PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Off-Topic food for thought - re: monitizing music

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1-5-K6onXo

gets applicably interesting at around 7:30+

Larry

Cool stuff on the one-off recordings Larry, thanks!

I never heard of THAT before. Pretty crazy.

Something in my chuckles at the idea of producing a single recording and having someone make an mp3 of it. I don't know that it would lessen it at all; as you would still own the original. Thoughts?

The industry is in interesting times.

Right? I couldn't help but wonder if he was purposely pretending not to understand that when you buy a Taylor Swift MP3, you don't own the song, you own a license to listen to it whenever you like on your computer or mobile device. Taylor Swift or her label still own Shake It Off, and it's worth 10s of millions, not $1.25, a lot more than the Van Gogh was worth when the artist was still alive.

Buying an MP3 is more like buying a museum pass than a painting, in my opinion.

The part with the one-off records was cool, and reminds me of the dubplates that are common in the reggae/dancehall scene, custom versions of hit songs DJs pay to have recorded with their name in them for use in competitions. They're usually digital copies these days, but used to be cut to a single acetate record that deteriorate quickly if played more than a few times.

Cheers,
Kent
PG Music

His main point is that the value of the item is proportional to the cost of creating the item. While there are fixed costs in creating a recording (paying the artist, physical plant, distribution mechanism), once you're past a certain threshold, the cost per item is exceedingly small.

Taylor Swift argues that "art is rare", which itself is debatable. But digital music is certainly not scarce, nor is Taylor Swift's music. There's some fuzziness in the language, because there's a difference between owning art, and having a copy of art.

Full ownership of an object of art includes duplication rights, which is where much of the value of art comes from for the owner. As consumers, we don't actually "own" much of the art we purchase, because even if we had perfect duplication mechanisms, we have limited duplication rights.

Scarcity can be artificially created - the diamond market is a good example. Creating a one-off vinyl record is another excellent example. The value comes from the fact that what you have isn't what someone else has. Even if you own the physical vinyl, you don't have the rights to duplicate and release the recording.

But if you chose to duplicate it and make it widely available, then obviously the valuation of that object of art would decrease, because it would no longer be unique.

So, no - it would most certainly lessen the value.

I am very clear on all that you have said.

I think however, you are misunderstanding what I am saying.

Liken it to owning THE Mona Lisa. Although it has been duplicated many, many times to be displayed at museums over the years. It has also been "copied" in photographs to be displayed in signage, magazines and text-books. I really don't think any of that has lessened the value of the original; now at over $650 million. I think, if anything, because of the duplication and copies, it increased the value of the original. That is all I was saying.

And while the consumer may not own the rights, releasing mp3 versions of a song may create demand for the 1 original. Much like owning THE original of an Elvis song. Distribution made people aware of the song. But there is really only one 1st. That would drive up the value of the 1st one.

Again, I do understand what they are doing and the points you are making. Just offering some food for thought.

Again, I may be 100% wrong on that. All good if I am. Cool share. Thanks for that. I'm moving on.

Hi Larry

I nearly abandoned the video when it suddenly got interesting 75 % of the way through....Great concept.

Regarding "I never heard that before", you have experienced it, just not worded and limited in the way the narrator phrases his theory. Think of being at a live concert when a 'live recording' is done or even someone makes a bootleg recording. You experience the event live but also will be able to relive your live experience from the recorded media. What I found more interesting is an analysis of the narrators theories.

First, his theory of 'one' narrowly defines a concept that such extreme scarcity in itself determines value I submit is incorrect. Hoot N Hollers recording was not a singular experience. There were two occurences simultaneously. The people that were present during the live performance for the recording experienced it live yet they can also repeat that initial experience through the recorded medium. They developed and felt emotions from it. They created unique and irreplicable memories from listening. For each person hearing that live performance, their experience was unique to their perspective of the live performance. If one was present solely as a observer, their reactions would be different from the recording engineer that's focused on the technical and mechanical aspect that in turn is a different perspective of the artists focus and concentration during the creation of the art. Each person hearing the live performance obtain and process whatever emotion, thought and feeling literally on the fly in a first impression sense. When they hear the recorded media, regardless of the scarcity or abundance of the media, they may have new impressions and emotions from listening to the performance as they become more familiar with the piece and discover new nuances they hadn't recognized in earlier hearings, but they will always have the capability to recall and mentally relive that initial experience of the live performance whether or not it was recorded.

The value of a Van Gogh ranges from $500,000 to one selling for $82 million and various estimated value paintings that haven't sold to be $100 million. Much of the value and benefit of art is determined more by the makeup of the community that deals in art ownership than it does in the actual art and it's scarcity. Rich people value art as much for it's monetary investment value as they do for its beauty.

Switch back to Hoot N Holler's one off recordings. Assume for the moment they made 5 singles during that recording session, bid the singles at auction and collectively the sale of the 5 singles totaled $3,000. They in turn, record the 5 songs but archive them normally and press 500 cd's and sell them for $10 each over a period of 2 years at their live concert venues. Now the same 5 songs value is not $3,000 but totals $5,000 and each is still a one time recording. Each method is a one time investment of their time, talent and fixed cost. The difference is CD media is duplicated off the originals thousands of time and can potentially sell millions of times without changing the unique value derived from being a one off recording and generates an automatic income without Hoot N Holler having to invest in creating anything new or provide a product that's a service. The one off single is fixed amount in monetary value and provenance whereas replicating the one off's likely would reduce the value of a one off single for Hoot N Holler.

So, the creation of each type of media, one off single and recording duplication media, could have occurred during that singular performance in the video with nothing changing but the destination of the audio being recorded. The potential difference in income to Hoot N Holler becomes how the media is marketed, not in how it's created. In the case of the single one off recording, income is generated as a service, Hoot N Holler traded time for money. In the instance they created duplicatable product, they invested the exact same amount of time, effort, service (performance) and in both instances, their investment was done only once but the recording duplication media can continue to produce income for many years afterward and that first single investment of time and performance can be replicated to generate income even beyond their lifetime with the income going to their heirs. If the current owner of Van Gogh's "The Starry Night" should sell it, the Van Gogh family gets no royalties, the same would be true for Hoot N Holler should the current owner of a one off single sell their unique copy for $100,000 or a million dollars, Hoot N Holler would not gain any additional income from that sale. At the time Van Gogh painted "The Starry Night", who would have paid a million dollars to witness him painting it?

What a really interesting video and topic I agree with Kent above, "Buying an MP3 is more like buying a museum pass than a painting" is a gorgeous analogy.