TuneCorner

A Day In The Life (Touring with Paul McCartney)

by Rusty Anderson

Introduction (by Jeff Price)

A few weeks ago a gentleman named Rusty Anderson was in the TuneCore office - he was in New York for a few days on business, had an album he wanted to get into iTunes, but did not have the computer/net access to do it while he was traveling. As I was introduced to him through a mutual friend, I suggested he just stop by and have Taylor (head of Artist Support) help him out.

I met him here at the TuneCore office and asked him what business brought him to town.  He nonchalantly stated he was playing a gig in New York.  We talk a bit more and he mentioned that he was playing Citi Field.  I was not connecting dots and had no idea what Citi Field was, until two seconds later when Rusty says "You know, the new Shea Stadium".

"Why are you playing at Shea Stadium?"

"I'm lead guitar for Paul McCartney."

I can now officially state I am one degree away from a Beatle.  Something even Kevin Bacon could not have provided (I think).

As we talked further, I learned about how he has played on albums and performed live with other artists such as Willie Nelson, Elton John, and others.

I also learned that he is using TuneCore to distribute his second solo album "Born on Earth" - think raging guitar work surrounded by Cheap Trick hooks and Beatles' harmonies.

Paul made a great choice.

In any event, I asked Rusty if he would be willing to write an article for the newsletter about what it's like to be on the road with Paul playing to tens of thousands of screaming people - A Day In The Life so to speak, and Rusty was kind enough to do so. 

Please meet your fellow TuneCore Artist, Rusty Anderson.

 

(Note from Jeff: the picture was taken by my father - I assume between his fits of high pitched screaming -  of the giant screens that flank either side of the stage at Paul's gig last week at Fenway Park in Boston).

About Rusty:

Rusty Anderson has supplied guitar pyrotechnics live and on recordings for everyone from Regina Spektor to Elton John, Willie Nelson to Gwen Stefani.  Most notably, he has been Paul McCartney's right hand man for the last eight years in the studio and on record-breaking world tours.

Rusty's second solo album, "Born on Earth" is available now on iTunes (distributed by TuneCore).

Check out Rusty's website, his Facebook or Myspace pages, or follow him on Twitter.

A Day in the Life

New York City. August 7, 2009, 11:45 am - today I’m tired as hell (probably a temporary food coma occurrence from a late breakfast). We played at Fenway Park last night and the night before. What a cool, antique atmosphere that venue has. A friend of mine was jealous that we were playing there strictly because he's such a Red Sox junkie. I’m still trying to identify that particular shade of green - I guess that would be Fenway green! Paul was in great voice last night. The high C he belted out on the last note of the last song made everyone in the band look up in amazement.

It appears that I’ll have to try and switch rooms today because my hotel rule of staying away from construction, elevators and babies whenever possible has now been amended to include no intermittent internet and/or phone reception (ah, the digital age!).

I have the next few days off, which is a welcome chance to gather a little moss after a relatively intense grouping of shows, travel and long sound-checking (I even have a chance to write this!). Yesterday I woke up in Boston, got a fantastic, painful & long overdue deep tissue massage. Years of slinging a guitar over one's shoulder has its repercussions. Peter Frampton , who I saw at a show a few years ago (I’m a big Humble Pie - Rockin’ the Fillmore fan), told me he did some sort of traction therapy employing a doorway and a water bucket all because of his 50's, black, 3 pick-up Les Paul custom.

Anyway, after the massage I took a shower, packed up my bags and met the gang in the lobby. I spy my band mates (Abe, Brian and Wix) as well as the fantastic team of seasoned professional tour managers, travel managers, security, etc. - I suppose it's a reflection of Paul’s awesomeness that everyone's happy to be there and rock ready. I also just finished reading Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath and I must say I feel extra-incredibly fortunate to be playing music for a living, much less with Paul McCartney!

We get into a few black SUV thingies and drive a short distance to the stadium. Fenway Park, built in 1912, is different because it's right off of Boylston Street, a main drag in Boston, and you have an historic area with shops and bars right next to the venue as opposed to the standard industrial environment set up for 18 wheel trucks, lights PA systems, etc. We drive past the super-fans trying to look thru the tinted windows to see who's in there. We'll usually say hello if it feels right.

We drive in, greet many friends and colleagues (as you could imagine it takes a small high school of people to run a show of this size), find the band dressing room, set our stuff down and go to catering. As tradition dictates, this is pretty much the most social area - even for accountants, lighting screen genius inventors and semi-reclusive musicians such as myself.  The food is all vegetarian and it's fantastic. Kate, the server and sometimes chef is a wonderfully fresh-faced Scottish lass - the perfect interface for "Eat Your Heart Out", the catering company.

I lollygag my way up to the stage and find the band there fiddling about. Sometimes we have a freeform jam, which is always a gas, and sometimes Paul gets there before we initiate improvisation. If I remember correctly, we did have a jazzy jam that morphed into the delta blues. Paul showed up and we hugged and chatted a little as usual. He likes to warm up with a bunch of songs that we mostly don’t do in the set to keep it fresh… testing and getting a sound on all our instruments (basses, drums, electric guitars, acoustics, pianos, etc.).

Except for the sun glaring at us (I’m a bit of a cockroach and prefer the dark cracks and crevices to direct sun) it was a fun and productive soundcheck, as usual. We then went our separate ways. But always seem to find each other in catering (one must be careful not to eat much before a show - in fact Paul doesn’t eat after breakfast on show days!). In most big cities, like Boston and New York, we all have friends and family lurking about that must be tended to. In this case it was one of my best friend’s sister and her man. We hung out a bit then I snuck in a chance to watch MGMT, the opening act, from the stage.  It was great chatting with them the day before…a great bunch of guys. I probably ended up speaking with Ben the longest - being that he is a keyboardist and into FX pedals we bonded over the joys of electronics. Their set was really great. I’m a big fan of their songwriting and it was interesting to hear a more guitar-y approach to the tunes. I thought it had more of a sixties vibe then their record.

After catching most of MGMT's set I ran back thru the crowd to stretch out and get dressed. We have our little rituals of tea and wine and whatever else. We do some vocal warm ups and Paul comes and joins us at some point. This time the stage was light years away from the dressing rooms so we sing and walk our way to the SUV. As we get in the vehicle the gate opens into the street and I see a girl walking and sort of pretending not to look in. And we hear her say, “I saw him! Oh, my god that was him!”

We’re around Paul so much that we sometimes forget the effect he has on people that have never met him. We drive to the stage and get out, walk up the black wooden stairs to the back of stage left. We assume the huddle position - arm over arm - and Paul leads us thru a homemade prayer. I can’t speak for Paul specifically but I would say that none us are particularly religious. Having said that, this ritual has become very important as it aligns us to a higher power and with each other. When Scott, the stage manager, gives us the signal we walk up yet more wooden stairs onto the stage, into the lights and a bunch of screaming concertiers.

Space-time is now altered for the next 2.5 plus hours. I’ve been playing with Paul now since 2001 so part of me is used to this … a stadium full of screaming people, a small club full of screaming people or hundreds of thousands in front of the coliseum (or wherever) screaming. It’s an experience unlike anything else I could imagine, and, believe it or not, part of me is still back in catering talking to the NRBQ guys about cats and Phoenix, Arizona.

Any performer doing big gigs will start to notice that it's sort of a schizophrenic existence because of the drastic energy shift of going from relative isolation to a huge crowd. Paul counts off the first song, “Drive My Car” - Brian and I play the opening guitar riff in unison, Paul joins in on bass, Abe fills and we're off! Wix is playing the cowbell with his foot; Paul and I sing the verse...the tempo's feeling great. I hear Abe and Brian singing on the chorus and Wix's piano riff - it's that great rock and roll feeling. Somewhere in the second song I notice that my mind is getting stuck in tangents. Does that ever happen to you? Sometimes I am 101 percent in the moment like the previous night. Tonight I start to get a little lost in my head. Making eye contact with everyone in the band then grounds me and I’m back in my skin... a great place to be.

The night goes on in good form. Having this caliber of people to work with is such a pleasure. We play some new songs, some old songs, some new old songs. Nice work if you can get it, I must say. Playing music in a band is like making love - it's active and reactive. When the elements are right it's magnetic and everything else disappears into a state of rock and roll bliss.

One thing I’ve noticed is that the explosions and sparks keep getting bigger! After “Live And Let Die” has ended, my adolescent pyro desires are fully quenched. Shakey, the pyrotechnician has outdone himself once again! Fortunately, there was a nice cool breeze after that one and we can breathe again!

As usual, there were lots of signs in the audience. Anything from "my mom saw you in 1964" to "Paul, please sign my bleep". Also, shout outs to band members - tonight I saw an ego-stroking "Rusty rules" sign. Part of me is still thinking about the Grapes of Wrath...so many different perspectives to have, and sometimes all at once!

After the third encore and Paul’s stellar vocal climax, we head to the bus, high-five the best crew in the universe and begin the cardio-slow down process. Mike and John pour the champagne/margy/etc. and we toast and enjoy the magic rock and roll moment along a few significant others. We stop at the airport. Wix and Abe stay in Boston for a few extra days. Brian and I go with Paul and make our way to New York City in the private jet. The sick thing is - part of me is used to all this and part of me wonders - how in Santa Clause's name did I end up here?

- Rusty Anderson

Posted by TuneCore at 03:42 PM in Music, The Industry, Travel | Permalink | Comments (15) | TrackBack (0)

Taylor Simons is the director of Customer Support and Solutions.

I first tried out Jango Airplay back in April when I first heard about the service. I used my colleague’s group OMG!Michelle to create a free account since I am not in a band myself. The upload process was super easy and I didn’t have to make any changes or conversions to the MP3 I uploaded. I first purchased 1,000 guaranteed plays and found it pretty thrilling to watch the play count rise over the first few days.

The songs I uploaded were quickly being played side by side with songs from OutKast, Beyonce, Kid Sister, Usher, Snoop Dogg and tons of other legendary artists. I then started to receive comments on my band page like, “Do you have a my space??? I wanna collab on a track wit you if possible. I like your style :] hit me up!!!” from a user in Lompoc, CA. And “Stupid Song….” From Ralnesha in Roanoke, VA.

