Sound Effects and Overdramatics – Part 1

I recently downloaded and read Part 1 of a 3 part ebook entitled How The Record Industry Got It Wrong posted by a Dr. Huge (after some very minimal research into this assumed moniker of sorts,  I have been unable to find a first name and have concluded that “Dr.” and “Huge” are most likely extreme exaggerations).  I was attracted by the title because, as I’ve stated before, everyone has their own opinions about the state of the industry and I’m always interested in what sort of advocacies people are spreading around out there.  Well, in this case, I think I’ve found one I almost wholly disagree with and I haven’t even read parts 2 and 3 yet!  Below are a few excerpts and my (mostly) antipathetic comments.  Further reading can be found here.

The decline is CD sales has been variously on piracy, file-swapping (yes, they are two different things), corporate greed, the prevailing economy, inadequacies in the methods of collecting 21st century sales data, and market dilution caused by alternative forms of entertainment.

All true.  This was only the 3rd paragraph so I thought it was going well…

The difficulty still experienced by 21st century musicians trying to earn a living from their recorded music has led to the argument that by making digital files and/or CD’s available at no cost to the consumer, musicians are “devaluing” music.  According to this argument, giving CD’s and MP3′s away to potential fans gives the impression that the music is worthless.

However, this argument is contradicted by other aspects of the music industry which, overall, is booming.  Instrument and equipment sales are up.  Live performance revenues are up.  More music is being made and consumed than ever before.  It seems silly to argue that music is be devalued by a process that leads directly to greater production, productivity and consumption.

So, how can music sales decline in light of 21st century technologies if more of it is being appreciated than ever before?  How is “music” worth less when only one sector of the music industry, recorded music, is suffering from a downturn?  Is a sale price the only measure of music’s value to a musician’s business?

Another accurate analysis.  I wholeheartedly believe that giving away your music is a positive action.  It has been proven to introduce and motivate consumers into further musical consumptions.  I don’t know the stats on instrument and equipment sales, and concerts, but this seems reasonable.  And music is certainly not worthless.  The last two sentences pose perhaps the most insightful questions about how the recording industry views success and the values they seek in an artist.  When you think about it this way, it seems pretty silly to make as assessment of a musician based solely on one aspect of their vocation.

Music is ephemeral – gone as soon as the voices, instruments or machines stop making sound waves – and hot, cool or lame depending on the listener’s mood.

Music is ephemeral – in the physical sense.  But certainly not emotionally.

But humans really dig the feelings only music can inspire and thus combining a musical experience with something else has been used to entice people to buy those other things so people can reconnect with the feelings inspired by music.

This is where things really start to fall off the tracks for me.

The record industry is suffering because they assumed they were selling music when they were actually selling technology that was associated with music.  They were not interested in developing the technology and now  they can’t control it.

I admit I had to reread this a few times, first disagreeing, then making notes about why it made sense, etc.  I suppose the argument can be made that throughout the years, labels have really been selling various technologies (vinyl, CD’s MP3′s) and the music is just what is stored on those devices.  But really?  I mean, this whole time, record labels have existed to sell me a piece of transitory technology and no one gives a crap about the music?  Give me a break.

Music is just another way to capture and exchange stories and other information.  It is not an end its itself – it is meant to be shared freely among the people.

Music has always derived its value from being shared.  If it is not shared, it loses all value and the culture suffers.  Unlike a q-tip or a burger, the more music is shared, the more it is valued.

Ok, so back to something I agree with. The rest of this section talks about how myths and legends were passed down, how music is an essential part of sharing culture.  Music has, until recently, been free, and is even essential to what shapes and molds us as a society.  The more it is shared, the more valuable it is.  I think that still reigns 100% true today.

Despite centuries of ‘refinement’ to copyright laws, this focus on technology hasn’t changed.  Central to the concept of copyright is the idea that nothing can be protected by copyright law unless it has been fixed in a reproducible way.

From its very beginnings, the effect of the copyright law was to create a temporary monopoly over the application of technology to recording and distributing music, not on the music itself.  This, the primary beneficiaries of copyright laws have always been owners of technology, not creators of intellectual property.

The beginning of this section uses specific historic citations in an attempt to support the claim that copyright laws protect the technology owners and not the creators of such works.  Yes, the term “mechanicals” comes from the mechanics of the piano rolls in the early 20th century and now encompasses any and all audio formats (now or hereafter known) that contain a composition.  But how is it exactly that the owners of technology are the ones who benefits more from copyright law than the owners of intellectual property?  Because they’re utilized more and have a wider notoriety than most copyright owners will ever dream of being?  The last time I checked, copyright law exists to promote artistic creativity, not technology.

…during the middle of the 19th century… a market had developed for selling printed copies of popular songs to people who owned the technology to perform them at home and an industry was born.

From the beginning of music technology, music has been used to sell technology.  Without music, some technologies would never have been viable, much less a world changer.

This has got to be the most backwards statement I’ve ever heard. Are the two related?  Of course they are.  But music is the cause, not the effect. The iPod was created and sold because of music and to enhance our musical experiences by allow us to take it with us anywhere we want.  We may be more enticed to buy a smart phone over a regular phone because it plays music, but music is not the selling point.  I’ve tried to wrap my head around this guy’s thinking, but I just can’t do it.

I could go on, but it’s really more of the same.  Some BS about how now that everyone is able to afford technologies for production and distribution, “nearly anyone who wanted to could use their music to sell technology” and that “music’s beauty and inspiration have been used to sell power.”   It concludes by saying that selling music is about using consumer’s musical experience to sell “ideology, power or technology.”  I suppose, maybe, philosophically, this could all be argued in some elaborate and abstract way that would probably make my head spin.  But even after several reads, I’m just not buying it.

Stay tuned for more on Parts 2 and 3!