Does the internet help or hinder fledgling musicians, bands or recording artists?

The music industry is currently weathering several major changes that include the development of production and distribution technology; the emergence of new media forms and changing patterns of media consumption. It can be argued that of all media, music is the type that we are exposed to the most, either by active consumption or by its inclusion in any number of situations. Homan supports this idea by stating that “perhaps more than any other medium, popular music intersects with and influences the uses of other media in everyday life” (2006, 238). Music is present in our lives whether we are jumping around in front of our favourite band at a live gig or trawling up and down supermarket aisles. Adding to music’s omnipresence is the explosion of personal mobile media players such as ipods and mobile phones with customized ringtones; in this setting, music becomes part of our ‘digital lifestyles’ and a marker of personal identity. Homan confidently announces that “more music is being consumed by more people than ever before,” and it would be difficult to disagree. For those who require hard facts, the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) reported that “recorded music sales in Australia increased by over $12 million, or 5.8 percent, to over $224 million in the six months to June 2006” when compared with the corresponding period of the previous year (ARIA, 2006, cited in McIntyre, 2007, 84). The increase in consumption could lead us to assume that all participants in the music industry are riding a wave of success, but the reality is quite different. Philip Graham’s lecture provided insight into the challenges that recording artists and other members of the Australian music industry must face today. While the turnover of the music industry may be increasing the majority of musicians further down the food chain often cannot reap financial rewards for their work (McIntyre, 2007, 91). Rapid advances in technology and the increased tendency for people to share, swap and download music over the internet ensure that today’s recording artists are working in an industry that is more unstable than ever. The nature of today’s music industry has changed from an earlier, more stable model to an industry that is trying desperately to adjust to technological change and the shift in power from industry organisations to the consumer.

The internet has proven to be both a blessing and a curse for recording artists worldwide. Recorded tracks are available in compressed and easily-manipulated digital formats such as mp3, and the influence of the internet has loosened the stranglehold that recording companies previously held on the music industry. Triple j Unearthed; a project established by Triple J radio station to provide a media platform for emerging musicians; is evidence of this and currently has more than ten thousand artists and twenty-four thousand tracks available on its website. The fact that the website is barely one year old makes this volume of content all the more staggering (2007). Clearly, the major technological benefit of the internet to musicians is its potential as a distribution tool (Jones, 2002, 216). Online music was originally restricted to retail music stores operating via websites, allowing customers to browse and purchase copies of recordings over the internet (Jones, 2002, 219). Since then, the development of computer technology has completely changed the nature of online music in a very short space of time. Homan explains that “the internet enables musicians to bypass many traditional industrial structures” within the music industry (2006, 256). Instead of having their careers at the mercy of recording companies, musicians can distribute and promote their material via the internet and have the potential to reach a global audience (Jones, 2002, 219). The Arctic Monkeys are a well-known example of how the internet can be utilized as a promotion tool; fans of the band started a website which attracted significant interest and resulted in the band’s album debuting at number one on the UK charts. The Arctic Monkeys and their scale of success are, of course, the exception to the rule. A major disadvantage to the internet’s egalitarian all-access concept is the sheer number of artists and groups that are competing for space within the music industry (Graham, 2007). Artists of today may have greater freedom and choice in production and distribution, but they have to stand out from local, national and global peers if they hope to attract the attention of industry professionals and fans.

While technological advances have partially liberated musicians, the group that benefits most are the users and consumers of music. New technologies have, in effect, placed media power in the hands of the consumer (Jones, 2002, 220). Today’s consumers have the ability to pick and choose specific media from a huge array of media forms and content, developing a ‘digital lifestyle’ in the process (Livingstone, cited by Martin, 2006, 318). This phenomenon allows users to access rich content that is specifically tailored to their interests, and then to consume their chosen media at whichever time and place they wish. Users are also able to share and access music without incurring any financial cost, usually via well known p2p (peer-to-peer) file-sharing programs such as Napster, Kazaa and Limewire. This liberal freedom and flow of music content may represent greater exposure for artists, yet very few of them are able to reap any financial reward for their work (Jones, 2002, 220). As Philip Graham put it, “people don’t want to pay for music. They never have” (2007). While artists are keen to embrace the freedom and potential of new technology and the internet, these advantages are weighed down by the huge field of competition and the ability for music to be acquired by users free of charge (Homan and Gibson, 2007, 61). This leads us to the subject of popular music policy and the current upheaval surrounding copyright and intellectual property (IP) regulation, an area which represents major problems for recording artists.

Reference List

1. Cunningham, S and Turner, G. (2006) “The media and communications today.” The Media and Communications in Australia, Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, 1-13.

2. Graham, P. (2007) “Key changes in the music industry.” Lecture presented at Queensland University of Technology on Tuesday 2 October, 2007.

3. Homan, S. (2006) “Popular Music”, in S. Cunningham and G. Turner (eds) The Media and Communications in Australia, Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, 238-258.

4. Homan, S. and Gibson, C. (2007) “Popular Music: Networks, Industries, and Spaces”, Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, 123 (May), 61-64. (Accessed 26 September via the Course Materials Database.)

5. Jones, S. (2002) “Music that moves: popular music, distribution and network technologies”, Cultural Studies, 16 (2), 213-232.

6. Martin, F. (2006) “New Media, New Audiences”, in S. Cunningham and G. Turner (eds) The Media and Communications in Australia, Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, 315-328.

7. McIntyre, P. (2007) “Copyright and Creativity: Changing paradigms and the implications for intellectual property and the music industry”, Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, 123 (May): 82-94.

8. Sternberg, J. (2006) “Youth Media”, in S. Cunningham and G. Turner (eds) The Media and Communications in Australia, Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, 329-343.

9. triple j Unearthed website. 2007. http://www.triplejunearthed.com/Default.aspx (accessed 3 October 2007).

(Anti)social online communities – a cause for concern?

One of the major features of the internet is the ability for people to form and participate in online communities. In his book, New Media: an Introduction Terry Flew (2004, 67) quotes Langdon Winner who describes how virtual communities enable people to connect with others who share similar interests. The internet’s potential as a site for community establishment is especially appealing to individuals whose interests and ideas may not be widely shared in the offline community. To quote Shenton and McNeeley, again courtesy of Flew (2004, 69), people often participate in online groups because they are able to express views and opinions that are not usually raised in more mainstream media outlets.

While the majority of these interests are well-meaning, there has been concern raised over the potential for groups that share antisocial interests to form online communities. Articles relating to mySpace suicide pacts and how terrorists use the internet are relatively common. Axel Bruns stated in his week six lecture that one benefit of online communities is the “ability [for people] to operate in fields of interest neglected by mainstream media, business, politics, research.” While this may allow for greater coverage of socially valuable topics such as news, current affairs and politics (see Slashdot, Current TV, and Crikey); antisocial groups such as neo-nazi, terrorist, paedophile or pro-anorexia networks are also provided with the same opportunity to form strong communities. Like-minded individuals can overcome physical and social barriers to participation and exist as part of a network while concealing their true identity. There is no doubt that such groups exist, and I am not going to attempt to find them to prove my point. Instead, I think it is more important to think about whether the internet encourages these groups to form. Is antisocial networking and behaviour increasing because internet and mobile technology allows groups to operate more effectively?

Essentially, I think the answer is no. In the tradition of moral panics, it is easy to assume that the perceived rise in the number and power of antisocial groups such as the Al Qaeda network is due to advances in internet and mobile technology. Alex Iskold’s blog post, Technology and Terrorism: Are we being too naive?, veers towards this line of thinking and discusses how google earth has the potential to provide terrorist organizations with valuable information. . Yet while terrorist operators may be able to use internet and mobile technology for their own destructive purposes, or neo-nazis can air their views in online forums, this does not mean that these technologies should (or could) be censored or banned. If we did try to stifle or dismantle these communities, would we be undermining the very ideals of using the internet as a site for free expression? In March 2005, one year on from the 2004 bombings in Madrid, an international summit was held by the Club of Madrid to discuss current issues of democracy, terrorism and security. One panel addressed the specific topic of Democracy, Terrorism and the Internet, in order to determine whether use of the internet should be censored because of its possibility to be used by terrorist organisations. To quote from the keynotes provided on the website:

"the panellists agreed that interfering with the democratic freedoms offered by the internet would probably damage democracy more than it would harm the terrorists, and that the internet's positive effects, in connecting people for example, far outweighed the possibility of abuse".

Although it may seem easier for undesirable communities to form and function thanks to the internet, the internet has not caused or increased the prevalence of such communities. All of the groups I mentioned existed and operated before the internet. Their methods of organization and communication have changed, just the same as conventional community groups have done. I would argue instead that rather than spawning more antisocial groups, the internet actually serves to expose these groups to greater scrutiny.

The human race has always had its unsavoury elements, and the internet has not increased the prevalence of these. Instead, these anti-social aspects of our global community are now more visible than ever before. I believe that this visibility acts as a censor of sorts. Because internet content can (largely) be viewed by any user, any sites that deal with antisocial communities actually provide us with information about these groups, and can help us to anticipate antisocial action or work to solve problems within our society.

References

Flew, T. 2004. Virtual Cultures. In T. Flew, New media: an introduction, 61-82. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Queensland University of Technology: Course materials Database (accessed March 14, 2008).