SoundCloud’s Rebirth
Per the fiscal 2017 filing, SoundCloud has taken “significant steps to improve its financial health,” including renegotiating certain rightsholder contracts, retiring outstanding debt and cutting major operating expenses, and it achieved positive operating cash flow in 2018.
While its 2018 results will not be available until later this year, SoundCloud says it has surpassed its 2018 growth plan and remains focused on two major ideas: expanding its creator business with a suite of useful artist tools and offering a unique listening experience for its “young, trendsetting, global music fans.” The latter will be increasingly tough as Spotify, Apple Music and other big streaming services solidify their place as market leaders, but the former — a focus on music creation — is something in which SoundCloud remains unsurpassed.
SoundCloud is a popular subject on this blog and, yes, there was a time when we contemplated the service’s possible demise. It’s astonishing that SoundCloud once made a go at Spotify and Apple Music, and the ensuing failure was arguably the direct result of an overreach to attract a mass audience.
I’d say ‘SoundCloud rap’ saved the platform’s bacon. This phenomenon was bubbling hard during the depths of SoundCloud’s financial woes and surely pointed the way out: by doubling down on a core user-base of
🔗→ SoundCloud, Making $100 Million a Year, Is Back on Solid Ground
The streaming model has led to many changes in how we create and consume music. One impact debated as much as any other is the supposed decline of the album as a format. From the outside, streaming seems tailor-made for singles, and many artists are taking advantage of this, consistently releasing one-off songs on streaming platforms, effectively building hype and, in some cases, hits. Some are suggesting the music industry is experiencing a throwback to the ‘50s when singles ruled, and the idea of a self-contained long-form artist statement (i.e. an album) was distant at best.
Billboard is looking back to 2018 as a harbinger of what’s to come:
In case you hadn’t heard, streaming is now king, and 2018 was a case study in how abandoning old-school recording cycles in favor of experimental, fan-favoring workflows can yield tremendous success, even when physical music sales continue to plunge. […]
Executives from both the recording and streaming industries agree that it is no longer the restraints of a physical medium (vinyl, CD, etc.) or shelf space that dictate the impact or capacity of an artist’s work; the real battle is now fought against fan distractions.
I would agree with this, and I also agree with the article’s leaning to the opinion that the rulebook for albums is torn up, thrown out. It’s not that albums are old-fashioned; it’s that we’re at a place where an artist is free to create a statement that best suits her music and fans.
Looking to the past, we can remember purchasing a ten song album — CD, cassette, or vinyl — and finding out there were only one or two good songs. It felt like the record companies were conning us. Arguably, a factor in the quick rise of Napster was dissatisfaction with high-priced CDs featuring only a couple of ‘good’ songs.
I submit that it wasn’t necessarily a record label con. The ‘one good song’ artists shouldn’t have been releasing albums in the first place. There are artists adept at crafting brilliant singles, and there are artists able to make a stunning album statement. Sometimes an artist can do both (mid-80s Michael Jackson or Prince are obvious examples), but I think that’s rare. And a lot of artists had no choice but to wrap a mediocre album around their great, hit single. That’s how things were done before streaming.
In 2018 (going into 2019), artists have the freedom to create in a way that best suits their output and their fan expectations. Childish Gambino can impactfully drop “This Is America,” and Drake can succeed with a 25 track album. Nine Inch Nails can release a 30 minute EP and call it an album, and it’s cool (keep in mind, Van Halen didn’t release an album that clocked in over 35 minutes until David Lee Roth quit.).
Just as a singles artist doesn’t have to release albums, an artist best suited for albums is free to still work in that format. Take our 8D Industries artist Monta At Odds — the album Argentum Dreams is intended as a cohesive piece for listening from front to back. There are a couple of songs that might work as one-off singles, but the Monta At Odds fanbase expects an album and expects the band to take them on this 40-minute journey. If Monta At Odds started releasing a single every month, their fans would be confused and probably listen elsewhere. And an artist finding success with consistent singles would lose fans if she took eight months off to record a concept album.
Once again I’m emphasizing freedom as the defining element of our new music landscape. The album isn’t dead — it’s there if you, or your fans, need it. Be intentional, and understand what you’re trying to say and how your fans want to listen. If that warrants a series of four-song EPs, or a weekly single, or a sprawling 20 track album, then you’re golden. You can do any of that. You could even do all of it if it works. Or, most importantly, you can come up with your own format and schedule — a new expression that might be a single, or it might be an album, but it’s definitely all you.
How have end-of-the-year album lists changed since the advent of streaming? I think they’re entirely different, both in how the lists are compiled and how we, as music listeners, read them.
‘Best Of’ lists weren’t as freewheeling as they are now. There was pressure for the publication and its critics to have selections in the top slots that were familiar to the reader, even if just casually. And it seemed that lists were limited to a top 10 or 20 — 25 if we’re feeling crazy. After all, these were suggestions of music you should buy. Previewing these releases, if you were so bold, meant taking the list to the record store and asking the person at the counter to play a little bit off each record. You’re out of luck if there aren’t any open in-store play copies.
These lists are no longer meant as suggestions for purchasing — it’s music to check out. Fire up your favorite streaming service and take the top ten for a stroll. Or, if you’re feeling ambitious, sample the entire list. But that can take a while as today’s end-of-the-year album lists can go to 100.
The differences don’t stop there. While the pre-internet year-end music lists in Rolling Stone or The Village Voice included selections that generally spanned all genres, online publications offer specialized options. It’s curation, in a sense — find the site or blog whose taste you trust, and that’s the ‘Best of’ list meant for you. And these specialist sites (and even more general music sites) have no attachment to keeping things safe and familiar — it’s not rare when an album you haven’t heard of occupies the number one slot.
I’d argue that, in most cases, these are no longer ‘Best Of’ lists, but they’re more like playlists. That is, playlists of albums rather than songs (though there are ‘best song’ lists, too), curated by the taste that guides a blog or a site’s editorial staff. A top ten has always been subjective, sure, but now we’re talking about albums that we should sample, not purchase with hard-earned money. In a way, this makes these lists less subjective. “These are the albums that we enjoyed this year and, if you like our site, perhaps you will, too.” The difference is listener investment, and, though there are also some negatives to that (which we may discuss someday), it does inspire risk-taking.
I’m not saying the critic doesn’t believe his or her #1 album is the best of the year. But I do feel the path to making that choice and the other choices that populate the rest of the list are less determined, less rigid. And I’m happy with that.
I’ll be sampling a handful of ‘end-of-the-year’ lists over the next several weeks. It’s a December tradition. I’ve picked my favorite lists, and I’m going through them, giving each album at least a three-songs-chance before I decide “yay” or “nay.” I’ll make a note of the ones I like the most and will go back to them later for repeated listens.
This last part is essential. One significant difference in charts then and now is that if you purchased the #1 album, it had better be good. You lived with it for weeks and got to know the album, sometimes even if you weren’t crazy about it. That’s the attachment of investment that streaming doesn’t offer. As music fans, we now have to be intentional in our listening. Streaming is nothing more than a tool for access, but it encourages a casualness by nature. The majority of music listeners have always listened to music casually, so there’s nothing lost there. But if we’re die-hard music fans, it’s necessary to be aware and vigilant in our habits as streaming users.
OK, here are the ‘end-of-the-year’ lists I’m listening through:
- Quietus Albums Of The Year 2018 — My favorite list. It’s an assorted hodge-podge of all things leftfield.
- Resident Advisor: 2018’s Best Albums — These are mainly electronic selections. I’m always impressed by Resident Advisor’s album review team. You might think it’s all club music, but it’s much more eclectic than that.
- A Closer Listen: 2018 Top 10 Ambient — Here’s an old-fashioned top 10, focused on excellent ambient releases you probably haven’t heard.
- The Vinyl Factory: Our Favorite 50 Albums of 2018 — Another fantastic editorial team. Note that these selections are presented as ‘favorites,’ not the ‘best.’
Once I’ve exhausted those (unlikely, as it’s a lot!) then I may explore what I haven’t listened to in the more general lists, such as Pitchfork’s The 50 Best Albums of 2018 and The Best Electronic Music of 2018, and NPR’s Best Music of 2018.
Happy hunting! I’d be curious to know your go-to end-of-year lists … and your #1 album picks.
Download sales are in a free-fall as acceptance of music streaming continues to grow. If you’re in the dance music industry, you might feel some immunity (at least for now) as DJs are your primary customers. And DJs have to download, right? They still need the digital files on a USB, or a CD if they’re (ahem) old school. Well …
Dance music download platform Beatport has acquired Pulselocker, the DJ-centric streaming service that ceased operations late last year.
Pulselocker allowed DJs to access music to include in their sets. It integrated with various DJ software and hardware systems, worked offline, and reported usage back to rights owners. As a result of the deal, Beatport plans to utilise Pulselocker’s patented technology within its own planned streaming service later this year.
Coverage of this acquisition has noted that Beatport previously attempted a streaming service and failed. But it’s easy to see that the plan here is much different. While Beatport’s earlier streaming ambition was to be like a dance music Spotify, the Pulselocker acquisition promises something new: a subscription streaming service for DJs.
I remember once terrifying a DJ friend of mine with the prediction of a ‘Wi-Fi CDJ’ that would access the DJ’s library from the cloud. The result is not that much different than inserting a USB, really — the DJ would be found scrolling through song titles on the CDJ’s screen and queuing selected tracks for play. It made sense for this prediction to be subscription-based, and for the DJ to be able to organize the catalog with folders and tags beforehand using an app. There would also be an offline element in case the network connection got spotty. My friend was worried as this alternate future killed dance music’s market for downloads.
But the last market flying the flag of paid downloads isn’t as healthy as we’d like to believe. DJs are a tribal group, bonding tightly over music and club life. The thought of piracy may not ever enter their minds but sending MP3 copies of a dozen hot tracks to a DJ buddy is an acceptable notion. The dance music world is also rooted in an often desperate promo culture, with labels sending links to free downloads of the latest release to hundreds (sometimes thousands) of tastemakers in one go. Don’t get me wrong — many DJs are still buying downloads, but many others are incentivized not to.
The streaming DJ set-up is disruptive and offers an alternative. The convenience of instantly adding to one’s library transforms copying and sharing amongst DJs into recommending. And I can also see promo services doing deals with Beatport or other streaming-for-DJ services, allowing private ‘lockers’ of pre-release music accessible only through invitation.
There is an issue of bandwidth and audio quality. Discerning DJs prefer the uncompromised quality of a WAV or AIFF audio format, which means large file sizes. But bandwidth and speed are always getting better, and I can imagine these futuristic CDJs utilizing a cellular network in addition to Wi-Fi internet, or can be reliably wired in by ethernet or other systems. There’s also the offline option, and I guess that libraries would be downloaded ahead of time into temporary onboard memory – or transferred to a USB for backup – in case of network failure. If this all works as planned then why even play MP3s? The DJ has the preferable WAV or AIFF option at her fingertips (or, likely, a future lossless format devised for streaming DJs) so why settle for inferior sonics? The overall sound of clubland improves.
For labels and self-releasing artists, the available data will be mind-blowing. Theoretically one could check stats on a Monday morning to see how many times a track got played over the weekend, in what cities, and maybe even — if these future CDJs are geo-located — what clubs. There’s also a payment to labels per play which might mirror Spotify’s subscription model (though I hope Beatport considers adopting a subscriber share model). At first, this may seem a severe downgrade from download income, but when one considers the decline in shared MP3s and the potential monetization of promos (not to mention the improved potential for discovery), then things get a little rosier.
