Arguably, these days of litigation and
ignorantly one-sided file-sharing condemnation and praise have been
coming for the past decade: A frivolous, decadent utopia for some, a
nightmarish 'end of days' for others, a generation of 'entitled' P2P
users, and an entire industry clamouring for continued relevance and
profit margins. What, in light of digital distribution and an
increasingly transient notion of 'album as product', does it mean to
be a recording artist in 2012? Equally, how can audiences best
express their love, respect and gratitude for creative works? How
does digital reproduction and distribution affect our perception of
what an artistic product might be?
The problem with the industry.
It has long been
argued that record publishing companies do little to serve their
artists' interests, only following the capitalist model of 'selling
units'. Little interest is afforded by the larger labels to an
artist's longevity or even integrity, yet these things seem of huge
importance to an artist's fanbase. A record label's primary concern
is the monetary return on their initial investment (or ‘advance’),
but an artist's main passion throughout any negotiations is the
quality of the music they can produce and their ability to keep
making it. That is, of course, if they even get signed - with such
low returns on investments, record labels are much less inclined to
take risks on emerging talent, instead pumping their funds into
either established or more malleable artists, whom they can
fast-track to the spotlight through a process of characterisation and
branding (cough, Lana Del... Oh, I can't be bothered). All the while,
record sales are decreasing year on year, and the price point for
audience consumption of these creative works, albums and such,
remains at the same, fixed rate.
How is the record industry responding to these trends, declining record sales, their diminishing necessity? By changing the way they write record contracts. In traditional agreements- labels recouped their investment through record sales, leaving band’s earnings to be made from touring, merchandise and sponsorship. Now, 360-degree deals are the norm. Warner won’t sign anyone now unless it’s this kind of a deal- a package which is more akin to a management deal, whereby the label will take a cut from any future sponsorship, seeding, franchising, use of material, touring and merchandise. And while this may remove the need for an ‘immediate hit’, in real terms it means that bands will earn even less, and have less control over their image, presentation and rights. Labels traditionally made money from the process in which they were involved – namely recording and distributing records. Is it coincidence that now that recorded music sales are significantly declining, they change their business model? What gives them the right to impede on touring, merchandise, sponsorship or the use of music in films or adverts? How does this benefit either the artist or the audience?
How is the record industry responding to these trends, declining record sales, their diminishing necessity? By changing the way they write record contracts. In traditional agreements- labels recouped their investment through record sales, leaving band’s earnings to be made from touring, merchandise and sponsorship. Now, 360-degree deals are the norm. Warner won’t sign anyone now unless it’s this kind of a deal- a package which is more akin to a management deal, whereby the label will take a cut from any future sponsorship, seeding, franchising, use of material, touring and merchandise. And while this may remove the need for an ‘immediate hit’, in real terms it means that bands will earn even less, and have less control over their image, presentation and rights. Labels traditionally made money from the process in which they were involved – namely recording and distributing records. Is it coincidence that now that recorded music sales are significantly declining, they change their business model? What gives them the right to impede on touring, merchandise, sponsorship or the use of music in films or adverts? How does this benefit either the artist or the audience?
Arguably a more
successful model for the record industry to consider would be to
focus on the quality of the product they deliver in the first place.
For while it's telling that CD sales are dropping significantly, and
no doubt digital has had an impact here- vinyl sales have risen
steadily. The inherent audio quality to this format renders the
slightly higher price point more acceptable, as does the generally
beautiful artwork that can adorn such large format boxes. Indeed,
notions of 'special edition' and such are becoming more dominant in
the marketplace, and frequently albums will come packaged with small
tokens of appreciation, or further means beyond the recorded work by
which the artist expresses themselves. I think of the Montreal label
Constellation, home to Godspeed You! Black Emperor and a host of
other DIY ethic bands- whose 12 inch LPs are some of the most
lovingly constructed objects I own. Hand printed, designed by friends
of the label- there is a crucial emphasis on personality and quality,
an ethos that defines the labels work, and ferments a sense of
fondness and loyalty between the label and their audience. Crucially,
they put out good product, so an audience can respect that and trust
it.
A social
contract.
In the wake of
the Napster trials at the beginning of the last decade, there was
arguably a moment for radical change in the relationships between
audience and artist. Though instead of a significant paradigm-shift,
record companies met with copyright agencies, and the biggest winner
to emerge from this short lived era of entrepreneurial optimism was
Apple. The iTunes store has singlehandedly catapulted Apple to the
position of capitalist royalty, entitling the company 50p from every
£1 you spend there. That, to a company which has had no part in the
creative or production process, and doesn't even have to offset the
outlay for actual, physical record shops in your town centres. Not
even the former behemoths in this trade, the HMVs and Virgin
Megastores, took a cut that large. Spotify is often touted as a more
ethical means to access copyrighted music, without grand expenditure
on the audience's part, and only suffering the ignominy of being
advertised at every 15 minutes during your favourite concept album.
But, when the ethical arguments against downloading copyrighted
material from sources like MegaUpload rest on the artist's lack of
reimbursement, how do these services compare, in terms of ethics and
value? In truth, they're pretty shameful.
Services like
Spotify and the iTunes store can be seen as cynical, but ultimately
successful attempts to revive the status quo for a digital age.
Further models where companies that have nothing to do with the
creation of music can get rich off the back of that very creativity,
and seemingly, audiences globally are perfectly happy about this
arrangement. In a statement released this week, the Vice President of
the RIAA, Joshua P Freidlander, stated
“The
evidence strongly suggests that the shutdown of illegal sites helps
create a thriving and diverse digital marketplace. It encourages
users to go to legitimate sites, and enables great new services to be
launched - like Spotify, which launched in the US last year and
quickly signed up millions of new users. It's always reassuring when
the data we see in the market reflects what we thought was just
common sense."
But
whilst taking down a site like MegaUpload can be seen broadly as a
straightforward protection of copyright issue, how is the alternative
any more ethical or common sense? It was in light of these issues
that Hackney-based rapper Akira The Don began tweeting his Spotify
revenue for the last few months. Akira was formerly signed to major
label Interscope before being dropped after only a year- and has
since carved out a solid niche for himself through home production, a
constantly updated website and a series of dynamic mixtapes and
albums that, alongside his self-designed merchandise, afford him a
living. In October, his songs were listened to on Spotify 643 times,
for which he earned £14.42- and only because he is the rights
holder. Artists with record deals would receive but a fraction of
this. Is that to be considered a fair recompense, in comparison with
previously controlled models of record sales and physical
distribution? I don't know. It is up to us, as a society, to decide
how much we value creative works, and in this instance, a musician's
ability to survive from making music.
The
commodification of music.
The
recording studio enacted the most significant change on music, taking
it from being a folk tradition, experienced when performed live to
commodifying it and enabling audiences to hold in their hand the
music, to play whenever they pleased. Perhaps the new technologies of
digital distribution, instead of being used to reify and prop-up an
already unfair business model, could be used to imply and force
change on it- to bring about a more ethical relationship between
artist and audience, and dramatically change our notions of 'art as
commodity'.
The
industry cites 'millions lost' as a critique of illegal filesharing
on the presumption that those are films or albums that people would
have bought anyway- whereas recent studies have shown that people who
download music illegally are likely to spend over 50% more on music
annually than those who claim not to. But to take this argument even
further, into somewhat zany philosophical territory: why should
someone's experience of and access to culture (music, film etc) be
restricted by their economic circumstances? Society decides that
albums and such are to be perceived as seminal, as artefacts of
quality, that they can enrich your life through knowledge and
experience- and yet to have access to these enriching works, you need
to fork out a fixed cost, equal across all of society's social
classes. I am perhaps playing a small advocacy on Lucifer's behalf,
here- but on it's broadest level, I believe there is some merit, some
beauty even, in this idea- that access to culture should be, by very
necessity, free. However, this idea does not recognise the musician's
aspirations to pay their rent, or indeed any cost incurred through
production. We live in a world where everyone involved in production:
musicians, tour managers, engineers - need to make a living.
Let
us then explore this notion of music as valid commodity. MegaUpload
and the like offered a flawed service, in that there was no
relationship whatsoever between music consumed by the audience and
reimbursement to the artists. Similarly, existing record contract
models offer little more by way of ethics and direct connection
between audience and musician. I would like to ask the question as to
whether it can ever be moral or ethical to set a fixed price on a
creative work, to question whether music, film or art can ever be
valid commodities.
On
the one hand, the post-structuralists among us would argue that the
importance and value of any work is defined by the audience member.
Whether you consider a particular album better than another one, and
how you can express that value monetarily. You might consider an
artists' latest record their finest, a towering achievement and the
masterful realisation of their career- I might regard it as
derivative, soulless and tired. And yet we've both forked out the
same £11. How then to overcome this disparity? I can recall the
model that Radiohead employed when distributing In Rainbows, the
famed 'pay what you want' tactic that resulted in the band earning
far more than they ever would have from a traditional record label
release. Arguably this was only possible thanks to the band's
pre-established success, a large and committed fanbase that was built
up while the band was on a standard record contract. In any case,
this account of the creative work's value is derived only from it's
interpretive or aesthetic value to a listener- and does not factor in
any of the production cost incurred by the band or the record label's
advance. Studio time, session musicians, audio engineers, mastering
and cost of instruments are valid costs that artists incur through
production, and like with any other industry product, are included in
the cost of the final product.
The
question then, is whether music (or indeed film) has an acquired
value borne of its production cost, or an inherent value in and of
itself by means of it being a creative, artistic work. Or indeed,
does cost and artistic value have nothing to do, at all, with what
the copyright owner deigns fit to charge for a product? The economics
of whether the thing would sell, whether a successful career would
materialise, are the price-setters' own concern: supply and demand,
always. If we as audiences decide that reimbursing production costs
is a valid and ethical thing to aspire to, then can the cost of an
album or single not therefore be seen as a kind of faux-compensation?
Here again, the model can be explored and alternatives reached. UK
rock band Mansun recorded their last album release through
crowdfunding the production costs- a tactic that, as with Radiohead,
could only be realised through a pre-established fanbase. Conversely,
this method can often bring humorous results- as with the 2011
online crowdfunding campaign that targeted disaffected Weezer fans,
resulting in a giant whip-round to pay the band $10 million to split
up.
Reimaginings.
What
is most interesting about the MegaUpload arrests, is not that a
filesharing website has been taken offline- but the announcements by
Kim DotCom prior to his arrest. In December, Mr DotCom outlined that
his company would be launching a music download service to rival
iTunes, but where artists would receive 90% of earnings. MegaBox had
beta listed partners in 7Digital, Gracenote, Rovi and Amazon, had
fully designed software, and apparently had been tested on over a
million users. So far so good, you hear- another entrance into a very
saturated market of online digital distributors- but where DotCom's
service altered radically from the pack was that the service itself
was, to its users, entirely free. "We have a solution called the
Megakey
that will allow artists to earn income from users who download music
for free," Dotcom explained. "We will pay artists even for
free downloads.” Quite how this is possible has not been fully
explained, but for the presumption that Megakey enabled a targeted
advertising system that therein paid for the artists' revenue.
Whilst
the conspiracy theorists might look at the timing of the arrests in
light of these venture announcements, it is also worth stating that;
as Megakey had “exclusive deals with artists who are eager to
depart from outdated business models”, then it was an essentially
legal service. The same cannot justifiably be argued for MegaUpload.
Like Radiohead's 'pay what you want', does the success of Megabox
rely on a pre-established audience created by Megaupload?
Perhaps
we'll never find out. What is interesting about this development
though, is that it represents a drastic re-imagining of the
relationship between artist and audience- using digital technologies
to distribute content in a way that cuts out exploitative record
companies and to an extent, retailers. And whilst this offers no
insight to the argument of how music as a commodity should be valued-
individually set or with fixed price, art as meaningful commodity or
production cost solely, it does seem to represent a more justifiable
means for an artist to be reimbursed and rewarded by their audience
than either illegally downloading music gratis or accessing it via
Spotify and the iTunes store.
The
economist and later music theorist Jacques Attali offers, in his
seminal text Noise, four stages of music as it has existed and could
exist. The age of mechanical reproduction is cited in his third
stage, the epoch we find ourselves in though perhaps leaving:
Repetition.
This
is characterised by the emergence of sound recording technology at
the end of the 19th
century. Prior to this moment, music was experienced only live and as
a spectacle. Under the mode of repetition, music becomes an object
and its experience turns private. The initial intended use of
recording- the preservation of performances- rapidly vanishes, so
that "the live performance is only successful as a simulacrum of
the record". Attali's fourth stage, Composition, is
characterised by a return to the immediacy of music in its former
stages and is brought about through the cultural crisis of
overproduction and over-repetition. Furthermore, it is through
democratising advances in technology that we are allowed to see
beyond the 'top down' approach to discovering music, and the
alienating nature of making it. Home studios enable artists to record
professional quality music at a fraction of the cost of studio time,
and software like Ableton and Reason empower even the most untrained
to become musicians. In Attali's fourth stage, music is created by
individuals and communities for immediate use- art which attempts to
create and address a community, without mediation between artist and
audience- such a dichotomy would be consigned to Repetition.
Empowerment.
The
vision of a society of free access to and creation of culture is an
undeniably utopian one, and one not without it's drawbacks with
regard to the cost incurred by those involved in production. But
here, I'm reminded of the American comic Doug Stanhope, and his
routine about employment. For while we all have to get by and pay the
rent, shouldn't a civilised society be aspiring for more, and not
less, unemployment? He waxes about robots performing all the
necessary tasks and such, somewhat self depreciatingly- but the idea
holds weight. There is much campaigning for a 'living wage', which
can be described as an above-adequate amount of money given to every
citizen of a society in order to sustain their existence. And still
this would leave room for capitalist endeavour, if you wanted to sell
your records, repair shoes or drive taxis, of course you
could-
but this notion of a society where noone has
to work is attractive. The
alternative to work here is but creation of culture itself, free from
the compromises of having to be paid, or indeed having to pay for it.
This
conversation is by no means over, despite the willingness of
governments to set in place global digital copyright accords. The
onus is on societies, that is you and I and everyone we know, to
engage in debate about how we value our own creativity as well as
that of others in an age of digital distribution and production. The
injustices and disparity of wealth seen under 21st
century capitalism are not things that the music industry has been
immune from, indeed companies have profited extraordinarily from a
business model that exploits artists and audiences alike. New
technologies offer an opportunity to reimagine our world, our
relationship to artists and audiences, and the potential of our own
creativities. Whether such potential will be realised, is entirely up
to us.
This article appeared in the405
No comments:
Post a Comment