Music without the music industry (labels etc) is the internet without aggregators (reddit etc)<p>What happened on the internet before content aggregators (or before you had access to them)? you'd see a cool website and tell a friend the website address or you'd send a link to a friend and they might pass it on if they cared enough, they might not. That's a few people, unless the website was seriously incredible it would never be seen by maybe a hundred people. Now with sites like reddit a "pretty cool" website can be seen by millions of people.<p>Music is like that. There are so many artists that produce great music but nobody has ever heard of them because their "network" extends to maybe a couple of friends and friends friends and some of their friends friends friends, unless they get a big break (like shared by an already famous artist) they'll remain pretty small, forever. I bet everyone here knows of an artist they like but who couldn't make a living from their music, whether that's a friend or someone they've seen in an obscure Youtube video.<p>The music industry (big labels) provide huge value to artists, so many artists would never have the reach they have now if they didn't have labels. Would Justin Bieber be known by hundred of millions if he was still making songs on Youtube?<p>The idea that sites like kickstarter are the <i>future</i> for creative endeavours is partly true, they <i>can</i> help fund <i>some</i> projects and open up artists to new ways to fund their work, but they can't replace the music industry. Very few people care enough about music to not need to be told who to listen to, or to invest in their favourite artists, they need to be given music to choose from (see: top 40) and decide what they like and buy it.<p>Things like selling a CD for $10 or a download for $1 are what fund the music industry, if the music industry dies so does the way we consume music. No longer will we be able to just <i>consume</i>, we'll have to find it too. I want the option to seek out new music, I want the option to fund artists I love that want to be independent, I don't want it to be a necessity.<p><pre><code> Music is so much more than sounds –
how else do you explain the Gathering of the Juggalos?
</code></pre>
marketing
TL;DR The arts used to be (like Mozart's time used to be) supported by wealthy patrons who commissioned works that were subsequently enjoyed by the public. The notion of music as a commodity to be consumed like sugar and paprika is a modern one, and, M Kim argues, a historical quirk whose time has passed. We should thus separate consumption from patronage, with the latter greatly enhanced by crowd-funding technology, e.g. Kickstarter. Artists should raise funds from crowds directly and then release their recorded music for free, with private perks accruing to the patrons.<p>My comments:<p>I like the structure, but am concerned about the separation of consumption and patronage. Our society has become far more consumerist since Victorian times and ignoring that cultural shift could be problematic. I propose fortifying crowdfunded patronage with a matching fund that would match crowd patronage dollars.<p>In college I was cheap and pirated music. Now I care more for convenience than a few dollars and so download my music via iTunes, where cover art, filing, and synchronising is taken care of. I suggest adding an optional (or maybe not) extra $1 (or whatever) to be directed into a matching fund. This fund would then match, at a ratio to be determined after further thought (would probably be a moving scale), crowd patronage dollars to artists. Thus, the consumption and patronage are joined somewhat.<p>One could still have free music for those who value dollars more than time. The downside is the iTunes of this analogy would be a power centre. That said, it would be naive to assume any such system wouldn't concentrate power. It might be good to have an iTunes figure opposing the Kickstarter one.
I've posted this before, but what Francis Ford Coppola said is very relevant to the topic:<p><a href="http://the99percent.com/articles/6973/Francis-Ford-Coppola-O.." rel="nofollow">http://the99percent.com/articles/6973/Francis-Ford-Coppola-O...</a>.<p>"We have to be very clever about those things. You have to remember that it’s only a few hundred years, if that much, that artists are working with money. Artists never got money. Artists had a patron, either the leader of the state or the duke of Weimar or somewhere, or the church, the pope. Or they had another job. I have another job. I make films. No one tells me what to do. But I make the money in the wine industry. You work another job and get up at five in the morning and write your script.
This idea of Metallica or some rock n’ roll singer being rich, that’s not necessarily going to happen anymore. Because, as we enter into a new age, maybe art will be free. Maybe the students are right. They should be able to download music and movies. I’m going to be shot for saying this. But who said art has to cost money? And therefore, who says artists have to make money?
In the old days, 200 years ago, if you were a composer, the only way you could make money was to travel with the orchestra and be the conductor, because then you’d be paid as a musician. There was no recording. There were no record royalties. So I would say, “Try to disconnect the idea of cinema with the idea of making a living and money.” Because there are ways around it."
This is being done right now it's just segmented and no real platform has emerged as the place to do it. The real problem with the model from my perspective is that in artists (and their label/mgmts) desperation to remain relevant & earn a better living they are constantly on social media & watering down their celebrity. Combine that with the fact that any cute kid on YouTube can suddenly become a celebrity in his own right you have a) way more celebrities and b) way over exposed celebrities. The internet has basically commoditized being famous in some ways and in most artists desperation to try and get 'bigger' and make more money they make it worse. There will always be the massive artists where the masses go insane and people line up down the block to video chat with. Those artists don't have a problem now. The ones that are really in trouble are the every day middle of the road full time working artists (selling 50-300K records). This kind of platform will not work with enough scale & consistently enough to even begin a conversation about it replacing old record sales revenue. I think he touched on the real key to the long term music business which is embracing streaming and getting as many fans as possible to listen to your music and care enough to go to your shows. Any money a band makes from recorded music will forever be a bonus.
You make some great points, but I think the "Internet Apologists" school of thought is closer to your "Crowd Patronage" idea than you realise. As you said, recorded music is fairly recent, but gathering around to enjoy a show goes waaaay back...and I think it's a great business model going forward.<p>One great example of this in action is Hoodie Allen. He releases all his music free on Soundcloud[1] and Youtube[2], where he funds/makes his own (pretty impressive) music videos to gain his audience. No record label required. His music is on iTunes, but I'm guessing the real money is made in concerts.<p>[1] <a href="http://soundcloud.com/hoodieallenmusic" rel="nofollow">http://soundcloud.com/hoodieallenmusic</a><p>[2] <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_t431MAUQlQ" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_t431MAUQlQ</a>
TL;DR Artists can use the Kickstarter model to collect from their most ardent fans instead of trying to sell units to everyone.<p>I think this makes a lot of sense and can work in some cases, but it remains to be seen what happens when the market is saturated with artists looking to collect voluntarily from their fan base. I suspect people will fatigue from the euphoria of being generous and the model will fade, but I hope I'm wrong.
I can only wonder what copyright law might do to such a model. Would patronage allow one to play the artist's music in a public space without prior permission/consent? Think about all the recent political campaigns that used songs in such a manner. Also, I wonder if the patronage model would make it that much harder for an artist to sustain his/her career.
Great article. Have you read Musicking by Christopher Small? If not, you definitely should.<p><a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Musicking-Meanings-Performing-Listening-Culture/dp/0819522570" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.co.uk/Musicking-Meanings-Performing-Listen...</a><p>Also, it might be interesting to chat a bit more. Drop me an email - rob at [see profile for domain].
@aw3c2 - I think it all depends on how you personally define the music industry. In your mind, is the industry defined by the record labels or is it defined by the community of artists?
Great write up! This is exactly what we're trying to accomplish with Listener Approved - <a href="https://ListenerApproved.com" rel="nofollow">https://ListenerApproved.com</a>