Apple vs EMI vs Apple?

It all seems pretty simple. Apple wants the Beatles catalog on iTunes. Customers want the Beatles catalog on iTunes. The surviving Beatles seem to want their catalog on iTunes. So why hasn't it happened? According to Paul McCartney:

"It's been business hassles, not with us, or iTunes. It's the people in the middle, the record label. There have been all sorts of reasons why they don't want to do it."

And so we've had a wave of commentary berating said record label -- EMI -- for their wrong-headed stance. But there might be more to the story.

I've spent the past twelve years (in part) creating CD compilations primarily for public radio stations. And I can tell you that rights issues -- even among small independent labels and artists -- can be messy. One of our client stations has artists perform live in the studio. When they do, the artist signs a waiver allowing the station to use that recording for non-commercial purposes, such as a fund raising CD.

Sounds straightforward, right? Well, sometimes the artist has an exclusive contract with a label that covers any and all recordings made, regardless of the venue. Which means the artist had no legal right to sign that waiver. It's up to the label to decide if the track can be used.

Other times the artist is just fine, and the label doesn't have any controlling interest, but the artist's management has exclusive right to make any such deals (and management is seldom on hand when the artist is at the station). So it's the management that has to make that decision.

Now while most times the labels and management organizations will let us use the those tracks, the wheels can move very slowly. Sometimes too slowly and the track has to be dropped in order for the disc to ship on time for the station's fund drive.

No one's the bad guy. They're just following the procedures they are legally bound to. End result's the same, though. The radio station wants the artist on the CD, the artist wants to be on the CD, but it doesn't happen.

EMI doesn't own the Beatles catalog. They represent the Beatles' recorded music on behalf of Apple Corp. (the legal entity of the Beatles) in an arrangement that has a long and complicated history. That catalog has been locked down from the very beginning. Beatles tracks never appear on Greatest Hits or Top 40 collections. Their use has been very carefully controlled. And while it might be EMI, it also might be EMI following the procedures and guidelines laid down in the agreement with Apple.

According to David Kronemyer:

[Beatles manager] Klein was determined that Apple really should be the manufacturer of Beatles (and non-Beatles) records. He wanted to control all activities that a manufacturer possibly could control. The 1969 agreements went further than most royalty contracts in that they gave approval of product, packaging, pickup albums, etc. to the Beatles. Klein not only wanted to keep those features but also add release dates, pricing, approval and placing of advertising, promotion, publicity, etc.

So while Paul McCartney the artist may say he doesn't understand what the problem is, in the end it may very well be that it lies not with EMI, but with his legal avatar, Apple Corp.

 - Ralph

Another Look at the Thousand True Fans

The Information is Beautiful Blog posted a wonderful graphic illustrating how much musicians earn online.It examines income streams from all of the different venues available, and looks at independent artists vs. those signed with labels. For many, the chart prompted despair -- 1.5 million plays on Last.fm, for example, earns a solo artist $1,160 -- the monthly minimum wage.

I suggest looking at it in a different light, though. Kevin Kelly's articulated the concept of the One Thousand True Fans as a way for independent artists to achieve success. Basically, if you can connect with one thousand fans who are willing to spend $100 on your downloads/albums/merch/concert tickets, then you can make a decent living catering to a niche market.

So let's look again at the numbers from our chart, and instead of looking at minimum wage, look at what happens if those One Thousand True Fans voted with their dollars and each made a purchase.

Self-pressed CD @$9.99 -- $8,000 to the artist
CD Baby Album @$9.99 -- $7,500 to the artist
CD Baby iTunes Download @$0.99 -- $570 to the artist

Look what happens when the artist signs with a label.
Retail album CD @9.99 list -- $2,000 to the label, $300 to the artist
iTunes album download @$9.99 list -- $6,290 to the label,$940 to the artist
Amazon MP3 download @$0.99 -- $630 to the label, $90 to the artist

Notice anything?

Traditionally, the advantage to signing with a label has been that the resources of the label could be used to boost the artist's profile, increasing their fan base. But look at it from the artist's perspective. To match the income ($8,000) from a self-released CD, the artist now needs 26,000 fans to by the album at retail. OK, that's not impossible. And when those 26,000 fans purchase, the label will make $52,000.

How about downloads? In order to net the same $570 you netted as an indie artist from your One Thousand Fans, you only need 8,220 folks to download your song -- and make $5,186 for the label in the process.

Now of course, labels measure success in terms of hundreds of thousands of fans. So if you had 250,000 of them (sort of the bare minimum), you'd then have $22,500 coming to you from your downloads -- while the label pockets $157,500.

Hmmm. Maybe it's best to keep those One Thousand Fans to yourself.

- Ralph

Portals and Cake

I've written before about independent artist Jonathan Coulton and his very successful non-major label music career. One of the tenets of Coulton's work (and a key to his success) is the idea that music freely shared reaps dividends for the artist. By making his music available for free distribution, Coulton became a household name -- at least online.

That heightened profile eventually lead to him providing a song for the video game Portal, which did provide a nice source of income. The song, "Still Alive" became something of an underground hit. So much so, that was made available on Rock Band, generating even more income.

There's several versions of the song available on YouTube, all of which help keep Coulton's name in the limelight, and help fill concert halls. The version of the video game (below) currently has over 5.3 million views.



Jonathan Coulton's own version on YouTube has been viewed 1.3 million times.



