Through the past few years digital technology has grown and this has resulted in a dramatic change in the way we produce, distribute and cosume music from growing and well known artists. The relationship between the producers, distribution team and finally us the consumer can be believed to be very unethical. Due to the way the money is not fairly divided up and the rights to the music do not go to where they should be, the artist, the one who writes the music. This is because the company of the where the music was recorded has ownership on the music for between 50 to 70 years. In addition to rights another problem that accures when discussing the relationship between these three parties is financial problems. The producer pays for all costs towards the artists to get their music. Then the distributors get involved and pay for all the promotion of the artist to ensure it is successful and well known before the music is released, and finally the consumers that buy the music produced by the artist. Within these three categorise the producer gets the most money back. I personally believe this is morally wrong. The artist should be allowed to receive as much money as possible, as they have created the music and the producers have just helped get the music formed into a digital format. Although another way to look at it is if the producers are wealthy they may be more likely to help out more growing artists and bands into getting their music recorded.
Technology lately has had an astronomical effect on music. What with the evolution of the illegally downloading, sharing files and the likes of the style of grooveshark and spotify websites getting made.
There are newer ways to receive your favourite music which sometimes involve not even moving from your chair. It can be a mere 3 clips away, and there is your album you've been wanting for, for months. The younger population are the biggest consumers at the moment and they tend to not conform and get their music for free from various downloading sites where things like bittorrenting are used. So although the growing technology is fantastic is it causing major problems in the music industry. Because the public not paying for music ricochets money problems to both groups; producers and distributors. The producer will be using their money to create an album for an artist then when that album is released receiving next to no money to get put back into the company. To pay for things like their technology, wages and repairs if things go wrong in the studio. The distributors also majorly lose out, they would be putting all their time and efforts getting the artist promoted like going to interviews on the televison and getting adverts made for them which all costs money and they would have no way of getting that said money back as not as many people as there used to be actually go out and buy the records.
Websites like spotify are aimed at teenagers and are loved as you are able to listen to music for free, this is however in comparison to bittorrently completely legal to take part in. The free spotify version allows the listener 10 hours of music per month, which is a pretty decent offer considering it is for free. But once you upgrade you have an unlimited amount of time to listen to music. You can either download spotify premium for £9.99 per month or Spotify unlimited for £4.99 per month. Some artists have opted to not be added to Spotify. Additionally, some artists are missing in certain regions due to licensing restrictions imposed by the record labels. For example, The Beatles are not available because of a digital distribution agreement that is exclusive to iTunes. On iTunes there are no free streaming options, you are only allowed to listen to a part of the song for free and to lisen to the rest you would have to purchase it. But a single song can sometimes cost 99p which is a bit pricey.
Case studies show us how a big label has responsed to success. You see how SONY UK took over emi because emi was under-going money issues and had lost its right for copy rights. It shows how powerful one wealthy company can be. Because big companies will expand and buy other companies not experiencing as much success out. With this all going on the artist that may be involved with these kinds of companies will not have much say in what is going on behind the scenes. As sony are not just involved in the music industry, they are the creators of many amazing technology products like; cameras, televisions, laptops, computers, stereo-surround sound and more. This makes the brand and name very well known in the technology world and this will help them to retain their custormer bases.
Small companies like ghost records, domino and XL that is the name behind the likes of Adele, Dizzee Rascal and The Prodigy operate in a more relaxed way compared to the bigger companies like SONY UK. Within smaller companies the artist is allowed to have more free will and say in what goes on during the making of their album. Richard Russell, the recording boss of XL said to help survive in the music industry is to have a 'small release schedule is fundamental' to keep the quality of the record steady. He also stated that 'only sign about on artist a year' this means that they have less to get stressed about and they they are allowed to just concentrate on the few artist they have signed. There is major evidence to prove that small companies are extremely powerful in their own right. Take for example the likes of Adele's newest album '21' that was released at the beginning on this year, it has already sold over 1 million copies and her fan base is quickly growing by the day and it is all thanks to XL being able to concentrate on amazingly talented artists like Adele. Instead of signing on loads of artists that may only make one or two album before fizzling out.
Digital technology brings the cosumer and artist closer as in there are the likes of popular celebrities on twitter, where the artist can promote their upcoming album release for their many follows to then witness them posts. The consumer having the opinion to follow their favourite artist will add a more personal relationship between the two. Because the consumer will get to have an insight into their day to day life and know their favourite musical artist more. This may form a bond, the cosumer may feel more in need to buy the album instead of illegally downloading the album for free that would not help the artists growth in the slightest, they might want to know that they are helping their favourite artist get even more successful which would mean purchasing the album or single.
There are many advantages and disadvantages to smaller and larger companies. With the smaller companies it may take longer to get well known in the publics eye whereas larger companies like Simon Cowells 'Syco Music' you pretty much get instantly famous when on that label. For example the likes of the new band called 'One Direction' they have only been around less than a year yet they have already had their only two singles released as of yet in the UK top five. In additon to this 'Olly Murs' has received a quick dose of fame when on 'Syco Music'. In my opinion 'Syco Music' is mainly aimed at the more mainstream genres of music.
Where as XL, a smaller company, contains many different types of music. For instance The Prodigy, they are a big band within fans of that genre but they're not well known across the music board. This is because XL believe in the artist having a say as to what their music and band are going to be like. Whereas in bigger companies where the likes of One Direction are, they are manipulated into being what the main music audience are looking for but in the mean time that might not be what the artist itself wants and feels comfortable being like.
Being able to download music on the go onto your mobile phone helps the modern growing music industry. People may not have time to goto their local town where their HMV is so the facilities such as 'Cloud' and 'Android' are very appealing to that kind of audience.
