Musical Formats Effecting the Way Society Approaches Music Listening
In the age of music downloading, is there less of an appreciation for music and all the wonderful virtues of it? One article I read recently concluded that, yes, there is.Without getting directly to that question—neither giving an answer to it, nor engaging in the quite valid discussion that it possibly may not really matter—I'll offer some generalized thoughts on music downloading.
I think the biggest change brought upon by music downloading is that the general public is even less interested in full albums. It seems to me like we're in the biggest "buy the hit you know on the radio" era since the early 1960s when singles ruled and albums were almost afterthoughts.
Me? I've always been into "albums"—the full collection. I still am. I almost never buy greatest hits albums, I never make compilations, and I don't play my albums on shuffle. I listen to full albums and make no differentiation between "album tracks" and "singles."
Now, I'm not unique by any stretch, but I and the folks who are of similar ilk are not the norm. In a way, we never have been. Consider...
Have you ever heard people gripe about how they're baited into buying the full album by the hit single , only to find out that they paid all that money and "the rest of the album sucked?" Of course you have. People say that all the time, and they've been saying it for years.
Whenever people say that to me, I usually politely bite my tongue and chuckle uncomfortably. It's kind of my way of giving a non-commital reply. But what I usually am thinking is, "I don't know what albums you're buying, but there are tons of great albums out there and you oughta be able to find some for yourself." If I were to say that, it would obviously come off as smug and self-righteous, but I really think the whole notion that the hit single is the only worthwhile song is a lot of bunk. After all, what is a "hit single?" Are there really still people out there that think that a whole album is "thrown to the wall" (the wall being radio or other media) and what "sticks" is naturally the one or two good tracks? Rather, isn't a "hit single" just another track written by (hopefully) the performer that happens to be the song that someone involved—the performer himself, the label, the management, whomever—thinks is the one most likely to catch on with the general public (or whomever the target audience is) the fastest?
At any rate, I am of the opinion that if you like the hit single by "band-x," you will probably like many of the other songs they create.
So, why do so many people not feel this way? Well, my belief is that people just don't give the other tracks enough time. With most music, a sense of familiarity makes the experience more enjoyable. Even with my most cherished performers, I have to give an album a few spins to fully start loving the songs. So you get these scenarios where folks have been hearing a single on the radio over and over to the point that it is completely familiar, where they can sing along and anticipate each note. And when they get the rest of the album, they obviously won't have that familiarity with the other songs. So, they don't love them instantly and they dismiss the remainder of the album as crap. Until, of course, a few months down the road when one of those obscure, once supposedly "crappy" tracks is released as a single and they inadvertendly get exposed to it. All of a sudden, they like that song, too. But the rest of the album apart from those two songs "is crap."
There may be exceptions, but usually appreciation of a collection of music takes time. There are growing pains there. I know I have to get through the "initial exposure" time period in order to fully connect to an album. But if I hear any potential in it, I will usually give it that time, because I know the best is yet to come.
And that sort of brings us full circle to the original point: is there less of an appreciation for music as a whole? I'd say, yes, because I believe that a good listening experience is based on something deeper than just sucking up the latest commercial product that the industry throws in front of you with lots of sugar and promotion, and yet now more than ever, people have no reason to ever spend any time getting to know the music. Instead, they can just queue up the iTunes store and buy the hit single or the popular song or that track that they already know. In other words, the people that always (erroneously, in my opinion) gripe that albums are subpar collections of filler never even need to get anywhere close to them again. Instead, you just buy the commodity you know.
That means that the days when people used to rush home from the store with a brand new piece of vinyl and lay on the bed listening to it while reading the liner notes and really appreciating the hell out of it are largely gone. And I'm not talking about the vinyl part, which is obviously old school—I'm talking about the way the music is approached.
But maybe I should mention something about vinyl here. One contributor on a Yahoo! Group I'm a part of opined that the whole downhill trend started when vinyl was phased out CDs became the norm. I am inclined to agree.
