Fantaverse Top 100 Songs INTERMISSION - Music Trends

[undeadmonkey]

geez, no offense taken, I'm sure you realize music is subjective just like films, so i don't take any offense. as for the other stuff. I don't think it matters if the artists have respect for the music or not. It is about the way society gets their entertainment and the way artists present their art. It's changing, in 50 years 'releasing an album' might not be considered 'respect' for music. The way art is presented goes through shifts and changes and periods just like anything else. How did musicians used to present their music, it wasn't in an album. They used to right one piece of music, a 'single', if you will, and then they played it in concert halls etc. If you look at it in retrospective, making albums and selling them by the millions is the 'selling out' and showing no 'respect' for their music.

Buscemi, you are oversimplifying it a bit. The film industry is a relatively new art and it's changing and growing, the 'Art of Film' is roughly 100 years old. Think about painting and drawing Art, or even sculpting art, in it's first 100 years. They were crude cave paintings etc. Now film might not seem crude to us, but I'm sure the people at that time didn't think their cave paintings were crude either. Later they eventually discovered canvas etc and were able to create masterpieces. We really are only in the beginning stages of it, Not only did the art become better after a time, but the way it was presented changed too and that's what is happening to the film industry.

[Buscemi]

I remember that Francis Ford Coppola once said that the future of film was online. However with things such as "Charlie Bit My Finger Again" and Fred being the most popular things on YouTube, can you really agree with him?

The only film industry that can work online is porn. A major share of the audience for porn (high school kids) can watch and buy pornography online without needing ID's or whatnot to purchase it in a store. You can simply lie about your age and buy it. It's a win-win situation. Also, online porn contains more selection.

Right now, online cinema is a step below straight-to-video. While many filmmakers and actors are able to enter the straight-to-video waters with no side effects, (examples: Morgan Freeman, Forest Whitaker, Russell Crowe and many others) no major actors and only a few major directors have done online-only releases. At the moment, very few people are willing to go down that road to online filmmaking and distribution. There seems to be a negative stigma about it compared to just watching a film on DVD or Blu Ray.

Case in point: the Tribeca Film Festival and their online division Tribeca Films (no relation to Robert De Niro's Tribeca Productions, a theatrical and television production company). Earlier this year, the company bought the US rights to a few films (including the Ian Dury biopic Sex & Drugs & Rock 'n' Roll, which managed a wide theatrical release in the UK) that debuted at the 2010 festival for exclusive release on the Internet. What happened with these films? No one watched them. Average people simply don't want to watch a major theatrical release on their computer. They want to watch these films either in a theatre or at home. Also since Tribeca has neither a video division or a home entertainment deal, you may never see these movies on DVD. Probably the stupidest deal since IFC agreed to a one-sided deal with The Weinstein Company which caused their movies to barely see the light of day in most cities and video stores (the Weinsteins' agreement with Blockbuster led to their movies being Blockbuster-only releases and places like Netflix can't carry many of them due to the Weinsteins' refusal to reissue some of these titles).

In short, online cinema is a wasteland. The people who are predicting it to be the future are pretty much the same people who predicted movie theatres would die after television was perfected. They can't help but realize they are wrong.

[numbersix]

It's an interesting topic we've brought up. Geez, I agree that the album is a specific artform, something that lives and breathes separately to a collection of songs. My worry, though, is that most people don't see it that way. Or are seeing it less and less. I grew up listening to CD's, so the concept of an album was a huge part of my listening experience. But I imagine kids who were born in the 90's started to get music around the time iTune, Kazaa, and the iPod popped up. So their experience of music is probably quite different. I wouldn't be surprised to see the majority change the industry away from the album, making it something only the underground music scene still champions (a little like what's happening at the moment with cassettes). I'd love to be wrong, though. Someone like Kanye needs to record an enitre album but only release it as a single, 50-minute long track on iTunes.

As an aside, I kinda agree with Buscemi about online cinema. The future could very much indeed be entirely online when it comes to cinema, but it won't be for a while. Large LCD TV's need to become a lot cheaper. their integration with the functions of laptops really need to emerge. If the arthouse cinema experience is to die, what you essentially need to happen first is for an affordable 50'' TV to come out that can connect to the net, as well as communicate easily with other devices (laptops, iPads, MP3 players) in order to transfer files with ease and be able to create a proper cinema experience. Until that happens the arthouse cinemas will still be full. Indeed, in the last 2 years my city has seen a 3rd arthouse cinema open up and the main arthouse cinema expand from 2 screens to 3.

[becs]

I feel like you are being a little ignorant to the speed of change regarding online video, it may not be this year, but think 5 years down the road. Look at how quickly Netflix streaming and Hulu have caught on, when 5 years ago in most areas of the nation streaming of that level would have been impossible for users. Look at the release of Ink, it went from a relative unknown that did well at film fests to being launched into a cult hit through online distribution only. While that case is currently an anomaly in the indie markets, I can easily see it becoming the norm.

As no big studio picked up the film for theatrical and home distribution, Double Edge Films pitched the movie directly to independent cinemas and also saw to the DVD, Blu-ray and online distribution themselves. DVD and Blu-ray copies of the movie are sold directly via the company's website starting from October 30, 2009 and are sold at retail stores starting November 10, 2009, as well as downloads at Video on demand stores.[4] According to TorrentFreak, a file sharing news site, Ink was downloaded via BitTorrent 400,000 times in a single week and exposed the film to a large audience, leading to higher DVD and Blu-ray sales in return.[5] Jamin and Kiowa Winans wrote in their newsletter that they had "embraced the piracy" and are "happy Ink is getting unprecedented exposure."[5] Around Christmas 2009 the film was also released on Hulu for free viewing.

[undeadmonkey]

I agree, the new blu ray players are online capable. all the game systems, xbox, playstation, wii can stream netflix. You can watch it straight on your tv in high definition. You can totally do what your explaining. It's fairly new but it's possible.

[numbersix]

Ah okay. I'm pretty much a luddite when it comes to the new generation of gaming. Damn kids

[Buscemi]

About Netflix streaming: most of the films on there are old movies or straight-to-DVD titles. Very few new movies are available (and usually, most of them were already available on demand to begin with). It truly won't be a factor until a major film (such as Alice in Wonderland) is made available day and date with DVD and on demand.

[undeadmonkey]

it will happen pretty soon.

[Donte77]

I know I haven't been on in a while but this is a good thread. LOL

I find new music in a lot of different ways. I have a subscription to Rolling Stone. I love pandora.com which I have discussed with everyone before. I have Sirius in my car so hear some new music that way too. I do download songs (not nearly as often as I used to) and I still buy CD's. I download songs when I want to hear a band before giving them my money. If they blow my mind, then I will buy an album, usually on CD, rarely on download. Like Surfer, I like having that physical CD and album booklet. Buying stuff in digital only format just doesn't jibe with my brain. I recently spent 20 bucks ordering The Kills "Midnight Boom" after illegally downloading 3-4 of their songs. (Anyone who has not heard them, check them out. They are fucking fantastic. Cheap and Cheerful, Alphabet Pony, or Sour Cherry and a good start)

There are few reviewers I trust enough to buy an album unheard so I use youtube or other websites to listen to a song if I can find it, then I check the download sites after that if it is unavailable.

I don't buy nearly as many CD's as I used to but I still buy 10-20 a year or so.

[undeadmonkey]

The Kills are amazing! my favorites are Black Balloon and Sour Cherry

[Donte77]

I have heard from some unknown anonymous source that listening to Sour Cherry while on shrooms may be INCREDIBLE!!!

"Shout when you wanna get off the ride" has never been more truly said.

So I have heard. From an anonymous source... '

[Ron Burgundy]

Wow, good topic, silly i haven't checked it out earlier.

Yeah, i heard that from an....anonymous source too Donte haha.

Anyway, i used to buy CDs but since im so poor, i found it was so much easier getting music through the internet when my friend introduced me to a particular site. And isn't it better anyway? It just means that those bands that play well live will get their money from those live shows, and the artists who like to ramp up their CD album with artificial sounds and making their voice sound better will not make money, which is perfectly fine i think.

I maybe own 5 real CDs, all bought years ago. And about 60-80 copies of albums and many random songs on my computer, which is hardly enough, i have had many crashes and tries to rebuild my collection so i might have had around 200-250 albums all up if i kept all of them. But maybe like SS, its better to have real physical copies...unless your house burns down...

My uncle has about 1000 cds. And still gets about 40-50 new ones each year, much like you do Six. He's got everything from Frank Zappa to Mark Knopfler to Rammstein to Midnight Oil to Led Zepplin. I never get tired of seeing what he's got for me to listen.

Everything about how we see and get Music and Video will change in the next 10 years, perhaps less. They are even applying terms like Hybridisation to define new and old technologies and how they came to be. It might be scary but this is what i always wanted when i was young, for everything to be quick and easy....hopefully we all dont get really fat

[undeadmonkey]

I was doing some house cleaning and getting rid of old stuff. I found my bag of cd collections. grant it I only had about 25, but I threw them away as well. I have all the music on my laptop and/or ipod so i got rid of them. none of them were special edition or anything, so I didn't see any reason to keep them. Anyway, pointless story but it made me think of you guys and the disapproving looks i might get from some of you that have a few thousand cds.

[numbersix]

Well, I've found myself looking at CD album art less and less, but in this world or corruptable hard drives and easily breakable iPods, I keep my CDs simply as a hard backup!

[Buscemi]

You shouldn't throw away the CD's. You should get them recycled instead.