Andy Gagliano [dot] com

Steve Jobs Reviews Music in iTunes

Andy Gagliano — 2009-01-28T23:37:17-06:00

Like many fellow Los Angeleans I first heard of The Asteroids Galaxy Tour when they were introduced on KCRW, a fantastic public radio station based out of Santa Monica College. Hailing from Denmark, the band came to play some of their music from their recent album simply titled “Fruit”. I loved the sonic character of the album, and the single called “Around the Bend” immediately became a new favorite of mine. So last year when Apple used the song in their commercial for the new Apple iPod touch, I was pleasantly surprised. Of course after reading the lyrics, it’s really no surprise at all. The second verse reads, “Pick a fruit, let me be your apple.”

Recently I decided to pick up the entire album from the iTunes store. But as I glanced through the reviews, something interesting caught my eye. A review posted on December 10, 2008 reads, “Fits the Vision of the Funnest iPod Ever. Personally chosen. Best, Steve.”

I’m happy to know that Apple’s CEO Steve Jobs participate in iTunes store reviews. We already know that he has good taste in music when he chose the song in the first place. And there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that this is Steve’s genuine signature. On several occasions we have seen that he signs his letters, emails, and memos with “Best, Steve”. And a well chosen song it is, Mr. Jobs!

Check out The Asteroids Galaxy Tour.
Tune-in to KCRW.

The Pirate Bay's Message About Piracy

Andy Gagliano — 2009-02-20T14:34:46-06:00

Piracy Schmiracy. The Money is in the Tour

Andy Gagliano — 2009-06-22T20:25:10-05:00

“Piracy is killing music!” they say. But as far as I can tell, that’s only true when an artist’s earnings come exclusively in the form of music sales. The numbers don’t lie, and they couldn’t be more obvious. And so it is. Long gone are the days when artists make the majority of their income from album sales. Today, it’s all about touring and merchandising.

Earlier this year, Billboard published this list which outlines the “Top Moneymakers for 2009”

Madonna: $242,176,466
Bon Jovi: $157,177,766
Bruce Springsteen: $156,327,964
The Police: $109,976,894
Celine Dion: $99,171,237
Kenny Chesney: $90,823,990
Neil Diamond: $82,174,000
Rascall Flatts: $63,522,160
Jonas Brothers: $62,638,814
Coldplay: $62,175,555
The Eagles: $61,132,213
Lil Wayne: $57,441,334
AC/DC: $56,505,296
Michael Buble: $50,257,364
Miley Cyrus: $48,920,806
Taylor Swift: $45,588,730
Journey: $44,787,328
Billy Joel: $44,581,010
Mary J. Blige: $43,472,850
Kanye West: $42,552,402

All of the artists above toured throughout 2008. And according to Billboard, the majority of their revenue came from touring alone. Yet many of these artists had better numbers than the year before. This is particularly interesting, given that 2008 brought some of the most dismal music sales figures in history. While Madonna tops the list, she actually had only the 50th best-selling album in the country. Clearly, the money is in the tour. But it’s not just ticket sales; don’t forget about all of the merchandising (which I rarely partake in) that brings in more dough than Madonna could shake a stick at.

Over time I have grown to accept that artists, whether signed to a major label or independent, can no longer rely on their music sales alone for profit. And don’t get tripped up by the typical CD/MP3 debate. The format really has nothing to do with rate of music sales when anyone can pirate music from the web. No matter what the format, it’s simply getting harder to sell music. It’s something that many of us who make a living in the music industry are having a hard time learning to accept.

There’s something that independent artists can learn from the big leagues here. While signed acts (what few there are) have the benefit of a cash advance, independents have to shell out all of the initial production costs from their own pockets. These costs include studio time, replication, distribution, music videos, and so on. And let’s not forget about plenty of legal assistance along the way, not to mention several other unforeseen costs. Many artists break the bank for these expenses with the intent to make up for it in music sales. But unless your band is from the “Top Moneymakers” list above, you should probably avoid this business model. So let’s just say that, hypothetically, you are on that list? It’s important to recognize that even Madonna has learned that the money is in the tour.

And so I’m going to propose a more realistic objective for artists: shift your investments (and focus) toward touring sooner rather than later. Instead of breaking the bank on unnecessary production costs in the beginning, artists should make an honest attempt to minimize the upfront outgoing cash. You can be sure that you’re giving yourself the best chance of financial survival, rather than relying on the day when you “make it big” on record sales. Because at this rate, that day may never come...even if you’re Madonna.

