creative deconstruction » Radio

The Broken System: Deconstructing Music Consumption

refe — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:48:05 +0000

Kyle Bylin, of Hypebot (@kbylin)
Edited by: Refe Tuma (@refeup)

The traditional system has broken for good.

In our previous post we wrote about the barriers of music consumption, gave an overview of how those barriers shaped the experiences of previous generations, and examined in great detail why the removal of such barriers recontextualized the ways in which those who were born digital consumed music.

The next step is to deconstruct the traditional music consumption system.

The traditional system is biased towards hoarding and scarcity; it promoted the gradual development of taste and encouraged the act of collecting music. So that each fan could have their own access point to the artist’s songs, and scrutinize and divine meaning from them in isolation. To listen to music independently—in the absence of the artist—meant that each individual fan could develop their own perspective of the artist and their music.

In doing so, many fans formed a rather intimate, parasocial relationship with the artist—where they knew of the emotions of the artist and filled in the details of their lives, but the artist didn’t know of theirs. The artist spoke to the fan through their music, but the fan did not “speak” to them.

And, through specific delivery mechanisms—primarily commercial radio, MTV, big-box retail, and print—their music was advertised to the fan

These institutions stimulated demand for their music—over other artists—in the marketplace. They established a sense of trust between fans and their corporate-created brand, and elevated them from performer to idol. This transformation allowed for a common musical, yet commercial culture to form—where fans belonged to something bigger than themselves, and socially identified with each other through the relationships that they had with these abstract, top-down artist brands. The act of collecting their music, owning it, and displaying it—this is how fans signaled their preferences, taste, and identity.

In this consumption system, since the taste in music of each fan developed gradually—if not stayed the same—over the course of most their lives, the artist could disconnect themselves from the fan and create new albums without fear of losing their audience. And since the artist’s creativity time line, more often than not, lasted several years, a new album was to be anticipated, cherished, and hoarded. In turn, fans viewed the artist’s music as a scarcity, which is why they waited outside of the store—hours before it opened—to purchase the new album.

Biased Mediums

Fans did not, however, have any control over the traditional system. As individual fans—and by definition “passive” listeners—they didn’t actually know what they music they wanted to listen to. Nor did they want to take the time to find it.

Therefore, the music of the artist had to intersect with “their physical or psychological environment.”1 Their newest album and its hit single had to “intrude on their day to day existence and generate a strongly positive association.”2

To penetrate their environment, the single would have to receive heavy rotation on commercial radio, the video played on MTV, the album would need to be available at all big-box retail outlets, and a review would have to appear in Rolling Stone.

These mechanisms—when utilized together—formed an abstract consumption system that major labels used to influence passive listeners and their taste in music, and to regulate the flow of culture into their lives. This often resulted in a bond between the mechanisms and the individual that grew stronger than their connection to the actual music that they delivered.

If you focus on these specific mechanisms and how they convey commercial culture—rather than on the particular songs that the major labels use them to deliver—it becomes clear that we essentially miss the effect of their structural influence. How they promoted the gradual, yet subtle development of taste in music over long periods of time.

These mechanisms are biased towards familiarity and conformity. Even more so, they’re biased towards major label interests and the needs of their advertisers.

Commercial radio, for instance, typically cannot play “new” music. In order to keep the listener’s attention for the longest period of time—so that they are exposed to the station’s advertisers—they must achieve the lowest tune out rate possible. And, what is required of them to accomplish this feat is that they must maintain the least objectionable programming possible.

When these stations do introduce new music, it can’t be radically different from the current playlist—so the comfort of the listener isn’t obstructed to the degree that they tune out. The artist’s hit single, then, must be familiar to the fan and conform to the rest of the stations programming and that of the current popular music trends. In other words, the music that they play can be new for as long as it offends the fewest people and serves as a buffer between two advertisements.

As for MTV, “They are,” in the words of media critic Douglas Rushkoff, “not dedicated to creating new kinds of music and entertainment in order to promote a richer culture. Corporations depend on understanding trends so they can sell people whatever it is that they already have.”3

Together, these specific mechanisms created a focal point in the mindless feedback loop between production and consumption in the traditional system—where industry executives researched teen culture for indications on what music they should play—while teens themselves scoured these mediums for models of new artists to imitate and for the theme songs of their generation.4

Taste in Music

Thus, when a fan discovered music through these mechanisms, it is quite likely that their taste in music would only broaden ever so slightly. And, due to the biases of these mechanisms—that their taste would constantly be reinforced, but never challenged; it would evolve along the taste continuum, from one finite state, to the next, without dramatically changing.

