Martin Cloonan (University of Glasgow)
and
John Williamson (Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh)
Rethinking the Music Industry
Paper presented at ESRC/AHRC Cultural Industries Seminar Network,
9th Seminar
1
Edinburgh, Thursday 11 January 2007.
2
Rethinking the Music Industry
Introduction
This paper presents what amounts to some work in progress in which we want to rethink what is meant by the term ‘the music industry’. ` It is really an updating and expansion of an earlier paper which will be published by the journal Popular Music this year.
As this was submitted well over a year ago here I guess that we want to do is consolidate it and add some further reflections.
So we’ll do four things today.
We’ll begin with a big claim – that the music industry does not exist.
Instead we prefer to use the term ‘musicrelated industries’ (plural).
3
We will also argue that the use of the term ‘the music industry’ presents a number of barriers to understanding the popular music economy. Then we’ll explain why what might appear at first to be academic nitpicking is actually very important.
Second we’ll start to examine the importance of this by looking at instances where commentators in various areas have used the term ‘the music industry’, when in actual fact they mean the recording sector and we’ll spell out the implications of this, using the recent debate surrounding the extension of the copyright term on sound recordings as a case study.
Thirdly we’ll look some more reasons why the term ‘the music industry’ singular – is inadequate.
Fourthly we’ll argue that there is a need for a more holistic account of the musicrelated industries and we’ll do this through looking at the recent changes in the recording sector and the increased importance of the live music sector.
4
Finally we’ll bring things together by looking at some different approaches from outside of Popular Music Studies which suggest ways forward.
5
Part One: There is no such thing at the music industry
So, to begin with our big claim:
There is no such thing as the music industry.
More specifically our claim is that that the notion of a single music industry is an inappropriate model for understanding and analysing the economics and politics surrounding music related industries in the contemporary context.
Instead it is necessary to use the term musicrelated industries.
Why would we want to make such a claim?
We primarily do so because we think that the term ‘the music industry’ suggests an homogenous industry, whereas as the reality is of disparate industries with some common interests.
For example, to really understand how popular music is produced and consumed in a contemporary context in addition to the examining recording 6
sector, one would also need to examine a number of other areas such as artists and composers; live music; related media such as television and radio; other creative industries such as photographers, web designers, video makers and so on; ancillary services such as managers, agents and specialist lawyers; education and retail.
Thus we see complexity and diversity whereas the term ‘the music industry’ suggests a certain amount of simplicity and unity.
One way to show the complexity involved is to try and define ‘the music industry’.
A number of such attempts have been in recent years in various official reports commissioned by government and trade organisations.
Within these accounts ‘the music industry’ has been defined in a number of ways.
For example, the landmark report by British Invisibles (1995) on the Overseas Earnings of The Music Industry identified five areas of earnings – recording; publishing; performing; musical instruments and musical theatre and 7
miscellaneous (British Invisibles 1995: 2) and went as far as to suggest that ‘it is arguable whether it is more accurate to talk of several music industries, rather than a single industry’ (ibid: 6).
Subsequent work by the National Music Council (Dane et al1996, Dane et al 1999, Dane and Manton, 2002) identified seven sectors, our own work in Scotland (Williamson et al, 2003) reported eight sectors, while the Welsh Music Foundation (www.welshmusicfoundation.com). identified 14 sectors.
While there is no dispute about the importance of recording, live music, publishing, and the artists and composers themselves., ancillary services such as management, distribution, web design and professional services are not so readily placed . In addition the position of retail is disputed. The importance of the music media and education also tends to vary in accordance with the needs/worldview of the authors and funders.
In what now seems like a classic understatement, Wilson et al’s report on music SMEs noted that ‘there is a lack of consensus as to precisely what types of businesses are representative of ‘the music industry’ (2001: 94).
8
Thus it could be argued that even if there is a music industry, then we don’t know what it is comprised of!
However, our point here is not to argue what is and isn’t a part of ‘the music industry’ but to point out that this is a contested and unresolved area, which spills over into policy making. Moreover we think that some of the definitional problems can at least be partially resolved by adopting a pluralistic view of the industries.
