Negus, Keith. 2019. From creator to data: the post-record music industry and the digital conglom-erates. Media, Culture and Society, 41(3), pp. 367-384. ISSN 0163-4437 [Article]

https://research.gold.ac.uk/id/eprint/23984/

The version presented here may differ from the published, performed or presented work. Pleasego to the persistent GRO record above for more information.

If you believe that any material held in the repository infringes copyright law, please contactthe Repository Team at Goldsmiths, University of London via the following email address:gro@gold.ac.uk.

The item will be removed from the repository while any claim is being investigated. Formore information, please contact the GRO team: gro@gold.ac.uk

Fromcreatortodata:thepost-recordmusicindustryandthedigitalconglomerates

KeithNegus

Finalversion–accepted31July2018;firstpublished5September2018(onlinefirst).

PublishedinMedia,CultureandSociety

Forthepublishedversion–

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0163443718799395

2

Fromcreatortodata:thepost-recordmusicindustryandthedigitalconglomerates

KeithNegus

abstract

Thisarticlecontributestoresearchonthechangingmusicindustriesbyidentifyingthreedynamicsthatunderpintheshifttowardsapost-recordmusicindustry.First,itexamineshowmusicianshavefoundthemselvesredefinedascontentprovidersratherthancreativeproducers;ahistoricalchangefromrecordedmusicasproducttocontent.Second,itfocusesontensionsbetweenYouTubeandrecordingartistsassymptomaticofdisputesaboutthechangingartisticandeconomicvalueofrecordedmusic.Third,itextendsthisdebateaboutthemarketandmoralworthofmusicbyexploringhowdigitalrecordingshaveacquiredvalueasdata,ratherthanasacommercialformofartisticexpression.Thearticleexploreshowdigitalconglomerateshavebecomesignificantinshapingthecirculationofrecordingsandprofitingfromtheworkofmusicians,andhighlightsdynamics,structuresandpatternsofconflictshapingtherecordingsectorspecifically,andmusicindustriesmoregenerally.

Throughoutmostofthetwentiethcenturyrecordingwascentraltothemusicindustries.

Drivenbyhighvolumeconsumersalesof‘soundcarriers’(LPs,cassettes,CDs),the

recordingsectorbecameahubaroundwhichrevolvedpublishing,liveperformance,

studioproduction,artisticmanagement,radiopromotion,themarketingofstarimagery,

andsalesofmerchandise.Therecordingcontract‘businessmodel’dominated.This

entailedrecoupableeconomicinvestmentinmusicians(‘advances’)withprofitsderived

fromphysicalsales,andthelicensingofcopyrightinsoundrecordingsandpublished

songs,andartistspaidviapercentageroyalties.Recordingandpublishingoperatedwithin

ablockbustereconomicstructure(Elberse,2013)wherebyafewstarartistsaccountedfor

mostincomeandthemajorityofmusiciansachievedneithercriticalacclaimnor

commercialreward.

Facilitatedbythebuyingpowerandinfluenceofthepost-SecondWorldWar‘baby

boom’generation,therecordedmusicindustryreacheditspeakofincomesand

significancewiththeemergenceandrecognitionofrockandsoulmusic.Thiswas

encapsulatedinthe12-inchvinylalbumascommodity,andartisticstatementinsound

andsleeveimagery,alliedtotheconcertasaritualisticre-enactmentoftherecording

(unlikethelooserrelationshipbetweenrecordingsandliveperformanceinjazz,for

example).Financiallossesfromtourswerecross-collateralisedagainstrecording

3

revenues.Uptotheendofthe1990s,scholarsofmusicproductioncouldjustifiably

concentrateonrecordingasthedeterminateinfluencewithinawidersetofdirectlyand

indirectlyrelatedmusicindustries.

Recordingscontinuetobemade.Buttheperiodofdominancesustainedbythe

recordingsectorisover.Themostsignificantcatalystofthepost-recordmusicindustry

hasbeentheintroductionandrapidadoptionofinternetcirculationanddigitaltechnology

asameansofcreatingandcurating,sharingandselling,bundlingandlicensingaccessto

recordedmusic.

Theimpactofdigitalisationonmusichasbeenandcontinuestobedebated,lessas

aradicalbreakwiththepast,asmanyenvisionedinitially-whethertheywereanxiously

pessimisticoroptimisticallyutopian(Rogers,2013),andmoreashistoricalcontinuity.To

recapbrieflyascontextforthefollowingdiscussion:Fromearlyinthetwentyfirstcentury

afamiliartalebegantobenarratedabouthowthemajorrecordedmusiccorporations

(alongwiththeirrepresentativetradeorganisations)initiallyfoundthemselvesvacillating,

andinconflictwithentrepreneursofferinglistenerstheprospectofunregulated

downloadingandsharingamongstpeers(Arditi,2014;Morris,2015a).Slowtorecognise

thesignificanceofinterventionsfromtechnologiesandnewoccupationalgroupings,

reluctanttograsptheuseofrecordingsbyfansandcasuallisteners,andfrightenedbythe

disregardforcopyrightlawamongstsamplingmusicians,themajorrecordlabels

prevaricated(Mulligan,2015;Silver,2013;Witt,2015).

Intheirindecisionthemajorlabelsreplicatedacorporatepatternof‘structuraland

organisationalinertia’,‘institutionalpathdependency’,and‘overestimationof[their]

power’-characteristicsidentifiedwithinmanyotherindustriesandsectorsfacingsocial

andtechnologicalchange(Dolata,2011).Eventuallythemajorrecordlabelsbegan

describingthemselvesasmusiccompanies,reducedtheirrelianceonrecordingby

restructuringcontractsasmultiplerights(360degree)deals,andsoughttorecoup

investmentfromthefullrangeofamusician’sactivities,artformsandrevenuestreams

(Gervais,Marcus&Kilgore,2011;Marshall,2013).Theyalsonegotiatedpreferential

licensingagreementsandacquiredequitystakesinarangeofcompaniesandplatforms

offeringstreamedaccesstomusic(Seabrook,2014).

4

Yet,asthefew,evermoreoligopolistic,majorcorporationsbegantoreposition

themselvesasmusiccompanies(seekingprofitsfrommultiplerightsratherthan

dwindlingincomefromrecordsales)theybegantobedrawnintofurthertensionswith

newerdigitalconglomeratesoftheITanddataindustry,sometimesreferredtoasBigTech

(Mosco,2017).Theseemergenttensionsandtheirconsequencesarecentraltothisarticle,

andhavereceivedlittledirectattentionfromscholarsofthemusicindustries.Asimplied,I

usethetermmusicindustries(plural)torefertothewiderangeofcompaniesand

businessesseekingtoprofitfromorsupporttheworkofmusicians,musicrelated

productsandservices(practices,thingsandactivitiesthatcannotbeeasilyclassed

togetherorsubstitutedforoneanother–aconcertticket,amixingdesk,avinylalbum,

sheetmusicandsoon).Iusethetermindustry(singular)torefertoaspecificbusinessor

sectorinvolvedinthesameproductorservice–recordedmusicindustry,publishing

industry,livemusicindustry.

Studiesoftherecordedmusicindustrysincedigitalisationhavebeenconcerned

withtheresponsesanddifficultiesofrecordlabelsinthefaceofdownloadingandpiracy

(Rogers,2013),theimpactandoperationsofstreaminganddownloadingservices(Morris,

2015a),andthechangingcharacterofcontracts(Marshall,2013).Fewstudieshaveplaced

thesechangeswithinabroadercorporatecontext.TwonotableexceptionsareDavid

Hesmondhalgh’sandLesleyMeier’s(2017)periodizationofageneralhistoricalshiftfrom

CE(consumerelectronics)toIT(informationtechnology),andJung-yupLee’sfocused

studyofhowtheSouthKoreanmusicproductionwas‘experiencingdigitalisationatthe

fastestpaceintheworld’inthemid-2000s(2009,p489).Leestressedtheimpactofthe

ICT(informationandcommunicationtechnology)industries.Analysingthemediationof

Koreanpopmusicthroughtheinternet,theinfluenceofmobileserviceproviders,

streamingservicesandon-lineintermediaries,Leearguedthat‘ongoingdigitalisation

radicallytransformswhatweconceiveasthemusicindustry,andrendersthenatureof

musicredefinedandcontested’(2009,p490).

