AccScience Publishing / AC / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/AC026250043
Cite this article
12
Views
Related Info Links
More by Authors Links
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
News and Announcements
View All
ARTICLE

Media infrastructure iteration and the reconfiguration of music’s commodity form: Communicative-institutional change across the evolution of digital platforms

Jim Potseng Yeh1 Chen Gong2*
Show Less
1 Key Laboratory of Music and Digital Intelligence of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Conservatory of Music, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
2 School of Journalism and Communication, Shanghai International Studies University, Shanghai, China
Received: 17 June 2026 | Revised: 1 July 2026 | Accepted: 10 July 2026 | Published online: 18 August 2026
© 2026 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Abstract

The iterative evolution of digital platforms has not only changed the channels through which music circulates but has fundamentally redefined music’s attributes as a commodity. Adopting media infrastructure theory as its analytical lens, this study draws on a longitudinal analysis of 71,931 weekly-chart records from a Mandarin-language music streaming platform between 2005 and 2025, together with semi-structured interviews with 25 music industry practitioners, to examine systematically how the iteration of media infrastructure, from physical records to streaming platforms to short-video platforms, has reconstructed the commodity attributes of music and the institutional arrangements of its communication. The study finds that music’s commodity form has undergone three fundamental reconfigurations: an ownable product in the physical-record period, an accessible service in the streaming period, and appropriable raw material in the short-video period. The chart data provide structural evidence of this process: the top 10% of songs account for 60.8% of all chart appearances, and systematic defects in the platform’s metadata governance indicate that digital platforms are not neutral conduits but actively participate, through their data architectures, in constructing music’s commodity attributes. The paper advances the theoretical proposition of the distribution channel as a commodity-attribute-defining apparatus, arguing that media infrastructure determines not only how music reaches consumers but also what music is.

Keywords
Media infrastructure
Music commodity form
Streaming platforms
Platformization
Metadata governance
Algorithmic distribution
Funding
This work was supported by the 2025 Special Project of the Key Laboratory of Music and Digital Intelligence of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Conservatory of Music, “Research on the Copyright Mechanism of AI Music Publishing and Distribution from the Perspective of the Platform Economy” (Grant No. SZ025ZXXM07); and by the 2025 Shanghai Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project, “Enhancing Dominant Public Opinion Through Systematic Reform of Mainstream Media” (Grant No. 2025BXW006).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no competing interests.
References
  1. Parks L, Starosielski N, eds. Signal Traffic: Critical Studies of Media Infrastructures. University of Illinois Press; 2015.
  2. Plantin JC, Lagoze C, Edwards PN, Sandvig C. Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media Soc. 2018;20(1):293-310. doi: 10.1177/1461444816661553
  3. Helmond A. The platformization of the web: making web data platform ready. Soc Media Soc. 2015;1(2):1-11. doi: 10.1177/2056305115603080
  4. Castells M. The Rise of the Network Society. 2nd ed. Blackwell; 2010.
  5. Srnicek N. Platform Capitalism. Polity Press; 2017.
  6. Nieborg DB, Poell T. The platformization of cultural production: theorizing the contingent cultural commodity. New Media Soc. 2018;20(11):4275-4292. doi: 10.1177/1461444818769694
  7. Vonderau P. The Spotify effect: digital distribution and financial growth. Telev New Media. 2019;20(1):3-19. doi: 10.1177/1527476417741200
  8. Morris JW. Curation by code: infomediaries and the data mining of taste. Eur J Cult Stud. 2015;18(4-5):446-463. doi: 10.1177/1367549415577387
  9. Straw W. Systems of articulation, logics of change: communities and scenes in popular music. Cult Stud. 1991;5(3):368-388. doi: 10.1080/09502389100490311
  10. Seabrook J. The Song Machine: Inside the Hit Factory. W. W. Norton; 2015.
  11. Frith S. Performing Rites: On the Value of Popular Music. Harvard University Press; 1996.
  12. Caves RE. Creative Industries: Contracts Between Art and Commerce. Harvard University Press; 2000.
  13. Hesmondhalgh D. The Cultural Industries. 4th ed. SAGE; 2019.
  14. McConville T. The artist as a subscription: patching music as an artistic device. Organised Sound. 2023;28(3):352-361. doi: 10.1017/S1355771823000626
  15. Passman DS. All You Need to Know About the Music Business. 10th ed. Simon & Schuster; 2019.
  16. Lessig L. Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity. Penguin; 2004.
  17. Negus K. Music Genres and Corporate Cultures. Routledge; 1999.
  18. Wikström P. The Music Industry: Music in the Cloud. 2nd ed. Polity Press; 2013.
  19. Fleischer R. If the song has no price, is it still a commodity? Rethinking the commodification of digital music. Cult Unbound. 2017;9(2):146-162. doi: 10.3384/cu.2000.1525.1792146
  20. Li Y, Zhang J. Collective effervescence and the shaping of aura: the commercial value of popular music in the digital age. Modern Comm. 2018;40(1):115-122. [In Chinese]
  21. Lai CY. Diversification and Brand Extension of Streaming-Music Enterprises: The Case of KKBOX [master's thesis]. National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University; 2023. [In Chinese] https://thesis.lib.nycu.edu.tw/items/1ebc916f-5c8b-4b43-ab8f-4bd6143b71ab
  22. Bucher T. The algorithmic imaginary: exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Inf Commun Soc. 2017;20(1):30-44. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154086
  23. Bonini T, Gandini A. "First week is editorial, second week is algorithmic": Platform gatekeepers and the platformization of music curation. Soc Media Soc. 2019;5(4). doi: 10.1177/2056305119880006
  24. Prey R. Locating power in platformization: music streaming playlists and curatorial power. Soc Media Soc. 2020;6(2). doi: 10.1177/2056305120933291
  25. Waldfogel J. How digitization has created a golden age of music, movies, books, and television. J Econ Perspect. 2017;31(3):195-214. doi: 10.1257/jep.31.3.195
  26. Galuszka P. Music aggregators and intermediation of the digital music market. Int J Commun. 2015;9:20.
  27. Marshall L. "Let's keep music special. F—Spotify": on-demand streaming and the controversy over artist royalties. Creat Ind J. 2015;8(2):177-189. doi: 10.1080/17510694.2015.1096618
  28. Hesmondhalgh D. Is music streaming bad for musicians? Problems of evidence and argument. New Media Soc. 2021;23(12):3593-3615. doi: 10.1177/1461444820953541
  29. Anderson C. The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More. Hyperion; 2006.
  30. Elberse A. Should you invest in the long tail? Harv Bus Rev. 2008;86(7-8):88-96.
  31. Zhang W, Chen Z, Xi Y. Traffic media: how algorithmic imaginations and practices change content production. Chin J Commun. 2021;14(1):58-74. doi: 10.1080/17544750.2020.1830422
  32. Ta N, Jiao F, Lin C, Chen X, Li K, Shen C. Platformization of digital cultural commodity production: a comparative computational analysis of hit songs on Douyin and TikTok. Communicat Soc. 2025;71:65-92. [In Chinese] doi: 10.30180/CS.202501_(71).0004
  33. Mao S. Seeing Music: Douyin's Construction of a New Pattern for Popular-Music Dissemination [master's thesis]. Beijing Foreign Studies University; 2023. [In Chinese]
  34. de Kloet J, Poell T, Guohua Z, Yiu Fai C. The platformization of Chinese society: infrastructure, governance, and practice. Chin J Commun. 2019;12(3):249-256. doi: 10.1080/17544750.2019.1644008
  35. Negus K. From creator to data: the post-record music industry and the digital conglomerates. Media Cult Soc. 2019;41(3):367-384. doi: 10.1177/0163443718799395
  36. Prey R. Nothing personal: Algorithmic individuation on music streaming platforms. Media Cult Soc. 2018;40(7):1086-1100. doi: 10.1177/0163443717745147
  37. Zhang Q. Producing Popularity: The Formation and Transformation of China's Recorded Music Industry. Communication University of China Press; 2024. [In Chinese] https://www.cucp.com.cn/Book/Details/64
  38. Théberge P. The network studio: historical and technological paths to a new ideal in music making. Soc Stud Sci. 2004;34(5):759-781. doi: 10.1177/0306312704047173
  39. Bell AP. Dawn of the DAW: The Studio as Musical Instrument. Oxford University Press; 2018. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780190296605.001.0001
  40. Eriksson M, Fleischer R, Johansson A, Snickars P, Vonderau P. Spotify Teardown: Inside the Black Box of Streaming Music. MIT Press; 2019. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/10932.001.0001
  41. Jin DY. New Korean Wave: Transnational Cultural Power in the Age of Social Media. University of Illinois Press; 2016.
  42. Huang CM. Taiwan's popular music in China: Towards a sociology of mediation from the perspective of China-Taiwan. Commun Cult Polit. 2021;(13):1-33. [In Chinese] Accessed May 30, 2026. https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=P20150616002-202106-202107050020-202107050020-1-33
Share
Back to top
Arts & Communication, Electronic ISSN: 2972-4090 Published by AccScience Publishing