Digital Downloads: Who Should Profit Most?

As a new participant venturing into the blogosphere, I was pleasantly surprised to discover the number of blogs dealing entirely with music and recording industry trends and events. In my previous post I discussed the hypocrisy of American Idol and the recording industry in general for creating false promises of glamorized fame and success that only prove true for a select few lucky and hard-working individuals. Today, I wish to further this discussion by examining where the power really lies in the recording industry. Current debates in the blogosphere suggest that perhaps this power lies with Apple, iTunes, and digital downloads, not with the recording engineers or artists themselves. While the future of the industry is not certain, I was drawn to this issue of changing power by the large number of blogs centering on this issue. The first post I found, “Steve Jobs Rules the Recording Industry. Now What?” is written by Jimmy Guterman, editorial director of O’Reilly’s Radar group and former editor of Forrester, Gaming Industry News, and CD Review. His entry takes a look at the shifting arenas for the discovery of new music over the years, from radio to music videos to video games and commercials, the latter being where the focus remains today. The song that appeared in Apple’s recent MacBook Air commercial, for example, hit number one at the iTunes online music store, demonstrating how Apple has dominated the industry with its 99-cent singles and creative commercial campaigns (see magazine cover comparing Steve Jobs to "god," above right). The second post, “Music Royalties and How Not to Make a Living,” published by staff member at the University of Dayton’s Zimmerman Law Library Chris Martin, examines the two sides of the Copyright Royalty Board’s debate on songwriter music royalties and how much songwriters should receive for digital downloads, a first-time hearing on this issue as music industry and culture trends continuously change. In addition to posting my comments directly on the authors’ respective blog entries, I have also displayed these comments for you below.

“Steve Jobs Rules the Recording Industry. Now What?”
Comment:
Thank you for an insightful post on the music industry and Apple’s increasing role therein. I wonder about the possibility of Apple becoming an entirely self-proficient record label. This may actually be beneficial, allowing lesser-known artists the chance to promote their music inexpensively through the iTunes music store and gain a greater fan base without having to sacrifice the majority of their profits to a commercial label. However, do you feel that there is any great danger in Apple becoming too powerful in the industry? You wrote that the “music industry has much to learn from the computer software industry about reinvention and staying in touch with the customer.” Accordingly, then, if Apple were to become its own record label (see graphic, left), its role as a trendsetter in new technologies would make it a perfect candidate for success in this revolutionary move. Since digital is now the new realm for music purchases and downloads, the artists themselves must learn to capitalize on this medium in order to maintain relationships with their fans, since signed artists should expect their labels to do very little on their behalf in this respect. I particularly enjoyed following the link to one of your older posts, in which you discuss Jill Sobule as an example of an artist finding innovative ways of funding her record without a label. Providing fans with the incentive to donate to their favorite artists’ recording funds by affording them the opportunity to become more involved in the creative process or receive pre-releases of the working album is an excellent way to stimulate greater interest in the artist’s music and progress. Perhaps some of the problem with new artists is that they expect their affiliation with a label to increase their credibility and put them on the fast-track to success, while in reality the labels are not necessarily focused on talent and consumers will always look for the cheapest and most convenient ways to consume music (enter iTunes and illegal downloading software). New artists often fail to consider the possibility that starting independently with a small and loyal fan base will not only give them greater control over their work, but also put them on a more plausible and creative track toward success. I, like you, look forward to seeing how the music industry adapts to these changing technologies and counters Apple’s future moves.

"Music Royalties: How Not to Make a Living"
Comment:
First of all, I would like to thank you for your neatly presented summary of the digital songwriter royalty debate. It is a topic which interests me greatly, although one whose relevance and importance I had not previously considered. You expressed your position that “making a living from creating music is difficult enough for most people, even without having the music industry and retailers undercut what little there usually is to financially gain.” Certainly cutting royalty rates would hurt songwriters, but I believe that it is also possible that this reduction would damage the industry as a whole by negatively affecting the quality of popular music today. Those artists who rely on external songwriters would have to begin writing their own songs, which might lead to decreased song quality, fewer hits and sales, and therefore hurt the industry overall. To take this one step further, in light of the recent writers’ strike, what if songwriters were to begin their own strike in response to the RIAA’s demands for mechanical rate cuts? While this may be a radical idea, I wonder if the RIAA and DiMA have considered this at all or if they are solely focused on the possibility of “keeping the extra cash,” as you believe is a likely outcome. In any case, I anxiously await for the two sides to reconcile their differences, for, as Wired’s Eliot Van Buskirk recently wrote, if the "quality of music depends on keeping songwriters happy, music fans should hope the Copyright Royalty Board settles on a rate that keeps them solvent.” For the sake of keeping the American music culture an enriching one, I hope this debate results in victory for the songwriters this coming October.

Fueling the Dream: "American Idol" Expands its Marketing Machine

American Idol, fresh into its seventh season, has managed to find yet another outlet for expanding its commercial empire. Disney announced this week that the corporation plans to open an elaborate American Idol attraction at the Hollywood Studios amusement park in Buena Park, Florida (pictured, right). Scheduled to arrive in late 2008, the "Idol" attraction would aim to instill the same excitement in each customer as that experienced by the top twenty-four every season on American Idol, complete with auditions, live performances, and studio audience voting to determine each day’s finalist. Top competitors on the Disney stage would then be eligible for front-of-the-line American Idol audition passes for the next season, although the final details are still forthcoming.

