More stuff that's been left out of my stage 2 proposal...
1. ...also problematic is that both Bourdieu’s theories of cultural capital and Chris Anderson’s concept of the infinite marketplace (Anderson, 2006) only hold true if applied to a certain social group – the cultural bourgeoisie. Outside this group, consumers aren’t concerned with conferring social distinction and would rather tap into the hits-orientated market of the mega-corporations.
2. Is music criticism an inherently parasitic trade? George Bernard Shaw did not believe so. “I could make deaf stockbrokers read my two pages on music,” he wrote about his own column on criticism in The Scottish Musical Monthly (Shaw, 1961), neatly summarising the odd dichotomy that often takes place when music critics practise their craft with skill: it no longer becomes necessary to hear the piece of music under discussion, the descriptive passage is enough.
3. What complicates discussion about web 2.0 is that now the bigger companies have begun to grasp the counterintuitive logic of statistical probabilities, it is no longer expansionary but starting to contract. The internet is becoming homogenised, as companies such as Google and Amazon tighten their grip on web 2.0 users, using time-honoured free market tactics – i.e. price the others out of the game by making your own product unbeatably cheaper and ubiquitous. In the case of web economics, this means that almost everything Google offers to the consumer is free – and it then takes full advantage of The Long Tail effect by opening up everywhere to advertising, knowing that a “very, very big number (the products in the Tail) multiplied by a relatively small number (the sales of each) is still equal to a very, very big number” (Anderson, 2006).
Re: point 3, my own research is tackling a lot of these issues currently, Will Page's research at PRS For Music good counterpoint to The Long Tail argument, also check out this guy:
ReplyDeletehttp://thecynicalmusician.com/
Basically, the future isn't selling more of less (Long Tail) and making more content available, i.e. Spotify and the limitless marketplace, makes all production decrease in value, thus making music less of an economically viable profession/industry (call it what you will). This is good news for the consumer, bad new for industry. On the whole, not good new for artists or the cultural marketplace either (in my opinion).
recorded music is the only thing that has been robbed of commodity value. we've come full circle, back to a place where the music supports the live show. and hell, there's money in merch.
ReplyDeleteold models subjected to new laws usually crumble. see: print media etc.
is this coherent? i am beer internetting.
see also: comment does not address post. sorry.
Agree with you meg. We have to remind ourselves that recordings are not music, but representations of music... this distinction needs to be drawn before any real progress can be made on how to make money out of music from here!!
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure the infinite catalogue has devalued recordings - i think rather it has made the traditionally huge catalogue of unprofitable material more visible. Since when has selling no copies been a new thing?