KTN's online platform helps you to make the connections you need

 

The Knowledge Transfer Network (KTN) has refreshed its online platform to intelligently connect you to relevant events, funding, thought pieces and specialist staff to help your business innovate and grow.

You can discover content using your area of interest, from Digital Creative to transport; from space to health – all major UK economic sectors are covered. Once you have selected your interests, using our intelligent tagging system, we will then display rich and relevant content related to your area, often from surprising sources.

An example might be new satellite technology from the space sector that is applicable in the agri-food sector. KTN-UK.co.uk will help you form these unusual and valuable connections.

All content on the platform has been carefully curated by our team of innovation specialists – not by an automated algorithm – so you can be confident that KTN is connecting you to the most relevant cutting-edge information.

 

The move also marks a closer alignment with our main funder, Innovate UK , with the website branding making a clear visual link. Knowledge Transfer Network is Innovate UK's innovation network partner, and also works with other funders to provide innovation networking services and fulfil our mission to drive UK growth.

We link new ideas and opportunities with expertise, markets and finance through our network of businesses, universities, funders and investors. From agri-food to autonomous systems and from energy to design, KTN combines expertise in all sectors with the ability to cross boundaries. Connecting with KTN can lead to potential partners, horizon-expanding events and innovation insights relevant to your needs.

Visit our people pages to connect directly with expertise in your sector.

Visit the KTN refreshed online platfom here

Articles

« go back

Who's right about the creative industries: Albini or Lanier?

This article is submitted by our Creative Industries associate, Simon Hopkins.

 

A couple of weeks back, Tom Campbell pointed me to a fantastic piece in the Guardian, a full transcript of the key note Steve Albini gave at the Face the Music conference in Melbourne back in November. I mentioned it here briefly, and said I’d return to it, so here we are.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Albini’s work, it’s fair to say he’s a “veteran” of the underground music scene. Since the late 70s he’s worked as a musician, producer (he prefers “recording engineer”), studio owner, DJ, promoter… and on and on. What binds all his creative work is its fiercely uncompromising nature.

And Albini isn’t just artistically uncompromising either. Throughout his career he’s stood defiantly outside the mainstream record industry. For sure, he’s produced work on major labels (think Nirvana’s In Utero) but he’s conducted his affairs strictly independently. In doing so he’s built up a unique perspective on the industry – and a pretty jaundiced one at that. His position previously was probably best stated in his early 1990s talk,The Problem with Music, in which he cogently argued the case that the music industry was set up in such a way that it delivered maximum profit to itself, while delivering little in the way of reward for bands and little in the way of value for fans.

This talk returns to the theme, but with a twist: Albini thinks that the digital age has brought about some significant solutions to music’s “problems”. Now this is a long piece, with a carefully constructed and tightly argued case, so I urge you to read the thing in full, or at least stick the youtube clip on while you’re making dinner tonight. Albini is not only a clear thinker, he’s a fine, polemical writer and an engaging speaker. But at the risk of boiling it down rather too crudely, Albini’s argument could be summarised thus:

• For music fans, there is now unfettered and effectively unlimited access to all music.
• Bands have unprecedented access to cheap recording means and access to potential fans through a plethora of free or cheap distribution services.
• A network of bloggers and online zines has replaced the old behemoth media gatekeepers.
• There are vastly more opportunities to play live than ever before, and distributing music freely makes it much easier to establish a rep and get people to your shows, buy your merch etc.
• Intellectual property needs to be rethought completely, and very possibly simply dropped by musician as a means to make money.

Now, I have to say, that I broadly agree with every word (and again, please read his, rather than my summary), although in a moment I’ll talk about a slight nag. Where Albini is most convincing, however, is in debunking the notion of a “golden age” of music.

I think, depending on their age, if you asked most people when the golden age of rock or pop was, they’d variously reply the 60s or 70s. The 80s at a pinch. But in brute economic terms it was the 90s – by a very long way. The revenues steadily climbed in that decade and topped out around 2000. The reasons are various, from the massive impact of MTV (difficult to imagine now) to the reinvention of the Hollywood blockbuster as an extended promo video. But chief among the reasons was surely the rise of the CD, which allowed the industry to re-sell to its customers their entire record collection without reissuing artist contracts or advances. And, despite the fact that CDs were vastly cheaper to manufacture than vinyl, they somehow sold for considerably more.

So: boom time for the industry, but for artists? Albini argues here that, no, it wasn’t. In truth, for bands that did get signed to a label, almost all would spend their entire advance on making a record and would never see a penny in royalties. Essentially, Albini argues, every penny that the industry spent was the artists’ un-recouped advance money. As for those that didn’t get signed, making a decent living from a career in music was all but impossible.

With all of that I concur. One of the more historically inaccurate pictures that have built up of late is of a time when thousands of bands were making healthy careers out of selling music. It’s a scenario that’s been summoned up by artists and industry vets since the rise of Napster and continues to be now with the railing against both free and paid-for streaming services. But it is, to be clear, a lie. Only a very small number of musicians has ever made what might be characterised as a half-decent middle class career from playing in bands, and that’s why almost no one does it very seriously much past the age of 35.

Or put it this way: the current situation might not be a utopia, but nor was the past. The only people hanging on to that myth have hugely vested interests: they’re either a rarely successful artist or an industry professional.

Here’s where my nagging thought comes in though. Unsurprisingly, the most insightful, and certainly most heretical book written about digital culture in the last year is Jaron Lanier’s Who Owns the Future? Like Lanier’s previous book, You Are Not a Gadget, Future is wide-ranging, hugely discursive and at times somewhat serpentine. It certainly has many themes, and the lack of opportunities to build a meaningful career though creative practice is only one of these.

Nonetheless, at its heart the book contains a dire warning about what the rise of “siren servers”, ultra-powerful repositories of data running equally powerful algorithms, owned by just a handful of huge conglomerates, largely based on the west coast of the USA. Lanier envisions a future in which the middle class in entirely hollowed out, with an insanely rich elite lording over the rest of us who, if we’re lucky, will make minimum wage. For him, that’s what technology’s current trajectory will head.

I think that one reason Albini and Lanier have different positions is that they have different perceptions of what music is. Read Albini’s piece and you’ll see a world of “bands”, “gigs”, “merch”, “fans” etc. Now that’s a little unfair of me as Albini’s output has been massively eclectic and in this talk he references drone music and Cincinnati soul. Nonetheless, I think his view of the business differs from that of Lanier who sees an industry beyond the rock world: a landscape of session musicians, composers and professional songwriters, jazz and classical players, jobbing club musicians… in short a world in which is was possible for a musician to make a middle class living from plying their trade. Indeed, “trade” may be they keyword here, for Lanier sees artisanship being wiped out by digital technology; Albini, I suspect, couldn’t care less about artisanship.

Only this morning, preparing to get these thoughts down, I ran across a piece in the music and tech blog hypebot that pointed to the collapse of the session music world in LA – and in Nashville too; the reasons are various and tech isn’t the only driver, but it is surely in the mix. In effect, players’ fees have dropped 68% in the last 15 years. This surely plays to Lanier’s vision of an eviscerated creative middle class.

So here’s my problem: I instinctively agree with much in both Lanier’s and Albini’s positions, and yet they seem diametrically opposed. I certainly agree with Albini that a rose-tinted view of the past is unhelpful, even deliberately deceptive. But I can’t deny Lanier’s position either.

What I will say however, that music here is not an outlier. By virtue of file size, music was always the canary in the coal mine when it came to the creative content industries. (Actually poetry was but no one seemed to notice that; I’m guessing the revenues might have something to say about that.) The Albini/Lanier dichotomy, if you like, is playing out elsewhere with self-publishing authors pitted against Amazon-bashing Booker winners, vloggers against paywall-building news organisations… well, you get the picture. Ultimately, I want Albini to be right, but are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

 

This article was originally published on the Turner Hopkins blog.

Comments

Comments

4 people have had something to say so far

This is a fab article, and with great clarity captures many of the positives and negatives that the digital transformation of the creative industries have wrought. A few things in particular strike me:

The notion of the 'golden age' seems to be widespread in creative industries. Publishers, advertisers, television producers and music execs of a certain age will all tell you that their industry peaked in its late 20th century form. It would be interesting to know if this is particular to the creative industries, or is perhaps a more generalised nostalgia for the recent past that many have. It's not that the industry veterans are necessarily wrong, but you always need to ask: who was it actually a 'golden age' for? The artists? Big business? Small businesses? The accountants? The consumers? Journalists? Drug dealers?

Even when you break it down to these groups, it isn't always straightforward. For instance, it is often said that the digital revolution has seen consumers gain at the expense of producers. It's certainly the case that, with books and music, prices have fallen while availability and access has enormously increased. And yet, as as consumer, I don't find myself celebrating this, but rather hankering for the days of bookshops and record stores, and a time when something was all the more precious because of the difficulty in attaining it (although perhaps that's just me)!

More fundamentally, I like the idea of people working in music, TV or film being able to make a decent living from it. Not necessarily securing VC investment and becoming millionaires, but rather being able to do what they love, without slipping into poverty. The corollary of this, of course, is creative professions not simply becoming the preserve of the independently wealthy. On that score, I'm not sure that the impact of digital has really improved things. I certainly accept Simon's view that the golden age is a myth (they almost always are), but I don't buy Albini's argument that digital has 'solved' this problem. I've met far too many really excellent writers, musicians and film makers on the breadline to be convinced.
Posted on 19/01/15 17:41.
Norman Lebrecht makes the point in "Maestros, Masterpieces and Madness" that the ubiquity of CDs as loss-leaders (free in papers, magazines, gigs etc) exposed the cheapness alluded to in the article, and ultimately led to the devaluation of recorded music as a commodity.

I would argue that the digital shift and "pop" music itself has similarly led to a massive devaluation of musicianship, that essentially it's very, very easy to play the guitar and drums. Simply the realisation that most "musicians" in the pop genre (and that includes everything from Ramstein to Nirvana to One Direction) describe themselves as "self-taught" without any sense of irony is enough to prove this point. It's easy - therefore why on earth should anyone pay for it? Exactly the same is true for poetry - everyone says they write it, but no-one reads (or buys) it.

And yet, quality musicianship definitely isn't easy - but professional musicians get tarred with the same brush.

That's probably why you can reconcile both Albini's and Lanier's positions.
Posted on 26/01/15 13:34.
Tom Campbell: >>>The notion of the 'golden age' ... It would be interesting to know if this is particular to the creative industries, or is perhaps a more generalised nostalgia".

I read recently that there was a neuroscientific basis for golden age syndrome - that there's a tendency hardwired into us. Maybe others less forgetful will be able to remind me of the author?
Yes, Lanier collects ancient musical instruments, so this may colour his perspective. There's a clip of him playing one that dates back 7000 years. Thats some golden age. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW1BBbvrEYA
Posted on 26/01/15 14:47.
Having lived through the 'Golden Age' referred to, it appears to me that little has really changed. Labels are still the 'bad guys' as ever and through their powerful structures the huge bulk of successful commercial music 'Hits' are still produced and/or marketed by them. The advent of 'digital' has of course made it possible to self-produce a merchantable quality viral hit but that was always possible, which is a very healthy thing. The main consideration that tends to be forgot is that this is The Music Business made up from many contributors and as such it needs to generate money otherwise it will become relegated to The Music Hobby. Hobbyist musicians that I know still generally aspire to be 'Stars' as they have since music became a business. In reality there have only ever been a select few that have made it 'BIG', that is the nature of the beast! The migration from analogue to digital is very much in progress but the fact remains that unless the money keeps flowing from consumer to content providers then this could pose a problem for those who endeavor to make their living from creating and performing music, no matter at what ever level.
Posted on 27/01/15 11:02.

Top Stories

AHRC Creative Economy Research Programme Workshops

In partnership with the Knowledge Transfer Network (KTN), the Arts and Humanities Research...

Digital Transport Speed Networking Event

The Knowledge Transfer Network is hosting an exclusive event that will bring industry leaders...

Your opinion is needed: Building UK-China Innovation Future | UK Business Survey

China is the largest and one of the most important international partners for the UK – yet...

South West Interactive Healthcare Programme seeks applications from the creative sector

The  South West Interactive Healthcare Programme  is currently seeking...

Free SME Expo at CoInnovate 2016

As technology providers, SMEs are widely recognised as key enablers of economic growth and are...