For many years now, the tech industry has told the music industry to “get with it” and create “new” business models.
Well, they`re here now in the form of
outrageous ticket prices
constant marketing mailing/viral campaigns
increased corporate sponsorships (which is just splendid for artistic freedom, but who`s watching, right?)
investment in venture capital and thus tech startups as you can see from the article below
What`s gone is:
investment in A&R
advances for producing albums for young bands / artists
the middle class career in music
the small indie label investing in niche music out of love
There is only one solution to this whole dilemma that will bring back freedom to create art:
The audience has to come back with their wallet and directly (!) support the artists they like. Even if those artists happen to be signed to a label. Not all labels are Mega-Corporation-Labels with terrible deals for their roster. A lot of the do really great work and love what they do.
Support and buy the albums directly from artists
Have a winner-take-all music world dominated by corporate / artistic relationships based on marketing research and capital.
As a musician/composer heavily reliant on copyright as a means of at least some form of power in relationship to my clients (tv production companies and tv stations mostly) and as a tech lover (since my days on the C64 who never really went into science, coding or engineering because music was the bigger love for me) for the past 10 years I’ve experienced the “wrath of the internet” first hand and in painful personal attacks. And what hurts most was, that I felt the dreams painted by the geeks where my dreams (open culture, removing the middle men, direct access) but then the geeks started to actively destroy my professional field (the one that lets me provide for my family) and at the same time ignored the writings on the wall (the steady decline in revenue and the loss of the middle class musician/composer due to piracy).
There was mockery, victim blaming, talk of a “new business model” that nobody really defined. Not even the really smart people in tech managed to come up with a “new model” that actually works for the lower and middle class musicians. For them, the best solution is still to sell an album (digital or physical) for roughly ten bucks.
Throughout those last 10 years the “ignoring outsiders and believing in ourselves” that I deeply admire and that I feel I`m a part of in my field has built up such a high barrier between otherwise like minded people (nerds and musicians are always visionaries, they recognize things that most people don’t). Even though I have built up a strong resistance for it, it still hurts the sensitive side in me.
b) it makes me sad we no longer have a culture where playing music reflects a state of being and makes a statement in relation to the world. You can now just “perform” the breaking out of the norms on a nightly talk show for a minute, get the claps, laughs and wows but it leaves emptiness.
To add insult to injury the uploader (some Russian dude now raking in clicks and making money on top of a performance he had absolutely nothing to do with, but that`s a whole other discussion) filed this video under Comedy.
We’re building a special guitar tuner that indicates in which direction the string has to be tuned via certain patterns. The pitch recognition and pattern generation of the program works now and I’m very proud to having created the patterns with only about 40 lines of code.
Have you ever noticed that in a discussion you have (mostly in Twitter) and it’s an actual discussion that goes to the core of a persons views, there are two options, either the person is a big enough person to “expose” themselves and stand behind their viewpoint.
Or, and this is what usually happens, they’ll cry “troll” pretty quickly and thereby put the other person under pressure, to say the least, by discrediting and shaming them.
This is a pattern that I have observed many many times in the discussions surrounding authors rights: whenever I stand up for my assertion that a strong individual authors right modeled after the European legal system empowers the individual and forces “bigger” business partners to actually having to negotiate. Whereas a simple copyright as in the Anglo-American legal system favors the aggregators (labels, publishers, film studios), infrastructure providers (ISPs, hosting providers) and media services (YouTube, Spotify etc).
So when I ask individuals who work in promoting the copyleft movement, what their thinking, motivation and benefit behind weakening the authors rights are, I get attacked and called a troll.
I can openly say what the benefits of a strong authors right to both the individual and the culture businesses are. Why can’t my “opponents” practice the same openness and have to resort to attacking me? And in this case the “me” and “them” is the collective behind each movement. But it speaks volumes that the copyleftists don’t really name their motivation: because their motivation is targeted at destroying a market.