Hey guys! Decided to post a response argument to a prompt in my Music Culture & Technology class for your enjoyment! :)
1.
Read
this discussion of music streaming from David Byrne, formerly of the Talking
Heads: http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/oct/11/david-byrne-internet-content-world. Framing your argument around the
points raised in the Hagen and Swanson articles, do you think Byrne has a
plausible argument and legitimate gripe? Show your knowledge of the Hagen and
Swanson articles in answering this question.
Indeed, Byrne has a plausible argument about music-streaming services not serving the needs of the artists. However, before I continue, I would tell all of them, if they do not like that they are not earning much from a music-streaming service like Spotify, then they all should go and find a real job! Artists do not make the rules; however, they do have to overcome them. Yes, it is very upsetting to read that someone’s song was played one million times on Pandora and the artist only made $16.89. That is awful. Byrne has a legitimate gripe—I think the record labels should give a sum of the money they earn from music-streaming services to the artists, or the music-streaming services themselves should give the artist a better payout; even a combination of the two would work. Byrne concedes: “I can understand how having a place where people can listen to your work when they are told or read about it is helpful, but surely a lot of places already do that?” Indeed, a lot of other places do that, like Amazon and YouTube.
I bring a unique perspective to this issue
since I am a self-published author and a YouTuber. I am intrinsically motivated
and do what I do because I have a passion for writing and video-making. Each
month, I probably make enough money from Amazon to buy myself a few cheap meals
(an estimated average of $10, if that). Do I feel that my novel priced at $2.99
(of which Amazon takes a portion of that cut) is justified? No—but since I am
at the level I am at, in terms of platform, I have to take what I can get. As a
growing YouTuber, I have 261 subscribers on one channel and 187 on another,
with over 130,000 views. With the monetized videos, I probably earned over $12
over a five-month period. See? I totally understand where the music artists are
coming from. I had to demonetize my videos and focus on growing my
subscriber-base before choosing to monetize in the future. I also run
free-promotion periods for my books on Amazon. In short, I am giving away all
of this for free, in exchange of the hope that I can build my platform. Like
being an intern, I am giving away free labor, and sites like Amazon, YouTube,
and their advertisers are the ones who are making the true profit off of us
artists; but without them, we don’t exist (but keep in mind, without us, they
don’t exist, either). It seems that we have reached deadlock. Until I can grow
my platform, I will not make money. In the end, though, I still have my
passions and the ability to share my creations with the world. I continue to do
this while working part-time and being a student full-time, and in the future,
I will do it while working full-time. Artists need to use the system to win.
Our complaints—like excuses—will get us nowhere.
When I read Byrne’s article, all I could
hear was “ME! ME! ME!” Byrne was wrong when he titled the article, “The
internet will suck all creative content out of the world.” He should have
titled it, “The internet is going to make all creative content (nearly) free
for everyone!” For instance, Byrne admits: “Writers, for example, can't rely on
making money from live performances – what are they supposed to do?
Write ad copy?” Essentially, writers will have to write a ton! They will
have to self-publish book-after-book without stopping, and using sites like YouTube
to build their followers. Right now, I am listening to a YouTuber who remixes
video game music, and yes, he makes nothing and does it for free, and he’s
amazing at it.
But Byrne’s tone makes it seem as if we
artists are above other kinds of work. I understand we spend a ton of time
perfecting our craft, and that we give people nearly free-content, but we have
to do other labor to do what we love. Nevertheless, I am all for artists
receiving better support in any way, especially emotionally, socially, and
financially.
Hagen writes that when it comes to music-streaming
services that the owner becomes the renter. With sites like Pandora and Spotify,
we are renting the music by listening to ads or agreeing to pay a monthly-fee. Despite
consumers choosing either of these methods, artists still do not make enough,
which Swanson highlights that artists agree music-streaming services are good
for discovering but not for getting paid. At one point, Swanson cites a musician
who uses it for discovery, and doesn’t focus on the service as a monetization tool: “[Music-streaming is a] crucial value add to the music discovery process
simply because the catalog is so vast and access is so unrestricted” (213). The
same could be said for sites like Amazon and YouTube. Swanson also cites
Silverman who admits: “97 percent of the world never buys music—not even
Adele.” Furthermore, Swanson also understands that musicians’ financial
problems went further back than just from today’s music-streaming services: “Problems
in making a living as an artist stem much further back than streaming.
Traditional income models yield slim returns, and in a depressed digital economy,
people are buying less” (212). If the average-person does not purchase music, and
not even the artists—which is kind of hypocritical (even we writers buy other
author’s books to become better writers)—then at least music-streaming services
help supplement an artist’s income. As noted, Swanson cites thirteen other
revenue streams that artists use to make money. If artists target those
revenue-streams, they should support themselves better financially.
Truly, Byrne’s article makes it seem that
artists rely on only one revenue-stream (besides playing live or selling
t-shirts), when that is not the case at all. Swanson does recommend, however,
that music-streaming services like Spotify should become more artist-focused
and also give artists a higher-royalty payout. Similarly, Hagen cites that
subscription-models are hurting music sales: “[We are living in] a consumption
era where access is valued over ownership (Mulligan). Subscription models are
cannibalizing sales of music: in Norway music downloads fell by 21% and
physical sales fell by 29% from 2012 to 2013 (Dredge)” (4). It seems that
consumers do not care about owning the music; instead, they favor having more
control and would rather consume the music as they please by “renting” it.
Consumers have more power than ever by being able to like or dislike a song,
add it to the playlist, etc., which, in a way, makes it “their music.” For
example, Spotify has a tab titled, “Your Music,” which is a list of organized songs
that the listener favorited so he can listen to it whenever he wants. In other
words, listeners are favoring a dynamic approach to their music, one in which
they can order their music however they want through likes, favorites, follows,
skips, etc. Users also like these music-streaming services because of their
“technology’s immediacy and fluidity.” (19) In short, Swanson’s and Hagen’s
articles indirectly, if not directly, argue that the consumer has the power
when it comes to consuming music. Artists, on the other hand, are at the mercy
of their music-streaming providers and consumers. Like Swanson noted,
musicians’ financial problems go way back and that it’s not just caused by
music-streaming services. Swanson admits: “[I]f I would have streamed their
tunes rather than purchase them, the artists would have already yielded
substantially more income… digital music sales will decline. But by the time
sales are declining, streaming royalties should become enough of a substantial
revenue source to make up for the difference” (221). In short, Swanson’s
argument makes it appear that artists like Byrne will eventually earn enough
streaming royalties to make up the difference of declining music sales.
Still, perhaps Byrne is correct (like Swanson
argued) that artists should be supported in a better way. He wrote that music
saved his life. I would argue that writing and video-making has saved my life,
along with music as well. Artists do what they do because they love their
craft—and also because they do not want to work a crappy job, since they’d
rather make music. In a sense, we are saying, “Give us more money so we can do
what we love, instead of us having to work one of those crappy jobs!” But of course, we are also saying, "Let me make people's lives better with my artistry--be it music, writing, videography, whatever--because that's what I was born here to do!" I
understand they probably did their share of crappy jobs, too, while trying to
make their passion a full-time job. But until it becomes a full-time job, then they
might have to work a crappy job to support what they want to do, and until the
music-streaming services will be fairer in their favor.
