A couple weeks ago, pre-Virginia Tech tragedy and, presumably, during a lull in controversial new stories, Don Imus made a rude comment about the Rutgers' Women's Basketball Team. Because I'm certain that almost every person in America has heard about this story, I won't go into detail. Suffice to say, Don Imus made a racially and sexually offensive comment directed at a specific group of black women who had recently triumphed over hardship to play in the NCAA championship basketball game.
The comment was then broadcasted over all forms of possible media communication -- the radio, the internet, the television. Friends showed friends, the news repeated the story ad nauseum and we even spent an entire class at school discussing the issue. Don Imus is a radio personality that has been broadcasting every morning for the past twenty years on CBS radio. He has made derogatory comments directed towards specific races, genders and sexual preferences for years. It's no secret to anyone who is entertained by his show that he aims for a certain shock factor in order to gain an audience. He seems to have little to actually say, which has not been a problem previously since there is not exactly a huge audience listening to his show. So, why was this comment so widely blown up, up and away?
Rap singers, such as more recent stars Nelly and Akon, have been calling women "hos," "bitches," "sluts," "n*ppy-headed," and many, many more derogatory comments since they began their careers. Some may even say that without these terms, their careers wouldn't exist. As an example, the most popular rap song downloaded off of iTunes is "Give it to Me" (Timbaland ft. Nelly and Justin Timberlake). Both the men and women speak of women's promiscuity and sexual desire in explicit language. Women are sexual objects, as seen in numerous rap and hip-hop music videos where women are nude and gyrating on each other and men.
While I do not condone Don Imus' comments, I feel there is an unjust double-standard in our society. Black men can call all women "hos," but when a white man calls a black woman a "n*ppy-headed ho," it is absolutely inexcusable. Why are more women not outraged as the Rutgers' women were? If a statement like that is cause enough to fire a radio personality, it's cause enough to take rappers off the air.
Popular rap and hip-hop is much more widely available and publicized than Don Imus ever would have been had the media not grabbed the story and run with it. Children are exposed to sex, drugs and explicit language earlier than ever. If parents don't censor it, they can be seriously negatively influenced. As an article in the Harvard Political Review states, children are becoming desensitized to this type of language in a dangerous way. They are more likely to participate in violent acts and women are more likely to engage in promiscuous and demeaning relationships.
Do musicians not bear any responsibility as role models? Should women stand up for themselves as the Rutgers' women did? Have these terms simply infiltrated our vocabulary to the point of now being meaningless? If so, where is the line? And who determines where it is?
It's hard to determine if women have moved forward or backward since radical feminism of the 1970's. With a mother who participated actively, I have been raised with a strong sense of female self. I feel unaffected by rappers' comments and scantily clad female singers because I choose to ignore them. I don't relate to the music, so I don't feel the lyrics apply to me.
Unfortunately, young girls don't necessarily have the capability or guidance to analyze this for themselves. They are following a fad. In a journal article from Popular Music and Society, Melanie Lowe discusses the impact of Britney Spears' provocative performance on young girls. She states that moms raised in the '60s and '70s are rightly nervous about the direct correlation between image and audience. Young girls are clearly not decoding the image as one used to, but rather taking it at face value. (Article available here on USC's server).
Looking to the future, it is difficult to hypothesize where music trends will go. It is certainly true that digital media has and will continue to have a tremendous impact on the youth of America. It will make popular music much more easily accessible to young kids without necessarily the right parental supervision. Interestingly, though, an article on tolerance.org points out that rap and hip-hop have historically not been the only genres to denigrate women -- the Rolling Stones and Kid Rock have done it for years. Regardless of whether it has worsened, popular music has always had an element of female objectification. If history is any indication, it will certainly continue to.
For feminists and women alike, perhaps this common vernacular of derogatory comments toward women will begin to die out. Women could decide to take a stand or continue to passively ignore it. Either way through total attention or total lack thereof, the popularity of such vocabulary and treatment of women could fade into the background as simply another garish, laughable trend.
On the other hand, the next generation could have been so influenced by the media of today that they treat women as the singers portray them. Feminism could backslide rapidly. The overexposure of explicit videos and obscene lyrics could cause the younger generation, girls and boys alike, to deem this behavior normal.
The fact of the matter is that Don Imus should not have, under any circumstances, said what he did. However, for the media to react the way it did is unbelievably hypocritical given the content played on a daily basis. As Matt Taibbi of RollingStone.com put it, the Imus scandal was a media blitz -- designed to use one man as an example instead of looking to seriously revise content.
If we take Imus off the air, we should reprimand popular musicians as well. If you hold one person accountable, hold all persons accountable -- particularly those that have the most influence on the generations of tomorrow.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Feminism in Music
DEFINITION:
əˌnFeminism fem·i·nism - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fem-uh-niz-uhm] –noun: 1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men; 2. (sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women; 3. feminine character. (dictionary.reference.com)
CONNOTATION:
Feminism: "In my heart, I think a woman has two choices: Either she's a feminist or a masochist." (Gloria Steinam). The social and political movement encouraging equal rights for women at the expense and questioning of social norms. Once called "bra-burners," they are 'perceived as simply anti-family, anti-marriage, anti-children, and perhaps even anti-religion, not to mention anti-men.' (www.friesian.com)
Throughout the 1960's and 1970's, female singer-songwriters campaigned for women's rights. They wrote about women's equality and redefining social stereotypes. It was a time for women to go to college to begin a career, not just a family. To be a woman was not to be a victim, it was to be a strong member of society -- just as strong as a man. They paved the way for the women of the following generations, including mine. They struggled to climb the ranks in the work force, and faced discrimination constantly.
Women of today's generation no longer face the same sort of outright discrimination. We have the equal ability to gain an education, we have the equal ability to apply for any job we want, we have the choice not to get married right away or ever, we have the choice to bear and raise a child alone; the women of the '60s and '70s earned women of succeeding generations the opportunity to gain respect. Previous stereotypes were shattered and we are on the eve of the first presidential election that could elect a female president. It is a new day for women.
Or is it? Take a look at popular music trends and you might find an entirely different world. One of women portrayed as sex objects, called "bitches" and "hoes". Women can be bought with expensive jewelry, souped up cars, and famous names -- at least that's what rappers like Nelly say. As much as the women of the '60s and '70s influenced today's generation, what kind of influence is this music having on the generations of tomorrow?
I believe feminists do still exist in contemporary society. The feminist of the 21st century is much different that that of the 20th, but it remains, nevertheless. As Wendy McElroy of ifeminists.com states, 'she is the estimated 17 million women who control their own self-defense by owning guns; the mothers of children who are schooled at home; the stay-at-home moms who sacrifice careers to pursue more personal values; the entrepreneurs and career women who rise through merit and reject the concept of "victim."' Moreover, it could be anyone -- male or female -- that believes women and men deserve equality in the eyes of the law and society.
It's hard to say if these are the type of women that can lead the next generation by simply acting through example. Should they not be just as outraged at the way rappers speak about women as the way the Rutger's basketball team was at Don Imus? How has the word "ho [whore]" or "slut" become popular vernacular? Women use them with each other almost as often as popular music male artists use about them.
Some women make the argument that, much the way black people use the "n" word in music lyrics, women use the words "ho" and "slut" as a form of empowerment. Using it about yourself or your people is different that using it against others. The former is empowerment, the latter is discrimination and degradation. On getcrafty.com, Kate Taylor the
By all means, I agree with
Rather, I agree with the nemesis of her argument, Ariel Levy of The New Yorker. She believes that women are debasing their sexuality. By participating and going along with disgusting, degrading, embarassing activities such as these, they send the message that women today are okay with being treated as sex objects. We deserve more. We deserve better role models for children. By acting like strippers or porn actresses, you show young girls that this is an acceptable way to act; but moreover, an established expectation of successful, attractive men. It is simply demeaning. Women can own their sexuality without selling it.
Feminism has changed. Women and men can be considered feminists if they act in a manner reflecting respect for women's equality and sexuality. Music videos do NOT showcase feminists, they exploit women with low self-esteem. It's clear that we need more role models in the industry not afraid to write music and speak publicly about respect and equality for women if we want to maintain the standards set so high for us by previous generations of women.
As Betty Friedan said, "Man is not the enemy here, but the fellow victim. Men are not the enemy, but the fellow victims. The real enemy is women's denigration of themselves."
Sunday, April 8, 2007
More on the DRM Debate
In my previous post I discussed my personal sentiment on this week's announcement by Apple and EMI. Since blogging earlier in the week, I've done some research on the blogosphere's reaction the the announcement. It seems that there is similar backlash but for a wider variety of reasons. The drawbacks I failed to mention were keenly caught by several other bloggers that I will share.
To start, engadget.com congratulates EMI for taking such a bold step. However, it points out that if Jobs was truly committed to launching DRM-free downloads, then why does he not offer the Disney catalogs? After his acquisition of Pixar last year, he became a huge shareholder in the Disney conglomerate. It's intersting that Hollywood, Lyric Street, Disney and Mammoth Records all still remain encrypted. Additionally, while in theory DRM-free music is more easily distributable, the new downloads are AAC only. Several mp3 devices do not even play AAC encoded files.
On theinquirer.net, Charlie Demerjian points out that the new files are not backwards compatible. Meaning: if you bought the file with DRM, you're stuck with it. You can't prorate what you've already bought -- you have to spend the $1.29 for the new file. Essentially, you're spending $2.30 for a song. Does this sound like a great deal to you? While clearly editorializing on the announcement, he makes a good point that this announcement seems like a huge media blitz. It's not actually better for the consumer, it merely makes Apple and EMI out to be great innovators simply because they finally took a step in allowing consumers to actually use the music they pay for.
P2pnet.net also mentions that it's no secret Jobs wants to ease the pressure off of himself in Europe. Norway, Germany, France... all have singled Apple out as illegally monopolizing the industry with DRM. It's in Jobs' best interest to drop DRM and distance himself from the issue as much as possible. By doing so, he stands to lose little and gain a lot of great press. This would also explain why he hasn't leapt to eliminating DRM from his own catalogs.
Still other sites like TidBITS.com cynically predict that Apple will find some other way to "watermark" consumers to track their filesharing and distribution habits. Some way, somehow, the RIAA will figure out how to sue their law-breaking consumers.
To say the least, consumers and bloggers are not convinced that this agreement is the change the industry needs. The other major labels are still firmly opposed to DRM free music and peer-to-peer free filesharing still exists. It certainly remains to be seen if this is the balance between the opposite ends of the spectrum.
To start, engadget.com congratulates EMI for taking such a bold step. However, it points out that if Jobs was truly committed to launching DRM-free downloads, then why does he not offer the Disney catalogs? After his acquisition of Pixar last year, he became a huge shareholder in the Disney conglomerate. It's intersting that Hollywood, Lyric Street, Disney and Mammoth Records all still remain encrypted. Additionally, while in theory DRM-free music is more easily distributable, the new downloads are AAC only. Several mp3 devices do not even play AAC encoded files.
On theinquirer.net, Charlie Demerjian points out that the new files are not backwards compatible. Meaning: if you bought the file with DRM, you're stuck with it. You can't prorate what you've already bought -- you have to spend the $1.29 for the new file. Essentially, you're spending $2.30 for a song. Does this sound like a great deal to you? While clearly editorializing on the announcement, he makes a good point that this announcement seems like a huge media blitz. It's not actually better for the consumer, it merely makes Apple and EMI out to be great innovators simply because they finally took a step in allowing consumers to actually use the music they pay for.
P2pnet.net also mentions that it's no secret Jobs wants to ease the pressure off of himself in Europe. Norway, Germany, France... all have singled Apple out as illegally monopolizing the industry with DRM. It's in Jobs' best interest to drop DRM and distance himself from the issue as much as possible. By doing so, he stands to lose little and gain a lot of great press. This would also explain why he hasn't leapt to eliminating DRM from his own catalogs.
Still other sites like TidBITS.com cynically predict that Apple will find some other way to "watermark" consumers to track their filesharing and distribution habits. Some way, somehow, the RIAA will figure out how to sue their law-breaking consumers.
To say the least, consumers and bloggers are not convinced that this agreement is the change the industry needs. The other major labels are still firmly opposed to DRM free music and peer-to-peer free filesharing still exists. It certainly remains to be seen if this is the balance between the opposite ends of the spectrum.
The Next Step is a Misstep
This past week, Apple and EMI announced their intention to release DRM free music. For "just" $1.29 per song, customers can purchase songs from EMI's entire digital catalog of music that's available through iTunes. The increase of $.30 also includes an upgrade in sound quality from previous digital tracks -- deemed to be practically indistinguishable from CD quality.
Steve Jobs declares on the Apple site that he thinks the "customers are going to love this." Apple and EMI believe themselves to be innovators and taking the first steps to completely revitalize digital downloading.
While Jobs has admittedly been on the cutting edge of the digital music industry over the past few years, this seems to be a departure that will have questionable success. True, for rare music fanatics and those that strongly desire the ability to share their music this is a great change. However, those consumers are few and far between. If my classmates are any indication, less than 10% felt this was a positive step for the digital industry. The resonating response was that this agreement will most likely have little to no effect on illegal file-sharing. What little effect it may have will be negative.
For those that purchase music, they do so for particular reasons: immediacy, convenience, morality, guilt, fear of the RIAA, quality, etc. For those that don't purchase music, they also do so for particular reasons: lack of consciousness, impatience, lack of money, the feeling that they
deserve free music, etc. This new deal with EMI doesn't truly affect any of these reasons. Instead, it merely makes those that already purchase music spend more for the ability to distribute the music freely. Quite honestly, if one wants to do that DRM-free, all he/she has to do is burn the track to CD, burn it back to the laptop and upload it wherever he/she wants. Granted, it does take longer -- but not that much longer, and 30% more is a significant price increase.
Additionally, an increase in sound quality is unfortunately not that attractive to many consumers. Yes for music fanatics, it does matter. However, I can count on one hand the number of my friends in college and high school who can even tell the different between an mp3 and a CD track. Is it really wise to presume they will pay more money for a difference they can't even hear?
In my opinion, if Jobs, EMI and the other major labels wish to make waves in the digital industry, they should go to high schools, colleges. Talk to the kids that are going to be buying the music in upcoming generations. They should realize their target audience is full of people that can't afford a price increase, don't necessarily realize that stealing music online is like stealing music from a retail store, and don't listen to their music quality as closely as previous generations. If we're talking competition, peer-to-peer filesharing is still the best alternative for them. Consumers aren't likely to backtrack after being able to speedily acquire a huge library of music at no cost.
Steve Jobs declares on the Apple site that he thinks the "customers are going to love this." Apple and EMI believe themselves to be innovators and taking the first steps to completely revitalize digital downloading.
While Jobs has admittedly been on the cutting edge of the digital music industry over the past few years, this seems to be a departure that will have questionable success. True, for rare music fanatics and those that strongly desire the ability to share their music this is a great change. However, those consumers are few and far between. If my classmates are any indication, less than 10% felt this was a positive step for the digital industry. The resonating response was that this agreement will most likely have little to no effect on illegal file-sharing. What little effect it may have will be negative.
For those that purchase music, they do so for particular reasons: immediacy, convenience, morality, guilt, fear of the RIAA, quality, etc. For those that don't purchase music, they also do so for particular reasons: lack of consciousness, impatience, lack of money, the feeling that they
deserve free music, etc. This new deal with EMI doesn't truly affect any of these reasons. Instead, it merely makes those that already purchase music spend more for the ability to distribute the music freely. Quite honestly, if one wants to do that DRM-free, all he/she has to do is burn the track to CD, burn it back to the laptop and upload it wherever he/she wants. Granted, it does take longer -- but not that much longer, and 30% more is a significant price increase.
Additionally, an increase in sound quality is unfortunately not that attractive to many consumers. Yes for music fanatics, it does matter. However, I can count on one hand the number of my friends in college and high school who can even tell the different between an mp3 and a CD track. Is it really wise to presume they will pay more money for a difference they can't even hear?
In my opinion, if Jobs, EMI and the other major labels wish to make waves in the digital industry, they should go to high schools, colleges. Talk to the kids that are going to be buying the music in upcoming generations. They should realize their target audience is full of people that can't afford a price increase, don't necessarily realize that stealing music online is like stealing music from a retail store, and don't listen to their music quality as closely as previous generations. If we're talking competition, peer-to-peer filesharing is still the best alternative for them. Consumers aren't likely to backtrack after being able to speedily acquire a huge library of music at no cost.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Idolizing Idol
What does the success of American Idol really say about the future of the industry? With the advent of the internet, listeners are growing accustomed to getting what they want when they want it -- legally or otherwise. Record labels are being phased out in the face of peer-to-peer file-sharing and social networks givings new bands opportunities to play and earn money.
Now shows like American Idol, not record labels, are breeding divas. Once again, it seems that major record labels are only interested in signing acts that already have a fan-base. In an American Idol's case, a fanbase of millions of people, a fan and producer in Simon Cowell, a new look thanks to Idol's make-up artists and stylists, and advertisers clamoring for endorsements. It's hard for the average band to compete with that kind of following. What results are cookie-cutter pop artists born and bred in a vacuum.
The show began in 2002 under the auspice that the show was looking for the best singer in the country. In reality, the show was really looking for "realistic" entertainment. More than the show is about good singing, it's about the terrible singers and auditions the show encounters along the way, as well as what the judges will rip on the singer for next. Viewers don't want to see good singers, they want to see bad singers or good singers mess up. Further, and most importantly, viewers like the sense of competition and the ability to participate in the process.
This should say something to record labels. Viewers and listeners want to be apart of the process. They enjoy feeling as though they are cultivating the underdog. Much the way a teen discovers a local band on Myspace, downloads their music, purchases their merchandise, and continues to follow their career, American Idol viewers feel they are helping the artist by calling in and voting.
The difference seems to be in the generation. My little brother, 18, downloads the band from Myspace; my mom, 55, watches American Idol and calls in. Regardless of the medium, it's clear that this idea of "supporting" the artist resonates with viewers and listeners. Perhaps if there was a way to instill this feeling in the listener in terms of purchasing music or listening to terrestrial radio, they would be much more inclined to do so.
Much the way it's important to reward a dog for completing a trick or giving a student a good grade for sacrificing their time to study, positive rewards are necessary in all aspects of life. If the RIAA could somehow understand that by providing incentive or appealing to listeners positively they would be more likely to achieve the results they desire: people paying for music. Punishment is not enough. Give viewers and listeners what they want -- an opportunity to participate in the process.
Now shows like American Idol, not record labels, are breeding divas. Once again, it seems that major record labels are only interested in signing acts that already have a fan-base. In an American Idol's case, a fanbase of millions of people, a fan and producer in Simon Cowell, a new look thanks to Idol's make-up artists and stylists, and advertisers clamoring for endorsements. It's hard for the average band to compete with that kind of following. What results are cookie-cutter pop artists born and bred in a vacuum.
The show began in 2002 under the auspice that the show was looking for the best singer in the country. In reality, the show was really looking for "realistic" entertainment. More than the show is about good singing, it's about the terrible singers and auditions the show encounters along the way, as well as what the judges will rip on the singer for next. Viewers don't want to see good singers, they want to see bad singers or good singers mess up. Further, and most importantly, viewers like the sense of competition and the ability to participate in the process.
This should say something to record labels. Viewers and listeners want to be apart of the process. They enjoy feeling as though they are cultivating the underdog. Much the way a teen discovers a local band on Myspace, downloads their music, purchases their merchandise, and continues to follow their career, American Idol viewers feel they are helping the artist by calling in and voting.
The difference seems to be in the generation. My little brother, 18, downloads the band from Myspace; my mom, 55, watches American Idol and calls in. Regardless of the medium, it's clear that this idea of "supporting" the artist resonates with viewers and listeners. Perhaps if there was a way to instill this feeling in the listener in terms of purchasing music or listening to terrestrial radio, they would be much more inclined to do so.
Much the way it's important to reward a dog for completing a trick or giving a student a good grade for sacrificing their time to study, positive rewards are necessary in all aspects of life. If the RIAA could somehow understand that by providing incentive or appealing to listeners positively they would be more likely to achieve the results they desire: people paying for music. Punishment is not enough. Give viewers and listeners what they want -- an opportunity to participate in the process.
Friday, March 30, 2007
KCRW = Future Radio
Since the beginning of the semester, I have become increasingly aware of the problems terrestrial radio is encountering. As a Virginia native, I only regularly listened to country music stations on terrestrial radio. Even then, in college I listened less than in high school. Once KZLA (Los Angeles' lone country station) went kaput, I stopped really listening altogether.
That was until I became hooked on KCRW. Los Angeles' branch of National Public Radio, KCRW is a community service by Santa Monica College and funded entirely by listeners. Short of end of the hour plugs by individual DJs, advertisements are few and far between. It offers by far the most interesting array of programming I have come across on FM radio.
During the oral presentation project in one of my music industry courses at USC, one student had the idea to revitalize terrestrial radio by offering listeners "themed hours" with unique DJs and programming. For example, an hour devoted to soundtracks or kids' music or punk-rock innovators. The response among class members (18-22) was exceedingly positive.
While this is a great idea, KCRW has long put this into use. The station is an eclectic mix of indie music, local music, global music, world and local news, talk radio and entertainment programming presented in 1, 2, or 3 hour blocks throughout the day. Shows like Morning Edition and Morning Becomes Eclectic have made the radio station quite popular, garnering an average of 500,000 listeners.
Perhaps the most noteworthy mention about KCRW is its ability to showcase local and undiscovered talent globally. DJs like Nic Harcourt offer indie musicians a chance to submit their material unsolicited -- and, unlike most unsolicited submissions, Harcourt actually listens and plays the best on the radio. Artists like Dido, Coldplay, Beck and Norah Jones can all credit KCRW's Sounds Eclectic with giving them unparalleled exposure.
Typically the morning block of music is aimed towards a working, middle-aged audience with more adult contemporary and world music stylings. However, evening shows such as Brave New World, Metropolis and Nocturna offer a wide variety of alternative rock, house, dance and other progressive music stylings geared towards a younger generation. It is a great way for listeners to discover new music recommended by DJs who care and are knowledgeable about their specific genres. Just by visiting the website, one can browse the enormous list of various programming options and listen to podcasts of entire shows.
Music and news are not the only programming offered on the station, though. The station also offers shows like Good Food, Le Show (hosted by the voice of Homer Simpson, Harry Shearer), Car Talk (with Click and Clack) and This American Life. Each show is completely different. They each offer a mix of talk, contemporary issues, and artistry, providing the listener with a new, compelling, entertaining listening experience.
