David Byrne: 'The internet will suck all creative content out of the world'

I remember reading an article by Derek Roddy in Drum magazine about this.................going to have to look through my old issues and see if I can find it.

He basically spelled out that music, historically, has always been free..................that only changed relatively recently......................where "rock stars" became millionaires. For centuries, it was something that people did for community entertainment, celebrations, etc.

He also outlined several ways to augment income from music, through teaching, other hobbies, etc. It was a great, down to earth, article.............going to look for it tonight
 
This quote caught my eye:

“The markets for housing, automobiles, music, books, and many other products show a common trend: Younger consumers opting to rent or subscribe to pay-per-use arrangements instead of buying and owning the physical products. Shared facilities will overtake established offices, renting units will become more common than owning a home, and sales of books and music might never become popular again.” From “Consumption 2.0,” by Hugo Garcia, January–February, 2013.

http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...on_quantum_computing_big_data_and_more.2.html:

It suggests that renting music is the future - maybe subscriptions? A rented download is long way from the presence and excitement of first getting a big vinyl disc, LP cover art, and fold outs with lyrics and blurb (though you can Google most of those things).

Looking back further, listening to an LP was a long way from singing around the piano too. Once again people won't be able to own music (for different reasons, of course) but have ready means to create it at home, although as an individual rather than family group. Music ownership and the audience / performer dynamic seem to be cyclical.
 
The other aspect that plays into this is supply and demand.

There is a bigger supply of music than there is a demand for it.

There is a bigger supply of music than there is time in the day to listen to it all.

Which drives down market price.

Which along with, as Byrne noted, there are a lot of bands/artists who have no problem with the current system of the youtubes and spotify's, etc.

So as much as I might think the current system is flawed, as there is no consensus among musicians themselves.

As as long as there are young bands who will do anything to get noticed, it will feed the current thought process of cheap music on the net.

Youtube is now 7 years old. Which means the average young adult starting a garage band right now doesn't much recall life before free music on the net.
 
Youtube is now 7 years old. Which means the average young adult starting a garage band right now doesn't much recall life before free music on the net.

Great point. For sure, 'old days, old ways' are gone. One aspect I do like about the 'new era', is all bands, famous old and not-as-famous new, have to get out and play to make a living form live performances.
 
The genie is out of the bottle.

Ironic that a lot of older artists had the same criticisms about MTV and music videos back in the day. The Talking Heads hit their commercial peak in the golden age of MTV.

I like Bryne's music, and I am glad that he had the support network around him to help deliver his art to the masses. Today, that network is not as necessary, and I like having all the choices available to me as opposed to listening to what the record companies choose for me to listen to.

One constant in this discussion is that professional musicians have always made their money on the road.
 
The genie is out of the bottle.

Ironic that a lot of older artists had the same criticisms about MTV and music videos back in the day. The Talking Heads hit their commercial peak in the golden age of MTV.
.

This is a good point. MTV didn't pay artists for their music either. Videos were considered promotional material. And yet, Byrne made his money via giving away his music on MTV.
 
These are indeed interesting reads along with many of the shared views and opinions of you all.

Business models change all the time - regardless of product. Not much is built or delivered today to the consumer exactly as it was 25 years ago. Music business is no different.

As artists, many may not hold a balanced view on the topic. We may mostly see if from the artist side. If we only worked on the business side, there's a good chance we'd only see it from that lens.

One things for certain, the model has changed and will continue to do so as it has for TV, Radio, Books, Magazines, Movies, Phones and various other forms of technology up to and including home computers. Adapt or become a fossil.

Personally speaking, I'm used to participating mostly in a music the majority of people have shunned since the 50's. Even to that point only a few of those musicians made big money from it, but some certainly did and even thereafter.

I could express my own personal views of mainstream popular music and where we are, but not to offend anyone, I'll keep my opinions to myself.

This couldn't be more true ..........
This quote caught my eye:

“The markets for housing, automobiles, music, books, and many other products show a common trend: Younger consumers opting to rent or subscribe to pay-per-use arrangements instead of buying and owning the physical products. Shared facilities will overtake established offices, renting units will become more common than owning a home, and sales of books and music might never become popular again.” From “Consumption 2.0,” by Hugo Garcia, January–February, 2013.

http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...on_quantum_computing_big_data_and_more.2.html:

It suggests that renting music is the future - maybe subscriptions? A rented download is long way from the presence and excitement of first getting a big vinyl disc, LP cover art, and fold outs with lyrics and blurb (though you can Google most of those things).

