Spotify is killing the Youtube star. call the police

There have been a lot of changes brought about by the internet and subsequent "Social Network" byproduct. If there's one thing constant, it's change. I don't see it as destructive toward old routines and norms. To me, it's just simply LIFE. This is how shit's always been and it's how it's always gonna be. Now we don't only get what the record company wants us to, we get to see a lot more talent (and bullshit). People can market themselves in ways never before possible. I have found more new music that I really enjoy in the last two weeks using Spotify than I could have found in two years listening to the radio. I'm able to read about artists and share songs, albums, artists and playlists with friends and followers. Biographies are available for most artists. This is a one-stop marketing launchpad for artists. This is what's gonna bring about some really good talent and interesting music because popularity rests on the opinions of listeners, not record companies. This can be good or bad for the record companies depending on how you look at it. Yeah, bigger companies that have been head honchos are shrinking due to lost sales and more options for artists, but smaller companies are growing because they can find good artists more easily. This is social networking with music and whatever people hear and share will catch on and generate buzz for artists and their respective labels. Many DJ's are becoming superstars as well. Things are much different for them from a traditional standpoint because they aren't recording artists as much as they are live artists. Most of them start as software nerds and get hooked on the equipment and manipulation of sound. They start spinning for friends and move onto clubs and parties. Word of mouth is the strongest market for them. Without the internet and new ways of communicating and sharing music, many of them would not be known at all. Many times, the one's that record on labels usually started the label or collaborated with similar DJ's to start it. IE: The glitch mob was four DJ's who split up. Josh Mayer (Ooah, from Glitch Mob) joined Martin Folb (MartyParty) to form PANTyRAID, who just released an album on Glitch Mob's label, Glass Air. None of this shit happened before Social Networking. DJ's can also offer free downloads for promoting an upcoming show or album release. I'm pretty fucking sure that NO record company gave away singles to the public, on a regular basis, to promote their artists. I don't think this trend will negatively affect the record label from an artistic standpoint. I see record labels becoming more savvy and art-minded instead of money minded. Good, genuine music is wanted more than ever and the company that supports that and diligently finds/promotes it will be on top of this wave and not crushed by the changes. To say that this trend is destroying the music business we know is like saying today destroyed yesterday. It's just the natural sequence of things. Things must move forward and this is just the road taken. CD's are obsolete because of digital media and ipods. Last year, department discount stores sold 93.2 million albums. Digital merchants sold 111.7 albums. I think this is a good sign for record labels because the music is more accessible. Fuck CD's. Vinyl's making a comeback though, which is an indication that people are tired of the commercialized bullshit and want substance, authenticity and art. Sean Parker - Spotify interview (We've got you by the balls)

Reality Television

Reality: real or unreal?

                         Reality Television is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. It's easy to see how the drama easily draws viewers in. It's also obvious that people are greatly influenced and affected by this genre of t.v. Teen Mom has some good points and intentions. It is a great way for other young teens to see the challenges and sacrifices required to be a parent. However, it also showcases young people being irresponsible and getting a lot of attention. This can easily turn into a message to teens that it's not only ok to be pregnant at 16, it's cool. A lot of people on the show still go out and party, leaving other people (grandparents, friends and other family) in charge of the kid. A lot of times, there are much more associated problems in the relationships due mostly to the age of the couple facing extremely important and difficult circumstances. I'm sure that being on the show will have a huge impact on the children's lives. Imagine your most intimate moments of infancy captured on camera and broadcasted without your awareness or consent. Most people don't like to share their baby photos and these kids now have a baby tv series.

               

               Jersey Shore did nothing but teach others that it's cool to be shallow, have no goals in life and party without consideration for anyone else. The show is almost nothing but people constantly fighting, lying, cheating, and being shitty people in general. And now they're famous. What the fuck? Is this really how people are or should be? If this is reality, I'm happy to live in fantasy. These people are portrayed as "Rock Stars" and celebrities. Most people say they watch the show because of how stupid the people are, but the bottom line is, they're still watching the show and those stupid people are just getting more money and encouragement to do what they're doing. 

