Chris Weingarten says little new about the toxic effect of the internet on music journalism, but he expresses it more cogently (and with a few more rudenesses) than most have managed. I also dislike his hat. But he’s worth a listen; I suspect his observations apply to many other forms of media. There’s some crossover with what Andrew Keen says, but Weingarten actually seems to understand what he’s talking about; it’s not the amateurs themselves who are the enemy, but the conformist hive culture that Web 2.0 business models have spawned.
Thanks to Everett True for the link.
3 comments:
Wouldn't know mate. I get all my information from Twitter.
Nice post Tim.
Wow. Where to begin?
On the one hand, it's sour grapes, but on the other hand...it's rightly an uphill battle for guys like him as Google rewards quantity and keywords over quality.
It's nice to know that at least the Shark Guys are on the vanguard as far as music criticism goes with some of our lists.
This is depressing. No gatekeepers, fewer shared musical experiences, just a glut of bands nobody has ever, or might never hear of.
The OK Go example is mind-blowing. As far as publishers go, they still (for better or worse) reward people with highly trafficked sites and give out book deals.
Re: OK Go. Critics have been complaining about visuals taking precedence over music since Queen made Bohemian Rhapsody: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQamw4xxxHY Back then the problem was that people would buy the record because the promo was good. Now the problem is that they don't...
Post a Comment