from creator to data: the post-record music industry and the ... industry...from creator to data:...
TRANSCRIPT
Negus, Keith. 2019. From creator to data: the post-record music industry and the digital conglom-erates. Media, Culture and Society, 41(3), pp. 367-384. ISSN 0163-4437 [Article]
https://research.gold.ac.uk/id/eprint/23984/
The version presented here may differ from the published, performed or presented work. Pleasego to the persistent GRO record above for more information.
If you believe that any material held in the repository infringes copyright law, please contactthe Repository Team at Goldsmiths, University of London via the following email address:[email protected].
The item will be removed from the repository while any claim is being investigated. Formore information, please contact the GRO team: [email protected]
Fromcreatortodata:thepost-recordmusicindustryandthedigitalconglomerates
KeithNegus
Finalversion–accepted31July2018;firstpublished5September2018(onlinefirst).
PublishedinMedia,CultureandSociety
Forthepublishedversion–
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0163443718799395
2
Fromcreatortodata:thepost-recordmusicindustryandthedigitalconglomerates
KeithNegus
abstract
Thisarticlecontributestoresearchonthechangingmusicindustriesbyidentifyingthreedynamicsthatunderpintheshifttowardsapost-recordmusicindustry.First,itexamineshowmusicianshavefoundthemselvesredefinedascontentprovidersratherthancreativeproducers;ahistoricalchangefromrecordedmusicasproducttocontent.Second,itfocusesontensionsbetweenYouTubeandrecordingartistsassymptomaticofdisputesaboutthechangingartisticandeconomicvalueofrecordedmusic.Third,itextendsthisdebateaboutthemarketandmoralworthofmusicbyexploringhowdigitalrecordingshaveacquiredvalueasdata,ratherthanasacommercialformofartisticexpression.Thearticleexploreshowdigitalconglomerateshavebecomesignificantinshapingthecirculationofrecordingsandprofitingfromtheworkofmusicians,andhighlightsdynamics,structuresandpatternsofconflictshapingtherecordingsectorspecifically,andmusicindustriesmoregenerally.
Throughoutmostofthetwentiethcenturyrecordingwascentraltothemusicindustries.
Drivenbyhighvolumeconsumersalesof‘soundcarriers’(LPs,cassettes,CDs),the
recordingsectorbecameahubaroundwhichrevolvedpublishing,liveperformance,
studioproduction,artisticmanagement,radiopromotion,themarketingofstarimagery,
andsalesofmerchandise.Therecordingcontract‘businessmodel’dominated.This
entailedrecoupableeconomicinvestmentinmusicians(‘advances’)withprofitsderived
fromphysicalsales,andthelicensingofcopyrightinsoundrecordingsandpublished
songs,andartistspaidviapercentageroyalties.Recordingandpublishingoperatedwithin
ablockbustereconomicstructure(Elberse,2013)wherebyafewstarartistsaccountedfor
mostincomeandthemajorityofmusiciansachievedneithercriticalacclaimnor
commercialreward.
Facilitatedbythebuyingpowerandinfluenceofthepost-SecondWorldWar‘baby
boom’generation,therecordedmusicindustryreacheditspeakofincomesand
significancewiththeemergenceandrecognitionofrockandsoulmusic.Thiswas
encapsulatedinthe12-inchvinylalbumascommodity,andartisticstatementinsound
andsleeveimagery,alliedtotheconcertasaritualisticre-enactmentoftherecording
(unlikethelooserrelationshipbetweenrecordingsandliveperformanceinjazz,for
example).Financiallossesfromtourswerecross-collateralisedagainstrecording
3
revenues.Uptotheendofthe1990s,scholarsofmusicproductioncouldjustifiably
concentrateonrecordingasthedeterminateinfluencewithinawidersetofdirectlyand
indirectlyrelatedmusicindustries.
Recordingscontinuetobemade.Buttheperiodofdominancesustainedbythe
recordingsectorisover.Themostsignificantcatalystofthepost-recordmusicindustry
hasbeentheintroductionandrapidadoptionofinternetcirculationanddigitaltechnology
asameansofcreatingandcurating,sharingandselling,bundlingandlicensingaccessto
recordedmusic.
Theimpactofdigitalisationonmusichasbeenandcontinuestobedebated,lessas
aradicalbreakwiththepast,asmanyenvisionedinitially-whethertheywereanxiously
pessimisticoroptimisticallyutopian(Rogers,2013),andmoreashistoricalcontinuity.To
recapbrieflyascontextforthefollowingdiscussion:Fromearlyinthetwentyfirstcentury
afamiliartalebegantobenarratedabouthowthemajorrecordedmusiccorporations
(alongwiththeirrepresentativetradeorganisations)initiallyfoundthemselvesvacillating,
andinconflictwithentrepreneursofferinglistenerstheprospectofunregulated
downloadingandsharingamongstpeers(Arditi,2014;Morris,2015a).Slowtorecognise
thesignificanceofinterventionsfromtechnologiesandnewoccupationalgroupings,
reluctanttograsptheuseofrecordingsbyfansandcasuallisteners,andfrightenedbythe
disregardforcopyrightlawamongstsamplingmusicians,themajorrecordlabels
prevaricated(Mulligan,2015;Silver,2013;Witt,2015).
Intheirindecisionthemajorlabelsreplicatedacorporatepatternof‘structuraland
organisationalinertia’,‘institutionalpathdependency’,and‘overestimationof[their]
power’-characteristicsidentifiedwithinmanyotherindustriesandsectorsfacingsocial
andtechnologicalchange(Dolata,2011).Eventuallythemajorrecordlabelsbegan
describingthemselvesasmusiccompanies,reducedtheirrelianceonrecordingby
restructuringcontractsasmultiplerights(360degree)deals,andsoughttorecoup
investmentfromthefullrangeofamusician’sactivities,artformsandrevenuestreams
(Gervais,Marcus&Kilgore,2011;Marshall,2013).Theyalsonegotiatedpreferential
licensingagreementsandacquiredequitystakesinarangeofcompaniesandplatforms
offeringstreamedaccesstomusic(Seabrook,2014).
4
Yet,asthefew,evermoreoligopolistic,majorcorporationsbegantoreposition
themselvesasmusiccompanies(seekingprofitsfrommultiplerightsratherthan
dwindlingincomefromrecordsales)theybegantobedrawnintofurthertensionswith
newerdigitalconglomeratesoftheITanddataindustry,sometimesreferredtoasBigTech
(Mosco,2017).Theseemergenttensionsandtheirconsequencesarecentraltothisarticle,
andhavereceivedlittledirectattentionfromscholarsofthemusicindustries.Asimplied,I
usethetermmusicindustries(plural)torefertothewiderangeofcompaniesand
businessesseekingtoprofitfromorsupporttheworkofmusicians,musicrelated
productsandservices(practices,thingsandactivitiesthatcannotbeeasilyclassed
togetherorsubstitutedforoneanother–aconcertticket,amixingdesk,avinylalbum,
sheetmusicandsoon).Iusethetermindustry(singular)torefertoaspecificbusinessor
sectorinvolvedinthesameproductorservice–recordedmusicindustry,publishing
industry,livemusicindustry.
Studiesoftherecordedmusicindustrysincedigitalisationhavebeenconcerned
withtheresponsesanddifficultiesofrecordlabelsinthefaceofdownloadingandpiracy
(Rogers,2013),theimpactandoperationsofstreaminganddownloadingservices(Morris,
2015a),andthechangingcharacterofcontracts(Marshall,2013).Fewstudieshaveplaced
thesechangeswithinabroadercorporatecontext.TwonotableexceptionsareDavid
Hesmondhalgh’sandLesleyMeier’s(2017)periodizationofageneralhistoricalshiftfrom
CE(consumerelectronics)toIT(informationtechnology),andJung-yupLee’sfocused
studyofhowtheSouthKoreanmusicproductionwas‘experiencingdigitalisationatthe
fastestpaceintheworld’inthemid-2000s(2009,p489).Leestressedtheimpactofthe
ICT(informationandcommunicationtechnology)industries.Analysingthemediationof
Koreanpopmusicthroughtheinternet,theinfluenceofmobileserviceproviders,
streamingservicesandon-lineintermediaries,Leearguedthat‘ongoingdigitalisation
radicallytransformswhatweconceiveasthemusicindustry,andrendersthenatureof
musicredefinedandcontested’(2009,p490).
