TuneCorner

The Advantages of Using Session Musicians on Your Songwriting Demo

Why do professional recordings sound, well…professional? There are a number of reasons including high quality microphones, pre-amps, an experienced engineer and a well-designed studio space. But one of the single most important elements in a great-sounding, professional recording is the performance of the session musicians. There is a reason that the job of the session musician exists. It’s these musicians whose talent and studio experience contribute in a major way to the polished sound of a recording. Because there are different rules that apply when you’re recording an artist demo, I'm going to limit the scope of this article to songwriting demos specifically.

What Every Musician Should Know About Digital Distribution, Part III

Part III: The Myth of Marketing and Promotion

Aggregators take a percentage of your earnings, forever, with no ceiling—why? Because they can, but it’s hardly good public relations to say so. They control the only path a small label or band can take to reach the big digital retailers like iTunes, so they can set up any terms they want. In Part II, I showed why distributors might have been entitled to a limitless cut in the past, when physical product had to be placed into brick-and-mortar stores, with all the risk and overhead and managing required. But in the digital world, it’s almost indefensible. A new reason has to be claimed for taking a percentage: marketing and promotion.

Trending Is Live, Plus New Store: ShockHound.com!

We're LIVE with Trending data! If you had sales from iTunes in the last week (Monday through Sunday, May 26 through June 1, 2008), and iTunes reported it, log in and click "My Account" and you can download the week's report for only $2.98 and see what sold, how many, by song and/or album, by artist, and also see the COUNTRY, STATE and CITY and ZIP CODE of where it sold!!

We're going to be adding back weeks (and of course forward weeks) over time.

Enjoy this new data, it's revolutionary!

Also, new store! TuneCore now delivers to ShockHound.com, the soon-to-be-launched Hot Topic store and community service and sharing site.

Thanks everyone! Major announcement by email coming soon.

--Peter and the whole TuneCore Team

What Every Musician Should Know About Digital Distribution, Part II

Here's the second installment of my article. Enjoy!
--Peter

Part II: What to Look For in a Digital Distributor

If you want your music up for sale in iTunes, Rhapsody, Napster, AmazonMP3, eMusic, Amie Street, Zune, BestBuy.com or any of the stores that have emerged as “big guns,” you either have to build a direct relationship with each one of them, or go with a digital distributor. Most people can’t do it on their own: as I wrote in Part I, stores simply won’t set up a deal with you, as a matter of policy, unless you’re big enough (around 200 releases or with some top-tier material already proven to generate considerable revenue, so as to attract the stores’ attentions). If you’re that big, you have your own legal staff, have been in this business a while and probably don’t need any advice from me.

So if you are a small label or individual artist, you’re going to have to go with a digital distributor. How do you pick one?

Apple changes the rules again.....

Very soon we are due to launch a new feature for TuneCore customers. If you sold music in iTunes you will be able to log in and see weekly trending sales data showing how many songs and/or albums sold the previous Monday – Sunday, the zip code/postal code, country and city of the buyer. In addition you also see the date of the sale and the projected money you have earned.

Apple has released this data to TuneCore and we built the system to ingest it and split it up between everyone’s account.

I wrote a press release about this and sent it to our publicist. They wanted to see if we could get some big press out of it by offering it as an exclusive to a news source. Good idea. The news source gets the exclusive (meaning they get to write about it before anyone else does) and in return they commit to running a feature story. After the first two outlets passed on picking up the story, a third one showed interest and asked this simple follow up question.

“So itunes doesnt offer this type of report to artists directly?”

My answer (kept very bullet point and staccato as it was a factual press inquiry) was:

“To have access to this info you have to be in a direct deal with iTunes

iTunes does do not do direct deals with most artists. The artists need to go via middlemen (the aggregator)

Most aggregators do not do deals with most artists, they filter whom they choose to work with by varying degrees. Most aggregators try to do deals with labels.

The aggregator has access to the Apple data, but in addition to access, it needs to build the technology to ingest the reports and then the tech to splinter it out to the different labels in a deal with the aggregator.

The labels would then need to build the same system - ingest these daily files, splinter them out by artist, title, song etc and then create the technology to deliver these files to the artists outside of the royalty accounting periods.

Labels account to bands either quarterly or bi-annually - usually 30 to 90 days after the end of each quarter or bi-annual period. Labels do not provide this level of detail to a band (take it from a guy that ran one for 20 years)

So the short answer is no, artists have NEVER had access to this information before - Apple is the FIRST retailer on the planet (as far as I know) to release the zip codes/postal codes of its buyers to the supplier.

And TuneCore is the first "supplier" to hand this information to the artist”

I clicked send and about two minutes later realized the magnitude and importance of this.

For the first time a “retailer” (Apple) is allowing people to know extremely detailed information about its customers, down to the zip codes of its buyers.

This would be the same thing as Tower Records supplying the Zip Code of each buyer of CDs at Tower to the record labels.

It just did not (and does not) happen. This information is usually very highly guarded by the retailer (not to mention very hard to collect). And Apple released it. Kudos to them!

Because the release of this data is so new and no one has ever released this it before, there really weren’t pre-existing systems set up to ingest it all. And even with these systems built, there was still a barrier between the company that received the information and handing it out to the musicians.

In other words, record labels just do not send daily or weekly information at this level of detail to the actual artist. Sure, there is something called Soundscan, a third party company which trys to provide this data, but it is not 100% accurate nor does it have this level of detail. And although anyone can buy this information from Soundscan, the price is quite high (thousands of dollars for access to it). However, Soundscan does compile all the sales information from all the stores into one report. The reports in TuneCore are only from Apple.

That being said Apple is the number one seller of music in the US (if not the world).

Now, for the very first time, musicians can have very detailed information about who their fans are, where they live, what songs are being bought, how often, what country, how much money they have coming to them when the accounting statement shows up the following month and more from the largest seller of music on the planet.

With this information, musicians have the ability to plan a tour to where their buying fan are as well as promote themselves to local radio, TV, newspapers with hard proof that they should be covered. In addition, for TuneCore users, artist have a pretty good idea of how much money is coming down the pipeline and when.

Planning out cash flow, buying things, tour support issues all become a lot easier.

The most interesting thing to me is, the entities that control this data do not release it as many are concerned it could hurt them if they let it out, seems to me, it just makes things more robust and healthier. With more information, there is more reason to pursue your passion which can only be better for us all.

What Every Musician Should Know About Digital Distribution

Here's the start of an article I'm writing for several online resources. Enjoy!
--Peter

Part I: Distribution and Doing It Yourself

You can sell your music yourself right to your fans, on CDs you mail out of your home, from the trunk of your car, from a knapsack or on a collapsible table at your concerts or on a street corner. Direct selling has some real advantages—piracy is practically impossible, and as long as you track your inventory well, theft and even damage can be kept to a minimum. You keep all the money, other than your expenses. You can even decide who gets to be your customer.

But if you want help selling, if you want other people to sell or even give away your music for you, you have to get the music into their hands. That’s distribution: getting your product into the hands of other people who sell it for you. It costs, because there’s no way people are going to do the work of selling your music unless you pay them somehow, and it costs to get the music into their hands. How are you going to decide who should sell your music for you and under what deal terms? How do you get them the music, how will it be stored, how quickly and effectively can stock be replenished? How will you track the process, audit them to make sure they aren’t making mistakes or skimming? You’ll need to communicate with them about errors and suggest how you want your music sold. There’s a lot to keep track of when distributing, which is why musicians and labels traditionally hired experts, distributors, and paid them (often with a percentage) for their full-time efforts.

