Optimism isn't something you encounter very often when you read about music. Most columnists and critics spend most of their time bemoaning the commercial nature of music, society's inability to listen to lyrics or the fact that Disney is making a third High School Musical."" All of these things are, without a doubt, tragic. I strongly agree that the nature of the recording industry punishes creativity, I think far too many people don't take the time to explore an album's message and I pray everyday that Zac Efron be held accountable for his crimes against humanity.
But sometimes I wonder if we have it all wrong. What if the fractured musical landscape is not simply an indication of the death of taste, but rather, an increased diversity in music? What if the industry's constant pursuit of indie bands simply reflect that consumers are more interested in creativity than ever before?
There are definitely counter-examples. The Jonas Brothers, Katy Perry and just about all mainstream hip-hop prove there is a listening public that is 100 percent willing to be force-fed the same vapid, soul-less shlock as long as it involves dimples, fishnets or bling. My point isn't that all of America desires creative, unconventional music. I just think the music industry is feeling pressure to develop a structure that allows for greater creativity and depth.
The recent technological innovations in music have completely changed the breadth of available music. The recording industry has always been driven by technology, from vinyl to broadcast radio to eight tracks to cassettes to CDs to digital formats. It comes as no surprise, then, that industry is flailing to keep its influence in a digital culture.
When, thanks to Internet piracy, anyone with a high-speed connection and a few days can obtain a music library to rival most radio stations, the economic considerations demand that labels find some way to make themselves more relevant. However, instead of working to make distribution models more viable, the industry has responded by fighting a battle against piracy, which they have already lost. This has essentially left artists to experiment with distribution models that work for them, including the ""pay whatever you want"" model that Radiohead, Trent Reznor, Saul Williams and Girl Talk have recently used. Other artists make their songs available completely free on their websites, while some depend on music networking sites like MySpace, PureVolume and Last.fm to attract a fan base. This means more music is available through both legal and not-so-legal means.
The amount of available music has important consequences. More available music means that more artists will have their music heard by more people. More importantly, more available music also allows for greater diversity within the music itself. The flood of available music has decentralized the ""scene."" New musical trends are no longer dictated by a regional music community obsessed with cardigans. Instead, the creative energy has dissipated into 1,000 different sub-genre niches.
You can take that as a positive or a negative. Personally, as much as I enjoy the rap coming out of Minneapolis, the hardcore from Milwaukee or any band from Seattle in the late '80s and early '90s (except for Pearl Jam), I think that with the ability to network and expand, today's music has possibilities it has never enjoyed before.
Think no amount of indie music can make up for an industry where High School Musical 3 is allowed to flourish, e-mail Dale at dpmundt@wisc.edu.
