. There is a feeling of trying to screw over the industry simply because it gave you a glimpse of file sharing and now it's out there and easily accessible, but they don't want you to have that. First things first, the labels (obviously) did not give anyone any type of file sharing capability. To be perfectly honest, and because I work for a label and worry about these people all day, I don't think anyone of the heads of a department would know the first thing about staring a file sharing website. And what would be the sense! You'd literally be taking your own money out of your own pocket. But that is all needless to say, we know that these handy file sharing sites are created by bored, jobless teens that are looking to piss someone off, whether it be helping people steal their product or setting the neighbors cat on fire. Or is that a stereotype, oops, sorry.
But I digress, per usual. Back to the subject at hand. Will the variable pricing help or hurt the industry. For a someone that works with a small label which has a good number of artists that feed themselves purely on their tour sales, the discussion that has already somewhat happened is "are we going to get screwed because we don't turn out crazy pop hits". And it's very very likely. Simply because our artists do not generate serious dollar bills like some, they will probably suffer and be placed with the $.69 crowd. Thus, we suffer and the deal is counter-productive. And whether or not I think that kids are going to be just as willing to pay $1.29 as they were at $.99 is arguable. I personally think that it will irritate a lot of kids and they will find other ways of buying/sharing their music. Then there is the up-side that they will think "what's another $.30" and just pay the extra without a question.
The real truth will be seen once the prices start changing and the fluctations in sales numbers is visible. The labels are hopful that this will create some much needed revenue for them, but I can't say that I feel as warm and fuzzy about it. Granted, I am young, and technically considered a part of that "downloading, damn the man" generation. There are others that have the experience of sea tortoises in this industry. But if you look at the past few years, you can see where that experience has gotten them; cowering and scared of a bunch of 16 year olds wearing short skirts and snow boots (I know I don't get it either).
So to keep this entry short and sweet because I have to go home, this is no longer a battle between digital and physical. It's now become a battle between legal dgital and illegal digital. And I think that if iTunes asks for a good deal of titles to raise their prices, the illegal side may not exactly win, but it may gain yet another advantage.
Just pay for your damn music people. Oh sweet irony.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Diagnosis: Fear
Today while at work with no functioning e-mail, I got the chance to really thoroughly read through some of the more interesting magazines that cross over my desk through the week. Among my stack was a magazine named "UTNE" with a great, informal and confident picture of Obama on the cover pointing his finger, his eyes shaded by Ray-bans, as if to say "you and I, we'll make it happen".
There were some really great articles in this magazine, all of which I wish I had the time and energy to respond to, but one in particular prompted this blog. The title "FEAR ITSELF", written by a Julie Hanus, and on the opposite page, the picture of a man bombarded by common fears such as terrorism, crime and germs. The objective of the article seems to be to uncover what it is that fuels our fear, how it affects our daily lives, and the consequences we suffer for living with such fears. It seems like commonsense to say that we all fear something. I fear losing my job, as do many others. My best friend has a fear of germs and keeping her children safe. It's interesting to me to think about what fuels these fears and what kind of decisions we then make based on them.
Granted this article has nothing to do with music, but it does have a very significant impact on our society and I think, in turn, this affects how we relate to our music.
Throughout the article the writer compares how we once handled fear in past generations compared to how we now handle our "comtemporary" fear. She explains that in the past, fear would pull together communities, "They were a source of shared identity and engendered camaraderie and trust." Our past generations used fear to being their communities together, forming a great dependence and trust with one another. She furthers the arguement by pointing out that today "The individual way we've come to experience fear contributes only to isolation and feelings of helplessness. Instead of seeing support or solutions, we add to our grim roster of perceived threats." Truthfully a well made point.
Over the past few months I have given a kind and attentive ear to a few friends who have voiced many of these concerns. Instead of looking at each situation as an opportunity to rise above, they simply hold their nose as the water overcomes them and give in. Someone or something is always responsible for the laundry list of issues we face each moment of our busy days.
"One explaination for the incapacitating nature of contemporary fear is that our brains simply are not wired to process modern life." But what is this "modern life" that is referred to here. What makes our modern life something that our brains are not capable of handling? Is it all the blackberrys? the overwhelming pressure of society from every aspect of life to feel a sense of acceptance and validation? Each day we watch the news and are bombarded with images of car wrecks, missing children, and disease only to then lie in our beds and create our own spinning web of fears.
A great example of how these fears affect our daily decisions would be the undeniable feelings we all conjured up after the events of 9/11. It is reported that for 12 months after 9/11, most people heeded a warning from their guts to avoid flying, thus putting millions more on the roads. In that one year, the fatalities due to car accidents rose and an additional 1,595 people lost their lives. Another great example "When out guts tell us not to let children play outside unsupervised, the sedentary lifestyle that ineveitably results exposes kids to a host of health problems far more dangerous than the slim probability of abduction". Children that are left in home are more apt to be consumed by television, video games and other mind numbing types of activity. This type of lifestyle not only creates a higher risk of obesity but also a lazy and unmotivated ethic. Children that are not encouraged to be outside, taking advantage of what the world has to offer, I feel are more likely to take it for granted in the future and less likely to feel motivated in other aspects of their life as well.
