These days, it's everywhere. It's present in every culture, every nation, every village, every city... It's music, the art of sounds. As an art, it is diverse and can deliver many purposes, from preaching a message (as in political rap) to dancing and advertising, among many others. The beat can be so slow as to lure someone to sleep, or fast enough to keep people moving... literally. Some pieces of music are addictive to the extent that they could be run over and over again without end, and some pieces of music are pretty much like... "next, please" from the first second.
Personally, I'm a moderate music lover. I usually play it when I go to the gym so I could keep moving, but that's about the only useful purpose it serves for myself. Just don't ask me about dancing. But that's not what I'm here to talk about. I'm here to talk about what is apparently the loss of monetary value on music. But please, don't go kamikaze on me if you're a student of Commerce/Economics/Finance/etc.: I'm a student of Science.
I was talking to a friend of mine who was a student of Commerce. He was reading over the concept of Commodification (also called commoditization).
Personally, I'm a moderate music lover. I usually play it when I go to the gym so I could keep moving, but that's about the only useful purpose it serves for myself. Just don't ask me about dancing. But that's not what I'm here to talk about. I'm here to talk about what is apparently the loss of monetary value on music. But please, don't go kamikaze on me if you're a student of Commerce/Economics/Finance/etc.: I'm a student of Science.
I was talking to a friend of mine who was a student of Commerce. He was reading over the concept of Commodification (also called commoditization).
Commodification (or commoditization) is the transformation of what is normally a non-commodity into a commodity, or, in other words, to assign value. As the word commodity has distinct meanings in business and in Marxian theory, commodification has different meanings depending on the context.
For the sake of discussion, we'll focus on a more general meaning, as we are talking about assigning value to music in its most basic terms. So, it's like making something that you usually don't pay for into something that you pay for in order to get it. Music didn't become a commodity until people had to pay for tickets to go to concerts, which was probably early in the 1900's. Then, the records came, and music was then sold as albums of music recorded in studios, copied and distributed to the masses... all for a price. Adding that price tag to music made it a commodity, and basically, this is how music was commodified.
We know how music is commodified in the present day. Instead of going to the stores, we can now download music for a price. But the average listener knows of more niftier ways to obtain music. There are peer-to-peer (P2P) programs such as Mp3-Rocket, Napster, Limewire, BitComet, and many others, as well as other downloading agents. Websites all over the net have also posted download links for music. People can send each other and trade music over chatting services and forums. Of course, these "niftier" ways of obtaining music are at most free: no cost is necessary.
Does that means music is being devalued? I mean, many... many people these days have the means to download music from other sources without having to pay a cent for the download itself save for the service. Without cost, you have decommodification, reduction of value. At least we still have musicians making music and selling their music in stores and whatnot, as well as those who copyright and protect their music from any sort of piracy that might allow others to obtain that certain piece of music for free. One could argue that music, in that sense, is being devalued: it's not being "bought" for its value. It's becoming too readily available. Opponents to this argument bring about the fact that not all music artists and/or genres are available via free downloads, which is actually quite true, and are available in music stores and in certain online stores like iTunes, among many others.
So, is music being decommodified? Not entirely, but apparently much of it is going to lose its monetary value fast in the coming years, as use of P2P software is most likely to increase in the following years. However, for a more honest analysis, we turn to Koleman Strumpf of the University of North Carolina, who published a research paper. He argues that
We know how music is commodified in the present day. Instead of going to the stores, we can now download music for a price. But the average listener knows of more niftier ways to obtain music. There are peer-to-peer (P2P) programs such as Mp3-Rocket, Napster, Limewire, BitComet, and many others, as well as other downloading agents. Websites all over the net have also posted download links for music. People can send each other and trade music over chatting services and forums. Of course, these "niftier" ways of obtaining music are at most free: no cost is necessary.
Does that means music is being devalued? I mean, many... many people these days have the means to download music from other sources without having to pay a cent for the download itself save for the service. Without cost, you have decommodification, reduction of value. At least we still have musicians making music and selling their music in stores and whatnot, as well as those who copyright and protect their music from any sort of piracy that might allow others to obtain that certain piece of music for free. One could argue that music, in that sense, is being devalued: it's not being "bought" for its value. It's becoming too readily available. Opponents to this argument bring about the fact that not all music artists and/or genres are available via free downloads, which is actually quite true, and are available in music stores and in certain online stores like iTunes, among many others.
So, is music being decommodified? Not entirely, but apparently much of it is going to lose its monetary value fast in the coming years, as use of P2P software is most likely to increase in the following years. However, for a more honest analysis, we turn to Koleman Strumpf of the University of North Carolina, who published a research paper. He argues that
The Internet has drastically lowered the cost of copying information goods and provides a natural crucible to assess the implications of reduced protection.
The reduction of copyright costs, pardon my lack of economical intellect on the matter, means that it had to become a necessity for artists to copyright and protect their music, thereby preventing file sharing of their music over P2P networks and other download agents. Definitely, there is a relation between the devaluing of music via file sharing and music sales (commodified music).
What do I think about all this? I dunno. I tend not to care. Sometimes, I feel that you don't have to buy music to appreciate it. And then again, music is a service or commodity, so it has to be bought... just like clothing. This is a big subject that I haven't explored much myself. I tend to use music only when it suits me, not as an art or as something I just tune in to just for the sake of listening to it. At times, I feel that music should be made available to everyone at no cost, but at times, I feel that a disservice has been done to those who make the music. Surely, there is no way to go around this mess? Artists get paid almost as much as actors do if not more, but there always comes the notion of bearing one's fruit... the fruit of making good music. It's just that attaching a price to it is something that makes the fruit bigger.
Salaam, from Saracen
What do I think about all this? I dunno. I tend not to care. Sometimes, I feel that you don't have to buy music to appreciate it. And then again, music is a service or commodity, so it has to be bought... just like clothing. This is a big subject that I haven't explored much myself. I tend to use music only when it suits me, not as an art or as something I just tune in to just for the sake of listening to it. At times, I feel that music should be made available to everyone at no cost, but at times, I feel that a disservice has been done to those who make the music. Surely, there is no way to go around this mess? Artists get paid almost as much as actors do if not more, but there always comes the notion of bearing one's fruit... the fruit of making good music. It's just that attaching a price to it is something that makes the fruit bigger.
Salaam, from Saracen
Comments
Post a Comment