Hey, it's all feedback, I just may not be booking a gig for OMG!Michelle in Roanoke anytime soon!

I bought another 1,000 the second my first thousand ran dry. So with a total of 2,000 purchased plays, to date I have received 40 comments and acquired 46 fans with an extra 297 free plays coming from general rotation. What I found really cool was that the fans were coming from OMG!Michelle’s hometown, NYC, Cali, Europe, South Africa and more!

What’s even better is that Jango gives me a way to e-mail each fan directly from my Jango Airplay account. Jango also does a great job of providing you with reports by gender/age and which other artists your fans listen to. (See below).

All of this is really helpful because you can request that your song be played on stations that those relevant artists are played on as well. You can also target fans by geography, which may be a great tool for getting some extra promotion around your tour dates.

In addition, Jango provides you with an artist page that allows you to upload pictures and a bio and permits listeners to leave you comments. There are many other cool features with Jango such as targeting fans by gender, age and more. Take advantage of our great relationship with Jango by purchasing guaranteed airplay at heavily discounted rates.

My one complaint about Jango Airplay is that I personally find it to be a bit addictive and they have yet to include a “Got an Airplay addiction? Call this toll free number” on their site; so purchase plays at your own risk…

Jake Smith is a TuneCore customer support representative and editor of the TuneCore Newsletter

After 6 years, iTunes has announced that they will begin selling their entire catalog without DRM protection.  This raises a number of questions, and it is important to start discussing now what these changes could mean for all of us in the music industry.

DRM, or "Digital Rights Management", is proprietary code encoded in certain types of files to control where and how they can be used.  If you've ever purchased a song on iTunes before and tried to play it on a different computer, a message will come up saying that the computer is not authorized to play the file.  iTunes currently allows 5 computers to be authorized for any one iTunes account.  DRM protection reaches much further than just iTunes and digital music.  Movies, computer software, and video games often incorporate some types of digital rights protection.  For example, DRM stops (or attempts to stop) you from ripping DVD movies to you computer or by requiring you to enter a serial number before using a new program you've installed.

From the stand point of the music consumer, there is really no downside to iTunes removing DRM protection.  In addition to being able to move music more freely from computer to computer, music purchased in the iTunes store will no longer be limited to the iTunes library or iPods.  Files will be compatible with Windows Media Player, non-Apple based MP3 players, video game consoles and more.  From the label/artist stand point, the loss of DRM may seem good or bad depending on your personal philosophy.  Does it help your career in the long run by making it easier for fans to share, or is it simply less money coming to you for your hard work?

Realizing that the decision to drop DRM protection would be a controversial decision, and in an effort keep ahead of the rapidly growing Amazon store, iTunes announced they would sweeten the deal for labels by finally allowing labels to set price tiers for individual tracks.  We are waiting on iTunes to give us more specific information about this and we will make the details known as we receive them.

If you're looking for a more in depth look at these changes, I'd recommend this article from the staff of Macworld (http://www.macworld.com/article/138000/2009/01/drm_faq.html).  Some highlights include:

• iTunes DRM free files vs. Amazon MP3, which has always been DRM Free
• What happens to music purchased before the DRM change?
• Will the change affect TV Shows and Movies?

Reports say that this change will be taking place by June.  What do you think about this?  Was the DRM drop inevitable or is iTunes biting the hand that feeds it?  Let us know your thoughts.

@zedshaw: @tunecoregary Holy crap man, write a blog post. Did you seriously message me that much today?

I recently had a long, occasionally sarcastic discussion on Twitter with Zed Shaw. Zed is a famously iconoclastic developer best known for creating the web server software Mongrel, that TuneCore and thousands of other websites use every day. He's a very, very smart guy, and lately he's been getting into music. He has some typically iconoclastic thoughts about how artists can sell their music directly, here, here and here.

This led to some spirited tweets between me (@tunecoregary) and @zedshaw. It got verbose, so he asked me to write a blog post. Voila. Here's a response to just a few points from the entries at the URLs above. Zed's right in several areas but way off in others.

What’s needed is a mechanism for a musician (or any artist) to put their music on their site, and then let a fan click a button to buy it. Wow, revolutionary right? A widget that plays some music, and then has a link to where you can buy the music. Gee, that sounds kinda hard, I wonder if I could do it.

We're doing that right now, except the links go to iTunes, where the music is already hosted, and they handle payment and download. That's got its plusses and minuses, everyone knows it. So maybe artists could go direct. Enormous questions about the specific mechanisms of payment (is it PayPal?), fulfillment (is it streams, downloads, partials, unlocks, what happens when a download/stream is interrupted?), copyright (there's incredible legal exposure here at all levels, who's responsible?) or quality issues/returns--those are questions merely at the selling end, what about the accounting end? But forget about all that and about the demands of artists and fans (who always want choices, choices) for a moment.

Direct sales are definitely possible, it's true. Artists have sold their CDs out of the trunks of cars at their shows for years. Selling direct off your own website is kind of like that. I expect most artists would still rather get into stores where more customers are. Since the Towers, Sam Goodys and Virgin Megastores of the world have collapsed or are on life support, those stores are now digital. It is true that they act as "walled gardens," where you search and browse only among music that has been hosted on those sites' digital shelves. Part of why we founded TuneCore was to stock the infinite shelf space of iTunes and Amazon so full of independents that it would lower those walls as much as possible. So far, that's working pretty well.

I would love for TuneCore widgets to offer direct sales to customers and allow artists to set their own pricing and completely bypass the stores such as iTunes. Unfortunately that is rife with a number of details around fulfillment and copyright that will take some time to work out. It's not as simple as an XSPF file and a few lines of Python.

As soon as there’s good search engines for music, and a good browser for music that does not honor walled garden we’ll see a massive change in the business. First to go will be these middle men...

If "middlemen" are not nimble enough to cope with the rapidly changing field, that is correct. If they truly are the "middlemen" that Zed believes us to be. If pushing files and pulling a cut of the cash was all they did, just maybe Zed might be right. However, if they provide a useful range of services and charge a fair price for it, they will survive. Further, someone who builds the search engine will become a new middleman (because of Google, SEO is a huge business) and whoever builds the browser software will probably do okay as well, in influence if not revenue (such as Firefox improving web standards compliance). And someone like TuneCore with a nice tidy place for artists to accumulate payments and host artists' assets and offer one-click or easy distribution to new venues will do just fine.

Zed also says this:

For whatever reason, Amazon caved to the labels, and in order to get the right to sell f---ing Britney Spears songs, Amazon probably agreed to cut out any potential competitors to the current business model.

That's not true. The sale of music online is rife with copyright issues, fraud and worse. This is the law, not the opinions of labels (granted, the labels had a lot of opinion on the writing of the law in the first place). TuneCore regularly pulls down albums that have been proven to contain uncleared samples or other stolen work. Most online stores have enough on their plate with customers. Stores aren't interested in dealing with hundreds of thousands of individual artists. They'd much prefer to let us do that. They love us, and we make their jobs easier. Why would they go direct and have to build that overhead of support and management? They'd have to charge more off the back end and the artist would make LESS money.

I'm paraphrasing, but Zed strongly implies that people like TC add little or nothing to the production chain and take revenue illegitimately, either up front or back end. That makes me sad. Zed apparently doesn't understand that a good distributor provides a useful service to artists, and he makes it clear he feels the sooner we can be cut out of the chain the better. As someone who has spent the last three years of his life helping artists earn money from their work, I have to respond. TuneCore provides label-like services without the traditional "sign here and give us your rights forever and the bulk of your earnings forever" handcuff model. TuneCore is most definitely NOT a label, or a "middleman." I built this company to be the good guys of the music business and I still believe strongly in that.

Another point: Zed may be right in that a cheaper competitor to TC might come along, even now there's some, but since when is "cheaper" the same as "better"? Eventually the digital music distribution space is going to be like web hosting - full of fly-by-night companies who offer cheaper and cheaper rates for no-frills service--because there's demand, and demand creates lots of different models. But then it's up to TuneCore to provide value for money. This is true of any business.

As for distribution channels and walled gardens: iTunes and Amazon MP3 are on the top of the heap right now, but that will not always be the case. TC will adapt to work with whatever new model comes along. I always conceived of TuneCore's distribution as agnostic, not dependent on iTunes or Amazon or eMusic or anyone. I'd love to seed torrents of artists' music to promote themselves, if thats what they want. We'd be happy to offer more streaming, or on demand CD printing, or direct sales via widget where the artist sets the price point. All that stuff is great, and we're working on as much as possible. But it has to be sensitive to a lot more than just the mechanics of moving the file, grabbing the cash and walking away. It's just not that simple, and the complexities are precisely where a PARTNER is just what's needed. If it's a fair partner, and a smart one, and a knowledgeable one, why not use them?

Here's to your success as a working musician.

Cliff Goldmacher is a songwriter, producer, engineer and the owner of recording studios in both Nashville and New York City. Cliff is also a regular contributor to EQ Magazine and Pro Sound News. He can be reached at cliff@cliffgoldmacher.com.

Part 2

Too Late! I’ve Only Got 24 Hours To Fix My Horrible Mix

OK, so you didn’t have a chance to read the first part of this article before you made the mistake of promising your mix to someone in the music industry and, as it stands, the mix just isn’t going to cut it. What do you do? Well, there are a variety of options and, as with almost everything in life, it’s only a matter of money. After explaining a bit about why a mix may be horrible, I’m going to give you three financial scenarios and how you can repair your mix in each of them. By the way, no matter what the scenario, be clear with the engineer up front that you’re under a considerable time crunch and give them an exact deadline. This way, there can be no misunderstanding about when you need your mix.

Why Does My Mix Sound Horrible?!?

For the sake of this article, we’re going to limit ourselves to the mix itself as the culprit. Often, especially early in one’s recording career, the bigger issues of a mix go back to the actual recorded performances. Unless the players/singers involved have a decent amount of studio experience, their performances tend towards the tentative or worse. But as I said, we’re going to assume the performances are solid and it really is a mix issue. Mixes can sound bad for a variety of reasons and this article is not really the venue for a technical explanation so I’ll keep the following descriptions brief. If you’re a beginning sound engineer here are a few things to think about. With the instruments, it generally comes down to a lack of each instrument having its own place in a mix whether for reasons of volume, panning, EQ or compression. With vocals, the issue is usually clarity (level, EQ & compression) and effects (reverb, delay, etc.). When a mix sounds dull and unexciting, it’s generally because things are over-compressed. If you’re not a sound engineer and you’ve gotten your mix back from someone who is (or claimed to be) and you’re not happy, the above descriptions are a good place to start when describing your problems to your new mix engineer.

Scenario #1 – Money Is No Object

For obvious reasons, this is the best position to be in with a bad mix and very little time to fix it. There are some real miracle workers out there who can take a crummy mix and bring the whole thing to life in relatively short order. Also, even though these folks are busy, it’s likely that not every one of the projects they’re working on is urgent. Your best bet would be to come in, explain the urgency of your situation and bring the mix (and mix files) with you so the engineer in question can give it a look/listen on the spot. Without necessarily saying you’ve got all the money in the world to throw at this mix, simply say that you understand this is last minute and you need their best work right away. Ask them what their fee would be (they ought to be able to give you a very close estimate) and accept. This is not the time to haggle as you’re asking for a lot from someone who is probably busy enough to say “thanks but no thanks” if you start to negotiate. By the way, whether you have the money right now or not, it’s in your best interest to familiarize yourself with the best engineers/studios in your area. You might not need them now but some day you might. It’s generally free to go visit a studio and talk to the owner or engineer and get a sense of their capabilities and rates.

Scenario #2 – You’ve Got A Few Hundred Bucks

You’ve got a couple of options here. First, you might want to ask a top engineer if they know of anyone who’d be willing to work for less. Often, top engineers have assistants who do good work and would love a chance to work on something at a more reasonable rate. A second-and perhaps better-option is to consider the world of independent producer/engineers who are in every town especially the music towns of Nashville, New York and LA. These guys might not have the reputations of the big engineers but will still do excellent work at reasonable rates.

Scenario #3 – You’re Out of Money

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you’re kind of screwed. You can pass up whatever opportunity was 24 hours away and hope that when your finances are a bit more flush you can go in and repair what’s wrong. Or you can turn the mix in as is. In this scenario, I’d almost always opt for passing on the opportunity. In the music industry, it’s very easy to poison the well by turning in something that isn’t ready for prime time. It’s better to make up an excuse and pass than to turn in something half-baked.

However, there are a few other options. First, the same top engineer that has assistants might also have interns. These guys might get the use of the studio from 2am to 8am and would be willing to work for nothing to gain experience and your loyalty. It’s certainly worth asking the top engineer if there are any interns who’d like to do the mix. The downside, of course, is that you’ll be working with an intern and there’s no guarantee you’ll get something better than what you’ve already got. Then again, you might. Second, if you’re really creative, talented, and lucky as all hell, there may be another way. Let’s assume you’ve got a terrific song and an almost “sure thing” to get it placed. You can always offer an engineer a significant piece of the pie if/when the song gets placed. Let’s assume the engineer loves the song and understands that there’s real potential. In a best-case scenario, the song does generate income and you end up giving half or more to the engineer. Be aware that this could end up being much more money for the engineer than the original mix would have cost you had you paid directly. You’ll have to chalk it up to experience and look at the placement as more of a resume builder than an income generator. I feel the need to say that this scenario is extremely rare. Most talented mix engineers are making a living by being paid for their work and not by taking chances on songs that are brought to them by unknown clients at the last minute. I don’t mean to sound harsh, but I’m a firm believer that if you want to earn income from your music, you have to treat it like a well-run business.

Your Best Bet

No matter which of the above scenarios you find yourself in, you’ll have sacrificed the one thing that music has to offer over most other businesses…fun. By adding a tight deadline, you’ve just introduced stress into the equation that, in most cases, could have been avoided. As I mentioned in the first part of this article, when it comes to mixing, your best bet is to be methodical, patient and sure you’ve got a mix you’re proud of before you start finding uses for it. After all, this is music we’re talking about and enjoying the process of making it is one of the best things a career in music has to offer.

Cliff Goldmacher is a songwriter, producer, engineer and the owner of recording studios in both Nashville and New York City. Cliff is also a regular contributor to EQ Magazine and Pro Sound News. He can be reached at cliff@cliffgoldmacher.com.

Part I

Well, I suppose I’ve got your attention now at any rate. Given what an emotional medium music is to begin with, it’s not surprising to me that songwriters and artists (myself included at some point in the murky days of my early career) find themselves panicking when they’ve committed to something that requires a finished product before they have it. In the old days, this used to be situations like planning a CD release party/show before you had the finished, shrink-wrapped CD in your physical possession. These days, it’s more likely that you’ve committed to getting a finished mix to a film/TV music supervisor or radio station by a specific date and after playing your mix for a few trusted friends or fellow musicians, your worst fears are confirmed. The mix is horrible. As this article will come in two parts, I’m going to spend the part one of this article giving you ways to completely avoid this situation to begin with. Then, in part two, I’m going to give you ways to salvage a desperate situation based on three different budget scenarios.

How To Avoid the Above Situation in the First Place

I understand how exciting it can be when you’re nearing the end of a recording project. You can almost count the money you’re going to make from sales or royalties. Stop! You’ve spent years perfecting your craft. You’ve taken your time and learned to sing, write songs, play instruments and, in some cases, even to engineer your own material in your home studio. Why would you try and rush one of the most critical stages of the game? A mix is the culmination of all your effort and should be handled precisely and patiently. My sincere recommendation is that you never promise a song to anyone in the industry for any reason until you’re dead certain you have a finished mix you can submit with confidence. By avoiding situations where you’ve promised something you don’t have, you won’t run the risk of not delivering and appearing undependable or, worse yet, turning in something that’s sub par. Set yourself apart from the stereotype of the flaky musician by delivering what you say you’re going to when you say you will. It might help to remember that at a certain level in the music world talent is a given. You have a better chance of differentiating yourself by being a professional in all senses of the word.

The Mix Process

Whether you’re mixing the song yourself in your home studio or working with a professional mix engineer, take your time. Listen to the mix on the speakers in the studio, in your car, on a boom box and, Steve Jobs help us all, on those crappy $30 ear buds that come with every iPod. Of course your mix won’t sound as good on a boom box or through ear buds, but it should still sound clear. You should be able to hear the vocal and distinguish the individual instruments without, for example, the bass making the speakers rattle so much that nothing else is audible. Also, it’s been my experience that singers tend to want their own vocals too low in the mix because they’re either self-conscious or they think because they already know the words that the lyric is clear enough…or both. My recommendation is to bring in one or two friends (ideally not musicians) to listen to your mix and give you their honest opinion. Musicians, as a rule, tend to listen to the wrong things in a mix. The average listener will give you valuable feedback like “I can’t hear the guitar because the drums are too loud” or “I can’t hear what you’re singing.” Musicians tend to get into the nitty gritty and often can’t keep the big picture in perspective. The one exception would be if you’re a relatively new engineer and you’re uncertain about how your mix sounds. In this case it might be worth your while to talk to an experienced mix engineer and even hire them to give you detailed criticism about things you can do to improve your mix.

Working With A Mix Engineer

For non-engineers, the main thing to remember when giving your mix to a professional mix engineer is to let them mix. My recommendation would be for you to explain to the engineer that you’re going to leave the mix to them and you’d like them to let you know when your mix is ready to review. Then take the mix home, listen to it on various sound systems (as I mentioned above) and take detailed notes about what you’d like to go over with them when you see them again. For example, instead of saying that there are some words in the song that aren’t loud enough, you’d do better to say “in the second chorus, the word “aardvark” is a little too low.” It is infinitely easier for an engineer to go over a checklist of things to review in a mix than it is for you to have them stop playback every time you think you hear something. In other words, do your homework and use your studio time with the mix engineer to methodically tweak whatever needs tweaking.

When It’s Done, It’s Done

By following the approach I’ve mentioned above, you’ll avoid the gut-wrenching feeling that you’ve got an opportunity you’re going to miss or screw up if your mix isn’t ready in twenty-four hours. My final piece of advice for this section of the article is to remember that once you’ve signed off on a mix, it’s in your best interest to let it go. Like songs, mixes can be tweaked and tweaked ad infinitum but my hope for you is that you’ve got enough else on your plate to know when to say when. Do your best and move on. The more you go through the process, the easier the “letting go” will become.

Stay tuned for Part II of this article, coming soon.

Cliff Goldmacher is a songwriter, producer, engineer and the owner of recording studios in both Nashville and New York City. Cliff is also a regular contributor to EQ Magazine and Pro Sound News. He can be reached at cliff@cliffgoldmacher.com.

The Bad News

In my 15 years of making a full-time living in the music world, one thing has become more and more clear to me. It’s work. The romantic image of the starving artist being so incredibly talented that one day he or she gets “discovered” and becomes rich and famous is a dangerous myth. I say “dangerous” because the more you as an artist believe it, the less inclined you’ll be to do any work on your own behalf. The gritty reality is that if you don’t do the necessary (and daily) work promoting yourself and your music, it’s highly unlikely anything will ever happen.

The Good News

There has NEVER been a better time to spread the word about yourself and music. The internet, with its downloadable digital music files, social networking sites and countless other advances that we can’t even begin to imagine yet, has leveled the playing field in a way that will make the “work” you have to do infinitely more effective.

Gather Your Fans

The more you can identify and reach out to your fans the better off you’ll be. Whether it’s your friends on MySpace or Facebook or the email addresses you’ve been collecting at gigs or online, it’s these people who you need to be able to reach effectively to spread the word about what you’re doing. Treat your list of email addresses like the gold that it is. It’s these people who will not only consider buying your music when it comes out, but more importantly, will also help spread (“viral” get it?) the word about you and your music. Once you’ve got a network of fans that you can reach out to, you’ve dramatically increased your potential to spread the word about what you’re doing.

