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.
Friday, March 30, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