Another issue that so many people consume themselves with ignorantly would be germs. Our bodies have been built to be able to fend off general germs such as the common cold. Yes, sometimes we get sick if we let ourselves lose sleep or we don't treat our immune systems with the respect it deserves, but our bodies have evolved to be able to fight these bugs. It is very clear that we, as a society, are overmedicated and too lazy or impatient to take the time to simply care for ourselves. It is reported by Mother Jones that today there is more than 9,000 types of antibacterial products on the market, with 2,753 introduced in 2007. The Food and Drug Adminsitration did conclude in 2004 that between basic hand soap and antibacterial soap, neither was better at preventing infection. "Sales of antibacterial chemicals are projected to reach $930 million in 2009". $930 MILLION! That is insane. And for what?! so that we can train our bodies to never be able to fight off the common cold? And then people ask me why I chose a glass of water without the tylenol when I get a mild headache.
Our television has single handedly been able to reach into our homes and play with our most deperate anxieties. Even completely fictional law or criminal based shows such as Criminal Minds tend to lay blame on those that are not "fearful enough".
The author brings up an episode of the Daily Show With John Stewart, pre-election, where voters were rallying with fears worn on their sleeves. Reporter John Oliver concludes "There's no red America, no blue America. There's just one scared shitless America". I remember watching that episode, probably the one episode of the Daily Show I every really paid attention to and thinking what happened to us? what happened to a people proud of themselves, hard working and confident? Everyone waves their American flags and pumps their fist for our country but then runs home to cower behind their Lazy-boy, just hoping to make it to tomorrow.
Sasha Abramsky writes in an issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education "After centuries of tenchological progress, we think we can glimpse the promised land. We can envision a world in which cancer is merely a coldlike nuisance, in which stem-cell research banishes Alzheimer's, ... But the world today is far from a utopia. My guess is that we have become so fearful at least in part because we fear our intoxicating future's being snatched away from us".
A very clear, self explainatory point. We're spoiled. Recently, a great deal of New Englanders lost their power to an ice storm, some for lengthy periods of time. My parents were out of power for 6 days, and thankfully, we're New Englanders, this has happened before so we turn on the generator, light a few candles and cook dinner on the gas grill. but after 6 days my mother just said "This is getting really old" and I said to myself it's amazing to think we're that dependant on something, on anything. I can even say the same thing for my work today. Our e-mail is down and without it everyone has gone home, without the e-mail, there is basically no way to get work done. How is it that it has come down to a company not being able to function simply because we're not able to get an e-mail. Granted it completely cuts off communication, and with our music industry, communication is pretty much all that we have to go on.
"It's a bittersweet silver lining, but economic pains could provide just the sort of galvanizing force we need to recalibrate ourselves towards solidarity." This is, if we as one community are willing to give up our fears and work together as a team, which to me is doubtful. Call me pessimistic, but we don't have a good record of being able to get along with one another. With fear already taking over our country, Obama has been able to "make good on politics of hope, though, the American public must continue to demonstrate the resistance to fear they showed by electing him."
The article advocates an interest in learning our human nature, accepting our susceptibility to "misjudgments and miscalculations". We, as a people, need to remember what we are made of. We tend to take ourselves to seriously, and cower in the presence of humility. We have to learn to be grateful and compassionate, sharing these wonderful attributes with others, in learning to release our overwhelming sense of fear. But we must not completely let go of our sense of fear. Our instincts serve us well and we do have the ability to judge our situations and their risks with intelligence and sophistication. "When something doesn't quite sync up, gut to head, then it's time to pause and at least question what's causing the discrepancy".
Someday we may be able to let go of allowing our individual fears to define us. With giving up our fear, we "free poiliticians from fear inducing rhetoric or stymie fearmongering marketers..."
If we could take the opportunity to release these anxieties and concerns, we could take a larger look at our lives, putting our role into perspective and seeing how far we have come as a people.
We still have so many big steps to take, but releasing the fear makes way for hope to move ourselves further along.
So this has been quite lengthy and I apologize if I have bored anyone, but I must admit that this article really reached out to me. As I stated early, I have been approached by friends and family members with situations of such fear and anxiety, and I can sympathize, I have these moments of my own. It's very hard to be able to advise someone on how to be able to let go of these feelings in such a high pressure society, especially when I myself am not completely able to do so. I always try to remember that when I'm worried about what other people are thinking about me, 9 times out of 10, the other person is worrying about the same thing. And if they are sitting by making their judgements about me, they are also judging themselves, comparing their insecurities against my own. Our society has truthfully fed a generation of fearful adults. It seems as though we're always made to feel like our accomplishments are still not quite enough, our skills and talents are not enough to make us stand out in a pile of resumes. There is the need for continued education and experience in order to set yourself apart in the workplace. In personal life there is such pressure to be confident, unique and creative that even those who make the best friends and companions feel as though they can't quite live up to par, even though they try and teach us in middle school that we are all "special in our own way". And we are! We are all lovable, once we learn to love ourselves. We are all beautiful and intelligent as long as we can see ourselves in that light. So release the fear and find all that there is inside yourself as well as others. After that, the world is your oyster (as they say).
There were some really great articles in this magazine, all of which I wish I had the time and energy to respond to, but one in particular prompted this blog. The title "FEAR ITSELF", written by a Julie Hanus, and on the opposite page, the picture of a man bombarded by common fears such as terrorism, crime and germs. The objective of the article seems to be to uncover what it is that fuels our fear, how it affects our daily lives, and the consequences we suffer for living with such fears. It seems like commonsense to say that we all fear something. I fear losing my job, as do many others. My best friend has a fear of germs and keeping her children safe. It's interesting to me to think about what fuels these fears and what kind of decisions we then make based on them.
Granted this article has nothing to do with music, but it does have a very significant impact on our society and I think, in turn, this affects how we relate to our music.