Another factor making a difference is the conceivable ease of reporting venue play for performance royalty collection. Ideally, I’d like to see the streaming service or even the CDJ itself automatically report the set list to performance rights organizations. If that doesn’t happen, then the DJ or venue can easily output a list of the songs played during a set for online submission. This innovation, coupled with the advent of audio fingerprint technology in play identification (already being tested in a handful of countries such as Germany and the UK), helps solve the longstanding problem of inaccurate distribution of venue-related performance royalty. Historically, a nightclub’s yearly license payment to a performing rights organization (such as BMI and ASCAP) goes to an assumed pool of top-tier artists, no matter the music policy of the club. These technological solutions would radically change the landscape, and non-mainstream clubs could finally see their mandatory licensing fees going to underground artists. So, in the near future, a dance music producer could find direct income from DJ play via streaming subscriptions and venue performance royalty.
It’s inevitable that DJs will use streaming or cloud-based services as their ‘record crates’ (well, save for the vinyl hold-outs — like me). DJs are not strangers to disruption, having transitioned from 12”s to CDs to USB sticks to laptops in just over thirty years. But this is the big one, changing how we select, promo, discover, collect, play, and monetize. The art of DJ’ing responds to the technology so it will be interesting to see how this next step affects the DJs, their ingenuity, and the sounds they play.
Lots of confused, angry, and wide-eyed rumblings due to Spotify’s latest legal pronouncement. The Hollywood Reporter explains:
What {Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons member Bob} Gaudio’s lawsuit alleges — as did the prior class action — is Spotify is violating the reproduction rights of publishers and songwriters. Those making a mechanical reproduction of a musical composition can obtain a compulsory license and bypass having to negotiate terms with publishers. However, those doing so have to follow certain protocol like sending out notices and making payments. The lawsuit claims that Spotify hasn’t done an adequate job of doing this.
In the past, Spotify has pointed to the difficulty of locating the co-authors of each of the tens of millions of copyrighted musical works it streams. It fought the class action mainly on jurisdictional grounds as well as challenging whether the lawsuits were ripe for class treatment. But Spotify seems prepared to go another step and set off a legal firestorm by now challenging what rights are truly implicated by streaming.
“Plaintiffs allege that Spotify ‘reproduce[s]’ and ‘distribute[s]’ Plaintiffs’ works, thereby facilely checking the boxes to plead an infringement of the reproduction and distribution rights,” states a Spotify motion for a more definitive statement from the plaintiffs. “But Plaintiffs leave Spotify guessing as to what activity Plaintiffs actually believe entails ‘reproduction’ or ‘distribution.’ The only activity of Spotify’s that Plaintiffs identify as infringing is its ‘streaming’ of sound recordings embodying Plaintiffs’ copyrighted musical compositions.”
Spotify is implying that digital streaming doesn’t entail reproduction; thus the service never owed mechanical royalties in the first place. If you’re confused (and that’s understandable), Complete Music Update gives a solid explainer:
In music, and especially music publishing, a distinction is commonly made between the reproduction and distribution controls – often referred to as the ‘mechanical rights’ – and the performance, communication and making available controls – commonly referred to as the ‘performing rights’.
When you press a CD you exploit the mechanical rights but not the performing rights. When you play a song on the radio you exploit the performing rights but not the mechanical rights. But what about digital?
Copyright law doesn’t usually state which controls the digital transfer of a song or recording exploits, though generally the music industry has treated a digital delivery as both a reproduction and a communication (or a reproduction and a making available) at the same time. A download only exploited the mechanical rights, while a personalised radio service like Pandora or iHeartRadio only exploited the performing rights. However, with on-demand streaming of the Spotify variety, it has generally been accepted that both the mechanical and performing rights are being exploited.
(The full CMU explainer is worth a read.)
I admit, applying mechanical royalty to digital streaming seems a stretch at first. But what’s important to remember is mechanical royalty is not meant to be tied to purchase or the consumer acquiring the duplicated composition. For example, if a label manufactures 1000 CDs then mechanical royalty must be paid for all 1000 copies, even if only 50 sell.
Technically, streaming does require a download, though that download is immediately deleted from the device’s RAM. So, even though the listener isn’t purchasing or acquiring the song, there is a duplication taking place.
