Value in Sound

Following Glenn Peoples on Twitter is really a great move if you’re in the music industry, or affected by it…or even just interested in it. Yesterday he posted about UMG’s new site VEVO which launches tonight. In case you’re unfamiliar you can read the full VEVO press release here. To sum it up for you though, VEVO is a premium video content website founded by UMG and Google who are hoping to derive ad revenue and boost retail sales before splitting the profits.

Glenn makes some really interesting points about whether or not this experiment will ultimately generate the dollars UMG and the rest of the industry have been so desperately seeking to attract in the past 10 years. But while the idea of controlling the content and limiting it to one site while not wasting loads of cash on software investment is more sound than other failed industry endeavors, I remain more wary than Mr. Peoples about whether or not this enterprise will be a success.

What labels should most be worried about is their business model. Why are they still not focusing on business practices and processes, especially after the Tim Quirk fiasco? I don’t sincerely believe that an industry that cannot use the tools its provided to keep track of the little business it does do, and honestly account for that business, can ever generate money. What little ingenuity is left in the music industry should focus on some sort of comprehensive royalty/licensing database and tracking program, not how to better harness streaming video. What about a better way to aggregate amateur content for A&R review? It only starts there, I could go on all day.

This harkens back to the same argument I posted about Spotify: if streaming video is so great and ad revenue is the way to generate dollars with music content, why hasn’t it been already done?

Glenn makes a great point when he talks about labels being great at finding, nurturing, and promoting artists – what they’re not good at is exploiting those copyrights in a way that benefits both the artist and the company that worked so at development. How is streaming video and tightly controlling that streamed video going to improve their situation? Napster already proved that the industry can’t control it’s copyrights tightly enough…then limewire did it…then YouTube…why does the platform make any difference? You may think that a music video is different than an mp3, but it’s not. The content is still focused on the artist and his or her music. The video has very little to do with it.

I’m afraid if the music industry’s best idea at this time is to hope to increase CPM’s for ad revenue then my job security may very well be in jeopardy…unless of course I go to law school as I imagine we’ll see a whole slew of lawsuits after this VEVO ordeal. Too bad I have no interest in punishing people for money, I’d rather just keep exploiting copyrights – it really isn’t that hard after all.

The Future of Music Coalition continues to impress me with its thoughts on music copyright and the issues that affect it. I wanted to post the following comments that Jean Cook, Interim Executive Director gave.

Nov 20 2009
Testimony of

Jean Cook

Interim Executive Director,
Future of Music Coalition

New York City Council Committee
on Technology in Government
Hearing on Net Neutrality

November 20, 2009

Members of the Committee and fellow speakers, it’s a privilege to appear here today to talk about net neutrality, which is an issue that has enormous bearing on those in the creative community.

My name is Jean Cook. I’m a musician, and also the Interim Executive Director of Future of Music Coalition, a national non-profit education, research and advocacy organization for musicians. FMC works to ensure that artists are able to develop audiences through platforms like radio and the internet. We also care deeply about developing appropriate compensation structures for artists as we continue this rocky transition to a largely digital environment for music.

When the original Napster appeared nearly a decade ago, the traditional music industry was confronted with a troublesome new reality: reproduction and distribution was no longer something exclusive to the big labels and their industry partners – it was now in the hands of the masses. Clearly, this had major implications for copyright and intellectual property, but as FMC said at the time, the only viable alternative to an illegal Napster is a legal one. Since then, we’ve advocated for a legitimate digital music marketplace that fairly compensates artists and allows for innovative ways for discovering music.

In the remainder of the decade we’ve seen remarkable examples of using the open internet to connect with audiences and advance their careers on their own terms. Musicians are collaborating, selling merchandise, booking tours and building fanbases via the web. OK Go’s homemade YouTube video became an international sensation and led to the band winning a Grammy for best short video. Erin McKeown holds “virtual concerts” around her house that her fans can watch live online from all over the world. Even though she lives in a remote island off the coast of Washington State, composer Alex Shapiro makes a living off of commissions from her myspace page. Meanwhile, there are now countless legal services such as Rhapsody, Pandora, iTunes, eMusic, MOG and Lala that make it incredibly easy for listeners to seek out music. And niche music discovery sites such as Kalabash or Arkiv Music make it possible to delve deep into catalogues of music from around the world, and classical music is now on the same playing field as the most mainstream services.

