The Golden Age of Infinite Music 294
Over at the BBC, music journalist John Harris speculates on what may become of the music business now that we have entered the golden age of infinite music. "I've just poured the music-related contents of my brain into a book, and I would imagine that 30-ish years worth of knowledge about everyone from Funkadelic to The Smiths has probably cost me a five-figure sum, a stupid amount spent on music publications, and endless embarrassed moments spent trying to have a conversation with those arrogant blokes who tend to work in record shops. Last weekend, by contrast, I had a long chat about music with the 16-year-old son of a friend, and my mind boggled. At virtually no cost, in precious little time and with zero embarrassment, he had become an expert on all kinds of artists, from English singer-songwriters like Nick Drake and John Martyn to such American indie-rock titans as Pavement and Dinosaur Jr. Though only a sixth-former, he seemingly knew as much about most of these people as any music writer. Like any rock-oriented youth, his appetite for music is endless, and so is the opportunity..."
I'd Rather... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's surprising really... (Score:3, Interesting)
Choice (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:All you need to know about music... (Score:2, Interesting)
Once again, I disagree with the moderators who did this.
Not because it's spam, and because it's spam it should be modded down, no, I get that.
Redundant? Where are the throngs of ACs clamoring for more Madonna albums?
It's an evolution, not a revolution (Score:3, Interesting)
Certainly I can't argue with anything in the parent post: the youth of today are, often amazingly, and always re-assuredly, listening to music and learning about music that is "not of their direct experience" (which is, admittedly, a clumsy construct ... I'm not sure I really know how to describe what I mean by that; I'm hoping most people just get it).
I remember going to the "record store" when I was a young pup. Here I was, amongst a seemingly limitless array of music, and I was, I thought, emperor of all that was before me. All I needed was $9.98 and I was there. It was much better than a library, and much more interesting than a class.
Today, you need much less than ten bucks. You can sample what it took my money, or a friend's money, or an older brother's money, or a hip station to throw out there, today it costs what could be essentially described as "nothing but time". And time invested is not without cost, by any means.
I sense a hint of failure, or resignation: something along the lines of "I invested all that and kids get it today by investing much less."
But, that's what I enjoyed too, and so did the author of the parent. It's how he came about to know enough to write the book in the first place, a book his older brothers or his parents probably could not have written.
And the kids still need you; they still help to find what they enjoy in a similar way. What's different is they listen to what their parents like, whereas I thought my parents were musically bankrupt. They value the music, and from that they put a higher value on the investment in time to explore the music, whereas we still had to figure in a larger investment in earnings balanced by that time.
It is, in so many words, and example of what limited distribution cost us all; what the RIAA cost us by it's business model of days gone by, and what the music industry needs to learn to exploit, if it's to survive, rather than rail against.
It's a good thing.
Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
Music, like other types of creativity, is in a race to the bottom because there's so much more content available than people can possibly listen to in their entire lives. I guess the only reason the music industry hangs on while the newspaper and publishing industries are dying is because music is harder for people to substitute... they hear a song on the radio or whatever and become enamored with particular artists, but the same doesn't really happen for particular writers.
It really is a golden age (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm finding new music I like at a far faster rate than I was ten years ago. The biggest difference is that now, I have Rhapsody [rhapsody.com]. (Just like the guy who wrote TFA mentioned that he has Spotify [spotify.com].)
I can find an artist I like, and there are links on the page. Hey, you like Genesis? Check out Steve Hackett, Brand X, and Mike + the Mechanics, and Alan Parsons Project and Yes; check out "Art & Progressive Rock"; check out playlists that other users made that relate to Genesis; in short there are literally dozens of links. Some of the links are tenuous and unlikely, yet I have used them to branch over to music I really like: Genesis to Peter Gabriel to Synergy (Larry Fast) to Zero 7 and Infected Mushroom.
Even if you don't sign up for a music service, you can do something similar with a large online store such as Amazon. You can only hear short samples, not the full song, but you can still navigate a web of connections.
It used to be that to even hear about obscure music, you had to subscribe to music newsletters or hang out in non-mainstream record shops or at least have a friend who did those things. Now you can click around from song to song, and if it takes you nine songs you don't like to find one you do like, you are still only out a couple of minutes. And if you are like me, and you listen to albums many times if you like them, it's totally worth spending a little time branching out. Add in a little bit of time looking bands up on Wikipedia and other sources, and you too can be as much of a music expert as someone who writes for a magazine.
The RIAA and the big labels fear this new world. They want to keep charging for music as if it were a scarce commodity. I read an interview with a guy from a studio, and he defended the high price of CDs: the price is fair because it's really hard to be a studio; you have to try to find new acts, and when you guess wrong, a whole bunch of CDs go into a landfill. Well, guess what: on the Internet, you can just provide the music, and if nobody likes it, it will just sit there; and if people do like it, you make pure profit. No CDs need be produced and then landfilled. The costs go way, way down with digital distribution. They want their costs to drop, while still charging the same inflated prices they try to justify on CDs; that won't work.
The future of music is: everything available on the Internet, at lower prices than if you buy CDs. Most artists will not bother to sign their fortunes over to big record studios; they will retain control of their music, and deal more directly with the customers. There will still be middle-men, but fewer of them, and they will make less money (which doesn't sound good if you are a middle-man but sounds pretty darn good to me). And absolutely nothing will go out of print. If an album sells two copies a year, it has paid back the costs of letting it sit on a server and it is already slightly in the black.
I remember, when I was in high school, how truly huge and popular certain bands were. Whether you liked them or hated them, you recognized Styx or Van Halen when you heard them. In the future, new bands may find it impossible to reach the same level of success and recognition, because everyone will fragment themselves into small sub-markets. It will be hard for any one act to capture everyone's full attention and hold it for more than a very short time.
steveha
Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
you know what I LOVE about piracy?
What I REALLY REALLY LOVE?
All the Spice girls and Brittany spears of this world will burn the quickest. No more bullshit bands manufactured, spliced and merged together for a 'formula' that will make [money/music]. The smaller bands will make more money from gigs and merchandise from the fans that actually support them. The local bands will get more notice and the record industry will become a small advertising house.
I love VNV Nation, I've never bought an album... I did however see them in Glasgow last week and bought over £100 in merchandise because I want to ADVERTISE them... if they come back here again I'll do it again
Who is the biggest fool? paying for the music and paying to advertise your favourite band? I dont think so .
Gone is the era of the multi-millionaire superstar (although they will still make money) and why the hell not? they are just doing a job like anyone else - and as a bonus they actually like doing their job!
Now I need the same to happen to sports stars and I'll be happy. NOBODY is worth millions of dollars/pounds and I'm sure the fans would love to knock 60% off the already inflated ticket prices.
People will pay for what they believe in, the main difference here is that most of the music out there now is shite. You talk about all the small bands losing the most... why? they already make sweet F all as it is. Music will become what it should be for most - a part time hobby. Lets also be honest here, it does not matter how little you people artists... music will ALWAYS be made (and people will always play football).
Let them burn, we are over it already.
Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, there's no where on earth most of us could afford to pay for all the content we consume.
Perhaps because we consume so much more because we aren't worrying about paying for it.
My father sits most of his days off in his chair reading and listening to an oldies station that plays the same 20 or so albums every day. I sit in my office at work and listen to a 1000 or so albums I've "acquired" sorted based on last listened to. That means I only hear the same song about once every couple months. We are listening to more music I'd say than previous generations just because we have convenient portable music devices, but we consume vastly more music than the previous generation just because we don't re-listen to things as much. Instead of getting an album a week or whatever instead whenever an artist we like, or even just an artist is recommended to us comes around we hit the internet and grab everything they've ever made. Maybe we only listen to it once and delete it but we don't care because we didn't pay for it.
As for "music literacy" improving: perhaps. However I'd dispute most claims that it has any value. Very few people have work related to music, or even do any sort of critical thinking about the music. Heck most of my friends will even admit they don't care about the lyrics and haven't ever read them for their favorite bands. Music is just background noise that sounds good to us, that is about the extent that must of think about it. Being able to identify a band and name a song are very unlikely things to come up in a job interview or even in a social situation where people's view of you would depend on whether you know the answer or not. Its just trivia like people that can quote batting averages: no one really cares except the drunk idiot in the bar that is going to fight you during an argument over it.
Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
The original poster's statement was incorrect, but so is this. Life + 70 means the creator's life + 70 years, not mine. I could very easily live to see the copyright expire on works created in my lifetime, assuming that they were created when I was very young and that their creators died shortly thereafter. All I have to do is live seventy years beyond the age I was when they died, and pray that Congress doesn't extend it further...actually, you're right, I'll never see it happen.
Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
An example is the Andy McKee albums. I really admire that guy. His album costs 14.95 at his publisher's website, a very reasonable price. When I look at sites to buy this in Brazil, I get the price of R$ 95 for the imported version. At a conversion rate of almost 2:1, this would be about USD 45. Now, remember we are in a third world country, and you can assume that we get paid half (for a good job, and I am being very optimistic here) of the average in the US. If you look at the percentage of money you spend in this things in relation to how much you earn, its a huge price. I would go to his show to support him, but travelling to another continent to do this is not an option.
You in the US may imagine as well paying $100 or $150 for each album you want. Of course, not everything costs that much. All big artists are redistributed in scale by local publishers, and the price drops to $15 - $30. But most of the bands I like are not big, and the only option is to either import or buy the MP3 online, which I do sometimes. Books are more of a problem, since they need to get translated to be re-published, and this is much harder, specially the ones for very specific topics.
Still, the parent post is right at the fact that we simply have too much choice. Yes, I would love to have money to pay for absolutely everything I download, but I simply don't have. And its not a matter of getting a better job, its simply impossible for a regular person that pays all the taxes, support the family, etc. I pay for some, I support them when I can. Its just impossible to support all of them. Also, I can read english and have an international credit card to buy PDFs and MP3. Its not the case of the majority of the people, specially regarding music.
And I'm sorry, but I won't stop listening to music or reading books just because I don't have money to buy them. It may sound unfair, but its the truth.
Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing... (Score:2, Interesting)
What happens is that some music gets stuck in your mind, and as you grow old, the rest of the world changes and you can't find new music that you like anymore, so you stick with the ones you already like.
I bet in 40 years or so, you will be like this too, listening to the same old MP3 you have for 30+ years while your son and grandson make fun of how you listen only to that old crap and how the new format is much better because you can change the instruments while you listen, or change the singer... and you will wonder why the hell they care about that.
Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
I could open youtube and get 50 covers of pink floyd
All of which likely infringe the copyright in the musical works in question because at least in the United States, home of YouTube, there is no compulsory license scheme for Internet jukebox performances.
Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing... (Score:4, Interesting)
I know this is an unpopular opinion and... my own behavior makes me a hypocrite here, but let's stop pretending that free software is awesome and great just because some of the claims about it are exaggerated.
Making software--good software--takes time and resources. Time that you can't really make money on, and tools and computer equipment that is not free. Unless you sell the software you're essentially losing money, in most situations. And no matter what some slashdotters CLAIM, yes, many people will not buy software at all just because they can get it off APT or yum or, god forbid, portage.
When I was at school (Score:4, Interesting)
I knew loads of people who had rooms *full* of cassette tapes. You could record music off the (freely broadcast) radio and all the car boot sales sold pirate tapes.
The idea that:
a) Every downloaded copy is a lost sale
and
b) P2P has somehow changed the piracy game.
Is ridiculous.
Some people just copy/hoarde, period. They're not going to buy legally no matter what.
Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
Has anyone considered that teens might be hearing this music LEGALLY via the internet radio stations and youtube.com and other streaming sites?
Re:John, Paul, George, Ringo who? (Score:3, Interesting)
A little Google-Fu: search for "artist name" intitle:index.of mp3 -html -htm -php -asp -txt -pls
Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually I would have gone with a funny mod vs insightful.. I believe he was referencing this: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/4309/ [museumofhoaxes.com]
Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing is, people don't torrent Beyonce to protest the copyright status of Richard Strauss. They just want free stuff. If the duration of copyright were revised drastically downward, people would still pirate the most current music. I'm not defending life+70 - it's patently insane (ha ha) - but let's not pretend it has any bearing on this issue.
But that's the crux of the issue: copyright is effectively meaningless to most people.
Whatever rights the artist may claim, the majority don't recognise them. If they felt some duty to pay, they would do so. But they don't. Nor do they feel that what they are doing is wrong, in spite of being told so. Sharing music appeals to the same part of human nature that gossip does - it's sharing of interesting information in order to solidify or improve one's status in a given group. It's an activity that's always been done freely, with no thought of (direct) recompense.
The whole issue of so-called piracy is based on what, to most people, is a non-sequitur: 'The artist deserves to be rewarded for their work, therefore every one of you who listens to me has to pay.' The second statement simply doesn't follow from the first assertion. Worse, the question of who gets paid (and how much) quickly becomes a morass that's interesting only to those involved.
For most people, their debt to the artist is measured in goodwill and little more. Sometimes that goodwill translates into an album purchase, a concert ticket and maybe a t-shirt, but that's incidental. One brilliant example: Bruce Springsteen [youtube.com] walks by a busker singing one of his songs, decides to join in. Everyone is treated to a live performance. And nobody puts a penny in the hat. Not even Bruce.
I think ultimately that the entire framework of 'droits d'auteur' (author's rights) will have to be re-conceived before a renewal of the social contract between artist and audience can be considered.
Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing... (Score:2, Interesting)
You make some compelling arguments, and I agree with a lot of what you say - to a point. However, my feeling is that you are wrong on one crucial point: I don't think that the overwhelming majority of people who pirate music do so because they don't believe that artists are entitled to any sort of compensatory rights for what they do (forgive me if I'm misstating your point: I'm inferring that from "Whatever rights the artist may claim, the majority don't recognise them.") I think that filesharing has simply become the path of least resistance: it's convenient, and free, and the assumption is made that other people will buy the record and support the artist. I think it's much like citizens who don't bother to vote: while there is undoubtedly a small core of people who believe that voting is meaningless and that the democratic system is inherently flawed, most nonvoters essentially believe in the system, but are content to rely on the participation of others. You find this statement unreasonable: "The artist deserves to be rewarded for their work, therefore every single one of you who listens to me has to pay." To be honest, I don't find anything particularly high-minded in the converse: "The artist deserves to be rewarded for their work, therefore someone else should pay."
I agree with you that the current interface between artists and audience is far from ideal. One thing I find interesting about your position, however, is the notion that there should not necessarily be any kind of correlation between the number of people who enjoy an artist's music and the degree to which that artist should be financially compensated. I'm just curious: do you feel the same way about sports stars (for example)? My perception (which may be skewed, I admit) is that whereas most members of society - in or out of the arts and entertainment community - who affect the lives of large numbers of people would be expected to make a correspondingly large amount of money, there seems to be growing sentiment that musicians should be held to a different type of standard altogether.