I was recently told that my views can come across as anti-establishment, and I felt I needed to clear this up, as anti-establishment really represents the opposite of my beliefs.
Let’s not beat around the bush. Fundamentally, I do not believe that capitalism is the best system we can come up with to achieve our highest potential as humans or to support the environments that give us life. I will always align with the ideals that we should be moving away from capitalism as the framework for structured civilisation. But it’s important to differentiate between anti-capitalist and anti-establishment.
I can see why people have noticed my “anti” sentiment, potentially bordering on cynicism at times. I’ve been experimenting with how to move away from capitalism on a personal level, to see how much I could sacrifice before having to rely on it to survive. This has caused me to struggle greatly at times, and voicing these struggles may have led to people labelling me as anti-establishment. In truth, I resent capitalism; I think we can do better. But I am the opposite of anti-establishment because I believe in the need for a system of order to support growth in people.
That said, I’m pragmatic about survival and growth within capitalism. So yes, I will continue to offer practical strategies for artists to make money from their music, including in my book. But I will also push for artists to claim the inherent value of their work, not just at a personal level, but at a political level as well.
For me, the most important principle when it comes to establishment is order. What does order mean? Safety, security, support, growth, a people-first approach.
At a national level, this means no one should slip into a position where their basic needs are not met, and there should always be a springboard for them to grow from. At the same time, no individual or corporation should grow so powerful that it negatively impacts the economic balance and growth potential of those on the lower end of the wealth spectrum. A society that allows unchecked wealth accumulation ultimately distorts the very foundation of growth and fairness for the majority.
To regulate this, establishments, democratically elected by the people, must monitor policies that ensure social welfare, ensuring the wealthier sectors contribute to supporting those less fortunate. This involves market regulation, which is essential to keeping the system fair.
Now to the music industry.
My biggest frustration over the past two decades is the brutal expectation that artists must be entrepreneurs. This shift may be due to the decline of independent record labels, the rise of independent digital distribution, or the greater availability of social media marketing channels. But at its core, this is about the industry leaving artists, who are often on the lower end of the wealth spectrum, with no choice but to become entrepreneurs in order to survive.
The push for artists to embrace neoliberal ideals (the idea that the free market will solve their problems) has placed the burden on artists to figure it all out themselves, while corporations focus solely on profits. As cultural theorist Mark Fisher discusses in his book Capitalist Realism (2009), neoliberalism reduces everything, including art, to its market value, leaving artists in the lurch, having to adopt the same entrepreneurial mindset as corporations.
The main problem here is that we are minimising the inherent value of artists, claiming they are not inherently valuable to society unless they successfully productise their work. This approach strips away the social and cultural significance of art, turning it into just another commodity. When art is only valued for its market potential, we lose sight of its ability to inspire, challenge, and foster human connection.
There was a time when the music industry had remnants of an artist-first ideology, where even amid exploitation, there was an understanding of the value of art. The industry served artists, developing their craft so that businesspeople could sell their music. Today, free markets have given major labels the ability to stifle competition while avoiding monopoly status. By acquiring independent labels at strategic moments, they maintain market control without crossing legal lines on monopolies. For example, Universal Music Group’s acquisition of EMI in 2012 was allowed under antitrust law because UMG sold off parts of EMI to prevent monopoly status. This tactic preserves major labels’ control while appearing to keep competition alive. UMG’s recent acquisition of PIAS is maybe the scariest of these strategies yet.
This isn’t just an economic issue; it’s a cultural one. The commodification of art narrows the scope of what’s considered valuable, privileging commercial appeal over genuine creativity. We see this when platforms like Spotify prioritise algorithms that favour content with mass appeal, limiting the discovery of more experimental or niche music. This shapes public taste and reinforces the idea that only commercially viable art is worth producing or supporting.
So, you might begin to see how the music industry problem is a socio-economic, a political, one, and that’s an issue that’s forcing those surrounding the arts to think more capitalistically, at the expense of art.
What the industry needs is an artist-first establishment, one that offers safety, security, and growth, one that stops expecting artists to be good at music business and starts expecting music businesses to get better at supporting artists.
The question often asked in the industry is whether an artist should focus on content or craft. The answer is simple: the purpose of living for most artists is to hone their artistry.
The problem is time. When we tell artists they need to spend 50% of their time making a living and another chunk marketing themselves, where is the time to actually live, experience, and fuel their art? A study from The Future of Music Coalition (2012) reported that musicians today spend an increasing amount of time on non-musical activities, such as social media and business tasks, which drastically cuts into the time they can dedicate to honing their craft. This would have got a lot worse in the last 12 years. This is backed by findings from the UK Musicians’ Union, which reported that 56% of musicians earn less than £20,000 per year, and many supplement their income with non-music-related work.
I think more people in the music industry would benefit from reading the biography or letters of Van Gogh to understand the sacrifices artists make in their search for authentic expression. His life is a stark example of how artists struggle, not only with their art but with the lack of societal support for that art. Van Gogh’s letters, especially those to his brother Theo, show how much of his creative energy was drained by financial strain, which echoes the sacrifices many artists still face today in a system that asks them to be both artist and entrepreneur.
Many would argue that the only way to overcome financial strain is to earn more money, and to do that, artists need to be better businesspeople. But the negative feedback loop from not getting attention from marketing their music (or their story) can greatly damage their connection to their art. The constant pressure to market oneself can dilute the passion that drives artistic expression. Instead, I would argue that artists would give a fairer chance to their art by earning a living completely separate from the music industry while committing to working solely on their art in their free time.
That is, unless, a patronage is available. I know that the strategy for some DIY “new” music industry professionals is to guide artists to build their own platform to own their own data and essentially create passive income sources (with patronage being a key part of that strategy). I think this could be a good strategy. However, it’s how the artist survives until they have that significant passive income to be able to focus on their art that is usually overlooked.
Ultimately, we need an ecosystem where art is recognised for its intrinsic value, not just its economic potential. Supporting artists to live, create, and grow without needing to become businesspeople is not anti-establishment – it’s pro-people, pro-art, and ultimately pro-culture.