Thisarticleoffersafurthercontributiontoresearchonthecorporatecontexts

shapingmusicculture,andaninterventionintodebatesaboutthechangingplaceof

recordedmusicwithinthewiderdigitalorpost-digitaleconomy.Istartbyhighlighting

howmusicianshavefoundthemselvesredefinedas‘contentproviders’ratherthan

creativeproducers;animportanthistoricalchangefromrecordedmusicasproductto

5

content.IthenfocusontensionsbetweenYouTubeandtherecordingsectorasindicative

ofdisputesaboutthechangingartisticandeconomicworthofrecordedmusic.Itakethis

discussionfurtherbyhighlightinghowdigitalmusichasbecomevaluedasdata,rather

thana(commodified)formofartisticexpression.Inadditiontothesemoredetailed

discussions,Iwishtoconveyamoregeneralirony:Althoughmostofthedigital

conglomerateshaveintroducedmusicormusicvideostreamingservices,andwhilstthey

profitfromandimpactupontheworkofmusicians,recordedmusichasbecomeless

significantwithinthehierarchiesofworthinthedigitaleconomyasdefinedand

dominatedbyAlphabet(Google,YouTube),Apple,Amazon,MicrosoftandFacebook–

currentlythetopfivecompaniesintheworld,measuredbymarketshare(Mosco,2017,

p65).

Myargumentconcentratesononebrief,butsignificant,momentinthehistoryofrecorded

musicspecifically,explaininghowchangesinthedigitaleconomyareimpactingonthe

practicesandeconomiccircumstancesofmusicians.Myfocusisgeographicallyspecificin

thatIdrawmainlyfromsourcesintheUKandUSA.However,theissuesIamdiscussing

arerelevanttomanypartsoftheworldduetothewaydigitalconglomeratesare

increasingtheirinfluenceoverculturalproductionandthemoregeneralcirculationof

informationandknowledge.

Fromthecreatorofproducttocuratorofcontent

Inaseriesofinterviewsintheearly1970s,MichaelWaledescribedhowapublicity

department‘push’a‘company’sproduct’(1972,p262).Hequotedapluggerexplaining

thathewasmorelikelytogetradioplayforhislabel’srecordingsifhehad‘goodproduct’

(p289).Recordlabelstaffusedtheword‘product’whenreferringtorecordingsdelivered

bymusiciansandtheprocessofpackaging,sellingandpromotingtheseassinglesor

albums.Thetermwasanabbreviationandacknowledgementofaprocessofproduction

(ratherthanaperformance).Yetitwasalsoinformedbyamoregenerallexiconof

‘product-market’approachestobusinessstrategythatgainedcurrencyduringthe1960s

withtheriseofmanagementscience,theinfluenceoforganisationaltheoryandadoption

of‘productmanagement’.

6

Theterm‘product’becameroutinelyusedintherecordingindustryduringthe

1980s,andtheoccupationaltitleof‘productmanager’becamemorewidespreadasthe

strategicapproachesofmarketing,accountingandbusinessaffairsgainedascendency

overthelessrationalisedand‘instinctive’practicesofrepertoiremanagement

(songwriting,arrangingandproduction)andtalentscouting(seeNegus,1992,1999).The

ideaofpopularmusicasaproductinformedtheoreticalmodels,whetherscholarsusedthe

analogyofa‘productionline’(Ryan&Peterson,1982)ora‘systemsmodel’ofraw

materialbeing‘filtered’asit‘flows’throughaseriesofgatekeepers(Hirsch,1972),

approachesindebtedtoTheodorAdorno’sreferencetothe‘assemblyline’likecharacterof

culturalproduction.Scholarlymodelsofproductsandproductionlineswereinformedby

empiricalrealitiesofthetime.

Forsomemusicians,thenotionoftheircreativeworkas‘product’broughttomind

theseunsavouryimagesoffactoriesandassemblylines.Yet,theindustrywasorganised

accordingtothemanufactureoftangibleartefacts.Producingrecordedmusicrequiredthe

maintenanceofacostlyinfrastructureofrecordpressingplants(latersecurityringedCD

productioncomplexes),warehouses,inventorymanagementsystems,andacomplexof

land,seaandairtransportationroutesandhubs.

Themanufacturinganddistributionprocesscouldnotidlewhileanartisttooktheir

timetodeliveratrackoranalbum.AseniorexecutiveIinterviewedinApril1989recalled

atimeworkingforalabelwithitsownrecordpressingplantandexplained:‘I’dgetacall

frommanufacturingandthey’dsay“weneedproduct”.AndI’dsay“well,Idon’tknowifI

haveany”,andthere’dbeascreamdownthephone.IfIdidn’thaveasingleoralbumready

I’dhavetofindone,justtokeepthemachinesturning’(Shepherd,1989).Apressingplant

neededtokeepstaffbusy.Thecontractswithroadhaulageandshippingneededfulfilling.

Thewarehousespaceneededfillingandemptying.Theracksontheretailshelves

demandednewsinglesandalbums,whilstunmarketableproductwenttotradersfeeding

offrecordindustry‘failures’bysellingtoaficionadosofthe‘bargainbin.’

Theterm‘product’wasnotsimplyanideologicaldistortionofapureractivityof

artisticcreationbutametonymfortheentirewaythatcommercialrecordingwas

organised.Productionandproduct-thespecificspaceofthestudioandthemoregeneral

manufactureandshipmentofsoundcarriers-mediatedthecomposition,consumption

7

andperformanceofmusic.Thetermproductacknowledgedthefusionofboththesound

andthe‘soundcarrier’.

Theideaofmusicas‘product’impliedmaterialobjects‘containing’music.It

suggestedaprocessofcreationandauthorship,andidentifiable‘recordproducers.’It

acknowledgedthecreativelabourinvestedinthephysicalartefact.Thelistenercould

recogniseamusician’sworkinatangibleway,whetherinasmallsinglerecordplacedon

toaturntableoralavishlyadornedalbumpackagecarriedunderthearm.

There-descriptionofrecordedmusicas‘content’suggestsagenerictypeof

informationthatsimplyappearsforthebenefitof‘users’.Thedigitaltrack,‘un-bundled’

fromitslocationwithinanalbum,isanotherbitofinformationtobeaccessedona

computerormobiledevice.Theideaofcontentdetachestheentity-asong,asymphony(a

painting,orpoem)-fromitsauthorshipanditsmakingandtowardsitsconstituents(lyric

content)inmuchthesamewaythatthetermcontentisusedcasuallyandmoregenerically

-fatcontent,sugarcontent,adultcontent.

Aproductismanufactured,packaged,promotedandpurchased.Eachstepinthis

linearchainentailsanidentifiableeconomictransactionandpotentialpointofprofitfor

differentintermediariesandoccupationalgroups.Incontrast,digitalcontentisuploaded,

circulatedinthehopethatitwillbe‘used’inamannerthatallowsittobe‘monetized’(an

opaquebuzzwordforgeneratingrevenue).AsJohnLanchesterhascommented:‘Inthe

internetworld,companiesoftenseekgrowthfirst….thestrategyformonetisingthe

productcomeslater.Thisisasensationallygoodwayofgoingbroke’(2014,p186).Itis

alsoatacticforwastingresourcesincirculatinganever-greaternumberofrecordingsthat

willneverbeheardletalone‘monetised’.

