On music platforms or how capital destroys capitalism (or humanity first?)

I have seen many references lately about Spotify in regards to economic terms and the use of power within the spectrum of ideology and social consequences.

I wish, first of all, to propose some terms, in order for us to have a proper use of language in regards to some elements that we tend to leave behind or pass by without even stopping to consider its actual “substance”. Firstly the idea of music I will identify as human labor-work thus the concept of performance and production of music is a purely human event or phenomena. Recordings, on the other side, are “capital” to labor-work, these (recordings) are in fact capital since they are the embodiment of labor-work, human actions, through a process which derives from the production of something beyond the artist itself. A recording is not inherent to the individual or group of musicians anymore in the sense that it is not constitutive of direct work-labor (which is part of their individual substance), and this is why it can be monetized, as it clearly is capital, and so it is of paramount importance for us to dissociate one term and the other (I wish to emphasize that labor-work is never monetized but capital is and thus language analysis contains much of the differences prima facie).

Some examples might be of help. Consider that the recording industry is no more than 150 years old and the first recordings, such as Edison’s phonograph cylinder, were developed in the year 1877 and not long after the discs and so on appeared and won the market. Human history, in particular music and any kind of expression through waves and sounds (these physical phenomena, such as waves and sounds, I must remark since we should take music back to earth, to physical and phenomenological status rather than the fiction and metaphysical construct of the musical rhetoric), was not put in records until the last blink of human history. We have been, for so long, working on music and the oral traditions in order to maintain a live and liquid development of culture.

The addition of recordings, and their analogs in the photography and video form, have to be reinterpreted as outsiders of humankind or at least as no being humans per se. Even in the case of pictures, recordings and videos, especially in our digital environment full of social media stuff, we tend to say “there I am” or “that is X”, none of these claims are actually true. What we have is a digital or analog representation of the things and people but not “the thing itself”. ¿Who has the control over music and who has the claim to say that a piece of music is entirely of his/her dominion and pure individual creation? I would claim that every piece of art is a reflection of the actual phenomena of the self and the environment combined but only at the specific event of creation (specially in the traditions of improvisation and heterophony). There is a music tradition previous to us and it will go on whether we like it or not. The solipsistic tendency or the individualistic categories of our time make us reinforce the idea of “mine, mine, mine” while we do not give credit to the influences, support, other people’s ideas and so on. The fragile quest for recognition of the feeble souls that is.

The main idea which sustains the whole similarity between labor and capital, or music and recordings, is the sense of private property or rights over “music”. ¿Haven’t you heard of several unreasonable claims and disputes over music rights? ¿Haven’t you seen some of the most curious elements of music being deformed or limited by the system of rights and property? This is particularly weird in the context of western tradition in which, nowadays, we have products, called “music” (a double confusion since they are recordings and mere merchandize without honest human and individual expression but created for the purpose of utilitarian monetization) , coming out everyday by mere computer generation patterns, rhythms, autotune and so on. The dehumanization of the arts is quite evident. And this concept, of dehumanization, is partly supported by the vast range of development that capital has gained over artistic expression and specifically human labor-work and particularly music which is, together with ethics-moral, the two pillars of human virtue. Music is human and recordings are capital, be it from music, pictures or videos. What is alive and has a substance in itself is human and all the rest are just mere representations or vestiges of times.

In regards to digital generated recordings and the constant use of programs, such as autotune or so on, I would like to point out that it is mostly the case that people turn their claims into a realm of reductionism of moral or ethics, meaning : “It is not uncommon to find all people using auto tune thus it is not immoral”. And let us all be aware that something legal does not mean it is moral-ethical and that everyone does something might not only bring immoral behaviors but might be detrimental to society. Beyond the good and evil and the moral content, for which I will only state that being the case that everybody does something does not make it actually ethic or moral, the purpose, direction and dynamic of the whole process is the same: a profound and consistent development of capital and the paradigm of capital über alles (capital above all) in the face of human labor-music. The shift in itself is the dehumanization of music since the more it tends towards the capital, mercantilization and monetization it is turned into merchandise and not human expression thus not culture, arts nor music but a mere means driven by economic purposes. There is a great deal of quid pro quo in all these elements or a sense of confusion in how to categorize this and that which turns as or “seems” replaceable in speech or equivalents but nothing further away from the truth.

The replacement of human labor, meaning music, in live performance, cannot die and hopefully will not and my comments are not of an apocalyptic character but of a certain skepticism. In the special case of the dehumanization of the arts we may interpret or identify how the advance technology and the improvement of programs and so on has given raise to an easily created merchandize or fast produced commodity forced into the categories of social discourse as “music”, and in this case not even as recording which means being capital but also as the most inhuman representations ever, like a picture of a person which is not human. The evidence is itself a matter of pace in the production which is not a creative process which comes from the human expression and artistic phenomena but from a simple marketing and production system that delivers whatever might be easily consumed. The ratio at which recordings can be produced today is amazing. It appears to me that there is an analog element in the same way as books and low content books are sold online. No one is interested in reading a long essay or a book full of difficult concepts and a bunch of complex ideas which may expand my understanding of life, feelings and so on, but the simple stuff, the merchandise which is easily and promptly organized to be sold in the market, has a good ratio of acceptance because of the fast paced environment in which we live today.

A linguistic analogy might help in the sense of a detrimental condition of language and tools which turn into the utilitarianism, efficiency or proactivity towards goals or aims and thus the use of linguistic superstructures, such as poetry or metaphors and so on, have been neglected or put aside for their non-utilitarian substance. Same mechanics can be appreciated in the “use” of “music” for economic terms, only the most basic and simple resources are used since those can be exploited on a certain economies of scale, meaning, as simple as we create a message the further it goes (think about hatred, racism, xenophobia and the simplicity of hate speech).

There could be said that we should not hate the player but the game or something as such and the whole idea is that the player is a part of the game itself and this is the continuous production, clearly a product, of a certain human appearance and with a degree of aesthetic structures which only “seems” to refer to the human feelings.

Music is human expression coming out of oneself and it’s context in the most pure way ever since we all know in the last century we have fallen under the yoke of language and the realm of ideology. In this sense language is full of flaws, as Lacan put it, “words fail”, or in other terms the medium in which we refer to the expression through words will always fail to give the absolute truth of it, but within the realm of music we are bound to a more empirical development of feelings and sentiments in which it cannot be expressed. “A picture is worth more than a thousand words” and so ¿how many are required to depict a marvelous piece of music? We do not even try to do so since we all know, intuitively, that is of no use and no need.

The previous concept should be integrated into the picture of music and production of recordings in order to differentiate a particular process which is related to speech. The most basic forms of discourse are easily spread while the most complex, sensitive and humane ones are rather complex to absorb or may take quite a good amount of time. Think of the many ways in which the hate discourse takes over people in an instant, the message itself is by no means complex, “the problem of it all is…”. Almost mathematically supported as if X = Y and that’s all.

While music, human expression, might be pointing towards a more humane environment and creating a world beyond borders, we are, at the same time, stuck in the continuous production of simple phrases and logics which are analog to the rudimentary, inhumane and monetarist forms of products, merchandise and capital within the appearance of arts-music.

A simple message, beyond any categories, may go beyond borders, cultures and territories if it’s properly stripped of all humanity (all nuances, metaphors or lingüistic superstructures) in order to deliver a simple path of interpretation, which is nothing more than alienation or “philosophical death”.

To summarize this whole process has two particular problems which can be evidenced in the latest struggles within the spotify platform in regards to artist’s income and free speech.

The first of these two elements, artist’s income, is clearly referred to the recordings, meaning capital, which is by itself monetizing and “producing” income within the structure of a service provider. ¿How much music is there to be heard? There are around 50 million songs on spotify and around 80 million tracks including podcasts, lectures and so on. All these are recordings, remember that clearly since that is not “music” since music is humane and not capital-recordings. This is cumulative, the new songs shall fight their way through by gaining more audience while competing with the previous amount of tracks. I am not including all the videos in youtube which explain how to do this or that, repairing things at home or explaining how to draw pictures or are such a great source for studying for the next math or physics test. Many of these elements do not contribute in a matter of profit to their creators but they are still there ¿Why? The human condition is not based on the homo economicus or the economic mind, we are not a product of economic improvement nor driven blindly by profit, we are eager for communication, expression, sharing, being fruitful and being humane in the sense of cooperation and understanding. Because extending a hand and providing help without being asked and without the economic incentive is the greatest human thing, it is magnanimus and at the same time if combined with arts we get the two pillars of humane virtue: arts and ethics-moral.

To be driven by the desire and pleasure of doing a righteous thing and getting a lot in rewards, because even if that action provides something in return, is that unexplainable and irrational driver which are emotions and fulfillment, not as a figure among others, but as human as oneself. To go beyond the utilitarian condition of ourselves and to look at others not as means but as ends. This is why people with jobs and office hours from 9 to 5 do enjoy playing in their free time, they get together in bands and groups and perform even ad honorem. The feeling of humanity, the sense of expression and sharing oneself and the emotions of music, prove that people will invest time, effort and money in moving and handling a lot of difficulties as long as they can be human for an hour or two. This is exploited by crooked businessmen and at the same time it gives a sense of relation and can be compared to the previous elements in regards to the expression and “production” of music. We all have this promethean instinct in which we say “I am human and more than your tool” but we tend to confuse this stance with the feeble and circumstantial escape between weekends.

The more capital, in this case recordings-videos-audio-etc, is produced the greater the competition and within those parameters the greater is the “will” of the product (or producers) to be driven by a more “economies of scale” logic which turns it into a more basic but easily wide spread merchandise.

The second point within the platforms is the problem of how to understand free speech. The use of this or that for this or that purpose. Within this I would say that we are still stuck within the position of Voltaire and Karl Popper and it is always so complex to understand. Be it “I disapprove of your writings but I would give my life for you to continue to write” (from Voltaire) or the well known paradox of intolerance from Popper in which “we cannot tolerate intolerance” ergo we turn ourselves “intolerants” in the view of not tolerating intolerance. The only point I wish to make clear here is that the Voltairish idea is one of absolute, while the Popperian needs to make evidence of what is “intolerance” first of all. Meaning ¿what if we are told that “intolerance” is something which is not and why buy it? ¿Can we confuse tolerance with something similar to a logic which goes against my ideas or beliefs? This has happened so many times in human history and is the same idea of good and bad articulated by the usefulness of individuals for the ruling powers.

Beyond a good and evil declaration I would only refer to the economic power (de facto power) within the structure and by this we shall have a clear picture that the actual driver for change, at least in our system based on revenue and capital, is the actual power towards profit and loss. In relation to the problems arising in regards to artists trying to shut down other voices I refer to both the mentioned above, Voltaire and Popper, but I should not decide or define what is “intolerance” or not. However the key issue is not good or evil but has always been de facto power which is economic. The greater the economic power, meaning profits (just contracted for simple terms here), the greater the view, exposure, expression and sense of righteousness because of the profit driven logic which prevails in cases of necessity. Among these elements and the apparatus of dehumanization, the pressure of those who profit more from a system are those who have their voices widely spreaded around the globe as if the market and platforms would say “as long as you deliver (profits) I will be a forgiver”. And the only way in which this could change is by the social pressure in which an economic result may be affected, meaning, losing customers, profit, etc. Sadly we are again being included in the game and we play by the rules of profit and loss, essentially the power of cohesiveness and not humane understanding. But once again, this tool can be used both ways, as explained by the use of simple speech and phrases for the expansion of hatred and racism. At the end of the day we are faced with the usual problem of an immoral system since it is only driven by profit and loss but we can never know what is truly tolerance, good or bad since all there is that we may identify are mere consequences, meaning that tomorrow someone is by the use of good will blockaded from this or that speech of peace and tolerance under the use of the same tools we would have to… accept it(?). The idea of the good fella Jesus Christ coming down to earth and saying to us all that we should chill, take care of the poor, sick and do not harm others seemed a rather pacific message and was seeing, same as Socrates in greek antiquity, as a sort of extremist and radical who came down to earth for the sole purpose of ruining the good old society. ¿Have we “evolved”? Martin Luther King Jr, Thomas Sankara and Berta Caceres would be but a few fine examples. There are but thin lines within these all.

My views may seem as rather cynical but these are only a continuous of jumps between the realms of humanity and economics, between work and capital, between an utilitarian mind and the pursuit of oneself through feelings and expression. This is not a two sides problem, not a coin, but perhaps something closer to a dodecahedron, and I only attempt to propose these elements, these dissociations in regards to capital and human work-labor, as to identify how much of language we tend to amalgamate and so we find ourselves in this kind of situation in which it may seem that “music” (or expression) is good but it can be bad, and my understanding of this is that a proper differentiation, which in this case comes from economic representations and categories, can shed some light over the inherent difficulties between the capitalistic system of organization and the humane and social development. The more capital the less it’s value thus the less investment and so the less quality, the apprehension of music by the capitalistic terms is then a relatively “recent” event with no more than a hundred years history. The same applies to the whole spectrum of humane arts.

I wish to dissociate, once more, the sense of a pure and ultimate good and evil clashing for supremacy but I only refer to all these processes in order for us to decide what to do, since they are dynamic and move towards concentration and expansion. So the main question, as a central constitutive axis shall be established for constructing society, works around the decision whether to choose capital or labor-work, economic or human logic, dehumanization or arts-culture. Thus in simple terms we shall choose not “a thing” or end but a road or path which is, once more, dynamic and not static. So it is: either or.