Throughout the article the writer compares how we once handled fear in past generations compared to how we now handle our "comtemporary" fear. She explains that in the past, fear would pull together communities, "They were a source of shared identity and engendered camaraderie and trust." Our past generations used fear to being their communities together, forming a great dependence and trust with one another. She furthers the arguement by pointing out that today "The individual way we've come to experience fear contributes only to isolation and feelings of helplessness. Instead of seeing support or solutions, we add to our grim roster of perceived threats." Truthfully a well made point.
Over the past few months I have given a kind and attentive ear to a few friends who have voiced many of these concerns. Instead of looking at each situation as an opportunity to rise above, they simply hold their nose as the water overcomes them and give in. Someone or something is always responsible for the laundry list of issues we face each moment of our busy days.
"One explaination for the incapacitating nature of contemporary fear is that our brains simply are not wired to process modern life." But what is this "modern life" that is referred to here. What makes our modern life something that our brains are not capable of handling? Is it all the blackberrys? the overwhelming pressure of society from every aspect of life to feel a sense of acceptance and validation? Each day we watch the news and are bombarded with images of car wrecks, missing children, and disease only to then lie in our beds and create our own spinning web of fears.
A great example of how these fears affect our daily decisions would be the undeniable feelings we all conjured up after the events of 9/11. It is reported that for 12 months after 9/11, most people heeded a warning from their guts to avoid flying, thus putting millions more on the roads. In that one year, the fatalities due to car accidents rose and an additional 1,595 people lost their lives. Another great example "When out guts tell us not to let children play outside unsupervised, the sedentary lifestyle that ineveitably results exposes kids to a host of health problems far more dangerous than the slim probability of abduction". Children that are left in home are more apt to be consumed by television, video games and other mind numbing types of activity. This type of lifestyle not only creates a higher risk of obesity but also a lazy and unmotivated ethic. Children that are not encouraged to be outside, taking advantage of what the world has to offer, I feel are more likely to take it for granted in the future and less likely to feel motivated in other aspects of their life as well.
Another issue that so many people consume themselves with ignorantly would be germs. Our bodies have been built to be able to fend off general germs such as the common cold. Yes, sometimes we get sick if we let ourselves lose sleep or we don't treat our immune systems with the respect it deserves, but our bodies have evolved to be able to fight these bugs. It is very clear that we, as a society, are overmedicated and too lazy or impatient to take the time to simply care for ourselves. It is reported by Mother Jones that today there is more than 9,000 types of antibacterial products on the market, with 2,753 introduced in 2007. The Food and Drug Adminsitration did conclude in 2004 that between basic hand soap and antibacterial soap, neither was better at preventing infection. "Sales of antibacterial chemicals are projected to reach $930 million in 2009". $930 MILLION! That is insane. And for what?! so that we can train our bodies to never be able to fight off the common cold? And then people ask me why I chose a glass of water without the tylenol when I get a mild headache.
Our television has single handedly been able to reach into our homes and play with our most deperate anxieties. Even completely fictional law or criminal based shows such as Criminal Minds tend to lay blame on those that are not "fearful enough".
The author brings up an episode of the Daily Show With John Stewart, pre-election, where voters were rallying with fears worn on their sleeves. Reporter John Oliver concludes "There's no red America, no blue America. There's just one scared shitless America". I remember watching that episode, probably the one episode of the Daily Show I every really paid attention to and thinking what happened to us? what happened to a people proud of themselves, hard working and confident? Everyone waves their American flags and pumps their fist for our country but then runs home to cower behind their Lazy-boy, just hoping to make it to tomorrow.
Sasha Abramsky writes in an issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education "After centuries of tenchological progress, we think we can glimpse the promised land. We can envision a world in which cancer is merely a coldlike nuisance, in which stem-cell research banishes Alzheimer's, ... But the world today is far from a utopia. My guess is that we have become so fearful at least in part because we fear our intoxicating future's being snatched away from us".
A very clear, self explainatory point. We're spoiled. Recently, a great deal of New Englanders lost their power to an ice storm, some for lengthy periods of time. My parents were out of power for 6 days, and thankfully, we're New Englanders, this has happened before so we turn on the generator, light a few candles and cook dinner on the gas grill. but after 6 days my mother just said "This is getting really old" and I said to myself it's amazing to think we're that dependant on something, on anything. I can even say the same thing for my work today. Our e-mail is down and without it everyone has gone home, without the e-mail, there is basically no way to get work done. How is it that it has come down to a company not being able to function simply because we're not able to get an e-mail. Granted it completely cuts off communication, and with our music industry, communication is pretty much all that we have to go on.
"It's a bittersweet silver lining, but economic pains could provide just the sort of galvanizing force we need to recalibrate ourselves towards solidarity." This is, if we as one community are willing to give up our fears and work together as a team, which to me is doubtful. Call me pessimistic, but we don't have a good record of being able to get along with one another. With fear already taking over our country, Obama has been able to "make good on politics of hope, though, the American public must continue to demonstrate the resistance to fear they showed by electing him."
The article advocates an interest in learning our human nature, accepting our susceptibility to "misjudgments and miscalculations". We, as a people, need to remember what we are made of. We tend to take ourselves to seriously, and cower in the presence of humility. We have to learn to be grateful and compassionate, sharing these wonderful attributes with others, in learning to release our overwhelming sense of fear. But we must not completely let go of our sense of fear. Our instincts serve us well and we do have the ability to judge our situations and their risks with intelligence and sophistication. "When something doesn't quite sync up, gut to head, then it's time to pause and at least question what's causing the discrepancy".
