The Internet has had a vastly hugeR effect on music since 1980 than ANY single artist or producer, or genre or any one (or 1,000) pieces of music.
I couldn't truly enjoy or fully realize my music mania till the internet got involved.
Napster forced the lables to get off their asses and give the people (us, the audiophiles) what they wanted. Access To Music. Before Napster and Amazon I was hard pressed to find tons of back catalog titles. Once they saw us giving it to each other for free they jumped up and started waving ther arms around "No, No, We'll give you want! "Just be good, don't rip us off and we'll give you more music than you know what to do with- pretty please, with sugar on top?' Generally speaking, once a title was a few years old- that's it, I'd be forced to start scouring the used bins. Now they are re-issuing, remastering, repackaging, bonus tracking, new artworking, so much music that there is no possible way to keep up with back catalog- I love it! My only music access problem now is- where do I get the cash?
I remember writing letters to electra records in 1980 trying to get Stooges titles on any format. I even wrote to Iggy c/o electra and finally got a note back saying those just are no longer available. Then in July of 1982 I moved to Chicago and I thought alright, BIG TOWN RECORD SHOPS! But still no Stooges (except Bowie's weak ass Raw Power mix). I did finally find some used stuff.
Some other profound effects the Internet has had on Music are (is) (THIS) -Music Forums. Finally fans can link up with eachother and with artists and feel some kind of solidarity and commradery instead of skulking around waiting for handouts. And I hardly need to point out the profound effect the internet has had on Artists. Artists can now go (to a degree) right over and around lables directly to fans- that's huge. Can you say DIY!
Sadly there has been some fallout come from this cyber intervention like the dissappearance of lots of great music stores.
Am I being a frothing buffoon here or what- it seems pretty clear to me.
That's like saying that CDs had a bigger affect
on music as a whole than Luther Vandross alone could manage. Or something. Well, duh.
If you mean the industry, then, I suppose you may be right to an extent.
If you mean about music and the type of music being made etc etc, which I think (if you're referring to the earlier thread) was what it was about, then no.
TSH TSH
No not just the industry, ARTIST, FAN and MUSIC too
I don't have to argue about how the internet has improved things for music lovers- any one who has been a consumer/fan of music knows that answer. What you are wanting me to do provide examples of how the internet directly effected music astetically-yes? The obvious answer is the internet has served to deseminate music so effectively that it speeds up the whole cycle of inspiration and creation. Thanks to the internet a would be artist get's much more exposure to existing art and get inspired to make his or her own-and so it goes.
Depends what you mean by influence, obviously
Yeah, a lot of people get to listen to a lot more bands.
But no-one thinks: Bloody hell! The internet's brilliant! I'm going to form a band!
It's a facilitator, but it's not an inspiration.
The previous thread said "Etc"
That opens the debate to allow my argument.
Oops.
Etc.
Doesn't that normally imply "carry on in the same vein, but you get the gist"?
This would be like listing a load of early poets, then saying etc., and somebody saying "Oooh! The printing press!"
I'm not saying you're wrong - you're clearly right! But comparing an information sharing system to an artist seems a little unfair.
The info sharing system is huge though
it's like the tree that fell in the woods with no one around to hear it- it follows with music that falls on deaf ears. The Internet is making music bigger by the second.
I don't know, I wracked my brains for an artist that has effected music more than the internet - there just isn't one.
But you're expanding "music" to mean more than just the music
If you mean "the world of music as a whole, taking into account exposure, distribution, copyright, ownership, and all that other stuff", then yeah. But I don't think "music" means that.
You don't get inspired by the easy access, or the ability to download. You get inspired by the things that you download, and the music you listen to.
Otherwise you can just win the entire argument by saying "electricity". Or possibly "ears".
My dear fellow
Music means Music.
Imagine for a moment deleting every bit of music that you ever downloaded-and deleteing it not just from your machine but also from your mind. Now honestly, does this prospect add to, subract from or leave your musical experience unchanged?
To recap
There is a difference between the things that enable your musical experience and the things that create it. Naturally, deleting all the music I've ever downloaded from my mind diminishes the musical experience. It doesn't diminish the music.
