Musical Capitalism

With the music industry suffering huge defeat in the onset of the digital age, the tendency to be all embracing of the latest glimmer of hope has become commonplace. To call foul of new developments often results in accusations of living in the past. However, for those who do wish to plough headlong into any reshaping of the music industry, it is important to fully understand the consequences of giving weight to the movement.

CALIFORNIA STREAMING

It seemed such a sunny day when Spotify burst onto the US scene, offering a whole new platform for artists to be discovered. The success of subscription streaming in the film industry has prompted fans, and musical analysts, to hail the arrival of musical streaming as the inevitable way forward for music consumption.

However, there is a huge difference with the movie business and the music business, and that is the birth of the products cycle. A movie starts its life as an attraction that has to be paid for to be experienced. From day one it has worth. We have become accustomed to paying a fee for this one off experience, both in the theaters and through rental. On the other hand, recorded music has always been about ownership; the experience was about acquiring the CD on day of release, not simply listening to it.

With streaming music, the shift is to making money in other ways, but herein lays the problem of music as big business. A band can only be in one place at one time. They, as a live attraction, are limited in reach. With the major media outlets seemingly having less and less impact on a bands ability to achieve sales, the focus appears to shift back to building interactive relationships with fans. This is achieved through gigging and also through the bands own web presence. This is a small business ideology; it is akin to the concept of how local restaurants or mom and pop stores achieve success.

SPOTIMART

The major labels are still looking for big business, but it doesn’t exist in music anymore. It is becoming a sea of small businesses, each unique in their model. And this is where the capitalist shift occurs. Spotify takes all those little businesses and offers one umbrella. It appears to be the Wal Mart of music. Everything under one roof at an unbeatable price. But bring Wal Mart to any town and it is the small businesses that ultimately suffer. They cannot compete with the prices and selection. The former thriving hub slowly becomes a shell of its former self, and what’s on offer to consumers is a mass produced, shoddily manufactured, and aimed at a broad spread of the community.

Spotify is now moving to phase two of its operation. With the onset of limited listening hours they are attempting to secure premium subscribers. They are looking to take those dollars away from the small businesses and control the market. Independent musicians are left with the choice of supplying their services at a vastly reduced rate or lose out.

BOUTIQUE BUSINESS

In this instance the Bourgeoisie are not the musicians or the creators of what is being consumed. They are NOT the forward thinking entrepreneurs of a new musical era. They are the remaining dregs of an old business which have wheedled their way into owning something that is not rightfully theirs – a vast catalogue of other peoples music. The proletariats are the musicians themselves, cut out of the big picture while being exploited for their wares.

Artists do have a choice though, you can chose to not supply these “discount” stores. You can embrace the fact you are a small business, stay a part of the center of town and not the big warehouse just off the freeway. Embrace your hard to find status, have faith in your product and ride out the storm. If Spotify only supplies quantity instead of quality it will inevitably become another Myspace. Though that might be gawked at as a statement, only time will tell if Spotify can create the capital needed to support its business ethic.