Sharing is Caring

How do you show that you care about something? You share it. It is not a crazy new evolutionary concept and music is no exception to it. Music was meant to be shared. You only have to look at the origins of folk music to realise how important it is to share and participate in musical story telling. The internet then, would have to be one of musics greatest friends of the 21st century. Its new DIY, collaborative new media technologies have allowed the average citizen to participate in the transformation and recirculation of media content allowing music to be shared in a variety of different ways and with a whole lot more people (see here). We all have the ability to be produsers.

The networked environment of sites like Myspace facilitate the sharing of music. Myspace users can add bands as friends, add songs to their profile which in turn can be added to another friends site and so on. Sharing is a never ending process, constantly being built upon as more and more people join the network.

File sharing on Kazaa, Limewire and Windows live messenger allow users to share files quickly and at no cost. Even the gatekept file sharing networks such as Itunes give people the ability to share music far more easily than the traditional model of purchasing cd's and lending them to friends. (See my blog post "Music 2.0. Get Excited!" for an interesting insight into the future of file sharing)

Citizen journalism also has a role to play in the sharing of music. Blogs such as Yelling about music, Totally Fuzzy and Indy alternative blog site Obscure sound share the latest music news that mainstream media neglect to tell us. They provide information for a niche set of music fans who can then comment and share their own thoughts and experiences. Perhaps even leading to collective intelligence.

The most brilliant part about all of these avenues is that they can then be linked together. A youtube post can appear on a myspace page, a blog site, an email or facebook, forming one huge network of shared content. I recently participated in this sharing and linking process. I loved my friend Liam Griffin's new film clip and wanted to share it with my friends so I copied the link from Youtube onto my blog site and provided further links to his myspace page. He just increased his potential fan base without even lifting a finger. Another example of networked collectivism is Baym's work on fan communities where it was found that fans build their community through a network of internet sites, each with its own specialised purpose and format. Music was shared through fans spreading their knowledge throughout the network.

In DIY communities music can be shared by both the musicians, the fans and sometimes hybrid produsers. It allows for niche, grass roots experimentation for budding musicians as well as a space for fans to interact and share their passion for music with others. Music was meant to be shared. The internet has allowed more ways to share than ever before. In a world without copyright laws it's a match made in heaven right?

Myspace promotional system not to be used in isolation

Response to The Explosion Blog post: "Is the Myspace Promotional System all it's hyped up to be?":

I agree with your thoughts on Myspace as a promotional tool. The ease of getting a myspace means that everybody can do it. In this new networked model we are all produsers. The problem with this is that it makes it harder to get noticed in the sea of budding musicians because people are being bombarded by friend requests left right and centre. When there is too much information to digest people lose interest and soon it becomes easier to decline friend requests or ignore them all together. However, there is definitely still a place for Myspace and i would not go so far as to call it 'hype'. Myspace now fills a huge gap that was left in the traditional business model. Myspace helps KEEP the fans.

Back in the day a band would, as you quoted Pearson, "starve in a van for a year at a time...driving across the country playing to 50 people every night", be seen and heard on tv and radio along the way and their cd would sit on a shelf in the record store. The problem with this is that none of these things offer continuous and ongoing promotion. The tour will come to an end, the tv and radio spot will last for ten minutes at most and the cd is a finished and packaged product unable to be reformed and changed. These promotional tools are over as soon as they began soon to be forgotten by their audience as they move onto the next concert, tv/radio show and cd. This is where Myspace can help. Myspace helps KEEP the fans.

On Myspace a fans interaction with a band is never switched off. Any time of the day or night you can log on and listen to their songs, comment and view photos. It is now easier for a band to form a fan base and even easier for that fan base to be expanded upon. For example, one night after a gig one of the support acts came up to me, introduced himself and gave me a promo cd. I went home and eagerly put the cd on only to discover that it didn't work. However, all was not lost. There was a magic little ingredient on that promo cd; a myspace address! This allowed me to go straight to his site and listen to all his songs, read his reviews, pictures and comments. I then added him as a friend, struck up a conversation and he is still to this day one of my good friends.

