The Most Boring Revolution

So the major labels are lining up their attorneys to go after Napster for piracy. Every report is foreboding. "Music should be free", say the pirates; "The music industry is changing forever", say the labels. I have two answers to give here. The first addresses what ought to be, the second what will be. So if this gets too esoteric, just skip to the last two paragraphs.

I will confess to a certain vested interest in this argument, since I am a musician, and the group I play with could use some promotion (Napster) and at the same time is shopping for record deals (Industry). From this vantage, the industry makes a frightening case: nobody will buy music they can get for free, therefore music sales will decline and fewer acts will get the nod. Napster and others counter that groups like ours can promo freely, without a record deal. This is scant comfort: to be one on a long list is not exactly valuable to anybody.

But there is history here, so let's look at a more broad perspective. There is little dispute that the sudden influx of 'disposable' cash among youth in the '50's led to the first great marketing success (note I don't say 'musical success') by the industry with the Beatles. It is really at this point that music became 'unfree', as the industry gained money and then power to control the 'product' of music. The results of this marketing success have been unimaginably destructive to whatever 'art' was found in music.

It is easier to see why if you understand that music production is nearly identical to movie production. Like movie production, the Artist (loosely considered) is the least important part of the ensemble, which includes a cast of engineers and producers and marketers and millions in equipment - all designed to make the artist sound good. It is therefore worthless to say "Such and such artist has so much soul", when you know as an insider that you could take any pretty, white, tone-deaf waitress, plug her into the system, and fabricate a product identical in 'soul' to Aretha Franklin, for instance. And the best part is that she has nice tits...

Stangely, the perception of music and musicians has not followed the perception of movies. People hear that recording cost millions to make, but don't get that those million are spent fabricating an Artist to sell to the masses.

So it strikes that if the industry can no longer afford to take the artist out of the music, then perhaps some real artists will show on the scene - for they are out there. This could only be a good thing. And, in fact, this would produce something like a revolution. But Napster doesn't know any of this. They are a couple of snot-nosed kids being used by a capitalist machine to take money away from another capitalist machine, and what will happen is so predictable that it is boring.

First, Napster will lose their case if they made any money on their piracy, like endorsements or advertising. This will not stop piracy, but it will stop any from making money on piracy. In fact, this provides the industry with a cash cow: somebody else to sue besides their disillusioned artists.

Second, we all should know how this will play, since we've seen it before with radio and cassettes, and movies and VCRs, etc. (Here's the real boring part). Any who want to make money on the transfer of digital music will have to be liscensed, and pay periodic fees to ASCAP, BMI, SESAC or some other agency to be set up for the purpose, which will then pay the copywrite holders based on the number of downloads they get on their song.

The conclusion: Capitalism hurts art, and this move by pirates away from capitalism would increase the quality of musical art in the pool. But it will not work, because the players don't even know what's at stake, and the end will be a boring recapitulation of capital control, and, really, nothing will change.

Anybody wanna bet?

June 19, 2000