"Have fun, make art."

Art For Art’s Sake

The constant talk of the need to monetise music is somewhat confusing to me. Just because you make art, doesn’t mean that you deserve to make money out of it.

art –noun

1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. (Dictionary.com)

Re-read that again then just for yourself “… what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance”. That’s what should be both the motivation and the payoff for musicians, to make something beautiful and significant.

Whats more, great art is rarely spawned by the singular desire to make money. (I’m sure many would argue that the two things are mutually exclusive) why did Bowie make “Changes”? Why did Lennon and McCartney write “A Day In The Life”? For me, if you want to make money, become an accountant. If you want to make art and make music, then get on with it. Making art is not the precursor to making money from your art (if you make an axe, it doesn’t mean someone should by rights buy that axe from you).

Do you make and perform music? Why did you start to play? Why did you join a band or do your first performance? Think back, what was your motivation?

For me, I can trace my lineage directly back to seeing my Dad playing rock ‘n’ roll to friends and strangers at locked door/closed curtains drinking sessions held outside of licensed pub hours. He performing for the entertainment of others, for no charge. His payment; the lit up faces and smiles of people sharing in the experience. In essence, my Dad is a Fun-Pusher.

This is why I’m proud to say, “I’m in Hope and Social, and I sell fun“. Now while it may not be the trendiest or coolest product (it’s not sex, it’s not good looks, the right hair or skinny jeans), it is a currency all of our own. We have our own particular brand of fun – it involves fans and new friends alike, and it goes with us to every show. We create an experience and something different happens at each and every show. What’s more, unlike a CD/a record/an mp3, it’s not copyable; you can’t put it on a disc or a hard-drive and play it on your mp3 player.

Why we don’t deserve to earn from music

Firstly, your art may not be to the liking of many people; hell, it could be rubbish. Furthermore, people may not want to give their money to you. That’s right, people may be making their decisions based not on how good your stuff/product/music/package is, but on how much they want you to have their money. There are many and varied reasons why people may choose not to buy your wares, what we can do however is give people good reasons to buy (On a similar subject and for some further reading, here’s a great post by John Sheldrick on Music Think Tank about the many reasons Why You Should Pay For Music).

While I don’t think anyone deserves to make money from their music by right, I do believe that artists deserve the opportunity to make their music making sustainable, and then hopefully profitable. Part of that is minimising costs; making sure it’s not costing you to say put on a show , or perhaps press your CDs, taking advantage of social media, digital distribution and the new, free ways of connecting with people. This is why I urge people daily to sell their music as a PayWhatYouWant download (and physical CD if you’ve got the stones to do so). PWYW gives people the opportunity to not only pay what they want, but also who they want. It is with this in mind that musicians need to push forward now, with a desire to make art, to do great things and to move people to want to part with their money, and put it into your bank account.

So, Why Make Music? Why Make Art?

I am driven to make music, I’m in part defined by it. I must do this, I cannot function without music being a central and vital part of my life. If you don’t feel that way, then maybe its’ worth thinking about other ways of making your living? Music is such a powerful and attractive force that non-musicians also seek to work in music; PR’s for example will work, often for far less money than they would in say retail PR just because they want top work in music, the same must surely go double for the musician.

I remember when I first started writing music, it was my hope that one day someone would come up to me and tell me that something I’d made had moved them, in the same way that music has moved me. If someone tells you that your music is the soundtrack to their getting ready for a Friday night, that it helped them through a difficult time, or that it’s inspired them to make art, then there’s your musician’s wage right there. I believe, should be the pre-cursor to your musical career; this has to be the drive that makes you write, rehearse and perform.

The “hopefully inspirational”, but probably actually just a little bit self congratulatory bit

Through PWYW, through special events and through peddling fun like I saw my Dad do for free twenty years ago I’m now in the band I’ve always wanted to be in. Hope and Social have grown into an old-style, good-time show band. Like a Yorkshire E-Street Band, we’re a spectacle, an event. We’re certainly not just a gig (though if that was the case, we’d be a damn good gig). What we do is economically sustainable, it pays for itself and sometimes a bit extra for us all to live on, but mostly, it is the reward in itself. Furthermore, by adopting and embracing new opportunities to connect and share with people, we’re now at a point when we’re far more viable than anytime when we’ve invested thousands of pounds on advertising, PR, pluggers. Sustainability first, then profitability.

Just as important as taking advantage of all the new opportunities we have today though, let’s not waste our lives, time and energy complaining that everyone gets their music for free and start giving people damn good reasons to put their money where your singer’s mouth is.

Andrew Dubber

The following colorful rant is brought to you courtesy of Andrew Dubber, Reader in Music Industries Innovation at Birmingham City University, Bandcamp advisor and new music industry thinker. It consists of a series of Twitter updates with his reactions to a roundtable discussion that he participated in along with Gerd Leonhard. I’ve shared it here for your reading pleasure:

Balls. So many people are being wrong all at once. No time to even start to address all that.

Was part of a 5-way radio chat about the future of music with @gleonhard and others. So much wrong, I didn’t know where to start.

“Music was better when it was expensive to make” #balls

“It’ll be good if we can claw back 10% through the 3-strikes laws” #balls

“What we need is blanket licensing for all music (like water)” #balls

“Spotify is a doomed model” #balls

“Spotify is the future of music” #balls

“Real music is all about live musicians, touring” #balls

“We need to educate people to stop stealing music” #balls

And then other assorted #balls that assumed an ongoing artificial distinction between producers and consumers of IP.

One speaker made distinction between music business and the ‘recorded’ music business – but then spoke only about music as recordings #balls

However, I love that the first words out of @gleonhard‘s mouth were “I wrote a book called The Future Of Music.” That’s how it’s done folks.

I’m not sure I need to add anything to that. You can follow Andrew on Twitter as @dubber.

