Tag Archives: creative commons

The Death of the Album

The Death of the Album” is how Elbow frontman Guy Garvey describes the iTunes music store. AC/DC’s Angus Young criticizes the service for enabling listeners to download only a certain number of musicians’ songs, rather than entire albums. But it is undeniable that the internet is changing the way music is created and distributed. Although internet music downloading has been around for ages, the growing affordability and uptake of high-speed internet and the increasing rate of computer literacy means that more people than ever can choose to download their music on the internet from services such as iTunes rather than buy it in the traditional way.

But not everybody uses paid download services. If you’re already on the internet, why pay for something you can get for free? The majority of music can be easily accessed and downloaded on programs such as BitTorrent. And naturally, this is giving the record companies grief and eating into their profits. This is considered theft of intellectual property and can (and has!) be(en) grounds for a lawsuit. But is this way of thinking about music outdated?

As I mentioned in a previous post, this way of doing it has been challenged by the likes of Radiohead (who released their latest album, In Rainbows, for free on the internet as an experiment) and Nine Inch Nails (who are allowing the modification, remixing and redistribution of their music through a Creative Commons license). As my friend James says:

“…no matter how they released their music, there was no way that NiN’s or Radiohead’s ‘experiments’ were going to fail, as they both have large established fanbases…”

I believe these baby steps taken by people who have already made it big are indicative of the future of the music industry, the traditional methods of distribution being killed off by internet piracy. But should this be seen as a threat to musicians and their ability to make a livelihood? My answer is: no- providing the system is overhauled.

The whole idea of buying music- whether as a grammophone record, tape cassette, CD or whatever- is relatively new. When you consider that the technology to record sound was only developed in the late 18th century (Thomas Edison’s phonograph cylinder) and remained quite limited (in terms of both quality and affordability) for quite some time, the concept of the album, the mass-produced recording of an artist’s music, is quite recent. Obviously musicians existed and worked before then. But this technology marked a new era in the way musicians could create and distribute music. So my argument is that the current technology marks another paradigm shift regarding commerical music.

Let me explain the way I see the history of musicians’ livelihoods: at first, musicians needed a patron, a king or wealthy lord who would sponsor them (and this is true of course for other creative artists) and commission the creation and performance of music. Then, as the middle class expanded, more people could afford to attend musicians’ performances and so the role of the patron diminished as musicians could make a living by giving public concerts to the “common people”. Later, as recording technology developed, and the majority of people had access to gramophones, tape decks, CD players and the like, the role of the patron (this time reincarnated in the record company) again increased. However, today it is possible to cheaply record and distribute music without the neccessity for record labels (as is evident if one only takes a moment to search through the great amount of free, unsigned music available on websites such as Myspace). In addition, viral marketing and networking have shown that it is possible to advertise and distribute one’s work without needing the vast resources of the likes of Sony and IMG.

So where is this leading? My argument is that the next natural step in the creation, distribution and even popular conception of music will result in the irrelevance of major record labels and the destruction of the current concept of recorded music as a commodity. Because recorded music need not be a commodity. Because of the zero marginal cost of information, downloading music does not directly cause the musician to incur a loss; which is to say if I downloaded an album off BitTorrent, it would not physically reduce the artist’s profit, but only in that it would make it far less likely that I would spend money on purchasing that album.

So under the current system, we see the musicians are clearly losing out. But what if there were a new generation of musicians that did not expect to make money in this way? To give an example, I would be happy for as many people as possible to read this blog; as though I spent time and effort writing it, I am not further inconvenienced by people reading it and generally want people to read what I have written. But if for some strange reason people had to log in and pay to read my blog, I would be very angry if somebody was distributing unauthorized copies of my writing elsewhere. So the way I see it, the next generation of musicians–those who would record their music without ever stepping into a major studio, promote it on internet for free and have it available for everybody on websites such as Myspace–would be only too happy to share their music, to get as many people listening to it as possible.

But of course there is the issue of money. How will musicians make their livelihood? Well, I cannot answer that, but perhaps the future of music will lead to a growing emphasis on live music (as you cannot the experience of a live concert for free on the internet). To me, this theory of the next stage sounds lovely on paper (but then again, so did communism). The way in which it occurs will have to be seen, only time will tell, etc…

Finally, my Marxist vision for the future of music is centred on a greater freedom: because patronage demands conformity. Musicians hundreds of years ago and mainstream ones today have one thing in common: they must please their benefactors, be they lords or executives. This can be seen in Trent Reznor’s break away from Interscope Records, as he claimed that their commercial concerns and restrictions were impinging in his creatvity. In Peter Shaffer’s play Amadeus (later adapted to film), Antonio Salieri says of the role of the musician:

“We gave them processions for their strutting, serenades for their rutting, high horns for their hunting, and drums for their wars. Trumpets sounded when they entered the world and trumpets groaned when they left it!”

But Salieri suffered from great mediocrity, despite his present fame and acclaim, because the conformity demanded of him limited his creativity. So, in my vision for the future of music and the death of the album, I see musicians creating music for its own sake (and still somehow making a living!), unburdened by the suffocating demands of big business and the free sharing of recorded music: a dictatorship of the individual musician.



Filed under opinion, technology

Ghosts I-IV

An interesting album, and an example of artists moving with the times, Ghosts (link to official album website featuring free download of Ghosts I- the first part) by Nine Inch Nails first caught my eye with some minimalist advertising: posters with just the album cover (see left).

This album is both a continuation and a marked change from Reznor’s previous work: a continuation in that he has been exploring sounds and concept albums previously (in fact, the previous album Year Zero was a fascinatingly complex paranoia-themed concept album marketed primarily with an immersive Alternate Reality Game), a change in that it was the first album released after the band left Interscope Records after disagreements about commercialism. 

Entirely instrumental, Ghosts is much more experimental than previous albums and features a variety of sounds, from heavy, industrial music to minimalist piano/xylophone to distorted, computer-created soundscapes. Reznor’s focus in creating the album was: “10 weeks, no clear agenda, no overthinking, everything driven by impulse. Whatever happens during that time gets released as… something”.

Another interesting aspect of this album was that it was released under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license, enabling and encouraging others to work with the music, to remix and collaborate- to create and share (examples of such collaboration can be found here— Barett Hiatt, who calls himself Halo33– free to listen online). I think this should be seen as the forefront of a new musical movement, along with developments such as Radiohead‘s free experimental release of In Rainbows and the video design contest that followed that. With major record labels threatened by the propagation of music download on services such as BitTorrent, artists must re-think the way they conceptualize, create and distribute their music. As with Radiohead‘s video contest, NIN have created a user-created “film festival“, providing an oppurtunity for fans to interpret and manipulate the music and share this with others.

Being entirely instrumental, I find Ghosts to be very good background music: just turn on the iPod, turn off Shuffle and start the album– sort of like a soundtrack to your life. When I first got the album, I listened to it straight through, but I find it works extremely well as incidental music, especially on the train in gloomy weather. I would recommend this to anybody who wants something interesting to listen to, even if you hate the rest of their albums. And since the first half of the first CD of this double album is available for free (legal) download here, its well worth a shot. An interesting experimental album that also offers clues for the future of the music industry. 4 stars.

1 Comment

Filed under 4 stars, album, review