8Sided Blog

the scene celebrates itself

SXSW Recap: Sorry I Didn’t Check Out Your Showcase

by // 1 Comment

I’ve been back from Austin and SXSW for over a week, but I’m just now feeling refreshed and up to speed. It’s taken a little while to process everything, as is always the case with these industry conferences and their non-stop agendas. A short recap, you say? Okay, here you go:

This is the year I attended SXSW solely as a music business professional. Previously I was an artist, performing at various showcases. Then my only worries were finding my way to the label-provided hotel room, doing well at the gig, and hanging out and having drinks with various music friends also in town. This time I flew to Austin to get down to business. I went to catch the mood, feel the vibe, put a wet finger to the wind to determine where it’s all going, and network network network. I’m not sure if I’m any wiser about the future direction of the music industry and I didn’t meet as many new people as I thought I would (though I made a few great new friends), but I’m satisfied with my SXSW experience.

It was maybe a decade ago that I last made it to SXSW. It’s difficult for me to understand how much things have changed (and grown) as I never went to the actual conference. But when I told people that this was my first time in ten years, the reaction was always “well, it’s different” followed by an exasperated look of ‘whew.’ I won’t lie — it was busy. Everywhere you looked you found small groups of people with badges hanging from their necks. There were also ride-share scooters all over the place, and often the sidewalks and pathways were clogged with semi-inebriated attendees perilously dodging on-foot people like me.

When most people think of SXSW, they think of all the bands. I mainly partook in the actual conference, checking out panels and having a few scheduled ‘mentor sessions.’ Those sessions were opportunities to sit with a person of note in the music industry and pick his or her brain for fifteen minutes. Fifteen minutes isn’t much, but I came prepared with set questions for the veteran music publishing professionals I spoke with. It seemed like a brain-numbing exercise for the ‘mentors’ as the sessions were one-after-the-other, fifteen minutes in-and-out. ‘Speed dating’ was mentioned more than once. I did get some value — it’s like asking a lawyer that burning legal question that’s been sitting in the back of your brain, and without incurring the hourly rate.

There were some meaty panels, too. I wish I had gone to more, but I ended up mostly running around finding people and having last-minute meetings. I checked out an in-the-weeds panel about contract negotiation (totally my kind of thing) and a terrific panel about how label A&R has changed over the past several years. My friend Craig Snyder was the moderator for the latter, and there was a bit of enlightening information thrown around. Notably, Island Records’ Alyssa Castiglia — a proponent of data tools — put to rest the myth that modern labels now sign acts based on data alone. Instead, data is used to spot trends as they happen, guiding the type of artists for a major label A&R scout to seek out.

https://twitter.com/qburns/status/1107722746321088513

And of course, there were bands. 8D Industries flagship band, Monta At Odds, performed — with a new singer and drummer — and sounded excellent. This band is transforming/mutating in real time, and there will be new recordings by the end of this year to document these changes. Other fun bands I saw included Mary Lattimore (sunset by the lake with bats in the air!), The Comet Is Coming, Heart Bones (Robbie Hardkiss and I were laughing our asses off), The Octopus Project, Anemone, and Palberta. It may seem like I saw a lot of bands, but my efforts paled in comparison to my badge-wearing peers.

I’m glad I went, and I’m happy I’m home. I’ll be back next year, I’m sure. And now I’m gearing up for the next conference on the agenda — Nashville’s MusicBiz 2019 in early May. Reach out if you’ll be there, too.

Spotify’s Auto-Play Means Less Royalty For Songwriters

by // 1 Comment

An astute observation by Billboard:

Although songwriters, publishers, or everyday people may not be aware, Spotify — like YouTube — has now moved to a model that auto-plays songs after a user listens to one they selected. […]

On the plus side, what this does is keep listeners engaged on the site, which is a benefit that Spotify likes. And it has the potential to turn listeners on to more music, a benefit that all rights owners, publishers, songwriters, labels and artists should like. And it steers payments to artists and songwriters whose songs weren’t chosen to be played.

