Is Music Art, Science or Utility?

Why Mycorrhizal Fungi EP isn’t on Spotify, functional music, Bandcamp Day, physical versus digital, playlist culture, the value of music in the 21st Century

Can music be considered art when defined through the lens of 21st Century listening with the dominance of streaming and playlists? Or should music be considered more as a science; a medicinal tool we use to self-soothe where streaming allows us easier access into its ‘functional’ benefits - whenever we need to change our state of mind or give ourselves a boost. Or, should it be considered a type of social glue, an expressive voice that communicates a set of cultural values that bonds us together in groups? 

Of course, music could be all of the above and more, and when defined in its broadest terms becomes impossible to categorise. However, looking at the evolution of music in the recorded age, one can chart the trajectory of the musical ecosystem which now, on a mainstream level at least, commodifies songs to such an extent that music has moved to a point where it is best defined as a utility: the equivalent of water running from your kitchen tap, always available, paid for by a monthly direct debit that doesn’t take a second thought to process. It is essential and omnipotent, but is it art? Was it ever?

For most, music is valued as merely one more cost in the essentials of any household - alongside their gas and electrics, council tax and Netflix/Prime subscriptions. So, if music is now defined by these terms, surely it cannot be considered to be ‘art’. Art is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as:

“the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.”

I firmly believe that a song can be placed within this definition, when it is consumed in the form of a stream or playlist the lines are somewhat blurred: the artist or creator's role becomes diminished to the point of being absent entirely, reducing the ability for us to get proper insight into ‘the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination’. It is sometimes like AI-generated music is already here, in full force.

Playlists have successfully cannibalised the song, extracting music's functional potency delivered as a continuous stream, which displaces the original artistic intent and meaning. Instead, playlists deliver a functional benefit (for example for mood regulation and motor movement motivation), which is lapped up by the consumer. This streaming/playlist model is so powerful that it has changed how music is made - with many artists (and certainly record labels/managers etc) making creative decisions based on increasing a song's potential for playlist algorithm ‘acceptance’ and ‘suitability’. 

In their early Interdependence podcasts, Holly Herndon and Mat Dryhurst talked a lot about the value of music as art in the age of streaming. Their basic point was that some of the best and most influential pieces of music need only be listened to once to make a lasting impression. By placing every song in the streaming ecosystem, value is obtained by achieving vast streaming numbers, often by repeated plays within a playlist of other similar works. Anything under 1000 plays doesn’t even count! But how about music that doesn’t fit into those categories, that doesn’t make you feel comforted - this can be some of the most influential and challenging experiences which you don’t want (or need) to experience multiple times. 

By a similar token, how often do you look at your favourite art? For the original work, perhaps once or twice in your lifetime in a gallery and several dozen times in digital form? How many times do you need to listen to a piece of music for it to make an impression? 

Physical versus Digital

And what about music that is designed to be experienced as part of a physical package that includes a visual artwork, a record, liner notes etc? The switch to digital has left a void where artwork largely sits as a thumbnail on your laptop or app, and liner notes are often overlooked. My favourite pieces of music are ones I can remember touching, feeling, smelling and immersing myself in.

This brings me onto our first release Mycorrhizal Fungi and the reason why it isn’t on Spotify or any streaming site. I firmly believe it needs to be experienced as a full package - with the beautiful original artwork created by the award-winning Jananicole, with the scent that can be unleashed by scratching at the moss in the middle to reveal the smells of the forest, with the mushrooms that change colour in black light, just as they would do in the forest. It is the full package that makes it a piece of art and that essential part is lost by purely streaming the music.

I was tagged in a LinkedIn post by writer Sarah Hyndman, who summed it up beautifully:

Bandcamp Day

On a final note, it's Bandcamp day today and I’m in two minds about it. When it first appeared in the pandemic, it was a true representation of the power of big, dominant platforms to give something back to the creators that are a fundamental part of the platform ecosystem, and proved to be an extremely useful source of revenue for artists during a difficult time. I’m glad it has continued, but perhaps it has become a victim of its own success - my email inbox is now flooded by hundreds of labels and artists all clamouring to get you to buy something today. Are there enough willing music consumers who are prepared to spend money on music to go around? 

Having said all that - there are now only 40 copies left of Mycorrhizal Fungi on our Bandcamp so why not BUY SOME ART?!