SoundTempest

Greetings! After a somewhat elongated hiatus, I’ve posted a new page on the topic of collaboration with other musicians. It’s based on my own, extensive experience working on songs with other musicians both on and offline, as well as experiences from many of my fellow writers, producers and composers. Whether you’re a hobbyist or a professional, I’m sure you’ll find something interesting.

I apologize for the lack of new articles; my workload since May has increased significantly, leaving me little free time to pursue non-musical hobbies and interests. However, I do have several new guides and pages for musicians in the works, and while I may not be able to write any articles with full commentary, I will be posting relevant links with brief summaries/analyses to the best of my ability.

I’d also like to thank everybody who has been participating in the discussion taking place at the “Music Scams” article. It has been productive and insightful on several levels, and many people are sharing their personal experiences with companies that may very well be scams. If you haven’t read it yet, check out the page, read up on the comments, and add your own thoughts.

At a recent industry panel during the Digital Hollywood Conference in Los Angeles, the head of the RIAA’s technology unit, David Hughes, definitively stated that DRM is still going strong and is poised for a comeback.

Hughes stated that of the “22 ways to sell music… 20 of them still require DRM. Any form of subscription service or limited play-per-view or advertising offer still requires DRM. So DRM is not dead.” He added that “I think there is going to be a shift… I think there will be a movement towards subscription services and they will eventually mean the return of DRM.”

Also at the panel was Fritz Attaway, executive vice president of the Motion Picture Association of America, who agreed with Hughes’ opinion: “We need DRM to show our customers the limits of the license they have entered into with us.”

—

This is a stark reality check concerning the views of the people who are generally representing two of the major entertainment industries in America. It is fairly clear at this point, as we have seen with the recent Microsoft DRM server issue, that while things are changing fast in the music industry, some major players are simply refusing to drop the idea of DRM, even if they’ve taken some small steps away from it.

But what was up with that statement by Fritz Attaway? That was one of the least subtle ways I’ve ever heard an entertainment industry executive say “we don’t trust the consumer.” Not exactly how you rally support to your side. A better argument, just throwing this out there, might be that piracy can hurt profits which leads to decreased investment into new releases, and thus piracy eventually hurts the consumer as well.

ps. Sorry for the decreased rate of posting. I’m working on a lot of projects, setting up a music software/sample business, duties at ocremix.org, and moving into a new apartment. If you’re interested in helping write for SoundTempest please shoot me an email!

Microsoft has recently announced that it will no longer support digital rights management (DRM) authentication for songs purchased through its now-defunct MSN Music service. The company, which is now focusing on its Zune music player and accompanying Marketplace, has previously allowed MSN Music customers to re-authenticate their purchases for use on different devices since the service stopped selling music in November 2006.

Without the ability to authorize their purchased music collection, MSN Music customers will be unable to move their songs on to new devices, or new operating system installations. According to Rob Bennett, the Microsoft MSN executive who issued the announcement to MSN Music customers, the primary reason behind the decision to cease operation of the DRM servers was the difficulty in maintaining the authentication across new platforms.

“…every time there is an OS upgrade, the DRM equation gets complex very quickly. Every time, you saw support issues. People would call in because they couldn’t download licenses. We had to write new code, new configurations each time… we really believe that, going forward, the best thing to do is focus exclusively on Zune.”

Bennett also stated that it was not Microsoft’s decision to use DRM to protect the songs available on MSN Music; the record labels who provided the catalog insisted on it.

—

I think the most obvious lesson that can be learned from this situation has already been stated on numerous blogs and news sites already; when companies use server-based DRM, consumers are left out in the dust if those companies either go out of business, or stop supporting the authentication mechanisms. This much is pretty clear, and I’m sure anyone who purchased anything from MSN Music is very upset that their money is essentially wasted (after all, 160kbps audio, while not incredibly lossy, is not an ideal format to convert from.)

