WHAT IS A SONG WORTH TO YOU?
The changing nature of the music industry is something that has become a phrase
that gets bandied about in industry articles or by managers to explain why a u2 album
can debut at number one but sell considerably less copies than the last one.
But does anyone outside the music industry really know what it means?
I haven't seen a hell of a lot of discussion about the idea of the worth of music
to the average person. Words like 'free' or 'illegal' get thrown around.
But does anyone talk about 'worth'?
Popjustice pointed out that in the UK recently, the number one single by Kelly
Clarkson was actually on sale at Amazon cheaper than the price of a first class
stamp.
I thought about this : a stamp is something you put on an envelope (probably
a bill!) and send it off never to see it again.
Whereas a song..
Well! A song is for life.
Think about the places, the moments, the memories you will associate with
a song! A great song is with you forever, underscoring all the poignant moments
in your life. Giving back to you forever thankful for your initial one time investment
you made in it.
The song keeps giving.
The value you place on the song, the price you paid for it, funds the making of more
of them. And so exists this sort of agreement between you and the song.
These days, there are fewer and fewer places a songwriter can get paid to make
a living. And let me clarify something here - the idea that musicians or rather
rock stars are 'rich' is something now reserved for the old school elite or the
handful of artists who's albums manage to become a true bestseller each year.
But for the majority of new artists or those selling smaller quantities - there is virtually
no income from actual sales.
You're probably aware of the recent dispute in the UK between youtube and
the collecting agency PPL. Rather than pay the royalties due in proportion to
the number of plays music gets on Youtube - the video sharing portal has decided
to pull music videos.
The amount of views, and traffic that music videos bring to youtube is evident
in the amount of advertising on there. Major corporations like 02 for example
spend a fortune getting to advertise to you. And Google, who own Youtube,
take those profits. But the songwriter, the musician who's hard earned work,
hopes and dreams and the the creator of the magic of which I spoke about in the beginning
presumably has far less worth.
It's sad to me when a legend like Annie Lennox - doesn't know when or if she'll make
a new album simply because it's up in the air as to if anyone will actually pay to make
it - let alone make enough income from it to justify doing it again.
What's my point? My point isn't directed at 'you' the music audience. I guess it's a
societal comment about what the devaluing of the worth of music has done to the future
of music.
There's been talk of all sorts of different models that might try to embrace the digital age
rather than ignore it. There's always talk of punishing the consumer for 'stealing' music
but the reality is - major corporations and technology providers (and let's face it
ISP's) have turned a blind eye to the devaluing of music since file sharing began.
Instead of punishing people who love music - if we're not willing to go and pay for it
anymore - why not introduce a pay for play system in the same way that radio plays
performers? If those who are currently making all the money out of music (ie youtube,
google, AOL for example) owned up and started acknowledging and paying for the content
(either legitimate or 'illegal') that draws their customers online, then maybe the future of
the music industry wouldn't be in such a fog.