Someday we may be able to let go of allowing our individual fears to define us. With giving up our fear, we "free poiliticians from fear inducing rhetoric or stymie fearmongering marketers..."
If we could take the opportunity to release these anxieties and concerns, we could take a larger look at our lives, putting our role into perspective and seeing how far we have come as a people.
We still have so many big steps to take, but releasing the fear makes way for hope to move ourselves further along.
So this has been quite lengthy and I apologize if I have bored anyone, but I must admit that this article really reached out to me. As I stated early, I have been approached by friends and family members with situations of such fear and anxiety, and I can sympathize, I have these moments of my own. It's very hard to be able to advise someone on how to be able to let go of these feelings in such a high pressure society, especially when I myself am not completely able to do so. I always try to remember that when I'm worried about what other people are thinking about me, 9 times out of 10, the other person is worrying about the same thing. And if they are sitting by making their judgements about me, they are also judging themselves, comparing their insecurities against my own. Our society has truthfully fed a generation of fearful adults. It seems as though we're always made to feel like our accomplishments are still not quite enough, our skills and talents are not enough to make us stand out in a pile of resumes. There is the need for continued education and experience in order to set yourself apart in the workplace. In personal life there is such pressure to be confident, unique and creative that even those who make the best friends and companions feel as though they can't quite live up to par, even though they try and teach us in middle school that we are all "special in our own way". And we are! We are all lovable, once we learn to love ourselves. We are all beautiful and intelligent as long as we can see ourselves in that light. So release the fear and find all that there is inside yourself as well as others. After that, the world is your oyster (as they say).
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Now you see it, now you don't
Well I guess there are a few things to bring up for this weeks business.
1) Warner pulls all content from YouTube
2) RIAA promises to stop suing
3) Myspace blocks project playlist
I think first and foremost the fact that the RIAA has finally decided to stop pulling lawsuits out of their butts is a huge positive note. Everywhere you turn the news articles are saying "now what?". Well, maybe the labels can start to regain some of their dignity back. A large part of me wonders if all the irrational legal action that the RIAA took on young kids, people that didn't even own computers, and others that were not even living only fed the fire for angry bitter "damn the man" teens to keep sticking it to 'em. There is always an air of carelessness when you're a teenager. You don't care if you risk cancer smoking a cigarette, risking your job when you get a tattoo, you most certainly don't care about risking getting sued by the record industry for illegally downloading music, especially when you're one of 20% of the country that does it. But you can't hide. As much as I believe the RIAA should have taken action on serious offenders, they were stupid about it. Almost every case looked like a joke to the onlookers and it was humiliating. They only hurt themselves, throwing fuel on an already unwieldy fire. The culture most certainly aids a generation of kids who are ready and willing to take that risk all to feel like they're setting themselves apart and doing their part to screw over big money making record execs.
The funny thing is, those big money making execs are suffering so bad now since you all decided to damn them, that they have to make sure that they are get every penny that they should out of all the other exploitations that are out there. And there are many, such as the YouTube and the Project Playlist. YouTube has been dealing with these kinds of issues since it started up. At least this time they are not being sued. Universal reported great results from their negotiations with YouTube, but Warner can not seem to settle for agreements that are not completely fair to the label, the artists, songwriters and publishers, which I agree with. They have every right to fight for what they feel is appropriate for everyone involved. If the agreement is rational and fair then everyone benefits, even YouTube. It is discussed that YouTube structured agreements with all four major labels to share advertising revenue, which is a good break for the labels and a concept that has been talked about in the past. With so much pressure to keep their heads above water, labels are in a position to create and fight for these kinds of deals in order to make the best profit for each and every available outlet. Warner will lose out of the great exposure for the time being, and the fans won't be too thrilled, but eventually a contract will be settled on that, we hope, will be appropriate and fair.
Project Playlist was also blocked on Myspace. Myspace has decided to "take sides" with the labels, pulling the widget at the request of rights holders. The labels have argued that Project Playlist's structure of their widget and the streaming encourages infringement. There have been other sites that have crumpled under pressure from the labels, in fear of legal action. There are a lot of programs that they could also make this claim about, but the disadvantage the labels give themselves is not stepping into a modern generations mind set to "seek and destroy" these third parties. Of course, the way things are moving at this point, for every site you close another will blossom and guaranteed it'll be better than the last. You'll never be able to fight the young generation, made up of tech savvy, opinions, and intelligence against a bunch of obsolete industry ideals that labels created 40 years ago. And the more the labels fight, the more society fights back harder and with better resources. We all know this to be true with most things. Project Playlist competes with the functionality of MySpace itself and Facebook has also made the decision to not block Project Playlist. So whether or not booting the widget is a good idea? probably a bad idea. But that's what we get for burning out CDs for everyone and their cousins. Losing the widget doesn't really benefit anyone, the labels lose exposure, and the fans are just going to keep getting pissed off without understanding why.
So good news and bad news for the industry. Glad to hear that there is no longer silly ego - trip lawsuits running around. Sad to hear that Warner and YouTube can't learn to get along. Truthfully, the RIAA will probably find another way to blatantly embarrass themselves. Warner will come to some kind of agreement with YouTube, seeing as it's the best promotional tool for anyone and anything, and Project Playlist? It'll make it's home on other community sites for the time being and I'm sure the labels will find someone else to complain about tomorrow anyway.
1) Warner pulls all content from YouTube
2) RIAA promises to stop suing
3) Myspace blocks project playlist
I think first and foremost the fact that the RIAA has finally decided to stop pulling lawsuits out of their butts is a huge positive note. Everywhere you turn the news articles are saying "now what?". Well, maybe the labels can start to regain some of their dignity back. A large part of me wonders if all the irrational legal action that the RIAA took on young kids, people that didn't even own computers, and others that were not even living only fed the fire for angry bitter "damn the man" teens to keep sticking it to 'em. There is always an air of carelessness when you're a teenager. You don't care if you risk cancer smoking a cigarette, risking your job when you get a tattoo, you most certainly don't care about risking getting sued by the record industry for illegally downloading music, especially when you're one of 20% of the country that does it. But you can't hide. As much as I believe the RIAA should have taken action on serious offenders, they were stupid about it. Almost every case looked like a joke to the onlookers and it was humiliating. They only hurt themselves, throwing fuel on an already unwieldy fire. The culture most certainly aids a generation of kids who are ready and willing to take that risk all to feel like they're setting themselves apart and doing their part to screw over big money making record execs.
The funny thing is, those big money making execs are suffering so bad now since you all decided to damn them, that they have to make sure that they are get every penny that they should out of all the other exploitations that are out there. And there are many, such as the YouTube and the Project Playlist. YouTube has been dealing with these kinds of issues since it started up. At least this time they are not being sued. Universal reported great results from their negotiations with YouTube, but Warner can not seem to settle for agreements that are not completely fair to the label, the artists, songwriters and publishers, which I agree with. They have every right to fight for what they feel is appropriate for everyone involved. If the agreement is rational and fair then everyone benefits, even YouTube. It is discussed that YouTube structured agreements with all four major labels to share advertising revenue, which is a good break for the labels and a concept that has been talked about in the past. With so much pressure to keep their heads above water, labels are in a position to create and fight for these kinds of deals in order to make the best profit for each and every available outlet. Warner will lose out of the great exposure for the time being, and the fans won't be too thrilled, but eventually a contract will be settled on that, we hope, will be appropriate and fair.
Project Playlist was also blocked on Myspace. Myspace has decided to "take sides" with the labels, pulling the widget at the request of rights holders. The labels have argued that Project Playlist's structure of their widget and the streaming encourages infringement. There have been other sites that have crumpled under pressure from the labels, in fear of legal action. There are a lot of programs that they could also make this claim about, but the disadvantage the labels give themselves is not stepping into a modern generations mind set to "seek and destroy" these third parties. Of course, the way things are moving at this point, for every site you close another will blossom and guaranteed it'll be better than the last. You'll never be able to fight the young generation, made up of tech savvy, opinions, and intelligence against a bunch of obsolete industry ideals that labels created 40 years ago. And the more the labels fight, the more society fights back harder and with better resources. We all know this to be true with most things. Project Playlist competes with the functionality of MySpace itself and Facebook has also made the decision to not block Project Playlist. So whether or not booting the widget is a good idea? probably a bad idea. But that's what we get for burning out CDs for everyone and their cousins. Losing the widget doesn't really benefit anyone, the labels lose exposure, and the fans are just going to keep getting pissed off without understanding why.
So good news and bad news for the industry. Glad to hear that there is no longer silly ego - trip lawsuits running around. Sad to hear that Warner and YouTube can't learn to get along. Truthfully, the RIAA will probably find another way to blatantly embarrass themselves. Warner will come to some kind of agreement with YouTube, seeing as it's the best promotional tool for anyone and anything, and Project Playlist? It'll make it's home on other community sites for the time being and I'm sure the labels will find someone else to complain about tomorrow anyway.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Broadcast yourself
http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=115838
http://www.tronme.com/
So here is an interesting advancement of interactive media. Very similar to another website I had found a while back called www.outshouts.com. Where you can record your own personal responses to your favorite music and share it with the world. The difference here I believe is that this can be used with YouTube, Skype, MSN, Facebook, and Myspace.
I think this is a great example of how our culture has enraptured itself with it's relationship to music. Our generation and the next has been consumed with the idea of defining themselves by their musical identities. To go even further, have they also become obsessed with defining themselves by the way they purchase/steal their music? by the way they react to it? the way they can relate to it and share the experience with their favorite musicians? Almost like they were friends, sharing stories.
With this interactive software, music lovers everywhere can become even more a part of the music that defines them. It allows them to be inspired and creative as well, which I think is great for those who are learning to write and compose their own music.
My one real question is, what is the copyright limits here? are there any? has tronme.com covered all the bases, or will consumers pay for having a little fun with their favorite tunes. The concept is definitely fed by the culture. A need to be as much a part of the musical society as possible. It fuels a great sense of creativity but also a sense of belonging, while still trying to be an individualist. Also, a great piece of a culture, becoming the same while attempting to separate yourself. It seems so time consuming to ensure your 15 minutes of fame and making every effort to slap your face on every online community site possible. It encourages a generation of people expressive and confident enough to share they're musical relationships with the world. And as much as I love to advocate confidence and creativity and making sure you share these things with people, I myself feel a bit too humble to truthfully promote it. I must admit though I am a bit of hypocrite with that statement seeing as I do write for this blog, so I clearly felt confident enough concerning my opinions, education, and writing ability. I also have a music myspace, which took a lot for me to eventually post, but I did because I wanted to be able to tell people "yeah I sing, check out my page", but then run for the hills as they type the URL.
I too am a part of this society, a part of a generation that defines itself with its musical relationships and its individualistic nature. It's a great feeling to be able to make yourself such a part of larger communities. I grew up in a small town and the only "big community" that I could say I was really a valuable member of was the high school choir, and mostly so because of my last name and the fact that my sisters and I were the towns famous singers. Then you leave your small town and realize that you're really not a part of much of anything.
Myspace, Facebook, Youtube: these online communities give our attention hungry generation more and more opportunities to feed. We become a part of the music, we can communicate with musicians and people we admire, we can show our support and love. Personally, I think that's important, to be able to feel close to people you look up to. When you feel disconnected from people you admire, the admiration becomes meaningless and whatever inspiration you would've gained is lost.
Has our need to be a part of these large communities created a loss of the sense of self? The loss of the ability to stand on our own without relying on others for comfort or validation could create a constant feeling of being alone and thus also fueling our need to create those relationships with our music. These moments that we make for ourselves with such resources as Myspace, Facebook, etc. makes us a part of these larger communities, and requires no self reliance. And although, as I previously stated, I encourage these great opportunities for people to express themselves and share it with the world, I also advocate our independence as a young generation fueled by creativity, education and exploration.
So let's define ourselves.
http://www.tronme.com/
So here is an interesting advancement of interactive media. Very similar to another website I had found a while back called www.outshouts.com. Where you can record your own personal responses to your favorite music and share it with the world. The difference here I believe is that this can be used with YouTube, Skype, MSN, Facebook, and Myspace.
I think this is a great example of how our culture has enraptured itself with it's relationship to music. Our generation and the next has been consumed with the idea of defining themselves by their musical identities. To go even further, have they also become obsessed with defining themselves by the way they purchase/steal their music? by the way they react to it? the way they can relate to it and share the experience with their favorite musicians? Almost like they were friends, sharing stories.
With this interactive software, music lovers everywhere can become even more a part of the music that defines them. It allows them to be inspired and creative as well, which I think is great for those who are learning to write and compose their own music.
My one real question is, what is the copyright limits here? are there any? has tronme.com covered all the bases, or will consumers pay for having a little fun with their favorite tunes. The concept is definitely fed by the culture. A need to be as much a part of the musical society as possible. It fuels a great sense of creativity but also a sense of belonging, while still trying to be an individualist. Also, a great piece of a culture, becoming the same while attempting to separate yourself. It seems so time consuming to ensure your 15 minutes of fame and making every effort to slap your face on every online community site possible. It encourages a generation of people expressive and confident enough to share they're musical relationships with the world. And as much as I love to advocate confidence and creativity and making sure you share these things with people, I myself feel a bit too humble to truthfully promote it. I must admit though I am a bit of hypocrite with that statement seeing as I do write for this blog, so I clearly felt confident enough concerning my opinions, education, and writing ability. I also have a music myspace, which took a lot for me to eventually post, but I did because I wanted to be able to tell people "yeah I sing, check out my page", but then run for the hills as they type the URL.
I too am a part of this society, a part of a generation that defines itself with its musical relationships and its individualistic nature. It's a great feeling to be able to make yourself such a part of larger communities. I grew up in a small town and the only "big community" that I could say I was really a valuable member of was the high school choir, and mostly so because of my last name and the fact that my sisters and I were the towns famous singers. Then you leave your small town and realize that you're really not a part of much of anything.
Myspace, Facebook, Youtube: these online communities give our attention hungry generation more and more opportunities to feed. We become a part of the music, we can communicate with musicians and people we admire, we can show our support and love. Personally, I think that's important, to be able to feel close to people you look up to. When you feel disconnected from people you admire, the admiration becomes meaningless and whatever inspiration you would've gained is lost.
Has our need to be a part of these large communities created a loss of the sense of self? The loss of the ability to stand on our own without relying on others for comfort or validation could create a constant feeling of being alone and thus also fueling our need to create those relationships with our music. These moments that we make for ourselves with such resources as Myspace, Facebook, etc. makes us a part of these larger communities, and requires no self reliance. And although, as I previously stated, I encourage these great opportunities for people to express themselves and share it with the world, I also advocate our independence as a young generation fueled by creativity, education and exploration.
So let's define ourselves.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Making Money on Piracy
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2008/03/music_levy
So how about it? Should we tack some more taxes on our already outrageous internet costs just for the 20% of America that can't keep their noses clean? Would it really save the industry, or even help it a little?
I'm not so sure. I think that file sharing has become such a significant piece of our society that it almost seems strange to think about dealing with the consequences for something that a lot of people don't even understand is wrong. And even the ones that do understand that it is wrong pump their fists and say "damn the man!" but turn around and want an industry job because it seems cool. Well the truth of the matter is people, musicians don't make money if the albums do not sell. Unless you're 50 cent and choose to slap your face on every endorsement that tickles your fancy, it is very tough to make a dollar from touring alone. Does anyone really fully comprehend the sheer expense that goes into touring? Everyone just seems take in the well lit stages, pyrotechnics, and band garb without considering how much is poured into that. And not only money but man hours. The extent of it all sometimes sets my head a spinning.
It is hard to put into perspective how simply burning a cd as opposed to "click to buy" has really hurt the industry, at least for myself it is. And I have an industry job, I have had to watch good friends lose their jobs and harmless holiday parties be canceled because no one wants to pay for a god damn CD. I'm guilty, my family is guilty, my friends are guilty and it's quite the internal battle of all hipocracies, to worry about the strength of my company but turn around and burn a CD. I will admit that I have never illegally downloaded a song in my life, I wouldn't even know where to find the torrents is someone asked me, but I have burned.
