The Values of Music in a Modern Society:

sittingroom 11_07

Harmoniums, guitars, records, turntables, a cello and a painting.

www.jacobwhittaker.co.uk

http://www.flickr.com/photos/45097561@N00/2052415078

Music is one of the most powerful forces in our modern world. Music comes to us in all forms, with instruments, without instruments, with voices, without voices, fast or slow, low or high pitched, etc. Music is valued by many as moving, motivational, even life-saving. Music certainly has inherent value; while we are at it, we can go as far as to say that music has several different types of inherent value. 

We can first discuss the value of music to artists and their audiences. Each time an artist creates something, it has some sort of value, whether only to the artist or listener, or to the mass public. A song for example, initially belongs to the musician who wrote it. However, if the artist wants to make the song public (and popular), the production company with whom the musician is working might legally own some rights, like rights to the song, lyrics, or melody. The value can be determined by the artist who wrote the song, and also by the listener. If the listener feels they can relate to an experience in the composition, or that the melody evokes feelings or emotions, the composition will hold value for the listener, and thus value overall. The same holds true for a sound recording. 

Now we can discuss the value of music in a digital world and from an economic standpoint. Music can be obtained virtually anywhere and anytime in modern society. This being said, there is definitely a controversial debate over music sharing. I think that since music will eventually be heard all over the world, there is nothing wrong with it being shared online. I don't consider this stealing, because it's not like the sharers and downloaders are claiming rights to writing, producing, and performing the songs. I think consumers absolutely have the right to free music; if the artist makes a song, and wants to mass sell and share it with the world, then there is nothing wrong with allowing it to be free for online users. This can help broaden the artist's audience, all of whom will assign their own values to the artist's music. Since the artists will make money with things like CDS, concerts, clothes, fan clubs, public appearances, etc., it shouldn't be a big deal if their music is online for free for all to enjoy. HOWEVER, there is a reason this is such a hotly debated topic. It's ok to share music if it is on a legal website or legal music sharing program. It is NOT ok to get music without paying for it if the process is illegal. If you are downloading music illegally, or stealing CDS, it's not ok, for any artist's music.  

Financially, many people will try to assign values on an artist's work. Production companies will try to assign a price to a song, a CD, a concert ticket, etc. Companies like iTunes make most of their money off of this concept. There is also the subject of royalties  which are awarded to an artist for their work. Artists should be entitled to receive these royalties for their whole lives, as well as their immediate families, until the last living descendant of the artist dies.  I think it is respectful to continue to grant royalties to the artist's families even after the artist has died, because it is like paying respect to the family and recognizing the brilliance of the artist.  

So, the answer to the question of music's inherent value is that any music, anywhere can have any amount of inherent (and other value) depending on the audience. This also depends on the artist's willingness to share it with others, profit from it, and wishes for its availability.