With technology it's now easier for every Tom, Dick and Joe to make and distribute his own music, thru both digital and traditional avenues. Because of this phenomenon, you have even more mediocre and less-than-mediocre trash to sift thru in order to find the few creative people making creative music that you're talking about.
We've been hearing this argument since the Internet truly became a viable media distribution channel. I've always thought it to be pretty suspect. Boo hoo, you have to look through more music/movies to get to something good.
Actually, I find it much easier now than ever to find out about excellent movies and music that fit my tastes. Not only is there more art being created, there are more people talking/writing about it. And the more they talk and write about it, the more they begin to specialize in what they are going to cover and promote. You then choose your trusted sources, just like before, and go from there. Soulstrut itself is one of these trusted sources for many people.
If increased access to production and distribution helps one artist create a masterpiece, than it's all worth it to me. The more art/creativity out there the better. "Mediocre trash" to you could be another's genius moment.
Peace, Cortez
Cortez,
There's likely never going to be a resolution to this debate. I think you hit on some excellent points in regards to the idea that "more art = more people talking about art, i.e. more filtering mechanicsms."
But this idea?
If increased access to production and distribution helps one artist create a masterpiece, than it's all worth it to me.
The way I see it, if the "old system" produced 1 masterpiece for every 40 pieces of shit (I'm just throwing random numbers out here but bear with me), then today, the ratio is probably double or triple that. How is that "worth it"? I might have gotten your point wrong but you don't seem to disagree with the assertion that there's more mediocrity out there than ever, largely due to increased production and distribution.
I hear this complaint from ARTISTS all the time: that the market is so clogged that not only is it far harder for them to distinguish themselves with all the static that's around but it's also far, far harder for them to earn a buck on the music they make.
Mind you: it's not like we can dial things back to the way they used to be. I might get nostalgic but I'm not a fool about it: this is the new era of information and media proliferation and there's no way it's suddenly going to slide back into some anachronistic model of distribution.
My point here isn't to call for some return to "back in the day." But nor am I going to look around and say, "wow, look how much better everything is now that 12 year olds can rock Pro Tools and upload their songs to myspace.com!" That increased democrization has a very real downside and we're living through just the tippy tippy top of it right now.
Regardless though, music will still get made. People will enjoy it. And I guess, at the end of the day, that's what's most important.
With technology it's now easier for every Tom, Dick and Joe to make and distribute his own music, thru both digital and traditional avenues. Because of this phenomenon, you have even more mediocre and less-than-mediocre trash to sift thru in order to find the few creative people making creative music that you're talking about.
We've been hearing this argument since the Internet truly became a viable media distribution channel. I've always thought it to be pretty suspect. Boo hoo, you have to look through more music/movies to get to something good.
Actually, I find it much easier now than ever to find out about excellent movies and music that fit my tastes. Not only is there more art being created, there are more people talking/writing about it. And the more they talk and write about it, the more they begin to specialize in what they are going to cover and promote. You then choose your trusted sources, just like before, and go from there. Soulstrut itself is one of these trusted sources for many people.
If increased access to production and distribution helps one artist create a masterpiece, than it's all worth it to me. The more art/creativity out there the better. "Mediocre trash" to you could be another's genius moment.
Peace, Cortez
Cortez,
There's likely never going to be a resolution to this debate. I think you hit on some excellent points in regards to the idea that "more art = more people talking about art, i.e. more filtering mechanicsms."
But this idea?
If increased access to production and distribution helps one artist create a masterpiece, than it's all worth it to me.
The way I see it, if the "old system" produced 1 masterpiece for every 40 pieces of shit (I'm just throwing random numbers out here but bear with me), then today, the ratio is probably double or triple that. How is that "worth it"? I might have gotten your point wrong but you don't seem to disagree with the assertion that there's more mediocrity out there than ever, largely due to increased production and distribution.
I hear this complaint from ARTISTS all the time: that the market is so clogged that not only is it far harder for them to distinguish themselves with all the static that's around but it's also far, far harder for them to earn a buck on the music they make.
Mind you: it's not like we can dial things back to the way they used to be. I might get nostalgic but I'm not a fool about it: this is the new era of information and media proliferation and there's no way it's suddenly going to slide back into some anachronistic model of distribution.
