Week 3 – on Steve Gordon’s The Future of the Music Business, chapters 5 & 6 – 1/29/2011
Whether intending to communicate this message or not, Steve Gordon’s explanation of the complexities of licensing, especially of music when synced with video of some sort, (music video, concert recordings, and other music-use-in-film), suggests that the primary motivator for all parties involved is clearly profit. The lack of consistency in law as it applies to each component of music/music licensing, in the form of either (1) compulsory licensing or not, and (2) varying licensing fees (or not, depending on whether there is a set schedule for payment based on different factors, like expected size of audience), show as much. Add to this Gordon’s oft-times cynical take on the music industry and its cooperation with other industries, and it seems fair to read Gordon’s manual as a how-to guide for musicians but one that dispels any illusions of a connection between the integrity of the artist in producing art in the form of music and the larger industry grown around that to profit, (one example of Gordon’s (2008) cynicism: “…one of many examples of a commercial not only borrowing interest from music, but also borrowing out interests, milking our memories and desires, and selling them back to us,” (p. 93).
References
Gordon, S. (2008). The future of the music business: How to succeed with the new digital technologies (2nd ed.). New York: Hal Leonard.
Week 3 – on online music acquisition, [posted to discussion board, 1/29]
Some of my favorite sites: well, honestly, I still mostly buy tangible goods – and a lot of what I’d like to buy isn’t available for download, (though this is starting to change). When I do decide to download music, I tend to go to the label or band site and move from there as necessary; that means I’ve spent as much or more money with Merge (http://www.mergerecords.com/ –who offer 320kpbs and FLAC options!), Chemikal Underground (http://www.chemikal.co.uk/), Sub Pop (http://www.subpop.com/), and other labels, or barring that, Insound (http://www.insound.com), than I have with Amazon. Although, as Matthew pointed out in his post, Amazon’s selection is growing pretty quickly. I can’t help being split on an allegiance to buying stuff versus buying the recording in a digital format. The thousands of records and CDs I have collecting dust in a storage unit are an albatross, and since I’ve been working remotely and traveling constantly, having many of those records encoded and stored on one portable hard drive has made it possible for me to take some of the music with me (which is great). When I’m settled again, though, I know that I’ll still love the experience of dropping the needle onto a Caetano Veloso record, and sitting back with a cup of coffee to enjoy a sunny (sub)tropical morning. I expect that, really, that’s what most of our reactions will get at: the subjective and unquantifiable something that a tangible format provides, versus the convenience and portability of a digital format. One more thing that I haven’t seen mentioned yet: tangible music, provided it’s not copied or shared, means not having to engage in many of the complexities outlined by Gordon – you can successfully avoid any fears about copyright, licensing, etc., by simply not participating (and, of course, being a dinosaur)!
Week 3 – on various websites
On the mp3, http://www.soundstageav.com/mastersonaudio/20050201.htm
A good, quick overview of the format and other compressed audio formats, although this is certainly meant to be an historical document; with continuing advances in quality and changing of default format, (like FLAC, now), the mp3 remains the most widely adopted but could be outmoded in the future
On WMG, http://www.wmg.com/
My personal bias will shout loudly when it comes to the major-major labels. WMG, superficially, sells little to no music that I have any interest in; the Warner Archives, however, is a wholly different story. First and foremost, this site is a corporate site, (see the sidebar with news announcing court rulings, and the abundance of business links). There is no confusion on this site about music being a commodity.
On Sony BMG, http://www.sonymusic.com/ (redirect to here)
The same is true of Sony BMG as with WMG, (although there are many gems controlled under the umbrella of Legacy, like recordings of Johnny Cash, Captain Beefheart, and quite a number of others), although Sony has done a better job of masking the overtly corporate face with a more music-oriented webspace. This site makes it easy and intuitive to interact with some of their recordings by means of digital partners, (links to which take up the bottom portion of the page).
On Universal, http://www.universalmusic.com/ (redirect to here)
Of the three, this is the most remarkably un-corporate site: its focus is on the music and the artists. That’s not to say there isn’t clear commodification, but it is worth noting that there is not a single obvious ‘buy something’ sort of link from the front page. Instead, the emphasis seems to be more on getting surfers to interact with the different musical content, (note all of the ‘watch now!’ and ‘get now!’ notes near videos or cover images from new albums). I expect UMG has a separate corporate site, intended to represent the more business-oriented (less consumer-focused) content.
On EMI, http://www.emimusic.com/
This site almost feels like misdirection – its bloglike presentation and lack of overwhelming branding (other than the red and white EMI logo in the upper left corner) could be a testament to British reserve, or could be intended to present any passing consumer with an impression of distance from the editorialized content on the page and the authoritative voice of the label profiting, (e.g., “the great video for the new single…” [my emphasis], “follows his stellar UK breakout last year…” [my emphasis], etc.).
On the RIAA site, http://www.riaa.com
Though it comes as no surprise, it is interesting to see how the RIAA construct their identity in terms of the US Constitution, (since no one hates the First Amendment – see the ‘Who We Are’ section of the site). It is perhaps just as interesting that the RIAA describes their membership as “the music labels that comprise the most vibrant record industry in the world,” (from http://www.riaa.com/faq.php). While the RIAA does not exactly hide their goals of maximizing profit for their members, it does seem to misrepresent the record labels in a way that allows them to stand in for the artists’ productions (music).
On the BMI site, http://www.bmi.com
Differing from the RIAA, BMI initially present a simply-understood mission (hovering over ‘About’ on the front page shows a one-page summary). Similarly to the RIAA, though, BMI then goes on to manufacture a certain image, only instead of relying on Constitutional references, it is perhaps even more oppressive in the form of an American flag banner, (see the Legislation page, http://www.bmi.com/legislation). The site itself seems intuitive and usable for those who want to license music, as well as for artists seeking an agent to collect their royalties.
On the ASCAP site, http://www.ascap.com/index.aspx
This site definitely seems geared more toward artists than either the RIAA or BMI sites – the front page is heavy on links and promotion for musicians, and while the ‘About’ hover-over delivers a similar simple message to that in the same place as on the BMI site, the explicit ‘we create music’ message across the banner makes this the group most obviously representing themselves on the side of the musician. In some ways, such as the promotion of their ‘expo’, ASCAP seems as much a professional organization as anything else – almost as if advocacy for musicians is but a part of the larger purpose, (which is an apparent difference between ASCAP and the web-presented image of both BMI and the RIAA).
On the EFF site, https://www.eff.org/
This site seems to directly represent the “public interest” (consumers), even in the face of the government or corporate interests, (http://www.eff.org/about). It is interesting to compare the appearance of this site and that of the RIAA and BMI – the EFF site is very text-heavy, and though it does make use of unassailable ideas, (like references to fighting for ‘freedom’), uses relatively plain language to present its myriad pursuits, (https://www.eff.org/work).
On iTunes, USF iTunes, Napster, Rhapsody, Amazon, Yahoo Music…
While iTunes U through USF delivers some worthwhile content, I wish the interface were less foreboding (the galactic background isn’t exactly inviting), and also simply wish there was more easily navigable content. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any link to suggest relevant material, as a student might via the library catalog, so the effect is still that of having a preselected grouping of A/V content pushed out rather than any type of interaction. The complaint would apply to iTunes, too, although the iTunes U/USF approach suggests a partnership and interaction rather than consumption, (as iTunes, Amazon, and other retail sites/services all do). Since I refuse to sign up for any pay services and feel iTunes has a suspicious amount of control over my computer (to prompt refusal to download any other software), I have to admit to not exploring Rhapsody or Napster to their fullest; as such, I can only imagine these are models for delivering content on demand. As a consumer, I would especially appreciate a web-accessible music library that would allow creation of playlists and be commercial free; if the variety of music I listen to and enjoy was available through such a service, I would happily pay a monthly subscription, (perhaps priced similarly to what I already pay for Netflix, about $15-$20 a month). Unfortunately, a substantial amount of the music I listen to isn’t available digitally from anyone, having been only issued on vinyl or small tape labels – though I don’t expect I’m within the target demographic for these services. It is not clear from the Napster or Rhapsody sites whether a software download is necessary, (though my expectation given the DRM necessity is that there does need to be some software installation – confirmed through the FAQ, answering the following: “What is the Napster Software? Do I need to use it? Can I just use the Napster Web Service?” (http://www.napster.com/faq.html)), and Rhapsody looks to be comparable to iTunes as far as being software rather than allowing web-based streaming, (Napster does seem to allow streaming through the web, but does not allow downloading songs without the software).
The most interesting option for Sirius and XM are their attempts to net (pun intended) the potential web-accessing audience as well as subscribers using satellite radio receivers (in cars, in restaurants, at home), with the internet streaming subscription add-on. I honestly didn’t know about this option and would consider it, especially in areas where the terrestrial radio did not mesh with my listening interests. While CDBaby seems to fill a similar space as Amazon, the ambitious reach of the latter is likely to negatively impact the former – for instance, even a number of truly indie artists (like some of those on a Swedish label, Labrador) have their entire discographies available for the same price or cheaper on Amazon as they do on CDBaby; more, some of these artists actually have fewer releases available on CDBaby than Amazon. This is likely a testament to the reach and financial strength of Amazon – though from an artist’s perspective, perhaps CDBaby fills a gap that Amazon cannot or will not?
It may be worth drawing a distinction between retailers, like Amazon and CDBaby, and sites that serve more of a discovery purpose (like MySpace). YouTube, MySpace, and other sites that allow no-cost hosting/linking of music and video content are clearly still popular, and I would suspect are replacing such avenues of discovery as were popular through the 1980s and 1990s, like MTV and/or terrestrial radio.