8/14/2019 Music and the Middle

1/1

Since the invention of the printing press inthe 15th Century, people have been able to hear musicthat originated in temporally and geographically inac-cessible places. A music industry emerged to becomethe intermediary, bringing music to us so that we didnot have to seek it out ourselves. In the early 20th Cen-

tury, the record industry was able to solidify its statusas an intermediary as Fordism, consumerism, and theinvention of recorded music allowed record companiesto position themselves into economically commandingpositions. Millions of Americans wanted to buy andlisten to every new Vernon Dalhart and Chuck Berryrecord they could afford, and the record companieswere happy to supply their customers needs.

However, as record companies consolidated

into corporations in the late 20th and early 21st centu-ries, artists and consumers alike began to recognize theabuses of power that were taking place. Allegations ofprice xing were repeatedly leveled at the few remain-ing companies. Most importantly, the centralization ofmusic distribution into four corporations stied musi-cal innovation and allowed for inequitable treatmentof musicians now seen as products rather than artists.The big four wanted safe investments, and top-40 radiostations were only too happy to keep playing BritneySpears over and over...

Along came the Internet. Democratic anddecentralized, it catered to the multitude of fragment-ed tastes in our postmodern society. Much like recordcompanies, the Internet frees information from tempo-ral and geographic constraints unlike the old central-ized model. However, the Internet makes it increasing-ly difcult to control the ow of information it enables.By reducing the costs of moving information across

space to practically zero, the Internet allows communi-ties and networks based on gesellschaft(community re-lationships based on like-minded individuals) to formin place and on top of existing communities based on gemeinschaft(traditional community relationships tiedto social status and local territory). For example, teen-agers in rural Kentucky can establish networks outsideof their traditional gemeinschafts. With social network-ing and dating websites, instant messaging, and email,

they can make friends with people across the globe.Likewise, the same rural Kentucky teenagers need notconstrain their musical tastes to what is played on lo-cal radio stations (generally top-40, Christian music,and country). Any two computers connected to theInternet, regardless of where they are on the globe, can

Since

the invention of the printing press inthe 15th Century, people have been able to hear musicthat originated in temporally and geographically inac-cessible places. A music industry emerged to becomethe intermediary, bringing music to us so that we didnot have to seek it out ourselves. In the early 20th Cen-

tury, the record industry was able to solidify its statusas an intermediary as Fordism, consumerism, and theinvention of recorded music allowed record companiesto position themselves into economically commandingpositions. Millions of Americans wanted to buy andlisten to every new Vernon Dalhart and Chuck Berryrecord they could afford, and the record companieswere happy to supply their customers needs.

However, as record companies consolidated

into corporations in the late 20th and early 21st centu-ries, artists and consumers alike began to recognize theabuses of power that were taking place. Allegations ofprice xing were repeatedly leveled at the few remain-ing companies. Most importantly, the centralization ofmusic distribution into four corporations stied musi-cal innovation and allowed for inequitable treatmentof musicians now seen as products rather than artists.The big four wanted safe investments, and top-40 radiostations were only too happy to keep playing BritneySpears over and over...

Along came the Internet. Democratic anddecentralized, it catered to the multitude of fragment-ed tastes in our postmodern society. Much like recordcompanies, the Internet frees information from tempo-ral and geographic constraints unlike the old central-ized model. However, the Internet makes it increasing-ly difcult to control the ow of information it enables.By reducing the costs of moving information across

space to practically zero, the Internet allows communi-ties and networks based on gesellschaft(community re-

lationships based on like-minded individuals) to formin place and on top of existing communities based on gemeinschaft(traditional community relationships tiedto social status and local territory). For example, teen-agers in rural Kentucky can establish networks outsideof their traditional gemeinschafts. With social network-ing and dating websites, instant messaging, and email,

they can make friends with people across the globe.Likewise, the same rural Kentucky teenagers need notconstrain their musical tastes to what is played on lo-cal radio stations (generally top-40, Christian music,and country). Any two computers connected to theInternet, regardless of where they are on the globe, can

share music with one anotherfor minimal or no cost. Filesharing software and Internetradio allow people to exploremusical genres and listen towhatever they want whenever

they want, without having toinvest thousands of dollars inphysical media.

Record companieswere late to recognize the In-ternet as a threat to their busi-ness model. They have sincecountered by establishing legalmusic download services, im-

plementing crushing royaltypayments for independent In-ternet radio stations, and suingboth the le sharing compa-

nies and their users. However,all of this may prove to be toolittle too late. Internet hackerculture has always found in-novative ways to circumventbarriers and free movementof information. Music is no ex-ception.

Highly anonymousand decentralized le shar-ing technologies already existthat are nearly impossible totrace or block. But to movebeyond all the talk of le shar-ing, copyrights, and mp3 theft,the Internet has exposed amore glaring weakness of the

music industry: traditional re-cord companies are no longerneeded.

The Internet hasproven its ability to move in-formation from producers to

consumers while minimizing thenumber of middlemen who inter-act with information throughout thevalue chain; just think of how scoresof Internet users now receive newsfrom blogs instead of newspapers or

broadcast news, and how-to informa-tion, advice, and facts from personalwebsites instead of printed books.The most successful Internet informa-tion intermediaries have been thosewhich allow democratic systems ofcontent creation and feedback to ex-ist. Wikipedia, Ebay, and IMDb areall examples of fairly decentralized

and democratic content portals.There is no reason to be-lieve that decentralized and demo-cratic portals for music could not also

exist; think of a musicalversion of Wikipedia,or le sharing softwarewith a browse function.Music could be licensedusing copyleft instead ofcopyright (copyleft re-

fers to a Creative Commons Licensewhich allows work to be copied free-ly as long as no prot is being made).Would artists still make money? Ab-solutely. The immateriality of theInternet does not reduce the desire tosee musicians perform live or to buyartists merchandise. Nor will it dis-

solve the ability of musicians to col-lect royalties from the broadcastingof their music in any for-prot setting(e.g. radio or television).

Record companies are des-perately trying to hold on to remnantsof a system that made their existencenecessary because of the difcultiesof moving music across temporal

and geographic distance. With wide-spread use of the Internet, we have aninfrastructure that allows informationto transcend time and space. So whydo we still need record companies?We dont.

Music and the

Middle

Mark Graham