So, after the hassles that YouTube have had with PRS Music in the UK, what comes along to make the music industry appear even more bewildering? Why, it’s a new music and video entertainment service from Universal Music and YouTube, with both parties sharing advertising revenue.

Apparently these two are going to join forces to form something called Vevo, which like all such dead-end ventures will launch “later this year.” Vevo is the only place where Universal (and possibly other record companies) will showcase their official videos.

Woah. How did that strategy get past the notepad-in-the-bedroom stage? Universal is relying on significant numbers of YouTube users to actively visit another site in order to watch their videos and hoping that everyone else looking online for them will end up at Vevo.

Hands up anyone who visits official major label websites? Yup. Exactly. This exclusivity could wreck major artists’ careers given that increasing numbers of people are watching videos online rather than on television. As I’ve said before, videos are promotional devices - the idea is to have them everywhere and easily accessible. Once again, Universal is trying to grab revenue where ever they can find it as compensation for their long term incompetence.

,

Edit: Oops, I’m an idiot. Coldplay is apparently having various people front for them across the US and I read Elbow to be at the beginning of the journey not the end, so it actually be Snow Patrol opening for Coldplay in Detroit, not Elbow. Either way, Snow Patrol is terrible in concert and still does not justify the ticket prices.

Recently heard that my future husband Guy Garvey and his band are fronting U2 in the UK and also will be fronting perennial wankfest, Coldplay, on part of their US tour this summer. Coldplay/Elbow are going to be in Detroit one week before my birthday. I thought to myself, “Self! Let’s see how much tickets are so you can go stalk see Elbow play!” I meander over to Ticketbastard and this is what churns out:

Type
2 Full price ticket
Ticket Price
US $97.50 x 2
Convenience Charge
US $14.15 x 2
Building Facility Charge < --- THE VENUE IS OUTSIDE!!!
US $7.50 x 2

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!? I don't know what pisses me off more, the nearly $100 PER ticket for crappy seats or the nearly additional $25 dollars in "fees" that Ticketbastard is adding on (because in addition to the convenience and building charges, there is also an additional traffic fee of $3.00!)!!

We're in a recession.
Michigan has the highest unemployment rate in the U.S.
The cost of two tickets and "fees" equals to my monthly car payment.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!? SRSLY?!
Not fucking happening. Even if I had the cash in hand and that this was chump change -- not happening. I could not morally spend that kind of dosh on tickets to see my favorite band even if they are opening up for a third rate knockoff wanker group. I wouldn't pay that if Elbow was playing solo gigs! Just fucking ridiculous.

I'm all fired up about this, so I'll leave a video of Elbow's song "Newborn," because any song that starts out with, "I'll be a corpse in your bathtub..." is okay by me and will sooth the savage beast inside.

, , ,

When Last.fm announced late last month that for certain parts of the world, access to Last.fm radio would soon cost 3 Euros a month, many people were outraged that something which was free was no longer, as if it was their perpetual entitlement.

I have news for them: it was never free. Last.fm pays artists and labels per individual song play and there has always been a choice for listeners - pay a subscription or put up with advertisements. While advertisements do not directly suck money from listeners, they distract and subconsciously persuade them to part with it. That’s why we have them - they work. The move to a subscription-only model is for regions where Last.fm cannot suitably organise and support advertising, and hence they have to find an alternative source of funding.

On the flipside, labels and artists shouldn’t have a problem either. However, charging a subscription is clearly incompatible with the idea of free music. Those who willingly release music without requiring payment are either forced to receive monies, or to have their music heard but payment going to others. For example, netlabel Rawmatroid has decided to withdraw their music from Last.fm because they have no desire to earn money from it.

I can understand that decision, but it’s not one that I would take, because it implies that the cost (or free-ness) of music is ultimately more important than the music itself. Music is too valuable to the richness of our lives to be restricted due to financial issues or principals. Furthermore, exposure (through whatever outlet) gains listeners who can then be directed back to its source. Musicians and independent labels should exploit these services in order to grow their visibility and gain fans. Because once you have fans, you can do anything.

A week or so ago, after I introduced Yeah Yeah Yeah’s fabulous It’s Blitz! to a fellow blogger, we pondered over the lengthy time it was taking La Roux to get their album out. As we recalled, the way the release of an album used to work was this: one single, then perhaps one or two weeks later, the album arrived.

Of course, La Roux have an excuse: they’re a new band so they actually need to write songs to go onto their debut album. Other bands don’t, but occasionally marketing hype demands one or two singles to be released way in advance of an album. This increases the weight of expectation on that album to perform, which usually doesn’t because the album (not its songs) was the goal in the first place. Ten or so songs packaged up into some concept or sold to illustrate a story or life-changing series of events.

