Hard News: Rough times in the trade
223 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9 Newer→ Last
-
Not meaning to interrupt, but on the 'what journalism cometh' question:
As one of the first newspaper journalists to combine a beat and a blog, Gillmor realized, as he put it, “my readers know more than I do.” That was always true. It was true in the 1950s. But when the media system ran one way, in a broadcasting pattern, there was nowhere for that knowledge to go. Now there is. And yet, twelve years later, we aren’t making high quality editorial goods from the “more” that readers know. #
Consder: There were enough readers of the financial press who knew from direct experience about the mortgage mess to put that story together a year or two before the crash of 2008. Real estate agents. Home buyers. Loan officers. Mortgage bloggers. Drones on Wall Street. They knew something was rotten. Collectively, they knew way more than the financial press did. The story wasn’t hidden. It lay uncollected. That knowledge could have alerted the nation well before the crash of 2008. #
It was a pro-am moment. But are we nowhere near making it happen. And this is why I come to you a frustrated man....
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
I don't think there aren't new genres. It's just that there are so many, that none of them seem so titanic as they used to.
Lanier is not saying that there aren't any big, paradigm shifting genres. He's saying that there aren't any new genres, period.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Not meaning to interrupt
Yes, sorry, I was derailing there a bit. Great link, and very much looking forward to the show tonight (so much so I tried to watch it last night. What's with me and thinking that Media 7 is on Wednesdays?).
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
It's like dubstep never happened! ;-)
But this is making me think ... Perhaps the big change is that genre isn't such an important demarcator any more. If you look at Hype Machine, you'll see folky singers and dancefloor bangers right next to each other, being listened to by the same people. Strict genre divisions have always been more important in the US industry anyway, as a way of dividing audiences for commercial purposes.
-
Sacha, in reply to
What's with me and thinking that Media 7 is on Wednesdays?
The filming is - that expectation marks you as an insider. :)
-
Alex Coleman, in reply to
Yes, sorry, I was derailing there a bit.
Not at all; the thread was just evolving. [ducks]
-
Martin Lindberg, in reply to
...folky singers and dancefloor bangers right next to each other
Totally inappropriate! I demand stricter genre divisions! What next? Cats and dogs living together?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Lanier is not saying that there aren't any big, paradigm shifting genres. He's saying that there aren't any new genres, period.
Yes, he repeats the point over and over and I simply disagree. It's like saying there aren't new kinds of books in the library because the Dewey Decimal system has been stable for a long time. Yes, when you refuse to accept anything as a new classification, then there are no new classifications, just subclassifications. But that's just a fact about the way he organizes music in his mind, nothing to do with the actual originality of what is being made. I have a habit of lumping rock all into one bag, but it's such a big bag that you could quite legitimately consider it to be a dozen or more genres, and many with blurred boundaries caused by influences from other schools, the various fusions that have a unique taste and devoted followings.
If I agree with him in any way it's that I don't see major trends seizing such a large share of public listening so much. Which could mean that people are getting the music they wanted, rather than following the trend, is all. Maybe this will change again, but I have to say it wasn't something that I ever thought was especially righteous, that popular attention had such limited focus. We're just not going to see Elvis-like popularity again, because there's too many people as good as Elvis, scattered across so many disparate genres.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Totally inappropriate! I demand stricter genre divisions! What next? Cats and dogs living together?
It's like all of a sudden you're all fans of postmodernism :-)
Seriously, though, when's the last time you heard a piece of music that made you think this is really new, as opposed to this is really good?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Strict genre divisions have always been more important in the US industry anyway, as a way of dividing audiences for commercial purposes.
Yes! That's how it felt to me, that I could never really wear my musical choices like a badge because they were so damned eclectic. Nowadays I feel much more comfortable because eclecticism is normal when everyone is a DJ.
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
I don't think there aren't new genres. It's just that there are so many, that none of them seem so titanic as they used to. It's rather like how there don't seem to have been any scientific breakthroughs like what seemed to be happening when Einstein was around. The truth is that there's more science happening than ever before and our expectations have shifted. Also, that body of knowledge is so mature that making a titanic shift involves a titanic effort now. Similarly with music, it seems like every conceivable sound has been turned into music, and every genre has 10 times as many artists as it used to. To seize a huge piece of that requires a revolution much larger than anything that's ever happened before.
I read Mick Wall's Led Zep biography recently. One passage I found quite startling from the persepctive of someone who regulary attended gigs only from the late '80's onwards is when he described one of their earlier US tours. They regularly played gigs where the audience would genuinely, by force of applause and acclaim, get them to do multiple encores - often up to a dozen or more per performance. They would run through all their own work, as many cover versions as they could remember, and then be forced into just jamming.
Compared to the lame 'oh, they haven't played their biggest hit yet. Suppose I'd better clap until they inevitably come back out again' style of today's bands, that's quite remarkably striking.
-
Sacha, in reply to
means breaking a very important social contract
The corporate middle-men did that a very long time ago by constantly extending the protected period from its orginal 14 years, tipping the balance of the contract in the interests of rights-holders rather than the public.
I respect Clay Shirky's take on the fundamental shift from publishing gatekeepers to post-filtering by consumer networks and other aggregators.
Culture industry businesses, regulators and public interest entities are adapting accordingly, some more smartly than others. But the fundamentals of production, marketing, distribution, consumption, sharing and enjoying have changed so that old answers will no longer work. We need new ones (and they don't all have to enshrine libertarian utopianism, thankfully).
there is a fundamental problem I think in the idea that we should give up on making the work itself being the thing that gets rewarded.
It requires being clearer about what the "work" is, really about where the value exchange is between creator and consumer.
If it's in the relationship of appreciation between both those parties, then book tours, limited editions and personally autographed copies are one way to go. Likewise performance for musicians rather than selling units from afar. True, that sucks if you aren't the performing type. What's the equivalent in writing of lucrative soundtrack licensing for musos? Editing or curating, perhaps?
Intermediaries will still exist. And yes, there still need to be strong arrangements for maintaining the overall public interest that transcends individuals and the now. The discussion about a local media archive is part of that.
-
Sacha, in reply to
eclecticism is normal when everyone is a DJ
Bravo. Teeworthy.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Suppose I'd better clap until they inevitably come back out again' style of today's bands, that's quite remarkably striking.
I remember we drove home a young woman of about 20 who used to work for my partner some years ago and she was telling us about the great concerts that she had seen that and all of them were bands I had seen in concert in the early to mid Eighties. It was spooky, it's what it was.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
If it's in the relationship of appreciation between both those parties, then book tours, limited editions and personally autographed copies are one way to go.
But that's fetishism. Do we really want it to become the index of the profession of being a writer?
-
Sacha, in reply to
the profession of being a writer?
Is changing, just as the profession of scribe did. 'Indexes' will evolve.
-
Sacha, in reply to
But that's fetishism
Certainly explains Lady Gaga.
-
Sacha, in reply to
when's the last time you heard a piece of music that made you think this is really new, as opposed to this is really good?
Dubstep, on both counts :)
-
Seriously, though, when's the last time you heard a piece of music that made you think this is really new, as opposed to this is really good?
Probably back when I first started listening to drum'n'bass. Which arguably just lies on/from a continuum of several other genres.
And there are probably several teens currently listening to dubstep who feel the same way I did twenty years ago (have fun, you crazy kids!)
-
I was going to suggest I could write this up as tomorrow's music post, but it seems wrong to ask everyone to stop ...
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Is changing, just as the profession of scribe did. 'Indexes' will evolve.
Sorry, no. Let's banish this language. We're not passive receivers of change, and technologies and professions don't evolve independently of society and politics. In the Middle Ages monasteries invested enormous resources for no economic return in the practice of manuscript illumination to respond to a cultural need to preserve and enhance texts that they regarded as valuable. It wasn't change that just happened, or the product of an evolution. There is no reason why we can't mobilise resources to help professions like journalism respond to the current technological shifts, and not only continue to fulfill their function but serve us in fact significantly better than they did in the old media.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Seriously, though, when's the last time you heard a piece of music that made you think this is really new, as opposed to this is really good?
Not that often, but when you compare the music collections of my grandma, which was scores only, and the family played piano and sang, to my parents, who had hundreds of vinyls and tapes, and now CDs, to me who has tens of thousands of mp3s in my pocket at all times, it's no wonder I have more exacting tastes than them on what it is that is new. Elvis sounded pretty new and cool back then because people didn't really have a chance to hear the things that influenced him so much. Now, I'm streaming internet radio every night to listen to continuously created content in any of thousands of different genres, all the latest pop is on multiple TV channels and youtube etc, and if I care to search there's more torrentable stuff than our whole community could listen to in a hundred lifetimes.
So when I hear some deth-metal fused with hip-hop that sounds quite new and good, being a thousand times more musically literate than my grandma (despite being unable to play an instrument or sing), of course I can identify most of the influences. That doesn't mean it's not new, what they're doing. They're like Elvis too, just can't dominate an entire industry, because we have incredibly exacting standards.
-
Sacha, in reply to
There is no reason why we can't mobilise resources to help professions like journalism respond to the current technological shifts
Who's saying that? I totally agree none of this is in a vacuum. We must engage and shape the changes we want. However, it is certainly bigger than our own local context or arrangements, and any answers we come up with have to recognise that.
-
Sacha, in reply to
respond to a cultural need to preserve and enhance texts that they regarded as valuable
They were preserving *knowledge* that was valuable. Let's not fetishise its form.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Let's not fetishise its form.
Let's not go down this road, but illuminated manuscripts aren't valuable just for their textual contents. In many cases the illumination itself is more valuable to us. And in fact it was a form of knowledge.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.