And the numbers reflect why KCRW has the ability to provide innovative content. Nearly 50% of their budget is devoted to programming content. Intriguingly, the station reports a growth in revenue. Los Angeles Business Journal also reported that KCRW ranks number one among Los Angeles Public Radio Stations.
Imagine that! Innovative programming leads to growth in revenue and a #1 rating. Terrestrial radio consolidators should take note. KCRW is a favorite of mine and many other Los Angelenos'. Judging by the response among kids in my classes, this is what the future generation wants. If consolidators want to get their listeners back, they should follow in the footsteps of KCRW.
That was until I became hooked on KCRW. Los Angeles' branch of National Public Radio, KCRW is a community service by Santa Monica College and funded entirely by listeners. Short of end of the hour plugs by individual DJs, advertisements are few and far between. It offers by far the most interesting array of programming I have come across on FM radio.
During the oral presentation project in one of my music industry courses at USC, one student had the idea to revitalize terrestrial radio by offering listeners "themed hours" with unique DJs and programming. For example, an hour devoted to soundtracks or kids' music or punk-rock innovators. The response among class members (18-22) was exceedingly positive.
While this is a great idea, KCRW has long put this into use. The station is an eclectic mix of indie music, local music, global music, world and local news, talk radio and entertainment programming presented in 1, 2, or 3 hour blocks throughout the day. Shows like Morning Edition and Morning Becomes Eclectic have made the radio station quite popular, garnering an average of 500,000 listeners.
Perhaps the most noteworthy mention about KCRW is its ability to showcase local and undiscovered talent globally. DJs like Nic Harcourt offer indie musicians a chance to submit their material unsolicited -- and, unlike most unsolicited submissions, Harcourt actually listens and plays the best on the radio. Artists like Dido, Coldplay, Beck and Norah Jones can all credit KCRW's Sounds Eclectic with giving them unparalleled exposure.
Typically the morning block of music is aimed towards a working, middle-aged audience with more adult contemporary and world music stylings. However, evening shows such as Brave New World, Metropolis and Nocturna offer a wide variety of alternative rock, house, dance and other progressive music stylings geared towards a younger generation. It is a great way for listeners to discover new music recommended by DJs who care and are knowledgeable about their specific genres. Just by visiting the website, one can browse the enormous list of various programming options and listen to podcasts of entire shows.
Music and news are not the only programming offered on the station, though. The station also offers shows like Good Food, Le Show (hosted by the voice of Homer Simpson, Harry Shearer), Car Talk (with Click and Clack) and This American Life. Each show is completely different. They each offer a mix of talk, contemporary issues, and artistry, providing the listener with a new, compelling, entertaining listening experience.
And the numbers reflect why KCRW has the ability to provide innovative content. Nearly 50% of their budget is devoted to programming content. Intriguingly, the station reports a growth in revenue. Los Angeles Business Journal also reported that KCRW ranks number one among Los Angeles Public Radio Stations.
Imagine that! Innovative programming leads to growth in revenue and a #1 rating. Terrestrial radio consolidators should take note. KCRW is a favorite of mine and many other Los Angelenos'. Judging by the response among kids in my classes, this is what the future generation wants. If consolidators want to get their listeners back, they should follow in the footsteps of KCRW.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
SXSW
About a week ago, KCRW was heavily promoting a music festival in Austin, TX called South by Southwest Music and Media Conference and Festival (SXSW). It features new artists from all over the US, as well as internationally. For about a week, over 1300 bands are invited to perform in gigs around Austin. Basically, it's one big showcase for unsigned indie bands and amateur filmmakers spanning a variety of genres.
Every spring since 1987, SXSW takes over Austin in a big way. This past year, over 1400 bands headed down to Texas to showcase their talent for industry big-wigs, including Terry McBride, CEO of Nettwerk, and Gilberto Gil, acclaimed Brazilian recording artist.
Not all acts are unsigned; however, individual hour-long showcases are booked at literally dozens of venues throughout Austin for artists. A band can invite any and all, including friends, family, fans, A&R reps, and label CEOs. Additionally, SXSW puts together podcasts from panel sessions and offers hundreds of free mp3 downloads of performances over the four days. One can go to the website to download the podcasts and mp3s without cost, or sign up for a free compilation CD that SXSW compiles annually.
One of the greatest and most accessible ways SXSW markets itself is by blogging everything from the event. There are both written and video blogs from panel sessions and band performances, and written blogs reviewing both.
SXSW is not just a music festival, either. A few years ago it added an interactive and film portion to the event for amateur filmmakers. For 8-9 days, filmmakers can post their film trailers online and screen their movies at major theaters in downtown Austin (including the Convention Center).
The festival is an amazing opportunity for bands and artists. While social networking (like Myspace and Uber) and online distribution (through iTunes, CDBaby, eMusic) have given fledgling artists an opportunity to market their music, SXSW gives new artists a remarkable performance opportunity. Label representatives, producers and those with a vested interest in new talent come from all around the country to scout talent and provide advice. The competition may be stiff, but a band has multiple opportunities to make a first impression. Luck is never so easy to come by as it is in Austin.
And advertisers seem to get it. They see the potential for new consumers in such a broad, young, hip, eager audience. Huge companies like AOL, Verizon, Toyota, and Miller all provided sponsorship for this year's event.
The execs at SXSW also seem to get it. An interactive media portion of the event was also added in the early '90s to showcase new multimedia tools that are significantly affecting the music and film industry. They understand that new media goes hand in hand with new music and new film, and are seeking to further that development rather than ignore it (ahem, major record labels).
The festival is an exciting and cutting edge experience that a band shouldn't miss. Artists like Bloc Party, Lily Allen, Amy Winehouse, Interpol, Hawthorne Heights, Badly Drawn Boy, Stars of Track and Field, and the Cold War Kids have all found exposure in SXSW. Festivals like this are too rare; they clearly have a keen audience that is willing and eager.
Every spring since 1987, SXSW takes over Austin in a big way. This past year, over 1400 bands headed down to Texas to showcase their talent for industry big-wigs, including Terry McBride, CEO of Nettwerk, and Gilberto Gil, acclaimed Brazilian recording artist.
Not all acts are unsigned; however, individual hour-long showcases are booked at literally dozens of venues throughout Austin for artists. A band can invite any and all, including friends, family, fans, A&R reps, and label CEOs. Additionally, SXSW puts together podcasts from panel sessions and offers hundreds of free mp3 downloads of performances over the four days. One can go to the website to download the podcasts and mp3s without cost, or sign up for a free compilation CD that SXSW compiles annually.
One of the greatest and most accessible ways SXSW markets itself is by blogging everything from the event. There are both written and video blogs from panel sessions and band performances, and written blogs reviewing both.
SXSW is not just a music festival, either. A few years ago it added an interactive and film portion to the event for amateur filmmakers. For 8-9 days, filmmakers can post their film trailers online and screen their movies at major theaters in downtown Austin (including the Convention Center).
The festival is an amazing opportunity for bands and artists. While social networking (like Myspace and Uber) and online distribution (through iTunes, CDBaby, eMusic) have given fledgling artists an opportunity to market their music, SXSW gives new artists a remarkable performance opportunity. Label representatives, producers and those with a vested interest in new talent come from all around the country to scout talent and provide advice. The competition may be stiff, but a band has multiple opportunities to make a first impression. Luck is never so easy to come by as it is in Austin.
And advertisers seem to get it. They see the potential for new consumers in such a broad, young, hip, eager audience. Huge companies like AOL, Verizon, Toyota, and Miller all provided sponsorship for this year's event.
The execs at SXSW also seem to get it. An interactive media portion of the event was also added in the early '90s to showcase new multimedia tools that are significantly affecting the music and film industry. They understand that new media goes hand in hand with new music and new film, and are seeking to further that development rather than ignore it (ahem, major record labels).
The festival is an exciting and cutting edge experience that a band shouldn't miss. Artists like Bloc Party, Lily Allen, Amy Winehouse, Interpol, Hawthorne Heights, Badly Drawn Boy, Stars of Track and Field, and the Cold War Kids have all found exposure in SXSW. Festivals like this are too rare; they clearly have a keen audience that is willing and eager.
Discontent with Content
It's no big surprise that content in popular music today seems to be lacking originality. Terrestrial radio more or less rotates the same 10 songs, and these songs more or less use the same themes and harmonic structures. There's nothing particularly outrageous or radical.
Music is becoming background, not forefront, attention-grabbing entertainment. We listen to it in our cars, while we converse on AIM, while cleaning the house, during parties, during homework, but not usually as a singular form of entertainment. Gone are the days of gathering around a record player to really listen to music.
Why is this? Does music no longer have anything to say that's worth focusing for? Is it boring? Why has content lost its edge of twenty years ago?
In my studies of 1960's and 1970's classic rock and folk music, I've learned that songs used to say something. Whether it was through the act of listening to certain types of music (like Elvis Presley) or actually listening the lyrics of the music (Frank Zappa, Bob Dylan, Peter, Paul and Mary, etc.), music was culturally and politically relevant. During times of the Vietnam War, music was consistently being released by artists like Sgt. Barry Sadler and Bob Dylan to comment on the war abroad.
And artists like this were actually popular. They created Top 40 hits with their songs about peace, about foreign policy, about reactions at home. Artists and musicians had strong opinions for or against the war, and both were equally well-received in the eyes of the public.
This is not so today. To not support the war is to be deemed un-American (look at the Dixie Chicks). While some concede that they support the troops, just not the war - it is still taboo to publicly proclaim this. In a post-9/11 America, it is not socially acceptable to act in a way that does not necessarily support America.
Popular music of the 1970's that clearly did not support the war in Vietnam or the President was widely accepted. Perhaps because the draft directly affected the young adults of the nation, it was natural that music would also directly deal with this issue. For the young adult generation today, the only music that directly discusses the war is that of fervent pro-war, pro-Army, pro-America country music artists (like Toby Keith or Darryl Worley).
I believe musicians have a responsibility to their audiences to be honest and write music pertaining to all aspects of their culture. In America, they have the right to freedom of speech and should take advantage of it, whether it be for or against American political and foreign policy. They should not feel penalized or persecuted for proclaiming an unpopular opinion. Artists like Toby Keith or Darryl Worley are misleading their audiences by singing songs about lives they have never lived. By releasing songs that promote the glamour and excitement of fighting the front lines, defending American pride, is irresponsible and ignorant. I'm sure if they had experience fighting in a war they would understand and release more informed records.
Musicians should examine their content and begin covering topics that our generation can relate to beyond sex, drinking and love. We can handle more than that, and I truly believe we are worth it.
Music is becoming background, not forefront, attention-grabbing entertainment. We listen to it in our cars, while we converse on AIM, while cleaning the house, during parties, during homework, but not usually as a singular form of entertainment. Gone are the days of gathering around a record player to really listen to music.
Why is this? Does music no longer have anything to say that's worth focusing for? Is it boring? Why has content lost its edge of twenty years ago?
In my studies of 1960's and 1970's classic rock and folk music, I've learned that songs used to say something. Whether it was through the act of listening to certain types of music (like Elvis Presley) or actually listening the lyrics of the music (Frank Zappa, Bob Dylan, Peter, Paul and Mary, etc.), music was culturally and politically relevant. During times of the Vietnam War, music was consistently being released by artists like Sgt. Barry Sadler and Bob Dylan to comment on the war abroad.
