You Get What You Pay For

In my post two weeks ago, I laid out a couple of predictions for the future. Today, I’d like to return to prediction number two, which stated:

“Remixes and mash-ups will fall from popularity, and we’ll look back at them as a pleasant enough yet insignificant fad.”

Several commenters cried out that this is utter foolishness, and they may be right. Regardless, I’ve been thinking recently about why remixes and mash-ups have become so abundant. Why now? What forces are behind this trend?

The most obvious answer is technological innovation, which has made it possible for every Joe Schmo with a computer and an internet connection to create his or her own product. The music world has thus been flooded with remixes and mash-ups, some of which are good, very few of which are great, and most of which are utterly forgettable.

But another reason, I think, has to do with money. Remixes and mashups are cheap—it costs nothing (or at least very little) to create a remix or mash-up. Almost everyone has a computer already, and beyond that, all you need is some software and digital music files. And, when your average consumer pays nothing for recorded music, it’s no surprise that the world will be filled by cheap products. Why pay for studio time, instruments, production, marketing, etc. when there’s no money to be made by it?

Back in the early days of file sharing, when we were downloading tracks from Napster, it was easy to think that we were doing no harm, that the music industry would continue as it always had. But that clearly isn’t the case. I believe that we’re now seeing the results of our piracy. If we, the listeners, aren't paying for music, then who is? In short, we are getting what we pay for. (Side note: this isn't happening in all industries. Look at the film industry, for example: Avatar, the most expensive movie ever made, is shaping up to be potentially the most lucrative movie ever made as well. It’s pretty impossible to imagine this phenomenon happening in music anytime soon.)

I know that there are many counter-arguments. Some will argue that live music is doing better than ever, and that may be true. Don’t get me wrong, live music is great. But if the only way a band can make money is to tour, the result is less time in the studio, and less time writing songs. Others will argue that art shouldn’t be about money, that great music will be made whether there’s money in it or not. And on some level, I agree with that. But it can’t be a good thing that we, the listening public, have removed all financial incentive for an artist to devote him- or herself to the recording studio. Many will point to how bloated and inefficient the record industry had become before its demise, and that's a good point. But if a leaner, more efficient record industry emerges in the future (or if bands increasingly adopt the In Rainbows model), will we be ready to pay up?

Here's what it boils down to: If we value great recordings, if we value the album as a musical format, then we have to show that by exchanging value of one form (money) for another (whether it’s a CD, mp3, or LP). Folks, it’s time that we pay up—if we don’t, we’ll just be left with a world of increasingly cheap and unsatisfying music. And that is not a world in which I want to live.

The Beatles - A Day in the Life (YSI) (dropbox)
Neil Young - Words (Between the Lines of Age) (YSI) (dropbox)
Pink Floyd - Money (YSI) (dropbox)