Meanwhile the reports at least show the breadth of musicrelated industries. However a number of accounts have simply equated ‘the music industry’ with the recording sector and it is to such accounts that we now turn.
9
Part Two: Equating the music industry with the recording sector
There are three main places in which the recording sector is frequently equated with ‘the music industry’ – the media, the PR and lobbying efforts of musicrelated industries’ organisations, and academic accounts.
The media can be seen here as the conduit of musicrealted industries’ information to the general public. This has been particularly the case in recent years with regard to the reporting of recording sector’s battle against socalled ‘illegal’ downloading which has frequently been portrayed as ‘the music industry’ battling filesharers.
The definition of the recording sector as ‘the music industry’ has become enshrined in trade publications such as Music Week and Billboard, which repeatedly report on the actions of a single music industry.
There are plenty examples from both broadcast and print media, but typically, when the BPI finally took action against 28 music uploaders in October 2004, the BBC reported that ‘the British music industry is to sue 28 internet users it
10
says
are
illegally
swapping
music
online’
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr//1/hi/entertainment/music/3722428.stm).
In terms of musicrelated industries’ organisations we also noted a tendency for sectoral bodies to present themselves as talking on behalf of the entire spectrum of those industries. On numerous occasions, the B.P.I. – the recording sector’s trade association has been happy to present itself as representing the ‘British music industry’ rather than merely its own members. For example, in its campaign to extend copyright protection of sound recordings from 50 to 95 years it published a document entitled Five Reasons to support British music (BPI 2006) - rather than the recording sector. It confused the issue further by byelining itself as “The British Recorded Music Industry” (emphasis ours).
However, as this is primarily an academic audience and we always like putting the knife into our colleagues we want to highlight some examples which make our point. We think it is at least understandable for the media to use shorthand and for industries’ organisations to overplay their hands, but we are highly concerned about academic accounts which equate ‘the music industry’ with the recording sector.
11
The general starting point for the academic study of popular music and its associated industries is Theodor Adorno (c/f 1990). While we do not have time today to do justice to Adorno, we would argue that his work actually set something of a precedent by overprivileging (the effects of) the record(ing) sector to the exclusion of other musicrelated industries and activities.
In fact some of the earlier Popular Music Studies accounts to unpack the business of popular music such as Hirsch’s 1969 The Structure of the Popular Music Industry, Chapple and Garofalo’s, 1977, Rock N Roll is Hear To Pay and Frith’s, 1978, Sociology of Rock offered a more wideranging view of the musicrelated industries than some of the work that has latterly been adopted as key texts. While these earlier studies looked at the roles of radio, managers and concert promoters more recent works have centred on the recording sector have tended to privilege it as being the music industry.
This is most evident in three important academic introductions to Popular Music Studies which each show the importance of understanding ‘the music industry’ by making it the subject of their second chapters. Yet, Longhurst’s Popular Music and Society (1995), Negus’ Popular Music In Theory (1996)
12
and Shuker’s Understanding Popular Music (2001) only deal with the recording sector.
In Popular Music and Society Brian Longhurst (1995: 30) argues that ‘The popular music industry is dominated by six companies’ which he then lists as the major recording companies of the time.
In Popular Music in Theory (1996) Keith Negus devotes a chapter entitled “Industry” to the internal machinations the recording sector.
Meanwhile the second chapter of Roy Shuker’s Understanding Popular Music (2001) is entitled ‘Every 1’s a winner - the music industry’, but once again deals only with the recording sector.
So in three key introductory texts students are given the impression that the recording sector is the music industry. In sum, in these accounts, conflation and partiality are present when broader, more complex, analyses are needed.
Numerous other examples could have been given here. However, our point is not simply to name the guilty parties, but to show how seductive, or perhaps outdated, the notion of a single ‘music industry’ is.
13
The problem is that such accounts do little to aid an understanding of the popular musicrelated industries in the contemporary era. In effect they mislead readers. As we come on to, a more holistic approach is needed, something which has been recognised by Jason Toynbee (2000) and David Hesmondhalgh (1996) who have both written of ‘the music industries’, plural, with the former arguing that the singular definition is a ‘misnomer’ (2000: 19).
Similarly, Simon Frith (2000) has acknowledged the different strands of the ‘industry,’ and spoken of the need to differentiate between the music industry and the recording sector.
However, our argument is that the term ‘the music industry’ has never properly accounted for the complexity and changing nature of the real world, and that this argument has important implications.
A clear example is the recent debate on copyright extension on sound recordings.
14
Case Study: The Gowers Report
The publication of the Gowers’ Review of Intellectual Property (2006), commissioned by the U.K. Treasury, presents an excellent illustration of the disparity between notions of a single ‘music industry’ and our own view. This distinction can help in understanding the actions and objectives of the main players involved.
Rather than examine the specific arguments or multitude of issues involved we will concentrate on the main issue upon which the selfstyled ‘music industry’ campaigned the extension of the copyright term on sound recordings.
In short, the present length of term in the U.K. is fifty years, ‘the music industry’ campaign revolved around attempts to extend this to anything up to 95 years and for the extension to be applied retrospectively.
15
In Fact the extension of the sound recording term is essentially a matter of concern, and potential economic benefit, for the recording sector. This stems from the contracts which musicians sign when entering into agreements with the vast majority of record labels. The Music Managers’ Forum reports that this transaction almost ‘without exception’ (2003: 98) means that the record company ‘owns the copyright in the artist’s recordings for the full period of copyright, which last for fifty years from first release.’
This means that the right to exploit sound recordings for commercial gain remains with the label, and where profitable under the terms of the contract payments will made to the artists. However, it should be noted that the vast majority of artists fail to recoup their costs.
The other significant player in the process, asides from the record labels and the artists, are the collection societies, who gather payments for the use of songs and sound recordings before distributing them to the music publishers, composers and record labels. In the U.K. the collection societies are the
16
Performing Right Society (PRS), Mechanical Copyright Protection Society (MCPS) and Phonographic Performance Ltd. (PPL).
It is only the last of these that can claim a direct interest in the copyright term on sound recordings. The PPL is responsible for collecting on neighbouring rights (or rights related to original use). It pays the owner of the sound recordings for quote ‘airplay and public performance royalties in the U.K. on behalf of over 3500 record companies and 40 000 performers’ (PPL, 2005: 1). Much of the sectoral lobbying about the term extension originated from P.P.L. and the BPI. Support came from the other rights organisations, the Musicians’ Union, and to a lesser extent, from the Music Managers’ Forum. The PPL provided the clearest statement on term extension arguing for a term of 95 years ‘to give a fair reward to record companies and performers’ (2006: 1). Unsurprisingly, the record labels and rights organisations (BPI, AIM, British Music Rights and the MCPSPRS Alliance) supported their calls.
Perhaps more problematically for some of their members, the Musicians’ Union submission also backed the apparently commonsense logic behind
17
PPL’s request for extension stating that ‘we strongly support the proposal put forward by the Music Industry for a review and extension of the duration of the period of protection for sound recordings’ (2006: 2).
Undermining the notion of a single, united industry, some trade organisations made a number of caveats to their support for the term extension to meet the needs of their constituent groups. For example, the Association of Independent Music (AIM) supported term extension but with a wider perspective that ‘copyright should be reformed, liberalised and strengthened’ (2006: 3). The Music Managers’ Forum called for a maximum length of copyright assignment of 25 years (2006: 6) in return for their support of the campaign for term extension.
Of the other submissions, the majority of opposition to term extension came from academics notably IASPM (2006) and the British Academy (2006) lawyers and broadcasters. It would be foolhardy to expect any of the industries’ organisations or individuals on the side of term extension to do anything other than act self
18
interestedly. However, our point is to question what these interests are, and wonder whether some of the organisations have simply bought into the case for term extension to help curry governmental favour. In the case of Gowers, their lobbying activities also allowed them to present the impression of a single ‘industry’ speaking with one voice, in the manner New Labour has repeatedly requested (Ashton, 2005). Putting aside the interest of record labels, it is hard to see, for example, how the majority of musicians or managers would benefit from term extension.
