THE DAY THE MUSIC DIED?
This blog has often looked at the changing face of the music scene here in the UK.
Whether this is how we buy it, how it's sold - and how it's made in the first place - it's all been discussed in these columns.
All three of these activities have changed dramatically in the past 60 years. Some would say that the rate of change continues to increase. At face value, this is merely a statement of the obvious: all we have to do is think about the technological changes since the CD was first introduced in the 1980s to see that. How many formats came and went in the first ten years before CDs became all-conquering?
The thing is though, is the means of buying, selling and making music the be all and end all?
 |
| A modern day variant of "Taping Is Killing Music" |
I ask the question because I came across an American article this past week that ran with the provocative title "How One Generation Was Single Handedly Able To Kill The Music Industry".
The thesis was that we (the consumer) aren't buying music in the way that we used to - and as a result, we've destroyed the idea of buying records and thus closed off any chance of musicians being able to make a living. More specifically, it's a recent generation of consumer that it calls "The Millenials" who are most to blame - they love the music, but just don't want to pay for it. When the day comes that the baby boomers have faded away, the view is that no-one will want to buy albums or singles or vinyl ever again.
Here's the article in question:
It argues that we now control both the supply and demand sides of the economic model and that record labels, productions companies - and even artists - remain wedded to the idea of selling lots of units, a model (the piece says) that is outmoded.
We are exposed to more music than ever, we share it round and talk about it more than ever - and yet somehow, the creator of the music - the artist - seems to be overlooked in this never-ending desire to have more and more access.
The money is key - and if the money is followed, it's clear it has migrated from record companies (and to an extent, their clients, the artists) to other large corporations who seek to use their *brand muscle* to exploit our love affair with music to bolster their bottom lines. There's a table in the article which shows that today's biggest artists (it cites Pitbull) may have something like 50 million facebook fans, but when it comes to record sales, Pitbull's career sales are less than 10 million - and one "Cliff Richards" (I'll forgive them their error - it is an American article) seems to be 61 million. By using social media, consumers "play both sides of the field" by both creating and sharing music - and thus cutting out the middleman.
But why am I ambivalent about this piece?
 |
| Promote your music and offer it free to consumers. Noisetrade encourage fans to make artist donations |
There's no doubt that seismic changes have taken place, but in some ways, they always have done. The difference is that ease of access to technology and the clever marketing of the need to constantly *upgrade* and trade-in has meant that the regular recycling of demand has a much shorter lifespan now. Consumers may feel more in charge of acquiring music, but do artists really feel in control of producing it? In my experience, artists can use simple technology to do a myriad of things they had to pay someone else to do - record, edit, mix, produce, promote and sell. But, to market music in amongst the thousands of weekly releases is a huge task and only a small number will make it. The vast majority will work hard, produce highly promising content and then see it sit on Bandcamp or Soundcloud or Noisetrade and many other sites, not doing very much at all. Which is a huge shame.
 |
| Bandcamp - Helps promote music? |
I must conclude on a optimistic note because, well, there are plenty of artists out there who deserve breaks and exposure. Exposure isn't just about dropping something on You Tube and hoping for the best. But recent statistics show that when it comes to discovering music, consumers may opt for You Tube (83% of us use it thus) or recommendations from friends (71%), but a healthy 65% still use radio. You might think "He would say that wouldn't he?", but factor in the increase in radio listenership in the UK in 2013, and the importance of good radio shows designed to showcase new music and - I think - there is some salvation at hand. "Having things for free" may be a fine notion, but the reality is that ultimately someone pays - and if musicians can't survive, then what is the future for the very music that we (apparently) love to share so much?
Alan Dorey
13th June 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment