Well, not for the people who actually have phenomenal Internet success. I’m sure they have a most wonderful time. But as a phenomena it’s just not very interesting. So I was heartened to see this bit of wisdom in Alexis Petridis’ roundup of the decade in music:
For all the talk of the MySpace-assisted success of Arctic Monkeys or Lily Allen, it’s hard not to think that one of the web’s biggest effects might actually be the opposite of the kind of will-of-the-people surge that powered those artists into the limelight. Instead, the net might have made music a more scattered, microcosmic experience, where a wealth of blogs and messageboards mean that anything, no matter how recherche, can find an audience – just not a stadium-filling, platinum-selling one.
Now that’s interesting. Much harder to study and pontificate on than popularity graphs that fit into the traditional model though.
Whenever I hear about Arctic Monkeys or Lily Allen and how they used MySpace it’s odd that no-one seems to mention that Lilly was signed to a major all along — and that the Monkeys didn’t run their own page.
I’m wondering if any people do have genuine “phenomenal Internet success” anyway — apart from these that have sucess in ways that wasn’t possible pre-web (the Cheezburger mob for example, or any of the book deal bloggers).
I wonder tho where the live scene fits into the “long tail/niche marketing” scenario.
Having a couple of fans in every town in the world might feasibly sell you enough music to get by, but two fans dont make an audience.
Xx
Rich, it’s more about what’s needed to be sustainable. Sure, two people don’t make an audience, but 100+ do. I see Misty’s and Bearsuit making if not a living then a decent stab of it with those sorts of numbers.
No easy answers, of course, and the Internet doesn’t owe anyone a living, but it’s not as black and white as you’re suggesting.