“We used to fool ourselves,’ he said. “We used to think our content was perfect just exactly as it was. We expected our business would remain blissfully unaffected even as the world of interactivity, constant connection and file sharing was exploding. And of course we were wrong. How were we wrong? By standing still or moving at a glacial pace, we inadvertently went to war with consumers by denying them what they wanted and could otherwise find and as a result of course, consumers won.”
MacUser: News: Music boss: we were wrong to go to war with consumers

Much of this is very obvious to anyone who has been observing (event glancing at) the Recording Industry during this long debacle. But the fact that Bronfman would change his tune so radically is quite interesting.
That is, of course, if his words have been reported accurately. Which seems to be the case, looking at the transcript of Bronfman Jr.’s speech (PDF).<—a85199270255aa6b0ed891223893dd85—>

The first is a summary of the overall situation for major labels. Including biting commentary which seems quite appropriate. (That piece was also covered by Boing Boing.)

A similar piece was published in Wired a few years ago:
Wired 11.02: The Year The Music Dies
According to that Wired piece, Billboard editor-in-chief (and former editor for Rolling Stone) Timothy White predicted the demise of the record industry before his death in 2002.

The second Rolling Stone compiles several scenarios for the future of the record industry, à la Global Business Network.
Together, a rather clear overall picture of what is going on with and what may happen to the record industry. Plenty of tidbits which should make their way into analysis of the music industry at large.
Of course, there could have been more attention given to actual musicians and the report seems somewhat self-serving for Rolling Stone. Not to mention that the perspective is very much that of large multi-national conglomerates.
A useful read nonetheless.<—9c9903708802dc016273bda0c1c42df9—>

This post represents my own (Alexandre Enkerli’s) personal views and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone at CriticalWorld.<—adb9f2cb44d2840fd025a29ff88330b6—>

• Apple hides account info in DRM-free music, too
  


• Will music industry dance again to Apple’s tune? | CNET News.com
  


• Studies: music industry overstating threat of P2P piracy
  

It now sounds possible that this is the time major labels are starting to “get a clue” about what online activities can bring to them.

For the companies that choose to plow ahead, the question is how to weather the worsening storm. One answer: diversify into businesses that do not rely directly on CD sales or downloads. The biggest one is music publishing, which represents songwriters (who may or may not also be performers) and earns money when their songs are used in TV commercials, video games or other media.

At this point, the project hasn’t really been launched but the main ideas are there.

Personally, I would say that the site is low on features. The tracks themselves are interesting but the “value proposition” of downloading tracks for free on such a relatively simple site may push people toward sites which focus on music communities. Which might be a good thing for independent music.<—75080996242ad97bb6fd653e29121fdd—>

Ironically, with its numerous pirated downloads available, the whole album has not leaked yet. According to a source, the only leaks are the ones Reznor approved himself. And whether he realizes it or not, Reznor may be building a new option for presenting music that augments the existing CD/tour scenario. “It’s not about slapping something on top of an existing experience,” the source says. “It must be its own entity. Make the experience as immersive as possible for fans.”

Nicoli cited internal EMI tests in which higher-quality, DRM-free songs outsold its lower-quality, copy-protected counterparts 10-to-1.

Many people, including Steve Jobs and the Canadian Music Creators Coalition, have been calling for the end of DRM. EMI’s move is a bit less gutzy but it does sound like a move in the right direction, at least from a technological standpoint. Let’s hope Universal, Sony-BMG, and even Edgar Bronfman’s Warner Music will follow suit.<—d8a0b9e0e6800061e3d8af2c4fa06434—>

Bertelsmann settles over naughty Napster | The Register

DMCA architect lambasts music moguls | The Register

Not that these items really prefigure what might happen from this point on, but the winds are slowly shifting.<—908b52d9b89efbf1b3d8cc391c432aa7—><—146c0b37716af8ae3a40e5e01fc09f97—>

(The name of the trophy and some of the comments are a bit vulgar…)

The runner-up was Halliburton. Both the RIAA and Halliburton are well-known for political reasons. Of course, the RIAA is more of a lobby group than a typical company. Yes, they represent the “Big Four,” major labels for recorded music, which work like typical companies (making profits by selling the output of work done by people who have contracts with them). But the RIAA, like WIPO, is something like the network of these Big Four which then tend to represent an oligarchy.

