The internets win music

Just when you thought you'd never have to see another article about the internet-related rise of Arctic Monkeys again, various other stories have conspired to bring them back, at least in the Guardian today.
I admittedly didn't see the programme that sparked them off, largely because it indeed looked like it would be rubbish, but they seem to be making reasonable replies in general - MySpace being responsible for anyone's rise to fame is surely a complete red herring fallen for by sections of the media who don't really know what they are talking about and are trying to bluff their way through. It might be a useful tool for keeping people in touch with what you're doing (although it certainly wasn't the case for Arctic Monkeys) and offers a place to listen to music easily, but the bulk of people still have to be directed there from somewhere, be it elsewhere online or from Radio1, and most of what it does could equally be done on a well-maintained official site with forum.
Sandi Thom's story is obviously not to be taken at face value as well - even if you believe her manager Ian Brown (ha!) that she performed webcasts to large audiences created by word of mouth, had a friend of a friend set up the streaming and pay for bandwidth and was signed afterwards as a result of their success, one glance at the billboard posters for her single (''I wish I was a punk rocker broadcasting from a Tooting basement!") still suggests that she was signed more for having a highly marketable story than any great musical merit.
Lily Allen also makes an appearance - and it is pretty amazing that from never having heard of her all of, ooh, three weeks ago, it's now impossible to go anywhere online without seeing a mention. That's largely within music blogs which are 'read exclusively by other music bloggers' though, of course... it is still a bit disconcerting to not see mention of anywhere online promoting her other than MySpace, but it only takes a look at MIA to see how far internet hype can actually get you, I suppose.


On the other hand, easy as it is to agree with most of it, the whole article is about incorrect media reporting of acts' progress and features this:

'At the heart of this music revolution, declared The Money Programme, was a social networking website called MySpace. "With the boost from MySpace, the Arctic Monkeys proved yet again that successful bands can do without big record companies. They released their debut single and album on small independent label Domino. Both went straight to No 1."
Limited release
In fact the Monkeys' first release was a limited seven-inch vinyl single on Bang Bang Records. Domino, far from being the fledgling start-up operation, had already brought Franz Ferdinand to international prominence.'

Let's leave aside issues with the Domino part (fledgling start-up and small independent are in no way the same thing, and the latter isn't necessarily impossible while having successful bands). Yes, it's really awful when facts are bent and exaggerated to fit a story better than they should do. Like, uh, claiming something was a seven-inch vinyl single when just as many copies were released on CD, perhaps?