No Surprises, No Boredom, No Problem?

After reading Peter's last entry about how searching for a song led him into a philosophical thought process about prix fixe and a la carte, I was left with several questions:

1. Peter likes Radiohead?
2. Who is Thom Yorke?
3. Where can I buy Yaks Recipes Illustrated?

His entry led me to write about my own thoughts on music consumption and how our technologically advanced society has permanently altered the way we think and behave.

MY MUSIC CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR SEEMS TO BELONG MORE TO PETER'S GENERATION THAN MY OWN.
First, I'm in my late 20's, and I'm guessing Peter is . . . well . . . older than that. I am certainly not an early adopter when it comes to new technology. Just a couple of years ago, I waited for my birthday month to roll around and asked for an MP3 player. I didn't want an iPod -- just something that had radio capabilities and held enough songs to distract me when I'm exercising. Two years later, I'm still amazed: It's so tiny and holds so many songs. The days of walking with a big, bulky Walkman are over.

I borrowed CDs and used my own to fill my MP3 player when I first got it, and I haven't added songs since. Sure, there are songs on new CDs I have bought since then that I would like to add, but it just hasn't been worth adding this task to my "to do" list. I do, however, see myself regularly adding new songs to it in the near future. When I say "regularly," I mean maybe twice a year.

What's more, unlike Peter, my unit of music will probably never change from a CD to an individual song. I recently celebrated a birthday and got a gift certificate to Amazon "to buy some songs." I immediately thought: Why would I do that? Why would I waste my money on 1) songs that I didn't like enough originally to buy on CD and 2) songs that are constantly on the radio? Which leads me to my second thought . . .

TODAY'S SOCIETY DOESN'T LET US EXPERIENCE THE UNKNOWN ANYMORE; FEW SURPRISES REMAIN.
Now follow me here. I'm guessing a lot of the songs people buy MP3s of are those they've heard on the radio. So, based on that assumption, are consumers really telling the music industry what they demand? I can see Peter's argument that consumers are now saying, "I know what's best for me, so you'd better adapt to it." But we can't rule out the influence of the music industry completely. They help determine what is played on the radio, on MTV, on shows like "Grey's Anatomy," etc. I think the music industry is still telling the consumers what to like, simply by having it available in these venues. It seems like consumers think they have all the power, but in fact the industry is still telling them that what they want is what they hear. It's still the horse before the cart.

So, what happens to all of the great songs off an album that few people get to hear because they never make it to the radio? It's as if popular radio is just one giant Greatest Hits Station. Part of the reason I don't think I will ever buy individual songs is that every singer/songwriter album tells the story of a point in time for the artist. Each album is an experience, and if you choose to listen only to part of that experience, then what's the point? And when a song hits you at the right time, you can relate to it; it speaks to a point in your life. Now, I don't necessarily see this being the case with many pop albums these days; it seems like every song is written by a different person. It just seems that no one is willing to take that journey anymore -- the journey with the artist. Few come along for the ride because they let the music industry decide what they'll hear on the radio instead. Consumers just seem satisfied with what they're handed over the radio, and I think they're missing out. Some of best songs are the ones that are never even released.

This leads me to my other point: There aren't any surprises anymore. People aren't (pleasantly or unpleasantly) surprised by the non-released songs on an album if they never buy them and hear them. How many people do you know pick up the phone without knowing who it is? Everyone has Caller ID now. I admit, it's handy for avoiding telemarketers, but really, would it be that bad if it were like the old days? Fewer and fewer people are willing to experience a drive without a device that tells them exactly where to go. Where's the spontaneity? Does anyone take the road less traveled anymore without a GPS? And finally . . .

TODAY'S TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED SOCIETY DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO BE BORED ANYMORE.
Technology consumes so much of our daily thoughts now. As a result, our daily "to-do" lists have gotten astronomically long, and it seems like a lot of the daily frustrations we experience are direct results of having technology that is supposed to make our lives easier: searching everywhere for a song to download, having problems with HD channels on your TV, having a computer program crash while you're working . . . you see where I'm going. Technology has made us a completely multitasking society. This is an extreme example, but some people actually text or e-mail while they're at red lights, or while they drink their morning coffee, and treat the radio presets like they're a remote control. How many times have you been out with friends when their cellphone rings? Rather than ignoring the call and being fully engrossed in where they're at and who they're with, they will answer the phone or at least check to see who is calling. No one, young or old, knows how to focus on one thing anymore, or be bored anymore. And being bored, I think, is a very powerful tool.

I remember when I was a kid and my parents would drag my siblings and me to my great grandmother's house to sit for hours on end. We would whine the entire way there and the entire way back, but while we were there, we were the most pleasant, quiet, attentive little things you ever saw. We were bored out of our minds, but my parents made us sit there and just listen and talk. Today's parents don't demand that level of attentiveness from their kids because they don't demand it from themselves. A mother I know didn't bring her young teen kids to visit an old relative because "they would be bored and wouldn't sit there for long." Too damn bad. If it doesn't interest you, you know what? You're going to sit there anyways and pretend like it does. We were told that you accommodate for others, especially elders, not the other way around. At family get-togethers nowadays, kids bring their electronic games so that when the adult conversation bores them, they just whip them out and start playing. They sit there, by themselves, with limited or no interaction with anyone else.

Someone else I know brought their toddler camping, and each night by the campfire, the child watched a DVD. I remember thinking that campfires were the coolest things -- that was the entertainment. Now cars have TVs and DVD players in them. I thought the whole point of taking a road trip that was long enough to warrant watching a video was to get away from the kind of stuff that already occupies your house. Oh, but the kids would fight if they weren't able to watch video! Yes, but they would also learn how to sit there and be bored, or maybe talk to their family members. You know what we did as kids in the back of our station wagon? We fought like cats and dogs. But we also played car bingo, the most boring game in the world (by the way, my brother and sister are cheaters), and made up games.

I'll refrain from talking (in this entry) about my theory that the computer is Eli Whitney's cotton gin of the 20th century. But the technology that is supposed to be making our lives easier is, I think, actually hurting our future.