Here you can read full article..
On June 1st 1999, 19-year-old Shawn Fanning put the beta version of his Napster MP3 sharing program on the Internet. Less than a year later, one of the largest metal bands in the world, Metallica, sued Fanning and his new company for copyright and racketeering.
The Napster story ushered in a new debate that centered on the intersection of art, technology, and copyright.
For years artists had grumbled about record labels, cable networks and distributors controlling them, restricting their artistic freedom, and taking more than their fair share of the coffers. Napster offered a new way for artists to reach their fans. While the labels and networks condemned this as “piracy,”many artists detected the first ripple of a new revolution.
Since those early days, almost every aspect of the artist’s toolbox has been democratized. Inaccessible and expensive recording studios have been replaced by laptops and audio interfaces. Video has jumped from suited-and-booted broadcasters to self-serve video-sharing sites. Audience engagement has gone from print media and traditional marketing to social and interactive media.
John F. Kennedy once said, “If art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him.” It seems that artists have never been freer.
A New Era
But are they freer?
As with many of these kinds of technological changes, the intellectually considered implications and very real consequences can be rather different.
To get a better sense of how technology has impacted the production and distribution of artistic works, I sat down with Mike Shinoda, co-founder of grammy award-winning Linkin Park, who have sold over 60 million albums worldwide.
I have known Mike for a few years and he is a tremendously talented artist, not just in terms of his musical output, but also his approach to delivering his work to his fans. We first delved into the quite visibly disrupted distribution model.
“Inspiration and artistic expression drive our music-making process,” says Shinoda. He continues, “but the distribution choices haven’t really affected the way we approach a song yet”.
Linkin Park released its breakthrough album “Hybrid Theory” six months after Metallica filed its complaint in the courts against Napster. The album went on to sell 27 million copies worldwide, despite being born at the beginning of what some referred to as the new age of music piracy.
It is tempting to use the benefit of hindsight to poke fun at Metallica’s seeming shortsightedness, but we should bear in mind that this was a different era.
Metallica grew up in a time when the record deal was the ultimate reward and milestone of “making it.” In that world, scarcity played an important economic role: people had to buy records to listen to music. It is not surprising that Metallica and its management felt unnerved by the notion of that scarcity component possibly going away.
Shinoda is part of a newer generation that took a more pragmatic approach to distribution, “my current attitude is, ‘go where the fans go.’ The fans live everywhere on the Web, and I haven’t seen any real evidence that you can teach or force them to behave a certain way.”
He continues, “right now, the hot debate regarding streaming is about freemium (Spotify) versus paid (Apple/Beats). We do our best to not only have a robust presence on every viable platform, but innovate within each platform to make the best fan experience.”
Shinoda touches on what I feel is the key determining factor that has led artists to be successful in a new era of technology: innovation.
While the venerable record deal was traditionally the milestone of success, what it really symbolized was acceptance into controlled distribution channels. While many of those channels still do exist, technology is opening up the ability for other channels to exist better than ever and get connected to more and more people.
Innovation
My wife and I have a two-and-half-year-old son. Rather unsurprisingly, he loves my iPad and YouTube. One of his favorite YouTube channels is by someone who calls herself DisneyCollectorBR. This soft-spoken lady with a tremendously soothing voice unboxes toys and surprise eggs and films them. Toddlers love it; it is the buzz of a new toy on their birthday in every video. She has 4.6 million subscribers.
The DisneyCollectorBR example demonstrates an uprooted distribution culture. While there have always been niche indie record labels and production studios, they have usually existed on the outer edges of popularity, typically coined the “underground”.
The difference in the modern distribution model is that these outer edges have the potential of becoming more popular than the inner circle, and many are.
According to Google, YouTube attracts 1 billion users a month. The SuperBowl, considered one of the major broadcast events of the year in the United States, only attracts 114 million viewers.learly the distribution channels have changed, but is this really innovation?
Shinoda believes that innovation goes beyond distribution and is also about understanding and connecting to your audience.
“We’ve got more data on our fans than ever before, which allows us to understand how to give them what they want,” Shinoda says.
He continues, “for example, we know that over two-thirds of our fans live outside the US, they range from 13-35, they’re roughly 50/50% male/female, most of them are gamers, and 80% of them were pleased with our set list on the last tour.”
What is evident from Linkin Park’s success over the years is that innovation is not just about musical creativity. It is about understanding the lifecycle of your art from inception to creation to distribution and to engagement.
This got me thinking. While the technology has changed over the years with music, the cadence really hasn’t. Bands are still writing, recording, and releasing their work at a similar pace to bands from 20 years ago.
Technology has brought about tremendous performance and miniaturization benefits, but the creative process is still as unpredictable and chaotic as ever. The technology may have gotten faster, but our brains haven’t.
Cadence
There is another world though in which cadence plays a much more critical role: journalism.
The news industry has been through a similar technology revolution that echoes familiarity of the changes from the music world: new technology that empowers creators, multiple distribution mechanisms, and a growing educated audience.
To get a sense of how technology has impacted this fast-paced industry I sat down with Ali Velshi, a host on Al Jazeera America and formerly CNN’s Chief Business Correspondent. As I discovered recently at the event where I met him, he is also a remarkably gifted raconteur.
“Technology has made news gathering faster, more efficient, and more fun. 5D cameras, smartphone cameras, GoPros, laptops with Final Cut Pro, Facebook, Vine, Periscope – technology allows us to do our jobs better, smarter and faster”, says Velshi.
He continues, “The risk, aside from being too self-contained and too easily connected without checks and balances in the process, is allowing the technology to take over the journalism. Nothing is more important or necessary than thorough research, good questions and a great script. Nothing!”
While technology has always upped the production values in music and movies, in journalism increased production values don’t necessarily increase quality. To Velshi’s point, the quality in journalism is orientated around research and analysis, which could be delivered with relatively poor production values.
While it is evident that technology is improving the ability for Velshi and his colleagues to get to the heart of a story quicker, he believes the real impact of technology has been in impacting how we consume our news.
“My personal news and information consumption has increased exponentially in the past decade thanks entirely to technology and strong thumbs!” says Velshi. He continues, “but that increase in consumption is meaningless compared to how I now share and interact with what I read and write. That particular change has been the most stunning change.”
Velshi touches on another nuance in this new distribution culture. Traditionally, we would consume news and the process was one-directional from the news provider. Today our news invariably comes in a form that is easily sharable, and that provides an opportunity for us to add our own flavor and analysis to it.
Velshi illustrates this, “We share, even over-share, with ease. I can write a headline in 140 characters and get feedback, and pushback, within seconds from the newsmakers themselves or from people simply interested in the story. That’s incredible. The challenge with all this change is avoiding the echo chamber. It’s just too easy to hear all the news you want and filter out what you don’t.”
While sharing is undoubtedly valuable, does sharing pose a risk to the authenticity of news?
Velshi believes that there is a filtration process, “the publisher and co-owner of the Washington Post, Phil Graham, said ‘news is the first rough-draft of history’ and social media and internet news sites provide a rough-rough-draft.”
He continues, “Before smartphones and the Internet, being first with breaking news had purpose (albeit the purpose was mostly bragging rights). These days being first is ‘click bait’. Stories get tweeted without much detail or sourcing until eventually more traditional journalism and some ‘crowd sourcing’ catches up with the story and facts and context get provided”.
Velshi is firmly of the view that technology doesn’t undermine the news; it forces us to challenge ourselves, be better and fill the need that initial reports (all headline, no detail) sometimes create. This has resulted in a culture of sharing and the ability to build on and derive additional works that can provide different perspectives.
Remix Culture
This notion of derived works leads us to an interesting side-effect that has bubbled to the surface with the digitization and distribution of media, be it music, movies, or news: the ability to remix.
For centuries remixing has been a staple part of creativity. Folklore existed long before copyright. Folk songs, art, and poetry were constantly revised and improved by others.
With the birth of digital distribution, a remix culture has grown and prospered. The Internet is filled with mashups, remixes, and more, and while some stalwarts have attempted to restrict the ability for people to create derivative works, the remix culture as largely persevered.
Remixing requires a delicate balance, though. While imitation (and derivation) can be the finest form of flattery, it can also be perceived as ripping someone off.
Velshi believes that the fine line of rights and respect between the original work and the remix depends largely on the type of content.
“In general I’d say remixes are excellent entertainment and there’s often a nuanced sophistication to them that’s often appreciated.” He continues, “I think most artists/creatives/storytellers (including yours truly) like seeing how their work influences or inspires others.”
Shinoda shares a similar perspective, having already shared a number of his instrumental and a capella tracks on iTunes. While supportive of this culture, Shinoda also notes that there are subtleties in how these remixes are executed that helps to determine how acceptable a remix is in the eyes of the author of the original work.
“Technology creates a blurry line between the professional and the amateur and this line only gets blurrier as we go.” He continues, “Is the remixer a DJ playing the song at a club? Probably OK. Are they selling the remix, and monetizing a YouTube video created for the song without cutting in the artist who wrote the song? That starts to look pretty shady.”
What is clear is that a remix culture has multiple implications: financial, copyright, competition, and other elements. There is obviously no standard algorithm for what defines a remix as more acceptable than something else, but sensitivity towards the original piece seems appropriate.
Velshi seemingly shares this perspective, “When that [a remix] happens, though, the impact of the original work might not be what one hoped.” He continues, “Just be ready for that because there’s certainly no stopping a remix from happening and potentially spreading.”
Conclusion
This all brings us full-circle back to the Kennedy quote I shared at the beginning of this article: “If art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him.”
There is little doubt in my mind that content creators are more empowered than ever. If we compare and contrast the technology and distribution options back in the pre-Napster days to today, there is no question that significant barriers to building an audience have been broken down.
This doesn’t mean it is easy though. When you break down the barriers, more people get into the game. With more people, there is more competition for eyes and ears. This is Chris Anderson’s Long Tail theory in action.
Ultimately, irrespective of the tools and technology, what sets the successful creators apart is great content and innovation in how it is delivered. This democratization of the creative landscape has now put the responsibility and opportunity of getting that content seen into the hands of the creators, and less dependent on record labels and studios.
“Forever, organizations have gotten in between fans and artists, taken advantage of artists, and leveraged artists to make money without cutting the artists in” says Shinoda. He continues, “Usually they argue they provide a service or skill the artist doesn’t have, or they’re simply more experienced and outsmarted the artists. But artists have more skills, more tools, and more awareness about the landscape than ever. I think we’re going to see some interesting changes in the next few years."