The comments thread on yesterday's "Duran Duran and Art in the Age of Internet Reproduction" is full of good stuff, but I was particularly taken by an e-mail from Zach Carter, a blogger at The Media Consortium and guitarist for the Charlottesville Va. band Drunk Tigers.
As a musician myself, I think about this stuff a lot, and I think Taylor is onto something -- sort of -- but has fingered the wrong technological issue. If I have his argument right, it goes something like this: The Internet makes it easier to get music, which makes us live in the cultural past, since we can get our hands on lots of old music very easily.
I just don't see how that's the issue. Recorded music has been easy to access for decades. Riding your bike to the record store was fun, but let's face it -- it really wasn't that hard. And once you were there, you could have listened to or purchased thousands of records that you didn't. TV appearances and record label marketing departments essentially narrowed your choices and made contemporary music more accessible than older music. The Internet hasn't so much radically altered access, in my view, as it has radically diminished the influence of major label marketing.
But I still think he's right to say that something about contemporary music is actually less compelling, although like Taylor, I can offer no quantifiable standard by which to measure the cultural slump I perceive. I don't think the Internet is responsible for this, I think it's the cost of recording music. Digital recording technology has made it much, much less expensive for bands to make reasonably high-quality recordings in much less time than it took, say 15 years ago. That has meant it is a hell of a lot more feasible for broke bands to make a record, which combined with the Internet, puts more music in circulation. When the recording landscape was changing really fast in the late '90s, I remember a lot of people predicting a major musical flowering -- all of this creativity would no longer be constrained by money, and more new and exciting musical ideas would soon be available.
I don't think that has happenned at all. Instead, we've got something of a boring rock band bubble. To be sure, there have been some great new artists in the past decade, but we've also heard lots and lots and lots of pleasant melodies and chimey guitars. Part of this is just the nature of digital recording -- the recording software is largely standardized across the industry, and it's very easy to do certain fixes to sound recordings now that you couldn't really do before 1995. Everybody uses the same equipment and deploys the same tricks, and everybody's records have a similar sound. But a huge part is just mediocrity. Access to recording has mostly enabled a lot of middle-of-the road music to be made that otherwise would never have surfaced. This isn't to say that record label A&R judgement was ever very reliable, but rather to say that record labels couldn't possibly sign as many artists who are making recordings on their own dime today. Again, I have no statistics to reference, but judging by the anecdotes of rock critics from the '70s and '80s, I don't think there were nearly as many bands a few decades back than there are now. When you have literally thousands of bands doing roughly the same thing, listening to older music can seem much more interesting.
Don't look now, but the ghost of Herbert Hoover is haunting the White House. Deficit reduction is back on the agenda, and the timing couldn't possibly be worse -- unless Obama gets very, very lucky.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the White House has suddenly decided to make debt reduction a priority:
The Office of Management and Budget has asked all cabinet agencies, except defense and veterans affairs, to prepare two budget proposals for fiscal 2011, which begins Oct 1, 2010. One would freeze spending at current levels. The other would cut spending by 5 percent."
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is reportedly on the warpath seeking spending cuts, and the administration may even be planning to apply unspent TARP money directly to paying down the deficit.
What a difference an off-year election makes! For months, we've heard a consistent refrain from Obama's economic brain trust: Under no circumstances should we repeat the mistake made in 1937 by Franklin Roosevelt, who, feeling political pressure to balance the budget, cut spending and short-circuited a nascent recovery from the Great Depression. The downside risks to the economy are still too great, warned the advisors. If we throttle back on stimulative fiscal policy, we could easily precipitate a double-dip recession. What's more, the Treasury has had little problem auctioning off unprecedented amounts of debt, suggesting that bond market investors just aren't very concerned about the deficit right now.
But hardly a week after Democratic gubernatorial losses in New Jersey and Virginia, along with some troubling poll numbers indicating GOP attacks on big-spending government are beginning to stick with voters, the administration is suddenly considering across-the-board 5 percent budget cuts.
