{"id":1082,"date":"2022-02-24T18:33:49","date_gmt":"2022-02-24T17:33:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wordpress\/?p=1082"},"modified":"2025-08-13T11:17:44","modified_gmt":"2025-08-13T09:17:44","slug":"new-model-same-old-stories","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/new-model-same-old-stories\/","title":{"rendered":"New Model, Same Old Stories?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reproducing Narratives of Democratization in Music Streaming Debates<\/h2>\n

Rapha\u00ebl Nowak and Benjamin A. Morgan<\/em> \"orcid\"<\/a><\/h3>\n

Abstract:<\/b> At the turn of the 2020s, music is largely distributed and consumed via streaming services. This new \u201cmoment\u201d in recorded music has attracted a lot of attention from scholars, with the aim of identifying the nature of transformations that are occurring at an economic and\/or cultural level. This chapter critically assesses scholarly analyses of music production, distribution, and consumption in the age of streaming services. We note that accounts tend to work with specific assumptions underpinning the association between culture and technology, in particular in relation to the democratization of access. We argue in this chapter that music streaming services become a leitmotiv to anchor discourses about what music should ideally be, thus reproducing narratives that predate the emergence of music streaming.<\/p>\n

<\/span>How to cite<\/span><\/h4>

<\/span>How to cite<\/span><\/h4>

\n

\n\n\t\t4511395<\/span>\n\t\t{4511395:KESMPS3B}<\/span>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/span>\n <\/span>\n\t\t1<\/span>\n\t\tchicago-author-date<\/span>\n\t\t50<\/span>\n\t\tdefault<\/span>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t1<\/span>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t1<\/span>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/span>\n <\/span>\n 1082<\/span>\n\t\thttps:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wp-content\/plugins\/zotpress\/<\/span>\n\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t%7B%22status%22%3A%22success%22%2C%22updateneeded%22%3Afalse%2C%22instance%22%3Afalse%2C%22meta%22%3A%7B%22request_last%22%3A0%2C%22request_next%22%3A0%2C%22used_cache%22%3Atrue%7D%2C%22data%22%3A%5B%7B%22key%22%3A%22KESMPS3B%22%2C%22library%22%3A%7B%22id%22%3A4511395%7D%2C%22meta%22%3A%7B%22lastModifiedByUser%22%3A%7B%22id%22%3A8762347%2C%22username%22%3A%22mdwpress%22%2C%22name%22%3A%22%22%2C%22links%22%3A%7B%22alternate%22%3A%7B%22href%22%3A%22https%3A%5C%2F%5C%2Fwww.zotero.org%5C%2Fmdwpress%22%2C%22type%22%3A%22text%5C%2Fhtml%22%7D%7D%7D%2C%22creatorSummary%22%3A%22Nowak%20and%20Morgan%22%2C%22parsedDate%22%3A%222021-11-23%22%2C%22numChildren%22%3A0%7D%2C%22bib%22%3A%22%26lt%3Bdiv%20class%3D%26quot%3Bcsl-bib-body%26quot%3B%20style%3D%26quot%3Bline-height%3A%201.35%3B%20padding-left%3A%201em%3B%20text-indent%3A-1em%3B%26quot%3B%26gt%3B%5Cn%20%20%26lt%3Bdiv%20class%3D%26quot%3Bcsl-entry%26quot%3B%26gt%3BNowak%2C%20Rapha%26%23xEB%3Bl%2C%20and%20Benjamin%20A.%20Morgan.%202021.%20%26%23x201C%3BNew%20Model%2C%20Same%20Old%20Stories%3F%3A%20Reproducing%20Narratives%20of%20Democratization%20in%20Music%20Streaming%20Debates.%26%23x201D%3B%20In%20%26lt%3Bi%26gt%3BMusic%20and%20Democracy.%20Participatory%20Approaches%26lt%3B%5C%2Fi%26gt%3B%2C%20edited%20by%20Marko%20K%26%23xF6%3Blbl%20and%20Fritz%20Tr%26%23xFC%3Bmpi.%20mdwPress%20%5C%2F%20transcript%20Verlag.%20https%3A%5C%2F%5C%2Fdoi.org%5C%2F10.14361%5C%2F9783839456576-003.%20%26lt%3Ba%20title%3D%26%23039%3BCite%20in%20RIS%20Format%26%23039%3B%20class%3D%26%23039%3Bzp-CiteRIS%26%23039%3B%20data-zp-cite%3D%26%23039%3Bapi_user_id%3D4511395%26amp%3Bitem_key%3DKESMPS3B%26%23039%3B%20href%3D%26%23039%3Bjavascript%3Avoid%280%29%3B%26%23039%3B%26gt%3BCite%26lt%3B%5C%2Fa%26gt%3B%20%26lt%3B%5C%2Fdiv%26gt%3B%5Cn%26lt%3B%5C%2Fdiv%26gt%3B%22%2C%22data%22%3A%7B%22itemType%22%3A%22bookSection%22%2C%22title%22%3A%22New%20Model%2C%20Same%20Old%20Stories%3F%3A%20Reproducing%20Narratives%20of%20Democratization%20in%20Music%20Streaming%20Debates%22%2C%22creators%22%3A%5B%7B%22creatorType%22%3A%22editor%22%2C%22firstName%22%3A%22Marko%22%2C%22lastName%22%3A%22K%5Cu00f6lbl%22%7D%2C%7B%22creatorType%22%3A%22editor%22%2C%22firstName%22%3A%22Fritz%22%2C%22lastName%22%3A%22Tr%5Cu00fcmpi%22%7D%2C%7B%22creatorType%22%3A%22author%22%2C%22firstName%22%3A%22Rapha%5Cu00ebl%22%2C%22lastName%22%3A%22Nowak%22%7D%2C%7B%22creatorType%22%3A%22author%22%2C%22firstName%22%3A%22Benjamin%20A.%22%2C%22lastName%22%3A%22Morgan%22%7D%5D%2C%22abstractNote%22%3A%22At%20the%20turn%20of%20the%202020s%2C%20music%20is%20largely%20distributed%20and%20consumed%20via%20streaming%20services.%20This%20new%20%5Cu00bbmoment%5Cu00ab%20in%20recorded%20music%20has%20attracted%20a%20lot%20of%20attention%20from%20scholars%2C%20with%20the%20aim%20of%20identifying%20the%20nature%20of%20transformations%20that%20are%20occurring%20at%20an%20economic%20and%5C%2For%20cultural%20level.%20This%20chapter%20critically%20assesses%20scholarly%20analyses%20of%20music%20production%2C%20distribution%2C%20and%20consumption%20in%20the%20age%20of%20streaming%20services.%20We%20note%20that%20accounts%20tend%20to%20work%20with%20specific%20assumptions%20underpinning%20the%20association%20between%20culture%20and%20technology%2C%20in%20particular%20in%20relation%20to%20the%20democratization%20of%20access.%20We%20argue%20in%20this%20chapter%20that%20music%20streaming%20services%20become%20a%20leitmotiv%20to%20anchor%20discourses%20about%20what%20music%20should%20ideally%20be%2C%20thus%20reproducing%20narratives%20that%20predate%20the%20emergence%20of%20music%20streaming.%22%2C%22bookTitle%22%3A%22Music%20and%20Democracy.%20Participatory%20Approaches%22%2C%22date%22%3A%222021-11-23%22%2C%22originalDate%22%3A%22%22%2C%22originalPublisher%22%3A%22%22%2C%22originalPlace%22%3A%22%22%2C%22format%22%3A%22%22%2C%22ISBN%22%3A%22978-3-8376-5657-2%20978-3-8394-5657-6%22%2C%22DOI%22%3A%22%22%2C%22citationKey%22%3A%22%22%2C%22url%22%3A%22https%3A%5C%2F%5C%2Fwww.transcript-open.de%5C%2Fdoi%5C%2F10.14361%5C%2F9783839456576-003%22%2C%22ISSN%22%3A%22%22%2C%22language%22%3A%22en%22%2C%22collections%22%3A%5B%22IUE3VU3J%22%5D%2C%22dateModified%22%3A%222022-02-24T17%3A31%3A38Z%22%7D%7D%5D%7D<\/span>\n\n\t\t\t\t
\n
\n
Nowak, Rapha\u00ebl, and Benjamin A. Morgan. 2021. \u201cNew Model, Same Old Stories?: Reproducing Narratives of Democratization in Music Streaming Debates.\u201d In Music and Democracy. Participatory Approaches<\/i>, edited by Marko K\u00f6lbl and Fritz Tr\u00fcmpi. mdwPress \/ transcript Verlag. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.14361\/9783839456576-003. Cite<\/a> <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n\n\n<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n
Chapter PDF<\/a><\/span><\/div>
<\/div>\n

<\/span>About the authors<\/span><\/h4>

<\/span>About the authors<\/span><\/h4>

\n

Rapha\u00ebl Nowak<\/b> is a <\/span>lecturer in Sociology at the University of York. He is a cultural sociologist conducting research on digital technologies and media, music consumption and taste, music genres, and cultural heritage. He is the author of Consuming Music in the Digital Age (Palgrave, 2016), co\u2010editor with Andrew Whelan of Networked Music Cultures (Palgrave, 2016), and co\u2010author with Sarah Baker and Lauren Istvandity of Curating Pop <\/i>(Bloomsbury, 2019). <\/span><\/p>\n

