As I write this, I'm sitting in the downstairs room of my house, listening to the 24 bit file of 2017's Reflection by Brian Eno on my stereo while behind me are around 5500 CD's, sitting in large metal filing cabinets. To my right are plastic bins filled with about 500 vinyl LP's, and to my right are cardboard storage boxes with hundreds of DVD's and Blu-ray's. There are boxes of comics, read and unread, and a bookshelf of books in similar states. In short, I'm a buyer of physical media, but I also enjoy the fruits of the digital realm in significantly lesser amounts.
I do so because I'm not sure that musical artists will survive and thrive in a streaming infrastructure. Sure, it appears that television and movies have cleared those hurdles; Game Of Thrones is the most pirated TV show, yet it's the top cash cow for HBO, and a great indie film that might have been lost can be swooped up by Netflix or Amazon and be seen globally. But despite Apple Music or Spotify or Pandora or Amazon Unlimited or whatever platform you examine, can you make it as an artist via streaming?
Two main arguments for streaming are simple on the surface: (1) The consumer streams the music, then goes to see the concert & (2) The consumer streams the music, then buys the LP or CD or shirt in a store or online. W/r/t the first argument, while there's evidence towards the former in the steady increase of concert attendance in the 21st Century (a.k.a. post-Napster), not every artist that releases music can financially afford and/or want to tour. Rare is the artist that also has equal amounts of business acumen, and many is the artist that has washed ashore on the rocks of broken-down vans, hopped-up drummers, damaged patch cords, or gas-station diets.
As to the second point, there would be a lot more music retail options were it true. (A tangent discussion on this topic is available here.) Back in my record store days, I would assuage my guilt for getting a free CD or show by pushing the shit out of an artist, from making a display on the wall or in the window to playing the music in-store to haranguing individual customers over and over again. At this point in my non-retail life, I make sure that I buy the music -- physical or digital -- and get tickets to the show, even if my ringing ears make actually going to the show a non-starter. But then again, I can afford to do this. What about the majority that can't?
I've always seen streaming as akin to radio airplay, but with even more ubiquity thanks to technology. And the history of rock and roll is littered with artists who had huge radio hits -- the soundtracks to our failures and triumphs alike -- who never got paid. And when you don't get paid, you can't pursue your art for long without help from above or below. Just this week, I've bought albums from Run The Jewels, Paul Haig, and Weyes Blood, because I know that my money means that those artists might have the chance to keep their art vibrant and alive. I hope that you can find some way to financially support the art that speaks to you, in whatever state you find yourself in. For in the days and months and years ahead, we're going to need all the art we can get.
I do so because I'm not sure that musical artists will survive and thrive in a streaming infrastructure. Sure, it appears that television and movies have cleared those hurdles; Game Of Thrones is the most pirated TV show, yet it's the top cash cow for HBO, and a great indie film that might have been lost can be swooped up by Netflix or Amazon and be seen globally. But despite Apple Music or Spotify or Pandora or Amazon Unlimited or whatever platform you examine, can you make it as an artist via streaming?
Two main arguments for streaming are simple on the surface: (1) The consumer streams the music, then goes to see the concert & (2) The consumer streams the music, then buys the LP or CD or shirt in a store or online. W/r/t the first argument, while there's evidence towards the former in the steady increase of concert attendance in the 21st Century (a.k.a. post-Napster), not every artist that releases music can financially afford and/or want to tour. Rare is the artist that also has equal amounts of business acumen, and many is the artist that has washed ashore on the rocks of broken-down vans, hopped-up drummers, damaged patch cords, or gas-station diets.
As to the second point, there would be a lot more music retail options were it true. (A tangent discussion on this topic is available here.) Back in my record store days, I would assuage my guilt for getting a free CD or show by pushing the shit out of an artist, from making a display on the wall or in the window to playing the music in-store to haranguing individual customers over and over again. At this point in my non-retail life, I make sure that I buy the music -- physical or digital -- and get tickets to the show, even if my ringing ears make actually going to the show a non-starter. But then again, I can afford to do this. What about the majority that can't?
I've always seen streaming as akin to radio airplay, but with even more ubiquity thanks to technology. And the history of rock and roll is littered with artists who had huge radio hits -- the soundtracks to our failures and triumphs alike -- who never got paid. And when you don't get paid, you can't pursue your art for long without help from above or below. Just this week, I've bought albums from Run The Jewels, Paul Haig, and Weyes Blood, because I know that my money means that those artists might have the chance to keep their art vibrant and alive. I hope that you can find some way to financially support the art that speaks to you, in whatever state you find yourself in. For in the days and months and years ahead, we're going to need all the art we can get.
Comments
Post a Comment