This thread a couple of months ago: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=142149 started out at CDs vs downloading but inevitably became a discussion of illegal downloads and the demise of the record labels. In that thread I made a post stating that economics is inseparable from music. In centuries past, composers enjoyed patronage of different kinds- from wealthy families, church positions, royal appointees, sales of sheet music (after the printing press,) etc. How an artist made money in order to live had a direct effect on the music. It dawned on me that we are, right now, in one of the most fascinating turning points in music history. Decades from now, music history textbooks (if they use books) will have chapters dedicated to the turn of the 21st century and the effect of digital music, digital storage, and internet distribution on commercial music. I'm a classical musician, and classical music follows a totally different economy. For the most part, it's not popular enough to generate profit from, with some exceptions (The Three Tenors arena tour, Andrea Bocelli, Charlotte Church, Josh Groban, who are "crossover" and only quasi-classical anyway.) The focus of this thread is on commercial, for-profit music, because the economy of that music is dissolving and changing before our eyes. We are indeed at an amazing juncture in music history. Profits for music labels and brick & mortar distributors of physical media (CDs) continue to plummet with no end in sight. They are being replaced by digital distribution, the kind you pay for (Amazon & iTunes) and the kind you don't (file sharing.) The big questions in my mind are: 1) What's next? As the labels crumble, what business model will take their place? How will artists become known? How will they make money? 2) Do you think that the overall quality of commercial music in general will improve or decline? I don't have an answer for #1, I'm not sure anyone does. I'd love to hear takes from posters like Jeff who are or were active in the commercial music industry. There are some general trends: - Viral marketing via email, word of mouth, youtube, social networks, etc is removing power from the labels to mass market their acts. - Profits will continue to go down. No matter how music is sold, per track, subscription, whatever- it will be competing with free music. Zero bucks. I'm sure others can add more lucid observations, I just want to get the conversation started. As for the second question, I think that the overall quality of commercial music will improve, for a couple of reasons: When music became big business for big profit, there came a turning point when profit became more important than music. Discovering, supporting, and developing talent took a back seat to immediate, big profit. Executives who wanted safe 'investments' didn't want the 'risk' of investing in an act without assurance of big profits. Thus marketing became more important than the product. If a label could spend a million on marketing via TV, MTV, radio, magazines, etc- and assure themselves of at least a million singles or albums sold, then it's worth it. Marketing will never disappear, of course. However, mass-medaia focus-grouped force-feeding the populace "you will buy this!!!" method will lose it's power as viral marketing gains in power. Do I trust that the general populace will exercise amazing taste in music and therefore only the best artists will be supported? Not necessarily. However, the crippling of the mass-marketing machine will knock down an artificial barrier to true consumer choice. Furthermore, in order to assure the greatest number of sales, music producers often had to turn to the lowest common denominator in order to appeal to the widest base of buyers. The removal of these factors is certainly a positive. How positive, I don't know. Another reason I think that the overall quality of commercial music will improve is because as profits plummet, those who are in the business for the money will slink away and find a different venture- and those who are in it for the love of the game will stay. As a professional classical musician, I know first hand that an entire world of music can thrive even where there is little money to be had. The world of classical music is absolutely clogged with talent, passion and creativity. It's everywhere, even though there isn't the same kind of money and fame to be had. That is why I have faith that even if the money continues to decline in commercial music, great artists will keep pouring out their work, finding some way to make a buck, to make a living with their art. Lack of money will root out those who are the most greedy and least dedicated, while keeping the most passionate. The destruction of the old music business is a net plus for the music world. But what happens next?
As digital media begins to fall into monopolistic competition, the price of media will be set according the market demand. Of course artists will still be able to differentiate themselves, but overall the price of music will continue dropping. What's interesting is that piracy is a double-edged sword. I've read that studies have shown those who download music typically buy more cds than those who don't. I've bought only a few cds in my life, and only for albums I've felt were really valuable. I however don't have much sympathy for the music firms that produce the music. Not much of the profit falls down to the artists anyway. Sometimes it's difficult to avoid piracy when songs are hard to get. I listen to trance/electronic, and sometimes the song you want is a special mix that only aired once or twice and was never put on a cd. Since it's impossible to find these tracks on itunes, the best bet is bittorrent or stream-ripping (which is in the legal gray area.) In the end I think it comes to an individual's personal ethics to decide whether piracy is okay or not. The same goes for software piracy. Obviously software developers are hurt when people pirate their software instead of buying it. Anyways, not to derail the thread, and keep on topic, I think as barriers fall down in the music industry we'll have a better variety of music, bands, and songs to choose from. Prices for songs will also fall at the same time. It's only a win-win situation for the consumer and the artists. Record companies can suck the big one.
Commercial music went to crap as the hip hop movement became mainstream (circa early 90s) 80s popular music was great. now, not so much as most of the commercial popular music is hip hop.
Yeah, I don't really like how hip hop depicts society, and what it's teaching to young adolescents. I guess I shouldn't really be one to talk since I'm still in college, but a lot of the images and values given in the lyrics and music videos today teach the wrong things. I really enjoyed rap a long time ago when it was expressive and creative as opposed to thuggish and dirty.
At this point there's still a LOT more questions than conclusive answers to the future of music. Because people dont use quantiable measures for music (meaning we just go off what "sounds good" or looks good), all we can gather in commerical music is music = significantly less % profit on paper = bad. The music provider-consumer relationship - do the providers shape consumer opinions that much? Do consumers have enough individual sense or interest in music, that if there's no commercial influence they'll still to the "good" music wherever its at? Is music itself considered relevant to people BECAUSE of its large scale commercial appeal, visibility and profitablity?
You make a good point about whether the providers shape consumer opinion. I feel that they do. People like the music their friends like for a reason. They take what they see from television and try to conform with a social ideal of what is acceptable, cool, or popular. There are a lot of independent bands out there that could be just as popular if they had the same kind of exposure bands under major record labels have.
The answer to question #1, in my opinion, lies on the internet media outlets. Unlike radio, television, or magazines, the internet allows users to narrow their search to very specific music and follow only that particular style of music. For example, I am a fan of West Coast rap because I have grown up in California all my life, lived in all parts of California (LA, SD, IE, etc) and have experienced and can relate to the struggles and lifestyle. Therefore, the media outlets I am usually on are BayOnTop, WestCoastRydaz, DubCnn, StashOnline, and other such media outlets whose target audience are fans of West Coast rap. They get as much access as do the normal media outlets (radio, tv, magazines) to mainstream artists (ie Snoop, Game, Spice 1, Dr. Dre, DJ Quik) yet still manage to shine the spotlight on up and coming artists who would normally not get a chance on the normal media outlets for various reasons. As a result, many fans are exposed to artists like Glasses Malone, Bishop Lamont, Jay Rock, and Ya Boy before they hit the mainstream and are signed to labels like Sony, Aftermath, or Warren Bros. Music. As for question 2, I really hope you are correct because I haven't listened to the radio in over 5 years. On the occasionally trips where I take my mom's car when my car is not available, I turn to sports talk radio rather than put up with mainstream music stations.
Yeah, 85-to-95 was nice. That merge from Eazy E, Pac, Biggie, P.E, Common, ATCQ,etc. to that "Hip-Hop" stuff really ruined it for me....
To each their own I guess. I like HipHop music because it's amusing. Is there an inredible amount of skill used in producing it? Not usually. But I can't help but smile throughout the entire "Donque" song by Snoop and Will I Am. Does that mean I don't listen to anything but Hip Hop? That I don't know what "good" music means? I call bull**** on that. I think that if you can spot creativity clearly, then you can find it in any genre which makes it ridiculous to eliminate a whole genre from your interest. I think you can find creativity anywhere. Just because you have to work your brain harder to do something or it takes you longer to do it doesn't mean it's better. What's important to me is that we move away from the commercial mainstream fuelled by tv channels and radio stations but continue to improve our ability to sample any and all types of music.
I bought the Soulja Boy CD. Including the extra CD with the dance. Can't download a masterpiece like that. You gotta support the artist.
My biggest concern is that downloading music encourages singles as opposed to albums. I used to work with a guy (about 26) who just could not understand why you would want to buy and album instead of just downloading the "one or two good songs". Of course he's too young to remember when the best songs on an album were on side two (side two? What the hell is side tow??? ). On the other hand, I don't understand how you could just download, for example, "All Blues" by Miles Davis when the entire Kind of Blue album is terrific. Or just get "Money" from Pink Floyd when the entire Dark Side of the Moon album is kind of one composition that runs together. If music stays "single" oriented then fewer artists will put effort into anything but singles and most of that great musical experimentation from the 60's and 70's will be gone.
single oriented music, as you call it. is really what has become the downfall of modern music. i mean they put 3 great songs in a 12 song cd and make you buy all other crappy songs just to get those 3 great songs. so they just download them, its cheaper, easier and to the point. i think most music will have to go all out in every cd if they want to stay in business. like greenday said once, make the whole cd great and it will sell. another theory i have is decrease the price of all cds to 10 dollars.
The future of popular is live performances. Bands will need to build their fan base via live shows. The fans will support the band by going to live shows and by buying t-shirts, CDs, DVDs, etc. at the shows.
