Music as a source of income

The History of Music Recording

The first device capable of recording sound was the phonoautograph, patented in 1857. Although this device was an incredible breakthrough in recording technology, it was never intended to make reproducible sounds; only to translate soundwaves into a visible medium for the purpose of studying audiophonics. It wasn't until Thomas Edison invented the phonograph in 1877 that replayable sound recordings became possible, and even then, such recordings were very low-fidelity affairs. It took decades of refinement before high-quality sound recordings became possible.

Regardless, it has been less than 200 years since humans devised a way to record sound in any format. For the hundreds of thousands of years prior to that, humans could only listen to music when it was being performed live. But during the last 164 years, attitudes towards music have changed drastically.

Until the 1950s, musicians and songwriters were often different people. Notable exceptions to this rule exist, especially in the world of jazz and similar, more modern styles. But in general, one person would compose the music, and then a group of musicians (often an orchestra or a 'big band') would perform that music.

But when rock 'n' roll became a big deal in the 50s, driven by big names like Chubby Checker, Elvis Presley, and Little Richard, music became a lucrative business. Many musicians got into the business out of a love of music, but the only way to share their music with an audience of any real size was to sign a contract with a label. This is where things started to go wrong.

Record Labels

From the very beginning, labels existed solely to make money. They didn't view music as art, or as a form of self-expression. They viewed it as a commodity. They were only interested in selling music that would appeal to a wide audience. Many artists that would have created good music were rejected because that music wasn't considered commercially viable. Even worse, the labels arranged everything so that they would benefit at the expense of the musician. The label got to retain all legal rights to the music they released, as well as the lion's share of the money generated by that music. They even got to control when and how the musicians performed the music, even if they had written it themselves. These imbalanced arrangements were even written into law.

A trend began to build up momentum in the 1960s and continued afterwards for artists to write their own music. Although this happened earlier, it was not generally the norm. It became steadily more prevalent over time, as musicians started to see themselves as creators of art as much as, if not more so than, entrepreneurs.

Through the 1980s and 1990s, as technology improved, independent artists became more feasible, but if musicians wanted anything more than the most basic level of financial success, the only path available to them was to sign with a label, giving up many of their rights in the process. A handful of artists were able to generate enough power on their own that they were able to negotiate a more balanced arrangement with the labels, but by and large, the only way to achieve success in the music industry was to succumb to the demands of the labels.

A Shift in the Industry

Then, in the early 2000s, something happened that changed everything: Napster. The first peer-to-peer file sharing software, Napster allowed users to copy mp3s from one another, allowing for the first time widely available free access to music. The music industry, led by the band Metallica (showing their true colours as musicians who wanted money more than they wanted to make music), began a series of lawsuits that would ultimately lead to the death of Napster (and other file sharing software). 

But this led to an awareness of the internet's impact on music. People, including musicians, record labels, and fans, began to realise that there was a new way to distribute music. Labels, at first, were loath to use the internet at all, as they saw it as their enemy. A few musicians saw the internet as a new frontier, from established artists like Peter Gabriel (who helped launch one of the first online music stores, OD2, which was especially innovative as it emphasised independent musicians) and Radiohead (who released an album online in a pay-what-you-want format in 2007) to artists who wanted freedom from the tyranny of labels. 

Music Today

Established labels continue their stranglehold on the music industry; most people in industrialised nations are only exposed to artists through mainstream media such as radio, television, and major streaming services like Spotify or Pandora. However, the most reliable way to get onto any of these services is to be signed to a label. And not only do labels continue to maintain their unequal arrangement with their artists, but they don't even care for artistic ability. When signing a new artist, the most important trait they seek is compliance. The music they produce is so over-manufactured that it is often completely devoid of artistic merit. But this music can be manipulated so that masses of people will pay for it.

There is an alternative, however. A number of options exist for direct-to-fan sales. The most popular of these is Bandcamp, but there are others as well. Using this model, the musician creates their music free from interference by labels or other corporate intervention. This music is then sold directly to the consumer without the need for a label as intermediary. This can be done as digital downloads or as physical media like CDs or vinyl records. 

Sure, an independent musician can sell through Amazon or Apple Music or other established distributors. But not only do these services not provide the benefits of direct-to-fan models (such as better rates of pay), but Amazon and Apple are notoriously difficult to use for unsigned artists.

Streaming Services

A new phenomenon is the Streaming Service. Spotify is the best known, but other subscription services exist as well: Amazon Music, YouTube Music, and Apple Music. The idea is that users pay to subscribe to the service, and can then listen to any music that is available on that service. Note that payment is sometimes made in the form of listening to advertisements, but don't forget that although monetary payment may not be occurring, the user is still paying in time and attention.

Why Am I Talking About This?

I refuse to use services like Apple Music or Amazon to buy music. Those services perpetuate the old, outdated, and incredibly unfair practises of record labels. It's time we moved to the direct-to-fan models like Bandcamp or CDBaby. 

As a musician myself, and more importantly, as someone who is aware of many of the behind-the-scenes details of the mainstream music industry, I want my money to go to the musician, not the label that treats the music as a commodity. That's why I use Bandcamp (which receives only 15% of the total sale; the rest goes directly to the musician) or buy directly from the artist (such as performers at renaissance festivals who sell their own CDs).

I feel similarly about streaming services. I don't want to subscribe to Spotify, as my money isn't going directly to the artist. Even in a pay-per-stream arrangement, the artist is losing out to the company. I'd rather pay to download a digital file and be able to listen to that music on my own terms, with no advertisements, even if I don't have access to the internet.

Because in my opinion, the people writing and performing the music are the ones who should be getting the bulk of the income from their efforts. Not some corporate fat cat sitting behind a desk.