I feel like the flattening of the value of music happened far earlier than streaming, it was probably when Apple decided that every song purchased in digital form should cost $0.99. That’s had huge downstream impacts on the way we conceive of the value of music as a culture and is worth interrogating more imo.
Amazing conversation btw, my fave episode y’all have done so far.
That's an interesting point that I hadn't thought of! I suppose I'd always thought of the .99 as sort of an approximation of the amount that one would pay "per song" when buying a traditional record or CD. One thing I will say is that as weird as it was to pigeonhole all songs in that way, i wish we could go back to valuing digital songs at as least as much as that, bc with streaming its so much worse lol. Also, thank you for listening!
Dec 15, 2023·edited Dec 15, 2023Liked by Emilie Friedlander
Exactly, the window of possible value has unfortunately only shrunk from one that was too small, or at least too simplified, to begin with. I think a big factor to consider is the difference between the role of the label in the past versus today. That 99c figure based on the CD or record is derived from a system of valuing the sale of music based on what the label needs in order to turn a profit against what it invested in the production of the music. But now that we have an ecosystem of countless self-released artists and small-scale labels, we still have to work within that 99c paradigm that's incompatible with the economics of self-funded art production. A fine artist can sell a print or painting on their website (or in the case of digital goods, an independent developer releasing a software application) for an amount calculated based on the perceived/material value of their work and the time/resources required to make it, but if a musician posts a single song for $40 that cost them hundreds or thousands of dollars of their time and/or resources to create, they probably look like an insane person. I feel like figuring out a way to escape that 99c effect culturally is unavoidable if we hope to think of music as high art rather than commodity.
So interesting. I have thought about this too—how it feels like because the industry around youth music has traditionally been grounded in sort of a populist economics ("let's create records/singles that as many young people as possible will be able to afford and buy"), it feels cringe for musicians to value their music differently. Which puts artists at a disadvantage who make music, not for everybody, but the "self-selecting few"
So many gems here.
I feel like the flattening of the value of music happened far earlier than streaming, it was probably when Apple decided that every song purchased in digital form should cost $0.99. That’s had huge downstream impacts on the way we conceive of the value of music as a culture and is worth interrogating more imo.
Amazing conversation btw, my fave episode y’all have done so far.
That's an interesting point that I hadn't thought of! I suppose I'd always thought of the .99 as sort of an approximation of the amount that one would pay "per song" when buying a traditional record or CD. One thing I will say is that as weird as it was to pigeonhole all songs in that way, i wish we could go back to valuing digital songs at as least as much as that, bc with streaming its so much worse lol. Also, thank you for listening!
Exactly, the window of possible value has unfortunately only shrunk from one that was too small, or at least too simplified, to begin with. I think a big factor to consider is the difference between the role of the label in the past versus today. That 99c figure based on the CD or record is derived from a system of valuing the sale of music based on what the label needs in order to turn a profit against what it invested in the production of the music. But now that we have an ecosystem of countless self-released artists and small-scale labels, we still have to work within that 99c paradigm that's incompatible with the economics of self-funded art production. A fine artist can sell a print or painting on their website (or in the case of digital goods, an independent developer releasing a software application) for an amount calculated based on the perceived/material value of their work and the time/resources required to make it, but if a musician posts a single song for $40 that cost them hundreds or thousands of dollars of their time and/or resources to create, they probably look like an insane person. I feel like figuring out a way to escape that 99c effect culturally is unavoidable if we hope to think of music as high art rather than commodity.
So interesting. I have thought about this too—how it feels like because the industry around youth music has traditionally been grounded in sort of a populist economics ("let's create records/singles that as many young people as possible will be able to afford and buy"), it feels cringe for musicians to value their music differently. Which puts artists at a disadvantage who make music, not for everybody, but the "self-selecting few"
Yes definitely