Teen reviewer unimpressed by Walkman

[Goliath]

But he's right, isn't he? Compared to today's technology, a walkman looks a horse-drawn carriage compared to the space shuttle.

You mean--an iPod looks like a dead-end piece of technology from the 70s, that cost far more and delivered far less than was promised, and killed a bunch of its users?

I agree with the first two points, but not the third. The shuttle program has had two failed missions (with complete loss of crew and equipment) out of over 120. That puts your "bunch of...users" killed at under 2%.

Well, I'm not going to argue over whether fourteen deaths constitute a bunch or not.

 

[Tim]

You mean--an iPod looks like a dead-end piece of technology from the 70s, that cost far more and delivered far less than was promised, and killed a bunch of its users?

I agree with the first two points, but not the third. The shuttle program has had two failed missions (with complete loss of crew and equipment) out of over 120. That puts your "bunch of...users" killed at under 2%.

Well, I'm not going to argue over whether fourteen deaths constitute a bunch or not.

A fair, if somewhat evasive, point. It seemed to me that the original comment was a bit careless and I felt a desire to respond.

 

[Crash]

It's also helped it a lot... you've just got to take the good with the bad, I suppose. We're moving beyond just DAP's now, but the internet and digital music distribution have allowed a multitude of artists to get exposure... and sales... from all over the world, many of them sustaining profitability in a way that a few decades ago would never have been possible. I think that's pretty exciting.

This is 100% wrong. The vast majority of musicians and bands don't make much money off of record sales, and they never have. As the Minutemen once put it: "if you're not playing you're paying." The truth of the matter is that the professional musician is dying out as their ability to tour fades under both the commercialization of independent music (Thank you, Warped Tour) and the saturation of the internet with what amounts to rank amateurs. A practiced, veteran touring band is going to get lost in the internet simply because, hey, they're actually out on the road instead of sitting in front of a computer making recorded music.

What's going to happen is very simple. Thanks to inexpensive digital technology a good number of musicians are already producing music they can't possibly reproduce live without at least a handful of technicians, and that has made actual touring less important than ever. That's going to become more common. Further, let's admit it, they would probably suck anyway. Group identity is forged not in a studio, but on the road, and a touring band spends much less time in a studio while producing a name for themselves with the more die hard music fans through the practiced live shows that come with playing together a lot. Depending on the sales of recording music versus touring pretty much ensures that the emphasis on live playing will continue to fade.

Hence, the death of live music.

 

[Tim]

It's also helped it a lot... you've just got to take the good with the bad, I suppose. We're moving beyond just DAP's now, but the internet and digital music distribution have allowed a multitude of artists to get exposure... and sales... from all over the world, many of them sustaining profitability in a way that a few decades ago would never have been possible. I think that's pretty exciting.

This is 100% wrong. The vast majority of musicians and bands don't make much money off of record sales, and they never have. As the Minutemen once put it: "if you're not playing you're paying." The truth of the matter is that the professional musician is dying out as their ability to tour fades under both the commercialization of independent music (Thank you, Warped Tour) and the saturation of the internet with what amounts to rank amateurs. A practiced, veteran touring band is going to get lost in the internet simply because, hey, they're actually out on the road instead of sitting in front of a computer making recorded music.

What's going to happen is very simple. Thanks to inexpensive digital technology a good number of musicians are already producing music they can't possibly reproduce live without at least a handful of technicians, and that has made actual touring less important than ever. That's going to become more common. Further, let's admit it, they would probably suck anyway. Group identity is forged not in a studio, but on the road, and a touring band spends much less time in a studio while producing a name for themselves with the more die hard music fans through the practiced live shows that come with playing together a lot. Depending on the sales of recording music versus touring pretty much ensures that the emphasis on live playing will continue to fade.

Hence, the death of live music.

The question, then, is if live music will be "dead" in the sense that it is relegated to the concert hall much like jazz or classical concerts, as opposed to the more raw and visceral live tour. I still think a good band should be able to distinguish itself from the chaff, but in these days of Auto-Tune, who knows?

 

[Crash]

The question, then, is if live music will be "dead" in the sense that it is relegated to the concert hall much like jazz or classical concerts, as opposed to the more raw and visceral live tour. I still think a good band should be able to distinguish itself from the chaff, but in these days of Auto-Tune, who knows?

Well, I still view the live band as the great equalizer. Short of being a band with a lot of cash behind you you're not going to be able to reproduce half of what some bands do in the studio. In the future? I don't know, but certainly not now.

But, really, given all the inexpensive little digital effects you can throw in you can hide some pretty funky stuff. Personally, I hate all the polish.

 

[Arrqh]

It's also helped it a lot... you've just got to take the good with the bad, I suppose. We're moving beyond just DAP's now, but the internet and digital music distribution have allowed a multitude of artists to get exposure... and sales... from all over the world, many of them sustaining profitability in a way that a few decades ago would never have been possible. I think that's pretty exciting.

This is 100% wrong. The vast majority of musicians and bands don't make much money off of record sales, and they never have. As the Minutemen once put it: "if you're not playing you're paying." The truth of the matter is that the professional musician is dying out as their ability to tour fades under both the commercialization of independent music (Thank you, Warped Tour) and the saturation of the internet with what amounts to rank amateurs. A practiced, veteran touring band is going to get lost in the internet simply because, hey, they're actually out on the road instead of sitting in front of a computer making recorded music.

What's going to happen is very simple. Thanks to inexpensive digital technology a good number of musicians are already producing music they can't possibly reproduce live without at least a handful of technicians, and that has made actual touring less important than ever. That's going to become more common. Further, let's admit it, they would probably suck anyway. Group identity is forged not in a studio, but on the road, and a touring band spends much less time in a studio while producing a name for themselves with the more die hard music fans through the practiced live shows that come with playing together a lot. Depending on the sales of recording music versus touring pretty much ensures that the emphasis on live playing will continue to fade.

Hence, the death of live music.

I certainly can't speak to the state of live music. But the idea that musicians are able to capitalize on digital distribution methods to gain more exposure and money is most definitely not wrong.

At the risk of getting too anecdotal, I'll use Johnathan Coulton as an example. He's a musician who essentially built a music career out of literally nothing, slowly building up a cult fanbase solely through the internet. His website is his primary point of sale and he's drifted away from the traditional album format, instead just releasing new songs when he feels they're ready. Of course he gives live concerts (and I never disputed that this was an important source of income, btw) and has a "request" feature on his site where people can request that he give a concert in any particular city... as a result, he knows where people are likely to buy tickets for. All of his tracks are released under a Creative Commons license which encourages people to use it in derivative works online... and as such, it's essentially free advertising. He said that in 2007 he is now making more money per year then he did in his former career as a programmer... 40% of that is from digital downloads and another 40% is from merchandise and performances. Is this typical right now? Probably not. Is this going to become more common in the future? I think so.

The way I see it, what's going to happen is simple. The internet is allowing artist who never would have been able to get any sort of exposure to reach audiences that the old methods of distribution wouldn't have allowed. As such, they'll be able to become successful and profitable artists... and yes, that includes live concerts. I never said that I believed that digital distribution was going to supplant live concerts. I do believe that it can definitely help artists build a fanbase in ways that were never possible before.

 

[Crash]

The way I see it, what's going to happen is simple. The internet is allowing artist who never would have been able to get any sort of exposure to reach audiences that the old methods of distribution wouldn't have allowed.

Such a distribution system already existed across the US, most of Europe, and in Japan. It was forged in the early '80s by bands like the Minutemen, Black Flag, and Husker Du. That network included everything from record shops to mail order distribution catalogs to independent labels to college radio stations to club owners and promoters. There was plenty of access to go around, particularly after Nirvana and the grunge movement broke and everyone began to think independent music was cool. Hell, bands like Green Day or the Offspring and a dozen other bands came out of this network to make bucket loads of cash. Even bands who never inked a major deal survived very well playing music full time.

As such, they'll be able to become successful and profitable artists... and yes, that includes live concerts. I never said that I believed that digital distribution was going to supplant live concerts. I do believe that it can definitely help artists build a fanbase in ways that were never possible before.

This is total shit. What's happening is that labels -- most of them independent (at least originally) -- have started using the internet to appeal to the mainstream by selling a product. They find some generic rock band and hit all the popular sites and promote the shit out of that band. Soon enough that band starts to sell records, and if they do tour it's with predetermined labelmates who that label wants to promote. They play bigger places that they've inked exclusive deals with, and little regard is given towards the above infrastructure as far as access goes. And, really, why would they when they can sell the physical copy in Besy Buy and the digital copy on iTunes? Don't need that record shop to move your product, and you certainly don't need the indy media to promote it.

So, what you're ending up with is a severe stratification of the music scene, and, really, it's like the 1980s all over again. A few bands on top make oodles of money, and the majority on the bottom struggle to eat and make a living. The problem now is that many of the smaller labels and bands hitched their wagons to more developed bands. These bigger bands frequently chose to tour with smaller bands they lived, bringing them with them across the country and expousing them to their fans. That's all ground to a halt, though as it's much easier to let a label, flush with cash from selling their latest project to a major label, blitz your name across the internet and promote you that way. Maybe you'll tour up the East or West coast, but, you won't get to determine where you play or who you play with.

So, what happens to those smaller bands? They don't have the money to promote themselves, because, let's face it, internet media isn't cheap. They can't hitch their wagon to a more developed band because they're not on the same label. They can't rely on the indy media or the club circuit because they're both going under due to a lack of access to bigger bands. The best they can manage is a mid-level indie label helping them with a website and a few mp3s on their site and the label's, and in the end that's not really promotion. And, in truth, any schmuck with a Pro Tools rig can do the same thing. That isn't promotion at all.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Now, was I being hostile to you? No.

Actually, yes--you were.

I challenged you to explain the significance of your post. Whereupon you got all defensive, as if your meaning were somehow self-evident, and started both criticizing my conduct in this thread, and using insultingly loaded language.

As far as our discussion goes, you initiated hostilities--not me.

So how about getting off my back so we can discuss the rest of your post normally when I have more time?

No, thanks. I'm done with this.

That's a crock, but whatever. Thanks for at least preventing me from wasting my time trying to discuss it with you further in depth.

I thought the significance of my post was pretty damn clear. I was explaining why I believed the iPod was a vastly superior device. I didn't challenge your (rather clever) analogy directly, I didn't put down your point of view, I simply offered my opinion. In return I got a snide remark.

Usually I respect your point of view on things quite a bit and find your insights very interesting, and I don't know why a friggin' iPod vs Walkman discussion of all things set you off, but if you want to paint me as being hostile toward you, go right ahead.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

I'll have to second Alidar Jarok's replies; the societal impact of digital, compressed music is nothing compared to the AIDS highway, but it is compared to the influence of the walkman. Music on the go wasn't a new concept -- people had a boombox for that, and even that was a simple evolution. The walkman and associated devices weren't revolutionary in any way, social or otherwise. But digital, compressed audio and video has brought down the music and movie industries at it's peak -- pretty significant, if you ask me.

 

[Goliath]

That's a crock, but whatever.

It is not a crock.

If anything is a crock here, it's your interpretation of this sequence of events.

Thanks for at least preventing me from wasting my time trying to discuss it with you further in depth.

You're welcome.

I thought the significance of my post was pretty damn clear.

Then, in my opinion, you were mistaken.

If its significance had been clear, I wouldn't have asked you to explain its significance.

Now, look: do you think I'm stupid? Not just mistaken, but actually stupid?

That's not a rhetorical question. Think about it for a moment, and answer me honestly. Do you, in fact, think that I'm a stupid person?

If the meaning of your post really was "pretty damn clear," then I would have to be pretty damn stupid to not understand its meaning--wouldn't I?

Of course I would.

There are only two options here: either

a) I'm some kind of imbecile, who can't understand a very clear and convincing argument; or

b) perhaps that argument was not as clear and convincing as you thought it was.

If you really think that I'm some kind of imbecile, then I dare you to say it to my face, and try to prove it.

If you don't, then it would seem to follow that the correct answer is "b".

I was explaining why I believed the iPod was a vastly superior device.

If that's what you were trying to do, then you didn't do a very good job, as I've already pointed out. See below for additional criticism of your argument.

I didn't challenge your (rather clever) analogy directly, I didn't put down your point of view, I simply offered my opinion. In return I got a snide remark.

You're imagining things. There was nothing "snide" about my response.

I conceded that, yes, everything you said was true: but--I asked--so what if it was?

The simple fact that an iPod has all those functions doesn't necessarily make it superior to anything. Your list didn't prove anything.

The best way to make this clear is by applying your defective mode of argument to another piece of technology--in this case, a car.

When this car was introduced in 1956, it was obviously superior to other cars that had come before it. In addition to its powerful V-8 engine and distinctive styling (including a horsecollar grille and boomerang taillights), its innovative features included

--a rolling dome speedometer
--Teletouch push-button automatic transmission
--self-adjusting rear brakes
--automatic lubrication
--radio with signal search
--air conditioning
--power windows
--power seats
--tinted windows
--low fuel warning light
--electric clock
--child safety locks
--locking gas cap
--power Antenna

...most of which are now standard.

Sounds great right? Obviously superior to previous cars, right?

Wrong. The car I'm describing is the Ford Edsel--one of the worst failures in the history of the American automotive industry. Consumers rejected it outright, for a variety of reasons. Total sales were less than half the company's projected break-even point.

That is why I responded to your list of bells and whistles with a very simple and direct question: so? So what? What does all that prove?

Then you responded to my very simple and direct question with personal criticism and insulting language. That is not a "crock"--that is a fact. It's right there, in the thread.

And, now, instead of apologizing for attacking me based on your misinterpretation of what I wrote, you continue to try to make me out to be the bad guy.

Usually I respect your point of view on things quite a bit and find your insights very interesting...

That's nice to know.

... and I don't know why a friggin' iPod vs Walkman discussion of all things set you off, but if you want to paint me as being hostile toward you, go right ahead.

What sets me off is people who claim to know my own thoughts and intentions better than I do.

What sets me off is people who misinterpret what I say, and then insist that their misinterpretation is an authoritative reading.

There was nothing "snide" about what I said. If I had wanted to be snide with you, you would have known it. If you have read any of my posts at all, you know that I am not subtle about such things.

Instead, I meant exactly what I said. That's why I chose the words.

Now, if you really do usually respect my point of view, as you claim, I suggest you go back over the course of our conversation, and reconsider it in light of what I've said here.

 

[Tim]

^ Most people don't respond well when they perceive others as speaking down to them.

 

[sidious618]

I don't have time for this thread. I need to go and argue with someone about whether a black and white TV is better than my flat screen.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

I don't have time for this thread. I need to go and argue with someone about whether a black and white TV is better than my flat screen.

Of course a black and white TV is better! Y'know, it's more real. Not like those flat screens of today, they're just meh. Evolutions. Now the black and white TV was a revolution! Much more important!

 

[sidious618]

I'd take this over those useless TVs any day:

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

Hmpf. Damned new-fangled contraptions. Should've stopped when they developed this:

Now that was a revolution, the rest is unimportant.

 

[Teelie]

I don't have time for this thread. I need to go and argue with someone about whether a black and white TV is better than my flat screen.

Vacuum tubes FTW!

Seriously though, you can't do this kind of comparison without people coming in and declaring (as opposed to opinionating) that one side or the other is superior or that someone else is wrong.

There is no right or wrong because it's not something you can quanitfy as factual. It's all opinion. The only facts to be had are that technology changes, most of the time to a smaller and more compact state and it's seen as an improvement (even as the vinyl lovers declare otherwise) and you get "back in my day..." rememberances of when it was better.

I'm sure if you got someone who had only heard and used phonographs you'd get the same argument over it's superiority to the next generation of technology or modern technology.

 

[sidious618]

Maybe it's just me, but I try my best not to get nostalgic for past items. You have to look to the future.

 

[JiNX-01]

When my niece was about 5 years old, I started telling her about what my life was like (technologically). No color on TVs, when I was her age. My dad was present and I told her when grandpa was a kid, there was no TV at all, just radio. I went right down the list -- when I was a kid nobody had computers in their house. Or microwaves... the list went on for a while... finally, I said that when I was born (1954), NO ONE had ever been to outer space.

Her eyes widened and she exclaimed, "You're making this up!"

 

[Teelie]

You don't even have to go that far back anymore these days. Just look at a little over a decade ago (maybe a decade and a half). The internet had just hit it big and a lot of people didn't even know how to operate on it let alone have easy access to it in their home.

Now, you're living in the stoneage without a computer and internet connection. Even if it's dial up, then it's more like the bronze age. Kids now are shocked there was no internet when adults who were kids in the 80's and early 90's didn't have the internet or all the related technology. That's just 20-25 years ago.

 

[Kestra]

Well, no--you just couldn't carry them all around with you before! Okay--but, so what? Like I said before: you can only listen to so much music in a day. Most of the music on my iPod just sits there, unlistened-to.

I'm not a music junkie, but I do like having all manner of songs on my iPod. I'm never in the mood for the same music from one moment to the next, and if I'm in the car with a bunch of people, it's fun to take turns picking out what song each person wants next. Actually when I was down in DC, one of the most enjoyable moments was a cab ride back to our hotel with three of my friends. Our cab driver had a vast list of music and he let us each pick out songs on the way home and we had our own little dance party in the cab. Some people might not care, but it was a fun, unexpected moment on our trip.

Watching movies and TV and YouTube videos? Who wants to watch TV on an iPod, with that tiny little screen? I sure wouldn't--and I have taken bus trips that have lasted for days.

Yeah, my dad thinks the screen is too tiny as well. I love it though. I watch movies or countless eps of Law and Order on my little iPod Touch. The screen size has never once bugged me. It's especially great during travel for me. Or sometimes my husband falls asleep and I want to be in bed, but I'm not ready to sleep yet. I just watch something on my iPod so I don't disturb him, but I can still be around him.

The same goes for reading the items you mentioned. Who wants to read an iPod, when they can read an actual book--or some kind of electronic book device--or even your laptop?

This one's a bit more difficult for me, because I definitely enjoy literature in paper form over electronic. But I also read at insanely fast speeds, so while I'm always carrying a few books in my purse, it's also nice to have access to more literature. And especially on long trips, it's just not practical for me to bring the amount of books I'd need.

Play games? You mean, like solitaire? I'd rather sleep.

So would I, to be honest. But I have trouble sleeping anywhere besides home, and the games are more enjoyable than solitaire. Really!

I'm not posting all this to argue with you, and you're obviously passionate about this topic. I just wanted to let you know that some people do genuinely enjoy the features on an iPod Touch or iPhone.