Looking back further, listening to an LP was a long way from singing around the piano too. Once again people won't be able to own music (for different reasons, of course) but have ready means to create it at home, although as an individual rather than family group. Music ownership and the audience / performer dynamic seem to be cyclical.

This as well.....
I remember reading an article by Derek Roddy in Drum magazine about this.................going to have to look through my old issues and see if I can find it.

He basically spelled out that music, historically, has always been free..................that only changed relatively recently......................where "rock stars" became millionaires. For centuries, it was something that people did for community entertainment, celebrations, etc.

He also outlined several ways to augment income from music, through teaching, other hobbies, etc. It was a great, down to earth, article.............going to look for it tonight
 
One constant in this discussion is that professional musicians have always made their money on the road.

With several notable exceptions - Steely Dan (Fagen, Becker), Randy Newman; even John Lennon post-Beatles....many more of whom almost never went on the road, but became wealthy from songwriting royalties only.

I can't imagine what the new business models mean for songwriters-only.....I guess they get out and gig now.
 
One things for certain, the model has changed and will continue to do so as it has for TV, Radio, Books, Magazines, Movies, Phones and various other forms of technology up to and including home computers. Adapt or become a fossil.

I agree David, we cannot do much about changes and new technologies... only to take it as it comes and use whatever we feel is right for us.

I say it actually open our eyes on "creative contents" in this world, without this technologies, we'll still be in our narrow little world.

Also the fact that we can "chat" altogether here on DW and share our playing and music at the click of a few buttons is nothing short of wonderful.

... and this is now, God knows what the future holds... but we'll adapt to it, that I'm sure.
 
If 1m plays on pandora yields $17 for the artist (and that's very sad), I wonder what pandora take.

I didn't read that Derek Roddy article but from what was said I think the same way. The 20th century were the golden years for succesful bands but I think those years corrupted music and gave us today's horrible pop. And I think the Internet is so saturated with everything that trying to find success there is almost a waste of time.

The concept of so many people listening to the same rendition of the same song, by the same artist, concerts of grand scale and even the concept of an album is an invention and are artificial and so they can falter.

I don't listen to any radio and I won't own a tv because I find the amount of advertising offensive and embarrassing and don't understand how people just sit there and take it. If plenty more people were like me I think this marketing bubble might burst and we might see a more genuine pop culture but I'm not paying any attention.
I don't have spotify but I discover music on youtube, but audio quality isn't great so it doesn't end there. I download music to a point but once I've fallen for a band I will buy their albums the day they come out, rip them on my pc and put them in my cupboard. I'm supporting them and maybe part of me thinks I'm playing a part in the "natural selection" of music.

Nothing really original but there's my 2c.
 
I don't believe in any economic system based on the creation and enforcement of artificial scarcity (e.g. diamonds, oil etc). Prohibiting the free sharing of music on the internet is the same thing. Once recorded music was imprisoned on physical media and the finite supply of that media, controlled by a handful of influential people, was what created the demand. Maintaining that scarcity is holding back the natural progress brought about by new technology, and it's equivalent in my mind to subsidizing the steam engine industry when demand started to tail off. It's backward-looking and serves the interests of a minority of people at the expense of the majority, and that is unjust and simply wrong.
 
I keep reading articles from various artists saying "I had x-number of listens on spotify, but all I got was x-cents".

And I so sympathize. I don't think the general public has any clue how expensive it is to make music. I've lost tons of money on recordings myself.

But on the other hand, I also think, but under the old system, where you only heard new music if it was on the radio or someone gave you a mix tape, how many of these artists would even be known? Most would just be complete unknowns with no outlet for their music.
 
I don't believe in any economic system based on the creation and enforcement of artificial scarcity (e.g. diamonds, oil etc). Prohibiting the free sharing of music on the internet is the same thing. Once recorded music was imprisoned on physical media and the finite supply of that media, controlled by a handful of influential people, was what created the demand. Maintaining that scarcity is holding back the natural progress brought about by new technology, and it's equivalent in my mind to subsidizing the steam engine industry when demand started to tail off. It's backward-looking and serves the interests of a minority of people at the expense of the majority, and that is unjust and simply wrong.

