What do we purchase when we purchase music?

Bill McCloskey · Post by **Bill McCloskey** » 21 Oct 2012 4:14 pm

In the old days, when you purchased recorded music, you purchased a physical object. Not just a physical object but one that had a built in rarity: you could only pull so many pressings from a master before it physically wore out. Bing Crosby had to go in a re-record White Christmas because they couldn't physically pull another copy off the master and they had to create a new one.

This object was then something I could hold, trade, search for in far off bins, it held joy as a physical object. In those days I was buying a physical object.

Since the CD, the value of music as an object in itself has been going away. With digital there were no more limitations to the number of recordings that can be pulled and things like liner notes and cover photography were no longer as prominent or interesting (or collectable). The value of music as an object was still there, but fading rapidly.

Then came MP3's and the Internet. Now music as an object is completely gone. There is no more physical object. So what am I buying now? I'm buying the right to play the music when and where I like. I could wait until I hear it on the radio, but the only difference between hearing music on the radio and actually owning the music is that I choose when it plays. No more physical object, no liner notes, no cover photography: I'm buying the right to play the music when I want.

now with Spotify, Youtube and other sources I can bring up just about every album ever made, any artist who ever recorded, when and where I like and as many times as I like. So the only "value" in buying music now (the ability to play the music when I like) has been completely eliminated.

Why would anyone buy music anymore. I could see why you'd collect old vinyl, you are still buying something that has physical value, but why in this day and age would you buy new music?

I think the answer is: you won't. Just as the CD destroyed vinyl, Spotify and services like it will destroy (rather quickly) any reason to actually purchase music.

With that in mind: what is the future of recorded music? What will it's role be in the financial life of the musician and how does that change the music industry?

Mark van Allen · Post by **Mark van Allen** » 21 Oct 2012 5:32 pm

I had this exact discussion with a booking agent and manager at a festival this afternoon. The major labels appear to be moving toward eliminating CD production entirely sooner rather than later, and while there will be some "legacy" consumers wanting to purchase CDs, it seems most in the industry are not entirely sure what/how to continue to perpetuate the income stream for intellectual property. At the same time, a smaller label I'm producing for is intending to release their product on both CD and Vinyl.
Anybody's guess... interesting times we live in.

The one thing I would take away from the debate is that it's insanity to resist the onslaught of technology,and the desire of a large part of the "buying public" to keep up with the latest trends in electronics and personal entertainment delivery systems.

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 22 Oct 2012 7:43 am

Since you can't resell an MP3, I'd say you're not "buying" anything. You're just renting or leasing someone else's file for temporary use.

(This is how the recording industry decided to put an end to the "record resale" market.)

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 22 Oct 2012 8:07 am

Why can't you resell an mp3 (assuming someone would buy it from you)? Send me a dollar and I'll send you the mp3 of your choice from my collection, Donny. Really, the only difference is that I still have my own copy; I didn't have to give it up to sell you a copy.

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 22 Oct 2012 1:32 pm

(This is how the recording industry decided to put an end to the "record resale" market.)

Its the same thing that happened in the turn of the last century when the horse and buggy industry invented cars to put an end to the "horse and buggy resale" market.

Ron Whitfield · Post by **Ron Whitfield** » 22 Oct 2012 3:39 pm

I'll still buy a CD or LP today, but it has to be something special and unavailable to download or stream/record, so obviously buying has drastically diminished on my part but my music collection is now enormous thanx to the near unlimited amount of free dl's available in the free domain. I havn't paid for music in well over a year, yet I have infinitely more quality music than ever. Somebody is losing but it ain't me!

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 22 Oct 2012 3:46 pm

Ron Whitfield wrote: Somebody is losing but it ain't me!

At least not in the short term, but it is biting the hand that feeds you...

Ron Whitfield · Post by **Ron Whitfield** » 22 Oct 2012 5:26 pm

I may be missing the gist of your statement, Jim, but considering 99% of my last 2 years of acquisitions are free domain I'm not sure there's a downside except to all the current musicians/bands that aren't getting my $. But of those whom I'm aware of and need to buy from, they have to be great and that's a high mark to match when competing against great and free.

Mike Neer · Post by **Mike Neer** » 23 Oct 2012 8:51 am

I feel that when I purchase music I'm making an investment--not so much an investment of my money, but an investment of myself in that I will give the music more of an opportunity. There have been many times that I've purchased LPs, CDs, tapes (I've easily purchased thousands) that didn't grab me at first, second or even fifth listen, but did later on and even became some of my favorites. Often, for me the most rewarding listens are ones that I have to work at.

When I listen to music online, if it doesn't grab me, there is a good chance that it will be forgotten. I listen to music 6-8 hours/day, so it's easy to get lost in the shuffle.

It is also very important to me to know who played, produced and engineered recordings, and to know some of the background behind it. This often leads me to more music involving other participants in the projects.

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 23 Oct 2012 9:21 am

Ron Whitfield wrote:I may be missing the gist of your statement, Jim, but considering 99% of my last 2 years of acquisitions are free domain I'm not sure there's a downside except to all the current musicians/bands that aren't getting my $. But of those whom I'm aware of and need to buy from, they have to be great and that's a high mark to match when competing against great and free.

The gist of my earlier comment was that, in the short run, you're making out great. But, in the long run, there is diminishing incentive for artists to create new works, if anybody can just get them for free. People have to be able to make a living and an increasing number of artists will end up working at Wal-Mart instead of creating and producing new music to feed the freebie-machine. In the long run, we all lose. It's the same rationale as copyright and patent law.

Bill McCloskey · Post by **Bill McCloskey** » 23 Oct 2012 9:50 am

Jim,

I have the greatest respect for you but I think you are dead wrong on this issue. Musicians and composers were making a living long before the recording age and they will with it's demise. The business model will change and adapt.

With today's cheap home recording capabilities, cheap distribution, we are not going to find a lack of recorded music. Music will just be funded differently: as a PR mechanism to sell concert tickets, T-shirts, etc. Musicians will still teach to pay the rent.

Joachim Kettner · Post by **Joachim Kettner** » 23 Oct 2012 9:53 am

deleted

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 23 Oct 2012 9:54 am

Hey Bill. All will be revealed in the fullness of time.

Joachim Kettner · Post by **Joachim Kettner** » 23 Oct 2012 9:59 am

Mike Neer wrote:
It is also very important to me to know who played, produced and engineered recordings, and to know some of the background behind it. This often leads me to more music involving other participants in the projects.

For me too! I've checked lots of musicians who were listed in the credits on albums. Sadly there's not so many of them nowadays that get a chance to record.

Bill McCloskey · Post by **Bill McCloskey** » 23 Oct 2012 3:14 pm

I keep thinking about this because I think we are on the verge of a change in music similar to when talkies took over from silent films and color replaced black and white. We can talk about the good and the bad and what was lost in that transition, but it didn't stop the transition.

If I can suggest a possible scenario for the future, based on Jim's comment about Musicians wanting to make a living.

Perhaps it is time for the amateurs to take over. Music is a creative act, free for all to participate in. Maybe some of those folks working at Walmart will work on music projects in their spare time, post them to spotify or youtube. Music that is made apart from the commercial world and the world of making a living. Making a living and making art are two separate entities. I was a painter for years. I didn't paint because I thought it would be a lucrative career move. I did it because I had to do it, and I have a garage full to testify to that fact. People won't stop making music because some other people can't make a living doing it. They will do it because they have to do it.

And now they have a mechanism to distribute, record, mix, all on their own for a small investment. And maybe that will make better music. Music that may not make them rich, but might get their work out there, which is what an artist really needs. To be heard, seen, to have an audience. Do you think we would have the music of Charles Ives if he tried to make a living from it? It might be because he worked as the VP of an Insurance company that he was able to write the music he did.

We've gotten away from the homemade, the raw, the Charlie Patton's out there re-creating music in their own way. Once commercial concerns are removed, maybe the art will get better.

I know Jim's concern. He rightly wants to re-coop his investment. Understandable. But maybe that kind of recording will become a thing of the past. Like opera or symphonic writing, it is too expensive without a patronage system. Things change and music changes with it.

Anyway. Some thoughts.

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 23 Oct 2012 3:24 pm

Well, Bill, you might be right about all that. That might indeed be the transition we're into.

At least in the medium-term, I think another potential trend will be the decline of the full-length "album" in favor of releasing individual tracks. It's much cheaper to record and release single tracks than to come up with the funds for a full album, and since the shift is to downloading anyway, there's no great value in having a whole CD's worth of material to justify the creation of a physical disc and packaging (unless you're doing a "concept" album). (Of course, with pretty-good-to-excellent quality of home recording now possible, the costs of recording are reduced, if you can record it and edit, mix & master it yourself at home...) Whatchu think? Does the rise of downloading portend the death of the full-length CD at some point in the (not-too-distant) future?

Bill McCloskey · Post by **Bill McCloskey** » 23 Oct 2012 3:40 pm

Oh, I think that horse left the barn a LONG time ago.

We won't have any more Abby Roads but we don't have any more russian novels anymore either. An art for the time it is created in, as all art is.

We've been in the single only world since the advent of shuffle play in my opinion.

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 23 Oct 2012 3:41 pm

Yeah, well I guess I'm just getting caught up on things...

Bill McCloskey · Post by **Bill McCloskey** » 23 Oct 2012 3:43 pm

By the way, it is funny you mention that.

I was thinking the EXACT same thing the other day: why not focus on a single, and making that amazing, rather than coming up with material for a full album. More bad art has been created in the attempt to fill up the side.

A focus on a singularity, so to speak. Easier to market, cheaper to make without losing quality...

You become the Stanley Kubrick of musicians.

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 23 Oct 2012 4:26 pm

Jim Cohen wrote:Why can't you resell an mp3 (assuming someone would buy it from you)?

You could...but it's illegal, and you could be prosecuted. All that is elaborated in the Millenniul Digital Copyright Act. In fact, you cannot even legally give away an MP3 copy of a song (unless you own the publishing rights).

(But Jim, you knew that!

)

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 23 Oct 2012 4:28 pm

Oh yeah. I knew that. Of course I knew that. Why would you think I wouldn't know that..?

Alvin Blaine · Post by **Alvin Blaine** » 23 Oct 2012 7:42 pm

Bill McCloskey wrote:
No more physical object, no liner notes, no cover photography: I'm buying the right to play the music when I want.

Every download album I've bought the past year comes with a PDF file of liner notes, photographs, and a couple even had the lyrics to all the songs.

This strange materialistic obsession some people have with buying music because they think that music has to be something physical to touch or hold, is something I don't really get. If that's your way of perceiving music, then you can always burn those digital files to a CD, or even get someone to press them to vinyl, then print out the PDF file. Or just buy the vinyl prints of new album, as they are quite popular now.

I've always thought that when I was buying music, either vinyl, tape, CD, or digital download, I was just paying for the right to hear music and hopefully some of the money would go back for those to create and make more music I would enjoy.
At least with a digital download it still works, and sounds the same, after a couple hundred plays, unlike the very limited life span of vinyl and tape.

Andrew Roblin · Post by **Andrew Roblin** » 24 Oct 2012 4:05 am

I'm a dinosaur.

I've never bought a download.

I still buy LPs, cassettes and CDs, though most are used. I listen at home and in my car, never walking around or biking like many people do now.

There's a great used-LP store nearby, Double Decker Records, with thousands of great LPs in great condition. I love to go there and load up on jazz, old country and anything else that interests me. They have turntables and headphones so I can listen before I buy.

Really, I'm still caught up in the romance of LPs. When I was 11, I used by first paper-route money to go to a record store and buy Sgt. Pepper. Every week, I'd buy another Beatles LP.

I still get a charge out of buying LPs. I like CDs too. Last week, I got a used 10-CD collection of Django Reinhardt. These days, I'm pretty much all Django all the time.

Long live LPs, cassettes and CDs.

Andrew Roblin
International Sho-Bud Brother & Sisterhood
Janitor, Member #79

Bill McCloskey · Post by **Bill McCloskey** » 24 Oct 2012 6:18 am

Cassettes?

Can you still buy cassettes?

Andrew, all you need is an 8 track.

I love Django though.

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 24 Oct 2012 6:21 am

Bill McCloskey wrote:Cassettes? Can you still buy cassettes?

Sure -- at any yard sale. The real question is can you still play cassettes?

The Steel Guitar Forum

What do we purchase when we purchase music?

What do we purchase when we purchase music?

Re: What do we purchase when we purchase music?