8/2/2019 Frith 2000

1/8

Music Industry Research: Where Now? Where Next? Notes from BritainAuthor(s): Simon FrithSource: Popular Music, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Oct., 2000), pp. 387-393Published by: Cambridge University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/853643

Accessed: 18/02/2010 07:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Popular

Music.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/853643?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/853643?origin=JSTOR-pdf

8/2/2019 Frith 2000

2/8

Popular Music (2000) Volume 19/3. Copyright C)2000 Cambridge University Press.Printed in the United Kingdom

Music industry research:Where now? Where next? Notes from BritainSimonFrithFrom 1995-2000 I was Director of the Economic and Social Research Council'sresearchprogrammeon Media Economicsand Media Culture.One of my tasks wasto organise meetings of researchers n the field and to this end I ran a series ofseminarsat the BritishPhonographic nstitute or people studying the music indus-try. These seminars were thematic, covering music industry strategies in globalmedia markets;methods for measuring the value of the music industry; he uses ofmusic; and musicians. A final meeting, held in the then about-to-be-openedNational Centre for Popular Music in Sheffield on 16 February 1999, broughttogether nearly all the UK's academic music industry researchers o discuss futureresearch n the light of the MEMCProgramme's indings. What follows is a reportfrom both MEMC research and the Sheffield meeting. The aim is to provide anoverview of the currentresearchsituation in Britain.

The MEMCProgrammewas launched in 1995 as a way of promotingresearchinto media processes in the context of digital developments and speculation aboutthe consequencesof 'convergence'.The Programmewas concernedwith the ways inwhich technologicalchange was affecting the organisationand regulationof mediaindustries, impacting on media policy and politics (particularly n the Europeancontext), and creating a new kind of media culture in which existing accounts ofnational and social identity no longer made sense. Three of the funded projectsonthe Programmewere specifically concerned with the music industry: Ruth Towse(then at ExeterUniversity) on Copyright, erformer's ightsand Incentivesn CulturalMarkets;Keith Negus (then at LeicesterUniversity) on The CulturalProduction ndDistribution f Musical Genres: Comparativetudy;and Roger Wallis and his col-leagues (then at City University Business School) on Globalisation, echnology ndCreativity: urrentTrends n theMusicIndustry.Each of these projectshas produceddetailed accounts of its findings;l it is also possible to raise some general questionsfrom this work (questions that reflect the Programme'sresearch nto other mediaindustries). These can best be summarisedunder two headings:

Thepolitical conomy f rightsOne of the Programme'sconcerns (a concernobviously shared by the music indus-try itself) was the effect of digital technology on the existing rights regime, but ifthe industry had very specific anxieties (about piracy, about the efficiency ofnational rights fee collecting agencies, about the exercise of ownership rights overnew means of musical carriage and use, and so on), the Programme'sresearchquestions were more fundamental.First, can the economic benefits of a copyrightsystem be taken for granted? Who really benefits from such a monopoly? Is the

387

M id d l eE i g h t

8/2/2019 Frith 2000

3/8

388 MiddleEightextensionof rights(to session musicians,for example)to those musicians'financialadvantage?Are the distributiveoutcomes of copyrightnecessarilyculturallyben-eficial?It is clear (following the work of Towse and Walliset al.) that we are stillquite ignorantabout the detail of the rights economy, about the flow of incomebetweenthe differentplayersinvolved, the effectof nationaldifferenceson what isnow a global system, and the power structurewhich determinesthe winners andlosers in this system. It is still difficultto predict,for example,what fault lines will(or will not) be opened by the new technologies.One conclusion s clear,though:becauserightsregimesdepend on legal regu-lation (rather han on marketforces),the economicsof rights cannotbe discussedseparately from the politics of rights. The music industry is nowadays heavilyinvolved in lobbying - in lobbying national governments,the EuropeanUnion,world tradebodies - in orderto promoteor protectthe legislationthat guaranteesthe optimumreturnon rightsownership.A second set of questionsemergingfromProgrammeresearch, hen, concernsthis lobbyingprocessand threeissues in par-ticular.Whatis the relationshipbetween nationaland internationalmusic industryinterests?Under what circumstancesdo differentsectors of the industry (recordcompanies,publishers,music-usingmedia like radio and TV, rights fee collectingagencies, etc.) have shared or conflictingpolicy ends? Can music policy makersalways reconcile ndustryinterestswith otherculturaland social ends?Thecultureof the irmThe startingquestion here is straightforward:what sort of business is the musicbusiness?How does it differ fromotherbusinesses?Fromothermediabusinesses?And the immediate answer is straightforward oo: the music industry is not amanufacturingndustry,it is a rightsindustry; t is organisedaroundthe manage-ment and exploitationof talent.The contemporaryrecordcompanymay well usefamiliarbusiness school techniques- portfoliomanagement, or example (it is notentirelydifferentfromother sorts of company)- but it does so in the contextof akind of knowledge and a system of trust that have unique features. Like otherculturalindustries, the music industry can be describedin terms of the rationalmanagementprocesses that link two sorts of irrationality: alent and taste. Theknowledge that is most valued in the industry is the knowledge that makes theirrationalrational,and thus helps companiesto be effectivein theirmoney-makingprocesses. At one end this means the ability to deal with talent (to recognise it,nurture t, make it marketable the traditionalrecord ndustryrole of A&Rdepart-ments and managementand productioncompanies);at the other end, this meanstheabilityto readthe market,whetherin theuse of the evermoreelaborate science'of marketresearchor through a more instinctive insider grasp of how differentsortsof music work for differentsortsof listener.

Knowledge, understood in these terms, is also the basis of trust, of a trustwithout which the industrycould not work - executivesmakingtheir investmentdecisions have to trust the ears of theirA&Rteams;marketingdepartmentsplan-ning sales campaignshave to trust the judgementsof radioprogrammers, lubDJs,promoters,etc. Themusic industry,to put this anotherway, depends on networksof informants,and as KeithNegus shows in illuminatingdetail,thesenetworks(thebasis of trust, the source of knowledge) differ according to the musical genresinvolved. Rap talent, the rap market,works differentlyfrom country talent, the

8/2/2019 Frith 2000

4/8

MiddleEight 389country market; and these differences mean that a record company's rap andcountrydivision work differently oo. A successful company is not one that imposesa singular company culture on its various musical divisions, but one which is ableto manage divisions which operate according to very different cultures. And it isthe second process, the coordinationof differentcompany cultures,that is the mostimportantto understand (particularly s the talent and markets nvolved are thesedays very rarely defined by national boundaries). What are its implications forcareers n the industry?For power and status? For patternsof success and failure?While the Media Economics and Media Culture Programmewas not fundedas policy research,all ESRC upported researchershave to consider the significanceof their work for 'users' which, in practice,means three groups of people: govern-ment policy makers; corporate policy makers; other academic researchers.I willconsider the significanceof our research or each of these groups in turn.Music industry esearch ndgovernment olicyCompared to other media industries (broadcastingor the press, for instance) theBritish music industry has not been the object of much government interest(except - reactively - in the occasional revisions of copyright law). In the 1980s,though, the music industry became centralto the development of local governmentcultural ndustry policy initiatives,and since its election in 1997the LabourGovern-ment has translatedsuch policies to the national evel - through the CreativeIndus-tries Task Force,the Music IndustryForum,etc. On the evidence so far, the Depart-ment of Culture,Media and Sport'smusic policy has three strands:rights protection(and, in particular, the protection of UK rights in new technological/globalconditions); education and training (both as an aspect of employment policy andas a way of securing the UK music industry's future talent base); and socialinclusion (or the use of music to articulate the new multiculturalBritainboth toitself and as a UK 'brand' n the global market).Even in such summary form it isclear that this policy begs two importantquestions: irst, t equates the Britishmusicindustry with the British record industry; second, it assumes that there is a clear'national'music interest. Both these propositions can be challenged, particularly na Europeancontext (and the EuropeanUnion is another source of music industrypolicy). How do UK interests relate to European interests in this field? How, inparticular,does Europe's culturally oriented approach relate to the UK's industryoriented policy? (From a European perspective, 'Anglo-American'music has tra-ditionally been seen as the economic and cultural threat from which local musicmakers and record producers must be protected.)Research nd the music ndustryOne thing that became clear during the course of the MEMCProgrammewas thatmusic industry research s becoming increasingly mportant or the music industryitself (this is an obvious difference between the 1990s and the 1970s recordbusiness). On the one hand, record companies (for reasons already suggested) areconstantly trying to learn more about their markets (and the way they are beingaffected by technological change); on the other hand, music policy makers in theDCMS and the EU need to have as accurate an account as possible of the musicsector as an economic sector, in terms of earnings, employment, investment, etc.

8/2/2019 Frith 2000

5/8

390 MiddleEightThereare certainlyresearchopportunitieshere for academics,but it is also a factthat the academicresearchagenda is not necessarilycoincidentwith that of eithermarket analysts or policy advisors. From the academic perspective, that is, thepressingtaskis not to meet the needs of researchusers in either ndustryor govern-ment, but, rather,to develop an accountof the contemporarymusic industry thatis empirically accurate and theoreticallyinstructive. (And if it is accurate andinstructivethen it will anyway be significant or corporateand statepolicy makers,whateveruse they make of it.)2Academic researchquestions are, then, both more basic and more scepticalthan those of straightmarketor policy research.Whatis the music industry?Whois it? (Academics,unlike policy makers,are not restricted o seeing the industryintermsof its most effective lobbyists- the BPI,IFPI, he collectingagencies.)Whatis the Britishmusic industry?How is it shaped by law and regulation,by policyand politics?Whatdo we mean by 'industrialisation' ere?Musicindustry esearchndtheacademyIn consideringthese questions,in discussing how we might model the contempor-arymusic industry,thereseems to be generalagreementamongBritishresearchersthat the academicmodels established n the 1970sno longerwork.Theproductionof cultureapproach,which followed the transformationof music into commoditythrougha seriesof 'gatekeepers'and 'value adding' stages, treatedthe music busi-ness as a manufacturingndustry(withthe objectmanufacturedbeing, in effect,therecord).Whatwe need to think through,though, is not a manufacturingndustrybut a rights industry;what is at stake is the ownership of titles ratherthan theexploitationof labourpower. (Hencethe significanceof administrativeratherthanmanufacturingnetworks,the chainof deals rather hanvalue addingprocessesthatlink the varioussectorsof the industrytogether.)Similarly, he culturalstudies approach,which treatedmusic as authenticcul-turalexpression(its authenticityguaranteedby its originsin a particular ubculturalexperience,whether defined by sociology, history or geography),meant that themusic industry had to be understood in terms of conflict,as one kind of thing,music-as-culture,was made into anotherkind of thing, music-as-commodity.Thesite and objectof that conflictmight vary, and were often taken to be reflectedinthe structureof the industryitself (in the recurringaccountof the independentvsthe major abel,for example)but, again,the generaleffectwas to equatethe musicindustrywith the recordindustryand to assume that industrialisation, he processof routinisingproductionand standardising he product,only describeswhat largecompaniesdo - as if small capitalistenterpriseswere somehow non-capitalist.The point here is not that the issues addressedby the productionof cultureand subculturemodels arenot important,but thatthey need to be put into anotherframework,a frameworkwhich throws up differentkinds of researchquestion.Itmay well be misleading, for example, to regard the music industry as a singleindustry, ratherthan as a series of industries ordered by a single rights regime.Two points issues follow from this:first,we need to focus researchon the differ-ences between different music networks - the economy of dance music, forexample, with its network of clubs, DJs, small record producers and specialistimporters,works ratherdifferentlythan the economyof pop, with its dependenceon radioand TV,teen magazines,major abels;second, we need to takemore seri-

8/2/2019 Frith 2000

6/8

Middle Eight 391ously in researchterms the distinctionbetween legitimate and illegitimatemusicbusiness.Thereare certainlysectorsof the music industry(pirateradio,unlicensedclubsand raves, bootlegrecord distribution,digital musicalservices) which seek tobypass the rights regime altogether,and it is here (ratherthan in the relationshipbetween indies and majors) hat conflictis significant.Underlyingany research nto these issues is the requirement o differentiatebetween the music industry and the recordindustry. This is not just a matter ofdistinguishing local, amateur (or 'authentic')music making processes from theglobal commodity. Music industry policy cannot, in practice,be separatedfrombroadcastpolicy (decisionsaboutbroadcastregulationhave immediate mplicationsfor the economicsof music), and the live music industry is global too. The rise ofthe internationalRock Festival,for example, has had obvious effects on both theindustry'sown promotionalpracticesand on music media. And, to use a very dif-ferentexample,as the Internetbecomesa musical conduitfor domestic consumers,so its economicand technological ogic will shape music business - the recordmayno longerbe music's preferredcommodityform.In the music industry (as elsewhere in media analysis)once we start tracingthe networkswhich sustainits economy, it becomes clear that while it is relativelyeasy to describea local music industryand a globalmusic industry,it is extremelydifficult to describea nationalmusic industry.Again, the issue here is not a matterof majorcorporations,on the one hand, and heroic little local businesses, on theother.Small music businesses are equally involved in global networks of exchangeand distribution.The problem,rather, s thatthe nation seems unimportant n struc-turing music networks, and the research ssue becomes the relationshipof musicpolicies (mostly conceivedat nationallevel in terms of nationalregulation,protec-tion, taxation,access, identity, branding, training, etc.) and music practices (not'national' n any obvious sense at all).

A newresearch gendaIn the Sheffielddiscussionof a new researchagenda - an agendapartly determinedby questionscomingout of the MEMCProgramme,and partlyby the existinginter-ests and activitiesof the UK academicresearchcommunity- therewas a surprising(andencouraging) heoreticalconsensus.Thestartingpoint hereis thatwhat makesthe music industry differentfromother media industries(book publishingis prob-ably the industrymost like it) is the continuity between what Jason Toynbeecalls'para-industrial cts' and mainstreamcommercialpractices.3There are significantways in which we can talkabout 'musicfrombelow' (which explains the influenceof the production of culture and subculture models); local/amateur/startingmusicianshave access to the means of production (instrumentsand equipment),to'proto markets'(clubs and pubs), and now, through 'uploadability'onto the Inter-net, to means of global distribution. n the music industry,one might say, the smallis as significantas the big. A numberof things follow from this:(1) There is not as clear a separation of consumptionand productionas in other mediaindustries; he careermove from consumer o producer s a muchshorterand more natu-ral step; forms of consumption (equipment,records) can, indeed, also be forms of pro-duction (new music, a DJ reputation).(2) There is not as clear a separationof artisanshipand entrepreneurship s in other mediaindustries; he Internet, or example,as Gill Allard suggests,is a kind of electroniccottage

8/2/2019 Frith 2000

7/8

392 MiddleEightindustry,dominatedby a craftculture (and drawingon the ways in which small musicindustries ikejazz and folkhave long integratedrecordmakingand sellingwith the liveevent).4(3) The 'local'has a significance or music it doesn't have for othermedia - music is madeinitiallyin local settings,as a cause and effect of local sociability,and thereis no doubt(as Andrew Bennett'swork shows) that locality - in this geographicalsense - has aneffect (becauseof its particularnetworks)on both the music madeand the musicmakingprocessesinvolved.5(4) Criteria f successand failure(andthe natureof themusicalcareer)are morecomplicatedthan in othermedia. (I wrote these notes at a time when the GlasgowConcertHall wasadvertising at least four packages of 1960s and 1970s pop stars, from Gerryand thePacemakers o ErrollBrown. Here are musicians ending their careersas they startedthem,demonstrating heirsuccessand failuresimultaneously!)