Photo by Fräulein Schiller.

Kyle Bylin, of Hypebot (@kbylin)
Edited by: Refe Tuma (@refeup)

The traditional system has broken for good.

In our previous post we wrote about the barriers of music consumption, gave an overview of how those barriers shaped the experiences of previous generations, and examined in great detail why the removal of such barriers recontextualized the ways in which those who were born digital consumed music.

The next step is to deconstruct the traditional music consumption system.

The traditional system is biased towards hoarding and scarcity; it promoted the gradual development of taste and encouraged the act of collecting music. So that each fan could have their own access point to the artist’s songs, and scrutinize and divine meaning from them in isolation.  To listen to music independently—in the absence of the artist—meant that each individual fan could develop their own perspective of the artist and their music.

By: Kyle Bylin of Hypebot.com 

Edited by: Refe Tuma

There was a time when songs were songs.  When there were the albums that you owned and those that you did not.  When there was a distinct difference between the music that you liked and the artists that you didn’t care for at all.

There was a time when the music you that collected was actually a physical thing; it represented your identity and served as a mirror of your taste.  When the albums you had access to, beyond those that you owned, were limited to that of your friends and families.  When the only way you could expand your collection was to purchase more music or temporarily borrow a copy of theirs.

There was a time — one I barely remember — where these boundaries defined my music experience, but those days are gone now, and we can never get them back.  Once the album format fractured and individual songs became the focal point of music consumption, companies like Pandora, iLike, Last.FM, iMeem, and others began the process of discerning the unique characteristics of each song, and building recommendation engines around them.

In effect, what happened as a consequence of their efforts is that each song transformed into a portal.  These “gateways” that could be opened up, which enabled fans to travel almost effortlessly from one sphere of musical influence, to another similar sphere. 

From that particular sphere on, if traveled, it would take them to spheres of musical influence that existed outside of their current taste.  Here, individual songs not only became the primary way that fans consumed music, but songs also became a vehicle for music discovery.

Prior to this shift — brought forth by the MP3 format — individual songs only existed within the context of the other songs on the mix tape, radio playlist, or album.  Since, more often than not, the singles from the album were the only songs that existed outside of the album, most of the casual fans of an artist never listened to or came into to contact with the other songs on it.

In the pre-MP3 era, the act of collecting music consisted solely of the ownership of the whole album, of the stack of jewel cases that sat next to your stereo.  If a fan wanted to grow their music collection, the only barriers that prevented them from doing so related to the the location of the nearest record store and money.  Since music was a relatively costly thing to collect on a per-album basis, most people had relatively small collections — in comparison to the more diehard or “true” fans, if indeed they collected any music at all.

Barriers of Music

Then, in the span of a about 10 years, the proliferation of the personal computer; the shift from Dial-Up to high-speed Internet; the increased processing power and hard drive space in computers; the falling cost of blank media and external hard drives; the widespread use of CD burners; the social phenomenon of the iPod and iTunes; and the epidemic of file-sharing occurred.  And, with these societal and technological shifts, all of the barriers that defined music experiences of previous generations and the act of collecting it fell.

To anyone who had access to and was literate in these digital technologies and services, or simply knew someone who did, music became ‘democratized.’ 

Here, the act of collecting music shifted from being limited to the access that a fan had to music and the money they had to buy it, to the amount of time or number of social connections that they had.  There were no longer the albums that they owned and those that they did not, but those that they had, those that they aspired to have, and those that they just didn’t have yet.

Let alone, the song that they heard on the Pandora five minutes ago — which they then downloaded onto their computer, listened to, told their friend about over IM, and shared it.  And now — within a few mouse clicks — both of them are listening to that same song.  It’s a part of both of their collections.

The barriers of music consumption between the two friends are gone.

Essentially, with these shifts, anyone who truly wanted to engage in the act of collecting music could.  And, in the matter of a month, or even days, they could amass their own collection, one that, by comparison, dwarfed those that previous generations considered to be substantial. 

Soon enough, the process of burning downloaded music onto blank media could be skipped, and it could be transferred to their iPod in the matter of minutes, or an hour.  And, once this barrier fell, file-sharing was “reduced to a frenzy of acquisition that [had] less to do with the sharing of music than it [did] with filling the ever-expanding hard drives of successive iPods.”1

At first, it was the matter of filling an iPod with 5 to 10 gigs of music, but today, it’s a matter of acquiring upwards of 40,000 songs on the average iPod.

Fractured Collections

With the barriers to the act of collecting music set so low, if not nonexistent, another subtle but significant shift occurred: the psychology behind the acquisition of music changed.

For those of previous generations, they collected music with the notion of longevity in mind, as it best reflected their taste in music at that moment.  In contrast, for those who engaged in the act of acquiring music through other means, like file-sharing, their taste encompassed past, present, and future interests.  Their collections reflected not only their inherent taste and disposition towards certain types of music, but that of their peer group and those whom they surrounded themselves with.

Thus, distinct difference between the music that they liked and the artists that they didn’t care for at all became increasingly blurred, and so did the contents of their music collections.

In a sense, though, the collections of those who were born digital are not complete. They’re fractured, consisting of bits and pieces of everything, of songs divorced from their origins and physical packaging.  These songs stand alone — void of everything but the artist’s name, the album’s title, and the digital cover art.  Where the jewel case, booklet, and liner notes served to embody culture, to communicate its identity, and to mirror the taste of its owner — the iPod is merely a container for culture.  Its contents reveal the personality of the owner, but say little about the soul of the music.

While it may seem like strangers greet physical music collections and iPods with a similar sense of awe and reverence, it’s important to recognize the disparity between the two.  As the emotions that they experience in the presence of unique works of art, and those that they feel while holding an iPod— that happens to contain art — shouldn’t be confused as if they are the same thing.  Especially since one relates to the “aura” of the music, and the other to a piece of technology.  In the first scenario, when those of previous generations encountered a physical collection, they poured over it, investigated it, and held the works of art in their hands — works, which, weren’t of their own, but still provoked meaning and were intrinsically tied to their story.

Now, those who were born digital don’t hold the works of art, they embrace the iPod.  And, when they encounter the collection, while they do still pour over it, and investigate it — as they scroll through it — that sense of awe and reverence is lost.  The music in the collection is presented devoid of its aura, “it has been removed from its context — from the material processes of its creation.”2 Their emotional experience relates not to being in the presence of unique works of art, but solely of the moment of social connection and identification with the other person.  This understated difference — in how works of art are experienced — relates to yet another shift in music culture that separates those who were born digital from those of previous generations.

Internet is Freedom

For some, these shifts mean the dawning of a whole new era.  For others — having come of age during the proliferation of digital technologies; the social epidemic of file-sharing; the explosion in music choices; the splintering of genres into niches; the rise of the personalized music experience; and the increased emphasis on recommendation engines and social filters — this is the reality they’ve come to know.   But, for the rest, those who’ve lived cradle to grave in the digital era, this is the only reality they’ve ever known.  To them, there is no before file-sharing and the Internet — only these societal and technological shifts, and their aftermath.

Those who were born digital don’t remember a world in which there were the albums that they owned and those that they did not.  The music that they collect isn’t a physical thing anymore, it’s just files.  Sure, they represent their identity and serve as a mirror of their taste, but also of everyone that they surround themselves with.  Initially, they may have been limited to their friends and families collections, but as they became literate these digital technologies and services, they were only limited to their imaginations, curiosity, and desire to explore.

To them, the Internet is freedom.  And, the record industry won’t beat them.  The industry can’t keep trying to rebuild all of the barriers that defined music experiences of previous generations and the act of collecting music, as if, once restored, those who were born digital will revert back to “normal.”  To them, the way in which they consume music is normal.

In the digital era, the record industry has tried to enforce ever more vigorously the barriers to music that defined the experiences of previous generations upon those who were born digital. And, in turn, they have only resisted ever more destructively.  But, before we attempt to deny the very nature of the barriers to music in the present by changing them back to the past, we need to recognize that those born digital — those who immersed themselves in the social ecology of music culture that’s forming online — are, in fact, different now.

And, to understand why that is, we must first examine the biases of the traditional music consumption system, and the specific delivery mechanisms that govern it.  Then, compare them with those of this “other” music consumption system that those born digital also experienced.  Only after we’ve done this, will we be able to come to terms with the truth, that, it’s not those who were born digital that are “broken.”

Rather, it’s our traditional music consumption system that’s broken.  And, it’s about time that the record industry stops pretending that its barriers still define the way they experience music.

References:

• 1-2:  Rushkoff, Douglas. (2009). Life Inc. New York: Random House Inc.

A good old fashion sing-a-long.

Digital technology continues to transform the music industry. Most believe that this transformation is causing the industry to evolve into something new that will resemble nothing that has come before it. Others are beginning to suggest that perhaps the music industry is instead reverting back to a state closer to how it all began. What will all of this mean for musicians?

I hope all you wonderful readers have had the opportunity to read through the comments of last month’s Can Music Stand On It’s Own piece. If you haven’t I highly recommend that you do yourself a favor and spend some quality time reading through them. There’s a lot of great insight in there from some truly bright folks.

One subject that kept surfacing is the changing role that fans may eventually play in the creation and performance of music. The idea is that as technology improves it will become easier and easier for ‘non-musicians’ to create music and become instead amateur musicians.

This has already begun in a big way. Garageband comes preloaded on every new Mac. Samples and loops exist for every instrument, timbre and sound imaginable. Auto-tune can whip even the most tone-deaf of voices into a presentable shape. Electric guitars can now tune themselves and a single synthesizer has the versatility to replace every member of the band.

The future that some are predicting takes these advances even further, imagining instruments that essentially play themselves and computer programs that turn music theory into an automated process.

What does this mean for music? When anybody can participate in music the gap between the capital ‘A’ Artist and everybody else eventually evaporates.

Is Fan Participation something new, or something old?

Before getting into what all of this may mean for professional artists and the music industry, it’s important to get some perspective.

There are those who talk about this idea of fan participation as though it is the next evolution of the musical experience. The coming ‘amateur age.’ Some see it as an opportunity – for example, artists who encourage their fans to participate in the creation and performance of their music can potentially cultivate loyalty and buy-in that can lead to greater exposure and increased revenue.

Others see it as the final nail in the industry’s coffin. The amateurs will, by virtue of their much larger numbers, eventually overtake the professional musicians. The mystique of the artist that has prevailed for centuries will fade when greatness no longer comes at the expense of thousands of hours of practice and sacrifice. Business will grind to a halt. If anybody can do it who’s going to pay for it?

Another group of folks sees this possible future as simply an inevitable normalization. According to blogger and music teacher Ethan Hein (who is also one of the lovely commenters from last week,) “The specialization of music to professionals or highly dedicated amateurs is a historical and cultural anomaly. For most of world history, music was something that everyone participated in as part of daily routine.”

In other words fan participation is not an evolution, it’s a kind of primal baseline. It’s a center that music culture is forever drawn into no matter how far out it may venture at certain points throughout the course of history. Everyone is supposed to participate in the musical experience – the professional musicians of the 20th century are the outliers, the exceptions. The very idea of a ‘music industry’ is based on the inaccurate assumption that this ride we’ve been on for the past four decades would last forever.

Is the professional musician really a historical anomaly?

If music as a viable business is destined to be nothing more than a glittering speck in the sands of time there are some serious implications. With substantially less – or even zero – money to be made the music industry as we know it will effectively cease to exist. This goes beyond creative deconstruction – this is essentially just deconstruction.

