Music Industry Madness: The Monetization of Music

Author's Note: This post reflects the concepts and ideas learned in Chapter 7 from "Media Ethics: Issues and Cases" by Philip Patterson, Lee Wilkins, and Chad Painter. It is used for educational purposes.

Chapter 7: Many of us have had our fair share of interactions with music. From the transition of records to iPods to streaming, big names in the music industry have also shifted. They now focus on branding and monetization of artists and their sound. If you're one of the few people who still listen to underground music from artists whose names many of us have never heard of, in all honesty, you are the essence of ethically listening.

Much of what we listen to everyday implicitly contains ethical concerns due to the nature of placing a monetary value on products and ideas. Jumping off of this idea, I often find myself thinking about the times I remember my Dad saying, "Music just isn't the same as it used to be," and how the music used to simply "just be about the music." There was no need for branding or $100 merchandise.

This experience made me wonder how we ended up where we are today.

You may wonder how the music industry and ethics collide. Do not worry, I did, too. It is something I still try to comprehend to this day. Whenever I think of my Dad mentioning the simplicity music used to be, I cannot help but think of the 2000 film Almost Famous, which follows a teenager whose passion was to become a music journalist in the 1970s. The main character lands a job with Rolling Stone and covers a story about a new and upcoming rock band.

The band's initial manager, someone who passionately promotes the band's creative development, loses his job because the record label deemed him unfitting to increase sales rapidly. This film calls to mind the course textbook's point about how the "corporate approach meant that managers now focus on quarterly profits and selling records rather than making music and promoting art."

Music streaming apps like Spotify prides themselves on being an accessible music listening tool in today's society. Not only can members listen to thousands of artists, but they can also create and/or listen to playlists that fit their needs. What's more, those who want to skip ads and have access to an even wider variety of customized playlists created by Spotify - like Spotify Wrapped - can pay monthly for Spotify Premium. This feature establishes a monetized experience for individuals to listen to music, calling to mind ethical dilemmas that demand answers: Is Spotify Premium truly necessary? Does placing a monetary value for a premium feature take away from the true meaning and purpose of the art of music? How does Spotify aid in branding and monetization with artists on their platform?

Considering Michael Sandel's argument, which states "...that in this century, economic language - where everything has to be marketed and incentivized - has not only crowded out moral thinking but has sometimes changed our conception of what it means to have a good life in the sense that Aristotle meant it -- to have a life with authentic flourishing," I begin to consider if the monetization and marketing in today's music world are truly necessary. Is it ethical to monetize music and how people experience it aside from only focusing on the art of music?

In this situation, Michael Sandel would have us question if the world of music can still be "a good life" if there was no monetization of an artist/music? What if artists never sold that $100 commemorative merchandise? What if Spotify didn't sell you the experience of being a Premium member? From a concert to Spotify artist experiences, Sandel sees that the moment we place an economical language to the world of music, the more we drift away from a good and ethical (life)style. Essentially, the moment we set a price on the musical experience, Sandal would argue that a sense of fairness strips away society's ability to experience music's sole artistic nature.

Additionally, it questions how this industry builds a "capacity to fuel corruption" for future musical experience (especially in a time of COVID-19, when concerts are all online now). However, at what cost does the lie come at? How will it affect how society will experience music in the future? Will they enjoy the blend of music and branding or yearn for music's simplicity and focus on its innately artistic value?

Reflecting upon experiences involving my favorite talents, I can't help but question if the music industry's focus on artists lies within their image or music. Have I been giving in to the monetization of the music media world? And questioning if, as Sandel thinks, the monetization of music brings upon the so-called "good life" (in this case, good effect) on society? I often think about how it could relate to who I am - my values. Would I want people to know me based on my image only? Or would I want them to know about my personality and the things that shape who I am?

If I were a musician, I would want to grow in my career - build my name - but not lose myself and stick to my music. According to Aristotle's beliefs, this concept is something that he would believe I could find a balance between the two on. Aristotle's Golden Means applies to the monetization of the music industry, for it would state that for artists and labels to find an ethical balance to their work, they must find a balance between music as an art and music as a brand.

When we take a step back and understand how the music industry's economic control and branding of artists take away the purpose of the art of music for audiences to listen to, we can call to mind Aristotle's Golden Means, which values an individual's ability to flourish by making virtuous choices. Through two extreme behaviors, the mean between two extremes. When a person or industry, in this case, finds a moderate position between two extremes, they end up acting ethically.

This concept seamlessly intertwines in but is not limited to the world of music production and branding. When the balance between the greediness of the monetization of the music industry and the sloth-like artist growth when artists choose to only focus on their music and not their brand in a society that now intertwines the two, believing it creates success, we must find a balance between the two. Greediness and sloth-like behaviors seem on opposite ends of the spectrum, but in reality, if we meet somewhere in the middle - creating a balance - we can strive for ambition. Artists and big names in the music industry would identify how to place the vitality of music as art while finding a middle ground of branding that promotes the artist, not only for monetary gain but also for their belief and passion for the music they create.

In a world without the ruling of influential record labels that manage artists and streaming companies that share their music for economic advantage, the reality is that it would be difficult for companies to successfully grow without the world of monetization and contracted producers/managers. Spotify would not have the same experiences to offer since it would be too costly to have it, making people feel a part of society. When people post about the Spotify Wrapped playlist, it monetizes people's relationship with music rather than focuses on emotions and artistic perspective. We could defund musical managers based on their monetization of an artist or even treat Spotify's premium features the same for all. However, what cost does that come at?

The overlooked ethics behind the music industry's overly economic take on artists' monetization is nothing new. However, where is the quality behind the artist's work and creation? However, when we consider the values/ideas listed above, we unknowingly don't realize how much we have forgotten what it means to be valued for an artist's hard work and creations and live to see the monetization of their work.

---

Have you ever wondered the same about the music industry? What did you find interesting about this post? Anything you agree with? Disagree? Let me know in the comments below!