But the point is also that the move from local to global (from little local label tomajorglobalrecordcompany)no longernecessarily ollows a straightforwardinearor chronologicalroute. This is most obvious in the dance industry,but each kindof music has its own patternof cross-national inks, and the music tradedescribesin practiceboth the multimediaglobaldeals of the majorcorporationsand the smallscale flow (or accretion)of records,rightsand reputationfromcountryto country.Whatthese propositionsmake plain is that what we most need methodolog-icallynow is comparativeesearch comparing he culturalpracticesof differentsortsof recordlabel, for example,following KeithNegus's lead, comparingthem not intermsof mainstream/alternative,major/independent,but by reference o differentindustrial strategies) and historicalesearch.How has the experienceof being amusician changed over the last forty years, for example?What sort of changeshave there been in contractualconditions?In geographical,marketor corporateawareness?6Threespecificresearchprojectswere proposedat the Sheffieldmeeting:(1) A longitudinalstudy of music-industryandmusic-making areers modelledon the Brit-ish Film Institute rackingstudy of employeesin the British elevisionindustry),(2) A study of the relevanceof musiceducationand training or musicindustryemployment(a particularlyinteresting issue given the government's concern for music industrytraining),and(3) A study of local music-makingpracticesdesigned to replicateRuth Finnegan'sclassicMilton Keynesresearchbut broadeningher accountof musicalactivityto includemusic

media.7There s obviously a gap betweenwhat we would like to do and what we willget done (not least because of the exigenciesof researchfunding),but the level ofagreementamongBritishresearchersaboutthe importantquestionsnow does sug-gest a significantparadigmshift from the approachI summarised n TheSociologyof Rockmore than twenty years ago; a shift that will resonatewith music industryresearcherselsewhere. What was perhaps most striking at the Sheffieldmeetingwas the academicrefusal to be swept along by technologicalhysteria.At a timewhen industryand statepolicy makersalikeareobsessedwith the somewhatfruit-less task of reading the future,academicresearchershave a greaterresponsibilitythan ever to understandthe present.But there is somethingmore at stake here, Ithink. The implication of our discussions was that ratherthan speculating howtechnology will change music culture, we should be studying music culture forclues as to how technology will be used and shaped. Popularmusic has its ownlong history of relationsbetween the local and the global, the licit and the illicit,craftand entrepreneurship,machines,sounds and careers. t is theserelationswhichwe most need to understand.

8/2/2019 Frith 2000

8/8

MiddleEight 393Endnotes1. See, for example, Millie Taylor and RuthTowse, 'The value of performers'rights:an

economicapproach',Media Cultureand Society,20(4),1998;RogerWalliset al., 'Contestedcol-lective administrationof intellectualpropertyrightsin music:the challenge o the principlesof reciprocityand solidarity',EuropeanJournalof Communication, 14(1), 1999; Keith Negus,Music Genres and CorporateCultures: Strategyand Creativity in the Music Business, London:Routledge,1999.2. Which is not to say that one shouldn't getinvolved in the politics of music. A usefulfunctionof academics n thiscontext s to drawattention both to the limitationsof specificpolicies (in the way they necessarilyfavourone sector over another, or treat the musicindustry as a single interest group, forexample - the internationalrecord companyconcern ormusicrightsand anti-piracyegis-lation has quite differentpolicy implicationsfrom the InternationalManagementForum'sconcernfor small businesses and grass rootsinvestment)and to theirbroadercontext.The

LabourGovernment's imto 'supportcreativi-ty' in the music industrycan only be under-stood in termsof the broadsweep of its cre-ativeindustriesstrategy.There s clearlya rolehere for academicsas auditors,determiningnot only whether policies are successful intheir own terms, but also examining wherethese termsthemselvescomefrom.3. See Jason Toynbee, Making Popular Music,London:EdwardArnold/New York:OxfordUniversityPress,2000.4. I am referringhere to doctoralwork in pro-gress.GillAllardcanbe contactedat the Uni-versity of GlamorganBusiness School: