Meanwhile, the Recording Industry is still creating heroes:
Teen accuses record companies of collusion – USATODAY.com
Good job, guys! Keep it up!
đ
Meanwhile, the Recording Industry is still creating heroes:
Teen accuses record companies of collusion – USATODAY.com
Good job, guys! Keep it up!
đ
[Disclaimer: I’m not necessarily an Apple fanboy but I have been an enthusiastic Mac user since 1987 and have owned several Apple products, from an iPod to a QuickTake camera. I also think that technology is having a big impact on arts, media, and entertainment.]
Just watched Apple’s "Showtime" Special Event. Didn’t really read or even listen to anything much about it yet. During that event, Apple CEO Steve Jobs introduced new versions of all the iPod models, a new version of iTunes, and the addition of movies to the iTunes store. In addition, Jobs gave a sneak peak of an upcoming box to link iTunes with televisions and stereo systems.
People are likely to have been disappointed by the announcements. They’re probably saying that Steve Jobs’s famous "Reality Distortion Field" isn’t working, or that he lost his "mojo." They might even wonder about his health. Again…
Not that the new products are really boring, but there tend to be high expectations surrounding Apple announcements. This one is no different as people expected wireless capabilities on iPods and recording capabilities on the new "media centre" box, which was in fact part of the expected new products from Apple.
But this event is significant in another way. Through it, Apple explained their strategy, revealed a number of years ago as the Digital Hub. What some have called "convergence," quite a few years ago. Nothing really new. It’s just coming into full focus.
Though we may never know how much of it unfolded as planned, Apple’s media/tech strategy may appear rather prescient in retrospect. IIRC, it started in 1996, during Gil Amelio’s tenure. Or, more probably, in 1997 during the switch between Amelio and Jobs. Even by, say, 1999, that strategy was still considered a bold move. That was before the first iPod which, itself, was before iTunes, the iTunes Music Store, and most other current media-centric technologies at Apple. It was also at a time when user-generated content was relatively unimportant. In other ways, that was during the "Web 1.0" Internet bubble, before the "Web 2.0" craze for blogs, podcasts, and "social networking."
Apple isn’t the only corporation involved in the changes in the convergence between technology and the world of "content" (arts, media, entertainment). But it has played a key role. Whatever his success as a CEO, Steve Jobs has influenced the direction of change and, to an extent, shape a part of digital life to his own liking. While he’s clearly not clueless, his vision of the link between "content" and technology is quite specific. It does integrate user-generated content of "varying degrees of professionalism" (which he joked about during his presentation) but it gives precedence to the "content industry" (involving such powerful groups and lobbies as WIPO, NAB, MPAA, RIAA, etc.). Jobs’s position at Pixar makes him a part of that industry. Which is quite different from what arts and expressive culture can be.
Jobs invites musicians on stage with him (John Mayer, Wynton Marsalis, John Legend). He respects musicians and he might even appreciate their work. But his view of their work is that they produce content to consumed. For Jobs, music tracks, audiobooks, television episodes, movies, and music videos are all "contents" to be enjoyed by consumers. Now, the consumer can enjoy content "anywhere" as Apple is "in your den, in your living-room, in your car, and in your pocket." But what about public spaces? Concert halls, churches, coffee shops, parks, public libraries, classrooms, etc.? Oh! Apple can be there too! Yeah, of course. But those are not part of the primary vision. In Apple’s view, consumers all have their own iTunes accounts, media libraries, preferences, and content-consuming habits. A nuclear family may count as a unit to a certain extent (as Bob Iger pointed out in his "cameo appearance" during Jobs’s event). But the default mode is private consumption.
And there’s nothing wrong with that. Even the coolest things online are often based on the same model. It’s just that it’s not the only way to do things. Music, for instance, can be performed in public. In fact, it can be a collaborative process. The performers themselves need not be professionals. There’s no need for an audience, even. And there’s no need to see it as "intellectual property." Music is not a product. It’s a process by which human beings organize sound.
Ah, well…
Tags: Apple, Digital Hub, iTunes, iPod, iLife, Steve Jobs, Disney, MPAA, RIAA, WIPO, NAB, media, technology, tech, content, music, user-generated content, Web 2.0, communities, people, public, private, individualism, reciprocity, collaboration, dynamism, art as process, art, entertainment, consumerism, commodity
000ady6y (PNG Image, 200×125 pixels)
Noticed it in Steal This Film. A very appropriate message. Process over product. Music is not a commodity. Food does not grow on profits.
Blogged with Flock
Was listening to the portafilter.net podcast (Episode 23) and thinking about coffee shops, cafĂ©s, brewpubs, bars, bands, venues…
The New York Times > Business > Your Money > Wipe Egg Off Face. Try Again. VoilĂ :
‘Flows poison like ivy, oh they grimy/Already offers on my sixth album from labels trying to sign me.’
Fairly elaborate piece about the Seagram heir involved in the music industry. What’s interesting here for someone who tends to think of music as expression and creation through sound is to get a peep in other perspectives on music. Sure, the first step to achieve their perspective is to see music as a commodity, which seems rather awkward for a musician But there are more steps involved if one wants to get insight into “corporate culture” of The Biz. It’s not just money. It’s also this notion that “artists” (musicians, mostly singers, with record contracts) create hits or non-hits. Members of that culture seem to think that “hitness” is an intrinsic quality of an artist’s output. Of course, they’re acutely aware that the way people listen to music is influenced by their own processes. But the point is, the comments of analysts and “insiders” still point, when they talk about “the music,” toward music as production.
It’s good to keep in mind that the model is quite recent. Attali’s Noise (read the first edition of the French original Bruits only last year or the year before) describes many steps in the construction of this model…