is the internet good or bad for music?

im more worried that the concept of the "album" is slowly dying, though it will probably not completely go away.

also, i think it's hard for a band to get exposure to a larger audience, since every band and their mom get the same exposure as everyone else on the internet.

but its ok, the internet (for the masses) is a relatively new thing still. i think a lot of people are just worried about where the internet will go in terms of development. People were freaking out about TVs back in the day how they will melt your brain and such (and it does....)

the internet is the best thing to happen to music since the invention of "recording"

The internet may have saved music. Small artists can put there stuff out there for free, you can find information so much easier......I find virtually nothing bad that's happened to music from the internet.

maninthejar wrote: I feel that the internet is a double edged sword regarding music

Yes.

Positive: Artists more independent and possibly can get much more profit. More fan interaction, more ease in finding new obscure music (* incredibly key for prog fans), record companies get screwed

Negative: Music treated with less respect, people put less effort and get less satisfaction out of finding new artists, in most cases and in general, illegal downloading hurts the artist (but in all honesty, i dunno how much difference it matters when the record companies likely had a similar effect)

It's a great thing for bands and for fans who want to discover the whole world of music on myspace, GREAT bands that nobody knows about.  The only downside is when people steal from bands by downloading illegally. 

Anyone here care to remember the days before the glory days ? I.e before the Beatles made LPs / Albums THE form of recorded music ?
That's just where we are. Some big stars, very few superstars (new ones in the future that is) many middle level bands making a decent career, lots of small fry shooting briefly through the scene.
If you believe that the period of 1965 to 2000 is the norm, please inform yourself. Many many many events coincided to blow the industry up to the massive size it attained from the 80s to the 00s. Some cultural, some social, some financial, some (unfortunately) corporate & commercial.
The web, if anything has simply opened up the world to musicians & fans. No need or place for gatekeepers like major record labels or music mags. Niche means nothing, because most genres were & are niche.
So please, this Eden described about record stores, record company advances, "golden ages" is mostly the result of "things were better in the old days" thinking.

The thrill of the search is there whether you're doing it on the internet or the record shop. The big break achieved by the few overshadows the undeserved obscurity of many that were doomed by the indifference of record company promo departments.

The web , on the whole, is, and has been good for music. Period. Not perfect, not without some negatives. Just better.
So if you miss the days where Backstreet Boys ruled, where second rate Pearl Jam copyists sold millions based on a hit video, where Dance singles ruled MTV & Radio, where the Osmonds commanded major fanbases, then ... your world & welcome to it.
The golden days had their share of sh*t.

omri wrote: Well Darkshade, I think all our worries about TV happened to be true. Most of younger people in the western world are shalow, lazy, prejudiced etc. I blame the parents who let their children watch TV for hours and not TV itself but the fact is the existence of TV made it easy to many parents to neglect their children's education and create a pathetic generation.

i agree. Im sorry, i was trying to come off sarcastic in the last paragraph of my post, but i was a little tipsy when i typed it... i only watch about an hour's worth of TV a day, if i watch it at all. But you're right, it's turned my generation, and the next one, into dumbed down piles of meat.

and the internet does not help!!! i think it's worse than TV could ever be. what with AIM, facebook, myspace, kids spend sooooo much time on these things, you wonder why so many young people think they want to kill themselves all the time, and are sooo melo-dramatic. They get no sunlight!

but seriously, like the OP said, the internet is a double edged sword. Though i think it's better than TV could ever be. The internet DOES provide a LOT of information, and for a music fan, the possibilities are endless.

I hate people who have 75GB of music and it's all illegally downloaded. And a lot of them have it just to have it. C'MON!

but music itself has not become worse because of the internet. If anything it HAS gotten better. Since the late 90s or so, many bands (a lot new) have releases a lot of quality music that we havent seen in 30 years. It wouldnt have happened without the internet, because a lot of those bands wouldnt have gotten past 1-2 albums due to lack of exposure/finances. But with the internet, those bands can THRIVE, release their own albums on their website/myspace and list tour dates (i dont even know how people found out about tour dates before the internet...) and give fans pictures and info that wouldnt fit on liner notes and cd cases.


Edited by darkshade - April 22 2009 at 13:32

stonebeard wrote: maninthejar wrote: I feel that the internet is a double edged sword regarding music Yes. Positive: Artists more independent and possibly can get much more profit. More fan interaction, more ease in finding new obscure music (* incredibly key for prog fans), record companies get screwed Negative: Music treated with less respect, people put less effort and get less satisfaction out of finding new artists, in most cases and in general, illegal downloading hurts the artist (but in all honesty, i dunno how much difference it matters when the record companies likely had a similar effect)

Very good summary here. And I'd say generally, the positive attributes outweigh the negatives.

I hear scalpers will be trying ti get up to  $10,000 for Mike Jackson tickets for the 2,000 concerts he`s going to be performing in London. I think Mike has a lot of legal bills. Maybe he should buy up all the tickets and scalp them himself.

^^^ i think thats why jam bands are thriving in this decade. they dont need album sales.

someone on another thread was saying what is this decade's peak in music (ex. 80s - metal, 70s - prog/art rock, hard rock, 90s - grunge, indie) and i think it's jam bands. There's a lot these days, making a lot of money from touring and offering soundboard recordings of their shows online.

for example, i saw Umphrey's McGee recently. I paid $37 for a ticket, and another $10 for the recording. And im just one person. (i actually paid $16 for the recordings because if i bought the show from the night before at the same venue, i saved 15% )


Edited by darkshade - April 22 2009 at 16:02