Coldplay: "We're rich, beyotch!"

The growing consensus in the music business these days is that the money is now in touring, and that recorded music will continue to lose value. Big shots like NIN and Radiohead are giving away whole albums for free, and a number of notable other are dipping toes into the same pool...a track at a time. Coldplay, for example, gave away "Violet Hill" from their upcoming Viva La Vida for a week. It's pretty good.

But if the money's in touring, then why is Coldplay also giving away every single ticket to their upcoming shows at Madison Square Garden (click here) and Brixton Academy (click here)? Simple. Because they're rich.

Crazy like a baby with just one rabie.

It was really hard for me not to name this post "Everybody Else Is Doing It, So Why Can't Wealsoran?" But I'm willing to bet you'll lose even less sleep than me over the agonizing decision.

Point is, I made a Muxtape. It has a few jarring transitions, but all the stuff on there is stuff I like a lot and most of it is stuff I've spent a fair amount of time writing about on here. Go ahead and check it out, and then let me know your over/under on Muxtape's sure-to-be-litigious demise. And of course, make your own.

[wealsoran.muxtape.com]

Radiohead get into the remix game...charge for "stems"

In honor of this week's release of "Nude" as a single, Radiohead are making the "stems" (drums, vocals, guitar, bass, strings/fx/misc.) available for your remixing pleasure. But...you have to buy them. All five of them. From iTunes. In iTunes Plus format. What, no FLAC?

Anyway, once you've purchased the song stems, you're free to remix it as you please, and you can create a widget for your Facebook or MySpace page to encourage your friends to vote for your remix. Popular ones end up here, where they awkwardly load forever and don't play, because Radiohead apparently hasn't learned their lesson yet about bandwidth. Ah well.

Reality check: nobody reads blogs

On one hand, it's not news to me that the traffic on most good blogs hovers just above embarrassing: the traffic of this blog has yet to poke its nose out from under atrocious. On the other hand, if you spend as much time as I do clicking around the Internet in search of everything in particular, you start to believe that you're not the only one in the world that actually reads shit and clicks on shit and consumes at least some of the information you stumble across on a daily basis. You begin to think that everyone else processes stimuli in the same way that you do.

Trent Reznor went and disclosed the numbers behind the great Niggy Tardust experiment. Aside from being a brilliant move to get people talking about the record again*, his screed shocked me not for its admissions that even the people in this business who know the most what they're doing still have no idea what they're doing, but for the underwhelming numbers contained within.

I agree with most of the Internet, including this guy, that Trent's reasoning is a bit specious as far as who those downloads represent, and I think even if his assumptions are correct, an 18.3% conversion rate isn't half bad. The number that shocked me was the total downloads.

Granted, there wasn't a front page piece in the Times about the record, but when a guy like Trent Reznor gets behind a project by a great artist with a name like this one had, and it's released the way this one was, people pick up on the story. In case you never did, you can (but you won't) read about it here. For a while, this was the buzz of the blogs. Saul Williams enjoyed top billing on elbo.ws, and useless exposure on Technorati.

And after all that huffing and puffing, just over 150,000 people downloaded a record for FREE!? I guess I just thought there were more people like me on the Internet. People who read about something on a site they trust, and try it. Especially something very likely to be cool -- especially something entirely, legitimately, free.

But maybe not. Maybe nobody reads anything because they're too busy fighting over who commented first, and all the traffic that keeps your favorite blogs in business is just the result of great keywords hidden in mountains of back content, and irresistibly clickable ads.

When I was a boy, we had to ride our 14.4k modems uphill both ways to get to the Internet. These whippersnappers are taking the web to hell in a handbasket.

...

An anecdote to bring my point home: this particular site enjoys a small but consistent trickle of traffic from people Googling for "naked in the bath" and finding this post (even more from now on, I suppose). Unsurprisingly, they don't stick around very long. But once in a while, they click on an ad.


* I'm playing right into your hands, you clever bastard.

Still beating a dead pig: a conversation about OiNK.

I promise that when this interview began, it was supremely topical. Although it's no longer on the tongue-tip of every Internet troll this side of Pitchfork (F them and their year-end list, btw), the implications of OiNK's demise continue to interest me, even though my account was deleted for inactivity long before the hammer dropped.

Although I rarely shy away from an opportunity to bloviate about the state of the music business, it would be a very generous interpretation of the truth to suggest that I've ever had more than a peripheral role in the industry. The subject of this interview, however, has managed to hold down a job in the thick of it, and to his credit, he has maintained his dignity, integrity, and sanity through it all. He's a good guy.

So...this is a few weeks late. But I think it came out nicely, and it'd be a shame not to post it just because it's not the topic du jour anymore. With no further delay, I present to you an interview with an anonymous radio programmer at a wide-reaching alternative rock radio station about OiNK.

Mike McClenathan: You're a radio PD. Let's start there and talk business (not necessarily music business). What do you do every day? Who do you talk to? Who are your customers, and who do you answer to?

Anonymous Radio Programmer: I have an endless supply of answers to the "What do you do" question, but there one or two primary answers:

The station I work at fosters a lot of new talent, so I spend the majority of my time training the staff that creates content on air. That includes, jocks, production staffers, news anchors, etc.

I work alongside our Music Directors to pick the music we play, and set the overall vision for the station. I maintain relationships all throughout the industry and stay in the know about the momentum of as many musical projects as possible. We interact with people all over the industry, but the bulk of our contacts are labels (RIAA Major, RIAA indie, and unaffiliated indies), band management, and booking agents.

