Working together we can achieve impressive results
What is the value of and best use of Creative Commons in terms of music for film and video? Steve Lawson (AKA @solobasssteve, warning he is one of the most logorrheic Twitter users I follow) tweeted a wish for easier and more explicit marking of Creative Commons licensed music on Bandcamp and Soundcloud particularly for use in video projects. This opened up an interesting vista of musing for me about the role and potential of Creative Commons (CC) and the culture of sharing within creative communities.
Problems with licensing music for film
Perhaps because I am more mired in old-world thinking than Steve, who is something of a social media age renaissance man, I initially saw problems with the premise of a directory of CC music for film/video use,
- Would this cover both synchronisation and master use?
- What territories would be covered?
- What kinds of exhibition?
- How long would the license last?
I worked, many moons ago, in the field of film sound and music and music licensing was often a fraught issue particularly with licensing existing music for films. There are lots of cumbersome procedures to get through in order to do it in the old-world way.
The synchronisation right allows the film maker to include the music in the film soundtrack, the master license allows them to make copies of the film including the music (like a mechanical license for a CD) and then there’s an exhibition right to screen the film. This mental oxbow is probably not relevant to what Steve was thinking of but the difference is important as it points to the liminal state creative arts licensing is currently in. Read More
Culture over commerce: Towards a new musical landscape
Inculcation into the tribe of music lovers
What is music in society today? Is it a product, the fuel of a commercial industry or is it a culture, a forum for the expression, classification and development of who we are?
This is not a straight choice. The answer must be somewhere in the middle, but there is a tension between the two poles that indicates a conflict. This is particularly exemplified by the piracy/sharing issue and the reaction of the RIAA and similar bodies.
It is easy to cast stones at both sides, the litigious industry and the pilfering kids, but what is more interesting to me is what this confrontation indicates. I think we are in a liminal state caused by the changes digital production and distribution have wrought on the music industry.
When music was physical
Back in the mists of time, making and distributing music was an expensive exercise and record labels functioned like banks, signing bands and advancing the money to record and produce their music. This wasn’t charity and there were (and still are) some clever/tricky ways that record labels make money without paying much to the bands. Steve Albini, guitarist and producer, has published a famous vituperative article about some of the music industry’s wicked ways.
The internet and digital audio have changed things. In the past manufacture and distribution of physical media was expensive and tricky. You had to make objects that contained the music and get them to brick and mortar stores that would sell them for you. The easiest way to make money out of this is through economy of scale. Big distribution companies came to be owned by the record labels as this made sense for them. This consolidated the control of large companies over the industry.
Now once music is encoded into a suitable digital format it can be piped from computer to computer without all the cumbersome meatspace machinations of the old world. This has a huge implications for the perception of value of the music track. Where it used to cost money to make a plastic manifestation of the music digital copies can be produced and distributed for almost nothing except bandwidth costs. Read More »