Tonight we're hosting a Rent Party for the People of Haiti at the Crocodile, 2200 2nd Avenue in Seattle. So if you're in town, come out and dance for a good cause.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Rent Party for the People of Haiti
Tonight we're hosting a Rent Party for the People of Haiti at the Crocodile, 2200 2nd Avenue in Seattle. So if you're in town, come out and dance for a good cause.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Three Ways to Help Haiti
Support earthquake relief in Haiti by text:
Text "Haiti" to 90999 to donate $10 via Red Cross. Follow the Red Cross on Twitter
Text "yele" to 501501 to donate $5 via Yele. Follow Yele on Twitter.
Make a donation to Doctors Without Borders to support emergency medical care.
Text "Haiti" to 90999 to donate $10 via Red Cross. Follow the Red Cross on Twitter
Text "yele" to 501501 to donate $5 via Yele. Follow Yele on Twitter.
Make a donation to Doctors Without Borders to support emergency medical care.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Imeem's sudden death: Do online music services care about artists or users?
Among digital music types, there has been vibrant discussion on the fate of imeem, post the MySpace acquisition. Users who visit the site this week are greeted with a redirect to a page on MySpace with this message:
imeem users, welcome to MySpace Music!
imeem is now part of MySpace Music.
Where's my imeem profile/playlist?
MySpace is working to migrate your imeem playlist to MySpace Music. We’ll email you about that once we have more details.
If you are managing an artist page on imeem, we suggest you sign up as a MySpace Music artist. If you have other questions, see this FAQ and our blog.
A user who emailed MySpace received this reply: "Your imeem playlist will no longer be available."
Millions of music fans invested time and emotion in creating their playlists, cultivating their musical identity. Some even developed and expressed imeem brand loyalty. It's all gone with one redirect.
If we as a collective industry care about our customers, the users, we would give them two things: better metadata and open preferences. Let users take their playlists and favorites with them anywhere on the web or on their phone.
If we as a collective industry care about artists and the future revenue that would not flow without them, we would not ask them to build and manage multiple profiles in closed environments that don't talk with one another.
Of course, Vevo is going to make everyone forget.
Learn more on c|net: MySpace buries Imeem
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The Curious Case of Mos Def
Mos Def is a branding dream. He is a multi-disciplinary artist with an engaging personality who performs around the globe. His music and acting choices are intriguing, hip, quirky and progressive. He moves between worlds with ease, holding his own in the company of award-winning actors like John Malkovich and Adrien Brody, talking religion and nuclear weapons with Salman Rushdie and Christopher Hitchens, and spitting rhymes with Kweli and Kanye.
So where is the center of the Mos Def universe online?
Where is MosDef.com?
It points to a MySpace page that doesn't begin to capture the breadth of his work or aptly reflect his place in the culture. Never mind that MySpace isn't reliable or trustworthy.
As a fan visiting MosDef.com, I want to find links to
- Buy his latest release, The Ecstatic
- "Watch Instantly" his available films on Netflix
- Browse his catalog of recordings including soundtracks
- Stream videos of him freestyling and holding court on Bill Maher
And I should certainly be able to find the "semi-exclusive" content that Google will feature as a part of its new music search feature. I understand what the benefit of Google's initiative is for Google and the music service partners.
But is it in Mos Def's best interest for me to go through Google which is going through MySpace to get his work?
My appetite for his work is pretty big. And I trust Mos Def more than I do MySpace. Why won't he directly feed more to me and the thousands of other serious fans?
Monday, October 12, 2009
State of the Music Union: Transparency
A funny thing happened at the Digital Music Forum's State of the Union panel.
In my opening, I spoke about how the music industry has lost its cool and that it needs to rehab its image with audiences and customers to gain trust. How?
For starters:
On my right was Tim Quirk, VP at Rhapsody. Tim, who was once signed to Warner Bros. as a member of Too Much Joy, commented that there needs to be trust among partners as well. Tim also spoke about his royalty statements from Warner Bros. He can see for himself what plays are reported on his former band from Rhapsody to Warner. And yet, statement after statement, Warner tells him he has earned no royalties.
Even with direct access to verifiable information that should be used to calculate his royalties, Tim Quirk cannot get paid by his former label. So how can other artists trust that they will get paid? If Tim cannot trust them to follow legally binding agreements, then why should other artists expect any different?
Why would any artist sign a 360 degree deal where the label participates in other income like tours and merchandising if the label can't be trusted to account for the income generated from recordings?
An interesting side note: I met a representative of a service provider that helps improve the accuracy of royalty reporting. In essence, one of his label clients told him that they didn't want to know the accurate numbers because then they would have to do something about it.
The old habits of deception, cheating and lying are hard to break, especially at a well-entrenched, institutional level. While the incumbents wrestle with them, new players could gain traction by taking a less well-traveled, but remarkably cleaner path in the music business: Transparency.