My point here isn't to call for some return to "back in the day." But nor am I going to look around and say, "wow, look how much better everything is now that 12 year olds can rock Pro Tools and upload their songs to myspace.com!" That increased democrization has a very real downside and we're living through just the tippy tippy top of it right now.
Regardless though, music will still get made. People will enjoy it. And I guess, at the end of the day, that's what's most important.
I recorded 'Baby, I Love Your Way', by Big Mountain, which went to number one here, and went to six in the Hot 100. It's number one in seven countries right now. It's my first gold single.
I'm very active in the sound track area. I did the sound track to 'Pretty Woman'
I hear this complaint from ARTISTS all the time: that the market is so clogged that not only is it far harder for them to distinguish themselves with all the static that's around but it's also far, far harder for them to earn a buck on the music they make.
I can attest to this. It's one thing to get your record in stores, it's another to get it off the shelf and into the hands of consumers. What you had to do to sell records 10 years ago, simply doesn't work in today's market. 'Nough said. Put a record out, get reviews in major publications in print and online, believe me, it's still a crapshoot.
Cortez, you may not mind sifting thru x-amount of mediocrity but unfortunately, most consumers don't have your patience or persistence when it comes to finding someone's "masterpiece." I wish they did.
And to your other points as well, O-Dub...
P.S. When is the next sidewalk sale going down, homie?
If increased access to production and distribution helps one artist create a masterpiece, than it's all worth it to me.
=
Music will still get made. People will enjoy it. And I guess, at the end of the day, that's what's most important.
is where I was going with that idea.
To further clarify, my argument is that while there is much more "art" accessible due to lower barriers for production/distro, I find I have to do less work, not more to find the good. Also due to the same factors, there may be more good art to access as well. Now, I may be the Mighty Internetro, but it's not really that hard.
The whole mediocre vs. masterpiece dichotomy also misses a key point of art by focusing on the end "product." Art is very meaningful as a process for the individual creator. So in the end, even with mediocre product as the end of the process, the process itself is beneficial to society, in my opinion.
As far as artists earning potential is concerned, that's a different discussion.
Art is very meaningful as a process for the individual creator. So in the end, even with mediocre product as the end of the process, the process itself is beneficial to societycreators, in my opinion.
Sorry for the remix but there's a distance between saying that art is meannigful for those who make it vs. it being meaningful to the rest of the society. We're not at a point in society where everyone has equal access to the privilege and luxury of making art, therefore, the benefits of such as still limited, regardless of how much POTENTIAL may exist.
I also think many would disagree with the idea that the more art being produced is necessarily an improvement for society. I don't know enough about art history to back this up or not but I'd presume that some of the most artistically rich periods in human history do not necessarily coincide with the most democratically accessible means to art-making.
Art is very meaningful as a process for the individual creator. So in the end, even with mediocre product as the end of the process, the process itself is beneficial to societycreators, in my opinion.
Sorry for the remix but there's a distance between saying that art is meannigful for those who make it vs. it being meaningful to the rest of the society.
And this brings up two ideas that really should be heeded more often:
1) Just because you can make an album doesn't mean you should, and
2) Just because you make an album doesn't mean you have to release it.
And really, if the process of making art is meaningful for the creator, then shouldn't creation be the point and not necessarily putting out that creation?
Basically, I agree with ODub. The Big Democratization of Music has in no small part buried the gems out there under an exponentially larger pile of mediocrity (or worse).
Art is very meaningful as a process for the individual creator. So in the end, even with mediocre product as the end of the process, the process itself is beneficial to societycreators, in my opinion.
I also think many would disagree with the idea that the more art being produced is necessarily an improvement for society. I don't know enough about art history to back this up or not but I'd presume that some of the most artistically rich periods in human history do not necessarily coincide with the most democratically accessible means to art-making.
just to play devil's advocate and continue an intriguing discussion...
perhaps when graffiti first came out many traditional artists snubbed graffers claiming "oh anyone with a $5 spray can can make art these days" and look at what that evolved too
or when people came out with two turntables and a mixer to produce music and traditional musicians snubbed them...
or when dildo/serator/cdj came out traditional turntablist snubbed them...
my only point is that those three things i've mentioned have been evolutions in creation, and their mediums have been way more accessible than the predecessors that may choose to look down upon them...of course that doesnt mean they come up with a better product at all, though i do think it offers more derivate products a lot more faster.
the way i think of it, is you know how people say that for every michael jordan there must be 10s of him that didn't make it? well what if someone documented a player that could kill him that just played in a playground and not for an organized league doing crazy dunks and uploading the video? i would watch it, and thats cool because someone could get shine without going through a certain amount of avenues(of course there is a charm associated with earning your stripes, but we won't get into that)
i think internet culture had so many dope thinks to offer, such as animated gifs, stupid silly flash cartoons, and even soul strut graemlins. and you dont have to be a graphic designer to make the better graemlins on this site.
even in terms of journalism, there's so many blog writers out there that would have failed first year english in university without a doubt, but that doesnt prevent some from being entertaining as hell to me.
