.................................
To leave Commie, hyper to
http://commie.oy.com/commie_leaving.html
.................................

I dunno about some of these ideas,
but someone made a list, so maybe it's worth a look.

he talks about "liquid music": after it's been digitized, 
"it becomes a liquid that can be morphed and migrated and
flexed and linked. You can filter it, bend it, archive it, 
rearrange it, remix it, mess with it."

these may not be original thoughts.  a lot of the discussion 
sounds like a reply of the discussions of what digital media 
mean for writers of text.

----- Forwarded message from text warez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----

From: text warez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 03:34:47 +0100 (MET)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: text warez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: <nettime> Where Music Will Be Coming From - Kevin Kelly

Where Music Will Be Coming From
Sat Mar 16, 2:56 PM ET

By KEVIN KELLY The New York Times

[..]

As phonographs spread throughout the world, they had a surprising effect:
folk tunes, which had always been malleable, changing with each performer
and in each performance, were transformed by the advent of recording into
fixed songs that could be endlessly and exactly repeated. Music became
shorter, more melodic and more precise.

Early equipment could make recordings that contained no more than four 
and a half minutes, so musicians truncated old works to fit and created 
new music abbreviated to adapt to the phonograph. 

[..]

In the domain of the plentifully free, music will do the only thing it can
do: charge for things that can't be copied easily. A friend of a friend may
eventually pass on to you the concert recording of a band you like, but if
you pay, the band itself will email it to you seconds after the performance.  
Sure, you can find a copy of that hit dance track, but if you want the mix 
approved by the legendary D.J., then you'll want to pay for it. Anyone can 
grab a free copy of Beethoven's Ninth, but if you want it customized for 
the audio parameters of your room or car, you'll pay for it. You may have 
downloaded that Cuban-Chinese rock band from the Morpheus site without 
paying, but the only way to get all that cool meta-information about 
each track, which lets you search for chords and lyrics, is to establish 
a relationship with the band by paying.

The quality least plentiful in a world of rampant free copies is attention.
Each year more than 30,000 new music titles are released (or rereleased)
into a very cluttered head space of new movies, new TV shows, new books,
new games, new Web sites. No matter what your musical appetite, there are
not enough hours in a lifetime to listen to but a tiny fraction of the
global supply.  People will pay simply to have someone edit the music and
recommend and present selected material to them in an easy and fun manner.
That is why producers, labels and the related ecology of reviewers, cata-
logers and guides will continue to make a living: they counter our natural 
lack of attention for the 10 million albums we can expect to see in another 
50 years. In the end, an awful lot of music will be sold in the territory 
of the free because it will be easier to buy music you really like than to 
find it for free.

Free is overrated as a destiny. It is only the second phase of the three
stages of copydom. The first phase -- perfection -- is experienced in both
analog and digital. Perfect duplication made the modern world and modern
music.

The second stage is freeness. Costless duplication made Napster possible and
a music revolution thinkable.

Yet it is in the third level of digital copy-ness that the real revolution
lies. This third power is liquidity, and it will take music beyond Napster.

Digital copies are not only perfect and free, they are also fluid. Once
music is digitized it becomes a liquid that can be morphed and migrated and
flexed and linked. You can filter it, bend it, archive it, rearrange it,
remix it, mess with it. And you can do this to music that you write, or
music that you listen to, or music that you borrow.

At first glance it seems audiences were drawn to online music because of
the power of the free, but in reality the rush to online music came from
digitized sound's ever- expanding power of liquidity. Once music could
swirl around one's life unencumbered, the millions of people who downloaded
peer-to-peer file-sharing software suddenly and simultaneously imagined a
thousand ways to conjure with music's liquidity. It wasn't only that it was
free; it was all the things you could do with it.

Once music is digitized, new behaviors emerge. With liquid music you have
the power to reorder the sequence of tunes on an album, or among albums. To
surgically morph a sound until it is suitable for a new use. To precisely
extract from someone else's music a sample of notes to use oneself. To
X-ray the guts of music and outline its structure, and then alter it. To
substitute new lyrics. To rearrange a piece so that its parts yield a
different voice. To re-engineer a piece so that it sounds better on a car
woofer. To meld and marry music together into hybrid breeds. To shorten a
piece, or to draw it out so that it takes twice as long to play.

With digitization, music went from being a noun, to a verb, once again.

[..]

The arrival of perfect, free and liquid copies of music means that new
economic models of making music will be forced upon musicians. Will the
model of the future be to give away copies in order to sell out a perfor-
mance? Or to rapidly issue new work from the studio faster than it can 
spread online? Or to release music in such wonderful packaging that it
is cheaper to buy it than to copy it? The probable answer: all of the 
above and more.

If there is any lesson that should be taken from the online world, it is
that options multiply. I am willing to bet that within the next 10 years 
a young band will come along that will be primarily and generously suppor-
ted by a commercial sponsor. The band will write and play whatever music 
it feels like, but it will grant first option to the sponsor to use the
sponsor's materials in commercials. The sponsor gets cool, hip music, and
the band gets its stuff heard by millions, and anything the company doesn't
use is the company's to pass out, free of charge.

[..]

The future of music is unknown. But whatever it is, it will be swayed, as
usual, by technology. Carver Mead, a computer-chip pioneer, advises us to
''listen to the technology'' to see where it is headed. If we listen to the
technology of music, we might hear these possibilities:

-- Songs are cheap; what's expensive are the indexable, searchable, official
lyrics.

-- On auction sites, music lovers buy and sell active playlists, which
arrange hundreds of songs in creative sequences. The lists are templates 
that reorder songs on your own disc.

-- You subscribe to a private record label whose agents troll the bars,
filtering out the garbage, and send you the best underground music based 
on your own preferences.

-- The most popular band in the world produces only very good ''jingles,''
just as some of the best directors today produce only very good commercials.

-- The catalog of all musical titles makes more money than any of the record
companies.

-- A generator box breeds background music tailored to your personal tastes;
the music is supplied by third-party companies that buy the original songs
from the artists.

-- Because you like to remix dance tunes, you buy the versions of songs that
are remix-ready in all 24 tracks.

-- You'll pay your favorite band to stream you its concert as it is playing
it, even though you could wait and copy it at no cost later.

-- The varieties of musical styles explode. They increase faster than we can
name them, so a musical Dewey Decimal System is applied to each work to aid
in categorizing it.

-- For a small fee, the producers of your favorite musician will tweak her
performance to exquisitely match the acoustics of your living room.

-- So many amateur remixed versions of a hit tune are circulating on the Net
that it's worth $5 to you to buy an authenticated official version.

-- For bands that tour, giving away their music becomes a form of cheap
advertising. The more free copies that are passed around, the more tickets
they sell.

-- Musicians with the highest status are those who have a 24-hour Net channel
devoted to streaming only their music.

-- Royalty-free stock music (like stock photography), available for any use,
takes off with the invention of a great music search engine, which makes it
possible to find music ''similar to this music'' in mood, tempo and sound.

-- The best-selling item for most musicians is the ''whole package deal,''
which contains video clips, liner notes, segregated musical tracks, reviews,
ads and artwork -- all stored on a well-designed artifact in limited editions.

-- Despite the fact that with some effort you can freely download the song
you think you want in a format you think will work for your system, most
people choose to go to a reliable retailer online and use the retailer's
wonderful search tools and expert testimonials to purchase what they want
because it is simply easier and a better experience all around.

In the end, the future of music is simple: more choices. As the
possibilities of music expand, so do our own.

-- 
GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet.
http://www.gmx.net

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to