Join 3,500 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Pundits - Do Keep Up!
December 20, 2009 8:34 AM   Subscribe

Embrace the web! It’s the same mantra that we hear day in, day out, from various sources; always those who have a vested interest in convincing us that artists are not doing so. These people seem to be the pundits, or people who want music to be free, and artists to make money in other ways - either by touring or by ‘monetising their experiential awareness’. Are these people the only people in the world who don’t receive a thousand spams a day from bands on Myspace, from people on Facebook suggesting that they become a fan, from dullards on twitter?
posted by divabat (32 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

 
Who has a vested interested in convincing me that artists are not embracing the web?

Wait...it must be me because I don't any spam at all from MySpace, Facebook or Twitter, let alone that I become a fan of some band.
posted by DU at 8:45 AM on December 20, 2009


I'm left wondering what the author wants, exactly. Popular bands get exposure, unknown bands still have to wait to get lucky. Why so surprised? There are only a certain number of people out there, and people only have a fixed number of hours in the day to listen to music, it doesn't matter if it's obtained traditionally or as a free download that's been spammed on twitter, and I believe there will only be a limited number of musians who are able to make a living. The market is saturated. If this concerns you as a musician, maybe you should try to get that day job back. The author is correct to blast the original article, which reeks of the kind of breathless SEO marketing shit that seems to fill up delicious.com's front page every hour (17 WAYS YOUR BUSNESS NEED TO BE USING TWITTER!), only with a musical basis, but pointing out "this shitty article is shit" doesn't really impress me.

In the last month, looking at my last.fm stats, I've had 17 people listen to my music. That's enough to keep me going, but I guess I'm easily pleased.
posted by Jimbob at 8:46 AM on December 20, 2009 [4 favorites]


Dullards On Twitter would be a great....

my god, what am I saying??
posted by jonmc at 8:47 AM on December 20, 2009 [4 favorites]


“Financially and theoretically speaking, if I could release an album like this every month, with those figures, I could actually make a living directly from that.”

The same can be said for record deals with major and even indie labels.
posted by fake at 8:52 AM on December 20, 2009


I'm left wondering what the author wants, exactly. Popular bands get exposure, unknown bands still have to wait to get lucky. Why so surprised? There are only a certain number of people out there...

The author, I believe, was writing in response to another blogger's insistence that musicians need to get online and blanket themselves on the the social websites, give away tracks, etc. etc. The point of this post was that, in fact, musicians are already, by-and-large, doing all of this and that the person insisting they get online hasn't been paying attention to reality. Oh, and that the things the person wants acts to do haven't actually been working very well for the unknowns.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:53 AM on December 20, 2009


To clarify, the original article that "inspired" the post was written by Dave Allen, "... who walloped the bass strings and is a founding member of the highly influential, post-punk band, Gang of Four." And it's worth noting, he also founded Shriekback and later, started his own labels, first World Domination Records and later Pampelmoose, whose site he's currently blogging on ...

A line from his article which I wholeheartedly agree with:

I have long argued that musicians need to drop the notion of making money from CD sales through record labels and concentrate on making money from the experiential awareness that surrounds their brand; a brand they own, no one else. The downside to this for musicians is that they need to get organized and work hard, or arrange for what I call the “fifth Beatle” to help with online communications, selling merchandise etc.
posted by philip-random at 9:17 AM on December 20, 2009


MORE FROM THE ORIGINAL DAVE BALL ARTICLE (hint: the guy has no sympathy for anyone who thinks it should be EASY to get their music to the potential billions of fans out there, AND make money at it):

Get Over Sucking on the Music Nanny State teat. A Digital Future Requires Strategy

Now that the internet has provided disrupting producers with all the tools they need to bypass the existing recorded music system, there should be no excuse for musicians to not go it alone. Yet, the producers – the musicians themselves, remain the problem. I believe that the safety and comfort offered to them in the past – record label deals, publishing deals, old media distribution, plus MTV and commercial radio for the most successful – created a diabolical music Nanny state, an addictive teat at which to suck that they are now having trouble weaning themselves off. I know there are many examples of musicians embracing the web but they have taken only baby steps and are in the minority – the majority are still staring into the headlights. [I purposefully won't discuss Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails here as much has been written about their successful use of the social web and I consider them special cases.]