I agree with you that the internet is unparalled in spreading music. But I think that trying to compare it to any individual artist is a category error, akin to comparing the printing press to Charles Dickens. Or John Peel to the radio.
you're right
oranges, apples, bananas, etc.
etc. would be more fruit
not
oranges, apples, bananas, toothpaste.
If you interject your "clarification"
then this debate is moot but the internet has enhanced my entire musical experience greatly. I have to give credit where it is due.
Mine too, massively.
Social networking, Napster and its followers, the impact on the record labels, internet shopping, gig listings, chat forums, last.fm, internet radio ...
I <3 the internet. But not in the same way I <3 Nick Cave.
I wish we could ask Nick about this.
I remember reading about how The Beatles got exposure to rock and roll not by osmosis or the radlio, (the radio has always been bullocks) but from folks who worked on ships, travelled abroad and brought back 45's and LP's from America and shared it with the folks back home in Liverpool- all the Beatles concurred that that connection made the Liverpool scene flourish ahead of stodgy old London. Now you tell me that that isn't true influence.
Whoops forgot conclusion^^^^^
I see the internet as being similar to the Liverpool shipworkers- spreading the music.
Yes
They didn't write the music, did they? My point.
they didn't write it correct
but if they hadn't of brung it home fer the lads, john, paul and george'd still be playin skiffle at the pub- get it. No music, No Beatles.
I'm not saying that how the music gets there doesn't matter
But the music is still as "influential" even if no-one gets to hear it. It just doesn't get to realise its influence.
In the same way, alcohol is just as intoxicating, even when nobody's drunk it.
yeah
you're kindof right. if nothing else, CDs are cheaper today than they've probably ever been. it's great!
<3 Puregroove sale
CHEAPER TODAY THAN THEY EVER WILL BE AGAIN AS WELL!
haha
did you go there as well? i went there after work and got a bunch of stuff. the staff were all drunk and undercharging / making up prices, it was brilliant.
Yeah, I went at 10am
Got me about four albums and a stack of singles for the brilliantly random 'we've not a clue what we're doing, we just wanna empty the shelves' price of £13.50. Superwintime.
:D
excellent. one of the things i bought was a lone copy of tommy by the wedding present. the sticker said £5, the guy serving couldn't find £5 on the pricelist, charged me a quid and went back to his kronie :D
You were onstaff or buying
either way it does sound brilliant
unless you download lossless audio file formats
you're not an audiophile. Just thought I'd point that out.
as for the rest of your post
there's an interesting article called the Long Tail written by Chris Anderson, editor of Wired magazine about all of this. Give us a second, I'll find the link...
here you go:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html
Thanks
I'll read it asap.
erm
why aren't you an audiophile?
because an audiophile
is a hi-fi enthusiast. MP3s, etc. are not hi-fi.
erm
Why not?
are you being serious?
because they're shit quality.
"MP3's use of a lossy compression algorithm is designed to greatly reduce the amount of data required to represent the audio recording and still sound like a faithful reproduction of the original uncompressed audio for most listeners, but is not considered high fidelity audio by most audiophiles. An MP3 file that is created using the mid-range bitrate setting of 128 kbit/s will result in a file that is typically about 1/10th the size of the CD file created from the original audio source."
So what kind of bitrate should "audiophiles" look for?
lossless audio formats
FLAC, etc.
Yes
Yes, am I being serious. I bought an iPod last month, and have been umming and arring about what to do with my hi-fi, which is twenty years old now.
If play 256kbit or higher MP3s through an iPod connected to the new £1500 Fatman iTube 452 valve amplifier hoooked up to, I don't know, say £1500 speakers (as lots of people are doing at the moment and saying it sounds brilliant), would it still not make me an audiophile?
well...
a 256kbit MP3 is going to be vastly superior to a 128kbit MP3, and in terms of frequency reproduction it will be complete, the issue is with the way the data is compressed. You're going to lose dynamics so the quieter parts of any songs are going to be louder than they should be. This won't be noticable with 90% of music but if you listen to classical music and a lot of modern composition then you probably will notice that there is less in the way of dynamic change compared to CD quality audio.
in answer to your question
no way should you throw out a good quality hi-fi set up because you bought an iPod!
I agree MP3 sound quality is inferior
I have an ipod and a shuffle but I carry a clunky old Discman around cause it crushes the limp sound of MP3's.
.
They're not high fidelity sound, as audiophile bores love to point out.
They sound 'higher fidelity' to me than C90 bootlegs though, so they do me fine.
He's right, an audiophile is a hi-fi enthusiast
well I think we're splitting hairs here. By audiophile I meant lover of music, and by love I mean anyone who has taken a treasured cd to bed with them and fallen asleep next to it- every one else is just a music "enthusiast".
1980?
More like 1990, 1995 or even 2000 onwards.
The internet's not all great
Granted, the explosion of download culture has meant that more musicians can get their stuff heard by more people. The problem is that the vast majority of it is going to be shit. At least with the label system there was some kind of quality control. These days it is required to sift through mighty seas of utter dross to find the good stuff. Bah and indeed, humbug.
So you'd rather have it all dictated to you by the labels?
I'm going to trust David Geffen to tell me what I should listen to from know on.
Its surely worse now...
It may not be the labels pushing their music so much these days but everything we hear on the internet is being pushed by someone. There is no such thing as a genuinely new find; it is all being hawked by someone to either make money or fuel egos. The music industry is not altruistic. The internet has merely opened a Pandora's box of mediocre talent. It seems that even the big internet successes were actually being pushed by their labels.
Then again I am hungover and being needlessly cynical!
Yeah, not much internet in 1980
but the topic is set with those parameters so from 1980 till now. I thru in the beyond bit cause I sure we haven't seen all of how the internert is going to influence music.
I have to bow out of the argument for the mo
I have to go to work.
But, I'll be back.
To take up cudgels...
...I positively welcome the chance to weed through dross in search of real gems rather than being spoon fed whatever some music industry hack has decided is fashionable this year.
eg Since Ms Winehouse sold a ton of records last year we've had Adele, Duffy, George Pringle, Kate Nash and a million billion other single girl singers. And they are all the bloody same.
Its not an influence
More of a better and expanding medium to get to more music, hear more music etc etc.
Are improving football pitches the main influence for why the standard of football has improved over the years? No, it merely facilitates better play.
The importance of the internet cannot be overstated at all though.
This access to all music ever nonsense has had a damaging effect on older people
Previously, the older people, beset upon and befuddled by, the younger people's tastes and the massive targetting marleting of music towards younger people, could, at least, retire to the privacy of their homes and caress their record collections, knowing, with glee and with a smirk, that these young people have never heard, and never will hear, the delights of Trixie's Big Red Motorbike or I, Ludicrous.
But now, alas, everything, everything is available to download, legally or illegally. Even videos made for tuppence in 1978 can be viewed on Yo Tube. The younger people now know what we know, they hear what we heard. This can't be good.
I downloaded some Les Paul and Mary Ford for my Mom last week.
Download for the Old Folks!
But I know what you mean. I know a woman who still listens to Jimmy Durante on a Victrola- she's happy as a clam.
i personally
wouldnt say that many good bands slipped through the net when labels werent signing them, and there were possibly more labels before internet downloading made it harder to make money unless you were a massive label. If a band was good enough then they got signed, even to a small label, then you just had to find out about them - the internet has made this easier, but now you do have to trawl through a lot more rubbish bands that would never have got anywhere but for the fact that they have a myspace, and the 300 people in the country that like them can find out about them.
Secondly, how about home taping, and cd copying? apparently people on average copy 7 cds a month for friends, its just not as reported as heavily as downloading because its not trendy at the moment. And i heard about fuck loads of bands after a mate made me a tape that we listened to at work - i think i bought albums by pretty much every artist on there. And then there was john peel - someone playing 8 hours of new music a week. So to say that the internet has suddenly opened this pandoras box of new music seems disenginous.
Finally, i only have 1 album that i have downloaded that i dont own a hard copy of. So i wouldnt give a toss if i didnt have the internet. This, to be fair, isnt true of everyone, but reading wire, plan b and DiS (boards + reviews) is enough for me, without having to download music.
In conclusion, the internet: not that special
"seems disingenuous"?
I fail to see your meaning there. It is my reality, I mean it in ALL sincerity; therefore genuine. Even during napster's heyday I only grabbed files that could not be gotten anywhere else. I downloaded stuff that I had been striving fruitlessly for years to get my hands on- seemingly esoteric, archival material. As a result of users sharing their files and eliminating the need for record companies, they (the record companies) were forced to insinuate themselves back into the loop by offering us what we want and need- hence more product to consume (good for us) more to sell (good for them)- ultimately win/win.
I always insist that friends support the artist and buy their own cd. Just last week, I sent a DiS user to cds that they were having trouble laying onto and I sent them my very own copies which I have since re-ordered.
So two mags and DiS are all you need? OK, good for you.
As to your self-approving conclusion: We have the internet to thank for it's conveyance.
to be fair
my own conclusion was going to support my views! But overall ive just found that i havent had to download music to satiate my musical demands. i tried to show that i dont just read those three things and that there was a world of placed to find things. You say that you only got rare music off napster, but would your music life collapsed if you hadnt got these?
Im not saying that your use of downloading is wrong, i just dont agree that it has revolutionised music production or listening habits. But thats just an opinion. and i dont know what i meant by disneginous, i think i just meant not right. i like to use these big words and they just land on my face
"big" words get me in trouble too
Nah, my music life survived for decades without napster or the internet but the addition of these things (I believe) brought about a very real surge as far as what is on the shelf in the shops and what can be had by ordering in, either thru the shopkeeper or direct on line- it's great. I hardly ever get skunked anymore. I said hardly- I am still trying to find a copy of "The Velvet Gentleman" by Wendy Carlos, and Will Sargeant's solo record and recordings of Truman Capote.
PS
I had to look disingenuous up.
*I, Ludicrous
see above
RIP record shops
I personally find myself conflicted about internet music as it is killing one of my favorite pastimes; namely browsing small record shops for bargains. The thing with searching for music online is its a very specific process. You know what you want to hear and you search for it. Gone is the stumbling on some forgotten classic purely by chance. Also we seem to be trading the superior sound quality of cd for the hissy imitation of mp3. Plus I like to OWN my music; physically, with cover art and a space on its shelf. A file on my laptop just doesn't have the same appeal! Now where's me teeth?
Amen, it's dire straights, the scenario (not the band)
Even Branson's Virgin Record emporiums have folded in upscale American consuming grounds. Went to Virgin in Salt Lake City last April when we were in town for Wolfmother and it (the store) was jumping. Went back in October for Interpol and it (the store) was gone.
Also these.
R.I.P. Wax Trax, Chicago
R.I.P. Rose Records, Chicago
R.I.P. Ozone, Portland
R.I.P. Portland's Music Mellenium's satellite stores are gone-they still have the Flagship store, for the moment.
Rockin Rudy's in Missoula, Montana, three years ago a huge bizzare bazzare of music, now scaled down to the nubbins and this place had been thriving since the sixties.
To their credit, the poor saps who own and operate what they call "Independant Record Stores" fly in the face of all this and maintain tiny shops with 5,000 essential discs in their inventory- these are oasises for music lovers and like oasises- few and far between. My favorite of these is a place in Salt Lake, go there if you get to town.
Slowtrain Records
221 E. Broadway
Salt Lake City, Utah
www.slowtrainmusic.com/
MTV
Yeah, this helps supports my argument
Who wants to say MTV hasn't influenced music since 1980? Huh? No, No, MTV is just cold technology, it could never influence something as sacred and lofty as songwriting. Oh, Sick Burn!
thanks vik!
Berk.
Of course it's influenced music. Just not in the same way that other music does. They are different things and it is futile to draw comparisons.
What do I say to that, especially w/ the coup de grace, the dreaded "Berk"?
Ok, I see your points, argument well met.
The Internet and Napster are just tools, pure and simple, haven't effected the muse much- good for somethings but must remember to keep things in perspective- I digress (bowing, hat off)
Thanks, you're fun to argue with.
Ta