John Harris gives us (over at BBC NEWS) a rather bleak view of our new (dare I say PoMo) music consumption:
[A]s the great digital revolution rolls on, bands are no longer having to compete for people's money. Instead, they're jockeying for our time. And the field is huge, crossing not just genres, but eras.
Who do you want to investigate today: TV On The Radio or Crosby, Stills and Nash? Do you fancy losing yourself in the brilliant first album by Florence And The Machine, or deriving no end of entertainment from how awful The Rolling Stones got in the 1980s? Little Richard or La Roux? White Lies or Black Sabbath?
As one of my music press colleagues use to say, there's no longer any past - just an endless present.
Of course, the man's a music journalist, so he's not wild about it:
So, yes, the record industry may yet have to comprehensively reinvent itself, or implode. Sooner or later, given that the need to read reviews before deciding what to listen to is fading fast, I rather fear that even music journalists may be rendered irrelevant.
But for now, this is a truly golden age--the era of the teenage expert[.]
Phooey, I say! First, let's talk about this so-called "endless present." Though a wonderful turn of phase, I couldn't disagree more. After all, the ease with which we can dredge up the music of yore means is that it's no longer limited to the hyper-invested (i.e. people who can shell out hundreds of dollars to hear The Complete Hendrix). It means both musicians and fans know and have exposure to past music, allowing them to "join the discourse" (as the expression goes) in ways they never could before. This means a more acute awareness of the past, not the end of it. After all, considering the pace with which contemporary tastes shifts, how could we not know that Pink Floyd is a product of its time and not of ours? Yet, now, we can listen and appreciate them and see the ripples of influence.
As for the demise of the music industry. It's hard not to say "good riddance!" and be done with that beast. As a musician (albeit a baroque one), I understand the problem of how do I make money? and truly do sympathize. But I have two rejoinders. First, art and commerce and all that. Yay art! Death to commerce! Second, if the arc of Western history has taught us anything, it's that it bends toward making money. That is: never underestimate the ability of people to come up with new and ingenious ways to make shitloads of money off of art.
The future will probably be in the form of subscription services, with loaded-up-with-extras CDs as novelty and collectors items. Who knows? Live performances are still in vogue, and the intimacy and personality of them will outlast any foreseeable technology (I hope).
As for music journalism: boo hoo. It's a new era of meritocrocy; blogs are the great equalizers (and whatnot).
Man, this post is shitty. I'm pretty tired, and probably over-hopeful at the prospects of music and musicians.
I think I'll take a nap now.
|