And artists like this were actually popular. They created Top 40 hits with their songs about peace, about foreign policy, about reactions at home. Artists and musicians had strong opinions for or against the war, and both were equally well-received in the eyes of the public.
This is not so today. To not support the war is to be deemed un-American (look at the Dixie Chicks). While some concede that they support the troops, just not the war - it is still taboo to publicly proclaim this. In a post-9/11 America, it is not socially acceptable to act in a way that does not necessarily support America.
Popular music of the 1970's that clearly did not support the war in Vietnam or the President was widely accepted. Perhaps because the draft directly affected the young adults of the nation, it was natural that music would also directly deal with this issue. For the young adult generation today, the only music that directly discusses the war is that of fervent pro-war, pro-Army, pro-America country music artists (like Toby Keith or Darryl Worley).
I believe musicians have a responsibility to their audiences to be honest and write music pertaining to all aspects of their culture. In America, they have the right to freedom of speech and should take advantage of it, whether it be for or against American political and foreign policy. They should not feel penalized or persecuted for proclaiming an unpopular opinion. Artists like Toby Keith or Darryl Worley are misleading their audiences by singing songs about lives they have never lived. By releasing songs that promote the glamour and excitement of fighting the front lines, defending American pride, is irresponsible and ignorant. I'm sure if they had experience fighting in a war they would understand and release more informed records.
Musicians should examine their content and begin covering topics that our generation can relate to beyond sex, drinking and love. We can handle more than that, and I truly believe we are worth it.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Play First, Pay Later.
For the past week or so I've been on tour with my a cappella group, the USC Sirens. We have traveled from college to high school to street corner to parents' living room and back to colleges singing our hearts out and attempting to sell enough CDs to earn our trips (monetarily, at least), and fund future recording endeavors and performance tours. At each show we invariably sell numerous CDs and receive donations from fans, friends, families and passing strangers.
When we hold large concerts and charge admission, we have to struggle to advertise and recruit audience members -- ironically, the same or smaller number of people that we have that stop to listen/donate on the street corner. Many times we end up making as much or more singing on a street corner as we do at a show we charge admission for.
Performance is obviously one of the best ways to market oneself, this is no secret. By giving away our services people tend to show their appreciation by buying a CD or making a donation. Radio had this exact same purpose when the content was new and exciting. By giving music away for free, it inspired listeners to buy the CD. Some want to be able to listen to the music whenever, wherever; some want to support a good artist; but either way, the public rewarded free service with money.
Somehow, record companies and artists need to come to the realization that the industry is shifting away from terrestrial radio to the internet. There needs to be free radio on the internet, free performance on the internet... something free in order to gain fans and inspire listeners to spend money. It's a paradox, but judging by terrestrial radio it works.
Currently, there are free services offered to listeners. Sites like Lastfm.com and Pandora.com allow listeners to find music they like and create personalized playlists of a variety of mainstream and indie music. Sites like betterPropaganda.com (which I discuessed in a post below) offer lots of free content from indie and unsigned bands -- downloads and free streaming.
However, Lastfm.com and Pandora.com have seen varied success because it seems that the younger generation has grown accustomed to owning their music without having to pay. However, in a survey among college students in my Music Industry forum, many agreed they would pay for music if they had a chance to sample it first.
As a result, it's apparent that if the younger generation had access to a service that allowed them to sample a few tracks off an album, no strings attached, they would be more likely to pay for the service. If they had a service provided to them on the internet, where they spend so much time, they would be more likely to pay for the service. CDs were the new cassettes, digital downloads are the new CDs and internet is the new radio. By providing a service free on the internet, it will increase digital download sales -- much the way providing free radio service increased CD sales.
There should be positive incentive for listeners to buy their music. If they feel that the industry is an equal partner and making the content available, they will be more likely to return the favor. Much the way the average passerby is willing to drop $5 in a hat if they see us performing on the street corner as opposed to paying a $5 admission to a show.
When we hold large concerts and charge admission, we have to struggle to advertise and recruit audience members -- ironically, the same or smaller number of people that we have that stop to listen/donate on the street corner. Many times we end up making as much or more singing on a street corner as we do at a show we charge admission for.
Performance is obviously one of the best ways to market oneself, this is no secret. By giving away our services people tend to show their appreciation by buying a CD or making a donation. Radio had this exact same purpose when the content was new and exciting. By giving music away for free, it inspired listeners to buy the CD. Some want to be able to listen to the music whenever, wherever; some want to support a good artist; but either way, the public rewarded free service with money.
Somehow, record companies and artists need to come to the realization that the industry is shifting away from terrestrial radio to the internet. There needs to be free radio on the internet, free performance on the internet... something free in order to gain fans and inspire listeners to spend money. It's a paradox, but judging by terrestrial radio it works.
Currently, there are free services offered to listeners. Sites like Lastfm.com and Pandora.com allow listeners to find music they like and create personalized playlists of a variety of mainstream and indie music. Sites like betterPropaganda.com (which I discuessed in a post below) offer lots of free content from indie and unsigned bands -- downloads and free streaming.
However, Lastfm.com and Pandora.com have seen varied success because it seems that the younger generation has grown accustomed to owning their music without having to pay. However, in a survey among college students in my Music Industry forum, many agreed they would pay for music if they had a chance to sample it first.
As a result, it's apparent that if the younger generation had access to a service that allowed them to sample a few tracks off an album, no strings attached, they would be more likely to pay for the service. If they had a service provided to them on the internet, where they spend so much time, they would be more likely to pay for the service. CDs were the new cassettes, digital downloads are the new CDs and internet is the new radio. By providing a service free on the internet, it will increase digital download sales -- much the way providing free radio service increased CD sales.
There should be positive incentive for listeners to buy their music. If they feel that the industry is an equal partner and making the content available, they will be more likely to return the favor. Much the way the average passerby is willing to drop $5 in a hat if they see us performing on the street corner as opposed to paying a $5 admission to a show.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Indies Are Generating Some Major Buzz
This past weekend, I had the opportunity to see an Alexi Murdoch concert at the El Rey in Los Angeles. I learned about his music by word of mouth - from my brothers - and not from the radio. They had learned of the music from their friends who had heard from their friends... He's a singer-songwriter born and raised in the UK with an American college education. Serious, yet unassuming, singing is a profession he fell into with no intention of becoming famous or rich. And yet, that is exactly where he is headed with the help of the internet and his independent record label.
No thanks to a major label. With TV shows like The OC and films like Garden State featuring his music, his EP, Four Songs, reached #1 on CDBaby.com. While major record companies were pining for his attention and full-lenghth album, he decided instead to make a record and release it on Zero Summer Records... his very own independent record label whose only artist is Alexi Murdoch. It doesn't even have a website.
Presumably he did so for several reasons, although the most well-publicized is that he desired artistic freedom. As I posted previously, this seems to be a trend for independent artists across all genres. They hold out on signing a contract with a major record label because they feel they are benefiting more from exposure on TV shows or social networks than they would through a major record label's big budget advance and marketing campaign. Many want complete creative control when making an album. Some feel they make more money off of record sales without a major label.
There are several crucial differences between a major label and an indie label. To begin (and to state the obvious), an independent record label is one that is in no way affiliated with the major 4 labels (Sony-BMG, EMI, Universal, and Warner). It uses its own independent distributors to sell CDs in stores. It might or might not house its own publishing company - it may have require an artist to use a different independent publisher. Most independent labels don't require the artist to sign the same lengthy 80-100 paged contract that a major label does, which can be appealing to a new band.
In recent years, digital distribution has made it easier than ever for bands signed to indie labels to receive global exposure. While peer-to-peer filesharing has diminished record sales, and therefore crushed major record labels profits, it has created a vast new medium for music. There are more new artists than ever who willingly sacrifice copyright royalties for a shot at national exposure. Performers have never historically made much money from CD sales, so it doesn't seem to be much of a sacrifice at all.
Additionally, indie labels allow their artists more of the creative control they desire. In an interview between an EMI record exec and Andy Allen, of Alternative Distribution Alliance, they discuss Bright Eyes' decision to stay with Saddle Creek. This label allowed Bright Eyes to release more than one record at once - something he could never have done on a major label. Also, they found a distributor in ADA that agreed to distribute his music without barcodes (therefore essentially preventing large-scale distribution), simply because it was his artistic choice.
In conclusion, in today's world of Myspace and Youtube, the indie label may be the new major. As I've stated previously, the major labels will inevitably have to completely revamp their business model in order to compete with the indies.
No thanks to a major label. With TV shows like The OC and films like Garden State featuring his music, his EP, Four Songs, reached #1 on CDBaby.com. While major record companies were pining for his attention and full-lenghth album, he decided instead to make a record and release it on Zero Summer Records... his very own independent record label whose only artist is Alexi Murdoch. It doesn't even have a website.
Presumably he did so for several reasons, although the most well-publicized is that he desired artistic freedom. As I posted previously, this seems to be a trend for independent artists across all genres. They hold out on signing a contract with a major record label because they feel they are benefiting more from exposure on TV shows or social networks than they would through a major record label's big budget advance and marketing campaign. Many want complete creative control when making an album. Some feel they make more money off of record sales without a major label.
There are several crucial differences between a major label and an indie label. To begin (and to state the obvious), an independent record label is one that is in no way affiliated with the major 4 labels (Sony-BMG, EMI, Universal, and Warner). It uses its own independent distributors to sell CDs in stores. It might or might not house its own publishing company - it may have require an artist to use a different independent publisher. Most independent labels don't require the artist to sign the same lengthy 80-100 paged contract that a major label does, which can be appealing to a new band.
In recent years, digital distribution has made it easier than ever for bands signed to indie labels to receive global exposure. While peer-to-peer filesharing has diminished record sales, and therefore crushed major record labels profits, it has created a vast new medium for music. There are more new artists than ever who willingly sacrifice copyright royalties for a shot at national exposure. Performers have never historically made much money from CD sales, so it doesn't seem to be much of a sacrifice at all.
Additionally, indie labels allow their artists more of the creative control they desire. In an interview between an EMI record exec and Andy Allen, of Alternative Distribution Alliance, they discuss Bright Eyes' decision to stay with Saddle Creek. This label allowed Bright Eyes to release more than one record at once - something he could never have done on a major label. Also, they found a distributor in ADA that agreed to distribute his music without barcodes (therefore essentially preventing large-scale distribution), simply because it was his artistic choice.
In conclusion, in today's world of Myspace and Youtube, the indie label may be the new major. As I've stated previously, the major labels will inevitably have to completely revamp their business model in order to compete with the indies.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Playing Fair
In an effort to squash illegal peer-to-peer filesharing, the Recording Industry Association of America has decided to sue their consumers into submission. With the threat of a law suit, the RIAA is attempting to scare those stealing music (primarily young teenagers and college students) into paying for it. Lately, there has been much talk about new Fair Use legislation that would protect consumers from the relentless suing by the RIAA.
Meanwhile, Steve Jobs recently released a statement on the Apple website calling for an end to Digital Rights Management. By removing encryption on iTunes tracks, consumers can play iTunes downloads on any device they want. While this might decrease record sales, it would allow consumers a broader spectrum of use for the tracks they've bought.
Seemingly in response, Representatives Rick Boucher and John Doolittle recently introduced the Freedom and Innovation Revitalizing US Entreprenership Act of 2007 to amend the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998. Through this act, it would allow the consumer to disable Digital Rights Management copyright protection on digital recordings in order to use the track for personal use. Additionally, it would make content more accessible for teachers and other professionals using the information or recordings in an academic setting.
Naturally, the RIAA nearly immediately fired back at the introduction of the bill, claiming that it was impossible to tell who would be disabling DRM for personal purposes and who was doing so for illegal purposes. While they have no better solutions, they will definitely fight this legislation.
The bill seems to be generating positive response among the technological and political communities. This act was introduced at the end of last week and it has already received support from the Consumer Electronics Association. They say that this new act helps protect the consumer as well as the copyright owner - the DMCA heavily favored the copyright owner at the expense of the consumer.
In an interview on KNX radio this afternoon, a congressional representative praised the new bill as amending the DMCA to create more of a balance between consumers and copyright owners. Interestingly, he went on to mention how rapidly the industry is changing. With the invention of the internet, use of the radio has decreased; however, he made the point that radio used to sell records. People could listen to a song as much as the wanted for free, but would usually still go out and buy the record. He believes the same will be true in the future, but the free music must be made available to the consumer in order to sell records.
Even the suits on Capitol Hill seem to get it, so why doesn't the RIAA? The industry is changing and the RIAA should offer viable alternatives to the buying public rather than resisting the inevitable.
Meanwhile, Steve Jobs recently released a statement on the Apple website calling for an end to Digital Rights Management. By removing encryption on iTunes tracks, consumers can play iTunes downloads on any device they want. While this might decrease record sales, it would allow consumers a broader spectrum of use for the tracks they've bought.
Seemingly in response, Representatives Rick Boucher and John Doolittle recently introduced the Freedom and Innovation Revitalizing US Entreprenership Act of 2007 to amend the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998. Through this act, it would allow the consumer to disable Digital Rights Management copyright protection on digital recordings in order to use the track for personal use. Additionally, it would make content more accessible for teachers and other professionals using the information or recordings in an academic setting.
Naturally, the RIAA nearly immediately fired back at the introduction of the bill, claiming that it was impossible to tell who would be disabling DRM for personal purposes and who was doing so for illegal purposes. While they have no better solutions, they will definitely fight this legislation.
The bill seems to be generating positive response among the technological and political communities. This act was introduced at the end of last week and it has already received support from the Consumer Electronics Association. They say that this new act helps protect the consumer as well as the copyright owner - the DMCA heavily favored the copyright owner at the expense of the consumer.
In an interview on KNX radio this afternoon, a congressional representative praised the new bill as amending the DMCA to create more of a balance between consumers and copyright owners. Interestingly, he went on to mention how rapidly the industry is changing. With the invention of the internet, use of the radio has decreased; however, he made the point that radio used to sell records. People could listen to a song as much as the wanted for free, but would usually still go out and buy the record. He believes the same will be true in the future, but the free music must be made available to the consumer in order to sell records.
Even the suits on Capitol Hill seem to get it, so why doesn't the RIAA? The industry is changing and the RIAA should offer viable alternatives to the buying public rather than resisting the inevitable.
An Altogether New Shoe
This week at USC we had the opportunity to speak with the producer of the track for My Box in a Box, one of the most popular "viral videos" on the internet. It is a spoof on My Dick in a Box, SNL's infamous skit featuring Andy Samberg and Justin Timberlake. My Box in a Box features vocals by Leah Kauffman and a lip-sync video performance by Philadelphia-area model, Melissa Lamb. Together they created the phenomenon My Box in a Box with a catchy hook, and a lyric full of cliched sexual innuendos aimed at the teenage audience with which these videos are so popular.
In class, we discussed at length the conception of the video idea and the production of both the track and the online video. As the class forum evolved, we also viewed numerous other viral videos and discussed the types of music and videos that were popular. What makes a hit song? My Box in a Box, a completely intentional spoof, plays on legitimate top 40 radio stations by adventurous DJs all over the country. It is fast becoming a "hit" song if total plays on the internet are any indication (4.3 million, to be exact).
Some involved in the business have even gone so far as to say that record labels would be smart to sign these two girls. That, because of their rapidly spreading popularity, this could be hugely popular. To which I must say... for real? What does this mean for the future of popular music? If this type of content, employing vulgarity, humor and intentional mockery, as well as low production value (quoted a couple of hours) is so popular, what does that say about the types of content available today?
Without a doubt, the current business model in the music industry must change. The relationship between a record company and artist has fundamentally changed - just not contractually. It's clear that bands today prefer to write/select and produce their music on their own. With ProTools, a mic and a small bedroom set-up, musicians can make a professional sounding album with little or no budget, post it on Myspace and run with it (check out Alexi Murdoch who recently sold out his nationwide tour on his indie label thanks to national exposure through television and social networks). They make the music they want to and have access to a global audience like never before. While they may not be "star" level, they certainly make enough money to continue to make music.
To which I say to record labels: this is called leverage. Artists no longer have to conform to your standards because your advance is paying for it. They don't have to use your songs because the producer you're paying for says so. They don't have to agree to a contract where they make pennies on their CDs (if that), because they can make dollars by selling them on their own.
This is not to say that record labels don't have something offer artists, because they definitely do. They have money to give to a marketing budget. Labels have access to bigger venues. While Myspace and other social networks are globally available, billboards, international tours, and television advertisements are globally influential. They also offer experience: the record label can take a product and sell it using those marketing strategies they've worked tirelessly to concoct.
Through this, it seems that the label and the artist must become partners. An artist makes the product and recruits the audience, the label markets the product and manages their performance career. Contractually, both bring equal and valuable experience to the table; therefore, profits must be split on all levels - digitally, with retailers, and on tour.
The attention span of the average viewer has dramatically increased in recent years. In our digital age, demands can be immediately met - if they aren't, consumers can go elsewhere. As a result, hit songs are thriving, but hit artists are fleeting. A song's popularity comes and goes, longevity may no longer be feasible for an artist. So, content like My Box in a Box could make a fortune if capitalized upon at the right time. Leah Kaufman, Melissa Lamb and Rick Friedrich may never again achieve the kind of success they are now. A record company could have a hit product without having to spend $100,000s on producing it.
Though it will be difficult to parlay the novelty into anything long-lasting, perhaps we should accept that content suffers because we are impatient. If we want what we want when we want it, we can't get it if it takes years to produce and fine-tune the track. For me, it seems equitable to shoes. I could by $150 pair of Nine West boots, but I could get ones that basically look the same for $15 from Payless. They might wear out in a couple months, but I don't care because I've worn them everyday, now I'm tired of them, and my style has changed anyways.. I'm ready for something different. Not just a different pair of boots, but an altogether new shoe.
Perhaps My Box in a Box is an altogether new shoe that both artists, record labels and consumers can benefit from. It remains to be seen where the industry is headed, but if recent Youtube and iTunes records are any indication, hit songs are where it's at.
In class, we discussed at length the conception of the video idea and the production of both the track and the online video. As the class forum evolved, we also viewed numerous other viral videos and discussed the types of music and videos that were popular. What makes a hit song? My Box in a Box, a completely intentional spoof, plays on legitimate top 40 radio stations by adventurous DJs all over the country. It is fast becoming a "hit" song if total plays on the internet are any indication (4.3 million, to be exact).
Some involved in the business have even gone so far as to say that record labels would be smart to sign these two girls. That, because of their rapidly spreading popularity, this could be hugely popular. To which I must say... for real? What does this mean for the future of popular music? If this type of content, employing vulgarity, humor and intentional mockery, as well as low production value (quoted a couple of hours) is so popular, what does that say about the types of content available today?
Without a doubt, the current business model in the music industry must change. The relationship between a record company and artist has fundamentally changed - just not contractually. It's clear that bands today prefer to write/select and produce their music on their own. With ProTools, a mic and a small bedroom set-up, musicians can make a professional sounding album with little or no budget, post it on Myspace and run with it (check out Alexi Murdoch who recently sold out his nationwide tour on his indie label thanks to national exposure through television and social networks). They make the music they want to and have access to a global audience like never before. While they may not be "star" level, they certainly make enough money to continue to make music.
To which I say to record labels: this is called leverage. Artists no longer have to conform to your standards because your advance is paying for it. They don't have to use your songs because the producer you're paying for says so. They don't have to agree to a contract where they make pennies on their CDs (if that), because they can make dollars by selling them on their own.
This is not to say that record labels don't have something offer artists, because they definitely do. They have money to give to a marketing budget. Labels have access to bigger venues. While Myspace and other social networks are globally available, billboards, international tours, and television advertisements are globally influential. They also offer experience: the record label can take a product and sell it using those marketing strategies they've worked tirelessly to concoct.
Through this, it seems that the label and the artist must become partners. An artist makes the product and recruits the audience, the label markets the product and manages their performance career. Contractually, both bring equal and valuable experience to the table; therefore, profits must be split on all levels - digitally, with retailers, and on tour.
The attention span of the average viewer has dramatically increased in recent years. In our digital age, demands can be immediately met - if they aren't, consumers can go elsewhere. As a result, hit songs are thriving, but hit artists are fleeting. A song's popularity comes and goes, longevity may no longer be feasible for an artist. So, content like My Box in a Box could make a fortune if capitalized upon at the right time. Leah Kaufman, Melissa Lamb and Rick Friedrich may never again achieve the kind of success they are now. A record company could have a hit product without having to spend $100,000s on producing it.
Though it will be difficult to parlay the novelty into anything long-lasting, perhaps we should accept that content suffers because we are impatient. If we want what we want when we want it, we can't get it if it takes years to produce and fine-tune the track. For me, it seems equitable to shoes. I could by $150 pair of Nine West boots, but I could get ones that basically look the same for $15 from Payless. They might wear out in a couple months, but I don't care because I've worn them everyday, now I'm tired of them, and my style has changed anyways.. I'm ready for something different. Not just a different pair of boots, but an altogether new shoe.
Perhaps My Box in a Box is an altogether new shoe that both artists, record labels and consumers can benefit from. It remains to be seen where the industry is headed, but if recent Youtube and iTunes records are any indication, hit songs are where it's at.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Whenever I Hear Pimp Juice, I think I have a phone call.
I'm not kidding, I have a friend who's cell phone ringer is Nelly's Pimp Juice. He hears the sweet sound of the thumping bass and familiar hook, and he knows he's got a call. Another one of my friend's ringtones is Rock the Casbah. Another one's is a Hilary Duff song. Apparently, a customized ringtone says something about who you are as a person - whether you have a Hip-hop song versus a Pop song versus an actual (gasp) ring as your ringtone. I'm not one to judge, but I am one to be annoyed. By the 2nd time I hear someone's customized pop song ring tone, I would like to throw it out the window.
I believe the customized ringtone is a fad, not a stable trend. However, record labels do not agree. Rather than focusing on digital distribution, digital rights management, or an alternative format to radio, they believe the future of the industry for them lies within royalties from cellphone ringtones.
Actual songs as ringtones have been coined "realtones" and when looking for them on the internet one can literally choose from hundreds of websites selling them for a dollar or less, a dollar or more, or offering all sorts of subscriptions for one, six or up to twelve months. Unlimited realtone downloading for up to a year - who can resist that?
In all seriousness, though, the ringtone industry is clearly booming. Over $2.6 billion dollars were spent on the ringtone industry last year and, according to British marketing firm Ovum, $6.5 billion dollars is expected to be spent in 2008. The internet is a plethora of ringtone sites and my friends are always excited about their newest ringtone (which means another $2+ purchase for the record companies).
According to this Time Magazine article, people spend money to buy a 20-30 second song not to listen to the song itself or because the quality is good, but because it makes a statement about who you are. Everytime one's phone rings, he or she is telling everyone around them that this song represents them. And this is exactly how the industry got started. Vesku Panaanen, chief technical operator of a Finnish media group, was sick of hearing the same simple ring everytime he received a call. He wanted a song that he liked and thought represented him and he fought for it. Thus, the industry was born.
By charging between $2 and $6 for a song one can buy in its entirety from iTunes for a fraction of that, record labels, mobile operators and music publishers have created a fierce competition for who gets the biggest slice of the pie. They are all basically extorting consumers, presumably to make up for illegal downloading. And, not surprisingly, record labels feel this is where they can make the most money.
This ringtone industry has exploded with the advent of new technology. Thinking to the future, it seems logical that once cellphone popularity fades in the wake of a new form of technology, so will the ringtone industry. While Thomas Hesse of Sony BMG wholeheartedly believes that "this is not a fad", it seems to scream fad to me. Once again, it seems that record labels are scrambling to catch up to a train that has already left the station. Rather than thinking ahead and taking risks, they find the fastest growing trend, put their weight behind it, and pretend that they created its success. This is certainly not a long-term fix and will leave the labels struggling even more than they already are in a few years.
I believe the customized ringtone is a fad, not a stable trend. However, record labels do not agree. Rather than focusing on digital distribution, digital rights management, or an alternative format to radio, they believe the future of the industry for them lies within royalties from cellphone ringtones.
Actual songs as ringtones have been coined "realtones" and when looking for them on the internet one can literally choose from hundreds of websites selling them for a dollar or less, a dollar or more, or offering all sorts of subscriptions for one, six or up to twelve months. Unlimited realtone downloading for up to a year - who can resist that?
In all seriousness, though, the ringtone industry is clearly booming. Over $2.6 billion dollars were spent on the ringtone industry last year and, according to British marketing firm Ovum, $6.5 billion dollars is expected to be spent in 2008. The internet is a plethora of ringtone sites and my friends are always excited about their newest ringtone (which means another $2+ purchase for the record companies).
According to this Time Magazine article, people spend money to buy a 20-30 second song not to listen to the song itself or because the quality is good, but because it makes a statement about who you are. Everytime one's phone rings, he or she is telling everyone around them that this song represents them. And this is exactly how the industry got started. Vesku Panaanen, chief technical operator of a Finnish media group, was sick of hearing the same simple ring everytime he received a call. He wanted a song that he liked and thought represented him and he fought for it. Thus, the industry was born.
By charging between $2 and $6 for a song one can buy in its entirety from iTunes for a fraction of that, record labels, mobile operators and music publishers have created a fierce competition for who gets the biggest slice of the pie. They are all basically extorting consumers, presumably to make up for illegal downloading. And, not surprisingly, record labels feel this is where they can make the most money.
This ringtone industry has exploded with the advent of new technology. Thinking to the future, it seems logical that once cellphone popularity fades in the wake of a new form of technology, so will the ringtone industry. While Thomas Hesse of Sony BMG wholeheartedly believes that "this is not a fad", it seems to scream fad to me. Once again, it seems that record labels are scrambling to catch up to a train that has already left the station. Rather than thinking ahead and taking risks, they find the fastest growing trend, put their weight behind it, and pretend that they created its success. This is certainly not a long-term fix and will leave the labels struggling even more than they already are in a few years.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Television killed the Radio Star?
I realize in the last couple of posts I've been mulling over what the new radio will be. Will it be ad-supported Ruckus? Customized indie pop betterPropaganda? Will it be new Reggaeton/R&B formatting? Yet again, I will explore another vein of media that could be the new radio: Television.
Watching Grey's Anatomy last year, I was struck by the amount of really great new music showcased during some of the most dramatic, emotional moments of an episode. This is such an interesting, innovative way to trick your average teenager into liking a song. Take an addictive, soap-operatic TV show aimed at the high school, collegiate audience; then pick a great song by an unknown, unsigned indie band and pay virtually pennies for it; synch it up to picture during one of the most emotional scenes; create a smash hit single. Chasing Cars, anyone? And, while you're at it, make a compilation CD of all said songs, conveniently place the advertisement after the credits before the "next episode preview," sell it everywhere, make a fortune.
An article in the Chicagoist from January, 2007 echoes this same sentiment. With physical CD sales declining and digital downloads rising exponentially, it seems logical there would be radical changeover in the way music is marketed. Indie bands have found a virtual gold mine in Grey's Anatomy, The OC, Six Degrees, Ugly Betty, Scrubs and many others.
So then, perhaps unintentionally, doesn't television become the next radio of sorts? By strategically placing songs in a show like Grey's Anatomy, it requires the viewer to listen to the song in its entirety. Additionally, it doesn't hurt that the viewer will continue to associate the song with how they felt during a certain scene in the show - most likely, the song will endear itself to the viewer before the 3 minutes is up and Grey's Anatomy will have helped a previously unknown band sell thousands of copies of its single. Alexandra Patsavas, the music supervisor for the show (and also The OC), is highly esteemed by the producers of the show for her ability to subtly underscore the dramatic elements of the episode.
This is better than radio, because the viewer doesn't just listen to the song, but instead listens to the song while watching the show, which is an entirely different experience. It becomes even cooler to like the song than it would if one simply heard it on the radio.
Bands like Snow Patrol and the Fray have received global recognition from Grey's Anatomy exposure. Even the RIAA agrees in their December newsletter. When I googled the compilation soundtrack of Grey's Anatomy, I received webpages advertising the bands and the soundtrack from all over the world. Snow Patrol's Chasing Cars and the Fray's How to Save a Life both went on to achieve smash success digitally and on the radio -- with the Grey's Anatomy soundtrack selling an unprecedented 46,000 in the first week and How to Save a Life going platinum. With the state of CD sales, it's remarkable that a television show could help sell that many copies of a soundtrack or album.
Other up and coming artists such as Kate Havnevik, Mat Kearney, and KT Tunstall have been showcased on Grey's Anatomy, as well. Bands such as The Shins and Frou Frou, not to mention artists like Cary Brothers, Joshua Radin, Nick Drake and Colin Hay have been showcased on Scrubs. New, trendy television shows also showcase new, trendy music. So long as the show has viewers (which Grey's Anatomy certainly does), the new band has a huge potential audience.
In comparison with terrestrial radio, advertisers are still profiting from television and online streaming of episodes. As a result of the huge popularity of these new shows and their subsequent soundtracks and singles, advertisers have added incentive to support the format.
It remains to be seen if these shows will achieve longevity, but in the meantime... indie bands should be clamoring to be heard on the TV.
Watching Grey's Anatomy last year, I was struck by the amount of really great new music showcased during some of the most dramatic, emotional moments of an episode. This is such an interesting, innovative way to trick your average teenager into liking a song. Take an addictive, soap-operatic TV show aimed at the high school, collegiate audience; then pick a great song by an unknown, unsigned indie band and pay virtually pennies for it; synch it up to picture during one of the most emotional scenes; create a smash hit single. Chasing Cars, anyone? And, while you're at it, make a compilation CD of all said songs, conveniently place the advertisement after the credits before the "next episode preview," sell it everywhere, make a fortune.
An article in the Chicagoist from January, 2007 echoes this same sentiment. With physical CD sales declining and digital downloads rising exponentially, it seems logical there would be radical changeover in the way music is marketed. Indie bands have found a virtual gold mine in Grey's Anatomy, The OC, Six Degrees, Ugly Betty, Scrubs and many others.
So then, perhaps unintentionally, doesn't television become the next radio of sorts? By strategically placing songs in a show like Grey's Anatomy, it requires the viewer to listen to the song in its entirety. Additionally, it doesn't hurt that the viewer will continue to associate the song with how they felt during a certain scene in the show - most likely, the song will endear itself to the viewer before the 3 minutes is up and Grey's Anatomy will have helped a previously unknown band sell thousands of copies of its single. Alexandra Patsavas, the music supervisor for the show (and also The OC), is highly esteemed by the producers of the show for her ability to subtly underscore the dramatic elements of the episode.
This is better than radio, because the viewer doesn't just listen to the song, but instead listens to the song while watching the show, which is an entirely different experience. It becomes even cooler to like the song than it would if one simply heard it on the radio.
Bands like Snow Patrol and the Fray have received global recognition from Grey's Anatomy exposure. Even the RIAA agrees in their December newsletter. When I googled the compilation soundtrack of Grey's Anatomy, I received webpages advertising the bands and the soundtrack from all over the world. Snow Patrol's Chasing Cars and the Fray's How to Save a Life both went on to achieve smash success digitally and on the radio -- with the Grey's Anatomy soundtrack selling an unprecedented 46,000 in the first week and How to Save a Life going platinum. With the state of CD sales, it's remarkable that a television show could help sell that many copies of a soundtrack or album.
Other up and coming artists such as Kate Havnevik, Mat Kearney, and KT Tunstall have been showcased on Grey's Anatomy, as well. Bands such as The Shins and Frou Frou, not to mention artists like Cary Brothers, Joshua Radin, Nick Drake and Colin Hay have been showcased on Scrubs. New, trendy television shows also showcase new, trendy music. So long as the show has viewers (which Grey's Anatomy certainly does), the new band has a huge potential audience.
In comparison with terrestrial radio, advertisers are still profiting from television and online streaming of episodes. As a result of the huge popularity of these new shows and their subsequent soundtracks and singles, advertisers have added incentive to support the format.
It remains to be seen if these shows will achieve longevity, but in the meantime... indie bands should be clamoring to be heard on the TV.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Reggaeton, R&B and Radio
As I climbed into my boyfriend's car, I heard the familiar rhythmic pounding of a Reggaeton radio station eminating from his speakers. Born and raised in the Midwest, he had little contact with Latino culture prior to moving to Los Angeles for school. However with spending hours on the road commuting to school in a car that lacks a CD player, he has come to find new radio stations to entertain him while on the road. A white, middle-class, suburban, USC graduate and future doctor - he seems one of the least likely candidates to be a fan of the Puerto Rican and Cuban movement.
As I thought about it this week, I realized the same was true of my Biology major roommate from Ventura County, California. She swears by her Hip-Hop, whose lyrics talk about life on the street that she has never known. If Hip-Hop has become this popular on the radio among 20-somethings of all backgrounds and social classes, is Reggaeton the next movement? New directions in the industry have been vague, but if my boyfriend is any indication, Reggaeton could have a huge new potential audience.
A 2005 Newsweek article echoes this exact sentiment. It states that Reggaeton is no longer for the 20-something Puerto Rican; instead, it has exploded onto the music and club scene in America, particularly with the popularity of Shakira, Juanes, and Ricky Martin - the scene is primed for such artists as Daddy Yankee to hit the radio. Like Hip-Hop, Reggaeton has a driving rhythmic beat; however, it is one based on the Merengue and Salsa beat, causing hip swaying as opposed to mere head bopping.
Further, though, the article proclaims that internet, peer-to-peer filesharing, and satellite radio are allowing niche markets to go global. With the mass marketing opportunities that small genres such as Puerto Rican Reggaeton, Indian Bhangra, or Portuguese Fado have, they can gain a global audience for a minimal cost.
Unfortunately, it does not come at a minimal cost to the music industry. While the article does admit that Latin music sales have increased at a significant rate, piracy has caused several Latino major music labels to fold. Which, in turn, can also mean less clearly defined, prominent artists. The balance is delicate, and it is ironic that a bigger audience can mean bankrupt a music company.
Interestingly, a Los Angeles Business Journal Article claims that Reggaeton broke at the wrong time. There was a great deal of momentum behind the movement when Daddy Yankee first broke on the scene with his hit, Gasolina, in 2005; however, there were too few good artists to promote at the time to keep the genre afloat. In 2005 when Clear Channel first decided to include Reggaeton in its markets, their Los Angeles-based affiliate was ranked 2nd. By the end of the year however, ratings had severely declined and dropped to 13th.
It seems that a clear new direction in popular music is Reggaeton. With its thriving dance beats, it incorporates dance music into more mainstream pop music with lyrics that cover similar topics as Hip-Hop lyrics. By incorporating more Reggaeton on a Hip-Hop station, it seems that terrestrial radio could reach a much more widespread audience - particularly in the cities about the nearly 42 million Spanish speakers in America. 20-something Puerto Ricans, Chicagoans and Southern Californians alike could be potential listeners for a Reggaeton/Hip-hop fused radio station.
As I thought about it this week, I realized the same was true of my Biology major roommate from Ventura County, California. She swears by her Hip-Hop, whose lyrics talk about life on the street that she has never known. If Hip-Hop has become this popular on the radio among 20-somethings of all backgrounds and social classes, is Reggaeton the next movement? New directions in the industry have been vague, but if my boyfriend is any indication, Reggaeton could have a huge new potential audience.
A 2005 Newsweek article echoes this exact sentiment. It states that Reggaeton is no longer for the 20-something Puerto Rican; instead, it has exploded onto the music and club scene in America, particularly with the popularity of Shakira, Juanes, and Ricky Martin - the scene is primed for such artists as Daddy Yankee to hit the radio. Like Hip-Hop, Reggaeton has a driving rhythmic beat; however, it is one based on the Merengue and Salsa beat, causing hip swaying as opposed to mere head bopping.
Further, though, the article proclaims that internet, peer-to-peer filesharing, and satellite radio are allowing niche markets to go global. With the mass marketing opportunities that small genres such as Puerto Rican Reggaeton, Indian Bhangra, or Portuguese Fado have, they can gain a global audience for a minimal cost.
Unfortunately, it does not come at a minimal cost to the music industry. While the article does admit that Latin music sales have increased at a significant rate, piracy has caused several Latino major music labels to fold. Which, in turn, can also mean less clearly defined, prominent artists. The balance is delicate, and it is ironic that a bigger audience can mean bankrupt a music company.
Interestingly, a Los Angeles Business Journal Article claims that Reggaeton broke at the wrong time. There was a great deal of momentum behind the movement when Daddy Yankee first broke on the scene with his hit, Gasolina, in 2005; however, there were too few good artists to promote at the time to keep the genre afloat. In 2005 when Clear Channel first decided to include Reggaeton in its markets, their Los Angeles-based affiliate was ranked 2nd. By the end of the year however, ratings had severely declined and dropped to 13th.
It seems that a clear new direction in popular music is Reggaeton. With its thriving dance beats, it incorporates dance music into more mainstream pop music with lyrics that cover similar topics as Hip-Hop lyrics. By incorporating more Reggaeton on a Hip-Hop station, it seems that terrestrial radio could reach a much more widespread audience - particularly in the cities about the nearly 42 million Spanish speakers in America. 20-something Puerto Ricans, Chicagoans and Southern Californians alike could be potential listeners for a Reggaeton/Hip-hop fused radio station.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Viral video
Lately in my Music Industry Broadcast forum, we've been discussing this concept of viral video. Music and video have been passed person to person over the internet with the aid of social networks like Myspace and Youtube. It has become easier than ever for the young, tech savvy generation to post music and videos they make, as well as show their avid support for other musicians and amateur film-makers. Such sites give ordinary kids around the country the ability to market and publicize themselves in a global way - something previous generations could never have dreamed of doing.
My little brother has always been influenced by my older brother and me. He's a Caps fanatic because my older brother played travel hockey when he was young and always used to take my little brother to pro games on the weekends. He's always seeking out new music - classical and popular - to share with me because he knows I have dedicated my life to becoming a better musician. For me, it's been a really, really great thing that he is. He is of this up and coming generation that is so affected by "viral" video and music. Other than Myspace, one such site he has shared with me is betterPropaganda.com. While not all his recommendations are compelling (for example, the "Shoes" or "Muffins" videos on Youtube), betterPropaganda is quite noteworthy.
The site was founded in San Francisco by Kenneth Manning, of Radiant Interactive, Inc.. He advertises the site as the premiere music discovery site for over 400,000 fans and prominently claims that it is "dedicated to providing independent labels and artists an opportunity to be heard." Also quite interesting is that immediately following this is a note to labels and artists that unsolicited email attachment submissions will be ignored -- rather, these potential clients must email the site a link to their Myspace page. betterPropaganda solely uses this social network to discover and select their clients.
It offers readers numerous ways to discover new bands (albeit electronica, hip-hop and rock... basically indie pop music). The homepage lists new releases, top recent downloads, podcasts of recent interviews, as well as written transcriptions of site bloggers' interviews with various bands. It's a veritable haven for indie bands and consumers sick of mainstream radio. Because most of the bands on the site are unsigned and virtually undiscovered, fans can download mp3 recordings for free without threat of an RIAA lawsuit. Additionally, the site lists recommendations from its staff -- band name, genre, description and pictures included. If that's not enough, one can also receive daily emails about new bands or stream live from the website to sample what they want. All one has to do to begin is create an account. From there they can download tracks and create personalized playlists.
Across the board, betterPropaganda has been receiving rave reviews. It boasts fans in NPR, BBC, PC World and Earthlink and is able to provide one of the largest online music catalogs of new, fresh music. Additionally, it has license agreements with 450 major and indie labels. Therefore, in comparison with Lastfm or Pandora, listeners can actually download their music and keep it, as opposed to only being able to stream live or rent their music.
For my little brother, it has been one of his most prized discoveries. He heard about betterPropaganda from his friend who learned about it from her friend who learned about it from her friend... It seems that word of mouth is the latest forum for learning about new music, not mainstream radio. He and his friends are constantly downloading new tracks to share with each other and trying to one-up the other with a more obscure, kick-ass band. So far, I'm a fan. No longer sneakily ripping the tracks off of his new betterPropaganda CDs, I'm a betterPropaganda addict. And pretty excited about it.
My little brother has always been influenced by my older brother and me. He's a Caps fanatic because my older brother played travel hockey when he was young and always used to take my little brother to pro games on the weekends. He's always seeking out new music - classical and popular - to share with me because he knows I have dedicated my life to becoming a better musician. For me, it's been a really, really great thing that he is. He is of this up and coming generation that is so affected by "viral" video and music. Other than Myspace, one such site he has shared with me is betterPropaganda.com. While not all his recommendations are compelling (for example, the "Shoes" or "Muffins" videos on Youtube), betterPropaganda is quite noteworthy.
The site was founded in San Francisco by Kenneth Manning, of Radiant Interactive, Inc.. He advertises the site as the premiere music discovery site for over 400,000 fans and prominently claims that it is "dedicated to providing independent labels and artists an opportunity to be heard." Also quite interesting is that immediately following this is a note to labels and artists that unsolicited email attachment submissions will be ignored -- rather, these potential clients must email the site a link to their Myspace page. betterPropaganda solely uses this social network to discover and select their clients.
It offers readers numerous ways to discover new bands (albeit electronica, hip-hop and rock... basically indie pop music). The homepage lists new releases, top recent downloads, podcasts of recent interviews, as well as written transcriptions of site bloggers' interviews with various bands. It's a veritable haven for indie bands and consumers sick of mainstream radio. Because most of the bands on the site are unsigned and virtually undiscovered, fans can download mp3 recordings for free without threat of an RIAA lawsuit. Additionally, the site lists recommendations from its staff -- band name, genre, description and pictures included. If that's not enough, one can also receive daily emails about new bands or stream live from the website to sample what they want. All one has to do to begin is create an account. From there they can download tracks and create personalized playlists.
Across the board, betterPropaganda has been receiving rave reviews. It boasts fans in NPR, BBC, PC World and Earthlink and is able to provide one of the largest online music catalogs of new, fresh music. Additionally, it has license agreements with 450 major and indie labels. Therefore, in comparison with Lastfm or Pandora, listeners can actually download their music and keep it, as opposed to only being able to stream live or rent their music.
For my little brother, it has been one of his most prized discoveries. He heard about betterPropaganda from his friend who learned about it from her friend who learned about it from her friend... It seems that word of mouth is the latest forum for learning about new music, not mainstream radio. He and his friends are constantly downloading new tracks to share with each other and trying to one-up the other with a more obscure, kick-ass band. So far, I'm a fan. No longer sneakily ripping the tracks off of his new betterPropaganda CDs, I'm a betterPropaganda addict. And pretty excited about it.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Coffee and a newspaper and a new CD?
After Christmas, expendable cash and coffee in hand, I was lured to a stop by the numerous racks of new release CDs cluttering the aisles at Starbucks. As if there wasn't already enough stuff lining the minimal crowd space, it seems as though Starbucks has the habit of strategically placing racks of CDs along - or, rather, in - the walking routes. Customers almost have to stop and look as they wait to maneuver around and get in or out of the store. This was my case as I stopped and picked up the new Damien Rice CD. A sucker for interesting cover designs and a desire for an impressive collection of music on my bookshelf - I bought the CD.
When we spoke in my Music Industry class earlier in the semester about Hear Music and the various Starbucks initiatives to market records, it struck me as a great idea. A person who is likely to spend $3+ on a cup of coffee everyday is also likely to spend $12+ dollars on a CD they want. They're already in the mindset of treating themselves to something personal. What is more personal than a personalized CD? Or a great CD of melodies and lyrics one can identify with?
This is precisely the tactic the corporation aimed to take in 1999 when it acquired San Francisco-based Hear Music. A 2005 Wall Street Journal article quoted Starbucks' Chairman Howard Schultz as recognizing the Starbucks in the music industry. With Hear Music, people could choose their music the way they choose their coffee.
Similarly, a Business Week article from 2004 recognized that Starbucks was never been about the coffee and the undeniable success of several artists' new releases could be contributed in part to their distribution at Starbucks - particularly artists of the "Baby Boomer" generation, such as Ray Charles (whose 2004 release, Genius Loves Company, sold nearly 1/3 of its copies at a Starbucks retailer). At that time, Starbucks aimed to open Hear Music media and coffee bars in multiple cities around the country. These bars would display kiosks where the younger, 18-24 generation could select individual tracks and upload immediately to their iPod or mp3 device.
Not a year and a half later, most have been shut down. While on their website info., Hear Music still boasts kiosk stations in several cities around the country, it was published months ago that Starbucks closed every location but Santa Monica and would not install in any new stores. Corporate executives may be tight-lipped about precise numbers earned off of CD and music sales, but it is clear that the younger generation is still not interested in buying music the way Starbucks presented it.
It seems as though there could be little more convenient way to purchase music. Almost daily I walk into a Starbucks completely packed with iPod-toting USC students on the corner of Jefferson and Hoover. It's my distinct impression that music and coffee are integral components of many college students' daily ritual. Perhaps if Starbucks cut the price of individual tracks downloaded from kiosks they could make themselves competitive with iTunes; or they could establish some sort of rewards program whereby for 'x' number of drinks one buys they can download 'x' number of songs for free; or they could another sort of incentives program, offering specific new music only available at Starbucks retailers.
The demographic that frequents Starbucks is similar to the demographic that has money to purchase iPods and download from iTunes. It has the potential, if they can market sufficiently to their target young adult audience, to become a Best Buy or Walmart of sorts.. the customer goes in the store to buy one thing and comes out with multiple purchases.
Good food, good drink and good music: little things that can make life much sweeter. It seems logical that they would go hand in hand. All it takes is a good marketing strategy.
When we spoke in my Music Industry class earlier in the semester about Hear Music and the various Starbucks initiatives to market records, it struck me as a great idea. A person who is likely to spend $3+ on a cup of coffee everyday is also likely to spend $12+ dollars on a CD they want. They're already in the mindset of treating themselves to something personal. What is more personal than a personalized CD? Or a great CD of melodies and lyrics one can identify with?
This is precisely the tactic the corporation aimed to take in 1999 when it acquired San Francisco-based Hear Music. A 2005 Wall Street Journal article quoted Starbucks' Chairman Howard Schultz as recognizing the Starbucks in the music industry. With Hear Music, people could choose their music the way they choose their coffee.
Similarly, a Business Week article from 2004 recognized that Starbucks was never been about the coffee and the undeniable success of several artists' new releases could be contributed in part to their distribution at Starbucks - particularly artists of the "Baby Boomer" generation, such as Ray Charles (whose 2004 release, Genius Loves Company, sold nearly 1/3 of its copies at a Starbucks retailer). At that time, Starbucks aimed to open Hear Music media and coffee bars in multiple cities around the country. These bars would display kiosks where the younger, 18-24 generation could select individual tracks and upload immediately to their iPod or mp3 device.
Not a year and a half later, most have been shut down. While on their website info., Hear Music still boasts kiosk stations in several cities around the country, it was published months ago that Starbucks closed every location but Santa Monica and would not install in any new stores. Corporate executives may be tight-lipped about precise numbers earned off of CD and music sales, but it is clear that the younger generation is still not interested in buying music the way Starbucks presented it.
It seems as though there could be little more convenient way to purchase music. Almost daily I walk into a Starbucks completely packed with iPod-toting USC students on the corner of Jefferson and Hoover. It's my distinct impression that music and coffee are integral components of many college students' daily ritual. Perhaps if Starbucks cut the price of individual tracks downloaded from kiosks they could make themselves competitive with iTunes; or they could establish some sort of rewards program whereby for 'x' number of drinks one buys they can download 'x' number of songs for free; or they could another sort of incentives program, offering specific new music only available at Starbucks retailers.
The demographic that frequents Starbucks is similar to the demographic that has money to purchase iPods and download from iTunes. It has the potential, if they can market sufficiently to their target young adult audience, to become a Best Buy or Walmart of sorts.. the customer goes in the store to buy one thing and comes out with multiple purchases.
Good food, good drink and good music: little things that can make life much sweeter. It seems logical that they would go hand in hand. All it takes is a good marketing strategy.
Monday, February 5, 2007
What's the Ruckus?
I've been an active member of Ruckus for almost a year and I've come to find it irreplaceable. After a broken, dilapidated Toshiba laptop eating all of my iTunes files, I came to rely only on my spotty iPod mini to listen to all the tracks I had previously purchased. As I sadly came to find, when my PC did recognize my iPod, it refused to allow me to transfer the tracks I'd bought from iTunes back from my iPod to my laptop. This boggled my mind somewhat because my computer was still registered with iTunes and my iPod had only been used with this particular computer. Needless to say, when I learned I needed to pay money to reload my purchased music to the same computer I first bought it with... I was ready to download Limewire and steal as much music as I could.
I restrained, however, and it was around this same time, though, that I saw an ad in the Daily Trojan (USC's daily newspaper) for the Ruckus Network and figured I'd give it a shot. It's since become one of my best friends.
Based out of Herndon, VA (a small suburban district of Fairfax County and, oddly, where I spent my childhood) Ruckus is one of the latest inventions in peer-to-peer music networks. A combination of iTunes and file sharing networks like Kazaa or Napster, it allows students with a college email address to register, download the player, and upload/download/share music with their peers. For free. One can download individual tracks or complete albums for at optimal speed. The site also offers a somewhat limited collection of TV shows and feature films; however, they boast 2.5 million free music tracks and growing. CEO Michael Bebel, former president and chief operating officer of Napster, boasts millions of label licensed tracks in a community with features similar to other social networks like Facebook.com and Myspace.com. It's user-friendly and...free. Have I mentioned how handy this is for a starving college student?
For some reason many of my friends, music industry majors and science majors alike, don't use Ruckus and most hadn't even heard of it when I became so enthused. That's when I realized that there's a catch. Oh...the catch(es).
First and most annoyingly, the music is only available for download to a PC. The player is essentially not Mac compatible (except in new, fast models) and one can't transfer any music from computer to computer to mp3 player to CD and most definitely not to an Apple iPod. Not surprisingly, this is not popular among a young, collegiate audience that "wants what they want when they want it" - isn't that the phrase uttered so often in class?
I put up with this mainly because I refuse to buy another iPod or download very much music from iTunes simply out of spite. I realize that I became caught up in a trend that ultimately played me as a fool and left me heartbroken (melodramatic...yes, untrue...no) - but, embarrassing or not, I would rather buy the CD and sport my Discman or pull up Ruckus on my computer for my music needs. Plus, if the Discman dies or I lose all of my files, I can always pop my CD into another device or redownload my beloved music at no cost. Is this true for other students my age? Why hasn't Ruckus caught on more? Is it just USC?
The service was first launched by David Galper and Vincent Han in late 2004 at Northern Illinois University and has spread to 82 college campuses across the country including UPenn, Rutgets, University of Minnesota, Baylor, University of Denver and right here at the University of Southern California. In early 2006, the site transitioned to an ad-supported network from a subscription based service and by January, 2007, offered the service to all college students - not just those at licensed universities.
The site is revolutionary in the sense that it is one of the first free music networks supported entirely by ad revenue (companies such as AT&T, JPMorgan Chase's, Chase Bank and Barnes & Noble can be named supporters). Phil Leigh, president of Inside Digital Media research company, feels that internet is on its way to replacing radio - particularly with this type of ad-supported format.
It is also one of the first legal free music networks frequented by college students. This is significant because as of early 2007, the RIAA reported that nearly half of all college students were illegally digitally acquiring music. Research firm NPD Group's study found that for every 9 tracks downloaded illegally, 1 track is purchased. Up to 45% of music is acquired illegally through various online means and a mere 5% is acquired through legit download services. Ruckus is a viable legal alternative for a generation that is unwilling to pay for music.
Not surprisingly (and as I noted earlier in this entry), several universities have seen a lack of success with the program. In late 2005, American University reported that only half of their students took an interest in trying the program. According to Yankee Group, a media analysis firm, students clearly want to own their music, not just rent it, and because of Digital Rights Management legislation Ruckus is unable to make this an available option.
It is clear that Ruckus has had success, but results are varied across the country. Some students absolutely love being able to download music without the threat of an RIAA lawsuit hanging over their heads; other students refuse to go near Ruckus unless they can keep the music they download and use it wherever, whenever they choose. The idea that Ruckus is cutting edge is undeniable, though, and is one of the first music services to appeal widely to the 18-25 generation. It remains to be seen if the network can achieve longevity, but one thing is for sure - it definitely has a fan in me. And not just because it's based out of Virginia... Where I grew up and now lovingly associate with Ruckus.
I restrained, however, and it was around this same time, though, that I saw an ad in the Daily Trojan (USC's daily newspaper) for the Ruckus Network and figured I'd give it a shot. It's since become one of my best friends.
Based out of Herndon, VA (a small suburban district of Fairfax County and, oddly, where I spent my childhood) Ruckus is one of the latest inventions in peer-to-peer music networks. A combination of iTunes and file sharing networks like Kazaa or Napster, it allows students with a college email address to register, download the player, and upload/download/share music with their peers. For free. One can download individual tracks or complete albums for at optimal speed. The site also offers a somewhat limited collection of TV shows and feature films; however, they boast 2.5 million free music tracks and growing. CEO Michael Bebel, former president and chief operating officer of Napster, boasts millions of label licensed tracks in a community with features similar to other social networks like Facebook.com and Myspace.com. It's user-friendly and...free. Have I mentioned how handy this is for a starving college student?
For some reason many of my friends, music industry majors and science majors alike, don't use Ruckus and most hadn't even heard of it when I became so enthused. That's when I realized that there's a catch. Oh...the catch(es).
First and most annoyingly, the music is only available for download to a PC. The player is essentially not Mac compatible (except in new, fast models) and one can't transfer any music from computer to computer to mp3 player to CD and most definitely not to an Apple iPod. Not surprisingly, this is not popular among a young, collegiate audience that "wants what they want when they want it" - isn't that the phrase uttered so often in class?
I put up with this mainly because I refuse to buy another iPod or download very much music from iTunes simply out of spite. I realize that I became caught up in a trend that ultimately played me as a fool and left me heartbroken (melodramatic...yes, untrue...no) - but, embarrassing or not, I would rather buy the CD and sport my Discman or pull up Ruckus on my computer for my music needs. Plus, if the Discman dies or I lose all of my files, I can always pop my CD into another device or redownload my beloved music at no cost. Is this true for other students my age? Why hasn't Ruckus caught on more? Is it just USC?
The service was first launched by David Galper and Vincent Han in late 2004 at Northern Illinois University and has spread to 82 college campuses across the country including UPenn, Rutgets, University of Minnesota, Baylor, University of Denver and right here at the University of Southern California. In early 2006, the site transitioned to an ad-supported network from a subscription based service and by January, 2007, offered the service to all college students - not just those at licensed universities.
The site is revolutionary in the sense that it is one of the first free music networks supported entirely by ad revenue (companies such as AT&T, JPMorgan Chase's, Chase Bank and Barnes & Noble can be named supporters). Phil Leigh, president of Inside Digital Media research company, feels that internet is on its way to replacing radio - particularly with this type of ad-supported format.
It is also one of the first legal free music networks frequented by college students. This is significant because as of early 2007, the RIAA reported that nearly half of all college students were illegally digitally acquiring music. Research firm NPD Group's study found that for every 9 tracks downloaded illegally, 1 track is purchased. Up to 45% of music is acquired illegally through various online means and a mere 5% is acquired through legit download services. Ruckus is a viable legal alternative for a generation that is unwilling to pay for music.
Not surprisingly (and as I noted earlier in this entry), several universities have seen a lack of success with the program. In late 2005, American University reported that only half of their students took an interest in trying the program. According to Yankee Group, a media analysis firm, students clearly want to own their music, not just rent it, and because of Digital Rights Management legislation Ruckus is unable to make this an available option.
It is clear that Ruckus has had success, but results are varied across the country. Some students absolutely love being able to download music without the threat of an RIAA lawsuit hanging over their heads; other students refuse to go near Ruckus unless they can keep the music they download and use it wherever, whenever they choose. The idea that Ruckus is cutting edge is undeniable, though, and is one of the first music services to appeal widely to the 18-25 generation. It remains to be seen if the network can achieve longevity, but one thing is for sure - it definitely has a fan in me. And not just because it's based out of Virginia... Where I grew up and now lovingly associate with Ruckus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
