i don't want a pile of songles, but i do want the remix

In Chapter 8, after going on about all the problems with new technology and the Internet, Lanier finally offers some of his proposed solutions. I appreciate the new focus on ways things can change for the better, but I have some comments on two of his ideas: telegigging and songles.

As "canned content becomes a harder product to sell," Lanier suggests a new age alternative to a live stage show - and another opportunity for artists to make money - telegigging. While new technology, such as filesharing and video streaming, threatens the existence of CDs, I'm not sure telegigging would be that successful. First, we don't currently have the technology to allow artists to perform a live show at another location and instantly project a holographic image in your home. Obviously, it would be cool. However, as a money-making concept, there are a number of problems.

People would have to be convinced to buy the necessary equipment (holographic projectors? I don't know) and it probably would be too expensive for the masses to buy. Then, how much would it be for a telegig? Yeah, artists would save money on travel, but would they pass the savings onto the fans? Also, could I order a telegig and then have a big party (sharing the performance for free, or even more interesting, who would stop me from charging for people to view the holographic performance?) Or, what about if I recorded the unique, interactive content of the performance and shared it online?

There are so many ways for this to spin out of the desired simple cash interaction. I'm very skeptical that this could all be done for a reasonable price. I don't doubt the awesomeness of the idea, I just realistically don't think it's the new way musicians will earn a living.

There has been a lot of financial success with concert films, such as Hannah Montana & Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert. I think this business model differs in that you still go somewhere to view the performance (like you would for a live concert), but with a concert film it's cheap and available in small towns (or with the DVD, in your home). The main thing is that it's cheap and accessible. I don't think telegigging would be either of those things.

Something much cooler than Miley that telegigging reminds me of: Gorillaz (a virtual band of fictional, animated characters) had their first live performance in 2005 at the MTV Awards in Lisbon, and this was the "world's first 3D hologram performance." They planned to have a full 3D holographic tour, but it was cancelled because it would have been so expensive and logistically challenging.

Gorillaz Live at the MTV Awards from Musion Systems on Vimeo.

The Gorillaz also performed with Madonna at the 2006 Grammys. They took a step further with holographic technology. For the first three minutes, it's a variation of the MTV performance, but at 3:08, Madonna rises to the stage. The live audience and TV viewers didn't realize that the Madonna on stage from 3:08 - 3:50 is, in fact, a hologram! Madonna really performs live on stage just after the four minute mark. I watched the video a few times, and it's pretty cool to see Madonna walking in between the animated Gorillaz (at 3:41 she walks in front and at 3:45 she walks behind!). I was wondering how they did this, then I did some more reading and found out about the Madonna hologram.

My point is that the idea of a holographic performance is cool, but I'm not sure it's a money maker. The technology will be there some day soon... I just don't think it'll be cheap enough to market to the masses so musicians can make some money.

Lanier's second idea, songles, seems a little bit ridiculous. I mean, to be fair, I don't think I fully understand how it would work, but the idea of having/buying/collecting/organizing more things is a deal breaker for me. I like that all my music is on my laptop or my iPod, and I don't have to carry around a pile of CDs. I really don't think I'd like having my music in physical objects. How would the music be portable? How can I organize songs and create playlists? I understand the attempt to create "artificial scarcity," but I think that maybe digital music on computers and other devices has locked in. I don't want to turn back to collecting more things.

As I pack up to move for the term now, I realize I already have enough things to organize. I don't want a pile of songles.

Speaking of songles...

In Chapter 9 Lanier says,

"Popular music created in the industrialized world in the decade from the later 1990s to the late 2000s doesn't have a distinct style--that is, one that would provide an identity from the young people who grew up with it. The process of the reinvention of life through music appears to have stopped."

I have a few problems with this. Maybe I'm just defensive about my identity.

While I agree that there wasn't one distinct musical sound (as there was in other decades), it's only because the Internet suddenly presented this generation with so much choice. I'd argue that there is a unifying musical style: remix, mashup, sampling, covering. With music software and digitilized music readily available, this generation was the first with the opportunity to remix. People growing up with YouTube were able to build an identity through their creativity and ability to mix sounds, artists and genres. People can create their own music videos or cover their favourite artists. It's all part of a new participatory culture.

While much of it is amateur and a lot of it is crap, some people are doing some pretty amazing things (or if it's not amazing, at least their tapping into this trend and profitting).

Mashup artist, DJ Earworm, creates an annual "United State of Pop" song made up of the top 25 songs on the Billboard charts. Check out 2009 song below.

Another mashup artist is Girl Talk, who produces remixes by mashing up short, unauthorized samples to create new songs. According to New York Times Magazine, his music is a "lawsuit waiting to happen." Girl Talk has gained popularity by touring with his laptop (and is making enough money to quit his day job as a biomedical engineer), and he always gives his audience a party. He's pushing boundaries in other ways, touching on issues our media class has talked about before. For example, Girl Talk believes copyright laws stifle creativity, and as a result of his sampling, his songs are not available on iTunes because of the extensive copyright issues. He has four albums that were all released online by Illegal Art and available for download on a pay-what-you-want basis. Check out a fan-made video for one of his mashups.

(where voldy went to school after hogwarts &) the fate of musicians

A couple of days ago the New York Times published, "Merely Human? That's So Yesterday", and it caught my attention. The article profiles Singularity University and its discussion about how technological advancement will change the future of humanity. The program includes courses on nanotechnology, artificial intelligence and robotics, synthetic biology, space sciences, medicine and neurosciences, and immortality.

Writer for gizmodo.com, Kyle VanHemert, sums up Singularity U nicely: it's "basically some of the smartest people on the planet having the same discussions you did when you were stoned in college. But at this school, the participants in that conversation are the rare individuals with the intellect and wherewithal to make those ideas a reality."

Voldemort probably would've loved SU. He'd major in immortality. He'd fit right in with the super geniuses. After all, he did "great things. Terrible! Yes... but great."

&&&

In Chapter 5, Lanier discusses the fate of musicians as the world changes with technological advancements. There are hundreds of thousands of musicians hoping to be discovered on YouTube and Myspace. Many of these people want to be musicians for the wrong reasons: not because they are talented or passionate, but because they want to get attention and make millions. Yes, we (regular people) appreciate the entertainment industry, but I believe that the payscale for celebs needs to be reevaluated anyways. Maybe with artists making less money on music, it will discourage the people more interested in the money and glamourous lifestyle than actually creating music and performing for fans.

There will always be music. I'll always be able to get it. However, it might not be prepackaged or easy to find. I think of it sort of like a comparison between a chain clothing store and a vintage shop. In chain clothing stores, there are racks of clothes presented in an aesthetically pleasing and organized way. There are different sizes and colours, so everyone can have their own. There are mannequins to show you how the pieces might go together. There are new lines to tell you what will be cool this season. You are guaranteed that every store will be pretty much the same.

Vintage stores, instead of having mass produced and easy to find clothes, are all different. Some are more organized than others. Some carry only designer clothes in beautiful condition, while others have pretty much everything. They don't have sizes and colours for everyone. Normally, you have to search through racks and bins of clothes to find something that a) you like, and b) fits you.

The online music scene is kind like a crappy vintage clothing store: they accept donations from anyone. This music is not made for the masses. It is not organized. You need to have a lot of time to search through myspace profiles and youtube pages to discover new music. When searching for vintage clothes, you have to sift through a lot of crap to find something great. But, in both cases, when you make that discovery, it's awesome. Finding music on your own that you like is rewarding somehow. It's something the radio or Billboard 100 didn't tell you that you should think is cool. It's unique because not everyone knows the artist (and in the case of vintage clothing, where to get it).

Now, there are too many musicians for the average person (who isn't a University student looking for ways to procrastinate) to sift through and discover on their own. Most of them suck, and it's just easier to download mainstream stuff.

Lanier believes that the internet should be helping people “find new ways to get paid” and instead is causing people to have to run around in vans to go to gigs. I think that people running around in vans to play gigs are awesome and what music should be about (moreso than mansions, fancy cars and papparazzi anyways). While the internet has lead to 'vanity careers' for hundreds of thousands of wannabe musicians, it's also caused more musicians to share their talent. People don't have to rely on a major record label for exposure anymore.

I think that the music situation will become better. As record labels fail and digital music pushes cd's completely off the shelves, more discoveries of indie talent will be made. I think more people will rely on bloggers to sift through the garbage and discover new talent.

fragments given without pay to the hive

Because of this assignment, I'm checking up frequently on different technology blogs, and this article caught my attention.

A young bottle-nose dolphin was able to recognize and touch pictures on the screen to match objects he was shown. The researchers show the dolphin real objects (such as a ball, cube or plastic duck) then ask him to touch photos of the same objects on the screen. The dolphin is not being rewarded with food; he seems to want to interact with people. Researchers say that this is “an easy task for a dolphin, but it is a necessary building block towards our goal of a complete language interface between humans and dolphins.”

I wonder what the dolphins will say to us.

On to Chapter 4 ideas... Lanier moves on from discussing online identity and the changing role of technology to economic concerns for the future: what will money be?

He argues that free culture is causing disaster: degrading human expression. He claims music and newspaper-style reporting have already fallen into a “sorry state” and movies are on the same path. I'm not sure that the changes in the music industry and and news reporting are all bad. It is certainly different because there are more contributors and a greater quantity of media being produced (most of it mediocre at best). However, change isn't always bad. For the music industry, more people have the opportunity to showcase their talents (or lack thereof). This chance leads to more music, and although not all of it is good, there have been some really great discoveries.

I do agree with Lanier's ideas about advertising. Downloading and streaming have changed the way people get music. Unfortunately for musicians signed to major record labels, filesharing has led to a huge decrease in album sales. If you can get music for free, why pay for it? Overall, writers, musicians, and artists are “encouraged to treat the fruits of their intellects and imaginations as fragments to be given without pay to the hive mind.” Now, artists use the Internet for self-promotion, and they make money from other avenues: endorsement deals, concerts and merchandise. For unknown artists, they are often happy enough just to have fans and get their work out and into the hive.