Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
wanna be a paa-aa-aart of something, revo-lution ba-by!
"Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform."
whether off the net or on some stupid ass reality television show... then yes. The stars of yesteryear were larger than life. Today, the asshole next door to you is a celebrity. Meh.
anyone can make music, anyone can release music, anyone can make and release a film, all digitally. People only have so much time in their lives for music and films, and they are obviously interested in things made by people close to them. The fascination with stars dims as the process of making is demystified, and art, films and music are made extremely widely, and localised, to an increasingly high standard of proficiency.
Some of my favorite films were made on the kind of budget that Tom Cruise spends on lunch.
there's a difference there. and while, as you say, its not dependent on money, its dependent on application and care.
Celebrity's have become modern Gods. they remind me of ancient
greece when they would have many Gods. people worship
celebrity's. they admire them and uphold certain characteristics,
or are entertained by their antics.
Unfortunately, unlike ancient greek gods, the majority of
celebrity's are dysfunctional, imperfect, selfish and immoral
human beings. are these the figures that we should hold up so
high that they are called "stars". They are bad role models for
society, they create dissatisfaction with our lives through
comparison, unrealistic goals and aspirations, unhealthy personal
image, materialism and celebrate the most unfortunate aspects of
They knew where it was at
I wrote that at 5am in the morning when I was going slightly insane at work.
turned into a swan so he could rape a girl who wasn't impressed by his divinity. generally a bit of a lothario/tyrant/rapist.
apollo: likewise. but probably younger and hotter. had a tendency to hang about in dodgy forests.
hera: more jealous and vengeful than your average tarantino character.
aphrodite: where do we begin? manipulative, nymphomaniac, self-absorbed, pathological indifference to the consequences of her actions...
orpheus: necrophiliac. [ok, he wasn't a god. whatever.]
athene: probably looked like anne widdecombe.
nope, not at all dysfunctional or immoral.
But that implies the person who made them had skills and talent or else it would just be rubbish.
Give the same money to me and a pre-Mariachi Robert Rodriguez and he'd give you back the best movie because he knows it and he's talented.
I think the 'Web 2.0' culture will never remove celebrity. It may make more celebrities as people have the chance to show what they can do earlier...and it may remove certain vacuous 'celebrities' as they become hollow in our eyes.
But more people will still want to hear what tomorrow's Thurston Moore has to say than some bloke down the street making their own music, and by that I mean the really good people will always get more interest, making them celebrities.
with other vacuous celebrities.
Talent I don't - it suggests people can only be good at things they have an innate knack for, which I categorically disagree with.
People who have a gift for maths, for example, wouldn't be credited in the same way as someone with a gift for drawing.
Somet stuff can be learned but it's just a genetic truth that some have better fingers for this and that, or brains for understanding one thing or another...
this often just doesn't matter.
What it might be the end of is low-to-middle-end successful bands as we know them as people into indie music/films are more likely to access friend/people they know's bands and it's far less likely any one indie band will get sufficient following to make a living.
I see absolutely no reason why this'll affect major label acts or celebrities though as people who watch blockbusters or listen to major label acts wil continue to do so.
And my argument is probably pretty flawed.
But the key crux is that, while Web 2.0 will provide a mass load of independent bands making it less likely that any one indepedent band will become huge, it probably won't affect major labels or huge acts that much 'cos there's always gonna be a majority of people who don't have the time/inclination to look for new music and want someone to tell them what's "good".
if by celebrity you mean the kerry katonas, no.
art, music and film nowadays does not necessarily mean that it will all be worthy of an audience. the people who have genuine talent will do well, be exalted and gradually lose that talent and continue to rely on their prior reputation in their later careers. they will be the credible celebrities. the others will be people who are extremely famous for one minute for being some kind of zeitgeist, and then subsequently be passe, only to be resurrected as being "awesome" or "legendary" in a post modern sense a few months/years later.
it'll all eventually form the strata we are used to, that's just the way society works.
The music industry is not, and has never been, a meritocracy... 'talent' does not automatically rise to the top.
like the way strangers are beginning to recognise me as being in Tracy Is Hot & The Clap?
I think really what Web 2.0 is doing to celebrity is generating new celebrities who perhaps become celebrities through something different than the usual nepotist routes. Look at what's her name off myspace. Not the musician, the cute girl who is friends with Jeremy Scott and Paris Hilton and people.
People who do nothing are still becoming celebrities too through web 2.0
'that guy in that band'?
the sunday times maazine.
To be honest, i don't think it will be the end of celebrity cultrue.
As we can already see, it is dying down al around us, or a key aspect of it (mysapce) is slowly meeting an untimely death.
I think there will be a reaction against it, becauase people realize that they are worshiping completely unextraordinary people who are claiming they are extraordinary. In many cases.
Talent will always prevail, and i don't think a genuinely talented band needs somehting like myspace to help them; if they are that good, then they will suceed regardless, you would hope.
All web 2.0 seems to bring is talentless, and pretty rubbish, bands, who get extraordinarily big on the back of a myspace hype, that is completely unjustified.
And as for celebrity, that will continue to be dominated by those who have the power, money and influence to gloss the pages of heat magazine.
Having said this, i did see mr patrick wolf in both the london lite and london paper on tuesday.
Although some have done enough to garner the attention of a big label - which then quietly attempts to keep the democratic feel of MySpace success while applying the traditional model of advertising and selling like they would anyone else. A kind of fake people's champion effect.
putting out records has always been achievable without major labels etc (is that an appropriate response, I only skim read)hence the thousands of amazing local garage band 45s made in america in the sixties
It is potentially the democratization of the channels through which people find out about new music. Potentially.
At the minute it's still basically a few glossy magazines, a handful of radio stations and a few TV channels that pretty much dictate what will achieve any level of awareness on a large scale (or anyone with enough money for a large, persistent advertising campaign).
This is breaking down a bit though. Or if not breaking down, becoming unsteady. I don't think the internet is going to destroy the current system any time soon, but it's sure having a big impact at the moment.
I winder how long Coca-cola would last if they put free coke fountains in every internet cafe, home and office.
dunno if will help much, cos most people like shit music, so regardless of how things are marketed, we'll still end up with the bad things being generally easier to find
I have issue with it already though from the extracts.
He speaks disparagingly of "homespun moviemakers, and attic recording artists."
But this relies on the idea that the best people rise to the top, and that people who are good at something are only good at it if they are validated by an institution or organisation.
My issue is that I don't believe institutions and organisations can be trusted to dictate to us who is worth our time, and who isn't. I don't believe all the best books are published, and that the things that publishers don't pick up are not worth our time. I fucking certainly don't believe that major record labels can in any way be trusted to be cultural gatekeepers - in fact I would suggest it is their role that taints culture in it's blindly commercial homogeneity. I don't believe the art establishment skims the cream of new arts and bravely champions it - I actually think many of the artists that 'make it' are not worthy of their elevated status in the slightest.
If this is the amazing cultural gatekeeping that web 2.0 is destroying...
i dont entirely buy into what that guy is saying but there is a wider point to it.
the issue would seem to be, in some respects, that all the internet has done is replaced certain institutions with other ones that are just as (if not more) open to manipulation. stuff that is promoted as a 'web phenomenon' is (a lot of the time) a product of the same sorts of 'cultural gatekeepers' that existed before the internet. where does validation come from on the internet? why is being touted in people's blogs any different to being critically acclaimed?
as an aside, im not sure the analogy works so well with books, because it seems much harder to pin down what it is about contemporary books that makes them successful, it doesnt seem quite as easy to say publishers are 'tainting culture' in the way you might be able to accuse record labels of doing so. I mean, why on earth was the da vinci code so succesful? i cant imagine that was the fault of the literary establishment...