Capitalism, the internet and trends in music

[Ian]

I'm sure this is an entirely predictable response, but this future state will happen against the grain of marketing, advertising, corporate entertainment saturation etc.? Or do you mean people will gain the confidence to say - yes, we really do want what capitalism wants us to want!? Because if I have any idea what you mean by "trend-mongers" they are popguns compared to the nuclear arsenal available to the marketeers, advertisers, corporate entertainment saturationers etc.

No, "trend mongers" (probably nicked from Frank Zappa) is just my bit of short hand for the marketing, advertising, corporate entertainment saturation entities you mention.

Unfortunately I couldn't say "trendmongers" in that big booming corporate sort of voice.

[Julien Sorel]

No, "trend mongers" (probably nicked from Frank Zappa) is just my bit of short hand for the marketing, advertising, corporate entertainment saturation entities you mention.

Unfortunately I couldn't say "trendmongers" in that big booming corporate sort of voice.

OK, but a lot was said (and still is said) about the liberating / democratising / plural internet (for example) but what has actually happened is the corporate colonisation of the internet and new theatres of control via reinforcement and redefinition of copyright / intellectual property.

I'm not saying the internet doesn't manage to be pleasingly slippery and elusive still, but 'create your own content' has become an advertising slogan and a way to sell devices / platforms.

I bet lots of entertainment corporate types are Zappa fans, actually .

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm sure this is an entirely predictable response, but this future state will happen against the grain of marketing, advertising, corporate entertainment saturation etc.? Or do you mean people will gain the confidence to say - yes, we really do want what capitalism wants us to want!? Because if I have any idea what you mean by "trend-mongers" they are popguns compared to the nuclear arsenal available to the marketeers, advertisers, corporate entertainment saturationers etc.

Yes, it's the central river of capitalism carving its course through history until its flows divert into any number of channels that eventually enter a sea in which its original constituents are forever obscured. I suppose I suffer from that Boulezian idea of central themes in music, analogous to historic forces that are acessible to elucidation in their workings at any time; I'm scared of all the millions and millions of isolated little individuals, in front of whatever their Macs will be, in ten, twenty, or however many years' time, imagining they are freely making history-shaking contributions to art as significant expression and means of communication, in a world whose every other aspect and effect on the individual is controlled by mass media at the behest of huge transnational corporations, and all the forces protecting them. Look at what Radio 3 is fast becoming now. What will be feeding their creative minds when that time comes?

[Sir Velo]

Yes, it's the central river of capitalism carving its course through history until its flows divert into any number of channels that eventually enter a sea in which its original constituents are forever obscured.

Come again?

[eighthobstruction]

Come again?

All part of the dialectic soup....

[Oldcrofter]

It's such a shame Mr Goodall didn't discuss all of these points in his programme - maybe next time. eh ?

Anyone tell me who the current trendmongers are ? What are the trends in 2013 ? I'd genuinely like to know.

[Ian]

OK, but a lot was said (and still is said) about the liberating / democratising / plural internet (for example) but what has actually happened is the corporate colonisation of the internet and new theatres of control via reinforcement and redefinition of copyright / intellectual property.

I thought the present concern for copyright holders (e.g. composers and their agents) is the pending relaxation of copyright laws.

I'm not saying the internet doesn't manage to be pleasingly slippery and elusive still, but 'create your own content' has become an advertising slogan and a way to sell devices / platforms.

So what? As long as the stuff works - which it does.

[Ian]

Anyone tell me who the current trendmongers are ? What are the trends in 2013 ? I'd genuinely like to know.

This probably doesn’t help:

And what might you ask is a TREND MONGER?
Well a TREND MONGER is a person, who dreams up a trend, like
"THE TWIST", or "FLOWER POWER".
And spreads it throughout the land using all the frightening
little skills that scientists made available.

(Greggary Peccary - Frank Zappa)


I suppose anything significant enough to have been given a label can be seen as a trend. Given growing proliferation and diversity I think it is more accurate to say we are living in an age of micro-trends.

