THE MUSIC DOPE

It's Been a Long Time Since I Rock and Rolled

2011-10-05T13:33:00.001-07:00

Wow, so I guess the past five or six years have really flown by. Are you still out there? Probably not.

On a personal level, too many things to mention. But the main thing is that my passion for music really hasn't abated much. And thus, with a little bit of spare time on my hands, I guess I'll re-enter the sphere for awhile. Or should I be doing this on Tumblr? That's where all the hip kids are these days.

There's no need to serve any claim chowder at this point--it was easy to predict the implosion of the music industry, it was something that I have been doing ever since MP3s and the iPod showed up. The reality is that the Old Guard has taken a long time to die out. The music business has changed forever.

But it's still an incredible intersection of art and commerce. And it's still worth commenting on.

Mom and pop stores are dying.

2005-11-28T10:47:00.000-08:00

the Lowell Sun ought to put this prism (EVIL BIG BOX STORES ARE KILLING THE BIZ) on virtually every other retail sector.

This is not news, it is not a unique situation, and it's not even that sad. I'm sad for my friends who have seen their indie record stores go the way of the buggy whip, but the biggest reason for their demise has been a) their business practices and b) an obvious, enormous shift in the market that they cater to. Those that haven't made a concerted effort to go virtual aren't going to be in the game five years from now.

50 more CDs that won't be found on my year end lists. Or my gift lists.

2005-11-17T17:32:00.000-08:00

ony Releases List of 50 Rootkit Infected CDs

19 Albums that won't make my best-of list. Or even into my CD player.

2005-11-12T04:11:00.000-08:00

hypebot: At Least 19 Sony BMG Titles Including Trey Anastasio And Our Lady Peace "Protected" By Controversial Rootkit Software

And it's too bad, because I was looking forward to hearing the Coral's new album and also had interest in the Neil Diamond record as well.

It makes you wonder how Sony decided which ones get the rootkit treatment--I notice that the Bruce Springsteen "Born To Run" box set (to be released on Tuesday, November 15th) isn't on this list. Yet.

Digital music isn't saving the business

2005-11-08T04:40:00.000-08:00

but it's probably providing CPR.

Playing God with their music.

2005-10-17T17:33:00.000-07:00

Growing up, one of the things I always hated about LPs and cassettes was having to sit through a bad song (or, more than often, a bad side in order to hear other songs on the album. Of course, my own laziness often empowered those technologies to possibly makes me more patient with the album format (growers!), but I can easily remember one of the things that I most looked forward to with compact discs was the ability to instantly skip songs. And while CD players routinely came with programmability, it was always too much of a pain in the ass to actually do.

"Playing God With The Verve" reminds me of one of the great aspects of the digital realm: rethinking albums on the fly. Yes, you could do this back in the day by making a mixtape, but the immediate gratification is so much more appealing on iTunes and the like. In that article, Nick Southall talks about re-sequencing the Verve's Urban Hymns and subbing a few b-sides while clearing out the clutter. It's a novel idea, a one-up from simply unchecking the songs on an album that I don't want to hear in iTunes.

Similarly, Nate Patrin goes over some novel ways to use the iTunes smart playlists, taking a large dose of creativity from the creators and giving new life and new context to his library.

It's creativity like these examples that continues to push the old way of doing things out the door. Consumers are responding, the model is shifting, and those who embrace this opportunity will prosper.

The Apple Polishers - Explaining the press corps' crush on Steve Jobs and company. By Jack Shafer

2005-10-14T13:29:00.000-07:00

Jack Shafer hates all the good press that Apple gets. Even if it's deserved.

The Music Dope loves Apple for many reasons--quality products, a history of innovation, a brand that exudes passion and aspires for market dedication.

But every company apparently has it's haters, and Jack Shafer is really, really tired of Apple getting good press. You see, he's a media critic and therefore, he wants more criticism of the company.

It's the most boring argument in the world.

A few column ideas for Jack Shafer:

- The John McCain Polishers: the free ride afforded to the "Straight Talk Express"

- The New York Times Polishers: the syndicators of Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd, who continue to publish dishonest and misleading discourse

- The Japanese Car Polishers: everyone knows that Honda and Toyota make cars that last longer because the press says so

- If It Bleeds It Must Lead: the mainstream media's obsession with violence and bloodshed

- Press Releases: the best source for business and political news

- Major Political Party Talking Points: how the front page is framed

- Union Polishers: the unions are working for the people!

OH, AND BY THE WAY MR. SHAFER: It's not lost on anyone that you are writing for MICROSOFT. What a dumbass.

what if the music industry went to music on demand?

2005-10-12T18:56:00.000-07:00

Comcast proposes DVD/VOD service

Get this: Comcast is going to offer video on demand for $17, and then will also send a DVD of the movie a couple of days later. "Instant rental with ownership."

God forbid anyone in the music industry think this far outside the box.

Why Everyone Hates The Music Industry

2005-10-12T12:03:00.000-07:00

TechWeb: Why Everyone Hates The Music Industry

Fredric Paul thinks that the record companies' "real problem" isn't that that the times are a changin' but that "everyone hates them."

Wrong.

Nobody except musicians, sympathetic writers, and the punk rock community hates the record companies. Consumers ("music lovers" to Mr. Paul), by and large, don't care much about the companies. They just want to buy or steal good music. They don't care where it comes from or how it gets there. They don't blame the labels for high prices. They blame BestBuy or some other retailer.

As an explanation, musicians hate the record companies because they are The Man. The naive, the stupid, and the willfully ignorant typically blame record companies for problems that are usually self-inflicted: knowingly signing bad deals, signing away control, etc. Sympathetic writers hear the same stories every day about the labels and perpetuate myth after myth without ever demanding accountability from the artists. The punk rock community, well, that's kind of a joke--of course they hate the labels. They want anarchy for everything!

Mr. Paul genuflects over a report pointing the finger at media "monocultures" from Forrester Research. Monocultures are not unique to media--the record companies are displaying classic mature industry behavior, something I've elaborated on many times over the past year. The behavior of the record labels is not surprising, it's academically predictable.

I Don't Need a Record Deal!

2005-10-10T07:26:00.000-07:00

More on the relationship between labels and fans

2005-10-09T04:50:00.000-07:00

My previous post addressed the chasm between labels and the fans they desire.

As financial pressure continues to force labels to focus on their core competencies (A&R, artist development, marketing, accounting, publishing, distribution, etc.) there is a growing sense that labels are letting a large opportunity pass them by: instead of building a closer relationship to consumers by whittling away at distribution barriers, labels seem content to let new barriers be built. iTMS, MySpace.com, and other entities are growing in influence and are becoming another middleman for the labels to deal with, despite low barriers to entry and relatively easy duplication. And it's a crucial element of customer control that the labels are unbelievably giving up with barely a fight.

The relationship between the label and the consumer

2005-10-07T14:04:00.000-07:00

Glenn at Coolfer recently responded to my post that took him to task on a post he made:

"He thinks the music industry figured out at some point that it doesn’t need a middleman, that is can sell its music directly. Coolfer can’t go along with that one. Labels, I’d bet, understand very well that their role is not to own the entire supply chain but to encourage efficiencies in its role in the supply chain. Music groups don’t own Best Buy or Target, and they won’t own celluar carriers. They’re going to have to live with their role as the content provider. And I think they know and accept this."

I thought (and think) Glenn is wrong about this; his comments regarding my post inspire a more thorough explanation. Glenn equates iTMS with other brick-and-mortar retailers like BestBuy, but it's simply inaccurate to afix the same label. Yes, they both have arguably the closest contact with the consumer, but that doesn't mean that they have the same relationship. And to my point, the physical relationship (B&M outlets) is deteriorating rapidly into commodity and loss-leader business (the vast majority of sales is now through the big box stores) with iTMS paving the path to digital distribution. Also to my point: the competitive advantage held by Apple is small because the barriers to entry are so low. Yes, Apple is a strong brand but as of now they are using hardware to control the content, something that historically has never been a long lasting competitive advantage. Duplicating Apple's offering at iTMS is simply too easy, and it won't be long before the labels simply partner with any DRM-compliant distributor.

As for distribution in general, the labels have frequently gotten involved though never much on a grassroots level. The reasons for this are obivous: the capital investment is enormous, it's outside their expertise, etc. But technology changes all that. There was a time when major labels actively developed a branding-type of relationship with the end user--Sire, Arista, Geffen, etc. once used their stable as a key marketing element, building their reputation on their roster and developing brand equity. Small labels still do this to a large degree, and with such a low barrier to entry in distribution, it seems obvious that the independent labels will foster the most endearing relationships with their customers. And with mom and pop record stores dwidling every year, who can blame them? It's a little disingenuous to assert that "selling directly to the consumer is hardly a core competency of any record label" when every label spends millions on marketing. "Selling directly" at a big box store means "putting product on the shelf" and accepting payola in the Sunday circulars. The relationship between those customers and their retailers is almost exclusively based on price.

Which is why now, more than ever, marketing at a major label is just as important as A&R. The greatest record in the world will stiff without support, and we all know that massaging the market is essential. That's why one of the core competencies at a major label is marketing--reaching the end user is driven not by iTMS or WalMart but by the labels. To that, why would the label want to let other barriers come between themselves and their customer? 50 years ago, it was obvious why: getting physical distribution was very expensive and far outside a label's core competency. Technology's changed all that. Apple has proven that there is strong demand for digital distribution, and the barriers to entry are relatively low. Why let Apple play gatekeeper (or any of the others racing to get into the game)? Labels spend millions driving people to the digital doorway, then are happy to let someone else get a cut for...hosting servers? Simply put, I'm not convinced that Apple's role as retailer is a) unique or b) essential or c) difficult/expensive to duplicate.

iPod Nation

2005-10-07T05:43:00.000-07:00

Digital sales triple to 6% of industry retail revenues as global music market falls 1.9%

Who are the defenders of the compact disc? Does this make you optimistic about the DVD music format?

from the article:

- Physical music sales in the first half of the year, by contrast, fell by 6.3% in retail value to $US 12.4 billion, and by 6.6% in units, compared to the same period of 2004.

- In North America the US saw a drop in physical sales of 5.3% in value and 5.7% in units, but a counterbalancing strong increase in digital music sales. Sales of single track downloads alone in the US were up almost threefold in the first half of 2005 compared to the same period in 2004, totalling 159 million (Nielsen SoundScan).

Recording Industry vs The People

2005-10-03T17:53:00.000-07:00

Recording Industry vs The People purports to be a "blog devoted to the RIAA's lawsuits of intimidation brought against ordinary working people."

I guess that sounds good, although I'm not sure what "ordinary working people" actually is.

But am I the only one that thinks it's a little odd that a group of lawyers (who publish the blog) are essentially complaining that people who knowingly break the law are undeservedly punished? Isn't this the same as having a blog that complains about speeding tickets?

Coolfer thinks that it's "science fiction territory" to suggest that the labels want to eliminate a middleman like iTunes Music Store.

2005-09-30T13:18:00.000-07:00

Glenn over at Coolfer misses the boat.

The economies of scale in brick/mortar distribution and digital distribution aren't comparable at all--all that's required are server farms and software--which is why it isn't science fiction to suggest that labels might be able to ultimately eliminate Apple. The headaches of physical distribution are legendary, entrenched, have long reaction times, and are getting more expensive. Digital distribution is exactly the opposite--it requires far less capital investment, is scalable (and also generally less expensive with more traffic), and trends well with customization. Customization, as you may know, is a signifier of a mature industry and a leading key to profitability.

There is only one reason that the labels have not immediately overthrown physical distribution and pushed hard on the boundaries of digital distribution: piracy fears. Thanks to Napster (and now Apple with iTMS), consumers have already begun a rapid change to digital distribution. We're waiting for the labels to fully embrace it, and when they do, they will work hard to eliminate any and all middlemen.

$1.9 billion spent on TV product placement

2005-09-22T04:07:00.000-07:00

I've asked this before, but what's the difference between this and payola? Please answer at once, Elliott Spitzer.

R.I.P. R.L.

2005-09-05T05:01:00.000-07:00

Goodbye and farewell, Mr. Burnside.

The future of radio is going to be very, very measured.

2005-08-26T17:17:00.000-07:00

Emmy Advanced Media: Do You Really Want To Know?:

"The lingua franca of the television media business is Nielsen Ratings, but if the box is opened, that will immediately change. Good, bad, or indifferent, a common currency and common unit sizes make intelligent negotiations possible. How will the world of media look when every buy has a census-based, quantitative measurement attached to it?"

The above quote references television, obviously.

But clearly, radio will follow. Precise measurement is getting closer, not farther away. And it serves to figure that in less than a decade, Arbitron isn't going to be working off of a bunch of pitiful telesurveys.

There will be culture shock and rebellion when this first happens, and after that, radio (if it's even recognizable as a form of mass media) will recover.

The economic effects of piracy on the music industry

2005-08-25T05:15:00.000-07:00

The Long Tail: "Just enough piracy"

A very interesting post on digital rights management (DRM):

The first is about the user experience: Any protection technology that is really difficult to crack is probably too cumbersome to be accepted by consumers...

...The second reason the quest for zero-piracy is a mistake is an economic one: piracy can actually let you raise your prices.

The discussion that follows gets much more interesting in the comments down. Spend some time at this link and I promise you'll understand both sides of the piracy/DRM problem.

The real piracy problem is overseas and always has been.

2005-08-25T05:07:00.000-07:00

One in three music discs is illegal but fight back starts to show results

If no one owns the music, then where is the value?

2005-08-23T09:58:00.000-07:00

The concept of copyright continues to be attacked, mainly by the owners of existing copyright(s) who created/purchased property under current copyright assumptions. They fear a future where their property will be stolen, so they want their ownership fortified.

Jeff Jarvis is arguing that these people are losing the battle, and will lose the war in the somewhat near future.

He says that the ultimate value of content ("pre-recorded music" for those of us cluttering up the music business) either reflects trust or represents trust outright. That somehow, there's something less and less tangible (or taxable) about a recorded performance. Or an image. Or any entertainment. That, what we all find value in, is a guarantee of entertainment.