We have been saying for years now that someone somewhere has got to figure out a way to make money off the piracy or the industry will never survive. But is this really the right way to go about it? It's like in high school when no one could wear black just because some group of kids started a cult or hankerchiefs got banished because the elderly teachers thought it was all gang related. Whatever metaphor you want to use to help you understand, go for it, there is a million instances where this stuff happens. Other people paying for someone elses mistakes. That in itself is a piece of our culture.
An idea that had been discussed when I was in college was considering the labels working together with advertising companies that market to torrent sites. That to me, makes a bit more sense because at least you would be targeting your audience and you wouldn't be charging the public extra. Adveritising companies could chose to disclose their advertising opportunities on torrent sites and labels could choose to partner with them and take a small share if they felt it was a profitable opportunity. But the disclosure of torrents sites is another tricky venture. I think that labels have refused similar ideas because it would considered siding with the enemy. In order to keep afloat though, the idea could be revisted. Even still, it's a tough arguement because we know that those advertising companies do not only do advertising for torrent sites, so how do we disguish when a consumer is looking at the ad on Facebook or a torrent site? You can't make the people that use Facebook, but not torrents sites pay extra right?
The fact of the matter is that the people are going to pay, whether they're supposed to or not. That is, if this idea is put into action. Even if they are able to avoid charging every single cable viewer extra, they are still going to be higher costs somewhere. If labels want a piece of the advertising pie, then the ad costs will go up for the other companies purchasing ad space. If their costs go up, their product price goes up, and it'll all becomes a big trickle down affect. Or the ad costs could go up, and they could choose to just purchase less ads, thus leading to less exposure and less exposure would could potentially hurt their profits.
Which path to take. One has to be traveled, perhaps one that I haven't even seen or heard about yet. Perhaps one that has not been proposed yet. But the if the Music industry does not strive to push itself forward, then it will drown in this very spot it sits in, finger on the trigger and all the resources laying at it's feet.
Needless to say, this is the first someone good idea that's come about since CD sales really started falling in 2000. Let's hope that there is more brainstorming yet to come.
So how about it? Should we tack some more taxes on our already outrageous internet costs just for the 20% of America that can't keep their noses clean? Would it really save the industry, or even help it a little?
I'm not so sure. I think that file sharing has become such a significant piece of our society that it almost seems strange to think about dealing with the consequences for something that a lot of people don't even understand is wrong. And even the ones that do understand that it is wrong pump their fists and say "damn the man!" but turn around and want an industry job because it seems cool. Well the truth of the matter is people, musicians don't make money if the albums do not sell. Unless you're 50 cent and choose to slap your face on every endorsement that tickles your fancy, it is very tough to make a dollar from touring alone. Does anyone really fully comprehend the sheer expense that goes into touring? Everyone just seems take in the well lit stages, pyrotechnics, and band garb without considering how much is poured into that. And not only money but man hours. The extent of it all sometimes sets my head a spinning.
It is hard to put into perspective how simply burning a cd as opposed to "click to buy" has really hurt the industry, at least for myself it is. And I have an industry job, I have had to watch good friends lose their jobs and harmless holiday parties be canceled because no one wants to pay for a god damn CD. I'm guilty, my family is guilty, my friends are guilty and it's quite the internal battle of all hipocracies, to worry about the strength of my company but turn around and burn a CD. I will admit that I have never illegally downloaded a song in my life, I wouldn't even know where to find the torrents is someone asked me, but I have burned.
We have been saying for years now that someone somewhere has got to figure out a way to make money off the piracy or the industry will never survive. But is this really the right way to go about it? It's like in high school when no one could wear black just because some group of kids started a cult or hankerchiefs got banished because the elderly teachers thought it was all gang related. Whatever metaphor you want to use to help you understand, go for it, there is a million instances where this stuff happens. Other people paying for someone elses mistakes. That in itself is a piece of our culture.
An idea that had been discussed when I was in college was considering the labels working together with advertising companies that market to torrent sites. That to me, makes a bit more sense because at least you would be targeting your audience and you wouldn't be charging the public extra. Adveritising companies could chose to disclose their advertising opportunities on torrent sites and labels could choose to partner with them and take a small share if they felt it was a profitable opportunity. But the disclosure of torrents sites is another tricky venture. I think that labels have refused similar ideas because it would considered siding with the enemy. In order to keep afloat though, the idea could be revisted. Even still, it's a tough arguement because we know that those advertising companies do not only do advertising for torrent sites, so how do we disguish when a consumer is looking at the ad on Facebook or a torrent site? You can't make the people that use Facebook, but not torrents sites pay extra right?
The fact of the matter is that the people are going to pay, whether they're supposed to or not. That is, if this idea is put into action. Even if they are able to avoid charging every single cable viewer extra, they are still going to be higher costs somewhere. If labels want a piece of the advertising pie, then the ad costs will go up for the other companies purchasing ad space. If their costs go up, their product price goes up, and it'll all becomes a big trickle down affect. Or the ad costs could go up, and they could choose to just purchase less ads, thus leading to less exposure and less exposure would could potentially hurt their profits.
Which path to take. One has to be traveled, perhaps one that I haven't even seen or heard about yet. Perhaps one that has not been proposed yet. But the if the Music industry does not strive to push itself forward, then it will drown in this very spot it sits in, finger on the trigger and all the resources laying at it's feet.
Needless to say, this is the first someone good idea that's come about since CD sales really started falling in 2000. Let's hope that there is more brainstorming yet to come.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Our Culture
12/5/08
So today I began a little bit of Grad school searching. Looking at all the specializations of some of the professors began to make my mind tick a bit.
It's amazing to think about all the different perspectives that can be taken when it comes to the analysis of culture. The word "culture" alone connates so much.
Now I know that the idea of American culture is a long discussed topic. People feel that we are all essentially immigrants and that there is nothing that truly defines us as a nationality.
Do American's really have a culture? It's a loaded question, I know, but if you seriously take a look around and try your best to take into perspective the level of which our beautiful 50 states have become the "melting pot" it is, where does the culture come from? All of us have our heritage, even though some like to deny it, and there is always those people that exclaim "we're all immigrants!". So where is our culture, what defines us as Americans. Is it the sex-driven pop scene? The frialators? The Ford Excursions? or the Dunkin' Donuts. How do we say "here is how I celebrate my culture" - by driving 80 on the highway in a truck sized for 8 carrying 1, bobbing your head to Britney's "Womanizer", sipping double shots of caffiene noisely through a obnoxious orange straw and chumping down on a microwaved meal on the go.
Makes me proud. But please disagree if you feel necessary, I would honestly love to be proven wrong so maybe I could start looking at our "culture" as something to take pride in instead of looking like some kind of eutopian, greed/sex driven mish-mashed experiment. Almost makes me think about a really awful school project I did when I was a freshman in highschool creating a "eutopia" and setting down your own basis of laws and such. It was all based on reading "The Lord of The Flies" and the idea of whether or not a Eutopia could exist at all. But I'm getting off the subject.
So what is American culture? Do we have culture? Can we call ourselves a cultured nationality? Can we even call ourselves a nationality at all?
And how does this culture, or lack there of, fuel our musical interests, our industry and our marketing tactics. Does a person consider their heritage while creeping up and down the aisles of Newbury Comics, or if you're not from around here, Wal-mart/Target/Best Buy. Does a consumer of Irish descent feel the need to celebrate his love for the color green, drinking heavily, and punching fists by picking up the latest Dropkick Murphys album and humming along on the way to the liqour store. How deep does the subconscious affect of our heritage go when it comes to our musical interests?
I feel like there is a big part of the me that can not sympathize considering that my knowledge of my heritage is limited. As far as I have been told in no particular organized fashion that my ancestors range from Cherokee Indian, to Welch, to Scottish, to Portuguese. I just don't know what is truth and what is not. Does my feeling of not have any ancestry affect how I relate to music that is based on a strong ancestry? Sometimes I feel it does, that I can't connect with an artist on that level and it leads me to not be as interested in their compositions.
The search will continue, and next time maybe I'll have some research to base my incoherent ramblings on. That should make my opinions a bit more viable. Or not.
So today I began a little bit of Grad school searching. Looking at all the specializations of some of the professors began to make my mind tick a bit.
It's amazing to think about all the different perspectives that can be taken when it comes to the analysis of culture. The word "culture" alone connates so much.
Now I know that the idea of American culture is a long discussed topic. People feel that we are all essentially immigrants and that there is nothing that truly defines us as a nationality.
Do American's really have a culture? It's a loaded question, I know, but if you seriously take a look around and try your best to take into perspective the level of which our beautiful 50 states have become the "melting pot" it is, where does the culture come from? All of us have our heritage, even though some like to deny it, and there is always those people that exclaim "we're all immigrants!". So where is our culture, what defines us as Americans. Is it the sex-driven pop scene? The frialators? The Ford Excursions? or the Dunkin' Donuts. How do we say "here is how I celebrate my culture" - by driving 80 on the highway in a truck sized for 8 carrying 1, bobbing your head to Britney's "Womanizer", sipping double shots of caffiene noisely through a obnoxious orange straw and chumping down on a microwaved meal on the go.
Makes me proud. But please disagree if you feel necessary, I would honestly love to be proven wrong so maybe I could start looking at our "culture" as something to take pride in instead of looking like some kind of eutopian, greed/sex driven mish-mashed experiment. Almost makes me think about a really awful school project I did when I was a freshman in highschool creating a "eutopia" and setting down your own basis of laws and such. It was all based on reading "The Lord of The Flies" and the idea of whether or not a Eutopia could exist at all. But I'm getting off the subject.
So what is American culture? Do we have culture? Can we call ourselves a cultured nationality? Can we even call ourselves a nationality at all?
And how does this culture, or lack there of, fuel our musical interests, our industry and our marketing tactics. Does a person consider their heritage while creeping up and down the aisles of Newbury Comics, or if you're not from around here, Wal-mart/Target/Best Buy. Does a consumer of Irish descent feel the need to celebrate his love for the color green, drinking heavily, and punching fists by picking up the latest Dropkick Murphys album and humming along on the way to the liqour store. How deep does the subconscious affect of our heritage go when it comes to our musical interests?
I feel like there is a big part of the me that can not sympathize considering that my knowledge of my heritage is limited. As far as I have been told in no particular organized fashion that my ancestors range from Cherokee Indian, to Welch, to Scottish, to Portuguese. I just don't know what is truth and what is not. Does my feeling of not have any ancestry affect how I relate to music that is based on a strong ancestry? Sometimes I feel it does, that I can't connect with an artist on that level and it leads me to not be as interested in their compositions.
The search will continue, and next time maybe I'll have some research to base my incoherent ramblings on. That should make my opinions a bit more viable. Or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
