Leila,
This demonstrates consistent research, however you do lack music related quotations and stats. You must demonstrate secondary research in your exam response. Look at adding some depth to your study - browse some of the other blogs to get ideas.
Friday, 27 April 2007
Thursday, 26 April 2007
Issues
There is plenty of controversy surrounding new media technologies, which is probably great for business. Warner Music, EMI, Sony BMG and Vivendi Universal claim music piracy is having an 'absolutely calamitous' impact on US earnings, putting industry employees out of work and wreaking havoc with record label bottom lines. So we can see that music on the Internet is a double-edged sword, as it were, particularly from the POV of record labels. Transactions online for music has certainly soared, but it can be argued that spending has actually decreased, as we can now buy one song from an album, instead of having to buy the whole album.
Developments in television technology are considerable, too. The possible physical size of TVs is giant, and digital has opened up massively the space available for aspiring presenters, directors and writers. However, children are watching more and more television, and are getting fatter and fatter and doing less and less exercise:
I. FAMILY LIFE
Percentage of households that possess at least one television: 99
Number of TV sets in the average U.S. household: 2.24
Percentage of U.S. homes with three or more TV sets: 66
Number of hours per day that TV is on in an average U.S. home: 6 hours, 47 minutes
Percentage of Americans that regularly watch television while eating dinner: 66
Number of hours of TV watched annually by Americans: 250 billion
Value of that time assuming an average wage of S5/hour: S1.25 trillion
Percentage of Americans who pay for cable TV: 56
Number of videos rented daily in the U.S.: 6 million
Number of public library items checked out daily: 3 million
Percentage of Americans who say they watch too much TV: 49
II CHILDREN
Approximate number of studies examining TV's effects on children: 4,000
Number of minutes per week that parents spend in meaningful
conversation with their children: 3.5
Number of minutes per week that the average child watches television: 1,680
Percentage of day care centers that use TV during a typical day: 70
Percentage of parents who would like to limit their children's TV watching: 73
Percentage of 4-6 year-olds who, when asked to choose between watching TV
and spending time with their fathers, preferred television: 54
Hours per year the average American youth spends in school: 900 hours
Hours per year the average American youth watches television: 1500
We can also draw links with violence:
Number of murders seen on TV by the time an average child finishes elementary school: 8,000
Number of violent acts seen on TV by age 18: 200,000
Percentage of Americans who believe TV violence helps precipitate real life mayhem: 79
While Sky and digital has indeed meant more room for informative channels and 24-hour news reporting, are these really the most popular channels? I think not. The government recently considered banning TV-viewing for the under-3s, thank god.
I think the physical album will retain its position as most quality purchase. There's still nothing like going into HMV and paying £10ish for a CD and the artists' artwork. Sales have and will continue to decrease, but won't diminish completely. Stores will simply find ways to keep up.
Developments in television technology are considerable, too. The possible physical size of TVs is giant, and digital has opened up massively the space available for aspiring presenters, directors and writers. However, children are watching more and more television, and are getting fatter and fatter and doing less and less exercise:
I. FAMILY LIFE
Percentage of households that possess at least one television: 99
Number of TV sets in the average U.S. household: 2.24
Percentage of U.S. homes with three or more TV sets: 66
Number of hours per day that TV is on in an average U.S. home: 6 hours, 47 minutes
Percentage of Americans that regularly watch television while eating dinner: 66
Number of hours of TV watched annually by Americans: 250 billion
Value of that time assuming an average wage of S5/hour: S1.25 trillion
Percentage of Americans who pay for cable TV: 56
Number of videos rented daily in the U.S.: 6 million
Number of public library items checked out daily: 3 million
Percentage of Americans who say they watch too much TV: 49
II CHILDREN
Approximate number of studies examining TV's effects on children: 4,000
Number of minutes per week that parents spend in meaningful
conversation with their children: 3.5
Number of minutes per week that the average child watches television: 1,680
Percentage of day care centers that use TV during a typical day: 70
Percentage of parents who would like to limit their children's TV watching: 73
Percentage of 4-6 year-olds who, when asked to choose between watching TV
and spending time with their fathers, preferred television: 54
Hours per year the average American youth spends in school: 900 hours
Hours per year the average American youth watches television: 1500
We can also draw links with violence:
Number of murders seen on TV by the time an average child finishes elementary school: 8,000
Number of violent acts seen on TV by age 18: 200,000
Percentage of Americans who believe TV violence helps precipitate real life mayhem: 79
While Sky and digital has indeed meant more room for informative channels and 24-hour news reporting, are these really the most popular channels? I think not. The government recently considered banning TV-viewing for the under-3s, thank god.
I think the physical album will retain its position as most quality purchase. There's still nothing like going into HMV and paying £10ish for a CD and the artists' artwork. Sales have and will continue to decrease, but won't diminish completely. Stores will simply find ways to keep up.
Wednesday, 25 April 2007
Audience
We are the answer: the audience is the key to success in the eyes of big business since, after all, we buy the products and we won't if we don't like them. We are the victims, it could be argued, of corporate brain-washing at the hands of huge companies like Sony, Microsoft, and Apple. 'Old' media is slowly but surely being replaced by 'new' media, more active, more interactive, less linear. Often these big companies do a clever job of playing up to our modern-day insecurities about social class, wealth, and our 'needs'. And of course, if the product becomes successful, it is a fashion, thus more than simply a technology.
We respond to inventions by purchasing and this allows companies to decipher what is popular and what isn't. Questionnaires may be distributed too.
However, spending more and more time playing on games consoles and listening personally to music means consumers are spending less time interacting with friends and family, which has subtle but prominent consequences for us all. Society is changing: some would say from a community-centered society to a fragmented one. Where before, playing cricket or having picnics on the common were leisure (OK, maybe not, but seriously, it did happen once), now it is seen as a good thing for the whole family to settle down to enjoy a TV programme together. Even this is outdated now as each generation of the family has its own niche in NMTs; have you seen the Nintendo DS family adverts??? I think they're unbelievable! How the government can allow such blatantly influential marketing for a clearly detrimental product is beyond me. The family stare into each of their individual screens and talk to each other through the machines, without looking at one another or talking to each other.
Of course, there are the advantages of convergence, e.g. the 'simplicity' of having lots of devices in one, and it's fun to play on these things, but it's probably true that most people are totally unaware of the fact that the driving force behind these NMTs is economy. Also, they appeal mainly to people who have too much money (sorry, who are wealthy) and leave behind the majority of people who are the 'working class'.
We respond to inventions by purchasing and this allows companies to decipher what is popular and what isn't. Questionnaires may be distributed too.
However, spending more and more time playing on games consoles and listening personally to music means consumers are spending less time interacting with friends and family, which has subtle but prominent consequences for us all. Society is changing: some would say from a community-centered society to a fragmented one. Where before, playing cricket or having picnics on the common were leisure (OK, maybe not, but seriously, it did happen once), now it is seen as a good thing for the whole family to settle down to enjoy a TV programme together. Even this is outdated now as each generation of the family has its own niche in NMTs; have you seen the Nintendo DS family adverts??? I think they're unbelievable! How the government can allow such blatantly influential marketing for a clearly detrimental product is beyond me. The family stare into each of their individual screens and talk to each other through the machines, without looking at one another or talking to each other.
Of course, there are the advantages of convergence, e.g. the 'simplicity' of having lots of devices in one, and it's fun to play on these things, but it's probably true that most people are totally unaware of the fact that the driving force behind these NMTs is economy. Also, they appeal mainly to people who have too much money (sorry, who are wealthy) and leave behind the majority of people who are the 'working class'.
Institutions
Apple is the obvious company, producing iTunes in 2001. Like Windows Player and Realplayer, iTunes is a 'digital media player application', but it also has its iTunes Store section, an online 'store' where you can buy and download music at a monetary cost.
The big record companies, e.g. Sony, EMI, Universal, stand to gain from the boom in online music. They get a share of the money paid for songs on iTunes, and a cut of the price of the albums they endorse. Various deals are in place here, but since the emergence of digital technology, the risk of piracy has soured. We can see how iTunes has reacted to audiences' demands with their plan to release DRM-free music downloads. This is hugely advantageous to their customers, as it means they can buy one song and read it through several different types of hardware (although, of course, this is an extra 20p). An earlier example is the progress from solely-audio iPods to video iPods, and the eagerly anticipated iPod phone.
Apart from in the music industry, plenty of other institutions are reaching out to their customers through convergence, for example the inclusion of a DVD player in the games console PS2.
However, these media institutions will need to try and reverse the huge threat of piracy which has catapulted since the 'dawn of digital'. Additionally, there are deeper arguments at play here with convergence: why do you need a DVD player in your PS2 when you already have a DVD player? And what if you can't afford all the latest advancements in NMTs? Why should you have to pay extra just to put a legally bought song on an MP3 player which isn't an iPod?
The big record companies, e.g. Sony, EMI, Universal, stand to gain from the boom in online music. They get a share of the money paid for songs on iTunes, and a cut of the price of the albums they endorse. Various deals are in place here, but since the emergence of digital technology, the risk of piracy has soured. We can see how iTunes has reacted to audiences' demands with their plan to release DRM-free music downloads. This is hugely advantageous to their customers, as it means they can buy one song and read it through several different types of hardware (although, of course, this is an extra 20p). An earlier example is the progress from solely-audio iPods to video iPods, and the eagerly anticipated iPod phone.