For the passive teenage listener—whose taste in music was primary influenced by specific delivery mechanisms—the Internet changed all of this.

Prior to the digital revolution, we tended to think of taste as something that goes through a gradual transition from one condition, to a different condition—with very few abrupt changes. During our teenage years, interest music peaks and we move through the states more rapidly, which carries onward to college—where we were confronted with a multitude of new influences and musical tastes.

After these critical stages in our development, it is understood that this process slows down, and, for the most part, that our musical tastes are fully formed. Yet, this conventional model of how musical taste develops isn’t representative of the personality of each individual fan as much as it is the biases of the consumption systems they interacted with and the ranges of social behavior they promote.

This raises an important question, that if the traditional system facilitated an environment where taste develop gradually, what did the Internet enable?

In short, it permitted a population of digital youth to rethink their role as passive listeners in the traditional system, and to become more actively engaged in their culture experiences in a way that wasn’t possible a decade ago. First, came file-sharing. Then, in an attempt provide legal services that were more in step with the emerging social norms of those who were born digital, many companies began inhabiting this new landscape. This lead to the rise of the personalized music experience and the networked audience.

Finite to Fluidity

Through this ‘social ecology of music culture’ that formed online, listeners could now exercise a higher degree of control over how they discovered, acquired, consumed, and discarded music. And, out of this chaos and transformation, an ‘unplanned and unforeseen’ Internet era consumption system emerged.

Where the traditional system operated on the assumptions that a fan’s taste developed gradually; where collecting music consisted solely of the ownership of physical albums; and where the biases of the consumption system promoted compatible ranges of social behavior, the Internet era system did not.

In contrasting the traditional music consumption system with that of the ‘Internet era’ system that those born digital also experienced, what becomes clear is that it is biased towards different things.

The traditional system and its specific mechanisms—commercial radio, MTV, big-box retail, and print—are biased toward familiarity, conformity, and façade, and facilitate the gradual developmentof taste. On the other hand, the Internet era system and its equivalent mechanisms—YouTube, Pandora, iTunes and blogs—are biased towards personalization, specialization, and relevance, and enables a much more rapid evolution of taste.

Therefore, the ranges of social behavior that it promotes are different too.

As a result, those who were born digital—who actively engaged with and readily immersed themselves in this ‘Internet era’ system—have shifted from finite to fluidity, both in the terms of how their taste in music develops, and how it reflects upon the music they collect. What this means is that their tastes no longer progress gradually along the continuum from one finite state to a different state. Instead, they evolve continuously, ultimately reaching a constant state of fluidity.

Also, where the traditional system is biased towards hoarding and scarcity, and encouraged the act of collecting music in the physical or finite form, the Internet era system is biased towards sharing and abundance. It thrives on the collecting of music—across multiple channels—in the digital or fluid form.

The ‘Broken’ System

In conclusion, the traditional system is optimized for a different era than the one we are living in today. The Internet era music consumption system has promoted ranges of social behavior in those who were born digital which are incompatible not only with the traditional system, but with the assumptions that the record industry currently operates under.

In the digital age, there will only be many different systems, promoting evermore complex and different ranges of social behavior. If each fan personalizes their own consumption system to their needs, then, their behavior will no longer align with any one particular system. In a sense, how their taste in music develops, and how it reflects upon the music they collect will be unique to them.

The traditional system has broken, for good. And, by treating it as if still defines how those who were born digital consume music, we are only denying ourselves access to its ongoing redesign.

Has this been your experience? How have your habits changed related to consuming or distributing music?

References:

1-2: Observations About Passive Listeners
3-4: Rushkoff, Douglas. (2009). Life Inc. New York: Random House Inc.

Share it if you like it:

Performance Rights Act Discussed in Heated Senate Hearing

refe — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 15:29:46 +0000

The Senate judiciary hearing on performance rights and parity was held yesterday on capitol hill to discuss the controversial Performance Rights Act. If you are unfamiliar with the bill you should know that it carries significant implications for the music industry. If this bill passes, terrestrial radio will be required to pay royalties to the performers of the songs they play, in addition to composers.

If you’ve been around the blog a while you might remember an article I wrote a few months ago dismantling what I considered to be five key flaws in the proposed legislation. At the risk of sounding self-important I suggest that you read that article if you haven’t already. The bill and my opinion of it have both evolved since then, but I still consider those 5 points to be critical. Particulary if you are an artist, because while it’s natural to instinctively support a bill that promises to increase your income it is still important to check the facts.