But guess what? The downside risks to the economy are still great. Unemployment is still rising. The full impact of the implosion of the commercial real estate sector has yet to be felt. Much of what is encouraging in the third-quarter GDP growth statistics can be directly attributed to stimulus spending and such one-trick-ponies as the Cash-for-Clunkers program and a huge first-time home-buyer tax credit. Oil prices are rising. State budgets are cracking under the pressure all across the country. Banks aren't lending. Wal-Mart is apprehensive about holiday sales.
It isn't as if the White House doesn't know any of this. Just last Friday, President Obama, prodded by 10.2 percent unemployment, signed into law deficit increasing extensions of the home-buyer tax credit and unemployment benefits.
The Journal:
The administration is constrained in tackling the mounting deficit, since raising taxes or slashing spending could stunt economic growth. Administration officials say the Obama economic team is especially concerned that rapid deficit reduction could hurt the economy.
But a 5 percent across-the-board spending cut, by definition, would be an anti-stimulative measure. Even a spending freeze runs the risk of backfiring. Astonishing as it may seem, the Republican Party, thrashed in two consecutive major national elections and miles away from a majority in either the House or the Senate, is still running the country.
The most optimistic interpretation of the new emphasis on deficit reduction is that it is all just rhetoric. By the time the next fiscal year starts, in October 2010, the political implications of Obama's economic management will be a done deal, at least as far as the midterm elections are concerned. Democratic fortunes will hinge on whether the economy is experiencing a sustained recovery, and not on what the budget projections for the 2011 fiscal year. If unemployment has started to decline appreciably a year from now, it's possible that turning government attention to deficit reduction could be feasible. By talking about it now, the administration is merely trying to limit the political fallout from the GOP tax-and-spend drumbeat.
So maybe Obama gets lucky, and the economy recovers strongly enough to give the administration more options. Rising tax revenue spurred by a growing economy would automatically qualify as "debt reduction." But it's a gamble. If unemployment keeps rising throughout 2010, and the economy loses its current momentum and slides back into recession, then it really doesn't matter what the Obama administration is promising to do today about spending priorities a year from now. Because 12, 13 or 14 percent unemployment will demand extreme government attention, balanced budget or no balanced budget. And if the GOP comes back into power in Congress on the back of a bad economy in 2010, and then attempts to cut government spending all by its lonesome, its hold on power after 2012 might turn out to be just as fragile as the current Democratic majority's seems to be.
Paul Krugman tells us to read James Wolcott, who has been inexplicably torturing himself by watching the Fox Business channel so the rest of us don't have to.
Wielding his keyboard like a stiletto, Wolcott delivers a sophisticated rendition of a familiar theme: For conservative commentators, when the stock market goes down, it is a verdict on Obama. But when it goes up, it's simply irrational. Don't be fooled by the resurgence in your 401K and college fund portfolios, folks -- once investors finally understand the true implications of health care reform and Keynesian fiscal policy they will sell, sell, sell. Variations on this formula can be found on all the business news channels, but naturally, as Krugman notes, the virus is strongest at Fox. The truly baffling part: Fox Business delivers these insights via such renowned economic experts as arch neocon John "blow up the U.N." Bolton, the utterly untrustworthy political consultant Dick Morris, and Ann Coulter.
Investment advice from Ann Coulter? In what alternate reality does that make sense?
Wolcott finishes up his riff with a nice flourish:
...If it were a Republican president in the White House and the Dow was hitting such highs the same week of the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the hosts and panelists at Fox would be waving little American flags celebrating the market boom as a fitting toast for the triumph of Western capitalism over communism and a rebuke to naysayers and doubters with souls so gray and faith so brittle.
Meanwhile, if you're looking for economic news a little more grounded in the real economy than the ebbs and flows of the stock market, the weekly jobless claim numbers (seasonally adjusted) for the first week of November dropped again, taking the four week moving average to its lowest total in a year. That is good news, unless you're Fox Business, in which case it is probably yet another reason to stock up on gold.
In a speech given at UCLA two weeks ago, Duran Duran bassist John Taylor comes off as earnest and reasonably thoughtful, so I am going to do my best to take seriously his argument that the Internet may be "stifling new music." But it won't be easy. When a member of a band notorious for leveraging its good looks and stylish hair into rock superstardom mainly via the new medium of MTV complains about the supposed negative impact of even newer media it sounds just a little bit ungrateful.
Here's Taylor's critical point:
...The availability and accessibility of music on the Internet today is truly incredible, and I applaud anything that can inspire interest or curiosity in anyone.
But this also means that those of us who before would have been looking towards the current culture for inspiration are now often to be found... in various backwaters of older music.
This relative lack of need for current, innovative culture can cause, has caused, is causing -- maybe -- the innovative culture to slow down, much as an assembly line in Detroit slows down and lay-offs have to be made when the demand for a new model recedes.
And the speed and growth of new technology, which has been so heralded and so much fuss has been made of, has actually served to disguise how little real growth is taking place at the artistic level.
In the excerpt of the speech published by the BBC, Taylor provides no evidence for his theory that there is "little real growth" taking place in music today, or that listeners are less interested, in any quantitatively measurable sense, in new music now than they ever were before. Even if this could be proven, I'd more inclined to blame consolidation in the music industry and radio business, the stultifying effects of such things as classic rock radio station formats, and other market forces for cramping new music creativity, before I blamed the Net's powers of distribution.
But the argument about access just seems cockeyed. New music is easier to find than ever before. The technological obstacles separating nearly any group of musicians practicing in their garage from my daughter's Nano are nothing at all compared to the efforts a new band would have had to make in the 60s, 70s, or 80s to get heard. If this is "stifling," then I can't imagine what a nurturing environment would be like -- I am routinely overwhelmed by the choices available to me. All one needs to be drowning in a sea of newness is the will to dive in.
That being said, Taylor does touch on something important going on in our culture worth investigating. The past, or at least "the past" that dates back to the introduction of audio and video recording technology, is no longer the past. In the vast territories of cable television and the Internet and everything captured on disk, the cultural modes of previous generations are all part of our ongoing present. Nothing fades away. It's all there, ready to be found. When I was a kid, if it wasn't on the handful of broadcast televison channels or a dozen or so radio stations, it just wasn't on. As a teenager in the 1970s, the 1960s seemed a galaxy far, far away. But for my children, there is a very real sense in which the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s are all contemporaneous with the now.
Does this push us, culturally, towards a mode of expression dominated by sampling or remixing the existing corpus of entertainment product, instead of creating something completely fresh and new? It's a good question? Where's Walter Benjamin when you need him? Certainly, something's happening here...
But rather than worry about whether the Internet is exerting a baleful influence, I think we just need to make our peace with the fact that every new technology creates a different space for cultural practice. Duran Duran without cable television or a high-end production studio is simply unthinkable. Recording technologies enabled the commodification of musical performance on a mass basis. Networked computers have crippled the profitability of that commodification. The adventure is ongoing.
Perhaps the digitally-enabled overhang of the cultural production of previous generations is a heavy burden. But I guarantee you that those artists who do break free of its restrictions, and can come up with something interesting to say, will be easier to find and easier to enjoy than any pioneers of any previous era were.
In hardcore GOP politics, there's one brand that just can't be beat -- South Carolina's.
South Carolina Republicans are sui generis: Whether it's Sen. Jim "healthcare will be Obama's Waterloo" DeMint or Rep. Joe "You Lie!" Wilson or Gov. Mark "no stimulus for me" Sanford, they rarely disappoint. One would expect no less from the first state to secede from the United States after Lincoln's election and the first state where shots were fired in the Civil War. Racist tweets and jokes about Michelle Obama and escaped gorillas? Also easily explainable: In 1860, there were three slaves for every free person in South Carolina -- only Mississippi could compare. It's a legacy that's apparently pretty hard to shake.
Any watering down of the brand must be resisted with unflinching fervor. In the eyes of some South Carolina Republicans, Sen. Lindsey Graham's pledge to help pass climate legislation is nothing less than foul betrayal. Thus the latest news, reported by the Associated Press: Graham has been officially censured for straying from the path of righteousness by some of his fellow Republicans. (Found via Senatus.)
Republican leaders in a South Carolina county have censured their own U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham for working with Democrats on a climate bill and other legislation.
The Republican has often worked with Democrats in Congress, but Charleston County Chairwoman Lin Bennett says his work on climate legislation is the last straw.
County chairwoman Lin Bennett said the unanimous voice vote of 50 of 104 executive members "is an effort to get his attention. They (party leaders) are just fed up, and they want him to know they're fed up.
The resolution reads, in part:
U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham -- in the name of bipartisanship -- continues to weaken the Republican brand and tarnish the ideals of freedom, rule of law, and fiscal conservatism.
Note well: The brand comes first, followed by freedom and the rule of law. Don't you forget it, Lindsey!
California Controller John Chiang's monthly summary of the state's cash situation starts on a happy note. (Found via Calculated Risk.) Unexpectedly, General Fund revenues for October beat budget estimates, mainly because of a boost from corporate taxes.
Chiang, whose monthly missives warning of impending bankruptcy have been a staple of California life for the last year, becomes positively ebullient:
October's numbers may contain some signs that California's economy is gradually beginning to heal. Both personal income and corporate taxes beat monthly estimates, while corporate and sales taxes also came in higher than October 2008.
As California goes, so goes the nation? If we're talking budget paralysis and dysfunctional politics, that might not be a good thing. But if we're talking economic recovery, a return to health out West would be a welcome prospect for the entire country.
However, after lulling our fears with his happy talk, Chiang appends a "guest article": "Overview of the Commercial Property and Capital Markets with Implications for the State of California," by Dr. Randall Zisler.
The message from Dr. Zisler is quite different. Nationally, the commercial real estate market is in big, big trouble.
A crisis of unprecedented proportions is approaching. Of the $3 trillion of outstanding mortgage debt, $1.4 trillion is scheduled to mature in four years. We estimate another $500 billion to $750 billion of unscheduled maturities (i.e., defaults). Unfortunately, traditional lenders of consequence are practically out of the market and massive amounts of maturing debt will not easily find refinancing. Marking-to-market outstanding debt will render many banks, especially regional and community banks, insolvent, especially as much of the debt is likely worth about 50 percent of par, or less.
Stated baldly: Banks are on the hook for loans to commercial real estate developers that will never be paid back and can't be refinanced. Zisler doesn't break down the figures to tell us how much of that $3 trillion in outstanding mortgage debt is California's, but one can guess that it is a significant fraction.
California's faltering steps forward, in terms of rising tax revenue for October, could just be the calm before the commercial real estate storm finally hits. Double-dip recession, with a California topping, anyone?
The economic crash and its aftermath are affecting all sectors of the economy, real estate being no exception. Real estate, especially in the transactional sub-sectors (e.g., brokers, etc.), accounts for a significant share of the California labor force. The downturn has created a vicious negative feedback, a symptom of which is still ongoing property deflation and tenant defaults. Attendant symptoms are reduced property tax revenues, failing businesses, decimated transactions volume, and reduced income and sales tax revenues. The extent to which the recovery is delayed will depend on a number of factors, not least of which is the extent and timing of loss recognition by owners and financial institutions.
A conversation about globalization.
A sexual revolution: Advice columnist Dr. Sommer turns forty
Schmatta: Rags to Riches to Rags (We Have Come Full Circle)
Cool Science Reminders We're Living in The Great Renaissance