Arecordingindustryorganisedaccordingtothemanufactureofphysicalproduct

wasconstrainedandlimited.Whenthemachinesrequiredproduct,theamountofvinylor

CDsthatcouldbemanufacturedwasfinite;limitedbymaterialsandmachines,alongwith

spaceinwarehousesandretailers.Incontrast,digitalcontentisalmostinfinite,aquality

thathasledtopronouncementsofashiftfromscarcitytoabundance(whetheraprofusion

ofsongs,newsstoriesorphotographs).Thisisborneoutbyevidenceofthequantityof

recordedtracksavailableor‘released’andthenumberofselfdeclaredmusiciansactivein

8

theeconomy.IntheUK,in1994thenumberofnewlyreleasedalbumswasreportedbythe

OfficialChartsCompanyas11,654.In2014thatfigurehadrisento47,751.In1965the

PerformingRightSocietyhadamembershipofapproximately6,000songwritersand

composers.By2015thiswasapproximately112,000.Inrelativeterms,PRSincomehad

dramaticallydeclined.Thecollectingsocietywassharingtheequivalentofamuchsmaller

total.At2015prices,thiswasequivalenttoapproximately£16,600persongwriter/

composerin1965and£5,900in2015(seeHunter-Tilney,2015).AnitaElbersereported

thatoftheeightmilliondigitaltrackssoldintheUSAin2011,94percentsoldfewerthan

100units,and32percentsoldonlyonecopy(p160).Theoverabundanceofcontenthas

increasedinsubsequentyears.

Inanageofabundancethecuratorbecomesmoresignificantthanthecreator.The

playlistbecomesmoreculturallyandcommerciallyimportantthantheideaofthealbum

asartisticstatementandcommodity.In2017DrakereferredtohisnewreleaseMoreLife

asa‘playlist’ratherthananalbum,acknowledgingabroadershiftinpublicpreferencefor

playlistsofmusicdefinedbygenreandactivity(workout,chill,party,roadtrip,walking)

ratherthanspecificperformeridentity(Hogan,2015a).Yetthisalsosignalledaclear

continuitywiththewayalbumshave,inmanyways,alwaysbeen‘playlists’sincetheearly

boomofmoodmusicLPsintheearly1950s(Keightley,2004)andFrankSinatra’s

influentialmusicallythemedconceptalbumsthatbeganappearingas78rpmdisc

collectionsfrom1946(Granata,2004).Playlistsarealsoalegacyofradioprogramming,

usedsincethe1950sasawayofframingtherangeofmusicplayedandidentityofa

particularbroadcastingstation.

Theplaylistispartlyaresponsetothechangingpreferencesoflisteners,indebted

tothepracticesofpeertopeersharing,facilitatedbyNapster,whenmusicfansquickly

begancompilingtheirownlists,selectingfromratherthanacceptingthesequencesof

tracksonreleasedalbums(Morris,2015a).Anewcommercialrolehasemergedfor

professionalcurators,addingbrandidentitytostreamingplatforms(Morris&Powers,

2015),offeringselectionsfromanoceanofavailablesongs.Curatingisalsocontinuous

withtheroleofDJsandmusicjournalists.Forexample,rockcriticRobertChristgau’s

curatorial‘consumerguide’wasintroducedinNewYork’sVillageVoicein1969.

9

Productwaslistenedtoondedicatedmusicplayers,fromthecylindrical

phonographthroughtothegramophoneandhi-fi.TheiPod,withitsstoreofdigitalmusic,

wasthelastdedicatedmusicplayer-animportanttransitorymomentinthejourneyfrom

physicalsoundcarriertodigitaldata.Theconspicuousphysicalpresenceofthe

phonograph-aroundwhichpeopleritualisticallycongregatedorsatalonein‘ceremonies

ofasolitary’(Eisenberg,1988)-issupplantedbyunobtrusiveambientcontentaccessible

onmobiledevices.Ascontentoncomputersorphonessupersedesproducton

phonographs,newcorporateconflictsemerge.Inowmoveontohowtensionsbetween

productandcontentresultinconflictsthatpitchrecordingcompanies,musicpublishers

andmusiciansagainstthenewdigitalconglomerates,mostconspicuouslyYouTube/

Google.

Recordings,YouTubeandthemoraleconomyofmusicalvalue

Inpreviousacademicresearchandcriticism,recordlabelshaveoftenbeenportrayedas

unsympathetictotheinterestsandcreativewhimsofmusicians.Anargument,informed

bypoliticaleconomy,haspitchedmusiciansagainstmusiccorporationsasanartistic

versionofthestrugglebetweencapitalandlabour(see,forexample,Chapple&Garofalo,

1977).Evidencetosupporttheenduranceofthistensioncanbemarshalledfromcourt

cases,withnotabledisputeswithlabelsinvolvingGeorgeMichael,Prince,DrDre,Kesha,

TrentReznorandPinkFloyd(tonamesomeofthemostprominent).

However,emergenttensionshavebeguntounitemusicianswiththetraditional

musicindustries(recordedandpublishingmostobviously)againstthenewerdigital

conglomerates.During2016thegrievancesofmusicianscoalescedwiththeconcernsof

representativesoftherecordedmusicsector,formingachorusofcomplaintabouttheuse

ofmusiconvariousstreamingservices.YouTubewassingledoutformostcriticism,

publiclycondemnedinacampaignorchestratedbytheFeaturedArtistsCoalition(whose

BoardincludedAnnieLennoxandEdO’Brien),andinaletterdeliveredtotheEuropean

Commission,signedbyPaulMcCartney,Coldplay,LadyGagaandothers(Hogan,2016;

Peoples,2016).

Buildingonahistoryoflinksbetweenmovingimagemediaandmusic,notably

MTV,therelationshipbetweenYouTubeandmusiccompanieshasalwaysbeenoneof

10

‘mutualantagonismandmutualdependency’(Forde,2016,np).Sinceitslaunchin2005by

formeremployeesofPayPalandacquisitionbyGooglethefollowingyear,YouTubehas

becomepivotalfordisseminatingsongsandimages,foridentifyingaudiencesandfor

buildinga‘fanbase’(Wasko&Erickson,2009).Yet,musicians,publishersandlabelshave

habituallycomplainedthattheyshouldbereceivinggreaterfinancialpaymentsinaddition

topromotionandpublicity.

Theissuebecamearticulatedintheideaofa‘valuegap’.Therecordingindustryand

itsartistsarguedthattherewasanunfairimbalancebetweenprofitsmadeandrevenues

passedontomusiciansandmusiccompanies.Theshortfall–thegap-resultedinmusic

companieshavingreducedincomeavailableforreinvestmentinnewartists;ariskthat

contentuserswerenotfacing(Dredge,2016).Oneaspectofthedisputeentailedthe

complaintthatastreamedsongisnotadequatelyrewardedfinancially.Thesamebasic

grievancehasbeenlevelledatotherstreamingplatforms,mostnotablySpotify,whereby

musiciansandlabelsfamiliarwithpreviouslyliberalrevenuesfrom‘unit’salesandradio

broadcastinghavebeenaghastattherelativelysmallsizeofpaymentswhenexpressedas

apercentagereturnagainstindividualstreams(seeMarshall,2015;Milne,2014).

Thedisputeaboutpaymentsforstreamedmusicisunderpinnedbyanunexamined

ontologicalquestionaboutwhatexactlyastreamis.Itisnotequivalenttoa‘unit’sale.Itis

notcomparabletoaphysicalrecordingbeing‘played’onradio.Evidencefromstreaming

datasuggeststhatlistener’sappreciatetheirabilitytoaccessonlyasmallpartofanytrack,

withjustunder25percentoftracksskippedinthefirstfivesecondsand35percent

skippedwithinthefirst30seconds(Lamere,2014).Thepurchased,downloadedand

saveddigitalmusicfilemayormaynotbeanartefact(Sterne,2006),butstreamedmusic

isnotexperiencedbylistenersinamannerconsonantwithhowmusiciansperceive

recordingasarepositoryofthecreativetimeandeffortinvestedincomposingand

producing.Formusiciansandtheirrepresentatives,theissueisexacerbatedbythewaya

‘safeharbour’clauseallowsYouTubetoevadelegalculpability(andhencefinancial

responsibility)for‘usergenerated’contentthatfreelyincorporatesunauthorisedexisting

copyrightablematerial.

YouTubeinitiallyreactedtothevaluegapgrievancebystatingthattheywere

makingareturntomusiciansandlabels(usingsoftwaretoidentifytracks),stressinghow

11

labelsalsoreceivesubstantialincomefromtheadvertisingthataccompaniesvideos;a

sourceofrevenueindebtedtoDougMorris’snegotiationswhenheadofUniversalMusicin

2007(Witt,2015).However,recordcompaniesandpublishersdisputedthefigures.In

November2014,whenearlycomplaintswerebeingvoiced,Iwastoldbyamemberofa

musictradeorganisation(whowishedtoremainanonymous)thatYouTubewasunder-

reportingthevolumeofrecordingsbeingstreamed,aconcernalludedtoinothersources

(forexample,Mulligan,2016a).DespiterequestsIwasunabletoobtainanyevidenceto

verifythisperception.Therecordingindustrydidnotmakepubliclyavailableanydetailed

informationbeyondtheroutinelyvoicedclaimsofrecordexecutives,suchasJimmyIovine,

thatmusicwasmakingupasmuchas40percentofYouTubecontent(Garrahan,2016).

Therecordingandmusicpublishingperspectivewasinstarkcontrasttoresearch

conductedin2016byPexesowhichreportedthatmusicvideosandmusic-relatedvideo

contentwas4.3percentofYouTube‘traffic’,comparedwith33.4percentforgaming,for

example(Resnikoff,2016).Thiswasfollowedupinthemiddleof2017byYouTube’s

parentcompanyGooglecommissioningRBBEconomicstoprovidefurtherresearch

‘evidence’tosupporttheirstandpoint.Thisreport,publishedin5sections,entitledValue

ofYouTubetothemusicindustry(RBB,2017),usedonlinesurveyswith1,500listeners,

tracked5,000songsin4Europeancountriesover3yearsandanalyseddataonYouTube

streams.Unsurprisingly,thefindingswereoverwhelmingpositiveaboutYouTubeand

statedthatitallowedadiversityofmusictoreachlisteners(notablybyolder,andbyless

wellknownartists);ithelpedlistenersdiscovernewartists,andfacilitatedbreakingnew

acts.Asapromotionalmediumitprovided‘valueadded’benefitsbyincreasingstreams

anddownloadsonotherpaidservicesandcontributingtolonger‘songlifecycles’.

Ultimately,RBBreportedthatYouTube‘providessubstantialdirectrevenuestothemusic

industry,amountingtosomeUSD1billionin2016’(RBB,2017,Paper5,p17).

YouTubeactedfurtherbyappointingLyorCohen,anex-seniorexecutiveofWarner

MusicandDefJamas‘globalheadofmusic’withthereportedaimof‘buildingbridges’due

tohisfamiliaritywiththeproblemsandperspectivesofrecordlabelsandpublishers(Rys,

2016).However,attitudessoondividedwithsomesuspiciousvoicesmutteringthathewas

providinginsiderknowledgetothebenefitofYouTube,orthathewasgoingtostart

dealingdirectlywithmusiciansandfracturetherelationshipbetweenrecordlabelsand

artists.

12

TherecordingindustryandYouTubeweresplittingalongabroaderschism.Onone

side,the‘businessmodel’ofinvestmentinartisticproduction,remunerationthrough

copyrightsandunitsaleswithintherecordingandpublishingindustries.Ontheotherside,

amodelofgeneratingincomefromtheway‘content’attractsadvertising,amodel

deployedlucrativelybythenewdigitalconglomerates(anddrawingontheearlieruseof

advertisingtofinancecommercialradioandtelevision).

NealMohan(2016),ChiefProductOfficeratYouTubeandSeniorVicePresident,

Google,arguedthatYouTubewasdemonstratingthepotentialofadvertisinggenerated

revenue.Heclaimedthat80percentofmusiclistenersarecasuallistenersanditisthese

thatcangeneratebulkmoneyfromadvertising,ratherthanrelyingonrevenuesgenerated

fromtargetingrecordingsatfans.IncontrasttoMohan,JoeLennon,CEOSubwoofr,(tocite

oneproponentofthiscounter-argument),claimedthatadvertisingrequiresalotmore

consumptiontogeneraterevenue.Instead,hearguedagainsttargetingcasuallistenersand

forafocusonfans,directingattentionatthoseactivelyspendingmoneyonmusic.Drawing

onresearchbyNielsen,Lennon(2016)arguedthat40percentofmusicconsumersare

fans,withanadditionalcategoryofaficionados(alowerpercentageof14percentof

musicconsumers)accountingfor34percentofrecordingindustryrevenues.

Statisticscanbeusedtosupportvariousarguments.Ifthesenumbersaretreated

lessasindicatorsoftherealworldandinsteadasbusinessconstructionsthatareusedin

imagininganddisagreeingaboutthemarketsformusic,whatwehaveherearearguments

aboutthecharacteristicsofmusicconsumption,andthemostviablemodelofrevenue

generation.Onecontentionisthatthemusicindustriesshouldconcentrateonthehabitsof

thecasualmusiclistener;thepersonsatisfiedtoaccessrecordingsinbundledpackagesor

‘free’platformswithlittledirecteconomicoutlay.Itisinthisarea,itisclaimed,thatlarge

revenuescanbegeneratedfromadvertisingbasedmodels.Incontrastistheassertionthat

itismoreadvantageoustofocuseffortsonanalysingandtargetingtheactivitiesofthe

dedicatedaficionados,thosewhoinvesttimeandmoneyonrecordings(digitaland

physical),artefacts,merchandiseandconcerttickets.Althoughanumericallysmaller

constituencyofpeople,fansplacegreaterimportanceonmusic,aremorecommittedand

providethemostreliablesourceofrevenueforthetraditionalsectorsofrecording,

publishingandliveperformance.This‘model’isalsobasedonmusicians’experiencesand

13

perceptionsoftheimportanceofactivemusicfansfortheircriticalandcommercial

success.Fanengagementwithproductandperformanceisvisibleandaudibleto

musicians,unlikethecasuallistenerclickingonadvertsandskippinginandoutofvarious

musicrelatedcontent.

Recordingandpublishinghavebeencentraltohowgenerationsofpopular

musicianshaveexperiencedtheirart,obtainedinvestmentandmadealiving.The

potentiallyhugerevenuesrealisablefromliveperformancesinbigarenasandstadiums,

lucrativebrandendorsements,andincomefrommerchandise,tendtobepossibleonlyfor

theminorityofestablishedmajorsuperstars(Hogan,2015b).Forpragmaticreasons,the

majorityofmusiciansandtheirrepresentativeshavebeenattachedtomakingaliving

fromthesalesandrightsto‘units’wherebypaymentismadeforpurchasingandlistening

toindividualsongsorinstrumentaltracks.Ifasongorcollectionofsongsispurchasedas

CD,vinylordownloadapaymentshouldbemadetolabelandmusician.Ifasongisheard

inpublicaroyaltypaymentshouldbemadetopublisher,recordlabelandmusician.Itis

this‘businessmodel’thatischallengedbyYouTube.Underlyingitisacontrastbetween

themusician-as-artist’sbeliefintheirmusicasameansofexpressionandapointofpublic

identification,andthecasuallistener’sdistractedskippingthroughanambientflowof

contentwheremusicisoftendecontextualizedandirrelevant.

Thenewdigitalconglomerates,suchasYouTube,havedevelopedamodelof

chargingforaccesstoaboundedplatformforvarioustypesofbundledcontent,and

generatingincomefromtheadvertisingthatintervenesinthatcontent;amusician’sworth

andhencetheirincomewillcomefromhowtheyattractadvertising.Thisisastark

contrasttothemusician’sandtherecordingindustry’sassumptionsaboutmusicbeing

measuredaccordingtosalesandrightsthatrecognisetheindividualcreationsof

musicians.

