Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2016 13:09:25 GMT -5
this is for my media class
so if you want to read it here u go m8
so if you want to read it here u go m8
Over the past decade or so, the Internet has changed dramatically. What’s on it, the amount of people who use it and the accessibility of it all, it’s totally unrecognizable to what it was originally. It’s quicker and easier to gain access to the Internet that it’s ever been before and with this has come the birth of many things, to name a few, social media, blogs and music streaming. The birth of streaming has revolutionized how we listen to music, but not everyone is happy with this.
Is the Internet entirely good for music consumption? Well, no. Nothing is entirely good, especially not the Internet of all things, which has more capacity to be a ‘bad thing’ then maybe anything ever before it (except for mankind, of course). If there’s a way to abuse something, the public will find it, it can’t be avoided. For example, music piracy is an obvious issue, basically stealing tunes right off the Internet, taking money straight from pockets. Many people will even sacrifice the quality of their songs for the price of them.
This obviously hurts little bands that are only starting out, but it can also hurt the larger artists, who are already losing up to 60% of their pay to their record labels and other people working in the industry. This is another criticism of the Internet’s involvement in the music industry – the unfair treatment of artists. Streaming music off sites that take large portions of artists pay encourages this behavior and allows these fat-cat companies to keep doing it.
But, of course, if this really bothers you, why not use sites that are renowned for their fair treatment of artists, such as Bandcamp? There is a growing “Badge of Honor” status around people who use fair sites, it’s becoming trendy to care (not the worst fad ever, by any means). Also the Internet is undoubtedly a great platform for beginners, who can put their stuff out there and get publicity much easier then they would’ve twenty years ago. And there’s no such thing as bad publicity after all, and streaming sites are excellent in getting the word out about fresh bands.
Prosumerism is a new and exciting factor now associated with music and the Internet. It’s the process of both producing and consuming media, and there’s a vast amount of amateurs now dabbling in it. It’s easier now than ever before to make a remix of a song, or edit your own music video, or even sing your own cover. I consider this a positive thing, regardless of how many poor quality beginners there are out there, it encourages creativity and furthers the public’s involvement with the music industry, even deepens it in a way that would be highly limited without the Internet.
With all this access to new bands, listeners can often feel bombarded by the choice, and will end up listening to the songs they already know and love, making the ‘platform’ argument slightly null-in-void, from a certain perspective. However, many streaming sites come with the option to suggest music to you you’ve never heard before, based on what you already listen to, tempting listeners out of their comfortable listening cage. People can find a flaw in this too though, as they can find flaws in most things, and are spooked by machines and companies knowing so much about them. That’s why I understand the feeling that the Internet is vast and scary, and makes music commercial and clinical.
The quality of the songs is also at stake. In the past, if you bought a faulty CD, you could bring it back and either get your money back, or a new CD. Nowadays, you can’t wrap on Apple’s door and get back that £1.50 you spent on a song that didn’t play as it should. Sure, you can get your money back, maybe, after a long string of emails, but many people prefer the cash in hand, trustworthiness of your local record shop.
Speaking of that little shop, the main argument for the Internet and streaming being toxic for music seems to be the lack of intimacy. It’s hard to grow a connection to a band when you don’t have your own physical copy of the music itself, you don’t know what the band looks like, or maybe don’t even know their names. There’s always the temptation to just skip halfway through a song, or put it on as background music, because music is so available to us now, the novelty has worn off a bit. Bands also may become commercial quickly. To stay afloat in such a competitive market, sometimes changes must be made, even if it means completely changing their style. The Internet is criticized for making it easy to listen but hard to commit. Modern fans are sited for not having a real love for the craft, if they don’t own the vinyl, or CD or cassette; do they even really like the band?
I, personally, think this is rubbish. I feel that the “status” associated with physical copies of music is pompous and childish. Online streaming sites provide a great availability of songs that people just wouldn’t have had a generation ago. It’s easy to discover new songs and bands you love, and you’re able to listen to them virtually any time you want. If you love a song, you love a song. Your interest such not be determined by your possessions. “Bohemian Rhapsody” on vinyl is still “Bohemian Rhapsody” on Spotify, and the enthusiasm of which the lyrics are sung along to with is not lessened by the presence of an IPhone. Arguably, it is because of the Internet that classics such at that are still around and still so widely known and loved.
Largely, I feel the Internet is a good thing for the music industry, and I support its involvement with the art. Yes, it’s not entirely good, it is, and probably always will be, a flawed system, but most things are. If we’re going to stop using everything that is flawed then we should start with the Government, not YouTube. Not everyone can afford a vinyl record player or to buy every song they like, but most people will have Wi-Fi, and without the Internet they may not be able to hear any music at all, which I’m sure most would agree, is so much worse than streaming it. Music is more listened to than ever before, and that is, undisputedly, a good thing.
