As the world continues to evolve and develop at such an alarming and unstoppable rate, it’s difficult to name something that hasn’t been replaced with a newer more advanced version or completely adapted in the never ending escape from our “old fashioned ways.” Music, despite it’s ever evolving formats, is one of the few things that has always existed, in it’s raw form it’s something that hasn’t disappeared or been replaced or even changed to much degree. As we adapt to our ever evolving society, inducing our constant need for everything to be instant and at our fingertips, it comes as no surprise that downloading in order to save time and money, only fuels our impatience and greed and drains the music industry. The effects of this are debatable, whilst many argue that record company tycoons don’t deserve the extortionate costs that many charge for physical releases, especially in such a delicate economic climate where nobody seems to be really benefiting financially, there seem to be more than two sides to this argument and many knock on effects for the domino-esque structure that forms the industry. Whilst many consumers focus on the effect of the music industry on their wallets, a lot of them don’t seem to consider the effects of their illegal downloads on the music industry in turn. How can you expect to reap reward from something that you are helping to corrupt? Yet how can you expect to pay for something sold by someone who appears to be trying to pull the wool over your eyes? This is an issue that is very close to my own personal interest as I find myself constantly battling with both sides of the argument and it seems as though there is a lot more to consider than the simple question of whether, when I walk into a record store, I am willing pay £10.99 for a silver disc that may or may not last the year.
At many points in our lives, there are times when we need to escape the dreary hustle and bustle of everyday life, and one of the most uniting and inspiring creative elements in our world, that is often used as a form of escapism is music. People always remember their first album, or their first favourite band or their first concert, because music provides a consistency in people’s lives. It Alters, yes. Changes form, yes. But it’s always there in some way or another, never to disappear. It is of no surprise then that when rumours first began to circulate that within the next decade, you would be able to fit your entire music library into a small box in your pocket, music lovers the world over would rejoice and relish that day. Realistically, no one wants to carry around a box of CDS and a battered machine, bandaged with sellotape in order to hold it in place to play the fragile silver discs that would, even after being looked after by the most careful person in the world, end up inevitably scratched and jumpy. Therefore it comes as an interesting concept that by making music literally smaller and condensing it into an unfathomably tiny form, it’s actually revolutionized it on a completely different scale. So much so in fact, that some argue that we are now facing the collapse of its industry as a result, all within less than a decade.
Firstly, it is necessary to establish the nature of music, there are many debates as to who the rights of music belong to and whose right it is to determine how much it be sold for, amongst other such issues as distribution and reproduction. These issues are especially difficult to tackle, as unlike any other artwork or creative product, the product of music is intangible, making it intellectual property rather than a physical object. The essence of the music industry means that this intangible creative output has been transformed into comparatively tangible results, as a CD or vinyl is no more really than a vessel that is used to carry the music. Whilst the product is literally intangible, it has the ability to be reproduced and duplicated and distributed in many different ways that means that once it is released, it is impossible to contain and the object in question is out of the original creator’s hands. There are laws set in place in terms of copyright infringements, yet it would seem that for anybody committing said crime, there are no real consequences for doing so. The increasing availability of digital releases shows the industry’s acknowledgement of the change in consumption and demand. Whilst the change has been recognised, it would appear that it hasn’t been acknowledged to the extent of addressing the issue of not only the format in which consumers are demanding their products, but the immediacy and the patterns in which they are demanding them. This aspect of the debate stems from many technological advances in the 21st century, and is arguably the kindling for the bonfire of our collapsing industry. Compare it to it’s state in the 60’s or 70’s and the music industry was thriving, evident not only in the music that was produced, but the revolutionary effects of it on society and the number of up and coming bands that were able to establish themselves on the musical ladder. Is it perhaps a telltale sign that the most thriving days of music were the ones where the CD didn’t even exist and was just a futuristic concept, years from inception? Should we be worried that the overall annual income has not exceeded £1 billion since 2006, or does our society have things of higher importance to worry about? Obviously the change in distribution of music in the 21st century is the root of the change in the structure of the music industry however the evolution of social networking and what is known as “peer to peer,” file distribution, and communications technologies (their use has been estimated to be three times that of legal file downloading software) acquiesced the viral sensation and completely opened the floodgates in terms of easy access to digital music.
Whilst the problem has been apparently flagged up by the industry, some would argue that the logical thing to do would be to deal with each and every perpetrator and put in place a strategy to prevent illegal downloads. The speed of technological advance has been clearly established, why not use these advances to track each incident and deal with them accordingly? The main answer is this; the problem has reached such a large scale in such a relatively short frame of time that the industry would logistically end up spending more time and money investing in lawsuits and dealing with each teenager sitting in their bedroom accumulating extensive portable music libraries, a comparative waste of time when there are enough other issues to be controlled and dealt with anyway. With statistics of over 40 billion songs being illegally downloaded in 2008 alone and making up 95% of all downloads, it’s frightening to think of how much that is like to have increased in the past three years. It’s safe to assume that the majority of people have downloaded at least one song illegally in their lifetime, contributing to the fact that that year, the industry only made 5% of the money it had the potential to, alarming when you think about the fact that the other 95% was worth £48 billion.
The interesting thing is however, that whilst this all seems very problematic and difficult, we forget that piracy is not a revelation. Towards the end of the 70’s, people stopped buying vinyl, and began to start taping their own cassettes; people were recording off the radio. The industry estimated that they were losing about 25% of their business from piracy alone even then so it’s nothing we haven’t coped with before, it’s just a completely different version of the same thing. As advances got greater, these methods of piracy turned into the norm for us, from cassettes, to CDs and eventually to mp3’s. In a way, this shows that one of the main effects of downloading music is in fact the universality of it, distribution and the fact that we as an audience are far more aware of it’s impact, an important and recurring factor I found when exploring the effects. Undeniably, the situation has worsened as while piracy was clearly never a revelation, the total album sales in 2010 was just 326.2 million, worryingly, the lowest it’s been since 1993. Even more frightening is that despite the drastic change in formats and figures; in the past decade digital track sales have plateaued, never making up for the decline in physical sales.
Laura Marling, a successful folk artist who’s career has thrived even in the age of technology recognises this evolution in technology perhaps conceivably more than the people in charge of the business she is a part of, she states “I don’t think people should be criminalised for getting music for free because it’s there, offered to them. It’s promised to them by the Internet server people and the phone companies. I think it’s their responsibility.” She is just one of many artists who have signed a pledge to back up their claim, among others are Iron Maiden, Jools Holland, Kate Nash, Klaxons, The Cribs and Robbie Williams, all established and successful artists who appear to be driven not by greed, but a passion for what they are doing, something that despite the logistics of the business, something that the industry and the fans without whom it would not even exist, thrive upon.
In terms of the extent of damage that has already been inflicted, it could well be too late to address the issue, and it is possible that we may place blame on the music industry for not recognising the issue and taking responsibility. To quote rock legend Gene Simmons of KISS (who would as a matter of fact, more accurately describe himself as a businessman,) "The music industry was asleep at the wheel," he said. "And [they] didn't have the balls to sue every fresh-faced, freckly college kid who downloaded material. And so now we're left with hundreds of thousands of people without jobs. There's no industry.” At the end of the day, the music industry is exactly what it says it is, “an industry.” Where it differs from many other businesses however, is that it deals with, as already distinguished, an intangible creative product. Despite this inescapable fact, it doesn’t change the nature of a business that relies on a structure and a network of individuals each with their own job and role within it, and like all businesses, it requires a certain amount of income to keep it afloat, let alone make profit. An analogy that Gene Simmons formulated compares the industry to a huge ship. He says that if there is a tiny hole discovered in it, allowing water to leak in, it would be common sense to fill the hole before it gets bigger continuously allowing water to flow in, unprevented, eventually sinking the ship. He states that this is exactly the case in this situation, and that measures should have been taken to prevent this dilemma before the problem got out of hand, not to fix it when the damage has already been done. He has a point, figures that in the US alone, album sales fell by 15% in 2007, followed by a 14% drop in 2008 point straight to silent alarm bells and flashing lights that nobody seemed attuned to.
Alternatively, there are artists who agree that there is definitely a problem, however they adopt a less biased view than that of Gene Simmons, and believe that the fans should not be blamed. Billy Bragg is one of those artists, and believes that “Artists should own their own rights and they should decide when their music should be used for free or when they should have payment.” This kind of rational and far less selfish view is the kind that many believe that artists should have, especially since they have chosen their profession and it is clearly something they love to do and should therefore be able to make sacrifices. However the counter argument is again, that although that sounds like the ideal, without the regiments and rules the industry would collapse altogether, at the end of the day, the money that we are putting into it, should in theory equate to what we get out of it, as it is a service and business like any other.
This brings us to the point that perhaps as a result of abandoning it’s responsibilities, it is unfair of the music industry to blame us for the issues it failed to address, whilst we are only responding to our innate human instincts to satisfy ourselves and reap as much as we can from wherever possible. If the industry didn’t want this to happen, then it shouldn’t have let it, full stop. Many scorned music fans would feel that the blame is unfair and propaganda campaigns and blackmailing from such successful businessmen such as Gene Simmons is morally wrong, after all he even admits himself that everything he has done musically was a business strategy and nothing to do with a desire to enjoy or play music, resulting in him currently owning his own record company and placing himself in the same ranks as those other record company tycoons hoovering up every last penny from the consumer that they can. After all, they don’t really care about the musicians do they? Or what about whether the music scene is thriving or not, or the quality of the music they’re putting out, just as long as the number of record sales stays constant or increases? It’s difficult to say. The fact that earlier in April, major British label EMI suddenly found itself in the new ownership hands of bank Citigroup, waiting for a buyer speaks for itself. After years of success, it can’t be coincidence that the record label who owns the Beatles back catalogue finds itself struggling in the technological era, reluctantly, it seems that Gene Simmons’ cold emotionless words do have some resonance.
Whilst the negative effects of illegal downloads really speak for themselves, it is the effects of legal downloading that are often forgotten about, and should also be questioned. It’s safe to say that without the technological evolution of how we listen to music, the vinyl would probably have remained worthwhile and profitable, but it seems that only collectors and avid record enthusiasts are the only people maintaining it’s relevance. Even now, when you pay for a legal music download there are actually no constraints as to the ability to upload that file to our good old friend, the internet or to distribute it amongst peers. With a CD, if you want to buy it, you have to physically go to a shop, hand over your money and in return you are given your shiny silver disc, as visible proof of your purchase, like a trophy of your good deed to the music industry, the manufacturer, record store, artist, and all of the other contributors who had a part in it’s existence. It’s an indisputable fact that you have undertaken a legitimate musical purchase however the introduction of digital releases, legal or illegal, reduces the chance that any music purchases will be so. And even so, at £0.79 a song, how much of that would one expect a band to receive in revenue? iTunes will sell a $0.99 song and out of that, the artist will receive $0.10 while $0.34 goes to Apple, and the label will pocket the other $0.55. This roughly translates to equivalent figures in the UK iTunes store, so while it would appear that one is doing their duty of protecting the industry they love, it raises the question of whether we can really trust the motives of the people who are in charge of it. The hypocrisy of the music industry blaming it’s fans is considered by some to be outlandish as this is sheer proof of their greed being greater than that of the fans who want their music not necessarily for free, but for a less extortionate price. If they’re not willing to work for nearly nothing then why should musicians be expected to?
The customers are seemingly aware of their actions, but in such an economic crisis as the one we are currently facing, what does the average citizen care what effect they are having on an industry run by corporate hounds like Simon Cowell who will no doubt use their pennies to sustain his flashing white crocodile grin. As long as Lady Gaga can afford a giant jewel encrusted lobster costume or whatever other incomprehensible idea she has up her sleeve next, or as long as One Direction can afford to auto tune their songs and another pair of chinos, we can guarantee that our money is going towards worthwhile causes can’t we? Yet it seems as though that’s what the consumers want, and as much as the chances of music sales being legitimate has been reduced by downloading in general, new figures suggest that it’s actually legal downloads that are keeping the industry’s head above water. Legal downloads now make up 20.3% of the industry’s annual incoming according to NME, and 2010 saw a 1.4% rise in overall income. Not an overwhelmingly large turnover, but a testament t it’s durability considering the threat of economic collapse in many areas of society and the buzz around the inevitable collapse of music itself.
Fortunately, as a result of this predicament, many industries and artists have used the problem to their advantage, and sought a solutions and alternative methods of tackling it. The greed that has somehow caused the problem, doesn’t give musicians a chance to establish themselves, as they don’t make enough money from touring alone and if people aren’t willing to pay for their music then they can’t survive. It seems as though in most recent times, it’s only the artists from privileged backgrounds who have the luxury of guaranteed success, proven with the likes of Mumford & Sons, Laura Marling, and Florence Welch who all attended Public Schools. It seems as though the scope for new artists is becoming more discriminative in a way, as many argue of a class divide; these artists all come from financially comfortable backgrounds, and can afford to take the risk and have the financial ability to make it, backed up by statistics of approximately 60% of artists in the charts having been privately educated. If the range of artists within the industry is so scarce then where will the next big thing going to come from and how are we to expect any variety or fresh talent?
Take Johnny Foreigner for example, a relatively, even definitely unheard of band from Birmingham, with a small yet growing fan base with whom they have a very intimate relationship. As a result of this, their blog tells honestly about their financial woes and they admit that sometimes they don’t even have enough money to tour. To quote the band’s bassist Kelly Southern, “Tour, have fun, lose money, release record, have fun, lose money, tour, have fun, lose money, release record, have fun, lose money. I can’t be sure, but I think there’s a pattern forming.” While the increasing flow of cash into their pockets is nowhere to be seen, they are at somewhat of a bizarre advantage to those other corporate robots who’s every move is calculated by the amount of profit they’ll make. Despite naming the internet the murderer of the music industry in a sense, I personally am guilty of illegal and legal downloads, as are many of my friends. Whilst we understand the impact we are having, we, and many other bands such as Johnny Foreigner do see the benefits. The availability of free music acts almost as a viral PR method of advertising, which is extremely useful for bands such as Johnny Foreigner who have expressed an inability to afford advertising schemes, and care a lot more about their fans and their loyalty than their own gluttony. It can encourage people to listen to something they never would have before, and those who have become fans, to dedicate time and money in other areas and can contribute to making up a loss that that person will have apparently caused by downloading it for free.
A lot of fans who download would retaliate their “destructive ways” by saying that they pay for gigs and merchandise however the volume of artists being forced to tour just to be able to make ends meet has saturated the market. While well established artist’s ticket prices are going through the roof, there is only a limited amount of money each consumer can spend, and the more money spent on already established acts who arguably don’t need any more, means less to be spent on developing artists who would argue that they do. For example, I recently attended an Arctic Monkeys concert, the biggest British band of the past five years, they are an example of a lucky breakthrough act, “normal” boys who weren’t privately educated, had “normal” upbringings, who strived from small gigs in their hometown of Sheffield and broke the mould. They’re now playing arenas with capacities of 80,000 and tickets even at £32.50 are for sellout shows. Compare this to a self sufficient band such as the up and coming WU LYF who’s gig I also attended in the same week, taking place in a tiny room which was nowhere near full, and my ticket was a fraction of the price at £11. With no merchandise to buy, it is clear that they are relying on the loyalty of their fans to buy gig tickets and legitimate music purchases to keep them alive. It induces a vicious cycle as time spent touring to make money, a necessity, means less time to work on new material, resulting in a sacrificial process either way. With that in mind, it’s clear to see how many bands are struggling to break through, and why the likes of Lily Allen and Coldplay’s Chris Martin’s financially comfortable backgrounds made their journey to stardom a whole lot simpler and less strenuous. As put so aptly by ‘The Quietus,’ an online music publication site, “if music-along with sport, the traditional ‘escape route’ for the poor- is shut off, where is the next Johnny Rotten or Jarvis Cocker going to come from?”
It seems as though from the figures and the difficulty that new artists are having with flourishing and establishing themselves on a larger scale, all record companies are run by money grabbing robots in suits and ties, but you don’t have to dig deep below the surface of the indie blogosphere to see that myth couldn’t be further from the truth. For those who are a part of what seems like a comparatively underground and cultish scene from the outside, no self respecting avid music enthusiast of the internet age would be oblivious to the likes of such independent record labels as Alcopop! Records, Rough Trade and Moshi Moshi Records. To name just a few, these independent record labels are run with their artists in mind, and work closely with them in order to ensure their own success, the likes of which often use the effects of the download age to fuel their careers. Many of the artists signed to these labels are susceptible to hype and word of mouth, something that provokes those who are links in the chain of Chinese Whispers that are ubiquitous to “try before they buy” and download an album just to see if it really is “all that.” This is where the benefits of widely available and free music comes into play, as it gets people talking. This increases the chances of journalists of such published works as The NME, using this information to assemble something of a bandwagon, a process that if goes accordingly can propel an artist to greatness. Their independence often means they have to find other ways of building & retaining customer loyalty and are able to tackle and prevent the problem more strategically than the larger companies such EMI and Sony Music, since it is on a much smaller and more manageable scale.
Legal downloads have proved themselves to be successful through other movements such as the likes of Pledge Music. Pledge Music recognises the consumption of digital releases and works with artists to benefit them, their PR approach and even other charities. A member of Moshi Moshi’s roster, Summer Camp, are one of many new artist’s to get involved, by promising a complimentary download if one participates in the scheme, it gives consumers the opportunity to “pledge” towards a goal of a specific amount of money. Artist’s can offer whatever they like, some of Summer Camp’s offers included handwritten postcards for a year, movie nights with them, private gigs, signed bags, t-shirts, and records all set at certain prices, while a percentage of the pledges go to the artist’s chosen charity, and the artist themselves. Another movement engineered by hipster buzz band Los Campesinos!, is their zine, named ‘Heat Rash.’ Fans pay £25 a year and subsequently subscribe to four homemade magazines a year, discounted gig priveliges and a 7” vinyl along with digital mp3 downloads with each delivery. These artists are just some of many who have proven themselves to take the issue of downloading and address the underlying fact that consumers feel they are not getting enough for their money and begrudge it, resulting in an influx in downloading out of both ease and a lesser strain on their pockets. By combining other benefits with the digital products, they have created a very different and competitive market and set the standard for other comparatively unoriginal bands who may be struggling. While the lower worth of mp3’s becoming a problem, making music apparently more disposable, artists are beginning to take notice of this and recreate vinyls again, making them even more valuable than before where the market isn’t so saturated and disposable.
One of the most interesting case studies that should be recognised is Radiohead’s inception of “The Economics of Free,” where they set up a website offering fans to pay whatever they wished for the download of their album ‘In Rainbows.’ 62% of downloaders when given the option, chose not to pay for it, yet the total number of downloads averaged at donations of $6 per download, which shows it to be a fairly successful endeavor considering that they only needed to make $1.50 per download to simply break even. The download is considered an “infinite product,” as it will never go away, and will continue to thrive, and by giving this away, it increased the market size, encouraging record sales and other merchandise, something that a lot of bands have emulated and used to increase their fanbase.
It seems as though many of these bands have hit the nail on the head so to speak, as I feel that one of the main effects of downloading music has become it’s worthlessness. The attitude adopted by many consumers is that if you can’t hold the product, then you shouldn’t have to pay for it, is evident in the fact that around 7.7 million people in the UK choose not to buy their music legally, resulting in a total of 1.2 billion tracks downloaded in 2010. It’s overwhelming availability at our fingertips, the thing that we seemed to consume so readily has actually began to be the thing stopping us from paying for music or enjoying it so much. When artists make their products seem exclusive and beneficial to the individual, it at least combines the portability that is so practical, and the collectible value all in one.
Rough Trade are seemingly aware of the importance of both the nature of consumption and demand, and the connection between the artist and the audience. A scheme that they have devised in order to tackle both of those things at once and to promote new releases is their in store gigs. Customers come to the store in Brick Lane in London, and buy the album, entitling them to a wristband and subsequently, free admission to the live show and often have the opportunity to meet with the artists afterwards. Of course, it would be wonderful for this to be the case with every artist however; maybe this demonstrates the need for something of a pecking order within the industry, in terms of artists and their success to discern success rates and different genres and music scenes. Maybe the price of such overwhelming fame and success is the occasional fan “stealing” a download.
Amidst the struggles of business and economy, the fact that music is a means of communication is lost. Whispered conspiracies of social and political silencing surface, and take the government’s failure to address the problems within the music industry as preventing musicians from the same right to be paid for their profession as anyone else. The discriminative nature ensures that only the least controversial acts thrive and succeed. These are often the acts that will do anything to pander to the masses and anchor the capitalist system with business- rather than a passion for music- as their main drive. It seems that these “record company hounds” that are repeatedly referred to are elusive and anonymous, hiding behind their wealth and musical empires with no explanation for their exclusive support of those artists that do what they’re told, or even such a simple question as to why a digital download can justify being priced for just as much as a physical release? ‘The Quietus’’ insight elaborates, “record labels no longer know how to earn their money and can’t decide how to let them pay for it anyway.” It seems as though the extent of the damage has gotten too much and responsibility has been abandoned.
The relentless statements about the extortionate costs the industry is charging for music is extremely relevant. If people are going to refuse to pay, no matter how much it insists that it needs this amount of money to generate profit and revenue, it won’t make money, perhaps it is it’s own fault for ignoring these pleas because it simply cannot survive without the support of consumers. If their individual circumstances are not going to be taken into account then they will be reluctant to pay and in the end there will be more people downloading illegally in a gesture of a metaphorical two fingers up to these record tycoons.
In conclusion, I feel that although according to many statistics, the damages of downloading music can have a negative effect financially, the extent of this is actually overestimated and that there are a lot more things to think about when evaluating other outcomes. The matter of fact is that technological advances are inevitable, and have benefitted us greatly in many other aspects of our lives, and as with any kind of development or change, there will always be benefits and detrimental effects, music is not exempt from this. We cannot help these changes and in all honesty, music piracy is not a recent endeavor. It’s been happening for many years and figures show that legal downloading, whilst it may pain many people from an older generation full of nostalgia, ears brimming with the crackling of the needle on vinyl, is the music industry’s biggest money-spinner. Surely the most important thing is to do whatever is necessary to ensure the sustainability of the industry, and follow the changes rather than fight against them, especially when other effects such as advertising and promotion for bands that would otherwise never get their music out there, or innovative techniques in bridging the gap between music and fans, something that has always seemed more of a gulf than anything. The problems are there, yes, but years later, the industry is still alive, perhaps even more so than ever in artists determination and tenacity to do whatever they can to succeed and the united front that many of them undertake in order to strive through the digital age. I think that the negative effects are just an unlucky twist of fate that have coincided with a difficult time for the economy, having a knock on effect in all areas of our lives and things that have always brought pleasure and happiness to people. The music industry is not a scapegoat, but an unfortunate bystander dragged into the action against it’s own will.
For now, we can’t predict what the future holds. Maybe the situation won’t get worse, maybe it will prophetically take it’s course in the nature that chart topping Duffy has optimistically stated: “I think the majority [doing it] are kids and as they get old and get more income they'll probably buy records. So it's just making music a part of everyone's lives."
Perhaps if we could tear Kanye West away from his limo for just one moment and tell him he doesn’t need it anymore, so long as he is fulfilled with the prospect of bringing music into people’s lives as the sole aim as a musician, then we wouldn’t even have this problem. But then again, what would we do without the business?
Perhaps if we could tear Kanye West away from his limo for just one moment and tell him he doesn’t need it anymore, so long as he is fulfilled with the prospect of bringing music into people’s lives as the sole aim as a musician, then we wouldn’t even have this problem. But then again, what would we do without the business?
No comments:
Post a Comment