The Free-Music Model and the Middle Class Artist

Cayocosta

There currently exist several disparate proposals for new-music models, and from this speculative collection, that which I have chosen to address herein is particularly, the free-music doctrine; with my intention being the illustration that while this concept is not specific to record companies, should they in fact choose to migrate to such a practice, the resulting precedent would force most every artist, including those operating independently, to commensurately acquiesce; with the resulting fallout ultimately manifesting itself in the exacerbation of an already systemic marginalization of the middle-class artist brought on by an equivalent phenomenon, music-piracy.

To clarify, my use of the term "middle-class" is meant to represent those professional recording artists whose popularity places them in the range (slightly above or below, year to year) of being economically self-sustaining.

Free Music

Professional music can never be truly free, for by its very nature people are employed within its scope, resulting in a capital cost generated to render it available for consumption; and for this reason should someday recorded music not directly command a fee, its cost nevertheless will have to be absorbed by something else - for example, even if distributed without charge and subsidized via advertising, the price of that which is advertised will have to include a share of the cost of the music delivering the message. Otherwise (or should the advertising allocation be insufficient to provide a viable surplus revenue over cost) professional music would no longer represent a viable trade.

Thus, it's not necessarily only the industry that currently faces problems, it's professional music that too, is in trouble; for no matter what happens to the corporations historically responsible for its availability, a cost will always be incurred via the creation of professional music that must be offset - along with a surplus facilitating income – to warrant its continuance.

To reiterate; the cost of professional music must be absorbed along with a surplus to facilitate income for those in its employ; as such, whether a song is free and touring earnings cover the loss, or the song is paid for directly in an amount sufficient to warrant its creation, it makes no difference – its cost must be recouped.

Middle Class

There currently exist artists so popular (largely due to industry support) whereby the loss of income attributable to the sale of music would be of little consequence as it could be easily made up for through touring, endorsements and merchandising.

What remains indisputable however, is the fact that under a free-music platform the overall likelihood of artists being able to earn a living would be reduced (because potential income has been reduced) consequently the line at which success is delineated would be higher, thus freezing out a larger portion of the professional music middle-class.

Theory

The free-music doctrine is predicated upon an increase in popularity due to the unfettered distribution of music and subsequent viral promotion of the artist, and hence an increase in income generated from alternative sources thus offsetting lost revenue once derived from music sales.

In my opinion, the biggest stumbling-block to this theory is that if the free-music concept is indeed valid, artists should have voluntarily chosen this method en-masse already. For it stands to reason that since file-sharing has been (and continues to be) so prevalent (which can be considered an underground real-world free-music trial) the shift to a free-music model should have occurred organically (indeed, virally) already - in other words, if the free-music paradigm actually does result in increased income, artists would have realized it by now and fled their paid-music programs (and/or traditional labels) for this otherwise nascent archetype.

Ultimately, the free-music theory appears to fall prey to its own premise (that viral propagation will lead to increased patronage) as it has failed to propagate virally as a successful platform itself over the last few years; therefore, while logical as a no-other-choice option for new artists struggling for initial visibility, its viability as a new-music panacea for all others is highly questionable.

It should also be mentioned that in my empirical experience (and for reasons beyond the scope of this document) there appears little public interest in free-music made available by new artists devoid of the cachet of record company representation.

Pressure

Similar to a limited free-music business model from a financial standpoint (because it circumvents all methods by which music can be reliably recompensed - short of a tax of some sort, or other external subsidization) piracy’s net effect upon artists is the same in that it manifests itself in the form of downward pressure on potential surplus revenue across all other streams of income; and devoid of an equilibrium being established by the artist, the result will be that music is no longer tenable in so far as a profession.

For example, in direct response to falling music sales, the propagation of the 360 deal highlights the increasing attempt by record companies to make up for the associated loss of income by way of their participation in revenue subordinate to some (if not all) other income opportunities available to their artists. Consequently, artists under such contracts will find it much more difficult to reach and sustain a position of operating in the black, as they will be receiving a greatly reduced net share of the total income they generate.

In light of the above, it is of little relevance whether an artist is under contract with a record company or not, for this free-music cause and effect is a universal economic force, applying to all artists equally.

Moreover, it is quite likely that in the effort to maximize revenue (including ancillary) derived from live performances, a potential exists for major record company monopolization of smaller venues which could result in a dearth of opportunity for independent artists to effect the same.

Summary

Madonna, The Eagles, U2, etc., are not intimidated by the free-music model, for due to their popularity and associated success (due largely to major record company representation) proceeds attributable to the sale of recordings surely represent just a small portion of their respective aggregate income; rather (and more importantly) it’s those artists at or near, and just below, the tipping point of profitability whose livelihoods hang in the balance.

What this means is that should the industry choose to distribute music free of charge, the best-case scenario would be that we will find ourselves with fewer mid-level choices amidst a shrinking roster of professional artists; a condition to which piracy, strictly by the numbers, must have already contributed.