Source: Billboard

Nominations for the 56th Golden Reel Awards

Andy Gagliano — 2009-01-25T21:14:11-06:00

Every year the Motion Picture Sound Editors organization puts on the MPSE Golden Reel Awards, which is an opportunity to recognize and honor the year's best achievements in sound editing including dialogue and ADR, effects, foley, and music.

And just as I was expecting, the 2009 MPSE Career Achievement Award will be presented to legendary sound designer Ben Burtt. His recent work on Disney/Pixar's WALL-E was an incredible performance. As of today, the 2009 MPSE Filmmaker's Award has not yet been announced.

This year's ceremony will be held on February 21 at the Westin Bonaventure Hotel & Suites, 404 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90071. To attend the show, anyone can make a reservation by downloading the invitation & reply card from the MPSE website.

View the 56th Golden Reel Award Nominees:
2009 Feature Film Nominees
2009 Television Nominees
2009 Other Nominees

Winter NAMM '09 Pick: Primacoustic Machine Room

Andy Gagliano — 2009-01-21T17:08:04-06:00

With audio production moving into the digital age, the computer has become a more common piece of equipment in our studios over the last 20 years. Now today, it's hard to find a studio that isn't entirely driven by a computer with a DAW at the heart of every operation. It's a truly beautiful thing.

But with the introduction of desktop computer towers, external hard drives, and anything else that uses fans to keep things cool, we have a big problem: noise. In most work environments, the noise is really nothing more than a minor annoyance to most people. But in situations where the quality of your listening experience is critical, that noise quickly becomes a much bigger problem.

So what can we do to keep the extra noise to a minimum? Enter the "isolation box". With this little contraption, you could fit all of your noisy equipment into an insulated box and keep it quiet. Of course, this leads to a problem with heat build-up. The answer to this issue is to find the perfect balance between total acoustic isolation and cooling mechanisms, along with some strategically placed temperature monitoring devices. Additionally, we have to account for any cabling that has to go in (or out) of the box. And of course, any holes in the box introduces additional noise leakage.

There has been a barrage of homemade designs introduced over the years for these isolation boxes, several of which have been seen roaming around the web in blogs and on discussion forums. This is a wonderful solution to the noise problem, but it requires you to have some basic carpentry and electrical wiring skills. And for some of us, there's just not enough time to build it right, or we just don't want to deal with it. Luckily, there have been some commercial designs to make it to the market, such as the ever-popular Sound Construction & Supply's IsoBox series. While these designs take care of the hard work for us, they're usually a bit on the expensive side. A simple bare-bones model starts around $1,500. With larger sizes and custom additions, the IsoBox can begin to look more like $2,700 or more. Yikes!

Although initially introduced at the 125th Audio Engineering Society conference last October, Primacoustic had their newest solution to this noisy problem on display again at this year's Winter NAMM show. The Primacoustic Machine Room is a new cost-effective option for noisy environments. The enclosure utilizes a unique three-chamber design that takes advantage of the natural convection process to maintain consistent air-flow and a cool temperature. The Machine Room is also outfitted with some great technology, including a variable-speed fan control, an LED power indicator that provides information about the exhaust system, and a wireless thermometer. And Primacoustic didn't stop there. They paid extra special attention to the use of rubberized foam and neoprene at every port, ensuring the best isolation with air-tight seals. They even included a heavy Plexiglass door so you can keep an eye on all your gear inside. Primacoustic claims that the Machine Room will reduce noise levels by more than 20 dB depending on the frequency. And to keep costs down, everything ships flat for assembly, which only takes about an hour.

Now for the best part. How much does this little hot box cost? Try a cool $599. I'm getting one immediately.

MIX Magazine has a great video demonstration of the Machine Room from AES 2008, and my friends over at GearWire also have a great video here.

As of today, Primacoustic has no official information about the Machine Room on their website. Come on guys, it's been over three months! Interestingly though, they have a nifty paper on their website called "Reducing Computer Noise in the Studio" which outlines the process of building a noise-isolation box for yourself.

Winter NAMM '09 Pick: Korg microKORG XL

Andy Gagliano — 2009-01-22T16:43:00-06:00

The original microKORG has seen continued success as the world's best-selling synthesizer. I own one of these great little synths, and it has been one of the greatest sources of consistent inspiration in the studio. The design is brilliantly simply, the sound is nothing short of excellent, and the original $399 price tag is like the icing on the cake. And now, much to my excitement, Korg has released a new generation to their microKORG line called the microKORG XL.

The sound engine of this instant classic uses MMT (Multi-Modeling Technology), which is a direct transplant from the hearts of Korg's RADIAS and R3 synthesizers. The built-in effects processor is based on Korg's acclaimed KAOSS line. And just as the original microKORG does, the new XL model features a vocoder (with included gooseneck microphone) and a new six-pattern arpeggiator. The keyboard design has received a major facelift too, featuring better-proportioned keys with enhanced response for better playability. And since this synth has been souped up with retro styling, the interface is super simple too, with big knobs dedicated to choosing preset patches, DJ-style flip-switches, and a classic white on black chassis design.

The bold design changes that we see with the new microKORG XL show a new, almost classy side of Korg that I really like. The updated design of the XLR gooseneck microphone is a great step in the right direction; the original microphone wasn't anything more than a glorified desktop computer microphone with an 1/8" plug (like the kind that used to ship with PCs back in the early 90s for free).

Besides the unique design of the original microKORG, it was the sound quality alone that sold me. And judging by the clips I've seen and heard from the NAMM show already, this synth promises to deliver even more of that great sonic punch. You can be sure it's on the top of my wish list.

See the official Korg microKORG XL product page
Watch video demos from Sonic State and Gearwire

2009 Winter NAMM Show Wrap-Up

Andy Gagliano — 2009-01-19T22:00:45-06:00

Unfortunately for me, I just couldn't make it out to this year's Winter NAMM Show in Anaheim. Thanks to a tough fight with acute bronchitis, tonsillitis and sinusitis, it just wasn't the best thing to do. With three different antibiotics, steroids, and strong cough and sleep medicine, I was more than happy to stay at home. But as anyone who has been to these events will tell you, these trade shows can tend to run together after a while.

Missing a show here or there isn't all that bad. And thankfully for us, there are some great resources out there that keep us up to date on all the latest news and events. On top of that coverage, I stayed in contact with several of my closest friends throughout their time at the show. Along with their reports, I almost feel like I was there.

So now that the show has officially come to a close, the final reports are coming in. I've hand-selected some of the most exciting items that debuted at this year's show. Of course, some of these items may be more significant to some people than to others. But nonetheless, they all represent creative innovation and reveal the exciting transformation of the way we use technology to create music today. Over the next couple weeks, I'll be writing and publishing a short piece on each one of them.

Stay tuned!

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigdrumthump/3209176676/

Winter NAMM '09 Pick: Audio Ease Speakerphone 2

Andy Gagliano — 2009-01-20T21:47:19-06:00

Audio Ease makes Altiverb, one of the finest software convolution reverbs on the market. And their always-expanding library of impulse responses is well worth the price of admission. So when Audio Ease announced the original version of Speakerphone, I was thrilled by the concept. The idea of using impulse responses to replicate sound coming from a specific source is brilliant in theory, and Audio Ease's innovative execution of this idea was well done. For me, Speakerphone became an instantly indispensable tool for post production. On top of that, it's an incredible platform for creative processing in music too.

Although I will admit, the "Sample Bay" feature felt a bit gimmicky to me, and personally it wasn't really a necessary function. When you need something quick and easy (and with today's budgets I suppose that's the idea) it works great. But I (and maybe even an entire team of sound editors) might have already poured our hearts and souls into crafting every single element of the sound track. So why would we want to just throw in some pre-selected sound sources? Again, I guess it depends on your workflow, and your credibility among other sound designers. Nonetheless, more features make it more valuable I suppose.

At this year's Winter NAMM show, Audio Ease demonstrated the newest incarnation of this great plug-in, and Speakerphone 2 promises to bring some healthy updates. As of today, the Audio Ease website doesn't have any featured information for Speakerphone 2, but I luckily had some good friends on the floor who relayed the important information to me. Disclaimer: Any incorrect information is the direct result of their incompetence...they've been warned.

Like most sample-based products, the most obvious update that we could anticipate was an expanded library of impulse responses. Audio Ease definitely brings the goods with several new guitar amps, antique electronics, toys, megaphones, and more. They've also added a new mode to simulate a variety of microphones for even more processing flexibility. But perhaps the most exciting new function is called "Coverup" which simulates your audio when it's covered up. So when might you use a feature like this? For example, how about when Paulie is duct-taped, screaming from under the trunk hood? Badda bing...

Pricing and availability have not been announced as of today.

For information on Speakerphone and upcoming Speakerphone 2 details, visit the Audio Ease website.
Sonic State has a great video demonstration of Speakerphone from Winter NAMM 2008.

Pandora Radio, Audio Ads, and Why It Matters

Andy Gagliano — 2009-01-26T16:52:26-06:00

This past week, we witnessed yet another significant move in the ongoing evolution of internet radio business models. Pandora, the ultra-cool online streaming radio service that plays personalized music programming based on the technology of the Music Genome Project, has introduced new in-stream audio advertisements.

As much as we might not want to believe it, this is the same old story that has plagued internet radio for years now. The Copyright Royalty Board, at the request of the Recording Industry Association of America, has been pressuring internet radio stations to pay exorbitant fees, increasing the burden of paying royalties, with shocking levels of 300-1200% higher than before. Obviously this would wipe out most internet radio stations, and Pandora is certainly no exception.

So in an effort to stay afloat and continue providing their service, Pandora was forced to find a new revenue source in the form of audio advertisements. According to most happy users, these new ads are relatively unobtrusive, usually 15 seconds or less, and appear in the audio stream approximately every 10 songs or so.

But not all Pandora users appreciated the disruptive promotional attempts during their long, smooth set of Celine Dion and Paula Abdul. This week saw an explosion of discussion in the micro-blogging Twitter community, with many users expressing their outrage, and many even threatening to leave the service.

In their Twitter feed, Pandora swiftly responded to their comments stating, "So you know, we did not take on audio ads lightly. We try to be extremely respectful of your listening experience, & promise to be prudent."

Of course, these ads are only active on Pandora's free radio service. The company offers a premium, ad-free subscription service for $36 per year.

Unfortunately, some people expect everything for free. But let's be honest here. You don't need an MBA to understand that companies need to make a little money eventually to sustain themselves. Luckily for Pandora, the majority of users seem to understand the reality of increased financial pressure on internet radio stations, and most listeners are content with a little advertising here and there. So for those of us who love the service (myself included), listening to a short ad every once in a while is the least we can do. If you really want to get to the heart of the matter and take action, consider spending some time with SaveNetRadio.org and contact your representative to let them know how much you care about saving internet radio.

Now for the record, this wasn't the first time Pandora introduced audio ads into their streaming radio service. In early 2007 the company experimented with similar advertising, but quickly pulled it from the service after an aggressive backlash from users. This time, given the industry's increased competition, the company's present value (i.e. band-name recognition), and even considering the poor state of the economy forcing unprecedented job lay-offs, they just couldn't find any other way to bring in the necessary revenue to stay in business.

And for that, we should respect their latest move. Otherwise, you can take your internet radio listening experience over to Last.fm or Slacker. As for me, I have given both of these other services a fair shot. And while they both offer some unique features and benefits, I don't think either service offers the same intuitive experience, and neither one has the Music Genome Project as the backbone technology. When it comes to sitting down at my computer, getting to work, and having a great stream of music that fits my personality playing in the background, nothing has been as enjoyable or inspiring as Pandora radio. And I should also point out that I have discovered a whole world of new artists thanks to Pandora... and my wallet is almost empty because of it.

So Pandora, go ahead with your advertisements. Tell me about what's coming up on FOX TV tomorrow at 8 pm. I just might watch it...

And if you didn't already know, Pandora is also available for your AT&T or Sprint mobile device. Pandora CTO Tom Conrad says that the audio ads are not currently active for the mobile service. But if their business model continues in this pattern, I suspect they will most likely integrate ads later down the road. Hey no complaints here; that's only fair.

Hitler's Downfall: Digidesign Pro Tools

Andy Gagliano — 2009-01-17T05:27:15-06:00

This clip taken from the 2004 movie "Der Untergang" or "Downfall" has become one of the most popular movie-homage parodies on the internet. In this re-subtitled edit of the classic bunker scene, Adolf Hitler seems to have a major problem with the American's choice for digital audio workstations. Steinberg Nuendo, the "far-superior" German-engineered digital audio workstation, seems to be overtaken by the ever-popular Digidesign Pro Tools, and Hitler isn't happy about it.

Disclaimer: For anyone who knows the original dialogue from this scene and may be easily offended, I suggest you pass on this one. But for most people, especially the audio engineers in the house, you will thoroughly enjoy this...

Go here to see the video!

An Auto-Tune Parody

Andy Gagliano — 2009-01-24T05:27:00-06:00

Special thanks to Larry Crane at Tape Op for sharing the video.

The Business & Ethics of Pitch-Correction - Part 3: The Economic Benefits

Andy Gagliano — 2008-12-10T20:27:53-06:00

So while the creative applications of this technology bring new sounds to the public, let’s look at how the use of pitch correction can bring major economic benefits to the studio business.

When budgets are stretched, time is limited, and the record labels are demanding perfection out of their artists, it is the financial benefits of pitch correction tools that are leading producers to ask themselves, ‘Why not use this technology?’ After all, recording an album in a major studio is an expensive process, and time is money. The majority of recording studios charge upward of two or even three-thousand dollars per day in major music markets like New York City and Los Angeles. According to Hank Neuberger, a Grammy award-winning producer who runs the Chicago Recording Company, agrees that the economic benefits are “especially true when no human is capable of performing perfectly in tune [all the time].”

But the idea of manipulating and massaging the quality of a singer’s voice is nothing new. The difference with this process today is that it’s very easy to do and is it a far less expensive process than buying more studio time with the artist to get it just right. According to Nashville-based producer Mark Nevers, “In the past, a producer would force singers to redo sub par vocals again and again [until they got it right].” But today "they just have them sing it five times in a row, edit that together and then use pitch correction software” to tune it. Engineer Daryn Barry continues this idea, saying that, “in the old days, it would take months to make a record.” But to ensure the completion of an album by the deadline, Barry admits that he relies on the technology when there are time constraints. Even Andy Karp, the vice president of A&R for Atlantic Records says that pitch correction “can be a very, very handy tool…” So when the artists are at the mercy of the record companies, and everybody wants it to be perfect, producers must go out of their way to make it perfect, on time and under budget."

So as I wrap this up, I think I have made it clear that the use of vocal pitch correction technology is a completely acceptable element of the music recording process, given that it is used for the sole purpose of improving a vocal track, only turning an already good take a potentially great take. Even the most truly talented singers of our time are not perfect, and we can use these corrective tools to enhance their performance. Because of these kinds of tools, some think that we have a reason to be concerned about the future of music. But I firmly believe that we can prevent the abuse of this technology by promoting its use with strictly musical intentions.

I challenge you to recognize the value of talented artists, but acknowledge that no artist is perfect, and that pitch correction technology plays a significant role in the music production process.

Through the support and appreciation of honestly skilled musicians and singers, we can move forward into the future of music and be confident that we are promoting the very thing that makes music beautiful and timeless – the humanity and the emotion that inspired the music in the first place.

And even as technology evolves, the spirit of good music will never die.

The Business & Ethics of Pitch-Correction - Part 2: Creative Abuse VS. Economic Beneifts

Andy Gagliano — 2008-12-09T20:12:51-06:00

According to industry insiders, many successful mainstream artists in most genres of music, perhaps even the majority of artists, employ some amount pitch-correction. Today, we are living in a world where photographs of women are airbrushed to perfection on every magazine cover. Feature films and television dazzle us with larger-than-life imagery that is completely fantasized and realized in fully computer-generated environments. Hank Neuberger, a Chicago-based producer says that, “Toby Maguire didn’t really swing from all those buildings in ‘Spider Man’. It’s all special effects.” Today, making records is not much different, and most producers agree that pitch correction is a great tool in the recording studio, but it should always be used sparingly to only tighten up small imperfections, like when a single note goes slightly sharp or flat.

Unfortunately, this technology has become widely abused by producers who are correcting everything to the point of perceived perfection. But now some in the music industry think the focus on perfection has gone way too far. Tim Powell, a Chicago-based producer and supporter of these tools, says that it’s become “more of an ethical dilemma [because people expect perfection], and the artists want [their fans] to hear them at their best.” In an August 2003 article from Canada’s Globe and Mail, it was revealed that both “Reba Macintyre and Cher are unashamed of using pitch correction.” Other performers, such as Shania Twain, are rumored to use the technology extensively. But most artists are reluctant to trumpet this fact because of the presumption that it is somehow cheating. That same article also suggests that, “The driving force behind this trend has been the fans themselves, who now have a more educated ear and can tell if something is off-key.” Tim Powell says "It's just another tool in the studio. Some people think it's an evil thing or it's cheating, but it’s not much different from the invention of multi-track recording [in the 1940s],” where each part can be individually recorded and perfected. Still the important thing to remember is that, when used simply as a minor corrective tool (rather than an excuse for less-talented artists), it can be extremely useful in getting the perfect take.

But beyond the practical application of pitch correction, let’s look at how these tools open up the doors to new creative possibilities.

In a 2003 article from the Chicago Tribune, the writer points our that, “some artists actually like what tuning software does to their voices.” In 1998, Cher and her producers, Mark Taylor and Brian Rawling, used a pitch-correction tool called Auto-Tune* to create a robotic vocal effect on her hit single "Believe". Aside from being a great composition musically and lyrically, this new sound may be the single biggest reason that this song rose the top of the Billboard charts, reaching number 1 in every country that it was released, and it sold over 10 million copies. Cher reportedly loved the robotic vocals that was created by cranking the pitch-correction software to the max.

Since then, other artists have intentionally used programs such as Antares' Auto-Tune or Celemony's Melodyne to create a specific vocal effect in their music. In the last year alone, extreme pitch correction and vocal tuning has been a prominent feature of songs by Kanye West, Young Jeezy, and T-Pain. Chicago-based producer Ken Sluiter told the Chicago Tribune that "when [pitch correction software] is used creatively, it sounds really cool, and you can get great results…and when Radiohead does it, it sounds great." Just last month, A National Public Radio piece called “Tone-Deaf Ears Thrive with Pitch Correction Software” stated that “modern-day record producers don't mind turning the dial all the way up when modifying a performance, resulting in half-human, half-robotic sounding vocals.” So for the consumer, this means that anyone who has been enjoying pop radio for the last few years has heard this technique used countless times, and has also appreciated its musical application.

*A February 1999 article in Sound on Sound Magazine originally reported the that this effect (dubbed the "Cher Effect") by using the Digitech Talker vocoder pedal in a unique way, calling it a "trade secret process." But over time this effect has been replicated countless times, and the producers have since admitted that it was created by using Antares' Auto-Tune pitch-correction software. Sound on Sound has preserved the original article for historical evidence, featuring a disclaimer for the record.

The Business & Ethics of Pitch-Correction - Part 1: Can You Say "Turd Polish"?

Andy Gagliano — 2008-12-08T20:09:17-06:00

Yes indeed, you read that right. Perhaps I should clarify my statement. For the uninitiated, “Turd-Polishing” is the formal music industry term given for the excessive, or even disproportionate use of modern digital audio editing tools to improve an artist’s performance... and that's putting it nicely. For the most part, I’m talking about pitch-correction tools. Sometimes this is done lightly and with subtle effect, while other times the tracks are quite literally beaten into submission.

I was recently speaking at an event in November about this very topic. Most of the people in the audience were not musicians, much less audio professionals. It’s probably not a far stretch to assume that they don’t own iPods, they have absolutely no idea how to put together a home theater system, and they probably can’t even get their email to work right. I say this because they were mostly older folks with concerns that are far more pressing than the seemingly unacceptable bit-rate of their mp3s. Of course, this concern, in particular, is a major concern of mine. That’s because I’m an audiophile (to be read “audio-nerd”) and I’m an audio engineer that takes the quality of my sound very seriously. Naturally, this trickles down into endless areas of my technological lifestyle, from my personal computer right down to my mobile device. I can’t help it. This is a wonderful time for innovation in technology.

Needless to say, the use of turd-polishing tools, and pitch-correction in particular, is a fierce debate. This argument stretches across professional and amateur recording studios worldwide, and it sparks violent flame wars among online discussion-forum users. So with that said, it is probably fair to assume that a dispute this extensive probably carries a considerable amount of credit on both sides of the argument. Personally, I can agree with both sides. In fact, I think that there is room for both sides of this fight to coexist.

So let’s talk about pitch correction. When I say the term “pitch-correction,” what’s the first thing that pops into your mind? Some might think it has something to do with counterbalancing the problems with an airplane’s flight pattern. Others might think that pitch correction is something that the Red Sox could have used last season. But when I say “pitch-correction,” I am referring to any one of the many computer-based tools that music producers are using to make singers sound better.

My own position on this issue is based upon my personal experience as an independent producer and engineer. I often (and confidently) use this technology in the studio, but for some it is a question of value. In part 2 of this post, I’m going to write about the technology itself, the practical application of this technology in today’s music, the creative possibilities it opens up for music, and finally the potential economic benefits that it can bring.

DRM - Part 3: Love It or Hate It

Andy Gagliano — 2008-11-14T19:31:39-06:00

Now that we understand what DRM is and how it’s implemented into the entertainment industry, let’s look at the pros and cons of DRM, and the controversy surrounding the use of this technology.

Advocates of DRM argue that the technology is necessary for copyright holders to prevent unauthorized duplication of their work to ensure that revenue streams remain strong. According to industry-writer Julia Layton’s recent article on DRM published in November 2006, she believes that although many consumers see DRM methods as overly restrictive, especially when employed by the movie and music industries; DRM is nonetheless trying to solve a legitimate problem of piracy.

Opponents of DRM uphold that the use of the word "rights" is deceptive. In October 2006, Richard Stallman, president of the Free Software Foundation suggested that people rename Digital Rights Management to Digital Restrictions Management. Stallman’s organization is committed to bringing the reality of DRM to the forefront, highlighting that copyright holders are attempting to restrict the use of copyrighted material in ways that are not covered by existing laws.

But the primary controversy surrounding DRM is in the “Fair Use Doctrine”. At what point does DRM technologies determine when a consumer is copying content for personal or public use? Opponents of the technology claim that this is the principle reason that DRM has never, and will never, work as the copyright holders and consumers both intend.

Berklee College of Music professor David Kusek, says that, “Consumers more or less hate the idea of DRM, yet the film studios in Hollywood and the big music labels are obsessed with it.”

So to wrap up this series, we’ve learned that DRM is the industry’s best defense against piracy, the ways in which this technology is implemented into the motion picture and music industries, and why people choose to advocate or oppose it.

At this very moment in time, the entertainment business is in a great state of chaos and confusion. Our current technology has brought both powerful capabilities and unsettling transformations. Will the current entertainment business model go the way of the Do-Do Bird? How will the creators make money in the future? Who will buy future content, and for how much? And is this the end of just another creative industry, soon to be sold out to massive conglomerate media producers, or has that already happened?

So now that we understand the elements of Digital Rights Management and how it affects the media we consume, how to you think everything will play out over the years to come?

DRM - Part 2: How It's Used

Andy Gagliano — 2008-11-13T19:31:24-06:00

DRM is most commonly used by the entertainment industry for film and music copyright protection. Let’s take a look at the common forms of DRM used in motion picture and music.

In 2004, the major film studios joined forces to commission the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) to conduct a study of the film industry’s revenue losses due to piracy. According to the study’s findings, published by the MPAA in 2005, financial losses for the film industry exceeded $6.1 billion dollars for a single year. Analysts suggest that this number may double by 2010.

Movie piracy stems directly from movie duplication. For example, when you buy a DVD, it’s perfectly legal for you to make a copy of it for your own use. This consumer right is called the “Fair Use Doctrine”. However, it is illegal to copy that same DVD for anything in the public domain, and for any public use. Although the Fair Use Doctrine is a vast expansive gray area for consumers and entertainment lawyers alike, the major film studios continue to employ these DRM tactics.

In the music industry, financial losses for the major record labels are even greater than the movie business. This is because each time someone freely downloads a copyrighted song from a file-sharing network instead of buying the commercially released CD, the record label and the artist lose money.

According to an extensive study conducted in 2007 by the Entertainment Media Research group, they found that illegal downloading rates committed by teenagers has risen from a small percentage to more than one half of teenagers over the course of a single year. Meanwhile, legal music downloads are actually slowing their rate of increase.

According to a USA Today article in November 2005, Sony Records sold millions of CDs, but tech-savvy consumers soon discovered hidden spyware programs on their CDs, developed by the record label to track the actions of the consumers with their music. In record time, Sony’s actions led to lawsuits, backtracking and a public-relations nightmare. Why would Sony do this to its customers? According to the Recording Industry Association of America, Sony did this "to protect the copyright holders."

For years, the record labels have insisted that nearly all online music sales should contain DRM due to fears of piracy and file-sharing.

The majority of online music stores, such as Apple’s iTunes store and the Napster music store, employ DRM to restrict the usage of music purchased and downloaded online. But because of the growing opposition to DRM, many record labels, artists, and online music stores have begun advertising their content as "DRM-Free". One of the most notable companies, Apple, began selling selections of "DRM-Free" music through the iTunes store in April of 2007. Meanwhile, other online music stores, such, as eMusic and Amazon, do not utilize DRM at all. This fundamental shift in the music industry’s business model has motivated major labels to begin releasing more and more music online without DRM.

Buy why the sudden shift to non-DRM music sales? A piece featured on Ars Technica in December 2006 suggests that the record labels are "slowly beginning to realize that they can't have DRM-enabled music…[The labels] must sell music that is playable on any digital audio player.”

DRM - Part 1: What is it?

Andy Gagliano — 2008-11-12T19:25:04-06:00

Some say that the entertainment industry is dying. Some say that the entertainment business is already dead. But something that we know for sure is that the way we actually acquire and consume our media is changing every day.

The entertainment industry is losing more money every year, the rates of media piracy are growing at an exponential rate, and the laws regulating Fair Use are becoming more obsolete than ever. Today I’m starting a 3-part series about Digital Rights Management, the industry’s method of protecting the copyright holders, who own and distribute the media we love.

The current piracy situation personally affects virtually every aspect of my own work in the entertainment industry. As an independent record producer and engineer, I have first-hand experiences with artists plagued with poor album sales. And my time working in the film-sound business in Hollywood was getting pretty tough, partially due to the billions of dollars lost due to motion picture piracy.

In this series, I’m going to write about what DRM actually is, the common uses of DRM in our media, and the controversy surrounding the necessity of this technology.

The media that we consume:
It’s probably safe to say that each and every one of us is a media consumer. Most of us listen to music, and most of us probably love to watch movies and TV shows. Some of us might even play video games. The majority of us use computers, all of which have an array of software programs. You might even use a mobile digital device to enjoy all of these things on the go, like an Apple iPod, a Sony PSP, or whatever next week’s coolest new gadget may be.

Why DRM is used for protection:
All of these things are copyrighted. The film studios, record labels, and software developers protect the authenticity and distribution integrity of their content with technologies, called Digital Rights Management, or DRM for short.

The definition of DRM:
DRM is a broad term used to describe all of these proprietary technologies that control, or sometimes even limit, the usage of the media that you buy. In essence, DRM removes usage control from the person who owns the content and puts it in the hands of a computer program. David Kusek, Vice President and professor of Music Business at Berklee College of Music in Boston, wrote in his recent book titled “The Future of Music,” referring to DRM as a “digital chastity belt.”

Digital freedom requires copyright protection:
The digital revolution that has empowered consumers to use digital content in new and innovative ways has also made it nearly impossible for copyright holders to control the distribution of their property, thus making DRM the obvious solution for copyright holders.

The Mullet Festival with Jeff Fiorello & Friends

Andy Gagliano — 2008-11-10T16:05:44-06:00

Once a year, the biggest country-music-lovin’ gator-on-a-stick-eatin’ all-the-beer-you-can-drink festival gets underway. It’s the Boggy Bayou Mullet Festival, my hometown’s annual fall festival here in Niceville, Florida. And no, it’s not a celebration of the famous haircut. The Mullet is actually one of the local seafood favorites in Northwest Florida. Although it should be said... you’ll see plenty of Boggy Boys paying homage to the infamous mullet haircut everywhere you look.

Back in October I had the pleasure of playing this great gig with a good friend of mine, Jeff Fiorello, with a great lineup of other killer musicians. I also had the proud honor of opening up for two of country music’s rising stars, Rodney Atkins and Jason Aldean.

Jeff is a young guy based out of New York City with something really unique going on. He and I actually go back to our hometown roots as old family friends. Growing up we played in bands all over the area. We first worked together back when we gigged for a few years with a folky singer-songwriter acoustic-rock band based out of Destin, Florida called Free Monica.

View my Flickr photostream from the show!

Here's a video clip of Jeff Fiorello's "Come On" from the show!

Back In the Saddle Again

Andy Gagliano — 2008-11-08T16:05:26-06:00

It has been exactly one year (to the day) since I took a break from writing my blog. When I started writing, my focus was to hand-select the current events of the music and recording business and give these stories my own spin. But as time went on, my own obligations to my work took me away from dedicating enough quality time to keeping the blog active.

One of the best aspects of writing for this medium is that it kept me on top of the ever-evoloving industry. Previously many of my readers got in touch and introduced themselves. Before long, they started contributing their input to the small community surrounding the blog. It was nothing less than a rewarding experience.

But now after a long year of unimaginable twists and turns, I’m ready to start things off again. Today I’m bringing it back. Come along and join the discussion.

Waiting with Our Fingers Crossed

Andy Gagliano — 2008-11-28T03:37:19-06:00

After some time working in different areas of the audio business in Hollywood, I relocated from California to Florida back in September this year. Although I came back to my home state to pursue some other things, it didn’t take long before the music industry called me back once again. Kris Wilson, my good friend and a former colleague from my hometown, has invited me to take the reins of his facility at Roundhouse Studios to serve as chief engineer.

Right now the studio is (more or less) ready to go. At the moment, I’m working alongside Kris to make some minor changes to the studio’s layout, and we’ve got some bigger remodeling plans for the near future. We're also working out the finer points of the business model.

Now I can't say much more than that at this point, and that’s because we’ve got a very interesting political situation on our hands. We’re faced with a major commercial/residential re-zoning issue. On top of that, the local Air Force base is gearing up to bring in the Joint Strike Fighter program with the new F-35 Lightning II, a next-generation fighter jet that promises to bring a lot of noise to the town.

Local residents are worried that these new jets will be too loud, disturbing a lot of the residents. And to make matters worse, these jets might further damage the current poor state of the housing market by sharply cutting down home values. As for us at the studio, the noise is something we’ve considered too. Even though the studio was constructed into the shell of an old house, we certainly did our homework to ensure good acoustic isolation, minimizing sound transmission into (and out of) the building. But I don’t think we ever anticipated this amount of noise.

> See the local news story on WEAR-TV

On December 8th, 2008 we’re attending the final hearing regarding our issues at Valparaiso city hall. The fate of the studio may depend on the outcome of this meeting, and the future of the studio could change drastically depending on how things develop. But assuming everything goes well, we're shooting to open up the doors for business this winter. Wish us luck!