Yet before we all resign ourselves to this fate and toss out the practice routine, I have some issues with this conclusion.

First of all the idea that with the exception of the 20th century music has always been “something that everyone participated in” is flawed. Sure, over the centuries taverns have been filled with rousing choruses and prison lines sang spirituals to the slow beat of the pick-axe. These were community experience – there was no training or discipline required to participate.

However, there have also been for centuries traveling musicians and performers playing for tips or food as a bartering tool to acquire goods or crafts. There is clear evidence of highly trained musicians in ancient Greece and Rome. There are even Old Testament references to skilled artists and musicians who spent years honing their craft. In other words, there has always been a division between artist and amateur.

Don’t give up – but don’t get comfortable either

With that in mind, I  don’t think there is anything wrong with working hard to ensure that musicians continue to be able to earn a living for the art they create. In fact, I think that to do anything else would be irresponsible. Of course, I’m not trying to suggest that good folks like Suzanne Lainson and Ethan Hein are suggesting that we just give up on music as a profession. I do see how easy it might be for many musicians to consider their version of the future and get discouraged.

Music will remain a viable business as long as artists and those supporting them continue to find creative solutions to new market challenges. Whether it signals the pop-pocolypse or not, the ever-shrinking divide between the artist and the amateur poses a challenge. But it also provides a whole new world of opportunities for creative artists to find ways of engaging with fans and driving revenue.

This is certainly not the time to give up on the dream of creating and performing music for a living. It isn’t an easy dream to realize, and it isn’t getting any easier, but the opportunities are there for the taking.

2010 got off to a quick start with CES in early January, another Apple love fest and Midem 2010, the annual music biz conference held in Cannes, France. Although it was reported that attendance at Midem was down from previous years, there was still a lot of interesting panels, news and announcements made over the five days. Definitely no shortage of ideas, opinions or stories. The Midem organizers have done a great job putting together a comprehensive roundup. 34 blog posts and 29 videos covering branding, marketing, technology, publishing, business models and much more. I’ve pulled out a few of the interesting ones that I enjoyed reading/watching:

• Labels and Digital Services panel, with Spotify, we7, The Orchard, WMG, Sony and Beggars
• Mobile Apps & Music panel
• Mark Mulligan: Music Industry Meltdown: Recasting the Mold
• Albin Serviant: Is The Future of Music…the Album (App)?
• Live Post: Who Owns the Consumer?
• “Don’t stand in the way of technology, and in the way of what the customer wants”, a conversation with Getty Images and Sulake

Investments and Funding

If the numbers are accurate, there’s some pretty big dollars ($42M) being thrown around in early 2010. Compared to January 2009 numbers noted in the 2009 investment summary that Duncan Freeman of Bandmetrics put together, January 2010 alone matches Q1 2009 investments. Keeping in mind this isn’t a comprehensive list and the numbers have been pulled from public sources, it still gives us a pretty good sense of general investment activity in the music tech space. If you know of others, please share them in the comments section below.

Here are some start-ups that closed funding in January:

• The Echo Nest, Developer of “Music Brain,” Taps VCs for $1.3M
• Jelli, a user-controlled radio startup raises $2M
• Avnera raises $10M for audio chips with coolest sound
• Guvera raises another $20m for it’s ad-supported music service
• Avega gets louder with $2.5M for home audio networking
• Hello Music raises $4M to identify talent and power musicians’ careers
• Music discovery Web site OurStage raises about $2.55 million in new funding

2010 could be busy year for digital music mergers – Apple, MySpace Music, Amazon, Google, Microsoft are all up to something or another. Consolidation might be good if it stabilizes a very shaky and fragmented digital music market. So, which music firms will get bought in 2010?

Music Services and Apps

A summary of the 15 digital music startups that presented at MidemNet Labs – The full list of startups: Aviary, Awdio, BandCentral, Band Metrics, Digiclef, GoMix, KickStart, Pops, Radionomy, Silence Media, Songkick, StreamJam, Thesixtyone, Tracks & Fields, TuneWiki.

Music Hack Day Sweden was the fifth instalment of this really cool music hacking weekend. Described best by the organizers: “The main goal of Music Hack Day is to explore and build the next generation of music applications. It’s a full weekend of hacking in which participants will conceptualize, create and present their projects. Music + software + hardware + art + the web. Anything goes as long as it’s music related.”

A lot of the hacks are very raw and may not go beyond the initial concept/prototype stage. There were a few impressive hacks that you would think were fully developed web apps. I watched a bit of the stream and have been reading some of the post hackday blog posts and testing some of the hacks. I may have missed it, but I was surprised that I didn’t see any apps utilizing the Playdar service which I’ve raved on about in my October and December recaps. Here are a few apps that stood out for me:

• HacKey – Run your LastFM profile and tapping into the Echonest API, it will tell you which key you most favour. Based on my scrobbled list of songs, I favour D major.
• My City vs. Your City - Comparing listening habits/tastes between two cities. For example, Toronto and New York are very similar but Toronto vs. Zurich is quite different.
• FindtheBand.com – Utilizing LastFM and Spotify APIs, enter a band name and you get back a list of similar artists with Spotify band and song links.
• discoverOmatic.com – Love the developer’s description: “discoverOmatic takes the gooey BBC SPARQL endpoints, stirs in the fabulous echonest analysis and artist APIs, adds a pinch of last.fm’s scrobbling and recommender system, and binds it all together with MusicBrainz to make a completely awesome way to discover music based around what you’re listening to.”

Consumer Electronics Show: Music Apps Abound – Grammy’s iPhone App, Music Mastermind, Muzu.tv and MusicStation were some of the apps announced.

