An interesting angle. Music today feels like craft beer ten years ago. Will we just end up listening to musical Budweiser the rest of our lives, or will the trade bodies band together and keep that from happening?
The demise of Rooster Teeth at the hands of Warner executives earlier this week should be a warning to anyone who might be in talks to be acquired by that corporation. If a 68-year old "showbiz" executive doesn't understand how you make profits, or when you might, don't get bought up by such a conglomerate. If you work someplace that might get bought, pack your bags and update your networks (and archive your content separately).
Interesting post. Thanks Darren. Good leads to follow, and I like the book recommendation.
On thing however, Web 3.0, which really just means blockchain, strikes me as a useless technology. Stephen Diehl has written - perhaps in a somewhat polemical fashion about it - in detail and at length. I’m really glad music has mostly stayed away from it (unlike fine arts) and hope it co to yes to.
I think the biggest problem (well, one of them) that Web3 has is that it's been so clouded by hyperbole and BS that it's almost impossible to see the wood for the trees at times.
HOWEVER... I still maintain the Lens as a setup and approach is arguably the most interesting thing going on in that space. Why? Because it binds social media into a direct means to gate your fans and even sell to them straight off the post.
Imagine if you could tweet that your new song was out and people could just buy the song right off that tweet, with you keeping all of the money. That's essentially what it does - and all in a user interface I'd say makes Twitter or Threads look positively outdated.
That's the good. The bad is that everything around Web3 is still painfully complicated and bamboozling to even the more technically-inclined person. As a consequence of that, there's significantly higher chances of getting ripped off mostly by not being technical enough to spot the signs of a scam.
So it remains a troubled space, but I fundamentally disagree that it's useless. If it could only get over its own hurdles (mainly just the ludicrously high barrier to entry) then - on paper anyway - it could be a phenomenal tool for artists.
It's absolutely problematic and imperfect, so I'm not here to blindly defend it - not at all. However dismissing it outright also feels wrong - although I don't blame anyone who does because at points I feel it is all Web3 deserves, such is the absurd level of BS surrounding it.
I should add as well that Lens, being a protocol rather than a single website, is capable of being across all media. So you could post your song's video on the equivalent of YouTube and sell direct from that, or could post a photo of the artwork along with the song on an Insta-like experience, and sell from that.
A lot hinges on the nature of crypto. If it is a Ponzi scheme as experts like Dhiel say, then whatever rests on top of it is a scam too. My monetary theory is not sufficient to be certain. So I maintain doubt, treating it as guilty until proven innocent.
I do retain an open mind. I think smart contracts are genuinely interesting. If musicians on a low budget could easily set these up, you could save recording fees. Everone becomes a shareholder with an incentive to want the work to succeed. But my question always: why not do this with a fiat currency?
"Imagine if you could tweet that your new song was out and people could just buy the song right off that tweet, with you keeping all of the money. That's essentially what it does - and all in a user interface I'd say makes Twitter or Threads look positively outdated."
Minus the transaction fee, all this is possible without crypto. I'm no great fan of banks, but their fees represent services: speed of transaction, financial privacy, scam protection. So why not implement this with fiat? Other than a minor transaction fee I see no advantage to the alternative.
Oh 100%. I've lost count of the number of conversations we've had at work that basically involve someone flagging a Web3 startup and someone else asking why that cannot be done in the web2 space.
And I'm not wedded to it in that regard either; frankly if someone could establish means to achieve this without the use of crypto I'd be delighted.
Certainly for me, all the more interesting aspects don't actually involve the crypto part. It isn't the money but that's the appeal; it's the control going back into the user's hands, and the shifting nature of what this then does for things like social media.
I completely agree. There are some really interesting ideas floating around there. I love a lot of the use of algorithms in generative art up on platforms like https://www.fxhash.xyz/ ... I just don't see why all the magic beans and flying carpets of crypto are needed for us to be innovative.
An interesting angle. Music today feels like craft beer ten years ago. Will we just end up listening to musical Budweiser the rest of our lives, or will the trade bodies band together and keep that from happening?
The demise of Rooster Teeth at the hands of Warner executives earlier this week should be a warning to anyone who might be in talks to be acquired by that corporation. If a 68-year old "showbiz" executive doesn't understand how you make profits, or when you might, don't get bought up by such a conglomerate. If you work someplace that might get bought, pack your bags and update your networks (and archive your content separately).
Interesting post. Thanks Darren. Good leads to follow, and I like the book recommendation.
On thing however, Web 3.0, which really just means blockchain, strikes me as a useless technology. Stephen Diehl has written - perhaps in a somewhat polemical fashion about it - in detail and at length. I’m really glad music has mostly stayed away from it (unlike fine arts) and hope it co to yes to.
I think the biggest problem (well, one of them) that Web3 has is that it's been so clouded by hyperbole and BS that it's almost impossible to see the wood for the trees at times.
HOWEVER... I still maintain the Lens as a setup and approach is arguably the most interesting thing going on in that space. Why? Because it binds social media into a direct means to gate your fans and even sell to them straight off the post.
Imagine if you could tweet that your new song was out and people could just buy the song right off that tweet, with you keeping all of the money. That's essentially what it does - and all in a user interface I'd say makes Twitter or Threads look positively outdated.
That's the good. The bad is that everything around Web3 is still painfully complicated and bamboozling to even the more technically-inclined person. As a consequence of that, there's significantly higher chances of getting ripped off mostly by not being technical enough to spot the signs of a scam.
So it remains a troubled space, but I fundamentally disagree that it's useless. If it could only get over its own hurdles (mainly just the ludicrously high barrier to entry) then - on paper anyway - it could be a phenomenal tool for artists.
It's absolutely problematic and imperfect, so I'm not here to blindly defend it - not at all. However dismissing it outright also feels wrong - although I don't blame anyone who does because at points I feel it is all Web3 deserves, such is the absurd level of BS surrounding it.
Thanks for the comment! Good to have the debate!
I should add as well that Lens, being a protocol rather than a single website, is capable of being across all media. So you could post your song's video on the equivalent of YouTube and sell direct from that, or could post a photo of the artwork along with the song on an Insta-like experience, and sell from that.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply Darren.
A lot hinges on the nature of crypto. If it is a Ponzi scheme as experts like Dhiel say, then whatever rests on top of it is a scam too. My monetary theory is not sufficient to be certain. So I maintain doubt, treating it as guilty until proven innocent.
I do retain an open mind. I think smart contracts are genuinely interesting. If musicians on a low budget could easily set these up, you could save recording fees. Everone becomes a shareholder with an incentive to want the work to succeed. But my question always: why not do this with a fiat currency?
"Imagine if you could tweet that your new song was out and people could just buy the song right off that tweet, with you keeping all of the money. That's essentially what it does - and all in a user interface I'd say makes Twitter or Threads look positively outdated."
Minus the transaction fee, all this is possible without crypto. I'm no great fan of banks, but their fees represent services: speed of transaction, financial privacy, scam protection. So why not implement this with fiat? Other than a minor transaction fee I see no advantage to the alternative.
Oh 100%. I've lost count of the number of conversations we've had at work that basically involve someone flagging a Web3 startup and someone else asking why that cannot be done in the web2 space.
And I'm not wedded to it in that regard either; frankly if someone could establish means to achieve this without the use of crypto I'd be delighted.
Certainly for me, all the more interesting aspects don't actually involve the crypto part. It isn't the money but that's the appeal; it's the control going back into the user's hands, and the shifting nature of what this then does for things like social media.
I completely agree. There are some really interesting ideas floating around there. I love a lot of the use of algorithms in generative art up on platforms like https://www.fxhash.xyz/ ... I just don't see why all the magic beans and flying carpets of crypto are needed for us to be innovative.
Here’s a good piece by Diehl https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog/web3-bullshit.html