THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY ON CURRENT POST-PUNK INFLUENCED MUSIC

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY ON CURRENT POST-PUNK MUSIC

Article by Neil March, Composer-Artist & Label Manager, Demerara Records, Moderator & Reviews Writer, Fresh on the Net & Author of The Independent Music Sector (2019) (2019, Demerara Records).

ABSTRACT

There is no clear consensus within the Post-Punk influenced music community about whether the advent of digital technology has, on balance, benefited or hindered the maintenance and development of thriving scenes. From the pessimistic picture portrayed by some of the sources I have cited (Louder than War, Wikipedia Criticisms of Spotify etc.) to the upbeat one presented by others (AIM, The Guardian, Statista etc.), there are widely differing perspectives about this question.

My article explores the evidence, keeping in mind how that evidence refers to Post-Punk influenced music and also, where appropriate, speaking from my own experience as an Independent Music practitioner. It also places the arguments within the context of how independent music labels operated in pre-digital times and the challenges the Post-Punk music scene(s) faced then as well as now.

In reaching the conclusion that I present, I consider not only whether streaming is a good or bad concept for Post-Punk music but also the extent to which other types of digital platforms have assisted it in terms of exposure, opportunity and access.

ARTICLE

The rapid development of digital technology has been a game-changer for the modern music industry. That is as much the case for an international conglomerate shifting billions of dollars’ worth of units as it is for an aspiring young artist recording tracks in a suburban bedroom. It is scarcely a decade since downloads overtook CD sales as the preferred format for purchasing new music. That proved to be a shortlived ascendancy thanks to the advent of streaming. Already there are tech-oriented creatives working on the next alternatives. The situation is continuously fluid.

While many of those who remain loyal to the DIY music culture often associated with Punk and Post-Punk music look on in horror at this corporate digital rat race, they may wish to take a moment to consider whether the march of digital technology is good or bad news for the non-mainstream independent operating at the less affluent end of the contemporary music spectrum.

When The Clash recorded Histville UK^[1] in 1980 as a tribute to the new network of UK-based independent labels, the lyrics talked of ‘… a mic and boom in your living room’, depicting the DIY culture of the burgeoning Post-Punk scene. The song also reflected a growing reverence in non-mainstream circles at the time for music which reflected that ethos both in terms of its packaging and its production values. The smooth, lavish sound reproduction that typified major record company releases was considered to be anathema within Punk and Post-Punk circles. Instead, the scratchy barely-produced and imperfect performances associated with Rough Trade^[2], Postcard^[3] and other leading independent labels were held up as the more noble way to present ones music.

Of course, the reason for this discrepancy in the sound quality and attention to detail between major and independent recordings had largely to do with economics. Studio time to record music was costly. Bands and artists on independent labels could not afford to spend long periods in the studio building new albums like the world’s richest and most commercially successful artists did. Neither could they afford to use the high-end vinyl pressing plants and artwork production companies. It was low budget music in low budget packaging.

Distribution was another challenge facing independent labels in the early years of Post-Punk. Small labels lacked the direct relationships and status that allowed the majors to place their products in the racks of the leading High Street retailers. That was the driver for the establishment of the independent Cartel^[4] by Rough Trade in partnership with a network of regional independent shops capable of retaining stock in warehouses. This provided independent labels with the facility to place their products in the kinds of niche record stores more likely to be frequented by fans of the genres they supported.

These perennial problems of ambition tempered by economics were very much in evidence when I made my first foray into label ownership in the immediate post-millennium period. Although technology had already played a part in improving the quality of home studio production and there were still a handful of stable and established independent distributors, a small start-up record company faced the same age-old problems of struggling to get record stores to take stock on a ‘sale or return’ basis which, in any case, transferred all the risk to the label but guaranteed the lion’s share of profit to the store. The download existed as a concept but was at the embryonic stage which meant singles and albums alike had to be available in CD [or other physical] format. Pressing plants insisted on minimum first runs of 1000 discs plus a ‘glass master’^[5] which cost close to a thousand pounds regardless of whether the product was a single or album. That in turn made single production very unappealing due to the low return on ones investment even if it sold well.

So the means may have become more sophisticated but running an independent label still meant battling to keep costs down, producing limited volumes of each item and using recordings made in home or low-budget studios. Moreover, in the post-Cartel years, it had become harder to place music, especially Punk and Post-Punk [or indeed any niche category of] music in record shops where fans of the genre would be most likely to congregate.

Digital technology has significantly altered that picture whatever ones perspective about the pros and cons of this development. A pessimist might well decry the relentless march of digital as another contributory factor in the wealth gap between top and bottom of the market. According to an article in Music Business Worldwide (December 2018)^[6] the annual turnover for the global recorded music industry in 2018 was $18.9 billion of which 50.8% came from streaming. According to statistics reported by the Association of Independent Music (AIM)^[7], the UK’s umbrella body for the independent sector, 39.9% of the market is occupied by independents and, in the UK, they occupy 23%. However the same report claims that the independents’ market share has grown faster than that of the majors over the past two years and figures for overall growth suggest the independents are achieving an average of 9% compared to only 4% for the majors.

One must always treat such findings with an air of trepidation. The definition of ‘independence’ in the music industry has never been an exact science and the statistics are inevitably skewed to an immeasurable degree by the existence of extremely well-resourced, high-investment independents who operate on broadly similar models to the majors both in terms of the type of content they focus on and in terms of the distribution of monies according to contractual arrangements.

This is touched on in an article in Music Business Worldwide (February 2019)^[8] written in blog form by Matt Brinkworth, Head of Digital at Omnian Music Group^[9] in which he asks: ‘Is independence clearly and simply defined as ‘anything not on a major label’? Surely,  in  the fragmented  world  of  2019, it’s more nuanced than that?

Many independent labels are distributed by majors and their subsidiary companies, alongside many independent artists who are signed to label services deals at the ‘Big Three’.

‘Furthermore, does the definition of ‘independence’ apply to an artist that is paid a very large sum of money by a streaming service, or a tech giant, fashion brand or airline, to create their music? If we plan on truly modernizing this once-unifying term, we better figure out the rules’.

Brinkworth goes on to postulate the notion of independence as a cultural mindset; an identity that is defined by an ignorance of or disinterest in commercial trends and considerations and is driven by a passion for the music as art. His business may seem slicker and more financially and tech savvy than many of the prototype British Post-Punk labels but the attitude he expresses chimes with theirs.

Omnian Music Group is a clear example of an independent company that started as a basement DIY experiment and has grown into a larger and financially buoyant entity. However, as an article published by British magazine DJ^[10] (July 2018) points out, the great majority of independent labels do not survive long enough to reach their tenth release and few make a profit in their first three years.

The same article explores how independent labels are able to benefit from adopting less narrow business models. This reflects a point I made in a recent article^[11] about independent music in which I said ‘We are an army of multi-taskers, continuously seeking to perfect our skills in as many areas as possible. Not least because we cannot afford to pay third parties to carry out work we are capable of doing ourselves’. Again, it comes back to a reinforcement of the DIY ethic of early Punk and Post-Punk music.

Another important change, however, comes from digital technology itself. A combination of factors have created the conditions in which independent musicians and those seeking to support them through entrepreneurial activity are able to operate at low cost and still have credible products to offer. One is the emergence of independent digital distribution services whose charges are affordable and who can guarantee to place products in every recognised digital store on the planet, thus removing the old problem of how to get stock to where fans can buy it.

The other chief factor is the boom in free-to-use social media platforms, each useful in different ways, through which it is possible to reach large numbers of like-minded people and to set up events and launches to which hundreds can be invited online at no cost and without taking up a great deal of time. Compared to the days of expensive, time-consuming newsletters sent out to names on a mailing list by post in order to inform people about live events, new releases and other relevant information, this is a considerable step forward.

Add to these developments the availability of more effective email and associated communication routes and the ease, speed and absence of cost with which we are able to get news, information, invitations and messages out to large volumes of people.

In the UK, there is another factor which should not be under-estimated. That is the easier and more direct access to media that supports new music. Leading that charge is BBC Introducing^[12] but contributing to the same process are a growing number of genuinely independent radio stations (including but not limited to online stations), journals and blogs set up and run by new music enthusiasts, many of them active musicians themselves. One such blog is Fresh on the Net^[13], the platform for new and emerging artists established in 2011 and funded ever since by Tom Robinson^[14], himself an artist whose career began in the initial Punk and Post-Punk era, who is a key broadcaster supporting new music for BBC Radio 6 Music^[15].

What is particularly interesting in relation to the legacy of Post-Punk in the current world is that, with Fresh on the Net receiving the same weekly new track submissions that are sent to the BBC Introducing Mixtape^[16] at an average rate for 2019 so far of around 220 per week, the genre most actively represented every week is Post-Punk or at least music that can be said to be influenced by Post-Punk. That is reflected by the average genre distribution within the twenty-five tracks selected for the Fresh on the Net Listening Post^[17] and put to a public vote. It is also generally reflected by the Mixtape too. So both platforms are providing valuable exposure for independents and, in particular, Post-Punk influenced independents.

This brings me to an interesting point. Namely the increasing tendency for tracks to be sent into platforms like Fresh on the Net by Post-Punk influenced bands and artists from outside the UK. This reflects both the existence of [a] genuinely global scene[s] and the confidence of artists from other parts of the world in putting their music forward for traditionally Anglo-American dominated platforms. That many of these tracks contain non-English language lyrics reinforces that sense.

The existence of thriving Post-Punk influenced scenes across the world is not a new story by any means. Bands like Ultraviolence^[18], Chicken Ass^[19] and Face My Enemy^[20] are just a few examples from a large scene in Indonesia which is partly documented by the journal Punk Indonesia^[21]. Cali≠gari^[22] (Japan), Rakta^[23] (Brazil), Agent M^[24] (Estonia) and Cryptic Street^[25] (Malta) are a tiny snapshot of Post-Punk influenced bands whose profile extends beyond their homelands. As an article in Okay Africa^[26] from 2017 demonstrates, Punk and Post-Punk music is spreading across South and West Africa too.

That we are able to know about the global scenes is in part the consequence of improvements in digital communication. No single element of digital is entirely responsible. In terms both of how musical influences travel and how artists operating from less traditional territories for the production of such music find opportunities to exploit international platforms, a number of important factors have been at play.

They include, in no specific hierarchical order, access to DAB and Internet Radio, Digital and Satellite Television, Social Media, various online platforms, user-friendly and affordable web management and website construction tools, the availability of free and low cost digital recording, programming, mixing and mastering tools, digital downloads and streaming, affordable and highly efficient digital distribution services, blogs about music and organisations like the BBC who have created routes into airplay on specialist shows. In all those cases it has been digital technology providing the means with human beings innovating in respect of their deployment.

It is tempting to see this as a rosy picture for the world’s alternative musicians. Yet this optimistic picture must be tempered by the potential disadvantages littering the post-digital landscape. In a society that has seen service-oriented industries replacing the old manufacturing ones as the drivers for economic success, customer satisfaction has become the great panacea for businesses. Nowhere is that more amply demonstrated than in the culture that has grown up around streaming.

By building affordable subscription-based models which enable customers to download and retain [in their libraries] virtually unlimited volumes of tracks, Spotify^[27] and subsequently others like Apple^[28], Deezer^[29], Pandora^[30] and KK Box^[31] have made it possible for fans to pay minimal monthly fees and have immediate access to an enormous treasure chest of music. Yet in so doing, they have reduced the value of each individal ‘stream’ for the creators to a minute level.

This has been the subject of ongoing controversy with high profile artists like Taylor Swift, Thom Yorke and Jay-Z taking a stand on the use of their material by streaming platforms. However, for many artists at the opposite end of the commercial spectrum, there is a recognition that achieving a significant volume of streams (for example because a track has appeared on a popular playlist) where the customers have already paid a subscription and it is costing them nothing to add the track does not mean that, if music was only available on physical formats, the same number of people would have spent their money on the track. Therefore the sense that artists are being short-changed has to be considered in that context and for many, streaming offers an opportunity for exposure to a larger audience than would otherwise hear their music.

An [uncredited] article published by The Guardian in April 2018 claims that streaming has benefited niche areas of music. The article quotes an A&R Executive called Sahil Varma, described as working for a ‘mid-sized London record label’, as saying ‘Music used to be dominated by audiences with the most spending power – so middle-class, middle-aged people, buying albums at Tesco as part of their weekly shop, often decided what topped the charts. Now, Afrobeat, Danish rap, hundreds of genres of niche electronic music and particularly British urban music are flourishing commercially, without having to make any concessions to the mainstream’.

Of course that argument supports the notion of greater independence but it does not address how alternative music artists can raise sufficient income from their endeavours. A Wikipedia page entitled Criticisms of Spotify^[32] cites an example from 2009 when a Norwegian independent label’s artists achieved over 55,000 streams but the label only received the equivalent of $3 due to the way Spotify calculates market share. The article lists numerous examples of well-known artists criticising the miniscule royalties paid out by streaming platforms.

By contrast an article published by Supajam^[33] in January 2018 highlights a robust defence of Spotify by the independent label FiXT^[34] who argued that they make money from streaming by combining new releases with curated playlists and specific features. They also argued that exposure through streaming of artists can help to drive sales of downloads from Bandcamp^[35] and encourage sales of merchandise which, in today’s market, is a key area for independents.

The desire for exposure regardless of income share is certainly underlined by the popularity among Post-Punk influenced and other non-mainstream artists of Soundcloud^[36]. Unlike subscription-based platforms like Spotify and Apple, Soundcloud is free to use [other than for the small number paying for its premium service] and there is no royalties payment made to artist, writer or rights holder. Despite this, it is rare to come across an aspiring [band or] artist who [do/]does not place tracks on a Soundcloud page.

Bandcamp has, of course, become something of a spiritual home for independents; a place where they can sell their music in digital download form and exercise control over price and content. It is a low risk, low cost option too as it involves no physical (i.e. CD, Vinyl etc.) production costs and no issues of over-production of stock. Labels are charged a monthly fee for their Bandcamp accounts but they are free for individual artists so it costs nothing to sell music other than the share the site takes per sale which is relatively small. Lest we should forget though, it is still a digital format and thus an example of digital playing a part both in reinforcing independence and in minimising cost and risk for smaller artists and labels.

Perhaps, in attempting to objectively weigh up the pros and cons of digital for Post-Punk influenced artists, one should look back and contemplate how we all had to operate in the period prior to the wide and affordable availability of the Internet, Social Media and all the digital formats that have become commonplace in recording, broadcasting and selling music.

A paper by researchers Robin den Dijver and Erik Hitters entitled The Business of DIY. Characteristics, motives and ideologies of micro-independent record labels^[37] (2017) explores the characteristics and performances of labels set up [mostly but not exclusively] by musicians following a broadly DIY ethic. The report notes that the majority of these labels were not able to make sufficient money and most of those running them had to retain full-time day jobs.

An article published by Louder Than War^[38] entitled The History and The Future of Independant (sic.) Record Labels^[39] notes that ‘… most of these labels … came to somewhat tragic ends and long before the digital age can be blamed’. The article covers many of the labels whose significance is well-documented in the story of Post-Punk music’s development including Postcard, Factory, Fast, Zoo and others. The individual stories may differ in detail but the problems facing small labels were broadly the same – cost of vinyl production, marketing, storage etc. versus irregular cashflow, chaotic ‘sale or return’ deals with retailers and releases that failed to match sales forecasts.

Even in the mid-2000s when the internet was in full swing, websites were becoming less costly to manage and the downloads market was beginning to grow and compete with physical formats, the processes were still set up in a manner that disadvantaged small labels. Finding a reliable distributor was a challenge but even with distribution in place, it was hard to convince retailers to take stock by less well-known artists. Even when they did, it was on a sale or return basis which, as previously mentioned, transferred all the risk back onto the label. Yet, if the items did sell, it was the retailer taking the lion’s share of profits. For example, when I managed an independent label, my distributor would sell albums to record shops at £6 per unit (of which I would receive £4 or 66.66%). The shop would then sell the same album for around £12.99, sometimes more!

Add to that the aforementioned costs of minimum first runs of 1000 CDs and the additional costs of printing, packaging and posting press and regional radio packs out to media, paying a plugger to present new releases to national radio and all the associated monthly costs of running a business. So it is easy to see why all but a few independent labels were unable to survive beyond a second year of operation. Mine lasted five years before I voluntarily wound it up and returned to working full-time in my day job because frankly I was tired of working so hard to barely stay afloat!

Conversely it was the removal of so many of those costs and risks that persuaded me to return to label management in 2014 and while it is arguably harder than ever to make meaningful income from releasing music, it is also easier than ever to avoid losing money in unmanageable quantities.

A report produced by Claremont College entitled The Rise and Fall of Record Labels^[40] (Ilan Bielas, 2013)  raises some interesting issues for independence in the digital era. For example the paper cites the news, in 2006, that Radiohead, having honoured their full contractual commitment to EMI, had announced their intention to become fully independent. Of course one might reasonably point out that such a stance is made a great deal easier to adopt when the band in question is already internationally successful and its members are millionaires. Nevertheless it was an important symbolic gesture that spoke to the way digital formats and digital distribution services were reducing the reliance on record companies for the purposes of releasing and selling ones works.

The report also considers how the record companies’ collective failure to recognise and respond to the changing landscape has reduced their power. It concludes that ‘… new technologies have helped erode the control of the record labels on the music industry’. Later it also concludes that the direction of travel towards music being given away for free is unlikely to be reversed and that entrepreneurs need to focus on business models that are designed to reflect this shift with live music and merchandise becoming the priorities for artists and those supporting them rather than sales of music.

If the report by Claremont College is correct in its forecasts, this presents both good and bad news for the global Post-Punk influenced music scenes. The bad news would be that albums, EPs and singles may evolve into elaborate freebies, given away to potential fans in a bid to entice them to attend live shows where they might be persuaded to spend money on merchandise in addition to paying for tickets.

That is not entirely supported by the evidence of consumer behaviour though. The website Statista^[41], which purports to gather data from 22,500 sources, claims that more than half of all revenues relating to sales of music in 2017 came from digital formats. They still place digital downloads above streaming as the most popular method through which consumers purchase music although they forecast that streaming will replace it as the preferred method by 2022.

Where their report is particularly interesting from a Post-Punk music perspective is that it lists the genres of music for which streaming is most likely to be used and they are all commercially popular mainstream areas of music. In other words, sales in niche areas and non-mainstream genres where consumers are more likely to be enthusiastic followers of scenes and styles tend to be mainly in formats that cost more to purchase but provide the buyer with permanent ownership (i.e. Download or Physical Format). If that continues to be reflected in the differing behaviours of different customer groups, it is potentially good news for artists and entrepreneurs involved in Post-Punk influenced music.

What do we conclude from all this information? Clearly there are always disadvantages with any notable change in the way an industry works. In that respect it is easy to focus, as the Louder Than War article did, on the notion that life was better for Post-Punk artists before digital because they were not receiving a pittance from streams of their music and it was still possible, in theory at least, to build and maintain a workable business model based on selling records.

That is however both a rose-tinted view of the pre-digital era and a selective judgement on how digital has impacted on Post-Punk and related music artists. I have not considered the wider impact of globalisation in this article but it would be hard to unpick the impact of globalisation from the relentless march of digital technology. In one sense, as individuals we feel more powerless and vulnerable than ever. Yet we are able now to self-release our self-recorded and mastered works with instant worldwide distribution and the opportunity to exploit avenues for airplay and media attention all without leaving the house.

Not only has digital meant free and low cost recording, mixing and mastering tools. It has enabled us to replace costly printing, packaging and postage of new releases with quick, efficient and free media promotion via electronic transfer and email. It has also led to an embryonic but expanding new online media consisting of music enthusiasts publishing journals and blogs or broadcasting on their own radio stations. Many of these new media exist precisely because they want to support non-mainstream music with Post-Punk influenced artists being among the beneficiaries. My own article^[42] published by Fresh on the Net in December 2018 deals with this area and highlights a selection of such radio stations and shows.

Social Media has provided us both with a group of platforms, each serving a different purpose, through which we can quickly and easily reach large numbers of people who are potentially interested in Post-Punk influenced music. Facebook offers the facility to create events and invite large numbers of people to attend. Twitter offers the facility to fire off soundbites with accompanying image files. Instagram focuses on images and enables us to post from our phones. LinkedIn provides first class networking. Soundcloud provides a free and popular platform on which to showcase new tracks. Youtube provides a place where we can post our videos. None of these platforms charge us for using them.

It is also now easier and cheaper than ever before to build and maintain a professional looking website that is easy for others to navigate. We are also able to create much more effective links and to quickly direct others to the point at which they can interact with our works. Live streaming even enables us to broadcast our live events across the globe where we can both engage with an international audience and create positive exposure for our activities.

All of these things are possible because of digital technology. It is not the sole reason but is a factor in the slow but growing trend for Post-Punk influenced music from outside the UK and USA including songs sung in non-English languages to be played on UK radio. On the subject of UK radio, the advent of DAB Radio has seen a national radio station, BBC 6 Music, establish itself as the natural home of Post-Punk influenced music in the media and, thanks to digital technology, it is now listened to all over the world via the internet too.

The influence of post-punk music can be clearly heard in the music of bands and artists such as Superorganism (Japan/UK/USA/Australia); The Beths (New Zealand); The Hives (Sweden); Sigur Rós (Iceland); Young Fathers (Nigeria/Liberia/Scotland); Dream Wife (England); Arcade Fire (Canada); Courtney Barnett (Australia); Priests (USA); Charlotte Adigery (Belgium), Juniore (France), Juana Molina (Argentina) and many others whose music is frequently heard on BBC 6 Music and alternative music shows on other radio stations.

Finally then, it is not digital technology but those who exploit it for bad or cynical ends who pose the biggest problems and threats. Digital itself has transformed the notion of independence in music which is so valuable to Post-Punk influenced artists. That it is, on balance, a positive development for the global Post-Punk music scenes is surely beyond any reasonable doubt.

---

Published by Google Drive–Re