The arts have evolved with man; their use, purpose and availability are all dynamic. The development and usability of the printing press brought about the potential for mass-publication of books and newspapers. Then the invention of the phonograph meant that recorded music could be mass-produced and heard wherever there lay a gramophone. The work of composers and musicians no longer just had use value they had now become commodities. Whereas art had previously required the backing of a wealthy figure such as royalty or the church, the industrial revolution brought with it a new supportive figure – the capitalist. He could make an investment into the artist’s tools and labour, who in turn would produce the art, which could then be reproduced and sold as a commodity – whether this was music, literature or paintings. Art, and all its aspects could be bought and sold as easily as a chair. Was this good for art? Was this good for the artist? Was this good for the audience? These are not questions I am going to address here, but they do highlight an important overarching question today. Do we see our music as something we really believe in, or have we lost sight a little and now see our talent and ability as a commodity? What does our audience want? When we write music do we think and make adjustments and compromise what we do with questions like do you think people will buy this and is there a market for this? Or do we write what we really want to write because we believe in what we are saying? Often, as independent musicians we play the role of both artist and ‘capitalist’ and we have to find ways of funding ourselves without the help of a controlling investor.
I’m not saying that I think it is wrong to sell your music as a commodity once it is completed, but rather I am addressing whether we maybe let business dictate the content of what we produce as well as the marketing techniques we need to employ to attract attention. If your motive is to make millions from your music then I’m not really that interested in what you have to say, but if you are doing it for the right reasons, for love and not money then I would love to hear your thoughts. It would be great to be able to make a living from people paying us to create what we love wouldn’t it? There are plenty of independent musicians who have proved that you can make money from doing what you believe in, audiences are not stupid and they do like to hear new, exciting and inventive ideas – sometimes we just ask the wrong questions and try to be imitators of previous success rather than innovators of future success.
When we look at music as an industry, we therefore think of what we produce as a commodity, this is absolutely fine (I think), just as long as we don’t let it dictate and compromise the music we produce – we are musicians and music lovers first and ‘capitalists’ second. We shouldn’t look at everything in terms of how we can squeeze money out of it. As I’ve said before, we should be collaborating, co-operating and combining with one another not looking to exploit each other. Just like I mentioned in 2. ‘Collaborate as Much as Possible’, the more ‘industry involvement’ an artist has the harder it is to work with them (the little known girl I asked for stem files and was told to go through management, A&R, publishers etc). I have no time for this – each of these parties wants a potential cut even though I had no plans to do anything with it. She is virtually unknown (they’ve got hold of her early) so they will all have a massive say in how she does it and they will be desperate to maximise profits. She has unnecessary authority lorded over her and whether she realises it or not is compromising her creative control. This means it is harder to work with her and the sense of community is unattainable. This type of top-down business really gets in the way of artist unity – it enforces a hierarchy that I really dislike, I mean why would you want to lose control of your work? When someone wants to remix one of my tracks I cannot wait to hear it.