Ben Morgan<\/b> is completing a Ph.D. exploring music streaming services in the Australian music industries at RMIT University. He is a veteran of the US music business and consultant to government institutions who is interested in creative practice across different cultural contexts. Looking ahead, his interest lies in institutional development policy and the global cultural economy in those regions where cultural and media industries are still nascent.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>

<\/div>
<\/div>\n

<\/span>Outline<\/span><\/h4>

<\/span>Outline<\/span><\/h4>

\nIntroduction<\/a>
\nWhat Does \u201cDemocratization\u201d Actually Mean in Relation to Accessing Music?<\/a>
\nArtists, Producers, and the Economics of Music Streaming<\/a>
\nAudiences and the Cultural Aftermath of Music Streaming<\/a>
\nConclusion<\/a>
\nReferences<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>

<\/div>
<\/div>\n
\n
\n

<\/a>Introduction<\/a><\/h4>\n

At the turn of the 2020s, music is fully integrated within what many call the \u201cplatform society.\u201d<\/span>1<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Processes of production, distribution, and consumption are largely operated on, organized around, and mediated by, a number of websites, applications, and platforms across computers, phones, and other devices.<\/span>2<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Interactive on\u2010demand commercial interfaces such as Spotify, Tencent, Apple Music, Boomplay, and Deezer, along with other digital services such as broadcaster Pandora or \u201calternative platforms\u201d SoundCloud and Bandcamp, have combined to make digital music the primary source of global commercial recording revenue since 2017.<\/span>3<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Music had already become fully \u201cdigitized\u201d in some sense since the advent of peer\u2010to-peer applications in the late 1990s.<\/span>4<\/sup><\/a><\/span> However, the advent of \u201cdigital music commodities\u201d<\/span>5<\/sup><\/a><\/span> anchors music within the digital realm by providing stable and legal models of distribution that have largely reduced illegal file sharing and arguably threatened the subsistence of \u201cphysical\u201d sound carriers. This new \u201cmoment\u201d in the digitization of music is centered around usage enclosures and new affordances of often\u2010automated recommendation, which draw on big data and algorithms to organize the distribution and consumption of content. This results in a range of (potentially) novel cultural practices that emerge from these new models of distribution and consumption. Within this broader digital ecosystem, we will focus on the interactive commercial services in which listeners can access the catalogs of most commercial rights holders.<\/span><\/p>\n

Music streaming is seen as further increasing the omnipresence of music in social life.<\/span>6<\/sup><\/a><\/span> With the help of algorithms, there is music that can be recommended for, and listened to in, every context of everyday life: playlists such as \u201cLazy Sunday,\u201d \u201cThe Stress Buster,\u201d or \u201cSongs for Sleeping\u201d<\/span>7<\/sup><\/a><\/span> have become prominent in how listeners access content. These and other kinds of playlists are often framed as human\u2010curated collections. Meanwhile, user demographic and usage data enclosures are used to construct profiles, which are then used to provide automated recommendations to other similar profiles.<\/span>8<\/sup><\/a><\/span> While the degree of human decision\u2010making in curation and recommendation is opaque,<\/span>9<\/sup><\/a><\/span> and even automated algorithmic recommendations are still composed of collective human activity,<\/span>10<\/sup><\/a><\/span> the streaming services\u2019 logic is the prediction of quantified cultural practices: recommendations work with a preexisting set of preferences defined through usage metrics and the assumption that users want to further explore the catalog at their disposal and expand the presence of music in their everyday life. <\/span><\/p>\n

In this context, a plethora of scholarly research attempts to understand what this model changes. We note that accounts can be summarized along two different yet intertwined objects of analysis: 1) a techno\u2010economic approach that highlights how these streaming services place new key players in charge of music distribution;<\/span>11<\/sup><\/a><\/span> and 2) a cultural perspective on the \u201caftermath\u201d of music streaming that questions how people \u201cvalue\u201d music.<\/span>12<\/sup><\/a><\/span> At the core of these perspectives lies a particular approach to the nexus of music and democratization. In conducting a critical literature review on scholarship that analyzes the economic and\/or cultural aftermath of the emergence of a \u201cplatform model\u201d to music distribution and consumption, this chapter interrogates how such scholarship replicates some old myths or stories about what music ought to be\u2014as a valued cultural object for instance and\/or as an object worthy of economic retribution for artists. We find that critical discourses on this \u201cnew model\u201d are often anchored onto \u201cold stories\u201d regarding the economic and cultural value of music. While we cannot aim to be exhaustive in our review of the literature on the topic, we focus here on accounts that specifically address the issue of \u201cdemocratization\u201d as a key indicator to evaluate the distribution of music content on streaming platforms. Thus, before critically analyzing each perspective on music streaming, the first section of this chapter is dedicated to defining \u201cdemocracy\u201d in the relation to accessing music. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>What Does \u201cDemocratization\u201d Actually Mean in Relation to Accessing Music?<\/a><\/h4>\n

In scholarly work about culture (and its association with technology), democratization can be an important concept that captures either the sweeping historical movement of a greater access to culture that dates back to the post-WWII era or the effects of the introduction of new technologies of communications and consumption on people\u2019s access to content. However, as Hesmondhalgh argues, democratization is often raised as a notion but rarely explored in depth.<\/span>13<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Oftentimes the concept is used without any proper analysis of what it entangles or even suggests. As a result, popular narratives tend to reflect the concerns of specific groups while claiming to speak on behalf of what the technology means for music existentially. Yet, as we intend to show in this section, democratization takes on different and even contradictory meanings.<\/span><\/p>\n

Yves Evrard distinguishes between two possible definitions of \u201cdemocratization\u201d by identifying two political positions that he calls \u201cdemocratization of culture\u201d and \u201ccultural democracy.\u201d<\/span>14<\/sup><\/a><\/span> The democratization of culture refers to a greater access to cultural works for an audience lacking access (for social reasons). It can be initiated or emerge from cultural government policy, economic growth, cultural industry strategy, or a combination of these. Evrard notes that \u201ca mark of success for cultural policy would be a demographic structure for attendance to major artworks that matches that of the total population.\u201d<\/span>15<\/sup><\/a><\/span> The success of the democratization of culture approach is measured by the erasure of the disparities between class, gender, and age groups in the demographics of cultural consumption. By contrast, the second possible definition of democratization refers to what Evrard calls \u201ccultural democracy,\u201d defined<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

as one founded on free individual choice, in which the role of a cultural policy is not to interfere with the preferences expressed by citizen\u2010consumers but to support the choices made by individuals or social groups through a regulatory policy applied to the distribution of information or the structures of supply.16<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In this case, the emphasis on individual choices assumes that individuals are either free to choose content that pleases them, or that they ought to be free to do so. The dichotomy between the two different positions is \u201crooted in fundamental philosophical debates\u201d<\/span>17<\/sup><\/a><\/span> and is useful to uncover the political positions behind critical scholarships on music and technologies, particularly in relation to the most recent development of music streaming.<\/span><\/p>\n

In cultural studies, the democratization of culture position can be found for instance in the writings of Theodor W. Adorno, where lower strata of a society (the \u201cmasses\u201d) who consume popular culture are seen as dominated and passive.<\/span>18<\/sup><\/a><\/span> The solution to achieve \u201cemancipation\u201d is found in an access to high culture, which heightens the senses. Adorno defends an argument that popular culture is bad because it is repetitive and standardized.<\/span>19<\/sup><\/a><\/span> A more thorough and measured approach to the democratization of culture is found in Pierre Bourdieu\u2019s illustrious investigation of French cultural practices.<\/span>20<\/sup><\/a><\/span> In contrast with Adorno, Bourdieu argues that it is the social organization that deems popular culture bad. Here again, cultural content is denoted with status on a hierarchy from high and legitimate to low and dominated. On the other hand, the democracy of culture position implies \u201ca network [\u2026] of independent units\u201d<\/span>21<\/sup><\/a><\/span> and is exemplified by scholarly accounts that emphasize the \u201cchoices,\u201d or at least the relative autonomy, of cultural groups, such as in subcultural theory.<\/span>22<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

We briefly mention these accounts as a way to highlight how their positions\u2014if not fully disclosed\u2014have been discussed and situated within the paradigms established by Evrard, who notes fundamental philosophical debates behind each position are concerned with theories of aesthetics:<\/p>\n

\n

The main basis for this dichotomy lies in the difference between beauty and aesthetics. In the [case of the democratization of culture position], there are objective, universal norms present in the work of art, which give it its value. Democratization would seek to disseminate these norms or create a universal canon. By contrast the theory of aesthetics [\u2026] bases value on the pleasure or satisfaction derived from contemplating a work of art or attending a performance, that is, the subjective judgment of taste. Even though the exercise of judgment is universal, the outcome is not, and this leads to different choices that may be observed and analysed.23<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The issue underpinned by the two perspectives on democratization questions a particular approach to the value of culture: do objects possess an objective aesthetic value? Or does the aesthetic value subjectively emerge through interactions with the object?<\/p>\n

