In recent years, the music industry has immensely changed from buying physical copies of an album to streaming songs online from services such as Apple Music and Spotify. The landscape of the music industry is slowly transforming due to listeners' transition from buying music to streaming music. Many think that these services are giving artists a run for their money, as less and less physical copies of their work are being sold. Due to this, artists are leaning to consider licensing out their music and corporate sponsorship. Yet many think that artists are "selling out" if they take this action. Yet, in the midst of the large upheaval, artists should be allowed to use their music for advertisement. With sponsorship, artists will be able to
Even so, when the artist put their time and hard work into making songs that will catch the subscribers attention just for it be free. For instance, Jacob Carter of “The Changing Landscape of the Music Business” quotes “In November of 2014, award-winning musician Taylor Swift pulled her entire music catalog from Spotify, a popular streaming app, claiming that their business model suggests that music does not hold much worth.” This shows that Taylor Swift does not believe with the fact that her music is just out there for free and she not receiving money just for it be out there for the public. Thus, Darrius Johnson of “Selling Out Not Worth the Risk” quotes “In many situations, a record label owns the rights to an artist’s music, and if they license a song to a company or other party the artist has no control over how the song can be used.” To clarify, this information artists would not have their own opinion of doing any commercial because their music doesn’t belong to them but the record labels. This proves, that some artist has their opinion about their music they make and they just want to be free for the world to have because they took their time to create
When wanting to listen to a song today, one no longer has to buy or download a physical copy. In today’s world, streaming has become one of the top ways of retrieving music content. This major change has led to a profound shift for the music industry and its artists. It has developed a continuous conflict that affects the way music is distributed and how artists make a living. Listeners stream music electronically through their computers, phones, cars, and more. Most of these streaming platforms allow for the content to be free, which directs to the question of whether music should be free or not. Streaming is a topic that has presented itself to be a valid issue on whether it ultimately hurts or helps artists and their careers. Streaming has both pros and cons, but in order to aim to figure a possible solution there needs to an examination of the history of the issue, a proper analysis of both sides, and evaluating its importance.
Censorship has long been an issue in Rock and Roll music. Although our American society celebrates “classic” rock that emerged in the 60’s and 70’s, today, artists such as: The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, The Doors, The Sex Pistols, and Bob Dylan were harshly judged for their music and image they projected because some members of society feared they were too suggestive, or just completely inappropriate. These rebellious artists fought against their music being censored in the best ways for their bands.
The music business is changing rapidly, and artists have to find new ways to adapt to the changes. Among the many changes is the selling of artists' music. The way artists sell their music has drastically changed from CDs, and cassettes to streaming, and online purchases. This new change has brought with it many adverse side-effects; including, the huge loss in revenue for artists brought in by these new changes. Artists have had to adapt to this by touring more often and using their music in advertising. Artists should be able to use their music in advertising because it helps the artists and the companies in numerous ways.
“Obscene: so excessive as to be offensive” (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary). This is the way the Webster dictionary defines obscene. How do you? Some say obscene is vulgar; others say the best way to describe obscene is through disgust. No matter how it is thought of, obscene material is everywhere in society. Television is becoming more liberal, magazines are less edited, and music is more abrasive. At some point, the public must put its foot down and demand censorship in order to keep decency in the world.
When listening to the radio, most people come across a song that has been changed from its original version, whether certain words are beeped out, or a string of lyrics are replaced altogether. This is censorship, and it is very common on the radio. It is also very controversial. People don’t agree what should be censored or if anything should be censored at all. However, we believe that censorship is a good thing. Censorship allows offensive music to be altered so that it is not offensive anymore. It also prevents younger children from being exposed to harsh and inappropriate content in a society where access to music is growing. The positives of censorship outweigh the negatives by far.
According to the article "The Changing Landscape of the Music Business", by Jacob Carter, it states that "A band can make hundreds of thousands of dollars by agreeing to promote a product or license its music for the use in advertisements." Carter explains that in some cases, artists can make lots of money by using their music in advertisements. Although, not all artist can make enough money off of their music. Many people think that when musical artists use their music in advertisements, it’s a good way to put their music out there. In the article "The New Necessity in the Music Business", Stacia Coates says that "For artists serious about their careers, turning down any form of corporate sponsorship or licensing agreements could be a mistake.
Throughout the years, music has evolved and transformed in many ways. However, there are restrictions in today’s music, otherwise known as, censorships. A crisis has emerged concerning the issue of censorship. This argument consists of two possible stances: one, supporting the continuation of censorship, and two, eliminating the status quo of censorships in the music industry. There have been countless debates and arguments regarding the issues of censorship ever since the U.S. Congress passed the Radio Act in 1927 (The History). The time has arrived for censorship to be brought to an end. The government should release their grip on the censorship of music for the following reasons: it obstructs the public’s freedom of choice, it
Before there was Spotify or iTunes, artist made their money through sales of physical records and CDs. Now, artists have it harder, they make deals with corporations or record deals. Hoping to bring more fans and obviously more money. Back in the day it would a sin for artist to advertise their music, but now it is the way of the music industry. Artist should advertise their music, because solo artist and bands can bring in bigger audiences which leads to more money.
3-4). While these statistics provide a look into the numerical growth of the streaming industry, it is also important to discuss the power that these streaming services have generated—over both the music industry and over established/aspiring artists. Subscriptions are on the rise, having increased significantly over the past ten years, but as is the amount of users streaming music on a free-trial or ad-supported basis—ultimately undercutting the music industry and artists alike. Blewett and Gollogly (2017) elaborate on this point, stating that, by the end of 2016, paid music streaming subscriptions drove a revenue growth of 60.4%—this growth more than offsetting a “20.5% decline in downloads” and a “7.6% decline in physical revenue” (Blewett & Gollogly, 2017, para. 4). Moreover, Borja and Dieringer (2016) explore the concept of streaming even further in their academic article, positing that the decline in paid digital downloads may be a direct result of streaming—as, music streaming can be perceived as a “complement” for music piracy, in which listeners can freely sample music to pirate later on (Borja & Dieringer, 2016, p. 1). The authors also suggest that streaming can provide a “venue for discovering and listening to new releases”; and after completing their 1052 surveys, conclude that streaming increased the likelihood of piracy by
“Before the days of YouTube and the Internet, a band 's chances of striking it big depended on record companies. If a band was lucky enough to get a record deal, it gained access to a label 's vast resources and connections. The company paid for the band 's studio time, … and got its music played on the radio, reaching millions of record buying Americans” (Majerol, 1). Now, anyone with talent can post a video of themselves and become an internet sensation, only to then receive a deal with a label to continue growing their career. The issue is, with the Internet came digital downloading, and with the growing popularity of digital downloading came illegal downloading, known as Digital Piracy, which has affected the music industry greatly. This issue affects everyone involved in the Music Industry. From the small CD store owner to the Artist on stage, everyone has and continues to be affected by the growing popularity of digital downloading services. Artists, producers, and songwriters lose an estimated 12.5 Billion USD every year to illegal digital music services. Further, the economic impact from [digital downloading] is an estimated loss of 2+ Billion USD (Storrs, 1). This money affects the “little guys” in the industry and the average worker within the industry.
The music industry is an oligopoly. Since the late 1800’s people like Thomas Edison have been buying up patents in communication technology, forming monopolies, leading to a non-competitive entertainment industry. With only a handful of corporations controlling all aspects of acquisition, distribution and marketing of music, harsh business principles create an exploitative industry that takes the best of what artists have to offer and leaves many of them unable to support themselves. Beginning in the 1950’s with payola and white cover music and ultimately evolving into iTunes and Spotify, the music industry has grown into a billion dollar industry with far-reaching influence and control. Contracts rarely serve the artists’ best interest and many are left out to dry when their usefulness has expired.
Introduction: Setting the trend for the future, the distribution and consumption of recorded music transformed dramatically with the launching of Apple’s iTunes in 2001. The proliferation of online music subscription services and other music sharing services exerted a great pressure on the conventional music distribution business model. Combined with this transformation, piracy of digital music had a profound impact on the whole industry. These worsening conditions in the market place for recorded music forced both established and upcoming new artists to experiment with new ways of selling their music.
There are several ways in which art is commercialized; especially within the music industry. Classic bands such as the Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan were criticized for allowing companies to use their material to sell products and services. However, this is a common avenue for a musician or an artist to profit from their works. Many companies are willing to pay a hefty premium to have their products associated with music that has broad emotional appeal to many potential consumers. However, many people feel that when an artist licenses their material it is a loss of integrity and that something is lost by the commercialization of their songs.
In the midst of the United States’ “dot com bubble” (years 1997-2000), there was a surge in technology that brought about file sharing and digital downloads. Threatening the survival of the music industry and introducing a unique set of challenges for the industry to overcome. To remain relevant in the new global market of digital music online, the music industry would have to evolve and change with the introduction of each new facet technology had to offer. The introduction of digitally compressed music files, so easily attainable for a small fee or downloaded legally (pirated) for free, made the music industry reevaluate how to make a profit and protect copyrights. Social media created a visible opportunity for both consumers and artists to maintain digital relationships while providing a platform for consumers to follow and discover new musicians and bands, naturally, making the internet a promotional medium for artists. As the corner record shops closed to make way for virtual storefronts and instant downloads; the internet, digital downloading, and social media made an enormous impact on the music industry that has changed the way consumers purchase, source, listen to, and produce music today.