The RIAA’s interactions with “consumers” (The Public) have mostly to do with lawsuits and disinformation campaigns. The RIAA’s main impact on those consumers is a series of copy-protection schemes which make digital management of music less pleasant. Some of the musicians who are represented by the Big Four may have some involvement with the RIAA but, even there, the RIAA is often seen as the problem in music-related industries, not the solution.

So it’s no surprise that the RIAA should be viewed negatively by a majority of people. They’re probably perceived by a very small group of people (executives at the Big Four), even though most label executives (besides our friend Edgar Bronfman Jr.) are realising that they need to adapt to the new conditions (which the RIAA isn’t doing). Apart from that tiny group, the RIAA is not having any positive impact whatsoever. Hence the image problem.

What’s funny is that, if the RIAA members eventually wake up from their torpor, they will still think that the image itself is the problem and will go on a massive campaign to make people think they have done something useful. Not looking at the situation as a whole is what will eventually kill the RIAA.

Not sure who will cry over the loss.

“We can’t think of it as counting unit sales anymore,” said Kenswil. “We have to license … and think like the publishers.”

What remains to be seen is whether this is a desperate strategy of a group of zombies or the announcement of a seachange in the global music industry.

Sony Music and Universal Music Group are marking certain artists of theirs as “prohibited” for sharing

it looks like it’s roughly 40-50 percent of artist that fall under this prohibited banner

Erm… What? You gotta be kidding, right?
How can this beneficial to any artist? Oh, I know! By blocking access to certain artists, you make sure that those who are not blocked get more exposure… Where the plan fails is that Zune is crippled enough from the start that music lovers are unlikely to use it very extensively to help their peers discover music.
Sorry, recording industry. Better luck next time—4e9d4a47862aa0b92f31ab31e8f195b1—>

David Pakman, the C.E.O. of eMusic, said the major labels have watched their revenues decline about $10 billion since a 2001 peak; meanwhile, revenue earned by the independents has held steady. He said his service offers music from 9,800 labels, each of which has embraced downloads in MP3 format. Only four labels still cling to copy protection, even though piracy has not declined, and those are the four major labels.

The same article points to a wireless music subscription service in South Korea which allows users to listen to music for $5 a month. It would be interesting to know more about that service and its effects on local music.
As mentioned before, the “Fair-Trade Music” site CalabashMusic.com applies no restriction to the audio files they sell. In a context in which major music labels are getting burnt by DRM, it is in fact possible that independent labels might eventually win big, which could mean a lot in terms of music diversity.

If you purchase a track with Microsoft® Points, you can sync it to your Zune, rip it to a CD, or even send it to a friend’s Zune so they can see if they like it.[1]

[1] The Zune to Zune sharing feature may not be available for all audio files on your device, and works only between Zune devices within wireless range of each other. This feature allows recipients to play full-length sample tracks up to 3 times in 3 days. Recipients cannot re-send music that they have received via the sharing feature.

There you have it.

POUR DIFFUSION IMMÉDIATE

Montréal, le 12 octobre 2006

Le 21 octobre 2006, certains des plus importants musiciens de la scène montréalaise participeront à un concert gala visant à célébrer le 10e anniversaire de La Scena Musicale. Cet événement unique s’annonce comme l’un des moments forts de la saison musicale de Montréal. En tout, 77 musiciens présenteront 4 heures de musique allant du baroque au jazz, en passant par les répertoires classique, romantique et contemporain, ainsi que l’opéra.

La première moitié de la soirée sera réservée à la musique de chambre : le duo Les Voix humaines interprétera la musique de Sainte-Colombe ; le violoncelliste Denis Brott se joindra au pianiste Wonny Song dans un programme Beethoven ; le pianiste Patrice Laré jouera Liszt ; Paul Merkelo, trompette solo de l’OSM, improvisera en compagnie du pianiste Alexandre Vovan, qui interprétera également Chopin ; la soprano Nathalie Paulin chantera des mélodies françaises de Cécile Chaminade et Pauline Viardot accompagnée du pianiste Michael McMahon ; le Quatuor Molinari interprétera Tan Dun, et Musica Camerata présentera un duo de Piazzolla. Cette première partie se conclura avec un programme jazz de trente minutes durant lequel la pianiste Lorraine Desmarais et son ancienne élève Marianne Trudel joueront en solo et en duo.

