"The Social Network" and Young Americans

“Harvard students are looking to invent jobs instead of finding one.”

– The Social Network

When I first read some review headlines for the movie, The Social Network, I saw many references to it being a historical bookmark of the past decade.

At the time, I didn’t understand this concept, and wondered how the Facebook movie would live up to this. But after having watched the movie, it seems pretty obvious.

It spoke a great deal to what’s apparently happening in the psyche of young, intelligent American kids, and their struggle to find their own place between alternating worldviews.

The American Dilemma

One common American worldview espouses traditional workplace values, the corporate job, the construction job, common trades.

The other, more alluring path is to be apart of the new economy. Where the Internet, clean technology, and soon-to-be-innovations promise a new American golden age--where young people’s fresh ideas would take root and bring vast fortunes back to America.

This is the idea: China and India are smarter and harder working…so what? Doesn’t matter! We’ll just go open up a box of Awesome and invent cool shit and they are happy to just assemble the awesome new products that we’re licensing to them. Then we’ll take those well-made, cheap products, and sell them to ourselves, and while we’re at it, you guys can all buy one too, and we’ll all get paid.

To be honest, I love that scenario.

That’s probably not going to happen, though. We’re outmatched, outmanned, and they’re getting wise to our little plans, and going ahead and just buying America so that our awesome work will just be theirs. Ok, maybe that’s not going to happen either. I’m not a scientist.

The traditional path, the corporate job, the common trades seem to be the likely path for many young people, but they’ve lost so much of their appeal. I believe that young Americans are spoiled, overstimulated, under-focused, selfish, and shortsighted at the very core. I know that seems harsh, but it’s kinda true. There’s positive traits mixed in there, but no need to mention those now.

We don’t want the 9-5 grind because we’re too smart and talented, we can’t do a task effectively because there’s something cool on the computer to look at, and did I mention that I’m too creative to work in an office? Right. The problem is that none of that is true. Multi-tasking on a computer doesn’t mean you’re hand-eye coordination is superb, doing a job in 50% of the time doesn’t mean your boss wants you to 50% of the time “off”. Being told you’re creative doesn’t mean that you are creative, liking music doesn’t mean that you should work in music, liking video games doesn’t mean you can design them, using Facebook doesn’t put you in a position to invent the next big one.

There are so many common misconceptions in young America that don’t seem to be any closer to being resolved than they were during our childhood. The misconception that being clever, smart, better than others, are rights that one is born with. That hard work is less valuable than creativity. That being normal, being pragmatic is less valuable than following your muses. It’s sending people down a track that doesn’t seem like can hold the weight. More and more young people are going to college, yet more and more of them are majoring in things that have no career attached to them. In other words, we’re “following our dreams” and now we’re lost. Our parents have near crashed the economy completely with pure ignorance, have squandered in mindless materalism, disconnecting their own families for no real reason. We have no direction to take from them. We’re on our own out here, trying to figure this out. The ancients speak against us, the contemporaries speak against us, but we see their failures too, are not willing to repeat them. In other words, we’re choosing our own failures, and attempting to write our own successes. Preferably in a way that exceeds anyone else before us. We want to have more fun, be richer, and never get old.

And here we have Mark Zuckerberg (founder of Facebook and subject of The Social Network), having tapped into a shining example of how to profit the new economy. It’s a perfect encapsulation of what this whole thing can be, because it’s so contradictory. The same contradiction that confuses young Americans has been turned into the business itself. The time wasted, the time expressing individuality, the time spent thinking about oneself, and one’s purpose in relation to friends and family, held together for long enough for an advertiser to sneak in an impression. There is no programming required, such as in TV and radio, it’s merely the time spent illuminated on one’s life, being reflected back at you with a subtle consumer message attached to it. It’s the message of the consumer, it’s the message of the person, give me time to exercise my ego, and I’ll let you sell me something. The person creates the world that’s important to them, and it’s viewable by others. That’s not the same as needing pipes for plumbing, or food to eat, but it’s somehow become a necessity that generates income as such.

So, what for all the others?

There’s no guarantee that there will ever be more innovations to be made, we just have faith in the idea. Much more faith than our parent’s gods could ever require. There is no guarantee that young Americans will continue inventing things that make money, to replace the failings of our parents with success. But it’s the hope that might be just enough to outdo our competitors.

R.I.A.A. + Net Neutrality vs. The Public

 8/20/10 CNET.com News "RIAA pushes Google, Verizon for piracy crackdown"

"Net neutrality regulations could, if the music industry gets its way, usher in more Internet surveillance and a crackdown on suspected pirates. This week, just about every music trade group called for broadband policies--which could include a new federal law--that would "encourage" Internet providers to crack down on suspected piracy by their customers. "The current legal and regulatory regime is not working for America's creators," the groups, including the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), said Wednesday in a letter to Google CEO Eric Schmidt. "Our businesses are being undermined, as are the dreams and careers of songwriters, artists, musicians, studio technicians, and other professionals."

The ironic thing about the RIAA's claims is that they themselves have been "not working for America's creators" for some time now. Sure there's an element of their business that still does cater to the artists at the top, that ensures that there are plenty of cross-promotional opportunities for a hand-full of their acts to take advantage of. Sure, the artist-of-the-moment does have an array of things to look forward to, courtesy of their record label: TV documentaries about their lives, corporate sponsorships from major companies, mainstream magazine covers, access to designers and managers who can help launch a clothing or fragrance line...

Unfortunately none of that works for anyone but top-tier mainstream celebrity-artists. Long past are the days of diversification in label's rosters...long past are the days when a major label would invest time and clout in groups based solely on their potential. The reward vs. risk quotient is irreversibly skewed... because they're terrified. Companies that invest in art can't be terrified, they have to be fearless and bursting at the seams with uncommon foresight. Ask yourself why Eminem's last few horrible albums are still a huge deal...the answer is simple: because there's no one to replace him.

The RIAA and it's member-companies waived their white flag in the internet fight around 2001, when Napster proved more of a foe than they cared to match wits with. Sure, they threw lawyers at the problem, but at no point did they actually choose to fight economics with economics. They chose to fight economics with lawsuits. They just gave up, and took up the role of victim/complainer. It doesn't take a marketing or economic genius to figure out that playing the role of "victimized corporation" doesn't help you sell products, it makes you more susceptible to theft. People steal from people who have no defense, people especially steal from those who they find pathetic, and they double-especially steal from those who they feel dont deserve what they have. The RIAA and it's members have lost so much respect in the past 10 years, that their reputation is actually poison to the industry they represent. Artists and bands now have to contend their music with an ever-increasing public perception that "the music industry is not worth supporting."

So, here in 2010, we face a growing "threat" of internet traffic regulation, where our service providers can potentially spy on us and crack down on our illegal tendencies. Naturally, the RIAA is for this, because it can possibly help them, without a personal cost to them. If this goes down, Google and Verizon will take the flak, not the RIAA. They can just speak out in favor of this, and then they may reap some benefit somewhere down the line. Again, it doesn't take a marketing or economic genius to know that this, in no way, will fix their business. We're a long, long way from Verizon handing out "automatic infringement tickets" for a detected illegal download...like a red-light camera sending you a traffic ticket in the mail. To me, that's the only way this could have any measured effect on illegal downloading, because how many Verizon employees could potentially monitor their user's activities? It would have to be automated...and even then, the legal ramifications of that system would be staggering. Something tells me there's no real legitimate desire for Verizon, Google, et al. to actually engage in several million legal transactions with their customers, customers who can leave their services on a whim.

Music will continue to be on the downloading chopping block until it's too much trouble to get. Inconvenience is the antidote for internet thievery. Make hurdles and people will choose to not jump. Manufacture empty threats, and people will not only recognize them as empty, but they'll also be more inclined to not respect future threats. And if a threat fails to instill fear, the threat is useless. RIAA has no ammunition at this point, yet they keep pointing the gun at millions of people thinking that they'll be scared. Moreover, what's the good of threatening your consumers? Art exists at the permission of the public, not at the permission of it's investors, and I think the RIAA is in dire need to understand that, and cater to that fact.

music school confidential

Ah, the "going to college for music" concept.  One of my favorite, and least favorite things to talk about, depending on who's got the opinions.  Sometimes the conversations are oddly reverent, other times they are pointless pissing contests, and often they can become overly prejudiced and harsh against whichever side you're not on.  Where do these feelings come from?  I'll see if I can answer that later...

Let's just jump ahead to the end and say that going to college for music is something to consider.  There's no ultimate argument that trumps all arguments, unfortunately.
--
I think 95% of musicians would agree that being a musician is a trade.  Even as a hobby, it's a trade, like knowing how to fix cars or how to network computers.  It takes some understanding to get started, some rules to follow, and it has a vocabulary and vernacular that comes with it.  With practice you get better, and maybe one day you'll be so good that you can charge people...as a musician, that likely means getting paid by a listening audience or by a session producer. 

So it follows that there are schools that teach music, in a similar way that you'd teach another trade, with:
Hands-on training
Group sessions
Instructors from the field
One-on-one lessons
Books on procedure, practice manuals, etc.

But music is not JUST a trade, it's also an art-form, and that's where it can diverge drastically and muddy up the whole idea of why exactly music colleges should exist.

The skeptic will ask: "How can you teach something that is designed to impact culture, emotions?"

"What is there to learn from a teacher that you can't learn by listening to records?"

"How can you teach someone to improvise?"

I think the answer to those questions is simple:
Not all music serves the purpose of being meaningful to us emotionally.  A lot of music exists for commercial, educational, supplemental purposes.  And those types of music have to be written and recorded by someone...someone who can do it fast, well and cheaply.  The breadth of music knowledge that it takes to be able to do these things is something that is taught in music school.  Music also needs to be taught to others, and so training music teachers in the nuts and bolts of music theory is also a necessity.  And believe me, there's enough music theory in existence to keep you in a classroom for a long time.

I mean, those above two purposes seem like fine reasons to attend music college...at least they do to me.  But that's not where it gets contentious -- these are not the reason that the whole idea of a music college is a turn-off to so many people, and a giant turn-on for so many people.

There's an allure to a music college that I think can be very intoxicating to young adults, who are fresh out of high school or in their 20's.  It's like, training to be an astronaut.  The job itself is so fucking awesome that even just the idea of being THAT when you grow up is enough to drive people into a frenzy.  The perks of being a musician are:
Fame
Sex
Cash
Power
Jewelry
Cars
Bitches
Owning a Professional Sports Team
Planes
Boats
Entourage

yep.  All of that can and will be yours if you go to music school.  Because then you'll be a trained and ready, lean-mean professional musician.  *the crowd cheers just on the mention of your name*

Yeah, something like that.

Keep in mind that when I went to Berklee College of Music as recently as 2004, they didn't really even require an audition to get into the school.  I did because I tried out for a couple scholarships (got one) and they saw me play during that.  But not everyone had to.  Their checks cleared.

So if you're not dumb enough to think that untrained, untested 18 year olds are likely to be future rockstars or rap moguls, we have kind of a problem.   Maybe because I live in L.A., but there are just massive amounts of untrained, untested kids out of high school (or likely, fresh off the heels of their first job, that taught them that working for The Man is a sucker's game) that pursue creative arts in college.  Music being one of the most popular, despite it's ever-declining revenues.

I can flash to scene after scene of conversations at parties where people pursuing music-related career fields had any particular knowledge of the industry, their instrument, or even more than just a passing enjoyment of music.  The mere enjoyment of music has somehow morphed itself as a reason to be working in the music industry.  I honestly thought that everybody liked music.  Like 100% of people, worldwide.

And I dont want to sound too harsh or down on people who are following their dreams, I just think there's a massive disconnect from the industry itself and the army of colleges and trade schools that claim to be it's gatekeepers.

It truly is a fault of the music schools of the world to assume the role of a gateway to the INDUSTRY of music.  It is a gateway to  KNOWLEDGE of music.  That's a gigantic distinction for me personally.  I think that if that fact were more apparent, we'd have a lot less failed music career-carcasses floating around the streets of LA and NY.

Over the years, there has been a steadily increasing branding of colleges that promise careers in the music biz.

Berklee
Full Sail
MI (Musicians Institute)
Academy of Art
USC (here in L.A.)

Berklee went from a "boutique" jazz haven in 1945 to it's 2010 image as a dominating name in music education.  Offering the most expansive book and online presence around.  Berklee Online classes are now very popular, and very ubiquitious.

M.I. is plastered around Los Angeles like Coca Cola ads.  They're much more blatant in the idea that going there is a "must" for relatively unskilled aspiring musicians.  Despite the fact that private lessons through amazing local teachers are no more than a phone call away, and at a fraction of the cost of M.I. tuition.

Full Sail and the dozens of other recording schools are relying more on the hip hop community to keep enrollment up.  Many hip hop lovers-turned-creators have no real instrument/voice training that would qualify them for an M.I. or Berklee...so "recording schools" pick up the slack. 
Recording schools offer training to DJ's, beat-makers, sound-scapers, and other non-instrumental audiophiles to pay $25,000 per year to learn their craft better.


And I'd say these schools do a hell of a job, at times.  I could go on for ages about my mixed-bag Berklee experience, but that's for another time.  Point being, they're not duping people in the education they provide, the instructors are qualified and they're accredited.  What I find to be a problem is that they play off people's loves and passions for music.

What they offer is so incredibly expensive, implying that it's the cost of an education that will take you far...but every musician knows that how far you go has nothing to do with which school you attended, or if you attended a school at all.  It just doesn't.  There's a laundry list of things to be good at to be a successful musician, and those are things that you can't learn in a class: dedication, raw talent, persistence, etc.

And we musicians have a cross to bear with this as well.  A pretty huge one.  There's too much weight given to schools in the musicians' world.  I think they serve a purpose and can teach a great thing or 2.  But to use your schooling to justify your talent is erroneous, as in thinking that you're a good musician because you went to a music school.  And it is equally erroneous to use your lack of schooling to indicate your innate raw talent, as in thinking that your knowledge was gained completely by yourself.  Neither one of these viewpoints is valid, there are too many conflicting examples to make either argument.  People are just different, a few months/years at a music school cannot teach them to be the same.

From this point on, I would love to see this topic approached from this point of view:
Music schools are something to be considered as an educational option
One cannot purchase a career in music from a music school...no matter how appealing that sounds.

Thanks for reading and be on the lookout for more blogs on this topic.

For more music and drumming stuff visit:

Steve's Drum-Studio.com | Music Articles | Drum Tracking

6/30/10 Los Angeles Times 

"Warner signs a multiyear, nonexclusive deal to let MTV sell ads for thousands of Warner's online music videos." 

 

MTV has already chopped the "Music Television" corporate tag-line from it's logo and it's company profile. It seems strange now to take the last vestige of the dignity that music videos had left -- Youtube -- and somehow find a way to make it worse.

 

MTV used to help make music videos an actual commodity, something that help sell a song, break an artist, sell a T-shirt or magazine, and they abandoned the business model for cheaper, lowered-expectation, reality programming. It seems outlandish for MTV to still lay claim to controlling the way music videos are watched at this point, doesn't it?

Yet they have found a way back in. And maybe they'll encourage the music business to do better by its artists and songs...but knowing MTV, they'll just add a bunch of cell phone ads plastered around the sides. I'm sure Thom Yorke and Shakira are going to look much cooler teamed up with a Geico Caveman.

Record Deals...and Why "Getting Signed" in 2010 is Meaningless

You can pretty easily spot someone who's new to the realities of the music industry, or someone who's an old soul who's a bit out of touch by a couple simple words they'll use:  "...getting signed.

If that phrase enters into a musical discussion as a clearly-defined "goal", then I think a reality check may be in order.  Not to say that you can't "get signed" anymore, but that idea carries so little weight that's it's almost impossible to take it seriously.

I remember reading in a magazine a long time ago where a famous drummer said "People think getting signed is some pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but in reality it's whole NEW set of problems that can really screw you up in the end."  In fact, if you look at major label rosters over the years (which will have 1 recognizable name out of 10 signings), I'd venture to say that "getting signed" is more of a kiss-of-death to a promising band than toiling in obscurity is.  This has to do with the "I got my shot, and I failed" principle.  If you see a major label record deal as your ultimate goal, and you achieve it, but your album doesn't sell and you get dropped, it can be a death-blow to your ego, and so disheartening that you give up on music altogether. 

In the case of my friends in the band Depswa, they got signed to Geffen after about 10 years of building a fan base in the L.A. hard rock scene.  Once signed they released one incredible sounding album "Two Angels And A Dream" (check it out, by the way, if you like heavy alt rock.  They sound like Jeff Buckley meets Deftones or something) and they were a victim of being "too little, too late".  Papa Roach, Breaking Benjamin, Chevelle and a few other hard rock bands had sucked the well dry and there was no room for poor Depswa...a band with more integrity and talent than 10 Papa Roaches.  "Two Angels..." didn't sell, didn't make radio, and flopped.  They went on a couple support tours, failed to gain a mainstream buzz, and died out.  The band is attempting a comeback at the moment, but the amount of wind taken out of their sails during the "major label process" was enough to essentially kill the band.

At this stage, in 2010, the band is responsible for itself.  As well it SHOULD be.  No band should willingly sign over the rights to their music and their lives (essentially) for a shot at 10% or less of their earnings.  It's such a ridiculous concept, that it's amazing that it was ever legal.  From the 1950's through the 90's, it only worked because there were enough perks to keep bands interested in pursuing it.  Fame, sex, touring, fame, fame, fame, were all powerful drivers for the music industry.  Bands made great albums on the premise that their song would get them a plane ticket to Tokyo where they could play to adoring crowds, have a giant orgy after the show, and get nice and wasted with their friends.  They probably never saw any serious cash for their songs, but hey, they were temporarily satisfied with the lifestyle that the label had provided for them.

These days, labels can't provide that, only bands can provide that for themselves, with some savvy marketing, intense hard work, a dash of talent and looks, and a bit of luck.  You have to create a video that costs $0 and somehow make it seen by a million people.  You have to go out and hustle a corporate sponser (think Energy Drinks) and have them fund part of your tour.  And you absolutely MUST record your album by yourself, so that you can retain the rights of your songs.  That way you can sell your songs to video games, corporations, marketing companies, film producers and anyone else who needs original music for their product.  You must be 100% willing to see your music as a marketing tool for companies, because that's what it is.  American Idol uses the "idea" of music to sell a TV show...and it's a sad fact that American Idol is one of the leading, driving forces behind modern music.  This is a fact.  Music is not sacrosanct any longer.  It is a means to sell a product, it is background noise for a TV show.  It's not worth resisting it.

Labels, at this point, have no money or interest to fund the music industry.  In the entertainment ladder of TV, movies, video games, DVDs, sports...music is firmly at the bottom.  And it shows no signs of moving up rungs any time soon.  Music is now a complement to the others, rather than a legitimate competitor.  This means the "industry" as a whole is just broke.  Sony, Universal, et. al, have no money or time or great incentive to go looking for bands.  They're not going to sign you!  They're essentially going to sign NOBODY anytime soon.  Yes, that's an exaggeration, but it's also safe to say you're not going to win the lottery, either.  You can just kind of accept that and move on, right?

Think about how many NEW famous musicians there are: Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Justin Beiber, Kesha?  What do you or any of the bands you know have in common with them?  They're all in their early 20's or younger, all look pretty good on a magazine, and are all singular artists with simple marketing plans.  Hell, Katy Perry is famous for kissing a girl and liking it.  And Justin Beiber is a walking haircut.  Sure, they all have a bit of talent, but talent didn't get them signed.  Being a singular marketing entity that can easily be exploited is what they have going for them.  I think an honest look at what you or your friends has to offer will yield the ultimate conclusion: it ain't gonna happen.

If you've taken this article at face value, can accept that what I'm saying has merit, and are unfazed, then you may have what it takes to be successful in music.  This is the age of THE NEW CREATIVITY.  The idea that you have to design your future in this business, on your terms, on your own merits, and by your own sweat and blood.  Not only do you have to write the songs, you have to film your videos, you have to strategize your marketing, you have to make your website, you have to find sponsors, you have to publish your own songs and get them placed in movies.  You have to do what YOU have to do in order to be successful and get your music heard.  And I dont think I'm wrong in thinking that that kind of full-investment into a craft and art will lead to great things in the future.  And, not only that, it is a trial by fire that will only leave the most creative, inventive people standing...and isn't that who we want to remain standing?  Let the labels have the Ke$ha's and Beibers of the world, let the people have the true artists and innovators!

For more music-related stuff visit:

Steve's Drum-Studio.com | Music Articles | Drum Tracks