Thereisnotsimplyacommerciallogicatstakehere,butanethicalmediationofthe

marketviaamoraleconomyofartisticworth.Theideathateconomictransactionsare

mediatedbyethicscanbetracedbacktodebatesabout‘moraleconomy’duringthe

eighteenthcentury,aconceptdeployedbyEPThompson(1991)whennarratingahistory

ofhowworkersandconsumersassertedtheirrighttointerveneinpricesetting,and

vividlyevokedinhisstudiesofriotsoverthepriceofcorninthelateeighteenthcentury.

14

Thompsonusedthetermspecificallytoreferto‘confrontationsinthemarketplaceover

access(orentitlement)to“necessities”–essentialfood’(1991,p337),althoughhe

acknowledgedthattheconceptcouldbedevelopedandappliedinothercircumstances.

Thompsonidentifiedthemarketasthepointatwhichexploitationcanbe

identified,andwhenoppositioncanbevoiced,observing;‘toooftendiscourseabout“the

market”conveysthesenseofsomethingdefinite’,whenitismoreoften‘ametaphorof

economicprocess,oranidealisationorabstractionfromthatprocess’(1991,p273).The

valuingofnon-marketendeavour,informedbyaRomanticaesthetic(alegacyofthe

artisticresponsetoindustrialcapitalism),hasbeenanenduringsensibilityamongst

popularmusiciansthroughouttheeraofrecordedmusic(Frith,1988,1996).Theradical

aestheticexperimentsandinnovationsofjazz,rockandraphavenotsimplybeencounter

toacommercialorcapitalistlogicbutfrequentlyconstitutiveofthemarket.Thevaluegap

disputeisanillustrationofthestrugglesthroughwhichthecreativeisesteemedsocially

andeconomically.Itconcernsthesocialandartisticvalueofmusic,howthisshouldbe

recognisedandrewarded,andhowmusicshouldbecirculatedwithindigitalnetworks

thatapparentlyallowthe‘free’flowofideasandinformation.Theseethicalstruggles

underpinandinformargumentsabouthowmusicshouldbedistributed(sold,accessedvia

subscription,bundledwithotherservicesandproducts,oroffered‘free’),andthetypeof

paymentandpriceforthatformofdistribution(alicenseorroyaltyforastreamor

downloadsale,oracutofadvertisingrevenue).

Frommusicasarttomusicasdata

Therecordingindustryandnewdigitalconglomeratesdivergeonmorethan

remunerationandthemoralsofthemarket.Formusiciansandtheirrepresentatives,

performingandrecordingconstituteanartform.Forallthecriticismthemusicindustries

havereceivedovertheyearsfromaggrievedfans,journalistsandperformers,anddespite

itscorporatestructures,thecommercialworldsofrecordingandpublishinghavebeen

indeliblyinfusedwiththeaestheticsensibilitiesofblues,Romanticismandpopart

Modernism.Frombigbandjazzandthesolosingerofthe1920s-30sandonwardsthe

recordedlabelshavemadeaneconomicandaffectiveinvestmentinmusiciansascreative

practitionersabletoproducemusicthatispotentially,andoftendemonstrably,radical

whilstbeingexpressiveofindividual,andcollectiveidentities.

15

Incontrast,digitalconglomeratesaredrivenbyatoughercocktailofruthless

entrepreneurialism,obsessivecorporateimaging,contractualsecrecy,andthecultof

personality(SteveJobs,BillGates,MarkZuckerberg,JeffBezos).Theartisticqualitiesand

effortthathasgoneintothecomposition,productionandperformanceofmusicare

irrelevanttohowdigitalconglomeratesmakemoney.AsIhaveargued,thedispute

betweenmusiciansandYouTubeis,atoneprofoundlevel,aboutrecognisingtheartistic

relevanceandsocialvalueofmusic.Forthedigitalconglomeratesmusicis‘content’that

attractssubscriptionsand‘traffic’.Itisa‘customerengagementtool’(Seabrook,2014).

Musicisameanstoanotherendratherthananendinitself.

Thesquabbleoveradvertisingandrightsmayhavecreatedwavesinrecordingand

publishing,buttheseareripplesfordigitalconglomerateswhenconsideredwiththeother

waystheygenerateincome.TheemergenttensionsthatIhavebeenreferringtointhis

articlecanbethrownintosharperreliefbyconsidering,albeitschematicallygivenspace,

thebroaderwaysthatthedigitalconglomeratesgeneraterevenue.

First,isthegenerationofrevenuefromadvertising,withAlphabet/Googleand

Facebookaccountingforover50percentofglobalinternetadvertising(Fortune,2017).

Regularreportssuggestthatadvertisingaccountsforapproximately90percentof

Google/Alphabetand95percentofFacebookincome,withrevenuefromadvertising

providingsignificantreturnsforAmazonandMicrosoft(Mosco,2017).Advertising

revenuehasallowedthelikesofGoogleandFacebooktobuildcorporatestructuresandto

exertinfluence.But,theaspirationsofthedigitalconglomeratesleadwaybeyond

advertising.Thedisputeswiththemusicindustryshouldbeconsideredalongsidethe

otherwaysinwhichthesecorporationsaregeneratingrevenueandexertingpowerover

productionandconsumption.

Afteradvertising,animportantwaythatrevenueisgeneratedisthroughthe

productionandsalesofphysicalproducts.Phones,mobiledevicesandlaptops,alongwith

Beatsheadphones,havebeencentraltothefinancialdominanceofApple,andimportant

forAmazonandGoogle.Digitalconglomeratesalsogeneraterevenuesfromthe

production,managementandmaintenanceofserversanddatastoragesystems,usedby

manybigcorporationsalongwithgovernmentsandcharities(Mosco,2014).Cloud

16

computingisalsoalucrativesourceofrevenueforMicrosoft,shrewdlymakingits

businessapplicationssoftware(wordprocessing,spreadsheets)evermoreintegratedinto

cloudcomputing,andAmazonwhoseWebServicescloudcomputingnetworkhasbecome

the‘globalleaderincloudcomputing’(Mosco,2017,p70).Amazon’sinvolvementin

physicalproductsalsoencompassesdigitalretailingofevermoreconsumerluxuriesand

dailynecessities,adomaininwhichithasbeenabletoexertanalmostnearmonopoly.

Digitalconglomeratesareexpandingtheirportfoliosthroughresearchand

developmentspending(investedatastrategicloss)innewproductsthatarepredicated

uponenteringproductionandbeingsoldwithincomingyears.Thisincludestypesof

virtualandimmersivetechnology,robotics,‘intelligent’electricautomobiles,banking

systems,informationmanagement,artificialintelligence,andheathcaresystems.Bigtech

companiesareusingtheirexpertiseandaccesstosophisticatedskillsintechnologyand

engineering,hardwareandsoftware,oftenthroughstrategicalliances(suchasthat

betweenFacebook,WalmartandUber,orAmazon’smanydealswiththirdparties),and

exploitingtheiraccesstolabourersminingrawmaterialsinAfrica,orworkingon

assemblylinesinAsia.

Digitalconglomeratesexertfurtherinfluenceandgenerateincomethroughthe

production,acquisitionandcuratorialmediationofappsandsoftware.Dominatedby

AppleandGoogle,therevenuesgeneratedbythe‘appeconomy’intheUSAareestimated

tobegreaterthanHollywood,withApplefiguressuggestingthattheAppStorewas

supporting627,000jobscomparedwith374,000employedinjobscreatedbyHollywood

(Meyer,2015).Theappeconomyisexpectedtogrowconsiderably,notonlyinleisure

activitiessuchasgames,personalcommunicationandthesharingofimages,butinapps

usedwidelyinworkplaces,schools,collegeanduniversities,innavigation,andinfinance

andbanking.Theexpansionoftheappeconomyis,inturn,entwinedwithanobsessive

investmentinthepotentialofan‘internetofthings’summarisedbyVincentMoscoas‘a

systemformeasuring,monitoring,andcontrollingtheactivityofobjectsandliving

organismsthroughsensorsthatgather,process,andreportdataovernetworks’(2017,

p39).

