Being creative in a creative economy (Is the music industry dying?)
Posted on November 14, 2013 | posted by:
I was very provoked by an article written by David Byrne from the Talking Heads in the Guardian about a month ago entitled “The internet will suck all creative content out of the world.” Byrne expresses his concern for the future of the music industry as it is perpetually penetrated by new music sharing technologies, ultimately devaluing musicians’ work in the current economy. Artists like Byrne, Thom Yorke, the Black Keys, Aimee Mann, and David Lowery have spoken out against Internet music sharing platforms like Pandora and Spotify, which they accuse of exploiting artists. This problem has chipped at my brain for a long time, as a musician who has cynically believed I could never sustain myself financially for doing the sort of work that I love. It is easy to blame these streaming and downloading services for the painful struggle to gain both recognition and return for the songs proliferated on the Internet.
The article is extremely controversial, many people responded very emotionally either in full support or resentment of Byrne’s claims. Some people are terrified of the potential homogeneity of music in the future. Others are not bothered with the way things are changing and don’t mind having a separate career to support their passion of music. But why does it seem impossible to occupationally be a musician? Are musicians doomed to a life of poverty and no health care if they don’t succumb to the adverse structures of our current capitalistic system?
Singer/songwriter David Lowery wrote an article called “My Song Got Played On Pandora 1 Million Times and All I Got Was $16.89, Less Than What I Make From a Single T-Shirt Sale!” He argues that companies like Pandora try to increase their profits by persuading courts to lower compulsory royalty rates (which are set by the government) so that they can pay artists less, rather than trying to increase revenue in other ways so that they can pay artists more.
Gang of Four’s Dave Allen wrote a response to Byrne four days after his editorial was published, confident that the industry is going to be fine, and that musicians will just have to adapt. Allen argues that the new market phenomenons are a result of “systems and societal shifts,” as well as “music bubbles.” He is not interested in saving a system that exploited musicians from the beginning. There is also a lot of value in the exposure and airplay provided by these music streaming platforms
I interviewed my boss Mike Sniper, who owns a successful local music label in Brooklyn called Captured Tracks, and he takes a similar stance as Allen. Even as a small business owner whose record shop is dependent on physical sales of mostly vinyl records, he showed no fear of what the future has to bring. Sniper says, “This shit is not new, it’s more about trying to figure out the most you can make of what’s available. There is value in music. If you’re smart about things and operate like a business person, you can be successful… “ He argues it is up to the musician to do what is needed to ensure you get returns for your work, instead of simply blaming the phenomenon. “This is why you don’t give up everything for free.”
If artists believe in open systems and are not getting paid for their work, what is their incentive to create? The same question was brought up in Steven Weber’s analysis of open source software in his book The Success of Open Source. There is beauty in being able to offer something to all people for free, but it throws a wrench into the economic wheels that make our lives turn. Conflicting or not, this system of free and open software exists, the point is all about how both the market and the systems around it adapt. However, accepting the fact that mainstream music (i.e. top 40 bands on commercial radio) benefits the most from the systems that emerge is a troubling one.
Is society doomed to listen only to mainstream music because it’s the most successful place in the system where artists can make a living? I realize this is somewhat extreme because underground music exists eternally through the communities that support it; there are too many people who make music passionately and for free. Nevertheless, we should really question why underground artists have to live other lives to supplement their passions, when there is no shortage of listeners or appreciation for music. The issue is that we all expect to listen for free, and we are not always confronted with the costs behind that. The same concept is applied to cheap clothing and food; the invisible consequences are enormous, but that doesn’t stop us from perpetuating a broken system where the goal is to minimize explicit costs. The people who profit most are not the ones doing the most work.
If the “new” economy is supposed to be a creative one, let’s really prompt ourselves to question what that means. I am actually beginning to believe that the music industry is not dying, it is in the same state it has always been in some ways. Perhaps there is even more potential of what musicians can make of it, particularly looking at the concept of Indie Capitalism, as addressed in Bruce Nussbaum’s book Creative Intelligence. I see promise in local, personally and socially oriented, meaningful economies that musicians can creatively exist in and build upon. Kickstarter is already a great example of creating a different organizational and financial system to represent peoples’ values. Crowdsourcing is now an important leverage tool for the underdog.
Is culture changing the economy or is the economy changing culture? Does the real creativity come from learning how to adapt to whatever emerges? The answers aren’t clear, but the conversation must be had.