(disqus.com/people/scrawledinwax)

scrawledinwax

• Show comments:
• From scrawledinwax
• From people scrawledinwax is following
• From Everyone

• 

  • scrawledinwax  I'm not suggesting it invalidates what she says. It's just that there needs to be an acknowledgment of the dynamic at work where it's only Stone's participation in the music biz's 'old model' and reaching a sort of critical mass of fame/success that resulted in you writing this post. I agree with what she's saying. I just also believe that the new model will mean that there will be no Joss Stones in the future as the mechanisms of marketing/distribution etc. becoming radically fragmented i.e. Rex's idea about microfame will become the only sort of fame there is for musicians.
  • • 3 weeks ago
    •   Joss Stone: “Music should be shared”
    •   Mathew's comments
  • • 1 point
    • 0 replies

  

  • scrawledinwax  This is hardly original, but how would Joss Stone be in a position to even had her comments about downloading heard if it wasn't for the sales of her records? Isn't there something a bit specious about an already established artist saying something like this? It seems kinda' like she's arguing *now* you can steal my music. I'm rich, what do I care?
  • • 3 weeks ago
    •   Joss Stone: “Music should be shared”
    •   Mathew's comments
  •   mathewi  Well obviously her comments -- which she might just as easily have made even before becoming successful -- are more likely to be heard now that she is well-known. But I don't see how that invalidates what she's saying.
  • • 1 point
    • 1 reply

  

  • scrawledinwax  I think the Marxist reading is, on some level, still valid. One of the things the Web was,'supposed to do' (in my mind anyway) was transfer some of the means of production to the 'common person' so that, rather than going to a newspaper or record label, one could for no or very little investment, take control of the mechanisms of distribution, sales, marketing etc. A potential problem with the monetization of human activity - ostensibly the business model of social networking - is that while individuals spend time doing the things they do (messaging, posting photos etc etc), very unlike work, there is no exchange of labour for a wage. The means of production, far from being democratized, are centralised in the hands of Zuckerbergs and Thiels. I guess there's an odd contradiction at the core of different aspects of Web 2.0 - some facets do democratise and open new opportunities for people while others, while certainly fun and even helpful, do a lot to maintain the disparities between 'regular folk' and those with tonnes o' capital and influence. I know this sounds a bit conspiratorial and it probably is - I guess I mean this more analogously than a direct statement of "Facebook is exploitative". That said, even though I've probably oversimplified things it seems like there's something here worth thinking about in relation to a possible 'set of values' for Web 2.0.
  • • 4 months ago
    •   Billy Bragg should stick to singing
    •   Mathew's comments
  • • 1 point
    • 0 replies

  

  • scrawledinwax  I remember feeling almost overwhelmed when I finished 2001 - it was as if my brain has been asked to consider things that were somehow beyond its reach. But the Clarke moment that will always stick with me - and made a whooshing sound when I gestured toward it on Twitter - was the end of his short story "The Nine Billion Names of God". I don't want to ruin it for anyone, but it just seemed so perfectly understated that it's lingered somewhere in my mind ever since.
  • • 4 months ago
    •   A literary and scientific giant dies
    •   Mathew's comments
  •   mathewi  I know what you mean, Nav. On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Disqus
  • • 1 point
    • 1 reply

  

  • scrawledinwax  That's true - I hadn't though of that. Maybe you had it with the 'Yahoo-inspired push'. ('Course, we can't rule out that it's simply a bad business decision ;) )
  • • 4 months ago
    •   One question on Flickr Video: Why?
    •   Mathew's comments
  • • 1 point
    • 0 replies

show all comments +