|
|
Week 4 – on Steve Gordon’s The Future of the Music Business, chapters 7 & 8 – 2/04/2011
Reading Gordon’s assertion that the sale of ringtones is a billion-dollar industry was surprising, although it was interesting to note that more time was not spent on adding this to revenues from other forms of digital downloads and existing music sales to find a combined revenue, (since only this would comparable to the former sales figures for tangible recordings). Just as worthy of further examination is the tension existing within some companies—particularly Sony—that manufacture technologies that seem to enable the exact sort of piracy that another arm of the company is so stridently fighting against. Perhaps Sony’s willingness to participate at every link in the supply chain allows for the recuperation of profits lost at some formerly-valuable links by means of now more valuable links, (like in technology sales). Considering ringtones as well as music in video games as new, different ways to sell or market music, too, might lead to rethinking the consumption of music. The commodification of music is worthy of investigation, since it could be argued that the growth in interest in digitized music, and the revenue that correlates to these new forms of music (distribution/consumption), leads to reconsidering what the commodity is: perhaps the commodity has shifted from the tangible good to the actual recorded music.
Although the following chapter does not address this more philosophical approach to the shift in sales of music from music-as-object to music-as-performance, it was worthy to note the apparent (unintentional) solidarity between the author and all of those he interviewed in their approach to the RIAA’s pursuit of individuals illegally downloading music – despite their (varying) status as music industry insiders. Further, their similar approaches to ensuring some revenue stream to help record labels, such as a blanket license or tax applied to technologies that allow legal and illegal copying & distribution, mark a serious difference from the corporate approaches so far – and it will certainly be interesting to see different ideas like this tried over the coming years, (since it seems–with a number of examples of failures in trying to use ad revenue to pay for licensing–some other approach is necessary). One issue Gordon brought up may reemerge in a slightly shifted form if any of these new approaches are tried, though: just as the first forays of the music industry into the world of legal sales of digital music were clumsy and destined to fail, it seems likely (if the music industry’s resistance to change and inability to rethink sales from a unit-based model are so certain) that progress will be stalled.
Week 4 – on Russ Girsberger’s A Manual for the Performance Library, chapter 1
Just a couple of brief notes on the chapter: first and most generally, I have to admit to a woeful ignorance of the position/job of a ‘performance librarian’ and the collection one could call a ‘performance library’, as opposed to what I more generally knew of as a music library. Upon reading the first chapter of Girsberger’s book, though, it makes perfect sense – as does the assertion that an MLIS and/or traditional training as a librarian do not make up the ideal preconditions for working as a performance librarian. Instead, an emphasis on subject expertise is the largest priority, which leads me to think of a performance library as another form of special library.
On various music recording and editing software (ProTools, Garage Band, Cubase, etc.)
Of the five different products in this week’s list of recording software, Garage Band seems the most approachable – the most useful for a novice, especially considering its ‘learn to play music’ function. This makes a certain amount of sense, considering Apple’s history of very intuitive and usable products, as well as the expected range of software to do nearly anything, (create web pages, edit photos, etc.). Following on this idea of a spectrum of products designed for the novice to the expert, so we might see Protools, Audition, SONAR, and Cubase as geared toward more experienced musicians who have used recording software before. The Ableton and Acid products allow looping, as indicated in the week’s reading notes, but seem to also be useful for sound editing. Since I haven’t had any experience with any of these products, I couldn’t say if one is particularly more easy to use or nimble than another. There are many free and/or open-source recording and editing software options, too, so I would be curious to see an expert comparison of the full range of choices.
Week 3 – on Steve Gordon’s The Future of the Music Business, chapters 5 & 6 – 1/29/2011
Whether intending to communicate this message or not, Steve Gordon’s explanation of the complexities of licensing, especially of music when synced with video of some sort, (music video, concert recordings, and other music-use-in-film), suggests that the primary motivator for all parties involved is clearly profit. The lack of consistency in law as it applies to each component of music/music licensing, in the form of either (1) compulsory licensing or not, and (2) varying licensing fees (or not, depending on whether there is a set schedule for payment based on different factors, like expected size of audience), show as much. Add to this Gordon’s oft-times cynical take on the music industry and its cooperation with other industries, and it seems fair to read Gordon’s manual as a how-to guide for musicians but one that dispels any illusions of a connection between the integrity of the artist in producing art in the form of music and the larger industry grown around that to profit, (one example of Gordon’s (2008) cynicism: “…one of many examples of a commercial not only borrowing interest from music, but also borrowing out interests, milking our memories and desires, and selling them back to us,” (p. 93).
References
Gordon, S. (2008). The future of the music business: How to succeed with the new digital technologies (2nd ed.). New York: Hal Leonard.
Week 3 – on online music acquisition, [posted to discussion board, 1/29]
Some of my favorite sites: well, honestly, I still mostly buy tangible goods – and a lot of what I’d like to buy isn’t available for download, (though this is starting to change). When I do decide to download music, I tend to go to the label or band site and move from there as necessary; that means I’ve spent as much or more money with Merge (http://www.mergerecords.com/ –who offer 320kpbs and FLAC options!), Chemikal Underground (http://www.chemikal.co.uk/), Sub Pop (http://www.subpop.com/), and other labels, or barring that, Insound (http://www.insound.com), than I have with Amazon. Although, as Matthew pointed out in his post, Amazon’s selection is growing pretty quickly. I can’t help being split on an allegiance to buying stuff versus buying the recording in a digital format. The thousands of records and CDs I have collecting dust in a storage unit are an albatross, and since I’ve been working remotely and traveling constantly, having many of those records encoded and stored on one portable hard drive has made it possible for me to take some of the music with me (which is great). When I’m settled again, though, I know that I’ll still love the experience of dropping the needle onto a Caetano Veloso record, and sitting back with a cup of coffee to enjoy a sunny (sub)tropical morning. I expect that, really, that’s what most of our reactions will get at: the subjective and unquantifiable something that a tangible format provides, versus the convenience and portability of a digital format. One more thing that I haven’t seen mentioned yet: tangible music, provided it’s not copied or shared, means not having to engage in many of the complexities outlined by Gordon – you can successfully avoid any fears about copyright, licensing, etc., by simply not participating (and, of course, being a dinosaur)!
Week 3 – on various websites
On the mp3, http://www.soundstageav.com/mastersonaudio/20050201.htm
A good, quick overview of the format and other compressed audio formats, although this is certainly meant to be an historical document; with continuing advances in quality and changing of default format, (like FLAC, now), the mp3 remains the most widely adopted but could be outmoded in the future
On WMG, http://www.wmg.com/
My personal bias will shout loudly when it comes to the major-major labels. WMG, superficially, sells little to no music that I have any interest in; the Warner Archives, however, is a wholly different story. First and foremost, this site is a corporate site, (see the sidebar with news announcing court rulings, and the abundance of business links). There is no confusion on this site about music being a commodity.
