Internet Radio and the Social Music Revolution

Last.fm, an Internet radio station, is the self-proclaimed social music revolution. Their reasoning for such a grandiose title? It blends features from other networking sites like MySpace with Internet radio (similar to Pandora), while allowing its users to share music with other users. This is made possible by each users' individual profile, dedicated solely to music listening, that is created by listening to personal music collections or the radio service on the website. Music charts are created according to the number of plays of each song and artist, and these charts are made viewable to all users. Primarily used as a way to discover new music by browsing other users' profiles and listening to the Last.fm personalized radio, which is similar to Pandora's in the sense that it creates a station of similar sounding artists based around one artist, this social network is a great way for music lovers to discover new artists and for artists and labels to promote their products. It may not be THE social music revolution, but it is certainly a part of it. It is a great music recommendation tool and, undoubtedly, previously unknown artists are discovered everyday. But there are other means of finding music.

The aforementioned Pandora online radio service is a similar online device. What is lacking is the ability to create profiles and interact with other users. The goal of the Pandora service, according to the website, is "To help you discover new music you'll love." That is a noble mission. It is impossible to imagine a world without music, even a day without one's ears being tickled by melodic or percussive patterns, arousing emotions from the very depths of our being. I am listening to Pandora right now, as I have created several different radio stations based on some of my favorite artists, including: Coheed and Cambria, Ben Harper, Matt Pond PA, 311, and Death Cab for Cutie. It is on the Death Cab station right now and just played a song by Wolf Colonel, an artist I have never heard of before. It wasn't a bad song and it had qualities reminiscent of Death Cab, though it wasn't a rip-off of their sound. This is what Pandora aims to do: Analyze musical qualities of songs and artist and find similar artists. While this may not seem like an intelligent way to branch out and find new music, it really can be. If one is interested in hearing new music from a certain musical genre, then a station created from a prominent band or artist representing the sound of that genre can be created and alike artists and bands will be heard.

Of course, there are limitations to Pandora's radio service. One being the presentation of bad music. Not all new music will be liked by the listener, and I have experienced this on many occasions. Luckily, one is allowed to skip to the next song in the lineup, however, only six song skips are allowed per hour. This is not surprising given the amount of legal restrictions surrounding the service. Ah! As I am writing this they are playing a song that, so far, I really don't like. It is by a band called El Toro. Check them out, you may like them. I may too if I hear other songs. That is one of the great things of this type of music service. If I like a song, or even if I dislike a song, I can quickly find a link to one of the artist's websites and listen to more of their music to get a more solidified opinion and form a coherent judgment. Wonderful! Don't you just love the Internet? I do! It is amazing how easy it is to discover new things.

Supported by advertisements, Last.fm and Pandora are free services. However, there are optional fee-based subscriptions that subsequently get rid of the advertisements. So if these seemingly sophisticated and hip music recommendation networks and personalized radios are free to the public to take advantage of, what is the point in listening to terrestrial radio or even satellite radio? While there certainly are limitations to these online music listening services, I feel that the possibilities and ease of finding new music outweigh the limitations and restrictions that may be encountered. While there may be the occasional great song that is played on terrestrial or satellite radio, it seems far more likely that the frequency of good music played will be heard on personalized online radio stations and music social networking sites. Whether the music is discovered through personalized radio or recommended by another user who may be thousands of miles from your location does not really matter. What matters is that there are multiple ways to find new material and enrich one's musical palette. It sure beats having to put up with annoying radio personalities and mainstream repetition. Can radio survive? We shall soon see. As discussed by my professor's most recent blog, probably not once WiFi connectivity is universal, as people may opt to listen to radio online.

It is easy to predict that Internet radio and music social networks will trump other forms of radio but only time will tell. It is possible that Internet radio will remain a luxury side item but what is most important here is that the option exists. Variety, among other things, helps make the world a sometimes, actually very rarely but seemingly normal, functioning place. For now I take comfort in knowing that there are many different ways to find new music. As Michael Franti said,

"I don't know if music can change the world overnight but I know music can help us make it through a difficult night. Sometimes that's all any of us need, to make it into tomorrow."

How true it is. Music is so important to everyone's life, and life in general. It is necessary to realize that sometimes it doesn't matter what the source for new music is, but that one is able to find new music at all.

