The article I presented on came to one interesting empirical conclusion; people who download music illegally are more likely to buy music legally. This phenomenon can be explained through the concept of cognitive dissonance; a force that will prove to be a key x-factor in this new paradigm. Downloading music illegally creates an inconsistency between one's attitudes (I want to support my favorite artists) and behaviors (I take money out of my favorite artist's pocket through illegal downloading). This inconsistency breeds discomfort, which we communication people label dissonance. There are two ways this dissonance is cured; changing the attitude to match the behavior (the record company gets all the artists money from this CD anyway so I'm not really hurting the artist I love by illegally downloading, or I don't really like this band enough to pay for their music) or promising yourself that a future behavior will rectify this attitude inconsistency (I will buy two of their other albums, I will go to their show, I will buy a shirt, etc). This creates a marketplace of highly motivated fans that are willing to pay for the artists they believe in. Artists that are enjoyed passively are more likely to succumb to the attitude switch (they don't deserve my money anyway) instead of a behavior switch (I will buy the album, shirt, concert ticket, etc). Thus cream is rising to the top, and the depth and breadth of quality music has never been more present.
"But Danny?" you ask "how is it that Nickelback continues to sell records after pumping out the same mind-numbingly formulaic song for the last decade? Shouldn't they have been taken out to pasture and shot by this new paradigm?" Touche salesman. Let's take out our Uncertainty Reduction Theory flashlight and shine some light on this Canadian calamity. While the demand for newness is indeed high, there will also always be a market for familiarity. Axiom #7 of URT: "Increases in uncertainty produce decreases in liking." A great deal of uncertainty is always present in a drastic paradigm shift, which for some breeds a dislike for this newness, and thus breeds a need for familiarity. People like what they know, and Nickelback found a formula to hit on every cliche and generic aspect of rock and roll. They have created a perpetual familiarity machine where they pump out the same song with limited to no variations. Need proof? Check out the video below where two of Nickelback's biggest hits, This is How You Remind Me and Someday, are listened to at the same time.
Laughably similar right? So even though the talent pool of artists is getting deeper by the day; pop music will always have a market based on familiarity.
"But Danny?" you ask again "What about Lady Gaga? Her whole persona is based on a break from the familiarity and she's the queen of the pop world."
Don't you have something better to do than ask me questions.....
Gaga's persona is indeed far from the norm. However, she is still a variation on a theme. Lady Gaga is like if Madonna shot cocaine straight into her eye balls and had a fabric store vomit on her. Pop stars have always tried to teeter the edge with their image, telling themselves that, 'if I shock, the awe will come.'
In terms of musical quality, the former conclusion holds; she's just a variation on a theme. She's a talented singer (she went to Julliard when she was 16 and fronted a Queen cover band) but her talent is not awe-inspiring. Her music is catchy, but is not unlike other artists in the top 40. She is a testament to Gladwell. She is exceptional at getting things to stick. Once it's in your head....no matter how hard you try...it never leaves.....ROMA OOO GAGA.....dammit....
So now that the music industry has moved to a consumer driven market where the people decide whether an artist is worth their money, what is the appropriate buying mechanism? In their book, The Future of Music: Manifesto for the Digital Music Revolution, authors David Kusek and Gerd Leonhard predict that "in the very near future, music will be ubiquitous. They envision that music will become more of a utility that seamlessly fits into our lives rather than merely a product." If Kusek and Leonhard are correct, it seems as though the appropriate mechanism would be the Pay What You Want Model. We could see artists begin to put a digital file on their website, and put the power of price in the customers hands. Instead of buying from a dispassionate outlet (Napster, Rhapsody, Itunes, Amazon, etc) you would buy an album straight from the artist you love. The artist becomes a provider of an essential service instead of a product to sell, and the listener would decide what donation to give the artist.
