The effect of on demand streaming has not done wonders for how we value music’s consumption, the advertising, buffering alone are a nuisance and the simple yet imperative need for the web, there are two immediate problems with this.
Firstly the Internet is far from sufficiently omnipresent, let alone for free. Secondly, only a segment of the population posses a suitable device to stream said services.
Spotify has been hailed for providing an ‘ability to play your music to millions’ or as the same site put it ‘you as curator, you as dj’. This fundamentally removes one of the primary functions of music, a medium you meditate on, share and enjoy with friends not a stranger half way around the world however much it may appeal to our post-modern need for self-definition.
It also forgets that people use streaming to source and sample specific artistes with the assistance of Myspace and YouTube, still the most popular sites. This popularity doesn’t mean the entire recording industry is going to turn on its head just because some adventurous types have identified a new revenue stream, irrespective of the current turmoil.
A further stumbling block is the behavioral uses of PMP’s. The Walkman allowed individuals to take their music with them, wherever the wished. Digital players and library systems have streamlined this process but their purpose remains the same, mobile music. A feat which currently requires you to possess a copy of said music, legally or illegally
People like experience; we like the tangible and this readers the Internet cannot change. Yet.
The modern beleif of free content that exists, particularly among the youth of today, is at odds with that of a decade past where we were quite willing to part with money for an artist’s commitment and talent.
This is the situation the industry must return to: a position where the consumer has trust, confidence and most importantly belief in the products available.
One path to this is through creating dynamic products that draw users back to enjoying music legally through exclusive content and products which they could not attain via illegal means, non-drm, high bit rate, bundled downloads, access to cheaper tickets and other benefits that combined aspects of the music industry can provide.
Unfortunately through the cost to the industry there has been effects. Due to the inevitable protectionism that p2p has created amongst the labels, less money being available to bring on new artists and the energy and attention needed to fully develop new, highly interactive web-based business models is being diverted to combating piracy. As a direct result of this, a generation of artists has lost significant earnings.
The labels have reduced investment funds, EMI have shed 40% of their staff, this is a situation which applies across the board of labels, indies come and go like dodgy double glazing firms and in all honesty those who truly suffer are the consumers. As much as the internet has created the most interesting time in the music industry since the sixties, the framework of making a business as concerned on longevity and sustainability as it is on new products and development forced to focus on the former rather than the latter, purely for revenue.
Instead of ground breaking new music we get themes – two of late, the pop princess - Lady Gaga, Little Boots, The Ting Tings (arguably) La Roux ( I can see laughs on the equal quantities of flour and butter – then just add milk ilk) and Florence and the Machine. Secondly the pop legacy revival – Take That, Spice Girls, AHHA, Duran Duran, etcetera, etcetera, etfuckingcetera.
They do have things in common however – binding the population into a common gel, creating a cultural fulcrum to spin off shared meaning or merchandise and then profit.
We must buy music again to preserve it as a consumable good but also save it as an art form.
No comments:
Post a Comment