The Jordan analogy killed your argument....You can search every playground, in every city, in every country and you're not gonna find a baller as good as MJ. You can spend a hell of alot of time looking, travel miles and find some And1 rejects, but you're not gonna find another MJ. I've worshipped at Rucker and have researched every streetball legend known, and believe me, No MJ's.
Kinda like thinking there's another undiscovered Muhammad Ali making Backyard Fight videos somewhere out there on the Internet.
MAYBE, if there is another MJ out there from the streets, at the very least he'll need the exposure of AND1 or Slam(I miss Scoop) to reach the masses.
And searching for good music is almost as hard as finding MJ2. There is alot of absolute SHIT out there, not necessarily because of it's style or it's originality, but because it sucks. I am curious about how someone, without the help of some form of media outlet, can get their new music heard by more than 100 people?? Street teams??
With my label I've hustled over 60 titles and have explored every distribution option and have come to realize that without selling your soul to a corporation, there are serious limitations on how many people you can sell music to. And having a name known in the market for almost 20 years only allows me to reach about 500 more people than some guy just starting out in his Living Room tonight.
who wouldnt necessarily even want to put out a major album or indie for that matter and just have a hobby and talent and a camera...
anyhow i dont see any validity in hating the overflow of shit even if its shit. its like complaining about fox tv when you have an alternative of checking something else out. i dont see why people invest so much frustration on shit they dont like, just focus on what u do like. if you are sick of hearing tons of indie acts/raps/backpacks/pro tools on my home computer whatever people, then just focus on established labels and producers that you like...which can be equally as pointless as just some other act is on some label you like, you may find them horrible.
if it comes down to having to sift through more bullshit to find gems, then so be it, but id rather have that option than just have what a few people deem "quality" accessible to me.
to put is this way, if you were on an island and only had a radio with two stations on it and a cassette deck with tapes you could record with. one station had top 40 and the second station was college radio that played emo bullshit, some funk, some political radio, some indian classical, euro dance,jazz, punk, death metal, more emo bullshit, hip hop, and girl power spoken word, which would you choose? yeah you could listen to top 40 for a week, get some properly constructed pop songs, and a few really dope jams, but after a week you're hearing the same shit. granted on the college radio station you have to sit through some women talking about getting in touch with their inner being, and naming their artificially inseminated daughter dharma, and then some metal band singing about how theyd like to sacrifice the daughter named dharma in the name of satan, but there's more chance to find something different on that station. anyhow good discussion
First off. I can't believe no one mentioned Yoko. She broke up the Beatles.
Art is very meaningful as a process for the individual creator. So in the end, even with mediocre product as the end of the process, the process itself is beneficial to societycreators, in my opinion.
Sorry for the remix but there's a distance between saying that art is meannigful for those who make it vs. it being meaningful to the rest of the society. We're not at a point in society where everyone has equal access to the privilege and luxury of making art, therefore, the benefits of such as still limited, regardless of how much POTENTIAL may exist.
I also think many would disagree with the idea that the more art being produced is necessarily an improvement for society. I don't know enough about art history to back this up or not but I'd presume that some of the most artistically rich periods in human history do not necessarily coincide with the most democratically accessible means to art-making.
Some theorists have argued that the production of art coincides with economic prosperity because the ruling class has extra money to patronize great art. Hence the renaissance, the pyramids etc.. But this theory goes out the window in any consideration of popular culture because the economy of art changes. And I would say it's almost the inverse. The 1970s were terrible for the American economy, yet some of the best music and movies were created in that period.
Totally unrelated. I'm up because I just covered one of the most disturbing things I've ever seen. Egyptian security forces literally just fired water cannons on a Sudanese tent village in Mohandasin. I got a call at 2:30 am from a woman crying about this. It was a grim scene. I saw kids getting thrown like ten feet. The cops wouldn't say where they were taking these people who have been protesting their status as non-people here for three months.
Totally unrelated. I'm up because I just covered one of the most disturbing things I've ever seen. Egyptian security forces literally just fired water cannons on a Sudanese tent village in Mohandasin. I got a call at 2:30 am from a woman crying about this. It was a grim scene. I saw kids getting thrown like ten feet. The cops wouldn't say where they were taking these people who have been protesting their status as non-people here for three months.
Comments
Cortez,
There's likely never going to be a resolution to this debate. I think you hit on some excellent points in regards to the idea that "more art = more people talking about art, i.e. more filtering mechanicsms."
But this idea?
The way I see it, if the "old system" produced 1 masterpiece for every 40 pieces of shit (I'm just throwing random numbers out here but bear with me), then today, the ratio is probably double or triple that. How is that "worth it"? I might have gotten your point wrong but you don't seem to disagree with the assertion that there's more mediocrity out there than ever, largely due to increased production and distribution.
I hear this complaint from ARTISTS all the time: that the market is so clogged that not only is it far harder for them to distinguish themselves with all the static that's around but it's also far, far harder for them to earn a buck on the music they make.
Mind you: it's not like we can dial things back to the way they used to be. I might get nostalgic but I'm not a fool about it: this is the new era of information and media proliferation and there's no way it's suddenly going to slide back into some anachronistic model of distribution.
My point here isn't to call for some return to "back in the day." But nor am I going to look around and say, "wow, look how much better everything is now that 12 year olds can rock Pro Tools and upload their songs to myspace.com!" That increased democrization has a very real downside and we're living through just the tippy tippy top of it right now.
Regardless though, music will still get made. People will enjoy it. And I guess, at the end of the day, that's what's most important.
oDub, you are a supervillain of music journalism.
Me neither but I just thought they looked alike in that pic.....
Awesome, I needed a new location:
------------------
crazy delicious
Micheal McDonald just bought a house here in midtown Memphis. Maybe I can get an ill pic like this when he comes in.
The Dot-Com explosion.
I can attest to this. It's one thing to get your record in stores, it's another to get it off the shelf and into the hands of consumers. What you had to do to sell records 10 years ago, simply doesn't work in today's market. 'Nough said. Put a record out, get reviews in major publications in print and online, believe me, it's still a crapshoot.
Cortez, you may not mind sifting thru x-amount of mediocrity but unfortunately, most consumers don't have your patience or persistence when it comes to finding someone's "masterpiece." I wish they did.
And
P.S. When is the next sidewalk sale going down, homie?
Dude, Michael McDonald is not a supervillain.
Just "super."
"I Keep Forgettin'" remains unfadeable.
that would make an ill shirt/bumper sticker/something
Retail Mind Garden Alert!
Close, but it's actually spelled "Gwen Stefani."
DESTROYING HIPHOP CAREERS WITH A SINGLE SENTENCE
More like "pissing off indie rappers with a single review."
=
is where I was going with that idea.
To further clarify, my argument is that while there is much more "art" accessible due to lower barriers for production/distro, I find I have to do less work, not more to find the good. Also due to the same factors, there may be more good art to access as well. Now, I may be the Mighty Internetro, but it's not really that hard.
The whole mediocre vs. masterpiece dichotomy also misses a key point of art by focusing on the end "product." Art is very meaningful as a process for the individual creator. So in the end, even with mediocre product as the end of the process, the process itself is beneficial to society, in my opinion.
As far as artists earning potential is concerned, that's a different discussion.
Peace,
Cortez
Sorry for the remix but there's a distance between saying that art is meannigful for those who make it vs. it being meaningful to the rest of the society. We're not at a point in society where everyone has equal access to the privilege and luxury of making art, therefore, the benefits of such as still limited, regardless of how much POTENTIAL may exist.
I also think many would disagree with the idea that the more art being produced is necessarily an improvement for society. I don't know enough about art history to back this up or not but I'd presume that some of the most artistically rich periods in human history do not necessarily coincide with the most democratically accessible means to art-making.
And this brings up two ideas that really should be heeded more often:
1) Just because you can make an album doesn't mean you should, and
2) Just because you make an album doesn't mean you have to release it.
And really, if the process of making art is meaningful for the creator, then shouldn't creation be the point and not necessarily putting out that creation?
Basically, I agree with ODub. The Big Democratization of Music has in no small part buried the gems out there under an exponentially larger pile of mediocrity (or worse).
just to play devil's advocate and continue an intriguing discussion...
perhaps when graffiti first came out many traditional artists snubbed graffers claiming "oh anyone with a $5 spray can can make art these days" and look at what that evolved too
or when people came out with two turntables and a mixer to produce music and traditional musicians snubbed them...
or when dildo/serator/cdj came out traditional turntablist snubbed them...
my only point is that those three things i've mentioned have been evolutions in creation, and their mediums have been way more accessible than the predecessors that may choose to look down upon them...of course that doesnt mean they come up with a better product at all, though i do think it offers more derivate products a lot more faster.
the way i think of it, is you know how people say that for every michael jordan there must be 10s of him that didn't make it? well what if someone documented a player that could kill him that just played in a playground and not for an organized league doing crazy dunks and uploading the video? i would watch it, and thats cool because someone could get shine without going through a certain amount of avenues(of course there is a charm associated with earning your stripes, but we won't get into that)
i think internet culture had so many dope thinks to offer, such as animated gifs, stupid silly flash cartoons, and even soul strut graemlins. and you dont have to be a graphic designer to make the better graemlins on this site.
even in terms of journalism, there's so many blog writers out there that would have failed first year english in university without a doubt, but that doesnt prevent some from being entertaining as hell to me.
Kinda like thinking there's another undiscovered Muhammad Ali making Backyard Fight videos somewhere out there on the Internet.
MAYBE, if there is another MJ out there from the streets, at the very least he'll need the exposure of AND1 or Slam(I miss Scoop) to reach the masses.
And searching for good music is almost as hard as finding MJ2. There is alot of absolute SHIT out there, not necessarily because of it's style or it's originality, but because it sucks. I am curious about how someone, without the help of some form of media outlet, can get their new music heard by more than 100 people?? Street teams??
With my label I've hustled over 60 titles and have explored every distribution option and have come to realize that without selling your soul to a corporation, there are serious limitations on how many people you can sell music to. And having a name known in the market for almost 20 years only allows me to reach about 500 more people than some guy just starting out in his Living Room tonight.
It's
http://www.collegehumor.com/movies/159572/
who wouldnt necessarily even want to put out a major album or indie for that matter and just have a hobby and talent and a camera...
anyhow i dont see any validity in hating the overflow of shit even if its shit. its like complaining about fox tv when you have an alternative of checking something else out. i dont see why people invest so much frustration on shit they dont like, just focus on what u do like. if you are sick of hearing tons of indie acts/raps/backpacks/pro tools on my home computer whatever people, then just focus on established labels and producers that you like...which can be equally as pointless as just some other act is on some label you like, you may find them horrible.
if it comes down to having to sift through more bullshit to find gems, then so be it, but id rather have that option than just have what a few people deem "quality" accessible to me.
to put is this way, if you were on an island and only had a radio with two stations on it and a cassette deck with tapes you could record with. one station had top 40 and the second station was college radio that played emo bullshit, some funk, some political radio, some indian classical, euro dance,jazz, punk, death metal, more emo bullshit, hip hop, and girl power spoken word, which would you choose? yeah you could listen to top 40 for a week, get some properly constructed pop songs, and a few really dope jams, but after a week you're hearing the same shit. granted on the college radio station you have to sit through some women talking about getting in touch with their inner being, and naming their artificially inseminated daughter dharma, and then some metal band singing about how theyd like to sacrifice the daughter named dharma in the name of satan, but there's more chance to find something different on that station.
anyhow good discussion
Some theorists have argued that the production of art coincides with economic prosperity because the ruling class has extra money to patronize great art. Hence the renaissance, the pyramids etc.. But this theory goes out the window in any consideration of popular culture because the economy of art changes. And I would say it's almost the inverse. The 1970s were terrible for the American economy, yet some of the best music and movies were created in that period.
Totally unrelated. I'm up because I just covered one of the most disturbing things I've ever seen. Egyptian security forces literally just fired water cannons on a Sudanese tent village in Mohandasin. I got a call at 2:30 am from a woman crying about this. It was a grim scene. I saw kids getting thrown like ten feet. The cops wouldn't say where they were taking these people who have been protesting their status as non-people here for three months.
Maybe I'm a little dude when it comes to this concept.
Sounds terrible
guess why i'm on this site?
peace
Agreed