Here's Hoping...

Neil McCormick asks in this week's Telegraph if the era of the pop music superstar is over and, if so, what will replace it? His only assertion that strikes me as misplaced is that "By promoting interactivity between audience and artist and making available music that corresponds to the particular interests of different types of people, the internet is actually making music more parochial." I don't know what's in his dictionary, but mine says that parochial means "having a limited or narrow outlook." To the contrary, it's the major label system, which assumes its audience is not very curious or bright, that peddles limited and narrow musical choices, while the new grassroots Long Tail music economy is giving us a cornucopia of styles and statements drawn from every corner of musical history and influence. It's a self-expression revolution, fueled by technology. Music participation is up. Music consumption is up. No, the revolution hasn't been effectively monetized yet, but that's largely because the industry's most powerful brokers of content refused to be constructive for years while a wildfire of piracy got out of control.

Comments

[George]

My question is has the music gotten better as a result of all this participation? After watching American Idol, I'm not sure.

People often ask if Hank Williams or George Jones would have been signed today. I don't know the answer, but I know they wouldn't have been as popular. Why? Because at the time they were out, there were far fewer artists, and far fewer outlets for them to be heard. And as Reba McEntire will tell you, there was less interest in new artists 30 years ago.

Has the democratization of music really stretched the boundaries of art and creativity? Or are we just seeing more and more people doing the same thing, immitating those those departed "pop superstars," all hoping to find that fame and immoratlity that was once given to our stars and heroes?

[string theory]

Idol's talent pool isn't a good indicator I think, because A) it's a singing competition as Simon keeps reminding us and B) it attracts armies of hopefuls who have very little relationship to music. You can tell from the way they sing that they've been underexposed to ideas of phrasing, harmony, ensemble, rhythm, etc. It's called Idol and not American Musician for a reason. I'm talking about the kid on YouTube with the amazing ukelele chops, the girl who wrote a song that got remixed by clever colleagues on the web, the band in the garage trying to do something fresh. It's happening everywhere.

[George]

You ignored my question: Has the music gotten better? Has the democratization of music stretched the boundaries of art and creativity? Or is it just more people singing the same three chords?