R.I.P. RIAA et al?

There’s a thread (currently) on the front page of slashdot entitled Why The RIAA Really Hates Downloads, which touches upon a subject I’ve talked about before. This subject is the recording industry, and their inability or unwillingness to embrace change, evolve, and ultimately survive. Back when I wrote the original article, some thoughts (which by no means were original) were forming, and the last six months has only reaffirmed the idea behind these. During this time (and previously with artists such as David Beddingfield) artists who literally gave us ‘home-made’ music have hit number one in various countries with increasing frequency, and the iTunes Music Store has become the second largest retailer of music in the U.S., behind only Wal-Mart. The music industry has three main aspects to it:

1. Content creation.
2. Content distribution.
3. Marketing.

i.e. making a product, getting the product to the market, and motivating people to want to buy the product.

Content Creation. The arrival of software such as GarageBand from Apple, and similar software has closed the quality between home brewed music and studio recordings considerably. Using GarageBand as an example, not only is the base application an excellent tool for creating quality sound, there are numerous ‘Jam Packs’ and plugins available from Apple and other sources. This allows the open source and commercial communities to extend the functionality of the program a great deal.

Instead of having to organise, co-ordinate, and pay for various specialist musicians, one had access to what they provided while sitting at their keyboard almost instantly at a fraction of the cost, if not free. High speed internet meant that artists could create music without having to be in the same room, and even asynchronously. Using the internet to share and collaborate, music could be created, critiqued, and disseminated by individuals anywhere in the world.

Content Distribution. If the digital age had a considerable impact on creation, it’s impact on distribution can only be described as colossal; revolutionary. This is the area where the recording industry held it’s greatest power – they had the factories to press LPs, bulk copy cassettes, and press CDs, and the delivery paths to the various record stores and chain retailers to push their product. However, Steve Jobs – then CEO of Pixar as well as Apple Inc. – had the vision, industry presence, and persistence to create a digital method of selling music which turned the industry on it’s head.

The iTunes Music Store was the first of it’s kind, and by all accounts so far, the most successful. Apple had found a way of delivering music to the consumer in a simple manner, and in an acceptable (to most) form which the recording industry could stomach, if not embrace. The hardware required to distribute music had gone from factories costing millions of dollars to computer servers and high speed internet connections.

Another revolutionary aspect of digital distribution was the ability for almost anyone to submit their work for sale. Independent labels finally had access to the same methods of access to the customer as the giant conglomerates of the recording industry. Gaining a recording contract was pie in the sky for almost all artists until now, as the record company were betting huge costs involved with spotting talent, arranging studio time, and creating the physical media for artists they signed. Now, artists could create their music without requiring a traditional studio, and the outcome was digital, and easily and cheaply duplicated.

Marketing. Traditionally, once a record company had invested in the material costs for promoting an artist, they followed this up with extensive, costly marketing campaigns via television, radio, print media, etc to ensure that the public were aware of their signed talent. This meant that many artists who were past their ‘use by’ date were still kept on the books and in the studios, as the record companies had sunk enormous sums of money to promote their name, and didn’t want to have to start again.

The internet – and especially high speed connections – meant that bands and artists could create a website with information about themselves, photos, music clips, video clips of live performances which were accessible to anyone with a computer and an internet connection. This sort of exposure simply wasn’t available in the past. The advent of social networking sites such as MySpace, Facebook, Bebo, Digg, and the extensive integration of the methods we use to communicate has brought about a much less expensive and more pervasive method of creating customer awareness.

As much as Hotmail became what it was (before being bought by Microsoft) due to word of mouth, viral marketing on the aforementioned sites and others ensure that good works are given exposure to the marketplace.

Conclusion The division and revolution throughout the whole process means that these aspects – which once were inextricably linked – can now be separated.  Whereas traditionally the record companies oversaw, financed, and fed on the whole process, exerting complete control, these facets can now be broken down individually, as above. The artists can concentrate on their music, whilst using a new type of marketing executives who are familiar and far more importantly, comfortable with the digital generation, and the changes brought by the revolution.

Market leaders such as Apple and Amazon can do what they do best – feeding the public’s appetite for good music at a good price. Each person or collective doing what they do best, surely can only be good for the music industry, and the buying public. I believe at first there will be an overabundance of ‘music’ as musicians take to the new framework as set out above. However as with many things on the internet, this initial tidal wave will pass, and web sites and other systems will spring forth save us from having to wade through the masses of material out there, and the quality music will rise to the top, once again.