blog
The Politics of Resistance, Dynamics of "Small Groups," and Engaged Intermediaries as "Super-nodes"
Archives
171 entries
Back to Latest Entries
Back to Latest Entries
We have been speaking recently about the tough issue of labels as "micro businesses" not being able to sustain a business model once they extend the line-up of artists beyond a neat box that defines their "brand" that a time-starved and/or fickle consumer can relate to and financially support over a sustainable period. "Micro labels" seem to put a workable business model at risk when they stray too far in support of diversity. On the other hand, artists by nature resist authority and resent having to channel their creative efforts according to an "established formula".
How then can the music industry of the future find the happy medium between two very powerful, but conflicting, forces at work in society: (1) the natural proclivity among artists to be, in socio-political terms, on the forefront of "resistence" [being the natural human tendency to resist authority] and (2) the need for the "iconoclast" still to survive in an industrialized, consumer-oriented society?
In trying to craft an answer to this challenging question, I myself am largely moving towards the dynamics of "small groups" and the "politics of resistance" [a growing field of academic study] as being a possible way forward.
The study of the effective operation of "small groups" covers such a span of organizations from evangelical religious groups, micro-finance networks, to global terrorists. The power of "small groups" operates at two levels, the level of intimacy and trust [level one - which implies a closely knit network of nodes] and the level of "connectedness" or linkages in a hierarchy [level two - which implies a robust structure of interacting "supernodes" and "tipping points"]. We touched briefly on this subject in previous blogs.
It is my intuition that delving more into "small group" theory and "social/resistance movements" may help us to develop a practical business model that works. That is to say, we need a model that enables more artists to make a decent living in our society and, at the same time, permits them to be the free-spirited, independent individuals that most creative persons are. However, and this is key, small group theory and the socio-political concepts of resistance have to be applied in a web-based context that is more relevant to our times.
Based on my observation of how artists have been largely unable to "work the web" as individuals [through disinterest or lack of web-savvy, whatever], the "small group solution" may be the answer by providing the power of collective action [at level one] but in the context of a network of interacting "intermediaries" [at level two] who focus on the business side of music, and more particularly on the time-consuming task of creating and maintaining two-way communications, and leave the artists to "do their thing". These intermediaries, being micro-labels or knowledgeable managers, will provide the necessary "super-nodal" linkages in a cascading hierarchy of networks [within networks within networks] to provide the leverage to economic success.
One knowledgeable digital pundit, Clay Shirky, has observed that (i) the production of music is now heavily digital and (ii) the reproduction and distribution of music is also digital; but, (iii) the most important parts at a record label are Artists and Repertoire and Marketing because "[it] is still hard to find and publicize good new music.". I would add to this observation that the job of the "digital intermediary" is still to act as a "go-between" to facilitate discourse between artist and fan. I argue that this is a tough job that cannot be [and should not] be fully automated.
Small group dynamics, the politics of resistance, and engaged intermediaries sound conceptual, but if we hone in on these interacting elements as a "framing exercise", we may in due course have a real business model that works in the brave new world of music with an effective two-way "collaborative filtering" system. What do you think?
How then can the music industry of the future find the happy medium between two very powerful, but conflicting, forces at work in society: (1) the natural proclivity among artists to be, in socio-political terms, on the forefront of "resistence" [being the natural human tendency to resist authority] and (2) the need for the "iconoclast" still to survive in an industrialized, consumer-oriented society?
In trying to craft an answer to this challenging question, I myself am largely moving towards the dynamics of "small groups" and the "politics of resistance" [a growing field of academic study] as being a possible way forward.
The study of the effective operation of "small groups" covers such a span of organizations from evangelical religious groups, micro-finance networks, to global terrorists. The power of "small groups" operates at two levels, the level of intimacy and trust [level one - which implies a closely knit network of nodes] and the level of "connectedness" or linkages in a hierarchy [level two - which implies a robust structure of interacting "supernodes" and "tipping points"]. We touched briefly on this subject in previous blogs.
It is my intuition that delving more into "small group" theory and "social/resistance movements" may help us to develop a practical business model that works. That is to say, we need a model that enables more artists to make a decent living in our society and, at the same time, permits them to be the free-spirited, independent individuals that most creative persons are. However, and this is key, small group theory and the socio-political concepts of resistance have to be applied in a web-based context that is more relevant to our times.
Based on my observation of how artists have been largely unable to "work the web" as individuals [through disinterest or lack of web-savvy, whatever], the "small group solution" may be the answer by providing the power of collective action [at level one] but in the context of a network of interacting "intermediaries" [at level two] who focus on the business side of music, and more particularly on the time-consuming task of creating and maintaining two-way communications, and leave the artists to "do their thing". These intermediaries, being micro-labels or knowledgeable managers, will provide the necessary "super-nodal" linkages in a cascading hierarchy of networks [within networks within networks] to provide the leverage to economic success.
One knowledgeable digital pundit, Clay Shirky, has observed that (i) the production of music is now heavily digital and (ii) the reproduction and distribution of music is also digital; but, (iii) the most important parts at a record label are Artists and Repertoire and Marketing because "[it] is still hard to find and publicize good new music.". I would add to this observation that the job of the "digital intermediary" is still to act as a "go-between" to facilitate discourse between artist and fan. I argue that this is a tough job that cannot be [and should not] be fully automated.
Small group dynamics, the politics of resistance, and engaged intermediaries sound conceptual, but if we hone in on these interacting elements as a "framing exercise", we may in due course have a real business model that works in the brave new world of music with an effective two-way "collaborative filtering" system. What do you think?
Comments
The artist who has not been with a major label and is without the connections that comes with that need not fret. I read interview after interview about how artists are using the internet to level the playing field for themselves in the music industry. The unknown artists only need to trust themselves first, then put that trust into motion with finding the right number of people to assist in their endeavor. It dosen't have to be a large group of people as in the past. Just a small core group of folks bound by their trust in one another to make things happen for the artist.
Now of course this takes time and effort for the artist to compile this core group. And in the meantime, the hours spent not creating music must be spent on the web and on the telephone, further creating that core group that can become the micro-label that can truly get things done and move careers forward. For the unknown artist, going at a career in this manner is social resistance from the traditional pathways previously established by the major record companies. Still largely uncharted, I agree with TCC that a new and very real business model can be created that does work in the brave new world of music.
BB
BB, it occurs to me, as it must have to you, that unknown artists or start-up "micro labels" [often just being an individual or band in a bedroom/garage] need, so-called intermediaries with "experience" [like your goodself] or with the enthusiasm and energy of youth [like many on this site - u know who u are] to succeed in the new web-based environment.
Perhaps we can utilize the power of (i) an open platform like Fuzz [or others], (ii) collective "sharing" of costs, and (iii) allocation of revenue generating activities according to "value-added" functions to create a workable Fuzz Music Collective [independent of the Fuzz Label itself] that is the amalgam of artists, existing labels in search of new solutions, web-experienced IT and MUSIC professionals, academics, and business persons [like thecapitalclinic], as well as energetic adventurers of all shapes and sizes.
Indeed, in many respects, that is the very dynamic that is developing as we write about it. Let's see what happens here.
Iconoclastic artists these days, fighting to insert themselves into the picture as agents-in-the-world while engaging in a push-and-pull with the economic powers that be, would be well-advised to review the works of these two Frenchies: Pierre Bourdieu (particularly "Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste" and "Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture") and Guy DeBord (particularly "Society of the Spectacle"). While they can both be pretty dense, particularly the Bourdieu, there is also a lot of inspiration to be found in them. Malcolm MacLaren (the guy who put together the Sex Pistols and was a big part in the invention of punk rock) was a huge DeBord fan. I think these folks are more relevant than ever today, and their action ideas are more achievable than they have ever been thanks to the internet.
For a quick overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Bourdieu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Debord
also, take a look at Marshall McLuhan while you are at it...He is quite a bit more accessible, as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan
The latter point is especially important, take for example The Beatles' Apple label. There was at that time I think no label which had more top hits than Apple (not only Beatles but other artists like Badfinger). So points a-c worked well for them, but on point d they missed. But I would be interested in your point of view on Apple.
Thanks for your cool commentaries, they are a delight to read and think about.
To tibii: Please refer to my Op-Ed II on Virtual Capital and Power Laws which addresses some of the points you raise. I daresay, if Apple [which as you point out was the holding vehicle for many of the early Beatle hits] had deployed the Rule of Three by Three to leverage their already substantial capital asset base, that company could have changed the face of the music industry. To me, the Apple example reinforces my thesis that even the best of artists may well need the trusted and knowledgeable "business" intermediary to facilitate their interaction as "path-breaking" persons with the broader consumption-oriented mass market.
This an opportune time to develop a New Fuzz Music Collective for the reasons discussed below.
To john geek: This is quite a line-up: Piere Bourdieu, Guy Debord, and Marshall McLuhan. Let me attempt to "blog-distill" in some quick take-away quotes how these formidable truth-seekers might view the [perhaps false] dichotomy of the (i) soul-searching requirements of artists as natural "inner directed" resisters of authority on the one hand and (ii) the social/economic pressures of an "other directed" consumption-driven society, on the other hand, that we have been discussing above [the bold-face emphasis has been added by me].
1. Bourdieu attempts "to transcend a series of oppositions which characterized the social sciences (subjectivism/objectivism, micro/macro, freedom/determinism)." "He extended the idea of capital to categories such as social capital, cultural capital, and symbolic capital. For Bourdieu each individual occupies a position in a multidimensional social space; he or she is not defined by social class membership, but by the amounts of each kind of capital he or she possesses." Thus, he attempts to show empirically that..."despite the apparent freedom of choice in the arts, people's artistic preferences (e.g. classical music, rock, traditional music) strongly correlate with their social position."
2. "Debord's theories attempted to account for the spiritually debilitating modernisation of both the private and public spheres of everyday life by economic forces during the post-WW2 modernisation of Europe. He rejected as the twin faces of the same problem both capitalism of the West and the statism of the Eastern bloc." "...alienation is more than an emotive description or an aspect of individual psychology: rather, it is a consequence of the mercantile form of social organization which has reached its climax in capitalism." Dubord and his works, " will still be remembered a hundred years from now - were written by someone who regarded himself as 'a professional revolutionary working in the cultural field'."
3. " The main concept of McLuhan's argument (later elaborated upon in The Medium is the Message) is that new technologies (like alphabets, printing presses, and even speech itself) exert a gravitational effect on cognition, which in turn affects social organization: print technology changes our perceptual habits ("visual homogenizing of experience"), which in turn affects social interactions..."
It is an intriguing challenge that john geek poses to reduce the foregoing selective ideas to a common thread of relevance in today's web-based world; however, for the sake of advancing the Fuzz cause at this critical juncture, allow me to suggest that each of these seminal thinkers could provide intellectual support and find emotional resolution in the notion of the establishment of a Fuzz Music Collective, alluded to above.
I think Fuzz artists and their affiliated boutique labels should pursue further the idea of a new web-based "Fuzz Music Collective" based on an "open application platform" [as opposed to the "walled-garden" approach taken by social network platforms like MySpace and Facebook] because I think the collaborative power of unfiltered collective action has the potential to resolve many of the vexing issues we have been addressing of late about how independent artists [and trusted facilitators/boutique labels] can co-exist and thrive in a symbiotic relationship in the modern digital era.
As I stated elsewhere, I think the tri-partite relationship of Artist/Facilitator/Platform will be critical to development of a viable music business model of the future.
Actually, I understand that Fuzz is launching [hopefully this week] an innovation that has a "knock-your-socks-off" potential to kick-start the notion of a Fuzz Music Collective. As this new "application platform" is released [along with the "new look" of a more intuitive Fuzz site], I will start to blog more about this initiative to try to give the potential new business model some practical legs.
While it is premature to state that the new Fuzz application platform is truly "open", I think the inevitable tide of pressure of the artists and their fans embracing the new application platform will make it so in due course.