MM: From the perspective of someone gainfully employed in the music business with ostensible access to all the legitimate free music you desire, what was the appeal of OiNK?

ARP: OiNK was the most deep, organized collection of high quality music that the mainstream sharing world has ever seen. It was mind-shatteringly good. You know the OST to the SNES game Chrono Trigger? It was there, in 3 or 4 different qualities, including lossless. You know the other disc with the jazz arrangement tunes? Yeah. They had that too. Mp3/Lossless. At 600k a second. Oh, you want every recorded version of Love Will Tear Us Apart? Original Master? Remaster? Re-remaster? John Peel Session? Good, cause they had them. Lossless. 600k/sec.

This interview was started months ago, and since, several replacements have started up. Some seem well on the way to OiNK's depth. So, even though OiNK is getting less attention nowadays, its piglets will take its place, quietly, until they're purged, and new replacements/paradigms grow from the ash.

MM:When you talk about OiNK and the future of music distribution with people who are cogs in the current machine, what do they say?

ARP: Some have some optimism about the future of a music business on new terms. Most get at least a little bit defensive. Most defend artists rights, as though all artists themselves are sitting at the table talking about what they want.

Its unfortunate. Rather than 100% villainizing these user-created systems, these companies should take P2P as market research. Sharing = a very intelligent, very passionate segment of their consumer base waving their hands and screaming that they want something.

Granted, the dam is broken. Maybe what they want is free music. A lot of those people will never pay for media again. But I'm not one of those people. If I could pay for a legal version of something like OiNK, I'd eat PB&J for a couple weeks to do it if I needed to. No question. But maybe I'm not a large enough demographic to warrant the copyright law changes that would fix all this.

MM: Have you spoken with any RIAA artists about this sort of thing?

ARP: Not directly. I've heard plenty of opinions on-air in interviews, and they run the whole range, from hyper-critical to totally-supportive. Many RIAA artists in the building have loudly hated on the tactics of the label they're signed to, even in the presence of the record rep that brought them to the station. The tactics I'm talking about are mostly related to slowness/lack of change, and usually contrasted against new distribution systems that their fans are using.

Generally, the actual people in RIAA companies that we work with are smart, friendly, and often very music passionate. Artists recognize this too. They seem to be frustrated with the content distribution issues.

MM: From where you stand, is a legalized OiNK equivalent even remotely possible in the short term? Nope.

ARP: Short term? hah. No. If by short term you mean 5-10 years, maybe. These days, I contend that the primary issue is in copyright law. Until these companies recognize digital media as something vastly different from a physical product, and lobby to have copyright law adjusted, nothing like OiNK will take place legally. I'm not saying I can cleanly spell out a copyright law that is fair to both artists and consumers in the age of information - maybe there were some savvy lawyers on OiNK that can help out more there. Then again, isn't that why the EFF exists? Surely, they're more eloquent and equipped than blabbermouths like me.

MM: What legal music acquisition service do you think most closely resembles the way it will/could/should work in the future?

ARP: I know one or two people hooked on emusic, as well as rhapsody. Amie St strikes me as a pretty awesome, forward-thinking model. I'm glad to see it take off as it has. But again I ask - can you get Chrono Trigger - The Brink Of Time, in a lossless open-format? Or in a high high quality Mp3?

Maybe that kind of deep/esoteric library would only be important to a handful of hardcore collectors (the types of people that would shop at the record store in High Fidelity).

Maybe it isn't a worthwhile enough market for anyone to really care/make a profit. Maybe Hannah Montanas will be able to roam the earth as long as mainstream media promotional tools supersaturate every nook and cranny of human attention.

But it obviously is a worthwhile enough principle for 200,000 or so people to spend their lives hooked to the internet, setting it up in their own time. Sounds like a volunteer public library to me.

MM: Any closing comments?

ARP: This is not a time of sorrow; it is a time of great opportunity. Clever minds and music passionate people have a future in this business. I have a little experience in the old-paradigm music industry, and I am confident saying that intelligence and music-passion are abundant. The people I've worked with are great. We all just need to embrace the changing technological/intellectual frameworks. Models will change, scales will change.. but music is still loved, and there is a place for people to get involved, and make enough money to support their families. There might not be as many Ferrari toting coke heads, like the 1980s churned out, but you won't find me crying a tear over that. It takes forward-thinking, some courage, and an appreciation for the increasingly-free flow of information, but I believe it's possible. Build new paradigms!

The new ringtones

Once upon a time, in a land not so far away, recorded music was a consumer product. Sold by judgmental and hygienically-challenged clerks in dingy indie stores to be displayed on a shelf as a badge of honor, or repackaged into NOW! compilations and sold in brighter, cheerier places for the faint of taste*. Radio and MTV moved product. Movie soundtracks were sure-bet cash cows. Everyone in the music foodchain (even sometimes artists) made money.

Of course, all that's changed now, and you don't need me to tell you so. A solid decade after the mass adoption of the .mp3, the moneymen still standing remain tragically befuddled about the whole technology thing, and as a result, the music industry is in danger of losing its direct contact with the consumer marketplace completely.

