<-- Weekly Law School Roundup #1 (or #60) | Main | One Down... -->
January 3, 2006
What does this actually mean?
Over at The Long Tail, there's a post called The Decade the Blockbuster Died with a handy graphic that points out that of the Top 100 selling albums of all time, only 2 have come from the years 2001-2005.
But does that really mean the Blockbuster has died?
It might. There are so many more choices of music available now that maybe the blockbuster is dead. Back in the pre-MTV days, people learned about new music primarily from the radio--which meant everyone heard (roughly) the same thing. Even post-MTV, the sources for new music were still pretty limited. When the Internet globalized communications, it also made is so much easier to find more music--genres many people never had access to before, that it makes sense that the homogenized "blockbuster" that everyone "must have" should go the way of the dinosaur.
Or it could just mean that the music from 2001-2005 sucked. Bad.
Posted by Dave!
3 Comments
Or everyone is stealing music? Not me. No sir.
I'm certain that if I had to pick a favorite all time album/CD, it would not fall during those dates...so. Hmm.
Interesting. (how ya been?)
But wait, the "blockbuster" albums all sucked.
Rejoice! I take this as a sign that "music sucks less now."
Oh but wait, he said, it's getting bad for the music industry not for the music fans.
Strangely, he also says, "the data speaks for itself." I'm not sure that it does.
Other than The White Album, Purple Rain, and Songs in the Key of Life, those albums pretty much all suck.