For the record, I don't agree with Alan Cross. I think he's mixing up a few ideas. I'll try to make myself clear by going through his thoughts one step at a time:
"Technology has since allowed each of us to pick and choose our music on an individual level."
I agree, although by "individual level" I hope he means that we don't have to pick albums anymore, we can pick songs as we see fit. The other possible interpretation of "individual level" seems a bit odd, as consumers have always spent their own entertainment dollar their own way. We don't usually get everyone to hand over a twenty to the office gopher and hope for the best.
"We can choose from a nearly infinite supply of music 24/7."
I agree with this statement. The choice is obviously not infinite, but the internet has made a multitude of previously unavailable music very simple and cheap to obtain.
"We don't bond over cds or any other physical music product. Hell, surveys say that half the teenagers in North America didn't spend a single penny on cds last year. All their music came via file-sharing. "
I assume the survey information is correct, but Alan seems to be implying that we don't bond at all over music anymore because we buy fewer physical music products. I disagree. Every music fan bonds with other fan over bands and their songs, with or without a physical product in hand. Pick any band you like, I guarantee that you can find at least two people (and more likely, an entire chat room full of people) who consider themselves fans, and I also guarantee that when they gush over the band amongst themselves they are bonding.
"With this super-customization comes a lack of consensus."
I disagree with this too. The human mind, unlike the human wallet, is able to support multiple likes and dislikes with relative ease. What I think Alan really means by "lack of consensus" is a lack of focused purchasing. If you have 10 favourite bands, but only make $50 a day, chances are you are NOT going to indulge in purchasing an album from every artist on your list. More on this later...
"If each of us is free to go our own way, the master herd - the music community as a whole - becomes fractured into hundreds (if not thousands or even tens of thousands) of smaller tribes. Widespread, mass consensus eludes music now.
We have always been free to go our own way, as evidenced by the multitude of musical genres that have developed and died, innumerable fanzines and fansites that seem to spring up everyday and disappear just as quickly, and the fly-by-night artists that make a splash and then dry up by the end of the week. Heck, even this guy found an audience!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Willis
If that doesn't represent free fracturization, I don't know what does. Why does opening up the number of choices automatically mean equal dilution? People can like U2, the Clash, NWA, and Wesley Wills (for some reason), but only purchase the Clash CD because their friends hate U2. Adding Shania Twain and Raffi to this list is unlikely to break the "consensus" on either preference or purchasing, but adding the Sex Pistols might shake up how the dollars get spent. Because of this, I think Alan must mean focused purchasing when he say "consensus". How else to measure widespread mass consensus in the first place?
Things are becoming much more niche-y.
Just a side note: things always start as niche-y. If they become more popular, they become mainstream. If they become more popular later, they become cultish. If they become more popular after the originator dies, they become overlooked gems. I think it's funny that people who like the thing in different stages hate each other.
We're moving beyond the era of the mega-star and into the era of a la carte. And it's all thanks to technology.
Again, being a "mega-star" has to do with album sales and penetration into mainstream perception. Being in the era of "a la carte" means being able to choose songs without buying the whole album. The obvious conclusion is that without albums, we have no mega-stars. I wish someone had told this jerk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soulja_Boy
That's my opinion, anyway.
Originally posted by PBE6So I think most people would agree the punk and new wave movement were big and widespread without needing an explanation.
I do agree. Now let's turn this around one more time, so that the question is pointing in the proper direction.
How BIG were the movements? How WIDESPREAD were they?
Are you suggesting you DON'T think these movement were Big and Widespread? Because having lived through the NEW Wave movment and the Grunge movment, I would say it was big and widespread, even if it wasn't reflected in CD sales because everyone's mom was too busy buying elton john, mariah carey and Celine Dionne junk out of the discount bin while me andall my friends were busy listening to the radio with our finger over the "record" button ready to tape a song as soon as one we liked came on the radio. Me and all my friends had tonnes of mixed tapes we taped from the radio because we didn't have the cash like our parents to go buy the entire album from a store. We would borrow our friends CDs or tapes...anyone remember High Speed Dubbing and how cool that seemed at the time?? lol!
Hell I had way more mixed tapes than store bought albums in my car. These are but a few reasons why sales aren't reflected properly.