A further two points are worth making before leaving this consideration of the process.
First, none of the major record labels made a submission to the commission. As owners of the vast majority (around 6570%) of copyrights on sound recordings this would appear somewhat strange, were it not explained by their reliance on the apparently widerreaching lobbying groups (BPI) and rights organisations (PPL) to make their case.
19
The second point is the absence of any representation from the live music sector. This is understandable on the grounds that live music is not primarily a rights’ industry, but at the same time it gives no credence to claims of this being a ‘music industry’ campaign when such a significant sector is neither affected nor involved.
In essence, the campaign for extension of the copyright term on sound recordings was one carried out on behalf of the rights’ holders, but using the illusion of both a unified ‘music industry’ and a wider range of supporters, to increase its lobbying power.
In the case of Gowers this lobbying was unsuccessful on a number of levels. First, he recommended no extension to the copyright term (2006: 6). Secondly, he sought another Office of Fair Trading investigation into the role of the very same rights’ organisation and collection societies that had done much of the bidding on behalf of the recording sector (ibid: 8)
20
The response from the ‘industry’ organisations and trade publications, focused on two distinct strands of vitriol one aimed at Gowers himself, the other at the use of academics as experts in the field.
One outcome was a fullpage advertisement in the Financial Times of December 7th demanding ‘Fair Play for Musicians’ and featuring the names of 4500 PPL members who had supposedly signed up to demand term extension. How this was achieved is unclear, especially as signatories include the deceased (Jimmy Shand, Lonnie Donegan and Freddie Garrity), and classical musicians who have made a career out of recording music that has passed into the public domain
Music Week, also devoted four pages to the report, arguing that Gowers ‘does not understand copyright, and certainly does not appear to understand the music industry’ (Talbot, 2006: 35). The economists involved in writing the report drew on the work of five Nobel prize winners in order to show that retrospective copyright term extension would provide little in the way of
21
economic benefit. However Music Week compared their work unfavourably to the findings of a PPLcommissioned report saying – quote ‘he happily accepted advice from Cambridge University while rejecting a musicindustry commissioned report by PWC’ (ibid).1
Meanwhile the following week’s edition of Music Week continued the tirade, with this perhaps telling picture of Andrew Gowers with devil horns and the slogan ‘copyright 4 eva’ scrawled on his forehead (Music Week, 23 December 2006: 11).
The importance of all this for this paper is that by continuing to subscribe notions of a single, unified industry, the record companies have failed to produce the real arguments for copyright term extension those of economic necessity for some of the music related industries (which Gowers rejects regardless).
1
‘Music Collecting Societies: Evolution or Regulation’ was commissioned by PPL and published by PWC in 2006. 22
That Gowers could see through this and question the role of the rights’ organisations in reaching his conclusions suggests that far from not understanding ‘the music industry’, his report was only too aware of the nature not of ‘the music industry’ but the recording sector and the organisations representing it to government. Inevitably Gowers’ economically rational arguments were of little interest to a sector focused on economic survival during a period of significant turmoil.
Having looked at a case where the interests of particular parts of the music related industries were presented as being the interests of all of those industries, we now want to highlight some more reasons to move from the notion of a singular music industry to a more pluralistic account.
23
Part Three: Moving from The Music Industry to Music-related industries – five reasons
There are numerous reasons for refraining from using the term ‘music industry’ and to move to the term musicrelated industries. And we’d like briefly to highlight five here – understanding, a Scottish perspective, diversity and inequality, conflict, and, finally, policy.
In terms of understanding. perhaps the most successful historical account of the emergence of the modern musicrelated industries is Richard Peterson’s ‘Why 1955?’, published by Popular Music in 1990.
Part of the persuasiveness of Peterson’s argument is rooted in the way he illustrates how the changes across of a range of disparate, but connected, industries precipitates the emergence of rock and roll. Not only does Peterson suggest that changes in musical style are not in themselves enough to explain the emergence of rock and roll, but his analysis intimates that concentration on the machinations of one sector the recording would be an inadequate explanation.
