Music Industry History

The history of the music industry is, arguably, one of increasing institutional control, narrowing access to the means of production and distribution, and a widening gap between music's social origins and its commercial role.In early traditional societies that lacked the capacity to turn music into a static object, either through the printed score or through recording technologies, music was synonymous with live performance. This living music was, by and large, integrated into the fabric of life and shared among the community in a way people in our society scarcely can understand. As Attali writes of music in the Middle Ages, "The circulation of music was neither elitist nor monopolistic of creativity … music in daily life was inseparable from lived time, in which it was active and not something to be watched."33 Similarly, music historian Eileen Southern writes that "for every activity in the life of the individual or the community there was an appropriate music; it was an integral part of life from the hour of birth to beyond the grave" in West Africa during the slave trade years of the 17th through the 19th centuries.34 

Despite the vital role music played for members of traditional society, there was often what amounted to a class of professional musicians – composed of individuals assuming inherited positions – whose job was to serve not only as entertainers but also as traveling cultural historians, news distributors and political propagandists. The griots of West Africa, jongleurs and troubadours of Western Europe and bards of Ireland all fit this description. These professional musicians became more and more estranged from society, however, as centralized political and religious powers arose and put a stop to their itinerancy. In Europe during the 16th century, Attali writes, "musicians became professionals bound to a single master." The feudal courts "banished the jongleurs, the voice of the people, and no longer listened to anything but scored music performed by salaried musicians."35 This officially sanctioned professionalization was the beginning of a long process by which powerful interests gradually would remove music from the public sphere and control its distribution for religious purposes or political or financial gain.

The next major development along these lines was the creation of the printing press, and with it, the idea of copyright. This concept has been a double-edged sword for musicians and musical culture since its inception. Although it provided an opportunity for composers to achieve both cultural renown and financial compensation for their work, it also is evident that "in the beginning, the purpose of copyright was not to defend artists' rights but rather to serve as a tool of capitalism in its fight against feudalism.

"36 In other words, the benefit accruing to musicians was incidental to the primary aim of establishing a financial system based on the control of creative expression. Media scholar Siva Vaidhyanathan reminds us this set-up is still very much in place since "copyright issues are now more about large corporations limiting access to and use of their products, and less about lonely songwriters snapping their pencil tips under the glare of bare bulbs."37 As we will discuss, this function of copyright is especially problematic when it comes into conflict with the mechanism at the heart of any creative community, namely the free flow of ideas.With the development of the printed score, music became a commodity that could be bartered for cash, akin to food or clothing. This commodification was 

 reflected in performed music as well, with the 

development of concert halls and ticket sales. Music was removed from its function at the heart of everyday life and placed on a shelf, or behind a proscenium, where only those who were willing and able to pay could access it. Meanwhile, the music of the streets atrophied, as new musical traditions rooted in professional expertise and requiring the use of expensive equipment overwhelmed the old aesthetics.With the advent of sound recording at the end of the 19th century and radio broadcasting at the beginning of the 20th century, the encapsulation of music within a capitalist framework was completed. A new class of organizations, such as record labels and radio networks, emerged to monopolize the channels of distribution between musical performers and their audiences, now two separate social categories. New and more elaborate conceptions of intellectual property emerged to protect the interests of these organizations, and new financial structures based on the economies of mass production emerged to support them.

These developments affected people's relationship to music. One effect of the emerging mass market music economy was that the cost of manufacturing products was eclipsed by the cost of manufacturing demand.38 Today, the majority of expenditures by record labels are related to marketing and promotion, rather than production and distribution. Music sellers now spend billions of dollars each year attempting to persuade customers to purchase something they used to manufacture freely for themselves and for one another. Ironically, music becomes even more peripheral through this process, as songs essentially are sales jingles advertising the discs on which they are recorded. Similarly, live performances primarily have become showcases for recorded music, an inversion of their original relationship.39
This situation reflects another, larger inversion at the center of musical culture today. If the music industry originally developed as an ancillary to musical community, today the community serves as an ancillary to the industry.