Thisarticleoffersafurthercontributiontoresearchonthecorporatecontexts
shapingmusicculture,andaninterventionintodebatesaboutthechangingplaceof
recordedmusicwithinthewiderdigitalorpost-digitaleconomy.Istartbyhighlighting
howmusicianshavefoundthemselvesredefinedas‘contentproviders’ratherthan
creativeproducers;animportanthistoricalchangefromrecordedmusicasproductto
5
content.IthenfocusontensionsbetweenYouTubeandtherecordingsectorasindicative
ofdisputesaboutthechangingartisticandeconomicworthofrecordedmusic.Itakethis
discussionfurtherbyhighlightinghowdigitalmusichasbecomevaluedasdata,rather
thana(commodified)formofartisticexpression.Inadditiontothesemoredetailed
discussions,Iwishtoconveyamoregeneralirony:Althoughmostofthedigital
conglomerateshaveintroducedmusicormusicvideostreamingservices,andwhilstthey
profitfromandimpactupontheworkofmusicians,recordedmusichasbecomeless
significantwithinthehierarchiesofworthinthedigitaleconomyasdefinedand
dominatedbyAlphabet(Google,YouTube),Apple,Amazon,MicrosoftandFacebook–
currentlythetopfivecompaniesintheworld,measuredbymarketshare(Mosco,2017,
p65).
Myargumentconcentratesononebrief,butsignificant,momentinthehistoryofrecorded
musicspecifically,explaininghowchangesinthedigitaleconomyareimpactingonthe
practicesandeconomiccircumstancesofmusicians.Myfocusisgeographicallyspecificin
thatIdrawmainlyfromsourcesintheUKandUSA.However,theissuesIamdiscussing
arerelevanttomanypartsoftheworldduetothewaydigitalconglomeratesare
increasingtheirinfluenceoverculturalproductionandthemoregeneralcirculationof
informationandknowledge.
Fromthecreatorofproducttocuratorofcontent
Inaseriesofinterviewsintheearly1970s,MichaelWaledescribedhowapublicity
department‘push’a‘company’sproduct’(1972,p262).Hequotedapluggerexplaining
thathewasmorelikelytogetradioplayforhislabel’srecordingsifhehad‘goodproduct’
(p289).Recordlabelstaffusedtheword‘product’whenreferringtorecordingsdelivered
bymusiciansandtheprocessofpackaging,sellingandpromotingtheseassinglesor
albums.Thetermwasanabbreviationandacknowledgementofaprocessofproduction
(ratherthanaperformance).Yetitwasalsoinformedbyamoregenerallexiconof
‘product-market’approachestobusinessstrategythatgainedcurrencyduringthe1960s
withtheriseofmanagementscience,theinfluenceoforganisationaltheoryandadoption
of‘productmanagement’.
6
Theterm‘product’becameroutinelyusedintherecordingindustryduringthe
1980s,andtheoccupationaltitleof‘productmanager’becamemorewidespreadasthe
strategicapproachesofmarketing,accountingandbusinessaffairsgainedascendency
overthelessrationalisedand‘instinctive’practicesofrepertoiremanagement
(songwriting,arrangingandproduction)andtalentscouting(seeNegus,1992,1999).The
ideaofpopularmusicasaproductinformedtheoreticalmodels,whetherscholarsusedthe
analogyofa‘productionline’(Ryan&Peterson,1982)ora‘systemsmodel’ofraw
materialbeing‘filtered’asit‘flows’throughaseriesofgatekeepers(Hirsch,1972),
approachesindebtedtoTheodorAdorno’sreferencetothe‘assemblyline’likecharacterof
culturalproduction.Scholarlymodelsofproductsandproductionlineswereinformedby
empiricalrealitiesofthetime.
Forsomemusicians,thenotionoftheircreativeworkas‘product’broughttomind
theseunsavouryimagesoffactoriesandassemblylines.Yet,theindustrywasorganised
accordingtothemanufactureoftangibleartefacts.Producingrecordedmusicrequiredthe
maintenanceofacostlyinfrastructureofrecordpressingplants(latersecurityringedCD
productioncomplexes),warehouses,inventorymanagementsystems,andacomplexof
land,seaandairtransportationroutesandhubs.
Themanufacturinganddistributionprocesscouldnotidlewhileanartisttooktheir
timetodeliveratrackoranalbum.AseniorexecutiveIinterviewedinApril1989recalled
atimeworkingforalabelwithitsownrecordpressingplantandexplained:‘I’dgetacall
frommanufacturingandthey’dsay“weneedproduct”.AndI’dsay“well,Idon’tknowifI
haveany”,andthere’dbeascreamdownthephone.IfIdidn’thaveasingleoralbumready
I’dhavetofindone,justtokeepthemachinesturning’(Shepherd,1989).Apressingplant
neededtokeepstaffbusy.Thecontractswithroadhaulageandshippingneededfulfilling.
Thewarehousespaceneededfillingandemptying.Theracksontheretailshelves
demandednewsinglesandalbums,whilstunmarketableproductwenttotradersfeeding
offrecordindustry‘failures’bysellingtoaficionadosofthe‘bargainbin.’
Theterm‘product’wasnotsimplyanideologicaldistortionofapureractivityof
artisticcreationbutametonymfortheentirewaythatcommercialrecordingwas
organised.Productionandproduct-thespecificspaceofthestudioandthemoregeneral
manufactureandshipmentofsoundcarriers-mediatedthecomposition,consumption
7
andperformanceofmusic.Thetermproductacknowledgedthefusionofboththesound
andthe‘soundcarrier’.
Theideaofmusicas‘product’impliedmaterialobjects‘containing’music.It
suggestedaprocessofcreationandauthorship,andidentifiable‘recordproducers.’It
acknowledgedthecreativelabourinvestedinthephysicalartefact.Thelistenercould
recogniseamusician’sworkinatangibleway,whetherinasmallsinglerecordplacedon
toaturntableoralavishlyadornedalbumpackagecarriedunderthearm.
There-descriptionofrecordedmusicas‘content’suggestsagenerictypeof
informationthatsimplyappearsforthebenefitof‘users’.Thedigitaltrack,‘un-bundled’
fromitslocationwithinanalbum,isanotherbitofinformationtobeaccessedona
computerormobiledevice.Theideaofcontentdetachestheentity-asong,asymphony(a
painting,orpoem)-fromitsauthorshipanditsmakingandtowardsitsconstituents(lyric
content)inmuchthesamewaythatthetermcontentisusedcasuallyandmoregenerically
-fatcontent,sugarcontent,adultcontent.
Aproductismanufactured,packaged,promotedandpurchased.Eachstepinthis
linearchainentailsanidentifiableeconomictransactionandpotentialpointofprofitfor
differentintermediariesandoccupationalgroups.Incontrast,digitalcontentisuploaded,
circulatedinthehopethatitwillbe‘used’inamannerthatallowsittobe‘monetized’(an
opaquebuzzwordforgeneratingrevenue).AsJohnLanchesterhascommented:‘Inthe
internetworld,companiesoftenseekgrowthfirst….thestrategyformonetisingthe
productcomeslater.Thisisasensationallygoodwayofgoingbroke’(2014,p186).Itis
alsoatacticforwastingresourcesincirculatinganever-greaternumberofrecordingsthat
willneverbeheardletalone‘monetised’.