And now the Gifford Children's Choir of Racine, Wisconsin has performed their own version and posted it on YouTube. It's had over 160,000 views so far, which has been a great boost for the choir, as well as renewed interest in Coulton's song, and the video game Portal.



So what has Coulton's "share and share alike" policy gotten him? There have been almost 7 million total views of these three videos. By contrast, this week's number one song on Billboard ("Hey Soul Sister" by Train) has sold 2 million copies since its release. And while views don't equal sales, Coulton gets 100% of the royalties from each sale of his song. Train gets perhaps 12%.

Assuming "Still Alive" and "Hey Soul Sister" both net $0.99 a sale, Train's made about $237,000 for their song. Jonathan Coulton needs to sell just 240,000 downloads to equal that. And with 7 million views and counting, what's the likelihood he's already past that number?

- Ralph

Music changes

Back in February the LA Times reported on a study by the NPD Group. According to the article,

Last year saw a 21% drop in the number of people in the U.S. buying music -- both digital and physical -- compared with 2007, according to figures released Thursday by NPD Group, a market research firm.

The NPD numbers echo similarly dour news released last month from the IFPI, a London-based consortium of 1,400 record companies. A 12% uptick in digital music sales in 2009 was not enough to reverse an overall 10% slide in global sales of recorded music in all formats

So things are changing. Another study by the NPD Group further illuminates. As you read the report, keep in mind what the major labels want.

1) There's more profit in albums than in singles, so the majors held the line on album prices and killed off CD singles so consumers had to buy the album to get the song they wanted.

2) There's more profit in physical profit than in downloads, so the majors dragged their feet even getting into the download market, and have been doing everything they can to stop consumers from downloading and/or sharing music illegally.

And the result?

Consumers’ primary reason for not purchasing CDs was that they were spending less on entertainment overall, because of the recession. Consumers were also concerned about the price of CDs, and expressed satisfaction with the collection of titles they already own. Among the reasons consumers cited for preferring digital music over CDs was that they could choose only the songs they wanted to purchase, and could immediately download and listen to their purchases.

See the problem? Consumers want one thing, the labels another. Businesses that survive adapt to the market. Those that don't die.

I don't think we're seeing the death of music, or artists no longer being able to support themselves, or any of that. But for the labels that are desperately trying to turn back the clock? The market's already spoken.

 - Ralph

Introducing... Robert Ian Winstin

In my "Fun with [Classical] Numbers" post, I talked about 28intwentyeight by Robert Ian Winstin. Comments both online and off I received about that post suggested I needed to do a follow-up.

Several readers, who had not heard of Winstin before, were under the impression that he was one of the many amateur musicians recording in a basement studio, and that his music's sole exposure was a month's worth of blog posts.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Robert Ian Winstin is a professional classically trained concert pianist, conductor, and composer who has actually done quite a bit on the national and international stage. If his name isn't familiar, it may have more to do with the channels we receive our information of classical music from, rather than the quality of his art.

If you only know Robert Ian Winstin from that one YouTube video I posted, read on.

Robert Ian Winstin is the current Composer-In-Residence of the Kiev Philharmonic Orchestra. He also serves as the music director (and chief conductor) to the Virginia Youth Symphony Orchestra, which has toured internationally.

Winstin's written over 200 works, including five symphonies, two piano concertos, and a very moving tribute to 9/11. One of his recent works, Spirituals for Violin and Orchestra, was composed for Itzhak Perlman and premiered in Carnegie Hall -- hardly the output of a basement studio wannabe.

Winstin has also produced a massive amount of recordings for ERM Media, including the "Masterworks of the New Era" series which spotlights contemporary composers writing modern, accessible, well-crafted music. He's also the conductor for those recordings, each release being a multi-disc set. And of course, Winstin has several releases on the ERM label as well.

His recordings are distributed by Naxos, the largest classical music label in the world, and certainly one of the most forward-looking. His compositions can be found on iTunes, ClassicsOnline, and several other download sites.

And he's also authored two books.

Robert Ian Winstin's music can be downloaded from Tower, ArkivMusic, Barnes&Noble, Amazon, HB Direct, and many, many other places.

How could someone accomplish so much and not be a household name? It happens all the time.

Which is sort of my continuing theme with my classical music posts (and my radio show, come to think of it)? There are a lot of talented people out there doing interesting, engaging work on par if not better than the artists we regularly hear about. All we have to do is step a little outside of the ordinary to find it.

- Ralph

WMG's Unbusiness Model

Two stories broke this week about the Warner Music Group (WMG) that are very much related.

First story: WMG to stop licensing music to free ad-based streaming services.
Second story: iTunes variable pricing cited for slowing WMG download sales.

How they're related: In both cases, WMG ignores the way the market is, and tries to impose their will on how the market should be. And in both cases, the change results in lost real revenue. And in both cases, WMG is returning to a business model that they've lost money on before.

So Warner is no longer going to license to streaming services. According to Chief Exec Edgar Bronfman, Jr. "Free streaming services are clearly not net positive for the industry."

Clearly? These services do pay licensing fees to the labels -- but they don't generate as much revenue as music subscription sites. And that's really the issue.

Bronfman said, "The number of potential subscribers dwarfs the number of people who are actually purchasing music on iTunes. [There are] hundreds of millions if not billions of people, most of whom are not today either buyers or certainly heavy buyers of music."

Which simply shows that WMG does not understand what these services are, and how people use them. A streaming music feed paid for by ads inserted into the programming. Sound familiar? Yep, it's the same as radio -- and listeners use it the same way.

