Getting used to the New Way...

[dummomusic]

I'm dipping my toes in this digital water and, at first, it seems cold and uninviting. Yet, I see millions swimming and enjoying the depths. So, here I go...

I play in a band called Dummo (as you can clearly see), and I am still trying to get used to this new way of publicity and promotion. Ever since I got into music, its always been in the back of my mind that, one night, at one particular show, there will be that guy, the guy with the cigar and the contract, "Come on kid, we're gonna make you a star!" Well, that guy is long gone. Now, we have this massive, MASSIVE culmination of information at our fingertips and along with that comes the river of bands and musicians that would never be heard without it. I am one such musician in one such band. My point to posting this is as follows: Does anyone else feel lost in this incredible expanse of information? Does anyone still try to experience the intense flow of energy that occurs at live shows? Does anyone still appreciate the hard work that some bands put into making an "album", a full-on, cover-to-cover experience that goes far beyond the 'single'? Keep in mind, I'm not accusing anyone, just asking.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

I'm torn with the way that promotion has gone from being at the hands of the record labels and promoters and now can be left up to the artists themselves to do on their own. On one hand, it allows indie bands to control completely what they do, who they promote to and how they choose to promote. On the other hand, people that aren't as talented are promoting themselves in ways to get noticed and actually create some success out of that.
There are famous singers now that were discovered via places like MySpace and are known as a "MySpace success". I've thought about it and I don't really see anything wrong with that. Talent is subjective and I think it is more honest a way at gaining success by doing it on your own via the internet and information found than by having someone else do it after you sign a major label contract. I am curious as to whether anyone has a problem with artists that gain fame thru myspace.

I think for me, being a music fan of the 90s, I've become more interested in the complete package than just the singles. I'm sure you're probably referring to fans of music in the 70s during the onset and popularity of the concept record and an album that could flow from one end to the other with a complete tracklisting of awesome songs. I rarely listen to older music from before my time so I can't really appreciate it but for now, I do more so. I think it's difficult to create a CD that consists of good music from one end to another and no filler. In this age of iTunes, I'm thinking such a thing is becoming less significant since there is more focus on the song as opposed to the album.

[dummomusic]

i guess i'm just going to have to accept that. It's just, getting the rest of the band to do so. Then again, i guess accepting it doesn't exactly mean abiding by it. We could probably just keep plugging away with our old school tactics and principles and see what happens.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

What aspect don't you like? The lack of the complete-album or the promotion part?

[Damage]

This is interesting!

[oscillations.]

Dummo, everything you just questioned (do people value these things?) is what plagues my mind everyday. And I don't really know if music matters that much to the average person anymore. Culture has shifted away from music, if you know what I mean. It no longer represents a definitive movement, a zeitgeist, a revolution. Rather, our methods of listening to music are now what define us. I find the whole thing soul-sapping. I value what I can hold in my own two hands; everything else is immaterial. Ironically, we are more 'materialistic' than ever, yet our stock in trade is in an invisible world, accessed only by buttons, monitors, and chips. This is the first time in human history that an instant gratification/convenience-based lifestyle has been allowed to us. It's too early to tell what the implications are, but from both an anthropological and biological perspective, we were not engineered for these conditions we've created for ourselves. A human's body doesn't exist only to access an intangible world; we were not given fingers to push buttons or turn knobs. Perhaps, one day, we'll just evolve right on out of our bodies since physical form and its force is apparently no longer needed. We are no longer an action-based society. We hold little interest in seeking organic, natural, visceral experiences (that incomparable "rush" you speak of when experiencing music live, nature watching, letting your imagination run wild), except for the most extreme (hardcore sex, violence, driving recklessly). That energy has become conflated and misdirected.
Mostly though, we'd rather watch someone else do things (psychologically: voyeurs rathen than "doers"; also, a massive shift from 'sensational' to 'conceptual', thanks due mainly to technological advances).
We are an observing people, a noncreative people, and a people who value function and result over process. We love our iPods but could care less how they are made or how the music it plays is made (or who that music is made by). It's all about the bottom line.
Wow, this could bring on another one of my metaphysical freak outs.

[banet2001]

cherrycrush said:

Dummo, everything you just questioned (do people value these things?) is what plagues my mind everyday. And I don't really know if music matters that much to the average person anymore. Culture has shifted away from music, if you know what I mean. It no longer represents a definitive movement, a zeitgeist, a revolution. Rather, our methods of listening to music are now what define us.

I do agree that music seems to have less significance than it once did. But I think that may be part of an evolution in the entertainment industry more than anything. If you go back in time about thirty years ago, what were the entertainment options? There was no (or little) cable television. Everybody was stuck watching the same network shows. There was music and the radio. Beyond that, there were not a whole lot of home entertainment options. Now, we have cable/satellite television with hundreds of television channels to choose from. We have DVD's and are capable of watching almost any non current movie/TV show ever created. We have the internet, and all of the options it has to offer. We have ultra modern video games. Today we simply have a lot more entertainment options than we used to have. As new entertainment options and technologies develop, older options get minimized. It is a natural progression.

I find the whole thing soul-sapping. I value what I can hold in my own two hands; everything else is immaterial. Ironically, we are more 'materialistic' than ever, yet our stock in trade is in an invisible world, accessed only by buttons, monitors, and chips. This is the first time in human history that an instant gratification/convenience-based lifestyle has been allowed to us. It's too early to tell what the implications are, but from both an anthropological and biological perspective, we were not engineered for these conditions we've created for ourselves. A human's body doesn't exist only to access an intangible world; we were not given fingers to push buttons or turn knobs.

You almost sound like a neo Luddite with this statement.

Modern technology has allowed us to access and process far more information far more efficiently than in previous generations. I suppose on one level it makes our generation "softer" than previous generations who had to work harder physically (from having to get up to change the channel to having to go to a music store to buy an album). However, as new technology develops, we are capable of accomplishing tasks far more efficiently than in previous generations. Whether that is ultimately good or bad for human development, only history will show one way or the other. I think it is part of human evolution, which will always carry on.

Perhaps, one day, we'll just evolve right on out of our bodies since physical form and its force is apparently no longer needed. We are no longer an action-based society. We hold little interest in seeking organic, natural, visceral experiences (that incomparable "rush" you speak of when experiencing music live, nature watching, letting your imagination run wild), except for the most extreme (hardcore sex, violence, driving recklessly). That energy has become conflated and misdirected.
Mostly though, we'd rather watch someone else do things (psychologically: voyeurs rathen than "doers"; also, a massive shift from 'sensational' to 'conceptual', thanks due mainly to technological advances).

I think to a certain degree humans have always been voyeuristic. For example, zoos have been popular for generations. We love to view the life of wild animals in a semi natural environment. Gossip magazines have been popular for decades. However, as technology advances, we are given more opportunities to view others lives far more closely. Honestly, I don't think this is a real shift from the natural tendency of human beings. Of course as more and more people are exposed to extreme situations (sex, violence etc), we as a society are softened by extreme behavior, thus it takes far more to shock us nowadays than in previous generations. I don't believe this is a particularly good trend, but it is part of the by product we get by pursing the freedoms we are given in the US.

We are an observing people, a noncreative people, and a people who value function and result over process. We love our iPods but could care less how they are made or how the music it plays is made (or who that music is made by). It's all about the bottom line.
Wow, this could bring on another one of my metaphysical freak outs.

I do agree that in general, there seems to be less of an emphasis on creativity. As we get more and more entertainment options, we seem to spend less time creating and reading, and more time pursing entertainment. I think it is unfortunate that many don't care that an artist is completely manufactured and studio made by a group of paid songwriters and producers and that the artist has zero creative ability. What is important is that the artist looks good and sound like ten thousand other artists on the radio. In an ideal world, ability and creativity would be of greatest importance. Unfortunately, that is not the world we live in right now. We live in a world where the three minute gratification is of greatest importance.

[oscillations.]

I ain't no Luddite.
Technology isn't evil; it can be used for good or evil or mere convenience.
I'm critiqueing the FACT that it allows us to do less for ourselves, and eventually makes us less curious about how things are made etc. And we have absolutely no interest in exploring things for ourselves - how many kids make a fucking cool toy out of a brown box anymore? How many non-'Tech Toys' even exist? How many kids like to go out & explore nature, or even play outside at all? "Nature defiency syndrome" is a very real, scary condition that is just now beginning to get some attention in the conventional press. "Voyeurism" in the context I used it implies that we no longer choose to engage in physical activities ourselves, we're complacent & satisfied to watch others, instead, whether that be on reality TV, magazines, video games, etc. (At least in video games, you "manipulate" the flow of events; however, in many ways it is the most dangerous of all forms of distraction as it has the tendency to lure the player into indulging in a simulated world where everything is always at stake).

Everything you said - how this is all came to be - is true. I'm passing judgement & arguing that the way things are "is not okay". Because it most definitely isn't.

[banet2001]

Neo-Luddites don't always view technology as innately "evil" or innately "good". That is a popular misconception. That is really the point of view of Anarcho-primitivists, who want to abolish technology altogether. Neo luddites may simply be skeptical of the benefits of rapid advancement of technology, in that it may lead to dehumanization, alienation, destruction of the environment and changing of traditional values etc. The fact that many of the current generation have less social interaction with one another, have less drive, creativity and ingenuity as a result of modern technology are many reasons to be skeptical of advancing technology.

Anyway, you never struck me as a genuine Neo Luddite, just that some of your arguments fall into that line of thinking. ;)

[oscillations.]

I'd argue I'm more of a neo-Romanticist, but some of those Luddite values fall in line with the concerns of literary Romanticism. (When you consider the rebellious origins of both Industrial Revolution era movements, it makes sense). Then again, Fight Club is sometimes interpreted as being neo-Luddite in nature, and if you make that connection, it probably isn't much of a stretch to label me as such, too.
Basically, I do think we are on the brink of a multilateral crisis, but I don't have many answers to offer to fix what's gone wrong. On a personal level, I try to use restraint where I feel it necessary. Progress in the arts? Welcome. Progress in scientific fields & medical advances? Absolutely welcome & necessary. Progress in the realm of tech gadgetry? Meh. I can pass. A lot of what passes for "progress" these days is just designed to make us feel like we are going faster, achieving more in less time, emphasizing "individualism" (the biggest scam going) etc., but "progress" in these cases is just a pretext for corporate greed & consumer culture to spin out of control. I'm not buying into the hype.