Music gaps

More thoughts from the Future of Music talk at the RSA. In the Q&A, Tod Machover said something about how the healthiest societies (in terms of music) are the ones with the smallest gap between the top and the bottom, i.e. between the professionals and the tone-deaf. Part of the work he does is about trying to get people engaged with music on a community level. In societies with smaller gaps the idea that stars have some sort of unattainable talent does not exist, so people are more likely to feel they can do it themselves.

In terms of piracy and new music models, I was wondering whether generations in the future will want to have societies with a smaller gap, i.e. there won't be a need for superstars on the level of Madonna, etc. Instead they might have loads of smaller artists that they're down with.

Comments

[Charles Frith]

I think we all fit into a number of societies in the future and the global one taps into that 'the market to believe in something is infinite' isn't it?

It's something I thought about a while back so not off the top of my head.

[pristyles]

I'm interested in what those societies will look like though. I kind of feel that hyper-celebrity is becoming really boring, and with the seemingly inevitable death of the current record industry model which creates mega-stardom, who/what will constitute our idols and what will represent our value system in the future.

A bit of a ramble, sorry!

[Charles Frith]

You've caught me running on 16K RAM again because I was only reading the other...it's coming back. The Vatican have been talking about forgiving John Lennon in their periodical/newspaper (surely he should be forgiving them) now that they are more progressive under the German fella.

But the point they made I found interesting is that the editorial voice yearned for the mystery of the stars produced by hollywood in the 50's and earlier I think.

I found that interesting and I guess we do know too much about our celebreties although I've never indulged in any of that nonsense and have been particularly accusatory of the British public's hypocrisy for throwing flowers under Diana's funeral cortege only days after buying the newspapers that ultimately killed her.

http://is.gd/8FeQ

I know everything is contestable but as my blog is on the punk side, this sentence struck me as possibly not supportive.

"In societies with smaller gaps the idea that stars have some sort of unattainable talent does not exist, so people are more likely to feel they can do it themselves."

I always thought it was the estrangement from feeling part of society that led to the punk movement but I don't think the quote I've lifted off you is completely untrue.

[pristyles]

Just to play devils advocate, is there a place for a true punk ethic now? The world (for the wealthy) is a lot more commercial than it was then, and actually the generation below me seem to be a lot more accepting of the commercial nature of life. From all the research I've done (and this is limited to UK + US, two very peculiar nations) teenagers are more entrepreneurial than rebellious. Punk isn't the overriding ethic and is maybe not even relevant to the generations coming through.

I think I may have meandered off course, but I think there is some truth in the idea that a large music gap invites a degree of 'I could never be that good so I won't try' as opposed to the DIY ethic we see amongst Gen Y and below because of their exposure to technology. If this is the way we are moving, then surely music gaps would have to be smaller which would negate the current record company model which relies on mega-stars to sustain profitablility.