Music: Craft or Commodity?

Art has a fine line to navigate- a continuum where defining itself has far reaching implications- from the law to the economy. In almost every era of history, the same debate has resurfaced in music: art, or business?

Photo by blocks

Music is expression, storytelling, and ‘soul’. It is connectivity and communication that crosses borders and languages- transcending individuals, able to curate emotion, to create community and even manifest radical action. The romantic answer is “art,” of course.

The pragmatic answer is “business”- it’s how creators make a living and how the industry that facilitates them sustains itself. The truth is, music (as with all art forms) has always been both. As we enter the age of AI, it’s more essential than ever to continue to wrestle with this duality.

This is not about selling out vs. holding on to artistic purity. It’s about how music operates in the real world- and how the industry must continue to hold both sides in tension to continue facilitating the birth and sustainability of fresh creativity.

The Long History of Art and Commerce

As far back as the 1700s composers were working on commissions for aristocrats. In even earlier centuries art was similarly sustained through patronage- master painters like Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci being supported by wealthy families such as the Medicis, or by institutions like the Church.

Across the 20th century, songwriters churned out hits like factory workers- from Tin Pan Alley, to the Brill Building and onto Denniz PoP’s legendary Cheiron Studios. The modern day ‘song camp’ is often an evolution of a similar model, with Work-For-Hire agreements a common thread throughout these decades.

The Beatles were groundbreaking artists, yet also were (often rudely) awoken to the accompanying commercial realities as they developed (funnily enough with Michael Jackon able to significantly capitalise as a result). Hip-hop’s rise was similarly as much an entrepreneurial revolution as a cultural one.

Music is a cultural phenomenon that retains and communicates deep emotional meaning. But it’s also a product- packaged, distributed, licensed, and sold. That’s not a bad thing- it’s what makes it sustainable. For a song to reach millions it has to enter a system that knows how to distribute and monetise it.

Of course the structures of that system must be built fairly to keep the fly wheel turning. There must be correct incentive alignment to foster a win-win(-win) between creators, the industry they fuel, and listeners the world over. As someone (I forget who) quipped- “The music industry should connect creator and listener, then get out of the way”.

AI, Speed, and Scale: The New Frontier

In recent posts, I’ve written about how AI is collapsing the gap between idea and execution through a tech lens. That same acceleration has been changing the world of creativity itself. From lyric generation to synthetic vocals, from stem deconstruction to “in the style of” production tools, AI is now actively co-creating with humans. Crucially, as with tech, it’s doing so at speed and scale.

On one hand, this challenges traditional notions of authorship, originality, and creative value. On the other, it introduces entirely new efficiencies into what has always been a commercially minded system.

I’ve argued previously that some niches will be disrupted sooner than others. Need 100 lo-fi tracks for a DSP playlist? Looking to test three variations of an advert jingle? Want a dozen ‘wedding video’ bed tracks for a music library? These have become cheaper to create over recent years, and are now feasible for pennies (and created in seconds). 

What happens when these niches have succumbed to their inevitable disruption? What happens to the macro landscape of artistry in a broader sense? These are pivotal questions.

The communication of meaning by music is always what has fostered connection (and arguably only as a result, commercialization). It’s always been the real differentiator- whatever the economy behind any subsequent value exchange. In a world where content is cheap, fast, and abundant this is only all the more pertinent.

The argument from a generative standpoint is well versed- AI can craft melodies, lyrics, and beats. But it doesn’t have lived experience. It doesn’t have grief, joy, heartbreak, humour, or hope. But what if this isn’t necessarily the case from a listener’s perspective? What if they perceive this meaning anyway? Art is always subjective- what if computer generated music can still emote these feelings? Without getting too existential… can a Human truly connect with a machine?

Leaving that to one side, the tension remains- there is still a market, and an economy to navigate. Any body of work that speaks to an audience’s identity, values, or emotional journey will ‘win out’- as we’re already starting to see. This is why, even as we start to see how audiences will react to and connect with AI-generated music, we also need to understand the commodity.

Commoditisation Without Devaluation

The worry is that the oncoming mass-generation of music via AI will devalue everything. That an ocean of new tracks will drown out the great ones. That platforms flooded with noise will make it harder to find signal.

When abundance is the baseline, filtering and framing become king. Context becomes currency. Editorial curation and personalised discovery will be ever more crucial.

Catalog value will depend hugely on storytelling (something Pophouse has bet well on)- alongside the ever critical data clarity, rights transparency, and accurate attribution. It’s not enough to own great works. You must know how to leverage their narrative, amplifying music’s capability to connect deeply with an audience. And of course if it has a story to tell, it must be discoverable, licensable, and monetisable... which means data!

In short: music is already treated as a commodity, significantly financially underperforming given its emotive and cultural power (relative to Gaming, Film, etc.). To redress that balance, commodification must be balanced with building connection and meaning.

Navigating the New Duality

If you’re an artist, this means investing in your own narrative and rights literacy.

If you’re a publisher, this means embracing technology as a toolkit. It means using AI to automate admin, clean up metadata, and support songwriters in their creative flow without undermining the value of their contribution.

If you’re a fund or rights manager, it means evaluating catalogs beyond past performance, but on their story, as well as their readiness for the next era of music discovery and monetisation. Are the works easily licensed? Is the data clean? Can these assets thrive in the new attention economy?

Everyone in music is walking this tightrope: honouring the craft while navigating the market. That balance is not static either- it’s dynamic, and shifting faster than ever.

Final Thought: It’s Not Either/Or

We need to move beyond the binaries. Music is not either art or business. It’s not either handmade or AI-generated. It’s not either meaningful or monetised. It’s all of those things. At once.

As the industry continues to evolve- technologically, economically, and culturally- those who thrive will be those who understand this duality and can operate comfortably in both realms.

The music business, as it has always had to, must be fluent in the language of rights and royalties and the language of inspiration and creativity. We must protect the soul of the work while optimising its impact. We must build systems that respect the songwriter, and work in granular detail for them. Now more than ever.

Music has always been both craft and commodity. It always will be. It isn’t necessarily a contradiction, but an opportunity.