The Nanny state reduced risk taking and danger in popular music. The very founding spirit of rock and roll was danger. Danger as perceived by those who didn’t understand the outburst of energy and excitement that this early musical form drew out of teenagers. Parents and adults in authority voiced their concerns and this led to ridiculous moments in musical history such as TV cameramen being told to only film Elvis Presley from the waist up..

posted by philip-random at 9:33 AM on December 20, 2009


Oh, and that the things the person wants acts to do haven't actually been working very well for the unknowns.

I'm curious about what that is based on, honestly. Some big acts have been very successful at building an online presence and connecting with fans, e.g. Amanda Palmer. Many small acts have done the same, and have been wildly successful at it as well. No, it won't work for every artist, but there are many musicians who have made it work for them (gratuitous link to our own fabulous Brad Sucks).
posted by gemmy at 9:55 AM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]


I think the best thing about music (or any art) on the internet is that it forces artists to be exceptional. With access to every song ever written, you can't half ass a record and expect it to do well, no matter how much marketing you do.

That's the thing about Myspace, Twitter, and Facebook - the page is only the portal. The music is and will always be the most important part of a career; if isn't good, then no amount of distribution will help.
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 9:58 AM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]


I think the best thing about music (or any art) on the internet is that it forces artists to be exceptional. With access to every song ever written, you can't half ass a record and expect it to do well, no matter how much marketing you do.

Why would the internet demand a higher standard than music backed by huge media corporations? What the gentleman from Gang of Four seems to be suggesting, and what is both horrifying and probably the truth, is that bands who make the internet their main platform will succeed or fail on the strength of their ability to promote themselves, which is a separate issue altogether from whether those bands are artistically exceptional at all.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:26 AM on December 20, 2009 [2 favorites]


bands who make the internet their main platform will succeed or fail on the strength of their ability to promote themselves, which is a separate issue altogether from whether those bands are artistically exceptional at all.

I think that's exactly right. Case in point: Owl City. This guy rose from obscurity to #1 on the charts, on the strength of a song that's a critically reviled, pale imitation of Postal Service. How did he become so well known? I think he just sat in his parent's basement (not joking; that's where he was living) and requested Myspace friendship with tens of thousands of people. Seriously. I remember getting a friend request from him a few years back. Any band that wants MY friendship must be playing the game of "let's network ourselves to death in the hope that our piss-poor talents will get recognized." Then, sure enough, he ended up spamming me with messages every week or so. This just so happened to work out amazingly for him.

I used to believe that talent will naturally rise up and become recognized. Someone will champion you. Now I know that's silly. There are an endless amount of people out there who are doing brilliant, game-changing things and have 5 fans total, with no prospects for anything else. The difference between them and Owl City? They're not shameless social networking spammers.
posted by naju at 10:50 AM on December 20, 2009 [4 favorites]


The author here has taken the most superficial reading possible of Ball's article. Ball wasn't merely saying that musicians need to have a Myspace page and a Facebook page, he was saying that artists need to come up with radical new strategies for connecting with fans entirely outside of the traditional industry channels. Merely creating a social network profile or a Twitter feed that says "new album out!" and "Concert in Glasgow next month!" is an old media strategy. We're not broadcasting anymore, we're having a conversation.

If you post about how you're really starting to get into the Hammond Organ after rediscovering some old 45s or about how went down to the local junkyard to record hubcaps banging together or cars being crushed, that gives your community something to talk about. Hell, they might start banging their own hubcaps together and send you the recording. Now you have to let them talk back. Does your site have a forum? Does your blog have comments enabled? Are you conversing with people via @replies? Finally, it's your turn to respond. Make a reply video to someone's ukulele cover of your song on youtube, put up a track you don't think you'll finish and let the fans have at it, and answer questions the fans post in your forum. You don't get to just record an album and have done with it, anymore. Music is a relationship now.

There are already musicians who do this extremely well. Imogen Heap videoblogs her entire creative process and lets her fans remix her tracks, for one. If you think she's too well known to be a good indication of what obscure artists can do, take a look at what the musicians on CD Baby's DIY Musician Podcast have been doing. You can also see bands experiment with the ransom model on Kickstarter.

Connecting doesn't just mean posting music online and making social network profiles; that isn't even the bare minimum. Connecting means building a community around your music and interacting with it. There is no formula for making this work, so Ball is telling musicians to go out and experiment, try things, and have the courage to move beyond the industry model. If the "pay-what-you-like" model doesn't work for you, try the ransom model, try something else, but keep trying.
posted by Grimp0teuthis at 11:38 AM on December 20, 2009 [7 favorites]


I read all of this and I am confused. All of these bands and producers understood that the size of the pie wasn't going go get any bigger and that each band was going to get a smaller share of that pie, right?

The problem with music isn't the wrong people are getting famous--the problem is with the desire to get famous.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:43 AM on December 20, 2009 [3 favorites]


What the gentleman from Gang of Four seems to be suggesting, and what is both horrifying and probably the truth, is that bands who make the internet their main platform will succeed or fail on the strength of their ability to promote themselves, which is a separate issue altogether from whether those bands are artistically exceptional at all.

Great as they were musically, the Beatles, the Stones, Pink Floyd, David Bowie, the Sex Pistols, U2 etc etc etc were all exceptionally well marketed. One might even argue, artfully so. This also carries through to Radiohead and NIN. In the McLuhanistic "future" that we now find ourselves living, there no longer seems to be an identifiable barrier between that which is art and that which is promotion (ie: the act of alerting people to the fact that a certain work of art exists and, in some form or other, is for sale). This is neither good nor bad, merely where we are.

Why would the internet demand a higher standard than music backed by huge media corporations?

It doesn't, just a different one. The old school Music Industry was nothing if not a huge filter that got between music-makers and music-lovers. Sometimes they got it right. Sometimes they got it horribly wrong. Now, the filters aren't so easy to pin down, point at, ridicule. They're "us", we the billions of music-lovers and the various networks which connect us.

Start with elbo ... and evolve from there.
posted by philip-random at 12:08 PM on December 20, 2009


Imogen Heap videoblogs her entire creative process and lets her fans remix her tracks, for one.

She popped into my head as soon as you started talking about conversational Twitter feeds. In addition to what you mentioned, she's doing a thing on her current tour where she's selecting a guest cellist from that city out of a pool of auditions submitted via the net. Meanwhile, every other musician's Twitter/FB/whatever that I read is always "new single out on iTunes on Thursday".
posted by DecemberBoy at 12:09 PM on December 20, 2009


It was Dave "Gang of Four" Allen, not Dave "Soft Cell" Ball".

I agree with the reply insofar as all of this self-promotion is nothing more than noise to me now. I thought it was bad ten years ago, but everything is secondary to the attempts at marketing. I don't care any more. Just noise.
posted by Grangousier at 12:14 PM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]


This part (of what the blog post was responding to) made me laugh:
The Nanny state reduced risk taking and danger in popular music. The very founding spirit of rock and roll was danger. Danger as perceived by those who didn’t understand the outburst of energy and excitement that this early musical form drew out of teenagers.
So we're told that not wanting to start an online business to promote and monetize your music is contrary to the rebellious spirit of rock 'n roll! LOL!

One thing that bothers me about this that no-one talks about is the way that technology undermines traditional business models and creates more insecurity for artists, but this is sold to them as "freedom"! OK, so you're free from the music label overlords, but now you belong to MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, etc., their corporate owners and venture capitalists. Maybe this is a legitimately better deal (in some respects), but the internet people have also been talking about Freedom, Democracy, Empowerment, Taking Down Corrupt Institutions or something, when in reality, there's billions of dollars of VC money floating around Silicon Valley.

What's really happening? They're trying to move control of markets from the traditional elite business owners to a new technology elite. Their new business models depend on monetizing user-generated content that they don't pay for, and in some cases, end up owning outright, and they've co-opted these big democratic ideas to convince us to do that labor for free. It's pretty disturbing, when you think about it.
posted by AlsoMike at 12:34 PM on December 20, 2009 [5 favorites]


So we're told that not wanting to start an online business to promote and monetize your music is contrary to the rebellious spirit of rock 'n roll! LOL!

Definitely contrary to the DIY attitude that made so much of the original punk rock happen (1976-78) and carried on through the underground indie eruptions that supplied the 1980s with most of its great music (ie: not the stuff that popped up on John Hughes soundtracks).

What's really happening? They're trying to move control of markets from the traditional elite business owners to a new technology elite. Their new business models depend on monetizing user-generated content that they don't pay for, and in some cases, end up owning outright, and they've co-opted these big democratic ideas to convince us to do that labor for free. It's pretty disturbing, when you think about it.

Business is pretty much always disturbing when you think about it. Reminds me of a line from a Hal Hartley film. The crook's mom says to him, "I don't want any of your dirty money." They crook says, "It's all dirty, Mom."
posted by philip-random at 12:54 PM on December 20, 2009


Definitely contrary to the DIY attitude that made so much of the original punk rock happen...

Wait, so joining MySpace to be part of Rupert Murdoch's media empire is DIY?
posted by AlsoMike at 1:25 PM on December 20, 2009


As I was reading this, I got yet another email from Facebook alerting me to the fact that a guy I once worked with for a month who's now a college-radio DJ in Chicago wants me to become a fan of some band I've never heard of. Awesome.
posted by limeonaire at 2:03 PM on December 20, 2009


Wait, so joining MySpace to be part of Rupert Murdoch's media empire is DIY?

There's more than one way to use the internet to get the word out, isn't there? In narrowing Mr. Ball's thoughts down to reflect a support of MySpace is simply not a fair reflection of his essay.

Bottom line:

If a musician/artist wants no part of Web 2.0, they're free to steer clear (stay pure), make their music and maybe just play it (or give it) to their immediate friends and fans. But if they want to expand their network, reach the ears and hearts (and yes, maybe even wallets) of "fans" the world over, well there's never been a better time to achieve these end via DIY means.

If you're concern is that this can't be be done except via greedy assholes who've "... co-opted these big democratic ideas to convince us to do that labor for free ..." I share your concern. But rather than shout this paradigm down, why not get busy subverting it? I've asked this question before, I'll no doubt ask it again:

WHERE IS THE OPEN SOURCE FACEBOOK?
posted by philip-random at 2:04 PM on December 20, 2009 [3 favorites]


The open-source facebook is all around you. It's called "the web".
posted by hattifattener at 2:39 PM on December 20, 2009 [2 favorites]


Yeah, don't ask where the open Facebook is. Just notice that Facebook is the internet, compressed onto a single site and owned by a private company.
posted by DU at 2:44 PM on December 20, 2009


The market for music is so torrentially saturated, so spectacularly, and overwhelmingly flooded with tremendous music of all kinds from the present, near past, and distant past, that there is simply no place for you, the modern aspirant, whatsoever -- even if you have great songs. The moment music was de-commodified, it turned into grey goo. In any human life, it takes days, if not weeks and months of listening to a song to truly absorb it in any rich or satisfying way. If you're anything like me, you've now got more new music on your hard drive than you could absorb in 30 years. You're thrilled by the abundance, but you're not falling in love with individual songs the way you used to. How could you? You have 20,000 others to listen to. Scarcity of product once forced us to "love the one we're with," and live with a song until it worked its way into our heart. Today, we're all harem masters, dallying with this song and that, this band and that, but ultimately bored with our iTunes seraglios, and dreaming again of that little dark-eyed houri of our impoverished youth, the one we chased but never caught...
posted by Faze at 3:27 PM on December 20, 2009 [2 favorites]


The open-source facebook is all around you. It's called "the web".

If you know some html, have a bit of script fu, that's indeed what it looks like. To web-types like you and I, maybe that doesn't seem like a particularly high bar, but a considerable portion of the rest of the world has always had something they'd rather do with their time, so when it comes time to get something on the net... why go through the bother? If you want a music website, MySpace is easier than setting up/rolling your own, and even cheaper than your average local desperate freelancer or asian labor. Probably easier to communicate with too. Sure, it's run by the Man, and yes, it's a cliché now instead of a signal of edgy indie newness, but it does the job.

You're thrilled by the abundance, but you're not falling in love with individual songs the way you used to.

I'm fairly certain that the problem has more to do with the frost of age and compromise for me personally, but I still actually do fall in love with individual songs.

Still, yeah. The utter glut that comes with the revolution makes attention scarcer than ever, and I think that's Bayling's real point beneath everything else. Getting a critical mass of attention isn't just a matter of hard work and the tools at hand.
posted by weston at 4:29 PM on December 20, 2009


Wait, so joining MySpace to be part of Rupert Murdoch's media empire is DIY?

There's more than one way to use the internet to get the word out, isn't there? In narrowing Mr. Ball's thoughts down to reflect a support of MySpace is simply not a fair reflection of his essay.


