Digital Vampires Can be Saved

http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/

I watched Doctor Pete Townshend's recent lecture entitled "Can John Peelism survive the Internet?". The premise of the lecture was that John Peel had been a radical disc jockey against the monolithic power of the BBC by introducing new artists and that now with the rise of the Internet a bridge between new artists and the audience was missing. I found watching the lecture to be much more instructive than the media reporting, the blog comments, and even reading the transcript itself.

Having grown up in Nashville with the children of country music stars and seeing firsthand the triumphs and tragedies of entering the music business, having working in a rock radio station and seeing the diminished role of the individual DJ and the incorporation of most stations by Wall Street conglomerates, and living in Austin and seeing how artists struggle to live and thrive in a hostile environment, I found Pete's lecture to be intriguing and challenging.

I often ask people where they discover new art - including new music. My own experience has evolved from trusted sources, radio programs, record stores, the monolithic power MTV once had to where I now mostly see new art first hand in clubs, music festivals, avant-garde movie theatres, museums and play houses. If my city did not have a vibrant art scene or I did not have the means to explore, I think my life would be devoid of new art - which for me would mean the end of all inspiration and innovative thinking.

Pete's lecture was widely covered in the mainstream media for his statement that iTunes - as a surrogate for Internet file sharing - was a "digital vampire" for not cultivating artists and for arbitrarily taking a commission. I think his reference to iTunes was a clever way to earn publicity for his lecture (as well as being opportunistic as Apple management reassesses its operations), but I think his message became obscured in the process. In the lecture he argues for the innovation of software systems to help promote and nurture artists, but in the end he recognizes the responsibility of the man in the machine to listen and to take risks and to do the necessary work to find and promote new art.

I was pleasantly surprised by the sophistication of Pete's analysis. Like examining a business case in graduate school, he broke down the essential functions of the music industry and provided specific, practical, and affordable (and potentially profitable) steps for an Internet file sharing entity - like iTunes - to undertake in order to support the arts and their creative content. (I think it should be remembered that making money as a musician is a relatively new concept derived from the star machine created in the 20th century. Musicians are on the front lines of the digital revolution, but actors can be replaced with CGI programs, and computers may soon create (or already are creating) new images on their own. In the end it is a question of social justice the value our society places upon the arts (both high brow and low brow material).

One distraction in reporting was a comment Pete made about "not caring about money". The comment was taken out of context. He was speaking in the persona of an artist and making the point that a struggling artist cares more about having the means to create, to be heard or seen, to be judged, and, yes, ultimately to be paid. In fact, I'd say the main point of Pete's lecture was the current breakdown and the ways to revive the mechanisms to ensure artists get paid.

I have learned that accounting is not strategy but it dictates priorities of both business owners and our culture. As Pete highlights, in the continuing digitization of our lives, the only metrics that count are those that can be measured and quantified in value produced by the hour. I maintain there are some values that cannot quantified on the ledger's bottom line - including customer loyalty, support of local entities, as well as artistic endeavours.

I also liked how Pete highlighted how the definition and connotations of the word "share" have not caught up with the very real activity of theft under the guise of technologically "sharing" material for which the perpetrator has purchased no rights.

Overall, I say "Bravo!" to Dr. Townshend. He offered some concrete proposals for action rather than continued hand wringing and despair. I challenge any critics to offer an alternative.