Is the Internet entirely good for music consumption? Well, no. Nothing is entirely good, especially not the Internet of all things, which has more capacity to be a ‘bad thing’ then maybe anything ever before it (except for mankind, of course). If there’s a way to abuse something, the public will find it, it can’t be avoided. For example, music piracy is an obvious issue, basically stealing tunes right off the Internet, taking money straight from pockets. Many people will even sacrifice the quality of their songs for the price of them.
This obviously hurts little bands that are only starting out, but it can also hurt the larger artists, who are already losing up to 60% of their pay to their record labels and other people working in the industry. This is another criticism of the Internet’s involvement in the music industry – the unfair treatment of artists. Streaming music off sites that take large portions of artists pay encourages this behavior and allows these fat-cat companies to keep doing it.
But, of course, if this really bothers you, why not use sites that are renowned for their fair treatment of artists, such as Bandcamp? There is a growing “Badge of Honor” status around people who use fair sites, it’s becoming trendy to care (not the worst fad ever, by any means). Also the Internet is undoubtedly a great platform for beginners, who can put their stuff out there and get publicity much easier then they would’ve twenty years ago. And there’s no such thing as bad publicity after all, and streaming sites are excellent in getting the word out about fresh bands.
Prosumerism is a new and exciting factor now associated with music and the Internet. It’s the process of both producing and consuming media, and there’s a vast amount of amateurs now dabbling in it. It’s easier now than ever before to make a remix of a song, or edit your own music video, or even sing your own cover. I consider this a positive thing, regardless of how many poor quality beginners there are out there, it encourages creativity and furthers the public’s involvement with the music industry, even deepens it in a way that would be highly limited without the Internet.
With all this access to new bands, listeners can often feel bombarded by the choice, and will end up listening to the songs they already know and love, making the ‘platform’ argument slightly null-in-void, from a certain perspective. However, many streaming sites come with the option to suggest music to you you’ve never heard before, based on what you already listen to, tempting listeners out of their comfortable listening cage. People can find a flaw in this too though, as they can find flaws in most things, and are spooked by machines and companies knowing so much about them. That’s why I understand the feeling that the Internet is vast and scary, and makes music commercial and clinical.
The quality of the songs is also at stake. In the past, if you bought a faulty CD, you could bring it back and either get your money back, or a new CD. Nowadays, you can’t wrap on Apple’s door and get back that £1.50 you spent on a song that didn’t play as it should. Sure, you can get your money back, maybe, after a long string of emails, but many people prefer the cash in hand, trustworthiness of your local record shop.
Speaking of that little shop, the main argument for the Internet and streaming being toxic for music seems to be the lack of intimacy. It’s hard to grow a connection to a band when you don’t have your own physical copy of the music itself, you don’t know what the band looks like, or maybe don’t even know their names. There’s always the temptation to just skip halfway through a song, or put it on as background music, because music is so available to us now, the novelty has worn off a bit. Bands also may become commercial quickly. To stay afloat in such a competitive market, sometimes changes must be made, even if it means completely changing their style. The Internet is criticized for making it easy to listen but hard to commit. Modern fans are sited for not having a real love for the craft, if they don’t own the vinyl, or CD or cassette; do they even really like the band?
I, personally, think this is rubbish. I feel that the “status” associated with physical copies of music is pompous and childish. Online streaming sites provide a great availability of songs that people just wouldn’t have had a generation ago. It’s easy to discover new songs and bands you love, and you’re able to listen to them virtually any time you want. If you love a song, you love a song. Your interest such not be determined by your possessions. “Bohemian Rhapsody” on vinyl is still “Bohemian Rhapsody” on Spotify, and the enthusiasm of which the lyrics are sung along to with is not lessened by the presence of an IPhone. Arguably, it is because of the Internet that classics such at that are still around and still so widely known and loved.
Largely, I feel the Internet is a good thing for the music industry, and I support its involvement with the art. Yes, it’s not entirely good, it is, and probably always will be, a flawed system, but most things are. If we’re going to stop using everything that is flawed then we should start with the Government, not YouTube. Not everyone can afford a vinyl record player or to buy every song they like, but most people will have Wi-Fi, and without the Internet they may not be able to hear any music at all, which I’m sure most would agree, is so much worse than streaming it. Music is more listened to than ever before, and that is, undisputedly, a good thing.