Please explain how an artificial scarcity of diamonds and oil has been created. AFAIK there is a finite amount of both of these things in the earth's crust.

Putting music (or movies or written stories) on physical media does not create demand. It controls supply - as long as you have enforceable copyright laws - but it does not create demand. Demand is people wanting stuff, which is a different concept entirely. And even if supply of David Byrne CD's is limited to say 20 copies of the CD, there are a range of substitutes available, ranging from other artists' CD's to home made music to non-music leisure activities.

The free market system works for most goods and services because if somebody can produce something cheaper than their competitors they will take business from their competitors. It's not perfect, but it's less imperfect than anything else that's been tried.
 
Please explain how an artificial scarcity of diamonds and oil has been created. AFAIK there is a finite amount of both of these things in the earth's crust.

It's nothing to do with the amount in existence, it's about controlling the supply through the creation of cartels (see here and here for the examples I gave)

Putting music (or movies or written stories) on physical media does not create demand. It controls supply - as long as you have enforceable copyright laws - but it does not create demand. Demand is people wanting stuff, which is a different concept entirely. And even if supply of David Byrne CD's is limited to say 20 copies of the CD, there are a range of substitutes available, ranging from other artists' CD's to home made music to non-music leisure activities.

You're right, perhaps I should say it inflates demand by ensuring it can only be acquired by certain means. And while there's alternatives in terms of entertainment they're not directly comparable...I mean, you could just as easily say a bicycle is an alternative to a car in a discussion of sales of vehicles since you can travel by either, but one can't replace the other.

The free market system works for most goods and services because if somebody can produce something cheaper than their competitors they will take business from their competitors. It's not perfect, but it's less imperfect than anything else that's been tried.

I agree, and it would probably work a lot better if people stopped trying to mess it up with protectionist legislation or subsidies.
 
Interesting thread. As a matter of fact 'm reading David Byrne's book How Music Works (I definitely recommend it -- it really is the exact opposite of an old fart writing about how everything used to be better!) and there is a chapter about making money in music. Interestingly, Byrne mentions a long list of musicians that went bankrupt during their career, because producing a record used to be such an investment. Today the investment is lower than ever and I can't understand that many musicians don't see the opportunity. Distributing information has never been so easy and cheap. Any musician can now break through to a worldwide audience through youtube. We can skip all these middle men. The only thing is how to redefine the business model now that copying has become so easy and cheap. You can only ask so much for a copy, or people will make their own. Everyone struggles with that same problem: newspapers, books editors and bookstores, etc etc. but at the same time I think it's an opportunity for the content creators themselves. There is and will be more diversity than ever and it is easier than ever to break through as a musician, writer, etc - of course only if you have something very special to offer, that has not changed. But you will have to be your own record company and not everyone is clever at that.
 
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money
trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and
pimps run free, and good men die like dogs.
There's also a negative side.” - Hunter S. Thompson

Peace, MT
 
Music that is commercially released by professional artists is like any other product in the market and taking/consuming it without paying for it and without the artist's consent is theft.

If I could download my food from the internet, would it be ok to say "Mr. farmer, thank you for all the expense and labor to grow this food, but I will just take this bushel of apples off your hands for free"?

I wish I could download a house and never have to pay mortgage or rent!

Wouldn't it to be nice to download a set of cymbals for free?!

If you think these are absurd thoughts, then why isn't it equally absurd to take and use works of art without paying?

I am shocked by the public's feeling of entitlement over art because technology allows us to steal it. If artists want to give away their music for promotional purposes, it is fine, but for public to lay claim on their entire body of work without consent is wrong. I guess I did not get the memo that copyright and trademark are obsolete concepts now.

I am not coming from a capitalist perspective. But short of utopia, we do live in a society where we have to pay for things. Furniture or music, the people who create it should be paid so they can continue to live and create.
 
This thread could turn down an interesting road on how we personally feel about patents and property rights. I suppose it already has. :)
 
Back
Top