15 Sep '08 20:02>
For the record, I don't agree with Alan Cross. I think he's mixing up a few ideas. I'll try to make myself clear by going through his thoughts one step at a time:
"Technology has since allowed each of us to pick and choose our music on an individual level."
I agree, although by "individual level" I hope he means that we don't have to pick albums anymore, we can pick songs as we see fit. The other possible interpretation of "individual level" seems a bit odd, as consumers have always spent their own entertainment dollar their own way. We don't usually get everyone to hand over a twenty to the office gopher and hope for the best.
"We can choose from a nearly infinite supply of music 24/7."
I agree with this statement. The choice is obviously not infinite, but the internet has made a multitude of previously unavailable music very simple and cheap to obtain.
"We don't bond over cds or any other physical music product. Hell, surveys say that half the teenagers in North America didn't spend a single penny on cds last year. All their music came via file-sharing. "
I assume the survey information is correct, but Alan seems to be implying that we don't bond at all over music anymore because we buy fewer physical music products. I disagree. Every music fan bonds with other fan over bands and their songs, with or without a physical product in hand. Pick any band you like, I guarantee that you can find at least two people (and more likely, an entire chat room full of people) who consider themselves fans, and I also guarantee that when they gush over the band amongst themselves they are bonding.
"With this super-customization comes a lack of consensus."
I disagree with this too. The human mind, unlike the human wallet, is able to support multiple likes and dislikes with relative ease. What I think Alan really means by "lack of consensus" is a lack of focused purchasing. If you have 10 favourite bands, but only make $50 a day, chances are you are NOT going to indulge in purchasing an album from every artist on your list. More on this later...
"If each of us is free to go our own way, the master herd - the music community as a whole - becomes fractured into hundreds (if not thousands or even tens of thousands) of smaller tribes. Widespread, mass consensus eludes music now.
We have always been free to go our own way, as evidenced by the multitude of musical genres that have developed and died, innumerable fanzines and fansites that seem to spring up everyday and disappear just as quickly, and the fly-by-night artists that make a splash and then dry up by the end of the week. Heck, even this guy found an audience!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Willis
If that doesn't represent free fracturization, I don't know what does. Why does opening up the number of choices automatically mean equal dilution? People can like U2, the Clash, NWA, and Wesley Wills (for some reason), but only purchase the Clash CD because their friends hate U2. Adding Shania Twain and Raffi to this list is unlikely to break the "consensus" on either preference or purchasing, but adding the Sex Pistols might shake up how the dollars get spent. Because of this, I think Alan must mean focused purchasing when he say "consensus". How else to measure widespread mass consensus in the first place?
Things are becoming much more niche-y.
Just a side note: things always start as niche-y. If they become more popular, they become mainstream. If they become more popular later, they become cultish. If they become more popular after the originator dies, they become overlooked gems. I think it's funny that people who like the thing in different stages hate each other.
We're moving beyond the era of the mega-star and into the era of a la carte. And it's all thanks to technology.
Again, being a "mega-star" has to do with album sales and penetration into mainstream perception. Being in the era of "a la carte" means being able to choose songs without buying the whole album. The obvious conclusion is that without albums, we have no mega-stars. I wish someone had told this jerk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soulja_Boy
That's my opinion, anyway.
"Technology has since allowed each of us to pick and choose our music on an individual level."
I agree, although by "individual level" I hope he means that we don't have to pick albums anymore, we can pick songs as we see fit. The other possible interpretation of "individual level" seems a bit odd, as consumers have always spent their own entertainment dollar their own way. We don't usually get everyone to hand over a twenty to the office gopher and hope for the best.
"We can choose from a nearly infinite supply of music 24/7."
I agree with this statement. The choice is obviously not infinite, but the internet has made a multitude of previously unavailable music very simple and cheap to obtain.
"We don't bond over cds or any other physical music product. Hell, surveys say that half the teenagers in North America didn't spend a single penny on cds last year. All their music came via file-sharing. "
I assume the survey information is correct, but Alan seems to be implying that we don't bond at all over music anymore because we buy fewer physical music products. I disagree. Every music fan bonds with other fan over bands and their songs, with or without a physical product in hand. Pick any band you like, I guarantee that you can find at least two people (and more likely, an entire chat room full of people) who consider themselves fans, and I also guarantee that when they gush over the band amongst themselves they are bonding.
"With this super-customization comes a lack of consensus."
I disagree with this too. The human mind, unlike the human wallet, is able to support multiple likes and dislikes with relative ease. What I think Alan really means by "lack of consensus" is a lack of focused purchasing. If you have 10 favourite bands, but only make $50 a day, chances are you are NOT going to indulge in purchasing an album from every artist on your list. More on this later...
"If each of us is free to go our own way, the master herd - the music community as a whole - becomes fractured into hundreds (if not thousands or even tens of thousands) of smaller tribes. Widespread, mass consensus eludes music now.
We have always been free to go our own way, as evidenced by the multitude of musical genres that have developed and died, innumerable fanzines and fansites that seem to spring up everyday and disappear just as quickly, and the fly-by-night artists that make a splash and then dry up by the end of the week. Heck, even this guy found an audience!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Willis
If that doesn't represent free fracturization, I don't know what does. Why does opening up the number of choices automatically mean equal dilution? People can like U2, the Clash, NWA, and Wesley Wills (for some reason), but only purchase the Clash CD because their friends hate U2. Adding Shania Twain and Raffi to this list is unlikely to break the "consensus" on either preference or purchasing, but adding the Sex Pistols might shake up how the dollars get spent. Because of this, I think Alan must mean focused purchasing when he say "consensus". How else to measure widespread mass consensus in the first place?
Things are becoming much more niche-y.
Just a side note: things always start as niche-y. If they become more popular, they become mainstream. If they become more popular later, they become cultish. If they become more popular after the originator dies, they become overlooked gems. I think it's funny that people who like the thing in different stages hate each other.
We're moving beyond the era of the mega-star and into the era of a la carte. And it's all thanks to technology.
Again, being a "mega-star" has to do with album sales and penetration into mainstream perception. Being in the era of "a la carte" means being able to choose songs without buying the whole album. The obvious conclusion is that without albums, we have no mega-stars. I wish someone had told this jerk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soulja_Boy
That's my opinion, anyway.