With regard particularly to music and technologies, we find that authors\u2019 positions on culture are not always (fully) disclosed, but rather subsumed and hidden behind more micro foci. However, from our critical review of the literature, we find arguments relating to the cultural democracy position in the fields of popular music studies, science and technology studies, cultural studies, and sociology. In fact, we can trace a genealogy of different positions that have had academic currency and momentum over time. Simon Frith suggests that scholarly discourses on music and aesthetics have successively moved from the position \u201cif it\u2019s popular it must be bad\u201d (as in Adorno), to the position \u201cif it\u2019s popular it must be bad, unless it\u2019s popular with the right people\u201d (as in subcultural theory), and finally to the position \u201cif it\u2019s popular it must be good!\u201d (as in empirical accounts of listening).<\/span>24<\/sup><\/a><\/span> The more celebratory perspective corresponds to a cultural democracy position whereby individuals exercise free choice over what music they produce, distribute, and listen to, assisted by the technological evolution of recorded music, often seen as detrimental to the question of access. The advent of music streaming services somehow reconfigures scholarly perspectives on music. We find that the notion of democratization acts as the backdrop of contemporary accounts critically evaluating what music streaming has economically or culturally changed to the realm of recorded music. The next section focuses on the economics of music streaming. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>Artists, Producers, and the Economics of Music Streaming <\/a><\/h4>\n

Music streaming has become the dominant source of global revenue from recordings.<\/span>25<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Its structural configuration has seen the emergence of \u201cnew players\u201d in charge of music distribution and playback,<\/span>26<\/sup><\/a><\/span> though the market dominance of oligopolistic rights holders has never been undermined.<\/span>27<\/sup><\/a><\/span> The question is not of ownership or market share of copyright revenue, but of whether or not these new players have made the economic structures of music distribution more or less democratic.<\/span><\/p>\n

A range of discourses engage this question through lenses such as rates of payment to rights holders,<\/span>28<\/sup><\/a><\/span> broad revenue flows across sectors,<\/span>29<\/sup><\/a><\/span> or subscription price<\/span>30<\/sup><\/a><\/span> as measures of the economic harm\u2014or democratic potential\u2014of music streaming. Though all revenue\u2010based arguments provide only a partial perspective, they overall paint a picture where music streaming benefits consumers and the rights holders of catalogues and mass hits, while implying that recording artists and songwriters are suffering from a disappearance of income. As Hesmondhalgh points out, these critical economic arguments rely on a \u201cdubious\u201d focus on rates of payment to rights holders, which present claims of an overall decline in conditions for musicians, while \u201cit seems clear that the current system retains the striking inequalities and generally poor working conditions that characterized its predecessors.\u201d<\/span>31<\/sup><\/a><\/span> When asking whether streaming is more or less democratic from an economic perspective, we must first recognize that the recording industry has long been premised on widespread economic failure and rare lucrative mass success, where revenue is top\u2010heavy and most recordings do not cover their investment costs.<\/span>32<\/sup><\/a><\/span> We focus our attention to two types of perspectives in this section\u2014those exploring royalty payments and those assessing access to the marketplace. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
<\/a>Royalty Payments as the Economic Measure of Fairness<\/a><\/h6>\n

A commonly attempted approach to answer this question is purely financial and concerns royalty payments to recording artists. Arguments about music streaming in journalistic and vernacular accounts center around concepts of \u201cfairness\u201d and \u201ctransparency,\u201d<\/span>33<\/sup><\/a><\/span> with the rate of payment to rights holders for usage of songs and recordings receiving particular attention.<\/span>34<\/sup><\/a><\/span> While these outputs impact holders of sound recording and song copyrights, it is common to see rhetorical arguments reduced to how musicians and songwriters are paid by commercial streaming services. Two discursive subtleties are important to note here: the framing of these firms paying \u201cmusicians\u201d and \u201csongwriters\u201d as opposed to \u201ccopyright owners\u201d or \u201crights holders,\u201d and a frequent comparison of digital streaming\u2019s usage\u2010based revenue calculations to the older sales model of purchasing a personal copy of a recording for unlimited personal use. These strategies are used to imply that streaming services (Spotify in particular)<\/span>35<\/sup><\/a><\/span> are unfair to musicians broadly and in need of more \u201cdemocratization.\u201d However, these critical accounts typically present comparisons to the larger amounts paid for ownership for unlimited use as a sufficient demonstration of past systems being more lucrative, and also often imply that the streaming services pay royalties to artists, not rights holders. Even well\u2010argued institutional research papers on the topic of streaming revenue rates use \u201cfairness\u201d and \u201ctransparency\u201d uncritically.<\/span>36<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Moreover, the discursive focus on how musicians are compensated often completely neglects the issue of how record labels and publishers compensate the creators under contract. In many instances, critiques of Spotify\u2019s rates of payments resemble older political economy arguments directed at the dominant record labels and publishers on whom their production, and ultimately their livelihoods, ostensibly depend.<\/span>37<\/sup><\/a><\/span> When looking at the rates paid to copyright holders by Spotify, the oligopolistic powers remain significantly involved in the negotiation of how much is paid for copyright usage. The systemic role of record labels, publishers, and collecting societies in negotiating rates and paying royalties is often ignored.<\/span><\/p>\n

Obfuscated elements of complex revenue structures further problematize arguments about payment rates. Rates paid to rights holders are based on sharing the revenue Spotify receives from subscriptions and advertisers in a territory, and the particular amounts paid to the rights holders are dependent on a variety of factors, of which we will mention only a few. The record label or aggregator service which has uploaded the recordings will have negotiated their own specific deal with Spotify, often under a non\u2010disclosure agreement. The performance rights organizations responsible for the collection of song royalties (which are defined differently around the world) negotiate the rate for their catalog in each territory. In different countries, copyright laws and structures will impact who can collect which rights and who can negotiate for those rights holders. Publishing mechanical royalty payments are handled quite differently in the USA than in other countries, for example, with the government directly involved in setting the rates. Since Spotify\u2019s revenue pool is shared, paying more to one group of rights holders means less revenue for others. Ultimately, the rates paid to rights holders or aggregators per stream vary considerably. Demanding one group (songwriters for example) to be paid higher rates is arguing, in essence, that other groups (recording rights holders) should be paid less.<\/p>\n

A second critical point concerns the deals between rights holders and musicians, including issues of artist royalty payments. The question of what a musician will be paid quickly becomes a query of who they work with. Record labels, aggregators, performance rights organizations, and even managers of the world\u2019s most popular artist brands all compete with each other for their share of the available revenue from the platforms. Revenue studies will obtain different results based on methodology and sample. Still, even if a broader picture among groups can be seen in these large studies, given the heterogeneous concerns of performing musicians, songwriters, recording engineers, managers, rights holders, concert promoters, and countless other stakeholder groups involved in the music business, the search for a grand narrative of democratization or democracy upon which everyone can agree will remain elusive using rates of payment.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
<\/a>Access to the Marketplace<\/a><\/h6>\n

A second measure of the economic impact induced by music streaming is the one of access to the marketplace. In that sense, music streaming represents a major structural shift. Digital technology allows musicians to produce and distribute their recordings with relative ease, especially in the context of the transition from the ownership model to access.<\/span>38<\/sup><\/a><\/span> The historical difficulty for producers to get releases into retail stores alongside that of major\u2010label albums was famously the concern of smaller record labels and unsigned artist brands in the pre\u2010internet area, when recording was prohibitively expensive and mainstream (physical) distribution dominated by the major labels. Nowadays, any producer can pay a small fee to put their music into the streaming platform catalogues and receive some revenue for it. Spotify has reported that over 40,000 songs are uploaded to their ecosystem each day and the vast majority of recordings will fail to generate enough usage and revenue to pay for this fee.<\/span>39<\/sup><\/a><\/span> One example narrative is home recording artist Steve Benjamins,<\/span>40<\/sup><\/a><\/span> who claims that he collects $400 per month without playing live, and his streams are driven through Spotify\u2019s playlists and automated algorithmic recommendation tools. Benjamins does not work with a record label or hire other musicians. If we are to take this case as indicative of a modest new revenue structure (rather than hyperbole more in line with the viral myth that intermediaries are no longer needed), it points towards a production strategy created by platformization which is in fact more \u201cdemocratic\u201d from a systemic perspective. The case shows that Spotify\u2019s discovery tools have created opportunities for a production method and level of investment which previously would not have found an audience at scale. And being that this is something new, which threatens existing revenue structures and incumbents, it is to be expected that status quo interests will resist or challenge the legitimacy of these kinds of stories as outliers, or the music as inauthentic. Admittedly, Benjamins provides an example of a specific narrative that has been difficult to confirm. Bearing this in mind, stories such as that of Benjamins should not necessarily be taken as proof of a new structure that is easily accessible to all, but rather a need for more research into how prevalent and accurate these new kinds of narratives actually are.<\/span><\/p>\n

Coming on top of the question of \u201caccess\u201d is the issue of \u201cvisibility\u201d of recordings in the crowded marketplace of the digital music commodity. In order to get deeper inside the concept of \u201caccess\u201d and what has and has not shifted, we look at the words of musician and activist Jenny Toomey, founder of the Future of Music Coalition, when internet technology was just beginning to affect structures of music industries in 2001:<\/p>\n

\n

Do traditional music business models serve musicians? In my opinion, aside from the cultural legitimization that comes with signing a major label deal, there are three need\u2010based reasons why musicians sign major labor deals. The first one is access to resources <\/i>[\u2026]. The second reason is access to distribution <\/i>[\u2026]. The final reason that artists are signing these deals is access to promotion<\/i>.41<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It is the second of these three forms of access, that of distribution in the sense of delivery from producer to listener, which streaming platforms have solved brilliantly. The access to promotion is related to how \u201cdiscovery\u201d works within the streaming interface and is the most interesting to explore. Generating sufficient interest in a song or artist brand to make them fashionable still requires investment and expertise. Regardless of their access to catalogues, producers face a saturated space where everyone aims at attracting users\u2019 attention on platforms, with, in return, a lot of content that is never listened to. Streaming services have created infomediary ecosystems which mine, monitor, and mediate the way songs are used and presented.<\/span>42<\/sup><\/a><\/span> From the perspective of an artist brand, record label, or publisher wishing to see recordings promoted within the digital music commodity interface, the opaque nature of the sociotechnical intermediary easily leads to suspicion of influence on the process being wielded by the oligopolistic powers. The skepticism of oligopolies\u2019 influence on the promotion\/discovery process can be seen as the need for Spotify to democratize its access to promotion. This again extends old logics about corrupt or entrenched gatekeepers who are not being \u201cfair\u201d to artist brands or songs which are lacking in capital. The alternate view, which is only more recently starting to emerge through high\u2010profile cases such as Chance the Rapper<\/span>43<\/sup><\/a><\/span> or more obscure ones like Benjamins, is that there are niches where unsigned artist brands earn revenue without the reliance on record labels, other promotional services, or even performing concerts. <\/span><\/p>\n

From our brief exploration of the economic aspect of the music streaming model, we note that the focus either on royalty payments or on access to the marketplace produces different results in the evaluation of said model as a potential for a more democratic popular music market. Pointing out the micro\u2010payments of commercial streaming services or the new possibilities for unsigned \u201camateur\u201d artists to share their content on streaming platforms are only examples of structural reconfigurations in the production and distribution of popular music. Moreover, framing debates about revenue rates as directly between artists\/songwriters and the services extends old logics around the ideology of stardom, which seek to conceal the professional mechanisms and labor involved in the commercialization of recordings and artist brands.<\/span>44<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Under this ideology, success is due to the amazing charisma and talent of artist personas, while failure is accepted as the natural outcome for those who lack those rare gifts or who fail to connect with the right stakeholders who can nurture and develop them. This both hides the role of music business workers and distances their effort from the outcomes. <\/span><\/p>\n

When particular stories of economic success or failure become the basis upon which to construct an evaluative narrative of streaming music, then we find that these narratives are in fact rooted in other assumptions as to what an <\/span>ideal <\/i><\/span>situation should resemble, but which are never fully established and fail to acknowledge the underlying design of recording industries to overproduce in search of a few stars, alongside the mass failure of most commercial releases and artist brands. In the case of royalty payments, what would a \u201cfair\u201d redistribution consist of, and to whom should it be paid? In the case of the streaming marketplace, who should be able to put their music into the ecosystem and benefit from it? Here is where the perspective of the \u201cplatformization of cultural production\u201d becomes helpful.<\/span>45<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Should artist brands and songwriters optimize their production for the platform, as opposed to the audience or individual listener? Whether \u201cplatformization\u201d is seen as positive or negative for the music industries broadly relates to the question: should commercial sustainability continue to be contingent upon stakeholder experts and intermediaries to locate and develop stars and hit songs, especially given the high rate of failure? We argue that different answers to these questions can be uncovered, and they are determined by the particular approach that authors have of music and its relationship to either a democratization of culture or cultural democracy paradigm.<\/span>46<\/sup><\/a><\/span> In the next section, we continue on our critical overview of accounts framing music streaming\u2019s <\/span>changes<\/i><\/span>, but this time, in cultural terms. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>Audiences and the Cultural Aftermath of Music Streaming<\/a><\/h4>\n

Besides economic perspectives on how music streaming <\/span>changes <\/i><\/span>how artists and producers distribute their music, more recent discussions move towards the \u201ccultural\u201d aftermath of the streaming model. To some authors, the question is laid out as follows: \u201cwhat has streaming done to music\u2019s value?\u201d<\/span>47<\/sup><\/a><\/span> This interrogation underpins how the technological and economic configuration of music streaming changes, or contributes to change, the value of music as cultural content. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n
<\/a>Taste and Consumption Practices<\/a><\/h6>\n

With the shift towards audience studies in the 1970s and 1980s, consumers of culture have been described as possessing a certain autonomy.<\/span>48<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Scholarly accounts of audiences\u2019 <\/span>ways of doing<\/i><\/span> align with a cultural democracy position.<\/span>49<\/sup><\/a><\/span> In the case of music, this translates into the following question: \u201cwhat does [music] make people do?\u201d<\/span>50<\/sup><\/a><\/span> When interrogating audiences, scholars do not focus on the type of cultural content that is listened to as much as they question 1) the contexts within which listening practices are \u201cperformed,\u201d and 2) what happens within the interactions with music, with the idea that music represents a \u201ccapacity for social action.\u201d<\/span>51<\/sup><\/a><\/span> As such, listening <\/span>practices<\/i><\/span> are discussed in relation to how affective outcomes emerge. Music is understood in relation to its use value, meaning that it is <\/span>valued<\/i><\/span> by consumers, and therefore socially <\/span>valuable<\/i><\/span>, because it enables, accompanies, and affects. <\/span><\/p>\n

In the age of music streaming, the presence of music in everyday life is said to increase.<\/span>52<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Streaming services ensure a continuous musical flow by providing a playlist that fits every aspect of one\u2019s daily routine. The technological means to access and listen to music are understood as offering more options to manage an everyday accompaniment of music. A cultural democracy approach to music considers listeners as competent in their choices of music content that is suited to the different listening practices carried on in their everyday life, in direct contrast to the recording industry view that experts and intermediaries are needed to help listeners choose \u201cthe best music.\u201d Automated algorithms that organize recommendations present the potential to increase individuals\u2019 access to music, for instance through suggestions of automated playlists that aim at capturing a particular mood. However, algorithms construct user profiles on the basis of a pre\u2010existing repertoire of preferences and proximity with other users.<\/span>53<\/sup><\/a><\/span> In that regard, music streaming cannot necessarily be seen as the tool that will transform every user\u2019s taste one way or another. The aim of the commercial services is to get users to pay a monthly subscription. They do so by deploying algorithms that suggest content that must feel new, but also cannot be too different from the songs they usually listen to.<\/span><\/p>\n

The process for artists to feature in playlists on streaming platforms is somewhat opaque, and it has been recently reported that rights holders attempt to influence playlist curators through \u201cpitching\u201d releases.<\/span>54<\/sup><\/a><\/span> With algorithmic tools also involved, the curation of playlists is still seen as a new version of pitching radio programmers, magazine editors, or record store retailers to feature certain songs or releases over others. For producers unable to get their songs onto these playlists, the process seems unfair and in need of democratization. These criticisms echo old narratives of the corrupt influence of radio promotion companies and major labels.<\/span>55<\/sup><\/a><\/span> The extension of older recording industry concepts frames these tools of recommendation and curation as new sociotechnical intermediaries which are needed to add value to songs, and can be influenced through strategic campaigns of influence, extending the old logics around publicity, promotion, and marketing. In this frame, the producers are still optimizing music for audiences. Alternately, the platformization view would portray these same streaming services as platforms: novel structures which require different production approaches than cultural intermediaries. This view also constrains the formerly vital role of recording industry stakeholders in favor of the platforms. Whether seen as new versions of old intermediaries, or as novel platforms, the end result is that the way artist brands, albums, and songs are selected into playlists and other automated recommendation features is a process that remains curated and mediated for users. Now the question is whether this very process of curation and mediation is seen as a necessary form of imposition of certain artists and songs onto users\u2019 everyday listening practices or a mere suggestion as to what content can be a better fit with what everyday activity. <\/span><\/p>\n

The importance of music streaming as a mode of music consumption raises an important theoretical conundrum. Eric Drott for instance argues that even the desire to consume new music needs to be manufactured, implying that the urge to hear new music is itself fabricated in the interest of platform capitalism.<\/span>56<\/sup><\/a><\/span> David Arditi goes further by arguing that the ubiquity of music as organized by streaming platforms means that we are \u201cinundated\u201d with music.<\/span>57<\/sup><\/a><\/span> The \u201cdigital music trap\u201d commodifies our everyday existence, turns music consumers into music users, and makes us pay for music with cash or data for access to a platform. Arditi\u2019s critique of music streaming aligns with a democratization of culture perspective, whereby the techno\u2010cultural infrastructure (here, streaming services) entraps and dominates its users by imposing a continuous stream of music.<\/span><\/p>\n

A cultural democracy perspective would instead highlight how streaming platforms enable (to some extent) different \u201cindependent units\u201d<\/span>58<\/sup><\/a><\/span> to better connect and feed each other\u2019s taste and practices. Moreover, the autonomy of music consumers means that they are given more opportunities\u2014through access to a large catalog of music content\u2014to find the music that is better suited to their everyday tasks and with the aim of an affective outcome. The opposition between the two paradigms points to a different approach to the issue of the value of music in the age of streaming, which we explore more closely in the next section. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
<\/a>Music\u2019s Presence, Listeners\u2019 Attention \u2026 and Regimes of Cultural Value<\/a><\/h6>\n

The issue of the value of music has recently become of prominent significance across scholarly publications.<\/span>59<\/sup><\/a><\/span> The question is not so much about whether the cultural value of music has evolved over time, since we can simply point to the historical and cultural evolution of popular music, its division and development into various genres, its increasing presence within societies, and the evolution of technologies that enable humans to produce, distribute, and consume it. Instead, the question lies in whether the increasing \u201cubiquity\u201d of music transforms how we value it in a non\u2010econometric sense, or: does the presence of music in contemporary capitalistic societies\u2014and especially mediated by streaming services\u2014make it more valuable to <\/span>people<\/i><\/span>, or less valuable? <\/span><\/p>\n

