I went to pre-order your book (looks amazing, loved the cover) but the Australian price from Amazon.com.au is $73 for the hardback and $53 for the paperback - no Kindle option. That’s beyond the pale/pocket of most here who would want to read it. I’m guessing they aren’t going to print in Australia so a lot of it will be postage. Are you doing a Kindle option?
This is such a fantastic piece! I read recently that YouTube looks to transition its display and creator dashboard to work more like a streaming service than the typical way we know YouTube channels to operate. So instead of watching new videos released from your favorite YouTube channel, you’ll essentially be browsing the content on YouTube as you would shows on Netflix. Content would be curated as shows are: serially and episodically, and it would get YouTube creators thinking like showrunners rather than YouTubers. I think it’s brilliant and I can’t wait to see the shift. Channels like Cleo Abrams and her show “Huge If True” would greatly benefit from this as it’s already formatted like a Nat Geo type of show.
If readers want more coverage on media, politics, and culture, I’m typically writing about these topics on my substack New Outlook. Subscribe here: https://stephenobisanya.substack.com
YouTube is great. It’ll be interesting to see how older institutions adapt. The cable-ification of YouTube could show how inertia carries over or perhaps they adapt with their own series of smart pairings with creators. For instance, what if MLB gave Foolish Baseball a spot on their channel?
Ross, I second your positive points about YouTube. I do not like the monopolistic aspects that you note. FWIW, for a long time (I haven't checked) Google/Alphabet didn't even report YouTube's revenue in its SEC filings, claiming immaterial. That may have changed, or should. But you also bring up the fact that internet culture, since the 90s (I know, before your time!) has spoken the language of fragmentation, liberation, the drum you're beating for Substack against legacy media. But we see a lot of consolidation, too. That said, I found YouTube indispensable for writing Welcome to New Country: Music for Today's America -- you could simply look up whatever you needed, and get several performances. I even did a YouTube channel providing handy access to the songs discussed in the text.
YouTube can be very, very helpful. And yes, in the future (I sense) YouTube may be most of what Google/Alphabet hangs their hat on. I don't think the A.I. bet will pan out. The search will always be the search but people can move off that at some point.
Totally agree, YouTube has been my "TV" for a few years now, I never watch mainstream TV and never will again, I don't use Spotify, any music I want, it's on YT, Have zero interest in Podcasts as they are mostly bs, YouTube is a type of Social Media where you are not drawn in to comment etc, you just watch what you want, when you want, definitely number 1 of the big boys, tbh I don't really see it as a "Social Media" app..
I've never tried YouTube for music but am open to it. Does it have the same ability to create playlists as Spotify? Is it as easy to "collect" albums and follow artists? I've used it for playing random songs here and there and of course for watching videos, but it doesn't seem to be a perfect substitute for Spotify's functionality.
It is pretty much the definitive pop culture library of the Internet, isn’t it? I grew up on the DIY hack videos of Kipkay and researched its algorithms in college, and graduated to video essays. It’ll be sooner rather than later that more people will have heard of MrBeast than of Alex Trebek, of Derek Muller than of Carl Sagan, of ParashockX than of Herblock, or John Green than Voltaire, even though each pair’s lines of work are fairly similar.
Interestingly, as Van Jones and Ted Gioia noted this week, the generation after mine is growing up on Twitch, which would be like live comedy radio on the internet, if not for the more equal viewer-creator relationship. It hasn’t been commented on much, but the ‘invasion’ of Twitch stars who use YouTube as a promotional vessel for their edited streams may already be underway.
You're right - in particular people forget that audio is a subset of video, and that YouTube is already halfway to kicking Spotify's ass - but I do think it's worth remembering that YouTube is successful not because of any particular creative energy on it, but because the site is (and has always been) Limewire with better PR, from when it was founded as a way to show "Lazy Sunday" to your friends to the present in which every 12-year-old boy across America uses the site for an endless stream of Family Guy Funny Moments. If you and I tabulated what percentage of the content we watched on YouTube this year was uploaded with the consent of its official rightsholders, what would it be? 50%, maybe? I'm skeptical it's that high.
Which isn't to say there aren't lots of really original and interesting videos on YouTube - just to say that we shouldn't forget that all that content is buttressed by more-or-less-legal piracy, which the legacy media accepts because Google gives them a tiny cut of the profits and they go, "hey, it's better than the nothing we'd get from UTorrent."
Yes absolutely critical point. I think almost all of the music that I access on YouTube these days is there “officially”. But the service was very much built on piracy, and the current setup feels like labels (and maybe artists) giving into the hostage-taker in a way that is detrimental to the industry, same as Spotify and Apple Music.
On Youtube, even sans subscription, I can access performances of virtually the entire string quartet literature (even the most esoteric) with the score synchronized to the performance. Is this a great world, or what? (!)
Your positive feelings of youtube have been in my head for the last day. I really enjoy your point of view, but as someone a little bit older than you, I have held on to traditional and physical media consumption. I find streaming lacking in many ways, especially when it comes to music. Yes, I do enjoy watching vintage videos of old bands and interviews, but I have refused to believe that streaming can be a meaningful way to engage with art.
I'm questioning that assumption right now. Streaming is certainly here to stay, and generations of fans listening to music on a proper stereo, or watching films primarily in theaters is probably a thing of the past. It means more art and more access, but inevitably less quality. The platform is the industry, and not the artist.
I don't know how you square the two. You rightly point out that the possibilities are exciting, and to your point, streaming is great for accessing already existing videos and clips. But how will we generate new generations of artists and celebrities? If there is no macroculture, there is no celebrity. And if there is no celebrity today, there's no cool clips of celebrities from 25 years ago on the youtube of the future.
Yeah, I have a lot of these same thoughts. I also love physical media. I buy print books and listen to vinyl records. YouTube is great but I worry about whether it will create new art of value.
YouTube Red all the way. Finally someone who highlights the obvious. It’s a treasure trove of almost all possible content that the tech bros and powers that be don’t really care about you finding, or even actively don’t want you to find. Except, YouTube. Love it.
It's possible I'm a little too old for Youtube. Most likely I just haven't put enough effort into finding stuff I like. I grew up in the 80's a magazine addict. Books here and there, but it was a time of magazines. So, reading. I could tell you the weight, horsepower and handling characteristics of every motorcycle made, just about. These days, for a hobby, I like photography, and yes, there are a ton of YouTubers blathering on about a camera for 30 or 45 minutes. Please give me a well written review.
For some reason I'm more patient with poorly edited podcasts. Perhaps it's that I can vacuum at the same time. Watching a podcast on YouTube? That's hell.
Edit: ok, I'm wrong. After reading this I went to YouTube and was immediately served two really good photography videos. Like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQlTE-gREHw
I’m writing a post now where I reference a concert I went to in 2012, and I was able to find clips of it on YouTube in about five seconds. It’s so incredibly useful and entertaining, and it functions so well. As an overall app experience, it’s hard to beat.
I went to pre-order your book (looks amazing, loved the cover) but the Australian price from Amazon.com.au is $73 for the hardback and $53 for the paperback - no Kindle option. That’s beyond the pale/pocket of most here who would want to read it. I’m guessing they aren’t going to print in Australia so a lot of it will be postage. Are you doing a Kindle option?
I am working to see if there can be a Kindle option. There is an audio book which may be cheaper: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/800160/glass-century-by-ross-barkan/
This is such a fantastic piece! I read recently that YouTube looks to transition its display and creator dashboard to work more like a streaming service than the typical way we know YouTube channels to operate. So instead of watching new videos released from your favorite YouTube channel, you’ll essentially be browsing the content on YouTube as you would shows on Netflix. Content would be curated as shows are: serially and episodically, and it would get YouTube creators thinking like showrunners rather than YouTubers. I think it’s brilliant and I can’t wait to see the shift. Channels like Cleo Abrams and her show “Huge If True” would greatly benefit from this as it’s already formatted like a Nat Geo type of show.
If readers want more coverage on media, politics, and culture, I’m typically writing about these topics on my substack New Outlook. Subscribe here: https://stephenobisanya.substack.com
I sing in a church choir in Schneverdingen/Germany, and I love those You tube pieces where you can learn the bass voice.
YouTube is great. It’ll be interesting to see how older institutions adapt. The cable-ification of YouTube could show how inertia carries over or perhaps they adapt with their own series of smart pairings with creators. For instance, what if MLB gave Foolish Baseball a spot on their channel?
Ross, I second your positive points about YouTube. I do not like the monopolistic aspects that you note. FWIW, for a long time (I haven't checked) Google/Alphabet didn't even report YouTube's revenue in its SEC filings, claiming immaterial. That may have changed, or should. But you also bring up the fact that internet culture, since the 90s (I know, before your time!) has spoken the language of fragmentation, liberation, the drum you're beating for Substack against legacy media. But we see a lot of consolidation, too. That said, I found YouTube indispensable for writing Welcome to New Country: Music for Today's America -- you could simply look up whatever you needed, and get several performances. I even did a YouTube channel providing handy access to the songs discussed in the text.
https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-New-Country-Todays-America/dp/1549976982
YouTube can be very, very helpful. And yes, in the future (I sense) YouTube may be most of what Google/Alphabet hangs their hat on. I don't think the A.I. bet will pan out. The search will always be the search but people can move off that at some point.
Totally agree, YouTube has been my "TV" for a few years now, I never watch mainstream TV and never will again, I don't use Spotify, any music I want, it's on YT, Have zero interest in Podcasts as they are mostly bs, YouTube is a type of Social Media where you are not drawn in to comment etc, you just watch what you want, when you want, definitely number 1 of the big boys, tbh I don't really see it as a "Social Media" app..
I've never tried YouTube for music but am open to it. Does it have the same ability to create playlists as Spotify? Is it as easy to "collect" albums and follow artists? I've used it for playing random songs here and there and of course for watching videos, but it doesn't seem to be a perfect substitute for Spotify's functionality.
The answer largely is yes. You can make playlists and follow anyone
Cool, will give it a try.
It is pretty much the definitive pop culture library of the Internet, isn’t it? I grew up on the DIY hack videos of Kipkay and researched its algorithms in college, and graduated to video essays. It’ll be sooner rather than later that more people will have heard of MrBeast than of Alex Trebek, of Derek Muller than of Carl Sagan, of ParashockX than of Herblock, or John Green than Voltaire, even though each pair’s lines of work are fairly similar.
Interestingly, as Van Jones and Ted Gioia noted this week, the generation after mine is growing up on Twitch, which would be like live comedy radio on the internet, if not for the more equal viewer-creator relationship. It hasn’t been commented on much, but the ‘invasion’ of Twitch stars who use YouTube as a promotional vessel for their edited streams may already be underway.
Made an audible "grkkkKK!" sound at the premise that the Gen Alpha Alex Trebek is going to be ... Mr. Beast ... ;___;
I dread it, honestly
You're right - in particular people forget that audio is a subset of video, and that YouTube is already halfway to kicking Spotify's ass - but I do think it's worth remembering that YouTube is successful not because of any particular creative energy on it, but because the site is (and has always been) Limewire with better PR, from when it was founded as a way to show "Lazy Sunday" to your friends to the present in which every 12-year-old boy across America uses the site for an endless stream of Family Guy Funny Moments. If you and I tabulated what percentage of the content we watched on YouTube this year was uploaded with the consent of its official rightsholders, what would it be? 50%, maybe? I'm skeptical it's that high.
Which isn't to say there aren't lots of really original and interesting videos on YouTube - just to say that we shouldn't forget that all that content is buttressed by more-or-less-legal piracy, which the legacy media accepts because Google gives them a tiny cut of the profits and they go, "hey, it's better than the nothing we'd get from UTorrent."
Yes absolutely critical point. I think almost all of the music that I access on YouTube these days is there “officially”. But the service was very much built on piracy, and the current setup feels like labels (and maybe artists) giving into the hostage-taker in a way that is detrimental to the industry, same as Spotify and Apple Music.
On Youtube, even sans subscription, I can access performances of virtually the entire string quartet literature (even the most esoteric) with the score synchronized to the performance. Is this a great world, or what? (!)
It's changed very little for casual browsing since the 2000s. Pretty impressive stability.
Your positive feelings of youtube have been in my head for the last day. I really enjoy your point of view, but as someone a little bit older than you, I have held on to traditional and physical media consumption. I find streaming lacking in many ways, especially when it comes to music. Yes, I do enjoy watching vintage videos of old bands and interviews, but I have refused to believe that streaming can be a meaningful way to engage with art.
I'm questioning that assumption right now. Streaming is certainly here to stay, and generations of fans listening to music on a proper stereo, or watching films primarily in theaters is probably a thing of the past. It means more art and more access, but inevitably less quality. The platform is the industry, and not the artist.
I don't know how you square the two. You rightly point out that the possibilities are exciting, and to your point, streaming is great for accessing already existing videos and clips. But how will we generate new generations of artists and celebrities? If there is no macroculture, there is no celebrity. And if there is no celebrity today, there's no cool clips of celebrities from 25 years ago on the youtube of the future.
Yeah, I have a lot of these same thoughts. I also love physical media. I buy print books and listen to vinyl records. YouTube is great but I worry about whether it will create new art of value.
YouTube Red all the way. Finally someone who highlights the obvious. It’s a treasure trove of almost all possible content that the tech bros and powers that be don’t really care about you finding, or even actively don’t want you to find. Except, YouTube. Love it.
It's possible I'm a little too old for Youtube. Most likely I just haven't put enough effort into finding stuff I like. I grew up in the 80's a magazine addict. Books here and there, but it was a time of magazines. So, reading. I could tell you the weight, horsepower and handling characteristics of every motorcycle made, just about. These days, for a hobby, I like photography, and yes, there are a ton of YouTubers blathering on about a camera for 30 or 45 minutes. Please give me a well written review.
For some reason I'm more patient with poorly edited podcasts. Perhaps it's that I can vacuum at the same time. Watching a podcast on YouTube? That's hell.
Edit: ok, I'm wrong. After reading this I went to YouTube and was immediately served two really good photography videos. Like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQlTE-gREHw
I love print magazines!
I’m writing a post now where I reference a concert I went to in 2012, and I was able to find clips of it on YouTube in about five seconds. It’s so incredibly useful and entertaining, and it functions so well. As an overall app experience, it’s hard to beat.