Tim Cushing,
I said my peace.
If you read my piece and felt justified in how you portrayed me in yours, then apologize for nothing, and don't change a thing.
I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.
I'm sorry if I somehow gave you the impression that I wasn't aware that there are filters in place. I was trying to express my feeling that the filters in place are not good enough yet to accomodate the huge influx of additional music making its way into our field of vision. Despite the plethora of new bands emerging every day, I, as a consumer, am having a hard time finding music I really like. And I am a far cry from a lazy consumer. I, as a musician, am having a hard time finding listeners who will like what I do, and I am a far cry from a lazy musician. Maybe I just suck though - that's very plausible.
I agree with you that the EPA and Major Labels aren't a perfect fit; I think in reading the piece you could understand that it was an attempt to see the "Music Like Water" metaphor through. Despite different business objectives, they both concern themselves with their own brand of quality control. And, as I'm sure you're aware, both entities have their fair share of detractors who don't like their prospective brands of quality control (like you and I).
The first paragraph you quoted has little to do with elitism or "freeloading" and everything to do with the very basic economic concept of value.
The second paragraph is about entitlement --- not a hyperbolic reduction of a very complex society into a base-level "freeloading collective" --- just the well documented theme of entitlement in young americans whose parents were reacting to their own parents, trying to provide their kids with everything they didn't have in the 70's and 80's. It's a pretty hot topic right now, what with all the 99% activity, housing crash, credit debt, etc. If you think raising the question of whether or not entitlement is healthy for our society in the long-term is elitist, then you are absolutely right: that paragraph is rife with snobbery.
Thank you for that link to the Lowery/Mike showdown. It was both a relief and a disappointment to find that this troll-riden debate is par for the course at techdirt. It bums me out to witness how easy it is for us to lose sight of the actual problems we're supposed to be solving when people's credentials and livelihoods are thrown in the mix. And I realize now that I contributed to that hostile environment with my presence; there is nothing productive to be gained from interacting without an honest intent to understand one another. I apologize for anyone's feeling's that I've hurt. I'm going to go read a book forever now.
Would you mind giving a brief synopsis of how each of those paragraph quotes support Tim's assesment [sic]? I know it's a lot to ask in a comment thread, but I would like to be sure I understand your perspective on what I wrote.
I'm not anti-tech. I'm not pro-traditional industry (but I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater), and I'm not an elitist. If any of those sites were traditional journalism publications with well-guarded reputations and consistent leanings and p.o.v. that contradicted mine, I would agree with your point about associating myself with them. Given that those sites (and apparently Techdirt) are merely content aggregators with very little editorial input and, oftentimes contradicting points of view, I'm not concerned about having my piece posted on them.
"[but] when almost all new aggregators are adopting the algorithm that sorts results by Most Popular, you tend to end up with the same results,”
suggests that if the algorithms aren't "intelligent" enough (I mean that in a coding logic sense), then music discovery in the digital age is not much improved from the age of major label gatekeeping in that the listener still has a hard time finding good new music ("good" being subjective, of course).
I disagree with you: it is not up to me to run around fixing misquotes (although for some reason I find myself trying), it's up to the journalist themselves to have some work ethic and integrity when borrowing someone else's words.
Again, the fact that Newhoff's piece was an effort to apply some of my thinking to the film and journalism industries makes this thread rife with irony.
Tim Cushing:
Whether or not it is in fact my responsibility to police every last blogger who decides to quote something I wrote is besides the point. You shortened his already abbreviated quote, removing this sentence:
"[but] when almost all new aggregators are adopting the algorithm that sorts results by Most Popular, you tend to end up with the same results.”
Doing so makes it appear as if the "well-tuned filters" I was referring to were major labels instead of improved search algorithms.
Newhoff's quote is fine, it maintains context. Further more I think he made some interesting points. Your version of the quote is manipulative and misleading. Your piece has gone out of its way to align my views with people I disagree with, it would behoove you to be aware of my views first.
It is your responsibility, as a "journalist" or "op-ed writer" or "tech blogger" (or whatever this is) to get your facts straight.
An actual accountable journalist would've issued a retraction and an apology by now, or at least fixed the quote. You've merely attempted to shift the blame with your response.
That doesn't reflect well on your or Techdirt, Tim Cushing.
Mr. Cushing:
I don't appreciate you calling me an elitest.
I don't appreciate you associating my name with Mrs. Lindvall.
I don't appreciate the way you abbreviated Newhoff's quote from my piece to make me sound like I was "hilariously suggesting that the labels and studios are actually well-designed filters, rather than commercial ventures."
Here is the full text from whence it came:
"When you release the valve without well-tuned filters in place, you get what we have now: muddy waters (not the artist, the metaphor). You have tracks from seasoned artists like Radiohead distributed side by side with garbage (not the band, the metaphor), and you have transferred the burden and blessing of filtering from more official gatekeepers to the consumer. As an artist who has never been favored by the official gatekeepers, I can easily embrace the benefits of that. As a music lover who is interested in progressive works that don’t always have mass appeal, I can also appreciate it. But as a consumer, what at first felt like freedom is beginning to feel arduous and daunting. This is the well documented paradox of choice. Naturally, new aggregators (bloggers, online review sites, app builders, etc.) are rushing in to filter the stream, but now there are so many aggregators, we need aggregators to aggregate the aggregators. I’m not saying I prefer the old top-down filter model (though when almost all new aggregators are adopting the algorithm that sorts results by Most Popular, you tend to end up with the same results), I’m simply pointing out that proponents of the Music Like Water concept have put far more thought into making everything free to the consumer than they have into making sure people can find what they want, and in order for artists and consumers to have a better experience with music, distribution and filtering have to be lockstep."
Ironically, It is precisely your brand of shoddy journalism that Newhoff was lamenting. Try to do some research before you damage the reputation of a small independent artist whose sole source of income is the internet.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Gavin Castleton.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unscrupulous
I said my peace.
If you read my piece and felt justified in how you portrayed me in yours, then apologize for nothing, and don't change a thing.
I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.
Good luck with your writing.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unscrupulous
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unscrupulous
I'm sorry if I somehow gave you the impression that I wasn't aware that there are filters in place. I was trying to express my feeling that the filters in place are not good enough yet to accomodate the huge influx of additional music making its way into our field of vision. Despite the plethora of new bands emerging every day, I, as a consumer, am having a hard time finding music I really like. And I am a far cry from a lazy consumer. I, as a musician, am having a hard time finding listeners who will like what I do, and I am a far cry from a lazy musician. Maybe I just suck though - that's very plausible.
I agree with you that the EPA and Major Labels aren't a perfect fit; I think in reading the piece you could understand that it was an attempt to see the "Music Like Water" metaphor through. Despite different business objectives, they both concern themselves with their own brand of quality control. And, as I'm sure you're aware, both entities have their fair share of detractors who don't like their prospective brands of quality control (like you and I).
The first paragraph you quoted has little to do with elitism or "freeloading" and everything to do with the very basic economic concept of value.
The second paragraph is about entitlement --- not a hyperbolic reduction of a very complex society into a base-level "freeloading collective" --- just the well documented theme of entitlement in young americans whose parents were reacting to their own parents, trying to provide their kids with everything they didn't have in the 70's and 80's. It's a pretty hot topic right now, what with all the 99% activity, housing crash, credit debt, etc. If you think raising the question of whether or not entitlement is healthy for our society in the long-term is elitist, then you are absolutely right: that paragraph is rife with snobbery.
Thank you for that link to the Lowery/Mike showdown. It was both a relief and a disappointment to find that this troll-riden debate is par for the course at techdirt. It bums me out to witness how easy it is for us to lose sight of the actual problems we're supposed to be solving when people's credentials and livelihoods are thrown in the mix. And I realize now that I contributed to that hostile environment with my presence; there is nothing productive to be gained from interacting without an honest intent to understand one another. I apologize for anyone's feeling's that I've hurt. I'm going to go read a book forever now.
Re: Re: Unscrupulous
As for the Trichordist, they asked me if they could republish the piece, and since I appreciate Lowery's writing (who writes for the Trichordist), I said yes.
It was first published here: http://gavincastleton.tumblr.com/post/18377455560/the-music-like-water-fallacy
then here: http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2012/02/the-music-like-water-fallacy.html?cid=6a00d83451b36c69e201676 51d903c970b
then Musictechpolicy.com
I'm not anti-tech. I'm not pro-traditional industry (but I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater), and I'm not an elitist. If any of those sites were traditional journalism publications with well-guarded reputations and consistent leanings and p.o.v. that contradicted mine, I would agree with your point about associating myself with them. Given that those sites (and apparently Techdirt) are merely content aggregators with very little editorial input and, oftentimes contradicting points of view, I'm not concerned about having my piece posted on them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unscrupulous
Please read the full quote I posted in my comment. Feel free to read the whole article. Here is the link again:
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/the-music-like-water-fallacy-guest-post/
T hat line that Tim Cushing omitted,
"[but] when almost all new aggregators are adopting the algorithm that sorts results by Most Popular, you tend to end up with the same results,”
suggests that if the algorithms aren't "intelligent" enough (I mean that in a coding logic sense), then music discovery in the digital age is not much improved from the age of major label gatekeeping in that the listener still has a hard time finding good new music ("good" being subjective, of course).
I disagree with you: it is not up to me to run around fixing misquotes (although for some reason I find myself trying), it's up to the journalist themselves to have some work ethic and integrity when borrowing someone else's words.
Again, the fact that Newhoff's piece was an effort to apply some of my thinking to the film and journalism industries makes this thread rife with irony.
Re: Re: Unscrupulous
Whether or not it is in fact my responsibility to police every last blogger who decides to quote something I wrote is besides the point. You shortened his already abbreviated quote, removing this sentence:
"[but] when almost all new aggregators are adopting the algorithm that sorts results by Most Popular, you tend to end up with the same results.”
Doing so makes it appear as if the "well-tuned filters" I was referring to were major labels instead of improved search algorithms.
Newhoff's quote is fine, it maintains context. Further more I think he made some interesting points. Your version of the quote is manipulative and misleading. Your piece has gone out of its way to align my views with people I disagree with, it would behoove you to be aware of my views first.
It is your responsibility, as a "journalist" or "op-ed writer" or "tech blogger" (or whatever this is) to get your facts straight.
An actual accountable journalist would've issued a retraction and an apology by now, or at least fixed the quote. You've merely attempted to shift the blame with your response.
That doesn't reflect well on your or Techdirt, Tim Cushing.
Unscrupulous
I don't appreciate you calling me an elitest.
I don't appreciate you associating my name with Mrs. Lindvall.
I don't appreciate the way you abbreviated Newhoff's quote from my piece to make me sound like I was "hilariously suggesting that the labels and studios are actually well-designed filters, rather than commercial ventures."
Here is the full text from whence it came:
"When you release the valve without well-tuned filters in place, you get what we have now: muddy waters (not the artist, the metaphor). You have tracks from seasoned artists like Radiohead distributed side by side with garbage (not the band, the metaphor), and you have transferred the burden and blessing of filtering from more official gatekeepers to the consumer. As an artist who has never been favored by the official gatekeepers, I can easily embrace the benefits of that. As a music lover who is interested in progressive works that don’t always have mass appeal, I can also appreciate it. But as a consumer, what at first felt like freedom is beginning to feel arduous and daunting. This is the well documented paradox of choice. Naturally, new aggregators (bloggers, online review sites, app builders, etc.) are rushing in to filter the stream, but now there are so many aggregators, we need aggregators to aggregate the aggregators. I’m not saying I prefer the old top-down filter model (though when almost all new aggregators are adopting the algorithm that sorts results by Most Popular, you tend to end up with the same results), I’m simply pointing out that proponents of the Music Like Water concept have put far more thought into making everything free to the consumer than they have into making sure people can find what they want, and in order for artists and consumers to have a better experience with music, distribution and filtering have to be lockstep."
Here is where it was originally published: http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/the-music-like-water-fallacy-guest-post/
Newhoff linked it in his article.
Ironically, It is precisely your brand of shoddy journalism that Newhoff was lamenting. Try to do some research before you damage the reputation of a small independent artist whose sole source of income is the internet.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Gavin Castleton.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt