h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"I've been thinking about this: music has changed, in economic-speak, from a private to a public good. 30 years ago your album/single was yours and you got the benefit from it. If someone else listened to it they would do so at your expense. This changed a bit with tape recorders, but now it's simply wrong. Once music is created billions of copies can be made and listened to, basically at no extra cost."

It's always been a public good, though; this is something people forget: everything under copyright (*everything*) is destined to enter the public domain. The notion of "intellectual property" is actually a misleading one; a house is property, a novel isn't. Copyright creates a commercial incentive that also allows artists to profit from the sales of their art and allows them to control what happens to it but they don't truly "own" it; ultimately, it enters the public sphere. That's the deal they enter with the state when the state takes-on the role of protecting their rights and their revenue (see also: anyone who claims to be "strongly free-market" but is strongly pro-copyright needs to look at themselves ideologically: copyright is protectionism).

"It's perfectly possible that, after a few years, there will never be a million-selling album again. Ever. The revenue stream simply won't be there."

They said that ten years ago but, yeah, I think physical music sales are on a downward spiral they won't recover from and digital sales have not taken off like they were expected to. It's not that people don't listen to music so much, they'd just rather stream it or pirate it. Streaming is becoming more popular than piracy (largely because it's more convenient, I suspect) so there's the possibility of its being a revenue stream of some sort but I'm not sure how that would work: Spotify is great as a promotional aid but hee-haw really finds its way to the artists whose music features on it. Could that change, perhaps?

"Like has been said, I like professional musicians being around, and it will no doubt have a big impact that they can't sit around a studio for six months recording an album. But I'll bet the top act of 2025 can sure as hell play live."

Which worries me. Some great musicians (see: The Beatles for most of their later career) recorded albums but weren't so keen on playing live or didn't play live at all. Art is what matters, remember, and if we end up with less than we had before (see also: the decline of the album; would anyone seriously claim that music as an artform would be better without albums?) then something's going wrong.

<>

I agree but that's not quite what I mean; the digital information is effectively free with the arrival of the internet, file-sharing and computers to store the data on. Previously to listen to something on demand you had to buy it (or know someone who had). Now someone in Brazil can record a song I'm listening to in Scotland. If nobody wants to pay any more, they simply won't. Before that meant they had limited access to the music: now it doesn't.

Here's some possible good news:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/jan/20/vampire-weekend-indie-label-number-one

Presumably then one interprestation is that whilst piracy clearly represents a massive challenge to the industry (I notice that elsewhere today it is reported that global music sales are down 10%), that perhaps the business choices made by the majors is contributing to their lack of success...

The "small c" consevative approach of primarily focussing on karaoke singers from talent shows and identikit crowd pleasing albums from established stars rather than backing innovative new music might be contirbuting to the decline?

This article certianly seems to suggest that inoovative indies can thrive in the current market....

Lets hope so eh?

FB

A blog on this topic I saw on Twitter...

http://bit.ly/55ylwT

FB

Hmmm, my problem with that argument is that a) the article is by someone who runs a file-sharing ISP and so, like Bono, is simply defending his own business practice and b) it's a bit vague on how the artists actually get paid. Spotify does the "ten pounds a month and unlimited music" thing but, from what I hear, the artists hardly see any of it and still need people to buy their albums to see any money.

That's a future for web entrepreneurs, but not for artists.

>This article certianly seems to suggest that inoovative indies can thrive in the current market....

That's what I hope, it's the *only* solid idea I've heard from anyone so far. Certainly, indie labels seem to be better for the artists and for music generally. There's a threat, though, of successful indies simply turning into the big corporate record companies again.

>The "small c" consevative approach of primarily focussing on karaoke singers from talent shows and identikit crowd pleasing albums from established stars rather than backing innovative new music might be contirbuting to the decline?

On the contrary, I think that's what's holding it up. Those are the acts that still sell in large numbers so they're the artists the majors want to sign. In the old days, the majors would pull in massive amounts of money and be able to indulge minor labels they owned and the indie/cult acts they signed. Now, with sales declining, they'll look to the big-selling acts and cut the cult stuff adrift. That's already happening, as I mentioned in an earlier post.

Well we have mentioned spotify a few times on this thread.

I thought this story was quite interesting:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8478599.stm

I wonder if this kinda model is one that really will change things if it can deliver for artists?

Also this kinda service, particularly the publishable playlists aspect, might help smaller and unsigned artists get access to revenue and exposure?

FB