“No Music Skills Required” Compounds Music Glut (ujam)
Recently a new website called ujam, which allows anybody and everybody to create and publish music, went “Public Alpha”. That’s right, now you, average Joe six-pack, can go online and have access to tools to live out your rock n’ roll fantasy. Have no talent? Can’t sing on pitch? Can’t play an instrument? That’s okay, ujam has pitch benders and programs to help you with that. In fact there motto is “No Musical Skills Required”.
Oh, and it’s all free.
Remember back in 2005, when studio-quality technology finally became accessible to the common musician? We all celebrated, because no longer the big companies that held the purse strings to studios were able to control the production of music. Then MySpace came along, and created completely independent channels for artists and bands to market and distribute their music, and socially network with their fans and create fan bases. YouTube afforded the marketing power of video.
But now we sit at the crossroads of the great technology paradigm. For all the music problems technology solved for artists and fans, it is now creating new ones, principally an astronomical glut in the sheer volume of music being produced, and then marketed specifically for commercial consumption on a global scale.
The simple fact is only a few select people are born with true musical talent or inspiration encoded into their DNA. Others can learn it as a trade, spending years of dedication perfecting the craft. And of course there’s variations in between. But the reason music is so enjoyable and inspiring to people is because it is something that not everyone can do, or do well. There’s a reason that the etymology of “magic” and “music” are very similar. So why is accessibility to musical talent a problem technology needs to solve, whether through Auto-tune, or this new ujam site? The enjoyability of music depends on its place as a minority in the collective talents of human society. Auto-tune opened up the potential for people who can’t sing to have a career in music. Now ujam, and the most certain-to-follow copycat and derivative programs, opens up the potential of music careers for everyone.
There is nothing wrong or dangerous with someone sitting at home on ujam tinkering with sounds for their own personal enjoyment or to share with friends, but the crux of the technology paradigm, where it interfaces with the adverse glut of music being produced, seems to be this sense of entitlement people have to be something big in the music business. Shows like American Idol perpetuate the idea that we might all be musical superstars. Judging the talent of superstars that have actually made it in music, one might say, “Well hell, I can do that. Taylor Swift can’t even sing on pitch.” Meanwhile actual music education is being slashed from school curriculums, replaced by a myopic focus on test scores, and in lieu of attempting to discover what each student’s true, unique talent is, and setting them on a course to pursue that.
Not everyone, and not every musician, has the right to national and international exposure in music. There is nothing wrong with being a good porch guitar picker, or open-mic star, or the guy that offers entertainment at the local bar every Friday night, or at the family reunion picnic once a year. All music used to begin local, where teachers and peers and such could offer constructive criticism and develop a unique musical identity based on local and regional culture and taste. Now some introvert in their mother’s basement might stumble upon a catchy rhythm or phrase, post it on YouTube, and be collecting 5-figure appearance fees within weeks. All while the one-in-a-million musical talents of our generation revel in obscurity or have to take menial jobs to survive. Sure, that’s one of those tough lessons of life, but as a music consumer, I’d rather hear Ruby Jane as opposed to Chocolate Rain.
Retired baby boomers en masse are using healthy retirement incomes to fund music endeavors with national and international aims. Parents are pushing their kids to become music stars before they reach puberty. 20-somethings are taking advantage of the ever-expanding gestation period of the human being in post-industrial societies to spend a decade after education pursuing an ill-conceived rock n’ roll fantasy.
Even money is now becoming inconsequential. Even if you throw a million dollars at promoting your cute teenage daughter who can sing some songs doesn’t guarantee you anything, because there are a dozen other parents doing the same thing, and just like everyone, they are vying for attention in the glut of musical-based content. What you need is some sensational viral phenomenon with opportunistic timing to piggy-back on a new technological or media format burst to get noticed. Talent, money, drive, dedication, skill, and inspiration are becoming more irrelevant by the second.
And what about the role of the music critic, the last tool for the music consumer to separate wheat from chaff? Lady Gaga calls them bullies. Taylor Swift thinks they’re mean. Like a six-year-old’s soccer game where parents are too scared to rule a winner just in case we bruise fragile little egos, if you criticize someone’s music, you’re not being constructive, you’re performing the intellectual equivalent of assault.
We all have a responsibility to ourselves and to society to try and figure out why we were put on this stupid planet, and what our singular contribution is. And I personally want to preserve the mystery of music. Even as a musician myself (though not a good one), I have no desire to marginalize it by running it through digital algorithms, or expand it through accessible tools. If you watch that ujam tutorial above, you’ll notice it even suggests notes according to the recognized 1-4-5 music progression (musicians know what I’m talking about), for the first time giving a practical example to my theory that eventually all “music” will be specifically formulated by computers to enact an optimized dopamine response in the human brain, making human musicians obsolete.
But I won’t be subscribing.
Let music be music, made by human hands. Or music may not be worth making anymore.
Denise
June 16, 2011 @ 10:46 am
Welcome to the age of technology. Just like when I was a wee little one watching the Jetson’s and thinking about flying in my mini saucer, the age of invention has surpassed those thoughts into something very different. Don’t like your boobs? Get newer bigger ones. Don’t like your voice? Auto Tune will fix that. Can’t play the guitar? Don’t need too. You can be a star anyway. Alot of stars today stand on stage and strum. That don’t make you a geetar player. None of this surprises me, really. It’s just another dimension to the planet of doom. Next stop, Rosie will be cleanin’ my house for me.
Great blog Triggerman.
John 14:2 There are many rooms in my Father’s house; I would not tell you this if it were not true. I am going there to prepare a place for you.
Jukebox
June 16, 2011 @ 11:07 am
When I first saw this, I must admit I was a bit worried. After really thinking it through, however, this really poses no problem. So average Joe can pretend to be a superstar. Whatever. Perhaps we should educate listeners rather than complain about posers. I know I can tell when someone is truly authentic, but perhaps the majority cannot. If the majority wants fake, crappy music, let ’em have it. I know “true” music will never die. Though it may not be popular, it will always exist. And I will follow it.
The Triggerman
June 16, 2011 @ 12:48 pm
“Perhaps we should educate listeners rather than complain about posers.”
I kind of thought that is what I was doing with this, but I understand and agree with your point.
“If the majority wants fake, crappy music, let ”˜em have it.”
I don’t think the majority wants fake music, they just don’t know the difference, once again bringing us back to education. And I for one want great music for everyone. I think people that take in bad culture, output bad culture in ways that can effect us no matter what we listen to. Also the amount of people listening to bad music effects the economics of good music, and helps perpetuate the bad music glut that makes good music more difficult to discover.
James
June 16, 2011 @ 11:15 am
This is why live music will always survive. The bigger the event the worse the quality. Therefore, just as magicians, real talent will always hold the attention of the interested. Sadly, that doesn’t mean the dollars will be there too.
This scenario has played out in every industry where money is to be made. Nail guns replaced hammers, automation replaced the autoworker and so on. Odd thing is- the most pricey and sought after merchandise is the old stuff, craftsman made antiques and 57 Chevys. Record companies unknowingly built their own demise right into their business plans. Most notably in their use of curb appeal over real talent and in fighting technology instead of using it to benefit the product.
Personally, I never cared for the studio stuff once technology allowed for a decent quality sound and the energy of a live show to be captured on playable media. Catch and release- works in live music recording, fishing, and women…
The Triggerman
June 16, 2011 @ 12:51 pm
Auto-tune started out as a studio tool as well. I have no doubt that future generations of ujam or a similar program will find applications in the live realm.
KAK
June 16, 2011 @ 12:51 pm
I don’t get this perspective…to me, the enjoyability of music does not “depend on its place as a minority in the collective talents of human society”…I don’t see where scarcity is necessary in the production of music? If every single voice can sing unto the Lord as is stated in the Christian Bible, why shouldn’t there be a place for every voice in the world of the internet?
Don’t get me wrong here…I’m not saying that every voice sounds good to every ear. In my opinion, we spend our lives being exposed to all sorts of sounds. Over time, we refine our taste and learn to listen for quality – however we may define that. These are all learned cultural behaviors and differ for people who hail from different parts of the globe. There is no universally “good” music that is understood as such for all of humanity. In every genre or musical format, there are those that are deemed “talented” and those that are less so. But there is no universal rule that making music should be left to an elite class of “musicians”…its ok for anyone to make music.
I happen to prefer music made by human hands as you indicate here. I like food made by hand…and cloth made by hand…and shoes made by hand…in general, hand crafted ANYTHING is most often better than mass produced or technologically engineered product. But this doesn’t mean that technology was not involved with the production of these “hand made” items. Most tools that humans use to do anything are forms of technology.
I think what you are bringing up here is something that we all need to remember to consider on a daily basis. Every technology that exists was invented to a) make human life easier or better or b) to make someone money…or both. As a species, it is imperative that we reflect on our relationship with technology. With every new invention, we must consider the harm and the benefit that it may bring our species. I can best address this in relation to food. Genetically engineered food sounds good on paper but can bring a disaster to our species if we do not pause before jumping in and letting altered DNA run amok in our ecosystem.
Does this mean that technology is bad? No. It means that people need to think about what they are doing before they do it. In the example you offer here, it seems to me that this product is really not a threat to the music you love. Ruby Jane is not going to be outdone by Autotune. The people who choose to listen to autotune aren’t the same people who will be mesmerized by her beautiful voice and amazing fiddle playing. You are talking about two different cultures here…
Denise
June 16, 2011 @ 12:56 pm
You raise some valid points, KAK, and yes everyone can make “music” if they want. Maybe it comes down to the basic necessities for it to be good music: talent, integrity, and truth.
KAK
June 16, 2011 @ 1:01 pm
I agree…integrity and truth are traits that are much more intuitive and come from the heart. Talent is difficult because, to me, there are so many ways to identify talent across cultures that it isn’t always clear who should be called talented and who shouldn’t. I will admit, I feel like I “know talent when I hear it”…so maybe “talent” is just as intuitive as the other traits you bring up…
The Triggerman
June 16, 2011 @ 1:00 pm
“But there is no universal rule that making music should be left to an elite class of “musicians””¦its ok for anyone to make music. “
I don’t think musicians should come from an elite class, in fact I went out of my way to clarify that. The problem is that so many people think the music they are making should be marketed to the masses.
Quotes from above:
“For all the music problems technology solved for artists and fans, it is now creating new ones, principally an astronomical glut in the sheer volume of music being produced, and then marketed specifically for commercial consumption on a global scale.”
“but the crux of the technology paradigm, where it interfaces with the adverse glut of music being produced, seems to be this sense of entitlement people have to be something big in the music business.”
“There is nothing wrong with being a good porch guitar picker, or open-mic star, or the guy that offers entertainment at the local bar every Friday night, or at the family reunion picnic once a year. “
Christina Bishop
March 12, 2017 @ 6:35 pm
The reason why we do not appreciate new genres even in other languages #WeeSingSucks
KAK
June 16, 2011 @ 1:05 pm
I got ya Trig. And I guess part of me just scratches my head and says that if people have such poor taste that they succumb to the marketing you reference above, they probably deserve to get the crap they buy.
But you know me…I don’t like “the music business”…for me it is all about community and quality and sincerity and integrity. I don’t see these things coalescing often in “the music business” anyway so I try to stay on the fringe. I know that before you have said that this attitude is somewhat elitist…and maybe it is to a degree…but there’s a part of me that says that everyone should like whatever they want to like and we should support the artists we think have truth, integrity, and talent in whatever way we can…even if it means they never make it big in the music industry.
Good thoughtful blog post though. Thanks!
Ga. Outlaw
June 16, 2011 @ 2:20 pm
I’ve always loved to sing but I realized shortly after puberty that I was not destend to be a star. I checked out Ujam about a week ago. I found it complicated & compleatly useless. I think most people will give up on it out of frustration, but if it’s simplafied I could see the problems you talked about happening.
The Triggerman
June 16, 2011 @ 2:49 pm
One of the observations I took from it was how involved it was. You’re probably right, some will be scared away by this, but this is not some online toy for middle schools girls, it is a very powerful music creation tool. Without question over time it will become easier to use, while also becoming more powerful and customizable at the same time.
NLindsay
June 16, 2011 @ 2:24 pm
Yeah it’s interesting to watch the progression of technology and the collective relationships with it. I think the advent of Photoshop, Final Cut Pro / Adobe Premiere and Pro Tools played a huge part in the digital artist / media explosion. And then over the years new software is released (like the ujam software mentioned) that is more simple and geared for the masses rather than industry professionals. Whether this is good or bad…I have no firm belief in either side.
The more exciting part of this to me is how the consumption of media is constantly changing. Right now the huge buzz is for cloud-based consumption which is part of the on-demand realm as well. It’s been in the works for years now and is finally starting to see the light of day as the major corporations introduce their own variations of the idea. I’m curious as to what will follow this format.
“Remember back in 2005, when studio-quality technology finally became accessible to the common musician?”
What was the event in 2005?
The Triggerman
June 16, 2011 @ 2:51 pm
There was no 2005 “event”, unless you want to count Hank III releasing Straight to Hell, done on a $400 home machine, but I’ve always thought of the mid-oughts as being when the ability to record studio-quality music at home became accessible.
NLindsay
June 16, 2011 @ 8:58 pm
Just to play devils advocate. Pro tools was around before Straight to Hell. I was in school from 2002 – 2004 and pro-tools was around before that but not very popular. Hank 3 was an early adopter who helped pave the way for artists and showed that they don’t need the full backing of the machine to produce good music.
The Triggerman
June 16, 2011 @ 10:23 pm
Like I said before, there was no “event”. I gave STH as an example. And STH was not done using Pro Tools, but a track-style board interface. In 2005, the standard was still 4-track, 8-track, 16 track machines that you interfaced with completely through an LCD screen and only used a computer to maybe download to. I really don’t put Pro Tools into the lineage of making music recording accessible at all. In many ways, Pro Tools is still not accessible to the common man, unless you count bootleg or cut-rate copies. Audacity, Reaper, M-Audio, Cubase, etc. are much more common in home studios.
NLindsay
June 17, 2011 @ 10:24 am
Dang. Shit on me, I knew he had recorded on that little machine but didn’t know it was all mixed and mastered without going digital at some point.
But yeah, most folks do have those other programs you mentioned rather than Pro Tools because they’re more simple and easier to use. Did they all come after Pro Tools too?
KAK
June 16, 2011 @ 3:29 pm
Why do you see media as being “consumed”? I guess I don’t look at my engagement with media as consumption. To me, it is “engagement”. As such, it is simple really…technology evolves and changes…and the manner in in which people engage with it changes along with it.
Youtube brought video production to the masses. Well, it was the platform for this…digital recording devices and webcams were the technology. Did this make professional video production obsolete? Are all videos for songs produced using online or home technology? The only thing that changed is that more people had access to it.
Maybe this technology will help us all to realize who REALLY has any talent? Maybe everyone will make their own music and we will realize how ubiquitous these over produced, voice enhanced songs are and lose interest in them as a populous? I can’t predict what exactly will happen.
And Lindsay, if you think about it, many people have been doing “cloud” computing for years. We just didn’t call it that. I’ve emailed myself just about every document I produce since I can remember. I have a database in my email of papers, interviews, and other media that I store in my email much like Google now touts as a new technology…
NLindsay
June 16, 2011 @ 4:24 pm
I didn’t mean consuming as a derogatory term. The reason I see it as consumption is because with video, you can’t change the product as you watch it. Same with audio and photography. You’re observing the same product / end result every time. I could see video games as being engaging as your actions dictate the results (within a specific set of rules, sure) but with print, audio, video and photography it’s the same static media.
Probably meant as a rhetorical question but obviously it didn’t make professional video / audio / graphic design obsolete. It has definitely impacted those industries though and left the big players scrambling to stay on top of an ever-evolving climate.
Cloud computing…the idea I’m referring to is having all your media stored online and accessible from any device, whether your computer, laptop, tablet, phone, television, iPod etc. And it won’t be just Google and Amazon, it’s going to explode very soon as a lot of big companies have been focusing on being the one-stop shop for end-users.
Personally I think that cloud computing combined with user generated content is going to lead to a massive scramble of content acquisition which will probably mean more mergers / buyouts between the online giants. Already happened with youtube and Google and quite a few other companies.
