In every industry, there are people who “get it” and people who don’t. Gerd Leohard gets it.
A self-described “digital music and media expert, futurist and often quoted visionary and thought-leader”, Gerd recently wrote an “Open letter to the independent music industry.” My thanks to Dave at The Future of Music Blog for turning me onto it here.
It’s a long letter that skillfully explains the current state of the music industry and one that requires multiple posts to cover. In part 1, I’ll start here:
“We are very quickly nearing a point to where we are forced to dive into what I like to call “Music2.0” – a new ecosystem that is not based on music as a product, but music as a service: first selling access, and only then selling copies. An ecosystem based on ubiquity of music, not scarcity. An ecosystem based on mutual trust, not fear.”
Hmmm, music as a service…
Wikipedia says “a service is the non-material equivalent of a good. Service provision has been defined as an economic activity that does not result in ownership, and this is what differentiates it from providing physical goods. It is claimed to be a process that creates benefits by facilitating either a change in customers, a change in their physical possessions, or a change in their intangible assets.”
Have you ever read a more beautiful definition of music?
Music is nothing more than moving air. It cannot be owned by creator or listener. Its power is not tangible, it’s an affect on heart and mind. The draw of music (and all art) is the expectancy of this effect, the expectancy of change. People will move heaven and earth to be changed – they always have and they always will. The illusion of the last 100 years, however, is that music is a product that could be bought and sold. But it’s never been the music that’s been sold, it’s been the change.
Though the fact that this change has been sold in units of recorded music cannot be denied. The platforms of 45’s, LP’s, tapes, CD’s and MP3’s facilitated the delivery of music in exchange for money in a 1 to 1 relationship. This supported the idea of ownership – on both sides. The artists/labels/publishers “owned” the music until it was sold to a customer who then “owned” the music.
But even then, the ownership was tenuous. People who bought music rarely listened to it alone. They shared it with others because they wanted to see the music change their friends just like it had changed them. And the people who made the music? Their ownership stopped at the moment of sale. Even if it was a 45 or LP, they had no more control over that than they do today on the internet.
I’m not ignoring the fact that digital music and the internet (in that order) are different than magnetic tape. I know they are. But, the war being waged today was lost on the day the first CD was sold. Yet the battles have continued between the “owner/unit” mentality and the return to music as a service.
Music as a service is about interaction. It’s about surrounding people with music, art, drama, whatever. It’s giving the privilege of being caught up in something magical.
And what better way to deliver this privilege, the change, than through the internet – a pipeline directly into people’s everyday, every moment lives?
As a musician, what’s that worth? How much would you pay to be changed by the music of your favorite heros, anytime and anywhere you were, all the time? And what would you pay to not have to manage all that music – files, formats, transfers, uploads, etc. – because it was handled for you for that same fee. What would that be worth?
That’s the future that’s upon us. The one that is dawning now.
But, as you should, you’re wondering how to make money in this world. Gerd has some answers I’ll discuss in Part 2.
Until then, I’ll leave you with his comment about the labels:
“The music industry must admit that it has failed to act. Their leaders’ clueless-ness, incomprehension and general lack of willingness to embrace true change allowed the paying for music to become voluntary. Congrats.”