Apart from in the music industry, plenty of other institutions are reaching out to their customers through convergence, for example the inclusion of a DVD player in the games console PS2.
However, these media institutions will need to try and reverse the huge threat of piracy which has catapulted since the 'dawn of digital'. Additionally, there are deeper arguments at play here with convergence: why do you need a DVD player in your PS2 when you already have a DVD player? And what if you can't afford all the latest advancements in NMTs? Why should you have to pay extra just to put a legally bought song on an MP3 player which isn't an iPod?
Tuesday, 24 April 2007
Music: the future
The popularity MP3 is driving changes in the music industry that will bring a leveling of income to composers and performers, increase in their share of gross revenues, and drastically increase the number of composers and performers that are accessible to the music purchasing public.
After MP3 as finished remodeling the recording industry, the industry will consist of three players:
1. Remnants of the current/former recording industry.
2. Internet companies that sell CDs.
3. Internet companies that sell individual recordings.
The first area will contain the fewest artists and will operate much like today's recording industry operates. The major difference will be that the ease of creating and distributing unauthorized recordings will limit how successful any artist can be. The more successful the artist, the higher the percentage of unauthorized recordings being passed around. Efforts to create a copy-proof format will fail because at some point the audio has to be converted into an analog signal that can drive the speaker. This analog signal is in the computer in digital form before it is sent to the audio card and can easily be recaptured and converted into any format without loss of quality. And after the first digital copy is made then all subsequent copies will have the same quality as the first.
Next will be Internet companies that handle CDs recorded by full-time professionals. They will have downloadable (reduced audio quality) selections from the CD available at their sites. The consumer will listen to the download to determine if they want to order the high quality CD.
Finally will be Internet companies handling individual audio files from anybody who has a yearning to create music. These files will be of the highest quality that the individual artist can produce since the file is the product that is being sold as opposed to being a step on the way to selling a CD. These files will be distributed as shareware. Artist earnings will come from shareware payments and more importantly from having their music included in custom CDs where the consumer will pick which audio selections to put on the CD that they order. MP3Shareware.com is a new Internet company intent on capturing this market.
The bottom line is that the music industry is going to have to adapt to new technology. One way would be find another way to make money on recorded music than just selling CDs. For example, many online retailers are losing money on their merchandise in order to be competitive but are making up for this loss by selling ad space on their sites. Even if they can't stop people from sharing copyrighted music, people will still by CDs. After all, it's much easier to purchase a CD than find and download every song on that CD and put it on a recordable media.
The recording industry has to evolve and figure out how to use new technology to make money instead of clinging on to the past. If they don't figure out how to use digital media to their advantage, they will be left behind in the new millennium. It will soon be impossible to make a significant profit from the sales of recorded music.
After MP3 as finished remodeling the recording industry, the industry will consist of three players:
1. Remnants of the current/former recording industry.
2. Internet companies that sell CDs.
3. Internet companies that sell individual recordings.
The first area will contain the fewest artists and will operate much like today's recording industry operates. The major difference will be that the ease of creating and distributing unauthorized recordings will limit how successful any artist can be. The more successful the artist, the higher the percentage of unauthorized recordings being passed around. Efforts to create a copy-proof format will fail because at some point the audio has to be converted into an analog signal that can drive the speaker. This analog signal is in the computer in digital form before it is sent to the audio card and can easily be recaptured and converted into any format without loss of quality. And after the first digital copy is made then all subsequent copies will have the same quality as the first.
Next will be Internet companies that handle CDs recorded by full-time professionals. They will have downloadable (reduced audio quality) selections from the CD available at their sites. The consumer will listen to the download to determine if they want to order the high quality CD.
Finally will be Internet companies handling individual audio files from anybody who has a yearning to create music. These files will be of the highest quality that the individual artist can produce since the file is the product that is being sold as opposed to being a step on the way to selling a CD. These files will be distributed as shareware. Artist earnings will come from shareware payments and more importantly from having their music included in custom CDs where the consumer will pick which audio selections to put on the CD that they order. MP3Shareware.com is a new Internet company intent on capturing this market.
The bottom line is that the music industry is going to have to adapt to new technology. One way would be find another way to make money on recorded music than just selling CDs. For example, many online retailers are losing money on their merchandise in order to be competitive but are making up for this loss by selling ad space on their sites. Even if they can't stop people from sharing copyrighted music, people will still by CDs. After all, it's much easier to purchase a CD than find and download every song on that CD and put it on a recordable media.
The recording industry has to evolve and figure out how to use new technology to make money instead of clinging on to the past. If they don't figure out how to use digital media to their advantage, they will be left behind in the new millennium. It will soon be impossible to make a significant profit from the sales of recorded music.