Like you, i don't agree with Pearson's argument that because of Myspace bands will never have to tour again. There is still a place for touring and radio interviews. History has shown us that old media never die out, it is simpy their functions and status that change (Jenkins, 2006 p13). Myspace, when used in isolation is not the worlds greatest promotional tool. There are simply too many bands vying for your attention. However, when used in conjunction with more traditional models of promotion Myspace is definitely all it's 'hyped' up to be.

For further thoughts on how Myspace is great for forming fan bases and keeping them see my blog post "Myspace is the way to go for the struggling musician" in response to Isha's blog post "The Long Tail: When will the music industry get it?".


Reference

Jenkins, H. 2006. Introduction: "Worship at the Altar of Convergence" in Jenkins, H. Convergence culture: When new and old media collide. New York: New Yoork University, 1-24.

Myspace is the way to go for the struggling musician

Response to Isha's blog post "The Long Tail: When will the music industry get it?":

Great post Isha. This is a really interesting topic. I agree with the comments eerin made. I was having a discussion with a musician friend of mine on this topic to see what his thoughts were, being an active participant in the music industry. He said that he makes more money from his gigs and merchandise sales than he does from his cd's appearing on the cd racks in HMV. The traditional model is no longer a feasible option (see here). Social networking sites like Myspace are the way to go. The personal and conversational nature of these online communities allow musicians to interact directly with their fans. Once a musician has charmed their online friend there is more chance of that person turning up to their gig. This is because the person feels a closer and personal connection to the music than they would from simply seeing a poster or reading about in RAVE. Once there, there is an even greater likelihood of them purchasing a $10 EP, especially when the musician is standing right behind the merch stand after the gig and recognises their face from Myspace.

The best part for the musician in all of this is that if a fan has a positive experience then human nature dictates that they're likely to tell their friends about it. This creates a snowball, viral marketing effect at absolutely no cost to the struggling musician!

Sharing is the essence of music. Myspace allows musicians a direct and personal way to share their passion and talent. It is this personal and open structure that is more likely to attract fans and KEEP them than the old and static traditional model of a cd collecting dust on the racks at HMV.

Citizen journalism has never been so important

Response to Ella's blog "Zeitgeist":

Wow! What a movie. I was truly blown away. Thanks for bringing it to my attention Ella, in a perfect example of citizen journalism. After viewing the film it appears that it has never been more important for the 'average' citizen to be critically engaged in the world around them. Citizen journalism is the perfect way to do this. There are no editors, producers or a biased government dictating what content is allowed on citizen journalism sites such as Indymedia and Plastic. The DIY, open and participatory environment of these sites allows anybody to post anything that they want on the internet. The average citizen has the power to gatewatch (Bruns, 2008 p74) over the traditional news process providing multiple perspectives on a news story as opposed to the one sided view forced upon us by mainstream media. Once posted, content is immediately available for communal evaluation by anybody saying anything that they want. The ability to facilitate public discussion free from the bias of mainstream media stories is one of the most powerful features of citizen journalism. The stories remain always unfinished and constantly under development by a fresh set of eyes (Bruns, 2008, p81). This represents a fundamental shift from the traditional media where only a small selection of writers and editors have the power to change and manipulate information. In the traditional model citizen engagement is sidelined to the "letter to the editor" format which is then only shown to the public at the whim of the editor. Citizen journalism is a way for us to fight back against the tyrany of the top. We need more "random acts of journalism". The power is in the people. They just need to use and take advantage of it for the greater good. Peter Joseph did it so why can't we?


Reference

Bruns, A. 2008. News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: Perpetual Collaboration in Evaluating the News in Bruns, A. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang. 69-100.

Is it really the rise of the niche nation? Or is it just easier to find bands to commercially exploit?

After reading Blogsauce's blog "It's a mad world" it got me thinking about when niche is no longer niche. For me the word niche equals unique or special. It is niche because it is not generally accepted by mainstream culture. I am a self professed music snob. As soon as a band gets noticed by the masses it's no longer special to me anymore. I'm no longer interested. In fact my love soon turns to annoyance and even hatred.

The interactive and participatory nature of the internet through online communities, DIY music production and file sharing networks, as well as media convergence across a variety of platforms including the proliferation of music into television shows and movies has allowed niche artists to gain a larger audience. But does this audience truly appreciate the unique and special nature of what they're listening to? When a band is popular with the masses they seem to lose a part of who they are. They're just another "hit" played 10 times a day on commercial radio, listened to by teeny boppers following the latest "hit" like sheep. Ironically, 106.9's slogan is "sounds different". What's different about it? All they do is play the Top 40 on repeat. That's not different. That's not niche. That's not unique.

There are countless examples of when niche artists are scooped up by mainstream media and transformed into artificial shells of their former unique selves. Snow Patrol's rise to fame through the use of "Chasing Cars" in the Grey's Anatomy Season 2 Finale is one example. My cousin used to be a huge fan of Snow Patrol but has since lost interest because she was so outraged when people came into her music store the day after Grey's Anatomy and asked her "Do you have that song 'If i lay here...something something' ooh i can't remember it". It's offensive towards the band and what they represent when their rise to fame comes in such an artificial mainstream way. Mark Everett, better known as "E" from The Eels said that allowing the movie "Road Trip" to use his song "Goddamn right, it's a beautiful day" was the greatest regret he ever made in his career. "I didn't want this brand new song to be associated with a frat-boy movie, of all things. That's not a beautiful day, and not a good first impression for my new song and album." (Everett, 2008, p170). He said that the feeling of maintaining his integrity was worth more than the millions of dollars to be gained from "selling out" (Everett, 2008, p171).

Anderson says that we've entered the rise of the niche nation. However, to truly "make it" in the industry musicians more often than not still have to conform to the "hit" style. Perhaps the bigges t sell out of 2007 was Kate Miller-Heidke. Take a look at her before andafter videos. The most ironic part about it is that one of her songs pokes fun at Australian Idol for producing artificially created musicians. On a recent tour in Brisbane, Melbourne up and coming musician, Whitley, introduced his song on NOVA 106.9 as "Hi i'm Whitley. You're listening to more spoon fed commercial crap for the masses". It's frustrating that for musicians like Whitley to really make it in the music industry they have to enter the "dark side" and participate in the mainstream culture that they hate.

According to Anderson "The Niche is now King". But is it more a case of the King being able to find the niche more easily and then turning it into the traditional commercial mainstream "hit"?


Reference

Everett, M. 2008. Things the Grandchildren Should Know. London: Little Brown.

Liam Griffin - "Until You Fall" Film Clip

Check out local Brisbane artist Liam Griffin's new film clip"Until You Fall". This epic song comes from Liam's EP "Pictures" featuring 5 beautifully crafted songs. If you like what you see/hear, feel free to comment on his myspace page. He'll love you for it :) Liam's playing this Sunday 11 May at the Powerhouse so if you're not too busy showering your mother with gifts then come along!

How do communites evaluate quality?

Citizen journalism is similar in nature to a peer assessment. Whereby, the quality of content is evaluated by individuals over time who then critique and build upon the existing information, in a snowball like effect. The more attention a post attracts (eg through comments or rating systems) the more credible and transparent a source becomes. It is through this peer assessment process that the reputation of a citizen journalist is built and the quality of the information produced is improved.

As humans it is in our nature to analyse and critique the information we receive. For example, Wikipedia, depsite being disputed as a credible source, studies have found that the information presented is generally accurate and of a reasonable standard (see here). Open participation allows a post to be freely and immediately evaluated by anyone. This may result in either positive or negative feedback, in effect rating the quality of the post. This process is constantly evolving, overlapping and interwoven. As Bruns (2008, 79) states, "citizen journalism is a clear example of fluid heterarchy, ad hoc meritocracy; a fundamental principle of produsage... The community governs itself through a constant process of mutual evaluation through peer commentary and criticism."

By Emma, Nat and Ella.

Reference

Bruns, A. 2008. News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: Perpetual Collaboration in Evaluating the News in Bruns, A. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, New York: Peter Lang, 69-100.

Response to the comments on my "Facebook Get Smarter" Blog

I would just like to make it clear that i am not infact submitting this blog for my assignment. I am well aware that it is not academic and scholarly enough thankyou. I just had a random thought that day and decided to write a blog about it.

How is web 2.0 different from web 1.0?

For most of us currently studying at QUT we would hardly remember what Web 1.0 was about. It seemed so long ago... a whole 4 years ago! (the first Web 2.0 conference was in October of '04), when we were mere high school peasants longing for a world of freedom which would be given to us through UNIVERSITY.

When Web 1.0 was in vogue we were consumers not produsers, like the majority of Web 2.0 users are. A produser is someone who creates online content. This could be something as simple as having a Facebook account. Following on from this, Web 2.0 sees outcomes remaining always unfinished, and continually under development. In contrast to Web 2.0, Web 1.0 saw a small number of people impacting on content creation. Information was more static, passively read by the end user.

Social software has enabled us to be socially colaborative and create Do-It-Yourself communities. Examples of these are online publishing (a.k.a the blogging phenomenon), media sharing (Flickr and YouTube) and knowledge management (wiki and del.icio.us). This is how buzz words such as 'tagging' 'podcasting' and 'blogging' were coined. As mentioned earlier, a large number of people are now becoming involved in creating web content. Social software has made this transition possible. It allows better access for collaboration.

Essentially, Web 2.0 provides a more organised and categorised option from Web 1.0. It has higher content, is more functional, hence providing a democratic, personal and DIY medium.

By Emma and natalie

How is open source different from commercial production?

In open source the source code is freely and openly available for everyone to view, edit and use, within a limited-rights licence. For example: FireFox and Linux. In the closed source, commercial model, source code remains confidential and must be bought by the end user. For example, the average user cannot access the source code for Windows Internet Explorer; only the in-house software developers are allowed access. The business model for open source software is to provide services to the commmunity, where as closed source's aim is to sell a finished product. The success of open source hinges on the active contribution and interest of users. In contrast, the motivations for the success of closed source production is the fiscal benefit to the commercial production team.

Open source is an example of produsage. Axel Bruns has idenitified three fundamental principles that define the term produsage:

1. Open participation and communal evaluation. Open source software is an example of this because the project is open for anybody to make contributions and evaluate and test its usability, a key feature of web 2.0. The software is continually updated through collaborative participation and new updates are available almost everyday (Bruns, 2008, p42). In contrast, closed source epitomises web 1.0 where users had no ability to contribute to software development. The availability of new closed source software is stagnant and relies on set release dates for 'new editions'.

2. Fluid Heterarchy, ad hoc meritocracy. In open source contributors grow in the community through their esteem and influence on the project. There is no set dictator for the duration of the project. Leaders are fluid and ever changing according to their abilities and the merit of their contributions. In closed source the production development team is subject to traditional hierarchical structures. There is an appointed leader for the duration of the project and each employee has set individual tasks to complete.

3. Unfinished artefacts, continuing process. In open source the project is always under development, continually evolving with no set end date. Whereas commercial production aims at delivering a complete package to meet a set deadline.

By Emma, Ella and Nat.


Reference

Bruns, A. 2008. Open Source Software Development: Probabilistic Eyeballs in Bruns, A. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, New York: Peter Lang, pp.37-68.

Get smarter Facebook! You're driving me mad.

Last week I read Axels blog about the problems he has with facebook as a social network. Axels main issue was the flattened structure of facebooks social relationships into simple yes/no answers to friend requests. He argues that this flat structure undermines how we organise and distinguish between social ties in real life. At the time I thought he had a fair point but i didn't think too much about it. But now things have gone too far! I logged onto my facebook account today to discover a friend request from my landlord who also happens to be my roommate/best friend's mother. Personally i see it as a gross invasion of my privacy. There are certain things that certain people just shouldn't know about. First of all as my best mates mother I don't want her knowing what i get up too. I don't want her to see all those drunken photos i have been tagged in recently. I don't want her to know who my friends are, where i have been, who and what has been written on my wall. She doesn't need to know! Secondly, as my landlord i most certainly don't want her to know! For her to discover all those drunken photos from house parties is sure to send me packing.

I wonder what my roommate thinks of this. That is her mother! Would you want your mother as a friend on facebook? I would probably initially laugh in her face and suggest helping make her profile look somewhat hip and cool... as hip and cool as a 40yr old mother of 3 can be. But after a week or two when she discovers who all your friends are and the shenanigans they get up to things might not be so hilarious.

I never used to think about the consequences of pressing 'accept friend request'. I just see it as a polite thing to do when someone asks you to be their friend. However, i am now seriously reconsidering my stance on being a friendly person. My boss at work recently added me on facebook. What a mistake that was to accept. I now find it incredibly awkward when I call up on Monday for my shifts and he says "so why is Emma feeling over the moon today?" or "ooh I see you had a big weekend (wink wink)".

I discovered last week that my cousin worked up the courage to clean out her facebook. She was fed up with having so many people on it that she didn't consider, or want, to be apart of her circle of friends. The only people on her facebook now are a small collection of people who she loves and trusts to know about her business. Eliminating all those people out of her network was a pretty brave thing to do! But she should never have had to do it. Facebook needs to get smarter. My cousin has now lost contact with a whole range of people that probably would have been handy acquaintances in years to come.

I'm a firm believer in keeping sections of your social life separate. Certain aspects of my character are portrayed to different sets of friends. I don't like it when my boss knows i like Indie rock music and partying at Rics and I don't like it when my new ultra cool musician friend knows I work at a lame research company. I want to be able to show people who I am when I want and how I want. I don't want facebook to do it for me in a completely impersonal and static way. I know I have the choice to either accept or reject a friend request but I don't think the problem is solved that simply. I would be quite happy for my boss to be my friend on facebook or my mates mother if there was some way for me to decide how much of me I want share with them. We're living in an age of produsers. Give me some control facebook! I want to be able to shape my online communities. Decide who is in them and what I share with them. Is that too much to ask?

Music 2.0. Get excited!

Through my fabulous networks on del.icio.us i stumbled across an interesting video on Music 2.0 today by Gerd Leonhard. The words 'music' and '2.0' in the same sentence seems to be a pretty evolutionary concept, or somewhat overdue one whichever way you look at it. It's no secret that the music industry has turned a blind eye to the new interactive, participatory capabilities of web 2.0 and have suffered huge financial losses as a result (see here). Blender.com found the number one record-company screw up of all time to be when they sued Napster out of existence because of their hell bent pursuit on protecting copyright. How silly they were. That blunder has seen them unable to capitalize on the tens of millions of users of file-sharing services who, after the fall of Napster, dispersed to other illegal downloading sites on the internet.

If the record industry intends to survive they really need to open their eyes and take a good look at their surroundings. We no longer live in an age of consumers and producers (see Bruns' theory of produsage). There has been a profound shift in recent years from closed and passive to open, social and uncontrolled patterns of music sharing. We are active. We know what we want and we know how to get it cheap, fast and simple. If record industries are smart they will find a way to profit from our new music consumption patterns. So is music 2.0 the answer they've been looking for...or at least should be looking for?

Gerd Leonhards basic argument is to sell music in the way that people actually want to buy it. Essentially through a "click". Gerd argues that companies must licence access to music not control it like they have in the past. His catch phrase "consumers will pay with attention" is quite apt in explaining what he means. Music is in the network so put the money into the network too. Companies can generate money through clicks on advertising, concert recordings, social networking sites, tickets, webcasts and concert recordings. In Gerds vision for the future there will be no closed and locked communities like Itunes. For example, nobody subscribes to Google and pays a fee to look at and download information. Google makes money through its content. Very successfully too! It's net revenue last year was 3.7 billion dollars. Not too shabby. Google already has enough features to live your own virtual life through the site so why can't it offer us music too?

So why should record companies listen to this guy? Firstly, he knows what he's talking about. Gerd has spent over twenty-five years in the technology and entertainment industries. Recently co-authoring the critically acclaimed book "The Future of Music" where the term music 2.0 was coined. Secondly, he's not the only one saying there is a need for change. Chris Anderson warns of the slow demise of record companies in the rise of the niche nation. He states that "the traditional model of marketing and selling music no longer works". Technology has given people a new way to obtain music which doesn't involve being swallowed in the avalanche of mass marketed hits by record industries.

Gerds theory is interesting and believable. Social networking sites like myspace allow us to be produsers, networking and sharing things online. It seems ridiculous not to expect people to share music in these environments when sharing is such a huge part of the music culture. All we need is for record companies to let go of their control. In the words of Chris Anderson, "MTV and Tower Records no longer decide who wins. You do".