Afin de souligner le 250e anniversaire de Mozart, la musique de ce dernier sera à l’honneur durant la seconde partie de la soirée, dédiée à des œuvres pour soliste et orchestre. Le chef Joseph Milo dirigera l’Orchestre symphonique des musiciens du monde de Montréal, un ensemble fondé en 2006 afin de donner aux musiciens immigrants l’opportunité de jouer, dans la Symphonie no 41 et l’ouverture du Mariage de Figaro de Mozart. Le pianiste Ludwig Sémerjian jouera le Rondo pour piano et orchestre en la majeur de Mozart, à la mémoire de son professeur Charles Reiner, alors que la soprano Nathalie Paulin interprétera l’air « Dove sono » du Mariage de Figaro. La violoniste Anne Robert se joindra à l’OMMM dans des pages célèbres de Tchaïkovski, Raff, Kreisler et Brahms, la violoncelliste Velitchka Votcheva interprétera Kol Nidrei de Bruch, et la soirée se conclura avec le finale du Concerto pour piano no 3 de Beethoven interprété par Wonny Song.

Le Gala 10e anniversaire du 21 octobre s’inscrit dans les célébrations du 10e anniversaire de La Scena Musicale et marque le début de sa campagne de financement 2006-2007. Le numéro commémoratif du 10 e anniversaire de La Scena Musicale, paru en octobre 2006, peut-être téléchargé au http://www.scena.org .

Les billets pour le Gala sont en vente au coût de 35 $ (25 $ pour les étudiants). Des billets VIP sont également disponibles à 130 $, incluant un reçu fiscal de 100 $, tirages de prix, buffet et réception. On peut se procurer des billets en communiquant directement avec La Scena Musicale au 514-948-2520, la billetterie McGill au 514-398-5145 ou sur le réseau Admission (les billets VIP sont disponibles uniquement en communiquant avec LSM).

Pour les biographies des musiciens et davantage d’information : http://www.scena.org/pdf-files/sm12-2gala.pdf

Propositions de sujets

Gala 10e anniversaire. Pourquoi les musiciens ont accepté de jouer gratuitement pour aider La Scena Musicale à amasser des fonds?

La Scena Musicale. Le magazine sans but lucratif fait la promotion de la musique classique et du jazz depuis 10 ans.

Entrevue avec Wah Keung Chan, rédacteur fondateur et éditeur. Quelle est la motivation derrière le magazine?

À propos du gala

Dimanche le 21 octobre 2006

Salle Pollack, Université McGill, 555 Sherbrooke O., Montréal

Partie A : 17 h 00 à 19 h 00

Partie B : 20 h 00 à 22 h 15

Billets : 35 $ (25 $ pour les étudiants)

Billets VIP : 130 $, incluant une réception de 19 h à 20 h, un buffet de desserts après le gala B et un reçu fiscal de 100 $.

Info : 514-948-2520 ou info@scena.org

Pour commander des billets: info@scena.org

Musiciens invités

• Orchestre symponique des musiciens du monde de Montréal, Joseph Milo, chef
• Anne Robert, violon
• Suzie LeBlanc, soprano
• Nathalie Paulin, soprano
• Quatuor Molinari
• Lorraine Desmarais, piano (jazz)
• Marianne Trudel, piano (jazz)
• Ludwig Sémerjian, piano
• Wonny Song, piano
• Denis Brott, violoncelle
• Les Voix humaines, duo baroque
• Paul Merkelo, trompette et Alexandre Vovan, piano
• Michael McMahon, accompagnateur (piano)

Pour les biographies des musiciens et davantage d’information : http://www.scena.org/pdf-files/sm12-2gala.pdf

Tirages pour les titulaires de billets VIP

• Œuvre originale encadrée (valeur de 600 $) de l’artiste Ann McCall

• Œuvre originale encadrée (valeur de 550 $) de l’artiste Wah Wing Chan

• 3 consultations en design d’intérieur (valeur de 180 $), gracieuseté de L’interior Studio

