The Commercialization of Music
... and the Inflation of Artistic Value
When looking back on the history of music from the modern era onward, “capitalization” and “commercialization” can be understood not merely as factors that promoted the spread of music, but as decisive forces that profoundly transformed the value structure of music itself. In particular, in the field of popular music music was liberated from its status as a privileged practice linked to sacred rituals and the authority of those in power, and—against the background of advances in recording technology and distribution systems—it spread widely among the general public. While this process can be viewed, as the “democratization of music,” on one hand, it can also be seen as a process in which capitalist and commercial logic treated music as a “commodity” as a matter of course, thereby marginalizing its uniqueness and diversity as an art form.
Capitalism has redefined music within the framework of “supply and demand,” adopting as its core strategy the mass production of recording media to flood the market with “more, faster” music. The music industry, operating through physical media such as records and CDs, continued to produce vast numbers of works to expand its sales; as a result, music transformed from something “rare and special” into something “constantly flooding the market.” What is important here is that the long-standing, common-sense notion that value arises from “scarcity” was inadvertently eroded by this mass supply. It can be argued that, in its efforts to maximize profits by accelerating the supply of music, the music industry ultimately inflated the market value of “music”—the very source of its own value—in the long run, thereby rendering the value of “music” itself virtually worthless in relative terms.
From an economic perspective, this structure is nothing more than the relatively self-evident mechanism of “oversupply and falling prices,” but it appears that this perspective has not been given sufficient consideration in the music industry or the arts. While musicians, producers, and executives have each been eager to expand their own specialized skills—such as performance techniques, production skills, and management expertise—it could be argued that they have not possessed a sufficiently broad perspective to fully grasp the medium- to long-term impact these developments have on the industry as a whole, nor the ripple effects they have on the cultural environment of society at large. In this sense, the commercialization of the music industry was not problematic simply because it “sought to make a profit”; rather, the structural problem lies precisely in the fact that it “continued to expand without being guided by social ethics or economic principles.”
With the dawn of the 21st century and the widespread adoption of digital technology, this “audio inflation” entered a qualitatively new phase. Music was no longer bound to physical media; it became something that could be replicated almost infinitely as digital data and was consumed through streaming and downloads, funded by monthly subscription fees or advertising models. At this point, individual music tracks lost their distinct pricing and, by being bundled as part of “all-you-can-listen” services, came to be traded at a unit price close to zero. In other words, we are witnessing a classic inflationary structure in which the number of music tracks continues to grow, while the monetary value of each individual work becomes increasingly diluted.
More importantly, this process of digitization has been driven not by the logic of the music industry itself, but by “external” capital—such as the computer industry, Internet companies, and platform companies. The business model of “distributing physical media,” which had been led by record labels, was overwritten by subscription and advertising models designed by IT companies, and the music industry was forced to absorb even more massive digital inflation on top of the inflation it had created itself. Here, too, it could be argued that while musicians and executives have been eager to expand their own skills and businesses, they have failed to examine—from a sufficiently broad ethical and social perspective—the platform dependency structures formed in the process, as well as the impact that control through data and algorithms has on culture as a whole.
Given this situation, in today’s world—where computers, the Internet, and artificial intelligence are becoming increasingly widespread—it is no longer sufficient for musicians and artists to simply hone their “performance abilities” or “production skills”; rather, they are expected to possess comprehensive capabilities that integrate an understanding of economic and technological structures, as well as social ethics. Understanding the mechanisms of the platforms they use, the structure of revenue distribution, and how biases in data and algorithms create inequality and exploitation—and then considering what actions will lead to a fair and sustainable cultural environment—will likely become an essential form of literacy for musicians in the future.
Musicians who have gained this perspective on social ethics and social values can engage with the industry structure not merely as subordinate entities, but as critical and creative agents. Specific examples include release strategies that do not contribute to oversupply and price wars; community-building efforts that do not reduce relationships with fans to mere monetary value; and touring and production methods that take environmental impact and sustainability into account. Furthermore, teaching the next generation of musicians and artists not only performance techniques but also social ethics and economic concepts through education and workshops is likely to be an important practice that contributes to the long-term sustainability of music culture as a whole.
In general, it can be said that rather than simply lamenting the “inevitable trend of the times”—namely, the “audio inflation” and “dilution of value” brought about by the rise of capitalism and commercialism—there is room to reimagine a different future by exposing the underlying ethical and social blind spots and by encouraging musicians themselves to adopt a cross-disciplinary perspective. Is it not one of the most important challenges for the future of music culture to share the recognition that safeguarding the autonomy of art and being mindful of our responsibility to society as a whole are not inherently contradictory, but rather exist in a mutually complementary relationship?
Capitalism has redefined music within the framework of “supply and demand,” adopting as its core strategy the mass production of recording media to flood the market with “more, faster” music. The music industry, operating through physical media such as records and CDs, continued to produce vast numbers of works to expand its sales; as a result, music transformed from something “rare and special” into something “constantly flooding the market.” What is important here is that the long-standing, common-sense notion that value arises from “scarcity” was inadvertently eroded by this mass supply. It can be argued that, in its efforts to maximize profits by accelerating the supply of music, the music industry ultimately inflated the market value of “music”—the very source of its own value—in the long run, thereby rendering the value of “music” itself virtually worthless in relative terms.
From an economic perspective, this structure is nothing more than the relatively self-evident mechanism of “oversupply and falling prices,” but it appears that this perspective has not been given sufficient consideration in the music industry or the arts. While musicians, producers, and executives have each been eager to expand their own specialized skills—such as performance techniques, production skills, and management expertise—it could be argued that they have not possessed a sufficiently broad perspective to fully grasp the medium- to long-term impact these developments have on the industry as a whole, nor the ripple effects they have on the cultural environment of society at large. In this sense, the commercialization of the music industry was not problematic simply because it “sought to make a profit”; rather, the structural problem lies precisely in the fact that it “continued to expand without being guided by social ethics or economic principles.”
With the dawn of the 21st century and the widespread adoption of digital technology, this “audio inflation” entered a qualitatively new phase. Music was no longer bound to physical media; it became something that could be replicated almost infinitely as digital data and was consumed through streaming and downloads, funded by monthly subscription fees or advertising models. At this point, individual music tracks lost their distinct pricing and, by being bundled as part of “all-you-can-listen” services, came to be traded at a unit price close to zero. In other words, we are witnessing a classic inflationary structure in which the number of music tracks continues to grow, while the monetary value of each individual work becomes increasingly diluted.
More importantly, this process of digitization has been driven not by the logic of the music industry itself, but by “external” capital—such as the computer industry, Internet companies, and platform companies. The business model of “distributing physical media,” which had been led by record labels, was overwritten by subscription and advertising models designed by IT companies, and the music industry was forced to absorb even more massive digital inflation on top of the inflation it had created itself. Here, too, it could be argued that while musicians and executives have been eager to expand their own skills and businesses, they have failed to examine—from a sufficiently broad ethical and social perspective—the platform dependency structures formed in the process, as well as the impact that control through data and algorithms has on culture as a whole.
Given this situation, in today’s world—where computers, the Internet, and artificial intelligence are becoming increasingly widespread—it is no longer sufficient for musicians and artists to simply hone their “performance abilities” or “production skills”; rather, they are expected to possess comprehensive capabilities that integrate an understanding of economic and technological structures, as well as social ethics. Understanding the mechanisms of the platforms they use, the structure of revenue distribution, and how biases in data and algorithms create inequality and exploitation—and then considering what actions will lead to a fair and sustainable cultural environment—will likely become an essential form of literacy for musicians in the future.
Musicians who have gained this perspective on social ethics and social values can engage with the industry structure not merely as subordinate entities, but as critical and creative agents. Specific examples include release strategies that do not contribute to oversupply and price wars; community-building efforts that do not reduce relationships with fans to mere monetary value; and touring and production methods that take environmental impact and sustainability into account. Furthermore, teaching the next generation of musicians and artists not only performance techniques but also social ethics and economic concepts through education and workshops is likely to be an important practice that contributes to the long-term sustainability of music culture as a whole.
In general, it can be said that rather than simply lamenting the “inevitable trend of the times”—namely, the “audio inflation” and “dilution of value” brought about by the rise of capitalism and commercialism—there is room to reimagine a different future by exposing the underlying ethical and social blind spots and by encouraging musicians themselves to adopt a cross-disciplinary perspective. Is it not one of the most important challenges for the future of music culture to share the recognition that safeguarding the autonomy of art and being mindful of our responsibility to society as a whole are not inherently contradictory, but rather exist in a mutually complementary relationship?