Be Creative

The fact that the playing field has been leveled and almost anyone can get their music out worldwide is both a blessing and a true challenge. Instead of fans knowing that the local Tower Records is where they should go to find new music, the internet, with its infinite musical venues, has become the new (and overwhelming) place to find what’s new and great. The more creative you are in your presentation, the more likely a fan of yours will be to forward a YouTube link with your video or any one of a thousand other ways you can create to present yourself and your music. Again, the plan is that by putting something out there that’s unique enough to rise above the typical internet fare, it will take on a life of its own and appeal not only your current fans but also to new fans in ways you’ve never imagined.

Stay Current

The outlets for music and ways of marketing online change and advance almost hourly. Taking time out of your day to be aware of the next MySpace, Facebook or Twitter will pay huge dividends going forward. It’s not enough to find one way of reaching people and stubbornly stick to it. If that were the case, bands would still be mailing postcards to let people know about their gigs. Did I just date myself?

Give It Away

Don’t be afraid to give something to get something. A free download of a song in exchange for an email address is the best deal out there these days. Make it worth someone’s while to give you his or her email address and you’ll be amazed at what happens. Let your music speak for itself. If fans like their free download, there’s a much higher likelihood they’ll come back and buy the rest. You don’t have to reinvent the wheel to do this either. Take a peek at a simple and effective example by clicking here.

Make Sure Your Music Is Available

I can’t think of anything more depressing than the artist who comes up with an amazing vehicle to promote his or her music, watches it go “viral” and generate huge web traffic to their site only to have nothing readily available for sale. Don’t expect most people to wait around or check back with iTunes every few days until your music is up. Make sure that before you go about promoting your music, you’ve taken the necessary steps to insure that if and when people want to buy your music, they can do it easily. Companies like Tunecore make this essential step both simple and cost effective. Don’t wait around for people to start asking how they can get your music. By then, it’s too late. Do it first.

Trust Me, It’s Real

Be patient. Not every online marketing attempt you make will result in thousands of downloads and new fans. However, every effort you make to get the word out about your music (even if it’s fifteen minutes a day) becomes part of the bigger picture of reaching new fans. The more fans you have, the greater the potential for any one thing you do going viral and bringing in not only more fans but income. All of a sudden your “friends” on MySpace and Facebook just became a whole lot friendlier. Think of your work as a series of base hits that will get you ready for your shot at a home run. Good luck!

The Instruments

Getting great instrument sounds in a mix is a combination of many factors. Finding space in the mix for each individual instrument is essential. This is often achieved through judicious use of EQ, compression, volume and panning. For example, the skill it takes to get great drum sounds, marry the kick drum to the bass while also giving the electric guitars rooms to breathe and sparkle is developed over time and repetition…a lot of repetition. When this is done properly, the instruments are exciting to listen to. Each has its place and role to play and when they come together, the song takes on a life of its own.

Vocals

A great mix engineer always makes the treatment and placement of the vocal a priority. Once the instrumental mix is generally where it needs to be, it’s time to make certain that the vocalist is running the show. A combination of EQ, compression, tuning (if necessary), effects and volume fader automation should all serve the ultimate goal of making it sound like the singer is in charge. There are several risks associated with improper vocal placement. If the final mix has too much vocal, then the instruments end up sounding small and weak. However, if the vocal is too soft in the mix, it loses its ability to communicate the emotion of the song. Every genre has its preferred vocal level. In general, pop music has the vocal more integrated into the instruments whereas country music (with its emphasis on the lyric) generally puts the vocal higher in the mix. There are, of course, exceptions to every rule but a good mix engineer will know the genre he or she is mixing in and do the right thing for the song.

On a related note, one of the best reasons to bring in an experienced mix engineer even if you’ve recorded the song yourself is a fresh, objective set of ears. It’s been my experience that if the singer mixes their own project, they tend to keep the vocals too low for a couple of reasons. One is that most singers tend to get uncomfortable with their vocals up in a mix. There are precious few singers I’ve ever worked with who genuinely love the sound of their own voices. By keeping the vocal low in the mix, the vocalist/engineer won’t have to their comfort zone but the mix suffers. The second reason has to do with the fact that the singer already knows the words and assumes that they’re hearing the words when, in fact, they may be too low for someone who doesn’t know the song to understand.

Mastering a Good Mix

Mastering a mixed recording is a separate skill altogether. While this isn’t an article about mastering, I’d recommend using a dedicated mastering engineer (not your mix engineer) when it comes time for this step. More to the point, the value of a good mix is that the mastering engineer will spend much less time (their hourly rates are generally higher than mix engineer rates) getting the finished master together. In other words, money you spend on a good mix will end up saving you money on a final mastered recording.

Doing It Yourself

If you’re still intent on doing your own mixing, consider hiring an expert to mix a song or two for you and then ask them for the session files back. Assuming you’re using the same recording software (i.e. ProTools, Nuendo, Logic), you’ll be able to examine every detail of how the mix was done and use the finished mix files as a kind of tutorial so you can ultimately learn to do them yourself.

Cliff Goldmacher is a songwriter, producer, engineer and the owner of recording studios in both Nashville and New York City. Cliff is also a regular contributor to EQ Magazine and Pro Sound News. He can be reached at cliff@cliffgoldmacher.com.

Cliff Goldmacher is a songwriter, producer, engineer and the owner of recording studios in both Nashville and New York City. Cliff is also a regular contributor to EQ Magazine and Pro Sound News. He can be reached at cliff@cliffgoldmacher.com.

Once you’ve decided to up the ante and put your music online for the world to hear, it’s in your best interest to pay close attention to every step in the recording process. One of the most vital of these steps is the mix of your song. It’s not enough to have a great song. You need a great recording and a strong mix is an essential part of any great recording. The art of mixing (and make no mistake, it is an art) is not a skill everyone possesses. It’s well worth your while, even if you’ve recorded your tracks yourself in your home studio, to seek out an experienced mixing engineer. While there is no substitute for a dynamic, exciting musical performance, a good mix can enhance every aspect of that performance so that the final sonic result truly makes your song stand out. On the other hand, a poor mix can severely compromise even the best song and performance. Only you can write and sing your songs. That makes you an expert in those areas. However, unless you’re also an expert mix engineer, I’d highly recommend going to someone who is.

Budget

I get it. Everyone wants to save money. I do, too, but there are places to save and places to invest. In an effort to keep recording costs down, many musicians have purchased their own recording equipment. This is terrific and there’s never been a better time to buy affordable, high-quality gear. As long as you’re as passionate about learning the engineering process as you are about your music, you’ll do great. Owning your own recording equipment also takes a lot of the pressure off when it comes to experimenting in the studio. Finally, it allows you to record as many takes as necessary to get the performances you want without worrying about the clock. However, one way to make the absolute most of your recorded performance is to let an expert mix them. It’s amazing what a talented, experienced mix engineer can bring out of a mix that might otherwise get lost or obscured at the hands of a less able mixer.

Before You Mix

Before I cover in greater depth what makes up a good mix, let’s go back to performance for a moment. No matter how great the mix engineer may be there are some things you simply cannot fix in the mix. To be more specific, there is no way to “mix in” a great vocal or instrumental performance. What makes a performance great might surprise you. For example, sometimes it’s what you don’t play that counts the most. In my experience, the best studio musicians are the best listeners. What I mean by this is that great players base their instrumental performance on whatever else is going to be played in the song so that all the instruments work together as a whole to serve the song and NOT their individual egos. Playing too much is the hallmark of an amateur studio musician. Secondly, the timely use of dynamics (where to play louder/softer or with greater/less intensity) is essential to a mix that breathes and has shape to it. Simply moving up and down a volume fader won’t do the same thing. When it comes to singing, all the Auto-Tune and reverb in the world won’t give a vocal performance real sincerity and emotion. All this to say, make absolutely certain that the performances are exactly how you want them before you start the mix process.

Stay tuned for Part II, coming up next week!

Here is the full text of TuneCore President Jeff Price's article that appeared in the first week of January, 2009's Huffington Post. Read it and reap. --Peter

From MTV to YouTube: When the Net Pays Everyone But the Musician

In 1996, taped to the wall of my now defunct record label spinART Records’ 800 square-foot, four-ikea-desk-loaded-with-unsold-CD-and-vinyl office was a $1 check from MTV. I fought hard for that stupid check. MTV wanted to use a song called “Supermerica” by a band called Poole that I released. Usually TV shows pay good money for the use of a song, but not MTV-- they required labels to allow them to use the music for free in their TV shows when you submitted a music video to be considered for programming on their network. I still don’t know why they even bothered saying they would pay a dollar. It really pissed me off. I had fronted money and worked my heart out along with the band to promote, market, manufacture and release their album and along comes a multi-national billion dollar media corporation and demands to be able to use the music for a stinking dollar. I refused to do it. The music had value to me, it was the thing we sold and the thing the band made the majority of their money off of. I could not just give it up for free. But, Harry (lead singer of Poole) convinced me to let MTV have it in anticipation of the promotional value they might get out of it. The show aired, the song appeared in the background for about 30 seconds, the show ended, MTV made money from the advertisers and the song was not mentioned anywhere. This was the way it worked. The labels fed MTV free music and videos and in return hoped to get their videos aired which in turn would drive huge music sales. And MTV made a fortune off the advertising.

And this is more or less why Warner Music recently demanded that all its videos and music be removed from YouTube. Warner previously granted YouTube the legal rights to use its content and YouTube generated a lot of money from it via advertising. Now Warner wants to be paid more by YouTube. If the Google-owned YouTube does not comply, it opens itself up to potentially tens of millions of dollars in copyright infringement fines. Universal did this same thing successfully some time ago.

When media giants fight over music, you know it has to be valuable. Looking, listening and occasionally buying a “good” song drives revenue, tremendous web traffic and generates big advertising dollars. I can kind of understand Warner’s point, but as music sales drop and the multi-national, billion dollar media giants wrestle, lobby congress and sue each other for new income streams the musician seems to be getting lost in the shuffle, and that’s a huge mistake. Creating a new revenue sharing model that focuses on allowing artists to generate enough money to continue creating music would be a win for everyone. After all, it is the music that is fueling the entire machine.

