The Contradictory Nature of the Free Market and the Creative

I've been thinking over the annoyance that so many appreciators, myself included, of music have with the current hierarchy of the music industry. Though it tends to be the first point that people grasp onto, it is not the profit off of music by organizations that is the issue. If they were truly pushing the art form forward and keeping it abundant as part of our culture while making money, we should have no issue with it.

The issue, however, is linked to the profit making (though said profit is apparently shrinking this century). It is the age old tale of capitalism, to maximize profit one must be able to create a product for less while selling it for more. The idea behind this system is that an entity must conform to the expectations of the public in order to sell a product while simultaneously competing with organizations in the same field. Therefore, quality is upheld by public demand...right?

Well, if the public represents a well informed group of people, then yes, it will all balance out. But if the public is unaware of what actual quality is or has not been taught how to differentiate the many intricacies of a given topic, then it is up to the producers themselves to teach the public, to tell them what is good and what isn't, to show them the many possibilities. This goes for any field, medium, type of product.

Apply this model to music, or any art form for that matter. Consumption of music by the public is dependent upon taste. In a society where art and music are taught less and less in schools, it is up to other sources to generate interest and invariably shape the judgment of potential consumers. Who's influence will ultimately be able to reach more: one who holds a cultural tradition and the continuance of an art form dear or one who stands to profit of the same art form through public consumption? (No these two sides are not exclusive of one another, but stay with me for a second.)

With enough economic backing to support a great marketing campaign, either side could win, but money typically follows paths that lead to more money. Money moving towards cultural stimulation is like pumping water uphill.

So we have a ripe public full of consumers with little knowledge on the possibilities of the art form. What does an organization concerned with its profits produce in order to satiate the public hunger?

1. A cornucopia of options?
2. Or many variations of the same idea that can be marketed to appear as if they represent the spectrum of possibilities within the art form, thus shaping what consumers know to be possible and accept as appropriate?

The analogies to the food industry are plentiful, pun intended. Corn products have been disguised to create the appearance of an abundance of choices. The music industry isn't much different in its tactics, except that it doesn't have poorly designed government subsidies to spur its means of production.

For decades, bad music has been unleashed on the public through the record industry. It is easier to produce much of the same than it is to produce a wide variety.

This has shaped us as listeners in so many ways. For example, live acoustic performance of music has become a novelty in so many ways. It is not the only way to perform music. But it is a marvelously beautiful and important method. David Byrne explained the influence of architecture on music in a very clear presentation for TED.

There are musicians, record companies, and publishers that are expanding musical practices. We should be thankful for their push forward. But, as far as I can see it, this will always be an uphill battle.