A few days ago, while discussing the making of Kolaveri on a TV channel, its singer Dhanush suggested, with genuine modesty, that modern technology could make up for voice quality deficiencies.

Not his exact words, perhaps. But that was the purport.

This throws up some interesting questions for the branding of singers and the returns that those brands then earn and for the general economics of film music.

The question is this: if technology permits the commoditification of even something like voices, then what happens to the earnings of singers?

Historically, in the Bombay film industry singers used to be paid for their brand value.

There were a few super brands — Lata Mangeshkar, Asha Bhosle, Mohammad Rafi and Kishore Kumar — followed by a host of Grade 2 and Grade 3 ones. This held true for the Madras film industry, too.

Today, there are no super brands. Even someone like Sonu Nigam or Sunidhi Chauhan is not in the same demand bracket as Lata Mangeshkar, Asha Bhosle, Mohammad Rafi and Kishore Kumar used to be.

After adjusting for inflation, they actually earn much less than that quartet did. Indeed, there is a double whammy because not only do they earn less per song, they also sing fewer new songs per year.

This does not mean their total annual incomes are less than that of Lata Mangeshkar, Asha Bhosle, Mohammad Rafi and Kishore Kumar. Not at all because what they have lost on the races, they are making up on the roundabouts of live shows where their uniqueness fetches them a handsome sum.

Another question relates to the product itself: does a consumer like a song because of the tune, the lyrics, the way the music is arranged or the singer's voice?

Obviously, all of these because any one of these, if badly done, can — and does — result in a non-hit song.

The problem that the marketer has to solve is this: which of these should the brand represent? In the old days, when the singers were a brand, this was a no-brainer.

But now that technology not only homogenises the voices but also the music, what can and should the music marketer do in terms of branding?

Or, is there no longer any point in branding the music? Could that be why songs are no longer promoted as being composed by S. D. Burman or A. R. Rahman or sung by Lata Mangeshkar, Asha Bhosle, Mohammad Rafi, Kishore Kumar, etc?

Dhanush also said it is the film that should carry the song, and not the other way round. Yet, if you watch the music channels, you will see that it is the songs that are being used to promote the movie.

So this raises another question: if it is the song that promotes, why do singers and music directors get paid so little? The answer lies in the economics of supply: technology, by embedding possible arrangements in the machine, has increased the supply of catchy tunes and rhythms. The impact on price of higher supply has been clear.

Or, as an economist would say, the gap between transfer earnings and economic rents has narrowed. (A transfer earning is what is paid to keep someone doing what he or she is doing and economic rent is whatever is paid over and above that).

Finally, since films songs are mostly about love and longing and so on, the thought now counts for less than the word. The dictionary is all and everyone has access to it, so what price soulfulness?

Related Topics