Widespread - "distributed over a wide region, or occurring in many places or among many persons or individuals"
Originally posted by uzlessI think many people would agree the punk and new wave movement(s) were big and widespread without needing an explanation also. However, what does this have to do with (a) the validity of the statement "the punk and new wave movement(s) were big and widespread"; and (b) anything else? Since when has uzless been the champion of "knowledge through democratic vote"?
So I think most people would agree the punk and new wave movement were big and widespread without needing an explanation.
Are you suggesting you DON'T think these movement were Big and Widespread? Because having lived through the NEW Wave movment and the Grunge movment, I would say it was big and widespread, even if it wasn't reflected in CD sales because buted over a wide region, or occurring in many places or among many persons or individuals"
I think the punk and new wave movement(s) were a big flop with country fans, jazz fans, rap fans, Journey fans, and everyone's mom back in the day. However, it was especially well-received by the punk and new wave fans of the day.
Originally posted by PBE6it wasn't reflected in CD sales because everyone's mom was too busy buying elton john, mariah carey and Celine Dionne junk out of the discount bin while me andall my friends were busy listening to the radio with our finger over the "record" button ready to tape a song as soon as one we liked came on the radio. Me and all my friends had tonnes of mixed tapes we taped from the radio because we didn't have the cash like our parents to go buy the entire album from a store. We would borrow our friends CDs or tapes...anyone remember High Speed Dubbing and how cool that seemed at the time?? lol!
I think many people would agree the punk and new wave movement(s) were big and widespread without needing an explanation also. However, what does this have to do with (a) the validity of the statement "the punk and new wave movement(s) were big and widespread"; and (b) anything else? Since when has uzless been the champion of "knowledge through democratic vot he day. However, it was especially well-received by the punk and new wave fans of the day.
Hell I had way more mixed tapes than store bought albums in my car. These are but a few reasons why sales aren't reflective of how widepsread and big the movement was. The same can be said for the Grunge stuff saleswise. (I had all the Nirvana songs on mixed tapes but I never bought the Nevermind album until years later when I could afford it outta the discount bin)
EDIT: Keep in mind, i'm just trying to answer YOUR question that was.....EDIT: BTW, how are we supposed to answer a question like "will we ever see a rock'n'roll movement as big and and widespread as grunge ever again?" without getting an idea of what big and widespread mean?
Originally posted by PBE6Man, you shoulda been there when bands like "Duran Duran", "Depeche Mode" and the like hit the airwaves in the early/mid 80's. Sure they had their detractors but the stuff was all over the radio...hell even Q107 would play a little Tears for Fears now and again. My Fav was Thompson Twins baby! Hell even "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" was talking about the New Wave influence on society with the "3 Pat Benatars that should up at the start of school this year"
I
I think the punk and new wave movement(s) were a big flop with country fans, jazz fans, rap fans, Journey fans, and everyone's mom back in the day. However, it was especially well-received by the punk and new wave fans of the day.
What a change it was from listening to the Top 10 at 10 on Q107 with my nightly dose of Triumph and Helix!
😵
I can buy the fact that CD sales don't reflect the entirety of music consumption, heck I even said it in one of my other posts! I can also buy the fact that a "musical" movement is really composed of several aspects besides the music itself, most notably fashion and politics (otherwise it's just a hit, like "Don't Worry Be Happy" or that goddamn Crazy Frog 😠). But my question is still valid - how big is "big"?
I don't buy the argument that the internet hinders the possibility of any given movement becoming big and widespread.
There are many examples where something like badgerbadgerbadger spread like wildfire because of the internet. It's just one of hundreds of such mindless flash animations. Internet popularity functions by linking to certain pages, so I definitely see the potential for massive musical fads, even if the diversity in availability actually increases.
Originally posted by PalynkaI agree.
I don't buy the argument that the internet hinders the possibility of any given movement becoming big and widespread.
There are many examples where something like badgerbadgerbadger spread like wildfire because of the internet. It's just one of hundreds of such mindless flash animations. Internet popularity functions by linking to certain pages, so I defi ...[text shortened]... potential for massive musical fads, even if the diversity in availability actually increases.
The internet does at least two things very well: (1) it increases the availability of music/media/ideas to the general public, because of the relative ease and low cost with which the average user can post information that becomes instantly available; and (2) it increases the potential speed at which music/media/ideas can be disseminated due to the relative ease and high speed with which information can be found.