On Sony BMG, http://www.sonymusic.com/ (redirect to here)
The same is true of Sony BMG as with WMG, (although there are many gems controlled under the umbrella of Legacy, like recordings of Johnny Cash, Captain Beefheart, and quite a number of others), although Sony has done a better job of masking the overtly corporate face with a more music-oriented webspace. This site makes it easy and intuitive to interact with some of their recordings by means of digital partners, (links to which take up the bottom portion of the page).
On Universal, http://www.universalmusic.com/ (redirect to here)
Of the three, this is the most remarkably un-corporate site: its focus is on the music and the artists. That’s not to say there isn’t clear commodification, but it is worth noting that there is not a single obvious ‘buy something’ sort of link from the front page. Instead, the emphasis seems to be more on getting surfers to interact with the different musical content, (note all of the ‘watch now!’ and ‘get now!’ notes near videos or cover images from new albums). I expect UMG has a separate corporate site, intended to represent the more business-oriented (less consumer-focused) content.
On EMI, http://www.emimusic.com/
This site almost feels like misdirection – its bloglike presentation and lack of overwhelming branding (other than the red and white EMI logo in the upper left corner) could be a testament to British reserve, or could be intended to present any passing consumer with an impression of distance from the editorialized content on the page and the authoritative voice of the label profiting, (e.g., “the great video for the new single…” [my emphasis], “follows his stellar UK breakout last year…” [my emphasis], etc.).
On the RIAA site, http://www.riaa.com
Though it comes as no surprise, it is interesting to see how the RIAA construct their identity in terms of the US Constitution, (since no one hates the First Amendment – see the ‘Who We Are’ section of the site). It is perhaps just as interesting that the RIAA describes their membership as “the music labels that comprise the most vibrant record industry in the world,” (from http://www.riaa.com/faq.php). While the RIAA does not exactly hide their goals of maximizing profit for their members, it does seem to misrepresent the record labels in a way that allows them to stand in for the artists’ productions (music).
On the BMI site, http://www.bmi.com
Differing from the RIAA, BMI initially present a simply-understood mission (hovering over ‘About’ on the front page shows a one-page summary). Similarly to the RIAA, though, BMI then goes on to manufacture a certain image, only instead of relying on Constitutional references, it is perhaps even more oppressive in the form of an American flag banner, (see the Legislation page, http://www.bmi.com/legislation). The site itself seems intuitive and usable for those who want to license music, as well as for artists seeking an agent to collect their royalties.
On the ASCAP site, http://www.ascap.com/index.aspx
This site definitely seems geared more toward artists than either the RIAA or BMI sites – the front page is heavy on links and promotion for musicians, and while the ‘About’ hover-over delivers a similar simple message to that in the same place as on the BMI site, the explicit ‘we create music’ message across the banner makes this the group most obviously representing themselves on the side of the musician. In some ways, such as the promotion of their ‘expo’, ASCAP seems as much a professional organization as anything else – almost as if advocacy for musicians is but a part of the larger purpose, (which is an apparent difference between ASCAP and the web-presented image of both BMI and the RIAA).
On the EFF site, https://www.eff.org/
This site seems to directly represent the “public interest” (consumers), even in the face of the government or corporate interests, (http://www.eff.org/about). It is interesting to compare the appearance of this site and that of the RIAA and BMI – the EFF site is very text-heavy, and though it does make use of unassailable ideas, (like references to fighting for ‘freedom’), uses relatively plain language to present its myriad pursuits, (https://www.eff.org/work).
On iTunes, USF iTunes, Napster, Rhapsody, Amazon, Yahoo Music…
While iTunes U through USF delivers some worthwhile content, I wish the interface were less foreboding (the galactic background isn’t exactly inviting), and also simply wish there was more easily navigable content. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any link to suggest relevant material, as a student might via the library catalog, so the effect is still that of having a preselected grouping of A/V content pushed out rather than any type of interaction. The complaint would apply to iTunes, too, although the iTunes U/USF approach suggests a partnership and interaction rather than consumption, (as iTunes, Amazon, and other retail sites/services all do). Since I refuse to sign up for any pay services and feel iTunes has a suspicious amount of control over my computer (to prompt refusal to download any other software), I have to admit to not exploring Rhapsody or Napster to their fullest; as such, I can only imagine these are models for delivering content on demand. As a consumer, I would especially appreciate a web-accessible music library that would allow creation of playlists and be commercial free; if the variety of music I listen to and enjoy was available through such a service, I would happily pay a monthly subscription, (perhaps priced similarly to what I already pay for Netflix, about $15-$20 a month). Unfortunately, a substantial amount of the music I listen to isn’t available digitally from anyone, having been only issued on vinyl or small tape labels – though I don’t expect I’m within the target demographic for these services. It is not clear from the Napster or Rhapsody sites whether a software download is necessary, (though my expectation given the DRM necessity is that there does need to be some software installation – confirmed through the FAQ, answering the following: “What is the Napster Software? Do I need to use it? Can I just use the Napster Web Service?” (http://www.napster.com/faq.html)), and Rhapsody looks to be comparable to iTunes as far as being software rather than allowing web-based streaming, (Napster does seem to allow streaming through the web, but does not allow downloading songs without the software).
The most interesting option for Sirius and XM are their attempts to net (pun intended) the potential web-accessing audience as well as subscribers using satellite radio receivers (in cars, in restaurants, at home), with the internet streaming subscription add-on. I honestly didn’t know about this option and would consider it, especially in areas where the terrestrial radio did not mesh with my listening interests. While CDBaby seems to fill a similar space as Amazon, the ambitious reach of the latter is likely to negatively impact the former – for instance, even a number of truly indie artists (like some of those on a Swedish label, Labrador) have their entire discographies available for the same price or cheaper on Amazon as they do on CDBaby; more, some of these artists actually have fewer releases available on CDBaby than Amazon. This is likely a testament to the reach and financial strength of Amazon – though from an artist’s perspective, perhaps CDBaby fills a gap that Amazon cannot or will not?
It may be worth drawing a distinction between retailers, like Amazon and CDBaby, and sites that serve more of a discovery purpose (like MySpace). YouTube, MySpace, and other sites that allow no-cost hosting/linking of music and video content are clearly still popular, and I would suspect are replacing such avenues of discovery as were popular through the 1980s and 1990s, like MTV and/or terrestrial radio.
Week 2 – on Steve Gordon’s The Future of the Music Business, chapters 3 & 4 – 1/22/2011
Gordon does a great service for his readers in quickly differentiating ‘webcasting’ from ‘interactive streaming’ – necessarily so, for legal and financial reasons – as follows: webcasting is essentially radio delivered through the Web, (insofar as it is fixed content – whether music, talk, sports, etc.), whereas interactive streaming is content delivered through a similar method (streaming over the web) but with the listener driving the content in a dynamic way (to some extent), as a type of choose-your-own-adventure version of radio. Gordon spends no little amount of time focusing on the (successful) attempts by the large record companies, via the RIAA, to gain another revenue stream through payment for digital public performance of sound recordings, (payment of which is not required for terrestrial broadcast radio). According to Gordon (2008), the justification for the need for payment is the digital signal which can be easily copied and negatively impact sales of tangible recordings (records, CDs), (pp. 49-50). The same logic of product replacement via digital delivery is replicated in the DMCA when applied to satellite delivery, (as through Sirius or XM). Webcasting—at least according to The Future of the Music Business (and all of the legal wrangling it references)—is the focus of a continuing battle over rates that webcasters must pay, presumably because of the strong desire for labels to compensate for what they claim is a loss in revenue. The following chapter (chapter 4) on interactive streaming and downloading indicates that songwriters, via ASCAP and BMI, are as guilty of the same revenue-seeking behavior as record labels; in this case, representatives for songwriters argued that downloading should also be subject to public performance license, (Gordon, 2008, pp. 68-69). As Gordon goes to great lengths to emphasize, both fees and legislation are still very much up in the air.
References
Gordon, S. (2008). The future of the music business: How to succeed with the new digital technologies (2nd ed.). New York: Hal Leonard.
Week 2 – on Music Information Retrieval
The idea of ‘music information retrieval’ seems as nebulous and ambitious as ‘information architecture’ – nebulous in its overlap with other areas, (traditional librarianship, law, database management, for a start), and ambitious because of exactly this overlap as well as the sense of inclusion based on ‘music’ (whether as an abstraction, a recorded or written artifact, or a subject of classification and storage). Identifying the universe of what could be included within ‘music information retrieval’ is practically useful, as it aids in building a toolkit to manage music as a specialized sort of information source. In addition to knowledge of advancing technology that more readily allows for (technically) easy storage and access of musical recordings, an understanding of the web of stakeholders and the associated legal battles related to access and ownership are essential for any professional working within the field.
Week 2 – on various websites
International Association of Music Libraries, http://www.iaml.info
While in many ways, the IAML seem a typical association, (replicating much of the language common to the ALA, for instance), one particularly interesting expressed purpose stood out – supporting not only standard library practices, but also supporting work that may be slightly outside the scope of the contemporary library, such as creating music bibliographies or music documentation, (http://www.iaml.info/organization/what_is_iaml/principal_aims).
International Computer Music Association, http://www.computermusic.org/
The ICMA seems to have value outside of the world of traditional librarianship, particularly to the identified target population of those “involved in the technical, creative, and performance aspects of computer music,” (http://www.computermusic.org/page/3/). This is most clearly expressed in the practical approach, as in the list of software for use in creation and editing of computer music, (http://www.computermusic.org/page/35/subcat=2). There is also a space—and implied need through recognition—for research in the field, which the association seems to support through their conference as well as through linked publications. Still, the ICMA seems to emphasize practice first.
Musipedia.org, http://www.musipedia.org/
As the ‘About’ and main page both indicate, Musipedia looks to be trying to fill a niche that is not clearly defined – the page includes a search engine for tunes that uses melody input by means of a few impressive little technologies, (which works much better than I expected for classical compositions!). One worry, though, is the complexity of the search options considering functionally similar apps for mobile devices; it seems likely that this site will be rapidly outmoded, if it hasn’t been already.
Week 1 – on Steve Gordon’s The Future of the Music Business, chapters 1 & 2 – 1/10/2011
Despite Gordon’s problematic assertions, he rightly noted ‘bad’ choices of record labels, trade organizations and of aggregators like Apple via iTunes in legally pursuing individuals and by implementing byzantine DRM as methods to stem the tide of (free) digitization and sharing of music. Also, Gordon’s focus on the possibilities that easy digitization of music (for recording and for distribution) bring to artists is a refreshing counterpoint to the prevailing negative news about the death of record companies and exaggerated suffering of musicians because of fans’ ‘theft’ of their music. First, though, his overview of the legal landscape for music production, control, sale, and licensing is an at-times tedious but ultimately worthwhile read. Gordon’s detailing of the difference between the composition (the ‘words and music’) and the sound recording, (p. 3) is essential to further understanding of the legal wrangling detailed further in this chapter, as well as is apparent in news-making legal battles; from a music consumer’s point of view, the distinction is worthy of note, too, insofar as the two, along with public performance, fuel justification for multiplied revenue streams.
Mechanical rights are the rights to copy compositions and sell these copies, (formerly in tangible form, such as on LPs or CDs; currently, includes mp3s and other digital forms); these rights are compulsory, so the copyright owner does not have a choice about allowing the copying of compositions, premised on remuneration at an established rate for that copying (and sale). This is not the right to copy an existing album and redistribute it; rather, this is the right to copy the composition (the words and the music) through interpretation, as one band may cover another band’s song, then release a recording of the cover version. Synchronization rights are not compulsory and, according to Gordon, must be negotiated with whomever holds the publishing rights for the music intended to be used (synchronized) over some form of audiovisual production, (e.g., film, television, websites(?)), (Gordon, 2008, p. 6). Public performance rights are rights held by owners of songs to perform the song in a public place where more than a “family and its social acquaintances is gathered,” or to broadcast a performance to the public even if that ‘public’ is in a different location or locations than the broadcaster, (e.g., via radio?), (Gordon, 2008, p. 7). Performing-rights organizations (PROs) such as the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (or ASCAP) exist as clearinghouses for public performance rights, so that broadcasters or those who wish to license public performance rights can easily do so, even if the intent is to license a large group of content (blanket licenses) to allow legal broadcast of a variety of controlled content.
Master-use licenses are licenses to use recordings as captured within a master – so this right is not the right to cover a band’s song, but rather the right to use an already-recorded version of a song. The example supplied by Gordon is of using a Frank Sinatra song written by someone else in a movie or television show. In such a situation, both a synchronization license would be needed to use the song-as-composition, and a master-use license would be needed to use the Sinatra-recorded version of the song. Also according to Gordon (2008), public performance rights are not required for broadcasting actual recordings, (though they are necessary for rights to broadcast the composition), (pp. 9-10).
Similarly to how he criticized the decisions within the music industry during the initial push of digitization and sharing of music, Gordon (2008) also seems to come out as suspicious of the ‘360-degree deal’ wherein record labels are not only insisting on controlling the masters of musicians, but also to get some portion of revenue from touring, merchandise, and publishing.
Gordon (2008), while acknowledging public performance licensing for broadcasting of recordings in “every other developed country,” (p. 20), is remarkably silent in regard to limitations of the US Audio Home Recording Act versus how many of these other countries, such as Sweden with their Private Copying Levy (Johansson & Larsson, 2009, p. 5), do impose tariffs on digital music players as well as other recordable media. The Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act seems to have inconsistently applied public performance rights, hamstringing digital transmission (such as streaming through the Internet) without affecting radio broadcast; this is redressed in part by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which allows for a form of compulsory licensing provided rules are followed and fees as mandated by the act are paid, (Gordon, 2008, pp. 26-27). In addition to these glosses of recent, relevant legislation governing the broadcast of recordings, Gordon also provides a fairly broad summary of different methods for digital delivery of music (webcasting, streaming, downloading), as well as different platforms, (iTunes, eMusic, satellite radio like Sirius).
References
Gordon, S. (2008). The future of the music business: How to succeed with the new digital technologies (2nd ed.). New York: Hal Leonard.
Johansson, D., & Larsson, M. (2009). The Swedish music industry in graphs: Economic development report 2000-2008. Retrieved from the EU Audiovisual Policy Information Center website: http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/docs/other_actions/col_2009/pub/kth_annex.pdf
Addendum – a few questionable or incorrect assertions of Steve Gordon (2008) in The Future of the Music Business:
1. “When the PC and Internet became popular it was easy to rip all those CDs and upload perfect copies to everyone in the world,” p. xx
This speaks to a technological incompetence on the part of Gordon, at least during the early days of home digitization of music. Early ripping software required multiple steps and external compression programs, the end result of which was often flawed because of technological limitations (such as unreliable CD drives, as well as comparatively very slow read speed). A CD encoded at 128 kbps is in no way comparable to the quality of recording of a factory-issued CD (CD audio) or LP. Even if the point Gordon attempts to make is understandable, it is sloppy to make such an assertion.
2. “’Free music’ is not free at all. You need to pay for a computer… you need a broadband connection…,” p.xx
Yes, the technological requirements to participate in digital music creation and sharing are not, generally, free; that said, it is always a dangerous assumption to value multi-use technologies against a single aspect of their final use. Likely very few computer users purchase their computers and pay their monthly broadband bills solely in the pursuit of ‘free’ music. Comparative valuation should take this into account.
3. “Without copyright [musical compositions and recorded works] would have no financial value,” p. 1
Gordon repeatedly adopts a righteous tone when celebrating possible income for artists and copyright holders. While it is understandable that his grounding in the world of entertainment law in the United States necessitates this positioning, it is reckless to make such extreme statements considering that Gordon’s own representation of copyright (at least through the first two chapters of his book) is firmly rooted in profit-oriented control. Financial value is not necessitated by copyright and the implied sale by a copyright owner of recorded works as Gordon narrowly represents it; there is a range of copyright control, including Creative Commons licenses, which could be applied to all manner of individual cultural production. Moreover, considering the example of Radiohead’s album In Rainbows (and the very poor encoding of the album offered for free), it seems apparent that regardless of copyright control, there are ways to ensure some revenue stream (though not the river Gordon seems to believe artists, publishers, record labels, and all other participants in the corporate music engine are entitlted to) can be preserved even with the allowance of forms of ‘free music.’ In fairness to Gordon, he does say as much later in the chapter – it just seems that he needs to better consider his the implications of his more bombastic statements.
4. “Think of the use of ‘New York, New York’ by Fred Ebb and John Kander over the credits of the next Steven Spielberg blockbuster, compared to the use of the same song in an indie documentary film. It would be unreasonable to make the owner of that song accept the same compensation for both uses,” p. 6 – This seems inconsistent, because if an indie band were to record a version of ‘New York, New York’ and a remarkably popular, well-funded (high-earning) musician were also to record a version of this song, they would have to pay the same rate; they would simply pay it on fewer units due to the order of magnitude of difference in the indie band’s record sales versus the popular musician’s. In other words, the logic seems to break down.“ p. 6
This assumes that broadcasters should pay without reasonable accommodation for smaller stations, (the few that still exist). Presumably, college radio stations would find some form of leniency or exemption, but what would be the impact for non-commercial stations like WFMU? The repercussions for all broadcasters having to pay an additional licensing right as public performance of recordings could have substantial, negative effects on such stations.
Week 1 – website review
Music Library Association site, http://www.musiclibraryassoc.org
I was surprised to see that MLA noted they work with NISO, (within the “MLA History” section of the site, http://www.musiclibraryassoc.org/about.aspx?id=110), presumably to develop standards for music information sources, (possibly including recorded music?). The usefulness of such work on standards is obvious – in the current digital environment with rapidly changing encoding standards and file formats, it is fundamental to the tasks of storing (archiving) and accessing multimedia information objects to have continuing standards. Beyond their work on standards, I can appreciate the need for this professional organization—likely drawing in those who would not consider themselves relevant to the American Library Association, for instance—to connect various persons and professions concerned with the historical, cultural, and educational significance of music.
Naxos Music Library site, http://www.naxosmusiclibrary.com/
Naxos, while certainly not comprehensive, seems to have obvious use within the world of education, (K-12 as well as college level), and both supplementary information about the recordings available through the database as well as the terms of use demonstrate the company’s knowledge of their market. Of course, while the FAQ (http://www.naxosmusiclibrary.com/faqs.asp) is illuminating in some regards (as far as allowing for multiple simultaneous users, a significant preoccupation of electronic resources and collection management librarians everywhere; for verifying through IP, a standard for electronic resources licensed for academic use; and for providing usage statistics on demand), it provides a bit of misinformation as well: stating that an encoding level of 64Kbps is “near-CD quality” or that 128 Kbps is CD quality is not true. Honestly, though, I expect that matters little if the intention for use of Naxos is within the classroom; in much the same way that there is a growing market for streaming video content for use within academia, (Alexander Street Press, Swank, others), it makes perfect sense that a similar demand exists for streaming audio.
DRAM site, http://www.dramonline.org
The two most compelling things that are immediately apparent about DRAM are (1) its inclusion of substantial contemporary content (unlike Naxos), and (2) its very modest subscription fee, even for the largest of academic institutions at $1995.00, (http://www.dramonline.org/page/classification). Based on the FAQ (http://www.dramonline.org/page/frequently-asked-questions), it seems clear that DRAM will be a supplement site to large providers like Naxos, helping to fill (important) gaps in coverage.
International Index to Music Periodicals, http://iimp.chadwyck.com
Just as with the MLA, it makes perfect sense that a separate index exists for music periodicals, even if the coverage of the IIMP includes popular titles like Rolling Stone, VIBE, and The Village Voice. Between the admission of overlap with JSTOR (http://iimp.chadwyck.com/marketing/collectionTitleList.do?collection=iimpjstor), and Project MUSE (http://iimp.chadwyck.com/marketing/collectionTitleList.do?collection=iimpmuseall) – standards across academic libraries—and inclusion of full-text context as well as just indexing content, IIMP seems savvy to their place within the larger academic market. Also, the site seems easy enough to use, (unlike other databases, even some of the largest and most popular in academia), at least judging by links from the ‘Demo’ page, http://iimp.chadwyck.com/marketing/demo.jsp.
Retrospective Index to Music Periodicals, http://www.ripm.org
Perhaps this seems a bit repetitious, but RIPM looks to fill a needed niche—in this case, a multinational, historical niche—for musical periodical indexing that may not be met by the IIMP. It is interesting that in much the same way there are substantial, distributed efforts at web archiving (as well as the larger efforts, like Internet Archive), there are so many relatively new projects born of the Information Age to record and archive information (even about relatively specialized areas and/or bygone eras) and make it permanently available in a digital format. Perhaps it would be interesting to see some standardization and cooperation across all of these independent efforts, though?
Oxford Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/public
As with OUP delivering text resources, Oxford Music Online appears to be a substantial player in the market of delivering music and music reference sources to academia. The appeal to librarians is apparent enough; unlike other sites (even Naxos), the OMO site is exceptionally easy to navigate and provides guides for librarians to use in leading their patrons through the relevant content, (http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/public/page/librarian_resources).
Répertoire International de Littérature Musicale, http://www.rilm.org/index.php
RILM, despite their claim to be a ‘comprehensive bibliography of writings on music,’ (http://www.rilm.org/aboutUs/index.html), notes worrisome issues of access on their frontpage, such as a future lack of access through OCLC’s FirstSearch and through one OVID platform, (http://www.rilm.org/index.php). While the usefulness of bibliographies is obvious enough to any researcher, and the complex searching RILM allows (as by classification or subject headings, although neither seem to match up to standards used within academic libraries) seems to allow for easy discovery of resources. That said, issues of access – especially as regards exclusion from larger aggregations or points of access – are of such fundamental importance as to potentially affect future subscriptions. Outliers are being trimmed because large packages can’t be within many academic libraries (presumably the target market for RILM), so exclusion rather than inclusion could mean unfortunate effects.
International Society for Music Information Retrieval, http://www.ismir.net/
As with MLA, I can see the value in ISMIR providing connection as well as allowing for meetings between those engaged in similar work; unfortunately, the web presence leaves some to be desired, especially as regards its remarkable thinness in explaining the mission and history of the ISMIR, or providing other standard resources (like member resources, as the MLS site does provide).
Posts prior to this compose the whole of my course reading journal for LIS 5937 (Fall 2010) – Information Architecture; every post after this contributes to my course reading journal for LIS 5937 – Music Information Sources and Services (Spring 2011).
Holding on to Reality, Part 3 [edited/posted]
As an alternate approach to Borgmann’s writing in this third and final section of the book, perhaps a quick recap of where the author ultimately intends to go is in order: Borgmann, over the course of more than one hundred pages of meandering and overexplanation of marginally illustrative technological history, attempts to express a few relatively straight-forward ideas:
1) Technological information, like cultural information before it, is both about and for reality; in addition, it actually will become reality
2) The expectation that information theory coupled with technology would allow for a better understanding and use of information about and for reality, thus a richer version of reality, has not come to pass; instead of a richer version of reality, individuals are likely to be overwhelmed by the superabundance of information
3) Individuals are likely to be unable to evaluate information any longer, and also may begin to live life more remotely (in every sense) as their consumption of information displaces actual experience of that which is relayed in the information – and they would be better served to recuperate older, truer expressions of information (especially natural information)
Addressing the first point, the problematic conflation of information about or for reality, and information as reality, Borgmann would have been more successful had he acknowledged the inconsistencies of this line of thinking, or at least pointed out counter examples. Borgmann’s example of information becoming reality, the music CD that expresses the music thus is the music, can be countered by other examples – such as the architectural drawing created using computer software and stored in a fully digital form. Unlike the musical CD that requires technology to read its expression, an architectural drawing cannot be ‘realized’ without human intervention. While 3-D printers may allow for some tangible fabrication of whatever is represented within the drawing, at present there are still substantial sorts of information expressed through ‘building’ that cannot be taken by any coupling of technology and information. In addition, while information expressed in certain a computer program may be both the data and metadata (or information for reality and information as reality), its fundamental lack of tangibility makes this point slippery. Perhaps Borgmann also should, as stated before, further explore notions of the ‘real’ and ‘reality’ to aid the reader in seeing stable connections between information and reality.
As for the rosy but unrealized future vision of a brighter reality, Borgmann is entirely too biased to clearly write about this. His writing continually returns to the value of natural and cultural information at the expense of technological information, though he makes no effort to analyze what could be a false opposition. The proliferation of information available because of the Web certainly poses very important questions about evaluation of information resources for bias and validity, as well as about sustainability of the various information forms (as all digital information is ultimately stored in some physical space, on a server somewhere). Making bland pronouncements about the lack of knowledge students must now have, or about the disappearance of reality, do little to engage in meaningful discourse and instead just trumpet a reactionary egotism. A more productive approach would involve speculative exploration, significantly less redundant (and tangential, at best) historical contextualizing, and pursuit of the elaborated weaknesses resulting from the Web-centric information explosion.
Finally, regarding the specter of detached netizens with endlessly voracious appetites for undifferentiated information – it seems clear enough that Borgmann, like anyone else who is nervous about substantial societal change, represents extreme possibilities with little substantial evidence. As obvious enough through his frequent reference to thousands of years of Western philosophical and religious thought, Borgmann’s approach to conceptions of information is firmly rooted in millennia of traditional explorations of the subject. This being the case, I attempted a patient reading of his entire work, (with frequent rereading, and rereading again, of whole chapters), searching for value as well as points to pursue further with an aim of reconciliation. The main thought that occurred to me was that Borgmann may have tumbled down a slippery slope from an understanding that new information forms seem to include the expression of existing forms and their relationship to ‘reality’ and also offer something completely new, and to an untenable conclusion that technological (particularly Internet-created/related/stored/delivered) information does away with other pre-existing forms of information and fundamentally, negatively affects (or stands in for) reality. Perhaps the intervening decade would make a conversation with the author substantially different than I would expect from his writing? Regardless, an assumption of lasting value in a variety of forms of information seems reasonable, and certainly Borgmann’s questions about virtual education and immersion of individuals in, (and the global human record in the form of information stored on/through), the Web should be pursued. This pursuit would probably be more productive following a slightly different angle of attack, though – perhaps in terms that stressed synthesis of differences, recuperation of traditional notions of ‘reality’, and the durability of older expressions of information?
Holding on to Reality, Part 2 [edited/reposted]
Throughout part 2 of Holding on to Reality, Borgmann (1999) approaches ‘cultural’ information as a multifaceted type of information, at once defined through its difference from ‘natural’ information, (where the former is “for the shaping of reality,” unlike the latter ‘natural’ information which is “about reality”), but also in similar terms: “Cultural information, however, can be about, as well as for, reality,” (p. 57). Borgmann (1999) goes on to tease out differences between natural and cultural information in terms of its creation; whereas “natural information emerges of itself, intimates rather than conveys its message, and disappears,” cultural information not only “is wrested and abstracted from reality, carries a definite content, and assumes an enduring shape,” it also “has to be produced by human hands,” (p. 59). He also emphasizes the importance of structure of information, as structure expresses the correlation between signs and what they signify; this focus on structure is somewhat softened by the blend of ‘natural’ and ‘contingent’ phenomenon Borgmann identifies, though, as an essentializing explanation for language is insufficient. Despite that, there remains a need for expression through logical structure, both in terms of information itself (as composed of smaller elements), and in terms of understandable format, as in some form of coordinate system, (Borgmann, 1999, p. 80). The end to this need for structure is found in the transition from ‘producing information’ (essentially capturing information in a standard structure, according to relevant measures or coordinate systems, as in lines of text on paper), to ‘realizing information’ – or as it could be understood, using recorded information as a guide to create some form of reality.
Exploring this notion further, Borgmann gives a number of examples of ‘realizing’ information, including reading, performing and building; all of these are ways of manifesting abstract information within the world, or of ‘making real’. Perhaps reappearing will be Borgmann’s (1999) notion that reading is an activity that follows some set of instructions as supplied by the author, and more, is a conversation with (presumably some objective and essential form of) reality, (p. 92). Similarly, his review of ‘performing’ assumes an essential reality that is achieved (or accessed) through actual performance of music, (Borgmann, 1999, p. 96). The most obvious realizing practice, though, is evident in the act of ‘building’, (or constructing from architectural design), although Borgmann emphasizes the significant effect of what he calls ‘contingency’—something that may be read as situation, or happenstance, or shifting contexts—in possible equal measure to instructions as provided in architectural drawings, as the process of building is realized.
Throughout all of these explorations and tangents, though, Borgmann does a poor job of following a single linear current to properly define cultural information , and explain the relationship between cultural information and reality. One might suggest that cultural information is expressed (“produced”) in tangible forms, by human hands – in written texts, musical scores, and architectural drawings. These expressions are made possible by structure according to basic elements combined with some manifestation of ‘contingency’. The expressions of cultural information are then ‘realized’ (most basically, made real, though not necessarily in tangible form as evident in the process of reading) – and again, this realization is according to some shared agreement on standards and structure, but also at the whim of contingent factors. Unfortunately, through Borgmann’s overly complex meanderings, he does little to fully explain his conception of ‘reality’ or to demonstrate its connection to certain actions taken on manifestations of cultural information (‘realizing’)– other than through the occasional reference to another source as indicating that interacting in some form is akin to making real. Borgmann certainly has a tremendous amount of work ahead in Part 3 of his book if he is to successfully define ‘technological information,’ demonstrate its relationship to—and possible disjuncture from—either natural or cultural information, and ultimately address the titular topic of his book, the relationship to ‘reality’. And, of course, it would be immensely helpful to a reader to properly define the author’s conception of ‘real,’ ‘reality,’ and ‘realizing.’
References
Borgmann, A. (1999). Holding on to reality: The nature of information at the turn of the millennium. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
on Web Theory, chapters 8, 9, conclusion; Holding onto Reality, Part 1, [edited/reposted]
While Burnett & Marshall provide a gloss of Web-based news delivery at the moment of their writing, their predictive powers are perhaps not as keen in this chapter. To their credit, convergence of different media to deliver an entirely different conception of news, (rather than what could be had via newspapers, or television news alone), has become more noticeable across Web-delivered news outlets. Another credit to their foresight can be read in the gesture toward use of the Web requiring some manner of user-driven action—although this could beg the question of how interactive or user-driven some popular, current news aggregators (like Google News) truly are; if these aggregators could be thought of as user-driven, Web Theory would seem to again be on target. However, if news aggregation based on individual preference is just an evolution of the underpinnings of the “push technology” mentioned as an early way to personalize news, (though apparently not delivered within a traditional Webspace), the authors might be considered to have missed their mark. Regardless of news aggregation is defined, though, expectations about the impact of the Web on traditional news delivery was, in retrospect, rosy — as evidenced by the wide-ranging closure of newspapers across the country over the past couple of years. Such a misreading is remarkable not so much in terms of lacking the predictive power as other moments of prescience about the Web in the future. Rather, it is because of the basic inconsistency in logic as applied to the realm of commoditized news delivery versus their exploration but two chapters earlier of the larger developments of the ‘Web economy’. According to Burnett and Marshall, the Web economy could be expected to shorten the supply chain, which could result in a negative impact on local (physical) retailers. Understanding that news is but one more form of information commodity, it seems inconsistent to have not applied this same logic to the news retailers. As the intervening years have demonstrated, smaller retailers have suffered, as have second-tier retailers, while the largest competitors (of any product available online) still remain, (although likely not as powerful a market force as a decade ago). Similarly, as my out of work friends formerly of the Tampa Tribune and Gainesville Sun will attest, integration of local newspapers or outright dissolution of print versions in favor of a ‘community-focused e-papers’ are the death rattles of the print newspaper industry. Also, although highly politically charged, it would be worth investigating the connection between the idea of a ‘political myth’ and Burnett & Marshall’s (2003) contention that “the quality of news as it is now reorganized as informational news has questionable value in terms of validity and legitimacy,” (p. 172).
Addressing issues of economy and quality of content easily segue into Burnett & Marshall’s exploration of the ‘Web of Entertainment’. A similar decline to that apparent in the print news industry is visible amongst independent music retailers, (I admittedly rely on anecdote, but my three former record store employers, all of which are either closed or closing, would support this statement). It would be sloppy to imagine there is a simple shift in music purchasing from physical stores to virtual ones; likely, studies will bear out the complexity of this issue in coming years. For now, though, it seems worth focusing on a known element: record stores are going out of business, following a similar trend as other retailers. Burnett and Marshall (2003) are careful to not take sides with the prognostications of MP3.com’s (former) CEO, Michael Robertson, about how music retailers won’t go away, (p. 182), and instead focus on the revolutionary nature of the .mp3 and of digital music sharing and sale, generally. Also, the three salient lessons regarding the Web of entertainment still resonate: 1) issues significant in the fight over the digitization of music and its distribution could be (are) significant for other media; 2) sellers will have to accept lower profits (this seems to still be up for debate); 3) the fight over standards—or a lack of—will shape each industry, (and as the lack of standard encoding format or encoding level, as well as unevenness in application of various DRM technologies demonstrates, this too is an ongoing debate).
Despite any occasional areas of dated material—on obvious hazard when writing about rapidly-changing technology like the Web—Burnett and Marshall’s (2003) introduction to the Web is thorough in its (1) examination of individual functions and areas of expression (or ‘cultural production’), and (2) expression of a theme of fundamental dispersion and “unregulatability” of Web content, despite its inherently interconnection, (the ‘loose Web’), (p. 200). By providing an historical grounding for discrete areas of cultural production as manifest through the Web, as well as clear connections to precursor technologies and prefiguring theories of networking and communication, (such as that of Bush, Innis and McLuhan), Burnett and Marshall have constructed a solid foundation for understanding contemporary technology. Indeed, as technology finds definition through its capacity to function within a network, and expresses a will toward convergence, it seems likely that future conversations about technology will necessarily find grounding in historical contexts of the Internet and the Web.
References
Burnett, R. and Marshall, P. D. (2003). Web theory: An introduction. London: Routledge.
Holding on to Reality, part 1
Reading Holding on to Reality as a follow-up to Web Theory immediately fits – with only the briefest of application of semiotics by Burnett and Marshall, Borgmann’s focus on the power of signs fleshes out the place of these signs in understanding information, the very stuff of the Web. With perhaps even a more historical approach than apparent in Web Theory, Borgmann’s initial foray into signs is located within a varying sort of ‘ancestral’ world, (apparently located in familiar contexts to the author, in terms of Biblical stories, history of Greek civilization and thought, and Native American history and myth). Emphasis on signs is lead into first by exploring differences in types of information:
(1) structural information (a construct Borgmann suggests to be not very helpful, as it does not sufficiently differentiate useful from not-useful information);
(2) cognitive information (information used or selected, esp. by a human; Borgmann, 1999, p. 12); (3) instructive information (arguably a refinement of ‘cognitive information’; this is information of signs, the “message” that “teaches us about what is remote in space or time,” (Borgmann, 1999, p. 17).
An emphasis on this third type of information, ‘instructive information,’ necessitates a semiotic approach, for as Borgmann (1999) writes, “information has to be a relation of at least four terms: a person is informed by a sign about some thing within a certain context,” (p. 20).
Borgmann’s enumeration of types of signs follows a similar pattern to his review of types of information; he writes of the ‘natural sign’ as a sign that might be ascribed meaning but that readily recedes back into the world when freed from individual intent or understanding, (so a rock is just a rock until it is understood as an indicator of a path; those ignorant of its significance would consider it as part of the rest of the natural surroundings). In a similar way to how Borgmann (1999) describes cognitive information as information beyond the physical fact through its selection, so too does he write of the ‘conventional sign’ as finding differentiation “when its message exceeds what can be gleaned from its surroundings,” once it has intentionality, (p. 30). A shift in signification to a written form of sign seems to have developed through necessity of communicating more (and more complex) information, unable to be transmitted through signs as part of the ‘landscape’. Indeed, Borgmann tracks the displacement of oral with written culture through historical examples, including resistance to this shift, as well as some enumeration of problems related to the shift, (such as the “endless accumulation of information lead[ing] … to confusion,” enabled by written records, (Borgmann, 1999, p. 49)). Despite resistance, though, Borgmann begins to connect up the tradition of more complex information transmission through written signs to current issues of information: in much the same way that the tangibly-recorded written word could transmit exponentially more complex information in a relatively compact form, the digitization of information and ease of its transmission could be argued to produce a further exponential explosion of signs and ready transmission of information. Perhaps referring back to problems, such as the confusion resulting from an ‘endless accumulation’ if information in written form, might even be a useful lens through which to view issues with information within contemporary digital culture.
References
Borgmann, A. (1999). Holding on to reality: The nature of information at the turn of the millennium. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
on Web Theory, chapters 5-7
Chapter 5, “The Look of the Web,” endeavors to understand the structure of the Web in an historical context, (through histories of “graphic structures” of computers and television, as well as through the development of hypertext), as well as through a slight engagement with semiotics. The first precursor of the ‘look of the Web’ as understood today is located by Burnett and Marshall in a cluster of developments springing from Apple, including the graphic user interface (GUI), icons, and the centrality of mouse usage. Burnett and Marshall cover well-trodden ground in attributing the first notions of hypertext to Vannevar Bush, (rather than Paul Otlet); still, the basis for hypertext is the same regardless of attribution: it would be a way to link information within one text (document) to information in another text (document). The brief review of the development of hypertext as engaged in by Burnett and Marshall (2003) takes an interesting, though, in finding connections with hypertext in other emergent expressions of culture, like choose-your-own-adventure stories of the 1980s and certain video games in the early 1990s, (p. 84). This series of connections suggest that hypertext may have captured a certain zeitgeist of interconnection; furthering this implication is the continuing “convergence” Burnett and Marshall (2003) write about in terms of different Internet-accessible content, especially Web-delivered content, and its graphical replication of existing “desktop graphic user interfaces,” (p. 85). With the combination of text and images—indeed, the incorporation of multimedia—that composed Web content, Burnett and Marshall suggest that first is (1) a replication of delivery as in magazines, then (2) technological advancement to surpass that possible through the print form. This same trajectory of matching and surpassing is also apparent with Web content as compared to television: advancements in television technologies, such as those that allowed overlapping layers or promotion of brands simultaneous with the broadcast, are models for representation of Web content, but then what is offered through the Web moves beyond. With television, for instance, the narrative is necessarily linear and leading, pushing an audience to continue down a singular path to reach a desirable goal (or story); with Web pages and hyperlinking, though, elements of disjuncture and alternate ‘flows’ are introduced – leading to a ‘web’ of possible narratives, or possibility for non-linear progression.
The exploration of the “Web economy” within chapter 6 nearly immediately echoes Bakhtin’s reading of Rabelais: in much the same way that carnival as it appeared within Rabelais is described as an equalizer, engagement in the virtual “agora” described by Burnett and Marshall is argued to have some sort of flattening effect, (but on institutions rather than individuals). Whereas Bakhtin emphasized the flattening of social distinctions as represented in Rabelais’ writings capturing the event of ‘carnival’ in medieval society, Burnett and Marshall (2003) sound off similarly: “[The virtual agora] is a cacophony of presentation and representation that deliberately violates divisions that we have set up through our modern institutions to operate distinctively,” (p. 106). (As an aside: it may be worthy of further comparison to draw out social effects of the Web that more closely mirror the dissolution of boundaries as happened during the ‘carnival’ of Rabelais as Bakhtin understood it; for now, though, focusing on the Web economy…)
Given the benefit of a decade between the bursting of the Internet bubble and critique, a contemporary reader of Burnett and Marshall might assume a precious—and incorrect—reading of the impact of e-commerce given their relatively close temporal stance; it is worthy of note—and perhaps praise—that the authors have instead proven to be prescient in their understanding of the emergent Web economy. At the time of their writing, Burnett & Marshall (2003) indicated a common-sense reaction of e-commerce shortening the supply chain and a resulting effect on bricks-and-mortar businesses; in their words, “the Web represents a possible location for a transformation of our consumer society and a moment where new ‘department’ store equivalents such as Amazon.com emerge from the wired world to surpass their twentieth-century giants such as Walmart,” (p. 119). To at least some degree, it is obvious that their speculation has been borne out; for instance, traditional retailers complaints about decreasing sales coupled with shrinking sales tax revenue seem to have motivated a shift to begin enforcing laws regarding sales tax on internet purchases. Indeed, much of the speculation of Burnett and Marshall has become less speculation and more commonly accepted as true, as regards an increasing comfort with online purchasing by consumers, as well as in terms of more and more businesses developing some sort of Web presence as a means of brand representation and/or sale.
Chapter 7 is startling in how neatly it ties the explosion of the Web to the free market, specifically as the latest form of technological advancement necessary for capitalism (in a long series of such technological revolutions). Burnett and Marshall’s (2003) caution about commodification of information across “all spheres of social and cultural life” still rings true nearly a decade later, especially as many of the specific examples of the commodification of information they lay out are still evident today. Just as warnings at the time of writing in 2003 gestured to lawsuits and attempts at legislation, any summary of the current state of regulation and access to the Web, and the place of copyright as regards Internet-accessible content, will just as certainly cover similar ground. The only difference may be the additional near-decade of legal outcomes, settlements, and additional proposed legislation to further support the notion that the ‘owner’ or commodifier of information is the consistent winner in such contests. Still, this wrangling continues today–for instance, in the form of the COICA Internet Censorship and Copyright Bill, http://www.eff.org/coica; http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3804. In sum, the grim propositions of this chapter are but precursors to the increasingly grim environment users confront in terms of equality and freedom of access. (Also, the notion of ‘political myth’ as evidenced in contemporary politics is worthy of a book-long humorous investigation on its own!).
References
Burnett, R. and Marshall, P. D. (2003). Web theory: An introduction. London: Routledge.
on Web Theory, chapters 2 – 4
Chapter 2 (“Information and Networks”) describes the interaction of information through a networked environment to make up what we know as the now-central outgrowth of the Internet, ‘the Web’. The chapter attempts this exploration by first reviewing the concept of information, with a heavy emphasis on the impact of its digitization—including the flattening of all data formats into binary code—then applies theories of cybernetics inclusive of this digitization to understand the Web. As in the previous chapter, the authors use a theoretical approach following it up with a nod toward its limitations; in this case, they write, “there is a seductive quality in this reading of cybernetics as a system that produces restraint, control, and repression in a culture; sadly, it is too simple a critique and not entirely where social blame and responsibility should rest. Closer to reality is that cybernetics produces a tension, or dialectic of restraint and innovation,” (Burnett and Marshall, 2003, p. 28). Considering the theorists the authors briefly touch on, Habermas and Marcuse, it should come as no surprise to any reader that a dialectical approach takes center stage, (as this dialectical approach, arguably born of Marx’s work, is fundamental to the works of all of the Frankfurt School).
Burnett and Marshall (2003) go on to explore ‘information’, including how it differs from traditional concepts of information when represented on the Web; they include a distinction of information as “raw material rather than a finished product,” (p. 32), which implies a difference evident in other writings of information-versus-knowledge. Insisting on the raw data understanding of information on the Web acknowledges fundamental weaknesses to Web-accessible content—namely, its changeability (without necessary notation of change) and its lack of necessary traditional mediation and editorial review, as present in other (traditionally) published forms. The authors also suggest that the user’s participatory place in regard to the Web—as opposed, for instance, to the passive audience role in regard to television—prop up the reading of information on the Web as data, both in terms of the user making meaning and as regards the user’s understanding of the source of information, (which then leads into the implicit challenge that the Web poses to established sources of information—purveyors of truth—like CNN).
Burnett and Marshall then note two ‘levels’ of the Web, (1) its content (information), and (2) its form (network). Delving more into the substance of a ‘network’ and how it plays out in regard to the Internet—specifically the Web—allows the Burnett and Marshall (2003) to approach ideas of what the Web ‘produces’, as follows: (1) “The Web culture represents a new concentration on information and its directional flow” (p. 42); (2) “the Web culture can produce dislocations of identity and community,” (p. 43); (3) “Web culture facilitates the flow of information for the objectives of globalization,” (p. 43). Emphasizing these three effects of the Web help further a dialectical understanding of the Web and ‘Web culture’, as each aspect focuses jointly on the empowerment and connectivity of individuals while also underlining the recuperation of power possible through (a) implementation of systems of control, and (b) (debatably) the inherent power structures of capitalism, even if the shift is to ‘information capitalism.’
Chapter 3 explores the ‘loose Web’ thesis by means of reviewing the interlinking technologies that make up the Web, including the actual structure of the Internet and its constituent “information services,” (p. 47), as well as different levels of communication that become blurred through the Web, (p. 57). Burnett and Marshall (2003) at least imply a dialectical approach in terms of user interface with culture as present (and interacted) on the Web, as well as in terms of a “mass-mediated and one-to-one form of communication,” (p. 59). Again and again, the dialectic informs coming to a definition of the Web – through a series of dichotomies where neither side of each polarization is true (nor is either side untrue).
Chapter 4 explores issues of identity as it is constructed by—or in tandem with—the Web, with a multifaceted approach that gives initial equal merit to cybercultural theory and research on the social effects of the Internet (both positive and negative), ending with an exploration of ways the Web enables a user to create or adjust notions of a ‘self’. The chapter reviews the idea of ‘audience’ as opposed to the more active ‘user’ that the Internet allows (as opposed to other technologies, like television or radio), and as with previous chapters, settles into an acknowledgment that all angles of exploration of identity and the Web do not actually result in definition. Rather, they all serve to underline the significance of the Web as the virtual ‘site’ for the development of ‘identity’, especially as it interacts with or problematizes ideas of anonymity, language, narcissism, gender, and collective identity.
References
Burnett, R. and Marshall, P. D. (2003). Web theory: An introduction. London: Routledge.
|
|