Look at WMG's logic in light of radio. "We're not going to let our music be played on the radio because people are listening to our music for free instead of buying copies at the record store. Instead, we like satellite radio. We're going to put our efforts into persuading everyone to subscribe to satellite radio. Imagine the profits!"

Imagine epic fail.

But this isn't the first time. The major labels for years have been pushing subscription services -- some even had their own in the beginning -- with indifferent results. Because that's not how most people want to get their music. There are many casual listeners, few serious buyers. That's the reality.

Which leads us to the second story. What made iTunes so successful in the first place? Uniform pricing, in part. For years Apple insisted that it was 0.99 or nothing, and 0.99 it was. Now before iTunes, the labels had their own download services -- with variable pricing. And none of them did particularly well.

Once the major labels forced iTunes to do variable pricing, guess what? Sales went down. Steve Jobs understood that under a dollar was the magic price point. When it comes to downloads, the price to beat is "FREE." Ninety-nine cents for the convenience of the iTunes interface? Fine. Over a dollar for a song vs. free? No deal.

WMG didn't get it when they ran their own download service, and clearly, they don't get it now.

The market's moving on, with or without WMG. Right now, it's looking like "without."

A different look at music subscriptions

Online music subscription services continue to be developed and announced with great fanfare. And yet, acceptance has been indifferent at best. Why? I got an insight when the latest issue of Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact arrived the other day.

Granted, there's not a one-to-one correspondence between magazine and music subscriptions, but I think there are some interesting contrasts.

Analog presents new science fiction short stories and serialized novels, so it's a little different then general interest or news magazines -- which makes it work better (I think) for my analogy.

Most music subscription services operate this way: you pay a monthly subscription fee, and you get access to all the music available through the service. You can download the newest songs, or classic hits, or anything in between.

With my subscription to Analog, I get the latest fiction in monthly installments, and I can freely access anything in the previous issues I've received.

If you discontinue your subscription to the music service, you no longer have access to their library. And any music you've downloaded and put on your MP3 player or computer is disabled. You can't play any of it.

If I discontinue my subscription to Analog, I'll no longer receive the latest science fiction, but I can reread anything in the back issues I've saved (and goes back quite a few years at this point).

If I had been told that the back issues of Analog would self-destruct if I canceled my subscription, or they would be repossessed, I would be more than a little upset. It would be kind of like holding my collection hostage. "Keep paying us money, or your science fiction library goes up in flames."

It's obvious why the labels like the music subscription model. They get to control the music, and if the money stops coming in... they still have all the music and you don't.

But is it what the customer wants? I like revisiting past issues of Analog -- even during the time in graduate school when I couldn't afford a subscription. I don't keep every copy of every magazine that comes into our house -- but what goes is my decision, not the publisher's.

And that's kind of the way I like it.

- Ralph

(Yes, some services let you burn your music to CDs if your subscription's paid up. That would be like me being allowed to photocopy any story in Analog I wanted to keep. Nice option, but impractical on a large scale)

Too Much Joy, Not Enough Cash

As AC/DC once sang on "'74 Jailbreak,"

You learn to sing
You learn to play
Why don't the businessmen
Ever learn to pay

That's show business (Show business)
Show business (Show business)
Show business
That's the way it goes

Common complaint, of course, but two recent posts really put things into perspective. If you think getting signed to a major label is your entry to Easy Street, think again. For most bands, its anything but.

Tim Quirk, of the band Too Much Joy, recently posted his royalty statement with some very pointed (and knowledgeable) commentary. If you're interested in the music industry at all, you should read then entire post. Especially revealing is Quirk's explanation of how the majors use creative accounting to make sure their investment is covered at the expense of the artist.

While our royalty statement shows Too Much Joy in the red with Warner Bros. [for about $400,000], this doesn’t mean Warner “lost” nearly $400,000 on the band. That’s how much they spent on us, and we don’t see any royalty checks until it’s paid back, but it doesn’t get paid back out of the full price of every album sold. It gets paid back out of the band’s share of every album sold, which is roughly 10% of the retail price.

So, using round numbers to make the math as easy as possible to understand, let’s say Warner Bros. spent something like $450,000 total on TMJ. If Warner sold 15,000 copies of each of the three TMJ records they released at a wholesale price of $10 each, they would have earned back the $450,000. But if those records were retailing for $15, TMJ would have only paid back $67,500, [or $1.50 a unit] and our statement would show an unrecouped balance of $382,500.

Of course, things are different now that it's all digital downloads, right? Well, according to some sources, the artist gets 12% of what the label receives from the 99 cent iTunes sale -- which is about 70 cents (credit card processing gobbles up 25 cents, BTW). Which means the artist makes a little over 8 cents per song (and yes, the same accounting rules about recouping investment apply).

But the majors forced iTunes to variable pricing, and now many new songs cost $1.29. So out of the dollar the labels now receive, what does the artist get? Many have contracts with fixed residuals, which means they still get 8.5 cents per song.

If the songs are noted in the account process, which was the primary subject of Quirk's post.

AC/DC recorded "Show Business" back in 1974. Sad that it's still relevant.

- Ralph

Coulton's Blue Sunny Day -- by the numbers

Jonathan Coulton recently posted a blog entry where he breaks down some of the numbers surrounding his material. Now this is significant for several reasons. I've written about Coulton before, and in many ways I think he presents a practical approach to having a successful music career in this post-record label era.
The statistics he cites are quite interesting (and I highly recommend reading the entire post). According to Coulton,

I posted [Blue Sunny Day] to the blog on 3/16, and twittered about it with a link to the blog post on 3/17. I have about 5,000 blog subscribers and about 23,000 Twitter followers.
On 3/16 the blog post received 740 unique views, on 3/17 it received 1,942.
As of today, the original blog post has received 4,313 unique views: 2,518 direct, 1,721 from twitter, 788 from Google, 209 from FaceBook, and then some more smaller sources.
Worst case scenario (every unique view = one free download), the ratio of paying customers to freeloaders comes to about 13.4%

And yet,

The eight-day period since the song was first posted boasts a 40% uptick in digital sales in my store compared with the eight days prior to that…

So then extrapolate what happened with this song across my entire catalog, across all the things sold that make up my income, across the past and present and future, across all the Internet radio stations and file sharing networks and FaceBook pages and Twitter posts and the whole wild and woolly Internet - you will never know HOW it works, but I can tell you that for me it does.

BTW - here's Jonathan Coulton performing his song "Blue Sunny Day, " courtesy of part of the wild and woolly Internet.




Here are the important take-aways from this.
1) Jonathan Coulton doesn't look at the non-paying downloads as lost sales. Mark that thought, because that's what the RIAA doesn't get. They assume that every unpaid download is a lost sale, which is how they arrive at their claim that they're losing millions. But this completely ignores a very basic human behavior (that I've commented on in the RIAA vs. Sam's Club). That is, the lower the price, the more likely someone is to take a chance on it. I’ll try something for free that I won’t necessarily pay money for. One hundred people each taking a free sample meatball does not represent one hundred lost sales of packaged meatballs.
2) Coulton recognizes that what's important isn't the sale of the unit (in this case the song download), but

how that unit improves his overall income. Many artists are beginning to see that the downloadable song has little perceived value to the consumer ($0.99, tops) -- just like a flyer or a brochure.
And just like those non-valued pieces of paper, the song can serve a different function. It can help publicize the artist, increasing interest in their output, driving bigger audiences to the live shows, and more merchandise being sold.
Again, look at the record labels. They're still trying to lock down everything so that they can dole it back out for a price. That's pretty short-term. Because while they're failing at their task, the world's moving on.
There's a very healthy and growing indie music scene that's taken a different tack with their fans. Rather than trying to sue their fans into oblivion, they're sharing their music and reaping the benefits. And an increasing number of these artists (like Jonathan Coulton) are doing fine without a record label.
So Coulton’s taking the long view – and for him it’s paying off (figuratively and literally).
I appreciate Jonathan Coulton sharing some of the stats surrounding his music. Anyone thinking about becoming a musician should be paying attention. Come to think of it, so should the RIAA.
- Ralph

The Dorktones -- Creatively Uncommon

Yesterday I held up Jonathan Coulton -- and the release of his new album -- as one of the prime examples of how artists are using social media to their advantage.

But Coulton certainly wasn't the first. A Dutch garage band trio called the Dorktones did it all back in 2005 (that's a long time in Internet years). The band had a very successful podcast that extended their reach far beyond their native Holland.

In 2005 they decided to enlist their fans to help them with their latest album. The Dorktones posted source tracks for a song and had an Open Source Song contest. The concept of Creative Commons was still in its infancy, but the contest rules pretty much outlined the same set of rights. Fans couldn't profit off of their remixes, but they could freely use their entries "for educational and personal use." And there was a winning entry, which was a win for everyone.

By sharing their track, the Dorktones expanded their fan base and connected more closely with those fans (I still follow them).

And the Dorktones continue on today, conquering new worlds. They have a MySpace account, and -- of course -- YouTube videos.



I suspect that they all have day jobs, but so what? The Dorktones are having fun, and they literally have a worldwide audience. So check out the track, explore the site, and discover one of the Internet's true pioneers -- the Dorktones!

Creative Commons Leads to Uncommon Opportunities

Jonathan Coulton continues to serve as the model for the 21st Century New Media artist. He launched his career by posting -- and giving away -- a new song every week for a year. Coulton's fully embraced the concept the Creative Commons license, which is to allow fans to use his music as they will. They can share it with friends, they can remix it, they can use it as the basis for something of their own. The only string attached is one of credit -- if you use Jonathan Coulton's music, make sure he's credited.

And so what's been the result of this craziness? After all, if an artist's music isn't locked down under copyright, if every single play and every single copy doesn't generate revenue, won't the artist starve? That's the stance of the RIAA.

Coulton shared some thoughts in a letter on the Creative Commons website.

"...there was something so compelling about the Creative Commons license, the idea that you could attach it to a piece of art you had made and declare your intentions - please, share my music, put it in a remix, make it into a music video. I was thrilled and emboldened by the idea that I could give my songs legs, so that they could walk around the world and find their way into places I would never dream of sending them. I immediately started licensing my songs with CC, and a year later I quit my job to create music full time."

[not sounding very hungry to me; much less starving]

"...my growing audience started to feed back to me things they had created based on my music: videos, artwork, remixes, card games, coloring books. I long ago lost track of this torrent of fan-made stuff, and of course I’ll never know how many people simply shared my music with friends, but there’s no question in my mind that Creative Commons is a big part of why I’m now able to make a living this way. Indeed, it’s where much of my audience comes from - there are some fan-made music videos on YouTube that have been viewed millions of times. That’s an enormous amount of exposure to new potential fans, and it costs me exactly zero dollars." [emphasis mine]

And now Jonathan Coulton's released a new album in a form that would give any member of the RIAA nightmares. As a fundraising premium for the Creative Commons organization (he considers it giving back to the community), "JoCo Looks Back" is being released as a limited edition USB thumb drive. In addition to 20 of Coulton's most popular songs, (and album artwork), the 1GB drive also has the source tracks for all the songs.

Which means you can remix, rearrange, and rework Coulton's material to your heart's content. And because it has a Creative Commons license, you're legally allowed to do so. Jonathan Coulton gives you permission.

I'll be sending in my contribution to get this drive -- how about you? I'll be doing it for several reasons:

1. 1) I'm a fan of Jonathan Coulton, and I want the songs.
2. 2) As a musician, I'm interested in seeing how he put his tracks together
3. 3) Creative Commons is the sane answer to new media copyright and fair use.

If you're any kind of creative artist, you need to know about Creative Commons licensing. Don't try to protect your work in the 21st Century with 20th Century tools.

- Ralph

Day 152 of the WJMA Web Watch.

slotMusic -- Abuse Your Illusion

So SanDisk and EMI, Sony/BMG, Warner and Universal Music announce the arrival of slotMusic. One of the leading manufacturers of embedded memory devices and the four major record labels are coming together to bring albums loaded on special miniSD cards to market.


Excited?

Thought not.

I expect it will meet with the same crashing silence as Ringles.

The problem is the serious disconnect between what consumers want, and what the labels are prepared to give them. The major labels want to sell physical product -- what music's on it really doesn't matter that much. The customers want to buy music -- whether or not it's attached to any kind of physical product is irrelevant.

See how this is going to end badly?

Why do the majors continue to cling to the concept of selling physical units instead of chunks of audio data? Because their whole structure is based on that manufacturing-based business model used by soft drink companies, car companies, and many, many others. But music has shifted to more of an information technology business, which uses a different structure, different skill sets, and a different business model.

Almost ten years into the digital music revolution, and we get slotMusic.

Well, you can't turn a charging dinosaur on a dime, you know. But it would be nice if those riding it could at least steer the beast towards the right general direction.

- Ralph

Day 102 of the WJMA Web Watch.

Thinking Outside of Pandora's Box

As the discussion about the eminent demise of Pandora and other webcasters continue, there's an underlying assumption that no one's articulating. Everyone seems to assume that the major labels have a lock on the music. And they do -- kind of. The RIAA has prevented podcasters from using major label tracks, and the SoundExchange is charging webcasters outrageous fees because, well, because they can.

Podcasters have already figured out that there are plenty of great artists not associated with major labels -- or any labels at all. Webcasters still haven't gotten the concept yet. And a lot of listeners haven't made the leap yet either.

There's a lot of independent artists making music as good -- if not better -- than anything being put out by the majors.

How much is out there? Here's a small sampling. BBC Radio One recently showcased under-18 bands -- that is, all the musicians were under eighteen years of age. Here's an excerpt of Huw Stephens, host of Radio One's Introducing program giving quick overviews of ten bands being considered for a slot at an Underage Festival.

Excerpt One features excerpts from Off Limits, OCD, Unicorn Kid. Prems, Mandygams, The Zimmermans

Excerpt Two has samples from the Liddy Berlins, Vanilla Kick, Spiked, Monday Street, Tristan and the Troubadors, 10,000 Flushes, The Naturals


You just heard ten great unsigned acts -- acts who are happy to let their music being used online. Now carry this forward for a minute. These are the best underage independent bands in the UK. That's just a small subset of the independent music scene in England. And that's a small part of the European music scene. And there are plenty of equally creative musicians in the Middle East, in Africa, in Asia -- and of course North and South America.


Why are we wringing our hands over the inaccessibility of the Top 40 when there's 40,000 (or perhaps 400,000 or even 4 million) other songs of equal quality readily available?

I don't know either.

- Ralph

Day 72 of the WJMA Web Watch.

Download This Song -- Two Years Later

Hey Mr. Record Man
The joke's on you
Running your label
Like it was 1992
Hey Mr. Record Man,
Your system can't compete
It's the New Artist Model
File transfer complete

MC Lars' 2006 Internet hit "Download This Song" articulated the disconnect between the major records and the rise of downloading music consumers.



Two recent court decisions made me wonder how far we've come since MC Lars first penned his song.

So Warner, EMI, hear me clearly
Universal Music, update your circuitry
They sue little kids downloading hit songs
They think that makes sense
When they know that it's wrong

The RIAA continues to sue right and left, but the tide is shifting. Several cases are under review because of the questionable practices of MediaSentry, the security company that either is or isn't an investigative agency depending on the case.

I know I'm rhyming fast, but the message is clear
You don't need a million dollars to launch a career
If your style is unique and you practice what you preach
Minor Threat and Jello both have things to teach!
I've got G5 production, concept videos
Touring with a laptop, rocking packed shows
The old-school major deal? It makes no sense
Indentured servitude, the costs are too immense!

I've talked about truly indie artists like Jonathan Coulton and the Mason Brothers before, but the exception is increasingly becoming the rule. And why not? How much do you want to net from your music sales -- 90% on your own, or 12% as an artist signed to a major label?

Their finger's in the dam but the crack keeps on growing
Can't sell bottled water when it's freely flowing

And now the another piece of the puzzle falls into place. The federal appeals court ruled on a landmark case involving freeware. Bottom line -- freeware and creative commons licenses may not have money attached to them, but if it doesn't mean they're not protected. So all those musicians who've made their songs available for non-commercial use (which increases their popularity) are still legally entitled to the benefits from any commercial usage.

So now it's even easier to make money by giving things away.

You know, we just wanted a level playing field.
You've overcharged us for music for years, and now we're
Just trying to find a fair balance. I hate to say it, but:
Welcome to the future.

Download this song.

- Ralph

Day 62 of the WJMA Web Watch.

The Mason Brothers -- Jarring the Music Industry

Recently I posted about advice I gave to some parents who asked how their son could break into the music business. I didn't tell them what they wanted to hear, which was how to get signed to a major label. Instead, I offered up some examples of how to go about building an audience in this post-major label era, citing Jonathan Coulton and Geoff Smith.

I also told them something else neither they nor their son really wanted to hear -- that you have to get out there and promote yourself every way you possibly can. The advantage of the Internet is that most of the ways to do this are free. The disadvantage is that they're all labor-intensive.

I was fortunate to get a copy of "The Sun, the Moon & the Sea," the new acoustic album from the Richmond, Virginia-based Mason Brothers. It's a well-crafted album of solid songwriting with some truly inspired arrangements. There's a nice balance between the guitars and the vocals that sit just right.
So how are the Mason Brothers getting the word out about "The Sun, the Moon & the Sky?" They're working the Internet every way they can -- and the results are starting to pay off. If you're looking for the Mason Brothers, you'll easily find them. And that's good -- because as their profile rises, more people will be seeking them out.

In addition to their website, you can also check the Mason Brothers out on Myspace.com. They also have a band blog, entitled "Hood up, Hazards on" to keep the conversation with fans going. And they've worked hard to make their music as available as possible online.

Want a copy of the CD? You can purchase it from CDBaby.com, or Amazon.com.

Prefer digital downloads? Well, you can find them on iTunes and Amazon.com, as well as MP3.com, eFolkMusic.com, and AmieStreet.com. That last one is interesting because bands are promoted on the site through social networking. The tracks start out as free, and as the recommendations and downloads accrue, the price starts to rise until it tops out at 0.99. In other words, the more popular a band is, the more they can earn at Amie Street.

And the Mason Brothers have social networking covered, too. MySpace takes care of some of that, but they're also on OurStage.com, and lastfm.com. You can also find mentions of them at top40-charts.com, mevio.com, MusicDirects.com, mayplay.fm, as well as various blogs.

The band's reaching out another way, too. They've placed some of their music with Youlicense.com, which makes it available for use in movies, TV shows, and other forms of entertainment. And unlike with major label artists, the band gets all the licensing money, not just a small percentage.

Now constructing websites, providing content for blogs and Myspace pages, and getting music registered with all those download sites takes a lot of time and effort. The Mason Brothers have done what's necessary to lay the foundation.

And now the band seems to be moving to the next level of Internet presence. A video of the band was just posted on YouTube. And the post wasn't from the Mason Brothers, it was from the venue, the Gravity Lounge in Charlottesville.



When other people start freely promoting a band, that's when things start to happen. There's still a lot of work for the artist to do, but as more people come on board it gets easier to get the word out. That helps sales increase. And since all the money goes straight to the Mason Brothers (as opposed to 10-12% as it would if they were signed to a major label), the total volume of sales doesn't have to be very large to start generating a nice return on their investment.

And here's the important thing. None of this works if the music isn't good, which is why major label flacks have met with indifferent success with this Interwebtube thing.

The Mason Brothers are very, very, good.

- Ralph

G. Smith and the Special Song

Some well-meaning parents asked recently me how their talented son could break into the music business (me being a record label owner and all, they thought I should know). I outlined some of the strategies artists are using today, such as Jonathan Coulton -- strategies that increasingly don't involve a major label.

They weren't entirely happy with my answers -- they were still thinking that a major label recording contract was the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

For most artists, that's just not going to happen (was ever thus). But that's OK. For the truly creative, there are as many ways to get music out and build an audience as there are URLs on the Internet. Geoff Smith springs to mind.

Geoff Smith is a musician living and working in Nashville, Tennessee. He's a very good songwriter (not uncommon), and a big fan of the "This Week in Tech" podcast (not so common). He wrote a song about his favorite program, and sent it to Leo Laporte, the host, and producer of "This Week in Tech." (TWIT).

Laporte liked it and played the song, "I'm a TWIT." on his podcast (he used it as TWIT's closing theme for the last program). It generated a lot of interest, and a video appeared on YouTube.




Now if you've never heard of TWIT, then all of this probably means nothing. However -- TWIT.TV has almost a half a million regular listeners and about 2.6 million unique downloads of their shows.

Most of that audience heard Geoff Smith's song about their favorite show. I suspect quite a few followed the links from TWIT to his website. Laporte also talked about Geoff Smith's business, Ringtone Feeder, which brought that website to the TWIT audience's attention. And in case anyone missed that particular episode, the blogosphere's been chattering away about the new hit song, "I'm a TWIT, " all with the appropriate links.

"I'm a TWIT's" been viewed over 15,000 times on YouTube (as of this writing), and there's plenty of places you can buy an MP3 of the song, including Amazon and iTunes.

Geoff Smith isn't getting any radio play, nor is he signed to a label, but so what? He's connected with a sizable audience that likes (and potentially will buy) his music. If nothing else, if Smith can keep the conversation going, he should be able to draw some nice crowds when he travels. Perhaps he won't fill stadiums, but audiences should be large enough to make touring profitable.

