Oddly enough, this is the first music business-specific post that I’ve done here. As a guest contributor on other sites, I’ve covered topics like music in the blogosphere, why independent artists should utilize Last.fm, youth and music journalism, and, most recently, initialized a series of tips for independent musicians on SleepWalKing Mag. This is all very well for the pioneering indie artist or label, but it has very little to do with the monetary aspect; music as a commodity. I would argue that music is firstly a cultural property, and secondly an economic one, just as literature or art is, but I think the on-line music community is often careless about the fact that the music business exists and artists, labels, promoters, and everyone else involved in that circle are working to get paid, and should be. This dual interaction of creative works being produced, while many of the players involved are pressing towards monetary gain, has become more of a strange and complex matter due to (you guessed it!) the Internet.

For the on-line music enthusiast in the 2000s, there have been so many positive advances that it would be impossible to list all of them here, though ease-of-access to legally streaming and downloading music for free via sites like Last.fm and Spotify, music blogs (made more easily searchable and listenable through MOG, The Hype Machine, and Elbo.ws), iTunes and Amazon for purchasing mp3s and albums, and lots of options for artists and labels to distribute and promote their work (MySpace Music, iLike, Imeem, Bandcamp, ad infinitum) have been some of the most important. Note: Many other favorite music-centric sites and services are listed at 100 Music Websites Part #1 and #2.

As for the morally ambiguous or negative happenings, file-sharing is at the center of it all. Many of you readers are likely to know the Napster story, RIAA v. The People, DRM restrictions, and possibly also what went on with OiNK. This has left a large number of people with unpleasant feelings about downloading music, and confusion over how or even whether it is possible to download and listen to music on-line without getting into legal trouble. Arguments against P2P are often based around the fact that it is “morally wrong” (see also: The Big Picture: New Arguments About P2P) and “illegal”, which is wholly dependent on the whether the material downloaded is authorized; while it is common knowledge that P2P networks are a haven for otherwise commercially available albums, some artists upload their own material to torrenting sites, including apparent album leaks and entire discographies!

Let’s stop for a moment and consider this. I have noticed that music fans who are hotly against file-sharing, be it in regards to personal music blogs or large scale P2P networks, often pride themselves in their physical copy collections, gig attendance, and moral stance on the matter. I, too, appreciate hard-copies of music and love going to concerts when I am able (who doesn’t?), but these aspects don’t have much to do with how we handle digital content or morality. What about downloading an album that’s been out-of-print for 25 years? What about downloading an album ripped from vinyl that was never pressed to CD? What about downloading a mix of different artists that someone personally put together? What if someone downloads an album or song they wouldn’t have bought anyway, doesn’t end up liking it, and deletes it from their computer? Are these morally wrong activities as well? This is where the issue gets fuzzy and opinions become divided.

It certainly doesn’t help that the transfer of digital files has been compared to stealing physical property (“You wouldn’t steal a car!”) and that piracy has been accused of killing music (this isn’t the first time around, either - see also: “Home Taping is Killing Music”, and the related subject of pirate radio). Oddly enough, a recent study has found music pirates 10 times more likely to buy music and more music sold in 2008 than ever before (with individual tracks up and albums down): see USA Today, Ars Technica, and Future of Music for the official stats on this.

Has the widespread availability of music for free devalued music? According to Digital Music News: “P2P networks have done little to decrease overall interest in music; they have just made it incredibly difficult to monetize. That makes the current landscape a difficult one for the industry, though consumers may actually be more engaged and excited about music than ever before.” This statement holds true for music blogs as well.

No one has accused libraries of devaluing books! Well, there’s eBooks and PDF-sharing around to deal with now, too, but that’s a discussion for another website altogether…While we’re on the subject of libraries, isn’t it a shame that most of them don’t have copies of historically and culturally important albums available to borrow (with or without DRM restrictions)? The importance of archiving and preserving music is best discussed in Deleting Music, the blog and plans for a book by Andrew Dubber (of New Music Strategies) that is well-worth reading. The recent OpenMusicMedia ‘Music as Culture’ event that Dubber and Jez Collins were guest speakers at put emphasis on the culture and commerce of music; read more on this at The Music Void.

This kind of public discourse can give way to positive solutions, including:
Electronic Frontier Foundation: Their slogan is suitably “Defending Freedom in the Digital World”. They have drawn up some of the best plans for both the monetization of file-sharing and consumer privacy rights. Recommended reading: A Better Way Forward: Voluntary Collective Licensing of File Sharing, and Monetizing File-Sharing.

Featured Artists Coalition: “The Featured Artists Coalition campaigns for the protection of performers’ and musicians’ rights. We want all artists to have more control of their music and a much fairer share of the profits it generates in the digital age. We speak with one voice to help artists strike a new bargain with record companies, digital distributors and others, and are campaigning for specific changes.”

Totally Fuzzy: Google/Blogger Policy Changes For Music Bloggers: This is a recent development that allows for DMCA complaints being handled without deletion of music blog posts containing suspected unauthorized downloads (instead, they are thrown into draft mode) and clearer notifications.

So, what does this all mean to those who are out there trying to earn a living in the music business? It means they’ll have to do things differently to take advantage of the positives of music on the Internet and cater to today’s music fan, which has to be a multi-faceted approach. It also means that, consequently, “today’s music fan” will have to consider how they feel about and what their interaction is with the music business as well. There is currently much hostility over what the RIAA is and does (see also Zero Paid: RIAA Says Lawsuits Against File Sharing “Not About the Money” and RIAA Radar) and some curious opinions on why music should be free (Slashdot), which, again, is turning away from the fact that music will continue to be both a cultural and economic institution, a double-sided fact that music-makers, distributors, promoters, and fans cannot ignore if they want to help resolve the current mixed-up state of the music industry.

This was the first part of a continuing series - your comments and suggestions for future points of discussion would be much appreciated! (Top left photo by re-ality)