Marcos Sueiro <[log in to unmask]> wrote: ****I'm going to get whipped for this, but I'll say it anyway: I don't see what is so terrible if large large record companies simply disappear. Music has been around much longer than the recording industry, so I do not think that the quality of music itself would suffer. And certainly there must be other business models for musicians to make a living without having to feed a huge machine that often sucked their blood, especially now that the means to record music are available to so many.
From my perspective the current business models are predicated on sale of the "object" which held the recording. We now have a "objectless" information environment.
For me, the same can be said about libraries. Like the music business, they just don't "get it." They seem to stumble along attempting to force their "object" oriented thinking to an information world less bound to "objects."
While I believe there are some things left for libraries and record companies to do, their old world is already gone and has been replaced by the web (google et al) and iTunes (et al).
It seems to me that record companies need to concern themselves more with marketing and libraries should focus on the preservation of our intellectual history. I also wonder if record companies should focus more on making history available, for I cannot help but think that there might be more of a niche market for those old scratchy records than they might have thought there was. Well probably not since the marketing of music, both classical and popular, seems to have the performer as its primary focus.I remember how quickly after his passing, the recordings of the great pianist William Kapell disappeared from the catalog. Once a musician is gone, they become part of a niche market...perhaps a market for those who are more interested in the music than the personality. I wonder how different the business of music would be if the marketing was based on the quality and content of the music...I know, a bad idea.