Deep impact or Armageddon?If you are old enough, you would probably remember the time when the distribution of music was the exclusive domain of the major record companies, such as Universal, EMI or Sony. This time is now over. A new model has emerged and has disrupted the world of music. This new model appeared thanks to one particular media: the Internet. Obviously, the web had a deep impact in media in general, but everybody seems to focus on the controversy surrounding music file-sharing. So, the web : the apocalypse of the world of music? Big majors keep wondering how they can stop illegal downloading so they can earn as much as they use to in the golden age of CDs. Journalists and politicians shout out that we must find solutions to contain that crime wave. And parents desperatly ask themselves: "Is my little boy an outlaw? Some kind of cultural terrorist?" It is impossible you didn't notice this mass hysteria surrounding peer-to-peer, which, thanks to globalization, contaminate the world from New York City to le plateau du Larzac. As far as I am concerned, I think this is much ado about nothing. This is a punctual question, even if the way of consuming and listening to music change irreversibly. I mean, consumption and habits are evolving all the time (some people call it improvement, others, decadence), and the emergence of a new power -such as the web- requires a few years or a few decades to make the necessary adjustments. What interests me is how people react to that kind of change, and I am going to talk about one of the main actors of this evolution: the artists.
In change we believeThe new model emerging thanks to the Internet created both threats and opportunities to those in the music industry. The first reaction of most of the singers was quite violent : they were panic-stricken. Now, it seems that new generations of artists are more peaceful about music file-sharing and streaming. Maybe it is precisely a matter of generation. Yet, when money is at stake, eveything can easily go wrong. Let's take the exemple of Maxime Le Forestier. He is a talented french singer, some kind of a former hippy back in the 70's, singing "San Francisco" (very peace and love) or "Comme un arbre" (Like a tree, protoecologist). "Him, a capitalist? Nonsense!" would you shout. And maybe you'd be right. Though, this nice person compared illegal downoaders to nazis. A bit exagerated, don't you think? Unfortunately, I am afraid artists are biased. On the other hand, there is a brand new generation of young artists discovered thanks to their streaming videos on YouTube or their myspace. They were successful without the help of major companies and they deliberately used the Internet, sharing there music for free. we must admit it is an easier and faster way to promote your music: there is no go-between, no need for castings, demos or lousy performances in noisy bars. But it can be tricky. Then, you can't complain about the net surfers who don't want to pay for your first album. So what will the future be? Will artists only earn their living thanks to live shows? We can't say. But here is one final point of reflexion..
Two different worldsI have noticed that classical music seems to suffer less from illegal downloading. Why? Probably because the audience is composed by wealthy people who can afford an expensive CD, and by elderly people who are not familiar with the web. But not only. I've talk to people who listen to classical music, and most of them are musicians themselves. As musicians, they told me they felt more concerned about the loyalty of the consumer towards the artist. To understand better this particular point of view, I interviewed a young conductor. Here is the video:
Now, I let you think about all that. Don't hesitate to leave a comment.
Good night.
MM
