From: owner-jangle-poets-digest@smoe.org (jangle-poets-digest) To: jangle-poets-digest@smoe.org Subject: jangle-poets-digest V9 #171 Reply-To: jangle-poets@smoe.org Sender: owner-jangle-poets-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-jangle-poets-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk jangle-poets-digest Monday, May 19 2008 Volume 09 : Number 171 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [JP] The Jangle Poets on Facebook ["Rebecca Derry" Subject: Re: [JP] The Jangle Poets on Facebook All right; I'll bite, despite my better judgment. Apologies for the Slim Kennedys Content. Though TK are on both, so maybe it's related enough. And this Jangle Poets list is another use of the internet for social networking purposes; they're all tentacles from the same squid. ***************** When MySpace was started in 2003, it was intended as a sort of Friendster 2.0: a way for not only real-life friends to join up but also a way to "meet" new people. As such, people were more prone to "friending" people that just looked interesting, as opposed to people that they actually knew. From the beginning anyone could get an account, but it became most popular among two major groups: teenagers/teenyboppers and musicians. I don't know what the deal is with teenagers, and that's only really relevant to this discussion in that some older folks still think of it as that place on the internet where all of the kids hang out and avoid it (see Sheila's post below). In contrast, MySpace had a lot of potential for independent musicians as a genuine networking site. To start with, MySpace requires that you know no HTML or anything about the web, really, so musicians could actively maintain their own sites. It also was conducive for musicians because it let them upload several of their songs so that people could hear them but not download them -- a good and easy way to make more people hear their music. More importantly, it provided a way for musicians and their fans to connect. Musicians had a way of sending a "bulletin" or message to all of their fans at once, and even to connect to individuals when appropriate. Additionally, people could view the profiles of their friends' favorite musicians and discover new music. In turn, fans could feel like they were connecting to their favorite musicians ("OMG, I'm friends with Dar Williams!!1"), and they could leave the artists comments (` la "Thanks for your show last night; it was so great!") in a less invasive and more socially condoned way. A lot of folk artists hopped on MySpace train at this time, and some even kept their gigs list more updated there than on their "real" websites. This was about when I joined MySpace: though I was turned off by the gaudiness of the layout and its reputation for keeping teenagers occupied, it was a good way to connect to musicians. I mostly am only friends with people I know through the folk music scene, and I only really use it for my Folk DJ and Folk Festival Booker alter ego. (Since I'm losing both of those in a week, I might jump ship. Not to mix transportational metaphors.) Facebook has had a very different history. It was first only open to people with a Harvard e-mail address, and then it was expanded to other Ivy League schools, and then one-by-one to all colleges. When I matriculated and joined in 2004, it was just beginning to gain popularity. It was intended to be a virtual version of paper facebooks: a way to connect names to photos and basic facts, with an interactive component. Because of this, and because the pool was limited to other college folks, people didn't lie much or try to "friend" strangers. It was mostly to connect to and learn more about people who you already sort of knew in real life -- people in your dorm, in your classes and activities, from your former high school, etc. Another major difference was that you joined specific "networks," originally by school, and you have the option (it used to be the norm) to only allow your profile to be seen by friends and people in your network. That gives it at least a veneer of privacy (though there's mad privacy issues with Facebook). Eventually, it was opened up to high school students and then to everyone. I think that later joiners have a really different impression of Facebook's purpose than I do. Facebook has changed a lot: it has added various "improvements" (most of which have been controversial), notably the news feed (which gives a sampling of friends' activities on Facebook) and the ability ("platform") for people to invent their own applications and integrate them cleanly into profiles. These applications sort of give the impression of the whole internet being collected on people's profiles: in one profile, you can play Scrabble, throw virtual things at people (I never understood these, but they're bizarrely popular), see what music they are listening to at that instant, grow a virtual plant, and donate rice to third world countries. There has also (since the beginning) been a way to create and join groups (which you can in MySpace too, but it never caught on in the same way; I suspect that this is related to Facebook's origins in the college community, where groups originally were based in something real). This is where it could come closest to being listservesque, because you could communicate with everyone who has marked themselves as a Jangle Poet. Or, slightly more stalkerishly, browse the name/photo list of members and realize that that person who you always see at Falcon Ridge but don't know is named Becca and is also a fan of the Kennedys. Or whatever. Now they've started to blend together a lot more, as they copy the most popular features of the other in order to stay competitive. MySpace has incorporated the News Feed (ugh) and maybe a platform? Meanwhile, you can become "fans" of musicians on Facebook, among other features. I still don't find Facebook really conducive to musical networking, though I might still be living in 2004. A LOT of musicians have recently drifted over to Facebook, all at once it seems. Some of them use it as a more personal site, listing their favorite books and music with the best of 'em. Some use it like MySpace to advertise themselves. I suspect that Facebook's rising popularity can be attributed to a combination of its cleaner blue-and-white boxy layout, its lack of association with teenyboppers, and its Web 2.0 platform capabilities. But in the end, they're all trends. If someone rewrote this post in a year, I'm sure that it would be completely different. for what it's worth ~'becca who clearly is (a) underslept and (b) still in paper-writing mode, despite being done with all of that On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Sheila Turner wrote: > > I don't belong to MySpace, so I can't really qualify how it's different. I > > think it's all a matter of personal choice. I feel that I'm too old to be > > on MySpace, and just have no desire to join, but I am completely addicted > to > Facebook. However, I know a 65-year-old who prefers MySpace over Facebook. > Your sons are probably on both Facebook and MySpace; I'd ask them what the > differences are! > > ~ Sheila Check out the Kennedys' Official Home Page: http://www.KennedysMusic.com/ Fab photos, the Official tour diary, dashboard Buddha haiku, groovy merchandise...what more could you ask for? ------------------------------ End of jangle-poets-digest V9 #171 **********************************