The point about Apple creating iTunes solely to sell devices is an important one. If I remember my history correctly in the early days of recorded music a number of phonograph/gramophone companies, essentially furniture manufacturers, went into the record business to sell more furniture. Those furniture companies bankrolled & released crucial recordings. Apple took someone else’s completed works of art already financed (by somebody else), that had been rendered near valueless and found multiple ways to make themselves money off it. And everyone, myself included, went along with it.
Music has intrinsic value I don’t know how to measure. After the worst year of my professional life, I have found meaning through joining my church choir. Music can’t be fungible. Music is an individual experience that connects us to each other and that makes space for greater wisdom and love of one another. Thank you for your writing, John. 🪷
Hi John. Of course agree with the main thrust of your argument given the current structure of the system. Very well-argued.
The problem for consumers with access versus ownership -- and hence for musicians who supply the 'product' -- is that access can easily be taken away, either by changes in terms or in the availability of the desired music, which we already see the tech bro-run companies doing in various ways.
We also take spotify and youtube for granted, but what if they disappear (as we've seen with a lot of movie studios and publishing companies, along with the disappearance of backlists and films that many consider our cultural and/or commercial heritage)?
It's why I think many are re-investing in CDs and vinyl. But those depend on technology and electricity. Ultimately, when you look at what we consumers and musicians can count on, it gets back to the making of music at the most fundamental level, which is musical instruments, the human voice, musical know-how, and music venues. Those assets will always be worth investing in. (Perhaps I've watched too many post-apocalyptic movies lately!)
But I do appreciate your point about how to ensure the value of musical IP. I'm glad someone with your expertise is on the side of the musicians.
The point about Apple creating iTunes solely to sell devices is an important one. If I remember my history correctly in the early days of recorded music a number of phonograph/gramophone companies, essentially furniture manufacturers, went into the record business to sell more furniture. Those furniture companies bankrolled & released crucial recordings. Apple took someone else’s completed works of art already financed (by somebody else), that had been rendered near valueless and found multiple ways to make themselves money off it. And everyone, myself included, went along with it.
Music has intrinsic value I don’t know how to measure. After the worst year of my professional life, I have found meaning through joining my church choir. Music can’t be fungible. Music is an individual experience that connects us to each other and that makes space for greater wisdom and love of one another. Thank you for your writing, John. 🪷
You know, I feel like I wrote this same post for The Trichordist 13 years ago! Ugh.
https://thetrichordist.com/2012/06/27/a-brief-history-of-artists-control-of-their-product/
Hi John. Of course agree with the main thrust of your argument given the current structure of the system. Very well-argued.
The problem for consumers with access versus ownership -- and hence for musicians who supply the 'product' -- is that access can easily be taken away, either by changes in terms or in the availability of the desired music, which we already see the tech bro-run companies doing in various ways.
We also take spotify and youtube for granted, but what if they disappear (as we've seen with a lot of movie studios and publishing companies, along with the disappearance of backlists and films that many consider our cultural and/or commercial heritage)?
It's why I think many are re-investing in CDs and vinyl. But those depend on technology and electricity. Ultimately, when you look at what we consumers and musicians can count on, it gets back to the making of music at the most fundamental level, which is musical instruments, the human voice, musical know-how, and music venues. Those assets will always be worth investing in. (Perhaps I've watched too many post-apocalyptic movies lately!)
But I do appreciate your point about how to ensure the value of musical IP. I'm glad someone with your expertise is on the side of the musicians.