Kyle Bylin wrote on hypebot on how realtime, the dogma of the social network universe is affecting music.
In a nutshell they state that social media works on the principle of sharing what is happening right now, this very moment, whereas (quality) music is based on developing over a longer period of time.
Thus labels need to catapult their artists into this stream as soon as possible, with the effect that new artists are mostly not ready to deal with this sudden popularity and the backend industry has no time to sell this music any more as it will be pushed to the merely invisible and forgotten southern end of status updates tomorrow:
‘So many new groups are coming out … that one doesn’t even need to keep tabs on the artists that came out in the two years prior; their five replacements wound up in the inbox of journalists and bloggers yesterday.’
What Bylin forgets is that e.g. professional music journalists are only partly interested in the ‘right now’-kind of new artists.
Readers want to follow their favorite artists over a longer period of time. That’s a matter of fact proved by analyzing the sales of respective media in correlation with coverage of unknown new stuff or headlining about well known artists.
Bottom line, music journalists tend to delete most of the ‘five replacements’ and focus on mid term quality rather than bush fires. Or the other way round if an artist can get replaced by five others – maybe his work is just arbitrary and not of a lasting quality? There still are specials about Carl Craig, Dave Sardy, artists that really can be called such. Social Media is a marketing tool – amongst many others – not a sales platform nor a substitute of the club, the tour, the constant development and release of art. Many artists do perfectly well without even bothering to twitter.