24
In terms of a Scottish perspective our work here (Williamson et al 2003) gives us some more localised reasons for bringing into question the wisdom a definition of ‘the music industry’ which is based on the dominance of the recording sector. While this situation may be accurate in countries where the major labels are located or have subsidiary operations, in Scotland the recorded music industry is not dominant within the musicrelated industries and the live sector is arguably more important. There are music related industries in Scotland, but recording is comparatively unimportant. This could, of course, be magnified several fold in the case of many developing countries.
Thirdly the notion a single ‘music industry’ fails to take account of the diversity within the industries and the inequalities that arise as a consequence. Concentration on the machinations of the major labels overprivileges not only the recording sector, but also a particular business structure based on multinational operations. It thus misses the activities of the smaller and medium enterprises and individuals who are the majority of actors in the musicrelated industries.
Related to the issue of inequality is our fourth point: that the term ‘the music industry’ disguises conflict within the musicrelated industries. As was shown 25
in the case of the trade associations’ evidence to Gowers, it assumes the common interest of musician and label, of promoter and venue, and of organisations which are in daily competition with each other. But conflict is endemic to the musicrelated industries. Here legal disputes have boomed in recent years, One example is the recent dispute between the record companies and digital music sellers on the one side against the MCPSPRS Alliance over digital music tariffs which was referred to the Copyright Tribunal and has only been partially resolved.. Indeed, one way of conceiving of the history of music musicrelated industries is to see it as one of conflict.
Our final point returns to policy.
The use and misuse of the term ‘the music industry’ is of increasing significance in an era in which government agencies are interested in the industries in unprecedented ways.
For example the Department of Media Culture and Sport (DCMS) claims to ‘sponsor the music industry acting as its advocate within Government’ (www.culture.gov.uk). But the messages coming out from it are distinctly confused. 26
Thus while it says that it sponsors ‘the music industry’, singular, the formation by the DCMS of a Live Music Forum in 2004 at least implicitly suggests the existence of a live music sector detached from the wider ‘music industry.’
Crucially, the lack of consensus in government and other reports has resulted in confusion on the part of politicians though perhaps not civil servants and manipulation for lobbying purposes by some of the most powerful record companies.
However it appears that politicians do not want complex messages. For example, in spring 2004 Minister for the Arts, Estelle Morris spoke at the Music Radio Conference and appealed to ‘the music industry’ to ‘try to give the government one point of contact’ (Music Week, 3 May 2004, p.3). She has since gone on to help in that process by joining the board of the PRS.
Meanwhile in Scotland, similar messages from both politicians and the industries about the need for one voice were apparent during our research in 2003 and have continued since. In both instances, the industries, with government backing have moved towards establishing such ‘one voice’ 27
bodies, though, to date, this has only reached the stage of reports (Olsberg SPI, 2006) and feasibility studies (EKOS, 2005, 2006).
However while we remain suspicious of attempts to present ‘the music industry’ as a united front via such organisations, our main point here is that it makes no sense to make policy decisions based on the notion that retailers speak with the same voice as songwriters or that concert promoters have the same perspective as music publishers or artist managers.
Here we return to the notion that life in the musicrelated industries is about diversity, inequality and conflict. Above all else it is about complex patterns of interaction which in policy tems need complex government wide responses rather than simplistic calls for pigeonholing.
28
Part Four: A More Holistic Picture – the musicrelated industries in the C.21st (J)
Our case that notion of a ‘singular music industry’ is increasingly obsolete can be further supported by studying the fundamental changes in the music related industries in the period since 1999. To do this, we will outline a few of the many changes in the recording sector and highlight the increasing significance of the previously underresearched live music sector. We would also note here that we are highlighting the live music sector as it reflects our personal interests, but we believe that we could also make similar claims about, for example, music publishing.
The choice of 1999 as a turning point in the demise of ‘the music industry’ as it has previously been discussed is significant. This was the year during which Napster, the first substantial peertopeer filesharing network was launched, and the last year in which the IFPI – the international trade association of the record companies – reported an upturn in the global sales of recorded music.
29
Considering only the decline in the value of CD and vinyl sales from $38.6 billion in 1999 (IFPI, 2000: 8) to $33.4 billion in 2005 (IFPI, 2006: 4) hides a number of trends. This includes radical changes in demographics, products, technology and both contractual and organisational arrangements within the recording sector, not to mention and its overall declining importance relative to other aspects of the wider musicrelated industries. In addition the market for popular music has moved away its traditional association with youth culture (see McRobbie, 1993; Bennett, 2000), meaning that the recording sector is now more concerned with what Burnett and Wikstrom describe as an ‘older generation that is still interested in music’ (2006: 578).
The means of delivery have also changed. According to IFPI (2006: 4) figures, digital sales accounted for 5% of global music sales in 2005. While this ought to offer the record companies a number of benefits, these have been offset by their ceding control of distribution to external, nonmusic related companies. Apple, who account for over 80% of the digital music market, have been able to a certain extent to dictate the nature and cost of downloads.
30
These have combined to result in an increased emphasis on the exploitation of back catalogue. For the recording sector, reselling material for which they already own the rights makes economic sense, supporting Chris Anderson’s argument in ‘The Long Tail’ that ‘for the first time in history, hits and niches are on an equal economic footing’ (ibid). In practical terms, this can be seen in not only the output but also the management structures of the record companies.
In 2003, the number of major labels reduced from five to four, when Sony and BMG merged. This may reduce again if either Warners or EMI are successful in their various attempts to each other. Around the same time, a consortium of investors led by Edgar Bronfman bought Warner Music taking it out of the control of its previous entertainment industry owners and placing it in the hands of largely opaque financial interests. EMI have also recently aroused the interest of a mysterious group of investors, called Permira.
31
This has served to obfuscate the traditional notions of ‘the music industry’ as built around the major record labels, and the clearly identifiable corporations, which, in turn, owned them.
This new type of ownership is equally evident in the independent sector. For example, Sanctuary Music received plaudits from the media for its ‘360 degree music business model’ (2005: 4), before hitting serious financial trouble in 2004.
As a consequence of this, the company recently parted company with its founder, Andy Taylor, leaving its shares in the hands of a number of large investment groups and equity companies. UBS, Goldman Sachs, Gartmore Investment Management, Capital Group Companies and Citibank between them own 50% of the share in the company.
More worryingly for many of you in the light of Sanctuary’s performance, the Universities Superannuation Scheme owns 4.32% of the company.
All of this is further illustration of the recording sector’s move away from being an autonomous part of the entertainment industries to being a rights procuring 32
and management industry on behalf of institutional shareholders. This fits Power and Jansson’s increasingly interesting view that a successful music business ‘need not actually produce music’ (2004: 426), and that instead it is more likely to provide services or manage rights.
Their notion of ‘hyperflexible’ (ibid) musicrelated companies is also resonant. In the attempts to increase revenues, the boundaries between traditional roles have also blurred. EMI famously took a share of the wider Robbie Williams’ empire when he resigned with the label in 2002, taking, in an unprecedented deal, a share of his income from touring and merchandise.
However, this type of deal is no longer the preserve of the record companies. The world’s largest concert promotion company, Live Nation, cut a similar deal with the band Korn at the start of 2006 which saw them pay $3 million for a 6% share in the band’s ‘box office, licensing, publishing, merchandise and CD revenue’ (Leeds, 2006: 11) over their next two albums. In essence, they have bought a share in Korn, the brand.
33
This is also a measure of the increasing power of the nonrecording sector companies. Based on recent figures, the annual revenues of Live Nation are likely to exceed those of Warner Music in 2006.2
This blurring of the traditional record company and concert promoter roles further strengthens the case for talking in terms of musicrelated industries, rather than ‘the music industry’ as previously described by academics (see Negus, 1992, 1996; Burnett, 1993 and Shuker, 2001) and as it is still presented by lobbyists working on behalf of the record companies.
So far we have identified the powershifts within the musicrelated industries, the blurring of boundaries between different parts of the industries and the changing ownership patterns of the companies involved both large and small to suggest that it is no longer appropriate to talk in terms of the onesize fits all solutions that are implied in the idea of a ‘music industry.’
We finish by examining some of the places where the complexity we noted earlier has been recognised and which suggest some ways forward.
2
Warners’ income for the year to September 2006 was $3.5 billion, Live Nation’s revenues in the first nine months of the year amounted to $2.6 billion. 34
Conclusions
We hope that the evidence we have provided today goes some way to showing that the term ‘the music industry’ is redundant.
What is needed instead is an approach which recognises the significant contemporary organisational changes within the musicrelated industries and redresses the balance by moving away from a concentration on the recording sector.
In addition we want to move from relatively simplistic notions of a singular music industry, towards recognition of complexity.
One way of achieving this, which the scope of this talk does not allow, is to consider models of the musicrelated industries drawn from academic disciplines previously underutilised by Popular Music Studies’ scholars.
35
For example, Leyshon’s (2001) model of ‘the musical economy as a networked economy’ and his subsequent work (Leyshon et al 2005) draws on cultural/economic geography.
There is also a growing body of work on the musicrelated industries in the field of business and management studies (Gander and Rieple 2002, Graham and Burnes 2004, Power and Jansson 2004) and it has been economists (Krueger, 2005) who have shown most interest in the live musicsector. These, along with the existing approaches can contribute to a more complex and accurate description of the musicrelated industries.
Moreover, there is certainly scope for more research musicrelated industries other than recording. We would suggest that live music is the most press case, but detailed studies of such areas as music publishing, retail and music management are long overdue.
Meanwhile our main purpose today has been to advocate the need to talk about the musicrelated industries in the plural and to recognise the diversity of interests and scale of activities in the different areas of music production.
36
Our conclusion is that there is no such thing as a ‘music industry.’
There are, however, people working in a wide range of industries centred on music.
These are musicrelated industries and it is them that we should study and engage with. When we do we’ll find complexity, diversity, inequality and conflict. In short, a music richer field of enquiry than the idea of a singular music industry would suggest.
37
Bibliography Adorno, T. 1990. 'On Popular Music', in On The Record: Rock, Pop and the Written Word, eds. S. Frith and A. Goodwin, pp. 301314. London and New York: Routledge Association of Independent Music (AIM). 2006. Submission to Gowers Review of Intellectual Property. London: H.M. Treasury Anderson, C. 2006. The Long Tail. London: Random House Ashton, R. 2005. 'Minister: I Back Music Council', Music Week, 25 June, p. 1 British Academy. 2006. Submission to Gowers Review of Intellectual Property. London: H.M. Treasury British Invisibles. 1995. Overseas Earnings of the Music Industry. London: British Invisibles Burnett, R. 1993. 'The Popular Music Industry in Transition', Popular Music and Society, 17: 1, pp. 87114 Burnett, R. and Wikstrom, P. 2006. 'Music Production in the Times of Monopoly: The Example of Sweden', Popular Music and Society, 29: 5, pp. 575582 Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law. 2006. Review of the Economic Evidence Relating to an Extension of the Term of Copyright in Sound Recordings. London: H.M. Treasury Chapple, S., Garofalo, R. 1977. Rock and Roll is Here to Pay. Chicago: Nelson Hall Dane, C., Feist, A. and Laing, D. 1996. The Value of Music. London: National Music Council Dane, C., Feist, A. and Manton, K. 1999. A Sound Performance. London: National Music Council Dane, C. and Manton, K. 2002. Counting the Notes. London: National Music Council EKOS. 2005. Scottish Music Industry Association: Feasibility Study.
38
Edinburgh: Scottish Arts Council EKOS (2006): Scottish Music Industry Body: Consultation on the Current Need for a Scottish Music Industry Body. Glasgow: EKOS. Frith, S. 1978. TheSociology of Rock. London: Constable Frith, S. 2000. 'Music industry research: Where now? Where next? Notes from Britain', Popular Music, 19: 3, pp. 387393 Gander, J. and Rieple, A. 2002. 'Interorganisational relationships in the worldwide popular recorded music industry', Creativity and Innovation Management, 11: 4, pp. 248254 Gowers, A. 2006. Gowers Review of Intellectual Property. London: HM Treasury Graham, G. and Burnes, B. 2004. 'The transformation of the music industry supply chain', International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 24: 11, pp. 10871103 Hesmondhalgh, D. 1996. 'Flexibility, PostFordism And The Music Industries', Media, Culture and Society, 18: 3, pp. 469488 Hesmondhalgh, D. 2002. The Cultural Industries. London: SAGE Hirsch, P. 1969. The Structure of the Popular Music Industry. Michigan: University of Michigan International Association for the Study of Popular Music (IASPM). 2006. Submission to Gowers Review of Intellectual Property. London: H.M. Treasury International Federation of Phonographic Industries (IFPI). 2001. The Recording Industry in Numbers (2000). London: IFPI International Federation of Phonographic Industries (IFPI). 2006. The Recording Industry in Numbers 2005. London: IFPI Krueger, A. 2005. 'The Economics of Real Superstars: The Market for Rock Concerts in the Material World', Journal of Labor Economics, 23: 1, pp. 130 Leeds, J. 2006. 'Korn Sells A Stake In Itself', in New York Times, 1 Leyshon, A. 2001. 'Timespace (and Digital) Compression: Software formats, 39
musical networks and the reorganisation of the Music Industry', Environment and Planning, A: 32, pp. 4977 Leyshon, A., Webb, P., French, S., Thrift, N. and Crewe, L. 2005. 'On the reproduction of the musical economy after the internet', Media, Culture and Society, 27: 2, pp. 177209 Longhurst, B. 1995. Popular music and society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press McRobbie, A. 1993. 'Shut Up and Dance: Youth Culture and Changing Modes of Femininity', Cultural Studies, 7: 3, pp. 406426 Music Managers’ Forum (MMF). 2006. Submission to Gowers Review of Intellectual Property. London: H.M. Treasury Musicians’ Union (2006) Submission to Gowers Review of Intellectual Property. London: H.M. Treasury Negus, K. 1992. Producing pop: culture and conflict in the popular music industry. London: Edward Arnold Negus, K. 1996. Popular music in theory: an introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press in association with Blackwell Publishers Negus, K. 1998. 'Cultural Production and the corporation: musical genres and the strategic management of creativity in the US recording industry', Media, Culture and Society, 20: 3, pp. 359379 Negus, K. 1999. Music Genres and Corporate Cultures. London; New York: Routledge Olsberg SPI. 2006. Feasibility Study For A Music Sector Representative Body. London: Music Business Forum Phonographic Performance Limited (P.P.L). 2005. What Is P.P.L.? London: P.P.L. Phonographic Performance Limited (P.P.L.) 2006. Submission to Gowers Review of Intellectual Property. London: H.M. Treasury Peterson, R. 1990. 'Why 1955? Explaining the advent of rock music?' Popular Music, 19: 1, pp. 97115
40
Power, D. and Jansson, J. 2004. 'The emergence of a postindustrial music economy? Music and ICT synergies in Stockholm, Sweden', Geoforum, 35: 4, pp. 425439 Sanctuary Music Group. 2005. Annual Report 2004. London: Sanctuary Music Group Shuker, R. 2001. Understanding Popular Music. London: Routledge Talbot, M. 2005. 'MCPS Alliance lays down gauntlet over download rates', in Music Week, 10 December 2005, p. 3 Talbot, M. 2006. 'Throwing down the gauntlet', in Music Week, 16 December, p. 36 Toynbee, J. 2000. Making Popular Music. London: Arnold Williamson, J., Cloonan, M. and Frith, S. 2003. Mapping the Music Industry in Scotland: a report. Glasgow: Scottish Enterprise Wilson, N., Stokes, D. and Blackburn, R. 2001. Banking on a Hit. London: DCMS
41