The following was an e-mail I sent to my friend Adam a week or two back, so excuse any typos:
I was thinking yesterday, the niche of folks who are active in pushing music to others is pretty small, but they're pretty much the only ones who are truly engaged with the music. The average music listener might buy a cd, or might get something from a friend, and will just throw it on the iPod and be done with it. They don't check MySpace, iLike, etc, they don't generally buy merch, they go to concerts when their friends go or when it's one of their top 5 favorite artists. Is there any way to engage those folks more? Or are they a lost cause as they are just not predisposed to get more involved with the music they listen to?
If we count them as a lost cause, how do bands best use their fan support to grow? There used to be a whole market of folks to help manage street teams and such. Now everyone just uses MySpace (one such person came up to my friends in scenes from a movie at warped tour this year, as soon as he left they threw his card in the trash saying "unless your name is MySpace, you're worthless to us"). But let's face it--as much as bands are businesses, and as well as bands generally know their audience, precious few are truly marketing geniuses themselves. That opens up a new market of providing marketing tools to the bands (I know you know all this, I’m just thinking out loud). They have tens, hundreds, thousands of folks who would happily perform easy tasks for them, particularly if those tasks are fun. In the traditional method, fans get rewarded with tickets or t-shirts for passing out flyers, emailing the most people, etc. those kinds of rewards are great and appreciated, but they aren't a constant. Bands need their fans to CONSTANTLY be pushing the marketing for them. Thus, the fans can't always be physically rewarded. Instead they either need to have fun in the process or feel good at the end--or better yet, have it be so mindless that they don't even have to think about it.
Putting a band in your favorites on Facebook or MySpace rarely does any real good. The very very very few people who notice it generally already know the band. There really needs to be a PUSH of information (or whatever it is) for any promotion to have an effect.
Speaking from my own experience, my pushing happens a few ways. First off, I RARELY push music to people who I’m not at least 70% sure will take the time to listen and will enjoy it. When I do push music, it generally happens in one of three forms: cd, imeem, blog. For cds, I send out mixes to about 10 people every month or so (it started with my college roommates and has grown a bit as others have asked to join). I plan the cds as though I were making a mix tape for a girl in middle school (while I feel I can push my friends a little musically, I know what they like and tend to play to that), and even design cover art for them. Imeem I use for only a couple friends (I think I only have one or two on there). If I hear a song I like on my iTunes or on some band's MySpace page, I go to imeem, do a search, click the song, and send it along. That is the only thing I use imeem for. Since the usability design is so bad (almost has to be as they need to serve a whole lot of ads to make money), I don't find value in any other site functionality at this point. Finally, if I see a particularly good concert, I’ll blog about it. Each story on my blog averages about 20-25 reads, and only a few people click the links to listen to tracks (they more readily watch embedded videos, but even then it's maybe 20% of readers).
all this results in my pushing of music more than once a year to maybe 20 unique people, and probably 200 unique tracks end up in peoples' iTunes as a result. knowing my friends, I probably influence about 2 cd purchases a year--they already have the songs they like and don't often feel the need to explore a band further ("if they're really that good, Ty will send me another cd with another track or two from them"). Case-in-point: I got my college roommates obsessed with Kaddisfly. Not an easy task, considering one's favorite music is jazz, one's is rap, and the third is top 40 through and through. But they now LOVE Kaddisfly. Yet I’m the only one who owns a cd or t-shirt or has been to a concert. How do I make their love translate to revenue for Kaddisfly?
And there's the big key: sharing is all well and good, but how much sharing has to happen before the band can actually make money off of it? the process needs to be refined on both ends--fans need easier, more fun ways to spread their favorite music (and perhaps a better sense of who might be open to listening to it?), and the people they spread it to need a fun, easy, relatively inexpensive (at best, free--work on that) way to generate revenue for the bands.
Part of what I think might help this is if bands truly take it upon themselves to build their brand beyond the music. I used to blog a bunch about the need to think of a band as a small startup business, and I truly believe that. Of course, in both Seth Godin's (marketing guru) concept of a "Purple Cow" is incredibly relevant--if you have a product that is truly "remarkable" (his term), it's infinitely easier to market. remarkable doesn't just mean unique or fascinating, because different is not always good or pleasing to the masses; instead, it means something that is innovative and interesting, but is generally relatable to things we already are familiar with (why Panic(!) at the Disco's first cd got so huge--it was new instrumentation of very traditional pop punk music, so people thought it was new and different but were still universally comfortable with its conventions).
Regardless of how "remarkable" a band is, though, they can always do more to build their brand. Merch is one extension, and touring is one outlet/marketing tool, but there has to be more. Videos, blogs, hotlines, etc help, but can also be overdone--fans want to feel a like a part of the music and the band, but there also has to be some allure left. It’s like if a company was so into creating a "team" environment that they completely do away with hierarchy and put the management in the same cubicle as the entry level folks--teams are good, but they also need leaders who garner the respect of their peers partially by having closed-doors meetings and such. It’s a fine line between encouraging fan involvement and pandering to them. Ultimately, the best thing to have happen is to have the fans work with each other in a sort of community setting that you can oversee and occasionally communicate with to give some direction and encouragement. That being said, you have to make sure the conversation in the community is constant. If you think of it as an internet message board, if people run out of things to talk about related to your band, they'll stop coming to the site, and it happens as a snowball effect. If they stop coming to the site, reengaging each of them is infinitely difficult, and the longer you wait, the more folks you'll have to try to reclaim. Lil Wayne is a decent example of keeping fans engaged--he keeps releasing songs on MySpace rather than waiting every 2 years to do a cd. He doesn't have to do much in the way of talking to fans or anything really besides constantly providing the content for them to enjoy and buzz about.
The traditional thinking is that the music is the product. Now, it's sort of a product (people still buy it, but iTunes overtaking Wal-mart as top music reseller is evidence that people are more comfortable with digital music, and digital music has a marginal cost of zero, thus market forces will push price towards zero). In the future, it may only be a tool. Google started as a search engine. Now their search engine is a tool for selling ads, and they have a plethora of other free services that would traditionally have been considered products but are really just tools for building a brand and generating revenue through other areas. Can a band mirror that? I think so. They just need the tools to do so.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Friday, April 11, 2008
Can Mr. Smith Get To Washington Anymore? If the kids have anything to say about it, yes.
Last night I went to an event put on by Democracy Matters, a student group dedicated to clean elections, at SMU. The event consisted of a documentary showing and some talkback with the subject of the documentary. Figuring I could use an education, and a meal, I went for the free JimmyJohns at 7 and stayed for the conversation til after midnight.
The subject of the movie, Can Mr. Smith Get To Washington Anymore?, is a guy by the name of Jeff Smith, who ran for the seat of retiring Missouri US Representative Dick Gephardt. Jeff was 29 at the time, and teaching political science classes as an adjunct professor at a couple universities in St. Louis. Seeing the opportunity to make a lasting impact and maintain the everyman image of the soon-to-be-vacated seat, Jeff decided to give the race everything he had.
He gathered a team of loyal, passionate, but extremely young and inexperienced folks to help him run his campaign. Together they beat down doors all over St. Louis and placed hundreds of thousands of phone calls in the hopes of gaining support. Nobody gave him a chance. The top candidate in the race had a last name synonymous with politics in St. Louis. In an early name recognition poll, 99% of voters had heard of his opponent, 3% claimed to have heard of him (though his campaign manager says 2 of those percentage points were people who thought they knew a Jeff Smith from somewhere).
In the end, Jeff raised more money than his rival (even with his opponent's mother being a US Senator with an impressive Rolodex), had far more volunteers working on his campaign, and darn near won--in fact, he won most of the key districts, but his opponent won the overall vote count.
Saddened, but not discouraged, Jeff ran a very successful (and even bigger) campaign to become a state Senator in Missouri based on the same principles his youthful team had run his previous campaign. He spoke to the difficulties of running a campaign in which you want to be beating down doors and meeting people in your district, but need to spend 6-7 hours a day calling people for campaign donations and support (less personal, but far more efficient). His favorite part of the campaigns were the coffees they had supporters put on--invite 15 of your friends over and Jeff will come talk issues with you for an hour or two. That or playing one-on-one basketball with inner city kids, saying if they won he'd give them $5 and if he won they had to pass out a few fliers in their neighborhood (though he found the word spread faster through their friends who shouted from every street corner than a short white guy had just beaten their friend).
A true grassroots campaigner, I gained a lot of respect for Jeff. Speaking with him for many hours after the event, I gained much more respect for him. He is very well read, has a great perspective on life, and genuinely enjoys people. He was horribly tired after filibustering for 5 hours that day and dealing with American Airlines flight issues, but he still really drove the conversation with the group of us who took him to Cafe Brazil.
I think the most impressive thing about Jeff and his campaign, though, was his willingness to take on unqualified, but very passionate youth to drive his campaign. While by the end his volunteer corps spanned all generations, few of the core group had even graduated college yet. The field manager even lied to the people he was managing, telling them he was 23 so that he would be perceived as older than the volunteers he was managing (he was actually 20 and admitted it on election day).
For their part, the kids proved him right--the learn-by-doing method triumphed once again, as the lack of "knowledge" freed them to be innovative and idealistic (they insisted on running a campaign free of slander). Additionally, because of their youth, they had the time and mind share to dedicate themselves entirely to the campaign--sleep seemed a rarity, and few had time for anything other than the campaign, yet they all stayed positive throughout. Many of them were even high schoolers who couldn't vote, but dedicated their summer and weekends to helping Jeff win.
Certainly cases can be made that the youth of today are impatient, self-interested, demanding, and don't have the encyclopedic knowledge of some of their predecessors, but I think Jeff Smith's campaign staff proved that we may just be a new kind of smart. We can retrieve information instantaneously and process new skills and ideas on the fly, rather than needing to have deep roots and work with the concepts for long periods of time. It's the same philosophy that my favorite billionaire Richard Branson employs with each new Virgin brand--a fresh look at stagnant industries can be best if taken by an outsider. If you are intelligent and dedicate yourself to a new challenge, the fact that you have little no experience in that specific field is irrelevant, or may even be a boon.
It may take a long time for the jobs of today to transform to suit these new kinds of brains, as it continues to take a while to incorporate the technology these brains rely on, but I encourage employers to allow for the possibility that previous skills might not necessarily be the biggest key indicator in what kind of a job someone will do for you. A few fresh brains who really understand people, like Jeff, have already discovered how to adapt. Will you?
Monday, March 17, 2008
South By Southwest
After a rough go of it at South By So What (where the most popular band involved a teenager in a pink wig and drag singing lude lyrics over electronic beats) in Plano on Friday, I made the trek to Austin Saturday for my first go at South By Southwest.
I decided to wear a shirt asking people to come talk to me about what they wish the internet would do for their musical experience. I couldn't find iron-on letters at Target, so I figured the next best thing would be to get some nametags and write my message on those. I wound up drawing a lot of attention, but unfortunately no one actually talked to me about my message--they were all just interested in the design of the labels themselves. I must've had at least 25 strangers wanting to take pictures of me. Weird.
I got into the Habana backyard (where Kaddisfly was playing) a little after 7 and hung with the guys from Kaddisfly for a while before heading to Esther's Follies for Bryan Scary and the Shredding Tears. The venue appeared to be a cheap dinner-and-a-show joint frequented by local magicians and the like. Thirty to forty people watched (half seated, half standing) as Scary and his band rolled through a series of operatic rock voyages through space (replete with props) that scream of Meatloaf and Genesis influences. A mangy Scary alternated between beating on his keyboard and falling all over the stage, acting and reacting to his own lyrics. It was certainly more of a show than any magician I've ever seen.
From there I sprinted back to see Kaddisfly. Excited to play a 45 minute set after their 20 minute tease at South By So What, they ripped into a new jam to open the set. Unfortunately, Kile's bass went out before they even got through the first song, and the rest of the show was delayed for a few minutes. Chris tried to pass the time by improvising on the keyboards and singing, but he ran out of material after a couple minutes. Finally, everything was fixed and the show went on without a hitch. After rolling through "Empire," they played a new track that the audience (not knowing who this band was) really dug. The band played their usual energetic live show (at one point Chris took off his shoes and started beating on the cymbals), showcasing their talents beautifully, and closing with an extended rendition of "Snowflakes."
Knowing the band would need a few minutes to pack up and load out before I could chat with them, I snuck off to see Oh No! Oh My! Being Austin locals, I expected a slightly bigger turnout than they had, but they packed over a hundred folks into the top floor of Buffalo Billiards. In sharp contrast to the intensity of the first two shows, Oh No! Oh My! played largely feel-good, poppy indie rock with funky rhythms and beautiful harmonies. They closed with a new song that was so good it completely soothed the complaints of some vocal fans screaming for their favorite older song.