• 2 romans d’Alain Cavenne signés par l’auteur

Programme détaillé

Partie A, 17 h

Sieur de Sainte-Colombe, Concerts à deux violes esgales, « L’attentif », « Les Couplets »
Les Voix humaines (Susie Napper et Margaret Little, violes de gambe)

Ludwig van Beethoven, Sept Variations sur un thème de Die Zauberflöte de Mozart
Ludwig van Beethoven, Sonate no 3 en la majeur, opus 69 (Adagio cantabile et Allegro vivace)
Denis Brott, violoncelle et Wonny Song, piano

Franz Liszt, Valse Méphisto no 1
Patrice Laré, piano

Jacques Ibert, Impromptu
Improvisation sur Nana de Manuel de Falla
Paul Merkelo, trompette et Alexandre Vovan, piano

Frédéric Chopin, Quatrième Ballade
Alexandre Vovan, piano

Cécile Chaminade, Si j’étais jardinier
Cécile Chaminade, La lune paresseuse
Pauline Viardot, Hai luli
Nathalie Paulin, soprano et Michael McMahon, piano

Tan Dun, Eight Colours for String Quartet
Quatuor Molinari

Astor Piazzolla, Prepárense & Oblivion
Musica Camerata, Luis Grinhauz, violon et Berta Rosenohl, piano

Lorraine Desmarais, piano jazz
Marianne Trudel, piano jazz
Lorraine Desmarais et Marianne Trudel en duo

Partie B, 20 h

Mozart, Ouverture, Mariage de Figaro
Tchaikovsky, Melody
Raff, Cavatina
Anne Robert, violin

Mozart, Rondo pour piano et orchestre en la majeur
Ludwig Sémerjian, piano

Mozart, Symphonie no 41 (Jupiter)

Rossini, Overture, Barbier de Séville

Massenet, méditation de Thais (Tatiana Smirnov, violon solo de l’orchestre)

Bruch, Kol Nidrei
Velitchka Votcheva, violoncelle

Mozart, « Dove Sono » (Mariage de Figaro)
Nathalie Paulin, soprano

Kreisler, Liebeslied
Brahms, Danse hongroise no 2 (arr. Gilles Bellemare)
Anne Robert, violon

Beethoven, Concerto pour piano no 3, 3e mouvement
Wonny Song, piano

Orchestre symphonique des musiciens du monde de Montréal
Joseph Milo, chef

• programme sujet à changement

pour plus d’information, contacter info@scena.org, 514-948-2520, 514-815-0465

À propos de La Scena Musicale , guide canadien de la musique classique

La Scena Musicale est un magazine mensuel gratuit publié en français et en anglais par La Scène Musicale, un organisme sans but lucratif voué à la promotion de la musique classique. Chaque numéro contient un calendrier des concerts du mois, des critiques, des entrevues, des profils d’artistes et des articles traitant de différents aspects de la scène musicale locale, nationale et internationale.

La version imprimée est distribuée à travers le Canada, avec une emphase particulière dans les régions de Montréal, Québec et Ottawa-Hull. La version électronique est disponible sur l’Internet.

À propos de La Scena Musicale Online (http://www.scena.org)

Publié par La Scène Musicale, un organisme sans but lucratif voué à la promotion de la musique classique, La Scena Musicale Online est un des plus importants sites Internet dédiés à la musique classique. Il propose du contenu original (entrevues, articles, critiques), le Calendrier canadien de la musique classique, ClassicalMusicNews.info (des liens vers des articles parus dans des publications canadiennes et internationales) et Communiqués LSM (communiqués relatifs à la musique classique, de partout au monde). La Scena Musicale Online a été un des premiers sites Web a offrir en ligne l’intégralité du contenu de son magazine imprimé, et ce en formats html et PDF.

Dans son numéro de février 2000, la revue Chamber Music Magazine a choisi La Scena Musicale Online comme troisième meilleur site Web sur la musique au monde. Dans son édition spéciale sur Internet de mai 2000, Le Monde a choisi La Scena Musicale Online comme deuxième meilleur site Web sur la musique classique, lui attribuant 4 étoiles sur 4, un honneur réservé à seulement deux sites. Le magazine français Best on Web (no 8, juillet 2001) a sélectionné La Scena Musicale Online comme l’un des 500 meilleurs sites Web au monde. En décembre 2001, La Scena Musicale Online a été choisi par le London Daily Telegraph comme l’un des meilleurs sites sur la musique.

