For Jace Clayton, as digital files give way to streams—dictated as much by the everyday activities of fans and artists as well as the top-down logic of the corporation—music is returning to its originary, pre-industrial form. “What we saw in the 20th century was an anomalous blip when music had a physical form,” Clayton surmises. “That was very unusual in the course of human history and it will soon be very unusual again. Music has this intrinsic pull towards the dematerial, towards the unbuyable. It’s a slippery, ghostly thing.”
This is a very good piece, but this point - which I’ve seen made elsewhere a few times - got me wondering, are people really thinking this through to what seems to me to be a logical conclusion, that either this is a kind of meaningless point or lots of modern life might well be considered ‘anomalous blips’? Things like labour rights, mass literacy, much of women’s liberation, a broad franchise - innovations for the most part of the 20th century, or at least the ‘long century’ back to 1870 or so. Most aspects of modernity are ‘very unusual in the course of human history’ - that’s why it’s called modernity. Is there a difference, though, in how we think we about social/political and technological change in terms of inevitability, or of conscious, collective control? Are optimism and pessimism applied differently to each on the assumption that progress in one can be objectively measured and referenced, even if its ultimate effects lie in the same subjective sphere that constitutes human relations? Does it make sense to say that we have a ‘choice’ to pursue liberal democracy as much as we have of using digital media, or does each represent a change in an overarching structure that determines the superior course of action?
I guess the standing point of techno-optimism is that the capabilities engendered by technological change sooner or later, and to a greater or lesser degree of predictability of outcome, override political or social inertia. But what is perhaps less considered is the extent to which social and political factors warp technology, determine the form of our engagement with it, and produce a hybrid result (implicit, indeed, in the first sentence of the quote above). All of which is by way of saying that, although I’m not really opposed to the broad shift away from physical media, its existence purely in the period of late industrial capitalism is a pretty weak argument for its distinctiveness, and an even worse one for accepting its disappearance as an inevitability. Because if something else starts disappearing, something you really want to hold on to, there needs to be a better justification available for its continuity than just ‘it existed before the gramophone’…
Much love to DJ Rupture, but this is a thoughtful counterargument.
by Kevin Erickson, Communications Associate
Pono, the Toblerone-shaped personal hi-res audio player backed by Neil Young and endorsed by a gaggle of high-profile rockers, recently made waves at SXSW, and its Kickstarter campaign has already zoomed past its stated goal and raised over $5 million with 16 days to go. But will the device live up to the hype? More importantly, what will it mean for musicians?
At the very least, we know that the consumer interest is real, not just because of the successful crowdfunding effort, but because of research conducted by the Consumer Electronics Association:
CEA research finds four in ten (39 percent) consumers with a moderate interest in audio indicate they are willing to pay more for high quality audio electronics devices. Nine in ten consumers say sound quality is the most important component of a quality audio experience.
Still, there are plenty of naysayers who doubt the device will make much of an impact. It’s certainly true that industry attempts at encouraging adoption of hi-res audio formats in the 2000s haven’t exactly taken off. Today, DVD-A, SACD and Dualdisc formats have mostly been abandoned.
But there are some crucial differences. To varying degrees, DVD-A, SACD, and Dualdisc all have been proprietary formats which presented barriers for adoption by smaller labels and indie artists without deep pockets, and the costs associated with manufacturing quantities of discs for these unproven formats discouraged experimentation. As a result, the catalog of offerings for these formats weren’t particularly robust, and focused largely on major label releases. (There were exceptions; Drag City’s release of a gorgeous surround mix of Bonnie Prince Billy’s The Letting Go on DVD-A comes to mind.)
In contrast, Pono’s preferred format is FLAC, a lossless open-source format which can be generated rather simply from original masters, doesn’t require additional extensive up-front manufacting costs, and which indie labels (like Merge, Beggars Group, Hyperion, and Drag City) and retailers (like Bandcamp and HD Tracks) are already adopting. It integrates fairly easily into existing online retail storefronts, and as network speeds increase and storage becomes cheaper, the larger file size ceases to be an issue.
Detractors may ask, “Okay, then what’s the big deal if FLAC players and FLAC files are already available? What’s with all the hype?” Well, one thing that we’ve learned from watching the rise of Beats by Dre headphones is that having a strong marketing push with an artist-centric focus really can help popularize an audio technology outside narrow audiophile circles. Regardless of what you think of Beats Headphones (like most audio nerds, I find them bass-heavy and not that impressive), their popularity has driven broad consumer interest and growth in the larger headphone marketplace. It’s possible that Young and his large stable of artist endorsers could similarly generate broader interest and adoption of lossless and hi-res audio; at the very least, such a concerted strategy hasn’t been tried before. You still can’t purchase lossless digital files from the biggest digital music stores like Amazon and iTunes. (Apple software and hardware annoyingly doesn’t support FLAC, opting for for a proprietary-until-recently Apple Lossless format, which, weirdly, iTunes Store doesn’t even sell).
Other detractors question whether the improvement in quality Neil Young touts is going to be something most consumers will really notice. Much of the marketing blitz surrounding Pono has focused on bit depth and sample rate, reigniting long-running debates among audiophiles and recording engineers about where returns begin to diminish and consumers end up with a much bigger file with imperceptible improvements. For a couple of interesting takes, here’s Justin Colletti taking a skeptic’s view and Allen Farmelo with a more optimistic perspective. But what’s missed in this debate is that larger file size is only one of the technological upgrades that Pono seeks to popularize; I suspect that much of the focus on this particular variable is because it’s quantitative and able to be represented on a bar graph in a way that average music fans find comprehensible.
In fact, much of the improved audio quality you may hear with Pono will likely owe to the hardware as much as the files. The Pono player’s specs boast very high quality Digital Audio Converters (DACs) and a much better headphone amp than you’d find in your iPhone. This points to a factor that could really help with widespread adoption: Pono will play all your existing files and even compressed, lossy file formats are likely to benefit from the quality hardware components the device employs. At the same time, the increased clarity could reveal the flaws and artifacts of lossy file formats like AAC and MP3, thus making the case for lossless listening.
It’s hard to anticipate what impact Pono might have an impact on illegal downloads. Over the years, we have heard pirates cite the lack of commercially available full-resolution lossless options as a justification for their unauthorized torrenting—“If only the record industry would give me a way to buy uncompressed files instead of AACs or MP3s, I would pay.” This could be sincere, or it could be a convenient excuse, but as pricing for Pono’s store is likely to range from $14.99-$24.99, it’s hard to say how many current freeloaders will be persuaded to buy. (Indie labels currently typically sell full-resolution FLACs at $10.99-$11.99, not much more than MP3s.)
Of course, retail price has to be understood in the context of how the money is divided up. Some at SXSW were concerned that Pono CEO John Hamm gave a confusing answer to a pretty direct question about what the rightsholder/retailer split would be from Pono’s store. Hamm has since indicated that the store will employ the same 70/30 split as Apple’s iTunes store. But if artists or labels don’t like the terms offered by Pono’s store (either the splits or the pricing schemes) they can use other retail options like Bandcamp. (It’s worth mentioning here that this competive flexibility is made possible by net neutrality and the “safe harbor” provisions of the DMCA which allow services like Bandcamp to exist.)
One final objection to Pono is that consumers just aren’t going to be interested in formats that are based on downloads rather than streams. Pono’s FAQ suggests that it’s possible that streaming may ultimately come to Pono as well. But it’s also worth remembering that for now, digital sales still outpace subscriptions in revenue and in user base, and while adoption of streaming is indeed growing, different types of consumers value different things in their music listening.
Vinyl sales, for example, are up 33% over last year, according to the RIAA. (As RIAA’s data set tends not to capture some of the DIY/microindie marketplace where vinyl adoption is particularly strong, I’d guess that number is actually likely to be even higher.) While that may only amount to a small chunk of the overall music marketplace, for many artists it can be crucial. I’ve written elsewhere about the issues of scale associated with the economics of streaming, but it’s fair to say that certain artists are going to find it more achievable and renumerative to cultivate a smaller loyal group of high-value fans than try to market themselves to a large mass of people and extract micropennies from each one. Vinyl is one popular tool for indie artists and labels using this business model; high-resolution audio might be another. (Vinyl/FLAC bundles already appear to be growing in popularity.)
To me, this suggests that Pono has potential that extends far beyond the narrow “wealthy white boomer guy listening to Steely Dan's Aja" audiophile caricature demographic. Pono is unlikely to ever be as ubiquitous as the CD player or even the iPod once was, but it could prove to be an important part of the music ecosystem for at least certain kinds of consumers, labels, and artists.
While it’s understandable for any artist to want to be able to make their classic works available for new audiences on the formats that young consumers especially are using, it’s unlikely that De La Soul actually controls the rights to the music they’re giving away, so they could be putting themselves at significant legal risk. You read that right: it’s unlikely that De La Soul were within their legal rights in making their own catalog available for download. Their former label Warner Bros likely own the master recordings of the De La cuts; various parties control the sound recording and composition copyrights for samples running the gamut from from Steely Dan to Billy Joel to Kraftwerk. (And contrary to what many internet users believe, you don’t have to be making money to be committing copyright infringement and ultimately liable for statutory damages). On the other hand, it’s possible that by framing the giveaway as a “gift to their fans,” De La Soul have created a situation where any potential litigant would face a PR nightmare if they filed suit.
(Bizarrely, the MP3s distributed by De La Soul seem to be sourced from illegal Russian sites; did no one have a CD copy available? Or is this perhaps a subtle dig at Warner Bros and/or sample rightsholders, implying that their failure to clear samples over the last decade drove consumers to obtain the music unlawfully?)