Mass Producing Mediocrity?

[eduardo_b]

And there are people who find commercial radio of every sort to be a form of aural rape.

Because as a member of the aforementioned fourth group, let me tell you, I find it much easier to find new music that interests me now then ever before.

Other than NPR, I've pretty much given up on terrestrial radio. Of course, it depends on where you live...maybe, but the consolidation of radio has done to most of this medium what big-box bookstores and the Internet have done to small, independent booksellers. All of the predictable genres -- classic rock, adult contemporary, hip-hop, oldies -- are accounted for, but with a blandness, restricted playlists and ad clutter that makes them pointless to listen, plus compression/limiting to maximize loudness.

Our most recent car, purchased in October, has Sirius/XM with six months free, and it has the only radio worth listening to. But I'm not sure it's really worth $13 a month, plus the economics of the satellite radio business are essentially untenable -- infrastructure costs are so high that no scenario includes profitability.

So Internet radio is the only solution, but means nothing in a car or being outside the house. Portable players are the only viable option, although the car noted above does have a 30-gig hard drive for music (wav, mp3, wma) and accepts both portable players and SD cards.

So, to me, radio is relegated to second place behind owning the music and having it available where and when we want. That's why there are hundreds upon hundreds of CDs and as many flac, mp3 files. A management nightmare, but what are the options.

[Aroused by JarJar]

Personally, I absolutely love the amount and accessability of technology and tools. Perhaps it's easier to love because I don't "need" it- I do acapalla-no-mics work, too, and so never feel that I'm "chained" to technology.

I've also found through the years that a whole hell of a lot of people who use technology, rather than being used by it so to speak, are the very ones who have "old fashioned buck-naked" kinds of skills.

Check out the "making-of" documentaries of well-made mainstream "computer art" things, like, say, the "Sindbad" cartoon with Brad Pitt for example, or "Monsters, Inc." and you'll see that the "real deal" tech-art people quite obviously would be able to hold their own in any era, with any technology.
Working with a lot a visual artists, I do see a great deal of computer-bolstered self-delusion about skill levels, but that's inevitably among the ones who'd SUCK in any era, with any technology.

This topic reminds me of Asimov's derision of the "Frankenstein complex" (cf. Michael Crichton for the opposite of this: pandering to the Frankenstein complex).

Yeah there's tons of mediocrity- isn't that a kind of tautology? Whatever.

The real problem is the worship of mediocrity, and the Procrustean bed of "mediumness", not mediocrity in and of itself. As illustrated so keenly by George Carlin: everyone who drives slower than you is an "idiot", and everyone who drives faster than you is a "f**king maniac!".

[vurt]

imagine if we went back in time, dropped this thread into the ether around 1970. if people had listened, and thought "hmmm no, i wont buy(steal) a guitar until im a virtuoso player, i see no point in muddying the water".
the history we would have lost, from mc5 to the ramones to the stooges in the US and the pistols, the clash, the buzzcocks over here. now think of all those acts through time since then that have been influenced by just those 6

just sayin...

[robogone]

imagine if we went back in time, dropped this thread into the ether around 1970. if people had listened, and thought "hmmm no, i wont buy(steal) a guitar until im a virtuoso player, i see no point in muddying the water".
the history we would have lost, from mc5 to the ramones to the stooges in the US and the pistols, the clash, the buzzcocks over here. now think of all those acts through time since then that have been influenced by just those 6

just sayin...

Or even earlier - Chuck Berry didn't take any guitar lessons, he just sat next to the radio and learned each song that came on but simplified it because he couldn't play that well.

[vurt]

indeed, there would be many individuals who fit the bill.
i was using the punks mainly because the whole movement was based on the DIY ethics, not a style of music as many people seem to think. and no, not every punk band has made the list of greats or is even remembered outside of seven blokes who saw em in a pub once, but they sure had fun not giving a shit

[eduardo_b]

The real problem is the worship of mediocrity, and the Procrustean bed of "mediumness", not mediocrity in and of itself. As illustrated so keenly by George Carlin: everyone who drives slower than you is an "idiot", and everyone who drives faster than you is a "f**king maniac!".

