\ Brennan, M. and Devine, K. (2020) The cost of music. Popular Music, 39(1), pp. 43-65. (doi: 10.1017/S0261143019000552) The material cannot be used for any other purpose without further permission of the publisher and is for private use only. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/203637/ Deposited on 18 November 2019 Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow http://eprints.gla.ac.uk Brennan and Devine p.1 The cost of music Abstract What is the cost of music in the so-called Anthropocene? We approach this question by focusing on the case of sound recording formats. We consider the cost of recorded music through two overlapping lenses: economic cost, on the one hand, and environmental cost, on the other. The article begins by discussing how the price of records has changed from the late 19th to the 21st century and across the seven most economically significant playback formats: phonograph cylinder, gramophone disc, vinyl LP, cassette tape, compact disc, MP3 on hard drive, and streaming from the cloud. Our case study territory is the United States, and we chart the gradual decline in the price of recorded music up to the present. We then examine the environmental and human costs of music by looking at what recordings are made out of, where those materials come from, and what happens to them when they are disposed of. Despite what rhetorics of digital dematerialisation tell us, we show that the labour conditions in the digital electronics and IT industries are as inhumane as ever, while the amount of greenhouse gases released by the US recording industry could actually be higher today than at the height of any previous format. We conclude by asking the obvious (but by no means straightforward) question: what are musicians and fans to do? What is the most sustainable way for musicians to distribute their recordings in the 21st century? And what is the most sustainable way for consumers to listen to those recordings?1 1 When we (Brennan and Devine) refer generally to musicians and listeners in this article, as well as when we consider what ‘we’ (scholars and music lovers) should do about the issues surrounding the various costs of music, our perspectives are necessarily limited to our own situatedness as academics, musicians, and fans that live and work in the Global North. We do not intend to make claims that inflate our own experiences or our research into a universalised context. Our more humble aim is to prompt popular music scholars of the Global North to earnestly consider the costs of music, and we would welcome research that tests our arguments in contexts other than the ones that define our outlook. Brennan and Devine p.2 These questions are asked frequently by students on popular music and music industries courses, at least in our experience. Yet such questions are notoriously difficult to answer. From an economic perspective, is it worth manufacturing copies of recordings in addition to hosting them on digital music infrastructures like streaming and download platforms? If so, then how many copies and on which formats? And from an environmental perspective, is the plastic waste generated from physical formats more hazardous than the energy consumption it takes to stream music from the cloud? What factors do we need to consider when making these decisions?2 When interrogating sustainable practices of recorded music production and consumption, we must first define what we mean by ‘sustainable’. The concept of sustainability is notoriously slippery. As such, sustainable development research tends to cover multiple lines of inquiry to address the overall challenge to ‘meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’, in the words of the oft-quoted 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development (also called the Brundtland Commission). Research on sustainability has therefore historically defined the term with regard to three interdependent pillars: economy, equity, and environment. The underlying assumption is that sustainable development can only occur when these priorities are considered in relation to one another. Aaron Allen (2014, p. 7) has summarised three contrasting models of how economic, equitable, and environmental priorities might be balanced. <INSERT FIGURE 1 AROUND HERE> The first model (Figure 1, left) is one where each pillar is considered to be of equal importance, with ‘economy, environment, and equity balancing an enduring world, one that 2 Note that while we are trained as popular music scholars and contribute to the field of popular music studies, the costs and consequences of recorded music obey no allegiances to particular genres or musical worlds. All forms of recorded music are complicit. Music’s low economic value and high environmental consequences are not specific to popular music. Nevertheless, given the extent to which recorded popular music defines the listening habits of significant numbers of people, writing about the costs of music for an audience of popular music researchers is a logical place to spark such a conversation. Brennan and Devine p.3 supports humanity’s place in, and as part of, nature’. As Allen points out, though, this model has been critiqued for giving equal roles to social and financial issues when environmental sustainability is already at a point of catastrophe due to climate change. This leads to a second ‘nested basket’ model (centre), which illustrates the dependency of economy and society on a sustainable environment. Allen ultimately introduces the notion of aesthetics into sustainability (models), arguing that the ‘kind of world … we want to sustain’ is ‘not one that just considers environment, equity, and economics, but also one that includes joy, excitement, emotion, goodness, and beauty – a world that looks good, feels good, sounds good, and is good’ (ibid., p.9). To complicate matters further, research on the intersection between music and sustainability has arguably tended to emphasise one area of sustainability at the expense of others. Researchers in applied ethnomusicology (e.g. Titon 2010; Schippers and Grant 2016), for example, often focus on equity and the social sustainability of endangered indigenous musical traditions, while research in popular music studies and the sociology of music (e.g. Oliver 2010; Frith et al. 2016) privileges the economic aspects of ‘sustainability’ while ignoring environmental impact considerations. Recent work on the political ecology of music (Brennan et al. 2019; Devine 2015 and 2019) looks at the materiality and environmental sustainability of musical activity.3 Meanwhile, the research presented in this article focuses on the recorded music sector in relation to two pillars of sustainability: economic, on the one hand, and environmental, on the other. The discussion that follows is the product of a collaboration between the two authors. Having previously researched the live music sector from the perspectives of economic (Frith et al. 2016) and environmental sustainability (Brennan et al. 2019), Brennan was interested in 3 There is of course a much broader range of work on sustainability in music, from perspective such as ecomusicology and others. See for example Pedelty (2012), Kagen and Kirchberg (2016), Wolcott (2016), Ballereau et al. (2018). Additional discussions can be found in Rothernberg and Ulvaeus (2009) and Krause (2016). Brennan and Devine p.4 exploring these two pillars in the area of recorded music via a creative practice project, namely the release of an album of original music. After discussions with Devine, who was completing a book about the political ecology of music with a focus on the recording industry, the two authors embarked on a joint project called The Cost Of Music. We deliberately chose to frame our collaborative work in terms of cost as a response to existing work on culture being often framed in terms of its value (see Ahlhadeff 2006; Behr et al. 2016a and 2016b; Frith 1996; O’Brien 2010; Taylor 2007 and 2017; Marshall 2019). By framing recorded music in terms of cost as opposed to value, we can ask a different sort of question: what are we willing to miss out on – economically, socially, environmentally – to enjoy the luxury of listening to our choice of records? The rest of this article is divided into four sections, which address the questions outlined above. First, we examine how the price of records has changed over history and across the seven most economically significant formats in the United States (phonograph, gramophone, turntable, cassette deck, CD player, digital audio player, and streaming device).4 We chart the gradual decline in the price of recorded music up to the present, and consider what questions it raises for the cultural value of recorded music. Second, we discuss the environmental and human costs of music by looking at what recordings are made out of, where those materials come from, and what happens to them when they are disposed of. Despite what narratives of digital dematerialization imply (see, for example, Savage 2019), we show that the transition toward paying to remotely access recorded music via digital infrastructures – as opposed paying for a commodity to keep in the home – do not erase, or even mitigate, inhumane labour conditions in the digital electronics and IT industries that make access to recorded music possible. Similarly, we show that the amount of greenhouse 4 We have focused on US sales figures and environmental statistics simply because we were able to obtain relatively complete data regarding the history of recorded music in that country. This is of course a limitation of our research, and we would welcome research based on other statistics from other places.