YouTube Virtuosos (Old Man Rant)

[socialleper]

How's this any different from offline performances? There'll always be the few people believing "the sound/music is all that matters" while the mainstream pay attention to the overall package and appearances more than just audio alone.







Hi @socialleper, I've been reading this entire thread and I think this needs to be said, and I genuinely mean this without offence: I believe that much of the confusion here arises because you and many others in this thread are assuming your own personal views and experience are applicable to describing the world and other people's views and experiences (which may or may not be valid). For instance, your frequent mentions of things like "I've never heard of them"... Please correct me if I'm wrong, but implicitly you seem to be suggesting that "if I've never heard of them, they can't be that famous" or "if I can't find it interesting, I don't understand how others can be interested in it", and therefore it casts doubts on the legitimacy of the whole youtube enterprise. Am I misunderstanding what's going on here...?

In my defense, I did say up front that there was going to be a little old coot ranting going on here. So, yes, of course I know that I'm shaking my fists and grumbling "Bah...you damn kids" a little.
However, I am going at this from the angle of a guy that is kinda on top of a lot of stuff. I'm always on the prowl for new music, I read the news, I read music trade magazines, I have two teenage kids, and I pay attention to what is happening around me. I hate the living daylights out of sports but that doesn't mean I don't know when the Super Bowl is or who is in it. I despise pop but I can still identify the artists and their names. I work in IT so I'm far from a technophobe. As a guy with a long view of cultural trends, I don't see things often leaving the YouTube box if that's where they are born. And because it is such a democratized thing that anyone can do, I would say that the odds of being noticed are even more stacked against you compared to traditional methods because rather than competing against thousands of musicians in a city, your are competing against possibly billions (with a B) for attention. Those that "make it" may be a even smaller minority than musicians that make, and it seems like their translation into mainstream fame is minor. As I've said, I only know one of them because of a South Park reference. Which stands to reason because the idea of people watching another person comment while playing videos is so incredibly dumbfounding that I think it successful shoves infantile sloth up its own @$$, creating some kind of horrid mobius loop of societal failure.

Through this discussion I've learned some very reasonable explanations as to why some, and other very specific people, do what they do with YT, and it painted a clearer picture for me. I've learned how YTs payment scheme works and why people are so tight lipped about it. In that regard, I think I've been pretty successful here.
It is probably a little wrong of me to go after non-music related trends on YT as they fall outside the scope of this thread, and if we are going to start cataloging human dumbf#ckery we would be here for a very long time. So that's on me. But I think my point about the damage\danger some of the insular environments YT creates for people that are trying to produce music are still valid. I also still feel very strongly about the points I've made about how "social media" seems to actually push people away from each other rather than bring them closer. The desire for acceptance and validation from anonymous strangers as a form of "success" being little more than a narcissistic exercise in dream fulfillment; etc.
The discussion about solo artists is also a little bit of a tangent, but I'd like to point out that the lack of success of solo instrumentalist albums in traditional markets means the odds of success in a digital medium are still as bad. If I was alone in finding them tedious, you'd see a lot more of them around.

 

[Michael B]

Can we get the videos with just Dave Hollingworth and not Rob Chapman? I'd watch those.

He has a channel. He doesn't post much.

 

[Whousedtoplay]

In my defense, I did say up front that there was going to be a little old coot ranting going on here. So, yes, of course I know that I'm shaking my fists and grumbling "Bah...you damn kids" a little.
However, I am going at this from the angle of a guy that is kinda on top of a lot of stuff. I'm always on the prowl for new music, I read the news, I read music trade magazines, I have two teenage kids, and I pay attention to what is happening around me. I hate the living daylights out of sports but that doesn't mean I don't know when the Super Bowl is or who is in it. I despise pop but I can still identify the artists and their names. I work in IT so I'm far from a technophobe. As a guy with a long view of cultural trends, I don't see things often leaving the YouTube box if that's where they are born. And because it is such a democratized thing that anyone can do, I would say that the odds of being noticed are even more stacked against you compared to traditional methods because rather than competing against thousands of musicians in a city, your are competing against possibly billions (with a B) for attention. Those that "make it" may be a even smaller minority than musicians that make, and it seems like their translation into mainstream fame is minor. As I've said, I only know one of them because of a South Park reference. Which stands to reason because the idea of people watching another person comment while playing videos is so incredibly dumbfounding that I think it successful shoves infantile sloth up its own @$$, creating some kind of horrid mobius loop of societal failure.

Through this discussion I've learned some very reasonable explanations as to why some, and other very specific people, do what they do with YT, and it painted a clearer picture for me. I've learned how YTs payment scheme works and why people are so tight lipped about it. In that regard, I think I've been pretty successful here.
It is probably a little wrong of me to go after non-music related trends on YT as they fall outside the scope of this thread, and if we are going to start cataloging human dumbf#ckery we would be here for a very long time. So that's on me. But I think my point about the damage\danger some of the insular environments YT creates for people that are trying to produce music are still valid. I also still feel very strongly about the points I've made about how "social media" seems to actually push people away from each other rather than bring them closer. The desire for acceptance and validation from anonymous strangers as a form of "success" being little more than a narcissistic exercise in dream fulfillment; etc.
The discussion about solo artists is also a little bit of a tangent, but I'd like to point out that the lack of success of solo instrumentalist albums in traditional markets means the odds of success in a digital medium are still as bad. If I was alone in finding them tedious, you'd see a lot more of them around.

You don't need to apologize for your opinion about "Youtube Warriors/musicians".
They exist and in some cases even make money/good money by "using"(overusing) the OLD stuff written by the musicians in your kind of environment, as team members, etc...
So far, I've seen only DILUTION of Music not the CREATION of Music from Youtube.
Let's see if that "make money fast/just look at me" youtube phenomenon is going to produce Good Music.

 

[HubbardsFate]

I have been told that if your video(s) on YouTube get over a certain amount of views that you can make money. Supposedly my fiancee brother does this. In pretty sure it exists but have not researched it.

Past that, perhaps it's something they do to show off their skills, gain followers, perhaps use as an online archive, maybe even to fulfill narcissistic tendencies?

I have to assume at least some of them play professionally and use their vids for self promotion.

Just a few thoughts that came to mind to help answer your question.

I can't speak specifically to (or for) the musician community on YouTube, but I have read a couple of news articles (from reputable sources) about people who aren't merely making a living uploading videos to YouTube (for people with paid subscriptions), but actually getting RICH from it. One guy goes by the handle "PewPewDie" - I think he is European, and he uploads videos of himself playing video games. I don't know who these sad souls are who sit down to watch other people play video games, never mind actually PAYING for the "privilege", but I guess that's the world we live in now...

 

[socialleper]

I can't speak specifically to (or for) the musician community on YouTube, but I have read a couple of news articles (from reputable sources) about people who aren't merely making a living uploading videos to YouTube (for people with paid subscriptions), but actually getting RICH from it. One guy goes by the handle "PewPewDie" - I think he is European, and he uploads videos of himself playing video games. I don't know who these sad souls are who sit down to watch other people play video games, never mind actually PAYING for the "privilege", but I guess that's the world we live in now...

We kinda covered him [read the thread]. That guy is one of the top grossing YouTubers for doing something that seems nuts. What we've learned is that the money comes from advertising; the popups and ads you see before the video. That's where the actual revenue comes from.
It would be interesting to try to break these up by "category" to see what Youcians (I'm trademarking that $#!@) make. The biggest money makers are Official Video channels for already big pop stars (no surprise there) or music video aggregators like Vemo. Since I don't really like the music being produced on the web, I can't think of anyone to look up. The few guys I very rarely watch kinda make comedic skits out of their music more than they just play their own stuff. The others are existing artists IRL that just jump on YT occasionally to do their own thing.
So it seems like for major artists, YB is an additional revenue stream and an advertising medium since music videos don't exist on TV anymore. For lesser artists it seems like it is something they do between gigs, or to supplement their income. You have to dig pretty deep before you find any solo\virtuoso Youicians making money off of just playing music on YT.

 

[Luke19Boarder]

I don't know who these sad souls are who sit down to watch other people play video games, never mind actually PAYING for the "privilege", but I guess that's the world we live in now...

Granted, I have never watched one of his videos, but it's more than just watching someone play video games. From what I understand, he is quite entertaining. If he's good at the game, it would be a good way to learn strategy. Even if he's not good at the games, there's got to be something about his persona that is entertaining - maybe he does characters or bits. I watch stand up comedians on YT all the time. Would I be a sad soul if I watched one of them doing a character while playing a video game? Seems like it wouldn't be less entertaining than just standing on a stage.

Besides, people around here watch reviews and demos of basses on YouTube all the time, are we all as sad of souls as those who do the same thing for video games?

Additionally, it doesn't cost anything to subscribe to a YouTube channel, nor to watch videos. These people are making their money from ad revenue - the viewers aren't paying for the "privilege" to watch.

 

[socialleper]

Besides, people around here watch reviews and demos of basses on YouTube all the time, are we all as sad of souls as those who do the same thing for video games?

There is a critical difference here. Games are neither rare, hard to find, or cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars. Demos of gear allows me to check out gear there is absolutely no way to try out before I get it.
I'm unsure of this dude's format. I don't know if he is reviewing the game, or doing a walk through, or if people just find his reactions entertaining. The little bits I've seen are pretty annoying, but then, (plays old fart card) the young'ins seem to like superbly annoying stuff these days. The absurdity of youth culture entertainment today makes Ren and Stimpy seem staid and predictable.

 

[Michael B]

See, you have your Nose Goblins and they have their Stampy Longnose. Proof enough that things don't really change and it's just our POV that (d)evolves.

 

[HubbardsFate]

Granted, I have never watched one of his videos, but it's more than just watching someone play video games. From what I understand, he is quite entertaining. If he's good at the game, it would be a good way to learn strategy. Even if he's not good at the games, there's got to be something about his persona that is entertaining - maybe he does characters or bits. I watch stand up comedians on YT all the time. Would I be a sad soul if I watched one of them doing a character while playing a video game? Seems like it wouldn't be less entertaining than just standing on a stage.

Besides, people around here watch reviews and demos of basses on YouTube all the time, are we all as sad of souls as those who do the same thing for video games?

Additionally, it doesn't cost anything to subscribe to a YouTube channel, nor to watch videos. These people are making their money from ad revenue - the viewers aren't paying for the "privilege" to watch.

It's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, but that is somewhat my fault for maybe not being as clear as I could have been. With games - especially the really story-driven games, which a lot of them are nowadays - why would you sit around and watch hours of another person playing that game? Isn't that akin to someone telling you a movie from start to finish, with every plot point, twist, etc. spelled out for you? I mean, there is a significant difference between doing that (watching another person play a game for long periods of time) and watching a brief demo/review of a game on, say, IGN, which I think practically everyone who is into gaming does at some point...that and/or read the written reviews. Most people have specific genres of games that they are drawn to (survival horror and FPS are my faves), and they usually want an idea if specific titles they are interested in are living up to the hype, have gotten a half-decent review, etc., which is what sites like IGN, Gamespot, etc., seem to pretty much cater to. I dunno...call me crazy, but it seems to me that sitting down and watching a stranger go through all, most, heck, even a quarter of a game would take away a lot of the fun of simply putting in the time playing it yourself right from the get-go and figuring out everything on your own.

As far as how the revenue works for these YouTube folks, you seem to be saying that they only make money from ad revenue. I'm think you are wrong on that point; I'm pretty certain some of them make additional revenue via subscribed viewers, but whether that is less, more, or about the same than they generate through ads, I have no idea.

 

[callofcthulhu]

In my defense, I did say up front that there was going to be a little old coot ranting going on here. So, yes, of course I know that I'm shaking my fists and grumbling "Bah...you damn kids" a little.
However, I am going at this from the angle of a guy that is kinda on top of a lot of stuff. I'm always on the prowl for new music, I read the news, I read music trade magazines, I have two teenage kids, and I pay attention to what is happening around me. I hate the living daylights out of sports but that doesn't mean I don't know when the Super Bowl is or who is in it. I despise pop but I can still identify the artists and their names. I work in IT so I'm far from a technophobe. As a guy with a long view of cultural trends, I don't see things often leaving the YouTube box if that's where they are born. And because it is such a democratized thing that anyone can do, I would say that the odds of being noticed are even more stacked against you compared to traditional methods because rather than competing against thousands of musicians in a city, your are competing against possibly billions (with a B) for attention. Those that "make it" may be a even smaller minority than musicians that make, and it seems like their translation into mainstream fame is minor. As I've said, I only know one of them because of a South Park reference. Which stands to reason because the idea of people watching another person comment while playing videos is so incredibly dumbfounding that I think it successful shoves infantile sloth up its own @$$, creating some kind of horrid mobius loop of societal failure.

Through this discussion I've learned some very reasonable explanations as to why some, and other very specific people, do what they do with YT, and it painted a clearer picture for me. I've learned how YTs payment scheme works and why people are so tight lipped about it. In that regard, I think I've been pretty successful here.
It is probably a little wrong of me to go after non-music related trends on YT as they fall outside the scope of this thread, and if we are going to start cataloging human dumbf#ckery we would be here for a very long time. So that's on me. But I think my point about the damage\danger some of the insular environments YT creates for people that are trying to produce music are still valid. I also still feel very strongly about the points I've made about how "social media" seems to actually push people away from each other rather than bring them closer. The desire for acceptance and validation from anonymous strangers as a form of "success" being little more than a narcissistic exercise in dream fulfillment; etc.
The discussion about solo artists is also a little bit of a tangent, but I'd like to point out that the lack of success of solo instrumentalist albums in traditional markets means the odds of success in a digital medium are still as bad. If I was alone in finding them tedious, you'd see a lot more of them around.

Just pointing out that for someone extolling the virtues of communication and the vices of narcissism, your pattern of picking and choosing the replies you'll engage with certainly seems to show a narcissistic streak. You've only acknowledged others who validate your own line of thinking or whose points you can easily disprove - that's not communication, that's an echo chamber.

 

[socialleper]

Just pointing out that for someone extolling the virtues of communication and the vices of narcissism, your pattern of picking and choosing the replies you'll engage with certainly seems to show a narcissistic streak. You've only acknowledged others who validate your own line of thinking or those whose points you can easily disprove - that's not communication, that's an echo chamber.

Just because you're not confident enough in your own sense of identity to use the Internet in a healthy way doesn't mean others aren't.

I'm not going to respond to every post.
And I haven't, as you've said, only responded to posts I agree with. When I receive useful information I acknowledge it. I'm also not going to just pick a fight with someone that disagrees with me. I'm tired of flame wars on the internet.

 

[Nic.]

In my defense, I did say up front that there was going to be a little old coot ranting going on here. So, yes, of course I know that I'm shaking my fists and grumbling "Bah...you damn kids" a little.

(...)

But I think my point about the damage\danger some of the insular environments YT creates for people that are trying to produce music are still valid. I also still feel very strongly about the points I've made about how "social media" seems to actually push people away from each other rather than bring them closer. The desire for acceptance and validation from anonymous strangers as a form of "success" being little more than a narcissistic exercise in dream fulfillment; etc.

Fair enough, I just want to be sure that you do know your (apparent) inherent biases going into this. Which you do seem to know, and I'm sure you can agree to disagree about what you feel strongly about. Personally, I would disagree with your judgement of social media, and that this might be biasing your views of artists on social media, but that's personal and I'm sure your world view works for you. That said, there are some things that I would disagree with on an objective level, and hopefully you don't mind discussing it here. Also, depending on what we're discussing, I might be talking about either famous youtubers OR the kind of people you mention in your original post, which I'm sure you are aware aren't the same. Well, just to be clear...

However, I am going at this from the angle of a guy that is kinda on top of a lot of stuff. I'm always on the prowl for new music, I read the news, I read music trade magazines, I have two teenage kids, and I pay attention to what is happening around me. I hate the living daylights out of sports but that doesn't mean I don't know when the Super Bowl is or who is in it. I despise pop but I can still identify the artists and their names. I work in IT so I'm far from a technophobe. As a guy with a long view of cultural trends, I don't see things often leaving the YouTube box if that's where they are born.

If you don't mind me saying so, is it possible that the way you get your news about new music might just be skewed towards artists that still work more traditionally? I'd suggest that most bands that make it through social media are more indie in nature, and not the kind of bands that would make mainstream news anyway (unless by "news" and "magazines" you don't mean the major industry-influenced publications). In that sense, super bowl and sports would be vastly different from youtube artists. I think saying YouTube artists aren't famous because you haven't seen them on the news might be like saying cricket players aren't famous because they aren't on American TV.

Same with having teenage kids - there's a huge variance in what teenagers are interested in and perhaps your kids just don't go for indie bands, even if they're huge indie bands.

That said, yes it's true that there are indeed very few youtube artists that make it out there. But I doubt the proportions are worse than how many offline musicians make it big either. Speaking of which...

And because it is such a democratized thing that anyone can do, I would say that the odds of being noticed are even more stacked against you compared to traditional methods because rather than competing against thousands of musicians in a city, your are competing against possibly billions (with a B) for attention. Those that "make it" may be a even smaller minority than musicians that make, and it seems like their translation into mainstream fame is minor.

As with my comment on the relative proportions of (youtube artists becoming famous)/(all youtube artists) not being less than (offline musicians becoming famous)/(all offline musicians), I think there needs to be a relevant comparison here. You can't compare (all viewers/videos on youtube) against (one city's music scene). Perhaps you can compare (all viewers/videos in a certain online community) against (one city's music scene) or (all viewers/videos on youtube) against (the national American music scene).

I don't think YouTube artists start off by trying to capture the whole internet. They start small first, build up a fanbase around a certain online community, and spread outwards. What most people don't realize is that youtube fame doesn't (usually) happen overnight, at least not the kind that's viable and sustaining.

In fact, I'd say that sensible youtube strategies in music probably aren't all that different from marketing your band offline. You don't just need good content, you need something extra to get your band's name out there, and I've to disagree with all the people on this forum who'd be like "just play good music and that's all that matters".

That said, I do think that there ARE some differences between music that works offline and music that works on youtube. IMO a lot of the really popular primarily-youtube artists tend to go for songs with some gimmick. I'd state (without strong evidence, just gut feeling) that getting far on YouTube is kinda like getting far on America's Got Talent or other platforms like that, on top of just making good music, you need something that makes it compelling and novel. Someone mentioned Lindsey Sterling earlier in this thread and I think she's a good example of what works on YouTube. Going viral isn't enough since it's not sustainable, every video needs to have consistently good quality and you need to follow up with the right marketing and billing yourself as a personality.

But I think my point about the damage\danger some of the insular environments YT creates for people that are trying to produce music are still valid.

Earlier, I was referring to people who actually approach youtube or social media like a business or like you would approach mass-marketing your band. I'm going to talk about something closer to what you mentioned originally. Yeah there's definitely a danger, but IMO not more so than being stuck in a rut offline. If you're in a dead-end band, all the face-to-face interaction in the world isn't going to help you progress musically or making it big. It's like video games - video game addiction is definitely a big problem, but the games themselves are not the problem, it's the addiction and how you approach the medium that's the problem.

Through this discussion I've learned some very reasonable explanations as to why some, and other very specific people, do what they do with YT, and it painted a clearer picture for me. I've learned how YTs payment scheme works and why people are so tight lipped about it. In that regard, I think I've been pretty successful here.

Great!

It is probably a little wrong of me to go after non-music related trends on YT as they fall outside the scope of this thread, and if we are going to start cataloging human dumbf#ckery we would be here for a very long time. So that's on me.

I think they could still shed light on how popularity works, though. I'm personally very interested in studying social dynamics and I think online dynamics aren't well studied enough.

The discussion about solo artists is also a little bit of a tangent, but I'd like to point out that the lack of success of solo instrumentalist albums in traditional markets means the odds of success in a digital medium are still as bad. If I was alone in finding them tedious, you'd see a lot more of them around.

Yeah, solo artists and instrumental artists both aren't as popular as conventional pop stars, and I'm sure the intersection of the two is even worse. That said, I brought this up because I wanted to point out a few issues,

1) As I mentioned earlier, I think there needs to be consideration of the relative proportions online vs offline.
2) There -are- really good solo instrumentalists, but the problem isn't with the genre itself, I think. I imagine that yes, it's harder to convey compelling emotion as an instrumentalist without vocals, especially in a society that emphasizes words/lyrics more than instrumentation (there's a number of articles like this one around the internet, which I just googled up randomly in a few moments, and I don't think they're well substantiated statistically, but they do bring up important issues that I think are somewhat valid for discussion), but I would argue (again, without strong evidence) that a large part of the problem is that musicians who tend towards solo instrumental music also tend towards not caring as much about the interaction between musician and audience, which is why, both online and offline, they fail to be compelling. I'm not American, but I see a lot of this happening in Singapore where I live.
3) The actual tediousness of it aside, as I mentioned right at the start, I was worried that your personal dislike of instrumental solo music might be affecting your subjective perception of the topic as a whole. But since you're aware of your own bias and perspectives in creating this thread, that's fine then!

 

[Whousedtoplay]

Fair enough, I just want to be sure that you do know your (apparent) inherent biases going into this. Which you do seem to know, and I'm sure you can agree to disagree about what you feel strongly about. Personally, I would disagree with your judgement of social media, and that this might be biasing your views of artists on social media, but that's personal and I'm sure your world view works for you. That said, there are some things that I would disagree with on an objective level, and hopefully you don't mind discussing it here. Also, depending on what we're discussing, I might be talking about either famous youtubers OR the kind of people you mention in your original post, which I'm sure you are aware aren't the same. Well, just to be clear...



If you don't mind me saying so, is it possible that the way you get your news about new music might just be skewed towards artists that still work more traditionally? I'd suggest that most bands that make it through social media are more indie in nature, and not the kind of bands that would make mainstream news anyway (unless by "news" and "magazines" you don't mean the major industry-influenced publications). In that sense, super bowl and sports would be vastly different from youtube artists. I think saying YouTube artists aren't famous because you haven't seen them on the news might be like saying cricket players aren't famous because they aren't on American TV.

Same with having teenage kids - there's a huge variance in what teenagers are interested in and perhaps your kids just don't go for indie bands, even if they're huge indie bands.

That said, yes it's true that there are indeed very few youtube artists that make it out there. But I doubt the proportions are worse than how many offline musicians make it big either. Speaking of which...



As with my comment on the relative proportions of (youtube artists becoming famous)/(all youtube artists) not being less than (offline musicians becoming famous)/(all offline musicians), I think there needs to be a relevant comparison here. You can't compare (all viewers/videos on youtube) against (one city's music scene). Perhaps you can compare (all viewers/videos in a certain online community) against (one city's music scene) or (all viewers/videos on youtube) against (the national American music scene).

I don't think YouTube artists start off by trying to capture the whole internet. They start small first, build up a fanbase around a certain online community, and spread outwards. What most people don't realize is that youtube fame doesn't (usually) happen overnight, at least not the kind that's viable and sustaining.

In fact, I'd say that sensible youtube strategies in music probably aren't all that different from marketing your band offline. You don't just need good content, you need something extra to get your band's name out there, and I've to disagree with all the people on this forum who'd be like "just play good music and that's all that matters".

That said, I do think that there ARE some differences between music that works offline and music that works on youtube. IMO a lot of the really popular primarily-youtube artists tend to go for songs with some gimmick. I'd state (without strong evidence, just gut feeling) that getting far on YouTube is kinda like getting far on America's Got Talent or other platforms like that, on top of just making good music, you need something that makes it compelling and novel. Someone mentioned Lindsey Sterling earlier in this thread and I think she's a good example of what works on YouTube. Going viral isn't enough since it's not sustainable, every video needs to have consistently good quality and you need to follow up with the right marketing and billing yourself as a personality.



Earlier, I was referring to people who actually approach youtube or social media like a business or like you would approach mass-marketing your band. I'm going to talk about something closer to what you mentioned originally. Yeah there's definitely a danger, but IMO not more so than being stuck in a rut offline. If you're in a dead-end band, all the face-to-face interaction in the world isn't going to help you progress musically or making it big. It's like video games - video game addiction is definitely a big problem, but the games themselves are not the problem, it's the addiction and how you approach the medium that's the problem.


Great!



I think they could still shed light on how popularity works, though. I'm personally very interested in studying social dynamics and I think online dynamics aren't well studied enough.