The union of music and advertising goes back decades, but it seemed to reach a new level with the launch of MTV. MTV broadcast free “TV shows” from the labels in the form of music videos. These videos brought viewers allowing MTV to charge money to advertise on its network. In return for the free videos, the labels and artists received promotion. Artists became more famous which in turn allowed labels to make more money from music sales (there were other income streams as well like money from gigs, but the labels only participated in revenue that came from the sale or license of the music). This symbiotic relationship worked very well as long as all involved made their fair share of money.

However, after over two decades of a steady annual increase in music sales generating enough revenue to feed the record industry, music sales plummeted. At about the same time, advertising revenue from music went through the roof. Internet companies made money off music via venture capital investments, going public and getting acquired for a billion dollars. And this is the crux of the problem, music is being used for profit but not everyone is getting a piece of the pie.

Music sales plummeted with broadband proliferation and the mass adoption of the Internet, MP3s, compression technology, peer to peer file sharing, instant messaging of files, email attachments, torrents and other on-line distribution vehicles. The labels found themselves wondering why they should continue to provide their music and videos for free if the channels/sites they gave them to were reaping a disproportionate financial benefit. Labels would not have given MTV free music videos in the 80’s if MTV made money off the videos but the labels did not. (Imagine ABC getting the TV show “Lost” for free, then broadcasting it and keeping all the advertising revenue.)

Move ahead in time to the launch of the original peer-to-peer music file sharing software Napster allowing anyone to get any song at any time for free. Tens of millions of users provided Napster a huge “viewing audience” that it could reach via its “channel.” Unlike MTV, most labels and artists did not give Napster permission to use their music. The one area where value could have been created – music sales from discovery – was made irrelevant by allowing users to get the songs for free. To add insult to injury, despite Napster raising almost 100 million dollars and then being bought for 8 million the artists and labels were not paid anything (some would even suggest they lost money due to pirating).

The money that labels did make came from suing Napster and getting paid settlements for copyright infringement; the artists got nothing.

Over time social networking sites began to pop up and MTV moved on to showing its own TV shows (why not, they now had their own built in audience). Bands began to use these sites to get heard, discovered and to collect fans. Music lovers flocked to the sites, web traffic went up and the social networking sites began to charge advertisers for banner ads based on the “eyeballs” they were getting (for a website, any friend of the band is a friend of theirs). Once again it was the bands’ and labels’ content driving the audience, and once again someone else was making money off the music without an equitable inclusion of the labels and bands in the equation.

Which brings us back to Warner demanding that YouTube take down its content until it receives what it perceives to be its fair share of revenue. Following Google’s one billion dollar acquisition, YouTube is not yet profitable and suggests it cannot give up even more of its advertising revenue. Labels contend that this is really not their problem and need to be paid more for the use of their “products.” Unfortunately, advertisers are not paying the same sort of rates for online exposure as for TV and radio airtime, and there is not enough money to go around. And the artists, the ones who create and make the music that fuels it all, have yet to be directly included in the conversation.

As the “golden era” of MTV morphs into the world of MySpace and YouTube, a new model of advertising around music – ads appearing on artist’s WebPages or popping up on a streaming internet radio player– is not creating enough money to share. And no one is seriously discussing sharing it with the artists anyway. How then in this shifting landscape can they survive?

One possible piece of the puzzle may be the democratization of corporate sponsorship; instead of companies deciding which bands they choose to endorse or random ads appearing when music is played, let bands decide which corporations they want to work with. Bands can then tells their fans to click a link to land at a sponsor’s webpage where the fan gets a “free” song. The advertiser gets the web traffic and the artist gets their proportionate share of the advertising money for each free download. Going a step further, the artist has the ability to collect information about the fan (i.e. email address, age, zip code) thereby providing the opportunity for a targeted ad buy , i.e. 18 – 25 year old woman in the 02134 zip code. Or, taken another step further, as opposed to a random ad appearing on a streaming Internet radio player as a Pixies’ song is played, assume an ad appears for a product that the Pixies selected, i.e. The Pixies use Gibson Guitars or they love the movie Fight Club. Targeted demographic marketing allows advertising fees to go way up.

TuneCore is launching this model in January 2009 (full disclosure, I am CEO). This connection allowing artists and corporations to work with one another directly may prove to be one of the better ways to generate revenue in the new model. New companies such as TuneCore can then become facilitators providing the tools and information to the artists to collect fans, create music and provide access to opportunities such as corporate sponsorships. I by no means believe this is the magic bullet to the problem, but I do think it has the potential to be part of the solution. In 1981, video killed the radio star, here’s to hoping the Internet does not inadvertently kill the musician.

My experience with Jango Airplay by Taylor Simons

Taylor Simons is the director of Customer Support and Solutions.

I first tried out Jango Airplay back in April when I first heard about the service. I used my colleague’s group OMG!Michelle to create a free account since I am not in a band myself. The upload process was super easy and I didn’t have to make any changes or conversions to the MP3 I uploaded. I first purchased 1,000 guaranteed plays and found it pretty thrilling to watch the play count rise over the first few days.

The songs I uploaded were quickly being played side by side with songs from OutKast, Beyonce, Kid Sister, Usher, Snoop Dogg and tons of other legendary artists. I then started to receive comments on my band page like, “Do you have a my space??? I wanna collab on a track wit you if possible. I like your style :] hit me up!!!” from a user in Lompoc, CA. And “Stupid Song….” From Ralnesha in Roanoke, VA.

Hey, it's all feedback, I just may not be booking a gig for OMG!Michelle in Roanoke anytime soon!

I bought another 1,000 the second my first thousand ran dry. So with a total of 2,000 purchased plays, to date I have received 40 comments and acquired 46 fans with an extra 297 free plays coming from general rotation. What I found really cool was that the fans were coming from OMG!Michelle’s hometown, NYC, Cali, Europe, South Africa and more!

What’s even better is that Jango gives me a way to e-mail each fan directly from my Jango Airplay account. Jango also does a great job of providing you with reports by gender/age and which other artists your fans listen to. (See below).

All of this is really helpful because you can request that your song be played on stations that those relevant artists are played on as well. You can also target fans by geography, which may be a great tool for getting some extra promotion around your tour dates.

In addition, Jango provides you with an artist page that allows you to upload pictures and a bio and permits listeners to leave you comments. There are many other cool features with Jango such as targeting fans by gender, age and more. Take advantage of our great relationship with Jango by purchasing guaranteed airplay at heavily discounted rates.

My one complaint about Jango Airplay is that I personally find it to be a bit addictive and they have yet to include a “Got an Airplay addiction? Call this toll free number” on their site; so purchase plays at your own risk…

iTunes Going DRM Free: What does it mean for you?

Jake Smith is a TuneCore customer support representative and editor of the TuneCore Newsletter

After 6 years, iTunes has announced that they will begin selling their entire catalog without DRM protection.  This raises a number of questions, and it is important to start discussing now what these changes could mean for all of us in the music industry.

DRM, or "Digital Rights Management", is proprietary code encoded in certain types of files to control where and how they can be used.  If you've ever purchased a song on iTunes before and tried to play it on a different computer, a message will come up saying that the computer is not authorized to play the file.  iTunes currently allows 5 computers to be authorized for any one iTunes account.  DRM protection reaches much further than just iTunes and digital music.  Movies, computer software, and video games often incorporate some types of digital rights protection.  For example, DRM stops (or attempts to stop) you from ripping DVD movies to you computer or by requiring you to enter a serial number before using a new program you've installed.

From the stand point of the music consumer, there is really no downside to iTunes removing DRM protection.  In addition to being able to move music more freely from computer to computer, music purchased in the iTunes store will no longer be limited to the iTunes library or iPods.  Files will be compatible with Windows Media Player, non-Apple based MP3 players, video game consoles and more.  From the label/artist stand point, the loss of DRM may seem good or bad depending on your personal philosophy.  Does it help your career in the long run by making it easier for fans to share, or is it simply less money coming to you for your hard work?

Realizing that the decision to drop DRM protection would be a controversial decision, and in an effort keep ahead of the rapidly growing Amazon store, iTunes announced they would sweeten the deal for labels by finally allowing labels to set price tiers for individual tracks.  We are waiting on iTunes to give us more specific information about this and we will make the details known as we receive them.

If you're looking for a more in depth look at these changes, I'd recommend this article from the staff of Macworld (http://www.macworld.com/article/138000/2009/01/drm_faq.html).  Some highlights include:

• iTunes DRM free files vs. Amazon MP3, which has always been DRM Free
• What happens to music purchased before the DRM change?
• Will the change affect TV Shows and Movies?

Reports say that this change will be taking place by June.  What do you think about this?  Was the DRM drop inevitable or is iTunes biting the hand that feeds it?  Let us know your thoughts.

Twitter fight! Twitter fight!

@zedshaw: @tunecoregary Holy crap man, write a blog post. Did you seriously message me that much today?

I recently had a long, occasionally sarcastic discussion on Twitter with Zed Shaw. Zed is a famously iconoclastic developer best known for creating the web server software Mongrel, that TuneCore and thousands of other websites use every day. He's a very, very smart guy, and lately he's been getting into music. He has some typically iconoclastic thoughts about how artists can sell their music directly, here, here and here.

This led to some spirited tweets between me (@tunecoregary) and @zedshaw. It got verbose, so he asked me to write a blog post. Voila. Here's a response to just a few points from the entries at the URLs above. Zed's right in several areas but way off in others.

What’s needed is a mechanism for a musician (or any artist) to put their music on their site, and then let a fan click a button to buy it. Wow, revolutionary right? A widget that plays some music, and then has a link to where you can buy the music. Gee, that sounds kinda hard, I wonder if I could do it.

We're doing that right now, except the links go to iTunes, where the music is already hosted, and they handle payment and download. That's got its plusses and minuses, everyone knows it. So maybe artists could go direct. Enormous questions about the specific mechanisms of payment (is it PayPal?), fulfillment (is it streams, downloads, partials, unlocks, what happens when a download/stream is interrupted?), copyright (there's incredible legal exposure here at all levels, who's responsible?) or quality issues/returns--those are questions merely at the selling end, what about the accounting end? But forget about all that and about the demands of artists and fans (who always want choices, choices) for a moment.

Direct sales are definitely possible, it's true. Artists have sold their CDs out of the trunks of cars at their shows for years. Selling direct off your own website is kind of like that. I expect most artists would still rather get into stores where more customers are. Since the Towers, Sam Goodys and Virgin Megastores of the world have collapsed or are on life support, those stores are now digital. It is true that they act as "walled gardens," where you search and browse only among music that has been hosted on those sites' digital shelves. Part of why we founded TuneCore was to stock the infinite shelf space of iTunes and Amazon so full of independents that it would lower those walls as much as possible. So far, that's working pretty well.

I would love for TuneCore widgets to offer direct sales to customers and allow artists to set their own pricing and completely bypass the stores such as iTunes. Unfortunately that is rife with a number of details around fulfillment and copyright that will take some time to work out. It's not as simple as an XSPF file and a few lines of Python.

As soon as there’s good search engines for music, and a good browser for music that does not honor walled garden we’ll see a massive change in the business. First to go will be these middle men...

If "middlemen" are not nimble enough to cope with the rapidly changing field, that is correct. If they truly are the "middlemen" that Zed believes us to be. If pushing files and pulling a cut of the cash was all they did, just maybe Zed might be right. However, if they provide a useful range of services and charge a fair price for it, they will survive. Further, someone who builds the search engine will become a new middleman (because of Google, SEO is a huge business) and whoever builds the browser software will probably do okay as well, in influence if not revenue (such as Firefox improving web standards compliance). And someone like TuneCore with a nice tidy place for artists to accumulate payments and host artists' assets and offer one-click or easy distribution to new venues will do just fine.

Zed also says this:

For whatever reason, Amazon caved to the labels, and in order to get the right to sell f---ing Britney Spears songs, Amazon probably agreed to cut out any potential competitors to the current business model.

That's not true. The sale of music online is rife with copyright issues, fraud and worse. This is the law, not the opinions of labels (granted, the labels had a lot of opinion on the writing of the law in the first place). TuneCore regularly pulls down albums that have been proven to contain uncleared samples or other stolen work. Most online stores have enough on their plate with customers. Stores aren't interested in dealing with hundreds of thousands of individual artists. They'd much prefer to let us do that. They love us, and we make their jobs easier. Why would they go direct and have to build that overhead of support and management? They'd have to charge more off the back end and the artist would make LESS money.

I'm paraphrasing, but Zed strongly implies that people like TC add little or nothing to the production chain and take revenue illegitimately, either up front or back end. That makes me sad. Zed apparently doesn't understand that a good distributor provides a useful service to artists, and he makes it clear he feels the sooner we can be cut out of the chain the better. As someone who has spent the last three years of his life helping artists earn money from their work, I have to respond. TuneCore provides label-like services without the traditional "sign here and give us your rights forever and the bulk of your earnings forever" handcuff model. TuneCore is most definitely NOT a label, or a "middleman." I built this company to be the good guys of the music business and I still believe strongly in that.

Another point: Zed may be right in that a cheaper competitor to TC might come along, even now there's some, but since when is "cheaper" the same as "better"? Eventually the digital music distribution space is going to be like web hosting - full of fly-by-night companies who offer cheaper and cheaper rates for no-frills service--because there's demand, and demand creates lots of different models. But then it's up to TuneCore to provide value for money. This is true of any business.

As for distribution channels and walled gardens: iTunes and Amazon MP3 are on the top of the heap right now, but that will not always be the case. TC will adapt to work with whatever new model comes along. I always conceived of TuneCore's distribution as agnostic, not dependent on iTunes or Amazon or eMusic or anyone. I'd love to seed torrents of artists' music to promote themselves, if thats what they want. We'd be happy to offer more streaming, or on demand CD printing, or direct sales via widget where the artist sets the price point. All that stuff is great, and we're working on as much as possible. But it has to be sensitive to a lot more than just the mechanics of moving the file, grabbing the cash and walking away. It's just not that simple, and the complexities are precisely where a PARTNER is just what's needed. If it's a fair partner, and a smart one, and a knowledgeable one, why not use them?

Here's to your success as a working musician.

Help! I Have 24 Hours to Save a Horrible Mix, Part II

Cliff Goldmacher is a songwriter, producer, engineer and the owner of recording studios in both Nashville and New York City. Cliff is also a regular contributor to EQ Magazine and Pro Sound News. He can be reached at cliff@cliffgoldmacher.com.

Part 2

Too Late! I’ve Only Got 24 Hours To Fix My Horrible Mix

OK, so you didn’t have a chance to read the first part of this article before you made the mistake of promising your mix to someone in the music industry and, as it stands, the mix just isn’t going to cut it. What do you do? Well, there are a variety of options and, as with almost everything in life, it’s only a matter of money. After explaining a bit about why a mix may be horrible, I’m going to give you three financial scenarios and how you can repair your mix in each of them. By the way, no matter what the scenario, be clear with the engineer up front that you’re under a considerable time crunch and give them an exact deadline. This way, there can be no misunderstanding about when you need your mix.

Why Does My Mix Sound Horrible?!?

For the sake of this article, we’re going to limit ourselves to the mix itself as the culprit. Often, especially early in one’s recording career, the bigger issues of a mix go back to the actual recorded performances. Unless the players/singers involved have a decent amount of studio experience, their performances tend towards the tentative or worse. But as I said, we’re going to assume the performances are solid and it really is a mix issue. Mixes can sound bad for a variety of reasons and this article is not really the venue for a technical explanation so I’ll keep the following descriptions brief. If you’re a beginning sound engineer here are a few things to think about. With the instruments, it generally comes down to a lack of each instrument having its own place in a mix whether for reasons of volume, panning, EQ or compression. With vocals, the issue is usually clarity (level, EQ & compression) and effects (reverb, delay, etc.). When a mix sounds dull and unexciting, it’s generally because things are over-compressed. If you’re not a sound engineer and you’ve gotten your mix back from someone who is (or claimed to be) and you’re not happy, the above descriptions are a good place to start when describing your problems to your new mix engineer.

Scenario #1 – Money Is No Object

For obvious reasons, this is the best position to be in with a bad mix and very little time to fix it. There are some real miracle workers out there who can take a crummy mix and bring the whole thing to life in relatively short order. Also, even though these folks are busy, it’s likely that not every one of the projects they’re working on is urgent. Your best bet would be to come in, explain the urgency of your situation and bring the mix (and mix files) with you so the engineer in question can give it a look/listen on the spot. Without necessarily saying you’ve got all the money in the world to throw at this mix, simply say that you understand this is last minute and you need their best work right away. Ask them what their fee would be (they ought to be able to give you a very close estimate) and accept. This is not the time to haggle as you’re asking for a lot from someone who is probably busy enough to say “thanks but no thanks” if you start to negotiate. By the way, whether you have the money right now or not, it’s in your best interest to familiarize yourself with the best engineers/studios in your area. You might not need them now but some day you might. It’s generally free to go visit a studio and talk to the owner or engineer and get a sense of their capabilities and rates.

Scenario #2 – You’ve Got A Few Hundred Bucks

You’ve got a couple of options here. First, you might want to ask a top engineer if they know of anyone who’d be willing to work for less. Often, top engineers have assistants who do good work and would love a chance to work on something at a more reasonable rate. A second-and perhaps better-option is to consider the world of independent producer/engineers who are in every town especially the music towns of Nashville, New York and LA. These guys might not have the reputations of the big engineers but will still do excellent work at reasonable rates.

Scenario #3 – You’re Out of Money

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you’re kind of screwed. You can pass up whatever opportunity was 24 hours away and hope that when your finances are a bit more flush you can go in and repair what’s wrong. Or you can turn the mix in as is. In this scenario, I’d almost always opt for passing on the opportunity. In the music industry, it’s very easy to poison the well by turning in something that isn’t ready for prime time. It’s better to make up an excuse and pass than to turn in something half-baked.

However, there are a few other options. First, the same top engineer that has assistants might also have interns. These guys might get the use of the studio from 2am to 8am and would be willing to work for nothing to gain experience and your loyalty. It’s certainly worth asking the top engineer if there are any interns who’d like to do the mix. The downside, of course, is that you’ll be working with an intern and there’s no guarantee you’ll get something better than what you’ve already got. Then again, you might. Second, if you’re really creative, talented, and lucky as all hell, there may be another way. Let’s assume you’ve got a terrific song and an almost “sure thing” to get it placed. You can always offer an engineer a significant piece of the pie if/when the song gets placed. Let’s assume the engineer loves the song and understands that there’s real potential. In a best-case scenario, the song does generate income and you end up giving half or more to the engineer. Be aware that this could end up being much more money for the engineer than the original mix would have cost you had you paid directly. You’ll have to chalk it up to experience and look at the placement as more of a resume builder than an income generator. I feel the need to say that this scenario is extremely rare. Most talented mix engineers are making a living by being paid for their work and not by taking chances on songs that are brought to them by unknown clients at the last minute. I don’t mean to sound harsh, but I’m a firm believer that if you want to earn income from your music, you have to treat it like a well-run business.

Your Best Bet

No matter which of the above scenarios you find yourself in, you’ll have sacrificed the one thing that music has to offer over most other businesses…fun. By adding a tight deadline, you’ve just introduced stress into the equation that, in most cases, could have been avoided. As I mentioned in the first part of this article, when it comes to mixing, your best bet is to be methodical, patient and sure you’ve got a mix you’re proud of before you start finding uses for it. After all, this is music we’re talking about and enjoying the process of making it is one of the best things a career in music has to offer.

Help! I Have 24 Hours to Save a Horrible Mix

Cliff Goldmacher is a songwriter, producer, engineer and the owner of recording studios in both Nashville and New York City. Cliff is also a regular contributor to EQ Magazine and Pro Sound News. He can be reached at cliff@cliffgoldmacher.com.

