Idolator: the biz

What Really Led To "Chinese Democracy"'s Impending Release?

Maura Johnston — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:00:00 EST

One of the strangest narratives surrounding Sunday’s release of Chinese Democracy is that the music itself is something of a non-event, thanks to the circulation of live nu-GNR bootlegs and leaks of in-progress tracks. In fact, enough questions have been answered about how Chinese Democracy sounds that a bigger question looms: Why now? Why, out of all the dates on the calendar, would Axl Rose decide that November 2008 felt like a good time to drop an album?

Only Axl knows for sure. But part of the answer may lie in the idea that Chinese Democracy had, thanks to its many delays, transformed from an album-slash-punchline into a vehicle for Axl to resolve festering disputes and debts tied to his six-year stint as a client of the Sanctuary Group. Sanctuary, an ambitious British artist management firm, spent years-–and a small fortune—trying to branch into various segments of the music business. As financial disaster loomed last year, Sanctuary sold itself to Universal Music Group—which, you may remember, is the same company that puts out Guns N’ Roses’ music.

Axl effectively fired Sanctuary as his management firm in December 2006, after months of speculation and public comments from the company’s top manager, Merck Mercuriadis, trumpeting the imminent release of Chinese Democracy. Rose, in an open letter posted on the band’s Web site, cited “an overall sense of a lack of respect by management for the band and crew and each individual's particular expertise” as part of the reasons behind Mercuriadis’ firing. (He also claimed that the album would come out March 6, 2007. The best intentions…)

But Axl couldn’t completely kick Sanctuary to the curb—during his time as a client, he struck deals with Sanctuary subsidiaries and affiliates that resulted in them overseeing his music-publishing rights and the production of Guns N’ Roses merchandise. And since at least early 2004 (when Universal’s Geffen Records made clear it wouldn’t underwrite additional production costs for Chinese Democracy) Sanctuary had functioned as Rose’s bank as well, deferring or delaying some commissions for managing him and offering other financial support. According to sources familiar with the situation, Axl’s tab reached well into the seven-figure mark.

By the time Axl announced his firing of Mercuriadis, not only had he piled up a debt to the management company, he had been dragged into a series of disputes—public and private—tied to the publishing and merch deals. In 2005, ex-bandmates Slash and Duff filed a lawsuit alleging that he had switched publishers without their approval and pocketed the royalties, and there was a separate feud brewing where they raised similar charges about his dealings with Sanctuary’s merchandise unit, Bravado.

But two crucial events changed the course of Rose’s career: Sanctuary’s buyout; and Rose finding his way to the management fold of music heavyweight Irving Azoff and longtime hard-rock mastermind Andy Gould. Universal was in a position to sweep away all of Rose’s disputes at once, and Azoff was keen to deal—as it turned out, the number to remember in the Chinese Democracy saga isn’t 17, but 360.

Word is it was Azoff who initiated the push to resolve all the issues at once, in a negotiation led on the Universal side by the corporation’s president, Zach Horowitz—though who was leveraging who depends on who you ask. After months of back and forth, a deal was worked out to resolve all of Axl’s disputes, with Chinese Democracy—and a nice “thanks for the retail exclusive” check from Best Buy—underwriting the peace agreements. Slash and Duff are receiving a little payback for their troubles from Axl’s Sanctuary deals, and Axl himself received a new advance, though the currently undisclosed figure is said to be somewhat less than it would have been if he didn’t have to give something up to settle the outstanding debts.

It’s possible that the satisfaction of clearing both his books and his legal docket all by simply stepping away from the mixing board and saying “OK, I’m done” had no bearing on Axl’s decision to finally put out Chinese Democracy. But is it likely?

(And, of course, whether Chinese Democracy finally being off Axl's back will result in Guns N’ Roses’ next album coming out before the end of this decade is a question that should at least wait until Sunday's one-day SoundScan estimates are out.)

Idolator's Guns N' Roses coverage [Idolator]

The Microsoft Zune Releases Version 3425.6

Lucas Jensen — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:00:00 EST

Microsoft, whose Zune player has never found a foothold against Apple's iPod behemoth despite reinventing itself into something cuter and less bloggy, has yet again changed the way it sells and plays music. Although how much of a change this new model is depends on how much of a future you think the whole "subscription model" for music has. Man, those guys are gonna ride that horse to the bitter end, despite overwhelming evidence that consumers don't seem to care about subscription services, no matter how great a deal they are. And with the development of streaming radio stations on the iPhone, why pick up a Zune with a subscription service? People just want to own stuff if they are going to pay for it. Period. It's why car leasing and house renting have always rubbed me the wrong way: If I'm putting in the money for something, I want to walk away with it.

To be fair to M$, the deal's not so bad, and the new deal does make concessions to the "we want to own it" crowd. The Zune Pass is $14.99 a month and users get to keep 10 MP3s forever, even if the subscription eventually gets dumped. That's right, MP3s and not horrific WMA files. IODA and The Orchard are on board as distributors, along with all of the majors, so there should be enough genrew to go around. (Side note: I remain flabbergasted by how many hoops you have to jump through just to sell a major label's digital product. The majors never had this kind of power over distribution when it was a matter of selling physical product. If you wanted to sell a CD, you just got it from a distributor and sold it, right? Why does everybody have to enter into these treaties with them now? Perhaps this is the price we pay for the supposed convenience of musical noncorporeality.)

Microsoft Announces New Zune Pass Music Subscription Model [Marketwatch]

Hall And Oates Get Chewed Up

Lucas Jensen — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:30:00 EST

Over at Eric Beall's Berkleemusic.com blog, there's some discussion of Hall and Oates' suit against their publishing company, Warner/Chappell Music, which they claim has failed to protect "Maneater" from emulation and copying by other artists. If that sounds like a strange charge to you, well, it is, and it's presumably directed at Nelly Furtado, whose song "Maneater" (hmmm) bears some similarities to a certain Hall and Oates track. What makes the whole thing interesting is why Daryl and John are getting litigious:

Warner Chappell failed and refused to take action based upon a conflict of interest of its own making,” says the Hall and Oates suit. “Warner Chappell publishes and/or administers the copyright interests of two of the infringers.

You see, Warner/Chappell also represents Timbaland and Nate "Danja" Hills, the composers of the Furtado track. So, basically, H&O are suing Warner/Chappell for failing to protect Warner/Chappell artists from other Warner/Chappell artists. As Beall notes, these kinds of relationships are convoluted, of questionable ethics, and par for the course. Who is protecting whose interests in this situation?

As it turns out, songwriters get kinda screwed.

Beall relates a fascinating, if unfortunately bathed in anonymity, story of two songwriters writing a hit song for a Very Big Pop Star:

Given that there were only two writers involved in the song, the initial split of the composition between the writers was an even fifty-fifty, with each writer owning one-half of the composition. So far, so good. But before the song demo was finished, the writers had decided to add a sample—with that, 20% of the song was gone.

Then, once the song was chosen as a single contender, the president of the label decided that the song needed additional production and a remix. He sent it down to his A&R Vice-President, who, not too surprisingly, decided that he should be the one to do that new production—and he did, adding a second sample in the process. Unfortunately, that sample was a bigger one, and took up 50% of the composition. Now the original two writers no longer owned 50% each of their song. Thanks to two samples, they each owned 15% of their song. It gets worse.

Not content with grabbing a production credit, the A&R person then decided that he too should have a portion of the writer’s share, for selecting the sample that would run throughout the track. That meant the writers could say goodbye to another 10%. Now each original writer owned only 10% of the song.

But of course, there was one person still left to accommodate. That Very Big Pop Star was not accustomed to singing songs in which she did not have a hand in writing. Cost? 10%. After all was said and done, the original writers of the song were left with only 5% each of the song they wrote together—a song that did become a big hit. Ouch. This is the kind of thing that can leave writers, and publishers, very bitter.

So the people who wrote the song get the smallest cut, but can they turn to their publisher for protection? Nope! You see, every single person here, from the A&R person to the songwriters to the Very Big Pop Star, were all under the rubric of that same publisher, so according to Beall, the songwriters' interest isn't really being served by the publishing company. In a sense, that's what Hall and Oates are arguing. Nobody fought for their rights because the people doing the stealing were protected by the organization supposedly protecting their publishing! You have these hegemonic publishing houses, like Eurasia, Oceania, and Eastasia in 1984, lobbing bombs at each other while keeping their own people kowtowed.

So while the two writers seem to have gotten shafted, the publisher actually came out in much the same position as when the process started. The publisher simply collected on behalf of seven or eight different writers, rather than two.

And they say the music biz is corrupt!

Trust But Verify, Part 2 [Eric Beall at Berkleemusicblogs.com]

"Shhhh-it!": Idolator's Super-Secret Music Interview Series Is Online

Lucas Jensen — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:00:00 EST

Every week in the "Shhhh-it!" AnonIMous Super-Secret Music-Biz Interview Series (S-I!AS-SM-BIS for, uh, short) we interview a grizzled music industry veteran via the controlled chaos of instant messaging. This week we bring you Sledge, the editor and proprietor of a long-running music Webzine. Online music zines, particularly the ones that have been around a while, sit in a precarious position, balanced between the huge sites like Pitchfork and the teeming blog masses. Some big ones, like Stylus and Splendid, have gone belly-up in the past few years. We asked Sledge—who was very affable—about the pressure to get "bloggier" or more like Pitchfork, whether digital servicing of media works for them, problems with publicists, and suggestions for writing an effective press release:

StumpyPete1975: what suggestions would you offer to bands or publicists doing promoting to you?
Sledge: well, one suggestion is: if you're writing a press release, don't make it a full-length review.
Sledge: simple and straightforward is the best.
StumpyPete1975: like a few grafs?
StumpyPete1975: what should it contain?
Sledge: in my mind, just the pertinent info regarding a release. not how the album should make us feel
Sledge: it just seems disingenuous that the publicist can LOVE every band they're promoting

More insights after the jump!

StumpyPete1975: what's it like to run a music website in a world of blogs?
Sledge: we get called "a blog" all the time
StumpyPete1975: and you most definitely aren't
Sledge: it doesn't offend me as much as it offends the staff
Sledge: i just i don't care so much the distinctions between magazines, newspapers, blogs, etc
StumpyPete1975: why is that?
Sledge: we just do what we do, and how people want to define us doesn't really matter that much to me. it doesn't change much on our end.
Sledge: we're not trying to BE anything, necessarily. we're just writing.
StumpyPete1975: so you don't feel the need to get "bloggier?"
StumpyPete1975: more comments?
Sledge: hah, well. if that means incorporating more multimedia, i wouldn't mind being bloggier
StumpyPete1975: more "hey, check out this free mp3?
Sledge: THAT we don't want to do
Sledge: we've" tried to stay away from "hey, a new video! hey a new song!" we get offers with exclusives all the time, but it's way too promotional for us
StumpyPete1975: yeah?
Sledge: ugh, and contests...
StumpyPete1975: you don't feel the need to be on something first?
Sledge: there is a need, but the need is usually more transparent. as in, being first gets you hits and exposure, which is great but it's not something we want to center the site on
StumpyPete1975: so you don't feel the need to compete with, say, Pitchfork or Stereogum?
Sledge: i do, in a sense. they have their own worlds, though, and those worlds make complete sense for them. we're trying harder to champion critique than be a buyer's guide
Sledge: in my opinion, some sites try too hard to emulate Pitchfork. they're very good at what they do, and they definitely have the resources to achieve their goals.
StumpyPete1975: what do you think the goals of a music website should be?
Sledge: to harbor your own vision and see it through
StumpyPete1975: if you can't compete with Pitchfork and you don't want to be bloggy
StumpyPete1975: where do you see what you do? what do you offer?
Sledge: i try not to contextualize the site too much, as we just do what we do. getting a response is great, but people read our site for different reasons, despite how often i try to hammer more adventurous music and/or emphasize critique over publicity.
StumpyPete1975: do you struggle with writers just wanting to write disses?
StumpyPete1975: or just wanting to write sycophantic reviews of their favorites?
Sledge: sometimes reviews can be a bit too surface-y for my tastes, i suppose. but that happens with my writing too — some music lends itself better to description than analysis/forming connections/contexualizing, etc
StumpyPete1975: but can you expect more from writers without a lot of compensation?
StumpyPete1975: that must be hard, right?
Sledge: as in, money?
StumpyPete1975: yeah money? cds? etc.
StumpyPete1975: it's hard to control people you don't pay much, right?
Sledge: whether or not money is involved, i expect writers to offer insightful critiques, bottom line. that said, it can be difficult to get writers to stay on deadline 100% of the time. luckily we have a staff who are very dedicated and enthusiastic about what they do. it shows in their applications.
Sledge: that's why resumes say very little to me
Sledge: experience is a great thing, but it's not the overriding factor. obviously.
StumpyPete1975: you would rather get the kid with passion then the established writer?
Sledge: it's hard to compare the two in a generalized fashion like this, but i can say this: i'm more willing to hire a kid WHO CAN WRITE (without formal training of any kind) and seems enthusiastic than a heavily experienced kid who can ALSO write, but seems to be going through the motions to add to their resume
StumpyPete1975: aha
StumpyPete1975: publicists
StumpyPete1975: what is one thing they don't get?
Sledge: i can only choose one thing?
StumpyPete1975: haha
StumpyPete1975: go for more if need be
Sledge: just kidding, publicists get a lot of shit, and i've befriended a lot of them
StumpyPete1975: but what consistently ticks you off?
Sledge: sometimes i'm saddened by the fact that some of our amazing writers aren't raking in the big dough, while some publicists writing one-sheets get paid decently (though, not great, of course)
StumpyPete1975: we never made that much, trust me
Sledge: it's funny too when i've already responded to whether or not XX is going to get a review, but they'll ask a week later.
StumpyPete1975: yeah
Sledge: or when they are obivously copy-pasting something, and they forget to change the name at the top of the email
StumpyPete1975: eesh
StumpyPete1975: uh, never, uh, done that one!
Sledge: haha
Sledge: they have a lot of people to deal with though, and i understand the mistakes
StumpyPete1975: after the blogs hit it got out of control
StumpyPete1975: I added 500 people to my lists at least!
Sledge: the best is when they say "Are you going to cover XX for your webzine, YY?" But the YY is some other zine.
Sledge: i also wish we'd have fair access to the "breaking news." i understand though why they'd want to have, say, Pitchfork break a story
StumpyPete1975: what suggestions would you offer to bands or publicists doing promoting to you?
Sledge: well, one suggestion is: if you're writing a press release, don't make it a full-length review.
Sledge: simple and straightforward is the best.
StumpyPete1975: like a few grafs?
StumpyPete1975: what should it contain?
Sledge: in my mind, just the pertinent info regarding a release. not how the album should make us feel
Sledge: it just seems disingenuous that the publicist can LOVE every band they're promoting
StumpyPete1975: but we DO
StumpyPete1975: (kidding)
Sledge: though, i know some publicists who do really love their artists, so this isn't a sweeping criticism
StumpyPete1975: listen, mostly, I looked at it like this
StumpyPete1975: do you love the music?
Sledge: but you were the most disingenuous! (kidding)
StumpyPete1975: haha
StumpyPete1975: do you like the people?
StumpyPete1975: do you think they accomplish their goals? that's important
StumpyPete1975: are they legitimate...also, is it something the office is behind?
StumpyPete1975: if everyone else was into it, I was
StumpyPete1975: but, yeah, nobody is on point for every single thing
Sledge: that's a good approach as a publicist, definitely
Sledge: it's not all about aesthetics
StumpyPete1975: well, listen, not every band is my cup of tea
StumpyPete1975: but some are good at what they do
StumpyPete1975: if we did it just for the money
StumpyPete1975: sheesh
StumpyPete1975: you should see some of the stuff we filtered out!
StumpyPete1975: the bands with the most money were almost always the worst
StumpyPete1975: seriously, GruveShroom wants to pay you 5000 dollars a month
Sledge: why do you think that is?
StumpyPete1975: man, I wish I knew
StumpyPete1975: anyway
StumpyPete1975: back to you
StumpyPete1975: let's talk about breaking news?
StumpyPete1975: what IS news in the Pitchfork and blog world?
StumpyPete1975: I see a lot of Not News
Sledge: like tracklistings?
StumpyPete1975: OH GAWD thank you
StumpyPete1975: like, I understand with, say, a Wilco or Radiohead
Sledge: i mean, news can be ridiculous outside of Pitchfork and the blog world. our/their non-news isn't an anomaly.
StumpyPete1975: that is true
Sledge: think of all the Palin stuff
StumpyPete1975: yeah
Sledge: it sickens me what constitutes news for platforms as big as what CNN has.
Sledge: but i do agree that it's hard to justify a tracklisting news story
Sledge: i guess there's only so much you can talk about in the music world
StumpyPete1975: yeah, that's true
StumpyPete1975: but people could do a lot more talking about actual music itself or the business end of stuff
Sledge: yeah, i completely agree with that
Sledge: i'm a little shocked how little reporting there is of the industry
Sledge: everyone is so afraid to get political
Sledge: it's more hard to balance what you should do: get political and risk alienating those who don't give a shit about politics or your advertisers, or get political because you're lucky enough to have a platform
StumpyPete1975: I think you go with the latter
StumpyPete1975: not to pile on pitchfork —
StumpyPete1975: but this kind of story
StumpyPete1975: a guy ALMOST leaves a band that people already care less about this year except it's not true
Sledge: ha, yeah, we stay out of those sorta stories
StumpyPete1975: well, was the internet really abuzz? and if so, why?
StumpyPete1975: maybe that's because of my not caring about Wolf Parade at all but, man
Sledge: I don't mean to pick on P4k either
Sledge: but i think Pitchfork likes to be kind of an authoritative voice. so, if people have any lingering questions about the rumor, they can get final confirmation from p4k. they're great at that, i think
StumpyPete1975: yeah, absolutely
Sledge: in a way, we NEED someone with the power to get the final answer
StumpyPete1975: good point
Sledge: they do sometimes report rumors though
StumpyPete1975: we do, too
StumpyPete1975: I don't mean to pile on
Sledge: no, it's okay. it's good to talk about p4k like this
StumpyPete1975: how have they changed or informed what you do?
Sledge: they do get too much shit in my opinion — they've opened up a lot of doors for zines like ours
Sledge: starting p4k in 1995(?) tremendously helped pave the way for independent music journalism
StumpyPete1975: do you think you'd be around without it?
Sledge: i'm more of a materialist, so i think if there was no p4k, there'd be something else in its place
StumpyPete1975: what happened to some of the others?
StumpyPete1975: stylus? Splendid?
StumpyPete1975: why do you think they failed, beyond money? why did they not connect?
Sledge: i think they did connect, though, especially stylus. dont' want to presume too much, but you know, running a zine is a full-time gig, especially when you're on the scale that those sites were operating on
Sledge: you can only handle it for so long without questioning whether or not it's "worth" it
StumpyPete1975: so you think it was more of a question of fatigue
Sledge: i think that's part of it
Sledge: anything that goes under probably goes under for various, multi-faceted reasons
StumpyPete1975: how do you deal with that?
StumpyPete1975: getting writers in on time?
StumpyPete1975: mailing packages out?
Sledge: it's nasty, actually
Sledge: i rarely get to write anymore because i have so many non-writing duties
Sledge: not that i should complain. i'm completely happy with my life
Sledge: but it's tough work. i get a lot of shit from friends and family for sitting in my PJs all day.
StumpyPete1975: haha
StumpyPete1975: I am not wearing pants right now
StumpyPete1975: only boxers
Sledge: can you send a pic?
StumpyPete1975: on the way
Sledge: our writers are feeling the effects of the economy, that's for sure
StumpyPete1975: has digital delivery of content helped keep costs down?
Sledge: yeah, it's helped to some degree. though, some publicists insist on sending us BOTH digital and physical
Sledge: i'm all for digital servicing. not all of our writers feel the same though, which is understandable.
StumpyPete1975: well, listen, we tried
StumpyPete1975: we tried to switch digital
StumpyPete1975: and everybody threw a hissy fit
StumpyPete1975: including a bunch of blogs
StumpyPete1975: the entitlement really reared its head
StumpyPete1975: "I have 200 readers a day — I DESERVE a copy"
StumpyPete1975: I understand with print
StumpyPete1975: but with an online site?
StumpyPete1975: I was taken aback by the backlash
StumpyPete1975: and the artists often suffered there
Sledge: yeah, i might be alone on that. not sure. i LOVE digital servicing though — convenient, low-cost, eco-friendly
Sledge: if they're writing reviews for the commodity, so be it. but i know a lot of our writers couldn't give a shit if they had the physical or not.
Sledge: it is a nice 'perk' i guess. but i get annoyed when i see i have 20 packages waiting to be opened
StumpyPete1975: how has the blog world affected your job?
StumpyPete1975: when you started they weren't a thing, right?
Sledge: right.
Sledge: when the blog world started becoming its own "thing," i didn't see any problem with it, really. but as time went on, i did see that publicists were aiming to control the content of those blogs, and i think they've succeeded to this day.
Sledge: i can't say we're not affected by this either, but we're very conscious about discerning between publicity and critique, despite how often they overlap (and despite the arguments that there isn't too much difference)
Sledge: on a positive note, they've pushed publications to be more timely w/ their stories. though, i think that's the natural dynamic of a webzine
StumpyPete1975: yeah
StumpyPete1975: I hope that the release date obsession fades away, even for print
Sledge: oh, so you mean organizing content based on release dates?
StumpyPete1975: I think they will never compete
Sledge: i agree
StumpyPete1975: so they should quit worrying
StumpyPete1975: and just print engaging, DEEP content
StumpyPete1975: something the web, no offense, doesn't always excel at
Sledge: the world is so dynamic and constantly changing, it's silly to plan content months in advance
Sledge: yeah, it's shocking to me sometimes how little thoughtful content there is in the web world
Sledge: i think we've published some pretty deep analyses over the past year, and some really great ones coming up, but that doesn't mean they'll get a whole lot of attention, especially if readers just want to be updated on the new thang
StumpyPete1975: yeah
StumpyPete1975: I wrote a long thing about videogames recently that I was proud of, and it got WAY less views than when I wrote about Katy Perry riding a dildo.
Sledge: haha
Sledge: i think this runs throughout the entire journalism field though
Sledge: that said, i wish there was more intriguing music stuff to read on the web
StumpyPete1975: you might be right about that
StumpyPete1975: that's why P4k stays big
StumpyPete1975: they offer a LOT of content
Sledge: yeah, definitely
StumpyPete1975: interviews and features every day
StumpyPete1975: five reviews
Sledge: they have great resources and connections, and of course some solid writers
Sledge: they have a lot of pressure to find the next big artist
StumpyPete1975: does it ever get frustrating that you "find the next big artist" in your mind and less people care?
Sledge: i wouldn't expect the artists i love to necessarily have a broad appeal
Sledge: the adventurous musicians don't appeal to the casual music listener
Sledge: that said, i wish they all made enough money to sustain themselves through their music
Sledge: but i wish the same for so many people; friends, family, writers, etc
Sledge: anyway, finding the next big thing i don't think is a very admirable goal
StumpyPete1975: why not?
Sledge: i guess it depends on the intent of why you want to find the next big thing. i hate to read about the next big thing, and then a publication sorta apologize for saying they were the next big thing when their proper LP ends up "sucking"
Sledge: it's a vicious cycle, and it's why cliches like "Finally, an album that lives up to its hype."
Sledge: and why writers always lament that their year-end list doesn't have a strong #1
Sledge: i'm like, 'but that's great!'

