Okay...morning...more alert; let's try this.

If you're not keenly interested in the intellectual property/digital distro free music thing, move right along, as this will bore you to tears. Even if you're keenly interested, bring your machete. You'll need it to get through the following thicket.

Analytic's got an interesting follow-up to to my half-baked idea.

Before addressing some of his points, I'll note that I've attempted to come to grips with some of these issues before (in the dead blog, so no links), but never really managed to arrive at any steadfast position. Since then, a few things have become more clear, and a few things remain as foggy as ever. Part of the idea of my experiment in Radio PK is to test some of my ideas; to see what empirical kernels of knowledge and truth might get teased out of the process.

In other words, I can sit on my ass all day and theorize, but until I've actually done something practical, it's all just ideas.

Anyway, thank you to Analytic for picking up the baton; anyone else with an opinion and expertise on one side or the other is welcome to join in the discussion.

I was wondering about...the question of what the relationship between physical (i.e., records and cds) and downloadable digital media should be, and how that relationship affects the commercial viability of music sold in underground/enthusiast markets?

My sense is that people still retain a desire to own a physical object that corresponds to the medium it houses, a medium that is itself immaterial: music. The hitch is that in a world where artists now have to compete with free, it takes music that excites a real sense of committment and passion in the would-be buyer for that threshhold to buy to be crossed. It's very easy to acquire untold numbers of mp3s of stuff you think is cool but doesn't necessarily move you in any heavy way. I think most people still identify with the stuff that really speaks to them, and that they are willing to spend money on it.

What are the considerations generally in starting an online label?

Don't really know, but I'm trying to work it out. That's partly what this experiment is all about.

I do think having some name recognition before really helps. Everyone loves to cite the examples of online darlings Aimee Mann, Janice Ian, and others, but forgets to mention that these people are already famous! They've got instant PR and credibility built in. It's easy to draw 10,000 visitors a week to your site when you're famous.

How about online music sellers like iTunes music store or Napster? Can we expect people to pay for music that they can just as easily get for free? Should we?

As I suggested above, I think people will pay for music, but the bar has been raised a lot higher in terms of what they'll spend their money on, and when, and why. The music must excite listeners. And I mean really speak to them. It's no wonder RIAA reports declines in sales. Much of what those reports reflect are major label fare, and most of that stuff is irredeemable, tarted-up shit that panders to the lower common denominators of music fandom. Of course you're not going to buy Christina Aguilera if you can have her for free! And god knows there are enough free pictures of her to compliment the free music, thereby obviating most of the other half of the reason to own a CD.

Of course I overstate the case; she does sell records, but the point is, if what charted was more substantial, and touched people--I mean, you know, really touched people, the way many of you reading this are touched and moved by the music you really care about--then I'd be willing to bet that we'd see less of a decline in sales on the top end, because yes, given an equal or inferior product, you can't compete with free.

In an interesting side note, indie labels like Fat Possum are supposedly turning a handy little profit. Surprise, surprise, you can listen to full length mp3s of some music on the site, all CDs are $13, and their music excites an almost wild passion among its fans. I own several Fat Possum CDs.

I suppose what this is leading to is a theory that says that consumers are becoming much more selective, even as the pool of candidate songs for consumption is increasing. Competition is increasing, and increases in competition are incentives for markets to refine and improve the products in that market. We may see a temporary decline in the overall market, but perhaps if the quality of products increases on average, sales will rise again in the future even as the ever-growing pool of free music remains intact. In that sense, that pool really does become the radio, and listeners/consumers can choose to tune out what they don't like, and tune in to what they do like, and then buy what they really like.

Or maybe I'm just full of shit.

Because this got so long, I'm dividing it in two. Second part in a new post above.