I agree with Scott. The internet has not only degraded how well people write, but how they spell, phrases and words have been shortened to a few letters. Anyone can have a blog, no talent needed. I was just reading an interview from a few years ago with Scott in Prick Magazine and he said this about how the internet's harmed music:
Weiland: Now, here we are and there are some bands that are starting to happen, but it's really by doing things on their own within this sort of neo-indie label route. Even that is different because it's done more on the digital realm as opposed to the grassroots realm. Indie labels, back when my band first came out, were set up so you sent away for singles, and they were sent back via the mail. Now it's all instantaneous through MySpace and other internet programs. Is it good or is it bad?
I'm not so sure. I think it's great for new bands because this way their music can be heard immediately as opposed to maybe never having had a chance of being heard. At the same time, I think it possibly takes away some of the mystery because you have all this information so accessible right at your fingertips. It's a different world. I still romanticize with the older days. But then again, my favorite bands are still The Stones, The Beatles, and The Clash.
http://www.prickmag.net/scottweilandinterview.html
I dunno. All I am reading in this thread is that the internet has given ignorant/stupid/uneducated people a voice; too much information is bad; internet is bad for music.
What this boils down to is freedom, free speech, and choice.
We have the same option to deal with people we don't agree with/think are stupid, ignorant, or undeducated that we have always had--don't listen to them.
I actually enjoy a few blogs. They talk about news, then link to the newspaper articles that they are talking about. This is great. I can get my local paper and the LA Times delivered, and then I can read any paper in any other city--or other country--from my house. I could read the same story from a left-leaning paper and a write-leaning paper. That's awesome.
I can do real research as an alumni of my university. The OED and online databases come in SO handy, and it's all on the internet.
The problem lies with those with credentials--journalists--either quoting blogs, or not doing their job themselves. Why are journalists quoting blogs? Why are journalists making up stories? Just because you have credentials doesn't necessarily make you better than some blogger--but it often does. Still, discussion and speech is GOOD. If I hear a perspective I may not have, that is good. If I research their statements, I can make a more informed decision.
As far as spelling and grammar with users of the net: The positive side from English academics is that students are engaging in writing, be it texting or typing. It's not "standard" English, but that's okay. Some students don't write or read at all, but many students are doing a lot of it. Now, how do you channel that into the classroom? I don't talk the way I write in undergrad/grad papers, and I don't write online with the same eye for editing or grammar as I do in those. I also don't talk at home and with my friends the same way I do at work or to my boss or parents. Everyone participates in several different discourses every day. They key in the classroom is to get students to understand that using "standard" English will help them in their lives, but it doesn't have to replace how they talk online, via text, to their friends, etc.
As far as music goes, I couldn't disagree more. To me, music today is much more like it was back in the day. It doesn't have to be about anything other than the music and the quality of your band. Live clips on youtube and songs on myspace can sell your band. You don't have to make a video, you don't have to rely on a label to front you money. Home recording is cheap, and now you can get your music to your fans in several different ways.
It has given us more choice, and that is always good. So is information.