I tried to get back into Kaddisfly's venue, but it was popular enough by that point that they were only accepting badges and wristbands. I called Aaron from Kaddisfly, who was about to sleep in the van, and realized I probably wasn't going to get to hang with them as much as I had hoped, so I should go elsewhere. Right at that point, I got a txt from Atom from Feable Weiner telling me to come hang out. We met up at Shakespeare's for You, Me, and Everyone We Know, where he introduced me to the founders of Echospin (which has YMaEWK's label, Drive-Thru Records, as a client). When the band's microphones all went out before even the end of the first song, Atom ditched for PureVolume Ranch, and after talking to the Echospin guys, I followed suit.
It turned out PureVolume Ranch was a private artists' party. Luckily, Atom sweet-talked the security guy and got me in. It was really great to see Atom again (first time in 3 years I think...way too long). We nerded out for a few hours, talking about the internet and the state of the music industry, and the future for it all. He revealed struggles he's had trying to find the right record or distribution deal for the new FW record he's been sitting on for nearly two years (it's extra-complicated because they've topped out the charts in the UK, but haven't had a whole ton of commercial success on this side of the pond (yet)). We met a few other interesting folks at the party, but generally just talked, even all the way through Limbeck's raucous set. He and his girlfriend were even gracious enough to let me crash on her couch.
All in all, I could say that I was disappointed in not seeing more music, but the truth is it cost me $32 to see four truly outstanding shows in near-perfect settings, and I met some good people and got to catch up with old friends. Not too shabby. Maybe someday I'll get to go for more than one day...
I decided to wear a shirt asking people to come talk to me about what they wish the internet would do for their musical experience. I couldn't find iron-on letters at Target, so I figured the next best thing would be to get some nametags and write my message on those. I wound up drawing a lot of attention, but unfortunately no one actually talked to me about my message--they were all just interested in the design of the labels themselves. I must've had at least 25 strangers wanting to take pictures of me. Weird.
I got into the Habana backyard (where Kaddisfly was playing) a little after 7 and hung with the guys from Kaddisfly for a while before heading to Esther's Follies for Bryan Scary and the Shredding Tears. The venue appeared to be a cheap dinner-and-a-show joint frequented by local magicians and the like. Thirty to forty people watched (half seated, half standing) as Scary and his band rolled through a series of operatic rock voyages through space (replete with props) that scream of Meatloaf and Genesis influences. A mangy Scary alternated between beating on his keyboard and falling all over the stage, acting and reacting to his own lyrics. It was certainly more of a show than any magician I've ever seen.
From there I sprinted back to see Kaddisfly. Excited to play a 45 minute set after their 20 minute tease at South By So What, they ripped into a new jam to open the set. Unfortunately, Kile's bass went out before they even got through the first song, and the rest of the show was delayed for a few minutes. Chris tried to pass the time by improvising on the keyboards and singing, but he ran out of material after a couple minutes. Finally, everything was fixed and the show went on without a hitch. After rolling through "Empire," they played a new track that the audience (not knowing who this band was) really dug. The band played their usual energetic live show (at one point Chris took off his shoes and started beating on the cymbals), showcasing their talents beautifully, and closing with an extended rendition of "Snowflakes."
Knowing the band would need a few minutes to pack up and load out before I could chat with them, I snuck off to see Oh No! Oh My! Being Austin locals, I expected a slightly bigger turnout than they had, but they packed over a hundred folks into the top floor of Buffalo Billiards. In sharp contrast to the intensity of the first two shows, Oh No! Oh My! played largely feel-good, poppy indie rock with funky rhythms and beautiful harmonies. They closed with a new song that was so good it completely soothed the complaints of some vocal fans screaming for their favorite older song.
I tried to get back into Kaddisfly's venue, but it was popular enough by that point that they were only accepting badges and wristbands. I called Aaron from Kaddisfly, who was about to sleep in the van, and realized I probably wasn't going to get to hang with them as much as I had hoped, so I should go elsewhere. Right at that point, I got a txt from Atom from Feable Weiner telling me to come hang out. We met up at Shakespeare's for You, Me, and Everyone We Know, where he introduced me to the founders of Echospin (which has YMaEWK's label, Drive-Thru Records, as a client). When the band's microphones all went out before even the end of the first song, Atom ditched for PureVolume Ranch, and after talking to the Echospin guys, I followed suit.
It turned out PureVolume Ranch was a private artists' party. Luckily, Atom sweet-talked the security guy and got me in. It was really great to see Atom again (first time in 3 years I think...way too long). We nerded out for a few hours, talking about the internet and the state of the music industry, and the future for it all. He revealed struggles he's had trying to find the right record or distribution deal for the new FW record he's been sitting on for nearly two years (it's extra-complicated because they've topped out the charts in the UK, but haven't had a whole ton of commercial success on this side of the pond (yet)). We met a few other interesting folks at the party, but generally just talked, even all the way through Limbeck's raucous set. He and his girlfriend were even gracious enough to let me crash on her couch.
All in all, I could say that I was disappointed in not seeing more music, but the truth is it cost me $32 to see four truly outstanding shows in near-perfect settings, and I met some good people and got to catch up with old friends. Not too shabby. Maybe someday I'll get to go for more than one day...
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Huge Tool: The LinkedIn Answer
Last Tuesday I was at a They Might Be Giants concert in Dallas, and amidst the usual witty banter between the Johns, John Flansburgh asked the audience “So do you think we should get on this Facebook thing?” There were some strong boos and some strong yeas, but to my surprise the majority of the crowd remained silent, or merely chuckling at the question itself.
The truth is, Facebook isn’t something people associate with music (though Facebook is trying to change that with their partnership with iTunes). I guarantee there were multiple people in the audience turning to their friends and whispering “Isn’t that what MySpace is for?” Just like it might be weird to get a Facebook Friend request after taking a business meeting with someone, but it might be appropriate on LinkedIn. Each site is, when all the initial excitement wears off, a tool for a specific purpose.
MySpace is for entertainment. It allows full creativity in making your profile as ugly as you dare, and is a hub for up-and-coming musical and comedy acts to share their material and plug themselves. Gone are the days of promoters and street team managers—bands manage all that by messaging their MySpace “friends.” It used to also be for people, but that was only when people on the internet were a form of entertainment, rather than an extension of real life.
Now Facebook is for people. People being the majority of people who don’t go to the internet looking for new relationships necessarily, but just want to keep track of what their real life friends are up to. Therein lies the beauty of the Social Graph—Facebook is a tool for keeping track of real life friends. Facebook has thus focused on communication and photos.
