Every,
Though I use the term "serious," there is no definition as opposed to
"unserious" art.. I just mean things that are not specifically geared to
continue what is already popular. This is what already "popular" art avoids
as probably not lucrative.
DJ
>Don,
>do you think it's ever possible that serious art can be popular?
>If so, is that the general public actually appreciating it for its artistic
>phenomena, or is it coincidence? I've often felt that for serious
>art to be popular, it would have to contain an element that already
>appeals to the masses.
>
>Often I'm blown away by the fact that Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen
>Spirit" ever became popular. In my home town of Erie, PA, they
>NEVER played it on the radio, even when it was a top 10 hit. This
>was the case until Cobain died a few years later. It seemed that
>Nirvana's music was so extremely different at the time, that Erie's
>top 40 radio was afraid to play it in fear of losing listenership.
>
>Though around 1991 - 1993 in my home town, and probably most
>places, "grunge" music and "alternative" took over a good portion of
>Top 40, thus no longer making it "alternative," since I always felt
>by definition, Alternative as a format meant "alternative to mainstream."
>
>At 06:58 PM 1/27/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>>This is the popularity of stupidity, a well known, often lower class (and
>>therefore massive) human tendency from which much money can be made or,
>>more dangerously, dubious political ends can actually be achieved. A sucker
>>born every minute, eager to explore their worst instincts, I'm sure you've
>>met a few... This is not the work of any art the world ends up respecting.
>>
>>Hindsight (usually possible once the subject has disappeared and/or a
>>contrasting alternative becomes available) shows us that people will opt
>>for supporting the darndest good for nothing (except making money) stuff
>>JUST BECAUSE IT'S THERE, especially when taste is NOT the reason it exists.
>>Appealing to what people want can succeed in debasing their intellects just
>>as often as it may improve them. You may say that entertainment is not
>>intended to be about improving people, but I think it is. This potential is
>>at the foundation of ANY act of creation, whether it is followed or not.
>>Good taste, however, demands it.
>>
>>Just because people will automatically distribute their likes and dislikes
>>among what is available does not mean that what is available is good for
>>them or to them or, in the case of radio, good for the art of music. Giving
>>people what they want is the very best way to make money and the very worst
>>way to make serious art. This is why most all of America's art and
>>entertainment is not even trying to be serious - it's virtually ALL
>>inextricably tied to making money. This has always been the never-ending
>>dichotomy in modern art's mass distribution, the necessary players so
>>surprisingly incompatible yet historically melded together, which something
>>like the Net has the potential of separating to a significant degree at
>>last. So there, higher tastes may finally go their own way for their own
>>purposes and the money makers another for theirs. The resulting contrast in
>>taste will be starker than we have ever seen.
>>
>>How will this new independent taste making support itself? As you can
>>plainly see on this list, those most worried about that are not the artists
>>who support it and are most directly affected by it, but the agents of very
>>large industries which are now helplessly addicted to popularity for
>>survival, and who see their entertainment pawns slipping away one by one.
>>Next go the knights. The Bishops are still not sure what is happening, the
>>King and Queen still sleeping comfortably... The game of checkers is far
>>more popular than chess but even checker players know that chess is a much
>>more serious game, but it's all a matter of taste.
>>DJ
>>Negativland
>>
>> >Top 40 a terrible mistake for humanity? Let's not get *too* elitist!
>> >After all, the format wouldn't have survived if it weren't
>> >profitable....which means some people listen....hey, everyone has a
>> >right to their taste. Now, if Top 40 becomes predominant, to the
>> >*exclusion* of other formats, that does indeed suck.
>> >
>> >/w
>> >
>> >
>> >--- Numair Faraz <numairATopenmpeg.org> wrote:
>> >> I agree with both Mr. Coleman and Mr. Joyce's opinions, however I
>> >> think that
>> >> we should have some optimism towards the majors on their actions with
>> >> regard
>> >> to online radio. Although Top 40 radio was a terrible mistake for
>> >> humanity,
>> >> I think that the reason it did so well had a lot to do with the
>> >> technology
>> >> being used. I was an avid listener of radio before this contraption
>> >> called
>> >> the Internet, and I can say that it must be very hard for new radio
>> >> stations
>> >> to break through, as you don't really "surf" radio in the way that
>> >> you do
>> >> the Internet. Radio is something that is primitive and contains no
>> >> "push"
>> >> technology at all - it's all pull. It's very difficult to find any
>> >> new
>> >> stations on radio, as the technology makes it so that you must search
>> >> the
>> >> array of channels in a consecutive order rather than interactively
>> >> selecting
>> >> a channel on a dynamic tuner, which is what we have with the
>> >> Internet.
>> >>
>> >> One of the largest media companies in the world, AOL TimeWarner, owns
>> >> both
>> >> Spinner and Nullsoft. Spinner is what I think Mr. Coleman referred
>> >> to as
>> >> the "net radio dial" (or one variance of such an idea). It offers a
>> >> set
>> >> number of stations, and a playlist decided by AOL. Nullsoft, on the
>> >> other
>> >> hand, is an Internet legend for their (at times heroic) stances on
>> >> consumer
>> >> interests with regards to music and intellectual property. They have
>> >> a
>> >> product called Shoutcast - which is almost the opposite of Spinner,
>> >> allowing
>> >> people to start their own stations and create dynamic playlists on an
>> >> ever-changing plane of selection.
>> >>
>> >> As AOL is embracing the Internet radio platform and actually enabling
>> >> both
>> >> user-based radio channels _and_ the standard static format, I feel
>> >> that we
>> >> should watch and hope that they continue on this path of exploration.
>> >> We
>> >> shouldn't simply cast the majors off as wishing for stale, limited
>> >> radio, as
>> >> they are interested in the full exploitation of their artists -
>> >> something
>> >> that is not possible when your artist gets rejected by Top 40 radio
>> >> in
>> >> traditional media. Internet radio offers an unbelivably exciting new
>> >> way of
>> >> looking at music, and everyone is interested.
>> >>
>> >> An interesting new startup called XM (www.xmradio.com) aims to create
>> >> satellite based radio that is accessible from coast to coast. What I
>> >> find
>> >> very interesting about this format is that it completely disregards
>> >> the
>> >> advances we have been making with regards to personalized music in
>> >> the last
>> >> 2-3 years. XM aims to build the world's largest radio studio and
>> >> create
>> >> their own channels. It seems to me that XM will not enjoy long-lived
>> >> success, as within 10 years we will (er, should) have wireless
>> >> infrastructure capable of taking what are now our dynamic, wonderful,
>> >> but
>> >> hopelessly tethered radio stations into a world without wires. As XM
>> >> is
>> >> using some of the most powerful statellites ever built by Hughes
>> >> Networks,
>> >> it will be interesting to see how they adapt from 100 static radio
>> >> channels
>> >> to something a bit more dynamic.
>> >>
>> >> A random thought:
>> >>
>> >> I see a lot of what is going on with Internet music and "us vs. the
>> >> majors"
>> >> as analogus to the situation 400 years ago between the settlers and
>> >> natives
>> >> in America. We, the Internet community, are the natives; we all know
>> >> who
>> >> the settlers are, seemingly encroaching on our space. I strongly
>> >> think,
>> >> however, that both us are scared of each other - we barely understand
>> >> each
>> >> other's worlds, and all we know is that it's something we don't want
>> >> to be a
>> >> part of. I feel that as the natives, we owe it to our new neighbors
>> >> (hmm,
>> >> what would we call them? =) to simply give them a chance. Sure, they
>> >> might
>> >> have brought various scourges with them (copyright law, anyone?) and
>> >> tried
>> >> to convert us to their horrid religion, but by trying to combat them,
>> >> we
>> >> simply make their side stronger. The Internet community can fight
>> >> the
>> >> majors, but we'll lose some of the very things that we hold to be
>> >> good and
>> >> just and pure (such as an open exchange of music and ideas, and
>> >> everything
>> >> else) - because remember, they have been sustaining their model of
>> >> life in
>> >> the Old World for many, many years, and are much greater in number
>> >> and force
>> >> than we are.
>> >>
>> >> *** Numair Faraz
>> >> *** Open MPEG Project
>> >> *** numairATopenmpeg.org
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: owner-phoATonehouse.com [mailto:owner-phoATonehouse.com]On Behalf
>> >> Of
>> >> Jeff Coleman
>> >> Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 5:18 AM
>> >> To: Don Joyce; phoATonehouse.com
>> >> Subject: Re: pho: Internet Radio...Profitable?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --- Don Joyce <djATwebbnet.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The medium IS the message anyone using it becomes
>> >> part
>> >> > of, willing or not.