And consider these numbers. The song sells for $0.99, of which Geoff Smith gets just about $0.99 (less any overhead). If one percent of people who download TWIT purchase the track, that's $26,000 going straight to the artist. And if that number's closer to 5%, then it's more like $100,000 -- and that's major label-sized money.

So now when I'm cornered at parties by hopeful parents, I'll point to Geoff Smith along with Jonathan Coulton. After all -- I'm a TWIT.

- Ralph

Money for Nothing -- the Coulton Conundrum

The story of Jonathan Coulton and his success as a singer-songwriter has been well-documented. He's been featured in the New York Times, inteviewed in Wireless Magazine, profiled on NPR, and been on several podcasts, blogs and other forms of e-media. And yet most of the struggling musicians I talk to have never heard of him.

And that's too bad, because they could learn a lot from Coulton. Much has been made about Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails giving away music as a way to increase interest and therefore sales. The question remains, though, if they could reasonably expect the same massive response if they had not already been well-known acts before their experiments.

Jonathan Coulton started out as a complete unknown, and built his fanbase through an innovative and unusual fashion. He wrote and recorded a song each week for a year and posted it on his website. While you could purchase Coulton's songs, many of them you could also download for free.

Coulton's compositions were protected by a Creative Commons license, which meant others could use them freely for non-commercial purposes as long as he was credited. And people did.

Before the year was over Coulton's music started showing up all over the Internet. Because people could use his material without a lot of complicated licensing, almost 2,000 fan-made music videos were posted on YouTube alone.

Here's one of the many videos made for one of my favorite Coulton tunes "Ikea."



The songs Coulton posted eventually were collected into albums, which are available for sale through normal indie music channels such as CDBaby.com. Coulton toured, and continually played to larger and larger audiences. And his fanbase continues to grow to this day.

His song "Code Monkey" has become an IT anthem.



Recently, he was commissioned to write the closing song for the video game "Portals," which opened up an even wider audience to Coulton's music.



While I'm not suggesting every rising artist should copy Coulton's "Thing a Week" model, there are some takeaways from his career that I think every independent musician should know about.

1. Offer quality content -- If Jonathan Coulton didn't write good songs, he would still be working that day job.
2. Use the tools you have to connect directly with your fans -- The Internet offers many inexpensive ways to reach niche markets. Websites, blogs, podcasts and emails are all good places to start.
3. Keep control of your material, but not too much control -- If you purchase a Coulton song, the artist gets the cash. There's no record company to take the lion's share. And because Coulton allows non-commercial use of his material, his fans have spread it farther and faster than any record label-funded publicity campaign possibly could.

I first heard "Ikea" on a podcast and immediately liked it. When I heard Coulton's version of "Baby Got Back," I started actively looking for his music. I checked out some of his other tunes from his website, and now own some of his albums.

The major record labels consider every shared song a lost sale. For Jonathan Coulton, every shared song set up the potential of another sale. Independent artists need to take note.

And the rest of us just need to listen. These songs are great!

- Ralph

QTrax: TINSTAAFL

Robert Heinlein readers are familiar with the concept of "tinstaafl." Tinstaafl is an acronym for the phrase, "there is no such thing as a free lunch." The concept goes back to the late 1800's when saloons would lay out sandwich fixing and invite patrons to partake of their free lunch. But the lunch was only available to those who purchased, at least, one drink -- which paid for the "free" meal.

Sunday the Internet was all abuzz with an announcement from a new P2P site. The press release from Qtrax trumpeted:

QTRAX LAUNCHES AT MIDEM - FIRST FREE & LEGAL P2P MUSIC SERVICE REINVENTS THE WAY FANS CONSUME DIGITAL MUSIC

Largest Legal Music Catalog Ever Assembled: 25 t0 30 Million Copyrighted Tracks from Majors & Independents

30 million tracks for free? Sounds great -- but remember tinstaafl. The tracks may be "free" in terms of cash, but potential customers pay in terms convenience and privacy.

NOTE: Subsequent news stories revealed that Qtrax hadn't really got all the majors on board, and the whole business seems to be unraveling online. Nevertheless, I still think it's instructive to take a hard look at the Qtrax model, because as long as old school music biz types are in control, this bad idea will just keep coming back.

If you know you have to pay for that free lunch somehow, it's usually not too difficult to find the catch. The Qtrax site is a little short on information -- their "about" page has this, though.

Music lovers can discover new music and legally download full-length, high-quality versions of their favorite songs while compensating both the artists and the record labels through non-intrusive and relevant advertising. [emphasis mine]

Uh-oh. Embedded advertising is never a good sign. Better take a look at their legal disclaimer:

Qtrax is a free, Gnutella-based file sharing software allowing users around the world to make peer-to-peer connections with each other.

OK. So you have to register with Qtrax and download some new software. And what happens when you do?

Any information collected by us is used to communicate with you in order to tailor our products and services to you effectively. We also use your contact details to inform you of any updates to Qtrax, and for the purpose of targeting advertising on behalf of our advertisers. You agree to accept receipt of banner and pop-up advertising only when using the Qtrax application in return for using our free Qtrax file sharing software.

We reserve the right at all times to monitor, review, retain and/or disclose any information as necessary to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or governmental request.

- So what does that mean? What kind of monitoring? And clearly there's no expectation of privacy. They've just said they'll roll over on you if the RIAA comes calling.

You agree that in order for Qtrax to work properly, Qtrax will from time to time automatically download updates to your computer in order to update the Qtrax software. You hereby irrevocably consent to allow such automatic updates to take place.

You know, most programs tell you when updates are available, and you have the option of getting them (or not). This software you've brought into you computer will update itself whether you want it to or not (I wonder how hard this thing is to uninstall).

So the music is free as long as you

1. Install their player which will then be updated automatically (and/or modified) by Qtrax as they desire
2. Give Qtrax your contact info and demographic information for them to sell to advertisers
3. Put up with pop-up ads as you navigate your player
4. Put up with other embedded advertising

There are a few other catches, such as the heavy DRM the files contain that track and report back on your usage to Qtrax, and a mandatory agreement to allow targeted marketing e-mails to come into your mailbox.

This is lunch is not free. And even if it does manage to survive its current trouble, I know I'm not willing to pay the price Qtrax is asking for their free music.

- Ralph

The RIAA and the EFF "If"

The recent white paper report released by the Electronic Frontier Foundation confirmed the obvious -- suing dead people, 12-year olds and others doesn't stop illegal downloading. Nor do extortion letters sent to colleges and universities. Illegal Internet downloading continues to thrive.

The EFF proposes a modest solution: make virtually all music downloading legal, and assess a fee to downloaders. The money would be collected and administered by an agency similar to ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. These agencies collectively represent songwriters and gather performance fees from radio stations, nightclubs, stores and other venues playing music. They then tabulate the frequency of everything played by their clients and divvy up the money collected proportionally.

The EFF has a good idea -- but it doesn't go far enough. I propose that instead of trying to persuade individuals to pay up just make this fee part of the cost of going online. Imagine that one dollar paid by every subscriber to every ISP went to a Download Administration Agency (this would be a non-profit organization, not a government agency). The mandate of the DAA would be to monitor as best it could the transfers and downloads of all copyrighted material, and disburse the money collected to the copyright holders whose intellectual property was being used.

This would cover not only music but images, articles, videos -- any kind of creative content.

The goal would be to ensure that everyone would be paid for the use of their material. I grant that wouldn't happen all the time in practice, but if it could be made to work for most content creators, think of the paradigm shift.

Instead of trying to lock down their content to the point of being virtually unusable, artists would be encouraging folks to enjoy their works -- and share them with others. After all, the more the file is shared, the larger the royalty.

Instead of trying to turn back the clock to the 1980's and alienating their customers in the process, the RIAA could simply enjoy the fruits of its members' labors. The more music downloaded the larger the label's paycheck.

Artists and painters could generate income from simply making their works available on the Internet. Every blog that snags an image for a post means a slightly bigger royalty payment.

The Internet could finally realize its potential to be a free-flowing forum of ideas and creativity.

Someone who loves a band and shares their music with all their friends is currently considered a thief and a pirate by the RIAA. With the DAA, that same person would be actively supporting their favorite band by sharing their music, thereby raising their circulation numbers and thus be seen as a desirable asset by the band's label. Which scenario do you prefer?

OK, there are some technical problems to work out, but with ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC the models are already in place. If the RIAA would face reality and adopt the EFF's proposal, we'd all be heading in the right direction.

(And note to the RIAA -- it's where the money is)

- Ralph

Why skepticism's healthy

Yesterday I received a press release for YourFreeMusicDownloads.com, which appeared to be a ad-based legal music download site. It seemed interesting, so I visited the site.

I tried looking at the new releases, the downloads available, and the catalogue, but all required registration before showing any information. This is a marked contrast to Rhapsody.com, which lets you look through various playlists to check out the variety of their content before requiring registration.

Frustrated at the lack of information, I opened up YourFreeMusicDowload's Terms of Use. That's where things got interesting.

According to the press release,

Your Free Music Downloads.com does not embed ads within the music or before or after each selection. Instead, when registering, users are simply asked to complete a short survey that generates revenue for Your Free Music Downloads.com.

- Seems straightforward enough.

The first clause of the Terms of Use require registration -- fair enough. The second, though, says:

You must tell two or more friends about our website. You must only enter the names and email addresses of people you know and who trust and accept email from you.

- Not mentioned in the press release. Personally, warning bells always go off when I'm required to sell to friends.

While the press release talks about a "short survey," the fifth clause of the Terms of Use gets to the meat of the matter.

5. Verification of Sponsor Offer Participation. Each Sponsor must provide written verification to Your Free Music Downloads.com that you have successfully qualified for and completed that Sponsor's offer. Following Your Free Music Downloads.com receipt of such verification from the last of the requisite number of Sponsors, Your Free Music Downloads.com will send an email message to you asking you to confirm your account registration. The qualification time varies by Sponsor, but may take up to 30 days. In some cases an additional step by you is required to satisfy the Sponsor's qualifications. By way of example... a Sponsor offer for a credit card... may require you to use the credit card to make a purchase, take a cash advance, or transfer a balance, to satisfy the Sponsor's qualifications.

- So in order to get "free" MP3s, you have to accept the promotional offers from several sponsors. In other words, you have to receive and use a credit card, spend money purchasing products, and so on in order for your registration to be validated.

And notice that "Each sponsor music provide...verification" before you have access to the catalog. Based on the language, if you don't participate in all the offers, your registration is invalidated, and no free music for you!

After reading the Terms of Use, I googled "yourfreemusicdownloads" and found, amidst the many repostings of the press release, an article from Wired that confirmed my suspicions.

The moral of this little tale? A little bit of research can save you a whole lot of trouble. It only took me about four minutes to go from reading the initial press release to finding the Wired article. Look before you leap (or click).

- Ralph