The philosophical discussion at the above link makes a lot of sense"

Content is transient, its value perishable, its chance of success slight. You think your article or book or movie or song or show is worth a fortune and in a blockbuster economy, if you were insanely lucky, you could be right. But now anyone can create content. And thanks to the power of the link — and the trust it carries — anyone can get the world to see it. Is some of this new load of content crap? Sure. Lots of content in the old media world was crap, too. But don’t calculate the proportions. Look instead at the gross volume of quality: There’s simply more good stuff out there than there could be before. And it can be created at incredibly low or no cost.

There is no scarcity of good stuff. And when there is no scarcity, the value of owning a once-scarce commodity diminishes and then disappears. In fact, it’s worse than that: Owning the content factory only means that you have higher costs than the next guy: You own the high-priced talent or infrastructure while your new competitor owns just her own talent and a PC...

...But in this new age, you don’t want to own the content or the pipe that delivers it. You want to participate in what people want to do on their own. You don’t want to extract value. You want to add value. You don’t want to build walls or fences or gardens to keep people from doing what they want to do without you. You want to enable them to do it. You want to join in.

And once you get your head around that, you will see that you can grow so much bigger so much faster with so much less cost and risk.

So don’t own the content. Help people make and find and remake and recommend and save the content they want. Don’t own the distribution. Gain the trust of the people to help them use whatever distribution and medium they like to find what they want.

I just don't understand how anyone could make money on this--charging for trust when the replication costs are so astoundingly low and trust being a bit, well, liquid in the beginning--and I'm sure that Jeff Jarvis' response would be, "Well, the people that figure that out will be the ones who make the most money."

Warner to launch unconvincing gimmick called "e-labels"

2005-08-23T04:52:00.000-07:00

Billboard PostPlay: Warner To Launch "E-Label":

"Edgar Bronfman Jr., Warner Music's chairman and CEO, said Monday that the new mechanism will be called an 'e-label,' in which artists will release music in clusters of three songs every few months rather than a CD every few years.
He was speaking at a conference...The e-label will permit recording artists to enjoy a 'supportive, lower-risk environment' without as much pressure for huge commercial hits, Bronfman said. In addition, artists signed to the e-label will retain copyright and ownership of their master recordings."

What exactly is the motivation for Warners on this?

Assuming the deal with the artist is typical, Warners will pay an advance, pay for recording costs, and have to gin up marketing costs every few months (advertising? publicity? tour support?) to support multiple yearly releases. Oh, and they don't retain ownership, which currently is something that the labels are iron-fisted about retaining. Add in to that the low margins for products like iTunes tracks.

Under these assumptions, there is simply no reason to think that Warners will give any sort of priority to an e-label. This announcement sounds like a stupid promotional ploy.

Mossberg (Wall Street Journal) on why renting music is the new 8-track

2005-08-22T13:55:00.000-07:00

The Mossberg Report -- Personal Technology from The Wall Street Journal.:

"The biggest problem with renting is that if you stop paying your subscription, even for one month, all the songs you've ever downloaded--going back years--will become inert and unplayable. Rental song files are rigged with computer code that requires a monthly digital confirmation the renter is continuing to pay. Without that, the song files die.

An iTunes user could pay $500 to acquire 500 individual songs (buying whole albums is somewhat cheaper) over two years, and those songs are always hers and will always play. By contrast, a Yahoo user might download 500 rental songs over two years for just $120 in subscription fees, but the songs will become unplayable unless she pays hundreds or thousands more in subscription fees over many years, even if the fees rise."

The only way around this would be something like hymn, which decrypts iTunes music files.

Do not ever enable this woman.

2005-08-20T05:05:00.000-07:00

Courtney Love is a liar, an addict, a waste of marginal talent, and an embarassing waste of resources.

Who the hell signed Love to an alleged one-off deal to Virgin a few years ago? Does that person have a job?

It would be nice if the grownups in the music industry would start treating their rosters like valuable investments instead of whimsical, disposable unit shifters. How many more drug-addled losers do we have to watch fall apart publicly, when all along there has been a record label backing their downward spiral? People like Courtney Love shouldn't be trusted with anyone's resources. People like Anton Newcombe shouldn't be backed with anyone's money. People like Pete Doherty shouldn't be allowed near anything of shareholder value. Whitney Houston shouldn't be supported in any way until she's proven clean. With the music industry's bottom line where it is, it's time to take a stand against the idiocy that is label-enabled addiction and abuse.

You can't lose music sales that you never had

2005-08-19T07:15:00.000-07:00

Church of the Customer: More on the marketing world is flat:

"'For almost every musician, the number of sales they lose because people never hear of their album is far larger than the sales they'd lose because people can get it for free online,' Doctorow says. 'The biggest threat we face isn't piracy, it's obscurity."

Actually, I just switched out "writer" for "musician" and "book" for "album." But you get the picture.