The DIY Guide To Singing In The Studio

I’m going to begin this article by quoting from one of my earlier articles:

Your career as a recording artist hinges on many things from the songs you choose to the musicianship on your records. But the single most important thing for your artist identity is your voice. Your ultimate goal as a vocalist is to sound exactly like yourself. In other words, the more relaxed and confident you are as a singer, the more people will know who you are and what you’re about. In reality, it’s predominantly musicians who listen to CD’s for the musicianship, but the people who decide to buy your CD will connect with your voice first and everything else much later.

This article will serve as a do-it-yourself primer for how to approach singing in the recording studio. In today’s independent musical environment, it’s typically the case that you will play the part of not only the artist, but the manager, record label and producer, too. The trick when it comes to getting great vocal performances is to make the most of each of these roles by knowing which role to play and when. I’ll be describing your responsibilities for each of these roles in the paragraphs below.

The TuneCore Huffington Post Article

This posting went live at the Huffington Post some time ago - I thought it made sense to make it available here as well.

The Democratization of the Music Industry

(The original posting can be found here.)

Due to the advent and adoption of the Internet, digital media and hardware by the masses, control of the global music industry has being broken. For the first time, all music creators can choose to be their own record label – there are no longer subjective gatekeepers controlling who gets let “in”, promoted, exposed and made available to the masses, the choice now becomes ours.

For the past century, artists could record, manufacture, market, and, to some degree, promote their own music, but no matter if they were The Beatles, Elvis or Led Zepplin, they could not distribute it and get in placed on the shelves of the stores across the country, the required costs and infrastructure of the physical world were just too massive – a 500,00 square foot warehouse staffed with 30 people,  trucks and inventory systems, insurance, a field staff of 30 people walking to music stores leveraging, begging, pleading and paying to get the CD, album, 8-track, wax spool etc on the precious shelves of the retail stores.

Musical Freedom = Musical Responsibility

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." ~George Bernard Shaw

As a musician, entrepreneur, and consultant, I've spent a lot of time thinking about how to create a new "path" for musicians to succeed.

Unlike the olden days, success doesn't have to equate with record sales, or even concert attendance.

Why? The emerging music industry is flexible. There aren't any make-or-break "gatekeepers." It's wide open and the costs are pretty much zero. There are no barriers to expression. Make a song for your mom and email it to her. Or take over the British singles charts. Whatever. Make what you want of it.

The key word, however, is "you". Even more than usual, musicians are the ones who will be ultimately responsible for music's progress.

Online Music is the Future of the Music Business, and the Future is Now.

Hey all,

Sorry about the hokey title, but I wanted to get my opinion on digital retail and distribution out straight away. I’ve been a fan of Jeff Price’s for awhile, having admired SpinART, the early work he did with EMusic, and what he has now done with TuneCore. To me, digital distribution is one of the greatest things to come out of the Internet, as it pertains to music.  To read stories about Trent Reznor spending $56.61 to distribute Ghosts I-V to Amazon’s MP3 store through TuneCore really blows my mind.  And the best part is that every independent artist can do the same thing.   

I’ve worked at several indie record labels over the years, and I now teach a 12-week online course for Berklee College of Music's online school called Music Marketing 201. My course covers all the major marketing segments an artist should consider when creating their marketing plan: building and maintaining your community, merchandising, branding, online marketing and video, advertising, publicity, some form of radio (online, non-com, and college primarily), touring, and of course retail and distribution. We thought it might be helpful to provide you with a free lesson excerpt from the course.

How to Make 1,000 True Fans

Last month Wired magazine Editor-at-large, and former Executive Editor, Kevin Kelly wrote an article called “1,000 True Fans.” Kelly claims that for a musician to make a decent living they need 1,000 true fans. He defines a true fan as:

“A True Fan is defined as someone who will purchase anything and everything you produce. They will drive 200 miles to see you sing. They will buy the super deluxe re-issued hi-res box set of your stuff even though they have the low-res version. They have a Google Alert set for your name. They bookmark the eBay page where your out-of-print editions show up. They come to your openings. They have you sign their copies. They buy the t-shirt, and the mug, and the hat. They can't wait till you issue your next work.”

That’s a fairly easy goal for an artist with the power of a major label-marketing machine behind them, but what does this mean for the independent artist or band that’s just released their first album? It means that a musician needs to view their fans and their relationship with them very differently than they have in the past. A true fan feels they are supporting something they are personally invested in. They want the band to succeed so they will continue to create music the fan feels a connection with. So, how does an artist create a relationship with listeners that will turn them into these coveted true fans?

What A Producer Does and Why You Should Consider Using One

(by TuneCore user Cliff Goldmacher)

Working as a producer for the last ten years, I’ve recorded with all kinds of artists from “fresh off the boat” newbies to artists whose experience in the world of music doubles or even triples my own. In every case, my role as a producer stays essentially the same.  It’s that role that I’m going to describe in this article.

What Is A Producer?

The best way I know to describe what a producer does comes in the form of this analogy: a producer is to a recording as a director is to a film. When it comes to making a film, the buck essentially stops with the director.  It’s the director who steers the ship working with everyone from the technical editors to the actors in order to achieve his or her overall vision of the movie.  It is exactly that way with a producer when it comes to making a recording.  Not only must the producer have the experience to work with the studio engineer (often possessing the technical expertise to engineer the project themselves) but the musical understanding to help the artist with everything from song choice, structure and arrangement to the all-important vocal performances that are vital in giving a recording its personality.  In short, a producer provides the experience and necessary perspective to guide a recording from start to finish.

Why Every Artist Needs a Blog, by Kyra Reed

Kyra Reed got started in the music biz managing Portland, OR, bands Stars of Track and Field and The Upsidedown. She currently is a New Media and Interactive Consultant working with bands, venues and labels all over the U.S. Kyra's new eBook, Blog101, is written specifically to help artists navigate their careers online. This article is written especially for TuneCore.

Back in the days before Myspace, most bands relied on emails and shows as their only avenue for staying in touch with fans. Today, it's easy to become overwhelmed by the number of technologies artists can use to build relationships with the public: social networks, Twitter, blogs, texting, the list goes on. To fully take advantage of these tools, a band needs a central online location to syndicate its presence across the web; one place fans know they can visit for the latest information, photos, press, tour dates, etc. A website has historically filled that role, but most are already outdated. Traditional sites just don’t allow for social interaction or easy updating of information ("content management").  If you are ready to retire your website or are thinking about launching a new one, a blog can provide a useful (and CHEAP) format for building out your online presence. Here's a few bullet points to help frame your thinking about how to leverage the millions of fans and industry connections out in the blogosphere:

1. A Free Website
A blog is far more than just an online diary. It is built on a CMS (content management system) which allows you to build additional pages, add widgets and plug-ins, manage your content and even sell ad space. The best part is, all of this is easy to do: no webmaster required.

Take a look at how these bands are using their free blogs as their main websites: 
The Upsidedown

Saturna

Sink to See

2. Express Yourself/Evangelize your fans

Chances are, the last album you released is not the only piece of art you have created in the last six months. What about that photo essay you took on tour, or the paintings you did for the album cover? Has anyone outside the band ever heard that killer jam session you recorded in the van on the way to L.A.? Most musicians are constantly creating and have no outlet for sharing it with their fans. A blog allows you to post all of the other art, ideas and creations that don't fit on an album. Offering your fans more of you will create stronger loyalty and interest in the products that you want them to buy.

3. Control your Assets
Unlike a Myspace page, your blog is YOURS. You control the content and the ads. When you draw traffic to an ad-supported site, you are using your fans to make money for other people, and you don't get a dime. I'm not recommending that you abandon your social networking profiles, but work on directing the traffic from your profiles to a site you own, too. Another risk you run is being deleted. Despite the number of hours you spent building your page, you don't own it and can be deleted for any reason, without recourse. I know bands that have suffered this unfortunate fate. Finally, a blog is your domain: say and do what you like, post what you want.

4. Build your Fan Base
Most importantly, the technologies (RSS, linking) and social norms pioneered by bloggers have become the new standards for community (read "fan base") building on the web. New social tools are being developed almost daily that integrate seamlessly into a blog. Would you be caught dead selling only SACD's at your show when most of your audience uses an iPod? Apply the same concept to your fan outreach and you won’t be disappointed.

For more information about how a blog can help you, purchase a copy of Blog 101 and visit these blogs often blog101book.com and kyrareed.com.

Ken Goes, Pt. II

Music Publishing, Part II, by Ken Goes

Ken Goes was the manager and publishing administrator of The Pixies for over two decades and provides this information exclusively for TuneCore customers. If you missed Part One from our newsletter, read it in our blog, TuneCorner, here.

IMPORTANT: This information is not intended as legal advice.

Only the owner of the song has the right to reproduce or make copies of his or her song. The owner also has the right to grant permission to others to reproduce or make copies of his or her song. So, before you can record and make copies of someone else’s song, you need to get permission from the owner. You get that permission by getting a license, just like you get permission to drive by obtaining a driver’s license.

This license is called a mechanical license. By getting this mechanical license from the songwriter or from a music publishing company acting on behalf of the songwriter, you will then have permission to record, reproduce or make copies of the song.

A word about music publishing companies and the ownership of songs - The songwriter is the owner of the song. But most songwriters do not look after the rights to their songs. Issuing licenses for the use of a song, collecting the royalties, accounting, etc. is a lot of work. This kind of work is called administration. In most cases, songwriters have music publishing companies do this administration for them. But in many cases, the songwriter sells the song to the music publisher. In this case, of course, the music publisher is the owner of the song and the rights that go with it. But whether the music publishing company owns the song or administers the rights to the song on behalf of the songwriter, the music publishing company will issue the mechanical license.

To sum up : getting a mechanical license gives you permission to reproduce (copy) the song. Of course, in using TuneCore, the song is being reproduced digitally, but it's the same principle : every time someone downloads the song, a copy is made.

For every copy sold, the songwriter or publisher must be paid. The amount required to be paid for the sale of each copy of a "composition" is called the mechanical royalty. The royalty rate is established by the Copyright Royalty Board of the Library Of Congress; a government agency empowered by Congress to determine the royalty rate. The royalty rate set by the Copyright Royalty Board is called the "statutory rate." Statutory is a fancy legal word meaning required by law. So, the rate set by the Copyright Royalty Board is the statutory mechanical royalty rate.

The current statutory mechanical royalty rate that must be paid to the song owner or publisher is 9.1 cents ($.091) per copy. When you record a cover song, every time that recording sells, you owe the songwriter or publisher 9.1 cents. All mechanical licenses will specify this rate. Sometimes the rate is specified in pennies; otherwise the license will specify the "statutory rate." In some cases, you can negotiate with the songwriter or publisher for a lower rate, but unless you can demonstrate that you will have enormous sales, the likelihood of getting a lower rate is slim. Finally, the rate does not remain static or permanent. In fact, as I write this in February 2008, the Copyright Royalty Board is considering a change in the statutory rate.

A word about the "Compulsory License." You may have heard of something called a “compulsory license.” The U. S. Copyright Law allows you to get a "compulsory license" in lieu of getting a mechanical license directly from the publisher or songwriter. But this method is a lot more work. Using this method entails specific requirements for notifying the song owner and stringent requirements for accounting. And you will still pay the full statutory mechanical royalty rate. It is not recommended that you try this method. The best and easiest way to get a mechanical license is from the songwriter or the publisher directly.

We hope that's clear, but we're not quite done. Now, let’s say you want to make a video of your recording of "Yesterday." You'll need another license. This license is called a "synchronization license." This "synch license" gives you the right to synchronize the "composition" (song) with visual images. The synch license also contains the same right as a mechanical license; the right to make copies. But the synch license is not a substitute for a mechanical license. The only reproductions or copies you can make with a synch license are copies of your video containing the "composition." And, depending on how you want to use the video, you may be restricted as to how many copies you can make. For instance, if you want only to have your video broadcast on TV, the internet, cell phones, etc., you may be restricted to making copies for just that purpose. But if you also want to sell your video over iTunes or anywhere else, you must have that right specified in the license. A synchronization license is a lot more fluid and flexible than a mechanical license, so when you get one, be sure you know what you want to do with the video and make sure you ask for those rights to be included in the license.

You get a synch license the same way you get a mechanical license. You must contact the publisher or songwriter. There is no set royalty rate for a synch license. It is all negotiable between you and the songwriter or publisher. You can negotiate to pay a one time up-front fee or pay a royalty. The royalty rate will be the amount agreed upon between you and the publisher for the sale of each copy. In some cases, you may have to pay both an up-front fee and a royalty, or an advance against future royalties and subsequent royalties once the advance is paid off. It all depends on your negotiations with the publisher.

The mechanical right, the synchronization right; these, along with others, like the reprinting of lyrics, are called publishing rights. This is music publishing.

A word about The Harry Fox Agency. The Harry Fox Agency is a giant agency that also administers music publishing rights, though they do not issue synch licenses nor do they grant permission to reprint lyrics. Just like music publishers act on behalf of songwriters, The Harry Fox Agency acts on behalf of songwriters and publishers too. In many cases, they will be the source you will go to for a mechanical license.

At this point you are probably asking yourself : How do I find the owner or publisher of a song? Just about every song in existence is registered with either ASCAP, BMI or SESAC. ASCAP, BMI and SESAC all have web sites that you can search to find the owner or publisher of a song. Remember, there are many songs with the same title, so be sure you are identifying the right song. If you know who wrote the song, it will make your search a lot easier. Once you have found the right song title and writer, the information regarding the owner or publisher will be there alongside it. Another good site that will help you track down the administrator of a song is The Harry Fox Agency web site called SongFile. By visiting these web sites and doing a little detective work, you will, in most every case, find out who you must contact in order to get a license. The license will be very specific about who to pay, how often you must pay and, of course, the amount to be paid. Good Luck.

If you missed Part One from our newsletter, read it in our blog here.

Music Publishing, Part I, by Ken Goes

Ken Goes was the manager and publishing administrator of The Pixies for over two decades and provides this information exclusively for TuneCore customers.

IMPORTANT: This information is not intended as legal advice.

This section is about music publishing. Music publishing is about the ownership of songs. Music publishing is about the rights of songwriters and song owners. And perhaps most importantly, music publishing is about money.

Music publishing can be complex and confusing. Our aim here is to simplify the most basic concepts of music publishing as they relate to "covers." Covers are normally songs written by established artists like, for instance, "Yesterday" by The Beatles. But covers don’t have to be popular songs. A cover can be a song that has been recorded by an unknown artist. The important thing to remember is that any song which you record that was written and previously recorded by someone else is a “cover.”

The first thing we have to understand is that a song and a recording of a song are two different things. They are two distinct properties. These two properties are called the "sound recording," (sometimes called the "master") and the "composition,” (sometimes called the “work”). Music contracts of all types use these terms to designate one or the other.

Here we are mainly interested in the “composition.” The common everyday word we use for “composition“ is the word song. In the following, whenever you see the word song, you can think composition and whenever you see the word composition, you can think song. These two words are synonymous and are used here interchangeably.

Like all property, these two properties, the “sound recording” and the “composition,” come with rights. Just as you have a right to determine who uses your personal property, owners of the “sound recording” and owners of the "composition" (song) have the right to determine who uses their property.

Who owns what? Let’s see by way of the following examples. Let's say you record the Beatles' song "Yesterday," probably the most covered song in history. Since you have made the recording, you own the property called the “sound recording,” that is, your particular recording of the song. But the recording is a cover of a song. You did not write the song. You do not own the song. The song is owned by the Beatles, (or more likely a music publishing company, but more on that later). The song or “composition” is also property.

Another example : Let’s say three separate bands record the song “Yesterday.” We still have only two properties : three of one kind : the “sound recordings,” and one of the other kind : the “composition.” To sum up, we have the “composition” and we have the “sound recording” of the “composition.” Two separate properties.

These kinds of property are called, "intellectual property." Other kinds of intellectual property are books, movies, paintings and so on. And, as mentioned earlier, these properties come with rights. The particular right you have to your “sound recording” and the particular right the Beatles have to the "composition" is called a COPYRIGHT. A copyright is the right to reproduce or make copies. This right is granted by the United States Copyright Law and similar laws in other countries. If you would like to learn more about the United States Copyright Law, please go to : http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wc.

If you missed Part Two from our newsletter, read it in our blog here.

What are they thinking....

I read this interesting story about how the RIAA is not sharing settlement money with artists.  Here is a cut and paste from the story by Corey Doctorow over at BoingBoing.

The record industry has sued over 20,000 music fans to "protect artists' copyrights." But they haven't turned over any of the money to artists (of course, they never forked over any of the money from my.mp3.com, Grokster, Napster, etc).

A contingent of prominent artist managers claims that little to none of that money has trickled down to their clients. They are now considering legal action.

"Artist managers and lawyers have been wondering for months when their artists will see money from the copyright settlements and how it will be accounted for," said lawyer John Branca, who has represented Korn, Don Henley, and The Rolling Stones, among others. "Some of them are even talking about filing lawsuits if they don't get paid soon."

You would think with labels going under and more and more of their artists leaving they'd learn that treating artists with respect and paying them their fair share of the money.  I guess they still just don't get it.

 

Yahoo! Music and Rhapsody: How Does It Affect You?

Yahoo! recently announced they'll be discontinuing the Yahoo! Music Unlimited service. TuneCore customers with music already in the Yahoo! service (via MediaNet) will still be able to sell it right up until Yahoo! Music Unlimited closes its doors (no specific date has been offered). Some royalties may still trickle in for several months thereafter, and TuneCore will always pass those on to you.

Yahoo! will migrate its customers over to Rhapsody in the coming months, which means Rhapsody's streaming and sales numbers should see a boost once the migration is complete. If your music isn't already up in the Rhapsody service, now would be a good time to add it.

What do you think about Yahoo!'s decision to shut down its service? How about Rhapsody's strategy to acquire customers through corporate deals like this one with Yahoo, and previously with MTV Urge and Verizon Wireless? Can Rhapsody single-handedly keep the music subscription model alive? Share your thoughts here.

The Music Industry's Future: Up for Debate

Hey all,

I decided to search for articles online which I thought offered some great insight as to what the future of the music industry may look like. With the recording industry suffering a great deal and more and more people become less willing to pay $20 for a CD these articles offer a different take on how to sell music profitably in the internet age.

Wired's New Spin on the Music Business
By Katie Dean, this article reports the proposals from the likes of Terry Fisher (Harvard Law Prof.) who offers an approach which would compensate artists based on the popularity of their music.

Wired's Long Tail Article
By Chris Anderson, this wildly popular article has actually since been expanded into a book. Anderson tries to prove here why he believes that the future of the music industry will be selling less of more rather than our current hit driven more of less market. Truly fascinating and very relative to artists using services such as TuneCore.

Music Business Solutions' What's New in the New Music Industry
By Peter Spellman, the director of career development at Berkley College of Music, this article provides a very in-depth to explaining the history, current state and future of the music industry.

GigaOM's The New Music Industry article
By Raghav Gupta gives a run down of the current music business model and bullet points the challenges and opportunities we now face in the digital realm. Good for catching up to speed.

Digital Music Web Blog: 6 laws for the new MB
Posted by Grant Robertson, here is a short to the point article bulleting 6 "laws" for record label execs in the new music industry.

If you take a few minutes to read any of these posted articles hit me back and let me know what you think... too optimistic? ...too radical? ...got any better ideas/proposals for the industry? Let me know!

-Taylor

Payola, Merges, Top Money Makers and Global Domination for Artists World Wide!

First; an introduction…

           Hey all this is Taylor, the newest addition to the TuneCore team and I would love to be able to post and discuss with everyone the many challenges and opportunities we all face being a part of the Music Industry. I have recently just come from working at a major record label and TuneCore has given me the opportunity to be a part of something 100% opposite of the major label process and for that I couldn’t be happier. Now on to some industry talk…

Payola Players Getting Played

           The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) is not forgiving or forgetting the world’s top major labels for foul play airplay and instead is requesting that those convicted of payola are subject to the following terms:

  “An admittance of wrongdoing; a five-year time span for the consent decree; stiff financial penalties; an annual report to the FCC and third-party monitoring of broadcasters; disclosure of playlists, reports and transactions to the Commission; transparency, conformity to payola rules and use of local and independent music in music tests; airplay for independent artists and a public announcement of all terms of the agreement online and on-air.”  To read more from the FMQB article click  HERE.

          With a now somewhat awkward relationship between commercial radio and major label promo departments and newer formats for broadcasting music on the rise, many industry insiders have begun to think that radio playlists may actually start to diversify by including more non-major acts. When considering the growing popularity of internet radio and the private sale of Clear Channel… who knows? The payola settlement is said to be in the ballpark of $10 million for the four major broadcasting companies (Clear Channel, CBS Radio, Citadel and Entercom).

Speaking of change…

          With the music industry’s shift into the digital realm one can expect a great deal of change. EMI is undergoing a “massive reconstructing plan” (most likely a fancy name for downsizing) in which Virgin and Capitol records will join forces and become The Capitol Records Music Group. Although the major labels are in need of updating their current business model, I can’t help but to wonder if simply merging labels is really the change they need. Regardless, it is happening more and more as the independent music scene continues to give the corporate giants a run for their money. EMI has also just recently reported expected losses of 15% a decline from last month’s predicted 10% drop. This is the second time this year that EMI has cut their expected profit and revenue earnings.

Don’t feel too bad…

          Now, now before you go and start feeling sorry for the Top 40 players let me introduce you to a little list Forbes magazine likes to call the “Top Money Makers in 2006.” The top 10, which totals a collective of $973 million, are as follows:

1. The Rolling Stones: $150.6 million
2. Tim McGraw/Faith Hill: $132 million
3. Rascal Flatts: $110.5 million
4. Madonna: $96.8 million
5. Barbra Streisand: $95.8 million
6. Kenny Chesney: $90.1 million
7. Celine Dion: $85.2 million
8. Bon Jovi: $77.5 million
9. Nickelback: $74.1 million
10. Dave Matthews Band: $60.4 million

Global Domination…

             Something artists across the world and at any level of popularity will be excited to learn is that the push for a Global Music License is no where near to an end and is still in consideration from the IFPI (International Federation for the Phonographic Industry). The reason this seems a more likely proposal now than ever before is because of the continuing decline of CDs and retail stores in addition to the recent fee based agreement between Universal Music Group and Microsoft which is very similar to the structure of the proposed Global Music License.

            The agreement between UMG and Microsoft is a fee based system where UMG and its artist’s receive a fraction of the sale of each Zune player. If a Global Music License is enforced, this would allow artists to finally receive compensation for the lack of royalties in the sales within the digital realm; thus creating yet another revenue stream for artists selling their music online (TuneCore anyone?). Instead of a royalty based system, the money would come from Internet Service Providers’ monthly subscriber fees and this would also justify the right to copy digitally owned music.

           In regards to copying digital music, customers would acquire the ability to juggle their music between any type of digital music player. This is something I always was hoping would come sooner rather than later as the current situation is just begging to be completely monopolized.

Exciting news to say the least; and I would like to know… any thoughts, questions, concerns or simply just want to type sweet nothings into my ear? Comment below:

Ricky Snags a Grammy

Yet another TuneCore artist was awarded a Grammy at this year's 49th annual Grammy Awards, that being the renowned Blue Grass artist, Ricky Skaggs. Skaggs and his band Kentucky Thunder were awarded with the 2006 Grammy for Best Blue Grass Album for his latest album, Instrumentals,  making this the fourth time he has received this acclaim. This year it was an especially coveted achievement as all eleven tracks were written by Ricky Skaggs and  in addition this was his first instrumental album which beat out other great albums which included lyrics. Throughout the span of his 35 year career as a professional musician Skaggs has been granted 12 Grammy awards including Best Country Instrumental Performance (years 1983,1984 and 1986), Best Country Vocal Collaboration in 1991, and Best Country Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal in 2003.

We are so excited for Ricky as this also marks the second album in the TuneCore system to win a Grammy. Ricky Skaggs joined the TuneCore roster in August of 2006 to upload his latest Grammy winning album, Instrumentals. Shortly after, Skaggs took advantage of the TuneCore services and uploaded other great collections from his chart topping catalog. We are lucky to be involved with such a talent and look forward to a future sure to be full of great music and admirable success!

Check out the Skaggs family website to learn more. Click Here.

Food for Thought: I'll Have the Apple Pie

Steve Jobs just posted this essay in his Apple blog:

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/

It makes for interesting reading. In essence, Jobs says, "If you big music companies stop making us use DRM, we'll stop requiring it." The numbers Jobs uses does make the whole DRM-for-iPods thing sound academic, against the massive exchange of music that bypasses DRM altogether. That makes we consumers hope there'll be a mass throwings-in of towels and the end of DRM altogether.

What Jobs doesn't mention is how this might affect iPod sales. By not mentioning it, he implies he doesn't really consider it a problem--which further implies his confidence that iPod sales won't be affected because people buy them not to comply with DRM on already-purchased (or to-be-purchased-through-iTunes) music, but rather on the sheer merits of the iPod, and presumably future iPods and iPhones.

That's refreshing! I like the idea that Jobs values competition and, staring it in the teeth, has no fear of losing market share even in the face of losing a few shreds of market protection. This is the crux of the argument, of course: DRM even now is just a shred of armor, barely matters to even 3% of what's out there digitally. So in a sense, Jobs can look at the iPod market domination and say, "Hey, we already won, it's practically a free market anyway, and the iPod rules!"

In that way, Jobs is stating he has nothing to lose: he can side with the NO DRM crowd (related to the "all music should be free" crowd, they're cousins), thereby making Apple look neutral in the debate. And in this debate there is no neutrality, so it shifts the burden of DRM squarely onto the big record companies.

I suspect a stance like that will sell more iPods.

--Peter

Thinking about what to say to what I hope is a room full of people

This Saturday October 7th in New York I am the keynote speak at the DIY Convention - located at the Anthology Film Archives, 32 Second Avenue at Second Street.   I have been on many panels, seminars and taught a few classes but this is my first time being a "keynote" speaker.

The opportunity came out of the blue - a man names Bruce Haring called me up about two months ago.  Last time I spoke with Bruce was around 1996 when he interviewed me for his book Off The Charts .

Bruce simply asked if I would consider being the keynote speak at the DIY Convention.  I said yes - I was very flattered by the offer.

So I have been thinking about what I am going to talk about - and I have drilled it down to a few things; the distruptive nature of technology and the removal of the gatekeeper.  In effect, via technology, all media ( print, film, music, pics and more) can gain mass distribution without needing to go via a middleman.  Technology provides virtual unlimited inventory (usually a huge obstacle for people as they need to make the inventory up front) and a way to get it out to the world.

...and I am still tossing over in my head if there is a parallel between what is happening today based on this new technology and what happened in the 15th century when Johannes Gutenberg came up with another new technology -  the first mass producing printing press (of course everyone could not really read back then, but let's just ignore that :)  )

Soldster?

So Napster has stated it might be for sale. The stock climbed four points on the mere hope, to an all-time high.

We've had nothing but great dealings with the Napster folks. Wish them the best. They're trying to earn a legal dollar in this crazy business, despite the reputation its name garnered back in the day. I respect that. I wonder who will acquire them? They said "A few companies have expressed interest"--that could be anyone or anything. I can't help but imagine it's a music company, though. Music companies so badly want a profitable (or potentially profitable) space in the download world.

Well, here's hoping they find a good home.

--Peter

Form and Analysis

In high school, I studied piano and music theory. I remember building four-part harmonies and counterpoint, learning the rules of chord progression, the scales, even a bit of twelve-tone theory for spice.

When  I look at a site like Pandora, I'm a little awed. The Music Genome Project has created this site and is populating it with music profiles, "DNA"s of music. Their people sit around categorizing music not by traditional "form and analysis," but other, less academic methods. These are invisible, transparent to the end user, but you get a "profile" and they match music to your tastes.

I think the old traditional way of analyzing music formed a method, a vocabulary whereby those educated in it could find the music they liked, or, in the language they used a hundred years ago, the music that was "eternal" or "great" or "timeless." These new systems democratize, reach not for common denominators of greatness, but for an infinitely versatile sliding scale that codifies and uses your own tastes in the service of exposing...and marketing, of course.

I'm of mixed minds about it. After all, they don't teach you how to use or apply the scale themselves, they don't educate. You click a button and they provide "music you might like" based on their algorithms, their black-box analysis of the music in your own iTunes library or on your hard drive. They'll only suggest music in their own catalogs, of course, which is a marketeer's delight, and that also worries me. This tool can be used for evil--coopting the Internet's astounding heterodoxy with normalizing traits: it doesn't matter what you like, SOMETHING mainstream in our catalog will match your "profile" close enough, you should listen to this, then buy it from us. This is already happening on Pandora--you can only skip (read "browse") a few titles, then you're stuck listening to what they gave you. Hmm.

But the Internet routes around even these sorts of things, because you can't put a lid on the idea. Other sites with other algorithms will pop up, ones which match in different ways. I expect there'll eventually be "meta-recommendation" sites that rate and explore the idiosyncrasies of the profiling sites, or that places like Digg.com will serve as watchdogs.

In all, though, it's part of how market forces collide with Internet possibilities to generate low-level AIs, and that fascinates me to no end. What does it mean that a computer, through non-aesthetic analysis (after all, a computer can't LIKE a piece of music) nevertheless uses trend-analyzing algorithms to refine what I like, whether I know I'll like it or not?

If it doesn't work, of course, I can always fall back on the old-fashioned method. Because, see, I love choral music in minor keys that ends with plagel cadences.

--Peter

How Jello changed my world

First, apologies for not posting more often. Things at TuneCore have gotten incredibly busy due to the overwhelming response. I eat, drink, breathe and sleep TuneCore, and I love it!

That being said, there is little to no time to do anything else and everything from reading to blog postings to having a life has suffered.

But, things are getting a bit too stale on the blog ( someone emailed us and asked if we were still in business as we had not done a blog posting since June); it's time put up new postings.

And there are some very cool things to talk about....

In my high school days I became a fan of the punk band Dead Kennedys - California Uber Alles, Holiday In Cambodia and Nazi Punks Fuck Off ended up on countless mix tapes. I was fascinated by two of the band members' names - Jello Biafra (lead singer ) and Klaus Flouride (bass player). It might sound a bit nuts, but due to Jello's name I learned about the world. I had no idea what Biafra meant, or what it was, but I assumed it meant something so I looked it up.

Low and behold, Biafra was not just a word to follow the name Jello, it was ( and yes I am now copying from Wikipedia) "...a short-lived secessionist state in southeastern Nigeria. It existed from May 30, 1967 to January 15, 1970. The military's Chief of Staff formally announced capitulation on January 12. The country was named after the Bight of Biafra, the bay of the Atlantic to its south. "

The history of Biafra is a brutal and terrible one. A lot of death, war, destruction and inhumanity.

This was a bit of an epiphany for me - for the first time it really clicked with me that there was a "rest of the world" out there and it was vastly different then the United States. And as horrible as my high school angst was, and as much as I tried to look like Robert Smith and be cool, there were so many other important issues going on - like civil war, real death, torture, brutal dictators, US foreign piolicy, dead and starving people/children and other governments that were not the then Soviet Union being incredibly oppressive.

Jump ahead to my freshman year of College, and Jello once again impacted my take on the world. There I was singing Holiday In Cambodia when my friend turned to me in disbelief and said "what do you think those lyrics are?" And I said "Cold, Hot, Cold, Hot". Ted started to crack up. "No you idiot, he's saying 'Pol Pot'".

I had no idea who Pol Pot was but learned very quickly about the Killing Fields in Cambodia ( a holocaust that had the Khmer Rouge kill over 2,000,000 Cambodians). I was stunned at the slaughter and once again my vision of our world was expanded and my personal and political outlook was impacted.

Add to this Jello educating me - via his spoke word albums - about the PMRC. No clue what it is? In a nut shell, Tipper Gore ( Al Gore's wife) and a few other self described "Washington Wives" started an organization that claimed that ( Wikipedia again) "...popular music, especially rock music, was partially responsible for the (at the time) recent increase in rape, teenage pregnancy, and teen suicide. The PMRC's mission was "to educate and inform parents" about "the growing trend in music towards lyrics that are sexually explicit, excessively violent, or glorify the use of drugs and alcohol", and to seek the censorship and rating of music. "

Te PMRC had some scary bedfellow and associates including people like Phyllis Schlafly ( right wing activist that is part of the conservative religious organization the Eagle Forum) and more.

I used to play clips of Jello's spoken word albums on my college radio show discussing the impact the PMRC had not only on the Dead Kennedys but also on countless other bands. In effect, by demanding that "offensive" albums be stickered with warning labels, many nationally chain record stores stopped carrying albums someone arbitrarily deemed dangerous. And once they stopped carrying the albums, the albums could not sell. And when they could not sell, the band could not make money.

I was also astounded to learn that the Dead Kennedys, and their self run label Alternative Tentacles, were charged with peddling harmful matter to minors as their album "Frankenchrist" contained a poster by the artist Geiger that some deemed pornographic. The police actually raided Jello's house, took his stuff and he was dragged to criminal court. This went down circa 1985. I had no idea things like this actually happened in the United States.

Some years later Jello came up on my radar again when he ran for the Green Party's nomination for the President Of The USA. Nader won, but I still thought that was cool.

Segue to two weeks ago I received an email from the founder of the South Park Music Fetival & Retreat - a music conference where I am appearing on a few panels - stating Jello Biafra was also attending and appearing on a panel. I asked if I could sit on the same panel as Jello. And now I am.

I am psyched!

Here's the panel....if you come, please say "Hi"!

WHAT’S NEXT --
THE CURRENT AND FUTURE STATE OF
INDEPENDENT MUSIC?
12:15pm – 1:15pm ~ Room A

Sell Your Music, Not Your Soul - Technology changes

The founder of spinART Records and TuneCore talks about: What the music industry is, how despite technological changes artists are still
getting gouged and finally the way things should work - plus a new song from the San Francisco Band Birdmonster.




MP3 File

Using technology to validate

In thinking today about the goals of TuneCore, I am reminded of the work of Thomas Friedman.  Friedman wrote the book The Lexus and the Olive Tree, which, to my mind, is one of the more sensible examinations of the effects of globalization.  Friedman states that globalization is the direct outcome of the democratization of technology, finance, and information.  Globalization is both the cause and effect of free markets and, thus, innovation…the Lexus.  However, Friedman also confronts the other driving issue of our planet: identity.  Identity (cultural or otherwise) potentially runs directly afoul of globalization.  Globalization, therefore, if not managed with caution, will destroy the unique identities and cultures—our individual and collective roots—that are represented by the Olive Tree.

How does this relate to TuneCore?  Well, one of the points Friedman makes is that because of the advances in technology, “today we can all be producers.”  And while he doesn’t specifically talk about music, it is implicit.  One of the principle goals of TuneCore is to leverage technology to validate production through making your music widely available.

What is truly exciting to me, however, is that because this technology is being leveraged to help creators of art, we are necessarily balancing the Lexus and Olive Tree dialectic.  Identity/validation, for artists is, of course, everything.  And by facilitating the distribution of the creator, TuneCore is in fact empowering the creators of culture.  We are in a sense providing the fecund soil for that Olive Tree of creative identity to take root.   

To unite technology and identity (the Lexus and the Olive Tree) in a manner that is complimentary seems to me to be a virtuous way to proceed.

Getting Lost in iTunes

I heard all this hype about the TV show Lost. I could have cared less. Then, as a holiday present, my friend Steph sent me season one on DVD . One night I watched episode one and got hooked. Damn Steph, like I have any free time in my life. Now I have to figure out how to get home on Wed nights to see the thing ( no, I don't have a TIVO).

Then alongs comes iTunes making the shows available to buy for $1.99 the day after they broadcast. I am never home when it airs - still working. But this iTunes thing is very cool. I buy it, pay the $1.99, download it in about 10 to 20 minutes, plug my Powerbook audio into the stereo ( no, I am not cool enough to get the wireless system to broadcast to my stereo from my Mac) and watch.

Now they have a "Season Pass" where for around $12 you can get every episode that has aired and all future episodes of the show.

Man I like it when technology actually works the way its supposed to. You just know the Mac minis are really built to be media centers hooked into your TV and stereo. Download your TV shows, play them on your TV all via your Mac Mini with its remote control.

And - for what it is worth - this last episode of Lost about Hurley, one of my favorites!

Is that a Podcast in your pocket or are you just happy to hear me?

Ok, not the snappiest title for this posting...

Lots of controversy over Podcasts these days.  First you have public performance organizations like ASCAP and BMI saying they need to charge you in order to grant you a license for them.  Next you have some record labels getting mad about them.  Then there are the publishers who demand a license be granted for the use of the copyright protected music ( a mechanical license) and payment.  Finally you have the people that make them.

(Some claim Adam Curry is the grandfather of Podcasting ( yes, the old MTV VeeJay).  His Podcasts can be found at lots and lots of places.  He's been making them for years. His Curry.com is loaded with info and tips.

Others claim Podcast is a combination of of Apple's "iPod" and "broadcasting" and was a genius marketing ploy created by Steve Jobs.)

