3 ms·

> I don’t even know why I would want to be on a label in a few years, > because I don’t think it’s going to work by labels and by distribution > systems in

> I don’t even know why I would want to be on a label in a few years, > because I don’t think it’s going to work by labels and by distribution > systems in the same way. > > --David Bowie, 2002 Something to think about in music that also happens in startups and software: These are social activities. People don’t judge music solely by some kind of independent metric of appeal. They also judge whether the music is popular within their social circle. Choice of music is one of the mediums people use for communicating. To listen to something nobody except you likes is a little like programming in a language nobody you know uses. We make up all sorts of stories about how network effects affect the quality of a language, the availability of tools, and so on, and all that is true. But it’s also true that we self-identify in a tribal way with our choices, and that those choices have social import. Even if you brag defiantly that you’re a pragmatist who doesn’t care who does or doesn’t use a tool: That’s a lot like being a hipster growing a beard and putting on plaid. So back to music. The vast majority of people wish to belong to the tribe of “The vast majority of people.” They work very hard to study what is and isn’t “mainstream.” There is thus a very natural force by the market to want to have some kind of pop music dominated by just a few superstars at a time. This, I believe, drives a winner-take-all market for pop music, which in turn is a huge incentive for the existence of massive pop marketing machines. Even if you take all the friction out of distribution and discovery, the mainstream want there to be a massive marketing push for pop artists, it helps them judge who is going to be popular. It’s not that much different than picking a JavaScript library because some large and well-heeled organization is devoting themselves to support it. You may personally say it has something to do with bug fixes, but for most people that fact helps them judge whether other people will adopt the library, which helps them judge whether they want to belong to that particular tribe. And most people want to belong to the biggest tribe, and will follow the signals with the biggest boost. Thus, labels or some other kind of very big, very efficient machine for manipulating pop culture.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
sjclemmy 11y ago
I think Bowie was the antithesis of this. If you'll forgive the hyperbole, he is the archetypal outsider, the patron saint of the dispossessed. So for all those who don't feel that they belong, Bowie's activities provided a message - 'It's OK to be an outsider', and, curiously, through that message provided a sense of belonging - I'm going to get all metaphysical and say that that is alchemical / transformative in a very profound way for many people.
- braythwayt 11y ago
  Bowie may have been an outsider, but consider that your exact feelings are social, those feelings of belonging and connection to an icon. The music industry is just as adept at monetizing those feelings as they are of monetizing teen-age angst or adolescent her-worship of boy bands. My point being, that while Bowie and many others can stand outside of the industry, I don’t believe the basic dynamics are going to change. Radio may go away. Physical media may go away. Apple may disrupt the labels. Bt I believe that massive marketing machines will continue to slice and dice the market for music and continue to dominate people’s choices. Remember, you only heard of Bowie because he played the game.
  - sjclemmy 11y ago
    I totally agree with your points - the market economy finds ways to monetise and that's its job. I'm not actually a big fan of Bowie, I'm a bit too young, but it's something I'm observing. I'm also aware that those feelings of alienation are keenest for teenagers and that the music industry exploits that. However, whilst the music machine exploits the latest pop star - if you were to compare and contrast say, Justin Bieber or Taylor Swift with Bowie, then there is a difference in what they symbolise for the fan, and, whilst the outcome of a sense of belonging is effected in both instances, Bieber / Swift do not represent the outsider, they are just more grist for the mill.
  - webjprgm 11y ago
    I only heard of Bowie because of The Labyrinth. :-)
- 11y ago
codingdave 11y ago
This seems like a youthful way to approach music. At some point in your adult life, you have enough of a self-identity that most of this no longer applies... in music, technology choices, or anything. To me, you are just describing how people first learn to engage with the world, not how older folk actually live it. I guess that does parallel tech, though - the youth follow the trends, while labels/VCs drive certain cherry picked groups to success, while at the same time, us older folk live in quieter places, create our own works, do our own thing, and live satisfying lives, not really being impacted by whatever the tribes currently label as "mainstream".
ogreveins 11y ago
>But it’s also true that we self-identify in a tribal way with our choices, and that those choices have social import. Even if you brag defiantly that you’re a pragmatist who doesn’t care who does or doesn’t use a tool: That’s a lot like being a hipster growing a beard and putting on plaid. Lol what? That's stupid. Some people listen to the music that sounds good to them, some people listen to music that brings them and their friends together, some people listen to music for other reasons. Your analysis bad because you think you can group people so simply. Stop that.
marchdown 11y ago
> The vast majority of people wish to belong to the tribe of “The vast majority of people.” This is not obvious to me at all. Would someone please explain?
- theoh 11y ago
  I think it's a claim that a majority of people want to be part of a single recognisable mainstream. No idea if it's true. It's conceivable that a majority of people would want to each do their own thing, with only a minority choosing to follow the "mainstream" (which would then still be the single largest "tribe")
nikdaheratik 11y ago
If you look at the entire group of people who listen to music (and make music on their own), I don't believe this analysis fits very well. It may fit for some part of it, or for parts of the music industry, but music is more like film or theatre than it is TV or video games or other art forms. You have a group of people who just want to hang out with their friends and whatever is popular with them is "good enough" to meet that need. This is analogous with multiplex viewers. Then you have people with specific tastes or interests. They are often willing to spend more (by an order of magnitude) than "typical" listeners and less likely to care if lots of other people come along with them or not. This is similar to art house film-goers judge what to watch. Finally, you have people who may be amateur or part time musicians themselves and appreciate a different take from everyone else. They can even be trendsetters in whatever new music that comes out. In the film analogy, they could be people who set up, run, review, and/or submit movies to film festivals. The thing is, you may be able to influence one group of people with your approach to controlling and marketing music even if the music is self is mediocre, but those people also care less and are worth less than the other segments. And the way the music industry is going, they may not be worth much at all individually (which I think was the point of the OPs quote from David Bowie). In tech, this would be the Bing.com approach to search versus alot of other startups which seek to grab the early adopters first and then pull in more mainstream stuff later. It can work, but not as well over time.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

sjclemmy 11y ago

I think Bowie was the antithesis of this. If you'll forgive the hyperbole, he is the archetypal outsider, the patron saint of the dispossessed. So for all those who don't feel that they belong, Bowie's activities provided a message - 'It's OK to be an outsider', and, curiously, through that message provided a sense of belonging - I'm going to get all metaphysical and say that that is alchemical / transformative in a very profound way for many people.

braythwayt 11y ago
Bowie may have been an outsider, but consider that your exact feelings are social, those feelings of belonging and connection to an icon. The music industry is just as adept at monetizing those feelings as they are of monetizing teen-age angst or adolescent her-worship of boy bands. My point being, that while Bowie and many others can stand outside of the industry, I don’t believe the basic dynamics are going to change. Radio may go away. Physical media may go away. Apple may disrupt the labels. Bt I believe that massive marketing machines will continue to slice and dice the market for music and continue to dominate people’s choices. Remember, you only heard of Bowie because he played the game.
- sjclemmy 11y ago
  I totally agree with your points - the market economy finds ways to monetise and that's its job. I'm not actually a big fan of Bowie, I'm a bit too young, but it's something I'm observing. I'm also aware that those feelings of alienation are keenest for teenagers and that the music industry exploits that. However, whilst the music machine exploits the latest pop star - if you were to compare and contrast say, Justin Bieber or Taylor Swift with Bowie, then there is a difference in what they symbolise for the fan, and, whilst the outcome of a sense of belonging is effected in both instances, Bieber / Swift do not represent the outsider, they are just more grist for the mill.
- webjprgm 11y ago
  I only heard of Bowie because of The Labyrinth. :-)
11y ago

codingdave 11y ago

This seems like a youthful way to approach music. At some point in your adult life, you have enough of a self-identity that most of this no longer applies... in music, technology choices, or anything. To me, you are just describing how people first learn to engage with the world, not how older folk actually live it. I guess that does parallel tech, though - the youth follow the trends, while labels/VCs drive certain cherry picked groups to success, while at the same time, us older folk live in quieter places, create our own works, do our own thing, and live satisfying lives, not really being impacted by whatever the tribes currently label as "mainstream".

ogreveins 11y ago

>But it’s also true that we self-identify in a tribal way with our choices, and that those choices have social import. Even if you brag defiantly that you’re a pragmatist who doesn’t care who does or doesn’t use a tool: That’s a lot like being a hipster growing a beard and putting on plaid. Lol what? That's stupid. Some people listen to the music that sounds good to them, some people listen to music that brings them and their friends together, some people listen to music for other reasons. Your analysis bad because you think you can group people so simply. Stop that.

marchdown 11y ago

> The vast majority of people wish to belong to the tribe of “The vast majority of people.” This is not obvious to me at all. Would someone please explain?

theoh 11y ago
I think it's a claim that a majority of people want to be part of a single recognisable mainstream. No idea if it's true. It's conceivable that a majority of people would want to each do their own thing, with only a minority choosing to follow the "mainstream" (which would then still be the single largest "tribe")

nikdaheratik 11y ago

If you look at the entire group of people who listen to music (and make music on their own), I don't believe this analysis fits very well. It may fit for some part of it, or for parts of the music industry, but music is more like film or theatre than it is TV or video games or other art forms. You have a group of people who just want to hang out with their friends and whatever is popular with them is "good enough" to meet that need. This is analogous with multiplex viewers. Then you have people with specific tastes or interests. They are often willing to spend more (by an order of magnitude) than "typical" listeners and less likely to care if lots of other people come along with them or not. This is similar to art house film-goers judge what to watch. Finally, you have people who may be amateur or part time musicians themselves and appreciate a different take from everyone else. They can even be trendsetters in whatever new music that comes out. In the film analogy, they could be people who set up, run, review, and/or submit movies to film festivals. The thing is, you may be able to influence one group of people with your approach to controlling and marketing music even if the music is self is mediocre, but those people also care less and are worth less than the other segments. And the way the music industry is going, they may not be worth much at all individually (which I think was the point of the OPs quote from David Bowie). In tech, this would be the Bing.com approach to search versus alot of other startups which seek to grab the early adopters first and then pull in more mainstream stuff later. It can work, but not as well over time.