sustainability and music (1)

A while back I shocked someone when I told her my goal was NOT to sell as many CDs as I can.

I come across that all the time - when someone finds out that I'm a musician/singer-songwriter/recording artist, the immediate assumptions are that 1) there's no way you can make a living at it, and/or 2) the only way you could possibly make a living at it is by getting really "big" and being "famous," and therefore that's what I must be trying to do.

Whereas my goal is to simply be faithful to this vocation, and to find a way to do that over the long term, on a humble and sustainable scale. Sustainable in relational, financial, mental health, and ecological terms.

I'm finding that some people really respond to this goal, and appreciate it (and, it must be said, usually wish me luck with the implied sub-text that I'm sure going to need it!). Others find this frustrating, and say they hope for "more" for me, that they think I can "do better"... and sometimes the implication seems to be that striving for sustainability means limiting my dreams too much (at best), or retreating into the welcoming and comforting arms of intentional mediocrity (at worst).

I'm reminded of the writings of Wendell Berry, who for many years has loudly challenged the assumption that "bigger is better" when it comes to agriculture, that "industrial-scale" agriculture is the only way to go, and has argued instead that "there is a ratio between eyes and acres, between farm size and farm hands, that is correct." ("A Defense of the Family Farm," in the 1987 collection of essays called "Home Economics," p. 164). And that a big part of our ecological crisis is that we have not got that ratio right.

It seems to me that the same could be said about music. And many other things, for that matter.

It's a funny thing... being passionate about environmental sustainability and the need for change in the way we live... including, among other things, changing habits of hyper-consumption... and writing songs that, among other things, articulate something of that vision... and then recording them and putting them on a plastic/metallic disc, encasing them in more plastic and paper and cardboard... and then shipping them all over the place and seeking to SELL them...

It's a process full of contradictions, obviously. Contradictions that I struggle with every day.

In the manufacture of my latest CD, I wanted to make choices that were better for the environment. Recycled, post-consumer paper, vegetable inks, alternatives to the plastic jewel case package... (why do those options still cost MORE?! Why do we persist in financially penalizing better environmental practices and subsidizing poorer ones...?) ... and yet the most environmentally damaging piece of all remains the disc itself...

... and before we get too excited and breathlessly ecstatic about digital downloads and iTunes as an environmental alternative, let's give our heads a bit of a shake and recognize that the computer industry and related electronic gadgetry are hardly paragons of virtue when it comes to environmental sustainability...

Now don't get me wrong. I've embraced the world of digital downloads too, and see lots of potential for how this can be part of the mix of a more sustainable way of approaching a long-term musical vocation (I'll be posting more about that and other ideas soon)...

But it seems to me that as an ecologically responsible means of music distribution, we have yet to improve on the system that songwriters have been using for thousands and thousands of years...

Sing the songs! And teach them to others and pass them along... and see, over time, which are the ones that remain...