LinkedIn has survived in the face of possibly the worst design in internet history (recently upgraded to workable) because ultimately it was a very good tool for keeping track of business contacts (it’s syncing to Outlook was a fan favorite). In fact, one could argue that the poor design and difficulty in navigation may have been something of a comfort to business people who often see computers that way in the first place. If Facebook or MySpace (or Google's Orkut) buys LinkedIn and tries to integrate it, they will need to focus on the business-specific aspects of the site and be sure not to alienate long-time users by taking the focus away from that functionality.
Look at some of the other big guns: Google’s homepage is famously simple, focusing entirely on its search tool; Craigslist does nothing but provide a tool for online classifieds; eBay went through a craze, but now gets most of its traffic from stores and most of its revenues from PayPal (a smart pickup when they were on top of the world), both tools for facilitating ecommerce between existing merchants and everyday consumers; YouTube won in video not because it was the best in a lot of ways, but because it was the easiest tool to share videos with friends.
In the end, every truly successful website will boil down to being a tool—the others will have their fads, but will die off relatively quickly if they don’t evolve into valuable tools. While we have a fascination with this internet thing as though it were in an infomercial on tv, in the long run it’s going to boil down to a new set of tools for humans to get around their everyday lives. But perhaps by then we’ll be entertaining ourselves by taking family vacations to Mars.
The truth is, Facebook isn’t something people associate with music (though Facebook is trying to change that with their partnership with iTunes). I guarantee there were multiple people in the audience turning to their friends and whispering “Isn’t that what MySpace is for?” Just like it might be weird to get a Facebook Friend request after taking a business meeting with someone, but it might be appropriate on LinkedIn. Each site is, when all the initial excitement wears off, a tool for a specific purpose.
MySpace is for entertainment. It allows full creativity in making your profile as ugly as you dare, and is a hub for up-and-coming musical and comedy acts to share their material and plug themselves. Gone are the days of promoters and street team managers—bands manage all that by messaging their MySpace “friends.” It used to also be for people, but that was only when people on the internet were a form of entertainment, rather than an extension of real life.
Now Facebook is for people. People being the majority of people who don’t go to the internet looking for new relationships necessarily, but just want to keep track of what their real life friends are up to. Therein lies the beauty of the Social Graph—Facebook is a tool for keeping track of real life friends. Facebook has thus focused on communication and photos.
LinkedIn has survived in the face of possibly the worst design in internet history (recently upgraded to workable) because ultimately it was a very good tool for keeping track of business contacts (it’s syncing to Outlook was a fan favorite). In fact, one could argue that the poor design and difficulty in navigation may have been something of a comfort to business people who often see computers that way in the first place. If Facebook or MySpace (or Google's Orkut) buys LinkedIn and tries to integrate it, they will need to focus on the business-specific aspects of the site and be sure not to alienate long-time users by taking the focus away from that functionality.
Look at some of the other big guns: Google’s homepage is famously simple, focusing entirely on its search tool; Craigslist does nothing but provide a tool for online classifieds; eBay went through a craze, but now gets most of its traffic from stores and most of its revenues from PayPal (a smart pickup when they were on top of the world), both tools for facilitating ecommerce between existing merchants and everyday consumers; YouTube won in video not because it was the best in a lot of ways, but because it was the easiest tool to share videos with friends.
In the end, every truly successful website will boil down to being a tool—the others will have their fads, but will die off relatively quickly if they don’t evolve into valuable tools. While we have a fascination with this internet thing as though it were in an infomercial on tv, in the long run it’s going to boil down to a new set of tools for humans to get around their everyday lives. But perhaps by then we’ll be entertaining ourselves by taking family vacations to Mars.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Buy this record (yes, record)
I liked the post office yesterday--not only did my iPod Touch finally come in, but when I got to work in the morning I found a white box containing my double-disc, limited edition vinyl from Kay Kay and His Weathered Underground. I don't own a record player, but the band doesn't let you order the album in any other form (note: it does come with a card with a code to download the mp3s online). Not too many bands could get away with only selling vinyl, but for Kay Kay it seems somehow appropriate--they're very heavily influenced by the late 60s and early 70s (though they also show many signs of their Seattle rock roots). Their MySpace page describes them as "Alternative / Lounge / Experimental" music, but I think it's best to skip the classifications and let you hear for yourself. Oh, and don't forget to pick up one of the only 1000 copies of this record available--you won't regret it:
Buy: http://www.vinylcollective.com/2008/02/06/potp-kay-kay-and-his-weathered-underground-st-dbl-lp-3-colors/
Listen:
Buy: http://www.vinylcollective.com/2008/02/06/potp-kay-kay-and-his-weathered-underground-st-dbl-lp-3-colors/
Listen:
Monday, February 25, 2008
The Spectrum of Musical Experience
Yesterday morning I was in Chicago with my college roommate, ripping air guitar solos to Jupiter Sunrise's "Arthur Nix," much the same way we did in our freshman dorm room. Last night I got off the phone with one of my senior year roommates, then turned on the radio and heard three songs from The Beatles, culminating in "With A Little Help From My Friends." As I fell asleep, I put on a playlist of songs I have yet to share with anyone.
All three musical experiences elicited a deep emotional response, but in completely different ways. Such is the mystical nature of music--it is at once both deeply personal and reliant on shared experience. Many of us turn to it when there's no one else to turn to, and also use it as a mechanism for connection and shared memory with others.
My own consumption of music tends to follow a similar pattern: find out about a new artist or song through an artist I already enjoy, experience the music as personally as possible (alone in my room or car), then pass it along to others in the hopes that they might have a similar personal experience with it that we can then relate to each other through. To this day I send out CDs to friends almost monthly as a way to keep us tied together. As the Better Than Ezra song goes: "Someone out there's listening to the same song and feeling the same way that I do."
Sometimes (often) this phenomenon occurs on a massive scale. Radio pushes the same few songs at a time all over America and the world. As a result, people buy (hopefully) millions of albums and pack stadiums to see their favorite bands live. Perhaps no greater connection happened than when The Beatles played The Ed Sullivan Show on February 9, 1964 while an estimated 73 million people watched.
To this day, the easiest way to unite a room full of people is to play a Beatles song. We had a cookout for our families outside our apartment the night before graduation and it was a no-brainer to make the mix cds almost exclusively Beatles--it's happy music that nearly everyone knows and loves. Even Spencer's grandma was doing a little boogie to "Good Day Sunshine."
Taking experience one step further is live music--fans and potential fans flock to see bands play live, now moreso than ever. Whether it's a dive bar with ten people watching or Albert Hall filled to capacity, strangers come together over a common love of music.