When CDs came along, it became too easy to queue up the one or two hits and bypass everything else. I can't begin to tell you how many people I know whose CDs were little more than extremely expensive, digital 45s.
Granted, I realize that you can quickly find tracks on a piece of vinyl, too, by lifting the needle on your turntable; but it was different. It wasn't quite as easy and the record was more delicate. You had to be careful with the medium, and if you took care of your LPs, you very much used kid-gloves when handling them. I think this got you in a "mindset" that differs from a CD mindset, where you can just sort of grab the thing, throw it in your car, and treat it as more of a simple commodity.
I suppose there were always 45s, so buying singles is not a new thing. But the ease and accessibility of music downloading—where you can select the big songs from right at your desk at work or from your kitchen table in the middle of the night and nothing is ever out of stock—just brings us to a new level.
Now, all this stuff I've said may make one believe that I am anti-technology when it comes to this music stuff. I'm definitely not. In fact, I got on board pretty early with the whole MP3 movement. I was, honestly, the first person I ever knew that owned an iPod. My iPod is ancient—not the very first generation, but soon after. I was a digital music enthusiast before it became trendy. Admittedly, I wasn't what I'd call cutting edge, as it was already starting to gain a little steam. But when I got my iPod, the only other people who really knew about them were other Mac users who were following what the company was doing.
Having an iPod and using MP3s and M4As just makes sense. I mean, I can carry a CD to the car, or I can carry something of similar size that holds virtually my whole collection. It's fantastic. I laugh when I hear people still speak of CDs as though they are still the same exciting things they were in 1989 or 1990 when they started gaining mass popularity (though they had been around since 1982, actually). CDs are not outmoded yet, but they're getting there. You know what CDs are now for me? They're basically like my back-up files. I keep them on the shelf and don't play them that often, because I just carry my iPod around with me—in the car (where I specifically bought a stereo with a line-in jack), to work, and around the house.
I actually hate saying "iPod," because it not only sounds trendy, but it's mostly associated with the kind of listening that I don't engage in. I must have one of the quirkiest iPod collections: all full albums, many of which I ripped from out-of-print vinyl where you can actually hear the needle a bit on the MP3. But there's no denying it: the iPod is the only way to go in terms of music listening these days. Especially if you're a Mac user.
posted by Steve @ 4:49 PM
8 Comments:
While you had a lot of good points, and I do agree with you on some level, I think you are over-generalizing how people approach music now. Yes, there are teeny-boppers out there who engage in the type of listening you are talking about. But from my experience, the vast majority of owners don't approach music that way anymore. They might not own full albums, but they aren't just listening to one or two tracks played on the radio either.
I think the digitalization of music is actually a good thing. It is now much easier to share artists and songs with friends, meaning more people are being exposed to a far wider pool of music options. I have now exchanged collections with a variety of friends, meaning that not only have I discovered bands I never heard of but who's music I now soak up whenever possible, I have been able to share my own loves with others.
Yes, iTunes does offer the opportunity to just grab the hit single of the week, but it also allows people to sample new music, and I think there is a lot of album buying, since in most cases it is cheaper to buy the whole album if you want more than just one or two songs. and the variety of artists they feature mean people are being exposed to a lot of potential new bands. The Free Download of the Week, for example, lets people hear the sounds of obscure bands who otherwise probably would never be heard. How many will go and buy the full album after that? I don't know. But I bet they will sell more albums than they would have otherwise.
I do understand where you are coming from, and I agree that people who just go by whatever the local DJ things is the next hit and listen to nothing else are missing out of a lot of great music. But at the same time, I think that portion of the population is small and getting smaller as the digital format makes sampling the previously unknown easier and more cost effective than ever before.
[[[[[ While you had a lot of good points, and I do agree with you on some level, I think you are over-generalizing how people approach music now. ']]]]
Perhaps. I mean, I am definitely making huge generalizations. There's no denying that.
[[[[[ Yes, there are teeny-boppers out there who engage in the type of listening you are talking about. But from my experience, the vast majority of owners don't approach music that way anymore. ]]]]]]
See, and in my experience, a lot more people are doing it than just the teeny-boppers.
[[[[[ They might not own full albums, but they aren't just listening to one or two tracks played on the radio either. ]]]]]]
Well, radio, as a whole, has been on the decline with all the other options out there. And, ultimately, my biggest gripe is about the downfall of "the album." If we agree that people don't listen to full albums anymore, then that, in my opinion (and it's only an opinion), is not a good thing. But, again, that's me. I am an album-oriented kind of guy. One song on its own is like one small piece of a larger picture, to me.
[[[[[ I think the digitalization of music is actually a good thing. ]]]]]
Oh, definitely. I tried to get that point across, but it may have gotten lost in the verbiage. Basically, I didn't want people to think I was one of those people who can't get used to the "new-fangled technolgy." Quite the opposite, really. Like I said, I was on board with the MP3 revolution earlier than anyone I personally knew.
Digitizing music is the way to go. In a way, I think CDs are almost passé now. (Yeah, I know they're digital, too, but they're still big files if you leave them as AIFs.) In my blog entry on "Old School," I talk about how funny it is when people think they're up to speed, but they really are still stuck with yesterday's story. I see that these days with CDs these days. A CD player in your car in 1990, 1991 meant that you were a rich audiophile. These days, it's almost not desired by me at all. I need something I can plug the iPod into. Why would I bother carrying around CDs?
[[[[[ It is now much easier to share artists and songs with friends, meaning more people are being exposed to a far wider pool of music options. I have now exchanged collections with a variety of friends, meaning that not only have I discovered bands I never heard of but who's music I now soak up whenever possible, I have been able to share my own loves with others. ]]]]]
I would agree with you somewhat here. I agree fully that it makes it easier to share music. But I also don't think it's that novel, either; just quicker and more convenient. Pretty much since the beginning of my listening days I've found that if you put people together, they will hear each others stuff and share it. We used to make tapes. Then I actually ditched all cassettes for MiniDiscs for a number of years. MiniDiscs were awesome for the time, although they never caught on in this country. MiniDiscs were ideal cassette replacements during the era before MP3s got popularized and when CD burning wasn't convenient. Regarding the latter, like with most technology, it started out as a luxury and then became more common place. Back when maybe there was one CD burner at your office and none in your house (unless you were that one person in 40 homes who had one), MiniDiscs were great. After that, of course, we started moving in the direction where we currently are.
Here's some food for thought: perhaps the fact that it is quicker and easier to share is contributing to the decline of the listening experience as a cherished, special event. I think it makes it more like commodity, and it's like fast-food dollar menu commodity.
[[[[[[ Yes, iTunes does offer the opportunity to just grab the hit single of the week, but it also allows people to sample new music, and I think there is a lot of album buying, since in most cases it is cheaper to buy the whole album if you want more than just one or two songs. ]]]]]
I know it's cheaper, but I don't think most people do it. Some do, of course. I have no hard-fast statistics, but I would guess and feel pretty good about my wager that most people don't buy much deeper than the songs they already have heard elsewhere.
Personally, I think the iTunes store kind of sucks. Oh, it's great for previews, no doubt! But I don't find the variety to be that great, and I think they're way over priced. It's a little cheaper than a store bought CD would be, but not cheap enough. When you consider that I am going to be using MY time, MY equipment, and MY CDs—and that I won't be getting any professionally printed artwork—I think that the stuff ought to be a lot cheaper than it is. AND you only get to use the songs you buy in a limited number of places unless you get around that by doing some extra work? Sounds like a rotten deal to me, as a consumer. Give it to me at half the price of a store bought CD and we've got a fair deal. Otherwise, you're still better off getting a CD and making your own MP3s, where you don't have to worry about having "installed" the songs too many times.
