The idea of “music like water” assumes that the lowering cost of distribution and widespread copying of digital music will force record companies to offer all of their content under some sort of low-flat-fee scheme. It is a concept that seems to have grown in popularity recently, but, like so many, Gerd Leonhard seems to have ignored history – and missed the point.
For technical reasons, the written word has been widespread on the Internet for much longer than any other form of media. Consequently, it would perhaps be fair to assume that is more mature – and perhaps provides some indicator of what is to come with images, sound and video.
The “music like water” makes the same mistake as looking at the Internet and seeing it as a cheap way to distribute newspapers. They’re not wrong – but it hardly describes the trend towards widespread publishing through blogs, forums, personal websites, social networking sites and so on.
I’d argue that we’re starting to see the same thing with music – and in a limited way, YouTube is showing how it can happen with video too. Those predicting that the internet will just make music so cheap that it’s almost free are missing the point and ignoring the real revolution that’s just starting to happen. Again.
This was also posted to the New Music Strategies forum.
Hi there, I don’t quite get what you are trying to say… can you elaborate why you think that ‘music like water’ is wrong?
Hi Gerd, thanks for replying. Your “future of music” book undoubtedly sparked a lot of these thoughts, so it’s great to close the loop.
I think what I was trying to get at, but not really expressing very clearly, is that I think that music production and consumption will become a lot more personal, a bit like what is happening with blogs. Sure, some blogs are better than others and some have more readers than others, but it’s a continuum.
The concept of “flat-fee music” seems to be aimed at supporting a very similar structure to the present record industry – where music from a relatively small number of artists is listened to by a large number of people. Inherent in that model is the assumption that there’s only a small number of artists that are worth listening to, and that artists need to be paid, otherwise they won’t record anything.
There’s certainly a vain of truth in those arguments, which is why we have newspapers as well as blogs. But personally, I’ve not read a newspaper for months and am spending less and less time on mainstream news websites. For me, it’s far more interesting to read stories and opinions of my friends and of people I respect – and to follow links to content, products and services that they recommend to me. They don’t have to be paid to blog, they do it to share their lives with their friends.
In between a personal blog and a newspaper lies an interesting zone – a niche publication that, although it appeals to a small percentage of people, has enough readers to make it viable. Couple that with some novel marketing, product recommendations, public speaking, etc. and the author can make enough to become a “professional blogger”. You don’t need to be part of an institution to make enough to pay the rent and spend your life doing what you enjoy.
I hope that clarifies what I was getting at. I’d be delighted to hear your thoughts!
How add your article to digga.se?