               Of course, no generalization is absolute. I do think, however, that there are some obvious trends of influence with reality tv and society. Although teen pregnancy rates are down in the U.S., we still have the highest teen pregnancy rate of the entire industrialized western world. I'm pretty sure that the only reason that non-industrialized areas have higher rates is because of child slavery/trafficking common in impoverished and underdeveloped areas. Although Teen mom probably reflects the alarming rate of teen pregnancy, it certainly also glamorizes it. It's like reality tv takes a small percentage of people with "real" problems and commercializes them into mainstream, everyday occurrences. There's also the factor of elevation that i'm sure will be taking effect within the next five years. What are people going to have to do now to get a reality tv show? I'm sure we're gonna be seeing some crazy-ass people very soon. (moreso than the crazies on tv now) Frightening.

News

        The New York Times is the biggest newspaper. EVER. They're the newspaper other newspapers read. They are the informational heart that has been steadily pumping vital news to the rest of America, and the world for that matter, for over 162 years. They're not going anywhere but the paper game might not be so lucky...

              Today the New York Times costs vary with different packages offered. It is obvious they want people to continue to get papers delivered. They offer free digital access to their content with a paper subscription. This makes sense because a paper is a tangible item you pay for per unit. You cannot pay for a day of streaming info.online with the same satisfaction (you) or justification (NY Times) as you can with an actual newspaper. Could you imagine them charging you for access to the websites on Sunday only? of course not. Newspapers are quantifiable. They can be broken down and profited from much more than constant streaming information. The cost of subscription for just the Sunday paper is $4.10/week for the first twelve weeks. The cost of the daily delivery package is $8.08/week for the first twelve weeks. What happens after twelve weeks is unclear but I would bet my dying breath that the price goes up, it is the NY TIMES. So why would a subscription for one day only cost half as much as a daily subscription? Why would they offer free online services and apps with ANY subscription to paper delivery? Because they want people to get the paper EVERY SINGLE DAY! They're sinking and they need business.

                 I don't believe that any newspaper has a snowball's chance in hell at making it through the next decade. I do Believe that the NY TIMES has the best chance at dying a prolonged, dramatic, and torturous death. They deal with international stories more than any other paper. They are the ones that first dip their toes into the unknown and test the controversy before other papers ride their coattails. They have the broadest audience of mediocre readers, not dummies like USA Today, or the few elitists with the WALL STREET JOURNAL. They have more stability in mediocrity. They have the largest city backing them. It would be a whole different ball game if the paper was from Albuquerque. Cities like Baltimore, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., etc. simply will not be able to compete with the nostalgia of tens of millions of New Yorkers who will fight to keep their local paper alive.I believe nostalgia is the biggest strength newspapers are surviving on right now. That nostalgia will die out as the current workforce enters, or approaches, retirement. 

               Once my generation and the one below mine make up the majority of the workforce, all newspapers will be dead. There will be less cost involved with online news feeds. Currently, the news is laid out, designed, and published the morning before you read it. I never understood that, people read today's news before the day hardly even begins. With online subscriptions, you can get news instantly as it happens. On top of that, you're gonna have all the hippies crying about wasted material used to print newspapers that are talking about yesterday's news. All so some old guy can drink his coffee with his paper like he's done for fifty fuckin years. That's what it boils down to: People are afraid of change. Once those people no longer make up the deciding majority, that change is gonna come. Until then, The New York Times will fight the longest, holding on to the routines of all the sheep that believe and follow them. 

        The magazine rack is full of love, drama, beauty, sin, 

secrets,graphic images and everything American. The covers show 

us the best and worst of our celebrities, criminals, politicians

and even ourselves. These images are "photo-shopped" to create

shock and interest for impulse buying. Like a fishing lure, they 

dangle in the checkout lines attracting people with a short 

amount of time with headlines like "Rising seas threatening the 

U.S." and an accompanying picture of the Statue of Liberty 

half-way under water. Women are presented as shiny, skinny, 

beautiful and happy. Men are shown shirtless and air-brushed 

with muscles popping off of the page or in expensive cars with 

nice clothes and beautiful women all smiling. The magazines use 

fear, shock, and the general low self-esteem of people to draw 

them into buying. They advertise information on government 

scandals, future catastrophes, tips to be better, stronger, 

healthier and happier. I may be stupid, but I'm no dummy and I 

won't feed into this bullshit by contributing to their drama.

Inside is no better. Their are more advertisements than 

articles, all promising salvation for ugly, unhappy people. 

"262 ways to live better, look great & finally make peace with your past"   - Essence magazine october 2013