However, there are a few finer points to consider. First of all, how much of this is really Microsoft’s fault? Can they really be blamed for ceasing support for a service that has been defunct for a year a half? It costs them both time and money to provide the support needed to ensure the DRM-protected files will continue to work on new systems. At the same time, they’re also managing Zune, which uses a separate set of technologies that must also be continually upgraded and maintained.

Microsoft might be rich, but they aren’t exceptions to the fundamental principles of economics, the most relevant of which is that businesses do not have unlimited resources. If Microsoft continued to invest more resources into maintenance of the “PlaysForSure” DRM technology used by MSN Music, those resources would be unavailable for use in other areas, such as Zune - and this type of resource expenditure does not yield any revenue, either, as it is merely ‘legacy support’.

In some way, had MS elected to continue supporting PlaysForSure, the consumer base as a whole would still be affected negatively - the loss of some development or maintenance for other, non-legacy software and hardware for example. Or perhaps they would simply compensate with a price increase to some other product or service. In any case, while unfortunate that major label spending forced MS into this situation to begin with, it is not really Microsoft’s “fault”.

The issue of DRM is just as hot in the field of audio software as in audio itself, though it is referred to as “copyright protection” (CP) in that industry. Professional and hobbyist musicians alike have endured CP methods ranging from simple serial numbers printed in instruction manuals, to complex systems that use hardware and software keys and internet verification to ensure the product is being legitimately used.

The difference, at least in the audio software industry, is that some companies (including the larger, more successful ones like Native Instruments) have promised to consumers that if they ever close down, they will release some sort of patch or tool enabling all users to remove the copyright protection on their software, allowing them to use it indefinitely - or at least, as long as operating systems are capable of running it.

It’s a shame a similar agreement couldn’t have been reached with the major labels in the case of MSN Music, with the labels allowing Microsoft to “unlock” all their distributed music which would otherwise no longer be accessible. The labels should not have had any problem with this, given that they sell their music elsewhere without any form of DRM, and after all, MSN Music customers did pay for it.

Major record label Warner Music Group (WMG) has recently proposed a mandatory fee to be built into the monthly service charges for a home internet connection. This “music tax” would be collected by a new, independent organization which Warner hopes to form.

Warner has recently employed the services of Jim Griffin, a music business consultant whose company (OneHouse, LLC) is “dedicated to the future of music and entertainment delivery”. The vision for the mandatory fee system, according to Warner, is a market where consumers do not buy music in physical or digital form at all; the fee would replace any existing payment systems. Consumers would instead be allowed to freely (and legally) download any music they want.

WMG, which is currently the third largest record company in the world, reported a revenue of $3.385 billion in 2007, and a net loss of $21 million. In comparison, the company believes the mandatory fee would result in collections of up to $20 billion that would be dispersed throughout the industry.

—

Hmm… sound familiar? ;) As expected, more companies in the business are thinking about music taxes and/or point-of-connection fees as a serious alternative to existing models, including large and powerful conglomerates like WMG. Unfortunately, the concept isn’t any more appealing, even on paper, since I last wrote about it in January.

To reiterate the underlying problem: the basic premise of a point-of-connection charge, mandatory or not, in and of itself is not a bad idea. It ensures a very large revenue stream, one larger than any in the current recording industry, it eliminates the entire problem of piracy and file-sharing, and vastly improves consumer value-for-money, as $1-5 a month gets them unlimited music downloads.

So, once all the money from the point-of-connection charges are collected, how is it going to be distributed? Clearly, if WMG wants to be the one founding the new collection and distribution agency, there is a special interest at work already. In fact, given their track record, I’m pretty sure that ANY major label involved in the creation or operation of such an agency would do their very best to create a system that siphons the most money to their pockets - maybe giving a slight cut to their artists, and a pittance to anybody else. The ideal collection agency would need to be truly independent of special interests, or at least evaluate them all equally, via board members and employees collected from majors and true independents alike, as well as distributors like CD Baby.

The other issue is monitoring. How can you even track what people are downloading? People send me music on internet relay chat (IRC) all the time. It’s a different protocol than simple HTTP downloads, so that would have to be tracked. But do I really want people to be tracking every file someone is sending (or trying to send) to me? What if they name the file or tag the MP3 wrong? What if it isn’t an MP3 to begin with? If someone sends me “track01.mp3″ and it’s actually a Jonathan Coulton song, how will any sort of monitoring system know? There are probably hundreds if not thousands of other situations I can think of where even a well-designed system of tracking downloads would fail.

Without monitoring, it’s not possible to figure out fair payments to begin with. Some significant technological advances will have to be made before WMG’s idea will be of interest to unsigned, independent artists like me, who comprise the bulk of the recordingd industry.

The United States Justice Department has recently approved the pending multi-billion dollar merger of satellite radio competitors XM and Sirius. Though no other satellite radio providers exist, officials from the DOJ stated that the merger would not constitute a monopoly, since there are other alternatives to satellite radio itself; consumers can select options such as digital recordings, internet radio, and high-definition radio.

This is not the final roadblock to the merger, which was proposed in February 2007. The FCC, which typically follows the opinion of the Department of Justice, must give its seal of approval for the deal to be finalized.

There has been some opposition to the DOJ’s decision, such as from Senator Herb Kohl, chairman of the Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on antitrust and consumer rights. Khol has accused the Justice Department of “failing to oppose numerous mergers, which reduced competition in key industries [in recent years]” and has encouraged the FCC to block the merger.

—

I was actually quite pleased when I heard this decision. I have yet to hear any decent arguments for why XM and Sirius should not be allowed to merge; sure, they might be the only satellite radio providers in existence, but most detractors of the deal seem to forget how small satellite radio is.

Wikipedia (for what it’s worth) claims that the merger will result in a service with 17.3 million subscribers. OK, not bad… but the vast majority of people in the United States listen to terrestrial radio. We’re talking well over 150 million people, and terrestrial radio still has a significant impact on record buying, to boot.

This isn’t even considering internet radio, which, thanks to sites like Pandora and Last.fm, is even more convenient than satellite for honing in on the kind of content you want. Plus, as the Justice Dept pointed out, there’s always the acquisition of the actual recorded media for yourself. No matter how appealing various kinds of radio are, people still like to possess music, be it physically or digitally.

As far as I’m aware, XM and Sirius have been hemorrhaging money recently, and I for one hate to see companies suffer because of frivolous competition that could hurt the consumer, too. Competition is great for some things, but since satellite isn’t anywhere close to dominant in terms of radio market share as a whole, it makes since for the only two companies that are doing it to consolidate and focus their efforts on making it better.

It might result in some layoffs and condensed programming at first, but I predict that when and if the merger goes through, within a few years we’ll see the state of satellite radio much improved.

The Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the major labels of the United States music industry and hundreds of other smaller labels, may be going to court again in the near future. However, this time, the organization will be the defendant in a malicious prosecution lawsuit. The complainant is Tanya Andersen, a single mother who was previously (but wrongly) accused of illegal file-sharing by the RIAA. The case against her was dismissed abruptly.

Andersen contends that the RIAA’s method of prosecuting individuals suspected of file-sharing is deeply flawed. During the course of the proceedings against her, Andersen claims that the RIAA “acted negligently” and engaged in “fraudulent conduct”, using deceptive and distressing tactics throughout.

This is not the first complaint Andersen has filed. Her first was dismissed last month on what was essentially a technicality, but the judge allowed a one-month window to refile, and stated to both parties that no further motions to dismiss would be granted. The next stage of the complaint is the discovery process, wherein the involved parties begin a thorough search for information pertaining to the lawsuit, followed by trial.

—

In the post-Napster years, the RIAA and its members have become notorious for their relentless legal assault on anyone contributing to copyright infringement of their music. By far the most controversial aspect of this continued anti-piracy plan has been the tens of thousands of lawsuits filed against individuals thought to be uploading music on P2P networks. This has caused a huge uproar among music fans of all ages, though it incited particular rage among younger generations.

But I’m sure if you’re reading this you probably know all that, so you don’t need me to explain how much this could potentially shake up the RIAA. Major players in the music business have typically been good at getting themselves out of legal trouble, but it seems like the RIAA really has no place to run this time. Now, they do have a well-funded legal team, but public opinion is not on their side and the extremity of the measures they have taken to initiate litigation against anyone from young children to grandmothers will certainly not help their cause.

Though I don’t support music piracy at all, it’s hard for me to really side with the RIAA given the exorbitant settlements they have asked for in the past. Best of luck to Andersen on this one.

Industrial rock/electronic group Nine Inch Nails has just announced the release of their new album, Ghosts I-IV, and are using a multi-faceted model of distribution to get the release to fans.

Much like Radiohead’s In Rainbows, or the Trent Reznor & Saul Williams collaboration The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust!, Ghosts is available in high-quality, DRM-free MP3 format for only $5 via the band’s website. The download comes with a PDF of additional content. Fans can also pick up about 1/4 of the album (which has 36 tracks total) as a free download. However, these are not the only available purchase options.

A physical two-CD set with 16-page booklet and immediate digital download will start shipping April 8th of this year for $10. The “deluxe edition”, which sells for $75, includes a hardcover fabric slipcase, a data DVD with all songs in multi-track format, and a high-def Blu-Ray audio disc; however, it will not ship until May 1. Lastly, an “ultra-deluxe limited edition” can be had for $300: only 2,500 copies will be made (shipped on May 1), but each comes with a set of vinyl LPs and Giclee prints, and is personally signed and numbered by Reznor.

—

Trent Reznor did not make secret his disappointment with how the Radiohead approach to NiggyTardust turned out. Sales were not as high as he had hoped - too many people went for the “free” option. It seems that he has adjusted his approach for his own personal album release, and I think that this new model is absolutely right on the mark.

I actually tried a “pay what you want” system for the release of my EP, The World Circuit. I told fans on my mailing list that they could Paypal me any dollar amount ($7.99 being the “list price”.) Most people paid the list price, some people paid more, a few people paid far more (over 2x), and a decent amount paid nothing. In the end, the average price paid was around $6.40. While it would not be wise to take the results of this experiment as scientific and representative of how any given fans of any band would act, they are still interesting.

NIN’s new approach makes more sense. Offering 1/4 of the album for free is a great way to hook people, and a $5 download is a great value for many people who may only be casually interested. By also selling products at $10, $75, and $300, Reznor is taking advantage of the fact that some fans are more dedicated and have more money than others. Maybe 90% of fans aren’t willing to pay more than $10 for a CD, but if one only sells a CD for $10, they are not taking advantage of the remaining 10% of fans that would pay more.

Of course, it’s not really “taking advantage” of fans in the negative sense, because the more expensive versions of the album come with more value. $5 more than the digital download gets you two physical CDs and a nice booklet. $70 more and you’ve got a deluxe package that some fans would really love. Everyone wins.

I am hoping that more bands will use this type of model when selling their music. It doesn’t devalue music, which offering it for free can, but at the same time appeals to people not willing to pay the standard “list price.” It should be interesting to see how other artists react to this development.

OurStage, a relatively new website centered around user-submitted and ranked music and video content, is now offering over $25,000 per month in prizes as part of its ongoing contest system. The prizes range from cash and gift cards to one-on-one mentoring sessions with established artists and producers, performance opportunities, music gear, distribution deals, and more.

The website, which is funded by “enthusiasts and angel investors”, invites musicians and filmmakers to create a profile and upload their music and video content for free. However, where OurStage differs from MySpace and iLike is the aforementioned contest system. Visitors to the site can quickly “Judge” contest entries by listening to or viewing two randomly-selected entries in a pair, then picking which they prefer more, and by how much (or selecting that the entries are just as good.)

This system, according to the site staff, prevents “gaming” - where a popular artist can solicit hundreds or thousands of fans to all vote for a song and propel it to the top of the charts. OurStage’s judging, in comparison, is completely randomized; users cannot choose to vote on a specific song. The code behind the system is also designed to balance the amount of ratings and exposure each entry gets, so that all songs or videos have equal exposure.

As the end of each month draws near, the top contestants from each category (such as “Electronic”, “World”, “Rock”) are brought into the quarterfinals, followed by the semifinals, where a winner for each is established. Then, the finals commence, and two grand prize winners are chosen from the pool of category winners; one for video, and one for music. On the first day of the next month, the process begins again.

Though OurStage is fairly new, it has already established numerous partnerships, such as with the Just Plain Folks Music Organization, John Lennon Songwriting Contest, Virgin Mobile Festival in Canada, and others.

—

I hadn’t heard about OurStage until a few weeks ago, when Brian Austin Whitney (founder of Just Plain Folks) contacted me and asked me to do some research on it, along with twenty-nine other individuals. OurStage had approached JPF about the possibility of becoming community partners, but considering the amount of websites in existence that take advantage of musicians, many of us were initially cautious. However, none of us could dig up anything fishy or sketchy. It was a completely legit site that didn’t charge its users a dime.

Not long after I did my research, I uploaded two songs from my 2007 release Antigravity to the electronic category, and encouraged Jillians Goldin, my girlfriend and frequent collaborator, to put up one or two of her tracks as well. We both entered into the February contest, and while it isn’t over, I think we’ve had an interesting experience thus far.

Before I get into that, let me say that I’ve been a user of Garageband.com for over half a year. GB runs on a somewhat similar system; there’s an ongoing contest, you create a profile and upload your music, then people vote on your songs in a randomized system. Songs that rise to the top of the charts have more visibility, and there are prizes for people that move through multiple rounds of judging. As of now, I have songs from Antigravity at #1 in Trance, #2 in Techno, #11 in Techno, and #29 in Electronic, out of hundreds of entries.

The problem with Garageband’s system is that in order to get a song into the whole judging process, you (the artist) must obtain fifteen “review credits”. You can do this by paying a flat fee, or by reviewing fifteen song pairs and giving detailed ratings to each. Your reviews are then, in turn, evaluated by other users to make sure they are legitimate and accurate, which they should be as the system forces you to listen to at least 90 seconds of each songs. The process is exhausting and many reviews turn out fairly glib in the end. However, there is an incentive to write good reviews; high ranked reviewers can win prizes every month, be they artists or not.

OurStage takes a different approach that in many ways works better. You need only listen to 15 seconds of each song in a review pair, and you don’t have to write a text review or evaluate multiple numeric categories. You simply select which song you like better, and by how much. The fact that the artist does not need to pay money or do the equivalent of thirty reviews simply to have their song entered into the contest is another huge plus.

This brings me back to the experiences of Jill and myself. We’ve been watching our songs move through the charts since the beginning of the month, we’ve judged dozens of songs, and browsed through the site documentation. After all that, our shared view is that it’s a great idea for a site that is more evolutionary than revolutionary, building on the idea of free-entry contests judged in a highly democratic fashion. However, we do share three common criticisms…

1. There are not enough categories to properly sort all of the music actually uploaded. The electronic category has ambient and new age songs next to driving techno instrumentals and Madonna-style pop. While over-classification should be avoided, overly broad genre tags create unbalanced competition.

2. Users regularly upload music to the wrong category and there seems to be little reprimand for this. During my time judging the “World” category, over 50% of the songs I judged were completely misplaced, with absolutely no qualities that could possibly merit the “World” label. This wastes the time of the people judging and is irritating to artists competing against these mislabeled songs.

3. There is no actual incentive to judge besides the enjoyment one may get from doing so. Don’t get me wrong; it’s definitely fun to judge. However, I think there should be some sort of additional motivation, even if it’s just the chance at a prize. I believe this has created a serious lack of proper ratings in several categories. It seems like a song can jump 20 or 30 places in just a single vote, as a result.

My song “Warhead” went from 65 or so to 172 in the span of a few hours. Previously it was as high as 29. Songs should not fluctuate this much in such a short period, especially towards the end of a month. For fluctuations to be minimized, more ratings need to be gathered.

Considering OurStage is fairly new, I can understand that all the kinks have not been entirely worked out. I’ve seen staff posting on the Just Plain Folks forums and responding to user feedback, so they’re certainly willing to refine and improve the way they do things. OurStage is still relatively small compared to sites like Garageband or Soundclick, but I’m hopeful that its thoughtful design philosophy and enthusiastic staff will make it a popular hub for music and a great new way for artists to get exposure (and maybe a little money on the side.)

Omnifone, a UK-based company that provides applications to mobile phone manufacturers, recently announced a new point-of-connection music service called MusicStation Max as well as a partnership with LG Electronics, who will be rolling out the service in new phones in several months.

Described by Omnifone as the “world’s first pre-licensed unlimited mobile music phones”, any device integrating MusicStation Max (such as the upcoming LG MusicStation Max 3G handset) will allow customers to download and share unlimited amounts of music as part of a combined music, data, and voice plan. Playlists and downloaded music are backed up on a server so that users of MusicStation can “migrate their consumer experience” in the event of a lost phone or expired contract.

Though some news outlets have reported that MusicStation is free, this is not entirely true. While users of the service may download unlimited amounts of music, the telecom operators (such as LG, Vodafone, and others) offering the service as part of a combined plan may charge customers to access it.

Omnifone has stated that more than 1.6 million songs will be available thanks to a licensing agreement with Universal Music Group. Previous Omnifone music services have involved contracts with all four major record labels.

—

Well, I can’t really say “I called it,” technically. But hey - this did come no more than two weeks after I posted my observations on the industry trend towards large-scale, point-of-connection models.

When reading the other media coverage of this story, I really found it frustrating that the word free was consistently used to describe MusicStation Max. Maybe I’m crazy, but as I wrote in my report, if it’s being bundled with other services and the rate for said services is increased, then it really isn’t free. Comcast cable presents things the same way, and it irks me just as much. They state that you can get “free” On Demand movies with your cable service. Sounds great, but their advertising and website neglect to mention that it won’t work unless you have a digital cable box, which of course costs another $8 or so per month (and you don’t need the box to actually receive standard cable service.)

Semantics aside, this is a pretty neat development. I was impressed by the remote backup feature and the fact that user playlists and music are transferable between providers that use MusicStation; cell phone companies aren’t exactly known for being nice to people switching or stopping their service, so not having to worry about your music collection being lost at the end of a contract is great.

Still, I am disappointed that no information is available on the financial arrangements Omnifone made with their music licensors, like Universal. Will royalties be paid on the basis of monitored song downloads? Of each phone sold with MusicStation enabled? Of each phone activated? How are artists going to get their share of the money (assuming they get one at all?) Hopefully, we’ll hear more details as time goes on.

NOTE: For those of you wondering why this story really matters, you may be surprised to know that the mobile sector of the music industry is inexplicably profitable, generating billions of dollars per year in revenue. It’s the only market where you can sell people cut down, poor quality songs for $3 a piece. It’s not even as if you can’t make your own ringtones easily for free, either! Imagine how happy Steve Jobs would be if he could triple or quadruple the prices on iTunes while re-encoding everything to 64kbps and only selling you 30 seconds of each song, which in turn can only be played on a single computer and can’t be transferred to a new computer (which you would probably need in about 6-12 months).

It’s a crazy business…

If you check out the “Pages” navigation (currently in the upper left) you will see a new page prefixed with “Artist Workshop“. This is the first of many articles I will be writing oriented specifically towards people interested in creating and distributing their own music. The first entry in the series deals with setting up a home studio and assumes very little (if any) experience. Other guides and tutorials will build on this and cover topics like how to actually print up a CD, how to choose distributors and get your music to the public, how to get a more ‘professional’ sound, and so on.

I hope you’ll find these new pages useful. As always, please contact me with your feedback, including suggestions for future articles.