What’s the alternative? Well, as Bob Lefsetz writes “[artists] should focus on single tracks..attractive to the target audience.” For musicians that’s their core fanbase. The album was a necessity born of the logistics and cost of creating, recording and putting music into the hands of people. On a return on investment basis, when everything was physical, albums made perfect sense. However, with the exception of some artists who knew how to work with the scope of that increased time period, it usually led to lower quality songs.

People don’t buy albums today because, aside from two or three singles, they suck. Not necessarily due to the demands of writing (resulting in filler tracks) but because few people have the time and inclination to work with an album. We’ve all short attention spans and distractions (that’s why most of my serious music listening comes when I’m walking, or during the autumn and winter.)

Some bands are already working around this, exactly as Bob suggests, providing fans with songs as and when they’re written. Digital production and distribution makes periodic releases financially and logistically feasible and a talkative fanbase will do most of the marketing work. And not being holed up in a studio for weeks (or months) at a time paradoxically gives them opportunities to be creative in their songwriting and allows time for touring or ad-hoc gigs (where their real income is made). For those artists who sell their songs, it brings in more income per song than an album would. Following these arguments, it’s clear that albums don’t make sense anymore.

Except for one thing: when you’ve 10 songs, or perhaps a years’ worth of songs, why not also release them as an album? All killer, no filler.

In August 2006, I wrote a piece on my personal blog referring to the demise of one of the UK music video channels VH2, that ended with the question “Who needs MTV?”

Somewhat belatedly, we now have an answer. According to a survey carried out by Ipsos MediaCT (catchy name folks) more 15-24 year olds in the UK watch music videos on YouTube than on TV. Other results point to 69% of those still in education watching YouTube music channels, but that older people still watch more via television.

So at a time when people are directing more of their attention to online video, YouTube removed premium music videos from UK viewers, because they couldn’t reach agreement over licensing fees with the PRS for Music. The PRS were demanding rises in fees “many, many factors” higher than the previous agreement. Yet the Music Publishers Association joined them in petitioning Google (which owns YouTube) to reconsider because “Music publishers are in the business of getting their music heard by as wide an audience as possible.”

The unwritten caveat to that sentence should be “So long as we get plenty of dosh for it because there’s all this nasty piracy going on and no-one is buying recorded music anyway.”

They fail so obviously to appreciate and realise that back when MTV launched in 1981, video was a promotional device. It still is, but it’s probably even more valuable today - we have the interwebs! Reducing the exposure of artists through monetary greed hurts everyone and makes the music industry even more wobbly.

In honour of this insanity here’s an unofficial video of a favourite song of mine from The Brooke (A Tiny Ocean):

The Brooke (A Tiny Ocean) - official website
The Brooke (A Tiny Ocean) - YouTube Channel

, ,

Sometimes I think the record industry is here for music lovers’ amusement. Not content with their usual paranoia about music piracy, and their eventual backtracking away from DRM, or with their attempt to squeeze more money out of artists by applying 360 degree deals, they’re now onto variable pricing at the iTunes Store.

To be fair to them, this was announced at Macworld in January 2009, but somehow the intervening two months have made it appear more ludicrous to me. From April 7, individual songs will be sold in the US at one of three prices: 69 cents, 99 cents (as is current) and $1.29. The lower price will be for unpopular songs; the higher price for more popular songs and (probably) new releases.

In most industries this pattern of pricing according to demand makes sense, but it doesn’t for music. Firstly, the labels are trying to fight piracy (which in itself is a sad case of self-delusional misdirection) so how is a 30% price hike on your most attractive product going to be received by listeners? Furthermore, the artists and bands who see the future of music realise that money is to be made only by acknowledging and embracing what their fans desire, and hence there’ll be a gradual move towards songs being given away for free, with everything else providing their income. Funnily enough this strategy kills music piracy immediately, because there is no longer anything to steal. There are a couple of hidden bonuses too: because the entry point becomes zero cost, it’s likely that more people become fans, and in turn, more fans become (un)official evangelists.

It must be terrifying for record company executives to see the value of their main product diminishing so rapidly in only a few years - that’s why they’re scrambling around for replacement revenue streams - but this is a natural consequence of digital technology. It started with home recordings, bedroom studios and DIY albums. Now with low cost content delivery networks (such as Amazon’s S3) and the maturity of social networks, most other aspects of a career can be handled and directly by musicians and their core fans. The introduction of variable pricing is merely additional proof that we’re getting closer to the demise of the industry.

,

Woodstock founder plans ’sequel’ .

I’ll just do this point by point so I can get to bed before TheBrit wakes up:

1. The 30 year anniversary concert was a mess, a disaster and a disgrace to the Woodstock mythos.
2. Live 8 was also a disaster — the concept of “free tickets” (as what Lang wants to do) backfired when they were being scalped. The charities did not get the monies promised, the so called “reduction of carbon footprinting” that Lang also claims he wants to make happen was also a huge disaster for Live8.
3. Which brings me to Live Earth. Someone please explain to me how flying from one far flung location to another somehow makes you globally conscious and environmentally aware? Someone also please explain to me how the so-called green intiative that LiveEarth promised were never followed through? Meaning that stories were cropping up that the waste and trash left behind, most of it was not recycled nor was it disposed of properly.