These successes are models for a new industry, and they would not have been possible without open internet structures. Net neutrality gives essentially everyone a license to innovate, and we see the results from the artists whose creativity is fueling “music 2.0” as well as the technologists who are designing amazing new ways to experience music.

In the emerging digital marketplace, there are far fewer middlemen or gatekeepers that are holding artists back or imposing conditions on them in exchange for access to listeners. As the digital music marketplace matures, we are keenly aware of the dangers facing the independent and niche music communities if new gatekeepers such as the telecommunications companies were to be given control over what you can experience on the internet.

Although artists have thus far had the benefit of open internet structures that gives them access to the same essential technology as the best-funded companies, there have been troubling instances where telecommunications companies have behaved in a manner that raises serious concerns for artists’ ability to not only reach potential audiences, but also enjoy their right to expression.

One example of the latter came in 2007, when the band Pearl Jam performed at Lollapalooza. AT&T had the exclusive right to the online broadcast of the concert, and during an improvised segment, singer Eddie Vedder made statements critical about then-president George W. Bush. AT&T censored this portion of the broadcast, leaving viewers at home wondering what he was saying. Although this isn’t necessarily a perfect example of non-net neutrality, it does illustrate what can happen when one ISP has sole control over the distribution of content and is allowed to make its own calls about what is or isn’t “acceptable” speech.

Another telling incident also occurred in 2007 when Comcast was discovered to be interfering with the delivery of internet data using the BitTorrent protocol. While there are clearly those who use torrent technology to illegally share copyrighted material, the technology itself is perfectly legal, and is in fact used by fully licensed audio-visual companies like Vuze (as well as other mainstream providers) as an efficient way to deliver content. An AP reporter attempted to send a copy of the King James Bible – which is in the public domain – via BitTorrent, but Comcast interrupted the transfer, thereby confirming the ISP’s “throttling” of BitTorrent traffic. Ultimately, the FCC ruled that Comcast had violated its net neutrality principles, but the order has been appealed by Comcast and is awaiting judgment.

With new FCC Commissioners in place it finally appears that expanded net neutrality principles will become part of the “rules of the road” for the internet. The transparent process the Commission launched with its October 22 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking rightfully recognizes that there are a great number of stakeholders, including creators and the public, whose voices must be considered as the FCC goes about crafting net neutrality policies. We’re also pleased to see two new principles added to the Commissions draft rules – one that would not allow ISPs to prevent their customers from using legal devices, applications and services of their choosing, and a “non-discrimination” principle that would keep ISPs from unnecessary blocking or throttling of data, and would compel them to publicly disclose their network management techniques.

It is important to remember that these proposed rules apply only to lawful content, sites and services, which leaves room for discussion about ways to prevent the unlawful sharing of content. This is an important distinction. Ensuring compensation for rightsholders is hardly incompatible with net neutrality. There are currently conversations about possible technological solutions to the illegal transfer of copyrighted content, but such discussions need not compromise the goal of establishing clear and transparent rules for net neutrality. In fact, net neutrality is critical to continue to nurture and support innovation and legal, licensed services as an alternative to piracy. In our quest to ensure proper compensation for creators and rightsholders, we must be careful not to compromise what makes the internet such an incredible platform for innovation, expression and entrepreneurship.

On behalf of Future of Music Coalition, I am pleased that the Committee is giving this matter the attention it deserves as the FCC undertakes a thorough and open process that will hopefully ensure that the internet remains an unprecedented space for creativity, commerce and the exchange of ideas. Thank you.

After perusing FMC’s web site I recently came across an article touting the impending greatness of cloud computing’s effect on the music industry namely in the form of Spotify.

While the article notes “streaming of music from the cloud could be one of the missing puzzle pieces for which the music industry has been so desperately searching” and highlights some great positives of streaming services like Spotify, I’d like to point an obvious fact: streaming has been around for years.

If streaming were the answer to all of the music industry’s problems, quite frankly it would have already solved them. While Spotify is definitely a convenient way to listen to music on computers, phones, and media devices equipped to access content over the internet, it is still limited despite claims of having your music anywhere, anytime, on any device. What if you’re on a plane? What if you’re on the subway? What if you have AT&T and get terrible 3G reception despite having an awesome, more-than-capable device like the iphone? (SLAM!)

It’s also a fallacy to say the problem with the music business model can be solved by fixing its distribution method – this isn’t the case. Labels are still trying to grasp hold of sales to a broad consumer base and ultimately this doesn’t work. Ideally labels need to focus on licensing (publishing) and using the music as a promotional tool to drive concert and merchandise revenue. Spotify does NOT change anything about the music industry itself. It merely offers another, quite similar, not totally accessible platform for the consumer.

What should be kept in mind by everyone trying to revitalize the monetization of music is the value of the music no longer has anything to do with the format on which its presented, but in the experience and association the music provides the listener. Thus the thinking should be: Who is a more profitable consumer and how do I reach them?

Finally, who is the streaming method good for at this point in time? For the consumer its decent unless you’re traveling by plane, subway, or generally don’t get a good wireless connection. For labels it could go either way but historically labels have not taken advantage of technology and furthermore have spent large amounts of cash to either avoid it, or even exploit it, with little to no success either way.

It’s great for Spotify…

What about independent artists? As far as I know there isn’t much in place that helps out the little guy – though I could be wrong as I’m not able to use Spotify here in the US. Device manufacturers will probably see it as just another tool to use to get people to buy or use their devices – not terribly powerful, but not harmful either.

Ultimately Spotify, while a great service, is probably not the answer to the music industry’s woes. As wireless becomes faster and more prevalent, and as the music industry begins to bend and re-shape itself, the opportunity is definitely there and I could be chowing down on these very words in the near future. So perhaps something better than another paid subscription service or ad-revenue model will present itself as a result of Spotify’s efforts, but both Spotify and the music industry still have a long way to go.

Today on my twitter feed popped up the typical slew of music industry news and something really caught my eye. Hip Hop Press had a release about a new service for artists (independent and otherwise) called Nimbit.

Nimbit is a service that attaches to an artist’s facebook page and allows them sell their music, merchandise, and tout their tours directly to their fans. After registering for the service myself (just to check it out) it comes off as very easy to use and understand and offering a plethora of services crucial to fan-base development.

For instance, all within one web interface an artist can upload and make available their songs for download, sell t-shirts, get their music distributed digitally through major carriers (including iTunes and eMusic), and perhaps the most cool thing – monitor who is buying what.

That last bit may be well worth the investment for a savvy artist looking to target specific demographics, or perhaps even use the data to bring to a network or ad agency for use in synch for a particular product or TV show. For more info on the services offered and fees related to using the service you can click here.

This service is a fantastic way to expand and track a fan base and an excellent example of how artists viewing themselves as a brand – rather than some commodity looking to get picked up and sold by a major entity – can be put to work effectively.

Finally artists have a tool that allows them to independently market themselves and not rely on record label and music publisher budgets and schedules for exposure – even if they’re already signed!

In his article “Can Jazz Be Saved?” from the Wall Street Journal, Terry Teachout poses a question about the potential death of the art form of Jazz. A well thought out read the article highlights the decline in both age and frequency of jazz concert-goers and album buyers, and speculates that jazz may very well be in jeopardy of struggling for funding and a listening base as it is most likely being viewed as a higher art form akin to ballet and opera.

Mr. Teachout makes some great points in the article and I’d like to expand on his thoughts. Take for instance this excerpt:

Jazz has changed greatly since the ’30s, when Louis Armstrong, one of the supreme musical geniuses of the 20th century, was also a pop star, a gravel-voiced crooner who made movies with Bing Crosby and Mae West and whose records sold by the truckload to fans who knew nothing about jazz except that Satchmo played and sang it. As late as the early ’50s, jazz was still for the most part a genuinely popular music, a utilitarian, song-based idiom to which ordinary people could dance if they felt like it. But by the ’60s, it had evolved into a challenging concert music whose complexities repelled many of the same youngsters who were falling hard for rock and soul.

Reflecting back on this time period we recognize the 1930′s and Louis Armstrong marking the beginning of jazz as a new type of music. Back then, while the music may have been labeled as jazz, it was simply the popular music of it’s day. Is Louis Armstrong appearing alongside Mae West any different than J. Lo appearing alongside Ben Affleck? Granted the talent isn’t comparable but certainly the relationship is very similar. These days we see loads of popular musicians on TV, in films, and even launching their own product lines.

Let’s also consider where Mr. Teachout marks jazz beginning to repel youngsters. Was it really that young listeners hated the sounds of jazz, or was it because they were moving on to the next big thing as the jazz listeners of the 30′s had moved from classical through dixie-land and onto jazz?

Something else to consider is the very basic principle that a lot of jazz, even today, is based on standards; songs from musicals and songwriters from the time period of jazz’s highest popularity. These standard tunes are repertoire to every jazz player alive and are played with and explored regularly, but part of jazz’s issue may be that we’re not looking for new standards. Most of the standards were considered ‘old’ in the late 60′s to rock’n'roll’s youthful listeners – how are we to expect today’s youth to bond anymore closely, if at all, with those same tunes?

