At first glance, Wikipedia appears to be a post-structuralist construct. Clearly, though, the editors have some very traditional notions of authority and the notion of 'the original'.
Note to self: examine network theory, with regards to the shift in power from a relative handful of empowered individuals ('critics') to a vast, way more levelled, playing field ('bloggers'). The playing field isn't entirely level, however: power still resides with a handful of immensely influential nodes (Pitchfork, Mess And Noise etc). So is it a mistake to assume that critics have been replaced by bloggers? Doesn't the power still reside in the places it's always resided: there's been no fundamental shift, even though the medium has changed. Shouldn't blogs be equated more along the lines of lower-level conversational taste-making down a pub or venue or refectory (etc)?
But at what point does a popular blog become an immensely influential node?
ReplyDeleteWho decides when a blogger becomes an empowered individual - a critic?
Is the difference simply a matter of getting one's name published in ink, instead of as pixels (online text)?
Being published (in print) has nothing to do with authority. Popular blogs are as just influential as popular critics. The point I'm trying to make here is to question the prevalent belief that giving everyone equal access to the same tools has levelled the playing field. It hasn't. But why hasn't it?
ReplyDeleteI might be over-simplifying here, but it seems as simple as some critics being able to offer compelling reasons to listen to music, while others cannot.
ReplyDeleteBlogs have widened the playing field, rather than level it. A larger spectrum of music genres are covered/have-the-potential-to-cross over (check out Wavves)
Inter-blog discussion does sometimes resemble pub conversation and it's often the better for it.
"The point I'm trying to make here is to question the prevalent belief that giving everyone equal access to the same tools has levelled the playing field. It hasn't. But why hasn't it?"
ReplyDeleteBecause some people are better writers than others, and therefore can make better use of those tools. If Ronaldinho let you borrow his boots for a kickaround, it might make you a bit better than you were, but you still wouldn't be as good as him.
not very many people know what the hell they are talking about.
ReplyDeleteBecause like it or not, we still crave authority figures. Blogs give us almost unlimited opinion and authority confers filtering. Metacritic is better than anything M + N, Pitchfork, RS etc can offer. Metacritic is the revolution, not endless meandering music blogs.
ReplyDeleteUm, so Anonymous, you believe that all comment should be reduced to a numerical value, a consensus 'best of' then? If that's the case, you probably shouldn't bother even reading reviews, just have a quick flick through the ratings on the adverts. Come to that, why bother even listening to music, when you can have a mark out of 10 to fall back upon?
ReplyDelete