Myspace, yourspace.
In 2003 Tom Anderson & Chris DeWolfe set up an internet site from their base in Los Angeles.
They created the site so that fans could connect with local bands in order to get their music heard and publicise gigs.
It caught on. For the first time in the history of the music business young budding musicians were able to put their music on the site - giving them the opportunity to perform to a huge audience.
Power to the people, do you reckon?
It soon took off with millions of people all over the world logging on not only to listen to and download free music but also to make friends. It's hugely successfully. In fact it shook the music industry up a bit.
Record Companies only had to check out the site to see which unsigned band was getting the most hits and 'bobs your next dylan'....or that seemed to be the intention anyway. are the usual example
In fact Rupert Murdoch (ahem) loved the company sooo much...he bought it. Last July in fact.
It's been quite a phenomenon. Not only can you sign up, create your own page, with videos, graphics, photgraphs and profiles but you can also invite other people to be friends.
There's supposed to be around 20 million members of the site. Not all unknown musicians like. There's comedians, actors, Hollywood A list celebs, writers, poets and very, very famous musicians.
But those sites are usually called the 'Official' site of ....(insert the name of your favourite musician.) or the 'tribute' to.
It matters not that a musician, writer, actor is actually dead. They are still eager to share their music/musings via cyber-space. And of course they advertise re-releases of their 'new/old' hits. You'd be suprised how many 'previously un-released' master peices are constantly showing up on the site.
What seemed, at first, like a great idea (Yes. Those greedy fatcat record company bastards may not have it so easy now) has suddenly started to make me feel uneasy. Not least because Mr Murdoch is running the show, though that did make my heart sink when I heard.....but the insidious plugging of already established multi-millionaire musicians feels like a bit of a con.
The publicists treat everyone like they are thier mates. They invite people to be their friends, ask them to spread the word about an album or a gig or a new video and word spreads like wild-fire.
All around the world at virtually no cost. So the site FEELS like it's one big world cafe-bar for the young and trendy to talk free and easy about themselves but the posts of their likes and dislikes are actually great market research tools. All well and good but it doesn't feel entirely upfront.
It's also quite addictive. Because the site has a 'no rules' policy anyone can log onto anyone elses site. Some of they younger members can be quite explicit about their lives and form 'relationships' - you can watch these relationships blossom....which sometimes feels like cyber-stalking.
I suppose what makes me uneasy is that the idea of 'a no rules site where everyone can make express themselves and make friends' without involving the big corporations doesn't actually exist.
Now, apparantly, is being marketed as a 'life-style' brand. (shouldn't that phrase be pre-fixed with 'luxury' as it is, of late, in Liverpool)
In fact the advertisers are so keen to 'get down with the cool kids' that Honda, Unilever and Wendy's actually have profile pages on the site.
And just to keep the message that the site is still full of the raw sexual energy of youth Crest toothpaste opened a page called 'Miss Irrisistible'. (they moniter the site and remove any 'raunchy' new friends)
So....who does technology put in charge? And as myspace ventures into tv & film are the artists of the future going to be free to express themselves without fear of censure? Or will the current obsession with a corporate myspace train us to accept a homogeneous 'light entertainment, brought to you by our sponsers, Trueman Show style' existance?
To quote, yet again, one of my favourite comedians
''When did mediocrity become something to aspire to? At the end of the show, I want my musicians dead, with a blood bubble coming out of his nose....play from your heart.'
Thank God the Son House's and the Nina Simone's of this world honed their craft the way they did. Otherwise people new to their music wouldn't be listening to the same stuff. Which is of course, along with Mr. Hicks ( R.I.P) available on myspace.
I suppose this topic could be akin to global advertising.
I was working in the alcohol and drug industry for a while and we were naturally all concerned about the "power" of advertising and persuading young people to use various branded products.
Fortunately I also had a good friend in the advertising business. So over a few beers one night I put the question to him.
' does advertising really work - is it as effective as we think it is?'
He gave a simple answer that has remained with me over time.
'not really, why do you think we spend millions and millions on advertising?................................
because it doesn't really work that well.
It a bit like the old saying - you can fool some of the people some of the time etc etc
yes we can get results for a while but it is not sustainable - that's why we keep on advertising and it costs us a fortune!'
particulary with the young - the young I exclaimed with surprise - I would have thought they would be the most persuadible.
Yes for a while he said - but they are so fickle and changeable we can never read them for long.
The Rupert Murdochs of this world think they have it all worked out - but they can never control for one confounding variable ' the fickleness of human nature'
My space this month or year - my pad next year - my ranch the next?
cyberspace is literally littered with the remants of internet good ideas that seemed fantastic at the time - remember the dot com - phenomena and then burn themselves out very quickly like supernovas gone wrong.
The great conglomerates at one end of the PC have their millions and technical staff and ideas and goals and research. But we at this end always have anonymity, failed pc's that won't work anymore, fickle minds that are always changing.
Guess what? - they just can't keep up with us - they are always chasing their tales or their proverbial rainbows!
'They are (the young) so fickle and changeable we can never read them for long.' Fantastic. Is this not the way of the world? Is it not the 'young's' job to question the status quo? What revolutionary decides to kick off when they are my age? Come on....being 'quietly' appalled isn't going to change the world. Neither is accepting that 'globalisation is something beyond our control.'
I love the contrariness of youth.
I love the contradictions. The frictions.
The questions. The temporary trends. We've all had our time at it but in the doing of it some people have managed to change the bloody world.
I know of a young man -23 is young to me - who is travelling around orphanages in the African continent with a one man show which educates
audiences about the A.I.D.S virus.
While giving the children the experience of a couple of hours of joy and laughter.
Bring 'em on. All those fickle, life affirming young people are bored with the status quo and would much rather - no I'll use the word dare- to stir things up.
We can sit here and talk about them.
Hi Esther
Anything Rupert Murdoch has his hands in will go bad.
Your article pin points the plusses and minuses of the internet although it's only the human influence that engenders the bad side. If only everybody was as discerning as you. I like the reference of luxury and Liverpool. I know a minority of the cities population will ever be involved in said luxury, as in office blocks and apartments. Never workers homes.
John