Composer-performer Caleb Burhans got a 2-and-change page print-edition, 4 page online edition, bonafide Allan Kozinn profile in The New York Times on Sunday.
As of 6:15pm today, he had a total of 58 plays on his MySpace page.
Does this mean 1. MySpace is dead. 2. The Times has no influence over its readers’ listening choices. 3. Both.
And if the answer is both, then who or what in this world is actually influencing what music people buy, see and listen to?
“I was in The New York Times, and all I got was these lousy 58 plays.”
[The article did not actually link to the MySpace page, but then can we assume that people will not even Google an artist after reading a massive New York Times feature? Have we become so lazy/disaffected that we can only click-through to where a hyperlink points us?]
I’m not a New Yorker but I do read New York Times pieces pretty frequently and if I did live in NY I would certainly be a NYT reader.
BUT…I avoid MySpace like the plague – hate the way it assaults the senses and the cheap-and-dreadful presentation of the pages I have looked at there as well as the sense of pointlessness it leaves me with. (Apologies to owners of lovely, intelligently conceived MySpace pages, unfortunately this is the indelible impression I’ve formed of this site.)
So perhaps it’s just a disconnect between the NYT readership and MySpace as a destination site. Perhaps NYT readers googled and then visited Burhans’ website and all the possible sites other than the MySpace page. I can imagine doing that.
It seems unusual that The New York Times Company would promote News Corp or one of its properties, MySpace.
Hi there. No, I don’t think the Times would ever actually promote MySpace, I just find it fascinating how that level of mainstream press coverage did not result in a widespread desire to hear his music. I assume this because, at least previously, MySpace Music was the quickest and easiest way to hear the music of an artist you were unfamiliar with. Yvonne, commenting below, suggests that people who read the Times may have Googled Burhans but simply not clicked on his MySpace page. So do we publicize musicians to Times readers and MySpace users in completely different ways? Thanks for commenting. -AA
My thoughts exactly, Yvonne. I, too, am a MySpace hater, though I’m happy to use Facebook and LinkedIn, and as a now-transplanted New Yorker, I’m a voracious Times reader. Furthermore, MySpace is the third Google result, with Burnhams’ own site getting the top two hits in search results. And it’s not as if visitors are missing out on anything by skipping MySpace; you can easily listen to Burnhams’ music on his own website.
So: MySpace is dead, to NYT readers. But, then again, I don’t think it was ever alive for them. I have yet to hear a compelling story of MySpace actually building real audience for a classical music group. Mostly, it seems to be (a) a half-hearted attempt at “coolness” from an established organization who doesn’t invest enough time or resources in the site to reap any benefits, or (b) the result of a group made up primarily of younger people, who then connect with their own pre-existing social networks on the site. Not convinced either of those have measurable results in terms of building *new* audience.
Two interesting questions to ask: what were hits like on Burnhams’ own site the days after the Times article hit, and how many people fitting the demographic profile for Times readers are on MySpace?
I don’t think that this particular case should be seen as either a referendum on Myspace or the NY Times – but in particular, not the latter. I think Yvonne and Charlotte are right on about the reasons behind the myspace overlook (Caleb’s personal page does a better job in every respect).
Re: the Times, I don’t see this as any kind of sign of their demise, not at all. I’m one of the directors of New Amsterdam Records, the label that distributes itsnotyouitsme, and when Kozinn reviewed their disc in January for the Times, we immediately sold hundreds of downloads and physical discs. That’s about as linear a relationship as one can imagine, unlike the more fuzzy, I’ll-file-this-name-away response that many people – myself included – often have in response to profile pieces such as Sunday’s. In some sense, the greatest value of a piece like this (from a purely business standpoint) is that it prepares millions of people for future promotional campaigns, wherein they will say “I’ve heard of this guy” without even necessarily knowing why. From that perspective, there are few media outlets – maybe none – that can rival the kind of coverage that the Times can provide, which is why I’m so happy for Caleb.
As for Myspace, it really was a revolutionary force in its early days, where it opened up the possibility for anyone to have a web address where the public or A&R folks could hear their music. It still is very useful for some people, but in an age where websites are cheap to make, it’s not particularly useful for people who have their act together. I wouldn’t say it’s “dead”, though!
Interesting blog, I’ll look forward to reading more in the future.
Let’s look at this issue by asking two separate, but somewhat related, questions:
1. What are the media channels that need to be used in order for more people to download music from a MySpace page?
2. What is the path that NY Times readers will follow to access music, once they’ve read a compelling article about a composer?
Does anyone genuinely think that the answer to question 1 involves the NY Times and the answer to question 2 involves MySpace?