Possibly my favorite quote about the potential depth of experience with live music comes from an interview I was lucky enough to do with Andy Hull of Manchester Orchestra: "The first time I ever felt evil at a show, which was when I knew I had to play music, I went to a Ben Kweller and The Anniversary concert, and The Anniversary was playing 'Sweet Marie,' and I remember the inside of my body just twisting inside and out and just feeling like I shouldn't be here, but the only thing I really need to do is be here. It happened again to me three years later watching The Blood Brothers, and I was just thinking 'This is evil, and I love it.' I'm not a sadistic weirdo, it's just that feeling of being drawn into something."
Nothing will ever replace the experience of live music. However I believe the internet has the power to enhance experiences, both personal and communal, with music. I see it in my daily reading of music blogs and bands' MySpace pages, where millions of people come to find out the latest news on their favorite bands and discover new music; but perhaps more importantly to our discussion, they comment the hell out of those posts. They actively seek extensions of the music they love. They want a greater experience.
The question then becomes: how? It seems to me that the potential power of the internet is not even close to realized, especially when it comes to music. Sure, people can listen to or buy nearly any song they want with a quick click, they can watch videos, and can post a few lines of their own about their feelings on music. But now they want more--more access to the artists, more music, more (or at least better) ways to discover new music.
It strikes me that iTunes, in all its glory, is stuck in the first iteration of the digital music revolution. There are hundreds of startups who all think they have the answer to the next iteration, but few attract enough users to back up their claims. Furthermore, they each seem to seek out their own niche. The biggest problem is that they all focus on evolution rather than revolution. People want free music? Okay, we'll sort of give it to them (not in a format that they can put on their iPod) and support it with ads. If iTunes is Digital Music 1.0, these startups are merely versions 1.x. No one is ambitious enough to really take on the music industry as a whole.
Do I have the answers? No. But I believe the future of music will rely very heavily on the internet, and will do so because the internet will allow for a greater musical experience. Some of the innovation may come from paying closer attention to what people say they want, but there is also a portion that will stem from a solid understanding of both how people experience music (both personally and communally) and the capabilities of the internet.
Any ideas? What would enhance your musical experience (be it via the internet or not)? If you dream it, we can do it.
All three musical experiences elicited a deep emotional response, but in completely different ways. Such is the mystical nature of music--it is at once both deeply personal and reliant on shared experience. Many of us turn to it when there's no one else to turn to, and also use it as a mechanism for connection and shared memory with others.
My own consumption of music tends to follow a similar pattern: find out about a new artist or song through an artist I already enjoy, experience the music as personally as possible (alone in my room or car), then pass it along to others in the hopes that they might have a similar personal experience with it that we can then relate to each other through. To this day I send out CDs to friends almost monthly as a way to keep us tied together. As the Better Than Ezra song goes: "Someone out there's listening to the same song and feeling the same way that I do."
Sometimes (often) this phenomenon occurs on a massive scale. Radio pushes the same few songs at a time all over America and the world. As a result, people buy (hopefully) millions of albums and pack stadiums to see their favorite bands live. Perhaps no greater connection happened than when The Beatles played The Ed Sullivan Show on February 9, 1964 while an estimated 73 million people watched.
To this day, the easiest way to unite a room full of people is to play a Beatles song. We had a cookout for our families outside our apartment the night before graduation and it was a no-brainer to make the mix cds almost exclusively Beatles--it's happy music that nearly everyone knows and loves. Even Spencer's grandma was doing a little boogie to "Good Day Sunshine."
Taking experience one step further is live music--fans and potential fans flock to see bands play live, now moreso than ever. Whether it's a dive bar with ten people watching or Albert Hall filled to capacity, strangers come together over a common love of music.
Possibly my favorite quote about the potential depth of experience with live music comes from an interview I was lucky enough to do with Andy Hull of Manchester Orchestra: "The first time I ever felt evil at a show, which was when I knew I had to play music, I went to a Ben Kweller and The Anniversary concert, and The Anniversary was playing 'Sweet Marie,' and I remember the inside of my body just twisting inside and out and just feeling like I shouldn't be here, but the only thing I really need to do is be here. It happened again to me three years later watching The Blood Brothers, and I was just thinking 'This is evil, and I love it.' I'm not a sadistic weirdo, it's just that feeling of being drawn into something."
Nothing will ever replace the experience of live music. However I believe the internet has the power to enhance experiences, both personal and communal, with music. I see it in my daily reading of music blogs and bands' MySpace pages, where millions of people come to find out the latest news on their favorite bands and discover new music; but perhaps more importantly to our discussion, they comment the hell out of those posts. They actively seek extensions of the music they love. They want a greater experience.
The question then becomes: how? It seems to me that the potential power of the internet is not even close to realized, especially when it comes to music. Sure, people can listen to or buy nearly any song they want with a quick click, they can watch videos, and can post a few lines of their own about their feelings on music. But now they want more--more access to the artists, more music, more (or at least better) ways to discover new music.
It strikes me that iTunes, in all its glory, is stuck in the first iteration of the digital music revolution. There are hundreds of startups who all think they have the answer to the next iteration, but few attract enough users to back up their claims. Furthermore, they each seem to seek out their own niche. The biggest problem is that they all focus on evolution rather than revolution. People want free music? Okay, we'll sort of give it to them (not in a format that they can put on their iPod) and support it with ads. If iTunes is Digital Music 1.0, these startups are merely versions 1.x. No one is ambitious enough to really take on the music industry as a whole.
Do I have the answers? No. But I believe the future of music will rely very heavily on the internet, and will do so because the internet will allow for a greater musical experience. Some of the innovation may come from paying closer attention to what people say they want, but there is also a portion that will stem from a solid understanding of both how people experience music (both personally and communally) and the capabilities of the internet.
Any ideas? What would enhance your musical experience (be it via the internet or not)? If you dream it, we can do it.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
V-Day Special: My true love--the internet (and counterpoints)
I just had a long and interesting conversation with my friend Jayna about the merits and shortcomings of the internet (which, oddly enough, came on the heels of my half-serious proposal that I move back to Milwaukee and study astrophysics). The fundamental difference between us (at least as I see it) is that, given the option, I would prefer to live in the future, whereas Jayna prefers a romanticized past. I can't say who is "right"; I think there are a number of very good points on both sides, which is why I'm sharing it and asking where you all stand?
(sorry for the awkward formatting and spelling and such--I guess that's one drawback of conversations via internet rather than in real life, huh?)
Jayna (in response to me questioning whether my fascination with the universe can really be considered a "love"): uh, yeah
your face brittens up and you get silly
but maybe you love tech start ups just as much
you probably do, i just like the litterary nature of you turning your world into books and discover the universe after an english degree
me: love is a pretty strong word for it--i'd call it closer to a fascination. i'd have to get to know it a lot better before i'd throw out a term like love.
Jayna: oh, you boys are all the same
you pretty much know if you love something
its just a matter of if you are willing to put in the hard work
me: that's true and i agree with you there, but that doesn't change my view that this is much more of a fascination than a love
i love the internet, i'm fascinated with space and physics
Jayna: yeah, i get it
thats cool
i guess i dont really get the love of the internet thing
but i get a love of the universe
me: i mean, the internet is like the universe on a much smaller scale. it started as a single piece of code on a single computer, and burst rather rapidly into an ever-expanding network with tons and tons of different uses and iterations.
Jayna: yeah, i thought you would make that connection
me: plus it's a place where geeks like me can have a field day
haha
of course!
Jayna: still doesnt turn me on
sad to say
me: that's fair
for many people it doesn't
i've been fascinated since i was about 4 or 5 and my brother started chatting over the internet with his friend reed on our commodore 64
Jayna: i wonder, what kind of a field day do you have on the internet
i tend to find it alienating after a while
me: well, finding out a lot about the universe, talking to friends, reading about politics, coming up with contacts for a company that is based entirely on the internet, etcetc
Jayna: yeah, i guess your imagination takes you
me: it's nearly as boundless as your imagination--if you are adept enough with it you can create and do anything
it's maleable technology
and frankly it's still very very early on in its existence and power
our kids are going to wonder how we survived in a world where we couldn't constantly be connected to every square mile of the earth over the internet
from anywhere
i think the real beauty in facebook is that it's the first big thing on the internet to truly model real life. granted i think many of the whole applications features and trying to become an ad network and all those business moves have diverted from the original concept of a social graph (which is why i don't facebook much anymore), but the concept itself was revolutionary and i think is an indicator of what's to come
Jayna: so as a social networking tool, you think it is successful
me: well, yes and maybe.
Jayna: i just cant get away from the voyeristic outlook of the whole thing
we used to express our character then the cult of personality proved a stronger force of power
me: yes, in its original iteration, the idea of the social graph was a successful model of real life and created a sort of extension of ourselves over the internet. the maybe part is in the definition of social networking, or more accurately what makes a successful social networking tool--one that models real life? one that introduces you to new and relevant people? one that creates a whole different network on which to interact? a good deal of that is up to personal preference
Jayna: now what is it
we express an image of ourselves in a third relm ont ehinternet
me: define time frame on your last comments--is that within facebook or within recent human existence?
Jayna: we are more distanced from ourselves as we are overly consumed in others lives and how they view our own life
me: i don't believe that's true at all
i think that only through other people do we find ourselves
i think the whole being consumed in others lives and how they view our lives has been a personality trait of many humans for many years. i don't think that's changed with the internet.
Jayna: if human interaction is how we define ourselves, then doesnt the internet lack a fundamental aspect
me: how so? it's just another form of interaction
it opens us up to far more people
Jayna: without human contact, without a voice or a face, a gesture. its a projection of human's interacting
like plato's cave
i agree that we are fundamentally consumed in others lives but i also believe that is a negative aspect of societies
it think its better played down in the media and new technologies will only worsen it
me: you have too short a view of the internet. yes, that's what it has been to this point, but look at the hot technologies these days--lifecasting, internet phone services with video capabilities, video things in general--it's bringing real people together more and more as the technology to do so develops
so you'd also argue that reality tv, and tv in general, and radio before it, and newspapers before that are all signs of the downfall of society because we care increasingly more to find out more and more about other human beings?
Jayna: real people with the infrastructure to support this rapidly changing technology
yes, exactly
not exactly, actually
i think you know where i would draw the line to your statement
me: so you think we'd be better off as jungle elephants, living by ourselves and wandering, only to come together to mate and then separating again so that we could exist in our own little world and not know what other creatures of our species are like?
no i don't know where you'd draw the line, it's an evolution over time and i think it's shortsighted to dismiss the internet as separate from that evolution
Jayna: for the most part, i tend to romantasize that image and flirt with the idea that it would be better
yes
:(
me: so you don't want to be smart? you don't have an innate itch to learn, not necessarily in the academic sense, but skills and knowledge that can help you live a more fulfilling life?
Jayna: and how can you understand something as an evolution in teh first 50 years of it
you are being presuptuous as well
that is taking it very far
all i know for sure is that i would rather being having this conversation with you at a bar and in "real life" then like this
me: because of its reach, potential for greater exponential growth (like similar technologies before it), and because of its encompassment of previous technologies. it fits the evolutionary graph perfectly.
that's fair but in a month you're going to be in india and a few years ago there's no way we could've been having this conversation
Jayna: isnt an evolutionary graph subject to change like anything else :)
me: absolutely!
Jayna: a few years ago we would meet at a bar after work like normal people
and while im in india i intend to be in india
not projecting myself into a vertual space which i could od from anywhere
me: but it's not going to have crazy shifts and such--technology to this point follows humans and humans are predictable. now, a few years down the road when we build technology that can outthink us on enormous levels, the graph may see a shift, or perhaps a completely new graph will begin as the machines we've created go on to create their own technologies
that's fair, but don't you find some consolation in the fact that you CAN contact people back home in case of an emergency or just because?
Jayna: yeah and i could have done that thirty years ago aswell
i dont dislike all technology
i just think we need to seriously ponder the effects of teh internet on our lives and society
me: 30 yrs yes, but 100? not so much.
Jayna: 100 yrs ago my family was in india
i would have just walked to their hut
:)
me: oh sure it's a constant struggle, but it's not a new one--it's one we go through with every new technology, which is why so few major changes are adopted overwhelmingly quickly (just take a look at the news stories from the early 90s on the internet, or newspaper articles about radios)
that's not the point at all! the point is unversal connectedness and becoming a global society!
