9 July 2008 @ 9:19AM >> If you’re a pop culture junkie who doesn’t share the politics of Hollywood, you may enjoy Yeah Right, a new blog started by some fellow Bucknell alums I met while filming Indoctrinate U. Current topics range from The Office to the latest Weezer album, Che Guevara t-shirts, and the new 90210.

14 January 2008 @ 8:26AM >> The Economist reports on the music industry’s woes:

In public, of course, music executives continued to talk a good game: recovery was just around the corner, they argued, and digital downloads would rescue the music business. But the results from 2007 confirm what EMI’s focus group showed: that the record industry’s main product, the CD, which in 2006 accounted for over 80% of total global sales, is rapidly fading away. In America, according to Nielsen SoundScan, the volume of physical albums sold dropped by 19% in 2007 from the year before-faster than anyone had expected. For the first half of 2007, sales of music on CD and other physical formats fell by 6% in Britain, by 9% in Japan, France and Spain, by 12% in Italy, 14% in Australia and 21% in Canada. (Sales were flat in Germany.) Paid digital downloads grew rapidly, but did not begin to make up for the loss of revenue from CDs. More worryingly for the industry, the growth of digital downloads appears to be slowing.

“In 2007 it became clear that the recorded-music industry is contracting and that it will be a very different beast from what it was in the 20th century,” says Mark Mulligan, an analyst at JupiterResearch. Last year several big-name artists bypassed the record labels altogether. Madonna left Warner Music to strike a deal with Live Nation, a concert promoter, and the Eagles distributed a bestselling album in America without any help from a record label. Radiohead, a British band, deserted EMI to release an album over the internet. These were isolated, unusual deals, by artists whose careers had already brought years of profits to the big music companies. But they made the labels look irrelevant and will no doubt prompt other artists to think about leaving them too.

The prime function of a record label is to scout, identify and promote talent. Distribution is obviously key to the business, but it’s largely a function of logistics and technology, and it’s tangential to the consumer’s interest in the product.

Talent identification and promotion is the real business value as far as consumers are concerned, simply because there are lots of people producing music, most of which probably wouldn’t appeal to any given person. So the role of record labels—first as a filter selecting talent, then as a megaphone promoting it—is a useful function. But this role doesn’t necessarily have to fulfilled by labels. Friends who share your musical tastes might do it, for example. But in order for your friends to turn you on to some good music, they have to be introduced to it somehow.

Social networking sites online amplify the ability of individuals to act as filters and as promoters of what they like. People list their favorite bands on sites like Myspace, and their friends can click over to the band’s profile and often listen to a few tracks for free. More people can be exposed to more music through their friends on Myspace than in real-life casual conversation, so an increasing portion of the role played by record labels is now be handled by individuals, online.

Market changes might force labels to become smaller, but the same technology that’s destroying their current business model will also let labels do more with less. If individuals are taking on more of the role of promoter, any promotion done by record labels will be amplified in a way that didn’t happen in the past. Special-interest niches can be targeted like never before, and the amateur music enthusiasts with influential online presences can be identified and courted by labels seeking to tout the next great act.

Record labels won’t disappear altogether, because there will always be a role for professional filters. Talent needs to be scouted, and promotion will always be helpful in connecting people to new music. But the balance of power in the music industry is shifting, seismically. Labels will be smaller, but they have the potential to be sleeker. And if this gives artists an opportunity to keep more of the revenue their work generates, that won’t be a bad thing.

12 January 2008 @ 12:21PM >> Matt Walliser writes in to say:

In your January 2 article titled “From Rainbows to Downloads” you suggest (emphasis mine)

when songs are stored as data and can be moved around like any other computer file, consumers will only ever need to buy one copy. As long as open formats are used, people will be able to play their music on any device devised in the future.

In February 2006 I wrote to you in regards to iTunes reaching 1 Billion downloads, loosely predicting that the music industry’s reluctance to evolve would only serve to strengthen Apple’s dominant position in the marketplace (or something like that). Recent anti-trust lawsuits filed against Apple with respect to monopolization of format simultaneously reinforce both your point (above) and mine. For clarification’s sake: I’m neither condemning nor condoning the actions Apple has taken that have brought about the lawsuit (predatory pricing of their hardware being the most credible, imho), I’m merely calling it like I see it.

Even though the music business has been fighting the trend towards Apple’s online distribution dominance since at least 2005, ironically, one reason Apple has so much power today is because of bad decisions made by the music labels themselves.

For years, labels have demanded that digital music be burdened with copy protection technology. In order to get permission to sell music through the iTunes Music Store, labels required Apple to implement copy protection, which they did. That technology, called FairPlay, is one of the less onerous copy protection schemes out there, but it does mean that music files purchased through the iTunes Music Store can’t be played by non-Apple devices (although they can be burned onto standard CDs, which can then be used in any standard CD player). In other words, the labels’ insistence on copy protection ended up giving Apple the ability to lock customers into its file formats, thereby making it more difficult for those customers to switch to devices sold by Apple’s competitors.

Steve Jobs has called on the recording industry to abandon copy protection, and after one label granted permission, Apple now sells some songs in MP3 format without copy protection. Competitors like Amazon are now selling music in unprotected MP3 format as well. Maybe the recording industry is slowly waking up.

Still, I can’t help thinking that Steve Jobs is secretly smiling to himself, knowing that the long-running short-sightedness of the music business is part of the reason that Apple enjoys such dominance in online music distribution. If music labels had allowed sales of unprotected MP3s right from the start, Apple’s iPod would probably be just as dominant in the market for portable music players, but the iTunes Music Store would likely be a different story.

2 January 2008 @ 8:57AM >> Two of my favorite creative minds in music—Thom Yorke and David Byrne—recently sat down to discuss the future of the music business. Last October, Yorke’s band Radiohead released its latest album, In Rainbows. But rather than releasing it through a traditional music label, Radiohead let fans download the music directly from its website. And rather than charging a fixed amount for the album, users were given the option of naming their own price—down to and including zero.

The sinking fortunes of the music industry establishment may have been instigated by technological change, but they are worsened by the industry’s unwillingness to let consumers buy music that isn’t locked to specific formats or media. It’s like peering into the future of the movie industry.

In both cases, you have industries whose fortunes have been protected for decades by the commingling of content and medium. Record albums weren’t just vinyl, they were vinyl with embedded music: the music couldn’t exist without the physical medium. As tapes replaced records and CDs replaced tapes, higher fidelity and increased convenience of each new format gave consumers a reason to re-purchase content that they already paid for in lesser formats. But when songs are stored as data and can be moved around like any other computer file, consumers will only ever need to buy one copy. As long as open formats are used, people will be able to play their music on any device devised in the future. There goes the upgrade gravy train.

Like the music industry, the film industry is rightfully concerned with piracy, because once music and movies aren’t tied to a physical medium, they can be copied endlessly. But consumers don’t care if this inconveniences the industry; people have shown that they want the convenience of digital content, and they are willing to pay for it. So the more that record companies lock down digital content in order to fight piracy, the less incentive legitimate customers have to buy the product in the first place. What good is the “music as a file” model if it is artificially burdened with the same limitations as physical media?

The movie business hasn’t been hurt by the shift away from physical media yet. But that’s only because technology hasn’t advanced far enough. It takes a lot more data to store a high-definition movie than an album’s worth of high-fidelity music. When a typical consumer’s Internet connection becomes fast enough to download high-definition full-length movies in a matter of minutes, the home market for movies will be subject to same technological dynamics affecting the music business today. And that future is only years away.

But that isn’t the film industry’s biggest problem right now. After all, people won’t pirate content that they don’t want to watch in the first place.

The problem with the film business is that too many insiders forgot that the rest of America doesn’t necessarily share the same view of the world as their friends in Hollywood. Instead, Hollywood has become its own echo chamber, which is why distributors keep pushing out flop after flop of military-bashing films. In Hollywood and at film festivals, such fare is highly praised. But in theaters around the country, the audience for films like Redacted is comprised mostly of empty seats. It’s almost as if Hollywood is producing films only for itself.

My experience in trying to get distribution for Indoctrinate U only confirms this. People in the film business just don’t take seriously the possibility that there’s a market for documentaries outside Hollywood’s typical Michael Moore/Al Gore worldview. I don’t know to what extent that’s out of political bias or the result of a simple Catch-22: they don’t see a market for anything different, but that’s because they’ve never tried distributing anything different.

That leaves us in the position of having to self-distribute Indoctrinate U. And because the Internet will allow us to put the film in people’s hands in the fastest, most cost-effective way possible, we’ll be able to conduct a little experiment of our own. Indoctrinate U will not be available on DVD right away. Instead, we’re going to focus our efforts on seeing whether the Internet can be used to route around the gatekeepers in Hollywood—without the shackles of physical media. (Although unlike Radiohead, I’m afraid, we’re not in a position to give our goods away for free.)

Who knows? Maybe the market can be proven without Hollywood’s help. I think it can. And once the market is proven, we’ll finally know who in the film business wants to serve customer desires instead of the dogma of Hollywood groupthink.

26 April 2007 @ 7:15PM >> Well, I was moderately aware that classroom indoctrination inspired a movie, but until now, I didn’t realize that it also inspired a high-energy rock song.

Thanks to The Right Brothers for volunteering to put up a special page to make their song freely available for Brain Terminal readers.

30 November 2006 @ 8:52AM >> The CEO of the world’s largest music publisher is attempting to extract money from everyone who buys a digital music player.

Universal Music Group’s Chairman and CEO Doug Morris said of iPods and similar players, “These devices are just repositories for stolen music, and they all know it. So it’s time to get paid for it.”

By accusing everyone who bought a digital music player of piracy, Universal hopes to coerce manufacturers of these devices to pay a per-unit fee, a surcharge that is then passed on to the consumer. (Universal apparently figured out that running a profitable business is much easier without the burden of convincing customers that your product is worth buying.) That’s exactly what the music giant did with Microsoft, which now pays Universal for every Zune music player sold.

Now, Universal is targeting the iPod. And with 25% of the market, Universal has quite a bit of leverage against Apple. The company can threaten to pull all of its music from the iTunes Music Store unless Apple complies with a demand to impose a per-unit fee on all iPods. If successful, anyone who buys an iPod will be considered an assumed pirate, and Universal will receive money, regardless of whether any music from that label ever ends up on one of those iPods.

Is this really a road that music publishers want to go down? Aside from the obvious ill will it engenders from honest customers, such a move runs the risk of changing the purchasing calculations of people who own these devices. In effect, it legitimizes piracy in the minds of consumers.

If you’re an honest customer who purchases music today, your decision making may change if you know that record labels charge you simply for buying a music player. You’re already paying once up front—before you’ve even spent a dime to fill the device with music—so why pay again for the same thing when you want to download music? People will feel entitled to download whatever music they want, because they will know that they’ve already been billed for it.

Treating your customers like crooks is never a good way to encourage repeat business. And imposing a blanket music surcharge simply for buying a player is a surefire way to get people thinking that they’ve got a right to download music that they’ve already paid for.

If record labels wanted to ensure that paying customers today become pirates tomorrow, they couldn’t have designed a better way.

18 September 2006 @ 8:32AM >> Roger Waters, the estranged member of Pink Floyd, is now touring the United States. Normally, that’s a show I’d go see; I’ve been to a number of Roger Waters and Pink Floyd concerts in the past.

However, this tour is one I’ll be skipping. Why?

Well, according to the Drudge Report, the left-wing Waters is injecting even more politics into his shows than usual. The infamous flying pig has now been painted with the words “Don’t be led to slaughter! Vote Democrat November 2nd.” (I wonder if the flying pig would be considered illegal advertising under McCain-Feingold.)

I don’t know why musicians think that audiences attend their shows for political advertising. I don’t know why singers assume that if I like their music, I also like their politics. I’m paying to be entertained, so why inject messages that have nothing to do with that entertainment in the show? Frankly, I think it’s a bit rude, like if you’d gone into a restaurant and the chef came out to harangue you on his views on Iraq in the middle of the main course.

Roger Waters, the guy who penned the classic Pink Floyd album Animals, should know better than to treat his audience like sheep. And as a citizen of the United Kingdom, perhaps he should take his opinions home and not meddle in the internal affairs of another country.

Well, Waters will not get my money this time. I’m sure I won’t be missing much. These days, all the good concerts can be easily downloaded anyway.

---

Update: Chris Vozeh writes:

Is that a recent picture? November 7 is election day this year, not November 2. 2004’s elections were held on the second... therefore that may be an old picture.

If it is a current picture, I don’t care who or how many people vote for the Dems on Thursday, Nov 2.

Thanks for catching that, Chris. You are right on the dates of Election Day 2004 versus 2006. Perhaps Roger Waters got the date wrong, or Matt Drudge got an old photo. Either way, I know I’m not alone in attending concerts for their musical and not political content.

25 August 2006 >> A woman with an unfortunate surname, Kola Boof, says that—for a while—she was Osama bin Laden’s “sex slave.” And if her story in Page Six is any indication, our man of Allah may in fact be a closeted fan of cheesy reality TV:

“He told me Whitney Houston was the most beautiful woman he’d ever seen.”

[...]

Boof says bin Laden couldn’t stop talking about his favorite singer and had lofty plans for her. “He said he wanted to give [her] a mansion that he owned in a suburb of Khartoum. He explained to me that to possess Whitney, he would be willing to break his color rule and make her one of his wives.”

“[He would say] how beautiful she is,” Boof claims, “what a nice smile she has, how truly Islamic she is but is just brainwashed by American culture and by her husband - Bobby Brown, whom Osama talked about having killed, as if it were normal to have womens’ husbands killed.

“In his briefcase, I would come across photographs of the Star [magazine], as well as copies of Playboy. It would soon come to the point where I was sick of hearing Whitney Houston’s name,” Boof writes.

Let’s see, here we learn that our lovelorn terrorist is obsessed with a trashy pop diva, he reads Star magazine, and he “reads” Playboy.

Maybe we are winning the culture war against radical Islam.

11 July 2006 @ 7:20PM >> The original Crazy Diamond has passed. Shine on, Syd.