The "music industry" is whatever the market and enabling technology defines it to be. Before the 1950's, selling sheet music defined the "music industry" for decades. Before that, patronage by European royalty defined the "music industry".
But I agree that at the heart of this "experience" is the music itself, and the performance that manifests it. But I still feel music is beyond the products that have defined it as a record industry. Music is a primordial organizing principle of human societies, always has been. In a lot of ways, I think these future direct-to-fan experiential products return music to the primordial function it served for humanity, and all that entails. And sure, selling it seems sort of cheesy now, but that's a zeitgeist sentiment, which can and will change. Remember, 70-100 years ago, it was cheesy to sell recorded music. Lot of world renowned musicians, orchestras and performers refused to be recorded, for some of the same sentiments you share here today about "BS 'experience'" products.
Any ethnomusicologist can tell you there is such a thing as music that is not produced for income. What happens when the "instruments" to create music are fully electronic and all output is digital?
Musicians know that music is not just a business. It is a language. Not necessary one every person can speak but certainly one that everyone can understand. Our lives are short and we may never live in a time without a "music industry". But music has a much longer history and a longer future than our short lives. There is more to music than just a "music industry".
What about the idea of peer-to-peer music? Not "file transfer" or "download" but "playback"? (YouTube, while it may seem instantaneous, is progressive download isn't it? Kids may not realize this.) What about decentralized instead of centralized broadcast. If we are doing peer-to-peer VOIP, we can do music as well.
Comments
The "music industry" is whatever the market and enabling technology defines it to be. Before the 1950's, selling sheet music defined the "music industry" for decades. Before that, patronage by European royalty defined the "music industry".
But I agree that at the heart of this "experience" is the music itself, and the performance that manifests it. But I still feel music is beyond the products that have defined it as a record industry. Music is a primordial organizing principle of human societies, always has been. In a lot of ways, I think these future direct-to-fan experiential products return music to the primordial function it served for humanity, and all that entails. And sure, selling it seems sort of cheesy now, but that's a zeitgeist sentiment, which can and will change. Remember, 70-100 years ago, it was cheesy to sell recorded music. Lot of world renowned musicians, orchestras and performers refused to be recorded, for some of the same sentiments you share here today about "BS 'experience'" products.
Any ethnomusicologist can tell you there is such a thing as music that is not produced for income. What happens when the "instruments" to create music are fully electronic and all output is digital?
Musicians know that music is not just a business. It is a language. Not necessary one every person can speak but certainly one that everyone can understand. Our lives are short and we may never live in a time without a "music industry". But music has a much longer history and a longer future than our short lives. There is more to music than just a "music industry".
What about the idea of peer-to-peer music? Not "file transfer" or "download" but "playback"? (YouTube, while it may seem instantaneous, is progressive download isn't it? Kids may not realize this.) What about decentralized instead of centralized broadcast. If we are doing peer-to-peer VOIP, we can do music as well.
What do you think?
Do you think that one day musicians will be able to pay for their housing and food with a song?