Because of the ease of entry, there is a far greater influx of new and emerging artists. The fact that the only necessary resource required is an internet connection exponentially increases the number entrants who want to have a shot at fame. This has implications for the quality, creativity and accessibility of music created and also the degree to which the artists creating it are painted into obscurity. The fact that it is so easy to create a MySpace can work as much against its musicians as it does in favour. To illustrate this catch-22 situation, Lonero invokes Internet labels:
“Internet labels never promise what they offer. Sometimes, they say things like 'send your material to them and they’ll put it in the top ten on their site'. The problem with that is, if 100 people send in the press kit, how can 100 people be in the top ten?” [15]On MySpace, the ‘top ten’ can be considered the band profiles that actually get circulated amongst users, and given the limitation of an individual’s time, it is obviously not realistic for them to browse all the profiles. At least a record deal could keep out this undesirable competition for the comparatively fewer musicians who managed to get signed.
The quality of the material being put up by the majority of these aspiring musicians is another issue. Bands that are able to demonstrate genuine, noticeable talent and appeal but would’ve previously remained unnoticed due to a lack of resources are now, justifiably, thrown into the limelight to be popularised. This means that the comparatively mediocre artists who previously acted as the imperfect substitute for listener are now forced to compete with superior competitors who also now share the publicity advantage of MySpace.
The lack of gatekeeping also means that any music uploaded does not have to exhibit quality or appeal in order to penetrate the audience. Anyone with a recording device and a belief (or delusion) that he or she possesses musical ability have just as much potential to reach as wide an audience as any other artist utilising the medium of MySpace. This creates a conflict between genuine undiscovered talent and attention seekers, and the increasing dominance of mediocrity implies an overall decline in quality. Over time, this could diminish the credibility of MySpace as a source for quality unsigned music, potentially forming another barrier for artists trying to promote themselves over MySpace.
In the past, the record label had control over a signed artist’s presence on the web. Artists were allowed to “do specific things on their own site, but [they] had to state in contract what they wanted to do”. [16] Although MySpace provides them with control over their own profiles, artists are still in fact limited to the template provided by the site. This is obviously necessary to maintain the networking aspects, but nevertheless still deprives the artist of complete liberation to the extent where we could consider the barriers ‘eliminated’. Artists are also limited to uploading four songs. Some bands are able to put albums in their entirety, an understated privilege not widely publicised and requiring a fee. We are also witnessing challenges against these policies: some bands employ complex coding to revamp the default template and third-party stand-alone players to circumvent the limitations on song uploads.
MySpace has also begun to face new competition amongst other social networking sites. Bebo, a competitor, recently introduced its own musical sector which generally retains all of the features of MySpace’s typical profile but improves upon certain aspects, such as allowing the artist to upload an unlimited number of songs. However, considering the ubiquity of MySpace at the moment, this is not likely to be an imminent threat.
-------------------
15. Lonero, 2001
16. New Media Music, 2000:4