>> >>
>> >> Which is why I think it is vital that the music link
>> >> back to the performer, and that the accepted wisedom
>> >> about where music comes from and how it is paid for be
>> >> changed through public education.
>> >>
>> >> The majors aren't going to do this for us. They are
>> >> going to continue to push the limited choices model,
>> >> and they will suceed to the extent that an audience
>> >> exists for which this is the most comfortable model.
>> >>
>> >> Pretty easy to imagine (because it already exists) a
>> >> net radio dial!
>> >>
>> >> Jeff
>> >>
>> >> --- Don Joyce <djATwebbnet.com> wrote:
>> >> > This (below) is all about how the Net is reversing
>> >> > traditional media
>> >> > priorities and applications. Although the cost of
>> >> > transmitting high quality
>> >> > Netcasting will undoubtedly come down in time, no
>> >> > Netcast may ever get much
>> >> > more than 381 listeners a month. The Net does not
>> >> > work like a radio, does
>> >> > not seem to BE a radio, and is not a comfortable
>> >> > platform for those old
>> >> > kinds of one-way imposed taste, and that form of
>> >> > aggrigated music (as well
>> >> > as the types of aggrigated music delivery planned by
>> >> > labels) may never come
>> >> > to what they have always considered economic
>> >> > "success" there. Net radio can
>> >> > never be a center of or for anything as it sometimes
>> >> > can be with atmosheric
>> >> > broadcasting. The Net turns out to be almost an
>> >> > exact reversal to all other
>> >> > traditional media tendencies, and humans, being the
>> >> > creatures of their own
>> >> > thinking habits that they are, are reacting mostly
>> >> > by trying to find ways
>> >> > to make it conform to their off-Net expectations.
>> >> > This painfully
>> >> > frustrating forcing of square pegs into round holes
>> >> > (otherwise known as
>> >> > bottomless holes in which to throw money) just goes
>> >> > on and on. The Net
>> >> > suggests REVERSING all thinking - from how to
>> >> > COLLECT a relatively
>> >> > indescriminate audience to how to connect with
>> >> > individuals with highly
>> >> > specific interests who, together, may never add up
>> >> > to any size traditionaly
>> >> > considered necessary to make a profit.
>> >> >
>> >> > Terrestrial radio attracts it's audience from a VERY
>> >> > limited little radio
>> >> > dial, everything you can "pick up" at a glance, and
>> >> > which can quickly be
>> >> > checked out in its entirety from end to end. There
>> >> > has always been a
>> >> > picture of the "whole" of anyone's radio world, and
>> >> > once one knows that,
>> >> > decisions of allegence can be made with
>> >> > self-satisfied confidence (or
>> >> > resignation). So radio hits the Net and everyone
>> >> > assumes, wow, now we have
>> >> > the whole world as our potential audience, this
>> >> > should be great for radio.
>> >> > - AND IT IS! Except there doesn't seem to be
>> >>
>> >=== message truncated ===
>> >
>> >
>> >=====
>> >Woody Lewis
>> >CEO
>> >pMedia, Inc.
>> >420 Park Avenue
>> >San Carlos, CA 94070
>> >cell - 415-640-2001
>> >
>> >__________________________________________________
>> >Do You Yahoo!?
>> >Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
>> >http://auctions.yahoo.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------
>>Rumori, the Detritus.net Discussion List
>>to unsubscribe, send mail to majordomoATdetritus.net
>>with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
>>----------------------------------------------------
>>Rumori list archives & other information are at
>>http://detritus.net/contact/rumori
>>----------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Every Man every.manATpressthebutton.com
>Press The Button, Midnight - 3 am Sundays
>WRUW, 91.1 FM, Cleveland, OH
>NETCAST http://www.wruw.org
>HOMEPAGE http://www.pressthebutton.com
>
>----------------------------------------------------
>Rumori, the Detritus.net Discussion List
>to unsubscribe, send mail to majordomoATdetritus.net
>with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
>----------------------------------------------------
>Rumori list archives & other information are at
>http://detritus.net/contact/rumori
>----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori, the Detritus.net Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to majordomoATdetritus.net
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori list archives & other information are at
http://detritus.net/contact/rumori
----------------------------------------------------
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
N© Detritus.net. Sharerights extended to all.