The Recording Industry and the Monopoly on Music

I have been a long-time opponent of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). Around the time they began to fight against file-sharing, and well before I was able to formulate my thoughts in a very theoretical way, I was already on my crusade. Granted, my crusade has consisted mostly of being very angry, and occasionally wearing an anti-RIAA t-shirt.

Now, of course, I can pinpoint exactly where I take principled issue with the Recording Industry:

1. No one brings entirely new things into existence, and creativity depends on a free flow of ideas.
2. Music is a social, not an individual, phenomenon.
3. The Recording Industry reinforces social boundaries.
4. The Recording Industry controls the availability of music and attempts to manipulate trends and tastes

To expand on each point….

1. See post about intellectual property. But I also want to ask, why would anyone think that no one would have any incentive to create good music if not guaranteed millions of dollars in return? Have there not been troubadores, for pretty much all of human existence, willing to live meal by meal and entertaining without any expected rate of return? Do not many people choose to be musicians knowing very well that they will probably not make much money? This is the music I WANT to hear.

2. Historically, music has been created for communal purposes: special music for rituals and rites of passage; entertainment for social gatherings and dances; songs to memorialize group history and lore; songs for travel. Of course, everyone riffs off of ideas already in existence (see point number one) and widespread recycling of popular melodies has been more of the norm than the aberration. Music is very often performed with ensembles and not infrequently through collaborative improvisation. And music still plays a vital role at parties, weddings, sporting events, public venues, religious services, civic ceremonies, holiday celebrations, and is incorporated into pretty much all nonprint media forms. Now, I do not mean to be ahistorical and absolutist and suggest that the nature and function of music can never change. But the changes that have occurred have been for the sole purpose of profit. More importantly, since changes have occurred very unevenly, it is impossible to enforce copyright law consistently, and of course the punishment seems to far FAR outweigh the "crime."  Why should we consider akin to stealing a diamond something that has been so entwined with social life for all of human history?

3. It is sometimes claimed that “rock ‘n roll” finally erased racial boundaries – was the first melding of African-American and white American musical traditions. Setting aside the inaccuracy of the latter claim, I tend to get very annoyed by this utter nonsense. The boundaries were never erased. The recording industry, through its labeling and marketing techniques, has left them quite intact, if not further solidified them. The creation of charts, the organization of record stores, and the development of radio formats all depend on Recording Industry categories, which are wholly inflected with race and gender. The original term for “R&B” (the Industry’s euphemism for “black music”) was originally “race music.” At some point down the line it became not so “nice” to be that explicit, but the racial undertones remained. For example, in the 60s they felt the need to distinguish “blue-eyed soul” from plain old “soul,” in an effort, I suppose, to avoid racial mixing within a single category. I find it interesting that Hip-hop and R&B – two completely distinct genres – often appear together as Hip-Hop/R&B. The important thing is, black music is black music. On that note, I also found it interesting that Eminem (one of a scant few popular white rappers) was always played on my area rock stations, the sole form of hip-hop ever played by those formats. And then there is gender. Usually female musicians are confined to the sugary center of the industry – pop music. Even to the small extent that they have seeped into the domain of rock, they tend to be relegated to the singer role. No playing any complicated instruments for women! When female groups became popular in the rock ‘n roll era (and the new, edgy rock ‘n roll music was almost exclusively male at the beginning) they too were separated into their own marked category: the “girl group” genre. In an opposite move, the term “boy band” became popular to describe all-male groups who performed a style of music that was becoming increasingly “feminized.” Beyond race and gender, the music industry also reinforces class boundaries… but I feel this paragraph is long enough already.

4. The industry’s control over the circulation and availability of music is, I think, one of its most heinous crimes. Obviously they make it difficult for new and/or unconventional artists to “break through,” while saturating our airwaves with a couple of hand-picked photogenic performers.  Fortunately, the internet has been undermining that aspect of the Industry’s control, though only very weakly. The Industry also determines what gets played, and in what proportions, by pretty much every radio station in the country. Stations used to have a lot of independence. Not anymore. This has greatly reduced the variety of music being played. The same tired old stuff gets played ad nauseum. The Industry, taking a cue perhaps from the fashion industry, has tried many times to create new “scenes” and genres. It is constantly trying to fabricate and capitalize on “the next big thing.” (As much as individual artists try vainly to protest that they “just play rock ‘n roll man.”) They discover The Darkness and wet their pants over the “Hair Metal Revival” which certainly must follow (this, of course, being an example of utter failure). Above all else: they never EVER pass up an opportunity to exploit the passions of pre-teens…. The perennial cash cow.

The bottom line is, the Recording Industry was developed to monopolize and control. I’d rather it never existed.

A Critical Analysis of "Art"

I think I have an arts series going on now. Expect at least one more post, about music.

"Art" is another one of those things that I consider to be merely a category rather than an independently real object (see religion). The reality is quite simple, actually: people make things and people do things. These things may be useful or not, valued or not, pleasing or not, novel or not. Probably most of these characteristics exist on a spectrum and depend, of course, on context. Hence, they are relative.

The application of the term "art" to certain crafts and activities has been entwined with other socially meaningful divisions, and a more detailed genealogy of the term than I can provide might illuminate the history of its meaning and function more fully. Loosely, though, it helped to demaracate the domains of the sacred and profane, and then to differentiate between the productions of the educated uppercrust and those of the ignorant masses (labeled, in contrast, "folklore").

Through its contemporary usage, "art" has been universalized and tied to the concept of human subjectivity (as an "individual expression"). This is no surprise, given the universalizing tendencies of "modernity" (as discourse and project), as well as the central role played by the idea of the subject in modern social formations.

There have been plenty Marxist analyses of art. For example, noting the way in which different aesthetics contribute to the rigidity of the class hierarchy. Also the way in which art patronage provides a safe outlet for capital which may not be profitably invested (the Medicis, e.g.), and thereby maintaining some systemic stability. I do think these points are extremely useful and worth keeping in mind. However, I am more interested in the way in which art functions both in the discourses and social/institutional structures constituting "modernity," as a means of objectifying individual subjectivity and notions of "culture."

Once objectified, subjectivity/culture may enter the capitalist market as a commodity (and art forms of various sorts do seem to be the primary way in which individual and collective subjectivities are commodified). The transformation of individual subjectivity into a form of "property" provides the rhetorical material with which the legal basis for monopolies (copyright law) is constructed.

Even when subjectivity objectified does not enter into any market relations, it may still have market value.

But most importantly, it is venerated as a sacred, powerful artifact. Because subjectivity is conceived as the mysterious key to human knowledge of the world and our own condition, art allows us the possibility of understanding our own history, diversity, and motivations. Paradoxically, it fulfills our almost technocratic urge to rationalize every aspect of human life, in an effort to control and improve.

As a result of both this preoccupation and the dynamics of capitalist production, "style" becomes eminently important and an object of ceaseless contemplation (generally leading one to consider how certain individuals developed new styles, or how one style emerged out of another). Usually, narratives of style take an evolutionary form and buttress the ideology of progress (even when, contradictorily, some room for arbitrariness is allowed). And of course, the succession of styles feeds into the capitalist need for constant novelty and osbolescence.

All of this to say: art is another thing that emerged as an integrated whole, though in manifold and complex ways, with the other processes and institutions associated with modernity. It is a piece of modernity, or rather, multiple pieces (as it is not a single thing): a byproduct of the concept of subjectivity; an expression of particular subjectivities; a tool of governmental/reformist impulses; a form of economic value; and a means of reinforcing particular ideas/discourses, to name a few.

No sense in trying to define it. More fun in seeing how it works in practice.

Fashion: The Super Model of Late Capitalism

Finally, I get to use a bad pun! If I didn’t want my posts to be easy to find via Google searches, I would do this more often.

There have been a number of attempts in pop culture to get behind the more superfluous aspects of the fashion industry – for example, the comedy film Zoolander, and recent novel Zero History. The former, while jokingly implicating the industry in international conspiracy, also highlights the political-economic realities (namely, sweatshops) associated with it; the latter explores the relationship between the fashion industry and defense contracting. Of course there are other examples as well.

While avoiding any attempt render the industry as some sort of conspiratorial cabal, an examination of the industry along with the phenomenon of “fashion” and “trends” more generally can provide a good glimpse into the rhythms and logic of late capitalism.

By late capitalism, I mean the post-WW2 era, specifically characterized by fully automated production, “Fordism,” multinational corporations, and mass consumption. Several key problems resulted from its extraordinary successes (demonstrating the point that capitalism is based on contradictions that threaten its very existence): the prominence of sectoral (as opposed to regional) inequalities expanded the role of research and development and increased the risk of investment; mass production and consumption left fewer and fewer avenues for profitable investment (thus the turn to financialization) as well as a level of production grossly disproportional to human needs; and a high level of state spending and gradual devaluation of currency (responses to the aforementioned problems) destabilized the international monetary system.

It is also important to note that changes in the methods and organization of production in the post-WW2 era have sharply increased the turnover time of capital (and hence, accelerated the rhythm of production). As the value of capital depreciates over time, increasing its turnover time (approaching zero) is a natural tendency of capitalism.  Thus... constant bombardment with NEW! things.

And how does fashion (as an industry or a phenomenon) embody these trends?

First and foremost, of course, a basic human need (protection from the elements) is transformed into a commodity, but more importantly, a commodity which one must constantly purchase and replace. Through media and socialization, we acquire the mindset that one should have a variety of clothes (bearing no relation to the need clothing is supposed to fill). We believe with religious fervor that an outfit should never be worn more than one day in a row (even if, privately, we do not wash it between uses). Clothing begins to take on specialized functions. There are work clothes, leisure clothes, formal wear, athletic wear, summer clothes, winter clothes, etc. etc. And then, if that isn’t enough, things are constantly going out of style that so we continually feel a “need” to update our wardrobes. We see something new and have to have it. We give our old (perfectly functional) clothes to charity.

One thing that makes style so important to us is the idea, implanted into our conscious, that clothing expresses identity. What you wear says something about who you are as a person. In fact, the fashion industry has absorbed many of the people who, as a result of the capitalist division of labor, are able to devote their labor entirely to “artistic” productions, as a livelihood. Fashion has become an art form (as have other human necessities such as food and shelter). The fact that it is an “art” in some way legitimizes the attention people devote to personal style. Of course, as a type of art, clothing has also become a means of identifying and expressing class affiliation (in Pierre Bourdieu’s terms, a form of cultural capital). Wealthier people will spend inordinate amounts of money on clothing, purchasing high-end brands, just to demonstrate to everyone that they can spend inordinate amounts of money on clothing.

The thing that real galls me is the seeming aversion of many celebrities to wearing a piece of clothing more than once. Must clothing really be that dispensable? Talk about senseless waste.

Another thing to pay attention to: why is it that every event, organization, vacation, any occasion whatsoever, requires a t-shirt? (College students have this down to a science.) How many people have many more t-shirts than they need or could ever wear? And somehow, t-shirts come to function as holy relics, objectifying the memories and emotions of past experiences. (People make quilts out of them!) Why something so silly and cheap as a t-shirt?

As the actual human need gets increasingly obscured, we are impelled to buy more and more. We are socialized to shop for new clothes at the beginning of every season. Clothes are not meant to last. All because demand and short production cycles are necessary for capitalist profitability.