The recent New York Times Sunday Magazine story, “The Creative Apocalypse That Wasn’t,” uses some broad government labor statistics and anecdotes from a handful of creative artists to make the misleading and specious argument that the Internet has been a boon for creative artists. In arguing that art survives despite technology, the piece blithely ignores the fact that many creative professionals themselves have been devastated by it.
Creators within the music community are finding it more difficult than ever to make a living at their craft, and much of that difficulty is directly traced to Internet-based music services that don’t compensate them fairly for use of their work. The digital revolution that began in the ‘90s ushered in an era of devaluation for intellectual property across a range of industries. As the article rightly points out, consumers expect music – and movies, magazines, and news coverage -- to be free or nearly free, and the Internet feeds that expectation.
True, many creators are taking advantage of a range of new Web-based platforms to expose their music. But that is a result of the collapse of more traditional methods of exposure, with no other options available but technology based outlets. Rather than treating music as the valuable investment of time and talent that it is, big business and well-funded startups see music as a cheap and readily commodifiable resource with which to build new music-based business models. The music services themselves are raking in money through advertising and/or subscription rates while the originators of the music are barely compensated due to antiquated royalty rates or below-market direct deals.
With streaming and satellite services offering creators fractions of pennies per play, and a falling number of downloads returning not much more than that, music makers must also look to other forms of ancillary income. The NYT piece gleefully points to the many side hustles today’s creators can engage in to make a buck, overlooking the fact that today’s mid-level music creators have been forced out of the professional class into a pool of part-timers and hobbyists. Many music creators don’t have the option of touring or teaching to fill in gaps in their incomes; not all songwriters and producers are live performers, and others don’t or can’t choose to live lives on the road.
The NYT’s pro-tech article takes a common position that blames creatives for their circumstances. We love music, say consumers and big business, but the welfare of the people who make it is none of our concern. The Internet is great – just work twice as hard and you can survive.
Imagine telling full-time newspaper writers -- those with journalism degrees and years of bylines under their belts -- that if they just start writing twice as many articles for more media outlets, start podcasting, perform live readings of their work, teach newswriting classes, and clean houses on the side, they can make ends meet. Oh wait -- that is exactly what the new tech environment is telling professional journalists who have seen newspaper and magazine staffs dwindle alongside paid readerships thanks to the Internet.
Imagine telling investment bankers that their salaries will be cut by more than 50 percent, but that they should not only maintain their work output but use the Internet to take advantage of opportunities to make up that shortfall by teaching online investment classes and offering one-on-one financial consultations. They can round that out by booking live lectures and offering to do taxes. The NYT piece makes comparably laughable suggestions.
If there is one thing about the article with which we can agree, it’s the statement that negates the main thesis: “Most full-time artists barely make enough money to pay the bills.”
That ultimately should be the point – that an innovation that enriches some at the expense of others should be seen for what it is. The digital revolution is a mixed blessing at best.