Which is to say, it's all relative. And there are two sides to it -- the musician and the listener. From vurt's point of view, those musicians who were in punk bands were having a great time not giving a shite, but from the listener's side, most punk was shite most of the time. The music, such as it was, was really a vehicle for an attitude, and thus while it was largely mediocre or worse, it functioned well as an anti-establishment rallying cry. And then it died a well-deserved death. Those who were into punk didn't care about how good or not the music was, and everyone else thought it wasn't even music.

[vespers75]

And then it died a well-deserved death.

Nope. Its still around, and still being made by new bands in the underground scenes all the time. You choose not to listen to it, or be exposed to it, so therefore you're writing it off?

(and I'm not talking about Blink 182 post-punk pop commercial bands either)

Those who were into punk didn't care about how good or not the music was, and everyone else thought it wasn't even music.

Not true either. As someone who used to be into punk a good bit in my youth, there were bands I thought were good, and others I didn't. Just like any other style of music I like.

[robogone]

And then it died a well-deserved death.

Nope. Its still around, and still being made by new bands in the underground scenes all the time. You choose not to listen to it, or be exposed to it, so therefore you're writing it off?

(and I'm not talking about Blink 182 post-punk pop commercial bands either)

Those who were into punk didn't care about how good or not the music was, and everyone else thought it wasn't even music.

Not true either. As someone who used to be into punk a good bit in my youth, there were bands I thought were good, and others I didn't. Just like any other style of music I like.

Yeah, those two statements stood out for me too. Underground music will always be around an out of the control of the music industry. Plenty of it around now and no sign of it dying out.

As for the statement about punk...I don't even know where to start...

[eduardo_b]

And then it died a well-deserved death.

Nope. Its still around, and still being made by new bands in the underground scenes all the time. You choose not to listen to it, or be exposed to it, so therefore you're writing it off?

(and I'm not talking about Blink 182 post-punk pop commercial bands either)

Those who were into punk didn't care about how good or not the music was, and everyone else thought it wasn't even music.

Not true either. As someone who used to be into punk a good bit in my youth, there were bands I thought were good, and others I didn't. Just like any other style of music I like.

Punk was, with some well-known exceptions, always an underground phenom...not mainstream. That's what I was referring to. The mainstream didn't consider punk to be music, just noise, which actually was just fine with those in the punk scene. If punk had gone mainstream, it would have ruined it for those who played and "listened" to it.

[eduardo_b]

As for the statement about punk...I don't even know where to start...

There was a really long thread on punk last year. For some it seemed a very nostalgic trip down memory lane.

[vespers75]

an underground phenom...not mainstream. That's what I was referring to.

Which could likely be why our opinions differ so. I have little interest in 'mainstream' music at all, or how relevant it is to much of anything. I'm quite aware of mainstream music in most of its forms though, and its relation to pop culture...but that doesn't make it any more listenable to me.

[robogone]

Punk was, with some well-known exceptions, always an underground phenom...not mainstream.

You obviously weren't around in the UK in the period 77 to 79 then. It was a pretty huge phenomenon there and all the record companies were trying to sign 'punk' bands.

It got ridiculous in the same way that everyone tries to sound 'hip hop' now. Very much a mainstream phenomenon.

[eduardo_b]

an underground phenom...not mainstream. That's what I was referring to.

Which could likely be why our opinions differ so. I have little interest in 'mainstream' music at all, or how relevant it is to much of anything. I'm quite aware of mainstream music in most of its forms though, and its relation to pop culture...but that doesn't make it any more listenable to me.

Well, let me ask you this. In terms of mediocrity vs quality, where would you place punk...the real stuff, not posers.

[eduardo_b]

Punk was, with some well-known exceptions, always an underground phenom...not mainstream.

You obviously weren't around in the UK in the period 77 to 79 then.

No, I wasn't anywhere near the UK during those years, so I only have the US perspective plus whatever punk bands were coming over from the UK and had enough buzz to be noticed outside the underground.

[robogone]

Punk was, with some well-known exceptions, always an underground phenom...not mainstream.

You obviously weren't around in the UK in the period 77 to 79 then.

No, I wasn't anywhere near the UK during those years, so I only have the US perspective plus whatever punk bands were coming over from the UK and had enough buzz to be noticed outside the underground.

Well in that case you shouldn't make such sweeping generalizations.