In October of the year 2007 something happened that not many involved in the music business would have ever         expected to happen. The British electro-rock band Radiohead announced that they would publish their new album In Rainbows online – and basically for free! For a donation (the decision as to how big the fee would be was left to the downloader) everyone interested could download the entire album from the band’s homepage. Remarkable is not only the fact that the music was traded for virtually nothing; Radiohead had also left their record label EMI shortly in advance and had decided to release their album without the support of any type of label or publisher. According to the band it was their answer to the unethical practices of the major label. However, what seemed so new and surprising to many had actually been practiced in the music underground for some time. Netlabels publish their artists’ music entirely for free and musical activists fight against the dominance of the Big Four labels[1]. They are part of an ongoing history of music criticism and a reaction to the new behaviour of the fans. Furthermore, it is a natural part of the paradigm-shift in the music business making the musical freebies examples of a way  Album-cover of Radiohead's In Rainbows
of advertising the other activities of an artist, such as their concerts.

Radiohead - 15 Steps (from the album In Rainbows)

Especially in the last years many artists have claimed that the music industry and especially the major labels are behaving unethically. As already mentioned in my article on 360-degree deals, the music download-hype on the Internet has severely lowered the income from music sales for artists as well as labels. New types of contractual relationships have emerged that are adhesive and in some cases exploitative of the artists’ potential and impeding on their creative genius. Especially EMI[2] had gotten much press coverage. This was due to the company’s CEO Guy Hands, who had announced to fire another 2000 employees (additionally to the 5500 employees dismissed earlier) and to kick out “lazy stars” (Pilz, 2008). Furthermore, it became public that 95 percent of all artists never see any money from their record labels after the advance payment they get before the production of an album (Röttgers, 2003).

Thus, a new form of activism against the music industry and its practices has developed. Its aim: creating awareness among other musicians and the consumers as well as showing the industry that they do not have the absolute power and that certain copyright laws are nonsense. Its weapon: distributing free music online. The example of Radiohead leaving EMI and publishing a free album on the web is actually not an isolated case. Around the same time they left their record company other music celebrities as the Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney and Madonna did the same. Others, as Robbie Williams, are on strike (Pilz, 2008). The bands Coldplay and Nine Inch Nails have followed Radiohead’s example and made their songs available online at no charge. And the consumers enjoy making use of it.

 But what seems to be completely new and revolutionary in the mainstream music business has been practiced in the underground music scene for a while already. The free music movement on the web is bigger than one might expect. An organisation called Downhill Battle has taken up the cause of fighting against the music industry and especially the Big Four labels. Founded in 2003 they mainly protested against copyright laws to begin with. Not much later they referred to themselves as “a music activism project that is working to bring positive change to the music industry” (Carlsen et al., 2004). They hope that the sharing of files online will bring about a participatory music culture – giving more power to artists as well as to consumers - and provide a forum to
    Downhillbattle T-Shirt       Source: www.downhillbattle.org             independent labels. The web has become a tool for a liberal music culture. However, also the critique of the industry is not something that has only emerged with the Internet and this century.

Already in the 1940s Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer criticised what they called the ‘culture industry’. According to them individuality is erased through the will of the economic leaders. They say that entertainment is not really based on the consumers’ needs but rather generates a “circle of manipulation and retroactive need” (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1979, p. 105) and that “the attitude of the public, which ostensibly and actually favours the system of the culture industry, is a part of the system and not an excuse for it” (p. 106). Adorno and Horkheimer also disapproved of the standardisation of production, which presumably gives the consumer more choice and individuality, but in reality works in the opposite direction. Applying this on the music business, the consumer is caught in the industry’s web and gets told what he should like and want. He does not have an influence on what he can listen to. The artist, in turn, has to produce what is demanded. The industry continues pushing those acts that they think will be a hit instead of really listening to the needs of the consumers and fully using the creative potential of the artists.

The example of the criticism by Adorno and Horkheimer shows that it is not only about the relationship between musicians and labels, but also about the relationship to the consumers. A process of alienation has taken place, where consumers do not see the same value in music anymore that is seen by the corporations. It is a clash between the desire for individuality and the industrial merits of mass production and profit. As Baudrillard (1998) explains in his theory on a consumer society, a consumer’s needs are often imposed on him by the industry. Thus, the music buyers’ individual choice is limited through what is made available to them. Furthermore, the major labels through their domination of the market impede the music distribution of independent labels and hence diminish the market’s diversity and individuality (Goniprow, 2007). At the same time the artists – being the products – do not feel like their own company is trustworthy anymore. It is a form of brand activism where not only the consumers protest – also the products stand up for themselves.

It might seem only natural that the artists also follow the voice of their fans and do not only act according to their own interest. As Negus (1997) points out in his essay on the Production of Culture “practices of production take place in relation to the activities of consumption” (p. 102). The consumer wants the change. He wants to listen to music for free or at least for only a small amount of money. He does not only want the releases that manage to get through the filter of the system of music production. Today people retrieve a high amount of the music they listen to from the web, and they do not even always download it. Many consumers use platforms as MySpace or online radios as LastFM as a substitute for their analogue radio. Here they can listen to what they want, at any time and place and without any costs. Furthermore, putting music online has become the main means to advertise oneself as a musician[3]. Whoever wants to be famous in today’s music business simply cannot afford not to publish music on the web and to give free samples to their fans. On the other hand it is also an indication of the fact that many consumers disagree with the corporate behaviour and the prices of CDs imposed on them. The consumers become increasingly activist and boycott a company’s products, when they feel that something about it is unethical or the price not justified. The record companies will have to pay attention to this form of the so-called cultural activism and the social tensions that go along with it (Holt, 2004). Eventually they will have to react onto this new behaviour of music consumption.

The so-called netlabelsor weblabels have already adopted this new approach to music distribution. They are independent Internet platforms that offer music files for a mainly gratis download                                               Logo of the netblabel ID.EOLOGY  Source: www.ideology.de
(Säilä, 2006). Their origin dates back to the late 1980s, early 1990s and the electronic music scene. In the beginning small files with only a few sound tracks were exchanged via the first modems. In the mid-90s the first entire songs in mp3-format were already swapped among the fans. Websites were built and the netlabel scene became more professional. Today weblabels work in a similar manner their offline counterparts do. The netlabel ID.EOLOGY based in Cologne, Germany, is one of them. Founded in 2000 the idea was to provide an online platform for artists from the field of music and graphic-design. As the label’s name already promises the enterprise is more about idealism than about profit: A back to the roots approach, which dreams of the time before the organised music industry, when bards played their music for free and for everyone (Züger, 2004). The artists on weblabels are free from any constraints that the major record companies could impose on them – monetary or creative.

However, the heads behind ID.EOLOGY, and most of all other netlabels, also know that this is not the way to make a living. It can only raise the awareness level of the artists; money has to be earned via other sources - mainly through concerts (Züger, 2004). Moreover, the weblabels also encounter an increasing array of problems. The amount of online labels is growing rapidly and with this rising quantity a loss in quality coincides (Säilä, 2006). Special web-based guides are needed to separate the wheat from the chaff. Weblabels are the attempt to keep the identity and individuality in the music business, a wish in the tradition of Adorno and Horkheimer. However, besides their activism against the general patterns of the music industry and the idealism to practice liberal creativity, they cannot guarantee the artist a fixed income. The 360-degrees contract I referred to in Contracts in Dolby-Surround seems to be the only solution. Eventually, there is not much choice than giving up some of the individuality and to go major – the beginning of a vicious cycle. Only superstars such as Radiohead can afford to give out their music for free, since they will have sufficient income from other activities. Deliberately publishing free music will, for many artists, definitely function as a form of advertising for their other products. However, the impact it will have on the business ethics of the music industry is doubtful.


Notes

[1] Sony BMG, Universal-Vivendi, EMI and Warner Music

[2] Abbreviation of Electric and Music Industries

[3] see Interview with Moritz Sauer