smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | Mark Smith <markmsmith@gmail.com> |
| Subject | Re: Music Isn't Dead |
| Date | Wed, 4 Mar 2009 11:31:05 +0000 |
[Part 1 text/plain ISO-8859-1 (3.0 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Ultimately, in radio or television for example,I think it leads to a pretty
boring landscape and ultimately a less rich culture for everyone if all
there are is niche stations. If people are not challenged and presented with
the unfamiliar, surely that gives them a really narrow view on things and
those people who are creative are less likely to produce interesting work.
Mainstream radio and it's focus on demographics and advertising revenue has
I'm sure lost a lot of listeners as a result of this policy of catering to
niche markets (mind you I can see that maybe they've also gained listeners -
just a different type).
Due to the internet, the power is now in the hands of the public to
challenge itself. It's all out there if you're willing to look for it - in
fact the coverage is even more comprehensive than it ever was. The problem
is that most people don't want that challenge or maybe they don't have time.
That's where Kerry's examples of 70's AM Radio and 90's MTV were important -
you'd tune in to hear Guns 'N Roses and maybe be exposed to NWA. Tune in for
Kenny Rogers and hear Sly Stone. For me that sounds way more interesting
than all rock all the time, or an all rap station.
Mark
> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 21:42:16 -0800
> > Subject: Re: Music Isn't Dead
> > From: lukoff@gmail.com
> > To: kerry_kompost@yahoo.com; audities@smoe.org
> >
> > I've been meaning to reply to this for, apparently, over two months.
> These
> > lines struck me:
> > "So instead of ten people humming 'I'd like to teach the world to
> sing...',
> > you have ten people humming their own choice of songs. Is that such a bad
> > thing?"
> > Well, perhaps not. But there's something to be said for collective
> > experience. A few days after Kerry's message, I read this piece (
> >
> http://www.cityartsmagazine.com/seattle/issues/CAS019/CAS019_article1.html
> )
> > in *City Arts Seattle*:
> >
> > "'A staff critic is by nature a generalist,' says Powers. 'Their job is
> to
> > cover as wide a range as possible. The blog world does not encourage
> > generalists--it encourages specific passions.' It also encourages
> xenophobia
> > -- fear of those who are unlike you. 'Who do we have in common?' asks the
> > social-networking site. The staff critic binds society together, if only
> by
> > giving everyone someone to disagree with. The new, unknown critic splits
> > audiences into interest groups. The critic starves on $125 a review;
> artists
> > and audiences, starved of comprehensive coverage, drift into separate,
> > solipsistic twilights."
> >
> > It was the last clause that really struck me: "separate, solipsistic
> > twilights." THAT, I fear, is the danger of niche markets getting too
> nichey.
> > Don't get me wrong: I'm a blogger myself, though I've also been a staff
> > critic and an editor of freelance critics. I think the Internet really is
> > one of the greatest things since sliced bread (and honestly, I don't mind
> > slicing bread myself). But I do wonder if things might go too far.
> >
> > ~ Ben Lukoff
>
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.