Music - Commodity or Art Form?
By gina | February 6, 2009
With the Internet environment championing openness, music users are increasingly putting new demands on businesses. Articles such as the ones written by Courtney Love and Steve Albini have been circulating heralding artists to wake up to the exploitative way big business is using them to make huge profits. Many artists who are penniless can have their own audio galleries, and because of that there is a growing antagonism towards big business. Although tensions between ‘art’ and ‘money’ have always existed, that companies like EMI are considered ‘dinosaurs’ by many artists is now fast becoming a reality. On the other hand, within the major publishing and recording companies, it appears artists’ catalogues are being shelved rather than developed and nurtured because quarterly measurable earnings are more important.
Using the Web and succeeding as a band without giving away your rights to a large publishing company or record label is considered the big fairy tale: that anyone can become the Arctic Monkeys of the future. In terms of marketing or branding, the DIY artist is perhaps commensurate with the artist who sent their music into John Peel. They knew that the response from Peel would be honest and respect worthy and that recognition from him would enable the artist to bypass the ‘gateway’ of labels and connect directly with audiences who want to listen to ‘real music’.
Some primary research was done in the form of a questionnaire that was sent out to songwriter associations. Its purpose was to find out whether songwriters who belonged to an association had a publisher; what they thought of publishers in general; whether they felt they knew enough about publishing; and whether they felt they needed any training.
Analysis of the data reveals certain similarities that are striking: that the majority of artists seem to have no faith in the way publishers are operating; and that among artists there is certain amount of cynicism regarding the future of publishers and even, in one or two cases, some hostility towards major publishers.
Artists have stated:
“I believe the music giants have ‘shot themselves in the foot’ regarding their own artists. Their target crowd is pitiful and they are neglecting the vast numbers who will buy if the proper music was presented to that crowd. They pigeonholed themselves and are paying for their short-sightedness now.”
“They never collected the publishing money from the record label that put the subsequent LP out and continue to debit me for the money they never collected. They continue to this day to make deals with this indie label (and artists on that label) that never paid my publishing royalties. They have also assumed the rights (wrongly) to other material I had written and released before I was ever signed to them. PRS–MCPS has refused to mediate or get involved because both the publisher and I are PRS–MCPS members.”
“I don’t have enough experience to comment on whether the old- fashioned way the music publisher works is working or not in this modern-day era of digital music and whether there are better alternatives. I do believe the effectiveness the music publisher used to have is probably far less these days. With the use of the internet and the technology to do much of the job yourself in many areas of the business, it makes the market far more competitive, but maybe at the cost of a reduced quality of service!”
“I think a publisher is less important than ever before. An agent or manager would traditionally do the work of most of the above, and a writer can join the collection societies as an writer member.”
This creates issues of branding for publishers and clearly warrants further explanation. It signals that there is an urgent need for re-branding and for the PR executives of the major publishers to examine where they are going wrong.
The people creating the new media approaches have gone through a revolution, but the industry has yet to go through a revolution of its own. It also argues that the established industry has not kept up with their pace of change and has allowed itself to become branded as the dinosaur of the digital age.
Conversely, the publishers have allowed themselves to be branded as out of touch with the real changes that are going on and, perhaps most importantly of all, as ‘unfashionable’ to the artist. The consequence of this poor branding of the services that the industry can offer to creators is that many artists do not reap the full rewards of their work.
In order to democratize the cinematic image, thousands of independent filmmakers started springing up all over the world, having chosen to reject the traditional production studios. Now we have a parallel movement in the music industry where the big labels and their publishing arms are perceived to be interested only in profit and/or out to screw and exploit both artist and public. The dogged pursuit of domestic copyright infringers by the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) was a disaster for the industry in public relations terms; just as McDonalds’ pursuit of the McLibel case was for that company’s public image. They were seen as corporate bullies obstructing free cultural exchange.
Many artists are choosing to hold onto their publishing rights. As self-publishers they are members of collection societies who can collect mechanicals and performance royalties for them, but the ability to maximize their revenue streams is diminished. Although the barriers for artists to enter the market through the internet have been lowered substantially, and artists can achieve a good branding profile, if they are not grounded in the basics of copyright administration, marketing and licensing, which is complex, and a full time occupation in itself, they are unlikely to be able to seek out and administer the various revenue opportunities properly without the expertise the music publisher is able to offer.
Music publishers have a fiduciary responsibility towards actively promoting a songwriter’s copyrights by placing songs with artists for performances, seeking to secure synchronization deals for film and television, and collecting worldwide publishing royalties. They have a responsibility of care towards their writers. This notion needs to be actively promoted to the extent that artists can again feel that it is in their best interests to sign away a percentage of their copyrights in return for carrying out certain obligations that show ongoing commitment to promote, exploit and protect for the term of contract.
Music publishers will need to take a more proactive ‘hands on’ strategy. Management publishing or ‘mublishing’ is where publishers can build grass roots relationships with artists, helping to nurture their song-writing skills through funding, development and guidance. A core competency of publishers is that they can give artists honest feedback on their careers. The author of this report believes that publishers are often not credited for that ability, and would like to see more from the relevant associations – the MPA, the MMF (Music Managers Forum) – to support this.
In the questionnaire, the majority of respondents said they did not know enough about publishing, and more than half said they would be prepared to do some training. This indicates that little is known by artist songwriters about how publishing works.
Mechanisms of performance royalty collection need to be adapted and publishers should take the lead as the primary source of compensation for musicians. Increasingly, through the introduction of new online businesses, music publishing will become inseparable from distribution. The present relationship with collection societies is not good enough, according to music lawyer Paul Spraggon:
“Publishers have to improve associations and collection societies – there has to be more accountability. U2 sued PRS because they were not doing their job properly. Publishers give legitimacy to collection societies. There is too much cronyism. I think there has to be a real democracy.”
Historically, music publishers have been dependent on there being a robust copyright framework in place, supported by collection societies, to enable them to recover investment and be rewarded for their creative efforts. Nowadays, major publishers with large back catalogues are able to maintain the status quo with regard to the asset value of their intangible copyrights, but only up to a certain point; when life of copyright runs out for the back catalogue that they presently own, in order to survive publishers will have to continue to acquire copyrights or diversify. This will be difficult to achieve unless the relationship between publisher and creator is improved, copyright laws are adapted, and new business models that can compete with collection societies are embraced rather than accommodated to fit old paradigms.
Music publishers, who are not prepared to exploit the copyrights they own should be prepared to allow them to revert back after a period of time. Retaining copyrights without recourse is driving artists to keep ownership of all masters and copyrights. In addition, those artists who have achieved a strong branding profile and substantial sales that could benefit from the competencies of a major publisher’s business networks are increasingly demanding a larger share of the revenues and a shorter copyright term. This in turn is adding to the insecurities of music publishers.
The monopoly power that collection societies have in their dealings with commercial users has yet to be tackled properly, as they are still using their positions to hold back new technologies. This unwillingness to welcome competition is also having a deep effect on music publishers, not only because they are finding it difficult to collect the revenues they are due, but their association of over 150 years with collection societies is now contributing to the forming of an even deeper rift between music publishers and artists.
Digital technology has brought with it the opportunity for artists to be more entrepreneurial. They want to see their material widely distributed, and be credited for their creative efforts. They want to earn a living from their endeavours. If they cannot rely on music publishers they will look for intermediaries elsewhere.
The people creating the new media approaches have gone through a revolution, and are building new digital infrastructures that are being supported by Congress in the United States. The music publishing industry has yet to go through a revolution. It can be argued that the industry has not kept up with their pace of change, and has allowed itself to become branded as a dinosaur of the digital age.
Reference:
a. Books
Attali, J. (2003) Noise: The Political Economy of Music, London: University of Minnesota Press.
Bettig, R. (1996) Copywriting Culture: The Political Economy of Intellectual Property, Oxford: Westview Press.
Kusek, D. & Leonhard, G. (2005) The Future of Music, Boston: Berklee Press.
Mewton, C. (2001) All You Need To Know About Music And The Internet Revolution, London: Sanctuary Publishing.
Napier-Bell, S. (2002) Black Vinyl White Powder, London: Ebury Press.
Whitsett, T. (2004) Music Publishing, 5th Edition, Michigan: Mix Books.
b. Journal Articles
Kretschmer, M., Klimis, G.M. & Wallis, R. (1999) ‘The Changing Location of Intellectual Property Rights in Music: A Study of Music Publishers, Collecting Societies and Media Conglomerates’, Prometheus, Vol. 17, Issue 2.
Kretschmer, M. (2004) ‘Artists’ Earnings and Copyright: A Review of British and German Music Industry Data in the Context of Digital Technologies’, First Monday, Vol. 10, Issue 1.
MCM (2005) Music Copyright Matters, Autumn 2005, Quarterly Journal of the Music Publishers Association, Issue 43.
Noland, Marcus (2005) ‘Popular Attitudes, Globalization and Risk’, International Finance, Vol. 8, Issue 2.
c. Industry Reports
BPI (2005) BPI Statistical Handbook 2005: The British Record Industry, London: British Phonographic Industry Limited.
Commission of the European Communities (2004) COM (2004) 261
Final: Communication from the Commission to the Council, The European Parliament and The European Economic and Social Committee: The Management of Copyright and Related Rights in the Internal Market, Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
EMI (2005) EMI Annual Report 2005, London: EMI Group Limited.
Enders Analysis (2004) Music Publishing April 2004, Enders Analysis Limited.
Enders Analysis (2005) Recorded Music August 2005. Enders Analysis Limited.
IFPI (2005) Digital Sales Triple to 6% of Industry Retail Revenues as Global Music Market Falls 1.9%, London: International Federation of the Phonographic Industry.
IFPI (2006) IFPI Digital Music Report 2006, London: International Federation of the Phonographic Industry.
Jupiter Research (2002) Online European Music: Segment Consumers to Succeed with Cross-Channel Strategies, London: Jupiter European Market Forecasts.
MCPS (2005) Issues Affecting Commission Rates and Distributions, London: Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society Limited.
MCPS–PRS (2006) Licensing the Future: The Way to Licence Your Music for Online in Europe is Changing, London: MCPS–PRS Alliance.
MPA (2004) On The Management of Copyright and Related Rights in the Internal Market: Response to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, The European Parliament and the Social Committee, London: Music Publishers Association.
d. Articles
Albini, S. (2004) ‘The Problem with Music’ [online] (accessed on 1 June 2006)
Available at
www.rockandrollreport.com/the_rock_and_roll_report/2004/10/the_problem_
wit.html
Burkeman, O. (2002) ‘Jacko Gets Tough: But is he a Race Crusader or just a Falling Star?’, The Guardian, 8 July 2002, (accessed on 14 May 2006) Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,751293,00.html
Butler, S. (2006) ‘Top Music Publishers’ [online] (accessed on 12 April 2006) Available at
http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&an=20240058
Butler, S. (2006) ‘Pubs show Cannes-Do Spirit at Midem’ [online] (accessed on 13 April 2006) Available at
http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&an=19799732
Butler, S. (2006) ‘HFA Explains Decline in 2005 Collections’ [online] (accessed on 12 April 2006) Available at
http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&an=20070530
Cardew, B. (2005) ‘Publishers take Proactive Route’ [online] (accessed on 12 April 2006) Available at
http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&an=19251744
Dyson, E. (2006) ‘The Value of Attention’ [online] (accessed on 10 May 2006) Available at
http://www.openbusiness.cc/2006/02/17/the-value-of-attention/
Howell, L. (2006) ‘Composers Claim Abuse’ [online] (accessed on 12 April 2006) Available at
http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&an=19447901
Le Blanc, L. (2006) ‘Canadian Songsmiths enjoying Increased Control of their Copyrights’ [online] (accessed on 12 April 2006) Available at
http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&an=19837222
Lincoff, B. (2002) ‘A Full, Fair and Feasible Solution to the Dilemma of Online Music Licensing’ [online] (accessed on 12 October 2005) Available at
http://www.privatkopie.net/files/privatkopie-bof_on-DRM.pdf
Love, C. (2000) ‘Courtney Love does the Math’ [online] (accessed on 10 May
2006) Available at
www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/
Mills, M. (2006) ‘Monetizing the Genie’ [online] (accessed on 14 May 2006) Available at
http://www.musictank.co.uk/Newsletters/25_jan_06.htm
Topics: Work/Life | No Comments »
Roseis arrives!
By admin | October 14, 2008
We have arrived! Bear with us while we lick the site into shape
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »