You Are Not A Gadget: A Musical/Monetary Continuation

The expansion of wealth through technology has really shaped the way big businesses can sell their products and expand their companies. From what I gained from Parts 2/3 of You Are Not A Gadget, Lanier takes a highly intriguing approach how money in today's society is critically affecting artists, musicians and journalists, implying that since money is mostly going to advertising, where is the future for all of these starving workers? He also states that our culture will entirely be "nothing but advertising", yet I see it differently. Without advertising, through a musician's viewpoint, artists who are signed to labels may not have as much success in promoting their albums/tours/appearances without the means of Facebook/Google/Myspace Ads, along with television ads and radio ads that are in heavy rotation (see: Diddy). The entertainment market is highly based on advertisement, and as a result of it, an abundance of new products have become available. I also see advertising as a positive structure, seeing the amount of job opportunities it has produced through many companies over the years. I often think about what would happen had there not been any advertising departments in radio stations, film, and music companies?

So, yes, advertising has played a major role in our "open culture", aiding established artists, and hungry, unsigned artists alike. Through sites including Reverb Nation, artists and producers are able to have the option to promote for free, or, through paid services (amazon, iTunes, etc.)  To comment on Lanier's bullet point regarding the "aggregator", this idea of aggregating music for hundreds and thousands to hear online has become a phenomenon. Even for some artists, just to have the ability to have their voice heard through their music on the net, instead of waiting around to get signed at a gas station or local club, is phenomenal.

There is also another thought-provoking statement that Lanier makes, claiming that things that are "non-digital related" will not work for artists, musicians, and filmmakers due to "digital idealism". I highly disagree with this statement because there are plenty of artists and musicians who sell merchandise outside of the digital and still make a profit, primarily through t-shirts, buttons, posters, scrapbooks, and even special-edition bracelets and other apparel. It may not be as effective as say, deluxe album releases though iTunes/Amazon, or bonus DVD's, but hey, this method still works to this day.

Another thought-provoking statement Lanier makes is if a new army of artists who sell their own CD's are starting to appear. I say ABSOLUTELY. How? One Word: Mixtapes. Mixtapes, mainly prevalent in the Hip-Hop & R&B community, has allowed a plethora of underground singers, rappers, DJ's and producers to express their creativity through their content, but it has already expanded throughout the pop culture.

Lanier also expresses his concern about the idea of the "hive mind", where this "hive ideology" continuously robs musicians and other creative people of the ability to "influence context within which their expressions are perceived." While interpreting this "hive mind" idea, I realized that through these several musical networks, we as artists, musicians and other creative people, are in many ways our own communities where we share our creative ideas and circumstances through our musical content, and also find ways to promote it and advertise it to the world, solely for exposure, but later for monetary purposes; we learn and grow through the process of hearing new content. Even through YouTube, we are sharing our resources and knowledge globally, but is that really a bad thing?