Are you a grizzled music industry veteran that wants to go anonIMous with us? Email us at tipsATidolatorDOTcom.

Everything That Will Happen In The Music Business' Future May Have Happened To Brian Eno And David Byrne

Lucas Jensen — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:30:00 EST

Count me among those instantly skeptical of any new business startup that has anything to do with the music industry, particularly as 2009 approaches. Heckfire, I was instantly skeptical of these nebulous businesses in the late '90s, when, as a music industry professional and a musician, I was bombarded with offers of liaising and support systems and synergizing by companies that probably had basketball courts in their offices and went bankrupt six months later. So when I read something like this on the site for the digital-music startup Topspin, it's hard not to get a high reading on the BS Detector:

Topspin is a media technology company dedicated to developing leading-edge marketing software and services that help artists and their partners build businesses and brands. We help artists manage their catalogs, connect with fans, and generate demand for music.

Ian C. Rogers is at the "helm" (their wording, not mine) of the aforementioned company, and he was the keynote speaker at *ahem* the GRAMMY Northwest MusicTech Summit 2008. Doesn't that sound exciting? Nothing gets me more excited than uselessly crammed-together words like "MusicTech" combined with GRAMMY written in ALL CAPS. But Mr. Rogers actually had some interesting stuff to say about the state of the industry, particularly in relationship to the recent David Byrne/Brian Eno collaboration, Everything That Happens Will Happen Today.

Rogers is a former Yahoo! Music GM, but I wouldn't hold that against him. He sees the writing on the wall like most people (well, except those in the executive suites at major labels) do:

The backdrop, of course, is one we know well, a story we’ve heard ad nauseum at this point. Physical sales are decreasing (~20% Y/Y). The “two hit songs for $17 at Best Buy” business is over. Digital sales are increasing (~40% Y/Y) but it’s not making up the difference. Not only is digital not making up for physical sales, as the tracks are unbundled and the model is a singles-driven iTunes business, the actual value of a unit of music continues to plummet.

Indeed. Rogers says that the death of the CD is different than the death of the cassette because the power is transferring to artists and fans rather from one big company to another. While I might quibble about this a bit—I would never count big media conglomerates out of anything—I appreciate him putting this power shift in terms of artists instead of the usual mouth-breathing "music should be free" Digg crowd. I also appreciate his sanguine outlook on music consumption, though he seems to be upselling people's willingness to pay for music, given that he's not examining long-term interest. Ask some teenagers if they ever pay for music and they will scoff at you. Trust me. I posed that question last week at a high school, and I was met with a quick, simple, and derisive response: "Why?"

No matter. What interested me most about Rogers' keynote were his observations on Everything That Happens Will Happen Today. Topspin created a page where interested listeners can stream and embed the album anywhere, which is pretty doggone neat. They offered a free track to fans in exchange for an e-mail address, and then gave three album-purchase options for people who wanted to buy the album before it hit iTunes and brick-and-mortar retail: a digital download for nine bucks, a digital download/CD combo deal for $13, and a fancy boxed set for $70. (Those prices are a tad high for my tastes, but I'll let 'em slide.)

And the project did quite well, thank you very much. Topspin asked Byrne's manager how he'd define success and he gave a figure (unfortunately not revealed here) for what a theoretical record advance would be. That amount was grossed after eight weeks, well before the physical CDs were available. Also, the permission marketing campaign of gathering e-mails worked as well: 50% of people who received them opened them, and, even better, the plays of the embedded album led to purchases 20% of the time. I know what you're saying: this is a unique circumstance given it's Byrne and Eno's first collaboration in 30 years and only the super-fans probably bought it. But isn't that the point? Shouldn't you target the superfans first? Rogers mentioned the movement from high yield, low margin sales (like albums discounted really deeply at big-box stores) to low yield, high margin sales (like specialized packaging options for people willing to plunk down a lot of money), and noted that should artists target these superfans, they'll likely take more money home doing so. Forget the pay-what-you-will model for Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails. That stuff was fun and all, but it's not the real shift in business. The important aspect of those schemes was that they allowed fans and artists to cut out the middleman.

Regardless of whether Topspin Media succeeds or not (and I like this embeddable player thingy), I suspect this early preorder/order-directly-from-the-band model will keep growing. I wonder if superfans are wary of participating in traditional retail schemes because we don't want to see our money going into the hands of the same people who have been feeding us crap—and screwing artists—for years; it's satisfying as a fan to know that your money is going directly to the band you support. People aren't consciously sticking it to the man, per se, but there is a lingering bit of that in their economic decisions, coupled with the ease of attaining free music out there.

One of the problems with the "$17 for two songs at Best Buy" model was always the hubristic pricing of the product sold, regardless of quality. When CD burners went mainstream, people finally understood how cheap each CD was to produce. A nation of music-buyers stood up and asked, "I can buy a spindle of 50 CDs for $15 and the new 50 Cent is $18.98 at Borders?" Consumers aren't that stupid. They knew they were staring right at the price of myopic management, crazy accounting, and out-of-control egos. As an artist and someone who understands that records still cost money to make, even in the home-recording era, I hope that this breakdown of middlemen and labels does mean larger yields for artists. Certainly these numbers give me a bit of hope where my conversations with teenagers do not.

GRAMMY Northwest MusicTech Summit Keynote [Topspin Media]

* By the way, don't Byrne and Eno both look great?!

Now That’s What They Called Synergy! 10 Years of Pooling Hit Singles

Chris Molanphy — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:00:00 EST

In commemorating the first decade of the Now That’s What I Call Music! album series in the United States, Wednesday’s New York Times does a fine job running down the relevant stats: 29 volumes in the main series! 61 million in sales! 12 Britney Spears songs! But the piece fails to mention the core reason that the series—also celebrating a quarter-century in Britain, where it started—launched over here in the first place: the U.S. labels’ murder of the commercial single.

The first U.S. edition of Now! appeared on retail shelves on October 20, 1998, and included such classics as “MMMBop” and “Karma Police” (alongside such forgettables as “I Will Buy You a New Life” and wish-I-could-forgettables like “Barbie Girl”). At that point, the UK series was a 15-years-established success, with each volume topping the British charts and serving as a kind of curated collection of fleeting pop. Bringing the series to the States had long been discussed but, until the late ’90s, not taken seriously by US labels, who as the Times points out were loath to loan out their biggest hits:

When the American version of “Now” began, the major labels were reluctant to license songs to it because they feared it would cannibalize existing sales, said Tom Corson, general manager of the RCA Music Group.

This prompts the unanswered question: What made 1998 the year the labels changed their minds? I’ll take a flyer at it.

For starters, project Kill The Single was deep into Phase Four, successfully coercing consumers into paying for full-length, full-price CDs containing one hit song. The US labels, entering one of the most lucrative periods in their history, were focused on making sure all music purchases were album purchases.

Also consider that three of the Top 10 best-sellers of that year were soundtracks: Titanic ranked first (9.3 million sold during the year), City of Angels ranked fourth (4.1 million) and Armageddon ranked 10th (3.2 million). Especially in the latter two cases, the labels had reimagined the soundtrack album not as a movie tie-in so much as a glorified singles-delivery mechanism—hits like the Goo Goo Dolls’ “Iris” or Alanis Morrisette’s “Uninvited” were withheld from single release, forcing a City of Angels purchase. In effect, “soundtracks” were radio-pop concept albums. In the days of Grease and Footloose, hit soundtracks could occasionally spawn multiple hits, but they were all songs actually featured in the movie, usually quite prominently. By the late ’90s, many “soundtrack” songs weren’t even in the movie, or were featured fleetingly. The phase “Songs from and Inspired By…” became common fine print on many a late ’90s CD cover; the official title of Armageddon: The Album says it all.

What does any of this have to do with Now? Simple: the consortium pitching the series caught the labels at a moment when they were finally receptive. According to several Billboard articles I read during the late ’90s, the logic went like this: if one-hit-wonder CDs like Chumbawamba’s, and soundtrack albums containing barely thematically related songs, could sell in the millions, a collection of recent, proven radio hits stood to do just as well. It was of a piece with the industry’s retraining of the consumer to think of hits as album-based purchases—they could buy the hit now, on a single-artist CD or a soundtrack; or they could wait six to 12 months for a Now compilation. The one thing they couldn’t do was buy them a la carte.

The real innovation of the Now series, as the Times article suggests, was the multi-label partnership. From its start in England, the series was shared by at least two labels, starting with EMI and Universal in 1983. For the States, the consortium was widened to include almost every major conglomerate: EMI and Universal, as well as the then-unmerged competitors Sony and BMG. (Only Warner Bros. held out, preferring to sell their own Totally Hits series in a team-up with the moonlighting BMG.) The label groups would even rotate which individual label would release each disc—from Virgin to Zomba to Epic to Capitol, among others. The upshot: Now allowed multiple labels to profit from their peers’ biggest hits. EMI could profit from BMG’s Backstreet Boys, even while BMG profited from EMI’s Janet Jackson.

To use a Wall Street term, think of it as a hedge—big firms pooling their assets to the mutual benefit of everyone in the club. Three times a year, a guaranteed platinum-plus album would send profits to whatever label had taken its turn releasing it.

Of course, like every other so-called hedge we’re learning about this year, this one couldn’t stay profitable forever. As the article notes, the last two Nows are the first to scan fewer than a million U.S. copies. Nowadays, hit singles can be acquired much more frugally (and hit soundtracks, when they do appear—Juno, Mamma Mia!—feature songs actually used in the movie).

In short, the overinflated assets known as hit singles have been repriced to reflect a new reality. Maybe the Now guys should call in Hank Paulson.

