Note: I left this comment on Jeff Jarvis’ blog and thought it was a waste sitting there. I have modified it some. This was also posted on my old blog, before it was literally eaten by the server.
MySpace works in my mind because it’s blogging without all the “writing” and “thinking” keeping an audience demands, all that stuff being replaced by the raw sexuality music unleashes and that young attractive people – rightfully – want in on. One listens to music and looks for hot girls (or guys) there, because it’s like a giant online concert, composed of personals and cliques composed of personals and band pages. Conversation is easy to make, because you can start it by saying, “Hey, I saw this band recently, why don’t you check out their page and listen to some stuff?” (That the grammatical version. The Myspace version would involve phrases like L8OR H8OR’s or something). The music is always in the background, I think, and that makes it the world’s largest personals site.
I could be wrong about this, though. There might be something more sophisticated to MySpace. I’ve found a classical composer there who is very good, and I’ve found a few friends who talk about literature with me there. But I really want to meet decent people, too, so where there’s a will, there’s a way.
So I dunno. The question is this – we would want a site that could be used for free personals no matter what, and MySpace, because of the music, allows us to have that sort of site with an easy cover, “Yeah, it’s about the music for me.” Fine, so let’s say this: How would MySpace be different if certain types of music were more popular on it?