Archive for the ‘The Biz’ Category

Does “Mid-turbo” Equal “Wimpy”?

Tuesday, December 4th, 2012

There have been a couple of interesting pieces in Billboard recently by Sean Ross, who worries (I think) that pop radio is in danger of becoming “wimpy”. This would appear to be a bad thing. It’s hard to tell, since Ross doesn’t define wimpy in any concrete terms. He bases his discussion on tempo, so I assume he’s worrying about too many ballads taking over the airwaves (don’t tell him about the new Bruno Mars single). He seems equally worried, though, about mid-tempo tracks that by being relatively busy in terms of production and arrangement are essentially disguised as up-tempo. He calls these records “mid-turbo”.

It’s all a matter of BPM translating into PPM, if you get my drift. If not, it basically means that the higher the beats per minute, the higher a station’s score is likely to be on Arbitron’s “Portable People Meter”, which is used to determine ratings. There are times I wonder if Ross is writing in code, one that only radio programmers can understand, but I think I get the general idea, which is that pop stations should essentially be party stations, providing an almost constant up. Until that is, the audience decides they want to be brought down.

At the moment, that seems to be exactly what they do want. As Ross mentions, we’re coming out of a period that some DJs described as “turbo” (hence “mid-turbo”), when party music ruled the radio, and the BPM soared. This period lasted about two years, from 2009 to 2011, and is now fading. One of the problems with mid-turbo for radio programmers, Ross suggests, is not only that the songs are slower, but the subject matter is more serious. It’s the morning after the turbo party, and as they nurse their hangovers, people are taking a minute or two to reflect.

I think much of what Ross says is true, especially from a programmer’s perspective (his observations about dubstep are spot on), but his choice of words, especially “wimpy”, suggests that he’s throwing too much of his personal taste into the argument. His description of James Taylor’s and Joni Mitchell’s music and their audience is wrong on any number of levels (just to mention one: most of Joni Mitchell’s radio hits—“You Turn Me On (I’m a Radio)”, “Free Man In Paris”, Raised On Robbery”—were mid- or up-tempo, not ballads). But maybe wimpy is code for something else. Whatever the case, it will all change in another year or so anyway. It always does.

Stating the Obvious

Friday, November 9th, 2012

Sometimes you need to hit them over the head with it:

HT: Chris Weingarten

Bad Example: Why Cat Power Shouldn’t Be the Poster Child of Indie’s (Supposed) Collapse

Monday, November 5th, 2012

I hope I don’t sound like too much of a jerk for what I’m about to say. Let me just point out at the very beginning that I have all the sympathy in the world for what Chan Marshall (aka Cat Power) is going through right now and what she’s gone through in the past. But in order to say what I want about David Wagner’s article in the Atlantic Wire regarding her financial problems last week, I’m going to have to cast her in something of a negative light. I just want to point out that I’m not extending blame—either for what’s happened in her past or what’s going on in her present. But the article, which tries to use her situation as an example of how hard it is to make a living as an indie musician, seems to me to make false connections between Marshall and other musicians, and at the same time ignores what may be the most likely reason that Marshall is experiencing her current financial difficulties: the simple fact that for a large part of her career, and for most of her life until she went into rehab in 2006, Chan Marshall was drunk.

This is not a secret; Marshall has talked about it often and in detail, especially in an article that ran in the New York Times in September of 2006.

Another day, another fifth of Scotch.

And that wasn’t all. Chan Marshall said her mornings began with a minibar’s worth of Jack Daniel’s, Glenlivet and Crown Royal. Mini bottles depleted, this indie singer-songwriter, known as Cat Power, would nurse a bottle of Scotch over the course of the day. On nights she performed, she took the antianxiety drug Xanax.

By the time she would weave onstage, beer in one hand, cigarette in the other, Ms. Marshall, 34, was wasted. And it showed. It would seem that every fan has a Cat Power concert story: the time she mooned the audience, cursed out techies, talked to a squirrel (outdoors), played three chords and changed her mind (song after song) or played fragments of a few songs and then told everyone to get out, even encouraging fans to sue her.

Any guesses as to how much this effected Marshall’s financial stability? Aside from her daily habits (emptying a hotel minibar on a regular basis is probably the most expensive way of being an alcoholic), think how many opportunities she must have missed or avoided, how many fans, and potential fans, she alienated by being drunk and rude on stage, how much money must have been wasted, not just on booze, but on all the after effects and collateral damage that go along with being an alcoholic.

Wagner’s article suggests, however, that all of Marshall’s financial problems are due to the lack of money in indie music and her more recently diagnosed health problems. Even though he mentions her time in rehab as part of a list of her stays at Miami’s Mt. Sinai Medical Center, he never suggests that her financial instability could be based in her past alcoholism. History, and not just musical history, is full of stories of people who, while still functioning professionally, destroyed their finances through drinking and other forms of substance abuse. George Jones, who drank his way into bankruptcy while still one of the biggest names in country music and making some of his greatest records, is a perfect example.

The story of Jones is even more important when you consider the comparison Wagner makes between Marshall’s situation and that of Grizzly Bear, as outlined in an article by Nitsuh Abebe that ran in New York magazine. The problem with the comparison (besides the fact that they’re a band, and need to split whatever money they make four ways), is that Grizzly Bear has been successful in a time when the entire music industry, not just the indie sector, has been suffering (their first record came out just about the time the industry was going into freefall). Marshall, on the other hand, achieved her first success in the mid-90s, when the music industry was drowning in money, and when alternative and indie acts were doing especially well (at least compared to the 80s, not to mention now). She was never a huge star, but she had, and has, a devoted following and a strong relationship with her record label; many of her fans stuck with her even as she fell apart before their eyes. It’s hard to believe she didn’t make more than a decent living, certainly a better one than the members of Grizzly Bear make now. And she had no one to spend it on but herself—herself and her alcoholism, that is.

Again, I’m not trying to pin blame on Marshall for her difficulties—no one becomes an alcoholic by choice—but to use her as an example of how difficult it is to make a living as a musician, even a moderately successful one, strikes me as ridiculous. Yes, things are worse for musicians than they used to be, but they’re worse for everybody than they used to be. It’s never been easy to make a living as a musician, and as the members of Grizzly Bear admit, they’re lucky to be able to do so, even if they can’t afford health insurance or to move out of their tiny apartments. But there’s a long history of musicians who have made things even harder for themselves, and whose difficulties had little or nothing to do with the state of the industry. The current music biz may make it harder for Marshall to pull out of her current situation—and I hope she does—but it didn’t cause it.

Selling Music the Old-Fashioned Way?

Wednesday, October 31st, 2012

That Taylor Swift’s Red had the biggest first week sales since 2002 isn’t much of a surprise. Swift has done everything she needed to do and then some to hold onto her fan base for the last two years, and the fact that the album announcement itself was something of a surprise automatically piqued interest. I think the brag about doing this the “old-fashioned” way (that is, not making the album available on streaming services or online stores known for heavy discounting like Amazon or Google Play) is nonsense, though. Are limited edition deluxe versions available through a single retailer old-fashioned? Is selling CDs at a discount with a pizza order old-fashioned? Most important: is iTunes old-fashioned?

That last is the essential question, not just because iTunes was the only online retailer allowed to sell the album the first week of release, but because of the way iTunes sells big albums like this. Just as they did with Speak Now, Big Machine issued a single a week exclusively on iTunes in the lead up to the album. All but one of those singles, the last one, “State of Grace”, made top ten. Which means a lot of people, including me, used the “complete your album” feature to buy the full album when it was released. I can’t help but wonder how those are counted. I don’t suppose it makes a difference to the chart if the singles are counted as individual sales and then the album separately, but what about those people who pre-ordered the album before the singles started coming out? Did they automatically receive those singles as they were released? Do those count as sales (which would have inflated their chart listing)? None of this affects the actual album sales, but it would be nice to know. Somehow I have a feeling those are questions that iTunes doesn’t want to answer, and that Big Machine may not want them to answer.

And there’s still the question of illegal downloading. In the end, keeping Red off of Spotify and Rhapsody and other streaming services may make sense, but it also opens the door for the pirates. As of now, there are 30 different torrents for Red on The Pirate Bay with well over 6,000 seeds. That adds up to a hell of a lot of downloads, and that’s just one site. Does the trade-off between revenue lost at streaming sites, and revenue lost to pirates, balance out? Is there actually more of an advantage to staying off streaming services as opposed to making the records available and diminishing somewhat the monetary drain of the pirates? Some studies have shown the opposite, but maybe Big Machine knows better (they did the same thing with the last Rascal Flatts album, though I don’t imagine Rascal Flatts is a big draw on torrent sites—as of now there are only two torrents on Pirate Bay).

I have no answers, only questions. But the idea that Red sold over a million copies the “old-fashioned” way, and that this somehow means a return to the good-old days, strikes me as ridiculous. This is no different than the idea of Radiohead creating a new paradigm with In Rainbows. It worked for them, because they’re huge. Big Machine’s strategy for Red works because Taylor Swift is huge. It doesn’t mean anybody else would do as well (I’d like to see someone try this with a Flo Rida album), or that Swift would have done worse by deploying another strategy. After all, Speak Now sold over a million its first week at a time when the record market was worse than it is now. The only real lesson to be learned from Red is that massive popularity pays; if you’ve got that, you can do just about anything and cash in.

Giving Credit

Monday, August 27th, 2012

A couple of weeks ago I attended a “Summer Social” at the Rhapsody offices here in Seattle. They opened the place up in the early evening so people could come by, take a tour, talk to staff, and, if they were a programmer or web developer, pitch their expertise. The attendees also included a few curious people like me and some regular customers. The staff was very open and honest about their work, their small slice of the market, and attendee’s criticisms and occasional complaints about the service. One of the things everybody agreed with me about when I brought it up was the need for production and session credits, something that should be easy to include, at least with downloaded tracks, but for some reason rarely is.

Apparently the same problem bothers The Recording Academy, because last week they started a campaign to encourage the industry to include credits with downloaded albums and tracks. As usual with campaigns of this type, they’ve given it a cutesy name (“Give Fans the Credit”), and lined up a roster of big names (T-Bone Burnett, RedOne, Jimmy Jam, and others) to lend it a little oomph. I find it interesting that they’re directing their attention toward digital outlets rather than the labels. It would be easy enough for labels to include credits, and lyrics, in the ID tags of MP3s, but I don’t think they ever have. Of course, it may be the distributors who enter that information, which sounds like a dumb idea to me, but knowing the record industry, not a surprise.

One of my fantasies has always been to create a database, much like the IMDB, that would include session information for as many records as possible. My lack of knowledge of databases has always hampered the idea, and, since there have been a lot more records made than movies, it would be much larger than the IMDB. It still strikes me as good idea, though, and if it were limited to one genre, or one particular period of time at first, I think it’s feasible. I don’t look for the Recording Academy to spearhead that sort of thing, though. I doubt if there would be much money in it, despite its historical and research value. I’m not sure who would look at it except for researchers and people like me. I don’t even know if the upcoming generation of listeners is actually interested in credits. After all, the record industry got along without them for its first twenty years or so (liner notes were first introduced in the late thirties). It will probably remain one of my many pipe dreams.

Market Forces

Thursday, July 19th, 2012

While Simon Reynolds and Maura Johnston have both offered elegant, convincing theories as to why catalog sales have been beating current product over the last few months, Jay Frank at FutureHit.DNA offers a simpler, market-driven solution.

[Catalolg sales] have been going up for the last 2 years largely due to the return of the bins in the front of Wal-Mart and Best Buy stores selling older titles for $4.99. The prominent positioning at retail is now going to cheap, older titles thereby driving up their sales. Both Wal-Mart and Best Buy have increasingly placed their new music releases in harder to find places. My local Best Buy has the top sellers positioned down a regular aisle facing the rear of the store blocked by an aisle of hair dryers. Wal-Mart has been moving their CD racks to the mid-point of the media sections. You’d be hard pressed to get sales if it’s not in a visible place by which to sell the product.

As Frank also observes, newer music tends to be higher priced, as well. Few stores offer discounts for first week sales anymore (since they can’t compete with Amazon, anyway, why bother?). Reynolds and Johnston make good points, but I have a feeling Frank is closer to the reality of the situation. Convenience and price matter, and though people may be leaning toward the comfortable and familiar these days, as Johnston suggests (though when did they ever not lean that way?), when you put a bargain price on what people want most, anyway, it makes a big difference.

“I’m About to Own the Music Industry, So Let Me Tell You How I’m Going to Run It”

Wednesday, July 11th, 2012

In an interview with the Financial Times (registration required), Universal CEO Lucian Grange, who’s awaiting approval to buy EMI’s recorded music division (Sony scooped up their publishing last week), says he’s working on a collaborative “manifesto for the new music industry”. He doesn’t say who his collaborators are, but the article hints that at least some of it will be directed toward dealing with the near monopolies of iTunes and Spotify, not to mention the pirates.

Mr Grainge said [the manifesto] would include “a new way of working with all these startup platforms … in a fair, open-minded way”. Regulators’ reviews of the EMI acquisition presented an opportunity to address the music industry’s problems in an era of piracy and powerful technology groups, he added, and to create the same diversity of digital retailers that record companies enjoyed in the heyday of the record store.

In other words, divide and conquer the distributors while controlling all the product. Not that it isn’t a good idea, or that Universal has been unreasonable about the large share of control it already enjoys, but I’m always wary of of people who want to put all the eggs in their basket, even if they promise to be especially nice to the chickens.

Some Things Never Change

Friday, June 29th, 2012

Back in January, American Idol alum Kellie Pickler released her third album,100 Proof. Opening with “Where’s Tammy Wynette”, the album’s a fascinating throwback to the country style of the late 60s and early 70s. Despite being the best country album of the year so far, it doesn’t fit stylistically with country radio at the moment, and it hasn’t sold well. So today, in their infinite wisdom, and just as Pickler is coming into her own as an artist, Sony Nashville dropped her (and people wonder why Sony has been losing so much money lately). Here’s hoping that some forward looking label, like Big Machine, picks her up. I just hope she doesn’t end up on some sleepy “Americana” label—her music’s too vital for that.

Yep, that’s about it

Monday, June 25th, 2012

All Of The Arguments About Digital Music, Summarized

You only need to read the last two lines to get the whole picture.

Boycott/Not Boycott

Thursday, June 21st, 2012

So I’m working on the latest Hot 100 Roundup, putting together the Spotify playlist. Uh-oh, I think, The Black Keys, who have probably gotten more publicity for boycotting Spotify than they have for their music, are on the list; I’ll need to put in a Youtube link. But just for the hell of it I check Spotify anyway, and guess what? Although their latest album, El Camino, isn’t available in full, both the singles from the album are, as is the band’s complete back catalog. In other words, they’re not boycotting Spotify at all, they’re just keeping most of their new album off of it as…what, exactly? A protest? Self-punishment? Since their beef with Spotify is all about money, I can’t really call them hypocrites for keeping the bulk of their catalog up there and raking in what they can. But if you say you’re going to boycott something, boycott it. Don’t fudge around with your principals, or people are going to assume you haven’t got any.