On peut accéder à La Scena Musicale Online par les noms de domaine scena.org, lascenamusicale.org et ClassicalMusicNews.info.

À propos de La Scène Musicale

La Scène Musicale est un organisme sans but lucratif voué à la promotion de la musique classique. Nos activités comprennent:

Seems like Calabash Music’s "Fair-Trade Music" concept has been on my mind lately. A bit of context…

I had mentioned Calabash Music here before. It’s an online music store which specialises in what people tend to call "World Music." I have been downloading their free singles for quite a while but haven’t yet purchased music from the service. I do hope that Madou Diarra and Dakan (the band in which I play) will sell its music through Calabash Music.

Yesterday, after having listened to a podcast about online music stores which sell tracks without copy protection, I posted an entry right here and another on my personal blog. Though I didn’t mention Calabash Music specifically, it was clearly at the back of my mind when I wrote one of my crazier posts about music, coffee, beer, and glocalisation.

Thinking about it a bit more, and thanks to fellow Critical World member Pascal, I now feel that this concept of "fair-trade music" is especially relevant for Critical World, whose mission is to Think Globalisation Through Music.

Through a cursory look at Calabash Music’s Q&A for musicians and Artist Terms of Agreement, it does seem like they care about artists. IANAL but it does sound like their conditions are rather "good for artists." This part is rather telling:

Q. How does the money work?

A. Our customers may purchase downloads of your music at a price range between 75 and 99 cents per song. Your music is sold by the downloadable track. You will receive 50% of the net revenues from your music downloads sold. Net revenues are determined as the gross revenues less merchant fees. Artists can expect to earn an average of 44 cents per track sold. We pay you four times a year (every quarter) for your downloads. (If the amount we owe you is less than $50 then we will hold the amount until the amount is greater than $50.) We give you an account with a user name and password that allows you to look at reports of how many downloads your songs have received and how much money you have earned.

Apart from the actual royalty structure, the very fact that Calabash Music prominently displays this explanation on their website implies a direct relationship with artists. You get the impression that you don’t even need an agent to sell music through Calabash Music. Of course, agents are still extremely important for artists but in this "fair-trade" model, they don’t hold all the cards. Because coffee is the best-known case for fair-trade, the notion of a "direct relationship coffee" is quite appropriate here:

Absolution in Your Cup. The real meaning of Fair Trade coffee

Farmers were being squeezed by middlemen, known as coyotes, so that even the dismal profits from cheap mass-produced coffee failed to reach them. Growers lacked basic information about what their crop was worth, how to maximize production, and how to market their beans, and it was to the coyotes’ advantage to keep it that way. Fair Traders, by contrast, sought a direct relationship between coffee farmers and coffee drinkers: clean, just, transparent transactions.

In "fair-trade music," the agent is less of a middleman and more of a consultant, helping artists to negotiate deals in their own terms. Calabash Music serves as middleman to a certain extent but mostly as a distributor, not as a gatekeeper. The notion is that this model is more ethical than "free-trade" because it gives control to those who produce what is being sold. It’s especially compelling an idea in a global context. Musicians from around the Globe are able to sell their own music to listeners from around the Globe. Control is distributed, to a certain extent.

One of the most basic characteristics of fair-trade coffee is that there is a floor price ($1.26/lbs.) for green coffee beans. Calabash Music’s royalty scheme uses a similar principle in that musicians are getting a "fair share" of the profits, allegedly much higher than the net artist royalty on other online music stores. It undercuts the law of supply and demand to ensure that those who did the work get a "fair share." Of course, this "fair share" is decided by the "fair trade system" itself. In anti-globalization/alter-mondialisme terms, those in "developing countries" still get their business decisions made by those in "industrial countries." But to the consumer, buying "fair-trade" seems like "the ethical thing to do": selling a clear conscience at a premium.

Of course, not all is good with "fair-trade."

You’d think this confluence of social responsibility and double lattes, good business practices and lefty politics, would make [coffee activist] Katzeff a happy man. But he and a growing number of roasters say the Fair Trade movement has lost its way. The movement has always aroused suspicion on the right, where free traders object to its price floors and anti-globalization rhetoric. Yet critics from the left are more vocal and more angry by half; they point to unhappy farmers, duped consumers, an entrenched Fair Trade bureaucracy, and a grassroots campaign gone corporate.

Calabash Music is too small to get the same treatment as TransFair (the regulatory body for fair-trade coffee in the U.S.). But it doesn’t mean that the disadvantages of the fair-trade model won’t hit the music industry.

There are major differences between "fair-trade coffee" and a fair-trade model applied to music. One is that, contrary to coffee, music is not a commodity. In the online distribution of audio files, supply is unlimited in that you don’t suddenly run out of a specific MP3 file. Online distribution is still costly, but the costs scale much differently from the distribution of physical goods.

A related issue is that "music consumption" is affordable, almost anywhere on the planet. While coffee growers may be too poor to afford brewed coffee, the poorest musician in Mali can listen to music. There is a huge imbalance between The Rich and The Poor, between The Core and The Periphery, but this imbalance cannot be described in a similar way.

The injustice in music has a lot to do with issues in what so-called "Intellectual Property." An important dimension of an "ethical" music model would be that it doesn’t prevent music listeners from privately using music as they wish. Ethical music would also ensure that musicians are the ones who get the better part of the profits instead of large-scale pirates, producers, or retailers. The whole "protect the artists" stance, applied to the actual artists (not the record labels). A new business model which actually compensates musicians for their work. That, most might agree, would be fair.

Though some music productions may sound indistinguishable from one another, music is quite distinctive. While some coffee consumers may not care about the coffee they drink, music listeners select music according to their tastes. With this distinctiveness comes a sense of "brand," to think in marketing terms, but also a sense of shared experience. Fans of a given Indie Rock band may feel a bond which can extend far beyond the "consumption" of the music. In coffee, even the most enthusiastic connoisseur will never remain loyal to a single type of coffee bean or even a single coffee "origin." In globalised music, a Polish accountant can become fanatic about an Argentinian band the same way a Thai mechanic can listen to Canadian singer Céline Dion.

So it is possible that Calabash Music may benefit from the "fair-trade mentality" without being hit from the disadvantages. Simply thinking about the connections between globalised markets may give us the key.

“The tecno-brega DJ’s usually acknowledge in their live presentations the presence of people from various neighborhoods, and this acknowledgement is of great value to the audience, leading thousands of buy copies of the recorded live presentation.”

In honour of the Day Against DRM, Cory Doctorow appeared on CNET’s The Real Deal podcast with Tom Merritt. Doctorow mentioned Tecno Brega in his discussion of DRM and the notion that those artists are not discouraging others from getting paid by selling recordings of their music. Like radio in other contexts, inexpensive recordings are promotional items for these artists. Contrary to radio, this promotion is done without control from labels (in a payola or other playlist scheme).
What strikes me even more, though, is the phenomenon of mentioning neighborhoods in these recordings. As is the case with hunters associations in Mali, musical acknowledgement represents a cultural value which may, in turn, bring about commercial value. In fact, in Mali, people who sponsor performance events for the hunters associations are often people linked to hunters without being hunters themselves. They simply want the musicians to talk about them.
Who said that Jessica Simpson’s customized “A Public Affair” was innovative?<—8aaefc15baed3937bf76d099efce10ac—>

Here goes:

About two years ago, when the iPod was The One True Ring of must-have tech
toys, there was an interesting NYT article I read (I think in the Sunday Magazine section) that mentioned that the reverse was more intentionally true: within Apple, it was the iTunes Store’s purpose to lure more iPod buyers.

In a different direction, those who survive only on the crutch of DRM seem to be having little problem getting all our devices reengineered to
forcibly respect DRM. (I’ve heard stories that they’ll even require “DRM data” to be policed even at the bus level.)

On the other hand, these two points notwithstanding, A causally benefitting B does not seem to contradict B causally benefitting A. I of course don’t think it’s unreasonable to observe that the iPod in turn helps people become used to having DRM present in their everyday lives.

I’ll say right out that I wish I had better concrete suggestions, other than that the current laws and interpretations are on an untenable course
that will eventually require too much regulation and restriction. Here’s what I have for now.

What is necessary in order to generate a profit in music, art, or any medium? There seem to be two dominant costs to offset: the production
itself, and the marketing that attracts people to willingly give their money in exchange for some sort of access to the product. I have comments
about both of these, which apply almost equally well to both the mainstream American music and movie industries.

The second item, marketing, seems to be the more obvious failure of the current system. Music company spokespeople routinely explain how “it
costs more and more money now to get people to buy an album”. They don’t seem to consider (publicly, at least) that they could be trying ways that are more effective for their target consumers. I stretch to find a common analogy, but it’s like doing any old task inefficiently and dumping more and more resources into it in a way that’s not really helping, and making
it everyone’s problem that you’re not more openminded. Most people to whom music is marketed happen to be younger-than-median, too. These people know how to use the Internet, and are more susceptible to new
routes of information spreading. Why not foster people’s natural information sharing that we are now witnessing, instead of using the old
model of injecting advertisements into our field of view?

The first seems simpler. It doesn’t take a huge contract or huge production budget to attract an artist, but more a contract that offers a decent living and means to produce. Focus more on musical talents that produce larger amounts of work and experimentation, instead of some giant
rock band that puts out one album every 2-3 years. Do people have any memory that people used to be musicians as a day-in-day-out job, and not just while occasionally “recording” and frequently “on tour”? Contrast the musical output of said rock band with that of any average jazz musician, or even with the output of pop acts in the late 1950s and early 1960s. If your community is more interconnected, and information is more conveniently available for people, the extra quantity of output will not become more confusing in your attempts to advertise it to people.

These things said, I suggest harvesting grass-roots music sharing and community building, with means to pay the artists built into the system so people have less disincentive to do so. Try to ecourage and reward communities that have interest in an artist as a means of building loyalty—-this might be much less expensive than present marketing. If
the quantity of music is higher, there will be less squabling over the payment over individual items. Make the incomes of the artists, or their
earnings for each piece, public. It will show people that the music comes at a cost, and give people incentives to pay artists directly for their
work. Also, in this model, artists can freelance agencies to try to find community promotion of their work, instead of being dependent on a record label for promotion and distribution. Dot dot dot.

Something like this will get coded up eventually by someone, and I wouldn’t be surprised of a large (non-)consortium of independent artists
sprang up to use it. The question I haven’t answered is how fiscally viable it can be made.

With regards to the movie industry, well, some things don’t ranslate over quite right, but in spirit much does. Focus less on the larger, less
rewarding, to-be-blockbusters movies, which seem to yield so little profit on top of the investment, and often so much loss. Film is harder to produce in quantity than music is, I admit.. but independent film seems to
be viable these days in any case. Again, I don’t really have the clearest picture.

Those are some thoughts. I’ll try to stop here, so that I don’t repeat myself, and so that I don’t get too much more overboardly idealistic.
Bottom line: there are other ways of trying to do business, that the big consortia seem to have chosen not to seriously explore, but which might
actually be beneficial for a large number of artists if they give it a try. (Or, which might not be.)

Via Slashdot. The RIAA has insufficient evidence against at least one of the people it has brought to trial.

More importantly, where is there money for musicians? In contracts to produce albums? In connection with commerical “social network sites?” In tours? In contracts with television shows? In providing jingles for television commercials? In providing samples for specific uses (such as ringtones)? In teaching music? In composing music for movies? In mixing previously recorded music? In small shows at coffee shops? In grants from the Canada Council? In research on diverse aspects of music? In musical accompaniment to diverse activities? In preparing musical content to be used by would-be musicians? In donations from rich patrons pleased to be sung? In association with political, religious, or social groups?
Is there really a single answer?

No, music isn’t a commodity. But many musicians want to earn a wage directly from their work in music. A “record deal” isn’t the only way to do it.
Of course, other people (more numerous than many seem to think) make music for other reasons. From the parent singing a lullaby to a postal worker whistling a tune at work, music is a lot of things to a lot of people. Not that the financial aspect is unimportant. But the money which relates directly with the “music industry” is clearly but a fraction of what music really represents for the world.<—9b6e25df7bfc59d116b29f46a825d2fb—>

Wonder what Bronfman has to say about this…<—6d502746ab48791678da7cdd428eac58—>

As part of JSTOR’s mission to create an archive of scholarly literature and extend access to the archive as broadly as possible, we are proud to announce that JSTOR has adopted a plan to waive participation fees for any academic or not-for-profit institution on the continent of Africa. This plan affects new participants, as well as institutions that currently participate in JSTOR.

