I've been checking out a new social-networking site called SuperFan, and I think it could eventually become an interesting resource for music fans. But only if they make it easier to post and share content about favorite bands.
SuperFan is a bit like Facebook, only organized more around your likes and dislikes than around your friends.
If you've used Facebook, MySpace, Imeem, or any of the other countless social-networking sites out there, the drill will be familiar: enter your information to create a profile (here's mine), invite your friends, then engage in various activities like updating your status and uploading video and photos.
The key difference is that SuperFan is organized around the stuff you really like--movies, TV shows, sports teams, and--most relevant to me--music. Once you've created your profile page, you can run searches on particular musicians and albums, and declare yourself a fan. There are multiple different levels, the top being a SuperFan. Once you become a SuperFan of a particular artist--say, Roger Waters--you can embed YouTube videos, upload photos, create quizzes, and so forth. You basically become the maintainer of a fan site about your favorite artists and albums.
The template's pretty simple today--I'd like to see the ability to embed other videos, and even upload MP3 files like I can do on Imeem--but the idea has potential. If enough fans sign up and participate, SuperFan artist pages could become a go-to destination for musical information: instead of going to a band's home page or MySpace page, which tend to be strictly promotional, or to a Wikipedia entry, which tends to be pretty dry, you could go to a page that's lovingly curated by a fan.
But here's the catch. You can become a Fan of as many artists or albums as you want for free, but becoming a SuperFan--where you can actually populate a page with content--requires credits. You get some for free just by signing up, but to declare yourself a fan of a really popular group, like Led Zeppelin, you need to earn additional credits by creating content for other pages, or buy them with PayPal or by such as Netflix.
That seems like a bit of a hassle to me. As a music fan, I prefer Imeem's approach--while it's not as well-organized, there's no barrier to posting content, which means that it's easy to find just about anything you're looking for. And as a social-networking user, I'll probably stick with Facebook, where my friends are today.
Follow Matt on Twitter.
I've written about TuneCore many times in the past: it's a service for independent musicians that submits their recordings to iTunes, Amazon MP3, and other big online stores--and it's helping some artists make a good deal of money.
The fees are quite reasonable; they top out around $20 a year, although the precise pricing depends on what you're submitting and how many stores you want it in--and artists have had some substantial financial success using it. Earlier this month, an unsigned hip-hop artist named Drake sold 300,000 copies of his single through TuneCore in just 14 days; The New York Times listed him as having the No. 3 download in the U.S. For those of you keeping track at home, that probably means the artist earned around $150,000 in two weeks--that's take-home money, not a label advance that needs to be earned back through future sales.
(Credit: TuneCore)Drake's story is instructive: days after distributing the single through TuneCore, he signed a deal with the world's largest record label, Universal. Today, TuneCore announced its own deal with Universal; specifically, the TuneCore Store will resell services offered by Universal Music Group Distribution, such as mastering (the final step in a professional audio production) and album art. Guitar Center, a massive guitar retailer with more than 200 stores, will also cooperate with Universal Distribution to sell physical CDs by TuneCore artists at its stores.
But the real opportunity is more subtle. You have to ask what a big label like Universal gets out of the deal. Simple: this is a way to discover independent artists without doing the traditional boots-on-the-ground work of an A&R (artist and repertoire) representative. If a TuneCore customer buys Universal services, and then turns out to be a hot-seller, the artist and the label already have a relationship on which to build. Big-label contracts aren't--and shouldn't be--the goal of every indie musician, but for those who want a shot at reaching a large audience fast and are willing to give up some control to do so, they're still tempting.
Hear that popping sound? It's the sound of executives in the music and movie industries taking an extra dose of heart medicine. Wednesday, a new site called Zookz began public beta-testing a service that will let users download an unlimited number of MP3 music files for a single monthly fee of $9.95. Users can also download an unlimited number of MP4 movies for the same price, or both music and movies for $17.95 per month. Those are unprotected, DRM-free downloads that can be transferred to any device or shared an unlimited number of times.
Of course there are a few catches. Currently, the site only has about 50,000 tracks--a paltry selection compared with iTunes, Amazon MP3, and other services, although the company promises to add 5,000 tracks per week. In its current early beta state, there's no browsing among titles--you have to search, which requires you to know exactly what you want, and then hope it's in the (currently tiny) Zookz database. (I didn't test it for movies, as the focus of this blog--and my main personal interest--is music, but the selection's even smaller there: only 1,500 titles.)
How can Zookz possibly get away with this when the only other subscription music-download service I know of, eMusic, charges more for a limited number of monthly downloads? Simple. According to its FAQ, Zookz is based in the Caribbean nation of Antigua, and isn't subject to U.S. jurisdiction, including copyright law. The company claims it's operating in line with a 2007 World Trade Organization agreement between Antigua and the U.S., a claim I have absolutely no qualifications to evaluate one way or the other.
If you're willing to trust Zookz with your credit card information, you can fill your hard drive and all your portable music players with music for a very, very low price. Get it while it lasts....
Yes, it's that simple. (For the record, I already own this album on vinyl, but have been too lazy to rip it.)
Follow Matt on Twitter.
iPhone applications featuring particular musicians have been around for a while now--Nine Inch Nails was recently in the news when Apple rejected an update to its application, and tech companies like Melodeo and The Orchard have experimented with creating iPhone apps for their clients.
In the teaser video for the new U2 BlackBerry app, this map of a concert venue appears immediately after the text "Experience the tour from all angles." My guess: you'll be able to shoot and share concert videos.
(Credit: Research In Motion)Soon, BlackBerry fans will be able to get in on the fun. Research In Motion, which is sponsoring the U2 360 tour, has posted a page on its Web site declaring the imminent arrival of the U2 "mobile album."
Although the video teaser is fairly cryptic, it looks like the app will let users listen to the latest U2 album "No Line on the Horizon," watch videos, and read news updates. A more interesting twist: it also looks like users will be able to share video clips from U2 concerts--a map will let you pick among BlackBerry-toting audience members with different stage angles.
U2 fans with BlackBerries can sign up here to be informed when the app's released. No word yet on timing or pricing. One possibility: the app might launch in conjunction with the Blackberry Tour 9630 on July 12.
Whether you're a U2 fan or not, it's great to see RIM getting serious about mobile music, and I think it'll help cement RIM's position alongside Apple at the top of the consumer smartphone heap.
Follow Matt on Twitter.
Like most people who've had a chance to play with it, I've been impressed with Microsoft's Surface, the multitouch tabletop computer that the company began demonstrating about two years ago.
It drew some mockery compared with the svelte iPhone, which emerged around the same time, but it's meant for a completely different experience: collaborative public spaces rather than solo communications. Unfortunately, I haven't had much opportunity to share my excitement--apart from a handful of deployments in hotels and AT&T stores; there aren't many of these tables out in the wild yet.
Which is a shame, because Surface partners are starting to put together some interesting apps. Take, for example, this DJ application put together by design company Vectorform. It lets you string together samples and beats into a simple musical track. Vectorform demonstrated the first version last August, and now Microsoft and Vectorform have created a video demonstrating the alpha of version 2.0, which offers some new features like scratching.
The video gets shamelessly promotional in the second half, and I don't imagine this app will ever become a professional DJ's tool, but it could be fun as a diversion in a bar or lounge, especially if the same table had other musical applications on it.
So why aren't these things out there in bulk? Probably because each table costs more than $12,500 to start, with deployment and maintenance service extra. You'd have to sell a lot of extra drinks to justify that kind of expense.
Follow Matt on Twitter
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm well-acquainted with legal filings from analyzing Microsoft's legal travails for the last nine years. I've seen a lot of aggressive lawsuits, but a copyright infringement suit filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for Middle Tennessee is one of the boldest--and, I'd argue, short-sighted--filings I've ever seen.
The suit appears to have been initiated by Music Copyright Solutions (MCS), which claims to administer copyrights for more than 45,000 compositions. MCS is named as the lead plaintiff, along with a number of songwriters including Mark Farner of Grand Funk Railroad fame. These folks allege that Microsoft, Yahoo, and RealNetworks improperly licensed the rights to more than 200 compositions that they offered as on-demand streams or limited downloads via the Zune Marketplace, Yahoo Music, and Rhapsody.
Surely these companies paid somebody for the rights to offer these songs. But there's a catch, which TechDirt pointed out earlier Tuesday: these companies may have licensed the rights to the recordings, but that doesn't mean they licensed the rights to the compositions (also known as publishing rights). As section 23 of the legal filing puts it:
In order to transmit, perform, reproduce and deliver any sound recording of any musical work via 'On-Demand Streams' or 'Limited Downloads,' Defendants must first obtain not only the rights for the sound recording itself, but also the rights for the underlying musical composition that is embodied on said musical recording.
Maybe, maybe not--that's up to the court to decide. But that's not the insane part. The insane part is that the plaintiffs are alleging that each time one of the defendants made any recording of a covered song available, that's a copyright violation, and they're seeking damages of $150,000 per violation (or the amount the defendants earned from streaming those songs, whichever is more). So, for example, the lawsuit claims that Yahoo Music offered Conway Twitty's recording of "Fifteen Years Ago" on six different greatest hits albums. The plaintiffs allege that constitutes six copyright violations, which would mean damages of $900,000. Overall, the lawsuit names more than 200 songs, and a far greater number of recordings, meaning that the potential liability for each defendant would be tens of billions of dollars--that's far greater than the total amount of revenues these companies ever earned from any of these services.
These types of cases are usually settled for a relative pittance--something much closer to what the defendant would have paid to license the songs properly in the first place. But imagine for a minute that this lawsuit actually goes to trial and the plaintiffs win damages amounting to 1 percent of what they asked for. No company would ever risk building an online music service again--the legal liability would simply be too high.
When it comes to online music, big legal music services like Zune, Yahoo Music, and Rhapsody are the copyright owners' friends--unlike file-trading networks or free on-demand streaming services, these companies actually collect money from users and disburse it to copyright owners. Perhaps the plaintiffs have a legitimate complaint. But by filing such an aggressive lawsuit to recover billions in supposed damages--I mean honestly, how many Grand Funk Railroad streams have been delivered via the Zune Marketplace?--these folks risk killing their allies and driving music back to the darknet where nobody in the value chain sees a dime.
CD Baby remains an essential part of any independent musician's toolbox, offering musicians an easy and relatively inexpensive way to sell CDs and MP3 downloads from a personalized Web page. It's not necessarily the cheapest way to sell music online, but its long track record and wide variety of services, including digital distribution through iTunes and other stores, and short-run CD manufacturing (provided by Discmakers, which bought the company last August), still make it my top recommendation for independent artists.
This July, the site will relaunch with several significant improvements, including more attractive artist pages, the ability to sell single-song downloads, and customizable download cards--great as a promotional tool, or as another way to sell your music at shows.
Follow Matt on Twitter.
Pandora is a great music-discovery service, so it's only natural that independent bands would hope to get their music placed on it. Unfortunately for them, Pandora just made that a little harder--and a little more expensive.
As I first saw on the Digital Audio Insider blog a couple weeks ago, Pandora recently changed its music submission process, and is now accepting solicitations only from bands who have a physical CD for sale through Amazon.com. That requires the artist to manufacture a CD with proper album art and bar code, which is much more expensive than creating a bunch of MP3s, and to pay Amazon $29.95 a year to participate in the Amazon Advantage program; Amazon then takes a 55 percent cut of the list price of the CD.
This shouldn't hurt too many artists--serious musicians want their CDs to turn up in a search on the world's largest retailer, and probably have a relationship with Amazon anyway. But you were planning on using CD Baby or another site exclusively, or hoping to save money with an online-only release, don't count on Pandora as a marketing mechanism for your music.
This is just a quick pointer to a hilarious post I ran across this morning: BBC Magazine invited 13-year-old Scott Campbell, to wear a vintage Sony Walkman for a day. He took the challenge seriously, and wrote up his impressions of the Walkman versus the modern equivalent.
Some choice excerpts:
"It took me three days to figure out that there was another side to the tape."
"I managed to create an impromptu shuffle feature simply by holding down 'rewind' and releasing it randomly."
"I'm relieved that the majority of technological advancement happened before I was born, as I can't imagine having to use such basic equipment every day."
The only advantage Campbell found for the Walkman was the fact that it had two headphone jacks, allowing listeners to share their favorite tunes with a friend. He also noted that the battery life was terrible at about 3 hours, but neglected to point out the (perhaps obvious) fact that at least the Walkman lets you get to the batteries to replace them--you don't have to send it back to the manufacturer or risk voiding your warranty. Another point I'd make for Campbell or other intrepid explorers: some Walkmans had a "reverse" switch on them that let you change to the other side of the cassette--that could be another nifty way to create an equivalent to the iPod's shuffle feature.
Now wait until he discovers Minidisc!
Follow Matt on Twitter
I'm not a big fan of pop music, so I must admit Michael Jackson wasn't on my iPod. (Although I do have a copy of "Thriller" on LP, which I bought for $0.99.) But as a bassist, I have fond memories of playing a 30-minute rendition of "Billie Jean" at an outdoor party a few summers ago. I'm not sure how it happened, but everybody kept dancing, and we didn't know how to end the song, so we just kept going around and around those same sixteen notes over and over again, broken occasionally by the singalong chorus.
According to Q Magazine, as quoted by Songfacts.com, that wondrous piece of bass music was written by the man himself, who spent more than three weeks perfecting it. Check out this early demo version from 1981. The slap-bass solo in the bridge was played by Louis Johnson, who has said at least once that he co-wrote the song. (And who, incidentally, plays a MusicMan StingRay, my bass of choice.) Listening to the instrumental remix of "Billie Jean" on Grooveshark, it sounds like it starts with bass, then is doubled or replaced with synth-bass after the strings come in.
It didn't make Stylus Magazine's top 50 basslines of all time, but it's got to be in my top five, along with Pink Floyd's "Money," Charlie Mingus' "Haitian Fight Song" (which kicks in after the intro-solo), Led Zeppelin's "Dazed and Confused," and the double-bass on Lou Reed's "Walk on the Wild Side" (that's an electric and an upright, starting in unison, then trading parts for the rest of the song).
Or am I just being nostalgic? What are your faves?
Tell Matt he's wrong on Twitter.