All this seems pretty harmless, if not actually fun. However, as the authors of the Rolling Stone's Rock & Roll Daily mockingly suggest, this collaboration between the biggest cultural monopoly and the most popular American television show can only lead to more sarcastically-dubbed, "brilliant interactive entertainment concepts". These may include the “Pussycat Dolls Tower of Terror,” a hit-rock-bottom, porn-infused version of the “Twilight Zone” elevator drop ride, or a "Rock of Love" spoof on “It’s a Small World," complete with all the tiny male singers wearing bandanas and the girls plumped up with collagen implants. Yes, these examples are clearly absurd, but this is the point I (and the Rolling Stone editors) wish to make about such a merger of two huge entertainment icons. Perhaps we have taken American Idol just one step too far, with the corporations’ interest lying predominantly in turning a profit, lacking the necessary concern for finding and fostering the genuine talent that will truly enrich American culture in a positive way. And Americans, too, are getting caught up in the commercial glamorization of American Idol as a star-making machine, dangerously fueling the exaggerated shared dream of stardom that has proven inconsistent and unpredictable as previous winners have entered the real music industry.

So is the reality show experience really as glamorous for the artists as the media lead us to believe? No one can deny that the majority of hopefuls who audition must be prepared for disappointment from the start, with tens of thousands of auditionees fighting for only twenty-four spots on the show each year, not to mention the high probability of harsh criticism from the notoriously crabby and brutally honest British judge, Simon Cowell (pictured, below left, with co-judges pop artist Paula Abdul, producer Randy Jackson and host Ryan Seacrest). Certainly, watching Cowell rip apart first-round contestants can be entertaining, although contrasting the sadistic tone of opening auditions with the sentimental qualities of the final weeks of competition proves the show to be confusing and slightly disturbing, not glamorous. Yet America has not tired of this predictable (though emotionally inconsistent) progression: according to Nielsen Media Research, last week's ratings reveal an overwhelming twenty two million viewers for American Idol’s Tuesday broadcast, second only to the Superbowl game and postshow even in its seventh season. Although ratings have dropped compared to past years, this number nonetheless suggests that the show has become an incredible cultural and musical phenomenon, one that is likely here to stay.

Where the series goes wrong is in its failure to prioritize quality singing over personality-biased voting. American Idol is really a voting competition, not a singing one; singing is merely the entry requirement for finalists. Yes, the show probably owes its high ratings to the millions of Americans who love to play the critic and voice their own votes, but what makes us so sure that these fans really have the ability to recognize true talent? Perhaps some members of the public who avoid tuning in do so out of awareness of the musical genius that exists outside the limiting bounds of American Idol. On this note, how can we be certain of the actual talent level in any given season, other than by listening to the judges’ comments? In fact, what the series’ viewers respond to most is actually not the talent, but rather the finalists' personal stories, which have grown consistently each year to become an integral part of the program. For example, American Idol video clips depicted Season Three winner Fantasia Barrino as a teenage single mother working hard to support her baby and turn her life around, a sentimental theme which many viewers could relate to and emphasize with; conversely, Season Six's Sanjaya won the audience's hearts with his crazy, ever-changing hairdo and quirky personality. Vocally, however, it is unlikely that either of these artists (nor many others that have appeared on the series) would have made it as far as they did if the goal and design of the show were actually to produce genuine talent and not just to capitalize off of the singers' personalities and heartfelt home videos, as I suspect is the case.

To be fair, Cowell has admitted that the producers of American Idol need to "do better" this year to find an artist with more long-term potential, expressing his disappointment that neither of last season’s two finalists have “caught on fire". Additionally, previous winners Taylor Hicks, Ruben Studdard, and Katharine McPhee all terminated deals with their record labels due to lagging sales. Cowell dismisses this as a reflection on the harsh character of the music business, where the results of “reality” television do not necessarily translate into long-term fame and musical success. Studdard similarly acknowledges this fact, calling American Idol a "crash course" in the entertainment industry. However, he also concedes that most of the winners--who generally represent the "average American" demographic--would never have become recording artists were it not for the show. Perhaps, then, the program does have some merit in affording a select few finalists the opportunity to rise to fame, however short-lived, as well as providing educational insight into the always unpredictable and often vicious nature of the music industry. Somewhat disconcerting, however, is the fact that contestants are contractually forbidden to discuss their experiences on the show, such that their true stories remain hidden from the public. Were former contestants and winners allowed to speak out, would American Idol still manage to continue the legacy of excitement and uphold the shared dream of sudden fame in its young contestants and viewers?

Unsurprisingly, the behind the scenes reality of the show's limiting legal contracts and of the music industry as a whole conflicts with the sunny, smooth-sailing images presented by the media. Perhaps this is because American Idol producers know that the show would cease to be popular were its hypocrisy and misleading promises of fame to be openly revealed. However, this contrast has dangerous cultural implications, including the perseverance of false dreams and the downgrade and commercialization of mainstream talent. In any case, unless Cowell keeps his word this season and adamantly helps guide viewers towards choosing the most genuinely talented--and not just charismatic--singer, I hope Disney's Idol attraction fails.