
I know I've commented on the business model of American Idol which I believe is brilliant (right up there with the way banks charge you for borrowing your money, which they lend to others, and heck let's charge them too). But what about the creativity? What about the art? Does this new collaboration mean art could succumb to corporate desires for quick profits? Unfortunately, to an extent it already has. BUT, it also provides opportunity for more artists to leverage new channels. If this is true, then we should already be starting to see indie musicians (not attached to a record label) gaining popularity, and momentum. Do we?
Crowdsourced music and art can create mass consumption products digestible by many but has no longevity or notable impact on the future of the art. It's creating the simple wine that will sold to many but the exceptional wine which requires the trained palette to appreciate could be pushed aside forever. From Mozart to Hendrix there are several examples in all genres of edgy artists pushing the limits of music who's radical art would require time to enter mainstream acceptance. If we made "America vote" as a pre-requisite for access to music would we have truly listened to the pioneers of hip-hop? As Don McLean questioned in American Pie, "Do you recall what was revealed the day the music died?"


The "build it and they will come" philosophy is often false and adoption usually requires active promotion. Of course promotion can also be done through several web 2.0 means as well. The 2.0 world provides coverage over the 4 P's (Price, Promotion, Place/Distribution,Product) providing freedom for the independent artist.
It will be interesting to see the clash between big corporate music and legions of independent artists both of which are leveraging the unique opportunities offered by Web 2.0.
Time will tell...
"I've been waiting for this moment all my life... But it's not quite right"
- Lazy Eye by Silversun Pickups.
No comments:
Post a Comment