Paying the piper: a study of musicians and the music business (original) (raw)

Abstract

Many artists argue that treating music as a business represents a particularly insidious force in cultural life, stifling creativity and change. For them business and art are mutually incompatible and they regard the evident economic success of the music industry as an example of the shameless exploitation of our cultural heritage. * This paper is based on detailed research into the attitudes of musicians across two distinct cultures. It finds strong echoes of the key criticisms of the music business which have been prominent in academic literature and in the specialist music press for more than a generation. Singled out for particular censure are not-for-profit organisations for apparently following the global recording companies down the same, profit-driven routes.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (37)

  1. Stratton J. 1982. Between two worlds: art and commercialism in the record industry. The Socio- logical Review 30: 267-285.
  2. Lebrecht N. 1997. When the Music Stops . . . Managers, Maestros and the Corporate Murder of Classical Music. Simon&Schuster Ltd: London.
  3. Sandon N, Page C. 1992. Music. In Medieval Britain, Ford B (ed.). Cambridge University Press: Cam- bridge, UK.
  4. Le Cocq J. 2002. Commercial art music. Economic Affairs 22(2): 8-13.
  5. Teel G. 1997. Sex among the Stradivari. Alberta Report/Newsmagazine 24(8): 32.
  6. Cowen T, Tabarrok A. 2000. An economic theory of avant-garde and popular art, or high and low culture. Southern Economic Journal 67(2): 232- 253.
  7. Buck T, Burt T. 2004a. Companies Europe: Brussels gives nod to Sony BMG. Financial Times, 20 July.
  8. Buck T, Burt T. 2004b. Companies International: Dominant operators win symbolic victory. Finan- cial Times, 21 July.
  9. Dolfsma W. 2000. How will the music industry wea- ther the globalisation storm? First Monday 5(5). http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue5\_5/ dolfsma/index.html
  10. Verwey P. 1998. Target Group Index-Summary of Results. Arts Council of England: London.
  11. Solomon M, Bamossy G, Askegaard S. 1999. Con- sumer Behaviour: A European Perspective. Prentice Hall: Harlow, Europe.
  12. Shackleton L. 1999. Marketing costs rise as labels spend more on European TV. Music Business International 9(1): 37.
  13. Anon. 2001. Webbed feat. Music Business Inter- national 11(1): 4.
  14. Krishna S. 2001. Strategic Marketing in music indu- stry. http://www.boloji.com/cinema/02315\. htm [19/6/2003].
  15. Colbert F. 2002. Entrepreneurship and leadership in marketing the arts. The New Wave: Entrepre- neurship & the Arts, Melbourne, Australia, 5 and 6 April.
  16. Gainer B. 1989. The business of high culture: marketing the performing arts in Canada. The Service Industries Journal 9(4): 143-161.
  17. Negus K. 1995. Where the mystical meets the market: creativity and commerce in the produc- tion of popular music. Sociological Review 43(2): 316-341.
  18. Smart B. (ed.). 1999. Resisting McDonaldization. Sage Publications: London.
  19. Talbot M. (ed.). 2002. The Business of Music. Liverpool University Press: Liverpool.
  20. Oakes S. 2003. Demographic and sponsorship con- siderationsfor jazzand classicalmusic festivals. The Service Industries Journal 23(3): 165-178.
  21. Blake A, Jeffery G. 2000. Commentary: the implica- tions of 'The value of music in London' for local and regional music policy. Cultural Trends 38: 35-40.
  22. Hansmann H. 1981. Nonprofit enterprise in the performing arts. The Bell Journal of Economics 12(2): 341-361.
  23. Vic ˇar J. 2000. European classical music in today's world. Musicologica Olomucensia V, pp.156-186 http://publib.upol.cz/ obd/fulltext/Aesthetica19/ Aesthetica19_11.pdf [6/08/2004].
  24. Fillis I. 2002. Creative marketing and the arts organisation: What can the artist offer?. Interna- tional Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 7(2): 131-145.
  25. Higgins Ch. 2001. Why is opera so expensive? The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/ story/ 0,3604,608604,00.html [7/10/2004].
  26. Gainer B, Padanyi P. 2002. Applying the marketing concept to cultural organisations: an empirical study of the relationship between market orien- tation and performance. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 7(2): 182-193.
  27. Kubacki K, Croft R. 2004. Mass marketing, music and morality. Journal of Marketing Manage- ment 20(5-6): 577-590.
  28. Fisher CM, Pearson M, Barnes J. 2002. A study of strength of relationship between music groups and their external service providers: impacts on music group success. Services Marketing Quar- terly 24(2): 43-60.
  29. Philips Ch. 2001. A letter from America. Music Business International 11(5): 9.
  30. Baumol WJ, Bowen WG. 1965. On the perform- ing arts: the anatomy of their economic problems. American Economic Review 55(2): 495-502.
  31. Thomas EG, Cutler BD. 1993. Marketing the fine and performing arts: what has marketing done for the arts lately? Journal of Professional Services Marketing 10: 181-199.
  32. Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., November 2005
  33. Smith DVL, Fletcher JH. 2001. Inside Information: Making Sense of Marketing Data. John Wiley & Sons Ltd: Chichester.
  34. Shankar A. 2000. Lost in music? Subjective personal introspection and popular music consumption. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 3(1): 27-37.
  35. Hyde KF. 2000. Recognising deductive process in qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 3(2): 82-89.
  36. Kaemmer JE. 1993. Music in Human Life: Anthro- pological Perspectives on Music. University of Texas Press: Austin.
  37. Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., November 2005 Paying the piper 237