I think the internet helps trends become more widespread much more quickly than ever before, although possibly at the cost of depth of penetration into social consciousness. Traditionally, trends have had a much slower rise due to the relative slowness of disseminating information, which helps foment attachment to the trend within a small group of "in" people during the inception ("we're cool because we've liked X for years, and all these idiots are just catching on" ). Without sufficient entrenchment, some trends never take off. With the current speed that new ideas come down the pipe, some trends would be in danger of becoming just another flash-in-the-pan. However, the number of choices available is not the only factor in which trends will spring up - the intrinsic characteristics of the trends themselves, and how they address human wants and needs, also contribute. Some trends will strike chords of deep resonance with the general population, and won't be easily displaced no matter how many alternative choices are presented.
I think the "badgerbadgerbadger" trends fall into the category of widespread shallow (embeddedness-wise) trends that benefit from increased speed of dissemination but suffer from decreased focus, while other trends like the iPod or the iPhone fall into the category of widespread deeply embedded trends that benefit from increased speed of dissemination, but due to the intrinsic characteristics of the trend (i.e. "cool" people use Mac products, attractive features, ease of functionality, etc...) don't suffer from the lack of focus problem inherent in annoying flash programs/jokes. I think we'll see the same kind of thing in music shortly, but of course it all depends on how fast the next great idea gets developed.
Originally posted by PBE6Well put. In a way, it's what I had in mind, but you said it better.
I agree.
The internet does at least two things very well: (1) it increases the availability of music/media/ideas to the general public, because of the relative ease and low cost with which the average user can post information that becomes instantly available; and (2) it increases the potential speed at which music/media/ideas can be disseminated due to the ...[text shortened]... ortly, but of course it all depends on how fast the next great idea gets developed.
What are you wearing?
Originally posted by darvlayWhat???
Hey! Garage bands aren't drivel, but you're right, grunge is not a musical style at all, it was a fashion trend more than anything.
Man you young'uns really missed out. I was in Grade 11 in 1991 when Nevermind, Ten, and Badmotorfinger hit the airwaves. It was COMPLETELY different than anything any of us radio listeners had heard before.
Prior to 91, we were stuck listening to GNR, Kravitz, Mariah Carey, Bel Biv Devoe, KLF, New Kids on the Block and a whole host of other garbage. In other words, POP music. We were also on the downside of the resurgence in the doors, Zeppelin, WHO etc.
I'll never forget the first time I heard Pearl Jam. It was at the CNE and one of the guys operating one of the rides had "Even Flow" blasting on the speakers. It was the only song he would play so we musta heard it 10 times thoughout the night. 2 weeks later in was on 102.1 and the rest was history.
Dont' know if you'd call it a "style" but the Drop D tuning of the fuzzy guitar was WAY different than anything on the radio at the time.
It only became a fashion show with the idiots who went to the GAP to buy their "designer ripped jeans" and plaid shirts a few years later but by that time, grunge was dead and bands like sloan, matchbox 20, Bush, Offspring and Green Day had taken over.
(Nirvana was finished with Kobains death, Pear Jam had retreated away from the arena type rock they were playing, Soundgarden was one album away from breaking up, Alice N Chains were done, Smashing pumpkings were finished after Siamese dream and for sure after Infinite sadness and Janes' Addiction broke up.)
Originally posted by PBE6Then explain why there hasn't been anything close to widespread and big since the rise of the internet. If it has so much potential, where are the results? It's been 15 years and nothing.
I agree.
The internet does at least two things very well: (1) it increases the availability of music/media/ideas to the general public, because of the relative ease and low cost with which the average user can post information that becomes instantly available; and (2) it increases the potential speed at which music/media/ideas can be disseminated due to the ...[text shortened]... ortly, but of course it all depends on how fast the next great idea gets developed.
(unless you want to pass the mantle to Hip-Hop)
Originally posted by PalynkaPfft, the internet helps to spread "one hit wonders". That's all you are talking about.
I don't buy the argument that the internet hinders the possibility of any given movement becoming big and widespread.
There are many examples where something like badgerbadgerbadger spread like wildfire because of the internet. It's just one of hundreds of such mindless flash animations. Internet popularity functions by linking to certain pages, so I defi ...[text shortened]... potential for massive musical fads, even if the diversity in availability actually increases.
15 years and nothing.
You sound like all the maple leaf fans talking about how one day, "Antropov will be a great player!!"....even though it's been 8 years and the guy is still worse than a bag of marbles.