"but in our frantic
atmosphere, in which hip has become as unpredictable and obsessed-upon as
the stock market, it's hard for an artist to mature. It's also hard for an
audience to evolve, and, on a personal note, for a critic to see things
clear. Napster heightens an already existing situation."
These are good thoughts, especially the practically never considered second
one, but I'd rather have napster, or something just like it, in operation
within this popularizing system than not. There is MUCH more chance of
wider exposure for odd ideas, new ideas, among them good ones, the ones the
rest of us haven't thought of yet... while staying power providing enough
time for audience evolution will still and probably always be up to the art
itself more than anything else. No?
Then there is the much smaller audience, (like you and me, of course..) who
are quick to notice, can evolve on a dime, and follow everything from its
beginnings all the time. This audience reacts in support almost as
immediately as the favorable thing appears, but their views don't spread,
or are not shared by the numbers we have decided means success. And then
sometimes they do spread their obscure good news to that level. It's true
that this all appears to be speeded up by the Net, but simultaneously the
Net widens the view of this show business "breaking speed" tremendously.
It's like watching the speedway cars crash from the blimp instead of from
inside the cars crashing.
The Net, for better or worse, will be used as a practical FULLFILMENT of
Andy Warhol's prediction of 15 minutes of fame for everyone, the joke
wasn't a joke, Andy - it actually CAN happen here, and it will also be used
to spread fames (flames?) and info faster, farther, and wider on a daily
basis. (The immediate spread of virus alarms and details via universal
email is a good mediumistic example of this - The whole Internet's
volunteer fire department.) And then again, perhaps not many of us deserve
to be famous for any more than 15 minutes.
>A few nagging thoughts about this conversation.
>John, your account of turning on and then off to the Harry Smiths disturbs
>me somewhat. It's a valuable testimony to the experience of the casual
>listener (that's not meant as an insult!!). Here's the thing: you didn't
>like all the Harry Smiths songs upon first listen, but isn't in possible
>that your feelings would change down the line? one of the cool things about
>the album format was that it allows a listener to live with a selection of
>music by an artist for a while. Who hasn't had the experience of feeling
>their own "favorite song" change unexpectedly? To take one example, Nick
>Drake's "Pink Moon," say, at first I was obsessed with the title track,
>then I spent a few months loving "Place To Be" best, then Lucinda Williams
>covered "Which Will" and I was hooked on that one. Then there's the way an
>album gets shared by a community. Sticking with Lucinda, when her Rough
>Trade record came out I loved "Passionate Kisses" best, my best pal Pamela
>was all about "Changed the Locks," and my sweetheart Eric adored "Side of
>the Road." Discussing our favorites gave us a way of bonding over the
>album. Granted, I'm talking about two classics of modern singer-songwriter
>genius here. But what if Lucinda or the posthumous Nick had only been
>allowed to release one song on a compilation? What if, for example, the
>Volkswagen add that made "Pink Moon" (the song) a hit was really all that
>most people bothered do discover about him? Suddenly both the artist's role
>and the listener's experience is diminished.
>Second point: Karen, you say that traditional media offers few avenues of
>discovery for listeners. As a participant in said media, I agree. But it's
>not just teen pop and rap/rock that gets reduced. Actually, from a critic's
>perspective, it's frustrating that there are so many media outlets
>competing, and so hype swells really quickly around good obscure acts. I
>remember when I fought tooth and nail to get an early review of Rufus
>Wainwright in the Times, only to have it buried under a deluge of
>complimentary press that immediately followed. Any music writer bent on
>"discovering" someone would be wise to invest her ego elsewhere, because
>now everybody discovers things at once.
> What happens with these quickly sucked-up "underground" acts (and
>yes, I know Rufus was on a major to begin with) is that there's no room in
>which to figure out if they're really any good. I went to a White Stripes
>show the other night, and they were okay,the gimmick of a young Caucasian
>brother-sister duo playing gutbucket blues in matching outfits was
>engaging. But they were nowhere near as good as the audience treated them.
>What happens to Jack White, a very promising but not completely developed
>talent, now that he's surrounded by hype-sniffing worshippers? How does an
>artist grow in such an atmosphere?
> There aren't millions of great albums being ignored. There are many
>pretty good albums that deserve consideration, but in our frantic
>atmosphere, in which hip has become as unpredictable and obsessed-upon as
>the stock market, it's hard for an artist to mature. It's also hard for an
>audience to evolve, and, on a personal note, for a critic to see things
>clear. Napster heightens an already existing situation.
>>If memory serves, KarenphoATaol.com said...
>>> In a message dated 2/25/01 5:57:43 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>>> cljATstrictlyloungin.com writes:
>>> > I can't believe that the industry thinkg they can keep throwing out
>>> > the kind of shite they do and people will buy it. People are voting
>>> > with their wallets. Simple. Why buy a CD single with the 1 fleckin'
>>> > song I want to hear for some ridiculous amount of $$ when I can just
>>> > download a good enough version.
>>> whether a song is bad or good is completely subjective. labels sign and
>>> release albums of music they think they can sell, which means that they
>>> there's an audience for it. they pick the strongest songs to promote.
>>> sometimes the song that catches on is a fluke and sounds nothing like the
>>> rest of the bands' songs. either way, their logic is not "hey, this is
>>> - let's release it!" and the band is not sitting in the studio trying to
>>> write their suckiest songs ever.
>>Okay, I'll buy that, but they have to realize that most of this stuff
>>will never get heard, appreciated, or liked. I completely understand the
>>argument about producing the best music you can. I'm not saying anyone
>>should be _trying_ to produce garbage, but shite happens.
>>Of course, this is where Napster can shine, because if it allows you
>>find the gems (again, provided you're open minded enough to look for
>>the gems), then you can isolate down to the few tracks you want, download,
>>and have them all the time.
>>Sounds like an opportunity for the labels to band together, buy Napster,
>>use it as a trial service, then allow you to cut your own custom "one hit
>>wonder" comps from their libraries. I'd love to have Paperboy's "Ditty" on
>>a CD in my car (but not the rest of the CD). The stuff you can't live
>>without you'll go buy. The stuff that you'd love to have (but dammit!
>>you're not paying for that whole CD), you custom compile.
>>> i think the problem is not that there are a bunch of cds out there with one
>>> good song on them, but that there are so few ways to find good music
>>> the traditional media. only a handful of bands get any attention and all
>>> those great records that were released end up gathering dust on the record
>>> store shelves. we are so deluged with teen pop and rap/rock that you
>>> have to make an effort to find anything else. labels release lots of
>>> records, and you only hear about a small percentage of them.
>>> doing a better job of exposing new music than mtv and radio are.
>>True, and for those not willing to make the effort (which would seem to
>>be most music execs), the usual forms of distribution will suffice. But
>>some of us with more complex tastes will require more complex compilation
>>of our libraries.
>>Again, more potential for the labels to blow up Napster. I say f$#k 'em
>>if they aren't willing to experiment with new ideas. They'll get blown
>>up and wonder what happened while someone else (?) walks away with the
>>> > And on the promotional tip, MP3 (and echanging via Napster) is beautiful
>>> > because the the distribution is so wide and quick. Drop a phat track
>>> > on there and get some coverage. This stilo is probably more well known
>>> > for underground/hip-hop artists than those big, well known corp types,
>>> > but it works. No doubt. I'd do it in a heartbeat (in fact, I *will* do
>>> > it soon).
>>> and wouldn't it be great if the band and label got compensated for that
>>> distribution, like they do in the offline world?
>>1 or 2 songs are giveaway-able. A whole album. No. But I can accept
>>compensation in other forms, like recognition, etc. The only guys worried
>>about losing money are the ones who have it. And there are fewer of
>>them than us. We'll just have to burn it all down. But I think a great
>>point is made in this interview (lifted from /.):
>>Build the laws around the way people work.
>>The labels will get their heads handed to 'em somehow.
>>>> Claude Johnson 301.806.7399 mailto:cljATmalevolentminds.com
>>>> Chairman & CEO Malevolent Minds, Inc.
>>>> Chairman Strictly Loungin Entertainment,
>>>> The Skratch Pad http://www.skratchpad.com/
>>>> Beautiful Black Women!!
>>>> Strictly Loungin' http://www.strictlyloungin.com/
>>This is the pho mailing list, managed by Majordomo 1.94.4.
>>To send a message to the list, email phoATonehouse.com.
>>To send a request to majordomo, email majordomoATonehouse.com and put your
>>request in the body of the message (use request "help" for help).
>>To unsubscribe from the list, email majordomoATonehouse.com and put
>>"unsubscribe pho" in the body of the message.
>This is the pho mailing list, managed by Majordomo 1.94.4.
>To send a message to the list, email phoATonehouse.com.
>To send a request to majordomo, email majordomoATonehouse.com and put your
>request in the body of the message (use request "help" for help).
>To unsubscribe from the list, email majordomoATonehouse.com and put
>"unsubscribe pho" in the body of the message.
Rumori, the Detritus.net Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to majordomoATdetritus.net
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
Rumori list archives & other information are at
[an error occurred while processing this directive] N© Detritus.net. Sharerights extended to all.