This does get tricky when one examines the separation of radio-style services (such as Pandora’s traditional streaming ‘stations’ and iHeartRadio) and on-demand streamers (Spotify, Apple Music). I don’t know the technical specifics, but doesn’t a Pandora ‘station’ download the file to a device’s RAM as well? Almost every other country in the world seems to think so, as the US is an outlier in excluding digital radio-style services from mechanical royalty payment.
If the issue of mechanical royalty and streaming goes to court, it will be watched very carefully as the precedent set either way would be monumental.
Spotify has already paid out tens of millions in settlements over unpaid mechanicals which is likely to be seen as an admission of guilt, hurting the chances of the ‘we should be exempt’ argument. So the money is on the status quo. Regardless, songwriters have a right to be concerned. The line taken by Spotify’s lawyers reveals that the company believes writers should be paid even less than they presently are.
I was recently asked, “what are you listening to these days?” I explained that I listen to a lot, and it’s because every day I aim to listen to an album I’ve never heard before
A couple of years ago I was writing a ‘best of’ list and came up short for my top ten favorite albums of that year. I realized I didn’t listen to a lot of new music and that made me feel stale. Of all people, especially in my line of work, I should be on top of what’s new. And one of my most enjoyed pastimes is discovering new music.
I made a pact to listen to an album a day, and one I had not heard before. It doesn’t have to be a ‘new’ album, just new to me. Bonus points if I’m not familiar with the album artist, too. I keep track of my progress by posting the day’s album on my Twitter feed. I’ll often add short commentary and post a link to an informative review or article about the work.
Digital streaming powers this process. Spotify is my personal choice, and the freedom I have to check out and discover new albums is exhilarating. It’s also addictive. And I know your next question: how do I find a new album a day?
I get my money’s worth out of my Spotify subscription fee as I’m using the service almost non-stop. Because of this, Spotify knows my taste well, and its suggestions are usually spot-on. My Discover Weekly playlist is fascinating every time it refreshes. You know the algorithm is doing its job when a song I loved a decade ago but haven’t thought of since pops up. And the Discover tab under Browse yields terrific album choices regularly.
However, I like getting outside of my comfort zone. Spotify’s choices reflect my taste as the algorithm sees it, and that’s cool. But I sometimes want to get outside of my perceived taste and find entirely new (to me) artists and sounds.
So, I pluck titles from the review pages of a few music websites. The ones I regularly visit:
- The Quietus – I love that the music The Quietus reviews is all over the place. I never know what I’m going to hear.
- Resident Advisor – Almost always in the electronic spectrum, RA’s album reviews are diverse and filled with treasures, and aren’t as dance floor focused as you might think.
- Pitchfork – I know I’m not supposed to go here, but this is where I find what’s new in the broader sense. Relatively mainstream albums rub shoulders with underground gems, and I’m willing to sample it all.
I do have a few rules. I grab an album from the bottom of whichever review list I visit. The ones at the top might not be out yet, thus not available for digital streaming. I’ll give any album a chance for two or three songs. If an album doesn’t float my boat, I’m not going to listen to the whole thing. I move on and select a new album when a selection doesn’t satisfy or pique my interest. When I find an album that I’m into enough to finish, I’ll read the review to learn more about it. I’ll also do a quick search for the artist and album to see if there’s anything else I can glean. Then I’ll post it on my pages.
Know that when I post an album on Twitter, it’s mainly for my benefit. I’m keeping a running tab on what I’ve been checking out, and I like to look back to see what made a lasting impression on me. I’ll listen to those again someday, but only after I’ve digested something new. If you, the casual onlooker, consider my postings as recommendations and listen along then I’m flattered.
That’s the process. An album a day. I’ve missed days – in fact, I’ve missed a lot of days lately – as life and travel get in the way. But this has proven to be an enriching practice that I’d like to make into a daily routine. If you also love discovering music, then I’d recommend giving this schtick a try.
Side note: Here I am on Spotify. I don’t make my listening private, so you are welcome to see what I’m checking out in real time. I’m also proud of the playlists I put together and would love for you to give them a go.
Connect With Me: