The Internet has flattened media and advertising, period. An ad on the Internet is an ad on the Internet -- you can't make more money off of ad-supported music listener than an article viewer because advertisers aren't willing to pay more than a small fraction of a cent for a single impression and they don't often care what medium you are consuming. But ultimately, the way we value culture in today's world boils down to how much we can sell an ad for that is tied to that culture.
Historically, this isn't unique. Art itself was never worth much; most artists had to find a patron to be able to produce art, and in return the patron got some of the art. But art has never really been sold on the open market in the style of the Internet; and when it has been, the value someone is willing to pay for it is never in line with the amount of themselves the artist put into it.
Should art be worth more than it is? Of course it should. But it won't be until we as a culture are willing to pay a lot more for it.
There was a fascinating article about how visual art from contemporary artists gets valued. Essentially, you have a patronage system whereby galleries keep stables of artists and build brands out of their output. The galleries try their hardest to ensure that values climb steadily upward, and the rest of the industry tries their best to not rock the boat.
Auction houses throw a wrench into the works by allowing the market as a whole to weigh in. If an artwork gets sold at auction for significantly more or less than where it "should" be selling at, the whole system suffers. So the galleries representing the artists will bid on the artworks themselves and auctioneers will pretend that the piece was sold, to someone in the back, if it doesn't meet the reserve.
The takeaway I got from it was that value of art is not and can never be intrinsic, somebody is acting as a taste-maker, but that somebody never has complete control over the market.
If you think about it, it's not a whole lot different from other kinds of tradable good, (currency comes to mind) it's just that there are far fewer external indicators of value, making it more difficult to operate rationally. There's stability within the system, but the system is artificial and can seem rather arbitrary.
This is one of those things I still wonder about. On one hand, if some hypothetical computer could generate the exact same song I'm currently listening to obsessively, then it would seem to be true. At the same time, there's at least some level of connection with the creator that influences my enjoyment. I think it's mostly unconscious but when I really think about it, I think a lot of the music I like has some element of "empathy" with the artist.
I don't mean that I have to directly identify with whatever they're creating but when someone is singing or playing a song, on some level you like to think about what they were feeling when they wrote or performed it. Likewise, something that always made me feel affinity for a band (especially as a teenager who was learning to play music) was the feeling that this was something I could do myself if I spent the time or developed the skills. I was drawn to a lot of punk bands and bedroom experimenters because I heard things that sounded like something I would do if I was more talented or experienced. It's hard to explain but it made things feel more personal. I think machine-generated music could certainly exist and be programmed to be indistinguishable from human-generated music but as soon as I knew it was created solely by algorithms, I'd lose much of the intangible (and irrational) connection I might have shared with the actual art.
Well I think the terrifying part is that a computer might be able to generate an identity / artist(s) for the music it creates that we would also feel a stronger relationship to than the real thing.
On a purely musical level, there are already some artists that I really enjoy, who I suspect use algorithmic composition heavily in their music. I was wondering about this one the other day, since it's sort of similar to algorithmically mashed-up sample pieces that I've made (but better):
If I become a billionaire, I will hire my own personal metal band to follow me around and rock out extremely hard. Alas, I am not a billionaire... yet.
This provides a fairly in depth look at the music industry and really spells out why these changes have happened. However, and not to discount the author's work, without providing the breadth of evidence in the article, this stuff is just super obvious. Technology has lowered the barrier to entry for all digital trades, quality and supply have skyrocketed while demand has stagnated(due to competition with internet/tv/apps etc) and the distribution platform and monetization strategy has changed. Coupled with widespread piurating the switch to live concert monetization is obvious as it can not be replicated.
What I'd like to see in the future is the possibility to buy a video of every concert I have been to. The production quality must not be stellar, I just need a video from the back of the room plus ok-ish audio.
So when I want to relive that concert I will just open the video and then do some chores around the house.
Phish currently releases audio from all of their concerts. They do webcasts of some (all?) of their shows, and usually release a video of one of the songs after. I don't know why they don't sell the video now though.
You can find all their concerts at livephish.com. They also release old concerts of theirs every so often.
I could be wrong on this, but I think you also get a free mp3 download of the concert the day after if you attended the event.
Concert audio doesn't need to be bad, I've seen a few bands actually record and sell their shows on CD directly, and it's really not bad... better than standing in the audience generally (depending on genre and audience of course).
Yep. If you can get a recording of the "board mix" it'll be nice and crisp. That's not to say that you'd use the same mix that goes to the various house speaker systems but if you have one guy mixing the levels for live sound and then a second guy running a mix for digital recording (or even just a multitrack master for later mixing) then it can sound pretty damn good.
Plus you only hear the crowd cheering and yelling between songs or during a "sing along" segment when the audio engineer intentionally brings in the crowd mics. During the rest, you're only getting instruments and vocals, not Bubba asking Todd if he wants another beer.
This is a fascinating look at the economics of the music industry. Rather than the typical techie bleating "labels are evil, downloads should be free" we get an insider's in-depth and articulate description of the history and current problems faced by the music industry. Top-notch graphs too.
Artists finally have direct connections to their audiences, but they must fight through more noise than ever before. Distribution is no longer constrained by shelf space or A&R men, but a stream or download generates royalties many artists decry as untenable. Audiences can now enjoy more music, more easily and in more places – yet the amount they spend is at an unprecedented low.
19 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 52.9 ms ] threadHistorically, this isn't unique. Art itself was never worth much; most artists had to find a patron to be able to produce art, and in return the patron got some of the art. But art has never really been sold on the open market in the style of the Internet; and when it has been, the value someone is willing to pay for it is never in line with the amount of themselves the artist put into it.
Should art be worth more than it is? Of course it should. But it won't be until we as a culture are willing to pay a lot more for it.
Auction houses throw a wrench into the works by allowing the market as a whole to weigh in. If an artwork gets sold at auction for significantly more or less than where it "should" be selling at, the whole system suffers. So the galleries representing the artists will bid on the artworks themselves and auctioneers will pretend that the piece was sold, to someone in the back, if it doesn't meet the reserve.
The takeaway I got from it was that value of art is not and can never be intrinsic, somebody is acting as a taste-maker, but that somebody never has complete control over the market.
If you think about it, it's not a whole lot different from other kinds of tradable good, (currency comes to mind) it's just that there are far fewer external indicators of value, making it more difficult to operate rationally. There's stability within the system, but the system is artificial and can seem rather arbitrary.
I don't mean that I have to directly identify with whatever they're creating but when someone is singing or playing a song, on some level you like to think about what they were feeling when they wrote or performed it. Likewise, something that always made me feel affinity for a band (especially as a teenager who was learning to play music) was the feeling that this was something I could do myself if I spent the time or developed the skills. I was drawn to a lot of punk bands and bedroom experimenters because I heard things that sounded like something I would do if I was more talented or experienced. It's hard to explain but it made things feel more personal. I think machine-generated music could certainly exist and be programmed to be indistinguishable from human-generated music but as soon as I knew it was created solely by algorithms, I'd lose much of the intangible (and irrational) connection I might have shared with the actual art.
On a purely musical level, there are already some artists that I really enjoy, who I suspect use algorithmic composition heavily in their music. I was wondering about this one the other day, since it's sort of similar to algorithmically mashed-up sample pieces that I've made (but better):
https://inpuj.bandcamp.com/album/anthill
So when I want to relive that concert I will just open the video and then do some chores around the house.
Totally off topic, but this gave me a hilarious mental image of pushing a vacuum around at a Pig Destroyer concert.
You can find all their concerts at livephish.com. They also release old concerts of theirs every so often.
I could be wrong on this, but I think you also get a free mp3 download of the concert the day after if you attended the event.
Plus you only hear the crowd cheering and yelling between songs or during a "sing along" segment when the audio engineer intentionally brings in the crowd mics. During the rest, you're only getting instruments and vocals, not Bubba asking Todd if he wants another beer.
This sounds just like the software business.