Oh, the major labels will never go away. Not really. Unless copyright law dissolves completely, there'll always be a way to make money off old IP. But because of its baffling unwillingness to serve individuals in a way that's agreeable to the customer, the music industry continues to become less and less able to get its hands into consumer pockets without the help of a third party (movies, television, video games) that still knows what the f it's doing in the marketplace. Imagine a clothing retailer realizing it couldn't figure out how to deal directly with customers anymore, and going into the zipper business instead. Providing indirect, ancillary value to the same market to which it used to provide direct value.

This is why the ringtone business was once touted as the ailing business's savior. Cellular providers were willing to play by the rules that music customers had ceased to directly accept from the music business: polish turd, overcharge, repeat. For a while, anyone who wanted to hear "Who Can It Be Now?" whenever their phone rang had to pay for the privilege. Shareholders rejoiced.

But most people these days can find ways to get their ringtones for free. You know what they can't get for free (yet) though? New Rock Band tracks! Kaching! The business is saved!

So the new Metallica single might make its debut as a Rock Band track. Think for a minute about what that means for...I dunno...fans of Metallica. Unless they own a next-gen video game console and spent the cash to pick up the game, the first time they'll be able to hear the song is probably going to be on YouTube, sounding about as good as this. And if they want to (gasp) buy it? Well, they'll just have to wait.

Believe these two things: there are a lot more Metallica fans in the world than there are Rock Band owners. And a lot more of them than would usually do so are going to find a way to steal this song and not even feel bad if it's released this way. Metallica and their people are chasing a guaranteed paycheck and in the same breath hastening the demise of recorded music as a valuable, purchasable product in and of itself.

Yeah yeah, I know. It was going to happen anyway.


* Actually, this second part still happens. But (crosses fingers) that well has to dry up eventually.

Radiohead does something rad

Didn't I call this? I totally called this.

inrainbows.com

I kinda called this.

If I were a record company executive, I would not be sleeping so well tonight. But I'm not, and I just paid exactly 1 pence (plus 45 other pence) for the new Radiohead record. I'll sleep very well indeed.

Epitaph bids adieu to eMusic

I've used this space to praise eMusic CEO David Pakman before, but I can't resist doing it again after reading his recent post to 17dots about the departure of Epitaph (and Anti-, and Hellcat) from the eMusic fold.

Sure, it's a way of blanketing the spark before it becomes a fire and hopefully minimizing the "WTF WHARE'S MAI TOM WAITS!?!" complaint emails, but it's also the kind of measured sensetalk I've come to expect from eMusic's chief executive. Read it for yourself. He's right.

eMusic users are some of the last remaining paying customers in the American music market. And per capita, they spend about 14 times more than the typical iTunes customer. There is money changing hands here.

Of course, labels that leave eMusic do so because they want a steeper cut of the proceeds. I can't speak to the pay structure because I don't know it and I don't really care to find out. But if you're pulling out of this deal because your price negotiations are hitting a wall, you're cutting off your nose to spite your face. You are leaving money on the table. You're willing to take none because you can't get more.

Bottom line: almost nobody buys music anymore. The people that still do can only be found in a few places. Just like the old school music business, distribution is still king. Only now, it's easier. Just make digital copies available every single place people have shown a willingness to pay for them. Because if your music isn't available at their store of choice, willing shoppers become reluctant thieves.

Hey Radiohead: You can't possibly beat 'em. So join 'em.

So the new Radiohead record is done. What's exciting about this isn't that they used a choir of kids for something probably creepy. Or that the album will almost definitely be fucking awesome. Ok, I guess those two things are kinda exciting too.

But what's really exciting to me is that the band is currently without record label. Their EMI commitment is up. From the Paste article linked above:

"We just had a meeting about that today," said Greenwood on September 7. "We’re very relieved to have finished recording, now we have to decide what we should do with it."

Radiohead completed its six-album contract with EMI with 2003’s Hail to the Thief and is currently unsigned. Can anyone say bidding war?

Well Paste, I'm sure there are plenty of willing bidders. But I'll tell you what would really kick the ass of the music industry. What would and reach more ears and eyes than any record company's marketing team could ever dream to reach.

GIVE THE RECORD AWAY.

Thom & Co. don't need the record revenue. They'll make a king's ransom on the tour even if the record is nothing but a 48 minute fart. And they should go even further than Prince did. Distribute it online: torrents and zip files. Give the downloader his choice: mp3, flac, wav, or ogg. And release it now, right after announcing it, like Steve Jobs does.

And sure, still sell a physical disc if you really want to. Plenty of people will pay for the souvenir artwork, which Radiohead has always done right.

Basically, make it available to people the way they're going to get it anyway. If they want to buy it from a record store, encourage that. But if they want to torrent it (and let's face it, they're going to torrent it if they want to), encourage that too.

Last.fm's charts to be published on paper. Why?

Hidden beneath today's big news that 2 also-ran online music services are teaming up in an effort (URGE and Rhapsody, see here, yawn) is the news that Last.fm will soon begin publishing UK and US charts in dead-tree form for music industry publication Music Week ($690/year subscription).

The same exact charts that are already available on Last.fm for free. Really.

The first charts will appear in trade magazine Music Week, which relaunches this week.

Charts will appear both in print and on the Music Week website, and Last.fm plans to publish similar charts in the US.

A spokesman for Last.fm said the "hype chart", which is currently picking up artists such as Kate Nash and Biffy Clyro, is "the most important chart for the industry because it provides a taste of what we'll be listening to a few weeks ahead".

