| |
|
i think that stuff like creative commons licensing has been of use to a lot of bands, many of whom are now releasing their own music.
the democratisation of music production via cubase and the like has led to a lot of bedroom engineers, many self releasing the fruits of their labours via the internet.
one band i'm aware of in glasgow, for example, has recently written a song specifically for distribution over the internet.
the song itself is about the issue of coyright, and has so far only been distributed by email.
the band is called ©opyleft, and an integral part of their ethos is to challenge the current norms of distribution.
other local developments, such as the your sound night in king tuts wah wah hut have also helped artists dinghy the established muisic industry. whether they do is up to them, but te tools are there.
i think that more and more developments like this will appear, and many already have(obviously myspace has helped a lot of bands to gain exposure, but i think even more bands are getting savvy enough not to need them for anything more than the free advertising).
some people want to give their music away, some dont.
those that do are now more able than ever before to control all the essential elements themselves, and for relatively small amounts of money.
those who dont are also able to take advantage of all the new developments, and with support for almost all elements of the process, they can build their own business model.
in terms of the old dinousaurs, i think you'll find them a hard egregore to kill. the mass of power and wealth and the inertia of significance will take a while to fade, and i think you'll find them fighting tooth and claw to retain their piece of the pie.
they have too much invested not to. |
|
|