Sunday, 22 April 2007
Napster
Napster is an example of a peer-to-peer network, and the grey area that is the legality of such things. Its huge library of free music attracted 80million music-lovers by 2000. It panicked the record industry as they were not being paid for the distribution, simply the initial purchase, and they could not prosecute individuals because they were simply sharing files; they are virtually impossible to close down
Napster was shut down in 2001 and re-opened as a legal download site, and yet record companies faced greater challenges from other such networks like Kazaa. Time has proven that people will continue to download music illegally, especially in the face of rising prices (like iTunes' recent announcement, which stated that DRM-free files will be available at 99p, as opposed to the previous 79p), so should these networks be made legal?
Napster was shut down in 2001 and re-opened as a legal download site, and yet record companies faced greater challenges from other such networks like Kazaa. Time has proven that people will continue to download music illegally, especially in the face of rising prices (like iTunes' recent announcement, which stated that DRM-free files will be available at 99p, as opposed to the previous 79p), so should these networks be made legal?
Music in the multimedia home
Music is now an integral part of many homes, in more ways than before. New convergence technology, e.g. hi-fi, PC, DVD player, games consoles, and radios, has massively opened up the ability for popular music to penetrate the home environment.
In the same way that production has been changed, the action of listening and experiencing music has also been affected. As new media technologies expand and 'improve', our universal consumption is ever-changing.
The digitisation of music files has, at grass-roots level, caused this, as now music can be shared and played through anything which can read and process the series of 0s and 1s.
In the same way that production has been changed, the action of listening and experiencing music has also been affected. As new media technologies expand and 'improve', our universal consumption is ever-changing.
The digitisation of music files has, at grass-roots level, caused this, as now music can be shared and played through anything which can read and process the series of 0s and 1s.
Friday, 20 April 2007
In what way has music production been democratised?
Music production has also been adversely affected by the Internet: bands and artists no longer need a record deal to promote their music. The Internet has enabled free publicity and this extends to record production itself.
With the development of technology, recording has become democratised: paying a lot of money to a professional recording studio is no longer necessary: many bands/artists use small devices to create their own 'mini-studio' and, on a smaller scale, some computers and mobile phones now include recording software.
Once the desired effects have been made, a band can promote themselves using their websites, generally on MySpace, and offer free downloads or snippets as a subtle carrot to sell albums. This may seem somewhat trivial to us nowadays, but this was the major hurdle for prospective 'stars' little more than a decade ago. It is unbelievable to old musicians like my dad that the cost of advertising has been significantly subsidised by the fact that artists can promote their stuff for free. It solves so many problems, particularly financially, but it's only a matter of time before record companies do something about it and start to make websites offers they can't refuse.
With the development of technology, recording has become democratised: paying a lot of money to a professional recording studio is no longer necessary: many bands/artists use small devices to create their own 'mini-studio' and, on a smaller scale, some computers and mobile phones now include recording software.
Once the desired effects have been made, a band can promote themselves using their websites, generally on MySpace, and offer free downloads or snippets as a subtle carrot to sell albums. This may seem somewhat trivial to us nowadays, but this was the major hurdle for prospective 'stars' little more than a decade ago. It is unbelievable to old musicians like my dad that the cost of advertising has been significantly subsidised by the fact that artists can promote their stuff for free. It solves so many problems, particularly financially, but it's only a matter of time before record companies do something about it and start to make websites offers they can't refuse.
Thursday, 19 April 2007
Why was the iPod so significant?
The launch of the iPod, a product of Apple, in 2001, saw the start of an incredible new fashion statement, as well as a whole range of state of the art personal music players. Apple's software, iTunes, used to transfer music to the devices, is a free jukebox application which stores an entire music library on the user's computer. It can play, rip, and burn music from a CD, and transfer photos, videos, games and calendars to supporting models.
Apple focused its development on the iPod's unique user interface and its ease of use, rather than on technical capability. It has become something much more than a consumer product: an icon, a status indicator and an indispensable part of the owner's life. iPods not only give constant access to entire collections of songs and CDs, but membership to an implicit society that continues to transform the way music will be consumed in the future.
Apple wasn't the first company to come out with a player, but the earlier ones were either low-capacity toys that played the same few songs, or huge things with impenetrable controls. Apple's device is not only powerful and easy to use, but has an incandescent style that has captured the desires of millions around the world.
Apple focused its development on the iPod's unique user interface and its ease of use, rather than on technical capability. It has become something much more than a consumer product: an icon, a status indicator and an indispensable part of the owner's life. iPods not only give constant access to entire collections of songs and CDs, but membership to an implicit society that continues to transform the way music will be consumed in the future.
Apple wasn't the first company to come out with a player, but the earlier ones were either low-capacity toys that played the same few songs, or huge things with impenetrable controls. Apple's device is not only powerful and easy to use, but has an incandescent style that has captured the desires of millions around the world.
How has the Internet changed the way we consume music?
Downloads are fast replacing the physical record. Back in the day you had to go out and buy records from the shop... now, with the click of a mouse, you can download and store any song from the vast archives online. There are various online companies now where you can legally download music and store it on to your mp3 player. Electronics are fast catching up: stereos often come with mp3 outputs and phones and personal music players often include video capabilities and the Internet itself.
This is great, right? In theory, it is, but what happens when, inevitably, illegal downloading becomes simple? Record companies have reported dramatic losses, but many music lovers just don't consider that artists will suffer damage through one harmless illegal download.
Apparently, we are also largely unaware of the poor quality of our music once it has been compressed in order to fit our mp3 players. Compressing 1000 songs allegedly halves the quality of the original recording and, as downloading grows in popularity, record companies may simply cease to invest in high-quality recordings in future.
The nature of the 'single' is in a period of transition, too. Whereas before, singles were promoted in their own right, now albums are the main item being invested in publicity-wise, and singles are just played over (and over!) on the radio. Many more singles are being released off individual albums than before, as a sort of extra promo for the artist.
Crucially, you can listen to music before you buy it, and the Internet has enabled unsigned acts to promote their music for free, which is really amazing if you think about the way in which a band 'made it' pre-Internet.
All in all, the music scene is being altered dramatically through the use of the Internet and television. You can watch music videos online or on TV, on your mobile or iPod, and you have the option of buying online or in-store.
This is great, right? In theory, it is, but what happens when, inevitably, illegal downloading becomes simple? Record companies have reported dramatic losses, but many music lovers just don't consider that artists will suffer damage through one harmless illegal download.
Apparently, we are also largely unaware of the poor quality of our music once it has been compressed in order to fit our mp3 players. Compressing 1000 songs allegedly halves the quality of the original recording and, as downloading grows in popularity, record companies may simply cease to invest in high-quality recordings in future.
The nature of the 'single' is in a period of transition, too. Whereas before, singles were promoted in their own right, now albums are the main item being invested in publicity-wise, and singles are just played over (and over!) on the radio. Many more singles are being released off individual albums than before, as a sort of extra promo for the artist.
Crucially, you can listen to music before you buy it, and the Internet has enabled unsigned acts to promote their music for free, which is really amazing if you think about the way in which a band 'made it' pre-Internet.
All in all, the music scene is being altered dramatically through the use of the Internet and television. You can watch music videos online or on TV, on your mobile or iPod, and you have the option of buying online or in-store.
Wednesday, 18 April 2007
Feedback on research #1
Leila, this is a solid start, however you must now focus and add depth to your study. The slides from today will provide vital tips on how to manage your research.
Between now and Friday, I suggest that you investigate the following:
How has digital technology and the Internet changed the way that we consume music?
Why was the ipod so significant?
In what way has music production been democratised?
Between now and Friday, I suggest that you investigate the following:
How has digital technology and the Internet changed the way that we consume music?
Why was the ipod so significant?
In what way has music production been democratised?
Friday, 13 April 2007
Internet Etiquette
http://http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2054163,00.html
Interesting little article about the scary world of blogging (of which we are a part!) which links in nicely with the teacher/pupil/YouTube debate below...
Interesting little article about the scary world of blogging (of which we are a part!) which links in nicely with the teacher/pupil/YouTube debate below...
Page 14 of yesterday's Guardian, or at this site:
http://http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2054213,00.html
Meikle discusses the controversy surrounding the 'humiliation' suffered by numerous teachers who have been victims of students' cruel publications of embarrassing mobile phone clips etc.
YouTube apparently tried to 'remove offensive material where appropriate'... but what is 'appropriate' and what is not? If this is free publicity for firms such as YouTube, surely restricting this output would not be high on their agenda?
http://http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2054213,00.html
Meikle discusses the controversy surrounding the 'humiliation' suffered by numerous teachers who have been victims of students' cruel publications of embarrassing mobile phone clips etc.
YouTube apparently tried to 'remove offensive material where appropriate'... but what is 'appropriate' and what is not? If this is free publicity for firms such as YouTube, surely restricting this output would not be high on their agenda?
Thursday, 12 April 2007
Label leads way with DRM-free music
http://http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2049769,00.html
Recommended by Mrs Fernandez.. you might have heard it on the radio this week.
EMI has announced plans to release its catalogue online without the copyright protection which has existed in the past. Sounds great, right? The record label will offer downloads without DRM (Digital Rights Management) but critics argue that "Apple still has a lock-in".
Johnson muses that the apparently win-win situation hides larger problems: does Apple's move really open iTunes up to everybody?
Cynics have accused EMI of feigning 'benevolence' and hiding the fact that they have actually been in financial difficulties of late.
Interestingly, the deal also covers music videos, "showing how video and audio are coming closer together". In contrast to Job's prediction, "not every record company is going to simply fall behind the idea".
So, is EMI simply playing on the fact that loyal customers have been having to pay high prices for a long time, as a 'reward' disguising a desperate attempt to up numbers, or can they afford this move and genuinely want to make downloading easier for music-lovers?
Recommended by Mrs Fernandez.. you might have heard it on the radio this week.
EMI has announced plans to release its catalogue online without the copyright protection which has existed in the past. Sounds great, right? The record label will offer downloads without DRM (Digital Rights Management) but critics argue that "Apple still has a lock-in".
Johnson muses that the apparently win-win situation hides larger problems: does Apple's move really open iTunes up to everybody?
Cynics have accused EMI of feigning 'benevolence' and hiding the fact that they have actually been in financial difficulties of late.
Interestingly, the deal also covers music videos, "showing how video and audio are coming closer together". In contrast to Job's prediction, "not every record company is going to simply fall behind the idea".
So, is EMI simply playing on the fact that loyal customers have been having to pay high prices for a long time, as a 'reward' disguising a desperate attempt to up numbers, or can they afford this move and genuinely want to make downloading easier for music-lovers?
Thursday, 5 April 2007
Saturday, 31 March 2007
MySpace
Yesterday's G2 contained an article by MySpace 'expert' Peaches Geldof, explaining the well-known symptoms of blog addiction and the consequential dangers.
Funny, because it's true. And, shock horror, she's just as bad as the rest of us!
http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2046136,00.html
Funny, because it's true. And, shock horror, she's just as bad as the rest of us!
http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2046136,00.html
'When dinosaurs walked the earth'
Page 14 of yesterday's Guardian (30.03.07) Film & Music supplement. Interesting article on the come-back success of US indie rock band Dinosaur Jr. on download.
Many references to MySpace and music blogggers. Also found at:
http://http://music.guardian.co.uk/rock/story/0,,2045703,00.html
Many references to MySpace and music blogggers. Also found at:
http://http://music.guardian.co.uk/rock/story/0,,2045703,00.html
Thursday, 29 March 2007
'Bebo opens music store'
http://http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,2044180,00.html
Taken from the Guardian Media online: Bebo is opening a music download service where bands will be able to sell music.
Bebo has joined with '7Digital' where bands can keep 70% of revenue earned.
Time will tell if this new service will continue the rise in Bebo's customers (they reported a 10% rise from January to February).
Taken from the Guardian Media online: Bebo is opening a music download service where bands will be able to sell music.
Bebo has joined with '7Digital' where bands can keep 70% of revenue earned.
Time will tell if this new service will continue the rise in Bebo's customers (they reported a 10% rise from January to February).
'MySpace sues the spam king'
http://http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2007/03/myspace_sues_the_spam_king.html
... an interesting article on politics and the BBC's mobile TV trial. Scroll down to "Bush quotes bloggers" for a good section on the President's slip over Baghdad bloggers.
... an interesting article on politics and the BBC's mobile TV trial. Scroll down to "Bush quotes bloggers" for a good section on the President's slip over Baghdad bloggers.
Tuesday, 27 March 2007
'The race to preserve the third space '
I nicked this from the http://http://rssmedia.blogspot.com/ site approved by Mrs Fernandez...
http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6496351.stm
An interesting article on Tila Tequila's row with MySpace over recommending a site to buy her music which was not approved by News Corporation (simply because they didn't get a cut!)
http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6496351.stm
An interesting article on Tila Tequila's row with MySpace over recommending a site to buy her music which was not approved by News Corporation (simply because they didn't get a cut!)
GuardianUnlimited: Organ Grinder article
'The death of the music album'
http://http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2007/03/mapping_conversation.html
Scroll down to 'The death...' for an interesting article tapped from The New York Times on the demise of the traditional album.
Cool.
http://http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2007/03/mapping_conversation.html
Scroll down to 'The death...' for an interesting article tapped from The New York Times on the demise of the traditional album.
Cool.
Music/Internet article: 'The Doors lead way as big names of rock go digital'
New article from The Guardian Media online:
http://http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,2043013,00.html
Discusses the decision made by the remaining members of The Doors and Elton John to release their entire back catalogues on to the internet to be available to download.
http://http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,2043013,00.html
Discusses the decision made by the remaining members of The Doors and Elton John to release their entire back catalogues on to the internet to be available to download.
'Googlezon' video:http://www.robinsloan.com
This enigmatic portrayal of the future of the world's media output had obviously been thought about in great depth and therefore seemed really believable. Incorporating real newspapers and companies such as 'The New York Times', Amazon and Google added a touch of realism to an otherwise far-out prediction. The line between truth and fantasy began to blur with the effective use of existing dates in history (e.g. the date the Internet was invented, and the purchase of Friendster by Microsoft), juxtaposed to the fabricated - or not? - predicted dates for the fall of 'The New York Times' etc.
According to the film, Google and Amazon join forces in the near future to form 'Googlezon', and by 2010 there are no genuine news organisations - there exists only online 'virtual' companies, for example 'The New York Times' requests a paid membership for those who sign up online. The film also predicts the suing of Googlezon by 'The New York Times', a case which is taken all the way to the Supreme Court. In 2011 the jury is found in favour of Googlezon. After this, a filtering system named 'EPIC' is made, creating jobs for some but who offer a tiny cut of the huge revenue the system collects.
With the recent controversy surrounding big past transactions, e.g. the purchase of MySpace, the creation of GoogleEarth, GMail and GoogleNews, it is not hard to imagine these events coming to pass in the next few years, particularly considering how far Google has grown, and how quickly (remember the days when Lycos and Ask ruled the net?)
With our continued reliance on technology and computers to make our decisions and govern our lives, it is also feasible that the news organisations should take the step into being totally virtual. Because the newspaper industry is so much attached to our country's heritage, it is perhaps difficult for us to envisage this, however much of the industry is already based online, and who knows what the future holds? As readers we are beginning to contribute more and more to our daily news, and one could argue that, as the technology we use to do this advances, so will the output to which we contribute.
According to the film, Google and Amazon join forces in the near future to form 'Googlezon', and by 2010 there are no genuine news organisations - there exists only online 'virtual' companies, for example 'The New York Times' requests a paid membership for those who sign up online. The film also predicts the suing of Googlezon by 'The New York Times', a case which is taken all the way to the Supreme Court. In 2011 the jury is found in favour of Googlezon. After this, a filtering system named 'EPIC' is made, creating jobs for some but who offer a tiny cut of the huge revenue the system collects.
With the recent controversy surrounding big past transactions, e.g. the purchase of MySpace, the creation of GoogleEarth, GMail and GoogleNews, it is not hard to imagine these events coming to pass in the next few years, particularly considering how far Google has grown, and how quickly (remember the days when Lycos and Ask ruled the net?)
With our continued reliance on technology and computers to make our decisions and govern our lives, it is also feasible that the news organisations should take the step into being totally virtual. Because the newspaper industry is so much attached to our country's heritage, it is perhaps difficult for us to envisage this, however much of the industry is already based online, and who knows what the future holds? As readers we are beginning to contribute more and more to our daily news, and one could argue that, as the technology we use to do this advances, so will the output to which we contribute.
Sunday, 25 March 2007
Emily Bell's 'We're all reporters in the digital democracy'
Bell focuses on the citizens' contribution to modern media and the future possibilities of their contribution to our media. She uses to examples to illustrate the differences between 'then' and now, e.g. in her second paragraph: "For as long as there has been journalism there have been bystanders and eye witnesses. What has changed over the past three years has been the speed, volume and type of response that has been made possible by the internet, broadband delivery and digitised media." (We can compare this to our study of the cult of celebrity changing from the aristocracy's 'elite' to essentially anyone, today.)
Like Naughton, Bell uses terrorist activity to convey how things have changed with her reference to 9/11 and how different the footage would have been today. However, she disagrees with Naughton on the issue of the citizens' rights as witnesses and contributors. I doubt that "we are not far from the point where citizen journalists ask for payment for their best exclusive material", however it is definitely worth thinking about: it would be an admirable stance for the people to demand financial reward for their material. Unfortunately, I believe that the problem lies within the heart of the citizens' original aim for providing big businesses with their footage: people are essentially sociable and want their bit to be seen, particularly on television. It is not as if the advancement of NMTs is going to fall - time has proven that consumers have an insatiable appetite for digital media, meaning we will continue to use are brand new mobile phones, cameras and computers to publish our version of reality. Even if people began to charge for their material, no doubt big media moguls would cotton on and work out a way to filter their money into bigger and bigger technology productions.
Perhaps this is a cynical perspective, but Bell makes a good point in her final paragraph: "Is there a difference then between the professional journalist and the citizen contributor?" We must all ask ourselves this, particularly with the recent fall in popularity of our newspapers. A journalist is paid "for an ability to make judgements on how to convey stories or content in the most effective way", and 'citizen contributors' are simply providing their own expertise. Surely, if citizens begin to charge for material as Bell predicts, would they not simply become journalists by definition?
Like Naughton, Bell uses terrorist activity to convey how things have changed with her reference to 9/11 and how different the footage would have been today. However, she disagrees with Naughton on the issue of the citizens' rights as witnesses and contributors. I doubt that "we are not far from the point where citizen journalists ask for payment for their best exclusive material", however it is definitely worth thinking about: it would be an admirable stance for the people to demand financial reward for their material. Unfortunately, I believe that the problem lies within the heart of the citizens' original aim for providing big businesses with their footage: people are essentially sociable and want their bit to be seen, particularly on television. It is not as if the advancement of NMTs is going to fall - time has proven that consumers have an insatiable appetite for digital media, meaning we will continue to use are brand new mobile phones, cameras and computers to publish our version of reality. Even if people began to charge for their material, no doubt big media moguls would cotton on and work out a way to filter their money into bigger and bigger technology productions.
Perhaps this is a cynical perspective, but Bell makes a good point in her final paragraph: "Is there a difference then between the professional journalist and the citizen contributor?" We must all ask ourselves this, particularly with the recent fall in popularity of our newspapers. A journalist is paid "for an ability to make judgements on how to convey stories or content in the most effective way", and 'citizen contributors' are simply providing their own expertise. Surely, if citizens begin to charge for material as Bell predicts, would they not simply become journalists by definition?
Saturday, 24 March 2007
John Naughton's 'Writers who work for nothing: it's a licence to print money'
Naughton discusses the advancement of new media technologies and its effect on journalism, using topical examples such as the photo taken with a mobile and sent to BBC News Online straight after the February Cumbrian train accident, and the footage used to broadcast the July 7 bombings in London.
I was astounded at the metaphor used to describe the amount of digital information generated last year ("enough to fill a dozen stacks of hardback books stretching from the earth to the sun"). Interestingly, "by 2010 more than 70% of all digital content in the world will have been created by consumers". This prediction clearly marks out where the seat of power lies: with us, the consumers. Naughton gives two points of view: the optimists have a good argument with the fact that NMTs have created a "great release of human creativity" and mediums like the internet have provided the appropriate means.
However, we have to consider the counter-argument: as these phenomenons have effectively handed the power over to us, we must be cautious of exploitation. Nick Carr is spot on: "One of the fundamental economic characteristics of Web 2.0... is the distribution of production into the hands of the many, and the concentration of the economic rewards into the hands of the few." As happens so much in an essentially capitalist society, the providers or workers are dominated by an institution (often governed by one or two people) and are rewarded a fraction of what their work is worth. Although each individual contribution is superfluous, the aggregation of "those contributions on a massive scale - on a web scale", equates to a lucrative business.
Naughton's comment on the MySpace deal is highly appropriate: Murdoch's enterprise epitomises the capitalist system, and his latest purchase is certainly a "shrewd" one. After all, can we seriously discuss the 'democratisation of the media' as a positive outcome if one single man can be in control of so much global media output???
I was astounded at the metaphor used to describe the amount of digital information generated last year ("enough to fill a dozen stacks of hardback books stretching from the earth to the sun"). Interestingly, "by 2010 more than 70% of all digital content in the world will have been created by consumers". This prediction clearly marks out where the seat of power lies: with us, the consumers. Naughton gives two points of view: the optimists have a good argument with the fact that NMTs have created a "great release of human creativity" and mediums like the internet have provided the appropriate means.
However, we have to consider the counter-argument: as these phenomenons have effectively handed the power over to us, we must be cautious of exploitation. Nick Carr is spot on: "One of the fundamental economic characteristics of Web 2.0... is the distribution of production into the hands of the many, and the concentration of the economic rewards into the hands of the few." As happens so much in an essentially capitalist society, the providers or workers are dominated by an institution (often governed by one or two people) and are rewarded a fraction of what their work is worth. Although each individual contribution is superfluous, the aggregation of "those contributions on a massive scale - on a web scale", equates to a lucrative business.
Naughton's comment on the MySpace deal is highly appropriate: Murdoch's enterprise epitomises the capitalist system, and his latest purchase is certainly a "shrewd" one. After all, can we seriously discuss the 'democratisation of the media' as a positive outcome if one single man can be in control of so much global media output???
... Traditional TV is very un-interactive, whereas interactive television is marginally more so, though choices are limited.
Linear/non-linear - extension of 'interactivity':
Linear/non-linear - extension of 'interactivity':
- cinema experience: linear
- DVD: can be non-linear
- Interactive TV: can be non-linear
- Internet: mostly non-linear (e.g. YouTube)
Democratisation - NMTs able us to communicate our opinions and ideas; share creative output (blogging); and create our own TV schedules (Sky+)
However... the growing 'digital divide' should not be forgotten - who is being left behind in this race for digital technology??
Friday, 23 March 2007
Technology - Music and the Internet
Convergence: for example PS2, mobile phones, the internet etc. All play music at a hardware level.
Personalisation: iTunes, CD compilation etc.
Interactivity: digital television with music
Personalisation: iTunes, CD compilation etc.
Interactivity: digital television with music
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