While we witness a resurgence of publications on the issue of music\u2019s cultural value, and particularly in relation to its association with streaming platforms, we first need to ask whether music streaming constitutes a point of rupture. Of course, all authors would point to the genealogy of digital music as laying the grounds for the current organization of music streaming. Nevertheless, there may be something specific to music streaming in the age of platform ecosystems which would tip the issue \u201cover the line.\u201d For instance, while Arditi acknowledges that recorded music has always been a commodity, the current techno\u2010economic infrastructure, which he analyses as a \u201cdigital music trap,\u201d further commodifies music. He writes: \u201cthe digital music trap allows for the perpetual exploitation of listening\u2010labor through the expanded means of music consumption.\u201d<\/span>60<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Likewise, in Hesmondhalgh and Meier\u2019s cultural history of the evolution of digital music, we find that the third \u201cmoment\u201d that is characterized by the dominance of IT companies may result in a \u201closs\u201d of \u201cmusic\u2019s power.\u201d<\/span>61<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

In those critics, we note two dominant issues that are somewhat located into the technological infrastructure of music consumption: first, there is a loss of music\u2019s economic value (we no longer pay for units); second, the ubiquitous background presence of music means we do not pay attention to it, which reduces its emotional force. On that later point, Lee Marshall draws on a neo\u2010classical approach to value (stipulating that people need to be \u201caware\u201d of objects) and notes that \u201cthe idea of ubiquitous listening can contribute to an explanation as to why many individuals may not view music as particularly valuable, especially given that, by definition, this kind of musical experience exists on the periphery of an individual\u2019s consciousness.\u201d<\/span>62<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Tying those two issues together, he adds that \u201cit is not difficult to see why peripheral awareness of low\u2010intensity musical experience may result in most people thinking that music is not worth paying for, or at least not paying much for.\u201d<\/span>63<\/sup><\/a><\/span> A key concept that is present across the accounts of Arditi, Hesmondhalgh and Meier, and Marshall is the one of the \u201caverage listener,\u201d which somehow enables them to speak on behalf of a disembodied collective of individuals. In that regard, the issue of music\u2019s ubiquity is understood as having a direct correlation with the one of \u201cattention,\u201d which is itself constructed as a monolith: background music means \u201cno attention.\u201d Such critics are reminiscent of the democratization paradigm, whereby music listeners are constructed as a whole body of passive consumers.<\/span>64<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

The cultural democracy approach to music as defended by the likes of Hennion or DeNora emphasizes the emotional forces of music as experienced by competent and active individuals.<\/span>65<\/sup><\/a><\/span> To David Looseley, this is a narrative about music\u2019s \u201cexpressive value.\u201d<\/span>66<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Although authors in this paradigm largely fail to provide a true perspective on how technological means to music consumption play a critical part in how individuals access and listen to music,<\/span>67<\/sup><\/a><\/span> there is an underlying assumption that technologies such as CDs, MP3 files, and now streaming platforms do not \u201cdominate\u201d consumers as much as they offer pathways through which musical explorations are possible. While this perspective provides very little insight on the actual structural organization of music distribution, it directly opposes the view that music\u2019s emotional force results from a domination from the top, a rather philosophical challenge to the anxiety about the need for intermediaries to help identify appropriate canons. Instead, it considers individuals\u2019 affective responses to music as the basis upon which any discourse on music\u2019s emotional force and cultural value becomes possible.<\/span><\/p>\n

The different perspectives on value certainly make the two paradigms (democratization of culture and cultural democracy) quite apparent in how different authors approach the issue of music\u2019s contemporary value. The question that remains is the actual role that is to be attributed to streaming platforms in the changes (for better or worse) to music\u2019s cultural value. As Marshall contends, \u201cit is possible that new digital technologies have simply revealed some of the underlying social dynamics of music listening rather than causing any kind of cultural devaluation.\u201d<\/span>68<\/sup><\/a><\/span> What is certain, however, is that those conversations will continue to develop over the coming years. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/a>Conclusion<\/a><\/h4>\n

<\/a>The current state of recorded music, which is largely organized around music streaming, has attracted a great deal of attention from scholars. In this chapter, we have attempted to critically discuss some of the accounts that evaluate the \u201cnature\u201d of current transformations to the production, distribution, and consumption of music. By deploying Evrard\u2019s dichotomy of positions towards culture and its status, we are able to understand how these accounts are actually situated within particular logics, which in turn betray particular expectations about the relationship between music and contemporary society. We note that following the emergence of audience studies in the 1970s and 1980s,<\/span>69<\/sup><\/a><\/span> and particularly from the 1990s, the cultural democracy paradigm has dominated certain research fields. Led notably by sociologists such as DeNora and Hennion, who have contributed to new knowledge about music and its emotional forces, this approach has certainly influenced a particular strain of music research. In opposition, we witness a rising tide of critics that question positivist conclusions about music\u2019s presence in contemporary societies.<\/span>70<\/sup><\/a><\/span> The current state of music distribution and consumption based on streaming provides an ideal culprit to point to the limitations of the cultural democracy paradigm and\/or to argue against its main conclusions. We here want to conclude with two main ideas from our critical evaluation of accounts on music and streaming:<\/span><\/p>\n

First, we note that analyses of music streaming tend to deploy particular examples or stories to base a discursive evaluation of the whole<\/i> situation. However, depending on what the analyses focus on\u2014be it royalty payments, access to the marketplace, attention paid to music\u2014the evaluations of the current situation differ. We argue that the focus on one stakeholder perspective, personal narrative (of success or failure), or technological location to construct a critical evaluation of the current music streaming ecosystem fails to capture the complexity of the political, social, and cultural organizations that enable these very stories to emerge and infrastructures to exist, disseminate, and become successful in the first place. Rather than providing a finite point, these stories are in need of further scrutiny because they are in fact passageways to <\/a>explore the political and social organization that enables them.<\/p>\n

Second, even if they can remain somewhat concealed, ideas are carried in each account concerning for example what music ought <\/i>to be, who ought <\/i>to be remunerated for it, and how it ought <\/i>to be listened to. Streaming services become a leitmotif to construct a critical narrative as to why music becomes something that it should ideally <\/i>not be, and in that regard, we argue that such accounts convey \u201cold stories\u201d about an ideal state of music as an economic and\/or cultural object. Those critics evaluate the current state of music against an invisible benchmark, inasmuch as they do not clearly state what the reference point is. Thus, to those critics, we ask the following questions (among many others): With regard to the economics of streaming, what would a \u201cfair\u201d redistribution of royalty payment resemble? Who should receive less in order to compensate those who \u201cdeserve\u201d more, and who should be entitled to judge this? When it comes to culturally valuing music, what does paying attention to music actually mean? What are the conditions within which it can happen? While we certainly do not wish to argue against the very legitimacy of deploying a critical evaluation of music streaming, we would instead invite authors to more clearly establish what the counterpart to a bad situation is. In the absence of such discourse, we are instead left with the perspective of the onlooker as constitutive of what music\u2014its economic and cultural value\u2014is.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

References<\/h4>\n

1 <\/a>Jos\u00e9 van Dijck, Thomas Poell, and Martijn de Waal, The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World<\/i> (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

2 <\/a>We will mostly use \u201cmusic streaming services\u201d to refer specifically to the commercial interfaces which compensate copyright holders for interactive, on\u2010demand usage. However, it will eventually become important to distinguish whether these services are being framed as new cultural intermediaries, as opposed to novel platforms. Our use of \u201cplatform\u201d will rely on the theory of \u201cplatformization of cultural production\u201d as used by D. Niebord and T. Poell; see David B. Nieborg and Thomas Poell, \u201cThe Platformization of Cultural Production: Theorizing the Contingent Cultural Commodity,\u201d New Media & Society<\/i> 20, no. 11 (2018): 4275\u201392, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1461444818769694<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

3 <\/a>David Hesmondhalgh, Ellis Jones, and Andreas Rauth, \u201cSoundCloud and Bandcamp as Alternative Music Platforms,\u201d Social Media + Society<\/i> (2019): 1\u201313, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/2056305119883429;<\/a> International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), Global Music Report 2018: State of the Industry<\/i> (ifpi.org, 2018), https:\/\/www.ifpi.org\/ifpi\u2010global-music\u2010report-2018\/<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

4 <\/a>David Hesmondhalgh and Leslie Meier, \u201cWhat the Digitalisation of Music Tells Us about Capitalism, Culture and the Power of the Information Technology Sector,\u201d Information, Communication & Society<\/i> 21, no. 11 (2018): 1555\u201370, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/1369118X.2017.1340498<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

5 <\/a>Jeremy Wade Morris, Selling Digital Music, Formatting Culture<\/i> (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2015), 2\u20136.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

6 <\/a>Hendrik Storstein Spilker, Digital Music Distribution: The Sociology of Online Music Streams<\/i> (New York: Routledge, 2017), 21\u20134.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

7 <\/a>All examples are taken from Spotify in April 2020. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

8 <\/a>Robert Prey, \u201cMusica Analytica: The Datafication of Listening,\u201d in Networked Music Cultures: Contemporary Approaches, Emerging Issues<\/i>, ed. Rapha\u00ebl Nowak and Andrew Whelan (London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2016), 31\u201348.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

9 <\/a>Tiziano Bonini and Alessandro Gandini, \u201c\u2018First Week Is Editorial, Second Week Is Algorithmic:\u2019 Platform Gatekeepers and the Platformization of Music Curation,\u201d Social Media + Society<\/i> 5, no. 4 (2019): 1\u201311, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/2056305119880006;<\/a> Benjamin A. Morgan, \u201cRevenue, Access, and Engagement via the In\u2010house Curated Spotify Playlist in Australia,\u201d Popular Communication<\/i> 18, no. 1 (2020): 32\u201347, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/15405702.2019.1649678<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

10 <\/a>Nick Seaver, \u201cAlgorithms as Culture: Some Tactics for the Ethnography of Algorithmic Systems,\u201d Big Data & Society<\/i> 4, no. 2 (2017): 1\u201312, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/2053951717738104<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

11 <\/a>Patryk Galuszka, \u201cMusic Aggregators and Intermediation of the Digital Music Market,\u201d International Journal of Communications<\/i> 9 (2015): 254\u201373, https:\/\/ijoc.org\/index.php\/ijoc\/article\/view\/3113\/1298;<\/a> Hesmondhalgh and Meier, \u201cWhat the Digitalisation of Music Tells Us.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

12 <\/a>David Arditi, \u201cMusic Everywhere: Setting a Digital Music Trap,\u201d Critical Sociology<\/i> 45, no. 4\u20135 (2019): 617\u201330, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0896920517729192;<\/a> Lee Marshall, \u201cDo People Value Recorded Music?\u201d Cultural Sociology<\/i> 13, no. 2 (2019): 141\u201358, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1749975519839524<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

13 <\/a>See David Hesmondhalgh, \u201cHave Digital Communication Technologies Democratized the Media Industries?\u201d in Media and Society<\/i>, ed. James Curran and David Hesmondhalgh, 6th ed., 101\u201320 (London: Bloomsbury, 2019).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

14 <\/a>Yves Evrard, \u201cDemocratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy?\u201d Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society<\/i> 27, no. 3 (1997): 167\u201375, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/10632929709596961<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

15 <\/a>Evrard, \u201cDemocratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy?,\u201d 167\u201368.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

16 <\/a>Evrard, \u201cDemocratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy?,\u201d 168.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

17 <\/a>Evrard, \u201cDemocratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy?,\u201d 169.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

18 <\/a>Theodor W. Adorno, Current of Music. Elements of a Radio Theory<\/i> (Cambridge: Polity, 2009), 92\u2013113.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

19 <\/a>Adorno, Current of Music<\/i>, 153.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

20 <\/a>Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste<\/i> (London: Routledge, 1984).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

21 <\/a>Evrard, \u201cDemocratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy?,\u201d 170.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

22 <\/a>See for example Dick Hebdige, Subculture: The Meaning of Style<\/i> (London: Methuen, 1979).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

23 <\/a>Evrard, \u201cDemocratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy?,\u201d 168.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

24 <\/a>Simon Frith, \u201cThe Good, the Bad, and the Indifferent: Defending Popular Culture from the Populists,\u201d Diacritics <\/i>21, no. 4 (1991): 102\u20134, https:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/465379<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

25 <\/a>IFPI, Global Music Report 2018<\/i>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

26 <\/a>Galuszka, \u201cMusic Aggregators\u201d; Hesmondhalgh and Meier, \u201cWhat the Digitalisation of Music Tells Us.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

27 <\/a>Peter Tschmuck, The Economics of Music<\/i> (Newcastle upon Tyne: Agenda Publishing, 2017), 86.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

28 <\/a>Lee Marshall, \u201c\u2018Let\u2019s Keep Music Special. F\u2014Spotify:\u2019 On\u2010demand Streaming and the Controversy over Artist Royalties.\u201d Creative Industries Journal<\/i> 8, no. 2 (2015): 177\u201389, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/17510694.2015.1096618<\/a>; Rethink Music Initiative (Berklee Institute of Creative Entrepreneurship). \u201cFair Music: Transparency and Payment Flows in the music industry,\u201d 2015, https:\/\/www.rethink\u2010music.com\/research\/fair\u2010music-transparency\u2010and-payment\u2010flows-in\u2010the-music\u2010industry<\/a>. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

29 <\/a>Jason B. Bazinet, Kota Ezawa, Mark May, Thomas A Singlehurst, Jim Suva, and Alicia Yap, Putting The Band Back Together: Remastering the World of Music<\/i>. Citi GPS: Global Perspectives & Solutions, 2018, https:\/\/www.citivelocity.com\/citigps\/music\u2010industry\/;<\/a> Alan B. Krueger, Rockonomics: A Backstage Tour of What the Music Industry Can Teach Us about Economics and Life<\/i> (New York: Currency, 2019).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

30 <\/a>Matt Brennan, and Kyle Devine, \u201cThe Cost of Music.\u201d Popular Music<\/i> 39, no. 1 (2020): 43\u201365, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/s0261143019000552<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

31 <\/a>David Hesmondhalgh, \u201cIs Music Streaming Bad for Musicians? Problems of Evidence and Argument,\u201d New Media and Society<\/i> (September 2020): 1\u201318, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1461444820953541<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

32 <\/a>Lee Marshall, \u201cThe Structural Functions of Stardom in the Recording Industry,\u201d Popular Music and Society<\/i> 36, no. 5 (2013): 578\u201396, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/03007766.2012.718509<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

33 <\/a>Adjacent to these more high\u2010profile arguments around rates of payment lie discussions around the \u201ctransparency\u201d of how payments are handled; see Paul Resnikoff, \u201cWelcome to the \u2018Royalty Black Box,\u2019 the Music Industry\u2019s $2.5 Billion Underground Economy,\u201d Digital Music News<\/i> (blog), August 3, 2017, https:\/\/www.digitalmusicnews.com\/2017\/08\/03\/music\u2010industry-royalty\u2010black-box\/<\/a>. For an in\u2010depth exploration of the concept of \u201ctransparency,\u201d see Jay Mogis, \u201cTransparency, Technology and Trust: Music Metrics and Cultural Distortion\u201d (Ph.D. diss., Queensland University of Technology, 2020). We focus on \u201cfairness\u201d in this chapter.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

34 <\/a>Marshall, \u201c\u2018Let\u2019s Keep Music Special. F\u2014 Spotify\u2019\u201d; Aram Sinnreich, \u201cSlicing the Pie: The Search for an Equitable Recorded Music Economy,\u201d in Business Innovation and Disruption in the Music Industry<\/i>, ed. Patrik Wikstr\u00f6m and Robert DeFillippi (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016), 153\u201374.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

35 <\/a>When it comes to revenue and access controversies, Spotify has been the primary target and will be the main example. For a critical history of the company, see Maria Eriksson et al., Spotify Teardown: Inside the Black Box of Streaming Music<\/i> (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2019).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

36 <\/a>Rethink Music Initiative, \u201cFair Music.\u201d <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

37 <\/a>Steve Chapple and Reebee Garofalo, Rock\u2019n\u2019roll is Here to Pay: The History and Politics of the Music Industry<\/i> (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1977); Aram Sinnreich, The Piracy Crusade<\/i> (Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 2013).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

38 <\/a>Patrik Wikstro\u0308m, The Music Industry: Music in the Cloud<\/i>. 3rd ed. (Medford, MA: Polity Press, 2020).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

39 <\/a>Tim Ingham, \u201cNearly 40,000 Tracks Are Now Being Added to Spotify Every Single Day,\u201d Music Business Worldwide <\/i>(blog), April 29, 2019, https:\/\/www.musicbusinessworldwide.com\/nearly-40000-tracks\u2010are-now\u2010being-added\u2010to-spotify\u2010every-single\u2010day\/<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

40 <\/a>Steve Benjamins, \u201cHow Spotify & Discover Weekly Earns Me $400 \/ Month,\u201d Steve Benjamins<\/i> (blog), March 14, 2019, https:\/\/www.stevebenjamins.com\/blog\/spotify\u2010and-discover\u2010weekly<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

41 <\/a>Jenny Toomey, \u201cThe Future of Music,\u201d Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal<\/i> 10, no. 2 (2001): 227, https:\/\/heinonline.org\/HOL\/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals\/tipj10&div=13<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

42 <\/a>Jeremy Wade Morris, \u201cCuration by Code: Infomediaries and the Data Mining of Taste,\u201d European Journal of Cultural Studies<\/i> 18, no. 4\u20135 (2015): 446\u201363. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1367549415577387<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

43 <\/a>Tom Johnson, \u201cChance the Rapper, Spotify, and Musical Categorization in the 2010s,\u201d American Music<\/i> 38, no. 2 (2020): 176\u201396, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5406\/americanmusic.38.2.0176<\/a>. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

44 <\/a>Marshall, \u201cThe Structural Functions of Stardom in the Recording Industry.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

45 <\/a>Nieborg and Poell, \u201cThe Platformization of Cultural Production.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

46 <\/a>Evrard, \u201cDemocratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy?\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

47 <\/a>See, among others, David Arditi, \u201cMusic Everywhere\u201d; Hesmondhalgh and Meier, \u201cWhat the Digitalisation of Music Tells Us\u201d; Marshall, \u201cDo People Value Recorded Music?\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

48 <\/a>David Looseley, \u201cAntoine Hennion and the Sociology of Music,\u201d International Journal of Cultural Policy<\/i> 12, no. 3 (2016): 341\u201354, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/10286630601020611<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

49 <\/a>E.g. Evrard, \u201cDemocratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy?\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

50 <\/a>Antoine Hennion, \u201cMusiques, Pre\u0301sentez\u2010vous! Une Comparaison entre le Rap et la Techno,\u201d <\/span>French Cultural Studies<\/i><\/span> 16 (2005): 121, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177%2F0957155805053702<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

51 <\/a>Tia DeNora, Music in Everyday Life<\/i> (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 153.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

52 <\/a>See Spilker, Digital Music Distribution: The Sociology of Online Music Streams<\/i>, 21\u20134.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

53 <\/a>Prey, \u201cMusica Analytica.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

54 <\/a>Morgan, \u201cRevenue, Access, and Engagement.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

55 <\/a>Fredric Dannen, Hit Men: Power Brokers and Fast Money Inside the Music Business<\/i> (Sydney: Muller, 1990).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

56 <\/a>Eric Drott, \u201cWhy the Next Song Matters: Streaming, Recommendation, Scarcity,\u201d Twentieth-Century Music<\/i> 15, no. 3 (2018): 325\u201357, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/s1478572218000245<\/a>. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

57 <\/a>David Arditi, \u201cMusic Everywhere,\u201d 617\u201318<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

58 <\/a>Evrard, \u201cDemocratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy?,\u201d 170.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

59 <\/a>See, among others, David Arditi, \u201cMusic Everywhere\u201d; Hesmondhalgh and Meier, \u201cWhat the Digitalisation of Music Tells Us.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

60 <\/a>Arditi, \u201cMusic Everywhere: Setting a Digital Music Trap,\u201d 625.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

61 <\/a>Hesmondhalgh and Meier, \u201cWhat the Digitalisation of Music Tells Us,\u201d 1568.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

62 <\/a>Marshall, \u201cDo People Value Recorded Music?,\u201d 153.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

63 <\/a>Marshall, \u201cDo People Value Recorded Music?,\u201d 153.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

64 <\/a>See Evrard, \u201cDemocratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy?,\u201d 171.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

65 <\/a>See Hennion, \u201cMusiques, Pre\u0301sentez\u2010vous! Une Comparaison entre le Rap et la Techno\u201d or DeNora, <\/span>Music in Everyday Life.<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

66 <\/a>Looseley, \u201cAntoine Hennion and the Sociology of Music,\u201d 343. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

67 <\/a>Rapha\u00ebl Nowak, Consuming Music in the Digital Age. Technologies, Roles and Everyday Life<\/i> (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

68 <\/a>Marshall, \u201cDo People Value Recorded Music?,\u201d 153.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

69 <\/a>Looseley, \u201cAntoine Hennion and the Sociology of Music.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

70 <\/a>Primarily from the 2000s, and for instance through the work of David Hesmondhalgh.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/a>References<\/h4>\n

Adorno, Theodor W. Current of Music. Elements of a Radio Theory<\/i>. Cambridge: Polity, 2009.<\/p>\n

Arditi, David. \u201cMusic Everywhere: Setting a Digital Music Trap.\u201d Critical Sociology<\/i> 45, no. 4\u20135 (2019): 617\u201330. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0896920517729192<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Bazinet, Jason B., Kota Ezawa, Mark May, Thomas A Singlehurst, Jim Suva, and Alicia Yap. Putting The Band Back Together: Remastering the World of Music<\/i>. Citi GPS: Global Perspectives & Solutions, 2018. https:\/\/www.citivelocity.com\/citigps\/music\u2010industry\/<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Benjamins, Steve. \u201cHow Spotify & Discover Weekly Earns Me $400 \/ Month.\u201d Steve Benjamins<\/i> (blog). March 14, 2019. https:\/\/www.stevebenjamins.com\/blog\/spotify\u2010and-discover\u2010weekly<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Bonini, Tiziano, and Alessandro Gandini. \u201c\u2018First Week Is Editorial, Second Week Is Algorithmic:\u2019 Platform Gatekeepers and the Platformization of Music Curation.\u201d Social Media + Society <\/i>5, no. 4 (2019): 1\u201311. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/2056305119880006<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste<\/i>. London: Routledge, 1984.<\/p>\n

Brennan, Matt, and Kyle Devine. \u201cThe Cost of Music.\u201d Popular Music <\/i>39, no. 1 (2020): 43\u201365. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/S0261143019000552<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Chapple, Steve, and Reebee Garofalo. Rock\u2019n\u2019roll is Here to Pay: The History and Politics of the Music Industry<\/i>. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1977.<\/p>\n

Dannen, Fredric. Hit Men: Power Brokers and Fast Money Inside the Music Business<\/i>. Sydney: Muller, 1990.<\/p>\n

DeNora, Tia. Music in Everyday Life<\/i>. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.<\/p>\n

DiCola, Peter. \u201cMoney from Music: Survey Evidence on Musicians\u2019 Revenue and Lessons about Copyright Incentives.\u201d Arizona Law Review <\/i>55, no. 2 (2013): 301\u201370. https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=2199058<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Drott, Eric. \u201cWhy the Next Song Matters: Streaming, Recommendation, Scarcity.\u201d Twentieth-Century Music<\/i> 15, no. 3 (2018): 325\u201357. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/s1478572218000245<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Eriksson, Maria, Rasmus Fleischer, Anna Johansson, Pelle Snickars, and Patrick Vonderau. Spotify Teardown: Inside the Black Box of Streaming Music<\/i>. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2019.<\/p>\n

Evrard, Yves. \u201cDemocratizing Culture or Cultural Democracy?\u201d Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society<\/i> 27, no. 3 (1997): 167\u201375. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/10632929709596961<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Frith, Simon. \u201cThe Good, the Bad, and the Indifferent: Defending Popular Culture from the Populists.\u201d Diacritics<\/i> 21, no. 4 (1991): 101\u201315. https:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/465379<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Galuszka, Patryk. \u201cMusic Aggregators and Intermediation of the Digital Music Market.\u201d International Journal of Communications<\/i> 9 (2015): 254\u201373. https:\/\/ijoc.org\/index.php\/ijoc\/article\/view\/3113\/1298<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Hebdige, Dick. Subculture: The Meaning of Style<\/i>. London: Methuen, 1979.<\/span><\/p>\n

Hennion, Antoine. \u201cMusiques, Pre\u0301sentez\u2010vous! Une Comparaison entre le Rap et la Techno.\u201d <\/span>French Cultural Studies<\/i> 16 (2005): 121\u201334. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177%2F0957155805053702<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Hesmondhalgh, David. \u201cHave Digital Communication Technologies Democratized the Media Industries?\u201d In Media and Society<\/i>, edited by James Curran and David Hesmondhalgh, 6th ed., 101\u201320. London: Bloomsbury, 2019.<\/p>\n

Hesmondhalgh, David. \u201cIs Music Streaming Bad for Musicians? Problems of Evidence and Argument.\u201d New Media and Society <\/i>(September 2020): 1\u201318. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1461444820953541<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Hesmondhalgh, David, Ellis Jones, and Andreas Rauth. \u201cSoundCloud and Bandcamp as Alternative Music Platforms.\u201d Social Media + Society<\/i> (October 2019): 1\u201313. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/2056305119883429<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Hesmondhalgh, David and Leslie Meier. \u201cWhat the Digitalisation of Music Tells Us about Capitalism, Culture and the Power of the Information Technology Sector.\u201d Information, Communication & Society<\/i> 21, no. 11 (2018): 1555\u2013570. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/1369118X.2017.1340498<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. Global Music Report 2018: State of the Industry. <\/i>2018. https:\/\/www.ifpi.org\/ifpi\u2010global-music\u2010report-2018\/<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Ingham, Tim. \u201cNearly 40,000 Tracks Are Now Being Added to Spotify Every Single Day.\u201d Music Business Worldwide<\/i> (blog). April 29, 2019. https:\/\/www.musicbusinessworldwide.com\/nearly-40000-tracks\u2010are-now\u2010being-added\u2010to-spotify\u2010every-single\u2010day\/<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Johnson, Tom. \u201cChance the Rapper, Spotify, and Musical Categorization in the 2010s.\u201d American Music<\/i> 38, no. 2 (2020): 176\u201396. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5406\/americanmusic.38.2.0176<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Krueger, Alan B. Rockonomics: A Backstage Tour of What the Music Industry Can Teach Us about Economics and Life<\/i>. New York: Currency, 2019.<\/p>\n

Looseley, David. \u201cAntoine Hennion and the Sociology of Music.\u201d International Journal of Cultural Policy<\/i> 12, no. 3 (2016): 341\u201354. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/10286630601020611<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Marshall, Lee. \u201cThe Structural Functions of Stardom in the Recording Industry.\u201d Popular Music and Society<\/i> 36, no. 5 (2013): 578\u201396. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/03007766.2012.718509<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Marshall, Lee. \u201c\u2018Let\u2019s Keep Music Special. F\u2014Spotify:\u2019 On\u2010demand Streaming and the Controversy over Artist Royalties.\u201d Creative Industries Journal<\/i> 8, no. 2 (2015): 177\u201389. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/17510694.2015.1096618<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Marshall, Lee. \u201cDo People Value Recorded Music?\u201d Cultural Sociology<\/i> 13, no. 2 (2019): 141\u201358. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1749975519839524<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Mogis, Jay. \u201cTransparency, Technology and Trust: Music Metrics and Cultural Distortion.\u201d Ph.D. diss., Queensland University of Technology, 2020. https:\/\/doi.org\/<\/a><\/span>10.5204\/thesis.eprints.199497<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Morgan, Benjamin A. \u201cRevenue, Access, and Engagement via the In\u2010house Curated Spotify Playlist in Australia.\u201d Popular Communication<\/i> 18, no. 1 (2020): 32\u201347. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/15405702.2019.1649678<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Morris, Jeremy Wade. \u201cCuration by Code: Infomediaries and the Data Mining of Taste.\u201d European Journal of Cultural Studies<\/i> 18, no. 4\u20135 (2015): 446\u201363. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1367549415577387<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Morris, Jeremy Wade. Selling Digital Music, Formatting Culture<\/i>. Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2015.<\/p>\n

Mulligan, Mark. \u201cRecorded Music Revenues Hit $21.5 Billion in 2019.\u201d Music Industry Blog<\/i> (blog). March 5, 2020. https:\/\/musicindustryblog.wordpress.com\/tag\/record\u2010label-market\u2010shares-2019\/<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Nieborg, David B., and Thomas Poell. \u201cThe Platformization of Cultural Production: Theorizing the Contingent Cultural Commodity.\u201d New Media & Society<\/i> 20, no. 11 (2018): 4275\u201392. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1461444818769694<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Nowak, Rapha\u00ebl. Consuming Music in the Digital Age. Technologies, Roles and Everyday Life<\/i>. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.<\/p>\n

Prey, Robert. \u201cMusica Analytica: The Datafication of Listening.\u201d In Networked Music Cultures: Contemporary Approaches, Emerging Issues<\/i>, edited by Rapha\u00ebl Nowak and Andrew Whelan, 31\u201348. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2016.<\/p>\n

Resnikoff, Paul. \u201cWelcome to the \u2018Royalty Black Box,\u2019 the Music Industry\u2019s $2.5 Billion Underground Economy.\u201d Digital Music News<\/i> (blog). August 3, 2017. https:\/\/www.digitalmusicnews.com\/2017\/08\/03\/music\u2010industry-royalty\u2010black-box\/<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Rethink Music Initiative (Berklee Institute of Creative Entrepreneurship). \u201cFair Music: Transparency and Payment Flows in the music industry.\u201d 2015. https:\/\/www.rethink\u2010music.com\/research\/fair\u2010music-transparency\u2010and-payment\u2010flows-in\u2010the-music\u2010industry<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Seaver, Nick. \u201cAlgorithms as Culture: Some Tactics for the Ethnography of Algorithmic Systems.\u201d Big Data & Society<\/i> 4, no. 2 (2017): 1\u201312. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/2053951717738104<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Sinnreich, Aram. The Piracy Crusade<\/i>. Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 2013.<\/p>\n

Sinnreich, Aram. \u201cSlicing the Pie: The Search for an Equitable Recorded Music Economy.\u201d In Business Innovation and Disruption in the Music Industry<\/i>, edited by Patrik Wikstr\u00f6m and Robert DeFillippi, 153\u201374. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016.<\/p>\n

Spilker, Hendrik Storstein. Digital Music Distribution: The Sociology of Online Music Streams<\/i>. New York: Routledge, 2017.<\/p>\n

Thomson, Kristin. \u201cRoles, Revenue, and Responsibilities: The Changing Nature of Being a Working Musician.\u201d Work and Occupations <\/i>40, no. 4 (2013): 514\u201325. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0730888413504208<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Toomey, Jenny. \u201cThe Future of Music.\u201d Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal<\/i> 10, no. 2 (2001): 221\u201343. https:\/\/heinonline.org\/HOL\/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals\/tipj10&div=13<\/span><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Tschmuck, Peter. The Economics of Music<\/i>. Newcastle upon Tyne: Agenda Publishing, 2017.<\/p>\n

van Dijck, Jos\u00e9, Thomas Poell, and Martijn de Waal. The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World<\/i>. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018.<\/p>\n

Wikstro\u0308m, Patrik. The Music Industry: Music in the Cloud<\/i>. 3rd ed. Medford, MA: Polity Press, 2020.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Reproducing Narratives of Democratization in Music Streaming Debates Rapha\u00ebl Nowak and Benjamin A. Morgan Abstract: At the turn of the 2020s, music is largely distributed and consumed via streaming services. This new \u201cmoment\u201d in recorded music has attracted a lot of attention from scholars, with the aim of identifying the nature of transformations that are …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[40],"tags":[99,94,96,97,93,98,92,95],"class_list":["post-1082","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-music_dem","tag-audience-studies","tag-consumption","tag-democratization-of-culture","tag-digitization-of-music","tag-distribution","tag-music-copyright","tag-music-production","tag-streaming-services"],"yoast_head":"\nNew Model, Same Old Stories? – mdwPress<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"de_DE\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"New Model, Same Old Stories? – mdwPress\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Reproducing Narratives of Democratization in Music Streaming Debates Rapha\u00ebl Nowak and Benjamin A. Morgan Abstract: At the turn of the 2020s, music is largely distributed and consumed via streaming services. This new \u201cmoment\u201d in recorded music has attracted a lot of attention from scholars, with the aim of identifying the nature of transformations that are …\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"mdwPress\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-02-24T17:33:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-08-13T09:17:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/orcid.png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Verfasst von\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Gesch\u00e4tzte Lesezeit\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"45\u00a0Minuten\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/8503f5c5602d6ee059f0fc52d1dcabbf\"},\"headline\":\"New Model, Same Old Stories?\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-02-24T17:33:49+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-08-13T09:17:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/\"},\"wordCount\":8988,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/orcid.png\",\"keywords\":[\"audience studies\",\"consumption\",\"democratization of culture\",\"digitization of music\",\"distribution\",\"music copyright\",\"music production\",\"streaming services\"],\"articleSection\":[\"K\u00f6lbl, Tr\u00fcmpi (eds.): Music & Democracy\"],\"inLanguage\":\"de\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/\",\"name\":\"New Model, Same Old Stories? – mdwPress\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/orcid.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-02-24T17:33:49+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-08-13T09:17:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"de\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"de\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/orcid.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/orcid.png\",\"width\":64,\"height\":64,\"caption\":\"orcid\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Startseite\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"New Model, Same Old Stories?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/\",\"name\":\"mdwPress\",\"description\":\"Der Open-Access-Universit\u00e4tsverlag der mdw\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"de\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/#organization\",\"name\":\"mdwPress\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"de\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/mdwpress-logo-schwarz.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/mdwpress-logo-schwarz.svg\",\"width\":\"1024\",\"height\":\"1024\",\"caption\":\"mdwPress\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/8503f5c5602d6ee059f0fc52d1dcabbf\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"de\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8a9612f76b31b4c13a34f06338226cebf2b277defc5a22be849c245ddfb91e0e?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8a9612f76b31b4c13a34f06338226cebf2b277defc5a22be849c245ddfb91e0e?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wordpress\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/author\/admin\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"New Model, Same Old Stories? – mdwPress","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/","og_locale":"de_DE","og_type":"article","og_title":"New Model, Same Old Stories? – mdwPress","og_description":"Reproducing Narratives of Democratization in Music Streaming Debates Rapha\u00ebl Nowak and Benjamin A. Morgan Abstract: At the turn of the 2020s, music is largely distributed and consumed via streaming services. This new \u201cmoment\u201d in recorded music has attracted a lot of attention from scholars, with the aim of identifying the nature of transformations that are …","og_url":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/","og_site_name":"mdwPress","article_published_time":"2022-02-24T17:33:49+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-08-13T09:17:44+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/orcid.png","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Verfasst von":"admin","Gesch\u00e4tzte Lesezeit":"45\u00a0Minuten"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/8503f5c5602d6ee059f0fc52d1dcabbf"},"headline":"New Model, Same Old Stories?","datePublished":"2022-02-24T17:33:49+00:00","dateModified":"2025-08-13T09:17:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/"},"wordCount":8988,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/orcid.png","keywords":["audience studies","consumption","democratization of culture","digitization of music","distribution","music copyright","music production","streaming services"],"articleSection":["K\u00f6lbl, Tr\u00fcmpi (eds.): Music & Democracy"],"inLanguage":"de","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/","url":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/","name":"New Model, Same Old Stories? – mdwPress","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/orcid.png","datePublished":"2022-02-24T17:33:49+00:00","dateModified":"2025-08-13T09:17:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"de","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"de","@id":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/orcid.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/orcid.png","width":64,"height":64,"caption":"orcid"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/new-model-same-old-stories\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Startseite","item":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"New Model, Same Old Stories?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/","name":"mdwPress","description":"Der Open-Access-Universit\u00e4tsverlag der mdw","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"de"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/#organization","name":"mdwPress","url":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"de","@id":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/mdwpress-logo-schwarz.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/mdwpress-logo-schwarz.svg","width":"1024","height":"1024","caption":"mdwPress"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/8503f5c5602d6ee059f0fc52d1dcabbf","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"de","@id":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8a9612f76b31b4c13a34f06338226cebf2b277defc5a22be849c245ddfb91e0e?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8a9612f76b31b4c13a34f06338226cebf2b277defc5a22be849c245ddfb91e0e?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wordpress"],"url":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1082","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1082"}],"version-history":[{"count":26,"href":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1082\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5427,"href":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1082\/revisions\/5427"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1082"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1082"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mdw.ac.at\/mdwpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1082"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}