Ah, Alexander Pope, you short-arsed genius. The allusion is to vox populi, vox dei, and there were objections to it back in the 700s, if VoxPopiPedia is to be believed.

Picking up on SKM, there are a bundle of inherent paradox in the gatekeeper phenomenon. Perhaps the group-mind, with enough tools, will find you that obscure band with three demos and a gig that is the equivalent of your perfect lover. Or perhaps John Peel (RIP) will introduce you to a world of music that tweaks and expands your tastes.

Or, alternatively, we’re resolving towards a world that that makes it easier than ever to find out who performed that just-edgy enough track in the ad or TV show you just watched, even as the outlets for music attenuate themselves into atomic strands.

Or, one more: spam evolves faster than spam-filters, and spam music evolves faster than the means to evade it.

And no matter what, we’ll still be attached to the bands that we loved in our late teens and early twenties.

There’s only so much independent discovery and assessment one can reasonably do, given the glut of content in the world. A good curator (with or without formal training or position) provides a context and creates juxtapositions and exposure that might not otherwise occur, hopefully bringing perspective and depth to the field. (The concept most naturally fits the arts, but it works in other areas.)

The “user-generated content” world will fail miserably if it becomes little more than mob rule. But personal contributions in the global process of “sifting and winnowing” do make a positive difference. Access to multiple curatorial sources allows for greater perspective and balance rarely achieved by the mob.

An author can’t really defend such a dull, logical position if he or she wants to move units off the shelves … regardless of what that author truly believes or experiences.

Meanwhile, the rest of us don’t really want gatekeepers all that much.