On the whole I think I agree with the essay, or at least the main ideas. We do need to re-evaluate the value of culture in our society. But then we also need to re-evaluate what culture is. Is it the significant works that encaptulate our society and let people identify and define themselves, or is it the “disposable” pop pumped out by four massive corperations?

All music is pop music, all pop music is art, but is all pop music cultural?

@flor – if your sick of it stop reading and commenting on it then.

This is not to say that no one will ever pay for music, but the price is naturally approaching zero in the face of abundance. People still value music, but its monetary value (i.e. price) has changed due to the basic economics at play.

How can we give artists the technology and tools to separate themselves from media conglomerates so that the cost/distribution of music becomes near-free to consumers?

How long will it be before the MP3 generation’s kids make it impossible for media conglomerates to dictate the fate of how we choose to enjoy music?

Here I’m speaking about patronage, support and reducing all the arguments about the music, movie, newspaper, photography, etc business back into its constituent parts so we can better analyze where there are so many problems ascribing value to the artifacts further down the line.

Hence “reducing back to art” and then figuring it out from there. Kind of how complexity theory works.

This post has nothing to do with my job really, just that I love music more than most other forms of art (music as music, music as culture, music as performance, etc).

For fucks sake, I lectured on Punk music at UCSB and do so every spring still.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTB3UIjEy2c”

Gioia asks the question – how many sculptures can you name vs NBA players? That question cannot be answered/discussed without also discussing the role of media companies, who control a majority of distribution and make choices on which art and artists to market.

It’s like saying that since everyone isn’t driving vehicles that get 60 mpg that means you and I don’t value fuel economy. You cannot have a relevant discussion without questioning what value the auto industry places on fuel economy.

What I’d be more interested to hear from you Ethan, is take that statement, and relate it to WMG, the organization you work for. Some of your bosses took 6 and 7 figure raises last year in a climate of dropping revenue for their artists.

But that’s another discussion

I kinda get that you’re trying start the discussion from how we value art as a society. But, take a look, we DO already value art as a society, we consume and praise it daily.

I know you’re trying to break out of your place in the music industry. But it sounds like you’re confusing how people value art with how the music industry values art. Those are of course two completely different analyses.

And I cannot help but think that this statement:

“How do we as a government, a democratic society support artists to the point where the value of experience is enough to support the act of creation? How do remove the fear-politics and the pro-ignorance in the US society to the point where art gains intrinsic value as a societal force?”

Is support for something like a music tax (aka subsidies for the music corporations)

That’s exactly the point I’m trying to get at.

REDUCING back from an argument about taxing, piracy, etc into a discussion about the value and place of art in our society.

I agree with you: The executives in the music industry need to worry about their profits, but the rest of us need to step back and figure out where we stand on the large question about the value and role of the arts in our society.

You should listen to Dana Gioia’s 2007 Stanford Commencement Speech, if you haven’t already.