EPIC!

So, after listening to my roommate play "Go The Distance" on piano last night... I found the music video. And watched it at least 3 times. And felt so inspired to achieve something that it was a shame that it was 4 in the morning.

I don't know what it is about that song and others - seriously, I just watched half of it again after finding the link. I can't stop.

Sure, the lyrics are inspiring - if there are any, and the music makes you want to get up and DO shit. Here are some examples for when you're done reading. But the lyrics are also pretty kitschy, cliche, whatever you want to call it. And most of the time... the sentiment is fake.

Yes, old-movie guy. Fake like your credit rating. Happy Depression!

That is to say, the composers often aren't working from personal experience, reflecting on a monumental challenge in their life and deciding that an orchestra best suits their achievement. I don't think the band Europe has been to space.

But I guess that's a bit unfair on my part. However, I shall pose the question to you. Should an inspirational, you-can-do-it song be inspired by personal experience? Or is it alright to know what inspires people, and set that formula down as needed?
That'll do, Hercules. That'll do.

The Web Generation

First of all, if you know the person who invented exams, sit them down and have a good long chat, and ask them why. WHY?!

Now that that's out of the way... if you have a Twitter account, or maybe you've noticed on Facebook or elsewhere, that Ashton Kutcher and CNN's breaking-news feed are currently racing to see which will be the first to reach 1,000,000 followers. And it's going to go right down to the wire - follow the race here if you're so inclined. It's slow-motion suspense, amazing stuff. Besides lending strong credence to Twitter being the new fad, this race is also saying something else. Something that I think is more positive.

Here is Ashton talking earlier tonight about what he's apparently trying to say with this popularity contest. He's not the most eloquent speaker, and he still sounds like Kelso to me -

- but that's the point. He's not reading from a teleprompter - not only that, but he's right. Twitter's letting people filter their news for themselves, firsthand. You don't have to watch televised broadcasts or listen to syndicated radio or read newspapers anymore (though seeing those go under saddens me). Hell, you don't even have to follow CNN's Twitter feed if you'd rather go somewhere else. These social-networking sites are, like it or not, going to figure very heavily in the future of public discourse and information-sharing. I'm not saying you should get your news from Ashton Kutcher or, God forbid, Miley Cyrus, but you can choose. I could go into how this might be a bad thing - if you ask me to, maybe I will, O dedicated masses of readers. Just... if you're interested in the future of media and how the world is going to communicate, keep an eye on this story, it could be pretty significant.

But wait a minute, what does all this have to do with music? I am, after all, a one-trick pony here at Audiophonics, Inc. Well, in the spirit of this social-networking explosion we have on the Internet these days, I was directed to check out the YouTube Symphony Orchestra. And I was fully blown away.

Please watch this video before checking out the channel above. Yeah, I linked them in the wrong order - deal with it : )

I'm not going to say much, because I've talked and talked so much already. Just watch the videos on the channel - start at the beginning if you'd like. It's inspiring, it's impressive, it's a great song, and it's just about the best union of music and the Internet I have ever seen.

Enjoy!

Intermezzo: Virtual Babershop

Put on your headphones, go here, and prepare to have your mind blown.

And then imagine using this kind of sound recording in more action-packed scenes. Imagine a bank heist!

Intermezzo: Ooooooooohhhh....

Lookit! Lookit my new header! Thanks to my girlfriend Jessica for doing it up for me, since I'm pretty ham-fisted when it comes to visual arts. I knew there was a reason I kept her around.

*Don't tell her I said that... also, Jess, don't read what I just said. Dammit, that's probably not going to work.*

Anyway, busy studying for exams right now, but when I get a minute this week I'll talk about something.

In honour of Animal gracing my blog... My God, this is catchy.

iTunes Follow-Up

Props to my friend Paul for alerting me to this little article. I mentioned the iTunes music store creating a three-tier pricing system -- $0.99 for most songs, $1.29 for highly popular ones, and $0.69 for back catalogue, under-the-radar type songs. Weeeeell, that might be affecting sales in a way that the labels weren't looking forward to.

It sorta makes sense to me. Charging more for a song is bound to negatively affect its sales to a certain degree. And the ones that stay at the same price... well, they'll either see the same sorts of trends as before the new system was implemented, or even benefit from people being turned off the expensive tracks.

Of course, it's a bit early to make definitive statements - the store's only been under this new system for 6 days, as of Monday. But, as Paul told me, "it's definitely something to keep an eye out for."

So basically, Paul wrote this blog post. You should go ahead and read his blog, I'm just going to start parroting his stuff.

Now Playing: This isn't relevant, but I'm heavily digging it right now. And it is 99 cents, so... sure, it's relevant.

The Price Is Right - Or, It Was... Or WAS IT?!

Just a quick note to the dozens - nay, thousands - of you who are regularly reading this blog. Tomorrow, April 7th, will be of note to those of us who pay to download through Apple's iTunes Music Store. Whereas every one of the 10 million songs in the store's catalogue used to be available for the benchmark of 99 cents, we are now going to see an increase for chart-topping hits, and a decrease for back catalogue, off-Main-St. kinda songs.

Here's a business article about it.

Basically... if you read the tops of Billboard's charts and say, "That is what I will like now," you'll be paying $1.29 for the newest singles, the ones deemed more valuable by the record labels. The majority of tunes will remain at $0.99, and lesser-known or older songs will be reduced to $0.69.

I'm not that worried by this price change, because I'm not a pop-music trend-watcher, really. I'm not trying to be snobby by that. I just gravitate to the types of music that feel a bit less manufactured. I'm ok with the pop machine churning out hit songs by the book, because when I think of great Motown hits I'm fond of, that's what they were in the 60's - formulated to please the masses. This could turn into a whole reflection on the effect that time has on perception of "popular" music, but I have tonnes of essaying to do.

I will conclude with well-wishes for the record labels. They've been in a pretty bad mood for the last decade or so, and this pricing change might help them make sure their pillows are stuffed with straight cash money. After all, it's not their fault that they dismissed online music-sharing in favour of the CD market. Poor dears...

Anyway, I just thought you millions of readers should be kept up-to-date, because I know this is the only place you get your music news. Thank you for being loyal :D

Straight cash, homey.