Arecordingindustryorganisedaccordingtothemanufactureofphysicalproduct
wasconstrainedandlimited.Whenthemachinesrequiredproduct,theamountofvinylor
CDsthatcouldbemanufacturedwasfinite;limitedbymaterialsandmachines,alongwith
spaceinwarehousesandretailers.Incontrast,digitalcontentisalmostinfinite,aquality
thathasledtopronouncementsofashiftfromscarcitytoabundance(whetheraprofusion
ofsongs,newsstoriesorphotographs).Thisisborneoutbyevidenceofthequantityof
recordedtracksavailableor‘released’andthenumberofselfdeclaredmusiciansactivein
8
theeconomy.IntheUK,in1994thenumberofnewlyreleasedalbumswasreportedbythe
OfficialChartsCompanyas11,654.In2014thatfigurehadrisento47,751.In1965the
PerformingRightSocietyhadamembershipofapproximately6,000songwritersand
composers.By2015thiswasapproximately112,000.Inrelativeterms,PRSincomehad
dramaticallydeclined.Thecollectingsocietywassharingtheequivalentofamuchsmaller
total.At2015prices,thiswasequivalenttoapproximately£16,600persongwriter/
composerin1965and£5,900in2015(seeHunter-Tilney,2015).AnitaElbersereported
thatoftheeightmilliondigitaltrackssoldintheUSAin2011,94percentsoldfewerthan
100units,and32percentsoldonlyonecopy(p160).Theoverabundanceofcontenthas
increasedinsubsequentyears.
Inanageofabundancethecuratorbecomesmoresignificantthanthecreator.The
playlistbecomesmoreculturallyandcommerciallyimportantthantheideaofthealbum
asartisticstatementandcommodity.In2017DrakereferredtohisnewreleaseMoreLife
asa‘playlist’ratherthananalbum,acknowledgingabroadershiftinpublicpreferencefor
playlistsofmusicdefinedbygenreandactivity(workout,chill,party,roadtrip,walking)
ratherthanspecificperformeridentity(Hogan,2015a).Yetthisalsosignalledaclear
continuitywiththewayalbumshave,inmanyways,alwaysbeen‘playlists’sincetheearly
boomofmoodmusicLPsintheearly1950s(Keightley,2004)andFrankSinatra’s
influentialmusicallythemedconceptalbumsthatbeganappearingas78rpmdisc
collectionsfrom1946(Granata,2004).Playlistsarealsoalegacyofradioprogramming,
usedsincethe1950sasawayofframingtherangeofmusicplayedandidentityofa
particularbroadcastingstation.
Theplaylistispartlyaresponsetothechangingpreferencesoflisteners,indebted
tothepracticesofpeertopeersharing,facilitatedbyNapster,whenmusicfansquickly
begancompilingtheirownlists,selectingfromratherthanacceptingthesequencesof
tracksonreleasedalbums(Morris,2015a).Anewcommercialrolehasemergedfor
professionalcurators,addingbrandidentitytostreamingplatforms(Morris&Powers,
2015),offeringselectionsfromanoceanofavailablesongs.Curatingisalsocontinuous
withtheroleofDJsandmusicjournalists.Forexample,rockcriticRobertChristgau’s
curatorial‘consumerguide’wasintroducedinNewYork’sVillageVoicein1969.
9
Productwaslistenedtoondedicatedmusicplayers,fromthecylindrical
phonographthroughtothegramophoneandhi-fi.TheiPod,withitsstoreofdigitalmusic,
wasthelastdedicatedmusicplayer-animportanttransitorymomentinthejourneyfrom
physicalsoundcarriertodigitaldata.Theconspicuousphysicalpresenceofthe
phonograph-aroundwhichpeopleritualisticallycongregatedorsatalonein‘ceremonies
ofasolitary’(Eisenberg,1988)-issupplantedbyunobtrusiveambientcontentaccessible
onmobiledevices.Ascontentoncomputersorphonessupersedesproducton
phonographs,newcorporateconflictsemerge.Inowmoveontohowtensionsbetween
productandcontentresultinconflictsthatpitchrecordingcompanies,musicpublishers
andmusiciansagainstthenewdigitalconglomerates,mostconspicuouslyYouTube/
Google.
Recordings,YouTubeandthemoraleconomyofmusicalvalue
Inpreviousacademicresearchandcriticism,recordlabelshaveoftenbeenportrayedas
unsympathetictotheinterestsandcreativewhimsofmusicians.Anargument,informed
bypoliticaleconomy,haspitchedmusiciansagainstmusiccorporationsasanartistic
versionofthestrugglebetweencapitalandlabour(see,forexample,Chapple&Garofalo,
1977).Evidencetosupporttheenduranceofthistensioncanbemarshalledfromcourt
cases,withnotabledisputeswithlabelsinvolvingGeorgeMichael,Prince,DrDre,Kesha,
TrentReznorandPinkFloyd(tonamesomeofthemostprominent).
However,emergenttensionshavebeguntounitemusicianswiththetraditional
musicindustries(recordedandpublishingmostobviously)againstthenewerdigital
conglomerates.During2016thegrievancesofmusicianscoalescedwiththeconcernsof
representativesoftherecordedmusicsector,formingachorusofcomplaintabouttheuse
ofmusiconvariousstreamingservices.YouTubewassingledoutformostcriticism,
publiclycondemnedinacampaignorchestratedbytheFeaturedArtistsCoalition(whose
BoardincludedAnnieLennoxandEdO’Brien),andinaletterdeliveredtotheEuropean
Commission,signedbyPaulMcCartney,Coldplay,LadyGagaandothers(Hogan,2016;
Peoples,2016).
Buildingonahistoryoflinksbetweenmovingimagemediaandmusic,notably
MTV,therelationshipbetweenYouTubeandmusiccompanieshasalwaysbeenoneof
10
‘mutualantagonismandmutualdependency’(Forde,2016,np).Sinceitslaunchin2005by
formeremployeesofPayPalandacquisitionbyGooglethefollowingyear,YouTubehas
becomepivotalfordisseminatingsongsandimages,foridentifyingaudiencesandfor
buildinga‘fanbase’(Wasko&Erickson,2009).Yet,musicians,publishersandlabelshave
habituallycomplainedthattheyshouldbereceivinggreaterfinancialpaymentsinaddition
topromotionandpublicity.
Theissuebecamearticulatedintheideaofa‘valuegap’.Therecordingindustryand
itsartistsarguedthattherewasanunfairimbalancebetweenprofitsmadeandrevenues
passedontomusiciansandmusiccompanies.Theshortfall–thegap-resultedinmusic
companieshavingreducedincomeavailableforreinvestmentinnewartists;ariskthat
contentuserswerenotfacing(Dredge,2016).Oneaspectofthedisputeentailedthe
complaintthatastreamedsongisnotadequatelyrewardedfinancially.Thesamebasic
grievancehasbeenlevelledatotherstreamingplatforms,mostnotablySpotify,whereby
musiciansandlabelsfamiliarwithpreviouslyliberalrevenuesfrom‘unit’salesandradio
broadcastinghavebeenaghastattherelativelysmallsizeofpaymentswhenexpressedas
apercentagereturnagainstindividualstreams(seeMarshall,2015;Milne,2014).
Thedisputeaboutpaymentsforstreamedmusicisunderpinnedbyanunexamined
ontologicalquestionaboutwhatexactlyastreamis.Itisnotequivalenttoa‘unit’sale.Itis
notcomparabletoaphysicalrecordingbeing‘played’onradio.Evidencefromstreaming
datasuggeststhatlistener’sappreciatetheirabilitytoaccessonlyasmallpartofanytrack,
withjustunder25percentoftracksskippedinthefirstfivesecondsand35percent
skippedwithinthefirst30seconds(Lamere,2014).Thepurchased,downloadedand
saveddigitalmusicfilemayormaynotbeanartefact(Sterne,2006),butstreamedmusic
isnotexperiencedbylistenersinamannerconsonantwithhowmusiciansperceive
recordingasarepositoryofthecreativetimeandeffortinvestedincomposingand
producing.Formusiciansandtheirrepresentatives,theissueisexacerbatedbythewaya
‘safeharbour’clauseallowsYouTubetoevadelegalculpability(andhencefinancial
responsibility)for‘usergenerated’contentthatfreelyincorporatesunauthorisedexisting
copyrightablematerial.
YouTubeinitiallyreactedtothevaluegapgrievancebystatingthattheywere
makingareturntomusiciansandlabels(usingsoftwaretoidentifytracks),stressinghow
11
labelsalsoreceivesubstantialincomefromtheadvertisingthataccompaniesvideos;a
sourceofrevenueindebtedtoDougMorris’snegotiationswhenheadofUniversalMusicin
2007(Witt,2015).However,recordcompaniesandpublishersdisputedthefigures.In
November2014,whenearlycomplaintswerebeingvoiced,Iwastoldbyamemberofa
musictradeorganisation(whowishedtoremainanonymous)thatYouTubewasunder-
reportingthevolumeofrecordingsbeingstreamed,aconcernalludedtoinothersources
(forexample,Mulligan,2016a).DespiterequestsIwasunabletoobtainanyevidenceto
verifythisperception.Therecordingindustrydidnotmakepubliclyavailableanydetailed
informationbeyondtheroutinelyvoicedclaimsofrecordexecutives,suchasJimmyIovine,
thatmusicwasmakingupasmuchas40percentofYouTubecontent(Garrahan,2016).
Therecordingandmusicpublishingperspectivewasinstarkcontrasttoresearch
conductedin2016byPexesowhichreportedthatmusicvideosandmusic-relatedvideo
contentwas4.3percentofYouTube‘traffic’,comparedwith33.4percentforgaming,for
example(Resnikoff,2016).Thiswasfollowedupinthemiddleof2017byYouTube’s
parentcompanyGooglecommissioningRBBEconomicstoprovidefurtherresearch
‘evidence’tosupporttheirstandpoint.Thisreport,publishedin5sections,entitledValue
ofYouTubetothemusicindustry(RBB,2017),usedonlinesurveyswith1,500listeners,
tracked5,000songsin4Europeancountriesover3yearsandanalyseddataonYouTube
streams.Unsurprisingly,thefindingswereoverwhelmingpositiveaboutYouTubeand
statedthatitallowedadiversityofmusictoreachlisteners(notablybyolder,andbyless
wellknownartists);ithelpedlistenersdiscovernewartists,andfacilitatedbreakingnew
acts.Asapromotionalmediumitprovided‘valueadded’benefitsbyincreasingstreams
anddownloadsonotherpaidservicesandcontributingtolonger‘songlifecycles’.
Ultimately,RBBreportedthatYouTube‘providessubstantialdirectrevenuestothemusic
industry,amountingtosomeUSD1billionin2016’(RBB,2017,Paper5,p17).
YouTubeactedfurtherbyappointingLyorCohen,anex-seniorexecutiveofWarner
MusicandDefJamas‘globalheadofmusic’withthereportedaimof‘buildingbridges’due
tohisfamiliaritywiththeproblemsandperspectivesofrecordlabelsandpublishers(Rys,
2016).However,attitudessoondividedwithsomesuspiciousvoicesmutteringthathewas
providinginsiderknowledgetothebenefitofYouTube,orthathewasgoingtostart
dealingdirectlywithmusiciansandfracturetherelationshipbetweenrecordlabelsand
artists.
12
TherecordingindustryandYouTubeweresplittingalongabroaderschism.Onone
side,the‘businessmodel’ofinvestmentinartisticproduction,remunerationthrough
copyrightsandunitsaleswithintherecordingandpublishingindustries.Ontheotherside,
amodelofgeneratingincomefromtheway‘content’attractsadvertising,amodel
deployedlucrativelybythenewdigitalconglomerates(anddrawingontheearlieruseof
advertisingtofinancecommercialradioandtelevision).
NealMohan(2016),ChiefProductOfficeratYouTubeandSeniorVicePresident,
Google,arguedthatYouTubewasdemonstratingthepotentialofadvertisinggenerated
revenue.Heclaimedthat80percentofmusiclistenersarecasuallistenersanditisthese
thatcangeneratebulkmoneyfromadvertising,ratherthanrelyingonrevenuesgenerated
fromtargetingrecordingsatfans.IncontrasttoMohan,JoeLennon,CEOSubwoofr,(tocite
oneproponentofthiscounter-argument),claimedthatadvertisingrequiresalotmore
consumptiontogeneraterevenue.Instead,hearguedagainsttargetingcasuallistenersand
forafocusonfans,directingattentionatthoseactivelyspendingmoneyonmusic.Drawing
onresearchbyNielsen,Lennon(2016)arguedthat40percentofmusicconsumersare
fans,withanadditionalcategoryofaficionados(alowerpercentageof14percentof
musicconsumers)accountingfor34percentofrecordingindustryrevenues.
Statisticscanbeusedtosupportvariousarguments.Ifthesenumbersaretreated
lessasindicatorsoftherealworldandinsteadasbusinessconstructionsthatareusedin
imagininganddisagreeingaboutthemarketsformusic,whatwehaveherearearguments
aboutthecharacteristicsofmusicconsumption,andthemostviablemodelofrevenue
generation.Onecontentionisthatthemusicindustriesshouldconcentrateonthehabitsof
thecasualmusiclistener;thepersonsatisfiedtoaccessrecordingsinbundledpackagesor
‘free’platformswithlittledirecteconomicoutlay.Itisinthisarea,itisclaimed,thatlarge
revenuescanbegeneratedfromadvertisingbasedmodels.Incontrastistheassertionthat
itismoreadvantageoustofocuseffortsonanalysingandtargetingtheactivitiesofthe
dedicatedaficionados,thosewhoinvesttimeandmoneyonrecordings(digitaland
physical),artefacts,merchandiseandconcerttickets.Althoughanumericallysmaller
constituencyofpeople,fansplacegreaterimportanceonmusic,aremorecommittedand
providethemostreliablesourceofrevenueforthetraditionalsectorsofrecording,
publishingandliveperformance.This‘model’isalsobasedonmusicians’experiencesand
13
perceptionsoftheimportanceofactivemusicfansfortheircriticalandcommercial
success.Fanengagementwithproductandperformanceisvisibleandaudibleto
musicians,unlikethecasuallistenerclickingonadvertsandskippinginandoutofvarious
musicrelatedcontent.
Recordingandpublishinghavebeencentraltohowgenerationsofpopular
musicianshaveexperiencedtheirart,obtainedinvestmentandmadealiving.The
potentiallyhugerevenuesrealisablefromliveperformancesinbigarenasandstadiums,
lucrativebrandendorsements,andincomefrommerchandise,tendtobepossibleonlyfor
theminorityofestablishedmajorsuperstars(Hogan,2015b).Forpragmaticreasons,the
majorityofmusiciansandtheirrepresentativeshavebeenattachedtomakingaliving
fromthesalesandrightsto‘units’wherebypaymentismadeforpurchasingandlistening
toindividualsongsorinstrumentaltracks.Ifasongorcollectionofsongsispurchasedas
CD,vinylordownloadapaymentshouldbemadetolabelandmusician.Ifasongisheard
inpublicaroyaltypaymentshouldbemadetopublisher,recordlabelandmusician.Itis
this‘businessmodel’thatischallengedbyYouTube.Underlyingitisacontrastbetween
themusician-as-artist’sbeliefintheirmusicasameansofexpressionandapointofpublic
identification,andthecasuallistener’sdistractedskippingthroughanambientflowof
contentwheremusicisoftendecontextualizedandirrelevant.
Thenewdigitalconglomerates,suchasYouTube,havedevelopedamodelof
chargingforaccesstoaboundedplatformforvarioustypesofbundledcontent,and
generatingincomefromtheadvertisingthatintervenesinthatcontent;amusician’sworth
andhencetheirincomewillcomefromhowtheyattractadvertising.Thisisastark
contrasttothemusician’sandtherecordingindustry’sassumptionsaboutmusicbeing
measuredaccordingtosalesandrightsthatrecognisetheindividualcreationsof
musicians.
Thereisnotsimplyacommerciallogicatstakehere,butanethicalmediationofthe
marketviaamoraleconomyofartisticworth.Theideathateconomictransactionsare
mediatedbyethicscanbetracedbacktodebatesabout‘moraleconomy’duringthe
eighteenthcentury,aconceptdeployedbyEPThompson(1991)whennarratingahistory
ofhowworkersandconsumersassertedtheirrighttointerveneinpricesetting,and
vividlyevokedinhisstudiesofriotsoverthepriceofcorninthelateeighteenthcentury.
14
Thompsonusedthetermspecificallytoreferto‘confrontationsinthemarketplaceover
access(orentitlement)to“necessities”–essentialfood’(1991,p337),althoughhe
acknowledgedthattheconceptcouldbedevelopedandappliedinothercircumstances.
Thompsonidentifiedthemarketasthepointatwhichexploitationcanbe
identified,andwhenoppositioncanbevoiced,observing;‘toooftendiscourseabout“the
market”conveysthesenseofsomethingdefinite’,whenitismoreoften‘ametaphorof
economicprocess,oranidealisationorabstractionfromthatprocess’(1991,p273).The
valuingofnon-marketendeavour,informedbyaRomanticaesthetic(alegacyofthe
artisticresponsetoindustrialcapitalism),hasbeenanenduringsensibilityamongst
popularmusiciansthroughouttheeraofrecordedmusic(Frith,1988,1996).Theradical
aestheticexperimentsandinnovationsofjazz,rockandraphavenotsimplybeencounter
toacommercialorcapitalistlogicbutfrequentlyconstitutiveofthemarket.Thevaluegap
disputeisanillustrationofthestrugglesthroughwhichthecreativeisesteemedsocially
andeconomically.Itconcernsthesocialandartisticvalueofmusic,howthisshouldbe
recognisedandrewarded,andhowmusicshouldbecirculatedwithindigitalnetworks
thatapparentlyallowthe‘free’flowofideasandinformation.Theseethicalstruggles
underpinandinformargumentsabouthowmusicshouldbedistributed(sold,accessedvia
subscription,bundledwithotherservicesandproducts,oroffered‘free’),andthetypeof
paymentandpriceforthatformofdistribution(alicenseorroyaltyforastreamor
downloadsale,oracutofadvertisingrevenue).
Frommusicasarttomusicasdata
Therecordingindustryandnewdigitalconglomeratesdivergeonmorethan
remunerationandthemoralsofthemarket.Formusiciansandtheirrepresentatives,
performingandrecordingconstituteanartform.Forallthecriticismthemusicindustries
havereceivedovertheyearsfromaggrievedfans,journalistsandperformers,anddespite
itscorporatestructures,thecommercialworldsofrecordingandpublishinghavebeen
indeliblyinfusedwiththeaestheticsensibilitiesofblues,Romanticismandpopart
Modernism.Frombigbandjazzandthesolosingerofthe1920s-30sandonwardsthe
recordedlabelshavemadeaneconomicandaffectiveinvestmentinmusiciansascreative
practitionersabletoproducemusicthatispotentially,andoftendemonstrably,radical
whilstbeingexpressiveofindividual,andcollectiveidentities.
15
Incontrast,digitalconglomeratesaredrivenbyatoughercocktailofruthless
entrepreneurialism,obsessivecorporateimaging,contractualsecrecy,andthecultof
personality(SteveJobs,BillGates,MarkZuckerberg,JeffBezos).Theartisticqualitiesand
effortthathasgoneintothecomposition,productionandperformanceofmusicare
irrelevanttohowdigitalconglomeratesmakemoney.AsIhaveargued,thedispute
betweenmusiciansandYouTubeis,atoneprofoundlevel,aboutrecognisingtheartistic
relevanceandsocialvalueofmusic.Forthedigitalconglomeratesmusicis‘content’that
attractssubscriptionsand‘traffic’.Itisa‘customerengagementtool’(Seabrook,2014).
Musicisameanstoanotherendratherthananendinitself.
Thesquabbleoveradvertisingandrightsmayhavecreatedwavesinrecordingand
publishing,buttheseareripplesfordigitalconglomerateswhenconsideredwiththeother
waystheygenerateincome.TheemergenttensionsthatIhavebeenreferringtointhis
articlecanbethrownintosharperreliefbyconsidering,albeitschematicallygivenspace,
thebroaderwaysthatthedigitalconglomeratesgeneraterevenue.
First,isthegenerationofrevenuefromadvertising,withAlphabet/Googleand
Facebookaccountingforover50percentofglobalinternetadvertising(Fortune,2017).
Regularreportssuggestthatadvertisingaccountsforapproximately90percentof
Google/Alphabetand95percentofFacebookincome,withrevenuefromadvertising
providingsignificantreturnsforAmazonandMicrosoft(Mosco,2017).Advertising
revenuehasallowedthelikesofGoogleandFacebooktobuildcorporatestructuresandto
exertinfluence.But,theaspirationsofthedigitalconglomeratesleadwaybeyond
advertising.Thedisputeswiththemusicindustryshouldbeconsideredalongsidethe
otherwaysinwhichthesecorporationsaregeneratingrevenueandexertingpowerover
productionandconsumption.
Afteradvertising,animportantwaythatrevenueisgeneratedisthroughthe
productionandsalesofphysicalproducts.Phones,mobiledevicesandlaptops,alongwith
Beatsheadphones,havebeencentraltothefinancialdominanceofApple,andimportant
forAmazonandGoogle.Digitalconglomeratesalsogeneraterevenuesfromthe
production,managementandmaintenanceofserversanddatastoragesystems,usedby
manybigcorporationsalongwithgovernmentsandcharities(Mosco,2014).Cloud
16
computingisalsoalucrativesourceofrevenueforMicrosoft,shrewdlymakingits
businessapplicationssoftware(wordprocessing,spreadsheets)evermoreintegratedinto
cloudcomputing,andAmazonwhoseWebServicescloudcomputingnetworkhasbecome
the‘globalleaderincloudcomputing’(Mosco,2017,p70).Amazon’sinvolvementin
physicalproductsalsoencompassesdigitalretailingofevermoreconsumerluxuriesand
dailynecessities,adomaininwhichithasbeenabletoexertanalmostnearmonopoly.
Digitalconglomeratesareexpandingtheirportfoliosthroughresearchand
developmentspending(investedatastrategicloss)innewproductsthatarepredicated
uponenteringproductionandbeingsoldwithincomingyears.Thisincludestypesof
virtualandimmersivetechnology,robotics,‘intelligent’electricautomobiles,banking
systems,informationmanagement,artificialintelligence,andheathcaresystems.Bigtech
companiesareusingtheirexpertiseandaccesstosophisticatedskillsintechnologyand
engineering,hardwareandsoftware,oftenthroughstrategicalliances(suchasthat
betweenFacebook,WalmartandUber,orAmazon’smanydealswiththirdparties),and
exploitingtheiraccesstolabourersminingrawmaterialsinAfrica,orworkingon
assemblylinesinAsia.
Digitalconglomeratesexertfurtherinfluenceandgenerateincomethroughthe
production,acquisitionandcuratorialmediationofappsandsoftware.Dominatedby
AppleandGoogle,therevenuesgeneratedbythe‘appeconomy’intheUSAareestimated
tobegreaterthanHollywood,withApplefiguressuggestingthattheAppStorewas
supporting627,000jobscomparedwith374,000employedinjobscreatedbyHollywood
(Meyer,2015).Theappeconomyisexpectedtogrowconsiderably,notonlyinleisure
activitiessuchasgames,personalcommunicationandthesharingofimages,butinapps
usedwidelyinworkplaces,schools,collegeanduniversities,innavigation,andinfinance
andbanking.Theexpansionoftheappeconomyis,inturn,entwinedwithanobsessive
investmentinthepotentialofan‘internetofthings’summarisedbyVincentMoscoas‘a
systemformeasuring,monitoring,andcontrollingtheactivityofobjectsandliving
organismsthroughsensorsthatgather,process,andreportdataovernetworks’(2017,
p39).
Onestarkconsequencesofthisbroadercorporatecontextisthesimplefactthat
recordedmusicisinsignificantwithinthebroaderdigitaleconomy.Presentingfigures
17
from2013to2016(alongwithfutureprojections)MarkMulliganprovidedevidence
suggestingthat‘music’sroleintheglobaldigitalcontentmarketplaceissmalland
shrinking’(2016b,np).Thefinancialvalueofdigitalrecordedmusicisslightanddeclining
asapercentageshareinrelationtoappsandvideos.Thisisperhapsanobviousreason
whythebigtechcompanies(suchasGoogleandAmazon)arepreparedtoinvestinthe
productionofvideosforvloggers,alongwithmoviesandscreendramabutnotinthe
productionofmusic.Notonlyisrecordedmusicrelativelyinsignificantwithintheoverall
digitaleconomy,accesstolisteningisoftenpurchasedasagenericsubscriptiontoa
bundleofcontentandapps,oftenpackagedwithaphoneormobiledevice.Therecording
isnotchosenandpurchasedasanentityinitself,butisaccessedandpaidforwithinan
overallfeeforgeneric‘datausage’.
Yet,atthemomentwhenmusicbecomeslesssignificantasarecordedartwithin
thebroaderappandcontenteconomy,itsveryuseasdatameansthatitbeginstogain
importancewithin‘datacapitalism’.Digitalconglomeratesexploitrecordedmusicaspart
oftheproduction,analysis,packagingandsellingofdata,andinthemanagementofdata
forthirdparties(labels,publishersetc.).Informationderivedfromthecirculationanduse
ofmusicbecomesintegratedintoasystemwithinwhichdigitalconglomeratesharness
‘bigdata’tocomprehend,controlandanticipatebehaviourthroughformsof‘digital
positivism’(Mosco,2014).
RobertPreyhashighlightedhow‘alllisteningtimeisdata-generatingtime’(2016,
p32).JeremyWadeMorris(2015b)hasmadeasimilarpointwhenstressinghowmedia
metricscompaniesmanufacture‘commoditycommunities’astheypackageandsell
audiencedatatoothercompanies.Digitalmusiccanprovidethreedistincttypesofdata.
First,isdataaboutthecharacteristicsoflistenersidentifiedbysuchcriteriaas
location,timeofaccessingmusic,repeatedlistenstothesametrackorartist,adjustmentof
volume,rangeofmusicalpreference(eclectic,narrow,neworoldartists),andallmanner
ofpatternsofrelatedhardware,softwareandinternetactivity.Listenerengagementwith
specificgenres,artistsorsongscanbecross-correlatedwithsignificantevents(military
conflict,royalwedding),controversialnewsstories,marketingcampaignsoraperformer’s
touringandpromotionalactivities.
18
Second,digitalmusicconsumptionprovidestheopportunityfor‘semanticanalysis
ofonlineconversationsaboutmusic’(Prey,2016,p33).Thisentailscollectingand
analysingthewordsusedanddescriptionsaboutmusiciansandbandsinarticles,reviews,
blogs,forumsandacrosssocialmediaplatforms.Thisissiftedandcanbereducedto
recurringkeywords,anddissectedtoconstructnetworksorwebsofconnectionsbetween
artists,betweensongsandbetweenlistenersindifferentplaces.Semanticdataresearch
alsoincludescollectingandanalysingthecompilationofplaylistsbyusersandexploiting
thelinksthatlistenersmakebetweenmusicandactivity,suchascleaning,schoolwork,
rainydays,latenight,running,commute.
Third,istheanalysisofthesoniccontentofdigitalmusicwherebyindividualsongs
ortrackscanbeanalysedandcomparedforobvioustraitssuchasmelody,harmony,
rhythmandpitch,alongwiththeinstrumentsused,genderofvocalistandstylistic
characteristics,suchasdanceabilityoruseofdistortion.PandoraInternetRadio’sMusic
GenomeProjectmakesuseofteamsofmusicologiststocollectdetailsofeverytrack
accordingto450identifiablecharacteristics(althoughnotallareappliedtoeverygenreor
recording).TheEchoNest(nowownedbySpotify)analysesdatafromapproximately40
millionsongsandalsoallowstheanalysisoftracksandmakesavailablevariousappsthat
allowconsumerstolinktorelatedsongsandstyles.
Sonicanalyticsareusedtoalgorithmicallymanipulatestreamedlistening
behaviour,makingitappearmore‘personal’byprovidingconstantsuggestions,andby
allowinglistenerstoengageinnoveltiesrelatedtotheirlistening(accessingsequencesof
songswiththesamebeat,takingasonicjourneytorelatedgenres),flatteringthe
individualontheiruniqueprofile.Thisdataisalsocross-referencedandcombinedwith
semanticandlistenerdatawhenlinkinglisteneractivitiestotheinterestsofadvertisers.
Forexample,datacollectedonindividuallistenersisreconfiguredbyPandoraandsoldto
advertisersas‘2300targetableaudiencesegments’(Prey,2017,p8).
Duetotheamountofdatabeingproduced,thestructuringofvariousdeals,
alliancesandcollaborativeventuresbetweencompaniesinthebigtechsector,thisdata
canthenbecombinedwith,orcross-referencedand‘migrated’tootherdatasets.Thiscan
thenleadto‘functioncreep’wherebydataandtechnologythatisdevelopedforone
apparentuseisdeployedmorewidelywithotherdata,apracticethathascausedconcern
19
indiscussionsofgovernmentsurveillance,privacyandhumanrights(seeBernal,2016).
Musiclisteningdatabyitselfcanbeusedtopredictstreamingandpurchasingbehaviour,
tomitigatecorporateanxietyaboutuncertaintythrough‘riskmanagement’(Negus,2014)
andtogenerateincomewhensoldontoadvertisers(seekingtoplaceadsforsportswear
orautomobilesalongsideplaylists).Itcanalsobecorrelatedwitha‘bewilderingarray’of
otherindicatorswhendataminersseekpredictorsofcreditworthiness,homeownership
orleisureactivities(Prey,2016).
Thepost-recordmusicindustryoffersanabundanceofdatathatisexploitedby
digitalconglomeratesandinfomediaries.Thedisputeaboutwhetherrevenueismore
fairlyextractedfromadvertisingortheenforcementofcopyrightsisjustonescufflewithin
abroadersetoftensionsaboutthevalueofrecordedmusic,thecharacteristicsthatmake
itvaluableandthewayworthshouldbeacknowledged,bothculturallyandeconomically.
Musicians,labelsandpublishershavebeencampaigningforrecordedmusictobe
recognisedforitscreativeandartisticvalue(ratherthanascontentthatattractstraffic)
andtobeaccordedgreatereconomicreward.Asthedigitalconglomeratescontinueto
influencetheconditionswithinwhichmusiciscirculatedandconsumed,therearefurther
conflictsimminentabouthowmusiciansandmusiccompaniesshouldberecompensedfor
thedatavalueoftheirmusic.
Diversityanddivergenceinthepost-recordmusicindustries
Inthepost-recordmusicindustriestherecordingisdisplaced–asartform,asartefact,as
tangiblecommodity.Musiciansstillmakerecordings,andthesearecommodifiedinnew
andinoldways.But,therecordisnolongercentralindeterminingthescopeandsuccess
ofpublishingrepertoires,livetours,thedemandformerchandise,studiobudgetsandthe
mediaappearancesofperformers.Therecording-onCD,asdownload,asstream-loses
worthasindustrialproduct,asasaleabletangiblecommodityandasaculturalsymbol.
Withinthedigitaleconomyrecordingacquiresnewexchangevaluesascontentandasdata
commodity,andnewusevaluesforconsumersintheubiquitoussonicstream(through
subscriptions,apps,playlistsforleisureactivitiesandsoon).
20
Asmusiciansandmusiccompaniesabandontheirdependenceuponincomefrom
recordings,andpursuemultiplesourcesofrevenue,sothemusicindustriesbecomeless
unified,lessdependentuponasharedstakeinrecordingastheroutetosuccess,andmore
splinteredintosectionalinterests.Thiscanbeillustratedwithtwoexamplesfrom
differentpartsoftheworld–theUKandChina.
InitsMeasuringMusicReport(2017),UKMusic-thetradeorganisationthat
representsmusiccompanies-recognisesthislackofunitybydividingthe‘musicindustry’
intosix‘coresectors.’Thesearemusicians,composers,songwritersandlyricists;recorded
music;livemusic;musicpublishing;musicrepresentatives;musicproducers,recording
studiosandstaff.Thecoresectorsarefurtherbrokendowninto‘subsectors’.So,for
example,recordedmusicissub-dividedintothreecategories(recordlabels;onlinemusic
distributors;designandmanufactureofphysicalproductandpackaging).Livemusicis
brokendownintofourcategories(musicfestivalorganisers,musicpromoters,music
agents;productionservicesforlivemusic;ticketingagents;concertvenuesandarenas).In
2016recordingwascontributing14percentoftotalmusicindustryrevenuestotheUK
economy,withlivemusicat23percent.Recordingaccountedforonly6percentofthose
employedwithintheUK‘musicindustry’(UKMusic,2017).UKMusic,whilstseekingto
lobbyandcampaignonbehalfofacoherentsingular‘musicindustry’recognisesthat
recordingisonlyonecomponentpartofthisindustry.
Inasimilarway,the2017ChinaMusicIndustryDevelopmentReport(CUC,2017)
dividesthemusicindustryintothree‘segmentindustries’:A‘corelayer’containsmusic
booksandaudiovisualpublishingindustry;musicperformanceindustry;musiccopyright
brokerageandmanagement;digitalmusicindustry.A‘linklayer’ismadeupofmusical
instrumentindustry;musiceducationandtrainingindustry;professionalaudioindustry.
An‘expandinglayer’containsradioandTVmusicindustry;karaokeindustry;film,
television,drama,games,animationmusic.Thedigitalmusicindustryaccountsfor16per
pentoftotalrevenues,withKaraokeaccountingfor27percent,musicalinstrumentsat12
percentandmusicbooksandaudiovisualpublishing(physicalartefacts)atunderhalfa
percent.
Onlytakingexamplesfromtwoterritoriesshowsthatrecordingisoneelement
withintheoverallmusicindustries(itwouldbeinstructivetobroadenthesecomparisons
21
withothermusicindustriesaroundtheworld).Italsoillustrateshowthemusicindustries
inanyoneplaceareshapedbytheinterplayofculturalandcommercialcontexts.
ImportantcoreindustrysectorsinChinadonotfeatureinUKMusic’scoremusicsectors,
forexample.AlthoughtheCommunistPartyofChina,throughvariouscommitteesand
councils,seeksto‘strengthentheintegrationofthemusicindustrywithotherindustries’
(p17),andalthoughUKMusichasapoliticalmissionto‘representthecollectiveinterests
oftherecorded,publishedandlivearmsoftheBritishmusicindustry’(asstatedonits
website),itisnolongerplausibletoarguefora‘musicindustry’characterisedbya
concentrationofsharedinterests(Azenha,2006)orstrategicallyadvantageousstructures
of‘vertical’and‘horizontalintegration’(Bishop,2005).
Themusicindustriesareactivethroughspecificbusinessesandcompanies,interest
groups,occupationsandorganisations,andthesemaybegroupedintolooselythemed
sectorsorlayers.Thesesectorsoperatewithinloosercompetingandcollaborating
networks,portfoliosofbusinessesstructuredaccordingtomultiplerightsmodels,and
strategicalliances.
Thesedisunifiedmusicindustriesfacechallengesfrom‘digitalpositivism’(Mosco,
2014)asthedigitalconglomerates(andnationstates)seektocomprehendand
manipulatethebehaviourofmusiciansandlistenersbyextractingandusingdataderived
fromtheproduction,circulationanduseofrecording.Butthepost-recordmusicindustry
benefits,asdoallmusicindustries,fromthewaymusiccontinuestobecreatedand
performed,continuestobecreatedandperformed,exchangedandacclaimed,experienced
andenjoyed,inwaysthatescapethereductionofourlivestodata.
Bibliography
Arditi,D(2014)DownloadingisKillingMusic:TheRecordingIndustry’sPiracyPanicNarrative.InSarafian,V&Findlay,R(eds)TheStateoftheMusicIndustry,Civilisations13,Toulouse:UniversityofToulouseAzenha,G(2006)TheInternetandtheDecentralisationofthePopularMusicIndustry:CriticalReflectionsonTechnology,ConcentrationandDiversificationRadicalMusicology1,125parshttp://www.radical-musicology.org.uk/Azenharef.htm(accessed4January2007)
22
Bernal,P(2016)Datagathering,surveillanceandhumanrights:recastingthedebateJournalofCyberPolicy1(2)243-264Bishop,J(2005)BuildingInternationalEmpiresofSound:ConcentrationofPowerandPropertyinthe“Global”MusicMarketPopularMusicandSociety28(4)443-471Chapple,S&Garofalo,R(1977)Rock'n'RollisHeretoPay;TheHistoryandPoliticsoftheMusicIndustry.NelsonHall;Chicago.CommunicationUniversityofChina(2017)The2017ChinaMusicIndustryDevelopmentReportBeijing:SchoolofMusicandRecordingArts,CommunicationUniversityofChina.Dolata,U(2011)TheMusicIndustryandtheInternet:ADecadeofDisruptiveandUncontrolledSectoralChange,SOIDiscussionPaper2011-02,UniversityofStuttgart,DepartmentofOrganizationalSociologyandInnovationStudies,InstituteforSocialSciences.Dredge,S(2016)‘WhyisthemusicindustrybattlingYouTubeandwhathappensnext?’Guardian20Mayhttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/20/music-industry-battling-google-youtube-what-happens-next(accessed21May2016)Eisenberg,E(1988)RecordingAngel:Music,RecordsandCultureFromAristotletoZappaLondon:PicadorElberse,A(2013)Blockbusters:WhyBigHits–andBigRisks–aretheFutureoftheEntertainmentBusiness.London:FaberandFaber.Forde,E2016RockstarsgotowarwithYouTubeattheirperilTheGuardian3July-https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/02/music-industry-battle-against-youtube(accessed4July2016)Fortune(2017)WhyGoogleandFacebookProvetheDigitalAdMarketisaDuopolyFortune28July-http://fortune.com/2017/07/28/google-facebook-digital-advertising/(accessed11January2018)Frith,S(1988)MusicforPleasure:EssaysintheSociologyofPopCambridge:PolityPress.Frith,S(1996)PerformingRites:OntheValueofPopularMusicOxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Frommer,D(2016)Google’sFirstAlphabetEarningsinCharts.Quartz1February2016-https://qz.com/607378/were-live-charting-googles-first-alphabet-earnings/(accessed8January2018)Garrahan,M(2016)‘YouTubemusictermsputlabelsinaspin’FinancialTimes10April-https://www.ft.com/content/2c310ae8-fbc2-11e5-8e04-8600cef2ca75
Gervais,DMarcus,K&Kilgore,L(2011)TheRiseof360DealsintheMusicIndustryLandslide3(4)pp1-6
23
Granata,C(2004)SessionsWithSinatra:FrankSinatraandtheArtofRecording.Chicago:ChicagoReviewPress.
Hesmondhalgh,D&Meier,L(2017)Whatthedigitalisationofmusictellsusaboutcapitalism,cultureandthepoweroftheinformationtechnologysectorInformation,CommunicationandSocietyhttps://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1340498
Hirsch,P(1972)ProcessingFadsandFashions:AnOrganizationalSetAnalysisofCulturalIndustrySystemsAmericanJournalofSociology77(4)pp639-659.Hogan,M(2015a)UpNext:HowPlaylistsAreCuratingTheFutureofMusic.Pitchfork,16July-https://pitchfork.com/features/article/9686-up-next-how-playlists-are-curating-the-future-of-music/(accessed10November2015)Hogan,M(2015b)HowMuchisMusicReallyWorth?Pitchfork16April-https://pitchfork.com/features/article/9628-how-much-is-music-really-worth/(accessed9November2016)
Hogan,Marc(2016)‘PaulMcCartney,Coldplay,LadyGaga,1,000MorePetitionEuropeanCommissionOverYouTube’Pitchfork30June-https://pitchfork.com/news/66496-paul-mccartney-coldplay-lady-gaga-1000-more-petition-european-commission-over-youtube/(accessed1July2016)
Hunter-Tilney,(2015)‘AnEconomyofScales’FinancialTimesLifeandArts,30/31Maypp1-2.Keightley,K(2004)LongPlay:Adult-OrientedPopularMusicandtheTemporalLogicsofthePost-WarSoundRecordingIndustryintheUSA.Media,Culture&Society26(3)375-391.Lamere,P(2014)TheSkip.MusicMachinery,2May-https://musicmachinery.com/2014/05/02/the-skip/(accessed3March2015)Lanchester,J(2014)HowtoSpeakMoneyLondon:Faber&Faber.Lee,JY(2009)Contestingthedigitaleconomyandculture:digitaltechnologiesandthetransformationofpopularmusicinKorea.Inter-AsiaCulturalStudies10(4)pp489-506Lennon,J(2016)‘Therealvaluegapinthemusicbusiness’Medium3Mayhttps://medium.com/@joelennon/the-real-value-gap-in-the-music-business-5361d03b8f7a(accessed3September2016)Marshall,L(2013)The360dealandthe‘new’musicindustry.EuropeanJournalofCulturalStudies16(1)77-99.Marshall,L(2015)‘Let’skeepmusicspecial.F-Spotify’:on-demandstreamingandthecontroversyoverartistroyalties.CreativeIndustriesJournal8(2):177-189.
24
Meyer,R(2015)TheAppEconomyIsNow‘BiggerThanHollywood’TheAtlantic27January-https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/the-app-economy-is-now-bigger-than-hollywood/384842/(accessed21July2016)Milne,R(2014)TheSpotifyeffect.FinancialTimes,October24FT-https://www.ft.com/content/59e6e6d6-5a49-11e4-8771-00144feab7de(accessed27October2014).Mohan,N(2016)YouTube’sChiefProductOfficerMakestheCasefor‘ValueShift’TowardsMusic:OpEdBillboard30June2016-http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7423917/youtube-chief-product-officer-neal-mohan-value-shift-op-ed(accessed3September2016)Morris,JW(2015a)Anti-MarketResearch:Piracy,NewMediaMetrics,andCommodityCommunitiesPopularCommunication13(1)32-44.Morris,JW(2015b)SellingDigitalMusic,FormattingCulture.Oakland:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Morris,JW&Powers,D(2015)Control,curationandmusicalexperienceinstreamingservicesCreativeIndustriesJournal8(2)106-122Mosco,V(2014)ToTheCloud:BigDatainaTurbulentWorld,ParadigmPublishers,BoulderColorado.Mosco,V(2017)BecomingDigital,TowardsaPost-InternetSocietyBingley:EmeraldPublishingMulligan,M(2016b)‘Music’sRoleInDigitalContentIsSmallAndShrinking’MusicIndustryBlog26February-https://musicindustryblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/26/musics-role-in-digital-content-is-small-and-shrinking/(accessed12September2016)
Mulligan,M(2015)Awakening,TheMusicIndustryintheDigitalAge,MIDiAResearch,London.Mulligan,M(2016a)‘StateoftheYouTubeMusicEconomy:GrowingTensionsasWorldviewsCollide’MidiaResearch,11July-https://www.midiaresearch.com/downloads/state-of-the-youtube-music-economy-growing-tensions-as-worldviews-collide/(accessed4March2017)Mulligan,M(2016b)Music’sRoleInDigitalContentIsSmallandShrinkingMusicIndustryBlog26February-https://musicindustryblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/26/musics-role-in-digital-content-is-small-and-shrinking/(accessed3September2016)Negus,K(1992/2011)ProducingPop:CultureandConflictinthePopularMusicIndustryLondon:Arnold.Outofprintbook–availableatGoldsmithsResearchOnlinewithnewintroduction-http://research.gold.ac.uk/5453/
Negus,K(1999)MusicGenresandCorporateCulturesLondon:Routledge.
25
Negus,K(2014)Recordings,RightsandRisks:IntermediariesandtheChangingMusicIndustriesInSarafian,V&Findlay,R(eds)TheStateoftheMusicIndustry,Civilisations13,113-136Toulouse:UniversityofToulousePeoples,G(2016)WarofWords:LabelsandTradeGroupsTargetYouTube’s‘ValueGap’Billboard13Aprilhttps://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7333110/war-of-words-labels-trade-groups-youtube-value-gap(accessed24April2016)Prey,R(2016)MusicaAnalytica:TheDataficationofListening.InNowak,R&Whelan,A(eds)NetworkedMusicCultures,London:Palgravepp31-48Prey,R(2017)Nothingpersonal:algorithmicindividuationonmusicstreamingplatformsMedia,Culture&Society30Novemberhttps://doi.org/10.1177/0163443717745147RBB2017ValueofYouTubetothemusicindustry–Paper1Cannibalisation;Paper2GrowthofallPlatforms;Paper3Promotion;Paper4ValueforConsumers;Paper5DirectValuetotheIndustryLondon:RBBEconomicsResnikoff,P(2016)‘MusicIsJust4.3%ofYouTubeTraffic,ResearchShows’DigitalMusicNews16Augusthttps://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/08/16/music-5-percent-youtube/(accessed3September2016)Rogers,J(2013)TheDeathandLifeoftheMusicIndustryintheDigitalAge.London:Bloomsbury.Ryan,J&Peterson,R(1982)TheProductImage:TheFateofCreativityinCountryMusicSongwriting'pp11-32inJ.Ettema&D.Whitney(Eds).IndividualsinMassMediaOrganizations:CreativityandConstraint.London:Sage.Rys,D(2016)LyorCohenNamedYouTube’sGlobalHeadofMusicBillboard28September–http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7525695/lyor-cohen-named-youtube-global-head-of-music(accessed28September2016)Seabrook,J(2014)–‘RevenueStreams:IsSpotifythemusicindustry’sfriendoritsfoe?’TheNewYorker,24November-https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/24/revenue-streams(accessed5January2015)
Shepherd,B(1989)PersonalinterviewwithBrianShepherd,A&MRecords,London.
Silver,J(2013)DigitalMedievalLondon:XstoricalPublications.Sterne,J(2006)Themp3asculturalartifactNewMedia&Society8(5)825-842Thompson,EP(1991)CustomsinCommonHarmondsworth:Penguin.UKMusic(2017)MeasuringMusicLondon:UKMusic.Wale,M1972VoxPop:ProfilesofthePopProcess,London:GeorgeGHarrap&Co.London
26
Wasko,J&Erickson,M(2009)ThePoliticalEconomyofYouTubeinP.Snickars&P.Vonderau(eds)TheYouTubeReaderStockholm:NationalLibraryofSweden.Pp272-287Witt,S(2016)HowMusicGotFree:TheInventor,TheMogul,andTheThief.London:Vintage.