The Woodstock era is gone. I hate to break it to the Boomers, but it’s gone. Just let it go. This is not an era of free love, radical politics, and stopping a senseless war in Vietnam. This is an era of a senseless and POINTLESS war happening in the Middle East, our economy is starting to resemble that of the Depression era, we have people who are homeless, jobless and hungry. Unemployment continues to grow, companies are going under and you want to fucking fund a fucking “free” concert to help continue on the mythos of the Woodstock era using technologies and methods that have been tried before and failed? You want to waste more money and put stress on a city (NYC) that is barely keeping it together? Are you fucking kidding me? You, Mr. “clearly I’m not out to make a quick buck out of this somehow” Lang can go fuck yourself with piece of charred wood. Use that $10M dollars to fund worthwhile projects like music programs for underprivileged kids or start a foundation or give scholarship money to help for school. Help build community support for kids and teens to build into future musicians, artists and creative sorts. Don’t waggle “free concert” with additional bonuses under our noses — that’s just plain mean and downright rude.

And you can go fuck yourself, again.

hugs and kisses,
theyank

, ,

Last week, SpiralFrog, the allegedly pioneering ad-supported music service closed down. The New York-based company which started up in August 2006 managed to survive longer than I expected. Apparently its demise was due to “compression of the ad markets” and the oft-used global economic slowdown. Obviously, therefore, nothing to do with its restrictive DRM policy or that it failed to get two of the four major record companies to license music to its service.

Maybe it just failed to predict the future of the music industry: Apple’s iTunes Store, the most successful online service now sells music without DRM - I think exclusively, as of this month - which means little possibility of losing playback capability if it closes down. Then there’s the subscription aspect.

Until recently, I strongly felt that the subscription model was flawed. Speaking as one who wants to own music because I can choose to play what I want, where and when I want, the idea of renting (or borrowing) music seemed wrong. Especially given there’s always a risk of my musical companions being taken away from me. Now that I’m using Spotify (a music streaming service based in Sweden) I can see a benefit for me: it allows me to listen to or try music by new artists or those I wouldn’t usually buy, and in turn it benefits artists by increasing their exposure.

It doesn’t however give me any way to download music for off-line listening, but that doesn’t matter to me because there are other stores which already do it proficiently (as indeed they did back in 2006). SpiralFrog failed precisely because it overreached its ambitions, trying to corner the subscription market whilst holding onto the download market, just in case. It failed to do a single thing well.

Spotify still has a way to go before it becomes indispensable: firstly it needs to expand to more countries (particularly the US and Canada) and it needs to be more consistent across borders as to what music is offered. Ironically, both of these obstacles remain due to archaic music licensing issues and the fragmented way in which major labels are managed. It’s up to the labels to change their ways. The technology, and probably the audience, is already here.

, ,

Perhaps it started with the music press micro-categorising: turning each small collection of artists into their own ultra-specific genre? Maybe that gave us the desire to focus on the musicians we really care about. And we tune out everyone else? Bob Lefsetz perceives this ‘narrowcasting’ as the future of music, which is entirely sympathetic with the (realised) concept of sponsored funding of musicians by their fanbase.

Inevitably, in his post, he mentions the relatively poor US sales of U2’s new album and that people have stopped talking about their music - it’s all about everything else. And, if my Twitter stream is anything to go by, he’s right. The interest at the moment is on pre-sales concert news and merchandise sales.

So narrowcasting gives a way for musicians who care about their music to connect to the fans who matter. For those there will be a future, but for those who go after the money, maybe not because we’ve all wised-up to the “sale.”

What about the idea of free music? If a band gives their music away for free, perhaps because they have financial support from their core fanbase, how does that impact on the exposure of the general public to their music?

It’s something I wondered about until two days ago, when Kristin Hersh remarked that the last 50FootWave release was downloaded over two million times.

I don’t call that narrowcasting.

, ,

I don’t visit the NME’s website very often, on account of their huge font size, which they use as a tactic to hide a lack of content. Instead I read this news via Pitchfork: Klaxons have been sent back to the studio after receiving a bollocking from their record company Universal, which asked them to re-record part of their new album. Apparently it was becoming a “really dense, psychedelic record” and they’re actually “a pop band.”

Well I have news for Klaxons, you’re not a pop band, you’re a workhorse producing material for your paymasters rather than the music you feel inclined to make. That’s right: bands shouldn’t make music for their record company, or indeed their fans, they should make it for themselves. If it’s any good, they’ll find an audience, and if they engage with that audience they’ll become fans who will follow them on their musical journey regardless of the directions they take.