Welcome to the New Media, Pt. 1

This is to be the first part of a three-part series that will cover the new ways that we are able to receive media.

The tavern singer gave way to the music box. The music box was follwed by the wax tube. The wax tube was trailed by the record. Then came the eight-track and the cassette tape. Then came the CD.

In the beginning was the mistral . The mistral gave way to the newspaper. The newspaper begat the telegraph. The telegraph was followed by the radio. The radio, while very nice, needed to have some pictures to go along with it since, after all, we're visual creatures.

Lastly, there were cave drawings, stone tablets, parchment and books.

The question now, though, is what comes next? That's what I'm hoping to cover the next couple of weeks.

First things first, though. I'm sure that everyone who's reading this was immediately yelling out the next step in the sequence. "It's MP3 you idiot! The next step is digital music!" Right you are. However, you might not have the full picture. We're moving on to the next format, true, but we're still being held to an old, some would say flawed, model. Allow me to explain. The large majority of the music industry is controlled by the large record companies and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). The RIAA is quite frequently the organization vilified in the debates about user's rights and digital rights management. When a person purchases a CD, the majority of the money goes to the record label and only a small fraction goes to the artist. In fact, in most cases, the artist makes no money until the record company has decided that they've broken even on the album.

When many people think about having their music in a digital format, it comes in a couple of varieties. It might come in the form of having purchased a CD and then "ripping" the content of that CD onto your computer for use in your portable player or just playing from the computer itself. This model still runs into the problem of the money going to the manager of the artist (the record label) instead of the creator of the music. Also, it suffers from the fact that you just purchased an entire album of The Moody Blues just to be able to hear "Knights in White Satin" whenever you want. Now, we want to be able to go and get just the songs that we want to own. The first model for trying to do this was probably Napster and other peer-to-peer applications which allowed users to open their digital music collections to others for download while downloading selected songs from the other people's libraries. This model has one major flaw: it's very, very illegal. Yes, we have seen the chart that shows a correlation between a spike in Napster use and a corresponding spike in music sales. That doesn't change the fact that sharing music like that violates copyright law.

Now, we need a solution. How do we get only the music that we want, but get it in such a way that we're not breaking the law? Enter: iTunes. Apple was at the forefront of what is the digital equivalent of the old record single. For a small fee, you can download a song in their library. You're only paying for the music that you want. It's completely legal. Everyone's happy, right? Notsomuch. We've forgotten one of my earlier points: the artist is making jack didly on all of this. Especially when you take into account the fact that the record labels are charging the artist the normal percentage of sales for loss and breakage...wait for it...on a digitally delivered song. This is a peak into the lunacy of the recording industry. They're charging people a fee for something that is a literal impossibility. It's like forcing someone in North Dakota to purchase hurricane insurance.

Now, we move beyond even iTunes. Seeing a broken recording industry, some artists are taking matters into their own hands. It's the new millennium's indi-music scene. Thanks to the wonder of modern technology, artists are able to promote themselves like never before. Many are making use of places like myspace ("It's not just for predators anymore!") to allow people to hear samples of their music and purchase CDs, Teeshirts and learn about concerts. Some are even more open.

One such artist that I've really enjoyed is Brad, who refers to himself as "Brad Sucks | The one-man band with no fans." In my opinion, if you like Beck, you'll like Brad. He has that some eccentric quality to him as Beck along with having a variety of styles all within one album and very...interesting lyrics ("I can tell by your middle finger that you're warming up to me.") Brad allows you to purchase CDs. He allows you to purchase his music through iTunes. He even has Teeshirts . All of these things he is selling himself and is able to maximize his profits without the hassle (and, alternatively, the advertising support) of the recording labels. Here's the kicker, tough: He makes his music available to download for free and send in a "tip" as the person is so lead. This allows people to take the risk and give him a shot to see if they like his music. He's also trusting that if people like his music, they'll support him. Hopefully, it's working out for him.

"Try before you buy." It's funny how such an almost ancient and nearly antiquated concept is starting to be seen at the cutting edge of music delivery.