:: A Century of Crap ::

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

Finally

I finally got around to adding my last entry at my Southbysouthwestjournal blog.

You know, I never really figured that anyone would read any of this stuff. Blogging's just a way for me to put some thoughts together and keep a personal record of sorts. But in the last couple of weeks, I've been contacted by several people who were looking for info about the Fighting Brothers McCarthy or, even stranger, old bands that members of FBM have been in. Several people have told me in conversations, "Oh, I read your blog. That's pretty cool. Do the Fighting Brothers have a website."

Well, yes, there is a website. I need to be more conscientious about linking to it, you think?
MH :: 5:18 PM ::

Wonderful

It's almost here. I'll be posting pretty regularly here.

MH :: 11:45 PM ::

No Crap!

More thoughts on South By Southwest here.
MH :: 5:58 PM ::

More Music

I've talked here before about how I think new technologies like peer-to-peer networks could be a huge boon for independent musicians. The problem, of course, is how do those musicians get paid. The RIAA wants to drive people to proprietary, pay-as-you-go systems. I think that is just a way for them to drive up the amount of money they're collecting on behalf of big, corporate labels. In my view, there's got to be something better.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has proposed a system that I think is better. Essentially, they're suggesting extending the ASCAP/BMI system to the P2P world. For those of you who don't know, ASCAP and BMI have been in the business of collecting money for musical artists. Radio stations, television stations, bars and restaurants -- all of them pay a regular "lump sum" payment to these agencies. In turn, the payers get the right to play as much copyrighted material as they want. Of course, there are various forumulae to determine how much gets paid. But the point is, they're not paying for each song individually.

The RIAA apparently doesn't like this suggestion. They'd rather have consumers pay for each individual download. The argument put forth by the RIAA's David Sutphen that the EFF's scheme would mean that all music is valued equally is disingenous, because that's the way it already works. And if I'm not mistaken, the pay-per-song approach would be no different. If the value of each song is set at 99 cents, then you're still putting an equal value on Vanilla Ice and the Beatles.

As far as the voluntary system still allowing "free downloading" -- I'm certain that the technology could be tweaked to take into account whether or not the end user has paid a licensing fee.

Here's to hoping that the RIAA will be a bit more open minded and give more thoughtful consideration to the EFF's proposal.


MH :: 11:42 AM ::

Too much time on my hands

SXSW is approaching. I'll be blogging on it regularly starting now and running through SXSW week.
MH :: 7:24 PM ::

Caveat Emptor

Watching TV not too long ago, the wife and I saw an ad for an Apple iPod. "Cool," I said. "You'd like one of those?" My wife asked. "Sure," said.

Now I'm not so sure.
MH :: 8:43 PM ::

New Wave

Peter Gabriel and Brian Eno have released a manifesto calling for musicians to use the Web to bypass the traditional label structure. Their argument is that musicians need to seize the day and use technology to go directly to their customers. The end result will be more money in the hands of musicians and more artistic creativity.

I've thought for a long time that the Internet really is untapped as a distribution channel for the average musician. For the most part, artists are a little wary of the web, because they've been told over and over again that it's only good for piracy. But as bands like Wilco have proven, if you learn how to use the tool to your advantage, then you stay one step ahead of the competition.

Consider my friends in the Moonlight Towers. They're planning a short tour of the East Coast in a few weeks. They've got one CD already in production and another one on the way. Up until now, the only distribution they had was at local Austin record stores and at their shows. Once they get on the road, they'll still be able to sell them at their shows, of course, but without major label backing, getting consistent representation on music-store shelves in new markets is going to be very difficult.

But as part of their tour, they are paying someone to handle their tour press. This guy's job is to send out their music to selected media outlets in the markets they'll be passing through, then follow up with the writers to make sure a review gets written, an interview scheduled, and so on. Also, one assumes, the "PR agent" will make sure the writers know about and include the URL to the band's website where they have their product for sale. Who needs a record store or a label with a mechanism like that?

The folks at Apple are slowly showing that people will pay to download music. What's to stop a band from sharing all of their content on a premium-based system, thus bypassing the need to even press CDs. Wilco did something similar in the wake of "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" -- they provided 6 songs for download to people who got a code off of their store-bought "YHF" CDs. They also provided several versions of cover art for people to download and print to use with home-burned CDs.

The Gabriel/Eno manifesto follows in the footsteps of Wilco's activities. Artists should release remixes and alternative takes of "already released" tunes, for example. Bands could provide forums for online trading of live shows. The possibilities really do boggle the mind.

This isn't to say that labels will be driven completely out of existence. They still can serve a valuable function in the marketing/promotions arena. But the days of them using that as leverage over artists and taking control of the product is drawing to a close -- but only if musicians are smart enough to act now and truly establish themselves as the true owners of their own music.


MH :: 2:31 PM ::