But it represents a downside in per-stream payments for songwriters and artists, too. Since the payout pool is divided by streams, the more streams that occur in a month, the further the per-stream payout decreases. In addition to songs that users choose to play, their devices will automatically play other songs after they hear the song they wanted. Who knows how many additional plays accrue due to automation — but it’s safe to say those plays are further diluting the per-stream payout for artists and songwriters whose songs the consumer chooses to play.

I also believe Spotify’s auto-played songs fall under ‘non-interactive streaming’ (AKA ‘internet radio’). This means that mechanical royalty does not apply. So this auto-play feature may partly serve to lessen a user’s amount of ‘interactive’ streams, allowing the platform the decrease its overall royalty pay-out.

Please correct me if I’m wrong. But if I’m right, and you’re a Spotify user, maybe think about turning off the auto-play mechanism in the app’s settings.

🔗→ The CRB Rate Trial Explained: How Publishers, Digital Services Weighed In At The Time

It’s Me and Your Granny on Bongos: Who Owns a Band Name?

by // Leave a Comment

The proliferation of reunion tours by veteran acts — including bands formed over 50 years ago — is arguably a result of dwindling sales royalty mixed with the advanced age of the art form and its fans. The age factor inevitably leads to original members dropping off the bill, whether for ill health (or demise) or weariness of road life.

The New York Times examines the fine line of when your favorite band is no longer your favorite band because it’s missing key members — or even all its members:

“If it’s me and your granny on bongos, it’s the Fall,” the singer Mark E. Smith, who peremptorily hired and fired dozens of members of the Fall, once said. But only a few musicians can carry off such lordly “l’état, c’est moi” proclamations. Mick Jones might be on that short list.

Over the years, Foreigner has shed every main member of its early lineups until only Jones was left. But, argued Phil Carson, the band’s manager, “There’s only been one original member, ever. Mick handpicked everyone. We’ve had five or six keyboard players, almost countless drummers. If Mick Jones says it’s Foreigner, it’s Foreigner.”

{But Jones} sometimes misses shows, depending on his health. Last year, when he was forced to skip a show at a 10,000-seat arena in Tel Aviv, a fan told The Jerusalem Post he felt the night was “tainted with con.” {…} But Carson says fans enjoy Foreigner just as much whether Jones is onstage or in his slippers at home: “I’d say 90 percent of people at the shows have no clue who was in Foreigner.”

This piece also discusses an important topic that’s rarely brought up at band practice — the assignable ownership of a name:

Disputes over the rights to a band’s name are thorny because they combine elements of trademark law and contract law, said Loren Chodosh, an entertainment attorney whose clients have included Nada Surf and TV on the Radio.

Band names typically qualify as trademarks, and trademarks can be assigned by contract. “A band agreement, in a lot of ways, is like a prenup,” Chodosh said. “It’s about what will happen if things go wrong and somebody leaves, which nobody wants to talk about. Bands don’t start to hate each other until they’re successful.”

Most bands, Chodosh said, never establish contractually how the band trademark is owned. In the absence of a contract, she added, “Trademark law prevails. And because trademark law is not uncomplicated, it’s difficult to say who owns that trademark.”

Once a band feels like a growing concern (which may occur as early as the moment the band comes up with a name) it’s a good idea to determine where the band name resides. Does it follow all the band members, like the “last man standing” agreement Bobby Colomby of Blood, Sweat & Tears mentions in the article? What if the band splits in half? Is there indisputably a ‘band leader’ or defining presence that’s logically tied to the name? Figure this out. Get it in writing.

I think it was Mike Mills’s podcast interview with Brian Koppelman where he tells the story of REM’s band name agreement. If one band member called it quits REM would have to dissolve. So when Bill Berry left the band, he had to give explicit permission for REM to continue as a trio. I’m not sure if this was a legal requirement — that is, in writing, agreed upon by all band members — but my feeling is it certainly was.

🔗→ Reunion Tour! The Band Is Back! Wait, Who Are These Guys?

Bound for SXSW

by // Leave a Comment

I’m heading off to SXSW tomorrow for a few days of meet-ups and hellos and hobnobbing. It’s been about a decade since I attended the Austin-based conference, and, in the past, I was there as a performer. So this will be my first time at SXSW solely for business. I expect that change of dynamic, as well as the exponential growth of the conference over that past decade, to give me multiple moments of overwhelm. I can deal.

One place where you can find me is Friday (March 15) at Shangri-La around 3:30 in the afternoon. Super cool 8D Industries flagship band Monta At Odds will be playing the MidCoast Takeover showcase at that time. You shouldn’t miss them as they rarely (if ever) play outside of Kansas City. And I’ll be there so be sure to say ‘howdy.’

If you can’t make Shangri-La on Friday but might like to meet up in Austin then feel free to shoot me an email and let’s see what happens.

I will try to report in from SXSW but I’m not making any promises! At the very least, expect a recap upon my return.

Spotify is “Effectively Suing Songwriters”

by // Leave a Comment

Music Business Worldwide:

Yesterday (March 7), it emerged that four major owners of digital music services – Spotify, Amazon, Google and Pandora – had lodged legal appeals against the US Copyright Royalty Board’s recent decision to raise streaming royalties for songwriters (and music publishers) by 44%. That royalty rise, which previously looked locked in, is now in serious jeopardy.

Apple Music, in contrast, has accepted the new rates, and declined to challenge what’s viewed as an important pay hike for songwriters.

Remember when Kendrick Lamar and (reportedly) other artists threatened to pull music from Spotify over the arbitrary ‘hate conduct’ ban policy? Spotify quickly backtracked. This might be another opportunity for artists to show Spotify and the streaming industry who really needs who more.

And, as with privacy, Apple continues to brand themselves as the company that does the right thing. I’ll contain my cynicism (which I have for any corporate organization) and say ‘good on them.’

🔗→ Wait… Spotify is ‘suing songwriters’? What the heck is going on?

Notice How TV Music Is Getting a Lot Cooler?

by // Leave a Comment

In a recent piece, Noisey explores the rise of independent artists working on scores for television programs, such as Julia Holter‘s work on the UK Channel 4 show Pure. Music supervisor Jen Moss explains how the scoring landscape is now a bit more adventurous:

“Things like cable channels and streaming platforms are allowing for slightly more leftfield storytelling and non-traditional narratives and voices,” she explains. “The creatives behind them want to to extend that experimentation into the music as well. So what we’re getting now is a move away from all the orchestral traditional scores you used to tend to get, into soundscapes that are as artful and unique as the visuals they’re accompanying.”

I imagine another factor is that so much content is created now, with even more on the way as new streaming networks from the likes of Disney and Apple appear on the horizon. With all these shows, studios are going to unexpected (and lower budgeted) places to fill composer shoes.

But the odd tone of the article stood out to me:

The trend of indie artists scoring films is finally trickling down to TV. But while on the surface it might appear like a winning arrangement for both artists, TV creators and small screen bingers alike, underneath it reveals a darker truth about how indie musicians are increasingly being forced to diversify in a time of crushingly low streaming platform royalties railroading acts into exhausting cycles of touring.

Weird. Even before streaming, indie musicians would jump at the chance to score for TV. And I don’t think I’ve ever discussed goals with a songwriter or producer without ‘scoring a film or TV show’ coming up. Yes, diversification is essential for musicians in 2019 and non-stop touring sucks. But artists given opportunities to work on television is often considered a golden opportunity, despite streaming’s impact.

🔗→ TV’s ‘Golden Age’ Has an Extra Meaning for Indie Musicians

Spotify’s Rights Gamble in India

by // Leave a Comment

Complete Music Update:

{Warner/Chappell} went to court in India last week ahead of Spotify’s long-awaited launch in the market. The mini-major is yet to agree to a deal with Spotify for India, and that deal would cover Warner’s Anglo-American songs repertoire as well as its recordings catalogue. {…}

Spotify’s solution to that problem was to argue that there is a compulsory licence available under Indian copyright law which means it can utilise Warner’s songs without a bespoke direct deal, providing it pays the royalties due under that compulsory licence. Warner argues that the compulsory licence Spotify is relying on doesn’t apply to on-demand streaming services, and it wants a court order confirming that fact. The legal spat is ongoing.

… and then via Variety:

Spotify, which finally launched in India last Tuesday — albeit without securing a deal with Warner Music — after months of delays, says that it has reached 1 million users on both its paid and free tiers in just under a week.

This impressive sounding news has spread quickly throughout the media. It’s almost like Spotify’s PR is actively pushing this ‘1 million users’ number to trumpet the importance of the platform in the Indian market, eh? One could even see a strategy similar to Spotify’s ascension in the US with regards to publishing rights — show that the music needs Spotify more than the other way around, and figure out the rights later.

The Verge, however, rains on this parade:

India’s total population is 1.34 billion people, but only about 150 million, or about 11 percent, subscribe to a music streaming service, according to a report by Deloitte and Indian music-industry body IMI published earlier this year. Of this 150 million, less than one percent of subscribers pay for a subscription and about 14 percent have a bundled subscription (such as Amazon Prime, or through a mobile contract). The remaining 85 percent stream music with free subscriptions. So, while 1 million is a large number, Spotify is reaching less than one percent of the Indian music streaming population, and it has likely signed up few paid subscribers.

… and the publishers are buckling down, according, again, to Complete Music Update:

… you might expect those publishers which do have deals with Spotify in India to be on the streaming service’s side. Except, Spotify’s interpretation of Indian copyright law extends the reach of compulsory licensing in India. And if there’s one thing all labels and publishers hate more than anything else, it’s the idea of the reach of compulsory licensing being extended.

That is the reason why, shortly after a board meeting of the {International Confederation Of Music Publishers}, the trade group’s Director General John Phelan stated: “Music publishers worldwide work in the interest of all creators and will fight for appropriate remuneration for all licensed use of their work. At the heart of this problem is the inappropriate use of music and the subsequent undervaluation of songwriters – Indian and international. ICMP and its members express their full support of Warner/Chappell Music in its actions”.

I’ll close with a damning observation from David Turner in today’s installment of his excellent Penny Fractions newsletter:

… this situation reminds me of Spotify’s early usage of pirated music to launch the company {as detailed in the new book Spotify Teardown}. The attempt to skirt Indian law in how they licensed the music of Warner Music Group isn’t bold or interesting, it’s just unethical.

This could get messy.

🔗→ Global music publishing group backs Warner in its Spotify spat in India
🔗→ Spotify India Reaches 1 Million Total Users in First Week
🔗→ Spotify just made a tiny dent in India’s fast-growing market
🔗→ Penny Fractions: Why You Must Read ‘Spotify Teardown’

You Don’t Have To Read ‘Atrocity Exhibition’ To Name Your Song

by // Leave a Comment

Previously I mentioned that Brian Eno and David Byrne named their seminal album My Life in the Bush of Ghosts without reading the book of the same title. The latest issue of Philip Christman’s The Tourist newsletter talks about other song titles taken from unread books:

Joy Division recorded the song “Atrocity Exhibition,” which in mood and feel is a pretty exact match to the almost unendurably grim J.G. Ballard novella of the same name. JD and Ballard are often mentioned together, as having a similar sensibility. But Ian Curtis wrote the song without having yet read the book–all he needed was the title. It’s as though he knew the book without knowing it. The inspiration for Kate Bush’s “Wuthering Heights” was her catching the last few minutes of a 1967 TV adaptation of the novel as a child; though she did eventually get around to reading the book, you get the sense that her doing so was almost an afterthought. The song is about those last couple minutes, that demanding ghost at the window, as seen by a nine-year-old musical genius. {…}

{A way to think about it} is that our half-formed conceptions and the things that inspire them are both actualities–the song Ian Curtis started hearing in his head when he learned that there existed a novel called The Atrocity Exhibition and the actual novel, The Atrocity Exhibition, are both real things, and they need to be kept in some sort of ecological balance in order for both to fully exist. The song isn’t ready to confront the novel until it’s had some time to grow.

I remember, in my teenage punk band, naming songs after artsy books and movies I hadn’t read or watched. My motivation was to appear smarter and more rounded than I was but, I assume, it’s the same end result as Christman notes above. ‘Art’ is shaped by the ghosts and impressions of its inspirations, despite whether those inspirations are fully ingested or understood.

🔗→ The Tourist–Volume 65

Netflix and the Future of Award-Winning Indies

by // Leave a Comment

Anne Thompson in Indiewire:

{Steven Spielberg’s} Academy Award attention is now devoted to ensuring that the race never sees another “Roma” — a Netflix film backed by massive sums, that didn’t play by the same rules as its analog-studio competitors. {…} As far as he’s concerned, as it currently stands Netflix should only compete for awards in the Emmy arena … {…}

“There’s a growing sense that if [Netflix] is going to behave like a studio, there should be some sort of standard,” said one Academy governor. “The rules were put into effect when no one could conceive of this present or this future. We need a little clarity.”

The landscape is changing so fast for film, and Spielberg and company should be advised to tread lightly. I understand the need for guidelines but what separates a ‘TV show’ from a ‘feature film’ is probably the wrong question and one we may not need to ask in several years. That separation, more and more, is about the budget — with superhero and ‘event’ films dominating the cineplexes while daring directors have no choice but to turn to the streaming studios.

And who can blame them? The number of people that saw Roma vs. its audience if it had a traditional theater release is unarguably exponential. And a common complaint about Oscar fare is that not enough people have seen these films, or can see these films as they are often in limited (or arthouse) runs. Now more people are watching great movies. I don’t understand how Spielberg sees this as a bad thing. Or, even if he does — my guess (and hope) is his opposition is overblown, that he’s exploring guidelines that reflect a changing industry. After all, I can’t imagine he’d want to rebuff Martin Scorsese, whose next film is a Netflix joint.

I personally feel we’re entering a golden age for independent film. But that golden age will primarily exist on our televisions.

Also, in the Indiewire piece, there’s a list of reasons why Netflix supposedly has an unfair advantage. This one caught my eye:

Netflix spent too much. One Oscar strategist estimated “Roma” at $50 million in Oscar spend, with “Green Book” at $5 million.

Ultimately, awards are nonsense though I understand the marketing benefits, role in legacy-setting, and prestige. But at least we should keep some veneer of the ‘best film’ as the winner of Best Film. If an out-of-control marketing budget for an Oscar campaign is an unfair advantage, then I feel the problem lies within the Academy and the voting process.

Insert comment about parallels with the screwed-up state of US democracy here.

🔗→ The Spielberg vs. Netflix Battle Could Mean Collateral Damage for Indies at the Oscars

SoundCloud’s Distribution: Not Taking a Cut?

by // Leave a Comment

Kori Hale in Forbes:

SoundCloud’s new Premiere distribution channel should streamline the money artists receive from various platforms, and help monetize their music through a revenue sharing program. By Investing in tools artists need, CultureBanx reported they can offer more value and potentially become a more profitable company, instead of trying to directly compete with Apple Music and Spotify.{…}

SoundCloud won’t take a cut of the payouts artist receive from the other music streaming services. The new distribution tool will be available to eligible SoundCloud Pro $6/month and SoundCloud Pro Unlimited $12/month subscribers.

As MusicAlly reported, SoundCloud’s distribution engine is powered by FUGA. I can’t imagine FUGA isn’t taking a cut, so my guess is that SoundCloud won’t take anything off the net received from FUGA. If SoundCloud is selling this as if artists will get the full distributor percentage from Spotify and Apple Music it’s disingenuous. Does anyone know the deal?

🔗→ SoundCloud’s Urban Culture Streams Into Spotify & Apple Music