Onestarkconsequencesofthisbroadercorporatecontextisthesimplefactthat

recordedmusicisinsignificantwithinthebroaderdigitaleconomy.Presentingfigures

17

from2013to2016(alongwithfutureprojections)MarkMulliganprovidedevidence

suggestingthat‘music’sroleintheglobaldigitalcontentmarketplaceissmalland

shrinking’(2016b,np).Thefinancialvalueofdigitalrecordedmusicisslightanddeclining

asapercentageshareinrelationtoappsandvideos.Thisisperhapsanobviousreason

whythebigtechcompanies(suchasGoogleandAmazon)arepreparedtoinvestinthe

productionofvideosforvloggers,alongwithmoviesandscreendramabutnotinthe

productionofmusic.Notonlyisrecordedmusicrelativelyinsignificantwithintheoverall

digitaleconomy,accesstolisteningisoftenpurchasedasagenericsubscriptiontoa

bundleofcontentandapps,oftenpackagedwithaphoneormobiledevice.Therecording

isnotchosenandpurchasedasanentityinitself,butisaccessedandpaidforwithinan

overallfeeforgeneric‘datausage’.

Yet,atthemomentwhenmusicbecomeslesssignificantasarecordedartwithin

thebroaderappandcontenteconomy,itsveryuseasdatameansthatitbeginstogain

importancewithin‘datacapitalism’.Digitalconglomeratesexploitrecordedmusicaspart

oftheproduction,analysis,packagingandsellingofdata,andinthemanagementofdata

forthirdparties(labels,publishersetc.).Informationderivedfromthecirculationanduse

ofmusicbecomesintegratedintoasystemwithinwhichdigitalconglomeratesharness

‘bigdata’tocomprehend,controlandanticipatebehaviourthroughformsof‘digital

positivism’(Mosco,2014).

RobertPreyhashighlightedhow‘alllisteningtimeisdata-generatingtime’(2016,

p32).JeremyWadeMorris(2015b)hasmadeasimilarpointwhenstressinghowmedia

metricscompaniesmanufacture‘commoditycommunities’astheypackageandsell

audiencedatatoothercompanies.Digitalmusiccanprovidethreedistincttypesofdata.

First,isdataaboutthecharacteristicsoflistenersidentifiedbysuchcriteriaas

location,timeofaccessingmusic,repeatedlistenstothesametrackorartist,adjustmentof

volume,rangeofmusicalpreference(eclectic,narrow,neworoldartists),andallmanner

ofpatternsofrelatedhardware,softwareandinternetactivity.Listenerengagementwith

specificgenres,artistsorsongscanbecross-correlatedwithsignificantevents(military

conflict,royalwedding),controversialnewsstories,marketingcampaignsoraperformer’s

touringandpromotionalactivities.

18

Second,digitalmusicconsumptionprovidestheopportunityfor‘semanticanalysis

ofonlineconversationsaboutmusic’(Prey,2016,p33).Thisentailscollectingand

analysingthewordsusedanddescriptionsaboutmusiciansandbandsinarticles,reviews,

blogs,forumsandacrosssocialmediaplatforms.Thisissiftedandcanbereducedto

recurringkeywords,anddissectedtoconstructnetworksorwebsofconnectionsbetween

artists,betweensongsandbetweenlistenersindifferentplaces.Semanticdataresearch

alsoincludescollectingandanalysingthecompilationofplaylistsbyusersandexploiting

thelinksthatlistenersmakebetweenmusicandactivity,suchascleaning,schoolwork,

rainydays,latenight,running,commute.

Third,istheanalysisofthesoniccontentofdigitalmusicwherebyindividualsongs

ortrackscanbeanalysedandcomparedforobvioustraitssuchasmelody,harmony,

rhythmandpitch,alongwiththeinstrumentsused,genderofvocalistandstylistic

characteristics,suchasdanceabilityoruseofdistortion.PandoraInternetRadio’sMusic

GenomeProjectmakesuseofteamsofmusicologiststocollectdetailsofeverytrack

accordingto450identifiablecharacteristics(althoughnotallareappliedtoeverygenreor

recording).TheEchoNest(nowownedbySpotify)analysesdatafromapproximately40

millionsongsandalsoallowstheanalysisoftracksandmakesavailablevariousappsthat

allowconsumerstolinktorelatedsongsandstyles.

Sonicanalyticsareusedtoalgorithmicallymanipulatestreamedlistening

behaviour,makingitappearmore‘personal’byprovidingconstantsuggestions,andby

allowinglistenerstoengageinnoveltiesrelatedtotheirlistening(accessingsequencesof

songswiththesamebeat,takingasonicjourneytorelatedgenres),flatteringthe

individualontheiruniqueprofile.Thisdataisalsocross-referencedandcombinedwith

semanticandlistenerdatawhenlinkinglisteneractivitiestotheinterestsofadvertisers.

Forexample,datacollectedonindividuallistenersisreconfiguredbyPandoraandsoldto

advertisersas‘2300targetableaudiencesegments’(Prey,2017,p8).

Duetotheamountofdatabeingproduced,thestructuringofvariousdeals,

alliancesandcollaborativeventuresbetweencompaniesinthebigtechsector,thisdata

canthenbecombinedwith,orcross-referencedand‘migrated’tootherdatasets.Thiscan

thenleadto‘functioncreep’wherebydataandtechnologythatisdevelopedforone

apparentuseisdeployedmorewidelywithotherdata,apracticethathascausedconcern

19

indiscussionsofgovernmentsurveillance,privacyandhumanrights(seeBernal,2016).

Musiclisteningdatabyitselfcanbeusedtopredictstreamingandpurchasingbehaviour,

tomitigatecorporateanxietyaboutuncertaintythrough‘riskmanagement’(Negus,2014)

andtogenerateincomewhensoldontoadvertisers(seekingtoplaceadsforsportswear

orautomobilesalongsideplaylists).Itcanalsobecorrelatedwitha‘bewilderingarray’of

otherindicatorswhendataminersseekpredictorsofcreditworthiness,homeownership

orleisureactivities(Prey,2016).

Thepost-recordmusicindustryoffersanabundanceofdatathatisexploitedby

digitalconglomeratesandinfomediaries.Thedisputeaboutwhetherrevenueismore

fairlyextractedfromadvertisingortheenforcementofcopyrightsisjustonescufflewithin

abroadersetoftensionsaboutthevalueofrecordedmusic,thecharacteristicsthatmake

itvaluableandthewayworthshouldbeacknowledged,bothculturallyandeconomically.

Musicians,labelsandpublishershavebeencampaigningforrecordedmusictobe

recognisedforitscreativeandartisticvalue(ratherthanascontentthatattractstraffic)

andtobeaccordedgreatereconomicreward.Asthedigitalconglomeratescontinueto

influencetheconditionswithinwhichmusiciscirculatedandconsumed,therearefurther

conflictsimminentabouthowmusiciansandmusiccompaniesshouldberecompensedfor

thedatavalueoftheirmusic.

Diversityanddivergenceinthepost-recordmusicindustries

Inthepost-recordmusicindustriestherecordingisdisplaced–asartform,asartefact,as

tangiblecommodity.Musiciansstillmakerecordings,andthesearecommodifiedinnew

andinoldways.But,therecordisnolongercentralindeterminingthescopeandsuccess

ofpublishingrepertoires,livetours,thedemandformerchandise,studiobudgetsandthe

mediaappearancesofperformers.Therecording-onCD,asdownload,asstream-loses

worthasindustrialproduct,asasaleabletangiblecommodityandasaculturalsymbol.

Withinthedigitaleconomyrecordingacquiresnewexchangevaluesascontentandasdata

commodity,andnewusevaluesforconsumersintheubiquitoussonicstream(through

subscriptions,apps,playlistsforleisureactivitiesandsoon).

20

Asmusiciansandmusiccompaniesabandontheirdependenceuponincomefrom

recordings,andpursuemultiplesourcesofrevenue,sothemusicindustriesbecomeless

unified,lessdependentuponasharedstakeinrecordingastheroutetosuccess,andmore

splinteredintosectionalinterests.Thiscanbeillustratedwithtwoexamplesfrom

differentpartsoftheworld–theUKandChina.

InitsMeasuringMusicReport(2017),UKMusic-thetradeorganisationthat

representsmusiccompanies-recognisesthislackofunitybydividingthe‘musicindustry’

intosix‘coresectors.’Thesearemusicians,composers,songwritersandlyricists;recorded

music;livemusic;musicpublishing;musicrepresentatives;musicproducers,recording

studiosandstaff.Thecoresectorsarefurtherbrokendowninto‘subsectors’.So,for

example,recordedmusicissub-dividedintothreecategories(recordlabels;onlinemusic

distributors;designandmanufactureofphysicalproductandpackaging).Livemusicis

brokendownintofourcategories(musicfestivalorganisers,musicpromoters,music

agents;productionservicesforlivemusic;ticketingagents;concertvenuesandarenas).In

2016recordingwascontributing14percentoftotalmusicindustryrevenuestotheUK

economy,withlivemusicat23percent.Recordingaccountedforonly6percentofthose

employedwithintheUK‘musicindustry’(UKMusic,2017).UKMusic,whilstseekingto

lobbyandcampaignonbehalfofacoherentsingular‘musicindustry’recognisesthat

recordingisonlyonecomponentpartofthisindustry.

Inasimilarway,the2017ChinaMusicIndustryDevelopmentReport(CUC,2017)

dividesthemusicindustryintothree‘segmentindustries’:A‘corelayer’containsmusic

booksandaudiovisualpublishingindustry;musicperformanceindustry;musiccopyright

brokerageandmanagement;digitalmusicindustry.A‘linklayer’ismadeupofmusical

instrumentindustry;musiceducationandtrainingindustry;professionalaudioindustry.

An‘expandinglayer’containsradioandTVmusicindustry;karaokeindustry;film,

television,drama,games,animationmusic.Thedigitalmusicindustryaccountsfor16per

pentoftotalrevenues,withKaraokeaccountingfor27percent,musicalinstrumentsat12

percentandmusicbooksandaudiovisualpublishing(physicalartefacts)atunderhalfa

percent.

Onlytakingexamplesfromtwoterritoriesshowsthatrecordingisoneelement

withintheoverallmusicindustries(itwouldbeinstructivetobroadenthesecomparisons

21

withothermusicindustriesaroundtheworld).Italsoillustrateshowthemusicindustries

inanyoneplaceareshapedbytheinterplayofculturalandcommercialcontexts.

ImportantcoreindustrysectorsinChinadonotfeatureinUKMusic’scoremusicsectors,

forexample.AlthoughtheCommunistPartyofChina,throughvariouscommitteesand

councils,seeksto‘strengthentheintegrationofthemusicindustrywithotherindustries’

(p17),andalthoughUKMusichasapoliticalmissionto‘representthecollectiveinterests

oftherecorded,publishedandlivearmsoftheBritishmusicindustry’(asstatedonits

website),itisnolongerplausibletoarguefora‘musicindustry’characterisedbya

concentrationofsharedinterests(Azenha,2006)orstrategicallyadvantageousstructures

of‘vertical’and‘horizontalintegration’(Bishop,2005).

Themusicindustriesareactivethroughspecificbusinessesandcompanies,interest

groups,occupationsandorganisations,andthesemaybegroupedintolooselythemed

sectorsorlayers.Thesesectorsoperatewithinloosercompetingandcollaborating

networks,portfoliosofbusinessesstructuredaccordingtomultiplerightsmodels,and

strategicalliances.

Thesedisunifiedmusicindustriesfacechallengesfrom‘digitalpositivism’(Mosco,

2014)asthedigitalconglomerates(andnationstates)seektocomprehendand

manipulatethebehaviourofmusiciansandlistenersbyextractingandusingdataderived

fromtheproduction,circulationanduseofrecording.Butthepost-recordmusicindustry

benefits,asdoallmusicindustries,fromthewaymusiccontinuestobecreatedand

performed,continuestobecreatedandperformed,exchangedandacclaimed,experienced

andenjoyed,inwaysthatescapethereductionofourlivestodata.

Bibliography

Arditi,D(2014)DownloadingisKillingMusic:TheRecordingIndustry’sPiracyPanicNarrative.InSarafian,V&Findlay,R(eds)TheStateoftheMusicIndustry,Civilisations13,Toulouse:UniversityofToulouseAzenha,G(2006)TheInternetandtheDecentralisationofthePopularMusicIndustry:CriticalReflectionsonTechnology,ConcentrationandDiversificationRadicalMusicology1,125parshttp://www.radical-musicology.org.uk/Azenharef.htm(accessed4January2007)

22

Bernal,P(2016)Datagathering,surveillanceandhumanrights:recastingthedebateJournalofCyberPolicy1(2)243-264Bishop,J(2005)BuildingInternationalEmpiresofSound:ConcentrationofPowerandPropertyinthe“Global”MusicMarketPopularMusicandSociety28(4)443-471Chapple,S&Garofalo,R(1977)Rock'n'RollisHeretoPay;TheHistoryandPoliticsoftheMusicIndustry.NelsonHall;Chicago.CommunicationUniversityofChina(2017)The2017ChinaMusicIndustryDevelopmentReportBeijing:SchoolofMusicandRecordingArts,CommunicationUniversityofChina.Dolata,U(2011)TheMusicIndustryandtheInternet:ADecadeofDisruptiveandUncontrolledSectoralChange,SOIDiscussionPaper2011-02,UniversityofStuttgart,DepartmentofOrganizationalSociologyandInnovationStudies,InstituteforSocialSciences.Dredge,S(2016)‘WhyisthemusicindustrybattlingYouTubeandwhathappensnext?’Guardian20Mayhttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/20/music-industry-battling-google-youtube-what-happens-next(accessed21May2016)Eisenberg,E(1988)RecordingAngel:Music,RecordsandCultureFromAristotletoZappaLondon:PicadorElberse,A(2013)Blockbusters:WhyBigHits–andBigRisks–aretheFutureoftheEntertainmentBusiness.London:FaberandFaber.Forde,E2016RockstarsgotowarwithYouTubeattheirperilTheGuardian3July-https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/02/music-industry-battle-against-youtube(accessed4July2016)Fortune(2017)WhyGoogleandFacebookProvetheDigitalAdMarketisaDuopolyFortune28July-http://fortune.com/2017/07/28/google-facebook-digital-advertising/(accessed11January2018)Frith,S(1988)MusicforPleasure:EssaysintheSociologyofPopCambridge:PolityPress.Frith,S(1996)PerformingRites:OntheValueofPopularMusicOxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Frommer,D(2016)Google’sFirstAlphabetEarningsinCharts.Quartz1February2016-https://qz.com/607378/were-live-charting-googles-first-alphabet-earnings/(accessed8January2018)Garrahan,M(2016)‘YouTubemusictermsputlabelsinaspin’FinancialTimes10April-https://www.ft.com/content/2c310ae8-fbc2-11e5-8e04-8600cef2ca75

Gervais,DMarcus,K&Kilgore,L(2011)TheRiseof360DealsintheMusicIndustryLandslide3(4)pp1-6

23

Granata,C(2004)SessionsWithSinatra:FrankSinatraandtheArtofRecording.Chicago:ChicagoReviewPress.

Hesmondhalgh,D&Meier,L(2017)Whatthedigitalisationofmusictellsusaboutcapitalism,cultureandthepoweroftheinformationtechnologysectorInformation,CommunicationandSocietyhttps://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1340498

Hirsch,P(1972)ProcessingFadsandFashions:AnOrganizationalSetAnalysisofCulturalIndustrySystemsAmericanJournalofSociology77(4)pp639-659.Hogan,M(2015a)UpNext:HowPlaylistsAreCuratingTheFutureofMusic.Pitchfork,16July-https://pitchfork.com/features/article/9686-up-next-how-playlists-are-curating-the-future-of-music/(accessed10November2015)Hogan,M(2015b)HowMuchisMusicReallyWorth?Pitchfork16April-https://pitchfork.com/features/article/9628-how-much-is-music-really-worth/(accessed9November2016)

Hogan,Marc(2016)‘PaulMcCartney,Coldplay,LadyGaga,1,000MorePetitionEuropeanCommissionOverYouTube’Pitchfork30June-https://pitchfork.com/news/66496-paul-mccartney-coldplay-lady-gaga-1000-more-petition-european-commission-over-youtube/(accessed1July2016)

Hunter-Tilney,(2015)‘AnEconomyofScales’FinancialTimesLifeandArts,30/31Maypp1-2.Keightley,K(2004)LongPlay:Adult-OrientedPopularMusicandtheTemporalLogicsofthePost-WarSoundRecordingIndustryintheUSA.Media,Culture&Society26(3)375-391.Lamere,P(2014)TheSkip.MusicMachinery,2May-https://musicmachinery.com/2014/05/02/the-skip/(accessed3March2015)Lanchester,J(2014)HowtoSpeakMoneyLondon:Faber&Faber.Lee,JY(2009)Contestingthedigitaleconomyandculture:digitaltechnologiesandthetransformationofpopularmusicinKorea.Inter-AsiaCulturalStudies10(4)pp489-506Lennon,J(2016)‘Therealvaluegapinthemusicbusiness’Medium3Mayhttps://medium.com/@joelennon/the-real-value-gap-in-the-music-business-5361d03b8f7a(accessed3September2016)Marshall,L(2013)The360dealandthe‘new’musicindustry.EuropeanJournalofCulturalStudies16(1)77-99.Marshall,L(2015)‘Let’skeepmusicspecial.F-Spotify’:on-demandstreamingandthecontroversyoverartistroyalties.CreativeIndustriesJournal8(2):177-189.

24

Meyer,R(2015)TheAppEconomyIsNow‘BiggerThanHollywood’TheAtlantic27January-https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/the-app-economy-is-now-bigger-than-hollywood/384842/(accessed21July2016)Milne,R(2014)TheSpotifyeffect.FinancialTimes,October24FT-https://www.ft.com/content/59e6e6d6-5a49-11e4-8771-00144feab7de(accessed27October2014).Mohan,N(2016)YouTube’sChiefProductOfficerMakestheCasefor‘ValueShift’TowardsMusic:OpEdBillboard30June2016-http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7423917/youtube-chief-product-officer-neal-mohan-value-shift-op-ed(accessed3September2016)Morris,JW(2015a)Anti-MarketResearch:Piracy,NewMediaMetrics,andCommodityCommunitiesPopularCommunication13(1)32-44.Morris,JW(2015b)SellingDigitalMusic,FormattingCulture.Oakland:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Morris,JW&Powers,D(2015)Control,curationandmusicalexperienceinstreamingservicesCreativeIndustriesJournal8(2)106-122Mosco,V(2014)ToTheCloud:BigDatainaTurbulentWorld,ParadigmPublishers,BoulderColorado.Mosco,V(2017)BecomingDigital,TowardsaPost-InternetSocietyBingley:EmeraldPublishingMulligan,M(2016b)‘Music’sRoleInDigitalContentIsSmallAndShrinking’MusicIndustryBlog26February-https://musicindustryblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/26/musics-role-in-digital-content-is-small-and-shrinking/(accessed12September2016)

Mulligan,M(2015)Awakening,TheMusicIndustryintheDigitalAge,MIDiAResearch,London.Mulligan,M(2016a)‘StateoftheYouTubeMusicEconomy:GrowingTensionsasWorldviewsCollide’MidiaResearch,11July-https://www.midiaresearch.com/downloads/state-of-the-youtube-music-economy-growing-tensions-as-worldviews-collide/(accessed4March2017)Mulligan,M(2016b)Music’sRoleInDigitalContentIsSmallandShrinkingMusicIndustryBlog26February-https://musicindustryblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/26/musics-role-in-digital-content-is-small-and-shrinking/(accessed3September2016)Negus,K(1992/2011)ProducingPop:CultureandConflictinthePopularMusicIndustryLondon:Arnold.Outofprintbook–availableatGoldsmithsResearchOnlinewithnewintroduction-http://research.gold.ac.uk/5453/

Negus,K(1999)MusicGenresandCorporateCulturesLondon:Routledge.

25

Negus,K(2014)Recordings,RightsandRisks:IntermediariesandtheChangingMusicIndustriesInSarafian,V&Findlay,R(eds)TheStateoftheMusicIndustry,Civilisations13,113-136Toulouse:UniversityofToulousePeoples,G(2016)WarofWords:LabelsandTradeGroupsTargetYouTube’s‘ValueGap’Billboard13Aprilhttps://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7333110/war-of-words-labels-trade-groups-youtube-value-gap(accessed24April2016)Prey,R(2016)MusicaAnalytica:TheDataficationofListening.InNowak,R&Whelan,A(eds)NetworkedMusicCultures,London:Palgravepp31-48Prey,R(2017)Nothingpersonal:algorithmicindividuationonmusicstreamingplatformsMedia,Culture&Society30Novemberhttps://doi.org/10.1177/0163443717745147RBB2017ValueofYouTubetothemusicindustry–Paper1Cannibalisation;Paper2GrowthofallPlatforms;Paper3Promotion;Paper4ValueforConsumers;Paper5DirectValuetotheIndustryLondon:RBBEconomicsResnikoff,P(2016)‘MusicIsJust4.3%ofYouTubeTraffic,ResearchShows’DigitalMusicNews16Augusthttps://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/08/16/music-5-percent-youtube/(accessed3September2016)Rogers,J(2013)TheDeathandLifeoftheMusicIndustryintheDigitalAge.London:Bloomsbury.Ryan,J&Peterson,R(1982)TheProductImage:TheFateofCreativityinCountryMusicSongwriting'pp11-32inJ.Ettema&D.Whitney(Eds).IndividualsinMassMediaOrganizations:CreativityandConstraint.London:Sage.Rys,D(2016)LyorCohenNamedYouTube’sGlobalHeadofMusicBillboard28September–http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7525695/lyor-cohen-named-youtube-global-head-of-music(accessed28September2016)Seabrook,J(2014)–‘RevenueStreams:IsSpotifythemusicindustry’sfriendoritsfoe?’TheNewYorker,24November-https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/24/revenue-streams(accessed5January2015)

Shepherd,B(1989)PersonalinterviewwithBrianShepherd,A&MRecords,London.

Silver,J(2013)DigitalMedievalLondon:XstoricalPublications.Sterne,J(2006)Themp3asculturalartifactNewMedia&Society8(5)825-842Thompson,EP(1991)CustomsinCommonHarmondsworth:Penguin.UKMusic(2017)MeasuringMusicLondon:UKMusic.Wale,M1972VoxPop:ProfilesofthePopProcess,London:GeorgeGHarrap&Co.London

26

Wasko,J&Erickson,M(2009)ThePoliticalEconomyofYouTubeinP.Snickars&P.Vonderau(eds)TheYouTubeReaderStockholm:NationalLibraryofSweden.Pp272-287Witt,S(2016)HowMusicGotFree:TheInventor,TheMogul,andTheThief.London:Vintage.