Yeah, solo artists and instrumental artists both aren't as popular as conventional pop stars, and I'm sure the intersection of the two is even worse. That said, I brought this up because I wanted to point out a few issues,

1) As I mentioned earlier, I think there needs to be consideration of the relative proportions online vs offline.
2) There -are- really good solo instrumentalists, but the problem isn't with the genre itself, I think. I imagine that yes, it's harder to convey compelling emotion as an instrumentalist without vocals, especially in a society that emphasizes words/lyrics more than instrumentation (there's a number of articles like this one around the internet, which I just googled up randomly in a few moments, and I don't think they're well substantiated statistically, but they do bring up important issues that I think are somewhat valid for discussion), but I would argue (again, without strong evidence) that a large part of the problem is that musicians who tend towards solo instrumental music also tend towards not caring as much about the interaction between musician and audience, which is why, both online and offline, they fail to be compelling. I'm not American, but I see a lot of this happening in Singapore where I live.
3) The actual tediousness of it aside, as I mentioned right at the start, I was worried that your personal dislike of instrumental solo music might be affecting your subjective perception of the topic as a whole. But since you're aware of your own bias and perspectives in creating this thread, that's fine then!

It's a very long comment, but...
Here is what's missing in your very prolific posting (IMHO).

Any mentioning about the "virtual" (or FAKE) playing in front of the camera.
Everybody could be a musician on youtube.
Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock is a music rhythm game, the third main installment in the Guitar Hero series, and the fourth title overall.

Anyway, everything that was supposed to be said about youtube musicians was said in this thread.
I would recommend to write a book or make a youtube video on any DEEPER personal beliefs about YT.

 

[Nic.]

@Whousedtoplay I must admit I haven't seen videos of people faking it lol

 

[Whousedtoplay]

@Whousedtoplay I must admit I haven't seen videos of people faking it lol

Nic,

Maybe this could help you or anybody else to better understand my opinion about that "beautiful virtual reality" Guitar Hero from Youtube.

Any Bass Player (not virtual) must first create that bass-line that later could be "replicated" by thousands of youtube musicians. That's what a real (not virtual) bass player does.
Question.
"But what if that bass player must play the written bass-line?"
In this case, the real Bass players MUST prove that they are worth of hiring for that record.

I, with all my best intention and my best attitude, and my "diplomatic" wording, DON'T BELIEVE THAT MARTA ALTESA with her MILLIONS of followers/viewers CANNOT record a bass-line like Andrew Ford or Chuck Rainey.
It's my Personal belief, it's my opinion (but of course HUMBLE); therefore, please don't waste ANY second in trying to persuade me to change my opinion!
Also, IMHO (only), the real Bass Players establish themselves by PLAYING LIVE/TOURING, where a lot of things could EASILY destroy that "bedroom-DAW" comfort zone.

Now we are getting to my second point.
Andrew Ford is on the YOUTUBE; therefore, I've previously mentioned this:

I would divide all youtube musicians into two groups, with my different attitude and opinion:

(I'll be VERY diplomatic in order to HIDE my opinion about the representatives of both groups.)

1. The youtube musicians who are Recording and Playing their own - original - stuff, including lessons, tutorials, etc..., between some studio recordings and touring,
and
2. all those "youtube warriors" playing ALONG the recordings, like Marta Altesa with MILLIONS OF VIEWERS = 2,536,186 (!)

I've programmed (and probably overdone) a drum pattern with the more complex kick and snare lines.
I'm still working on the bass-line for that "messy" drum pattern.

I know for SURE that ANY BASS PLAYER from my first group like Dirty Loop's Henrik Linder (bass), or Dywane ‘Mononeon’ Thomas Jr, etc... could EASILY accomplish that task, but...

I have big doubts about the "youtube musicians" from the second group.

 

[socialleper]

I think they could still shed light on how popularity works, though. I'm personally very interested in studying social dynamics and I think online dynamics aren't well studied enough.

This is an aside, but one that is at least tangential to the discussion.
Social media or olde timey media, stupid+sex+humiliation=popular. The Mob loves base entertainment. Gladiatorial games, freak shows, boxing, p0rn, Kardashians, etc. The more salacious the better. YouTube has a lot of this, as well as comment sections, which are the devil's creation. They are global punch bowl for every @$$hole with an opinion to take a big steamy dump in.

 

[Nic.]

Nic,

Maybe this could help you or anybody else to better understand my opinion about that "beautiful virtual reality" Guitar Hero from Youtube.

Any Bass Player (not virtual) must first create that bass-line that later could be "replicated" by thousands of youtube musicians. That's what a real (not virtual) bass player does.
Question.
"But what if that bass player must play the written bass-line?"
In this case, the real Bass players MUST prove that they are worth of hiring for that record.

I, with all my best intention and my best attitude, and my "diplomatic" wording, DON'T BELIEVE THAT MARTA ALTESA with her MILLIONS of followers/viewers CANNOT record a bass-line like Andrew Ford or Chuck Rainey.
It's my Personal belief, it's my opinion (but of course HUMBLE); therefore, please don't waste ANY second in trying to persuade me to change my opinion!
Also, IMHO (only), the real Bass Players establish themselves by PLAYING LIVE/TOURING, where a lot of things could EASILY destroy that "bedroom-DAW" comfort zone.

Sorry, could I clarify - by "faking" do you mean playing along to an existing bassline note for note...? I'm a little confused here and I don't want to misunderstand what you're trying to say.

Also, IMHO (only), the real Bass Players establish themselves by PLAYING LIVE/TOURING, where a lot of things could EASILY destroy that "bedroom-DAW" comfort zone.

I'd agree though that yes, playing live requires an entirely different skill set from recording. Then again, recordings are held to a much higher degree of accuracy these days. While you have the luxury of repeating many, many takes until you get it right, it's still not that easy IMO... but you're right that you get more leeway if you're not playing live. But that said, I've seen bands that record in the studio way better than they play live, and bands that play live way better than their CDs... so I don't think it's solely a youtube/online phenomenon.

All that aside, though, I would personally be careful about passing judgements on whats a "real bass player". I'm just careful because I don't want to be demeaning towards others by accident.

I've programmed (and probably overdone) a drum pattern with the more complex kick and snare lines.
I'm still working on the bass-line for that "messy" drum pattern.

I know for SURE that ANY BASS PLAYER from my first group like Dirty Loop's Henrik Linder (bass), or Dywane ‘Mononeon’ Thomas Jr, etc... could EASILY accomplish that task, but...

I have big doubts about the "youtube musicians" from the second group.

Fair enough. But then how does that differ from bassists who only do cover songs, and only cover these songs note-for-note live? Wouldn't they also lack the creativity for that?

YouTube has a lot of this, as well as comment sections, which are the devil's creation. They are global punch bowl for every @$$hole with an opinion to take a big steamy dump in.

I love this quote, especially the last line.

 

[socialleper]

I love this quote, especially the last line.

You're welcome.

 

[socialleper]

Also, IMHO (only), the real Bass Players establish themselves by PLAYING LIVE/TOURING, where a lot of things could EASILY destroy that "bedroom-DAW" comfort zone.

This is an important factor.
Mastering an instrument is hard, but anyone can do it with enough time. What is far more difficult is actually writing something; you either have that or you don't. THEN add on top that a room full of strangers waiting to be entertained. AND while playing something correctly, also be entertaining to watch.
Playing something by yourself, even if you wrote it, in the safety of your comfort zone, is VERY different than playing it with a couple of different people live, with all the variables that are involved. Yousicians can insulate themselves from the difficulties of live playing. I think its pretty fair to say that a musician that plays out live should be "ranked" higher than a Yousician, just as a target range shooter is on a lower level than a combat zone sharp shooter.

 

[Whousedtoplay]

Sorry, could I clarify - by "faking" do you mean playing along to an existing bassline note for note...? I'm a little confused here and I don't want to misunderstand what you're trying to say.

Here are my favorite youtube musicians:

But then how does that differ from bassists who only do cover songs, and only cover these songs note-for-note live?

See my long comment about playing LIVE and playing on youtube.
I'm starting repeating myself. I hope that's not your point!

Wouldn't they also lack the creativity for that?

Here is a VERY IMPORTANT point (IMHO) missing in your question.
There is an extremely big difference between playing along with the recording and PLAYING LIVE and being responsible FOR THE BASS-LINE'S ARTICULATION, TONE, SOUND, ETC...

I think I've already mentioned it in my previous comment.

I, with all my best intention and my best attitude, and my "diplomatic" wording, DON'T BELIEVE THAT MARTA ALTESA with her MILLIONS of followers/viewers CANNOT record a bass-line like Andrew Ford or Chuck Rainey.
The real Bass Players establish themselves by PLAYING LIVE/TOURING, where a lot of things could EASILY destroy that "bedroom-DAW" comfort zone.