Part I

Well, I suppose I’ve got your attention now at any rate. Given what an emotional medium music is to begin with, it’s not surprising to me that songwriters and artists (myself included at some point in the murky days of my early career) find themselves panicking when they’ve committed to something that requires a finished product before they have it. In the old days, this used to be situations like planning a CD release party/show before you had the finished, shrink-wrapped CD in your physical possession. These days, it’s more likely that you’ve committed to getting a finished mix to a film/TV music supervisor or radio station by a specific date and after playing your mix for a few trusted friends or fellow musicians, your worst fears are confirmed. The mix is horrible. As this article will come in two parts, I’m going to spend the part one of this article giving you ways to completely avoid this situation to begin with. Then, in part two, I’m going to give you ways to salvage a desperate situation based on three different budget scenarios.

How To Avoid the Above Situation in the First Place

I understand how exciting it can be when you’re nearing the end of a recording project. You can almost count the money you’re going to make from sales or royalties. Stop! You’ve spent years perfecting your craft. You’ve taken your time and learned to sing, write songs, play instruments and, in some cases, even to engineer your own material in your home studio. Why would you try and rush one of the most critical stages of the game? A mix is the culmination of all your effort and should be handled precisely and patiently. My sincere recommendation is that you never promise a song to anyone in the industry for any reason until you’re dead certain you have a finished mix you can submit with confidence. By avoiding situations where you’ve promised something you don’t have, you won’t run the risk of not delivering and appearing undependable or, worse yet, turning in something that’s sub par. Set yourself apart from the stereotype of the flaky musician by delivering what you say you’re going to when you say you will. It might help to remember that at a certain level in the music world talent is a given. You have a better chance of differentiating yourself by being a professional in all senses of the word.

The Mix Process

Whether you’re mixing the song yourself in your home studio or working with a professional mix engineer, take your time. Listen to the mix on the speakers in the studio, in your car, on a boom box and, Steve Jobs help us all, on those crappy $30 ear buds that come with every iPod. Of course your mix won’t sound as good on a boom box or through ear buds, but it should still sound clear. You should be able to hear the vocal and distinguish the individual instruments without, for example, the bass making the speakers rattle so much that nothing else is audible. Also, it’s been my experience that singers tend to want their own vocals too low in the mix because they’re either self-conscious or they think because they already know the words that the lyric is clear enough…or both. My recommendation is to bring in one or two friends (ideally not musicians) to listen to your mix and give you their honest opinion. Musicians, as a rule, tend to listen to the wrong things in a mix. The average listener will give you valuable feedback like “I can’t hear the guitar because the drums are too loud” or “I can’t hear what you’re singing.” Musicians tend to get into the nitty gritty and often can’t keep the big picture in perspective. The one exception would be if you’re a relatively new engineer and you’re uncertain about how your mix sounds. In this case it might be worth your while to talk to an experienced mix engineer and even hire them to give you detailed criticism about things you can do to improve your mix.

Working With A Mix Engineer

For non-engineers, the main thing to remember when giving your mix to a professional mix engineer is to let them mix. My recommendation would be for you to explain to the engineer that you’re going to leave the mix to them and you’d like them to let you know when your mix is ready to review. Then take the mix home, listen to it on various sound systems (as I mentioned above) and take detailed notes about what you’d like to go over with them when you see them again. For example, instead of saying that there are some words in the song that aren’t loud enough, you’d do better to say “in the second chorus, the word “aardvark” is a little too low.” It is infinitely easier for an engineer to go over a checklist of things to review in a mix than it is for you to have them stop playback every time you think you hear something. In other words, do your homework and use your studio time with the mix engineer to methodically tweak whatever needs tweaking.

When It’s Done, It’s Done

By following the approach I’ve mentioned above, you’ll avoid the gut-wrenching feeling that you’ve got an opportunity you’re going to miss or screw up if your mix isn’t ready in twenty-four hours. My final piece of advice for this section of the article is to remember that once you’ve signed off on a mix, it’s in your best interest to let it go. Like songs, mixes can be tweaked and tweaked ad infinitum but my hope for you is that you’ve got enough else on your plate to know when to say when. Do your best and move on. The more you go through the process, the easier the “letting go” will become.

Stay tuned for Part II of this article, coming soon.

Viral Marketing–What’s Really “Real” About It?

Cliff Goldmacher is a songwriter, producer, engineer and the owner of recording studios in both Nashville and New York City. Cliff is also a regular contributor to EQ Magazine and Pro Sound News. He can be reached at cliff@cliffgoldmacher.com.

The Bad News

In my 15 years of making a full-time living in the music world, one thing has become more and more clear to me. It’s work. The romantic image of the starving artist being so incredibly talented that one day he or she gets “discovered” and becomes rich and famous is a dangerous myth. I say “dangerous” because the more you as an artist believe it, the less inclined you’ll be to do any work on your own behalf. The gritty reality is that if you don’t do the necessary (and daily) work promoting yourself and your music, it’s highly unlikely anything will ever happen.

The Good News

There has NEVER been a better time to spread the word about yourself and music. The internet, with its downloadable digital music files, social networking sites and countless other advances that we can’t even begin to imagine yet, has leveled the playing field in a way that will make the “work” you have to do infinitely more effective.

Gather Your Fans

The more you can identify and reach out to your fans the better off you’ll be. Whether it’s your friends on MySpace or Facebook or the email addresses you’ve been collecting at gigs or online, it’s these people who you need to be able to reach effectively to spread the word about what you’re doing. Treat your list of email addresses like the gold that it is. It’s these people who will not only consider buying your music when it comes out, but more importantly, will also help spread (“viral” get it?) the word about you and your music. Once you’ve got a network of fans that you can reach out to, you’ve dramatically increased your potential to spread the word about what you’re doing.

Be Creative

The fact that the playing field has been leveled and almost anyone can get their music out worldwide is both a blessing and a true challenge. Instead of fans knowing that the local Tower Records is where they should go to find new music, the internet, with its infinite musical venues, has become the new (and overwhelming) place to find what’s new and great. The more creative you are in your presentation, the more likely a fan of yours will be to forward a YouTube link with your video or any one of a thousand other ways you can create to present yourself and your music. Again, the plan is that by putting something out there that’s unique enough to rise above the typical internet fare, it will take on a life of its own and appeal not only your current fans but also to new fans in ways you’ve never imagined.

Stay Current

The outlets for music and ways of marketing online change and advance almost hourly. Taking time out of your day to be aware of the next MySpace, Facebook or Twitter will pay huge dividends going forward. It’s not enough to find one way of reaching people and stubbornly stick to it. If that were the case, bands would still be mailing postcards to let people know about their gigs. Did I just date myself?

Give It Away

Don’t be afraid to give something to get something. A free download of a song in exchange for an email address is the best deal out there these days. Make it worth someone’s while to give you his or her email address and you’ll be amazed at what happens. Let your music speak for itself. If fans like their free download, there’s a much higher likelihood they’ll come back and buy the rest. You don’t have to reinvent the wheel to do this either. Take a peek at a simple and effective example by clicking here.

Make Sure Your Music Is Available

I can’t think of anything more depressing than the artist who comes up with an amazing vehicle to promote his or her music, watches it go “viral” and generate huge web traffic to their site only to have nothing readily available for sale. Don’t expect most people to wait around or check back with iTunes every few days until your music is up. Make sure that before you go about promoting your music, you’ve taken the necessary steps to insure that if and when people want to buy your music, they can do it easily. Companies like Tunecore make this essential step both simple and cost effective. Don’t wait around for people to start asking how they can get your music. By then, it’s too late. Do it first.

Trust Me, It’s Real

Be patient. Not every online marketing attempt you make will result in thousands of downloads and new fans. However, every effort you make to get the word out about your music (even if it’s fifteen minutes a day) becomes part of the bigger picture of reaching new fans. The more fans you have, the greater the potential for any one thing you do going viral and bringing in not only more fans but income. All of a sudden your “friends” on MySpace and Facebook just became a whole lot friendlier. Think of your work as a series of base hits that will get you ready for your shot at a home run. Good luck!

The Value of a Good Mix, Part II

The Instruments

Getting great instrument sounds in a mix is a combination of many factors. Finding space in the mix for each individual instrument is essential. This is often achieved through judicious use of EQ, compression, volume and panning. For example, the skill it takes to get great drum sounds, marry the kick drum to the bass while also giving the electric guitars rooms to breathe and sparkle is developed over time and repetition…a lot of repetition. When this is done properly, the instruments are exciting to listen to. Each has its place and role to play and when they come together, the song takes on a life of its own.

Vocals

A great mix engineer always makes the treatment and placement of the vocal a priority. Once the instrumental mix is generally where it needs to be, it’s time to make certain that the vocalist is running the show. A combination of EQ, compression, tuning (if necessary), effects and volume fader automation should all serve the ultimate goal of making it sound like the singer is in charge. There are several risks associated with improper vocal placement. If the final mix has too much vocal, then the instruments end up sounding small and weak. However, if the vocal is too soft in the mix, it loses its ability to communicate the emotion of the song. Every genre has its preferred vocal level. In general, pop music has the vocal more integrated into the instruments whereas country music (with its emphasis on the lyric) generally puts the vocal higher in the mix. There are, of course, exceptions to every rule but a good mix engineer will know the genre he or she is mixing in and do the right thing for the song.

On a related note, one of the best reasons to bring in an experienced mix engineer even if you’ve recorded the song yourself is a fresh, objective set of ears. It’s been my experience that if the singer mixes their own project, they tend to keep the vocals too low for a couple of reasons. One is that most singers tend to get uncomfortable with their vocals up in a mix. There are precious few singers I’ve ever worked with who genuinely love the sound of their own voices. By keeping the vocal low in the mix, the vocalist/engineer won’t have to their comfort zone but the mix suffers. The second reason has to do with the fact that the singer already knows the words and assumes that they’re hearing the words when, in fact, they may be too low for someone who doesn’t know the song to understand.

Mastering a Good Mix

Mastering a mixed recording is a separate skill altogether. While this isn’t an article about mastering, I’d recommend using a dedicated mastering engineer (not your mix engineer) when it comes time for this step. More to the point, the value of a good mix is that the mastering engineer will spend much less time (their hourly rates are generally higher than mix engineer rates) getting the finished master together. In other words, money you spend on a good mix will end up saving you money on a final mastered recording.

