How Did Music Become So Cheap?

How did music become so cheap?

Producer Moses Avalon railed against the free [music] business model, and said this on his Web site: "You give music away for free (or charge next to nothing) and somehow make up the difference on volume, touring and merchandise. It's the [logic] that inspired Radiohead's famous 'pay what you want' release In Rainbows, an experiment that neither they, nor anyone else in the know, has repeated." (from Steve Guttenberg’s blog The Audiophiliac, Is The Record Business Headed for Oblivion? 6/23/12)

 

Is this good? 

On the one hand, unfettered access to music is great.  Curious about an artist?  Go on Youtube or Spotify.  On the other hand, if you’re an artist, are you happy that your blood, sweat, and vision only nets you about $0.00135 when someone decides to check you out?

In the context of jazz, the idea of selling “merch” is practically non-existent. While CDs are usually available, you hardly ever see t-shirts, mugs, stickers, hats, and the like for sale by the artist.  Some famous venues like Birdland sell merchandise, but none of the proceeds go to the artist playing that night, and compared to mainstream pop, rock, and country acts, most jazz artists don’t sell high volumes of CDs. Furthermore, the show is all about the music, not gimmicks, outrageous costumes, and circus-like feats onstage.

The thing that irks me most is that jazz musicians (and classical musicians) work harder on their craft than most other musicians.  It’s the music that matters.  The music must exemplify an artist’s unique sound, exude emotion, display a high level of improvisational skill, and everything a musician internalizes, drills, and absorbs through disciplined daily practice - to bring it convincingly and artfully on the bandstand. 

Does there need to be a laser light extravaganza, fire, and a naked girl on a pole too???

I’d prefer pyrotechnics in the form of burning solos, thank you very much.

I’m not saying that I’m opposed to costumes and lighting and visual interest.  Or sex appeal, either, which was at issue during the recent Facebook hoopla in the jazz community over Diana Krall’s new album “Glad Rag Doll.” The bottom line: Is there more than just the wrapping on the package?  Can the artist deliver musically?

Personally, I think it’s great that there is so much discussion over Diana’s new CD.  If you’ve got it, flaunt it.  Sex sells, even when that’s the only product. 

But Diana Krall is an anomaly in the jazz world.  She has achieved popularity and mainstream appeal beyond most artist’s wildest dreams.  Making a thousandth of one cent per Spotify download won’t affect her much.  She will still make bank touring and selling high volume.  It’s doubtful she’ll need to sell mugs, bumper stickers, and hats (or monogrammed garter belts!) to finance her recording career.  And she delivers, musically, where it counts.  So, how can we help to monetize our music? 

Ideas?