It's actually completely contrary to what Ball wrote:

"The barriers to entry into the new music business are even lower than back in 1976. Why then, when the options to go it alone are everywhere online, do bands sign up with MySpace.com for instance, a News Corporation company owned by the right wing media curmudgeon Rupert Murdoch? [Without going in to too much detail, I wonder if musicians and artists have ever read the MySpace Terms Of Service agreement?] And then there’s Facebook and Twitter, two privately owned companies who are amassing a large amount of data about their users – how will that information be shared, or will it? Who owns it? Questions about who owns what with regard to copyrights and masters were paramount during the punk rock period of 1976 – 1981. Why not now, as data becomes the new master copyright?

He is saying that most Musicians are using the web stupidly. Complaining about Myspace, twitter and Facebook is completely missing the point.
posted by afu at 6:37 PM on December 20, 2009


He is saying that most Musicians are using the web stupidly. Complaining about Myspace, twitter and Facebook is completely missing the point.

Even if Rupert Murdoch doesn't own your music, he still owns your audience. If you set up your own web site somewhere, you'll still have to go through their network to reach your audience, contributing value to it.

And who rents you the data lines to connect your website to everyone else on the internet? AT&T is it?

If you're concern is that this can't be be done except via greedy assholes who've "... co-opted these big democratic ideas to convince us to do that labor for free ..." I share your concern. But rather than shout this paradigm down, why not get busy subverting it?

With the internet, the days of corporate homogenization isn't an issue any more. Instead, corporations brings us overwhelming variety, customized playlists, personalized this and that, infinite variety and expression. So why critique capitalism on aesthetic grounds? Sure, Facebook's investors profit from your music, but they don't censor you or interfere with your creativity. Right now at least, they don't own the network, so if you were big enough for them to care about your traffic, you'd be big enough to go somewhere else.

They're marketing their products under the banners of freedom and democracy, as if no profit-making was going on and it was a public service. We shouldn't be so naive.

My other issue is with the idea of art-as-activism itself -- I don't think it works, I think it just creates new consumer lifestyles for people to adopt that profits the system in the end anyway. And not because it gets co-opted either. Even in their idealized form, all countercultures distinguish themselves from mainstream society by what they consume: music, art, fashion, food, sex, whatever. So they are ultimately consumerist, meaning that believe that how you consume to be the most important fact about who you are.

I don't think we can consume our way out of consumerism. We need more than local acts of resistance, we should go back to large-scale collective action.
posted by AlsoMike at 12:07 AM on December 21, 2009


I've been an unsuccessful musician for 30 years.

The issue that I think is escaping most of you is that in order to "be a musician" you have to spend most of your "music" time doing things that aren't, in fact, music.

When I was young, the music scene was dramatically different. If you decided to be a full-time musician, there were all sorts of venues to pick up a little money. Tiny bands would play in bars and make real money - not huge money but more than it cost you to get there and back.

Record contracts were always shitty but when I was a kid they would actually sign people you knew and they would actually make some money out of these contracts. As an adult, everyone I know who signed a contract basically lost money out of it.

When I was young, they'd actually pay you to play an instrument on a record! Again, not huge money but enough to keep you going. Many friends of mine actually made a living off being "session musicians".

Today, most of the bars that used to play bands have DJs or nothing at all. Now, I like DJs but I'm not blind to the fact that when I see a crowded bar with a DJ playing interesting music that not a penny of the thousands of dollars being generated is going to the actual musicians who made the music. (Yes, I know venues pay licensing fees but these all go to the big sellers... if I listen to some DJ play an evening of, say, African music or German electronic tunes, I can be completely sure that the musicians and copyright holders are seeing zero dollars from the ASCAP or BMI...)

There are still a few session musicians - but few and far between. My friend Allen has a Grammy, played with Bob Fosse and Gloria Estevan - and now does spreadsheets for American Express. As he said, "Why would a producer pay for my services when he can buy a sound-alike drum loop for $50?" Still a few wedding bands, still a few bar bands - but few and far between indeed.

I'm in three or four bands. In at least two of them I spent at least twice as much time organizing and attempting to arrange gigs and PR them than I actually do playing. I can't remember the last time I made more money from a gig than my car fare. This is why two of them are basically "jam bands" - because we simply don't have time to write original material and rehearse it.

The promise of the web was that we could spend less time promoting our music and more time composing, practicing and playing. The complete reverse was in fact true.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:02 AM on December 21, 2009 [4 favorites]


The issue that I think is escaping most of you is that in order to "be a musician" you have to spend most of your "music" time doing things that aren't, in fact, music.

The thing that is escaping you is this is true for most professions.

To be a successful scientist in academia, you have to spend most of your time doing things that aren't, in fact, science.
posted by straight at 3:00 PM on December 21, 2009


The issue that I think is escaping most of you is that in order to "be a musician" you have to spend most of your "music" time doing things that aren't, in fact, music.

The thing that is escaping you is this is true for most professions.


And the amateurs shall inherit the earth.
posted by philip-random at 9:30 PM on December 21, 2009


"The thing that is escaping you is this is true for most professions."

That seems... hard to believe. I'm a computer programmer - when I'm working I spend at least half my time simply writing computer programs. Scientists might not spend most of their time doing experiments, but they spend an awful lot of their time setting up for experiments, preparing experiments, teaching science to others and other such things - much in the same way that few musicians spend most of their time playing for a live audience, but spend a lot of time practicing, writing music, teaching music, or fiddling with their instruments.

I have an architect right here who informs me that architects spend most of their (overworked) time directly on architectural things.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:01 AM on December 22, 2009


This is a really awesome comment, I only want to ask one thing, could it perhaps just a different promise that is coming true...
The promise of the web was that we could spend less time promoting our music and more time composing, practicing and playing. The complete reverse was in fact true.

The promise that am seeing as having already nearly come to fruition, is the promise of a 'massively multi-player, collaborative-endeavor assisting interweb for artists'...

my point; in a perfect world, who cares about fans, or followers, listeners, subscribers, or such(*note real world not perfect and everyone who has ever stood on a stage and done something like a performance, everyone who has put something of themselves 'out there'... whether as a teacher, a science professor, a musician, comedian, painter, actor, heckler, mefi poster, human person.. cares when people acknowledge they exist.)
But what about what has come to be... the idea of being able to find fellow musicians, whether similar in ideas, ideals, or styles, and to be able to collaborate, in an open way.. One hard part about being in, or working with, bands... is having bandmates, who knows if they will show up, or show up wasted, or if they will want to work hard at jams, or if they have practiced that riff from last week, which was wicked, but would be wicked squared with a few adjustments.
So then my mind tells me this sea of despair helped bring about the Tidal wave of Solo Indie 'Bands' in the later 2000's (when everyone realized that with digital, things could be separated in time, and one person could do it all), but everyone being a solo act brought a lack of fulfillment that the process of collaboration certainly brings... the co-joining of multiple individuals' ideas, the synergy of two minds and their perspective takes on a particular riff, or measure.
To illustrate what I am thinking about; In the new world I can meet someone online who can play the sax and the accordion... as I love sax, but (and I can actually play the sax... but not in the way I would want it to sound if other people were going to hear it)... now, 'yesterday', it would be a long process of trial and error to find this person... but someone who can play wicked jazz-sax, and plays just like it would be played in my dream single song, that I always wanted to create, which I have written all the parts to in my mind music... and along comes Kompoz, and Ninjam, T61, Stereofame, and similarly related uses of existing technologies assisting in social networking, something that these social networking sites have made clear is that there is no shortage of people in the world who are making small things and sharing them, taking their gifts, or skills (or inverse un-skills, like I've got) as well as the world of musicians who use myspace(insert favorite networking site here Mefimusicplug), people who will write replies to questions and can be huge resources to creativity.


As a music lover first, and low grade, misguided dabbler in musically related endeavors tenth, the ability to find, jam, and create new music with people from opposite sides of the planet (or one country over, or from a neighboring city).... is much more valuable than being able to have another person read the inane haiku-like-ninnieness that is my twitterang. veritable unverifiable Web2.0etry.
(read: twi(e)tter and the monkeyman were hard up for cash...)
bottom line, 140 chr.s on twttr mte.nt gt ur mssge acrs, r cnnct u2 uthr msicns; bt othr plcs cn hlp w tht. Btw, srry if ths 's tl;dr.
The vast world of knowledge, experience, and wisdom that is out there only waiting to be shared with the new musicians of tomorrow... experience, wisdom, and guidance which may make the not so good things that get criticized in any discussion of "new bands", like the feelings that some have that musicians are becoming 'dime a dozen' or too many people making things which may only be niche interesting... guidance can help an 'average' person, and show them how to achieve greatness.
posted by infinite intimation at 9:16 PM on January 7, 2010


« Older In Washington D.C. yesterday a snowball fight was ...  |  "We might not be aware of it, ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments