|
« January 2009 | Main | March 2009 »
Before Sting became a one-man mega star (in the 80s), he was the front-man and bassist for the group, The Police.
The Police where an English outfit who specialized in an uptempo rock-reggae that seemed to shun the ska sound of its time. Originally a punk inspired band, The Police moved towards the new wave sound, before settling on a minimalist rock-reggae hybrid that was decidedly pop. 
The collective musicianship of The Police was authentic and serious. Drummer Stuart Copeland was a student of the "reggae style". He also seemed devoted to having a worldly sound, which meant he had to drum on a rather large kit. I remember the first time I saw his set in a video, I couldn't believe how many mini-toms and percussion pieces it contained. Guitarist Andy Summers was a seasoned and accomplished sessions player before he joined The Police. In fact, before he joined The Police, (replacing The Police's original guitarist, Henry Padovani), he nearly became a late member of The Rolling Stones. Sting, a former school teacher who was dedicated to the blues-rock tunes that he'd heard in clubs as a high schooler, began as a guitarist, before eventually switching over to bass.
The Police ran a table of successful albums between 1978 and 1983. In 1984, the trio unofficially split up. However, the "unofficial" tag was removed a year later, when Sting released his first notable solo effort, The Dream of the Blue Turtles. Shortly thereafter, Sting's solo career went somewhat viral.
Sting was a great solo artist, but his work with the group, The Police, was much more interesting and engaging, and dare I say, meaningful.
Therefore, to the question of Sting: Better Group or Solo? I'd have to go with Group!
Side note:
Imagine what would have happened to The Police if MTV was around in 1979... I wonder how their music would have changed. Would it have changed for the better or worse? Would Sting have left for a solo career? Would he have left even sooner?
-Amir Said
About a year ago, I discovered Biblio. I was doing research for the upcoming 5th Edition of my book, BeatTips Manual, and there were a number of out-of-print titles that I needed access to. Enter Biblio, perhaps the best source for used, rare, and hard-to-find books.
Nine "new" books into my tango with Biblio, I began to realize that Biblio held multiple meanings for me. For one thing, Biblio's web of small independent booksellers, is a huge draw. It's encouraging because I know that each of my purchases goes to help preserve the independent book trade. However, what I've found to be most valuable about Biblio is that it has somehow influenced me to buy even more books; which has in turn inspired me to read more; which has in turn increased my pages/per hour reading pace. Now, that's value-added purchasing.
Note. Biblio doesn't just sale rare and/or used books. Many of their booksellers keep a healthy stock of new titles. In either case, all Biblio titles have competitive prices. Check 'em out: Biblio
-Amir Said
Upon first registering with Twitter, many get the same reaction: "I don't get how to use Twitter." After a couple of weeks, the sentiment upgrades to: "Still trying to figure this Twitter thing out." After about a month or so, some "get it," then go on to have an active and rewarding Twitter experience. But alas, many do not "get it," and therefore, they fade from Twitter activity... Not knowing that they will one day return.
When Myspace limped on the scene, first as a music site, there were many who were slow to "get it" as well. Then, as stories surrounding Myspace as a source of incredible exposure and fame (money opportunities) emerged, hoards of people flocked to "join" the site. Then, as Myspace became a some sort of other-land utopia for people to relive high school, (this time as the popular kids), the number of Myspace members really went over board. But now, some five years later, Myspace has become pretty much a social enigma; or stigma, depending on who you ask about it. Tell someone to "check out your Myspace page," and you're likely to get a mixed reaction. To some people, Myspace is old and played out. Indeed, its become like what the Sony Walkman once was, but in the age of the Apple iPod.
So how is it that mighty Myspace lost its gold rush appeal, while Twitter is "tweeting" on the edge of Apple- and Windows-like infamy? The answer is simple: Twitter is like toothpaste; it's a product that those in the know "need". Twitter is not a "site". (And that's refreshing.) It doesn't try to portray itself as a community of "friends." Twitter embraces it's station: it is a service; a service I must add that many people value tremendously. In the same way that phone texting allows one to text their family, friends, co-workers, and associates, Twitter allows one to text the world, and snoop in on other peoples texts from around the world... I repeat: the world! And though Myspace is now trying to market and position itself as also a "service", to most, it still remains nothing more than the cross between a big yearbook with accompanying music, and a "jump-off-style" dating site.
Epilogue
As a product, Myspace has lost most of its initial appeal, and subsequently, its power. It is no longer a nimble, unique secret; it is a giant, well-known (possibly washed-up) marketing strategy that doubles as a community of "friends." And as a service, well, it's future is likely more in the music distribution realm.
Because Twitter is such a powerful--soon to be fundamental--service, Twitter users should expect to begin paying a monthly fee. I do not believe that Twitter will try to monetize off of advertising. Therefore, they will have to turn to a pay-for-service platform. I suspect that the only reason that they haven't done so already is because they're waiting for the number of registered Twitter users to hit some predetermined benchmark. When that day comes, (and I predict that will be sooner than later), Twitter will be well-advised to keep that service price down...way down...like no more than $6 per month.
-Amir Said
 |
