You make these suggestions with the assumption that recordings provide an necessary component of the music industry.
Recordings have only existed for barely more than a century. Musical performers survived long before and will survive long after. Profiting from recordings is an aberration rather than the norm. The industry can reorient itself back to live performances.
Movies, as well, make substantial revenue via theaters. Home video is not required to sustain the industry, but they would have you believe the movie industry prior to the VCR could not exist again. (even though at the time they claimed the VCR itself would destroy the movie industry).
It used to be the case that the cost of listening to recorded music was a combination of creation and distribution. The cost of distributions is now effectively zero, and so therefore, society should now no longer listen to recorded music, because it's not possible to cover the cost of creation with the profits from distribution?
As the combined cost of creation and distribution is lowered, I'd want society to have more creation and distribution.
I don't believe I said anything about recordings disappearing, but if I was unclear please correct me. I take issue with the idea that recordings can continue to be a revenue stream in the face of changing technology.
If the media industry needs laws and international accords to protect their distribution system at the expense of personal freedom and national sovereignty than I believe it is the musicians who should change and not society.
>Recordings have only existed for barely more than a century. Musical performers survived long before and will survive long after.
True. But that's saying the future is the past? That's not so much transformation, as devolution. I was trying to think how they would transform into the future, not "can they survive by looking back".
Live performances, I think, would create a strange situation where the listening was scheduled to the artist's performance, rather than being on my (on-demand) schedule. Even if I could schedule it to fit into my time, what about someone else in a different time zone. What woud I do about curating songs into a moody sequence?
My take on the musical profession, before the advent of recordings was that it was more a matter of survival, for most musicians --even good ones. That is to say, they barely survived on their musical income. That's not unlike lots of amateur musicians, but the difference is there was no "up" unless you were a virtuoso performing for a royal, or something similar. I would like for musicians to still be able to make a decent living from their art. Not necessarily millionaires (alto not against that).
>True. But that's saying the future is the past? That's not so much transformation, as devolution. I was trying to think how they would transform into the future, not "can they survive by looking back".
Do you have a reason for not looking back? I don't find platitudes such as "devolution" to be in any way compelling to discount going to what worked.
>Live performances, I think, would create a strange situation where the listening was scheduled to the artist's performance, rather than being on my (on-demand) schedule. Even if I could schedule it to fit into my time, what about someone else in a different time zone. What woud I do about curating songs into a moody sequence?
I did not intend to say that music recordings would disappear. Only that the revenue stream would shift from selling recordings to live performances. A more easily enforcible way to make money without imposing draconian changes to law to force payments out of citizens.
>My take on the musical profession, before the advent of recordings was that it was more a matter of survival, for most musicians --even good ones. That is to say, they barely survived on their musical income.
This is actually how most of humanity currently exists. The artists who sell recordings are, again, an aberration. Think Pink Floyd, The Beatles, Michael Jackson, or Jimi Hendrix still making money decades after any work stopped. I think it is reasonable to think performers move from a career of capital to one of labor. Actually the inverse. I find it unreasonable for laws to change to coddle the music industry by letting them create ethereal capital rather than work by actually performing music.
>That's not unlike lots of amateur musicians, but the difference is there was no "up" unless you were a virtuoso performing for a royal, or something similar. I would like for musicians to still be able to make a decent living from their art. Not necessarily millionaires (alto not against that).
I don't see why you think performing is a way in which musicians can't make a decent living.
>Do you have a reason for not looking back? I don't find platitudes such as "devolution" to be in any way compelling to discount going to what worked.
Nothing concrete. But here are my thoughts. I don't think artists nor people who enjoy music would be easily convinced of having to enjoy music the way people used to over a century ago. No time shifting (for listening); Relatively low income (for the artists). In other words the solution to the problem imposes greater problems (in my view) than it solves.
>I don't see why you think performing is a way in which musicians can't make a decent living.
Beside superbands, how would unknown artists develop a following without the groundswell usually provided by broadcast media? I'm sure Byonce, U2, Madonna, Springsteen and Bieber would keep doing well in a concert only economy. how would unknown bands develop that following if there is no way to sample them before going to a concert? It's not as if music is the only entertainment in town (as may have been the case 100+ years ago).
You are assuming that it's possible to turn back the clock; I seriously doubt that.
Profiting from recording has become the norm. The industry is simply not going back to live performances as the primary means of enjoying music. People will not be dragged kicking and screaming from their iPods & iPhones.
Likewise, I suspect that attempting to make money solely from movie theaters would end up with a crippled industry. There's a reason that DVDs were the fastest growing recording media in history: when you can get all the benefits of a theater experience (many of us don't need a 100' screen to be happy) at home without any of the drawbacks, well, it's gonna be hard to keep 'em down on the farm after they've seen Paree.
Just because something is the norm doesn't mean it can't change. It changed before. It will change again. Either we will give up freedom to protect media distribution in an effort to subsidize the media industry, or the media industry will change.
Theaters in the US took in $10 billion[1] in 2011. Theaters are hardly on their last leg. If studios can't survive on 16 million in revenue (on average) we really shouldn't be modifying laws in the US and internationally at the cost of freedom to help those inefficient studios stay in business.
Recordings have only existed for barely more than a century. Musical performers survived long before and will survive long after. Profiting from recordings is an aberration rather than the norm. The industry can reorient itself back to live performances.
Movies, as well, make substantial revenue via theaters. Home video is not required to sustain the industry, but they would have you believe the movie industry prior to the VCR could not exist again. (even though at the time they claimed the VCR itself would destroy the movie industry).