John P. <JohnP@nospam.com> wrote:
> "RichL" <rpleavitt@yahoo.com> wrote in a message
>
>> I think good overall, if only because the creativity of the
>> mainstream music industry has come pretty close to a screeching
>> halt, and the industry's overdue for some sort of revolution. The
>> commonality of musical experience of the '60s and '70s is a nice
>> memory, but the genie's out of the bottle and I think there's no
>> putting it back. The net collaboration thing is cool; I've done a
>> couple myself. And I'm not about to mourn the passing of the era of
>> rock billionaires and the accompanying excesses.
>>
>> It would be nice if more acts branched out a bit more style-wise,
>> which really has nothing to do with corporate control or lack
>> thereof. Generally, I think musicians improve themselves by exposing
>> themselves to (and learning to play) all sorts of different styles,
>> and the results show up in the quality of the product. I can
>> tolerate (and in fact sometimes enjoy) an emo song here or there but
>> a whole album full of them? Meh!...
>>
>> It's ironic that the internet, generally, has brought us all closer
>> together yet from the perspective of appreciating a variety of music
>> has driven us apart: we've formed a multitude of essentially
>> non-interacting cliques. Just like high school!
>
> A lot of great points and comments. As this is just the beginning,
> it's difficult to say where it will go from here. When the telephone
> was invented, it was envision to be used as a means to get music in
> every home - the thought of it being used as a communications device
> barely existed. We'll probably see similar occurrences with music and
> the net as it grows and changes.
>
> I suspect the factioning we see now is somewhat due to leftovers from
> the way things used to be. When those generations are gone, perhaps
> it will be very different.
it would be used mainly to sell stuff (including sex). Ah, I suppose in
