Radiohead abandons iTunes

It all boils down to one thing, Radiohead won't sell their songs on iTunes until Apple removes the "single track" requirement (http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/09/radiohead-blows.html). The band feels strongly enough about their music being an "album" instead of just a collection of tracks that they are willing to shun the world's most popular online music retailer.

Ever since OK Computer, Radiohead has become increasingly artistic in its approach to making music. Their albums have melded into more of a sum of their parts, than an individual track. It becomes increasingly harder on each album to find a "single" for standard radio play.

And I applaud them for it. 1) Competition for iTunes is a good thing because it's one size fits all approach doesn't fit for a lot of people and greatly limits consumer choice. 2) DRM tracks (I know, some are non-DRM now) restrict what people can do with their music. 3) The fixed pricing is so constrictive that it makes consumers take less chances with their music purchases.

Most bands don't have the clout that Radiohead has to do something like this. Radiohead has such a built in fan base that it can basically go anywhere online that it likes to sell its tracks.

The album is an important concept that should not be lost. Just as you can't listen to only a part of Pink Floyd - "Dark Side of the Moon", artists should have the option to release their music the way they want it to be presented.

The irrelevance of the MTV Video Music Awards

How does this pass for entertainment on any level? This has to be one of the worst (and things can get pretty bad on the VMA's) performances in recorded history. I'd be shocked if Britney can sell records after this disaster.

Just watch her wander around the stage, obviously lip-syncing and looking like she was on psychotropic drugs. Maybe she was just nervous. She should be nervous, this is not the record industry she was recording in 5 years ago. This market is more discerning and demands a hell of a lot higher quality. There is more choice in music than ever before and genres are merging into aggregate fan libraries.

We can only hope and pray that over the next few years, "artists" like Britney will be ran out on a rail from popular music.

Britney was only one part of another lackluster and frankly, boring VMA. The one idea I liked this year was "The Fantasy Suites" where bands like Foo Fighters played to small intimate crowds with live feeds coming into the show. That was a really cool idea and actually kind of matched the new music environment where things are getting more intimate and live music is much higher on the importance list.

Why doesn't MTV change their name? Music Television? THEY DON'T PLAY MUSIC! Someone needs to take this torch away from MTV. Even MTV's website title says "Music Videos, Reality TV Shows, Celebrity News, Top Stories". Not much about music there and the only videos they are playing are between 1:00am and 4:00am each night. They need to change the order but then again, it may not matter. They're just not that relevant anymore.

End of the blockbuster album

Album sales are about 14% lower than they were at this time last year. But talk around the industry is that many are pinning their hopes on a couple of high profile releases. Kayne West, 50-Cent, and Kenny Chesney are all putting albums out the same week.

Side question: (With the industry struggling so badly, why would a label decide to go up against another top rated artist on the same day? Consumers coming to buy something at the local record store are going to have to choose. Whereas, if these releases were separated by a reasonable amount of time, you may be able to get the same consumer to buy 2 or more of the releases, now you are forcing them to make a choice and probably spend less in the long run.)

But there aren't many blockbusters any more and what's left fails to achieve the sales heights of previous years. For example: The top selling album this year is the self-titled release from Daughtry (former American Idol contestant) which is around 1.9 million right now. That looks to be the clear winner in overall sales for the year (don't count out High School Musical 2 though). But just a year ago, the top release sold 3.2 million copies (High School Musical Sountrack). That is a severe decline.

These high profile releases at the end of the year are going to help a bit (it has been a slow year for big names) but the overall trend is still decidedly heading downward.

Frank Zappa on where music industry went wrong

Very interesting take from the famous Frank Zappa about where the music industry screwed up. Say what you will about Zappa but he has always been very pragmatic about things. Its fun to just watch him talk. I think he's on to something here. Take a look:

The most interesting comment here is how the new "younger and hip" generation of music executives are "more dangerous to the art form" than the old "cigar chomping rich guys" because the young guys think they know what is good.

In some ways, this isn't what you would think Zappa would say given his history of anti-establishment against music as an industry.

Rick Rubin - "subscription only way to save music industry"

Co-Chairman of Colubmia Records, Rick Rubin told the New York Times, "The subscription model is the only way to save the music business. If music is easily available at a price of five or six dollars a month, then nobody will steal it" (http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/123852/ipod-will-be-obsolete-says-record-label-boss.html).

He goes on to make the claim that "the iPod will be obsolete, but there would be a Walkman-like device you could plug into speakers at home."

Can't you just feel the hatred for Apple in these comments?

I hate to break it to Rubin but there are a lot of subscription music services out there right now, none of which are doing very well. Consumers aren't responding well to having to keep purchasing access to their music catalog every month. Neither high profile http://www.napster.com/ or http://www.rhapsody.com/ have made much of a dent in iTunes grip on the industry.

If there were this mystical service, where all labels joined hands with ALL of their respective libraries and extended content AND the service was really just $4.99 a month for total access 24/7, then I think that could have real legs. That is tremendous value for the price but I don't see that even getting close to the meager revenues that labels are getting right now when you calculate the average price of a CD (which contrary to popular belief is selling more than online tracks are selling).

Qtrax - ad supported music site

The 12 to 25 year old demographic is 4 times more likely to visit a P2P site than a legitimate music site online (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporebusinessnews/view/297494/1/.html). We've heard about the ad supported model before with companies like http://www.spiralfrog.com (which still hasn't materialized almost a year after they were supposed to launch.) There is a high degree of doubt about the ad supported model, not so much from the consumer as from the industry. Obviously, there are serious logistics issues as a good portion of the SpiralFrog board and directors including the CEO walked out on the company last January (http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6152241.html).

Qtrax (http://www.qtrax.com) seems to be plunging down the same path. A few interesting things about Qtrax' service:

- Qtrax is a P2P network that allows user to legally download tracks as long as the user watches an advertisement.

- The exact ad placement, times, and ad counts are still being worked out (this could make or break them)

- Songs will have a "play limit".

- You will have to use the "MPQ Player" which is a custom media player created by Qtrax.

- You can get songs in MP3, WMA, and/or MPQ (a custom format created by Qtrax. So as long as you download in MP3, then you can use the tracks on your iPod.

The deal killer is the play limit. You can't limit what people listen to. That renders the rest of the service (with some interesting ideas) almost useless. I'm going to have to see this to believe it. No one has successfully been able to navigate the hostile waters of the record industry with this new ad supported model. If they can manage that channel, this could be an interesting service to watch.

Piracy a threat to U.S. economy?

A recent article by ReportOnBusiness.com (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070828.IBWORLD28/TPStory/Business) makes the case that piracy may not just be hurting certain digital media industries. In fact, it could be hurting the US economy as a whole.

"The annual drain on the economy includes $12.5-billion in output, 71,060 jobs and $422-million in federal, state and local taxes, according to a new study by Stephen Siwek of the Institute for Policy Innovation."

"The true cost of sound-recording piracy far exceeds its impact on U.S. producers and distributors ..." the study concludes. "Piracy harms not only the owners of intellectual property, but also U.S. consumers and taxpayers."

The argument is made that the true cost of piracy is TWICE as great as is currently being estimated. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be true but this doesn't change the reality that a large portion of the 14 to 35 year old generation has been trained to ignore copyright laws on a plethora of products.

The whole piracy argument is dead on arrival. You are not going to change people's value system just by a few lawsuits here and there. Really, when you boil it down, there are only 2 strategies being employed to combat piracy, litigation and DRM. Neither is effective at getting to the real goal which is changing the mindset to bring monetary value back to music.

One thing the industry needs to do right away is stop letting iTunes have a monopoly on the easiest way to acquire legal music online. Make everything iPod compatible and let every site you can find, sell it at a variable pricing model. Part of the problem is that consumers can't get music easily even when they want to be honest.

Making the case for music as art

CD sales and especially online tracks have been in a race to the bottom in terms of pricing over the past few years. A new Canadian record label Victorious Kiam (http://www.victoriouskiam.com/) is now launching an unknown artist with only 100 copies of the single and charging roughly $200 per copy (UK£ 100).

You heard that right, $200 for a single track from an unknown artist.

The artist is Thurston Revival and the name of the track is "Somewhere There's An Angel."

The point being made here is that music is art just like a painting or sculpture or whatever. It has an intrinsic artistic value and Kiam is trying to make a point more than anything that a well crafted song is worth as much in time and effort as a wonderful piece of art from another medium. Even better, they have a series of awesome album art pieces included in the package to really drive home the point that the song and album art together make up the artistic ideas and are one package.

I am definitely on the bandwagon of music as art. The issue here is that you are not paying for the master (as you would when you buy a one-of-a-kind original painting or sculpture.) Instead, you are paying for a reproduction (more like a reprint or replica) which is worth MUCH less than the original. If they were selling the master tape, then that would be one thing. But this is a copy, digital by the way, that is exactly the same as the original but reproducible for almost nothing.

What they do have going for them on this is the point that good album art is part of a greater artistic package than the track alone. Definitely agree there. It is a crime that we have lost the album art from the digital music experience (don't tell me a 100 x 100 pixelated album cover I can barely make out is cutting it iTunes!). The other thing is the scarcity of the track. I can see paying a lot more for something that only 100 people are "ever" going to be able to own. If they stick to their guns, there is value in it. This is definitely an interesting experiment in a new model.