8Sided Blog

the scene celebrates itself

Musicians Sue Universal, Sony And Warner Over Streaming Payments

by // Leave a Comment

Music Business Worldwide:

The American Federation of Musicians (AFM) claims that the majors signed a collective bargaining agreement in 1994, and further amendments over the next decade, in which it committed to paying AFM members 0.5% of all receipts from digital statutory and non-statutory music licenses – including audio streams, ‘non-permanent downloads’ and ringback tones – both in North America and abroad.



The AFM’s Pension Fund has now filed a lawsuit in New York claiming its independent auditors recently discovered that the majors have failed to make promised contributions in three areas: (i) from streaming receipts outside the US; (ii) from non-permanent downloads outside the US; and (iii) from sales of ringback tones in the US and abroad.



“The record companies should stop playing games about their streaming revenue and pay musicians and their pension fund every dime that is owed,” said Ray Hair, AFM International President. “Fairness and transparency are severely lacking in this business. We are changing that.”


We’ll probably see a lot more of this over the next several years as we continue to navigate our covered wagons through the wild west of the streaming economy. It’s common knowledge — almost to the point of being grudgingly accepted — that the majors (and many independents) practice fuzzy mathematics when it comes to bookkeeping. But this will get tougher to obscure as the exact science of calculating ones and zeroes connecting to a user’s device replaces hand-counting the number of CD units leaving on a truck from the distributor’s warehouse. Keeping the gatekeepers honest (Spotify, Pandora, etc) will be the key. They aren’t angels, but they don’t have as much of an incentive for smoke-and-mirrors as a record label does.

The Music Web Is Now So Closed, You Can’t Share Your Favorite Song

by // Leave a Comment

The Next Web:

Music curation community This Is My Jam is shuttering its service next month. Co-founders Matthew Ogle and Hannah Donovan explained in a blog post that, in addition to wanting to move on to other projects, it became difficult to keep up with changes to services like YouTube, SoundCloud, Twitter and more that the site depends on.



Over 2 million tracks have been shared over the last four years of This Is My Jam’s existence. When it launched, it focused on careful curation over frequent sharing — and that’s what made it special.


Create Digital Music:

If you pull apart some of the backstory behind the end of a service called “This Is My Jam,” you’ll come across an unnerving reality of the way music on the Web is evolving (or devolving).



Apart from This Is My Jam, I still have to think that independent producers and labels ultimately benefit from a more open Web. Embedding players means more data about would-be fans and listens, data that’s hugely valuable to musicians. It means the flexibility to easily get your music where you want it. And ultimately, it means easily facilitated sharing, which is vitally important in an age of abundant music from around the world.



I don’t mean to suggest that we should go back to the tools we had. But simply giving up the possibilities of sharing is a retreat, not an advancement. We ought to be able to do more with the Internet.


I’m probably like a lot of people out there in that I really like This Is My Jam, but I don’t use it that much. That’s too bad as it was a fine, though ultimately flawed, idea. Now and then I’d recall a song that I love and that would inspire me to post it to This Is My Jam, eventually making my account serve as a repository of these great songs that pleasantly interrupted my days. I also know someone who would post a song every morning as a sort of ‘good morning, friends!’ message. Things like this made TIMJ a warm and personable way to share music, a lot more so than what is available on the other music services. Additionally, TIMJ’s main feature which gave you a stream of your friends’ favorite songs — and just their favorite songs, as was the unwritten rule — made for some appealing and educational sonic excursions, especially if you kept your ‘friends’ list limited to those whose musical taste you admired.

But, alas, TIMJ relied on other services that were outside of its control. TIMJ created its stream of music from shares of content already posted on YouTube, SoundCloud, and a few others who are understandably working to drive traffic to their own sites and services. It was an easy peasy work-around from having to cough up licensing fees (technically, it was the host of the original stream paying). So, for reasons described in the Create Digital Music article, TIMJ is doomed as the world of online music becomes more insular within its specific services. Cymbal, who I’ve mentioned previously, will also likely meet this fate.

The oft-repeated moral of the story: relying on all these different services whose only goal is to make profit from your content is sure to end in heartache. I’m not saying to abandon them, but be very aware of your place in their solar system. Rather than having your fan outreach dependent on external services, have them compliment your own self-reliant architecture — preferably based around your own site — which can’t be screwed with.

How To Ignore YouTube Completely

by // Leave a Comment

Music Business Worldwide:

Over the past year, major labels appear to have woken up to a crucial fact: when fans are listening on YouTube, they’re not listening on other services… and YouTube isn’t paying nearly enough.



According to IFPI estimates, YouTube and other ‘exclusively free, ad-funded platforms’ contributed $641m to the global record industry last year. Subscription streaming services coughed up $1.6bn.



That fact becomes infinitely more damning when you combine it with this one: YouTube has over a billion monthly users, and they love to play music. There were just 41m people paying for music streaming in 2014. Recent Ipsos research even found that more than a quarter of internet users (27%) listen to music on YouTube without even watching the video.



Spotify realises that all this represents a unique opportunity to debunk a music biz myth that has frustrated the Swedish company since birth. It’s the one that goes: YouTube is a friendly promotional tool, while Spotify is an income-focused commercial service.


One hold-over from the days of physical distribution is that feeling that your digital release should be available in as many stores as possible. I remember thinking this way as well in the early days of digital sales … I felt my music should just simply be available in every digital shop the same as how I wanted my vinyl releases in every mom and pop record store. But then came the realization that not all these outlets paid the same (or even at the same consistent time), and that some that didn’t push or weren’t selling adequate numbers of my label’s music were taking up as much of my effort as those that followed through.

Targeting the outlets that give you the most benefit is wise … sort of a loose application of the Pareto principle. If fans are using YouTube to stream your music, but Spotify or Apple Music are paying more per stream, then by all means you should work at pulling the focus away from YouTube.

One problem: if you or your distributor are providing music to Google for Google Play or their related services then you are probably opted in to the YouTube Music Key program. A static, generic video using the cover art will be automatically created for your song and available on YouTube which could torpedo this strategy of exception. Even the One Direction song referenced throughout this MBW article is on YouTube via Music Key. However, as far as I know, YouTube Music Key videos are not available outside of the US due to licensing restrictions … but I’m sure this will eventually change.

Apple Invention Looks To Revive The Mixtape, With A Digital Twist

by // Leave a Comment

AppleInsider:

Described in a patent application titled “Digital mixed tapes” published by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Thursday, Apple’s idea is to tap into the nostalgia associated with swapping analog cassette tapes. More specifically, Apple is investigating methods by which personalized albums can be created, purchased and gifted from a cloud-based music service.



The system’s mechanics are based on existing digital storefront technology and would therefore be familiar to anyone who has used iTunes or similar online services. Users select songs, movies, images and other digital media from their own library or an online store, then arrange the content, playback options and more to suit their needs.


This could be seen as further evidence of the influence of Apple’s ‘tech-savvy musicians’ I mentioned previously, finding inspiration in how some pre-digital methods of sharing music created meaningful connections. The ‘mixtape’ idea is also a creative extension of the popular ‘For You’ tab as Apple doubles down on curation and playlisting. Of course, they could damage the idea by making it too complicated, as Apple is wont to do with their music applications. Granted, it’s only a patent filing but there’s a lot packed in there … is the option to “restrict a recipient’s ability to fast forward” really worth adding an extra button?

Now, complexity be damned, if Apple wanted to go all out they could integrate this with GarageBand, adding some Ableton-like syncing capabilty, so users (non-DJs) could share and post ‘mixed’ sets from the Apple Music catalog. Boom.

Beatport Freezes Payments To Labels – And Gives Artists Just 5% Of Streaming Money

by // Leave a Comment

Music Business Worldwide:

In a letter to music rights-holders sent last night and obtained by MBW, Beatport told labels that SFX’s ‘going private’ procedure had “trapped certain earned label payments”. Beatport believes the process will be “coming to an end in the next few weeks, at which time all payments will be able to be made”.



The big problem for the small labels we’ve spoken to is one of cash flow: this blocked payment covers three months of income, from April-June, and was due to be paid last Thursday (July 30). With Beatport accounting for 90% of digital income for some dance labels, such a delay in a primary revenue source risks badly damaging their stability.



This is pretty bad news for the labels concerned, and I’m sure Beatport’s actions here are not as villianous as some in the online world are making it out to be. They are a corporation, and this is the kind of thing corporations do. However, any label deriving 90% of its digital income from one source — and one that’s outside of its control — should be prepared in advance for situations such as this. (And — broken record time — that also applies when labels depend on something like Facebook for their entire fan outreach strategy.)

Meanwhile, Beatport is now taking on SoundCloud by permitting anyone to upload and monetize their own original tracks onto the platform. But there’s a big catch for artists: according to the terms and conditions of Beatport, it will only pay a measly 5% of income for plays of these user-generated streams. That’s for all rights, too.



I was hopeful when Beatport was just setting this up … I spoke to someone there about how they were aiming for this service to be seen as a monetizable alternative to SoundCloud. Using embeddable players that might pay some royalty would be a game-changer, as long as including advertising on our content wasn’t the trade-off. This 5% figure is disappointing, but I don’t understand where it’s coming from. This implies there’s another 95% that is going elsewhere. Their agreement speaks of the payment coming from a ‘pro rata share of funds made available for the payment of streams.’ So, there’s a pool of funds for this royalty (as I understand it), and then a set share of that pool designated for each play, but the label / artist only gets 5% of that. Hmm? Anyway, I look forward to someone explaining this further.

Update: Sources Tell Music Week Beatport Has Paid ‘Trapped’ Royalties To Majors

According to Music Week sources Beatport has already released those “trapped” royalty payments to major labels, but neglected to do the same for indies. Music Week understands that the UK’s indie trade body AIM hasn’t taken kindly to the treatment and has contacted Beatport demanding to see its members paid within 24 hours.

Whoa, if true, but not surprising. The three majors presently have a hold on the ‘new music economy’ via their consistent threats of litigation and non-participation. The Louis CK model more and more seems like a great idea for indies and self-released musicians who want to avoid getting involved in the mess.

Follow Up – re: Spotify’s Discovery Chart

by // Leave a Comment

Stefan Prescott writes to us:

Before you dismiss (Spotify’s) discovery chart, remember it’s the same model as we had at our record stores when folks would come in and we would hand them a pile of records. Spotify have nailed doing this at scale based on listener’s data. I love the list; every week so far I have added music from their discovery chart to my various playlists. They have also solved the issue that iTunes and Amazon have not been able to do in their downloading model: offering visibility to millions of songs that are not necessarily new releases that folks would never hear otherwise. This list is not something derived from record label / artist manager marketing efforts. It works because the data is personalized. Finally, from experience, nobody recommends with 100% accuracy, but at least I am getting thirty tracks a week that I am interested to hear.


Great comments, which inspire me to investigate Spotify’s auto-curation a bit further.

I responded:

I am mostly interested in the differences in methodology rather than any outright dismissal, and I see Spotify’s as more rewarding for emerging artists which is where my preference actually lies. I just know, on a visceral level, the ‘For You’ tab on iTunes Music _feels_ more personalized, even though Spotify’s discovery list may actually be more so.


Those seemingly intangible factors that can make digitally delivered music connect or not connect with individuals … this is something that I will certainly be exploring further on this page.

Inside Spotify’s Plan To Take On Apple Music

by // Leave a Comment

Fast Company:

(Spotify’s) Fresh Finds takes a central component of The Echo Nest’s original methodology—its web content crawler and natural language processing technology—to mine music blogs and reviews from sites like Pitchfork and NME and figure out which artists are starting to generate buzz, but don’t yet have the listenership to show for it. Using natural language processing, the system analyzes the text of these editorial sources to try and understand the sentiment around new artists. For instance, a blogger might write that a band’s “new EP blends an early ’90s throwback grunge sound with mid-’80s-style synthesizers and production—and it’s the best thing to come out of Detroit in years.” If this imaginary act goes on tour and writers in Brooklyn dole out praise of their own, the bots will pick up on it. It helps address an issue some people have voiced early on with Apple Music, that its selections aren’t adventurous and it tends to recommend things you already like rather than things you might like.



I have the feeling that Apple Music is closer to getting curation right than Spotify. People respond to recommendations when there’s a personal aspect … like when it’s a mixtape from a friend (or someone you admire), or a recommendation from that blog writer whose taste is so spot on, or that guy at the counter in the hip record store who is always handing you cool 12″ singles. Apple Music’s apparent understanding of this might be in part because they have publicly hired tech-savvy musicians to oversee these things, while Spotify seem to be bringing on music-savvy techies.

Are Apple Music’s playlists a bit obvious? Sometimes … but I was recently surprised by a dance-oriented playlist focusing on Factory Records that contained songs I’d never heard before (and I thought I was a Factory completist), and a space-rock playlist compiled by a musician I hadn’t heard of which turned me on to a few other new artists. Apple Music’s playlist recommendations can get a bit uncanny (in a good way) once it gets to ‘know’ your taste.

Spotify’s idea of intensively data-sourced curation is intriguing, and I am sure they are utilizing some amazing innovations bordering on artificial intelligence to try to make it work. But a playlist delivered weekly under the same headline — that the recipient knows is auto-generated — is easy to ignore. And the discovery-bot will inevitably get it wrong a few times, throwing in curve-ball songs that are completely outside of the listener’s taste-zone. I don’t know about you, but something like this is only allowed a few times to get it wrong before I’m not interested.

That said, the emphasis on discovery that the streaming services are embracing makes me hopeful. If Spotify’s system does start turning people on to emerging, self-released artists then that’s an amazing thing. Likewise, it would be nice to see Apple Music’s playlists include more emerging artists. I think having regular (monthly?) playlists from notable tastemakers — music bloggers, cutting edge musicians, and even non-music types like fiction writers and film directors — would add to the ‘personally curated’ touch and increase the chances of discovery.

Apple Music also needs to improve their Pandora-like ‘radio’ function. In my experience there is zero amount of potential discovery going on there. When I tell Apple Music I want a station that sounds like The Slits, that doesn’t mean I want to hear The Slits every other song, and it certainly doesn’t mean I want to hear “The Killing Moon” for the dozenth time. Pandora has this problem, too, though not as pronounced as with Apple Music. Maybe this is where Spotify can find an advantage?

What Would Instagram for Music Look Like?

by // Leave a Comment

Thump:

(The) idea is relatively simple: on Cymbal, you amass followers, follow your friends, and instead of posting selfies and sunsets, you post one single song, which is paired with the track’s album art. As you scroll through your feed, you see a flowing playlist curated by your friends. Unlike many other music-based apps that try to design their own groundbreaking format, Cymbal piggybacks off the libraries of music-streaming giants like SoundCloud and Spotify, letting users select tracks from these massive libraries.



“Wait … what?” – This Is My Jam

A SoundCloud Subscription Service Is Officially On The Way

by // Leave a Comment

Complex:

Over a month after a leaked contract broke the news of SoundCloud’s plans to implement a paid subscription service the company’s co-founder and Chief Technology Officer Eric Wahlforss has confirmed the move. While Wahlforss didn’t confirm or deny the details featured in the June leak, the contract that popped up online last month outlined a three-tier subscription service consisting of a free option and two premium offerings. The free option will allegedly give users access to a limited catalog with advertisements included while the cheapest paid service offers a larger catalog and an ad-free experience. The most expensive option would allow users unlimited and ad-free access to SoundCloud’s entire catalog.



SoundCloud’s paid services applied solely to musicians / labels up to this point, with potential listeners being the reason to deposit the yearly fee. It will be interesting, and probably frustrating, to see how SoundCloud will juggle its usefulness to professional users with an apparent new emphasis on listener generated revenue. Many labels and artists — including those in the ‘majors’ — are reliant on SoundCloud for promotion and embeds on their sites. If this forced compromise cripples its effectiveness for promotion then there will be a bit of scrambling from labels of any stature.