Back to Metroland's Home Page!
   View Classified Ads
   Place a Classified Ad
   Online Personals
   Place A Print Ad
 Columns & Opinions
   The Simple Life
   Looking Up
   Myth America
   Rapp On This
 News & Features
   What a Week
   Loose Ends
   This Week's Review
   The Dining Guide
   Tech Life
 Cinema & Video
   Weekly Reviews
   The Movie Schedule
   Listen Here
   Art Murmur
   Night & Day
   Event Listings
 About Metroland
   Where We Are
   Who We Are
   What We Do
   Work For Us
   Place An Ad

The Future is Now


Last week, I attended the Future of Music Coalition’s annual Policy Summit, which was held in Montreal. While it’ll be weeks before I completely absorb everything I heard, here are my initial impressions.

The organization is dedicated to helping guide the reshaping of the music industry to insure the creation of a “musician middle class,” a framework where successful and resourceful musicians can make a comfortable living, instead of what we have now, where a minute few musicians get stinking rich, the rest of the musicians live hand-to-mouth, and the middle class is occupied largely by functionaries who run “the music business.”

Over three days, we heard theorists giving “big-picture” views about what was happening, would-be new economy players jockeying for position, industry shills and dinosaurs trying to rationalize their existence, and ponderous “visionaries” explaining their next big things.

It was largely accepted that we were in the midst of the biggest change in the music industry since the advent of recorded music. With digital technology, the business of music is no longer based on a production model, but rather a rights-management model. The consumer, aided by computers and the Internet, is now the distributor and manufacturer of music. All of the squirming we see going on is the result of a failing industry trying to maintain a 19th-century business model in the face of 21st-century technology, and that’s just not gonna work. As one panelist said, what needs to be constructed is a way for transactions between the creator and the consumer to be mutually satisfying, and meantime, anybody else in the middle of those transactions needs to justify their existence.

The current state of things, with all of these differing encoding formats and modes of ownership, and schemes to protect digital files from rampant copying was recognized as temporary and transitional. One industry lawyer stated that DRM (digital rights management, the stuff most download services add to downloadable files to limit consumers’ ability to copy and transfer music) was “pro-consumer”, an observation that would make George Orwell blush.

The consensus was that the market would eventually dispense of DRM, one way or another, as consumers would continue to reject restricted files, and as the always slow-to-learn industry figures out that the continued growth of the illegal P2P free networks is caused not only because the music there is free cost-wise, but also because the music on P2P networks comes without DRM restrictions.

But how’s it going to work? The big choice appears to be between subscription models, where vast libraries of music are always available to subscribers, and a download model. Subscription advocates say that with the expansion of broadband and, especially, wireless and mobile technology, “ownership” of music becomes irrelevant, because everything is always available. Download-model advocates have this mantra, that “people like to own things,” so that the downloading of digital files will continue to be the only viable model.

I used to lean on the “owning things” argument heavily, but I’m starting to rethink it. For one thing, I noticed that the only people saying it were roughly my age, graying geezers still harboring a fetishistic jag for vinyl records, people who could be summed up as “music fags.” I don’t know if it makes sense anymore. Is owning a digital file really owning a “thing?” It’s really nothing more than a title in a playlist, and when you push the button there’s no salient difference whether the sound you hear is coming from your hard drive or from cyberspace. Most people—most sane people—won’t care where the music comes from, as long as it’s there on demand.

David Byrne showed up and gave a charmingly frazzled talk about whether record companies were necessary. He really didn’t provide any information everybody didn’t already know, but it’s always nice to be in a room with David Byrne.

The saddest panel was a trio of old-school multi-platinum record producers, Bob Ezrin, Sandy Pearlman and Don DeVito. Talk about the people in the middle trying to justify their existence. We heard that too much music is available, that music has become devalued because it’s too ubiquitous, that artists’ newly acquired ability to create competitive recordings in their basement was mere “pretending”, etc., etc.

So there are too many people making music, and too much music being listened to? Are you kidding me? Sorry guys, you’ve made some of my favorite recordings, and I respect what you’ve done. But you’re gonna have to state your case a little better than this to justify your bloated production budgets, your overpriced studios, and your four-point positions out of artists’ royalties. The train’s leaving the station, and you’re either on or off. And right now you’re off.

—Paul C. Rapp

Send A Letter to Our Editor
Back Home
Copyright © 2002 Lou Communications, Inc., 419 Madison Ave., Albany, NY 12210. All rights reserved.