In terms of musical quality, the former conclusion holds; she's just a variation on a theme. She's a talented singer (she went to Julliard when she was 16 and fronted a Queen cover band) but her talent is not awe-inspiring. Her music is catchy, but is not unlike other artists in the top 40. She is a testament to Gladwell. She is exceptional at getting things to stick. Once it's in your head....no matter how hard you try...it never leaves.....ROMA OOO GAGA.....dammit....
So now that the music industry has moved to a consumer driven market where the people decide whether an artist is worth their money, what is the appropriate buying mechanism? In their book, The Future of Music: Manifesto for the Digital Music Revolution, authors David Kusek and Gerd Leonhard predict that "in the very near future, music will be ubiquitous. They envision that music will become more of a utility that seamlessly fits into our lives rather than merely a product." If Kusek and Leonhard are correct, it seems as though the appropriate mechanism would be the Pay What You Want Model. We could see artists begin to put a digital file on their website, and put the power of price in the customers hands. Instead of buying from a dispassionate outlet (Napster, Rhapsody, Itunes, Amazon, etc) you would buy an album straight from the artist you love. The artist becomes a provider of an essential service instead of a product to sell, and the listener would decide what donation to give the artist.
The Buffet Model (paying $20 a month for all you can listen to music) is also an interesting innovation. But if there's anything consumers enjoy it's choice. The Pay What You Want Model puts the power in the fan's hands, and allows the fan to choose what the artists' work is worth. This would also engage a fan's cognitive dissonance directly. Especially if there is an "average donation" or "top donation" bar to the side of the donation window, a fan will be more inclined to pay the artist what they believe they deserve to be paid. Of course there are flaws, but if buying music at an artist's website becomes a comfortable medium to buy music, people wouldn't feel as inclined to the download their favorite artist illegally.
What do you think? Is the Pay What You Want Model viable? Will the familiarity of pop music ever stop being marketable? What's the next paradigm shift? Should Canada formally apologize for Nickelback?
What do you think? Is the Pay What You Want Model viable? Will the familiarity of pop music ever stop being marketable? What's the next paradigm shift? Should Canada formally apologize for Nickelback?
The incomparable MC Lars summarizes this blog quite well. It samples the Iggy Pop song "The Passenger" and basically echoes the sentiment expressed throughout the blog. Remember when Jason talked about the "nerdcore" underground scene that gained a respectable fan base due to constant touring and it's generosity with it's music. MC Lars is one of it's greatest champions.
.....and to think.....without illegal downloading....white rappers everywhere would be in danger of unemployment....would be a shame yo'
Post Script:
ReplyDeleteThis blog is meant to be an analysis of the music industry, and not an indictment on anyone's tastes. Music is music and whatever gets your soul rolling is your prerogative. If you connect with Nickelback then they're doing their job as musicians, and there is no one who can tell you otherwise. There's nothing more obnoxious then someone on their pretentious high horse demeaning music that you love, and was not my intention for this weeks blog. My point merely was to point out the various elements in this new paradigm of music, and Nickelback encompasses the element of familiarity. I admit I may have gone a bit far for the sake of entertainment, but I believe personal enjoyment of music is special in it's own right, and no one has the right to take that away from you.
Right arm.
DeleteROMA OOO GAGA....god get out of my ears.
ReplyDeleteReally enjoyed your piece on the music industry and I especially agree with the Pay What You Want Model. I could really seeing this paradigm taking off and turning into a gratuity type system. Imagine going to your favorite artist's website, purchasing they're music, and much like tipping your server at a restaurant leave the amount you feel you owe for the services being provided to you...truly revolutionary.
I see this type of model working in the United States however I question the Pay What You Want Model on an International perspective. For instance, Europeans do not except tips. In fact, if you offer them a tip they become quite offended. I guess they're mentality is "I don't need your petty" and they take it as if we feel like they NEED the tip, when in fact they may not.
Therefore, I question the Pay What You Want model on an International scale. I'm not saying that Europeans and people outside the States are cheap, rather there is an embedded gratuity system in American culture that influences the way in which we would potentially act on the Pay What You Want Model. Whereas, in European cultures they are not likely to tip an artist when they are providing the content basically for free.