The same Last.fm data picked up the popularity of Gnarls Barkley's Crazy before it hit the mainstream charts last year.

I don't doubt the usefulness of the charts, especially for the radio programmer / music supervisor types that might very well subscribe to Music Week. And I'd probably be sickened to learn just how many of them aren't already aware of Last.fm. But this just leaves me a little bit uneasy.

Obviously it's a no-brainer for Last.fm if someone is offering them money to reprint their property, which I sincerely hope is how this deal came about. If this was Last.fm's idea, then the old-school new owners might already be steering a wonderful ship in the wrong DUHrection.

[The Guardian]

Is someone at Ticketmaster listening?

I just bought 2 $20 tickets on Ticketmaster (UNKLE at Webster Hall, FTW). Total for the order, all said and done, was $51.90. For the record, that's $2.50 in order processing fees and 2x$4.70 for the convenience. I don't want to say I'm happy to pay $11.90 in fees for my $40 worth of tickets. But either I've blown the exorbitant charges way out of proportion in my head, or they're less than they used to be. I was expecting the total to be more like $60.

Anyone out there know if Ticketmaster has reduced their fees at all? Or am I just crazy?

Amie Street gets funding from Amazon

It's been announced today that music-store-slash-social-network Amie Street has closed its Series A funding with Amazon leading the investing.

As it's been explained to me, this has nothing to do with Amazon's own eventual entry into the digital music retail space. The belief is that there will be more than one winner in the digital music future, Amie Street and Amazon hit different demographics, and Amie Street's unique model positions them well for success.

There are some social networking aspects to the service (befriend other users, etc.) but at its heart Amie Street really hinges on two concepts:

1. The users of the site determine the price of a song by purchasing it. Each song begins at $.00 and inches up towards $.98 as more people purchase and "REC" it. Artists get 70% of the revenue after Amie Street recoups $5/song.
2. After a user has RECed a song, they can cash out their REC at any time for a credit equal to the difference between the current price and the price they RECed it at. So if I like a song and REC it at $.08 and it goes up to $.50, I can earn myself $.42 of credit to buy more music. Users get a limited number of RECs when they purchase credit.

As far as what's on there, a lot of it is music uploaded by artists themselves, so some of it's great (The Seedy Seeds) and some of it isn't. Some forward-thinking labels (Nettwerk, notably) have been playing ball as well, so marquis names like The Format are starting to pop up.

AND THERE IS NO DRM.

I've thought it's a cool idea since I started using the site last year, but nobody really cares what I think. Amazon's endorsement, however, that's a pretty big deal. Things are looking up for the fledgling service.

[amiestreet.com]

Disclosure: I've recently been doing a bit of work for Amie Street...mostly writing reviews.

Who doesn't like Stars?

Canadian group Stars sparked a conflagration of blog entries when they put their new record In Our Bedroom After the War up for sale online 4 days after its completion, despite a September 25 release date for the physical disc. It was an if-you-can't-beat-'em... sort of move, but for my money it was the right one. I bought it on eMusic and I think it's quite good. "Personal" gives me chills.

Anyway, they just posted this EPK, giving me an excuse to weigh in on a story that I was too busy to write about the first time around. The video doesn't look too hot, but is an interesting watch for superfans that crave a little access to the people behind the music. Especially dig the explanation of the album title choice at the end.

[In Our Bedroom After the War on eMusic, iTunes]

Interview: The Confusions

Many moons ago, when I was first figuring out what PulverRadio was going to sound like, I spent hours and hours in contact with great indie bands, finding places for them in playlists, trying to help them out any way I could. One of my favorites from that time was a Swedish band called The Confusions.

Lately I've been back in touch with Mikael Andersson-Knut, singer, songwriter, and guitarist for The Confusions. I asked him if he'd do an interview with me over email, and after a few letters back and forth, I think we've put together a decent introduction to the band, who have enjoyed a number of European successes over the years.

The interview follows after this video for "The Pilot."

Mike McClenathan: Easy stuff out of the way first: who's in the band, what do they play, and how long have The Confusions been making music together?

Mikael Andersson-Knut: Mikael Andersson-Knut, songwriter, singer and guitarist
Zarah Edström, keyboards and vocals
Mattias Löfström, drums and percussion
Henrik Svensson, guitars
Magnus Thorsell, bass

The Confusions started up in the early 90's and we released our first record (a split single) back in 1993. Our first ep "Forever" 1994 and our first album "Being Young" 1995. But the line-up of the band was a bit different back then, the new guys :-) in the band are Henrik who joined the band in 1998 (after being our guitar tech.) and Magnus who joined us during the summer 1999.

MM: And where are you from?

MAK: We're all from Sundsvall, Sweden. A town at the east coast, exactly in the middle of the country, about 400 km north of Stockholm.

MM: I spent a week in Stockholm a few years ago and couldn't find anything I liked on the radio. Every station seemed to be an amalgamation of American pop songs I was already sick of and Swedish pop songs that I didn't think were very good. The Confusions are one of many examples of great music being produced in Sweden. Can you comment on the state of music radio and television in Sweden, and on the ways Swedish artists that don't fit that mold are getting their music out there?

MAK: Most of the commercial radio stations have only made the situation worse when it regards playing "good" music on the air. What happened during the last couple of years is that you get this feeling that the public service stations are trying to beat the commercial stations playing the same crap music... which is horrible! The public service stations should be all about special programs and people trying to find out about new and interesting stuff. There are some shows that are good on P3 (public service) and on their Internet channels...but we need more.

There's so much great stuff around here in Sweden, we should be allowed to hear it!

MM: Can you name some other great Swedish artists being ignored by radio?

MAK: There's a lot of them, hard for me to pick out a special one. But I can tell you that there is some weird thing about discovering the "new" band and dropping the old ones. I get a feeling that is different in the US. Maybe because of your live situation is better, you can go on playing live gigs and creating more fans that way in the US.

I think a great older band like The Wannadies [link] are considered in Sweden as "has been" which is awful because they´re just a great band.

A young band like Eskju Divine [link] released their second album in the fall 2006 and got totally ignored in Sweden (it seemed to me anyway)... but they've got things going in Japan etc.

MM: Despite the difficulty of getting traditional airplay, you've had some success with MTV Europe. Is it easier to get on TV than radio?

MAK: We've been lucky with this in a way, being close friends with great young video directors that like to work with us.

We've done great videos with small budgets, it's often all about ideas and locations. So yes, in a way it's been easier for us to get on TV with videos than on the larger radio stations.

MM: Clearly you're promoting yourselves heavily on the Internet, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. What sites/communities have you found to be receptive to what The Confusions are all about?

MAK: Myspace, YouTube, PulverRadio [RIP -ed.], IndieMusic.com some smaller sites...there are a lot of great sites for sure, that's the thing now, the net.

MM: What does the future hold for The Confusions? Are there new releases in the near future? Can we have a sneak preview?

MAK: We released a new acoustic album in May (you'll find it on iTunes [link]) called "It Sure Looks Like The Confusions But It Sounds More Acoustic" in a limited edition of a 1000 copies. This record is only sold at shows and at Internet shops.

But at the same time we're working on a new studio album which will be released in the fall, maybe in October. We have been recording in our own studio Yellow and have been mixing 9 tracks so far in different studios. We're really excited about this new record because we're producing it ourselves... which means freedom and you´ll find different sides of the band on these songs.

A sneak preview could be the video clip Henrik put up on You Tube a few days ago, where we´re mixing a new song called "There Ain´t No Easy Way Out Of Here", check it out. [Video is below -ed.]

You can also download some acoustic (and other songs as well) songs for free at
www.theconfusions.com



Bonus mp3: The Confusions - Artificial

eMusic makes reasonable mobile deal

From a recent eMusic mail blast:

Announcing eMusic Mobile from eMusic and AT&T!

If you’re thinking about getting a new mobile phone, now’s the perfect time. As of today, eMusic and AT&T are offering "over the air" access to eMusic’s catalogue of over 2.5 million tracks. Owners of select AT&T mobile phones can now sign up for a monthly eMusic Mobile subscription plan. Subscribers will also have access to free MP3 versions of all mobile downloads on the eMusic web site.

A feature of eMusic I've always thought was neat but never had a need for is that once you've bought a track you can download it as many times as you like*. This announcement from eMusic marks the first time (that I'm aware of) that not only are mobile music prices matching those of their more convenient pc-based counterparts, but that the purchases are approaching no-hassle, as your eMusic purchases, whether they take place on your computer or your phone, are one in the same.

I'm teetering on the edge of turning this post into a commercial, but I think this is a fairly big deal. This is the closest I've seen to a mobile music offering that makes sense. For as long as I've heard people in the music business drone on and on about how mobile devices are the future, I have never known a single person that's shown any interest in paying to stream poor-quality music video snippets to their RAZR. I can imagine some people I know actually liking the idea of buying a song once and having it on both their desktop and their cell without sideloading.

[Boring info like compatible phones at eMusic]

* Note: Amie Street also does this.

DENIED: Another setback for the webcasters

Yesterday afternoon the Washington DC Circuit US Court of Appeals denied an emergency stay to delay the impending royalty hike for webcasters that will go into effect on July 15th. With only 3 days to go before the rate hike takes effect, barring some miracle it looks like Internet radio is going to have to keep fighting the rate hike while paying the new high rates.

And as you might guess, it's going to continue to be an uphill battle. From RAIN:

Apparently, the court's denial of the emergency stay is a very brief "form" order that just says that the parties didn't meet the high burden necessary to establish that a stay should be granted, which include a "likelihood of success on the merits." (In other words, you have to convince the court that you are going to win before you even file your brief or have an argument.)

Everything dies baby

Roger Friedman over at FOXNews.com (yeah, I know) writes that an impending new Springsteen release (very likely E Street Band, not side project Bruce) might bail some water out of the sinking ship that is Columbia Records.

I don't mention it often on this blog, but I was almost NAMED after Bruce Springsteen, and from an early age I've been indoctrinated into the Boss's church. I know every record by heart, and I cherish his contribution to rock and roll. That said, there's no way Columbia is ever going to see black ink again with Sprinsteen after the 100 million contract they gave him to continue to record for them. That kind of money simply doesn't happen in the record business anymore. The touring business? Sure, maybe. The record business? No way. Not anymore.

More on UMG vs. iTunes

It looks like Universal is seeking a month-to-month agreement with iTunes, notable stipulations of which being that iTunes would not be guaranteed access to all of Universal's catalog, and Universal would be free to offer iTunes' competitors exclusive content rights.