Perhaps jazz will see a resurgence when more artists go the path of using some rock’n'roll songs as standards. A few artists that come to mind doing this now are Norah Jones, Kurt Elling, and The Bad Plus who draw on everyone from David Bowie to The Zombies to Nirvana.

So in the end perhaps it isn’t that jazz needs a new pitch, but the same pitch with different repertoire. A retooling of the jazz standard catalog may be just what the genre needs to stay alive, and potentially even thrive like it once did.

Recently Glenn Peoples tweeted a really interesting article in the New York Times which is an excerpt from a book called “Ripped” by Greg Kot.

The article emphasizes the drastic change in business practices in the music industry in the late 90′s and focuses on a new business model of streamlined consolidation and capturing more market share. He paints a picture of an industry so intent on making a quick buck on a single that artists are left to flounder undeveloped – never finding their true sound, or voice.

While I definitely agree that the music industry’s focus has almost nothing to do with developing artists and making artists money (and some may speculate that it never did in the first place), I think Mr. Kot potentially overlooks another element of business completely ignored by the music industry – selling music.

Sure it seems utterly fundamental: use a collection of music to generate income by selling music at a fair price, use the music to drive people to concerts, and use the concerts to sell merchandise while using artist popularity to get the music licensed in media. But let’s take a look at what the gurus in the music industry did instead.

First, they continued to collect songs and sign artists throwing cash advances at them. So far, so…average. There’s nothing new about this, but it is one way to add to your catalog. Second, price CDs (as Mr. Kot mentions) into the stratosphere so no one buys them. Third, drive up ticket prices to concerts and merchandise at those concerts, eliminating any interest by anyone but the ‘true fans.’ And third, completely ignore the burgeoning internet.

Oops. The last time I checked CEOs were supposed to be good at business, yet we found the record labels almost ignoring the internet, and then with the advent of Napster, turning against it entirely! How utterly insane.

Now we get to the good part. The music industry at that time (and still today) is over run by lawyers (I’m sorry did I say CEO’s earlier? Probably should’ve said JD’s). Because the industry is run by lawyers instead of businessmen (and heaven forbid someone who can play an instrument), the focus becomes less on how to make money with music, but instead how to make money with lawsuits.

Then Steve Jobs creates iTunes.

Now the funny part about iTunes is that the labels signed on…which is kind of silly. You’d think the labels might’ve looked at Napster and said “hey, why don’t we create something like Napster where people could download our music with permission but pay for it!” But they sued Napster instead rather than seeking them out for ideas about how to use the service to benefit everyone (because I would argue that the chances that artists saw very much money from any label-led lawsuits are very, very slim). And Steve Jobs, instead, said “gee, that Napster is a pretty great idea, why not monetize it legally?”

So while Steve Jobs has started to cash in on intellectual property (which is kind of the point of the entirety of the music industry), the labels start to tank. Why? Because their business model completely and utterly shifted. They weren’t focused on selling music, they were focused on lawsuits. They are STILL focused on lawsuits. They completely have no idea how to exploit the benefits of today’s technologies…they only know how to sue people.

Let’s put it in a real world scenario. Imagine you have a friend who writes and performs songs. And that friend manages to make a YouTube video that generates a lot of hoopla and they get a modest 5,000 hits. Not so bad, right? Now imagine if your friend said “gee that’s a lot of people listening to my music…I’d better pull it down since they’re not paying me for it.” How much money has your friend generated from their popularity? Oops.

Suppose that friend instead said “cool, I should upload two more songs and put my Twitter address and MySpace page on there which mention where and when I play live.” How much greater is their potential to make money now?

So while the labels could and should definitely start focusing more on artist development, or heck, even signing artists that ALREADY developed (don’t get me started), they also need to turn around and exploit those artists properly – something they continue to fail to do year after year all the while wondering what on EARTH they’re going to do about this pesky internet and hungrily looking for the next big lawsuit.

I’m at a breaking point, in a good way. Shoving back for once. Realizing potential for once. I’ve stared so long over the cliff that the chasm is starting to seem too deep to do any damage, or a mirage meant to trick my brain and keep me from jumping. I’m getting a feeling like taking this plunge will be more like falling up. Falling up at a rate faster than I can imagine, whisking me towards an infinite liberation painted by starry skies. Not that I don’t have to prepare for clouds, rain, and even thunder but those things are on their way down. And I’m falling up past them and through them.

There’s a fire. It started a long time ago in the recesses of my mind, a spark I thought I could ignore. But it’s been spreading. It’s made me jittery and afraid as I stand next to this chasm-mirage because there is no where to go. It’s been getting more and more virulent. Spreading rapidly, lighting everything ablaze. It’s everywhere now and all it wants is to throw me over that ledge, and up into the chasm. It shouts at me:

“What are you doing?”

“What’s taking so long?”

“Just jump!”

And more of the same. It’s talking so loudly now; over the part of me pleading to keep holding on. That if I let go I’ll surely plummet into the depths of the unknown forever scarred, maimed and forgotten.

It shouts that I’m already scarred. That I’ve already been maimed and limping about for years. And to be forgotten surely you have to make yourself known first.

So here I am, caught at the edge of a chasm. And everything is catching on fire.

This morning something occurred to me that sums up my feelings about goals, creativity, and life in general. Initially I was surprised that it took me so long to have this realization, but after closer examination and using the keen perspective of hindsight it appears I haven’t been focused on much of anything until about 9 months ago.

What I’m talking about is pursuit. Naturally we all know the infamous ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,’ but what occurred to me finally, at the age of 28 (28!) is the pursuit. The pursuit of it.

What an amazing word and an amazing phrase: The pursuit of happiness. Not the hopes of happiness, not the dreams or the goal setting or the ambition of happiness. The pursuit of happiness.

It’s a great phrase because pursuit indicates forward motion. It indicates action. Going after something, working, being active towards achieving something. Then I understood everything I’ve read lately and everything I’ve achieved and not achieved and why it did or didn’t happen. And it all boils down to pursuit.

Pursuit is the reason I hate television. It’s the reason I don’t want to be surrounded by negative people, uncreative people, and people who make excuses, fear failure, or create limits and barriers for themselves and others.

Pursuit does not allow room for any of those things to be substantial. It obliterates them. It is the ultimate problem solver.

In my efforts to be more positive, more helpful, more creative, and in general happier, I’m going to start applying the pursuit rule to my life by simply asking myself:

Am I truly pursuing my happiness right now?

To be quite honest, I’m scared. There are a lot of things that I am not pursuing right now, or that I don’t pursue enough and there are a lot of things I do that distract me from pursuing happiness. This is new for me – for years believing that anyone can achieve anything, yes, but believing and pursuing are two different things. Believing is easy. Pursuing is work.

I’m starting small and I’m starting today. One phone call, ten more minutes of time, a few more steps in the right direction. In a year I hope to be in a full sprint, ahead of the pack and running up front with the winners; those who are happy because they pursue it. I want to leave the dreamers behind once and for all.

A friend of mine sent me an email earlier today linking to this article. I just wanted to post a little something to let you all know how smart I am.

The unemployment rate is currently at 8.1% That’s the U3 index – not the U6. Which basically means that it doesn’t include all the people who were not working for various reasons like maternity leave, having been in prison, having already been unemployed, working part time, etc. The U6 is more like 15%.

In the nation’s history, we have had 10 months with similar statistics in the past 30 years. 4 of them were the past 4 months in a row.

I heard this news today on NPR’s money podcast and having just returned from Italy I can’t help but think ‘so what?’ Not because I’m some cruel person, not because I have my job and don’t care about others, but having just spent the last 8 days marveling at works created by Donatello, Michelangelo, Giotto, and other ninja turtles, I began to wonder: How does this recession affect the arts?

Think about it. Millions of people out of work. Millions of people who might play piano or guitar or song-write in their spare time. Millions who gave up their dream of painting, sculpting, or singing because it couldn’t earn them money.

Now faced with only the prospect of job-hunting and idle hands, how many people will return to the pen and the page after spending a few hours monotonously tweaking resumes and making phone calls to prospective employers?

Could this recession yield a new renaissance in American art? Will the next Beatles form or the next Michelangelo emerge? Will people start drawing ideas from the collective human subconscious now freed from the bonds of constantly seeking money be suddenly flooded with desire and passion for something more creative than a spreadsheet?

Granted not everyone will have the means to buy paints or instruments but my thinking is we’ll see an influx of musicians, artists, writers, and thinkers dedicating a much more significant portion of time to what was once their hobby. It will be interesting to see what impact the recent economic downfall has on our artforms, and I for one and am excited at the possibility of the results.