Now That’s What I Call Marketing: Pop Hits and More [NYT]

Dance Music Classics Get Aboard The Pirate Ship

Michaelangelo Matos — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:00:00 EST

Recently, the techno-oriented site Resident Advisor ran a detailed, well-reported piece by UK writer Richard Brophy on the state of the bootleg 12-inch in dance music. To be clear, since "bootleg" has a few different musical connotations, Brophy isn't talking about mash-up pop Frankensteins or unauthorized recordings of live shows, but about pirated versions of actual releases—small-edition replicas of classic, long-out-of-print house and techno 12-inches. These are, he suggests, far more legion in the dance world than we might think, an open secret that few retailers try to do anything about even if they know what they're selling is technically illegal:

When asked where Piccadilly Records in Manchester sourced the bootlegs, Philippa Jarman, one of the shop's directors, makes an oblique reference to them "arriving in a box with the other records," an indication that they were supplied by one of the distributors. Asked if she had a moral issue with stocking records released without the artists' permission, she says: "It is an awkward situation with sales falling: I can't say either way whether we should stock bootlegs—we'd have to make that decision if and when it arose," she says. Would she feel as ambiguous if the situation was reversed and she was the artist and her work was being bootlegged? "I don't know, I'd probably press it myself, but I'm not sure," Philippa says. Then she asks me whom I work for. I tell her and ask her if she can tell me her surname for the purposes of the piece I'm writing. She replies: "No, I can't. I have to go now, I'm on my lunch, bye," and hangs up.

Ouch. Still, what fascinated me about the piece isn't that this seems like an especially new problem but that it's as old as the biz. Not even in the sense that labels have been ripping off artists since the beginnings of the recording industry (Brophy pinpoints Chicago's house-music pioneer Trax Records as a primary touchstone within dance music, which seems right given its importance in the timeframe RA is dealing with), but in the sense that this sort of piracy defines the recording industry in many other places, particularly in Asia and Africa.

Take this February report about Hong Kong's chaotic music industry, where pirating was prevalent even before illegal downloading helped make it just about impossible to make a living strictly on record sales. Africa's music industry was beset by cassette pirating beginning in the '70s; eight years ago, between 15 and 25 percent of South Africa's music market was dealing in pirated goods, a percentage that's likely increased with the spread of downloading. In Kenya, according to this piece, "[F]or more than a decade now, international record labels and music companies have abandoned Kenya as a non-viable market for their product," thanks to piracy's rampancy. In a way, the kind of dubious enterprise Brophy investigates seems less like an aberration in the U.S. and Europe than a hint at the state of things to come.

Bootlegs: Unauthorized at Any Speed [RA]

Legendary gear manufacturer Groove Tubes ...

Mike Barthel — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:30:00 EST

Legendary gear manufacturer Groove Tubes ceased to exist as an independent entity this weekend. The company was sold to Fender in June, and after manufacturing was moved to Mexico and operations were merged into Fender, most of the company's employees were laid off and all of its original facilities were shut down. In a solid state (and now digital) era, Groove Tubes was one of the best places to get vacuum tubes and the equipment that used them. Fender has a history of buying up revered brands and sucking the life out of them, and this is probably what will happen to GT. Tubes probably aren't headed the way of Polaroid film or reel-to-reel tape, but you never know. [LA Times]

EMI: "And Now For Something Completely Different"

Dan Gibson — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:30:00 EST

We know that some people might be dismayed to hear that EMI hasn't just closed up shop and given up on music entirely. But the beleaguered company has—really!—earned £59 million (before tax, depreciation and amortization) in the second and third quarters of 2008, thanks in part to the successes of Coldplay and Katy Perry. "EMI is absolutely not bankrupt, far from it. EMI has never been in such a financially sound situation," recorded-music CEO Elio Leoni-Sceti said of this news. And now the company's planning to restructure itself, splitting the music aspect of the business into three parts.

Elio Leoni-Sceti, chief executive of the company's recorded music division, will unveil the plans at a presentation to staff. The Italian Executive will announce that the business will be split into three distinct global units: new music, catalogue and music services, and with an increase in marketing resources, according to the Financial Times. The online music service EMI.com will launch this December.

Still, Leoni-Sceti isn't entirely optimistic about his company's future, saying that the road ahead will be "not be smooth or easy." While most labels have some separation between their new releases and catalog, it seems like creating a deeper divide between the two might not be a great idea for EMI, which needs to find a way to leverage its discography to make enough money to take chances on new artists. The company is counting on releases from Sarah Brightman and Tom Jones to create excitement in the fourth quarter, so clearly EMI has a A&R problem. And I doubt it'll be solved by sending the new release department out on an iceberg by itself.

EMI announces restructuring plans [Guardian]

In Case You're Thinking Of A Last-Minute Application, Here's How Bands Get Picked For SXSW

Lucas Jensen — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 11:00:00 EST

Hey bands! Tomorrow is the deadline for applying to SXSW, the annual Austin-based conflagration of music, hype, Tex-Mex, and free Sparks^*! I actually love SXSW, although it can seem a little overwhelming if you take it all too seriously and care about getting into things like The Levi's/FADER Big Blogger Breakfast. (Of course, if you care about stuff like that, you're probably a jerk.) Me, I take it all like a leaf on the wind, blowing from free beer to free beer while seeing plenty of great stuff. SXSW's palette of bands is much, much larger than any other festival out there, CMJ included, and the selection process must be a total nightmare. Right before CMJ 2008, I interviewed Matt McDonald about the ins and outs of selecting bands. Today, I talked to Darin Klein, Senior Music Festival Programmer at SXSW, about the selection process and how bands should help themselves get accepted^**. Protips after the jump!

First off, how many bands apply each year and how many get accepted?
For SXSW '08, we had close to 11,000 applications. We invited approximately 2300 acts, and ultimately over 1500 bands showcased at the festival. This year we anticipate a larger number of applications to perform.

What's the application cost for each band?
$25 is the early application rate. $35 is the late application rate. Applying late does not increase or decrease a band's chances of receiving an invitation.

What kind of criteria are taken into account? Music quality? Press kit? Past SXSW experience? Perceived draw?
SXSW has a committee of people who listen to and grade recordings according to originality, technical ability, songwriting skills, career establishment, and overall artistry. Every recording is graded at least twice, then those with the highest scores are reviewed again and invitations are extended. Ultimately, we want the what we consider to be the "best" in all genres of music. What is considered "good music" is of course extremely subjective, so our booking staff has frequent, heated debates about which bands should be invited.

If perceived draw is a factor, how do you calculate that?
I'd say that "perceived draw" is based on career establishment, which is a factor that we consider. The music industry that comes to SXSW showcases want to see bands that are already or strive to be professional artists, so we are reading bands' press, evaluating radio play, and reviewing touring schedules to attempt to gauge the level of interest in an act and help us book them in an appropriate size venue.

Do y'all lean towards rock or indie rock over other genres, or do you try to spread it around to other genres? Is rock represented more typically because more rock artists apply?
We attempt to showcase all genres of music and invite artists from all over the world.

Do sponsors have any say in who gets accepted?
No.

How much preference is given to a band's label? Are label showcases given first priority? What if you absolutely hate a band that's on a respected label's showcase? Just keep it quiet?
All bands, whether they have a label or not, are considered equally. We have built many long-standing relationships with lots of labels, but ultimately it comes down to the bands and the music.

How much thought is given towards sound continuity, as far as bands that sound similar getting put on the same bill?
Our ultimate goal is to build showcases that will have good crowds and be aesthetically appropriate for the venue. So we'll book similar sounding bands on a showcase if we feel that it will accomplish those goals.

What about day parties? What's the official SXSW stance on them and what do you do to bands that are playing too many of them?
We need and want bands to get the attention of the music industry, media, and fans, and we want their official showcase to be successful, and have an audience, so we ask bands to help ensure the success of their showcase by not booking too many private party performances.

As SXSW has become bigger and bigger, how has the acceptance process been affected?
The process is essentially the same, but we definitely have more music judges and showcase bookers now than ever.

What suggestions would you give to a prospective small-time band applying to SXSW or similar festival
Practice! Keep writing songs, playing live and promoting your band.

I'll try to follow up with Darin once the bands are announced because I'm sure there will be controversy. I knew a band who got rejected despite receiving a 7.9 in Pitchfork and write-ups in Paste and Alternative Press, among others! Meanwhile, a band (from, ahem, Austin) called Super Heavy Goat Ass played.

^* at my first SXSW, one of my company's parties had free Sparks. I didn't know what it was, so my coworker, Jon, and I downed, like, four of them because they tasted like sweet tarts. Bad idea. I thought my skeleton was going to jump out of my eyeballs before I crashed out for a few hours of comatose sleep.

^** I am working on four years of being rejected by SXSW. Buy me a beer some time, and I'll tell you allllll about it.

"Shhhh-it!": Idolator's Super-Secret Music Interview Series: Joe The Engineer Answers Your Questions

Lucas Jensen — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 10:00:00 EST

Every week in the "Shhhh-it!" AnonIMous Super-Secret Music-Biz Interview Series (S-I!AS-SM-BIS for, uh, short) we interview a grizzled music industry veteran via the letter thunderstorm of instant messaging software. Last week, we had an illuminating chat with Joe The Engineer, who has worked as an assistant engineer for five years at a major NYC studio, and whose credits include quite a few big-time pop and hip-hop records. We decided to bring him back for another round, and in this edition, Joe tackles overcompression, underwhelming Autotune usage, and whether hip-hop has lost its fire:

StumpyPete1975: someone asked if you had anecdotes that are examples of hip-hop losing its fire
JoeTheEngineer: how about an artist interrupting his session to meet with the designer of his new line of jeans?
StumpyPete1975: HAHA
StumpyPete1975: amazing
StumpyPete1975: yeah, I'd say that's not entirely street
JoeTheEngineer: I guarantee Biggie didn't do that when he was making Ready To Die

Your questions answered after the jump!

StumpyPete1975: so some of the idolator readers gave me some follow up questions
StumpyPete1975: I thought I would run them by you, if that's cool!
JoeTheEngineer: cool
StumpyPete1975: I like this question: Why is there such a fetish for recording on tape? Don't we end up having to digitize everything anyway?
StumpyPete1975: what say you to that?
StumpyPete1975: is there a tape fetish?
JoeTheEngineer: haha, I think so
JoeTheEngineer: Certainly among the indier side of rock
JoeTheEngineer: the funny thing is, a common way to work with tape is to record through the tape so to speak
JoeTheEngineer: you record to tape and record the output of the tape machine straight into pro tools
JoeTheEngineer: so what you get is the sound of tape but the flexibility of having it digital
StumpyPete1975: and is there a tape sound?
StumpyPete1975: I tend to think there is, having worked primarily with tape
JoeTheEngineer: yeah
JoeTheEngineer: technically, what tape does is a cross between compression and a little bit of distortion
JoeTheEngineer: the harder you push it, the more of an effect you get
JoeTheEngineer: and I think there is something about that sound that resonates with a lot of people
JoeTheEngineer: whether that is because we grew up listening to records that were done with tape, or because we actually prefer the sound, is a whole other debate
StumpyPete1975: well, to be fair, everything was tape until a decade ago, right?
JoeTheEngineer: yeah thats what I mean
JoeTheEngineer: its a sound that we are all very accustomed to
StumpyPete1975: things went protools quickly
JoeTheEngineer: very quickly
StumpyPete1975: I tell people that I made an album on tape and they act like I fell off my dinosaur and broke my wooden underwear
JoeTheEngineer: HA!
JoeTheEngineer: that's crazy
StumpyPete1975: which do you prefer?
StumpyPete1975: tape or digital?
JoeTheEngineer: I generally choose to work in Pro Tools or Logic
JoeTheEngineer: I do love the sound of tape, but especially with our clientele, its just not practical
StumpyPete1975: yeah I can imagine
StumpyPete1975: those early records were all punches and splices!
JoeTheEngineer: crazy, huh?
JoeTheEngineer: I mean, people record their hook and then say, "Now fly it throughout the song"
JoeTheEngineer: that's hours if we are using tape, seconds in Pro Tools
StumpyPete1975: do you think it's damaged songcraft or opened up possibilities?
JoeTheEngineer: Well, I have to cop out and say both
StumpyPete1975: I find there certainly is less respect for the craft of recording amongst the ProTools cowboys
JoeTheEngineer: yeah, I can see that
JoeTheEngineer: but like anything, there are guys who take the convenience of Pro Tools for granted and act like they don't have to push its limits
JoeTheEngineer: And then there are guys who have really taken what it can do and used it in a very creative manner
StumpyPete1975: spankyjoe asks: How much input do most rappers or singers have once they come into the studio? Have they already worked with the producer to get beats/backing tracks to their liking, or are they simply there to get in, do their thing, and get out? Presumably, bigger artists have more pull and thus more creative control, or is this all dictated from on high at the record companies?
StumpyPete1975: now, we addressed this some last time
JoeTheEngineer: right
StumpyPete1975: but let's elaborate a bit and tie it to protools
StumpyPete1975: how savvy are the artists to the process in general?
JoeTheEngineer: OK, well its pretty different between rappers and singers
JoeTheEngineer: Rappers generally tend to write in the studio
JoeTheEngineer: So I put on the track that they've brought (or someone sent) and loop it at high volumes and they write
JoeTheEngineer: Sometimes an A&R is there, but not really giving any input in the writing process
JoeTheEngineer: they go in and do their hook and verses and go home with a rough mix of what we've recorded
JoeTheEngineer: often times the producer isn't even around, in some cases may not even know his track is being worked on!
StumpyPete1975: whoa!
JoeTheEngineer: yeah, its a weird thing
JoeTheEngineer: but in most cases, producers send out their beats to a number of artists
JoeTheEngineer: and if an artist feels like working on it, they just give me the instrumental and we can make a song to it
JoeTheEngineer: of course they can't use it until the business side is taken care of
StumpyPete1975: jeez
StumpyPete1975: it's so...factory-like
JoeTheEngineer: sure is.....
JoeTheEngineer: As you can imagine that leads to a lot of confusion
StumpyPete1975: I can bet
StumpyPete1975: does this get back to your point about hip-hop losing the fire? that it's too workmanlike?
StumpyPete1975: someone asked for you to elaborate on that!
JoeTheEngineer: yeah I mean, in the early days of hip hop, they were certainly not making records like that
JoeTheEngineer: you had much more of a relationship between producer and artist
JoeTheEngineer: Guys like DJ Premier, Large Professor, Pete Rock were very hands on and involved
JoeTheEngineer: often times producing an entire album which you don't see too much of anymore
StumpyPete1975: do some folks still make records?
StumpyPete1975: or is it just a bunch of tracks?
JoeTheEngineer: some still do, there is hope!
JoeTheEngineer: Guys like Outkast, Lupe, Q-Tip, etc. still seem to believe in the aesthetic of keeping a tight production team and having them involved in making a cohesive album
StumpyPete1975: yeah
StumpyPete1975: someone asked if you had anecdotes that are examples of hip-hop losing its fire
JoeTheEngineer: how about an artist interrupting his session to meet with the designer of his new line of jeans
StumpyPete1975: HAHA
StumpyPete1975: amazing
StumpyPete1975: yeah, I'd say that's not entirely street
JoeTheEngineer: I guarantee Biggie didn't do that when he was making Ready To Die
StumpyPete1975: for sure
StumpyPete1975: Al Shipley asks: Do you EQ a lot of the pre-programmed backing tracks, or make any major editorial decisions as far as the sound of the beat, or is that all pretty much set by the producer beforehand and/or by a mixer later on?
JoeTheEngineer: That's a great question
JoeTheEngineer: Another thing that has changed a lot in the past few years
JoeTheEngineer: Like I said we are usually just tracking to the instrumental mix given by the producer
JoeTheEngineer: Most producers have a pretty decent set up that they make beats on these days
JoeTheEngineer: So they have pretty much EQ'd, compressed and done a lot of mixing on the beat already, as well as made it as loud as possible
JoeTheEngineer: This sometimes leads to disputes when it comes time to mix
JoeTheEngineer: Like the producer is happy with his mix, and just wants you to add the vocals to it
JoeTheEngineer: The artist wants his mix engineer to have all the tracks to work with
JoeTheEngineer: and usually, whoever has more clout, wins
StumpyPete1975: that's pretty interesting
JoeTheEngineer: yeah, a new wrinkle to deal with
StumpyPete1975: Also this question from Al: Do many of the rappers or singers you work with express preferences or knowledge as far as what kind of microphones they want to use?
JoeTheEngineer: Most don't show any type of preference for microphone
JoeTheEngineer: A few have their own that they bring
JoeTheEngineer: Some ask why the mic is so old and crusty looking
JoeTheEngineer: Not realizing that it is one of the best mics on the planet
StumpyPete1975: haha
StumpyPete1975: Neumann?
StumpyPete1975: what's that?
JoeTheEngineer: Yeah, we certainly have a few $15,000 mics that look like something you would find in your attic but sound amazing
StumpyPete1975: This is from Al, too: Have you ever seen an artist attempt to use Autotune and end up completely unable to work well with it? Did they scrap that track or end up putting it out Aututuned anyway? Because a lot of the major artists out there using it these days (coughLilWaynecough50CentcoughKanyecough) sound absolutely awful, and it's amazing that there's noone in the studio stopping them from using it or offering any constructive criticism.
JoeTheEngineer: I'm guessing they are referring to using autotune in the effecty way that T-Pain made popular
StumpyPete1975: yeah
JoeTheEngineer: Yeah its weird, but you can actually be good or bad at singing with the autotune
JoeTheEngineer: T-Pain is a guy that is actually a decent singer and has seemed to figure out how to control his vocal so that the autotune effects it the way he wants
JoeTheEngineer: Its not necessarily intuitive, and yeah, some guys are not pulling it off
JoeTheEngineer: Or in some cases, engineers may not be using the settings properly to get the desired sound
StumpyPete1975: have you ever had to stop anybody and just say "no?"
JoeTheEngineer: No way, we get paid by the hour!
StumpyPete1975: haha
StumpyPete1975: final question!
StumpyPete1975: Eriq78 asks: Can you tell us about the mixing process and over-compression? Any entertaining anecdotes about an artist or producer (against all logic and common sense) insisting on participating in the process mixing?
JoeTheEngineer: Sure, mixes vary pretty widely these days
JoeTheEngineer: You have some sessions that are just the mix engineer, creating a balance and sending off his final passes to the artist or label to approve
JoeTheEngineer: More often, an artist or A&R from the label attends and involve themselves to varying degrees
JoeTheEngineer: they usually let the mix engineer do his thing for a few hours and then make some comments when the thing is getting closer to completion
JoeTheEngineer: Over-compression could be a whole article's conversation
StumpyPete1975: really!
StumpyPete1975: what are your quick thoughts?
JoeTheEngineer: Well, its become something that is sort of expected out of engineers
JoeTheEngineer: So to be fair, if we don't give an artist a very loud, compressed mix in comparison to whats on the radio, they aren't going to be happy with it
JoeTheEngineer: The more you compress, the louder all the elements are, and the more it punches you in face when you press play
JoeTheEngineer: for some pop and hip hop, it doesn't bother me too much, because there aren't a whole lot of dynamics to begin with
JoeTheEngineer: In material where there should exist an ebb and flow to the volume, its disturbing to have that taken out
JoeTheEngineer: Like when a singer is whispering during a breakdown, the vocal shouldn't be as loud as it is when she is screaming on the final chorus
JoeTheEngineer: but it often is
StumpyPete1975: interesting
StumpyPete1975: for the laypeople, what is compression?
JoeTheEngineer: It's a process in which shrinks the dynamic range of material
JoeTheEngineer: it essentially reduces the volume of your loudest portions, so then you can turn everything up while avoiding distortion
JoeTheEngineer: What was a jagged line becomes closer to straight
StumpyPete1975: and it's everywhere
JoeTheEngineer: sure is
JoeTheEngineer: It's another one of those things that can be used creatively and effectively
JoeTheEngineer: but also can be something you just slap on there because you know its supposed to be loud
JoeTheEngineer: To me, compression, autotune, pro tools, are all great things as long as you think about them and listen while you use them

Want a Round 3 with Joe The Engineer? Hit us up in the comments. Want to go anonIMous with us? Email us at tipsATidolatorDOTcom.

Are Video Games Really Bigger Than The Music Biz?

Lucas Jensen — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:45:00 EST

I'm an avid gamer, and I'm tired of the idea that videogaming is some sort of niche media populated by pimply Internet trolls who haven't seen the sun since World Of Warcraft came out. Sure, those guys actually exist, but Nintendo's strategy toward more casual games like Wii Sports—not to mention the whole rise in popularity of music games—proves that gaming's audience has a lot more room to grow. Nintendo's Reggie Fils-Aime once asked this pertinent question:

Do you know anyone who has never watched TV, never seen a movie, never read a book? Of course not. Now, do you know someone, maybe even in your own family, who has never played a video game? I bet you do. If we want to consider ourselves a true mass media, if we want to grow as an industry, this has to change.

While gaming is mainstream for the first time since the release of the original Nintendo Entertainment System, there is still plenty of room to expand. Video games are also surprisingly recession-proof, racking up big sales while most other major media, such as network TV or the music biz, struggle with declining revenue. Consequently, we've been treated to a lot of "Gaming Is Bigger Than Hollywood/Music Biz" stories recently.

Just today, the BBC reports that games are on pace to outsell music and video in the UK. Let's everybody take a deep breath.

I don't need to link to any evidence that the music industry is in bad shape. That point is inarguable. Hollywood ticket receipts and DVD sales have been holding steady, but the growth isn't there, and the stupid Blu-Ray/HD-DVD format war didn't do anybody any favors. The problem here is this: the sales figures for video games always come with caveats and codicils.

Video games lack a truly credible independent sales reporting body like Soundscan, which is fairly reliable despite its flaws. Hollywood has long juked its box-office stats, and the gaming industry is really no different. Most sales information comes from the game publishers themselves, and it's filled with all sorts of massaging. Game publishers often talk about sales in terms of "numbers shipped," which just means how many copies stores decided to stock. That's a lot different than numbers actually sold. Sometimes they talk of the number of players a game has instead of how many it has actually sold. These kind of stats are as reliable as, say, Alexa numbers.

According to one of those ephemeral "retail analysts" who haunt stories like this, gaming is expected to grow "42% to £4.64bn in 2008, with sales on music and video at £4.46bn." Those figures are pretty astounding on the face of it and do show that videogaming is truly a surging retail force. But the article mentions later on that hardware sales are included in that figure—which is little unfair to the music and video industries. iPod and CD player sales aren't ever lumped in with music sales, and DVD player or TV sales aren't lumped in with DVD sales.

Also, most videogames-are-bigger-than-God stories—like this BBC piece—fail to mention the simple fact that videogames just cost quite a bit more than CDs or movie tickets or DVDs. If this story mentioned what the average price of a videogame was or how many actual units of software a year were sold, the headlines would be a lot more accurate, if boring to journalists who are looking for some sort of entertainment industry-related horse race to break out. My guess is that albums, singles, and digital downloads still move way more in terms of actual units, and the inflated price of videogames is the factor behind the gaudy profits.

• In 2007, US album sales, digital and physical, were around 500 million. That doesn't even include digital track sales, which are pretty substantial.
• Across all platforms, from PC to handhelds to consoles, the total number of games sold in the US in 2007 was approximately 267 million. That's a huge number, to be sure, but it's still half of album sales alone.

I have no reason to suspect that the UK isn't proportionally similar. The average game price, factoring in the disparate prices of handheld, PC, and console games, is probably somewhere around $40-50. The average CD is what? $10? $15? You don't have to be a mathemagician to see that video games win out in that scenario, even while increased production costs are eating into games' profitability.

Oh, yeah, profitability! Making a big-time pop record is probably expensive, but it ain't $10 million expensive, which was the estimated cost of the first Gears of War. Video games have slim profit margins—often as little as $1 a game—because productions take years and cost millions these days. The largest titles have to sell hundreds of thousands to turn a profit, and even then it's meager. In this midst of this gaming boom, development houses are closing left and right because the costs are staggering. It could be argued that their profitability is worse than the music industry's, and that's saying something.

Gaming's meteoric rise can't be denied, and the mainstream media's reticence to accept my favorite hobby as anything more than a toy or a trifle has made them look foolish, particularly when sites like Kotaku—which regularly posts images of video game-themed cakes—put up bigger numbers than indie kingmakers Pitchfork. The games-are-bigger-than-the-music-biz stories, however, should be viewed with some amount of skepticism given the way the numbers are presented. The music biz is down, but it's not out for the count just yet.

Games 'to outsell' music, video [BBC]
Album sales take a tumble in 2007 [Variety]
Growth of gaming in 2007 far outpaces movies, music [Ars Technica]
Are Games Bigger Than Movies? One Expert Analyzes... [Deadline Hollywood Daily]
Why Gears Of War Costs $60 [Forbes]

Shhhh-It! What Would You Ask Joe The Engineer?

Lucas Jensen — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:30:00 EST

Last week, as part of the Shhhh-It! AnonIMous Interview Series, I interviewed an engineer about recording hip-hop and pop records. Y'all seemed to like the peek inside the studio, so I figured I would continue our conversation. So... what questions do you have about the studio, recording, etc? Put 'em in the comments, and Joe will answer them for you! Now's your chance to look behind the curtain!

In Defense Of Major Labels

Mike Barthel — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 13:00:00 EST

Sometimes you write something and it gets taken the wrong way. Last week, for instance, a post about EMI criticized the prevailing online consensus about the free-ness of music. Now, since the post didn't say anything about the many bad things major labels do, some thought that the post was taking the side of major labels and the RIAA. Not true, but fair enough. One of the problems with blogs as a platform is that they make it much easier to criticize things other people say than to offer a cohesive and nuanced position of your own. Here, then, is one take on the decline and fall of the music business and related issues (the RIAA, DMCA, downloading, layoffs, indie as a model, creative commons, etc.). The bottom line: everyone is going to have to accept that things are going to get a little worse.

And everyone means everyone, particularly the three main groups involved: the music industry, music listeners, and musicians. The music biz is going to have to accept, just as free-music advocates say, that their practices are driving away consumers. They are also going to have to accept—and this may be the real problem—that the glamorous good times of the music biz are at an end, maybe forever. No more parties in sex clubs. No more expensing cocaine. No more being a "cool" marketing executive. The industry is going to have to become a lot more financially efficient. This is, of course, already the case for the workers in the trenches, who are doubling up on duties and getting laid off and receiving no raises for years on end. The people that are going to have to accept this, unfortunately, are the executives. And they have no real reason to except the survival of their business. Compared to free cocaine, keeping your company profitable probably seems less important.

Bands, on the other hand, have made the adjustment already. Sure, they get rockstar perks if they can, but the fact that there are so many songs about acting like a rockstar means that most people aren't living like rockstars anymore. Bands know what's up, and while they don't like it, they've largely learned to live with it. They've cut costs, become more efficient, and downgraded their expectations. They've had to in order to survive.

Listeners, though, need to make an adjustment too. They have to—have to—accept that they can't not pay for music and expect it to still be around, at least not in the same form. We have to remember that the current situation has only arisen in the last few years. That means that there's still funding out there, that bands and labels and investors are still hoping things will blow over. But if the music biz continues to be unprofitable, then companies simply won't be able to get funding or credit anymore, which means they won't be able to pay for the things necessary to distribute even free music, like mastering, server space, bandwidth, and so forth. And while bands never expect to make a living making music, if it becomes clear that making music is becoming a hobby—something you put lots of your own money into without any hope of return—then a lot fewer people are going to be able to make music at all. Just like with the music biz, it's not in the self-interest of individual listeners to accept this. Indeed, it's a fantastic example of the tragedy of the commons. Which means, duh, that government's going to have to step in and do something about it.

The people in this debate need to recognize that the people in the middle, ultimately, are the bands. People in bands want to make money from music, but they also want to get music for free, because they like music and are broke. Musicians are the ones actively navigating this landscape every day. The other two sides are pulling from opposite ends of the spectrum, and that makes them extremists. Yes, record companies use over-the-top language, unfairly recruit the government for their side, and are clinging desperately to something that's slipping away from their grasp. But copyfighters are also using over-the-top language, recruit the masses of self-interested listeners for their side, and are clinging desperately to something that they must know, in their heart of hearts, fundamentally isn't sustainable.

The idea is constantly brought up that you don't need money to make music anymore, that it's not costing anyone anything, and so why shouldn't it be free? This is bullshit. A lot of the people promoting this idea are writers, and this seems more reasonable to writers since they can make art without any up-front money. But almost every other artistic genre requires money, from a little to a lot, if ideas are going to be realized. Visual art is fundamentally impossible without money, since you have to buy materials. Movies are impossible without money, at least if you want to make a good movie and have lighting and sets and like that. Classical music and opera are certainly impossible without money, at least if you want to actually perform them. And dancers need costumes!

The key caveat here is "if you want to make a good" whatever. It is possible to make music totally for free, assuming you are middle-class and have a computer already. But it's very limiting in terms of what you're going to do. Maybe one of the key problems with music no longer coming to listeners as a physical object is that they tend to think the production of the music involved no physical objects either. But most music does, at least if it's going to be good, and physical objects, regrettably, cost a lot. Sure, Girl Talk's music can be made with nothing but a laptop. But do we really want all our music to sound like Girl Talk?

Let's be clear: record companies are odious, odious things, and your author has worked for them, and had enough friends summarily fired by major labels to not have a particularly bright view of them, either. But one of the harsh realities of art is that bad people and things can create great art as well as good people and things. This applies to major labels as surely as it does to assholes and spousal abusers. Major labels, for all their flaws, are very good at giving artists money to make art (even if they're bad at giving artists money they are owed after they make the art). The vast majority of great pop music was made under the auspices of major labels, and that's not an accident. Money is necessary for music to sound good. Artistic visions should not have to be cheap to be realized. We would be much poorer off as a culture if that were the case.

So what are we going to do about all this? Nothing, I suspect. Everything will implode in a few years, and everyone will freak out and finally come to a solution. It would be better for everyone if that didn't happen, because it's going to make pop music a much different beast than it is now. It might make things a little more pleasant in the meantime, however, if we all recognized that the other side has a point, too.

Happy Halloween! Here Are Seven Reasons The Music Business Should Be Quaking In Its Boots

Dan Gibson — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:30:00 EDT

With layoffs to the left of me and a recession to my right, it's been a disconcerting week on the fringes of the music industry. While I have my spectacular dishwashing skills to fall back on, the industry as a whole has been teetering on the brink of collapse for some time. What better time than Halloween for someone to give those music biz-types another alert to some of the issues that should be keeping them up at night?

1. The proliferation of idiots.
The battle over the ability to actually sell music at all in the near future is still raging. While there's certainly some room for discussion about how to market the creative output of music types, there's always someone waiting to blurt out some sort of idiocy about how all music needs to be "free." Today's example is British music writer Jonathan Deamer, who follows a quote about how profitable performance licenses can be with this bit of Tumblred optimism:

I won’t use this as an excuse to bang on about my favourite hobby-horse of “the future of music is free”, “distribution is marketing” etc. But basically, new artists, get your music out there and listened to. If it’s any good, this will eventually lead to a bit of buzz so you get radio play, and thus income.

Don’t even think about selling your recordings until you’re playing stadiums. Or at least have enough of a diehard fanbase who will pay proper money (ie. that which results in a net gain for you of more than 40p/track) for limited edition stuff, fancy physical releases etc.

Will there be one act ever who can play stadiums without a physical product for sale? Ever? While acts like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails—you know, acts who were playing large venues already—might have fooled around with giving away their music, no unknown act is likely to pull this feat off without, at the very least, the marketing assistance of some label or organization, and generally that will require figuring out some way for the assisting entity to make back its initial investment. But thinking about the nuts and bolts of how music is made, and disseminated, is almost discarded by people operating under the "music I like will just make its way to my door at no cost" paradigm, and their thought processes become more pervasive every day. At what point will the madmen be running the asylum?

2. The labels are stacked with low-risk, low-reward acts.
As laid out (in an exceptionally smart fashion) by Glenn at Coolfer, the number of albums released by major labels each year is shrinking; this results in a smaller margin of error, which requires every album released to be a hit (or, at least, not a colossal failure). A&R goes after established acts on indie labels instead of taking risks on unproven talent. Why can't the majors look at investing in "risky" artists as a venture that's as worthy of their time as investing in "risky" Web companies, instead of perpetuating a cycle that results in new artists sounding like the successful artists of months and years prior?

3. The RIAA.
I know beating up on the litigation-happy goofs who make up the Recording Industry Association of America's staff is a bit of a broken record at this point, but seriously, it's hard to argue the organization isn't still doing more harm than good. At the very least, those lawyers aren't cheap.

4. The people in charge.
This space has devoted a lot of virtual ink to the people running the biz these days (I'm looking at you, Edgar), but c'mon, when was the last time you heard a really good idea from someone in the higher echelons of a major label? The upper floors seem to be filled with those who lost their job for cause somewhere else, but got a seventeenth chance to prove their incompetence. There are certainly exceptions, but it's pretty clear that the bold thinkers of our time aren't going into the music biz, and many people who might have made for worthwhile successors have been run out of the system by layoffs or the inability to get out of the cubicle farm.

5. Radio, terrestrial and satellite.
Both appear to be totally screwed. Regardless of how the tech-savvy bloggo sort listen to their music, the majority of Americans listen to—and discover—music the way they did a decade ago. If there's no money in it for the radio stations and if the XM/Sirius conglomerate can't solve their credit woes, where will my neighbors hear the next Kid Rock single?

6. The economy, stupid.
If companies with viable business models are having a tough time, why would a business in which nearly every aspect of their product is available for free with ease be any different? Even Katy Perry can't fix the mess that EMI is in these days.

7. [Your reason here.]
Number seven is up to you. What's the most pressing concern for the music biz these days? Outside of ripping it up and starting again, can the industry be fixed? Also, do you know anyone in Arizona who's hiring?

Bone Crusher - I Never Scared [YouTube]
[Photo by Our Enchanted Garden]