The Snuggie thing
(On the off chance you don't know what I'm talking about, read this post on JoCo's blog. I'll wait.)
When I listened to the NPR Planet Money podcast last week, I was not outraged over the "Snuggie" comparison--I mostly thought that was funny. I was, however, irked that the cohosts seemed to entirely miss the point of new model music industry, and professed complete ignorance of any artists who are succeeding without labels in this era.
Jonathan's excellent blog post has been stirring up a furor--I have seen it gaining him new fans, as well as raising support from his faithful followers. I was delighted to see another of my musical idols, Zoe Keating, weighing in on the debate and posting about it to her legions of Twitter followers.
I don't find blog comment threads to be ideal places for true discussion, but I'm interested in talking about some of the issues raised by Jonathan and the ensuing commentary. Anyone want to join?
When I listened to the NPR Planet Money podcast last week, I was not outraged over the "Snuggie" comparison--I mostly thought that was funny. I was, however, irked that the cohosts seemed to entirely miss the point of new model music industry, and professed complete ignorance of any artists who are succeeding without labels in this era.
Jonathan's excellent blog post has been stirring up a furor--I have seen it gaining him new fans, as well as raising support from his faithful followers. I was delighted to see another of my musical idols, Zoe Keating, weighing in on the debate and posting about it to her legions of Twitter followers.
I don't find blog comment threads to be ideal places for true discussion, but I'm interested in talking about some of the issues raised by Jonathan and the ensuing commentary. Anyone want to join?
Comments
Yesterday they aired a review of the LA Noire video game and spent most of the segment joking about how silly it was they were reviewing a game, how difficult it was to turn on a Playstation (incredibly, they employed the phrase "how to turn the darn thing on"), how no one they brought along to review the game had ever played a video game before, and ultimately threw in the towel altogether by employing the skills of a 15 year old to help them navigate the rocky shoals of a controller with more than four buttons on it. The review of actual game content was about 30 seconds of the 4 minute segment.
They simply should not report on media. They continually demonstrate a deep ignorance and fear of the new, with derision their chosen defense mechanism. Yes, their target audience skews older, but many more of us young-uns (and I use that term with a looseness bordering on the ridiculous) have turned to NPR for our primary news and don't appreciate being marginalized. Whether they learn this lesson or appreciate its value is unknowable, but I have little hope.
To me, it boils down to this: JoCo is making a comfortable living doing something he loves. How can this not be considered an outstanding success?
Grimoire >> Someone on Twitter pointed out that "successful musician" in recent years has apparently come to apply only to someone who sells a hundred million albums and regularly fills stadiums - and I think that's what had the NPR Clueless Brigade confused; JoCo is someone who does not at all conform to the definition of "success" as set in the era of giant, monopolistic record-labels and pre-digital distribution.
I agree that they need to work harder on understanding and reporting "new" media, but serious reporting needs to be an editorial priority. Their lazy preparation for these pieces bespeaks a lack of respect as much as a lack of understanding, and it's the lack of respect that I find most frustrating.
Dad was adamant that the new, decentralised media would be of a lower quality than that controlled by big corporations, but I replied that, in effect, it would still be funded by them, as they would pay for the advertising. And decentralisation allowed for easier entry into the media, giving consumers greater choice and having more competition in the business. Best of all, the consumer would not have to pay directly, instead they would be spend more, generally, which would improve their living standard and the economy.
I hope that's relevant.
The definition of "success" is one of the unaddressed questions that interested me in this episode. Jonathan implied in his post that the oft-evaded income figure was released in the hopes of proving that success via the internet can mean more than "starving artist." There is never going to be only one bar for success--some people are content with the not-quite-starving artist role--but how prevalent is it really to believe that one is only a success after acquiring a private jet and Tom Cruise levels of fame? @Grimoire, skyen: you're right that Frannie and Jacob were using a poor yardstick for success in this podcast, but are they in the majority or are we?
I don't listen to NPR, but I believe CBC Radio is a close approximate. Over the past few years I've listened with a kind of amused tolerance to CBCr2's attempts to embrace new media, with attitudes often similar to the NPR music bloggers. It's sadly easy to tell the difference between enthusiastic early adopters and those who are being told to evolve. I do not celebrate the demise of "old media" because I still see the value of infrastructure and budget in disseminating ideas, but in retrospect it amazes me that it took so many industries so long to see how the tides were changing. I think there's a natural human tendency to believe that one's personal experiences represent The Way Things Always Were and Always WIll Be. If you look at history, the economic climate and the specifics of how to succeed never remain constant; there is always going to be a New Model, and it will likely always be dismissed by those who are doing well the old way.
Probably my favourite comment on the blog was this one from Tori Adams, an economist: (The original comment is even longer and more interesting, but I'm already going ridiculously long with this. I suggest reading the whole thing, especially if the concept of economic rents is confusing out of context.)
(This will apparently be several posts. I am 4153 characters too long.)
While doing some reading on all this I came across a great article by Mike Masnick that champions new model artists like JoCo (and says some of the exact things that Jonathan and Zoe Keating have been saying over the past week about what their business model actually is.) The article is more than a year old but is still garnering comments, many of which make interesting points as well. From the article: Most of us probably know that this discussion is old, old news; most of the outrage is that for every Mike Masnick there seems to be an old media NPR blogger who doesn't "get it," leaving Jonathan to answer the same old questions about why his success isn't just a one-time lucky break. That said...
@hammil: your comment is absolutely relevant. There's a lot of interesting issues that come out of this situation: if labels go extinct, who is going to filter the "good" artists out from the rest? Few people have time to troll the internet for hours to find new music. Who's going to pay for the expensive production techniques we're used to hearing in professional music? If the corporations are still going to fund music, how are they getting paid? Frannie and Jacob from NPR did a terrible job of arguing that the internet was bad for musicians, but it's clearly bad for labels--but what about artists who want labels to shoulder some of the work? Can they benefit as much as JoCo? The technofuturists often ignore the fact that there is collateral damage in this revolution; JoCo's example won't work for every artist. As our own SRDownie commented: Additionally, I'm a little disappointed that so few people--in comments, on Twitter, anywhere I could find--addressed the very interesting questions Jonathan posed near the end of his post. (Formatting added to improve readability) I am excited to see the the Future of Music Coalition is looking into some of these.
Ok. Those are a few of the things I've been thinking about. Discuss...
Perhaps there's more to novelty artists They Might Be Giants, "Weird Al" Yankovic and Jonathan Coulton than just LOLs
http://www.nashvillescene.com/nashville/perhaps-theres-more-to-novelty-artists-they-might-be-giants-weird-al-yankovic-and-jonathan-coulton-than-just-lols/Content?oid=2635875
But the point -- and even Amanda Palmer has been saying this -- is that art is worth compensation to the artist. The "New Model" of the independent artist, like Jonathan, Frontalot, Marian, Zoe, Paul & Storm, AFP, and others too numerous to mention, is using the near-universal reach of the internet to find people who enjoy and appreciate the art you produce, and are willing to part with some variable amount of money for it. Will it sell out Wembley Stadium? Probably not. But I've seen w00tstock 2.10 put a few hundred in the Paramount Theater in Austin, Zoe Keating fill up the House of Blues Houston's Bronze Peacock Room, and Marian's filled many a coffee shop, comics store, recital hall, small club, or even a living room or back yard for a house concert. And, most importantly, it's a model that works for these artists. They're able to make a living making art, without the overhead or constraint of a corporate record label.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/12/27/144323325/the-friday-podcast-the-rest-of-the-story
Relevant info starts around 22:56 or so.