Music and Money

mu·sic [myoo-zik]: noun
1. the art of making money and being famous.

So I keep reading these Lefsetz posts on this deal that Jay-Z has going with Samsung. The gist of it is that Samsung is buying a million copies of Jay-Z’s new album at $5/ea and is giving them out with free via android apps to Galaxy users.

It’s an innovative idea. It’s a good idea; it hasn’t been done before. I’d go as far as to say that I almost like the idea. But here’s the kicker… SoundScan, this company that tracks music sales won’t recognize those sales (i.e., the album won’t default to debut at #1), and Jay-Z is in a huff. As if $5 million up front isn't enough?

At what point did our musicians become business moguls? When did numbers and fame replace substance and soul within art? Sure, you can brand yourself by throwing your face on a t-shirt or a poster, but there’s a line that’s crossed when you use your brand influence in buying companies, investing in tech, or engaging in any type of corporate warfare.

These big name artists are starting to see themselves as bigger than the music. Yes, it is true that most music these days, especially in top 40, music has less and less substance, but the nature of art should always be bigger than the artist. Does it really matter that Picasso painted it, or that Beethoven composed it? The individual can be a great artist, but the art isn’t great because of the artist. Good art should sell itself. If it’s not selling without millions in endorsements, a brand, and an artist figurehead, at what point can it just be considered part of the investment portfolio?

We’re evolving into a society where this corporate artist is romanticized, but the art is forgotten. That’s a great way to completely lose sight of the music. See, art is something that pushes boundaries; it evokes emotion; it challenges us. That’s not what this music is doing.