Anyways, wayyyyyy off topic now, haha.
NLindsay
June 16, 2011 @ 4:32 pm
Cloud computing”¦the idea I”™m referring to is having all your media stored online*
*via a single service provider
Fifth on the Floor
June 16, 2011 @ 2:42 pm
They feared the Stones too. Cultural shifts transcend good/bad. I reckon change is gonna come, and we can either fight it and lose or adapt. Major labels, take heed.
Steve G
June 16, 2011 @ 3:37 pm
I don’t think it will be that big, most people don’t care about making music. They might have a play on it for five minutes but I don’t think it will be a game changer.
kocis
June 16, 2011 @ 6:39 pm
It’s a tricky situation, it’s always good when more music technology is available to artists. There is always a potential that great music will come out of this. However, there is a bigger potential that bad music will come out of this. Overall, I’ll take the technology because there is a potential that great music will come out of it.
AdoptedSon
June 16, 2011 @ 7:04 pm
I don’t really see this as an issue, I guess. Anybody that wants to make music, should be able to. The internet is the world’s stage these days. You can have a million listeners(not necessarily fans) with some clever marketing.
True, it makes it even harder for people to find worthwhile music, but that’s the price we pay for having a level playing field. It doesn’t take huge amounts of money for artists to reach people who will enjoy their music.
And don’t worry Triggerman, I think there will always be a place for the music critic. But again, because of the internet, everybody is a critic. You almost need another filter, to find the good filters like yourself. And I guess that’s where the sense of community comes in too. Seems you’ve created a great community here on your blog. So keep it up man.
I’m all for technology, and embracing technology in music. If some artist can post some terrible song made with ujam, on the web, and get a ton of plays, I say more power to ’em. I’m not forced to listen to it. After all, it’s not hard to figure out how all the bad music get’s on the radio these days. Just look at the content our society consumes(The Real World, Kardashians, Housewives, Kesha……etc).
NLindsay
June 16, 2011 @ 7:18 pm
I think word of mouth is still the method of discovering new bands. It’s just now the “mouth” has an ability to reach a much wider audience.
The Triggerman
June 16, 2011 @ 10:26 pm
See, but I don’t see this leveling any playing fields, I see it stacking the deck even more against the truly musically gifted.
Dan
June 17, 2011 @ 6:03 am
This was the same fear that professional photographers had in the 1890’s when consumer level cameras were invented…Ansel Adams and Henry Cartier Bresson still rose above the din. If a talent is bright enough nothing can block it out.
Fifth on the Floor
June 17, 2011 @ 8:13 am
Like.
The Triggerman
June 17, 2011 @ 8:49 am
So are you asserting that the truly music talented are given a fair shake these days, even before ujam and it’s future versions effects are felt?
AdoptedSon
June 17, 2011 @ 1:03 pm
Fair shake by whom? The industry? If so, then no. I’m not sure the industry has ever given anyone a fair shake. All they want is $$$.
I just think that with the internet, there’s an audience for anyone and everyone. You just need to be talented, or have some clever marketing via social media, to get noticed and build a fan base.
Nowadays the artists shouldn’t have to rely on any sort of label or distributer. Artists can keep all the rights to their songs(publishing/writing), and distribute music and merch across the web through various channels (Tunecore/Bandcamp/Soundcloud/even myspace or facebook). There are still some good indie labels out there, that are truly there to help artists. But, I just don’t think there’s a reason for artists to not DIY these days.
If you’re talking about getting a fair shake from the general public, then that is difficult. For good artists to get a fair shake from the general public, they need sites like this. It’s people like you Triggerman, that become trusted sources or filters for fans and artists alike. I’ve discovered different artists that i’ve become a fan of after reading about them here. I’m sure others have too, and that’s why we keep coming back. You’ve developed a nice community here. And hopefully it will grow and grow, and continue to help artists and educate fans alike.
The Triggerman
June 17, 2011 @ 2:53 pm
So is ujam part of the DIY movement? I have been proselytizing DIY for 3 1/2 years. Don’t see how ujam fits into the equation. Remember, the initial point I brought up in this article is that ujam might mean more music, choking everyone, regardless if they are DIY, industry, or established superstar franchises.
AdoptedSon
June 17, 2011 @ 3:23 pm
I wasn’t insinuating that ujam was part of the DIY movement.
“Remember, the initial point I brought up in this article is that ujam might mean more music, choking everyone, regardless if they are DIY, industry, or established superstar franchises.”
Thanks for the reminder. Sorry, I was getting off topic in my ramblings. I agree that because of the interweb and technology we’re going to have to wade through a lot more bad music to find any good. And yes, it will only get worse, probably because of sites like ujam.
I just don’t take personal beef with it. I like the fact that anyone can try and make music if they want, no matter the degree of their skills.
I’ll stop rambling now:) Thanks for engaging/putting up with me. Cheers
dstate1
June 19, 2011 @ 6:07 pm
No, and they never have been….in the payola days your record companies willingness to pay off dj’s on your behalf was what got you on the air…The advent of digital tools to create distribute media has created more total noise, but also the ability of the audience to edit out the crap more easily…your website is an example…I doubt I would have ever heard of Amanda Shires unless you told me about her on the internet…
Also remember that truly talented people are able to benefit from advances in technology also…what if Graham Parsons had been able to make all the recordings he wanted to without the record company horse shit?
AdoptedSon
June 17, 2011 @ 8:40 am
The level playing field was more of a reference to the distribution of music(the internet). And yes, it does stack the deck against the truly talented. But at the same time, it’s still never been easier for those truly talented to find a large audience via the web. It’s the ol’ double edged sword.
Ujam won’t level the field for music creation.
Jeremiah
June 16, 2011 @ 7:51 pm
I think it is awesome! Some people can’t sing, some people weren’t pushed to learn how to play a guitar as a kid, if technology will give them an artistic outlet, then go for it. You guys often talk down about Autotune, but I think if someone needs it and openly says that their voice is not good and they have to use technology to lend them a hand, then who gives a shit.
Aran
June 16, 2011 @ 8:39 pm
I think I understand where you’re coming from, but as someone who has spent over half my life honing my guitar playing and singing skills, I call it cheating.
The Triggerman
June 17, 2011 @ 8:47 am
Taylor Swift needs Auto-Tune just as much as any performer, and she refuses to use it because she thinks it’s cheating. I agree with her.
I picked up the guitar at age 28 under my own volition. Where there’s a will there’s a way.
AdoptedSon
June 17, 2011 @ 1:11 pm
Wow, did she say that pertaining to love performances or records?
After seeing Taylor perform live on TV, I find it extremely hard to believe that there isn’t any tuning done to her vocals on her albums. Those albums are pitch perfect.
She may say she doesn’t use it, but that decision is not up to her. I’d wager money that there is tuning done all over her records.
The Triggerman
June 17, 2011 @ 2:59 pm
How much you want to wager? I’ll take the bet.
Why would the knock on Taylor be that she can’t sing if she uses Auto-tune? Where was it then on the 2009 CMA awards? Where was it in Feb. 2010 when she blew her performance with Stevie Nicks on the Grammy’s? So she’s gonna use it at the Pepsi Center in Osh Kosh, but refuse it at the Grammys, where everyone else is using it and the world is watching?
Taylor Swift’s dissing of Auto-tune is common knowledge. Google it.
AdoptedSon
June 17, 2011 @ 3:06 pm
I was betting that they use it on her records, only because she sounds so horrible live(judging from those same performances you mentioned). Yeah, it’s obvious she wasn’t tuned then. If we’re betting on live performances…. I take it back! I don’t have any money to bet anyway:)
Aran
June 17, 2011 @ 4:34 pm
The thing with studio recording is you have many opportunities to get it right. So if the vocals are off the first time through, you can go back and re-record them. Going way back, Anthony Kiedis of the Red Hot Chili Peppers sounds great on the album “Blood Sugar Sex Magik”, but live from the same period he has a really hard time staying on pitch! Just the first example I could think of.
the pistolero
June 16, 2011 @ 11:25 pm
I’m pretty much with you here, Trig, except for this:
“And what about the role of the music critic, the last tool for the music consumer to separate wheat from chaff?”
What about ’em? Don’t get me wrong, I think Taylor Swift is full of shit. But this notion of critic people keep peddling is every bit as outmoded as the eight-track tape. I know there are exceptions, but,as I said on my blog a few months back:
I don”™t understand what it is about being a critic at a major media outlet that makes one”™s opinion on something so subjective as music (or, for that matter, books and film) any more valuable than anyone else”™s. Critics are only human just like the rest of us and are going to have their own likes and dislikes. I don”™t know for sure if that was ever taken into account to any significant extent, but if it wasn”™t, it should have been. You know what I think about certain bands. Would it make any sense at all, for example, for me to review a Rascal Flatts album? There”™s no way I could do that with an unbiased ear. I think this would probably be the gist of my review:
“I suppose as a pop album this might be good. But as a country record it blows. Go buy you some George Strait or Jamey Johnson.”
Of course there”™s the flip side of the unbiased critic, the gushing fanboy ”” “OMG this album rulz! If you don”™t like it your a hater!” And I”™m sure there are some of those on Amazon.com or the like that “Authorized Critics” would love for us to think are the majority of music fans posting reviews. But as I”™ve said before, for many if not most albums whose reviews I”™ve read on Amazon.com, the reviews have been pretty well-thought-out. Yeah, they”™re from fans of the bands in question, but so what? I”™d argue this gives them that much more credibility. Fans have expectations too, and any honest fan will call the artist out if those expectations are not met. I don”™t understand what”™s so difficult to comprehend about any of this. And I don”™t understand why there was any “relationship” between a critic and a fan to begin with. It”™s just always struck me as another kind of elitism: “Listen to me. My tastes are refined and diverse.”
Sure they are. I”™m sure fans of most new “country” would say the same thing.
“I like a lot of music, from Carrie Underwood to Metallica. The black album totally pwned.”
“Mm. So what”™s your opinion of Iron Maiden? How about Lefty Frizzell?”
“Um”¦who?”
One Joe Nick Patoski once upon a time implied that Texas-red dirt music fans thought Cross Canadian Ragweed was the “new Alabama.” Really, why should I as a music fan trust people who spout such inanities?
Chris Lewis "Louie"
June 17, 2011 @ 8:42 am
I think entertainment as a whole has went downhill for quite some time. first it was television in the discovery of reality tv. You no longer have to have talent as an actor millions of stupid people will watch your retarded ass if you show some type of shock value. Also everyone thinks they can create their own movies now and have it available at your local rental store. I have seen so many horrible horror movies in the last few years thinking they might be good. I think once your rental stores go away for good and are replaced by streaming them online it’s gonna get even worse.
As far as music goes, it’s the exact same way. Now anyone can be a singer.
It’s just a sign of the times. As technology gets better, we as a human race get even more stupid.
I just think this is all an horrible era we are going through and eventually we will see it all come back around.
Pillsbury
June 18, 2011 @ 10:50 am
The fact that people can cook for themselves hasn’t put McDonalds out of business. How is this any different?
Tonto
June 19, 2011 @ 7:50 am
there’s more to music than a catchy rythm/lick. it’s the lyrics that portray the feelings and emotions that drive the song. anybody can use these technologies to make themselves sound asthetically pleasing but that only gets you so far. an example would be that Jessica Black girl with that stupid youtube video ‘Friday’. everybody in the country watched that damn thing including me! and 98% of the people that watched it did so not because they heard it was a great song but because their buddies told em “wow you have to hear how retarded this song is!” that’s how i ended up attempting to watch it. With ujam (and lord knows how many copycats soon to come) things like that won’t be uncommon anymore and eventually they will loose any appeal to the masses due to the over exhausting volume of such songs. and hopefully push people away in an attempt to find something that doesn’t sound like every other song they’ve heard in the last ^ months! …….. HOPEFULLY ANYWAY!!!
Pat
June 22, 2011 @ 1:36 pm
Does it make me an asshole to point out that entomology is the study of bugs? But otherwise, great article. Technology has a “levelling” effect that is beneficial in many ways, but not for artistic excellence.
The Triggerman
June 22, 2011 @ 2:17 pm
Thanks for the correction! ‘N’ taken out, ‘Y’ added.