Reasons to be cheerful...
|
|
|
The Philosophy of Free Music
"Knowledge and creativity are resources which, to be true to themselves, must remain free, i.e.
remain a fundamental search which is not directly related to a concrete application. Creating means
discovering the unknown, means inventing a reality without any heed to realism. Thus, the
object(ive) of art is not equivalent to the finished and defined art object."
From the preamble of the Free Arts Licence
When a work of art, whether it be music, painting, sculpture or any other art form, is tied
inextricably to commercial interests, such as products, sponsorship or industry, the
intention behind the work is uncertain: is it to enlighten an audience? or is it to make a living
for the artist, profits for an organisation, or to legitimise the profit motive itself, above
and beyond whatever it is that art does?
This lack of clarity causes cynicism in audiences. And it undermines artists themselves, who
after all, have to earn a living somehow. The cost of creating and distributing art previously
meant that the most efficient means of distribution was large scale manufacture,
distribution and publicity. However, digital copying provides a fantastic way to avoid the need for
a massive up-front investment. When CDs can be copied at next to zero cost, and files
transferred over the Internet for no cost at all, the problem of distribution is inverted: now
everybody is asking how such distribution can be stopped, forgetting that the biggest problem for
the artist has been solved.
The reason for the confusion is that we have become so used to a certain way of doing things. To do
things any differently would require the industry to change dramatically. Fortunately the industry
doesn't have to change. The people that need to change are the artists themselves.
To assume that an artist must insist on payment from anyone who has a copy of their music, is to
prejudge the value of that music to that person who receives it. This is an inversion of the
relationship between artist and audience. A work of art is an offering. The audience may be
disinterested, enthralled, cynical, wealthy, poor, generous, mean, philanthropic, among other
characteristics. If the artist does their job well, then there will always be people who would like
to support the artist.
The challenge is in ensuring that as many people as possible get to hear the music, and
to understand and develop composing and performance skills as a result. If that is done, then
there are many ways for people to reward an artist for their efforts, if they wish to. For example,
an artist can sell copies of a CD of their music, or, as with Ethymonics, a company can distribute
and sell an artist's music and pay the artist a royalty - people buying the CD will do so because
they know that the artist is being supported. Alternatively, those who want to can buy cheaper CDs,
or just copy or download the music for nothing. Even the act of digitally copying a piece of music
may be repaying the artist in some way. Appreciation and awareness of an artist's work are the seeds
from which opportunities can spring.
Supporting the Artist
There was a time, a long, long time ago, when recording royalties were extremely unreliable. How did
Bach, Beethoven and Bruckner make a living, before radio and the compact disc were even invented? In
some respects, allowing people to copy music legally seems a step backwards, a way of reducing the
level of financial support a musician or composer can expect. On the other hand, there have always
been ways for musicians to practice their art. While Free Music takes away the guaranteed royalties
and income from usual sources, it counters this loss by restoring something of the trust that has
been eroded by recent developments.
The Blues, once a unique expression of Black America, is now used to sell jeans and other lifestyle
ingredients. Jazz and rock'n'roll, once the music of the first generation to create their own
cultural identity from scratch, is now part of the mainstream; unable to cause disturbance. We are
in a time when anything that can be perceived as cool or genuinely expressive will be used,
immediately, before its creators even realise what they have created, to sell articles of clothing
to the already well-clothed, fast cars for ever more congested streets. The only way to break this
downward spiral is to give away the music once and for all.
Having done that, however, a good musician deserves to be able to continue making good music. If
they're really good, it may even become possible to give up the job selling insurance (although
Charles Ives would have had little time for this).
Letting people copy music that they would copy anyway is not going to make much of a
difference. But if you allow people to sell copies (as specified in the
Ethymonics Free Music License), this acts as a catalyst for distribution. If
enough people become aware of an artist's work, then ways for that artist to make a living will
eventually emerge, possibly in the form of secondary effects, like being asked to play live.
The other possibility is that a new type of record company might
evolve, one which sells Free Music. Several such companies would compete against each other to most
effectively sell, potentially, the same music. If their competitiveness was partly based on customers' belief that what they are doing is good for music generally, then this represents an evolution towards an artistic
ideal, mediated by economics.
|
|