JSTOR is one of the most important electronic repositories of academic articles. It covers a wide range of journals from most academic disciplines and from a long period of time. While Internet access itself is often costly in Africa, this could greatly benefit the collaboration between African scholars and their colleagues outside of Africa.<—ca683579eef4251bb63f423e9db9501b—>

Under a blanket (or ‘compulsory’ license) for consumer downloads, record labels fear they would lose control of their hard-fought grip on physical distribution channels, and lose control over pricing. In fact, they’d simply have to work harder to gain a bigger share of the pie, and innovate to find new outlets for their copyrighted material.

the staff at the RIAA are thoughtful, good people who work hard to protect their constituency

Steven makes the case that record labels still need to learn that music is not a commodity, and marketing it in that way alienates fans who view it in an almost spiritual sense. Music is a touchstone in our lives – it’s the soundtrack of our past, tied directly to our emotions and memories. The impression of fans is that the recording industry wants to control what most people consider to be something very personal.

Page is part of the Canadian Music Creators Coalition which has a simple message based on three principles:

1. Suing Our Fans is Destructive and Hypocritical


2. Digital Locks are Risky and Counterproductive


3. Cultural Policy Should Support Actual Canadian Artists

Members of that coalition include such disparate musicians as Chantal Kreviazuk, Sam Roberts, Avril Lavigne, and Sarah McLachlan. While this coalition’s meant as a movement for Canadian artists, its message goes much further than Canadian exceptionalism.
Material available on the site and press coverage of the movement is surprisingly insightful and clear. While they may oversimplify some issues, their voice is loud and clear.

if anyone played a riff – an identifiable piece of music – he was in breach of copyright and was breaking the law.

That might be the reason there’s a sign prohibiting Stairway to Heaven from being played in Wayne’s World! <—eff952777ceb343f1e2ad3ab06b88ac1—>

We do live in interesting times.

Edit (New URL): One Man’s Opinion » The Stupidest Person in the Media Industry?

in the business world, they don’t call him a schmuck. They call him “the movie industry’s official idiot”, “little more than a patsy”, “the worst market timer in the history of business”, “the most desperate billionaire around these days” (note: he made his money the old fashioned way: he inherited it), and finally “possibly the stupidest person in the media business”.

Strong words.<—09f569f901e47c1c497c71c8db79a03f—>

publicity and marketing in the U.S. for “world music”

Based in Bloomington, Ind., a small and ethnomusicology-friendly publicity/marketing firm specialized in “world music” and related genres.

Does such marketing help musical diversity?<—4014af770eeea26ddb6f40067959219d—>

From “The World’s First Fair Trade Music Company,” some potentially very interesting music.
Also linked to a blog and, supposedly, giving back to artists.<—9e25b5adb2830584f761a230750f00ff—>

Granted, community radios aren’t new and CHSR isn’t the only radio “providing a voice to people who don’t normally have access to a medium like a Class-A radio station.”
Yet it’s interesting to think about the “Glocal” nature of today’s community radios. As several of these stations are available online, the “glocal” effect may be stronger. It just so happens that I (Alexandre) lived (briefly) in Fredericton and though I wasn’t listening to radio at that point, I could end up listening to CHSR out of nostalgia, the same way I occasionally read something in Here Magazine (New Brunswick’s free alternative weekly).

Given the mergers and acquisitions among the big players, most radio stations in North America are owned by a handful of media conglomerates. What’s specific about this piece is that it specifically mentions musical diversity, which seems underrepresented on radio stations owned by conglomerates.

Clearly, radio stations are changing and radio personalities are noticing.
What do these mean for musical diversity? Possibly not much. But it seems clear that processes of musical diversification parallel globalist tendencies among media companies.

On the other hand, some are already trying to profit from podcasting .

once we’re even, it can go free

exploiting the niches, and offering consumers more freedom

The [British] government wants to extend copyright laws to ensure pop songs are protected for almost twice as long as the current 50 years.<—1245f5eea80719d1e3dbdffd47f3e34f—>