Play.Me is the newest ad-free music streaming service to crowd the field further. Launched in early January, I gave this a quick whirl and find that the interface is a bit rough around the edges and clunky and the catalog is not yet deep. The Free Pass account lets you listen to ten hours per month of ad-free music and $9.99US per month gives you unlimited streaming and ten downloads. Just wondering how many more of these services can the market support? How will they ever be profitable in a fragmented market?

A new version of iPhone app, Soundhound launches with Pandora integration, allowing users to launch Pandora radio stations based on songs and/or artists.

RadioTuna – I love internet radio. Commercial-free, no annoying DJs, and music you otherwise would never hear on terrestrial radio. What’s not to like? RadioTuna is a real-time search engine for online radio that makes it easy to discover and listen to online radio. Search by genre or artist and play the station right inside the browser. Radiotime is another internet radio aggregator that I really like.

MusicDNA – new digital file that is son of MP3 unveiled – Or will this be the orphaned son of MP3. Do we really need another format? If labels/artists wanted to, they could use the open-source Ogg format to multiplex audio/video/metadata. We also have commercial offerings like iTunes LP, CMX and MXP4. Do music consumers really want more than the music? Will they be willing to pay more for these “extras”?

Misa Digital Guitar replaces strings with touchscreen – Plays like a regular guitar but your right hand is used to operate a touchscreen. Sound runs through a MIDI controller and is sent to your computer or sound module. Watch the video to see how it works. Guitar purists might cringe but it still is creative software/hardware combo.

SoundCloud teams up with The Hype Machine to transform music distribution to blogs – Great news for artists and labels who have better control and measurement of music distribution across music blogs. Some music bloggers are still influential in spite of an extremely fragmented music business. We really need to see more of these types of collaborations across platforms and services.

YouTube Music Discovery Project and Playlist Creation Tool – Surprised to see that YouTube launched this and its not too bad for a first attempt. As a mainstream aggregation tool it will work for the average music fan. Tuberadio.fm launched something very similar not too long ago.

MusicAlly has put together an in-depth interview series exploring metrics for digital music. Check out interviews with: Eric Garland of Big Champagne; Alan Ault of WaveMetrix; Marie-Alicia Chang and Gregory Mead of MusicMetric; and Brad Little of Nielsen Buzzmetrics and Duncan Freeman, Bandmetrics.

Opinions, Insights and Analysis

Will the Digital Music Industry Shrink This Year? – According to a recent report (pdf) by Redwood Capital, consolidation in the digital music industry is inevitable, as many businesses and technologies will be acquired by more viable business models.

Radio is not dead. Read how TokyoFM is augmenting the listening experience over FM with additional information via the Internet. If you don’t follow Jerry Del Colliano’s blog, Inside Music Media and the future of radio interests you, you should check him out. He passionately covers radio and the impact that the internet and technology will have heading into the future.

Music industry hopes giveaways can reverse its sliding fortunes – “The industry has been forced to compete with free in a way that still generates revenues,” said Antony Bruno, the Denver-based digital editor for Billboard magazine. “And that’s driving a lot of these things you’re seeing now — the ‘Free MP3’ of the week on iTunes and all the Amazon.com stuff. These companies, and the music labels, are very well aware that they have to compete with the fact that people can go anywhere they want on the pirate level for free music.”

‘Freemium’ Services Damage Value Of Music – “I believe one of the greatest challenges for the music industry in the coming year will be to begin to tackle consumer perception that there is such a thing as ‘free’ music. As the previous decade witnessed a rise in free digital music services, my greatest fear is that there are now too many free messages in the space to keep music truly valuable in the eyes of the listener.”

Downloads Too Expensive? – According to this 36 page economic paper (pdf), digital music prices are too high and consumers prefer a-la-carte downloading to bundled pricing schemes.

Everywhere Access Key to Paid Music Models – “Paid music services are starting to shift their focus away from selling downloads and instead concentrate on granting users paid access to content—including the music libraries they already own. Apple, far and away the market leader in the digital music industry, has seen its iTunes ecosystem slow in growth, while cloud-based initiatives gather steam.”

From Dickens to Digitization: How Technology Killed Copyright – “Copyright infringement has stirred the souls of artists and publishers since the time of Charles Dickens, who went to the United States in 1842 to ask the Americans to stop pirating his works.”

The Music Industry – Two of the New Business Models – “While in the past the music industry was characterized by one dominant business model design (the one of the major recording companies), the future will be characterized by multiple competing business models.”

Curation, Playlists and the Death of the DJ – “The death of “the DJ,” or to put it more broadly, professionally curated music, is another story entirely. While terrestrial broadcasters are, in fact, killing off DJ’s left and right either through downsizing or simply eliminating live and local airshifts, the role of curation has never been more important, especially with the skull-drillingly vast array of music-as-commodity services available to music fans.”

Music Games Need to Refocus, Not Reboot – Joe Rybicki explores the changing dynamics of the music game genre, and examines what needs to change in order to keep things viable in the years ahead.

Rock Band Network Is Creating An Exciting New Industry In Music Gaming – “Music videogames like “Rock Band” and “Guitar Hero” have tapered off after huge growth in 2008 and years prior. But a new platform that lets musicians and labels upload and sell more songs to play along with could potentially boost user interest (and spending) again.”

And that caps another month. There is so much happening out there that it’s hard to keep up. Hopefully this monthly recap helps you keep on top of things and/or fill in those news items you may have missed this past month.

And one last thing, I promised myself that this edition will be iPad and Spotify news-free and I made it through without mentioning a peep! I came close but stuck to my word. You are probably just as tired of hearing the same things repeated endlessly in the head spinning tech echo chamber!

See you next month!

Gabriel Nijmeh is a software business analyst, passionate music lover and guitar player. He currently advises a couple of music startups, including Mediazoic, a real-time social DJ platform and co-founded the Toronto edition of OpenMusicMedia which brings people together to openly discuss the intersection of digital music, media and culture.

Has music become a sideshow?

Did you watch the Grammys? I didn’t.

Music’s self-proclaimed “biggest night” celebrated it’s 52nd year this past Sunday with one of the most colorful, over-the-top spectacles in the broadcast’s history. Pink pulled a Cirq Du Sole while dripping wet and suspended from the rafters. Lady Gaga played a duet with a rock and roll icon who more recently has come to resemble a Lady Gaga himself, Elton John. Green Day performed a broadway number, and the Black Eyed Peas dressed up like Tina Turner.

And most likely much of that was set to music.

It’s unfortunate that even on “music’s biggest night” the music itself is relegated to the background – an excuse to dress up and do something ridiculous that might buy you a few more weeks in the blogs and tabloids. Yet that’s exactly how the priorities appeared to shake out on Sunday. Yes, It’s an awards show and awards shows need to drive ratings to stay alive. It’s also a television broadcast, and translating music for a visual medium requires adding an element of interest to the performances. TV doesn’t have the advantage of the living, breathing energy of the club and needs to compensate.

Nevertheless, the Grammys are arguably the most ridiculous awards show on television. Certainly the least sophisticated, with the exception of the MTV music awards. I think that says something about music and the position it holds in the entertainment industry as a whole.

Music’s Position in the Entertainment Hierarchy

In some ways, music is an outdated medium. We’ve lived in a visual world for decades now, with TV and movies dominating entertainment. More recently interactivity has come to the forefront. Music plays an important role in each of these formats, but still hovers somewhere near the background. While music supports the overall effect of the media package, it’s subservient to the visual and interactive elements.

Music as a Celebrity Springboard

You can see this hierarchy in the celebrity world. When popstars reach a certain exposure threshold what do they do? Begin make cameos in movies. Landing a supporting role is like a big-time promotion for a pop singer. The actors who take the opposite route are usually the ones struggling to stand out in the Big Pond of motion pictures. Their agents convince them to take a short swim on down to the slightly smaller music pond where they can be a Big Fish. Take J-Lo for example.

Music as an Entry Point to a Media Empire

For another example just look at Apple. When Apple introduced the iPod and iTunes they revolutionized the way people enjoy music, but they also used these products to position themselves as a major player in the media/entertainment space. Over the past year Apple has shifted their focus heavily towards the mobile gaming industry. Remember that big Apple music event last September? It would have been more accurately billed as an iPod event, because Jobs spent much more time talking about all the great things the iPod touch has brought to video games than the new iTunes LP format. Music was the entry point for Apple, not the end goal.

I don’t say all of this to discount the value of music as an artform, or even as a medium of entertainment. Music has an inherent power that none of these other artforms can claim. With no shapes, colors, faces, no buttons, joysticks or touchpads, music is able to make an unparalleled emotional impact on the listener. Music has a unique way of capturing time and space, and the ability to transport a person back to the important events in their life.

The fact is that our culture has changed, and continues to change.

The Musician’s Role in Culture

Musicians need to figure out where they fit into the larger arts and entertainment picture if they hope to build or maintain sustainable careers. Maybe this means accepting the subservient role music has been dealt over the past two decades and focusing on licensing for film and television, or video games and Rock Band. Maybe it means trying to break this mold and attempting to capture the world’s attention again the way rock and roll did in the 60′s and 70′s.

Perhaps the reason why the Grammys feel so irrelevant and inauthentic is that the organizers appear to try to ignore music’s new role in entertainment and pretend that music is still king, while at the same time desperately relying on non-musical spectacle to get anybody to care.

What are your thoughts? Can music stand on it’s own in today’s entertainment culture or must it be paired with spectacle to be remain a viable industry?

Many bloggers and artists seem to be ending 2009 on a note of cynicism. While the year began with a sense of excitement about new possibilities available to artists, the independent music community has begun sounding unusually negative lately, even jaded. It’s like everyone is racing to be the first to declare the DIY revolution last year’s news.

2009 may not have lived up to everyone’s expectations, but there remain so many reasons to stay positive as we enter the new year. 2009 was transitional, as every part of the music industry struggled to find new footing. I truly believe that 2010 is going to be the year to plant our feet and make things happen.

Progressive or Regressive?

A lot of the negativity in recent weeks can be attributed to a couple of primary sources. We bloggers have a tendency to confuse cynicism with remaining on the cutting-edge of popular thought. Being the first to become jaded with a widely accepted idea and move on can often feel a lot like progressiveness. The headlines are catchy, traffic jumps and pages of heated discussion in the comments section ensue. That’s successful blogging, right?

Unfortunately, it’s really not progressive at all. In fact, prematurely dismissing ideas that still hold true potential has much more in common with re-gression. Independent musicians have been presented with what is perhaps a once-in-a-lifetime window of opportunity to succeed apart from the crushing practices of the traditional record industry. And we want to throw a wet rag on this fire? Yet, no alternative solutions are being offered. What option remains, then, except to go back to the way things have always been done? That’s regression.

Delivering on the promise

Artists appear to be growing frustrated with a lack of success relative to what they feel they’ve been promised by the Music 2.0 gurus.

Where are my 1,000 True Fans? I’m killing myself on countless social networks – why am I still not making any money?

I get the frustration, and I sympathize with you. The business of extracting revenue from music is not easy, and it takes a whole lot of work. DIY promotion is not a silver bullet. Hopefully neither I nor anyone else have led you to believe that it is. Signing a lucrative record deal would possibly be a lot easier (assuming you aren’t neglected or dropped unexpectedly of course.) But independence can be much more rewarding, and even more profitable than signing your rights to the majors.

Hang in there. Success doesn’t happen over night. Independent artists are small business start-ups. Any entrepreneur will tell you that most new businesses go 5 years before leaving the red. That scenario isn’t for everyone, but fewer and fewer alternatives are left. It’s important that you know what you’ve signed up for.

2010 is the year to make it happen

The DIY movement is one of those unique opportunities that only appear every generation or so. Music is leading the charge into modern, technology powered, socially connected business. This transition will only accelerate as other related industries begin to follow down the path of creative deconstruction. It’s the perfect time to establish a new career and make something happen. There is still room on the ground floor, but space is becoming limited.

2010 is going to be the year of execution for many – whether artists, new services or start ups. My advice? Do whatever you have to do to make sure that you are one of them.

Photo by Barry

You can’t really go anywhere in the music industry today without hearing the phrase ‘fan-engagement.’  While most bands have (hopefully) always made an effort to connect with their listeners and fans in a way that goes beyond the music itself, social media has thrust the practice into the spotlight in a big way. Services like Twitter and Facebook have provided a platform to maintain contact with fans across the world in ways no one could have imagined ten years ago. Many artists are seizing the opportunity and seeing impressive results.

Of course, when any concept begins to saturate an entire industry the way fan-engagement recently has there is bound to be some backlash. Backlash is good – even the most promising ideas need to be tested and critiqued. I came across a couple of interesting pieces last week that provide a good counterpoint to the fan-engagement buzz, and I thought they were worth discussing further.

Farewell to the Casual Fan

The first piece is a great article by Jeremy from Finger Tips Music entitled Farewell to the Casual Fan. Jeremy argues that new models that put too much emphasis on fan-engagement may actually drive casual fans away.

“Today’s fan engagement schemes, however, deny the existence of casual fans by leaving them out of the picture entirely.

Because what entices a super-fan will almost, by definition, be of no interest to a casual fan. Just because you happen to like a song or two, or even an album or two, doesn’t mean you require a musician’s real-time biographical details, doesn’t mean you crave endless streams of recording flotsam and jetsam (b-sides, live takes, remixes, etc.), doesn’t mean you’ll want to purchase objects lit by physical association with the musician (self-designed t-shirts, hand-addressed postcards, and the like) or watch repeated video presentations.”

“Most important of all, a casual fan will not spend upwards of $100 a year purchasing music and other accessory items from one band or musician.

In his original “1,000 True Fans” post, Kelly asserted that the processes artists develop to feed their diehard fans will also nurture what he calls “Lesser Fans.” I see no evidence beyond wishful thinking to support this idea.

I believe, on the contrary, that the more the music scene focuses on these kinds of super-fan activities, the more likely it will be that casual fans more or less disappear.”

While I disagree with some of Jeremy’s conclusions, I appreciate that he is serving up a dose of reality to artists who fail to understand that the artist-fan relationship isn’t black and white. Some fans may sit down at their computer each day hoping to find a new communication from their favorite artist – whether a song, a video, a simple email or DM. Others might view that kind of constant contact as spam. The reality is that artists need to learn to navigate both types of relationships. The goal is to engage fans, not annoy them.

Yet I don’t believe that a rash of over-extended artists will cause these casual fans to disappear. Casual fans don’t stop listen to music when they’re turned off by an artist, they simply stop paying for it. And they’ve already stopped paying for it. The recent focus on fan-engagement is not causing this – it’s responding to it.

One commenter, Ben Denison, offered an interesting counterpoint that I thought was worthy of including here:

On the contrary, it is my concern that over “engagement” by a band will drive away the super fan. Do you already tire of going to a band site and being asked to engage in some sort of merry fan/band dance, when all you want to do is listen to the music?

He goes on:

As far as I can see there is already evidence that over engagement has already generated a niche as super fans are seeking bands such as Islet that don’t even have a website/myspace/bandcamp for the exclusivity and mystique factor.

The 80′s on Social Media

October 29, 2009 marked the 40 year anniversary of the first message sent over the internet. To mark the occasion, Duran Duran bassist John Taylor delivered a speech at UCLA on the effects of technology on music. Specifically, Taylor spoke about the way that constant fan-engagement may harm the relationship between artist and fan. Here’s an excerpt via the BBC (which you might also recognize from Hypebot):

When artists today are asked to Twitter their every thought, their every action, to record on video their every breath, their every performance, I believe they’re diluting their creative powers, their creative potency and the durability of their work.

And in the long run I believe they’re also diluting the magical power and the magnetic attraction that they can or will ever have over their audience.

John Taylor of Duran Duran

He’s saying two things here – the first is that social media communications, however simple and mundane, actually use up an artist’s creative reserves the same way songwriting might.

I happen to think that he’s fundamentally right, although this statement again assumes that artists are incapable of any nuanced understanding of fan interaction. Yes, if an artist wastes three hours in front of the computer screen he or she is unlikely to have much energy left for creative endeavors. No one is actually asking you to do this. To suggest that modern fan-engagement models require artists to “twitter their every thought, their every action” is a dramatic exaggeration.

How much time does it take to update your Twitter status? 30 seconds maybe, and only if you’re really straining to think up something clever to say. So even if you push 20 updates per day that still only consumes 10 minutes. That’s less than 1% of your day. Of course this is an oversimplification of what is involved in an artist’s social media activities, but the point is that you shouldn’t by into the “every thought” hyperbole.

In his second statement, Taylor claims that using social media to step out from behind the curtain and connect with fans in an authentic way is detrimental because it dilutes the rock star mystique. Well, if it does fans seem to be doing ok without it. I love the way Matisyahu put it in an article a few months back (I haven’t been able to find the source to link to it – I’ll update when I do.) He pointed out that when he was growing up he never would have imagined getting the chance to connect with his heroes the way his fans are able to connect with him through social media. The memory of that desire is what drives his own forays into consistent fan-engagement. These activities have only served to further endear his fans to him as an artist and to his music.

Use every weapon

The bottom line is that the tools are there to connect with fans, and they’re free to use. To ignore them is to ignore an important weapon in every artist’s fight against obscurity – and poverty. Artists need to learn how to use these tools responsibly and effectively to build their fan base, while understanding that different types of fans require a unique approach.

French streaming service Deezer launched a Premium Subscription last week.

There isn’t usually much to talk about when a product is perfect. People may rave for a while, but there’s little to discuss aside from the accusations of a few inevitable dissenters. A product or service that is truly newsworthy, however, is one that is almost perfect – but not quite. An excellent product that offers a solution to a real problem, but that has one or two inescapable flaws of its own can provide months of heated discussion and analysis.

Online music streaming is exactly that kind of product. It’s almost paradoxical, in many ways: on the one hand, people want on-demand music. Who’s going to argue with convenient access to (almost) the entire world catalogue of music? Yet, many people still have a nagging desire for ownership. Ownership may be “for pussies” as Lefsetz so eloquently pronounced in a recent post, but I’m willing to admit that I enjoy downloading a track on iTunes and adding it to my collection. Yes, I understand that my “collection” is really just a store of digital code, but this isn’t about the intellect – it’s about the feeling.

Also, streaming finally offers a system of music delivery that is faster and more convenient than most forms of file sharing. “Why are you going to steal,” asks Lefsetz, “if all of a sudden you can check it out quickly on a streaming service?” A couple of recent surveys seem to support this. According to the New York Times a survey by the NPD Group here in the US found that “teenagers aged 13 to 17 illegally downloaded 6 percent fewer tracks in 2008 than in 2007, while more than half said they were now listening to legal online radio services like Pandora.” Not exactly earth-shattering evidence, but it’s a start.

On the other hand, if these music streaming services aren’t profitable or sustainable, does any of that really matter?

That’s the big question. How do streaming services hope to make any money? Spotify, Grooveshark, Imeem and others are burning through large amounts of cash as they continue struggling to find a way to climb out of the red. The recording industry has set royalty rates for on-demand streaming as high as 1 cent per song. That may not seem like much, but consider that by some estimates Spotify is currently streaming over 1 billion tracks per month. Add in the cost of bandwidth and hosting and the cost of streaming quickly becomes astronomical. (This is obviously an oversimplification of the equation. For a more detailed look at the numbers behind streaming click here or here.)

Freemium has been the model of choice, but so far converting free users to paid subscribers has proven difficult. Spotify has reportedly been able to convert about 4% of its users to paid subscribers, or 116,000 in total. That’s a big improvement over the 34,000 subscribers in May. But these numbers still point to the challenges that face platforms relying on freemium to drive revenue.

With any freemium model the product’s core functionality is already available to users for free. The challenge lies in developing the right incentives to make upgrading worthwhile. Spotify appears to be finding success in their mobile offering. Premium subscribers are able to sync their account with their iPhone or Android device. Mobile access is increasingly important to consumers, and judging by the doubling of subscribers noted above it has been enough to seal the deal for many.

In further evidence of the power of the mobile device in music streaming, the company behind the French streaming service Deezer surveyed its users and found that 80% wanted mobile access. Until this point, Deezer was 100% free. Last week the company introduced Deezer Premium, which directly responds to the results of this survey and offers mobile access for a monthly fee.

But what happens when a platform comes along and offers free mobile access? It’s only a matter of time as the streaming space is becoming increasingly crowded with new entries such as MOG. The feature that converts users becomes a commodity next month and it’s back to the drawing board.

Freemium is not the only option. The strongest alternative may be mobile bundling. In this scenario the cost of the streaming service is partially or completely subsidized by the cell phone carrier, and built into the cost of the plan. In this feels-like-free model cell phone users are still paying some of the cost for a subscription, but they don’t feel it because in many cases it doesn’t even show up as a line item in their monthly bill.

While this model may solve one problem, it does so by creating a few problems of its own – which is par for the course in music streaming. Most bundled services operate with some level of exclusivity toward their partner carrier. This type of arrangement could solve a platforms revenue problem as it relates to mobile users, it could also dramatically hinder a platform’s adoption on the desktop.

Can a streaming service afford to alienate a large portion of desktop users? Mobile devices continue to carve out a bigger and bigger presence in consumers’ lives, but the desktop is still the digital hub. I would argue that market dominance still depends on it, although I’m not sure what good dominance does it you have to sacrifice profitability to get there.

One thing is clear: without a free version to get users hooked any new streaming service is dead on arrival. I agree with Lefsetz who writes, “You can’t get people to pay first, that’s twentieth century thinking.  You give them a taste now, and then get them to pay.” He goes on, “We live in an attention economy.  It’s almost impossible to get people to spend time with [your service.]  Make it easy for them!  Convince them!  Then get them to spend money.”

The bottom line is that music streaming services need to find a way to get more people to pay. No one wants to see streaming disappear, but there aren’t too many who are willing to donate cash each month if they don’t feel they’re getting additional value. Without the support of the industry or the government, Spotify, Deezer and the rest are left to survive the old fashioned way – by convincing consumers to buy.

And these services don’t have the industry’s support. Many in the business still cling to the download as the only acceptable transaction. This is not lost on Daniel Ek. “The big question is, are we not just fighting piracy, but also taking away the industry’s most lucrative customers, the ones that were buying 30 or 40 CDs a year?” Ek recently asked the New York Times. “If so, the music industry is in worse shape than it was before.” Perhaps that’s the biggest paradox of them all.

Still, music streaming is not the end of the story. Spotify, Deezer and their competitors have accomplished something that is likely to have massive ramifications on the music industry – they’ve given us a taste of true on-demand music consumption, and I don’t think we’ll ever be satisfied going back.