As I mentioned above, some key amendments have been made since the Performance Rights Act was introduced. They establish a sliding fee scale to address the concerns of smaller and minority broadcasters’ ability to afford new royalties. Here’s a concise summary of how that breaks down courtesy of Variety:

Royalty rates for stations that have annual gross revenues of $1.25 million or more would be established by the Copyright Royalty Board if broadcasters and performers are unable to negotiate rates on their own.

Commercial stations that gross less than $100,000 per year will pay a $500 annual fee.

Commercial stations that gross more than $100,000 and less than $500,000 pay a $2,500 annual fee.

Commercial stations that gross more than $500,000 and less than $1.25 million will pay a $5,000 annual fee.

Public, nonprofit religious and college music stations that gross less than $100,000 will pay a $500 annual fee. Those above $100,000 will pay a $1,000 fee.

None of the royalties will take effect for at least a year. For stations that gross less than $5 million per year, no royalties will be due for three years. For those above that figure, none would be due for another 12 months.

While these amendments don’t address many of my concerns, they are a big step in the right direction. I have no love for ClearChannel, but I don’t want to see local and volunteer radio pushed out of business by crippling rates. I still haven’t found anything that addresses the heavy record keeping burden that will be imposed on these small stations, however, and I know that is a big concern for many of them.

One important item in the above amendments is that royalty rates for the highest earning stations “would be established by the Copyright Royalty Board if broadcasters and performers are unable to negotiate rates of their own.” The creative industries – particularly music – rely far to heavily on government legislation in my opinion. This is supposed to be a free market. Rates and fees should be determined through a process of negotiation between buyer and seller, not by government.

That’s why the issue of payola throws such a wrench in the idea of record companies requiring additional fees from broadcasters. The market – in spite of government legislation – determined that air-time was worth paying for, not the other way around. Record companies were so determined to get their acts on the air that they were willing to throw down significant bribes to get it. The practice of payola continued until at least 2005 when Sony BMG was found guilty of buying airplay despite laws forbidding it.

Unfortunately, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) has to date been unwilling to participate in negotiations. As infuriating as this is it does make sense – they don’t want this bill to pass at all. Either way, they may not be able to hold that position much longer. During the hearing yesterday Senator Patrick Leahy said this to the broadcasters present: ”Legislation will move, and I suggest that you talk to the artists because I would want the legislation to be in the interest of both the broadcasters and artists.” In other words, start negotiating.

Whether or not Senator Leahy’s predictions are accurate remain to be seen. Before the hearing even took place a group of 22 lawmakers requested that the vote on the PRA be delayed ”until such time as the impact of this legislation can be fully examined.” It is at least encouraging to see that some lawmakers realize that this bill will have major implications and needs to be considered carefully.

Share it if you like it:

Deconstructing the Week in Music 6.15-6.21

refe — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:30:46 +0000

Here’s a recap of what went on in the music industry this week. Make sure to check out anything you might have missed and leave your comments. Know something we don’t? Submit a story.

Most Popular:

Why Free Music was Inevitable - An introductory explanation of the economics behind free music.

Resurgence of Vinyl Could be Just What the Industry Needs - Why vinyl is the perfect compliment to digital music.

This Week:

Sufjan Stevens Gives Copyright to Fan Who Won’t Copy - Another innovative idea from an innovative artist. What would you do with exclusive rights to your favorite artist’s new song?

MySpace Lays Off 30% of Employees - Is the writing on the wall for the the once dominant social networking platform?

5 Reasons Why the Performance Rights Act is a Bad Idea – The latest RIAA money-grab could have significant consequences on both the broadcasting industry, and the music industry as a whole.

Creative Culture and the Growing Copyright Extremism - How the recording industry is destroying fair use.

Music Video Picks:

Phoenix – ’1901′

White Rabbits – ‘Percussion Gun’

Carina Round – ‘Backseat’

This Week in Music History:

1965, Bob Dylan recorded what would be his first ‘electric’ hit, ‘Like A Rolling Stone’ which peaked at No.2 in the US and No.4 on the UK singles chart. (From Thisdayinmusic.com)

Share it if you like it:

5 Reasons Why the Performance Rights Act is a Bad Idea

refe — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:30:07 +0000

For those who aren’t familiar with the Performance Rights Act, it is a bill that was introduced in February that would require radio stations to pay performance royalties in addition to fees they already pay to songwriters. The RIAA, along with a few big names such as Billy Corgan (pictured), is pushing this bill under the pretense that it benefits the artists and that the industry needs it to survive.

The problem is that their claims simply are not true. The Performance Rights Act would have potentially disastrous consequences across the music business, and I’ve put together a quick list that explains why.