[Julien Sorel]

I thought the present concern for copyright holders (e.g. composers and their agents) is the pending relaxation of copyright laws.

You'd need to ask a composer or a composer's agent about that - I wouldn't know. I'm happy, in my field of activity, with a request and an acknowledgement if someone choses to reproduce or disseminate something I created.

So what? As long as the stuff works - which it does.

Because devices / platforms aren't content neutral, as it were. There is a symbiotic relation between the two (a symbolic relation, I shouldn't wonder).

In my own line of non-musical artistic activity I use the internet at times: however, I think the Utopian claims made in the past for the internet were naive, and failed to recognise the blindingly obvious fact that global capitalism would also spot the potentialities and would look to privatise as much virtual public space as possible and police the thing (and get governments to police the thing) in their interests. On a related note, the police are all over social media of course (when they're not taking the identities of dead children and pretending to be activists). I don't share S_A's absolute dystopic view of the thing, and agree with aeolium: it can be slippery, it is hard to control, and if you can find your way around there's plenty of material that isn't "cool stuff" to be found.

But I write this from my anti-capitalist perspective: I realise there are other ways of looking at things.

[Ian]

In my own line of non-musical artistic activity I use the internet a lot: I think the Utopian claims made in the past for the internet were naive, and failed to recognise the blindingly obvious fact that global capitalism would also spot the potentialities and would look to privatise as much virtual public space as possible and police the thing (and get governments to police the thing) in their interests. On a related note, the police are all over social media of course (when they're not taking the identities of dead children and pretending to be activists). I don't share S_A's absolute dystopic view of the thing, and agree with aeolium: it can be slippery, it is hard to control, and if you can find your way around there's plenty of material that isn't "cool stuff" to be found.

Of course, I write this from my anti-capitalist perspective: I realise there are other ways of looking at things.

It sounds as if there is stuff you would like to do on the internet that you can't do as a consequence of global capitalism. Can you give an example?

[ahinton]

I thought the present concern for copyright holders (e.g. composers and their agents) is the pending relaxation of copyright laws.

Speaking as one (mindful of Julien Sorel's implicit invitation), the answer is indeed yes. A composer does, of course, have a perfect right to put some or all of his/her work into the public domain (as, for example, Severo Ornstein's done for his late father Leo's work) if so he/she chooses but, to the extent that a composer needs income from royalties and that this is therefore not a course of action that many of them would likely favour, it does indeed remain a concern for most composers.

[ahinton]

I write this from my anti-capitalist perspective: I realise there are other ways of looking at things.

OK, fair enough, but does that stance impact upon your views of intellectual property ownership and the rights to income that these generate for people including composers and, if so, in what specific ways?

[Julien Sorel]

It sounds as if there is stuff you would like to do on the internet that you can't do as a consequence of global capitalism. Can you give an example?

Does it sound like that? I said that certain Utopian claims made for the internet as some kind of pluralist paradise (or paradises) failed to recognise the extent to which capitalism would colonise, sector off, privatise, trade-mark, copyright, and indeed adopt a version of the pluralist paradise line (as in make your own content from what we make available to buy) as a slogan and a marketing tool. If there was something I'd like to do on the internet which I couldn't do as a consequence of anything I wouldn't say so on a public forum: because I might go ahead and do it anyway.

OK, fair enough, but does that stance impact upon your views of intellectual property ownership and the rights to income that these generate for people including composers and, if so, in what specific ways?

Yes, but in the case of composers (like yourself) it's really none of my affair.

[ahinton]

Yes, but in the case of composers (like yourself) it's really none of my affair.

Be that as it may, you're as entitled to have an opinion on it as anyone and it might be interesting to have some information as to what it is if you're prepared to divulge it!

[Ian]

Does it sound like that?

It did to me? Otherwise, what does it matter what other people do? Unless your version of a pluralist paradise is one that excludes all the things you don't approve of.