The distribution of music has changed in the last few years - and still is changing. Whereas until 2004 music was mainly distributed in physical formats, within five years legal downloads now account for 95% of single sales and 8% of album sales - both rising figures. Illegal downloads are still an issue record companies want to stamp out, but in essence they are simply a modern-day version of recording a song off the radio.
All you need to acquire music nowadays is a computer and an internet connection, and social-networking sites make it far easier to share music. A file can be transferred instantly and duplicated infinite times, therefore the word travels fast. If something is good, people will pass it onto their friends and soon fanbases will develop. Examples of this include Lily Allen, the Arctic Monkeys and Sandi Thom who all achieved number-one singles within a year or two of first appearing on MySpace. Online file-sharing can sometimes give talented artists the attention needed to forge a serious musical career.
While Lily Allen already had a record deal when she signed up on MySpace, would "Smile" have been number-one without gathering thousands of fans on MySpace before releasing her music? Most likely not. Social networking sites are also used by established artists to promote their new material, show off a new direction or bridge the gap between albums by releasing a song or two to keep their fans happy.
Media companies are safe for now, however. In music, there is only so far an online artist can go without record label-support or at least money behind them. The music industry is definitely a more open market and anyone can have a go which is entirely different to the industry of ten, even five years ago. However, there is still a market for big-budget productions and campaigns. As the Web 2.0 moves into Web 3.0, music distribution will most likely change even further.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
RINCY
ReplyDeleteI disagree that Lilly Allen's number one with Smile wouldn't have happened without Myspace. She had alot going for her including the famous surname she could play off.
ReplyDeleteHer record label (I'm synically assuming it was her record label) created a distinctive "look" for her (I seriously doubt she wore dresses and trainers before she had a record to promote) and simply her record was good. Her online sucess wouldn't've translated to number one singles if it wasn't. Although she used Myspace to her advantage, she did have a record deal and money invested into her career, so I don't think it can 100% be attributed to myspace alone.
Surely the big thing about 'sharing' is the P2P downloading of material without paying for it?
ReplyDeleteAccording to the big 3 music companies, LimeWire et al are defrauding companies and artists tens of billions -in comparison to which acts like Artic Monkeys and Lilly Allen are very small beer indeed.
Is P2P really just another aspect of the 'gift economy'? part of produserism? Is a mash-up adding very little new creativity at the expense of the original producers? (Do you know about the original controversies over sampling?)
Or is it wholesale and irresponsible rejection of the current system of intellectual property rights and capitalistic profit from artists endeavours? Might some of this have something to do witth the technology -or is it socially determined?