1. The Performance Rights Act would cripple local radio

The PRA is basically a new tax on radio stations that would be paid directly to the recording industry. This fee is already being paid by Internet, satellite and cable radio stations, and has caused the untimely demise of more than one service providor since it went into effect in 2002. What makes congress think that local radio stations will be able to avoid the same fate?

Jesse Walker of ReasonOnline also pointed out recently that the fees themselves aren’t the only costs that this bill would impose on radio stations:

“The record labels are completely out of touch as to how college radio stations operate,” Warren Kozireski, president of College Broadcasters Inc., recently complained on his organization’s website. “The extensive record keeping requirements that will be required by the Copyright Royalty Board alone will add hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to the true cost of a performance fee.” It’s relatively easy to do that book-keeping if you have a narrow playlist and rarely deviate from it, as is the case with most large commercial radio stations. But if you have a library of thousands of albums and 45s, many of which were never reissued on CD, and if you allow your DJs to choose which ones they play—or even to bring in still more music from their personal collections of rare soul or jazz or bluegrass or electronica obscurities—then tracking the data suddenly becomes a full-time job.

2. The PRA hurts independent artists

I’ve heard some supporters of this bill touting that the independent artists have the most to gain. This is because the money would go to performers and copyright owners, which in the case of independent artists are the same thing. Therefore, the PRA would provide a potentially significant revenue stream for the artist. Right?

In a perfect world, maybe. But in this world playlists at major stations are chosen by advertising dollars, not DJs. Adding an additional fee for every song played will only make stations even more unwilling to take risks on unproven acts. Independent acts have a hard enough time getting on major stations – they don’t need another hurtle.

3. Payola

Payola, for those who don’t know, is an illegal but very common industry practice where agents of the record labels bribe radio stations to broadcast their music. As Mike Masnick of Techdirt puts it:

The most damning argument against the recording industry’s demand for money here is the fact that, for decades, the industry has (illegally) had the money go in the other direction. The system of payola has shown, quite clearly, how much the recording industry values airtime, in that it’s willing to pay radio stations to play its music.

So, can anyone explain why it’s illegal for record labels to pay radio stations to play music, but it’s okay for Congress to force radio stations to pay the record labels for playing their music? It defies common sense.

In other words, the RIAA values the promotional benefits of radio airtime so much that it’s willing to break the law and pay out large amounts of cash to get it, yet it now wants the radio stations to start paying them for the privelidge of providing this benefit. Make sense? Didn’t think so.

4. The bill is based on misinformation

According to a recent press release by the musicFIRST Coalition - a lobby group created to push for the PRA – Radio should pay performance royalties because it is the only platform that currently does not. They accuse brodcasters of believing that “AM and FM music radio stations should continue to get special treatment, that AM and FM music radio stations do not have to play by the rules, and that AM and FM music radio stations should enjoy a competitive advantage over other music platforms.”

The problem is that they are ignoring the fact that they were the ones who created this disparity. When the other platforms such as online streaming were required to pay performance royalties it had everything to do with controlling the reproduction of digital music – a problem not shared by terrestrial radio. As Jesse Walker points out, the industry’s argument “hinged on the idea that digital broadcasting is different from conventional broadcasting. Forteen years later, as it attempts to impose a performance fee on AM and FM broadcasters as well, the industry now wants to claim the channels are equivalent after all.”

5. The PRA doesn’t benefit musicians as much as the RIAA claims

I already talked about the ways that independent musicians would be hurt by the PRA, but what about bigger acts? The problem here is that the royalties would be paid to performers and copyright owners, which in most cases are the major record labels.

After the label takes its cut, there remains the issue of whether or not the rest of the fee will ever reach the artist. To quote Walker:

The Web radio experience is instructive. The institution that distributes performance fees to artists is SoundExchange, an organization that spun off from the Recording Industry Association of America in 2003. In 2007, the Houston Press noted that the group was apparently unable to locate about 25 percent of the performers on whose behalf it was allegedly acting. After perusing the list of lost musicians, the Press‘s John Nova Lomax reported that “in less than five minutes of Googling, I found the official Web sites and/or MySpace pages of Fito Olivares, Goudie, Mark May, the Hollisters and Los Skarnales. What’s more, highly visible people like Cam’ron (fresh off a highly-publicized appearance on 60 Minutes), Fat Joe and Danzig are on the ‘lost’ list too.”‘

Conclusion

I want artists to have the ability to make a good living creating music, but this is not the bill to make that happen. The Performance Rights Act amounts to little more than a last ditch manuever by a flailing industry. What do you think? Does the bill make sense, or will it cause more harm than good?

Share it if you like it: