The Golden Age of Infinite Music

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..."

Comments

It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing...

[soporific16]

This is exactly why 'piracy' is such a good thing. Before, when there were tollbooths before all the artists of the world, we could only really sample the delights of a few. Now, there's no where on earth most of us could afford to pay for all the content we consume. How can we be convinced that it is GOOD to be able to only taste a tiny fraction of what is out there? The Big Music enforced tollbooths are a plague of this planet, and it is PIRACY, resolving the contradictions of digital content in the age of private property, that is the cure.

Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing...

[MindlessAutomata]

I know this is an unpopular opinion and... my own behavior makes me a hypocrite here, but let's stop pretending that piracy is awesome and great just because some of the claims about it are exaggerated.

Making music--good music--takes time and resources. Time that you can't really make money on, and instruments and (nowadays) computer equipment that is not free. Unless you sell the music you're essentially losing money, in most situations. And no matter what some slashdotters CLAIM, yes, many people will not buy albums at all just because they can get them off soulseek or bittorrent or, god forbid, limewire.

If I had to wager I'd suggest the more popular the band, the more they're hurt, relatively, by piracy, with the completely unknowns actually benefiting because then they get exposure--if you haven't yet proved yourself, who is gonna buy your CD? Most stuff is crap. But those that have proved themselves... "hey, I know I like this guy's music but I'm a cheapskate so I'm going to download that anyway." So the unknowns probably benefit in getting a reputation and thus being able to sell CDs. The semi-knowns, the guys most people won't ever recognize and aren't played on the radio, probably hurt the most because they tend to be on smaller independent labels and don't get the big gigs and such well-known groups do--and their CDs are generally less visible, too, this day and age sometimes sold only over the internet.

Now, I have bought CD albums I'd downloaded that I wouldn't have if I'd not. Yes, that happens. But most people just want free mp3s on their portable music player, they aren't concerned about supporting the artist or even having a pressed CD as a collector's item or for preservation. But quit pretending that one counterpoint on the piracy issue or the fact that the effects of piracy are exaggerated by the RIAA especially for famous bands means piracy is universally a "good" thing. For many artists, it's not.

Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing...

[TubeSteak]

I know this is an unpopular opinion and... my own behavior makes me a hypocrite here, but let's stop pretending that piracy is awesome and great just because some of the claims about it are exaggerated.

Piracy is awesome and great because copyright no longer serves to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
Or do you really think the Berne Convention's life + 50 minimum accomplishes that goal?

In the USA, life + 70 literally means that, at best, anything created in your lifetime will not become public domain until you are 70.
More likely, you'll be dead and your children might see it fall into the public domain.
I saw "might" because if the artist signed away their rights to a corporation, your grand-children will be the first to see it become public.

Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing...

[Jurily]

And no matter what some slashdotters CLAIM, yes, many people will not buy albums at all just because they can get them off soulseek or bittorrent or, god forbid, limewire.

Of course. But the solution to that is to sell to people who want to buy it, either to support the author, or to have a physical copy.

People have been writing good music for fun (and for free) throughout history, just so that people can enjoy it. In fact, my suggestion to anyone who doesn't want me to listen to their music is to get a real job.

P.S. I do buy music, mostly from local groups.

Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really know about that. The time is cheaper than it's ever been. So are the resources. You only have to buy an instrument once, but you can play it as long as it works. These days the most important tool you can have for music production is a laptop (and not all of the software is expensive - some of it's free).

Besides, you forget that the majors would loan you that money - then take it out of your royalties, with interest. Yet another way they try to screw over the artist far more than a pirate ever will.

Music doesn't need a budget. Never did. Overproduction, that needs a budget - but that's the major's gig. Piracy hurts the major labels, but it often (not always, but often) doesn't hurt the artists as long as they get known by it. Go on, ask Coulton, or Weird Al. Or Trent Reznor, or Radiohead. Things have changed, and are still changing. If you want to support them, actually go and see them; that does way more than the few pence they'll get skimmed off your iTunes download or CD purchase. Go on, go out and see a band you might never have heard of if you hadn't downloaded their MP3. Yeah, not many people do, but it doesn't take that many. You might not be a superstar, but you can play music and survive on it, and that's more than many have.

And those semi-knowns? They get better known via the internet, not just the unknowns. Hell, it's one of their main promotion opportunities. It can be hard after the 15 minutes, true, but even the radio's becoming more open now. (Another reason we should resist killing net radio, and use licences on our music that don't let ASCAP/BMI collect from our music.)

Besides, being a dick about piracy isn't going to help your reputation on the internet, because it's like being the dude at the party who doesn't let anyone drink. Swallow this: most music fans download MP3s. Hell, a lot of artists do. Getting in their face about it is not the relationship you want with your fans. You want them to share your music because word-of-mouth is the best damn kind of advertising. You want to be on Youtube or Myspace or Facebook... because can you go viral without it?

It isn't always a positive thing, that's true. It's disruptive, and by their very nature disruptive things end one thing and start another. It's up to you to figure out how you can benefit from change, and get a nice viewpoint to watch these dinosaurs wail about like they're dying - while still posting profits. Now that's hypocritical...

Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the USA, life + 70 literally means that, at best, anything created in your lifetime will not become public domain until you are 70.

I recently gained a new perspective on this when I reflected on the following:

Let's say a 20 yo composes a new song. It's not unlikely that the person might live to be 90. That's 70 years right there. Add another 70 after the composer's death and you have 140 years of "protection". That means a work entering the public domain this afternoon would have had to be composed in 1869 -- four years after the close of the Civil war, given the current US term of copyright.

Ken Burns wold barely have been able to produce his PBS series as all the letters he quoted would have just been coming off copyright at the time he was working on the series.

Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing...

[Patch86]

I want to know where this idea has come from that making music should make you a millionaire.

Before the 20th century it didn't. Even some of the most respected composers in history earned only enough for a comfortable life, and the talented musicians could only expect a livable wage. Somehow, though, somewhere in the 20th century came the concept that every single mediocre pop act should earn 6 figure sums, and the "best of them" should be earning millions, into eternity.

Traditionally, artists were expected to earn their crust from live shows- something which is not only not harmed by piracy, but actually bolstered by it. And traditionally, recordings and covers and such (insofar as they happened) were sold at only a little above cost.

And somehow, despite this lack of monetary incentive, magnificent music still got made. Musicians made music because it was what they loved to do, and the music scene was a lot better for it.

So enough of the painful regurgitation of the myth that "if you don't pay £10 for an electronic download of the latest album, music itself can't happen". When the music industry returns to a realistic business model, piracy will end.

Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing...

[manicb]

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.

What is a "local band" when people discover their music through the internet?

The internet equivalent to a local band is a band that is big on whichever sources you use, i.e. myspace, Jamendo etc. It's the bands that your friends have found and link you to. For practical purposes that's a huge difference. Thanks to the internet, I've discovered bands that I love, who will NEVER EVER tour the UK. Why? Firstly because they may be playing a relatively niche genre of music, and would not be able to pull in enough people to make it worthwhile, even if they are excellent in that niche. Secondly because being a "part time hobby" band is pretty incompatible with touring.

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).

You want to see bands live, and you're happy for all musicians to be part-time? Ok, say I blow a couple of weeks' holiday to tour... I'm not going to be touring anywhere near you, am I?

I write/record/rehearse/perform in my spare time. I know I would be able to write far more, far better music if I was dedicated to it full-time. I have the utmost respect for those willing to make that leap, because it's quite a gamble and a sacrifice they are making, especially in this age. Is that good for music? Do you think a band like Radiohead could exist if they weren't 100% dedicated to it? You risk advocating quantity over quality.

Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing...

[misexistentialist]

What business hasn't focused increasingly on wider distribution, lower quality, and powerful marketing to multiply profits? Do the guys at Google or Microsoft or Berkshire Hathaway or Walmart deserve their fortunes that make rock-stars look like blue-collar laborers? Sure, musicians are overpaid, but it's a little unfair to expect them to work in the name of pure art when everyone else in the post-industrial age is getting filthy rich. Even office workers expect to retire millionaires, doctors multi-millionaires; performing before hundreds of thousands of people and having your songs on millions of ipods should qualify you for some riches.

Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing...

[Wildclaw]

Something that would be far easier if the product was cheaper.

But the goal isn't to make a cheap products. The goal is to maximize profit. And that is done by using your artificial monopoly (allowing for high margin profits) combined with huge amounts of advertising (supported by the high margin profits) to increase sales.

Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing...

[IamTheRealMike]

Of course. But the solution to that is to sell to people who want to buy it, either to support the author, or to have a physical copy.

If you're going to make this argument, please use words precisely. What you mean when you say "buy" is actually "donate". Almost by the definition of capitalism, if you are "selling" to somebody who doesn't have to pay you (in fact, probably won't) then you're actually operating a charity and relying on donations to survive.

This isn't necessarily a bad model - as you point out, it has worked before. But it resulted in a stifling and uninnovative musical environment (good for religious folks though). If we're going down that road, society should be entirely clear about it to the musicians of the future. If a child ever says, "when I grow up I'm going to be a musician", we need to tell them - no you're not. Being a musician is a hobby that you do in your spare time.

And if we're going to do that for music, then really we should be consistent and say that for every job that is based on people getting paid for copyrighted works. For instance, if that child says "oh well. in that case I want to make video games!" - same thing. No you're not. You will get a job where you are paid per hour of your labor like the rest of the world.

Ditto for movies, books .... who knows what else in future.

But in reality, nobody wants to take that position. You claim you do, because "people have made music without being paid before", but that logic doesn't really generalize to other things like movies or video games. Music might well survive through the power of the amateur, but the rest probably won't. The popularity of big budget movies and games strongly suggests that most people are not willing to let it go just yet.

And that is why I think you are wrong.

Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing...

[dwandy]

Now I need the same to happen to sports stars and I'll be happy. NOBODY is worth millions of dollars/pounds ...

I was right with you until this point.
The definition of what something is worth is what someone else will pay ... hence, these sports stars are in fact worth the millions they are paid.
This is a pure economic equation: The sport franchise only needs N players* and they have revenue of R. Roughly speaking, the owner of the team is willing to pay "(R - other-expense) / N" per player.

...and I'm sure the fans would love to knock 60% off the already inflated ticket prices.

Again, basic economics disagrees with you: there are N seats in the arena and G games. They can't manufacture more, so they are trying to determine the maximum price to sell N * G tickets each season. If you find the price steep that simply means that N * G people** in your area value tickets more than you do.

On a related note, this is why movie stars get paid so much: the movie only needs one star and the production company expects to be able to make millions in revenue, and the belief that certain actors will generate greater revenue. Contrast with stage actors who don't get paid millions due to the limited income on a nightly basis. The important fact out of this is that we don't have to worry that without copyright acting will die. Tom Cruise, on the other hand will have to choose between not working, working as an actor for a lot less, or finding alternate employment.

* For most businesses when they have extra money they can hire more people to try to do more of whatever they do. For a sports franchise they are prohibited from hiring more people, so they instead start to bid more for the better talent, driving the price per person up.
** Where some people value it so much that they purchase multiple games up to and including season's pass.

Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing...

[dwandy]

When the music industry returns to a realistic business model

The first problem is the terminology: "the music industry" does not have a problem with piracy. The "music recording and publishing industry" has a problem with piracy. Note that it's the Recording Industry Association of America that is talking. The recording industry keeps saying that the "music industry" is in trouble, but it turns out it's just the recording industry that's in trouble: the music industry revenue is up.

So if you're interested in helping to solve all this, the first thing is to take back the language: the music industry is not only alive and well - it's growing. People are spending more on music then ever before, it's just the recording industry that needs to adapt. (imho, they can adapt by following in the footsteps of the dinosaur and extinct already...)

Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing...

[nurb432]

There will always be room for the 'produced bands'. Sure they will appeal to mostly pre and early teens, but the market wont dry up.

I also disagree with your view on "worth", they are worth whatever they can get. YOU may not think they are worth it, but others do.

Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing...

[c]

> let's stop pretending that piracy is awesome and great
    > just because some of the claims about it are exaggerated.

Piracy is a bad, but it appears to be better than most of the alternatives we've seriously tried (although there are new models being tried which may prove better) and it's a boatload better than the direction music was going before digital copyright infringement became mainstream and it's giving a thorough kick in the pants to the people who were taking us in that direction.

Economically, piracy is probably not sustainable in the long term. On the other hand, the model where a bunch of greedy gatekeepers slowly trickle out overpriced and overcontrolled garbage via a series of tightly held outlets wasn't culturally healthy.

There's probably a solution that falls somewhere in between, but until we find it...

c.

Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing...

[Jawn98685]

>

Making music--good music--takes time and resources. Time that you can't really make money on, and instruments and (nowadays) computer equipment that is not free. Unless you sell the music you're essentially losing money, in most situations. And no matter what some slashdotters CLAIM, yes, many people will not buy albums at all just because they can get them off soulseek or bittorrent or, god forbid, limewire.

Rubbish. Utter and uninformed rubbish. Among the qualities that make a given piece of music, or a particular performance of a piece of music, "good", the technology stack is only a small part. It most certainly does not take take a raft of "instruments and... computer equipment..." to make good music. One of the most stirring performances I ever witnessed was the appearance by Dave Stewart and Annie Lennox on the old Arsenio Hall show. Dave's guitar was the only "instrument" that cost any money at all, but the mastery displayed by the two artists that day was one of those rare magical moments that anyone involved in the performance and/or production of music knows so well; that chills-down-your-spine electrifying experience when it all comes together so perfectly and everyone in the room feels it. It wasn't the technology. One of the most powerful musical recordings I own is Miles Davis's "Kind of Blue". When that recording was made, over fifty years ago, they used then-state-of-the-art technology, which is to say "crude and simple technology" by today's standards. Nevertheless, "Kind of Blue" is still widely regarded as one of the greatest jazz recordings of all time. Recording technology that is far superior to that used to make those recordings is within financial reach of almost anyone. What is nowhere nearly so readily available, alas, is the mastery of the artistic and technological domains, both of which are required to make "good" recorded music. I hesitate to beat the "mp3 format sucks" drum yet again, but I'm afraid I must. The prevalence of shitty sounding "product", to the extent that quality lossless recordings are all but unavailable, has reduced the value that recorded music has. It used to be that part of that value was the distribution medium. It did cost a lot of money to make a recording and get it "pressed" and distributed. No more. People won't buy recorded music unless they see enough value in it. DRM is an attempt to artificially increase the "value" of a particular "copy" of a recording. The market is demonstrating, with alarming efficiency, that it will not tolerate such manipulation.

If the recording "industry" is to survive, it needs to remake itself from the ground up. It needs to be about delivering a product that does offer enough value that people will pay something for it, even if that something is only a token amount that is calculated to provide the artists and engineers with enough incentive to keep doing a good job. That rather leaves out most of the traditional music industry payroll. The role of manufacturing LP's, tapes, or CD's is gone. Distribution? Anyone with a web server can distribute music. There is arguably still a role for the "A&R" people, but it is going to be vastly different too. The upshot is that music should cost the consumer a lot less than it does now, and that the artists, engineers, and producers should get the lion's share of the proceeds because it is they who are now producing the only thing of significant value.

Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing...

[Narpak]

...and become enamored with particular artists, but the same doesn't really happen for particular writers.

I would like you to reconsider that statement after I have listed the following names: Rowling, Meyer, Clancy, King. These are four random modern day authors each which a part of their audience being what I would call "enamoured" with their writing.

Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing...

[tsm_sf]

But I digress: what I meant to say was that the readily-downloaded media are something of a trap. I think we are going to be left with a whole generation that has no idea what their music is actually supposed to sound like.

So what kind of wooden knobs would you recommend for their ipods?

Re:It's yhy anti-piracy is a BAD thing...

[MindlessAutomata]

How is me arguing that piracy isn't all kittens and a field of flowers related to copyright length? Sure it's ridiculous, but again, let's face it, downloading mp3s for free on the internet is going to hurt artists.

I actually don't believe in intellectual property because it's not a scarce resource. But I also recognize that artists need to eat, and for most artists the job is far less about money and more about individual creativity. They gotta eat so if I find something I'll like, I'll buy the CD, directly from them if able.

I'm not the first slashdotter to say this by any means, but many of those that do this don't want to admit that that behavior is probably what the minority of file sharers do. Again, look at what I'm responding too--someone claiming that piracy is great. Downloading without giving the artist a dime is not really a "great thing" at all, in my opinion. An inevitability in today's world, yes. The problem is mostly that it's cultivating the mentality that artists don't need to get paid, and many people don't think twice about actually buying a physical CD just to support the artist like I personally think they should.

So yeah, pirate, but don't pretend it's a "good thing" unless you really do plan on buying it if you like it.

Not quite..

[wanax]

This is the age of infinite access to music that is considered popularly or culturally relevant. In times before recording, music was played constantly, but to see the critical acclaimed required one to buy a fairly expensive ticket. In the age since recording, the popular and acclaimed required purchase of a fairly expensive to make medium. Recently, the price of access to popular or acclaimed music has been some technical savvy. While DRM and legislative action may eventually curtail access to popular or acclaimed music, it will do no such thing to indy, modern or any un-acclaimed pieces or groups, because in such an environment enforcement will be expensive.

Re:I'd Rather...

[mwvdlee]

Not going to advice any particular bands, there are great internet services you can use to find and discover new artists and new types of music.

Sadly, due to copyright laws, none of these I can actually use in my country. Yay copyright! Copyright; protecting us from culture for over 50 years after death now!

"in precious little time" ... "an expert"

[foobsr]

Which indicates that either the domain is rather small or the semantics of 'expert' has changed dramatically.

With regard to "all kinds of artists" (which probably should read 'various kinds of musicians' — but probably it takes longer to become an 'expert' writer) I suspect the former, the latter otherwise.

CC.

Infinite music

[Anonymous Coward]

From Funkadelic to The Smiths?
From Nick Drake and John Martyn to Pavement and Dinosaur Jr.??

Your point may be good, but christ, these examples of infinity and endless appetite for music cover a really, really small range of what music is.

No wonder you were always so embarrased in the shop.

On second thought, I'm not sure point is so good.
On the evidence, the interwebz really just provide an opportunity to imagine one's broadened oneself by becoming even more deeply enmeshed in one little thing.

John, Paul, George, Ringo who?

[Bazman]

Now he should try asking that kid about The Beatles. He may well find that the infinite music is not a continuum.

No need to pirate music

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm 54 yrs old. I have dozens of albums/cds, collected over the years of my life. I spend a LOT of time listening to public radio as well as music borrowed from the public library.

I've not pirated a piece of music. I have downloaded music from the internet - but each piece is something free that groups I have found have made available for free. Sometimes, the group makes it available on their web sites. Sometimes, they make it available to someone doing reviews, or their labels make it available.

Do I hear every piece of music being made in the world? Nope. I don't _have_ to. Would I like too? Sure - but I'd like to taste dishes from every dining establishment in town, but I wouldn't walk in and steal their food because of something I wanted. I'll either buy a meal there, or I'll wait for someone to invite me out to dinner.

There is no need - or justification - for stealing music that an artist does not wish to make available for free.

I would, however, love to see sites being used by artists to make their music available for free be better known. "In the old days", I could rely on visiting myspace to pick up free downloads from groups. These days, that doesn't seem to be as common, but facebook iLike's app does provide some free downloads. Other sites, like download.com, as well as other genre specific sites, also regularly do so. And of course there are occasionaly singles available on itunes for free.

It would be great if there was one site which was sort of a 'clearing house' for any legit free music download on the internet. That would be a great invention! And of course, the legit internet radio sites are another wonderful source to at least hear the music (even if I can't put it on a personal machine for later enjoyment).

Re:The endless present, the endless enigma

[icebraining]

1. What is today (and what was in the past) the relation between quality and quantity? How is society, especially the young ones, to discriminate between trash and masterpieces of music (or books, movies, art, knowledge, "information", at that matter)?

Price and quantity was *never* related to quality. Having access to more culture means they'll listen to more quality works, as well as trash. Discrimination will come from studying the subject and having a huge cultural background, as it always did.

2. Can there be value without scarcity?

Yes. The correlation between value and scarcity is only one theory of value, the one expressed by the neoclassical economics. There are more theories for value setting, including "use-value", which expresses a value based on "a certain relation between the consumer and the object consumed". Supply and Demand is just a theory, not a fact.

If the author had that abundance of free choice when he was growing up, would he be the same person he is today?

Of course he wouldn't. But if that's good or bad is a different matter.

Isn't the highlighted quote "there's no longer any past - just an endless present" the most frightening of all, signaling the end of history, the end of capitalism and the end of the world as we know it?

So it was when Gutenberg invented the printing press. Are we worse because of that? I don't think so.

It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine. It's evolution, baby!

Maybe YOUR job should be a "part-time hobby"...

[geekmux]

"...Music will become what it should be for most - a part time hobby."

I see. That how you feel? I wonder if others felt the same about IT SysAdmins? I mean, hell, most of the time a good SysAdmin will spend very little time actually working on their environment once it's stable. Should that job be treated as "part-time"? Ready to take a huge pay cut?

For some, music is their life. It's their lifes-blood. It's what they do. I don't see how you can "refuse" to buy an album from an artist, yet drop hundreds to "advertise" them. Irony, anyone? Your rebellious attitude is doing nothing but hurting the artist and the industry. When artists find that the business model is no longer a valid one due to piracy, the world will have very few artists.

Only in a free and fair market

[amck]

This only holds true in a free and fair market: where, given a free choice, people spend their money on Britney Spears, etc.

The reality is a music market where in practice a cartel of music companies limit choice to maximise the money made on certain artists. They prefer, instead of running 10,000 artists, to sell 10-100, advertising 10.

Companies like Sony-BMG, etc. ceased contracts with _profitable_bands_, as they maximize their profits when marketing costs are smaller, concentrated on a small number of "superstars". The chosen artist benefitted, but mostly the record companies benefitted; the consumer lost choice, and the bands they would have purchased from lost big-time.

For this reason, I consider the record companies anti-music, and am happy to see them go. Its only the advent of easy copying that makes them divert from this policy.

Similar arguments hold for professional sports, unfortunately.