I am actually going to start at the end, with iTunes. From what I have seen, the albums are about half the price of today's CD albums -- around $10.99 I believe. Each song is 99 cents, and if you were to buy each individually it would cost more, but to buy the whole album is cheaper. Also, iTunes wasn't so much designed to allow people to trade music as it was to try to profit off of the trading already going on. I used to download a lot of music off of peer sharing networks, but now it is easier and faster to just go to iTunes. I am the person they were really hoping to target, and they just happened to get lucky that the market ended up exploding. You can't blame them for making an exceptionally intelligent business move no one else in the industry was willing to make. I think that without iTunes to help it along, the digitization of music would have been much, much slower, hurt by the increasing efforts of the music industry to stop it. Now, they may not like it, and they are still trying to stop the free trading, but at the same time they are finally seeing a business model that proves digital distribution works, and works well. And to me, that is a huge step forward not just for music but for the way our world consumes news and media in general. But then, I am also a techno-geek loving life now that the rest of the world is finally offering me everything I want in a digital format! They finally got it!
Also, I hate to admit that listening to whole albums is nothing new. First it was mixed tapes, then burning CDs of your favorite songs, and now it is playlists. I own and do sometimes listen to whole albums straight through. But other times I am in the mood for one or two songs. I don't think most artists create "albums" in the traditional sense anymore either. The songs are designed to be enjoyed either together or individually, and more and more individually as time goes on. I don't think that is good or bad, it is just the evolution of how we listen and enjoy music. The songs don't tell a cohesive story, instead, it seems like artists are trying to ensure there is a song for a variety of moods you may have. Slower songs for when you want something mellow, peppy songs for when you want to turn up the volume and sing at the top of your lungs, etc. Not all artists are doing that, and each one still has a distinct sound, but the songs themselves aren't so much one part of an album pie so much as one part of that artist's library. You can mix and match at will.
While I know that music sharing has gone on for as long as there has been music, I don't think it was as widespread as it is today. Now, all you need is a computer and access to the Internet, which a statistically significant portion of the population now has. Tapes and CDs both did, and still do, require an ongoing investment to produce and share, whereas to share digital files costs nothing more than time. That is why I think the phenomenon has moved beyond the realm of geeks and technophiles and into regular culture, and to me that is a good thing.
I do totally agree with you on the downfall of radio, and I blame that on ClearChannel and other large conglomorates. I have not voluntarily listened to the radio in probably 5 years now. First I carted along an entire sleeve of mixed CDs for various moods, and now I have my iPod. And yet I still find and enjoy new songs all the time, from stumbling across them to having someone give me a few tracks and wanting to find more. Most of my favorite bands are those that are (or were... some are becoming more mainstream over time) fairly obscure but a friend heard somewhere, tracked down the recorded stuff and passed it along to me.
Just my two cents, for what it is worth. :-)
[[[[[ I am actually going to start at the end, with iTunes. From what I have seen, the albums are about half the price of today's CD albums -- around $10.99 I believe. ]]]]]]
Yeah, but is that actually about half price? You think regular, single albums these days are roughly 22 bucks in the store? I may not buy as many CDs as some, but rest assured I never have paid anywhere near that much for a single CD.
Ultimately, I still stand by my original belief that it is a lousy deal. Now, if you or anyone else wants to take advantage of it for the convenience factor, then more power to you. And I mean that sincerely—I'm not saying it like, "You'd have to be crazy to shop there." We pay for convenience all the time. You'll pay more for a can of soda on the run than you will for the whole 2-liter at the grocery store—but sometimes it's worth it. So, again, I'm not saying that it's a worthless service. But it's not worth *my* dollar. Or, at least not very often.
And you know what? I could over look a lot...I could ignore that you get no professionally printed artwork or liner notes or that you get no tangible commodity to show for your purchase. But what I can't overlook for that price is that you get limited "installs," if you will. Why would I want to buy a limited access version when I could get a version on CD that I can rip as many times as I want without having to worry about how many installs I have left.
Now, I know software does this kind of thing all the time, but there is an alternative here for (in my experience) not much more money.
And, yes, I know there are ways to work around the usage issues, so I'm not trying to make mountains out of molehills. But that's just one more step; another thing I have to compromise on. Not worth it, in my opionion to save a couple of bucks.
[[[[[[ Also, iTunes wasn't so much designed to allow people to trade music as it was to try to profit off of the trading already going on. ]]]]]]]]]]]
Of course. But I wasn't even referring to not liking the limited access because I want to trade it with other people. I was simply talking just for myself. I have two computers here at work, one at home, a laptop, an iPod. That's 5 potential places to put music right there. And I will surely get a new iPod at some point. I'd rather not have to worry.
But as far as iTunes being for profit, don't forget this, too: they're basically selling copies of files. There is no replenishable commodity involved. There's no stock. I don't know how much they pay for the right to sell a given song, but I would wager there is tremendous mark-up. More mark-up than I'd care to pay.
And that's probably true of physical CDs, too. But at least I get more. The ironic part is that if I buy a CD, I don't really play the CD itself much: I rip it to the digital format that you love and play those. So we're not so far apart on our appreciation of the format—only on how we get it and our opinions on whether it breeds more simplistic listening and consumption.
[[[[ I used to download a lot of music off of peer sharing networks, but now it is easier and faster to just go to iTunes. I am the person they were really hoping to target, and they just happened to get lucky that the market ended up exploding. You can't blame them for making an exceptionally intelligent business move no one else in the industry was willing to make. I think that without iTunes to help it along, the digitization of music would have been much, much slower, hurt by the increasing efforts of the music industry to stop it. ]]]]]]]
I agree with all this. I sense that you are very defensive of iTunes, and it's not necesarry. I wouldn't "blame" them for anything—it's all capitalism, and it was and is a good idea. I just think it's not a good value. At less cost, I would be right on board with it. But I'm not, and it's just me being a consumer and choosing where my dollar goes (or doesn't go).
I also think that iTunes doesn't have a very large percentage of what I am looking for. Though, to be fair, no one store (brick and mortar, online, what have you) ever does. It's about being able to acquire from a variety of sources.
I'll give you this much about the iTunes music store: they come the closest I have seen to being a well "stocked" store when compared to all of the other download options. So, they're not horrendously limited or anything. But because they are spoken of as the "go to" place for the digital revolution, it would be remiss of me not to mention that I often "go to" them and find that they don't have what I want.
[[[[[[ And to me, that is a huge step forward not just for music but for the way our world consumes news and media in general. But then, I am also a techno-geek loving life now that the rest of the world is finally offering me everything I want in a digital format! They finally got it! ]]]]
I largely aree with this, too. But it brings it all around to the original point of the blog entry: is a greater asthetic value of music being compromised by making it this "comsumable" commodity, like fries off the dollar menu? Yes, quick downloads of the latest and greatest works fine for some things, but, for me, music is not a fast food meal and doesn't need to be (and isn't desireable) as a quick meal on the go. If I have to wait a couple of days or go to the store to get the better (in my estimation) product, then that is well worth it. But that's me. Some people like large screen/high definition TVs. I couldn't care less. TV is TV to me. But a lot of people, like Paul at Encyclopedia Giachettica, do care about it. It's his thing. Mine is something else.
[[[[[ Also, I hate to admit that listening to whole albums is nothing new. First it was mixed tapes, then burning CDs of your favorite songs, and now it is playlists. ]]]]]
Of course; it's always been there. There's nothing that needs to be hedged around there. It's just EASIER now to not even go anywhere NEAR a whole album. Just click and point and you get the one track for your compilation. It makes it more like ordering a la cart off the dollar menu, in my opinion. It doesn't HAVE to be like that, and I'm sure it's not for many. But for the people who do appreciate the music in that "dollar menu" kind of way, they now have the best option they've ever had. And I think there is a trickle down effect.
[[[[[[[ I own and do sometimes listen to whole albums straight through. But other times I am in the mood for one or two songs. I don't think most artists create "albums" in the traditional sense anymore either. ]]]]]]
Well, whether this is true or not is moot to me, because even if it's true, this statement only describes how people do things in the "now" and going forward. What about all the worthwhile music that was made in the past when people (supposedly) did make albums like that (if they, in fact, did)?
[[[[[[ The songs are designed to be enjoyed either together or individually, and more and more individually as time goes on. ]]]]]]]
Well, I think this has always been the case, anyway. I think there are exceptions, like "concept albums," but those were relatively few and far between even in their heyday era. A good song is always able to be enjoyed individually. But, personally, I enjoy it even more when I hear a collection of great songs from an artist that were made in a similar enviropnment at a similar time and place. Maybe my initial statement that a single song was like seeing 1/10 of a picture could be misleading. I don't mean to imply that it's THAT bad; just that there is a larger picture there that I enjoy seeing, whether you have to or not. I'll eat any course of a delicious meal individually and love it if it's delicious. But with music, I'm like the kind of eater that wants the appetizer, followed by the salad, followed by the main course, and then the desert.
[[[[[ I don't think that is good or bad, it is just the evolution of how we listen and enjoy music.]]]]]]
Well, my knee-jerk reaction was to say, "Well, that's where we differ, because I *do* think it's bad." But that's not really true: "good" and "bad" are not the right words. Largely, I don't think it really matters, out side of the academic, which I kind of hinted at right off the bat in my post. But I do think the easy-on/easy-off ramp on the musical freeway with quick access to the well-known flavors does compromise what the experience could be. But, again, I've always been different than the norm in this respect. Not better, but better for ME.
[[[[[[[[[[[ I have not voluntarily listened to the radio in probably 5 years now. ]]]]]]]]
I really haven't since about 7th grade. I mean, if I was driving a vehicle or something that wasn't mine and didn't have anything but a radio, of course I'd listen to it. But I stopped using music radio in that sense a long, long time ago. I think the key, though, is that, like you said, everyone else (the general public) seems to be coming around to this sense that radio is of little use to them, as well.
[[[[[[[[[[[[ Just my two cents, for what it is worth. :-) ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
All worthwhile and valid thoughts, and I appreciate the feedback on the blog entries. :-)
Wow, we are both long-winded on this subject, aren't we? LOL And i thought CDs ran around $20. At least, they were last time I was really buying CDs, which admittedly has been a while. I stopped buying them new when the pricing got so high, for a lot of the reasons you have used here against iTunes and the digital format. I know they came under a lot of pressure, since it came out a few years ago that the big studios were getting together and setting CD prices, so maybe they have come down since then.
Ok, I do have to agree whole-heartedly with you on the limited use factor. For a while that was the only thing that kept me from using iTunes, because it does irritate me that someone is telling me how I can use my music, and it is annoying to have to find work-arounds. I understand why they do it, to try to make the recording industry happy and keep them from suing the company, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. The RIAA is a bit backwards still in thinking that selling something on a CD will make it less trade-able than downloading something in a digital format.
[[[But as far as iTunes being for profit, don't forget this, too: they're basically selling copies of files. There is no replenishable commodity involved. There's no stock. I don't know how much they pay for the right to sell a given song, but I would wager there is tremendous mark-up. More mark-up than I'd care to pay.]]]
Actually, believe it or not, they pay so much in liecensing fees, that for a while iTunes was, if not losing money, then breaking even. That was as of last year's annual reports, so maybe that has gotten better this quarter. I actually did a several projects when I was working on my MBA on Apple and their business model, and I was really surprised at all the interviews with Steve Jobs and others in the company talking about how iTunes in really more of a vehicle to help sell more iPods, rather than a money-maker. They knew that they were selling hardware designed to play digital music, but if they offered no legitimate way of obtaining a vast quantity of those files, they were in trouble. The Recording Industry wsa breathing down their necks for enabling illegal downloading, so they decided to go this route to head off lawsuits. Now they can say, if it ever came up in court, that they provide iPod owners with a legal way of getting the music, so they can't be held responsible if those users download illegally instead. That is the real purpose of iTunes, believe it or not. As time goes on I think it is becoming more and more of a potential money-maker in and of itself, but it isn't there yet.
[[I agree with all this. I sense that you are very defensive of iTunes, and it's not necesarry. I wouldn't "blame" them for anything—it's all capitalism, and it was and is a good idea. I just think it's not a good value. At less cost, I would be right on board with it. But I'm not, and it's just me being a consumer and choosing where my dollar goes (or doesn't go).]]