RIAA = Big Brother

Though it has been happening for years, every time news is reported about the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) it just gets more and more ludicrous. Supposedly the RIAA is increasing its crackdown on illegal file-sharing, specifically within college campus networks. According to an Associated Press article by Ted Bridis, "the music industry is sending thousands more copyright complaints to universities this school year than last." Obviously it is not giving up its fight to curb illegal downloading. And, obviously, the RIAA is not thinking of more effective ways to get people to stop stealing music.

What gets to me the most is that this "crackdown" is aimed specifically at college students. I of course have a bias because I happen to be a college student, but that is not why I am outraged. Well, thinking about it I am not necessarily outraged. As I sit here writing this, eating a bowl of recently prepared pasta and pondering the goings on of the music industry, I find myself slightly annoyed and highly entertained at this specific situation. What irks me is that the RIAA has the nerve to target the literal future leaders of this country. How can I back this opinion up? Take a gander at the penalties becoming popular by many universities:

- First time offenders usually receive a warning via e-mail. Usually this is enough to discourage violators to cease and desist all illegal action.

- Second time offenders may be called into the principal's office and forced to watch anti-piracy videos provided graciously by the RIAA.

- Third timers may, get this, be suspended for an entire semester. (!)

Threatening e-mails, mind-numbing videos, suspension of Internet connection AND from enrolled classes...it just doesn't make much sense. College students have enough on their plate without having to deal with laughable threats and lawsuits. Not all college students fit the stereotype of 24/7 partying accompanied by 24/7 piracy and sleeping in late. Though I myself fit into one of those stereotypes...I love some good shut-eye...However, there are many, MANY hardworking, dedicated students of academia simply do not have the time to deal with the RIAA acting like they know what they are doing. While there are undoubtedly some individuals who deserve to be "disciplined" for downloading a huge volume of pirated content, there are many who may have been singled out for only downloading or sharing one file. ONE. I know it may be difficult to distinguish between a big-time repeat downloader and a small-time peer-to-peer dabbler, but I do not think that is fair.

While the debate over peer-to-peer file-sharing is large and multi-sided, and the point of this post is not to debate whether it is good or bad, I have to bring up a success story brought on by Napster. The band Dispatch attributes most of its success to file-sharing and illegal downloading. This isn't debatable, as even the manager of the band, Steve Bursky, agrees, "Whenever anyone asks me how the Dispatch phenomenon happened, I'd attribute a huge portion to the early days of Napster." In fact, when Napster was going through the mess of lawsuits they experienced in 2000, Dispatch was there to support Napster and even threw a benefit concert on behalf of Napster.

While illegal downloading can in fact make a legitimate impact in an album's sales, it can also be a huge promotional tool. Dispatch had one television appearance in their eight year history and virtually no radio play. However, they are a music phenomenon and drew roughly 100,000 fans to their last show. Amazing.

Is the RIAA and the recording industry in general doing the right thing by suing people, and especially by targeting college students and pressuring universities to spend time and resources to punish students who download? The business is what it is and it sometimes doesn't look like it will change, but I believe that everyone will realize, eventually, that file-sharing is necessary and can be used to benefit the artist and the label for promotional purposes. The CD is on its last legs and record sales, including online sales, are dismal. It is time to stop fighting the inevitable and learn to adapt to change and make change work for you.




Dispatch information taken from this article.

Smart marketing, or just annoying?

In a recent New York Times article, it was reported that record labels are beginning to toy with the idea of getting rid of digital rights management, or DRM, on their music and video files released online. Specifically, music videos from popular bands signed to Suretone Records, including Weezer, will be released to unspecified online file-sharing networks completely unprotected; no trace of DRM.

What?! Are you serious?!?! I don't know what surprises me more, that they are releasing DRM-free content, or that they are releasing music videos. This is just so great!

But wait! There's more! Actually, there is a catch: The files released are not complete. More like half of the actual file will be available to view. Why? Once half the video is played, the viewer will be directed to the label's website to watch the entire video. If the user isn't annoyed enough at being duped by a record label's marketing department (for shame!) to not continue to the website, then the video can be viewed with the accompaniment of advertisements. Awesome. Such is the nature of the corporate beast: Think of long-winded, often ridiculous ways to make a buck.

