Intent

I’ve been having an ongoing discussion lately with a friend about the future of content, and what people will continue to charge for, and what they won’t be able to anymore. With books, or advice based content, the aspect of factual information that can be proven or applied somehow seems able to retain a fee, while recordings or entertainment, whose value is subjective and vague as to it’s actual effect on people, might become more difficult to justify charging for.

This got me thinking more about the possibility of musicians working toward, or creating, a specific intent with their work – one whose cost could be justified (if you pay for this, you’ll get this). In some ways, this would be interesting; to play something and have a specific outcome occur, or at least a general response on my part based on the content of the recording.

Then, there’s John Cage, who provides a different, yet equally compelling take on what sound is:

In Cage’s view, sound is all around us, and does not necessarily need to mean anything to the listener. On one hand, this is true, but seems to be more of a choice than reality. Sound, as he states, certainly doesn’t have to “be a president,” but that doesn’t mean that its place in the world has to be completely arbitrary.

If you make sounds with any kind of intent – to entertain, to confront, to create, etc., how will you continue to justify their worth to whatever degree? Will recordings be able to be valued beyond the taste of individuals, or will they be simply as Cage describes, creating a situation where artists will need to find other ways to make money – both musically and not?