Doing It Yourself

If you’re still intent on doing your own mixing, consider hiring an expert to mix a song or two for you and then ask them for the session files back. Assuming you’re using the same recording software (i.e. ProTools, Nuendo, Logic), you’ll be able to examine every detail of how the mix was done and use the finished mix files as a kind of tutorial so you can ultimately learn to do them yourself.

Cliff Goldmacher is a songwriter, producer, engineer and the owner of recording studios in both Nashville and New York City. Cliff is also a regular contributor to EQ Magazine and Pro Sound News. He can be reached at cliff@cliffgoldmacher.com.

The Value of a Good Mix, Part I

Cliff Goldmacher is a songwriter, producer, engineer and the owner of recording studios in both Nashville and New York City. Cliff is also a regular contributor to EQ Magazine and Pro Sound News. He can be reached at cliff@cliffgoldmacher.com.

Once you’ve decided to up the ante and put your music online for the world to hear, it’s in your best interest to pay close attention to every step in the recording process. One of the most vital of these steps is the mix of your song. It’s not enough to have a great song. You need a great recording and a strong mix is an essential part of any great recording. The art of mixing (and make no mistake, it is an art) is not a skill everyone possesses. It’s well worth your while, even if you’ve recorded your tracks yourself in your home studio, to seek out an experienced mixing engineer. While there is no substitute for a dynamic, exciting musical performance, a good mix can enhance every aspect of that performance so that the final sonic result truly makes your song stand out. On the other hand, a poor mix can severely compromise even the best song and performance. Only you can write and sing your songs. That makes you an expert in those areas. However, unless you’re also an expert mix engineer, I’d highly recommend going to someone who is.

Budget

I get it. Everyone wants to save money. I do, too, but there are places to save and places to invest. In an effort to keep recording costs down, many musicians have purchased their own recording equipment. This is terrific and there’s never been a better time to buy affordable, high-quality gear. As long as you’re as passionate about learning the engineering process as you are about your music, you’ll do great. Owning your own recording equipment also takes a lot of the pressure off when it comes to experimenting in the studio. Finally, it allows you to record as many takes as necessary to get the performances you want without worrying about the clock. However, one way to make the absolute most of your recorded performance is to let an expert mix them. It’s amazing what a talented, experienced mix engineer can bring out of a mix that might otherwise get lost or obscured at the hands of a less able mixer.

Before You Mix

Before I cover in greater depth what makes up a good mix, let’s go back to performance for a moment. No matter how great the mix engineer may be there are some things you simply cannot fix in the mix. To be more specific, there is no way to “mix in” a great vocal or instrumental performance. What makes a performance great might surprise you. For example, sometimes it’s what you don’t play that counts the most. In my experience, the best studio musicians are the best listeners. What I mean by this is that great players base their instrumental performance on whatever else is going to be played in the song so that all the instruments work together as a whole to serve the song and NOT their individual egos. Playing too much is the hallmark of an amateur studio musician. Secondly, the timely use of dynamics (where to play louder/softer or with greater/less intensity) is essential to a mix that breathes and has shape to it. Simply moving up and down a volume fader won’t do the same thing. When it comes to singing, all the Auto-Tune and reverb in the world won’t give a vocal performance real sincerity and emotion. All this to say, make absolutely certain that the performances are exactly how you want them before you start the mix process.

Stay tuned for Part II, coming up next week!

Jeff Price's Article in the Huffington Post

Here is the full text of TuneCore President Jeff Price's article that appeared in the first week of January, 2009's Huffington Post. Read it and reap. --Peter

From MTV to YouTube: When the Net Pays Everyone But the Musician

In 1996, taped to the wall of my now defunct record label spinART Records’ 800 square-foot, four-ikea-desk-loaded-with-unsold-CD-and-vinyl office was a $1 check from MTV. I fought hard for that stupid check. MTV wanted to use a song called “Supermerica” by a band called Poole that I released. Usually TV shows pay good money for the use of a song, but not MTV-- they required labels to allow them to use the music for free in their TV shows when you submitted a music video to be considered for programming on their network. I still don’t know why they even bothered saying they would pay a dollar. It really pissed me off. I had fronted money and worked my heart out along with the band to promote, market, manufacture and release their album and along comes a multi-national billion dollar media corporation and demands to be able to use the music for a stinking dollar. I refused to do it. The music had value to me, it was the thing we sold and the thing the band made the majority of their money off of. I could not just give it up for free. But, Harry (lead singer of Poole) convinced me to let MTV have it in anticipation of the promotional value they might get out of it. The show aired, the song appeared in the background for about 30 seconds, the show ended, MTV made money from the advertisers and the song was not mentioned anywhere. This was the way it worked. The labels fed MTV free music and videos and in return hoped to get their videos aired which in turn would drive huge music sales. And MTV made a fortune off the advertising.

And this is more or less why Warner Music recently demanded that all its videos and music be removed from YouTube. Warner previously granted YouTube the legal rights to use its content and YouTube generated a lot of money from it via advertising. Now Warner wants to be paid more by YouTube. If the Google-owned YouTube does not comply, it opens itself up to potentially tens of millions of dollars in copyright infringement fines. Universal did this same thing successfully some time ago.

When media giants fight over music, you know it has to be valuable. Looking, listening and occasionally buying a “good” song drives revenue, tremendous web traffic and generates big advertising dollars. I can kind of understand Warner’s point, but as music sales drop and the multi-national, billion dollar media giants wrestle, lobby congress and sue each other for new income streams the musician seems to be getting lost in the shuffle, and that’s a huge mistake. Creating a new revenue sharing model that focuses on allowing artists to generate enough money to continue creating music would be a win for everyone. After all, it is the music that is fueling the entire machine.

The union of music and advertising goes back decades, but it seemed to reach a new level with the launch of MTV. MTV broadcast free “TV shows” from the labels in the form of music videos. These videos brought viewers allowing MTV to charge money to advertise on its network. In return for the free videos, the labels and artists received promotion. Artists became more famous which in turn allowed labels to make more money from music sales (there were other income streams as well like money from gigs, but the labels only participated in revenue that came from the sale or license of the music). This symbiotic relationship worked very well as long as all involved made their fair share of money.

However, after over two decades of a steady annual increase in music sales generating enough revenue to feed the record industry, music sales plummeted. At about the same time, advertising revenue from music went through the roof. Internet companies made money off music via venture capital investments, going public and getting acquired for a billion dollars. And this is the crux of the problem, music is being used for profit but not everyone is getting a piece of the pie.

Music sales plummeted with broadband proliferation and the mass adoption of the Internet, MP3s, compression technology, peer to peer file sharing, instant messaging of files, email attachments, torrents and other on-line distribution vehicles. The labels found themselves wondering why they should continue to provide their music and videos for free if the channels/sites they gave them to were reaping a disproportionate financial benefit. Labels would not have given MTV free music videos in the 80’s if MTV made money off the videos but the labels did not. (Imagine ABC getting the TV show “Lost” for free, then broadcasting it and keeping all the advertising revenue.)

Move ahead in time to the launch of the original peer-to-peer music file sharing software Napster allowing anyone to get any song at any time for free. Tens of millions of users provided Napster a huge “viewing audience” that it could reach via its “channel.” Unlike MTV, most labels and artists did not give Napster permission to use their music. The one area where value could have been created – music sales from discovery – was made irrelevant by allowing users to get the songs for free. To add insult to injury, despite Napster raising almost 100 million dollars and then being bought for 8 million the artists and labels were not paid anything (some would even suggest they lost money due to pirating).

The money that labels did make came from suing Napster and getting paid settlements for copyright infringement; the artists got nothing.

Over time social networking sites began to pop up and MTV moved on to showing its own TV shows (why not, they now had their own built in audience). Bands began to use these sites to get heard, discovered and to collect fans. Music lovers flocked to the sites, web traffic went up and the social networking sites began to charge advertisers for banner ads based on the “eyeballs” they were getting (for a website, any friend of the band is a friend of theirs). Once again it was the bands’ and labels’ content driving the audience, and once again someone else was making money off the music without an equitable inclusion of the labels and bands in the equation.

Which brings us back to Warner demanding that YouTube take down its content until it receives what it perceives to be its fair share of revenue. Following Google’s one billion dollar acquisition, YouTube is not yet profitable and suggests it cannot give up even more of its advertising revenue. Labels contend that this is really not their problem and need to be paid more for the use of their “products.” Unfortunately, advertisers are not paying the same sort of rates for online exposure as for TV and radio airtime, and there is not enough money to go around. And the artists, the ones who create and make the music that fuels it all, have yet to be directly included in the conversation.

As the “golden era” of MTV morphs into the world of MySpace and YouTube, a new model of advertising around music – ads appearing on artist’s WebPages or popping up on a streaming internet radio player– is not creating enough money to share. And no one is seriously discussing sharing it with the artists anyway. How then in this shifting landscape can they survive?

One possible piece of the puzzle may be the democratization of corporate sponsorship; instead of companies deciding which bands they choose to endorse or random ads appearing when music is played, let bands decide which corporations they want to work with. Bands can then tells their fans to click a link to land at a sponsor’s webpage where the fan gets a “free” song. The advertiser gets the web traffic and the artist gets their proportionate share of the advertising money for each free download. Going a step further, the artist has the ability to collect information about the fan (i.e. email address, age, zip code) thereby providing the opportunity for a targeted ad buy , i.e. 18 – 25 year old woman in the 02134 zip code. Or, taken another step further, as opposed to a random ad appearing on a streaming Internet radio player as a Pixies’ song is played, assume an ad appears for a product that the Pixies selected, i.e. The Pixies use Gibson Guitars or they love the movie Fight Club. Targeted demographic marketing allows advertising fees to go way up.

TuneCore is launching this model in January 2009 (full disclosure, I am CEO). This connection allowing artists and corporations to work with one another directly may prove to be one of the better ways to generate revenue in the new model. New companies such as TuneCore can then become facilitators providing the tools and information to the artists to collect fans, create music and provide access to opportunities such as corporate sponsorships. I by no means believe this is the magic bullet to the problem, but I do think it has the potential to be part of the solution. In 1981, video killed the radio star, here’s to hoping the Internet does not inadvertently kill the musician.