In my opening, I spoke about how the music industry has lost its cool and that it needs to rehab its image with audiences and customers to gain trust. How?
For starters:
1) Apologize.On my left was Ted Mico, head of digital at Interscope/Geffen/A&M. Defensively, Ted offered that the artists are the brand and that the average fan doesn't have any idea of what the "music industry" is. Of course, on this Ted and I disagree. While fans may not know Interscope as a brand, they absolutely know the music industry, just as they know the auto industry. Interscope can try to operate behind its artists' brands while it attempts to transition from a product business to a service business, but it can't hide from its place among the other RIAA members and the actions of the RIAA over these last few years. The transference of faith from the artist brand to the label as a trustworthy service company will not happen by osmosis. If a label wants trust, it actually has to earn it.
2) Give fans what they want and will pay for.
3) Be transparent.
On my right was Tim Quirk, VP at Rhapsody. Tim, who was once signed to Warner Bros. as a member of Too Much Joy, commented that there needs to be trust among partners as well. Tim also spoke about his royalty statements from Warner Bros. He can see for himself what plays are reported on his former band from Rhapsody to Warner. And yet, statement after statement, Warner tells him he has earned no royalties.
Even with direct access to verifiable information that should be used to calculate his royalties, Tim Quirk cannot get paid by his former label. So how can other artists trust that they will get paid? If Tim cannot trust them to follow legally binding agreements, then why should other artists expect any different?
Why would any artist sign a 360 degree deal where the label participates in other income like tours and merchandising if the label can't be trusted to account for the income generated from recordings?
An interesting side note: I met a representative of a service provider that helps improve the accuracy of royalty reporting. In essence, one of his label clients told him that they didn't want to know the accurate numbers because then they would have to do something about it.
The old habits of deception, cheating and lying are hard to break, especially at a well-entrenched, institutional level. While the incumbents wrestle with them, new players could gain traction by taking a less well-traveled, but remarkably cleaner path in the music business: Transparency.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Digital Music Forum: The State of the Union
Today, I'll be joining five guys on the State of the Union panel at Digital Music Forum West. I'll be tweeting from the Forum (@rebelcontent #DMF).
The general topic is a look at where the various music markets are now, with all of the disruptions and technologies that effect them, and where markets are headed via innovations and models designed to fuel growth, (assuming of course that growth is a given, which I think deserves some skepticism).
When I think of these issues, I find it difficult to ignore what I see as the biggest elephant in the room: The music business has not only lost its cool, it is often hated by its customers. It's anyone's guess how big the customer group is that hates the business, but they are sufficiently vocal enough to matter. Because music is both subjective and ubiquitous (making it difficult to offer something of distinguished value to customers), this dislike matters that much more.
In this era of unavoidable transparency, the dislike from the customer can intensify as bad behavior comes to light, to the degree where every act is under suspicion. Take extra time to make an artist's royalty payment, "offer" users dodgy subscription services during registration, or charge $100+ per ticket for a 50 minute set, and people will not only know about it, but they will tweet it, blog about it and otherwise expose the shame of your actions to whomever is paying attention. There is no place to hide.
There is no place to hide for the music business. Shady characters can roam the "cruel and shallow money trench, the long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free," but regardless of whether that character is an individual person or a corporation the cover of darkness is gone.
So the question arises: How can the music industry play in the light and win?
The first step: Apologize.
The general topic is a look at where the various music markets are now, with all of the disruptions and technologies that effect them, and where markets are headed via innovations and models designed to fuel growth, (assuming of course that growth is a given, which I think deserves some skepticism).
When I think of these issues, I find it difficult to ignore what I see as the biggest elephant in the room: The music business has not only lost its cool, it is often hated by its customers. It's anyone's guess how big the customer group is that hates the business, but they are sufficiently vocal enough to matter. Because music is both subjective and ubiquitous (making it difficult to offer something of distinguished value to customers), this dislike matters that much more.
In this era of unavoidable transparency, the dislike from the customer can intensify as bad behavior comes to light, to the degree where every act is under suspicion. Take extra time to make an artist's royalty payment, "offer" users dodgy subscription services during registration, or charge $100+ per ticket for a 50 minute set, and people will not only know about it, but they will tweet it, blog about it and otherwise expose the shame of your actions to whomever is paying attention. There is no place to hide.
There is no place to hide for the music business. Shady characters can roam the "cruel and shallow money trench, the long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free," but regardless of whether that character is an individual person or a corporation the cover of darkness is gone.
So the question arises: How can the music industry play in the light and win?
The first step: Apologize.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Beatlemania Is Overrated
The Beatles are the sacred cow of Western popular music. In many circles, if you suggest that you prefer Led Zepplin, the Rolling Stones, or the Isley Brothers, you’re sure to be met with a vehement and fervent evangelizing, aimed to turn you away from your sin.
This is not about the quality of Beatles’ music. It’s about what they mean, and what they have meant.
It’s hard not to view the releases of the re-mastered recordings as the labored gasp of a struggling man, bound by his own shortsightedness and greed. There’s no doubt that there’s a market for the discs because they do offer genuine value. Who wouldn’t want to hear more pristine versions of classics like Rubber Soul, The White Album and Sgt. Peppers? And it’s been a long, excruciating 22-year wait.
Still, there’s an air of desperation to EMI Music CEO Elio Leoni-Sceti’s declaration that "Beatlemania has returned,” especially when the statement is made on the heels of Guy Hands’ mea culpa for having purchased EMI at all, let alone overpaying for it.
There’s also a sense of déjà vu. It was almost 10 years ago when EMI once again boasted of the Beatles’ staying power and the impact they were having three decades after they first started recording. The song remains the same. The sales, however likely will not. In 2000, Beatles 1 sold 3.6 million copies in the first week. It eventually went on to sell 31 million copies worldwide. The Beatles entire catalog has sold 2.2 million copies in five days. Is anyone willing to take the odds that these re-mastered titles collectively will ever match Beatles 1?
This week I bumped into a passionate 30-something Beatles fan on a message board. She was disputing my contention that the core audience for the Beatles was aging. Her evidence?
The Beatles mean so much to this woman’s peers that they want a burn, but will they go shell out the bucks themselves? Downloaded MP3s of the re-mastered classics won’t do. But, burned copies or a swapped hard drive loaded with lossless versions will suffice for many. The coming weeks’ numbers will tell the tale.
It’s understandable that EMI would repackage as many of the titles in their vault every which way they can while there is still a market for CDs. It’s just business and EMI has an amazing catalog. Of course, it’s not anywhere near as egregious as the Frank Sinatra Duet recordings. But like the bump after Michael Jackson’s death, the Beatles sales boost does engender the same longing for and reminiscing over the days when CD sales were on the bubble.
In the late 90’s when CDs were at their peak, accounting for $16.4 billion in revenue in 1999, it certainly seemed like it could never end. Being on the frontlines in an EMI-owned company, I experienced that heady feeling. It was irresistible. Even after sales began to slide and I had left the building, there were still blockbusters like Norah Jones and Usher to reassure anyone who preferred to view the industry’s Paul Reveres as Chicken Littles.
Now, after consecutive years of double-digit declines, the fall triumph of the Beatles after the summer of the King of Pop is bittersweet, signaling the end of an era. It was an era when most everyone swayed in time to the same beat. When pop stars were untouchable. They were gods, or so some of them thought. There was a scarcity. (Again, 22 years is a long time.) There was anticipation.
Today’s music and musicians are everywhere, even in places where they shouldn’t be. We know everything about them as it happens, including whether or not they remembered or cared to put on underwear. The mystery is gone. Though the challenges, disputes, loves and breakups of the Beatles played out publicly, the levels of access and immediacy were different. Rumors took time to confirm. There were no camera phones to document transgressions and post to YouTube in a matter of minutes. Nor were their global venues to dissect every move with friends and strangers from all over the world.
Yes, something has most certainly been lost, if you remember what it was once like.
On the other hand, something has also been gained and doors have opened. It is now possible that the next big thing could come from some artist in a part of the world that most Americans could not have easily or affordably visited when the Beatles appeared on Ed Sullivan. Those artists no longer have to wait for a company to decide that they are market viable in Western terms. Nor do we have to wait for the lens of the once dominant popular culture to tell us they are worth listening to because they conform to certain aesthetics.
Instead we can listen with the click of a mouse or touch of a mobile screen. The wonder of discovery can be revived through artists not in our own backyard, singing songs in a language not our own. The beauty of anticipation can be renewed by the live performance, which is scarce compared to the availability of recordings and scarcer still for artists outside of the geography we may typically traverse.
What of new music fans another decade from now? Will there be millions of them spending money on all things Beatles? Probably not, because though the Beatles produced classic recordings that will always have fans, over time the interest will wane as the personal connections fade, as has been the case for the stars of previous generations.
But we don’t have to feel deprived because of the decline. If we look forward instead of looking back, the gap can be filled with a diversity of talent delivering their own future classics. Nostalgia can be a heavy anchor on curiosity. Pull it up and try these waters:
Garth Trinidad's Chocolate City on KCRW
Darek Mazzone's Wo' Pop on KEXP
Mason Rothert's Below Zero
Global Soul on WOMR
The Isley Brothers - "Twist and Shout"There’s no question that the Beatles were a popular culture phenomenon and that they delivered some of the most memorable pop songs of the last 50 years. They, along with the Beach Boys with Pet Sounds, Stevie Wonder and Marvin Gaye produced the seminal recordings that defined the pop album as a cohesive creative work, not just a collection of singles.
This is not about the quality of Beatles’ music. It’s about what they mean, and what they have meant.
It’s hard not to view the releases of the re-mastered recordings as the labored gasp of a struggling man, bound by his own shortsightedness and greed. There’s no doubt that there’s a market for the discs because they do offer genuine value. Who wouldn’t want to hear more pristine versions of classics like Rubber Soul, The White Album and Sgt. Peppers? And it’s been a long, excruciating 22-year wait.
Still, there’s an air of desperation to EMI Music CEO Elio Leoni-Sceti’s declaration that "Beatlemania has returned,” especially when the statement is made on the heels of Guy Hands’ mea culpa for having purchased EMI at all, let alone overpaying for it.
There’s also a sense of déjà vu. It was almost 10 years ago when EMI once again boasted of the Beatles’ staying power and the impact they were having three decades after they first started recording. The song remains the same. The sales, however likely will not. In 2000, Beatles 1 sold 3.6 million copies in the first week. It eventually went on to sell 31 million copies worldwide. The Beatles entire catalog has sold 2.2 million copies in five days. Is anyone willing to take the odds that these re-mastered titles collectively will ever match Beatles 1?
This week I bumped into a passionate 30-something Beatles fan on a message board. She was disputing my contention that the core audience for the Beatles was aging. Her evidence?
“I have had so many parents and staff members at my throat everyday begging me to burn them copies of the Beatles."
The Beatles mean so much to this woman’s peers that they want a burn, but will they go shell out the bucks themselves? Downloaded MP3s of the re-mastered classics won’t do. But, burned copies or a swapped hard drive loaded with lossless versions will suffice for many. The coming weeks’ numbers will tell the tale.
It’s understandable that EMI would repackage as many of the titles in their vault every which way they can while there is still a market for CDs. It’s just business and EMI has an amazing catalog. Of course, it’s not anywhere near as egregious as the Frank Sinatra Duet recordings. But like the bump after Michael Jackson’s death, the Beatles sales boost does engender the same longing for and reminiscing over the days when CD sales were on the bubble.
In the late 90’s when CDs were at their peak, accounting for $16.4 billion in revenue in 1999, it certainly seemed like it could never end. Being on the frontlines in an EMI-owned company, I experienced that heady feeling. It was irresistible. Even after sales began to slide and I had left the building, there were still blockbusters like Norah Jones and Usher to reassure anyone who preferred to view the industry’s Paul Reveres as Chicken Littles.
Now, after consecutive years of double-digit declines, the fall triumph of the Beatles after the summer of the King of Pop is bittersweet, signaling the end of an era. It was an era when most everyone swayed in time to the same beat. When pop stars were untouchable. They were gods, or so some of them thought. There was a scarcity. (Again, 22 years is a long time.) There was anticipation.
Today’s music and musicians are everywhere, even in places where they shouldn’t be. We know everything about them as it happens, including whether or not they remembered or cared to put on underwear. The mystery is gone. Though the challenges, disputes, loves and breakups of the Beatles played out publicly, the levels of access and immediacy were different. Rumors took time to confirm. There were no camera phones to document transgressions and post to YouTube in a matter of minutes. Nor were their global venues to dissect every move with friends and strangers from all over the world.
Yes, something has most certainly been lost, if you remember what it was once like.
On the other hand, something has also been gained and doors have opened. It is now possible that the next big thing could come from some artist in a part of the world that most Americans could not have easily or affordably visited when the Beatles appeared on Ed Sullivan. Those artists no longer have to wait for a company to decide that they are market viable in Western terms. Nor do we have to wait for the lens of the once dominant popular culture to tell us they are worth listening to because they conform to certain aesthetics.
Instead we can listen with the click of a mouse or touch of a mobile screen. The wonder of discovery can be revived through artists not in our own backyard, singing songs in a language not our own. The beauty of anticipation can be renewed by the live performance, which is scarce compared to the availability of recordings and scarcer still for artists outside of the geography we may typically traverse.
What of new music fans another decade from now? Will there be millions of them spending money on all things Beatles? Probably not, because though the Beatles produced classic recordings that will always have fans, over time the interest will wane as the personal connections fade, as has been the case for the stars of previous generations.
But we don’t have to feel deprived because of the decline. If we look forward instead of looking back, the gap can be filled with a diversity of talent delivering their own future classics. Nostalgia can be a heavy anchor on curiosity. Pull it up and try these waters:
Garth Trinidad's Chocolate City on KCRW
Darek Mazzone's Wo' Pop on KEXP
Mason Rothert's Below Zero
Global Soul on WOMR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
skype: rebelcontent
Posts
