Unsprung Media

I originally wrote this post as a comment on Andrew Dubber's blog.  Out of courtesy for Andrew, I am going to turn comments off on this post.  Please go to Andrew's site to continue the discussion.

Andrew, you create the best scenarios on the Internet for discussion…

If the water analogy were as simple as turning on a faucet, and out comes music that everyone pays a flat fee for, then I would agree with you.  However, sticking with the water analogy, there are thousands of brands of bottled water, fizzy water, flavored water, tap water, fountain water, toilet water, brown water, fruit water, mineral water, etc, etc, etc.  Only a dolt would let their brand become commoditized, municipal tap water… The water utility thing will never happen anyways; innovation will outrun legislation.

I think the water argument is already becoming moot. Consider the following:

1) Look at the Google text ads at the bottom of this site. You will most likely see four companies advertising “FREE MUSIC” (I did this morning).  The facts is: 500,000,0000 people, or 50% of the English-speaking population, are motivated by the message of “FREE MUSIC”.  How can you fight that?  You would need nuclear weapons.  The music police can’t turn this tide back to 1988.

2) iPods are the new radio, and getting spins on the radio is one of the best ways for an artist to obtain recognition.  If an artist is unrecognized, he will never be able to sell the things that will make him money (tickets, shirts, premium music, etc.).  Holding out for a pittance of download revenue doesn’t make sense when an artist needs spins on the “radio” to get noticed.

3) The technology that can conveniently deliver a custom stream of music to anyone anywhere will ultimately make downloading seem like an inconvenience.  Artist revenue in this scenario will be royalty-based, and the royalty collection systems seem to be fairly efficient.

No government from any country needs to step in to put money back into the pockets of artists.  What the music community needs is revolutionary and NOT evolutionary innovation.  MP3 players and MP3 platforms (illegal and legal) are evolutionary methods to consume music, and it’s the myopic focus on music consumption that’s killing everyone’s wallets.

There has to be a revolution in innovation that breaks from pure music consumption.  The revolution that I am looking for enables 1) the music industry to catch up with technology, and 2) redefines the notion of music.

Consider this (I haven’t read all your writing; so if you covered this, then I apologize for being obvious):

Almost one hundred percent of the scenarios in which we now consume music can involve a screen or monitor (desk, auto, walking, working out, etc).  Eighty percent of the scenarios in which we consume music can involve an Internet connection.  Music never has to be again, and practically never was, just an auditory experience.

Daniel Levitin writes in his NY Times article “Dancing In The Streets” (October 26th, 2007, quoting the anthropologist John Blacking): “The indivisibility of both movement and sound…characterizes music across cultures and time.”  The notion of putting forth a pure auditory experience is a relatively new to humanity and contrary to our natural instincts.

It’s this connection between movement and sound, and other forms of indivisibility that we have to pursue to profit from music.  It blows my mind how the labels have failed to capitalize on making music indivisible from other things both digital and physical.

Yes, we have 360-degree deals; concerts, ringtones, wallpaper and music videos, but these arrangements and products don’t even scratch the surface of what’s possible.

If you are an artist, don’t hold your breath waiting for the Music Like Water thing.  New products and services that you haven’t even heard of will overrun the hand of government, and these products won’t just generate a few pence, they will return the industry back to growth and profitability.

It’s a great time to be an artist (and a record label)…