I have a proposal: Instead of planting incomplete files on file sharing networks, just run advertisement banners on the most popular file sharing and music websites that notify the user of free video viewing on the label's website. Why not plant incomplete files? Because the user will find another way to download the desired file, be it audio or video, and downloading this half-file marketing ploy will most likely leave the user annoyed and laughing at the record label's feeble attempt at being sneaky, cool, smart, or whatever the labels think they are. Furthermore, at this point I don't even think it matters if DRM stays or goes. There will always be ways to illegally download the desired content. It's just reality. If DRM was thrown away, people will still find music for free. If DRM remains, people will find ways around it like they have been doing since its inception. Either way, the time will come when the record industry has to realize that music needs to flow like water, like a public utility. Once we all get past this "online revolution" roadblock and realize that there is no destination, just a never-ending journey to (hopefully) bigger and better things, all sides of the music world will be much more productive.

Honestly though, it is encouraging that people are at least thinking and acting instead of fighting the inevitable. Of course, now that Suretone Records has tentatively dipped its toes in uncharted waters, others will follow suit. Let's hope that this probable snowball effect will lead to something big, a compromise where both the recording industry and consumers are happy. Other major sources of revenue will have to open up and CDs will most likely have to go the way of the dinosaurs. Until new age thinking catches up with new age technology it will always be one step forward, two steps back. But I have hope.


Since this post started out focused on videos, here are some examples of music videos I wouldn't mind putting up with advertisements to watch:

OK Go - Here It Goes Again


Chemical Brothers - Star Guitar


Red Hot Chili Peppers - Can't Stop

Almost Famous

So you've got a band and you live in L.A. You sound pretty good and have aspirations of making a living off of it. You've acquired a small but loyal following and play regularly at small clubs across the region. Money is made, but nowhere near enough to sustain a decent living. How does a band start to make legitimate money, especially in a city with thousands of aspiring musicians? The short answer: Get signed by a major label. Well my friends, the chances of succeeding at becoming signed to a major and then being successful on the label are very slim.

Enter the Internet.

As musician Sebu Simonian attested in a recent Los Angeles Times article, "Most musicians, when they start out, think you've got to get signed in order to succeed. But now that the Internet has developed to become a really powerful tool to sell yourself, it's not as necessary." How true it is. According to my professor Jerry Del Colliano, labels are spending less and less money on developing new artists and spending more and more on their already established acts, milking the most out of the artists they already have. This makes it even harder for an up-and-coming group or artist to stoke the interest of a financially capable record label.

So how can an unknown artist "make it"?

Obviously, as far as the Internet is concerned, MySpace is the instinctive choice. It has become absolutely necessary for bands big and small to sustain a MySpace page. Aside from marketing and promoting to find new fans, music can be sold on the site. It's an all-in-one paradise for musicians and music lovers alike. Along with MySpace, there are other social networking sites for music, like purevolume.com. According to its directory, there are at least 30,034 listings for artists in the state of California alone, not to mention every other state and country the site represents. Though not as popular as MySpace, it does possess at least 408,719 "listeners," or people who have created a profile (similar to MySpace but solely for music purposes). The website allows artists to post songs, announcements, blogs, photos, and upcoming shows on their page. Though the capability to sell music on PureVolume does not exist, there is ample room for artists to promote their music and where to buy it. For example, here is the profile for the band Underoath. PureVolume is a great site to promote music and garner support. But are there more options to sell music online besides iTunes and MySpace? Yes.

CD Baby, a small online record store based in Portland, Oregon, is an attractive alternative. According to cdbaby.com, artists can make $6 to $12 per CD sold. That is a substantial increase from the CD royalty rates on most record contracts. What is great about CD Baby is that it is geared to the independent-minded "Do-It-Yourself" artist, as it does not accept CDs from distributors, only directly from the artist. Of course the opportunity cost here is the price of pressing a significant amount of CDs and shipping them to the warehouse, but this can be recouped by the high return on sold CDs and the amount of CDs sold. Because this is an online record store, regional distribution is not a problem as literally anyone in the world can order a CD from the site and have it delivered. This is the beauty of the digital age.

So is the tide beginning to change, or has it finally changed? It is apparent that artists are aware that there are numerous ways to make money that doesn't involve being signed to a record label. Of course, however, it is next to impossible for an unsigned band to stage a cross-country tour in support of their recently released on CDBaby.com EP, but it is not impossible to make a decent amount of cash to use to record, make merchandise, and do small scale tours. While there are benefits that only the money of a major record label can provide, the ingredients exist for a serious power shift from the corporate business to the amateur entrepreneur.

It is an exciting time in the music world and it should be interesting to see how the labels will react when they realize they are not as needed as they used to be!

MySpace Madness

So, I was just perusing the MySpace Music front page and happened onto something fascinating. In the middle of the page was an ad for none other than Snoop Dogg. What was it titled? Snoop Dogg Distribution. It stated that one should stay tuned for the "fresh tracks" that will be available every week. Upon clicking the small feature I was directed to Snoop's profile, where I noticed the somewhat new MySpace music store. He is selling select tracks for $0.83.

That is awesome.

Please excuse my lack of exclamation, I actually am really excited about this! Hey there it is. This "online music store" concept is very familiar to us by now. When implemented on MySpace, however, it looks much more exciting. Why? You get to set your own prices. Also, basically anyone who records their own original music can have the opportunity to make a little money off of it. Of course music is not about making money, but think about the struggling small-time bands who are striving to make a living off of their art. This is huge! Although an unknown band is not bound to make loads of cash off of this, the collections from selling songs could at least pay for (some) gas or food if the band is, say, touring. Small things like that can really make a difference. I love it!

Of course, this service is not free. I did not find specific details, but upon looking at the FAQ page on the site it did specify that the artist will not receive money until he or she reaches a $20 threshold. That may not seem like a lot but on top of the possible other charges it could be hard to overcome, especially if no one knows about you. But hey, this is MySpace! Shameless self promotion! I am fascinated by this. Being in a band myself, (we're called Dayplayer, you should check us out) this really encourages me and everyone else with the "Do It Yourself" spirit. So why is Snoop Dogg doing it? Well, why not. He gets to showcase his producing skills while promoting his proteges. Perfect!

I'm sure I will be able to come up with a solid counterargument to this once I learn more about it. For now though, I am excited!

Viacom Against YouTube

Last week Viacom demanded that online video sharing site YouTube pull more than 100,000 of its video clips, which includes content from such networks as MTV and BET. According to one source, there have been over 1 billion video streams of the media giant's content.

So the questions arise: Is this a smart move for Viacom? Or does it even matter?

Removing videos from YouTube, if anything, diminishes promotional possibilities. As the majority of content viewed on YouTube is relatively short in length, generally speaking, the "pirated" video clips only serve as teasers. They are incentive for the viewer to watch/pay for the real thing. If the reason for the demand of the removal of these video clips is money, then YouTube may be a good place to start but rest assured it is not the only source of pirated Viacom video clips. While Google is in the process of developing "fingerprinting" technology and ways to share revenue with the rightful recipients, if money was really a concern then Viacom would have taken serious action long ago. Instead of pulling their video clips they should just wait a little longer and enjoy the perks of being exposed to millions of online viewers until they can monetize it even further. YouTube should be viewed as a promotional tool, not just another source of revenue.

However, like other media companies, Viacom may be preparing to negotiate a partnership with YouTube. This seems likely to occur, but I'm not so sure that removing 100,000 video clips is necessary. Albeit Viacom claims that Google and YouTube have not complied with previous requests to remove video clips, which would be unprofessional on Google's part, I can't imagine that the unauthorized video clips on YouTube really made a dent in Viacom's revenue. Is this a matter of money or of clout? Other large corporations have formed partnerships with YouTube after threatening action, like Universal Music did last year. YouTube has become over-saturated with corporate entities, especially since Google purchased it for an unspeakable amount of money ($1.65 billion. Really?). What once was a generally harmless way of sharing mainly user-generated videos has become the target for parasitic media corporations.

But does anyone really care? We can still watch our favorite video clips. I can still watch "Hard-Hitting Questions" by Liam Sullivan or learn how to play one of my favorite Nada Surf songs (both of which can be viewed below) without Viacom or anyone else but my Internet provider and self-discipline getting in the way. Personally, I spend time on YouTube to check out user-generated content, not TV or movie clips. I'm more interested in what unspoilt minds are creating. But that's just me.

Viacom should hop on the train already and cut a deal and put the videos back up on the site for those people that actually want to see them, if there are any.

Liam Sullivan - Hard-Hitting Questions


Nada Surf - Blizzard of '77


Information gratefully taken from Kenneth Li's article.

Why "Future Music?"

This blog aims to explore current topics involving all things online. Popular social networks like MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube are only a few of the online entities that will be discussed, debated, and anticipated throughout the lifespan of this blog. The means of accessing music have changed and continue to change at a frantic pace. Gone are the days when the local record store was the best way to purchase that new CD, and we all know that CDs aren't even the preferred medium of listening to recorded music anymore.

What is the newest craze? Where is the industry going from here? As Bob Dylan so eloquently observed, "the times they are a-changin'," and I hope you will enjoy reading my opinions and offering yours throughout the journey this blog will take!