Great article as always. I take issue with a few of these, most notably #8. (As music becomes more and more created by single artists with all the gadgets at their fingertips, and not beholden to any rules of track length or venue vibe massaging, music is likely to get -- weirder. And less likely to translation to live venues. )
Great article as always. I take issue with a few of these, most notably #8. (As music becomes more and more created by single artists with all the gadgets at their fingertips, and not beholden to any rules of track length or venue vibe massaging, music is likely to get -- weirder. And less likely to translation to live venues. )
But the biggest exception I take to this is the assumption that music will continue to be driven primarily by commerce. The idea of music as a commercial commodity - whether through big corporations or independent artists - should not be an assumption by any stretch. There are simply far too many talented people who would rather make their music and be listened to for a pittance or less. And while this paradigm shift is still in progress, I see it as inevitable.
Remember, music as a consumable, sellable product is relatively recent. For hundreds, thousands of years, most music was performed and consumed for free out of the sheer love of it. Only in the 20th century did music become a sellable product at any real volume. Nowadays it is just assumed to be so, as we've all forgotten how recent that development really is.
My prediction is that music will bifurcate into two separate things - the for-profit and the not-for-profit. They will bleed into each other of course, but the stagnation of the for-profit model that you laid out will continue to be profitable, just that its relevance to the advancement of the art will be minimal. The real action is going to take place among millions of us who do it for tiny audiences for each other for next to nothing. No one of us will have much "influence", but the art of music will continue to advance and evolve in an emergent manner, like a million ants unwittingly building a massive monument.
"As music becomes more and more created by single artists with all the gadgets at their fingertips, and not beholden to any rules of track length or venue vibe massaging, music is likely to get -- weirder. And less likely to translation to live venues."
I disagree that weird music is incompatible with live venues. I live in Baltimore and there are a LOT of small, often DIY, venues and even restaurants where VERY WIERD experimental musicians perform, often alone, to a few dozen people who are really into it. A lot like the small jazz and rock clubs where the now-very-famous musicians of yore got their start.
I don’t see it as a likely “trend” though, as Gioia does. The idea flies in the face of the trending changes in other arenas. If live shopping, eating out, movies, etc are all going online, why would music trend in the opposite direction?
Let me clarify this. I am not saying that live music will replace streaming. I am saying that live music will be the main source of energy, excitement and profitability. The math makes this clear. If a Taylor Swift fan pays a penny to stream Swift’s songs, but a thousand dollars to see a Swift concert, even a small shift has a large economic effect.
Great article as always. I take issue with a few of these, most notably #8. (As music becomes more and more created by single artists with all the gadgets at their fingertips, and not beholden to any rules of track length or venue vibe massaging, music is likely to get -- weirder. And less likely to translation to live venues. )
But the biggest exception I take to this is the assumption that music will continue to be driven primarily by commerce. The idea of music as a commercial commodity - whether through big corporations or independent artists - should not be an assumption by any stretch. There are simply far too many talented people who would rather make their music and be listened to for a pittance or less. And while this paradigm shift is still in progress, I see it as inevitable.
Remember, music as a consumable, sellable product is relatively recent. For hundreds, thousands of years, most music was performed and consumed for free out of the sheer love of it. Only in the 20th century did music become a sellable product at any real volume. Nowadays it is just assumed to be so, as we've all forgotten how recent that development really is.
My prediction is that music will bifurcate into two separate things - the for-profit and the not-for-profit. They will bleed into each other of course, but the stagnation of the for-profit model that you laid out will continue to be profitable, just that its relevance to the advancement of the art will be minimal. The real action is going to take place among millions of us who do it for tiny audiences for each other for next to nothing. No one of us will have much "influence", but the art of music will continue to advance and evolve in an emergent manner, like a million ants unwittingly building a massive monument.
"As music becomes more and more created by single artists with all the gadgets at their fingertips, and not beholden to any rules of track length or venue vibe massaging, music is likely to get -- weirder. And less likely to translation to live venues."
I disagree that weird music is incompatible with live venues. I live in Baltimore and there are a LOT of small, often DIY, venues and even restaurants where VERY WIERD experimental musicians perform, often alone, to a few dozen people who are really into it. A lot like the small jazz and rock clubs where the now-very-famous musicians of yore got their start.
I don’t see it as a likely “trend” though, as Gioia does. The idea flies in the face of the trending changes in other arenas. If live shopping, eating out, movies, etc are all going online, why would music trend in the opposite direction?
Let me clarify this. I am not saying that live music will replace streaming. I am saying that live music will be the main source of energy, excitement and profitability. The math makes this clear. If a Taylor Swift fan pays a penny to stream Swift’s songs, but a thousand dollars to see a Swift concert, even a small shift has a large economic effect.