It's still possible that all of this is merely to annoy Apple into sharing iPod (and maybe iPhone?) revenues with UMG, as I hypothesized earlier. But this is looking more to me like Universal just doesn't see the writing on the wall: iTunes is going to rule until someone comes in and does it better. Do you think Steve Jobs cares too much if a few UMG artists are available exclusively on the Zune store? That would accomplish nothing other than to hamstring the digital sales of the artist in question.

You can bet (or, at any rate, I am betting) that when iTunes finally has someone to be afraid of, it'll be someone offering tracks without DRM. So, unless Universal does a 180° and makes their tracks available on eMusic or Amie Street, this is all just a bunch of huffing and puffing.


[AllAccess (membership required)]

Uninspired marketing from XM at Yankee Stadium

For as long as I've been subscribed to Bob Lefsetz's newsletter, he has lauded XM Satellite Radio's programming and decried pretty much everything else about their business -- especially their marketing. I've always just shrugged it off because I'm largely unaware of XM's marketing campaigns, which considering my age and interests, is probably exactly Bob's point. But I went to a Yankees game on July 3rd and saw something between innings that left me absolutely dumbfounded.

The promo goes as follows. XM wants to play a song by the popular rock and roll band U2. But what song? It's so hard to choose! Wait, let's get the Yankees to help us! Here's the deal, sluggers: You can choose from either "I Will Follow," "Where the Streets Have No Name," or "Beautiful Day." Got that?

A-Rod wants to hear "I Will Follow." Oh, but Jeter wants to hear "Where the Streets Have No Name!" Will those two ever agree on anything!?!? And now Johnny Damon wants to hear "Beautiful Day." Man, this one's going to be too close to call!

So they go through about 10 players each voting for the U2 song they want to hear the most. And the winner is "Beautiful Day" (REALLY!?! -Ed.). The audience, all surely as enraptured as I, is treated to about 60 seconds of muffled, loudspeaker-distorted mediocrity.

I probably don't need to waste the pixels telling you all the reasons this sucks as a promo, but I will anyway.

1. It's utterly forgettable. They put members of the team up on the JumboTron between every inning to tell you to watch out for foul balls, or to teach you how to say "stadium" in Japanese.
   
   I once worked for a radio station that hired XM guru Lee Abrams as a consultant, and he stood up in front of all of us and told us this story about a marketing stunt he once did with a "Hit This Plane and WIN" flyover of the MLB All-Star game in San Francisco. Clearly Lee wasn't in the room when they cooked this turkey up.


2. Everyone plays U2. Everyone from the tiniest basement webcaster (may he rest in peace) to the lamest terrestrial conglomerate. And they all play those same overplayed tracks! If you want to convince me to pay good money every month for the privilege of listening to your radio service, it's not going to be because you play the most overexposed tracks by perhaps the planet's most ubiquitous band. I can hear that anywhere for free.
   
   I can't stress enough how impossible it is as a radio station to brand yourself "The U2 Station," and how misguided attempts to do so are. Hell, why don't you promise to play me "Stairway to Heaven" every 3 hours, too?


3. Everyone in that stadium shares a common interest, but it's not U2. You don't need to spend much time in The Bronx to know that it's a mixed crowd. Shit, you get the impression half the players in the promo aren't even familiar with the songs they're voting for. How else do you explain them choosing "Beautiful Day" over "Where the Streets Have No Name?"
   
   Sure, a lot of people like U2. But do you know what EVERYONE in that stadium likes? BASEBALL!!! And XM HAS BASEBALL! You can listen to every major league game on XM! That's something that XM has that nobody else has! Don't you think anyone in Yankee Stadium would be interested in knowing that? I can guarantee to you that not all of them do.

So shame on you, XM Marketing team. You have accomplished nothing other than to insult real music fans with banal crap, leave baseball fans ignorant of a service XM offers that they might be interested in, and waste a lot of money on an uninspired, positively FM promotion. Shame on you.

Is Avril Lavigne a thief?

This one's a little less obvious and blatant than the Mike Doughty case, and also a little further along in that lawyers are involved.

Play the video above and decide for yourself if Avril (or the people who write her songs for her) ripped off obscure 70's pop-rockers The Rubinoos*. Nicholas Carlin, the lawyer representing Rubinoos songwriter/founder Tommy Dunbar, certainly thinks she did.

"She's made a lot of money off of my client's song," Carlin said by phone from northern California, where the claim was filed.

"The entire song is not the same, they have different bridges, but the heart and soul of her song is directly taken from our client's song."

Terry McBride, Avril's manager and head honcho at Nettwerk (who seem, above all other management companies, to get it) is pissed:

Lavigne's manager, Terry McBride, scoffed at the charges, calling the suit "baseless" and little more than a "case of legal blackmail."

"Avril's a great songwriter and she's proving it over and over and over again," McBride said from Vancouver, where he runs Nettwerk Music Group.

But here's the thing: a song doesn't need to be an exact copy for a judge to decide there has been an infringement, and it's anything but an exact science. And even though McBride has gone so far as to hire musicologists (Where do I get that job? -Ed.) that have sided with him and called the Rubinoos claim baseless, he is considering settling out of court to save some cash.

He noted that a similar claim against his client Sarah McLachlan about 10 years ago cost roughly $500,000 to defeat in court. When Nettwerk tried to recoup the costs from the plaintiffs, they declared bankruptcy, he said.

Veteran entertainment lawyer Paul Sanderson said copyright suits are common in the music business and are often settled out of court.

"There used to be a saying in the industry: 'Where there's a hit, there's a writ,' " said Sanderson, a Toronto lawyer who used to represent Lavigne and whose current clients include Chantal Kreviazuk and Ron Sexsmith.

"It really is about the money. If someone thinks that they have a possibility of making some money out of the claim and there's money in the pipeline that's been earned by a song ... there's money there to argue about."

McBride said his current legal battle is "an unfortunate part of this business."

"We will try and settle for costs that will be less than defending," he said. "Emotionally, it sucks. But at the end of the day you have to take that out of it."

The bottom line for me is this: what are the chances Avril Lavigne, who you would have trouble convincing me has even a modicum of cultural awareness beyond her own years, has ever heard this obscure track? I can't really see her combing through the used vinyl racks at her local record store and being taken by the snappy name of the Rubinoos. If she had written "Girlfriend" all by herself, this would probably just be coincidence. But the suit also names her songwriting partner "Dr. Luke" (Are you serious? -Ed.), whose CV suggests a bit more awareness.

Here's how this thing's going to go down:

• McBride settles out of court but maintains his client's integrity.
  
• Avril claims complete ignorance of the Rubinoos existence (probably true).
• Dr. Luke makes mental note that no matter how obscure a song from his childhood seems to be, if he makes a hit out of it for some pop-tart, someone is going to come a-knocking for an easy payday.
• The Rubinoos, encouraged by more press over this case than the band ever got for their music, go on tour. Nobody cares.
  

[CANOE]


* I'm always a little bit surprised when bands like The Rubinoos have MySpace pages. I know everyone has one at this point, but still. The Rubinoos have one. What a world.

Does iTunes need Universal?

I'd say the answer is no. And especially not if Universal CEO Doug Morris is after what I think he's after: a cut of iPod revenues.

Sure, it worked on Microsoft. M$ was willing to bend over backwards to procure major label participation in its Zune store, an essential accompaniment to the launch of what many in the blogging community affectionately refer to as the "shiny brown turd." Universal actually held a few cards in those negotiations.

But now they've gotten cocky, and it's going to blow up in their unthinkable faces. Steve Jobs is the first to admit that most iPods contain very low ratios of iTMS-bought music to music secured in other ways. And I don't think you'd have to buy him too many drinks before he happily confided in you that Apple makes almost nothing on the iTunes store, compared to their iPod revenue.

Please believe me when I tell you that Steve Jobs is not losing any sleep over the fact that The Bloodhound Gang's catalog may disappear from iTunes.

The bottom line: Apple has a place in the future of music distribution/acquisition. Universal owns a lot of IP and that'll sustain them indefinitely, but their place as real players in the future remains in question. This latest (mis)step does little other than highlight how much they still don't get it.

[New York Times]

Nobody is the boss of Prince

UK record store owners are pissed off at the news (actually it might still be a rumor) that Prince will be giving away his new record for free in the British Daily Mail as a "covermount." This is in addition to his plans to include free copies of Planet Earth with tickets to his upcoming 21-show London residency. The spin on this is that the people at Prince's label (Sony BMG's UK arm) aren't any more psyched about this than the British record retailers. The Guardian has the story, but if you're not a registered member, Idolator has a good summary.

Two points I think are important. The first is a question: Why the hell is Prince still working with a major label? I would argue (and I am) that he could move the same number of records on an indie, and they'd probably give him a lot less grief. Hell, a guy like Prince has the resources to do it all himself, and it seems like he kinda wants to anyway.

Second: The ERA (Entertainment Retailers Association) is all bark and no bite here. Prince doesn't need to sell another CD as long as he lives, and he's clearly not losing any sleep over chart positions. It's no secret to anyone that the live business is where the money's at these days, and Prince's live revenues in particular are through the roof (see here, here).

Regardless of whether or not the ERA thinks Prince owes them anything, he doesn't seem to think he does. They need him a lot more than he needs them, and crying about it isn't going to make it any better.

Video games are kicking ass. Music not so much.

Consulting group PricewaterhouseCoopers is predicting that the video game industry is poised to overtake the music industry as soon as this year with regards to overall consumer spending.

Contributing to the success of the video game industry (which is predicted to grow at an annual rate of 9.1%) is gigantic in-game advertising growth.

Contributing to the continued floundering of the music industry: stories like this one.

[ArsTechnica]

Why Last.fm played music today

Really interesting debate on today's Internet radio Day of Silence happening over at the Last.fm blog. Last.fm, as one of the biggest and most widely known web streamers, has long been conspicuously absent from the gaggle of protesters. Blogger Felix Miller goes a long way in his post to explain the London company's position, and is surprisingly patient and polite in the comments to those who (at times aggressively) disagree.

Lengthy quote below, but I really recommend you check out the entire post.

We do not want to punish our listeners for our problems, period.

If a commercial challenge comes up, we have to deal with it. We have always done that, as many people who have been using Last.fm for a while can attest to. And we’ve had our fair share of challenges. (Like the server growth problems we’ve been battling recently. Mischa was overheard grumbling that “we’ve probably put in two days of silence!” over the last couple weeks; a heartfelt thanks our users for their patience.)

Since Last.fm started we’ve engaged in negotiations with the music industry, leading to our recently reaching an agreement with several major record labels for the use of music on our service. As a legal and responsible provider of music, we’re continuing discussions with record labels and music publishers. At the same time, we’re negotiating with royalty collection societies to make sure we can get rates that make sense to us.

The only solution to this dilemma is commercial; make a commercial argument and see it through. What benefit does music have if no one is playing it anymore? There are various opinions about the promotional benefits of playing music on the radio, but having your music heard by more people instead of less can’t be wrong, no?

What I am saying is: it’s in no one’s interest to let online radio die. But people want to make money from their music. And we want to pay artists for the music we play. It’s only fair.

We think – and this is the opinion of the whole Last.fm office, who you can meet on our lovely team page – that turning off the radio is just plain wrong. This has been a no-brainer from day one for us: the users rule, and we serve them. If only one person wants to listen tomorrow, we should serve them. I for one want to listen every day.

Online radio won’t die in a hurry, but it will be hard work. And we don’t deal in silence.

It's hard to argue with the logic here, if logic is the way you like to argue. Last.fm is a big company, now owned by a much bigger company, and as such they have no choice but to abide by the rules. Royalties in every other country they stream to have been a reality for some time, and they have the clout to be able to negotiate more favorable rates than the CRB-imposed ones with most of the major copyright holders. And it's an admirable thing these days to grind though a tough situation with nothing but elbow grease, rather than cry about it as the Last.fm'ers seem to suggest everyone else is doing.

Still, it would have been nice to see the big guy stand alongside the little guys today.

Because unfair rules are not good rules, and none of SoundExchange's press releases have convinced me that these rules are anything but a moneygrab.

Because it shouldn't be incumbent on a fledgling industry that hasn't even figured out its business model yet to prop up a matured industry that's lost its way.

Because the judges that comprise the CRB have made it abundantly clear that they don't understand the technology they're ruling about.

Because if the day of silence works Last.fm will benefit handsomely from the reprieve.

Because because because...

Internet radio goes silent tomorrow...for the day.

Save Net Radio's National Day of Silence, after having been postponed from its original date because of some perceived legislative progress, will happen tomorrow. Your favorite web radio station (if it's participating*) will either shut off access to its stream completely, broadcast ocean sounds or static, or broadcast silence interspersed with PSA's.

"The arbitrary and drastic rate increases set by the Copyright Royalty Board on March 2nd threaten the very livelihood of thousands of webcasters and their millions of listeners throughout the country," said Jake Ward, a spokesperson for the SaveNetRadio Coalition. "The campaign to save Internet radio - a genuine grassroots movement comprised of hundreds of thousands of webcasters, artists and independent labels, and Net radio listeners - has quickly brought this issue to the national forefront and the halls of Congress, but there is still more to be done before the approaching deadline of July 15th. On Tuesday, thousands of webcasters will call on their millions of listeners to join the fight to save Internet radio and contact their Congressional representatives to ask for their support of the Internet Radio Equality Act." (Day of Silence (pdf))

5 years ago on May 1, 2002, Internet Broadcasters staged another Day of Silence when faced with an eerily similar ruling from the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel. That protest led (either directly or indirectly) to a last-minute reprieve from the Librarian of Congress and the passage of the Small Webcaster Settlement Act for 1998-2005.


[RAIN: Radio and Internet Newsletter]
[SaveNetRadio]

* Notable non-participants include Last.fm, and a whole bunch of terrestrial stations that simulcast to the web, including Clear Channel owned stations. Cox owned terrestrial stations are participating. For a more complete (but still not complete) list of participating stations, click here.

Stop the madness: exclusive tracks

Store specific exclusive bonus tracks, like the ones awarded to Best Buy, Target, and iTunes for the latest Smashing Pumpkins record Zeitgeist*, are an insult to consumers and another in a long line of blunders by the panicked record industry.

The motivation here, I suppose, is to make the retailer happy by encouraging customers to get Zeitgeist at Best Buy, and not at Circuit City. In return, Best Buy floats an endcap your way. Maybe even puts a few copies in the checkout line.

But the result is that your customers, the Smashing Pumpkins fans that have longed for years for new material from Billy & co., the ones who have had $20 earmarked for this record for months, the ones who want to own every piece of memorabilia they can, feel ripped off. They want to own, legitimately, every single track. But they sure as hell don't want to buy the record three times to get them.

I'm pretty sure Billy had nothing to do with this decision. And whether or not he's saying so publicly, I really want to believe he's just as pissed as we are. Remember, this is the guy who released what was then believed to be the final Pumpkins album ever online for free as a parting silverfuck you to the recording business.

I don't think the labels really expect people to buy this record three times. I think the error in judgment being made here is an underestimation of how important it is for fans to have everything their favorite band puts out. The people working at these labels are music fans too (at least some of them), but they haven't had to pay for a record in a long time. They're consumers but not customers. And somewhere along the way, they forget what it's like to have to reconcile your wallet with your devotion. And they wonder why people steal music. The only store you can get the TITLE TRACK at is Target.

Your customers, not your retail channels, should always be your number one priority. Long after Best Buy and Target stop stocking music altogether (and they will, sooner rather than later), your customers will still be spending money to consume your product. But not if you keep trying to squeeze blood from their stones.

Go to Pitchfork for the tracklisting(s).

* Bloc Party's A Weekend In The City is another (actually much worse with 12 tracks) offender.

IFPI board member talks tough

UK academic and music industry thinker Andrew Dubber recently posted a fascinating email exchange on his New Music Strategies blog that's really a fascinating read if you've got the time.

Long story short: an