Can the music business kick and scream its way into the 21st century?
These are interesting times for anyone involved with the business of making, buying, selling or simply listening to music, writes Dominic Dawes.
The deal between MySpace and the major music labels has finally been announced. In my last blog I discussed the ramifications of this deal, and wondered aloud why the music business had been so self-destructively reticent to understand, let alone embrace, the digital age.
So, no surprises this week, as the argument rages on between those who claim 'free content' doesn't necessarily mean 'going bankrupt', and those - pretty much the entire music business - who are rabidly pulling their hair out and howling 'Stop! Thief!' at hordes of disinterested twelve-year-olds.
The latest instalment of the great music debate began a couple of weeks ago, when Warner Music Group announced that it has appointed industry veteran Jim Griffin to push through a new plan. The scheme was to convince ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to include an extra monthly fee to the consumer, in return for unlimited access to all known music in the universe. Well, all of it that's owned by the majors anyway. Which is, to be fair, quite a lot of it.
The point of the plan is: you pay more for your internet access each month, the extra money goes to the labels, and they promise to stop getting all hot and bothered about you downloading their music for 'free'.
The general response to this plan has been mixed. Well, not exactly mixed: more a combination of horrified spluttering and downright contempt, with hordes of bloggers crying 'MUSIC TAX!!!' and scurrying down into their broadband-enabled bunkers whimpering and muttering about the end of freedom.
There are decent arguments on both sides, to be fair. Warner's plan is part of a wider change; from seeing music as a product, to seeing it as a service. This is not so different from other 'subscription' models now being considered by everyone from Sony to iTunes, as the principal means of ensuring the next generation of pop stars will have enough pocket money to get smashed in Chinawhite's.
Some in the business are asking us to consider how we really value music, which seems like a reasonable question, while many consumers and bloggers have rightly pointed out that the music biz is being run by people who don't yet understand the internet - and therefore see only a threat and not an opportunity.
There's evidence for their view, too, most notably the news this week that Last.fm's free, full-track preview streaming service is driving impressively increased actual sales of music - both digital and physical.
In the end, I'm with the bloggers on this one. Mainly because it's funny to see people who have in the past been accused of fleecing the public, sounding like raving socialists and pleading for legislation the minute new technology threatens their businesses. That's the free market, chaps: either innovate and keep pace with the times, or disappear in a puff of obsolete business practices.
In addition, this week there was a curious story about Citigroup's inability to sell on EMI's debt possibly indicates that things are a great deal worse than we thought at one of the world's biggest music companies.
Are we witnessing the end of the music business as we know it? How do you want to consume your music? Would you rather your tunes were free at the point of use? And if so, which method of allowing artists to get paid would you favour?
We live in exciting times, and it's a fair bet the world of music will look very different just a few short years from now. How it ends up will be up to labels, innovators and artists. But it will also be up to us - the consumers.
Technorati Tags: digital music, Downloads, EMI, iTunes, last.fm, MySpace, Sony, Sony BMG, Universal, Warners
- Dominic Dawes's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
I have to say, the idea of a subscription service, whereby a monthly fee entitled me to download any track would be quite tempting as long as (a) the monthly fee was reasonable; (b) all the major labels supported it, not some system whereby each label has their own subscription as that would just be a nightmare and I'd continue as I'm now (i.e. buying CDs and ripping them); and (c) the download offered was lossless, allowing me to then compress them down for my iPod if chose to.
Oh and (d) there isn't any blimmin' DRM restricting what I can and can't do with the music I paid for!
The problem with current online services thus far is that they're overpriced, the sound quality is laughable, the DRM makes playback choices prohibitive at times and the selection of music nowadays seems to be narrowly focused on the youngest demographics and is often repetitive and boring. Now that the music industry is giving proper examination to its delivery, perhaps it can focus on generating a more ecletic selection for the demographics with money to spend.
Un-less i am completely missing the point, I have been dowloading my music legally for over the last twelve months now, tesco downloads & MOS at 79p, a track, recently i put fifteen tracks onto a cd all downloads & paid for so i can listen to it in the car.
I don't really understand this topic, un-less their is a particular cd album i really, really want, all my bought songs will be downloads.
How much is it for a cd single?? around £3, isn't it cheaper to download at 79p, then if you want burn it to disk.
professorhat –
I completely agree. Unfortunately, as I wrote in my previous blog on the subject,
whathifi.com/.../itunes-to-finally-get-some-competition-but-is-it-too-little-too-late.aspx
getting music labels to cooperate with each other is easier said than done. And as you rightly say, nobody wants to have to pay several subscriptions each month.
DLeslie –
Indeed. The business has been so sluggish about trying to generate new models, and terrible at understanding the medium. For example, you comment about demographics is very important: why on earth don't large labels sell uber-cheap 128kbps tracks to teenagers, but at the same time offer higher-priced lossless downloads of classical and jazz (just for example) to slightly older people who a) have more money, and b) care about sound quality. It's a question of embracing the medium, and devloping ideas from there. And I can't help thinking that the music biz has shot itself in the foot by refusing to do just that.
slewis –
The point is, in a nutshell, that the big labels have lost a lot of ground to iTunes (among others), and have lost both time and (a lot of) money by hanging on to an outdated business model and refusing to accept the internet.
its pretty simple. we jsut need s store. we already have itunes, but their very restrictive, rubbish quality, and tie me to a company im not otherwise interested in.
as does the myspace thing. im not 12 anymore. and theres still not nearly enough bands' catalogues on itunes.
as i said, quite simple. but then, as i think your last blog said, providing whats actualy needed would require labels to cooperate wouldnt it, and we cant have that!
Quite.