Reactions and coverage of CMC's conference on The Future of Music in the Digital World which took place on 11 June 2010.

Back to feature

Future of Music in the Digital World Conference: Reviews

The Future of Music in the Digital World conference proved to be a fascinating event which generated much needed debate about the challenges those involved in the music business face with the advent of the internet and music downloading.

Gerd Leonhard presented his vision of how the music industry could face the future with an impressive speech in which he presented ideas that were not greeted kindly by some present. His idea of a blanket license for music downloading proved particularly controversial. Unfortunately this aspect of his speech was seized upon and dominated the rest of the days proceedings, including Andrew Dubber's witty presentation which seemed entirely built as a rebuttal of Leonhard's ideas.

Whilst Dubber highlighted some of the problematic aspects of Leonhard's vision, I was disappointed that he didn't offer any alternatives. Leonhard was providing ideas, Dubber just seemed interested in shooting them all down in a cynical, academic way.

Bill Whelan's speech in the afternoon was, it seemed, intended to put everything into perspective from the composers' point of view. Much of his speech was auto-biographical, dealing with how he noticed the music industry change throughout his career. The main crux of Whelan's speech revolved around how he felt the composer was being left out of the discussion and this aspect of his speech was most welcome.

In the afternoon panel debate however I felt the panelist's got too bogged down in the aspects of copyright and royalties. Bill Whelan vigorously defended the composers' right to his credit, however I feel in the ensuing argument something was lost. I found Gerd Leonhard's speech to be highly interesting and I feel the positive aspects of his speech were swept under the carpet in the ensuing debate. This is a debate that has been going on for a long time and it's extremely disappointing that many people are continuing the debate when it is clearly just time to move on and accept the challenges of the digital age.

Leonhard highlighted brilliantly how artists could now exploit the possibilities of the digital age by presenting a new business model which revolved around providing free downloads with the intention that this will increase awareness of one's work. The ensuing audience base that could be created around this then has obvious knock on benefits relating to future performance, commission and sales opportunities.

So in summary, to me Leonhard was the most illuminating speaker of the day. He presented ideas and possible solutions. Some of these solutions obviously make those in the music establishment uncomfortable, but I feel given the developments of the past decade regarding the access of music on the internet then Leonhard's ideas should be given strong consideration. I will certainly be implementing some of his ideas in the near future regarding my own music and recommend his freely downloadable book Music 2.0 to anyone working in the music business. One of the best things he says in the book should be music to the ears of anyone working in less commercial forms of music.

In the digital world 'Niches are Golden'.

Dave Flynn
June 2010

Mícheál Ó Súilleabháin
As the speaker himself indicated, this keynote address was intended to focus the audience not so much directly at the specific topic of the conference, but to gear the them up towards the task at hand: that of listening and evaluating different opinions and ideas with respect to music which were to be presented throughout the day.

Nevertheless, several important touchstones for the day were first alluded to here, if not fully elucidated, in Ó Súilleabháin's short time at the podium. He spoke of the notion of a 'global' environment (one which is capable of referencing both the global and local simultaneously), and, with the conference focusing on the phenomenon of internet technologies and shrinking geographical divides, this was a phrase which was pertinent in describing many of the issues discussed later. By describing the various activities in the sphere of music as 'less a career than a calling', he foreshadowed the notion of the centrality of the relationship between composer and listener; an issue which came to the forefront in the latter half of the day.

Gerd Leonhard
The message in this presentation was both simple and striking. While doing his best to get others in the music industry to accept the switch to access as the key to all future methods of reimbursement, one could not help seeing his statements as a highly up-to-date reflection of the present, rather than any kind of prediction of the future. Far from making his presentation less relevant, this fact seemed to help present his points in a light which showed the common sense of his arguments; (considering that we are already in an age where most teenagers have never bought a CD) Leonhard's comments seem to be calling us to action in order to face our present circumstances as much as they are calling us to look to future scenarios.

While the illustration of Denmark's model of a blanket fee was certainly fascinating, it seemed to relegate the role of the artist to that of simply waiting for this kind of system to be brought about around them, something which several of the questions from the floor pursued. One of Leonhard's responses to this was that the composers should focus in the meantime on building up a relationship with their audience, as Andrew Dubber put it later on in the day: when you have no trouble giving your music away for free (a task more difficult than it might sound) then, and only then, should you attempt to be remunerated for your work. By emphasising the building of relationships with listeners, albeit through various online methods, Leonhard's point seemed to offer us a practical application of Bill Whelan's later hypothesis that the relationship between the composer and the listener must be central.

Andrew Dubber
Because of the fact that Leonhard's presentation seemed to be as relevant to the present as to any difficult-to-determine future, Dubber's initial comments about the impossibility of predicting the future were convincing, although not wholly in opposition to the previous address. Howsoever that may be, his arguments did galvanise a growing sense that if the music industry wanted to be prepared for its future, then the best method was surely to first re-evaluate its assessment of its present circumstances.

As with Leonhard's previous address, the questions asked by Dubber were of vital importance to the conference, despite the fact that the conclusions were not necessarily accepted by all. The question of what exactly the internet is and should be used for, was of particular relevance. Dubber drew the conclusion that the internet was not something through which artists' aught to seek remuneration. Leonhard's presentation, although never explicitly stating this, seemed to ground itself on the belief that the internet is simply a tool, and that tool can be used to disseminate information as easily as it can be used to create it, if one only has a mind to use it in that fashion.

The analogy of the theatre director which Dubber used to sum up his case did so to the point that it even reflected the elements which Dubber overlooked in his arguments, as well as those that he centred his ideas on. The options he gave to his theatre director were simple, either point a camera at your play, or move into television. Stick with one art form, or move to another. A third option which might have been offered could have represented the pivotal role which innovation has to play, whenever we find ourselves at such a cross road in the arts. Don't choose either one or the other form, create a hybrid, take the best that both worlds have to offer. Perhaps the best option for Dubber's theatre director might have been for him to assign the camera a function within his plays and create for himself some multi-media theatre, instead of sticking with the tradition of having to choose one already pre-defined solution or another.

Bill Whelan
By going back to the origins of what led to his career in music, Bill Whelan laid the ground well for his case that the essentials of music, whether in a digital age or any other, should be the relationship between those who create the music and those who listen to it. Multi-media experience was something which he touched on too, and this was perhaps the first time it was explicitly mentioned during the day, although it is obviously of growing relevance to the music industry today and can justly be concluded to be of importance to the music industry of tomorrow, as a consequence.

Bill Whelan's address also provided an Irish grounding for the issues at hand, with references to the Irish melodies and airs of his youth, and he helped to elucidate a little of the uniqueness of the Irish music scene for those joining the conference from abroad.

Panel Discussion
The panel discussion, which was no doubt heated, touched on most of the central issues raised during the day, and it succeeding in teasing them out further, if not in fully resolving them- which would be quite a feat indeed considering the broad scope and the understandably subjective nature of the topic itself.

Perhaps the most illuminating elements of the panel discussion were the insightful questions from the many industry people gathered in the audience, who were instrumental in answering, as well as asking, many of the most important questions of the day. Bill Whelan and Andrew Dubber voiced great concern over the fact that Loenhard's model of a blanket fee did not allow for an opt-out system for composers who wished their work to be excluded. The question of why the composer would want such a thing were raised and various answers were supplied, however what seemed to be of importance here was not why the composer might wish to opt-out, but rather why they should not be allowed to do so in the first place. While this was indeed a flaw in Leonhard's proposal it did not seem insurmountable, insomuch as applying such an opt-out system to the blanket fee idea by some method might be a much more constructive option than simply jettisoning the system entirely. Perhaps including such an opt-out system is not as simple as might be thought, but it is an argument that was perhaps overlooked.

The issue dominating the latter portion of the discussion was one brought up by Dubber earlier in the day. His problem was the fact that Leonhard's system did not allow people to be paid according to their artistic merit, but rather merely paid them according to how often their music was listened to. The fact that he declined to provide a model by which such a subjective thing as artistic merit could be based, meant that the discussion surrounding this was never on a practical level. That providing such an artistic merit scale is so impossible does not negate his obligation to do so, as obviously any serious claim that composers should be paid on the basis of their merit as artists must naturally admit that such a scale needs to be created if this is to be brought into being. Here it may have been useful to recall the dual nature of composers, especially those seeking to make a living from their profession, as opposed to those composing as a creative outlet only. An obscure, talented artist gets greater benefit from the artistic value of their work then, say, an X Factor participant (to use a popular example of the panel's) only in so much as art is its own reward. There is no monetary benefit unless this artist also succeeds on a business platform, i.e. providing a service to the public. It is perhaps fitting that so many music information societies were represented at the conference, for, if anyone has a vested interest in serving the music community in an unbiased fashion (without ranking its members by subjective standards) it must be them.

The central point made by Bill Whelan and Gerd Leonhard was that the most crucial and revered thing, no matter what the music industry does, is to preserve the relationship between listeners and composers. If such a system as Dubber suggests, which goes explicitly against the tastes of the majority of listeners, and, instead of rewarding the remuneration to the artists who create the most listened-to music, rewards other obscure artists, the damage to that relationship would be irreparable. It would send a rather worrying message to the music-loving public, that their taste in many cases is somehow 'wrong' and it would have the effect, therefore, of seriously undermining, and even attempting to remove, the vital role which listeners play in the music community, and for that reason, it aught not to be attempted for the benefit of all members of the music community.

Sinéad Finegan
June 2010

The views expressed are those of the persons concerned and are not necessarily the views of the Contemporary Music Centre.

RSS Feeds
	News
	Features
	Opportunities