LOL, not at all! I actually do agree with you to a certain degree on a lot of it. But I like playing devils advocate, and this is one topic I know enough about to speak intelligently about on either side. Apple as a company fascinates me, so I have done a lot of research into their pbusiness model, even drawing up an entire business plan for overhauling the company in one class. So I like to debate the finer points. :-)
[[es, quick downloads of the latest and greatest works fine for some things, but, for me, music is not a fast food meal and doesn't need to be (and isn't desireable) as a quick meal on the go.]]
Here is where I think there is some confusion. I happen to disagree that being able to get music more easily doesn't classify it as "fast food". It is still a hearty experience, and no matter what format you obtain it in, at the end of the day it is still going to be you and music, on whatever choice of playback method. How you got it doesn't really make a difference. It won't change what you like, it won't effect how you listen, and it probably won't even change when you listen. The only thing it really changes is how easy it is share the music, and how portable the whole sheebang is.
[[Well, whether this is true or not is moot to me, because even if it's true, this statement only describes how people do things in the "now" and going forward. What about all the worthwhile music that was made in the past when people (supposedly) did make albums like that (if they, in fact, did)?]]
LOL, I can just hear an older person sitting by and asking why we have to drive fast cars when the horse and buggy worked just fine, or why fly on an airplance when the train would get you there just as easy. I have a deep appreciation for history, but it is just that -- history. Whether we agree with all the changes or not, society moves forward continuously, and falling back on the "but it was better in the good old days of..." arguement always strikes me as humorus. Maybe because I am such a technology junkie, and I can see all the benefits progress brings to our lives. No, I don't agree with everything that has been created or changed, but at the same time, we can't seperate one advance from another that way. We can't allow the internet and digital formats without also allowing for music to be a part of it.
[[All worthwhile and valid thoughts, and I appreciate the feedback on the blog entries. :-)]]
Good! This is one subject I could go around with you on for days probably! It is fun to explore the evolution of music and how we consume it. Personally, I am a nibbler, both of food and music. I don't want to sit down and have big meals with lots of courses, I want to have a continues dose in small amounts throughout the day. I don't think either way of consuming music is bad, just a different approach!
[[[[[ Ok, I do have to agree whole-heartedly with you on the limited use factor. For a while that was the only thing that kept me from using iTunes, because it does irritate me that someone is telling me how I can use my music ]]]]]
Yes, that's it precisely.
[[[[[[ I understand why they do it, to try to make the recording industry happy and keep them from suing the company, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. ]]]]]]
A lot of the anti-piracy stuff is ass-backwards. Like you said, we can understand why they would do it, but you can't do wrong by a paying customer. If the best way software companies or record companies can find to deter piracy is by making things difficult for people who acquire the stuff legally, then they should have to go "back to the drawing board" and figure out something else. And they'll have to live with the fact that piracy is happening in the mean time. It's like walking down the street and threatening innocent people with a baseball bat because you can't tell the muggers from the regular folks. The answer lies in a solution where you target the piraters, not everyone.
[[[[[ Actually, believe it or not, they pay so much in liecensing fees, that for a while iTunes was, if not losing money, then breaking even. ]]]]]]
Interesting. I wouldn't have thought so, but I could beleive it. I'll take your word for it, since you've seen the reports.
[[[[[[ They knew that they were selling hardware designed to play digital music, but if they offered no legitimate way of obtaining a vast quantity of those files, they were in trouble. The Recording Industry wsa breathing down their necks for enabling illegal downloading, so they decided to go this route to head off lawsuits. ]]]]]
I beleive this, even though I think it's total BS that they had to deal with this accusation that they were "enabling" illegal downloading by selling an MP3 player. I mean, CD burners "enable" music piracy, too. So do cassette tapes and cassette players, so this kind of thing has been going on for decades and decades. You want a "legitimate way of obtaining" MP3 files? Put your CD in the computer and import them. Just like I used to put my discs (vinyl) on the turntable and "import" (record) them to a cassette.
[[[[[[[ Now they can say, if it ever came up in court, that they provide iPod owners with a legal way of getting the music, so they can't be held responsible if those users download illegally instead. That is the real purpose of iTunes, believe it or not. ]]]]]
I believe it. And I despite my comments above that I think it's BS, I also could see that that would happen. It's a bit of a CYA job.
[[[[[[[[ Here is where I think there is some confusion. I happen to disagree that being able to get music more easily doesn't classify it as "fast food". It is still a hearty experience, and no matter what format you obtain it in, at the end of the day it is still going to be you and music, on whatever choice of playback method. ]]]]]
Yes, I agree with all this....FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT IT TO BE. And for people who want it to be shallow, superficial kind of experience, they will have shallow, superficial experiences with music listening no matter whether this kind of thing existed or not. But it is a system that is tailor-made for the latter type of listener.
I think part of the confusion is that I was making global generalizations about what might be looked back on in a historical sense as a very general trend spawned by the technology of the day. It wasn't about saying, "We all will be changed by this for the worse."
[[[[[[[[ it won't effect how you listen ]]]]]]]
Not for me, and not for the other extreme. But I think it will change the people on the fence.
[[[[[[[ LOL, I can just hear an older person sitting by and asking why we have to drive fast cars when the horse and buggy worked just fine, or why fly on an airplance when the train would get you there just as easy. I have a deep appreciation for history, but it is just that -- history. Whether we agree with all the changes or not, society moves forward continuously, and falling back on the "but it was better in the good old days of..." arguement always strikes me as humorus. ]]]]]]]
No, no, no, no, no..... No, this is not AT ALL what I was saying, and I hope it doesn't come out that way. I tried to stress the fact that I have been on board with MP3s since near the beginning so that no one thinks I'm saying, "The horse and buggy worked just fine." This is better, this is the way to go. But that doesn't mean that new problems weren't created by the car that didn't exist with the horse and buggy. The car was better, but it came with its own price. I don't know...maybe we'll say higher danger? Or maybe it increased the price of gas? Sure, you saved on your "horse" bill, but if you needed gas for something else besides your car, you now had to pay more for that, too. See what I mean? Progress usually solves a lot of problems but also compromises some stuff that was probably not so bad before. And usually it's worth the trade off. And this, the music thing, *is* worth the tradeoff. But there's nothing wrong with taking note of how the good progress also has a trickle down effect to other things, and that's, ultimately, all I was doing. It wasn't a call to bring back old technology or me saying, "In my day, we bought vinyl and we did just fine." Even though we did. And we'll do fine with this, too.
Oh, I knew where you were going, at least in terms of new and old technology. It was just how you said it I guess that brought that image to mind. I could visualize a couple of old guys sitting on a porch trying to outdo each other. Not that I thought that was what you were doing, it was just the thought progression. :-)
I do agree that new technology always brings new problems. But to me that is the exciting part. That means that there is always something new to discover, some new problem to solve. If everything was perfect, if we ever got it all just right, life would get pretty boring in my opinion. In the process things that might not have been broken before might get changed or even broken with the new technology, but that just gives us something new to fix. (grin)
Holy HELL I'm not going to attempt to read this entire blog entry with it's comments, but I just had to interject my own simplified little observation.... While what you say may be true, there ARE artists out there, especially ones new to the scene, that will create one or two poppy hip songs they know will hit the radio waves, while filling the rest of the album with garbage of a completely different genre, because that's what they REALLY wanna play. The second Sugar Ray album comes to mind. When I bought it for the song "Fly" I naturally assumed the rest of the album, while maybe not being as good, would still be in the same style and sound. Boy was I wrong. Most of the rest of the album was filled with Harcore expletive-filled garbage (mind you, garbage that I NOW would probably listen to over the pop songs!) However, this is what people refer to when they say they were "roped into" buying an album by a hit single... It's almost false advertising as far as I'm concerned... =)
Post a Comment
<< Home