Myspace addiction or healthy habit?

At the end of the lecture last week on online communities we had a discussion about the habitual and somewhat addictive nature of social networking sites like Myspace and Facebook. At the time I quite freely admitted to the habit but now i can't stop thinking about WHY myspace has such a strangle hold on my daily routine? When i turned my computer on today the very first thing i did was check myspace and facebook. Even though i knew i was getting on to write a blog about my addiction! It doesn't matter whether i am running late for the bus or have an assignment due in an hour i will always check my myspace and facebook before i even consider doing anything else on the computer.

It seems i am not the only one with this problem. Wikihow offers a step by step guide on how to kick the habit. But is my habitual checking of myspace actually a bad thing?

I think it is completely healthy. Myspace just fuels my own human inclination to procrastinate. It gives me a guilt free channel to effectively do nothing. I don't necessarily intend to do anything on the sites everytime i log on. It's more about checking what everyone is up to and seeing whether anybody "loves me". When i want to catch up with a friend i still reach for my phone before considering commenting on that persons myspace. Myspace has not taken over my social life. I still consider the phone to be a more personal means of communication and would much rather see somebody face to face than exchange messages with them over myspace. I use myspace for more random, playful comments when the wall between me and my assignments has gotten particularly high and i am just creating ways to avoid it. Here again, it comes back to my desire to procrastinate rather than my need for social interaction through the site.

In Terry Flews book New Media: An Introduction he makes reference to the studies of Shenton and McNeeley who discuss reasons for why people participate in online communities. One suggestion was the lack of geographical boundaries within the community. You can effectively talk to someone on the other side of the world who you have never seen in real life. I don't actually do that. Every person that i interact with online exists in my own physical "real life" circle of friends or aquantances. I have never accepted a friend request from somebody that i dont know or recognise. Myspace and Facebook are an extension of my real life. Yes, there are people on myspace and facebook that i haven't seen in months but i don't make a concious effort to talk to them on myspace either. I enjoy that i can passively see what those people are up to by looking at my feed on facebook. So i guess my habit of checking facebook in particular could be fueled by my desire to be constantly "in the know". Facebook allows me to stay in touch in a completely hassle free and lazy way.

I don't think i will be trying to change my habits anytime soon. I have accepted that i am the queen of procrastination and thoroughly enjoy the pleasure of browsing myspace before reading my uni emails. My lecturers and tutors will be most dissapointed!

Google reader is genius!

Google reader is genius! Why have i not heard of it before? It's all very web 2.0 isn't it. I finally have a way of reading the news that requires no effort. It's fantastic! You are looking at a newly educated citizen. By next week i will know what's what ;)

It's actually kind of sad that I needed google reader to come along to make me read the news. What happened to the good old days when people bought newspapers and sat back on the deck with a cup of tea? ...actually I wasn't even old enough to read a newspaper back then. I live in this new super duper age where i live and breathe for my laptop! Now when i have to habitually check myspace and facebook when i wake up in the morning i can add google reader to the addiction. It'll add another good half hour onto my procrastination techniques...but who cares. Myspace and facebook checking is a necessary part of life!

Emma's life lessons 101

Woooo first blog ever!

Topic of today....don't make bets which involve exchangin money with people. They have dire consequences!

For example... making a bet with a friend with the last $5 in your wallet. Then you lose and forget aaall about the fact that you sacrificed that $5. So you continue on your merry way right up until you have to catch the bus to make it to your exhilirating 9am lecture with axel bruns. It's a pickle! Is the bus driver likely to be nice and let you on the bus for a mere 70c? i think not.

So you drive to the nearest ATM and extract a hefty $20 which you then have to beg to get changed at the closest store that's open at 7:30 in the morning! After all this you then get back in the car to drive home and get the bus only for the car to conk out in the middle of a roundabout and have to pull the car over in a bus stop. Awesome! You then wait for RACQ to arrive "within the next 60 minutes". Then after all this it turns out to be the lamest problem and the guy fixes the car in a mere 30 seconds.

So after all this i sadly missed axels lecture *tear* but have made it to the tut to have this whinge.

Moral of my story. Poor people shouldn't make bets! It has dire consequences.