The Future of Music: Is Here

Back in 2005, Gerd Leonhard and David Kusek predicted what they thought the music industry would like by the end of the decade. Looks like their predictions will come true even sooner than they thought.

In their book, they described a music industry in which music flowed “like water” and was paid for as if it were a utility. In their view, music would no longer be a product, but a service that would draw in the consumer and prompt them to participate in other revenue streams such as merch, live events, street team membership fees, and etcetera. In addition, the direct consumers, or the ones downloading (because who would continue buying physical CDs when digital songs would be easier to access, available for use and any and all media players, and most importantly, free) would not actually be paying for anything, but instead, a variety other companies would be paying. The music might be supported by ads, or including in the bill for internet service, or even bundled with physical products, such as a phone, computer, or iPod (because let’s be honest, does any body really have a Zune?). This money would be compiled in a pool, so they said, that would be split among the distributors, the labels, the creators, and on down the list. The Future of Music wouldn’t be about dictating prices, adhering to outdated copyright laws, or encoding songs with DRM, but more about losing control and letting the consumers get what they want, when they want, and where they want it. They preach a culture of change, in which music companies (and any company that cares about making a profit in any industry) will have to adapt if they want to survive.

In a recent article published on Portfolio.com, all of Gerd and David’s dreams have started to take shape in the form of Warner Music Group’s new project that is being directed by Jim Griffin, former digital chief at Geffen Music. In the simple form, the project has been described as a way for consumers to obtain music in a manner that is unobstructed and easy to access: “Consumers will pay a monthly fee, bundled into an internet-service bill in exchange for unfettered access to a database of all known music” (Gustin par 2). So let me get this straight, I’ll pay for my internet access like I always have, and in addition I’ll get access to all of the music I could ever want. Kusek/Leonhard 1, traditionalists 0.

The next point that the article brings up is the issue of how government regulations have affected (or have failed to affect) the growth of illegal downloading. But more importantly than this, after it became obvious that such downloading wasn’t going to stop, there was never a successful attempt at amending either the copyright law, or adjusting/creating a new license that would allow music to be used in this way, but also to make sure that money flowed to where it was deserved. As the article describes, “digital music seers have argued the rise of such networks has made copyright law obsolete and free music distribution universal” (par 5). While this is a valid point, the reasonable counterpoint would be, where the (insert expletive here) have you been for the last decade? Okay, maybe that’s not quite a reasonable response, but in essence, the point will still remain that almost all, if not all, of the biggest music companies failed to adapt, experiment with a new model, or embrace the changes that were occurring. Blame it on the causes that you will, but now that nothing has been done, these companies have been, and will continue to suffer until something substantial is done about it. Kusek/Leonhard 2, traditionalists 0.

The next point, and one of the more promising realizations that Griffin and his team have expressed, is that the way things are being done now will no longer suffice for the future. As he explains, “we’re swinging toward the vine of music as a service. We need to get ready to let go and grab the next vine, which is a pool of money and a fair way to split it up, rather than controlling the quantity and destiny of sound recordings” (par 9). While Griffin may sound like quite a business genius, it is very obvious that Kusek and Leonhard pointed this out in their book more than three years ago. Yes change will be slow, but at this rate, will it ever be accomplished? While I’m skeptical about the major labels’ ability to make such large changes, the idea still remains that all of these companies are losing control. They will no longer benefit from using DRM or attempting to keep their music within their own distribution channels. It is simply too large a task to control all of their music’s use, let alone virtually impossible to stop such use from happening. Instead, as Griffin stated, these companies will need to stop wasting so much energy on cracking down on illegal downloading, and start using that energy to figure out the best way to implement a new plan, and then how they will split up the money accordingly. Kusek/Leonhard 3, traditionalists 0.

The final point that is worth mentioning comes from Griffin himself as he describes the goals of creating a music “utility” that will be bundled with some sort of fee. “Ideally, music will be free” (par 19). While speculation on how these fees will be paid and by who, either way, the consumer wins and music companies get a sizeable return, and isn’t that the most important part? And who’s to say that there couldn’t be a combination of companies paying the fees? Some websites could use an advertising model, where in exchange for watching or receiving a few advertisements, users would get the music they want for free. Also, the article comments on the possibility of iTunes’ model, in which in buying an iPod or other media device, customers would automatically get access to a trusted music supplier and all the music has to offer. Finally, the ISP model, in which the fee is built into the service, could be added to the pot as well. If you were to combine all of these models so that each takes part, in which the ISPs only charge a dollar or two per month, Apple only increases the prices of their players by a few dollars, and more advertisements become integrated with the material, the overall toll on the listeners would minimal, if noticeable at all. Kusek/Leonhard … I think you get the picture.

While music is more important and more widely used than ever been before, music companies seem to be complaining more than ever as well. While some of their complaints about fair use and legal rights and yada yada yada seem to be legitimate, the point is, they had their chance, and now the consumer is going to do what they will until they get want they want. Kusek and Leonhard had it right the whole time, and if anything, the industry should look to their latest work to figure out what might happen next… (ad support at work).

Gustin, Sam. "Fee For All: Jim Griffin Will Lead Warner Music's Fight To Tame The Web's Lawless Music Frontier." Portfolio.com 27 Mar 2008 01 Apr 2008 .