Jayna: you feel a part of a global society
because of the internet
of is this something you imagin in 50 yrs
the internet gives us access to an elight global society for sure
like being a tourist of the owrld
me: i feel much moreso a part today than i would've 50 years ago, and i imagine in 50 years we'll feel even moreso as the technology evolves
Jayna: it doesnt replace lived experiences
me: it's not supposed to!
and again, the access to elite global societies is such a short-sighted view of this stuff
Jayna: then how can you creat your global society
me: the internet is not a replacement for real life, it's an extension of it
Jayna: so you think we will end famin and thirst and then have universal internet access
or does the internet come first
me: obviously i'd prefer the whole thirst and famine and war to be ended first, but look at the efforts of the OLPC program and intel's coming answer to it to see that the internet is spreading to these areas as they are developing
Jayna: i just think those problems are symbolic of the inability of our 'global society' to be function on a universal level
that seems to be how you imagin this new interaction
as a great equalizer
that doesnt exist
me: would you not agree that on a broader, longer-term scale we seem to be improving such things? the internet is helping us recognize these issues and bring them to the forefront so that we can assist with them
Jayna: to the forfront meaning what
we know about darfer (sp?) but what can we do with this info
me: meaning to the attention of those with the power to change these problems for the better
Jayna: those people always knew about it
me: are you kidding? how many people have mobilized and donated to causes like darfur based entirely on the internet?
Jayna: so you believe those donations are an answer
me: no. again, the internet is not a replacement for real people taking real action, but it helps those people doing positive things gain both monetary and moral support
Jayna: you can through money on a problem to make this new global society feel better about the problem but that doesnt chang ethe institution that creates and mantains it
me: so what alternative would you posit in that case?
Jayna: there you go, an org. puts up a web site and people donate. they are donating to a project idea
not a hard reality
me: do you think the internet is a distraction to those people promoting and implementing change?
Jayna: yes
i think most of the "change" today is
me: how so?
Jayna: green washing
global warming lectures
its a way to make us feel like we are doing are small part and fall a sleep at
it keeps us from thinking deeper
me: again, what do you posit as an alternative?
Jayna: human interaction
simple time and energy
me: and how would we "think deeper" if we didnt know about any of this stuff?
the more we know the more we can take action on causes we truly believe in
Jayna: we dont have to think deeper we have to act deeper
are actions have to count more
me: not everyone is going to dedicate their lives to alternative fuel, but by pushing that message on a broad scale, you're more likely to influence more people to take up the cause and act seriously
fine act deeper but how do you find out about these things then?
Jayna: local initiatives
if we all cared a bit more about what was happening around us instead of what star is preggy or who just ODed
i know i am not that person but i think it would be nice if there were more of them
i know it is not that simple
me: okay so my "village" of milwaukee magically discovers this global warming problem and 1/1000th of our population (a HUGE proportion) decides to take up the cause seriously and act upon that. unfortunately, our small village can't have a global impact without communication to other villages that need to join in the crusade. additionally, if 1/1000th of our population in milwaukee is dedicated wholly to making a difference in this cause, other important things get neglected
sure some people use the internet to read about britney, but they would've watched it on tv before, or would have listened to it on radio before that, and would have read about it in newspapers before that
Jayna: im not soley talking about the internet inregards to this media sensation
tv and radio included
me: people are naturally curious about the lives of other people, and putting certain people in the spotlight allows many people to live vicariously through them and also have something to interact with others about
Jayna: i have somehting i want to say about the global issues thing you jsut mentioned but i should get some work done
me: im not promoting it, and it's by no means the main utility offered by the internet, but the internet is not the first technology to be taken from it's original purpose to be utilized for other outlets of human curiosity as well (namely, each other)
Conversation to be continued tonight over drinks. Please please please weigh in on this!
(sorry for the awkward formatting and spelling and such--I guess that's one drawback of conversations via internet rather than in real life, huh?)
Jayna (in response to me questioning whether my fascination with the universe can really be considered a "love"): uh, yeah
your face brittens up and you get silly
but maybe you love tech start ups just as much
you probably do, i just like the litterary nature of you turning your world into books and discover the universe after an english degree
me: love is a pretty strong word for it--i'd call it closer to a fascination. i'd have to get to know it a lot better before i'd throw out a term like love.
Jayna: oh, you boys are all the same
you pretty much know if you love something
its just a matter of if you are willing to put in the hard work
me: that's true and i agree with you there, but that doesn't change my view that this is much more of a fascination than a love
i love the internet, i'm fascinated with space and physics
Jayna: yeah, i get it
thats cool
i guess i dont really get the love of the internet thing
but i get a love of the universe
me: i mean, the internet is like the universe on a much smaller scale. it started as a single piece of code on a single computer, and burst rather rapidly into an ever-expanding network with tons and tons of different uses and iterations.
Jayna: yeah, i thought you would make that connection
me: plus it's a place where geeks like me can have a field day
haha
of course!
Jayna: still doesnt turn me on
sad to say
me: that's fair
for many people it doesn't
i've been fascinated since i was about 4 or 5 and my brother started chatting over the internet with his friend reed on our commodore 64
Jayna: i wonder, what kind of a field day do you have on the internet
i tend to find it alienating after a while
me: well, finding out a lot about the universe, talking to friends, reading about politics, coming up with contacts for a company that is based entirely on the internet, etcetc
Jayna: yeah, i guess your imagination takes you
me: it's nearly as boundless as your imagination--if you are adept enough with it you can create and do anything
it's maleable technology
and frankly it's still very very early on in its existence and power
our kids are going to wonder how we survived in a world where we couldn't constantly be connected to every square mile of the earth over the internet
from anywhere
i think the real beauty in facebook is that it's the first big thing on the internet to truly model real life. granted i think many of the whole applications features and trying to become an ad network and all those business moves have diverted from the original concept of a social graph (which is why i don't facebook much anymore), but the concept itself was revolutionary and i think is an indicator of what's to come
Jayna: so as a social networking tool, you think it is successful
me: well, yes and maybe.
Jayna: i just cant get away from the voyeristic outlook of the whole thing
we used to express our character then the cult of personality proved a stronger force of power
me: yes, in its original iteration, the idea of the social graph was a successful model of real life and created a sort of extension of ourselves over the internet. the maybe part is in the definition of social networking, or more accurately what makes a successful social networking tool--one that models real life? one that introduces you to new and relevant people? one that creates a whole different network on which to interact? a good deal of that is up to personal preference
Jayna: now what is it
we express an image of ourselves in a third relm ont ehinternet
me: define time frame on your last comments--is that within facebook or within recent human existence?
Jayna: we are more distanced from ourselves as we are overly consumed in others lives and how they view our own life
me: i don't believe that's true at all
i think that only through other people do we find ourselves
i think the whole being consumed in others lives and how they view our lives has been a personality trait of many humans for many years. i don't think that's changed with the internet.
Jayna: if human interaction is how we define ourselves, then doesnt the internet lack a fundamental aspect
me: how so? it's just another form of interaction
it opens us up to far more people
Jayna: without human contact, without a voice or a face, a gesture. its a projection of human's interacting
like plato's cave
i agree that we are fundamentally consumed in others lives but i also believe that is a negative aspect of societies
it think its better played down in the media and new technologies will only worsen it
me: you have too short a view of the internet. yes, that's what it has been to this point, but look at the hot technologies these days--lifecasting, internet phone services with video capabilities, video things in general--it's bringing real people together more and more as the technology to do so develops
so you'd also argue that reality tv, and tv in general, and radio before it, and newspapers before that are all signs of the downfall of society because we care increasingly more to find out more and more about other human beings?
Jayna: real people with the infrastructure to support this rapidly changing technology
yes, exactly
not exactly, actually
i think you know where i would draw the line to your statement
me: so you think we'd be better off as jungle elephants, living by ourselves and wandering, only to come together to mate and then separating again so that we could exist in our own little world and not know what other creatures of our species are like?
no i don't know where you'd draw the line, it's an evolution over time and i think it's shortsighted to dismiss the internet as separate from that evolution
Jayna: for the most part, i tend to romantasize that image and flirt with the idea that it would be better
yes
:(
me: so you don't want to be smart? you don't have an innate itch to learn, not necessarily in the academic sense, but skills and knowledge that can help you live a more fulfilling life?
Jayna: and how can you understand something as an evolution in teh first 50 years of it
you are being presuptuous as well
that is taking it very far
all i know for sure is that i would rather being having this conversation with you at a bar and in "real life" then like this
me: because of its reach, potential for greater exponential growth (like similar technologies before it), and because of its encompassment of previous technologies. it fits the evolutionary graph perfectly.
that's fair but in a month you're going to be in india and a few years ago there's no way we could've been having this conversation
Jayna: isnt an evolutionary graph subject to change like anything else :)
me: absolutely!
Jayna: a few years ago we would meet at a bar after work like normal people
and while im in india i intend to be in india
not projecting myself into a vertual space which i could od from anywhere
me: but it's not going to have crazy shifts and such--technology to this point follows humans and humans are predictable. now, a few years down the road when we build technology that can outthink us on enormous levels, the graph may see a shift, or perhaps a completely new graph will begin as the machines we've created go on to create their own technologies
that's fair, but don't you find some consolation in the fact that you CAN contact people back home in case of an emergency or just because?
Jayna: yeah and i could have done that thirty years ago aswell
i dont dislike all technology
i just think we need to seriously ponder the effects of teh internet on our lives and society
me: 30 yrs yes, but 100? not so much.
Jayna: 100 yrs ago my family was in india
i would have just walked to their hut
:)
me: oh sure it's a constant struggle, but it's not a new one--it's one we go through with every new technology, which is why so few major changes are adopted overwhelmingly quickly (just take a look at the news stories from the early 90s on the internet, or newspaper articles about radios)
that's not the point at all! the point is unversal connectedness and becoming a global society!
Jayna: you feel a part of a global society
because of the internet
of is this something you imagin in 50 yrs
the internet gives us access to an elight global society for sure
like being a tourist of the owrld
me: i feel much moreso a part today than i would've 50 years ago, and i imagine in 50 years we'll feel even moreso as the technology evolves
Jayna: it doesnt replace lived experiences
me: it's not supposed to!
and again, the access to elite global societies is such a short-sighted view of this stuff
Jayna: then how can you creat your global society
me: the internet is not a replacement for real life, it's an extension of it
Jayna: so you think we will end famin and thirst and then have universal internet access
or does the internet come first
me: obviously i'd prefer the whole thirst and famine and war to be ended first, but look at the efforts of the OLPC program and intel's coming answer to it to see that the internet is spreading to these areas as they are developing
Jayna: i just think those problems are symbolic of the inability of our 'global society' to be function on a universal level
that seems to be how you imagin this new interaction
as a great equalizer
that doesnt exist
me: would you not agree that on a broader, longer-term scale we seem to be improving such things? the internet is helping us recognize these issues and bring them to the forefront so that we can assist with them
Jayna: to the forfront meaning what
we know about darfer (sp?) but what can we do with this info
me: meaning to the attention of those with the power to change these problems for the better
Jayna: those people always knew about it
me: are you kidding? how many people have mobilized and donated to causes like darfur based entirely on the internet?
Jayna: so you believe those donations are an answer
me: no. again, the internet is not a replacement for real people taking real action, but it helps those people doing positive things gain both monetary and moral support
Jayna: you can through money on a problem to make this new global society feel better about the problem but that doesnt chang ethe institution that creates and mantains it
me: so what alternative would you posit in that case?
Jayna: there you go, an org. puts up a web site and people donate. they are donating to a project idea
not a hard reality
me: do you think the internet is a distraction to those people promoting and implementing change?
Jayna: yes
i think most of the "change" today is
me: how so?
Jayna: green washing
global warming lectures
its a way to make us feel like we are doing are small part and fall a sleep at
it keeps us from thinking deeper
me: again, what do you posit as an alternative?
Jayna: human interaction
simple time and energy
me: and how would we "think deeper" if we didnt know about any of this stuff?
the more we know the more we can take action on causes we truly believe in
Jayna: we dont have to think deeper we have to act deeper
are actions have to count more
me: not everyone is going to dedicate their lives to alternative fuel, but by pushing that message on a broad scale, you're more likely to influence more people to take up the cause and act seriously
fine act deeper but how do you find out about these things then?
Jayna: local initiatives
if we all cared a bit more about what was happening around us instead of what star is preggy or who just ODed
i know i am not that person but i think it would be nice if there were more of them
i know it is not that simple
me: okay so my "village" of milwaukee magically discovers this global warming problem and 1/1000th of our population (a HUGE proportion) decides to take up the cause seriously and act upon that. unfortunately, our small village can't have a global impact without communication to other villages that need to join in the crusade. additionally, if 1/1000th of our population in milwaukee is dedicated wholly to making a difference in this cause, other important things get neglected
sure some people use the internet to read about britney, but they would've watched it on tv before, or would have listened to it on radio before that, and would have read about it in newspapers before that
Jayna: im not soley talking about the internet inregards to this media sensation
tv and radio included
me: people are naturally curious about the lives of other people, and putting certain people in the spotlight allows many people to live vicariously through them and also have something to interact with others about
Jayna: i have somehting i want to say about the global issues thing you jsut mentioned but i should get some work done
me: im not promoting it, and it's by no means the main utility offered by the internet, but the internet is not the first technology to be taken from it's original purpose to be utilized for other outlets of human curiosity as well (namely, each other)
Conversation to be continued tonight over drinks. Please please please weigh in on this!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