So what is a Podcast.  My opinion, when you get to the bottom line, it's a big audio file for download.  A Podcast can also allow you to subscribe to a feed and receive new podcasts automatically - usually for free.  the iTunes store has a ton of Podcasts, and there are many many many many more out there.

Basically, record something, about anything you want, and make it available for people to download.

So what's the problem?  Well, to begin, ASCAP and BMI claim that if you use music in your Podcast, and the songwriters in your Podcast are members of their organization, you need to pay for the public performance use of the music.  ASCAP and BMI, among other things, go out into the world and collect money for their members each time their member's music is publicly performed (for example,  played on the radio, played on TV, played in a bar etc).  If you are a member of their organization, then they collect for you.  Pretty cool.

The part I don't get is how in the world is downloading a large file a public performance?  It's just downloading.  Hell, you might download it and never play it.  If you do play it, how is that different than downloading just one song for free from an MP3 Blog or from iTunes?  In the end, it's still just downloading a file.  I support and like BMI and ASCAP very much, and I realize they are just trying to create ways to make more money for their members ( that's their job),  but claiming that the downloading of a Podcast is a public performance seems like a stretch to me.

FYI - there is no federal or state law requiring anyone to get a license from BMI or ASCAP to use music in a podcast.  As far as I am aware, you are not breaking any laws by making a podcast without paying them.

Then there are the publishers.  And this gets even more confusing.  Please take a moment to read about mechanical licenses in our FAQ - no need to retype the entire thing here.  The bottom line is, each time someone's song is reproduced, the owner of the copyright to that song needs to get paid.  This is a U.S. federal copyright law ( Section 115 of the Copyright act. In the 1976 Copyright Act things got revised even more creating the standard used today - pretending I am a lawyer here).

When you download a Podcast the material in the Podcast is being reproduced to appear on your computer ( or more simply, a copy is being made).  Under the copyright act, when a copy is being made money has to be paid to the owner of the copyright ( a rate set by the US government - currently 9.1 cents for a song under five minutes).

Now let's say you make a podcast with a song by The Beatles in it, you are required by law to pay the owner of the Beatles' copyrights (oddly enough - The publishing to The Beatles' songs are jointly owned by Jackson and Sony Corp. through Sony/ATV Music Publishing company )

So this is why Publishers are annoyed by Podcasts, simply put, publishers are not getting paid for the reproduction of their work.

And as far as record labels.... traditionally record labels make money in only ONE way. By selling the music.  Pure record Labels make no money from gigs, publishing, merchandise, performance royalties or anything else.  So, when the only thing they have to sell is being used or given away for free they get annoyed.  Some Podcasters with music in their Podcasts make money from their Podcasts.  In other words they take the thing that has value ( music) and give it away for free and them make money in some other way.

Also, Labels get concerned that someone might decide to Podcast and entire album.  Get the entire Revolver album by The Beatles for free as an MP3 download via a Podcast.

So what's my opinion... things need to change.  Publishing laws in particular.  Labels need to find new ways to make money and stay in business and the download of a Podcast is not a public performance.

And when you use music in a Podcast, the least you can do is name the band, the song, the album and the record label.  On your homepage, provide links to places where people can go to buy it if they choose.

Now on to solving the crisis in the Middle East...

The argument on the SXSW Panel

This year at South By Southwest I was invited to appear on a panel.

The panel was, to put it mildly, interesting. The title of it was "Aggregators Get It Together" and featured panelists from The Orchard, IODA, DRA, Verizon V-cast and myself. Prior to SXSW I was interviewed by Billboard Magainze for my thoughts on digital distribution and independent labels/artists. It's not a secret that I believe companies that require a label or artist to assign rigthts to their masters and give a percentage of the revenue generated from every sale of their music in an exclusive deal for many years is just dead wrong. I believe it's gouging and taking advantage.

In the Billboard article I am quoted as saying, among other things, "I despise the economic model of aggregators. They're morally repugnant". In the green room prior to the panel the person from the aggregator DRA launched into me pretty aggressively complaining that I was making a judgement on him and his customers calling them both "stupid". He demanded to know how I could make such a statement. The answer I gave him is the same one I am going to give now.

I can make that statement because I have owned and run a record label for the past 15 years. I understand the way things work and I also understand - and can spot - when someone is trying to take advantage and gouge. Aggregators are taking advantage and what they are doing is wrong. Aggregators require artists and labels they work with to assign rights to their masters (their digital rights) to them for an exclusive period of time. In addition to taking rights to the masters, they also demand an unlimited amount of money from their "clients."

Aggregators take a percentage of the money earned off the sale of your music with no limit. That is, each time your music sells they take a % of your money (usually between 9% - 30%) with no limit as to how much they can take.

This is ridiculous as the aggregators did almost nothing to cause these sales. It's like going into Fed Ex to send your album to iTunes and Fed Ex says the cost for delivering the package will be 9% - 30% of the money generated from the sale of your music for the next three years.

You do the hard work (and if you are signed you and your label do the work), record the songs, mix and master. You let people know your music exists - you call and email, tour, drive hours between gigs, load in and out, max out credit cards, beg, borrow , steal, push, call promoters, sleep on floors, eat Taco Bell, pay for the gas to drive with, pay for radio and/or press promotion, etc., etc. They do none of this, and this work is what causes awareness and sales. Aggregators delivering your music to be made available does not cause it to sell.

Aggregators claim to market you. Forgive me, but in my opinion, what a load of crap. At the aggregators panel the co-founder of the The Orchard (an aggregator) stated The Orchard had over 2,000 labels, over 800,000 songs and approximately 8,000 albums in their system (mind you each one of these labels, songs and albums were tied down into and exclusive agreement with The Orchard). Each month, each label is putting out at least 1 to 5 more albums. This is another 100 - 500 songs a month by another 1 to 5 bands.

How in the world do you effectivly market 8,000 albums and almost 1,000,000 songs? How much staff would you possibly need? And even if you had a staff of thousands "markerting" the music, how in the world do they do it? You can not effectively market this volume music at once. Calling up iTunes and giving them a list of 100 bands they should pay attention to is not going to do anything.

"Hi iTunes, The Orchard here, here's a list of 100 bands this week. We know you are getting calls from all the major record labels and indie labels but I am Bob from the Orchard with a list of 100 bands that you might never have heard. By the way, next week, we'll be back with another 100 bands and have moved on from the bands from last week.."

This means priorities are picked, which means 99% of the music they are supposedly promoting is shoved to the side and ignored. They took your rights, promised you marketing and then ignored you.

The real kicker, at the SXSW panel I was on, The Orchard representative stated " We don't work with bands, we work with labels". I think that statement speaks for itself - if you're an artist, the Orchard is not the place for you.

And what if you hire an independent publicist? Publicist do a hell of a lot more than an aggregator in terms of promoting your music yet they do not take any rights to your masters nor a % of the money from the sale of your music. They take a flat fee. Same with radio promoters, retail promoters and more. The aggregators are the ONLY ones out there claiming to market you ( which in my opinion they really don't do) and then demand exclusive rights and an unlimited amount of money getting paid each time your music sells.

I find this disgusting.

If you believe in your band and music, and you believe your music will sell, you will be paying them a limitless amount of money. That is, each time your music sells, they just keep taking 9% - 30% of the money with NO limit. You do all the work, and they sit back and take the dough.

What if over the next 12 months you sell an average of 4 copies of your album and 25 individual songs each month in just the iTunes US store - not an outrageous number of sales at all.

With these sales, an aggregator taking 9% of the revenue from just music sold in the iTunes US store is $49.14. The total an aggregator taking 30% of your money is over $150.

With a flat rate model the cost will be somewhere between $18 to $22 and thats it. And keep in mind, this is ONLY if your albums /songs sell just 4 copies of your album and 25 individual songs each month in just the iTunes US store. If you sell more, with a flat rate mode the cost for a 10 song album in the iTunes US store stays at around $18. With the aggregators you are paying them more and more and more and your rights are tied down.

Another example, in the next year in just the iTunes US store you sell 100 albums. That's $63 for 9% and over $190 for 30%.

Also note, this is JUST the iTunes US store sales, if your music is selling in other stores, the aggregators make even more money off you. With a flat rate model - like TuneCore - the amount paid for delivery stays at around $18, it is non-exclusive, cancel whenever you want you are not assigning exclsuive rights to your masters.

Then there is how, and when, you get paid.

All aggregators pay out your money in "royalty periods". For example, some pay every three months and send you your money only after they have taken their 9% - 30% cut. What's important to note is that places like iTunes pay out the money from the sale of your music on a month to month basis. This means the aggregators intentionally sit on your money - this means they can earn interest on it. Why not, one more way to gouge and take advantage of you.

This is NOT how it should be. Your money hits their bank account vai direct deposit from iTunes. It is available instantly, no check needs to clear. There is NO reason to make you wait. This is your money. You should be able to log in and take it whenever you want, not when some aggregator feels like allowing you. There is no reason why you should not have control and be at the mercy of someone else to get your cash.

Next, most aggregators will not even pay you your money because they have decided you have not earned enough to justify getting paid. All of the aggregators require you to earn a minimum amount they determine before they will even pay you. Hey, $20 to me is $20. Why in the world should you not be allowed to have your money? Can you imagine if a bank did that. "I am sorry sir, you only have $20 in your account, we won't let you have it. Please earn more and come back when you reach $50. In the meantime, we will sit on your money and earn interest off of it. "

Even as I type this I can not get over how ridiculous this sounds.

Move on to your rights

With most aggregators you MUST give them the EXCLUSIVE rights to your music. They control them and own them for a set period of time - usually the next three to five years. If an opportunity comes up with a label or something else, you will not have your digital rights to offer, the aggregator owns them for that period of time. These companies have now tied you up and can stop a deal going through. It is possible they will allow themselves to be "bought out". That is, let's say a label wants to sign you but requires your digital rights, well, an aggregator could sell your rights for a price. Oh, that's fair.

And then there is choice, with TuneCore you get to pick and choose which stores you want to be in, you are not lumped into everything and just shoved off. Maybe there is a place you do not want your music for sale.

How about your older albums. Let's take the White Stripes. There are three or four albums that came out years before "Elephant" was released and propelled the White Stripes into international rock stardom. If you had the rights to these older albums, did a deal with an aggregator and then the band took off, you would literally be giving up hundreds of thousands of dollars to some company that did nothing at all to cause these sales. Not a single thing. They just sit back and take your money.

The aggregators are aware of all of these things. It's not as if their deal terms contain accidently errors allowing them to own your rights, take you money, keep your money from you etc. They do it because they can, and until TuneCore, they were able to get away with it because there was no other choice.

This is why I believe aggregators are morally repugnant.

So, as you can imagine, the gentleman from the aggregator from DRA had not much to say back. He did try to attack me personally and directly on the panel. One of the highlights is when he attempted to describe how TuneCore worked and what it charged. He just made things up - it was both amusing and sad.

But in the end, how can you defend a model that is just dead wrong and look good?

France vs Apple, Apple's response and my opinion

Some quick facts and information to provide background and context to the ground breaking copyright law passed in France on Tuesday, March 21st forccing Apple to let other portable music players that are not iPods play music bought from the iTunes music store.

First, "Format" is a term commonly used in the on-line music digital distribution world to describe a software program used to encode music for distribution/delivery. A format usually compresses music and then allow the user to listen it on a device that can play the specific software it was encoded in.

There are a numerous different formats used to encode music – MP3, WMA, AAC, ATRAC, etc.

Formats vary with different functionality, quality of sound, compression, digital rights management and other features.

For example, WMA has a feature that causes songs to stop playing after a certain number of days have transpired from the first listen ( called “timing out”). Apple iTunes AAC files limit which computers or devices can play a song bought from the iTunes' store, etc.

Now here is one of the more important points - NOT ALL DEVICES CAN PLAY ALL FORMATS.

For example, when you buy a song from iTunes, it downloads to your computer as a special type of AAC file that only an iPod - or other Apple device like a Nano or Shuffle - can play. No other non-computer portable media device ( like a Rio etc ) can play an AAC file bought from iTunes. The same holds true for any CD you rip via iTunes into the AAC format.

An analogy - imagine if you bought a CD and it only played on the CD player in your house but would not play in your car or on your friends CD player.

For devices that are not iPods, Shuffles or Nanos to play files purchased from the iTunes' stores or ripped from CDs as AAC files they would need to have a license from Apple that allows their device to play the music files. However, Apple does not license out this technology. Therefore the only devices that can play Apples' AAC files are Apple devices.

So what exactly just went down in France? A new law was passed that requires music to be able to be played on ANY device. All music must work on everything.

Apple response to this new law can be found here.

My opinion on this -

It is healthy for the music industry to have as many people as possible have access to buy music and use it the way they want.

It is also healthy for the music industry to have a standardized format so people can play their music wherever they want on whatever device they want.

If all music could easily be played on any device, it would help the music industry as there would be less confusion, easier use and more convenience for the music buyer.

With a standard format, more portable devices would sell, more people would listen to music more often and more music would be bought and experienced.

What is it the music buyer has bought when they buy music via an on-line download? If someone buys a song from iTunes do they own the song or do they ONLY own the song in the iTunes format?

When a music buyer purchases music from iTunes, Real, MSN, Walmart or any other on-line entity, it all looks, feels, tastes the same to the user. That is, they have bought a digital file – made up of binary code.

They are also able to convert the file from one format to the next with the simple proper knowledge and software program

The format within which the music is encoded is irrelevant.

The same type of devices – i.e. iPods, Rios, computers etc – can play a song and offer similar functionality. Whereas previously there was difference between what you could do with a CD vs. vinyl, this difference does not exist despite a song being in a different codec. Regardless of the codec, songs can still be: started and stopped with a single click, be fast forwarded to a later section, be included in playlists, burnt onto CDs, put in customized song orders etc.

I believe when a music buyer buys a song on-line they own the song not the song tethered to a specific format.

To add weight to this point, keep in mind that music buyers can convert any format into any other format they like provided they have the correct software – most of which is free and encouraged by the different on-line entities.

As the owner of spinART Records, I believe a simple standard codec will expand the marketplace, create more customers for each on-line store, drive portable device sales, create more on-line music buyers, generate more sales and revenue, allow more music to be discovered and experienced and generally create a healthier music buying environment.

I am very curious to see how this all plays out. Can you imagine the impact in the United States if this law was passed?

V Cast Is Freakin' Cool

Verizon has launched a new service called V Cast which I for the most part ignored until I saw a demo of the service on a cell phone. It rocked!

Nutshell version - click and buy songs off your cell phone. The songs "download" to your phone via the cell network ( ie. anywhere you have cell service) - some of the phones have a 4 gig flash memory card about the size of my thumbnail. Songs can be transferred to and from your PC. Headphones plug right into the phone.

The quality of the music is stellar. You get charged for any songs bought at the end of the month on your cell bill.

Now this is the wave of the future - and in the near future TuneCore will be set up with them.

And hats off to Verizon for being the first major cell phone carrier to include indie content in the store.