Bowery Unbuilding

I used to have this book when I was little called Unbuilding that told the fictional story of the Empire State Building’s intentional deconstruction. It was sold to some Middle Eastern folks and had to be taken apart piece by piece for shipping. Unfortunately the ship sank on its way across the Atlantic and the building was lost forever. The book’s incredibly interesting fictional plot combined with terrific non-fictional construction and architectural detail made it an interesting read for a young boy like myself.

I was reminded of that book today while watching the building directly across from my window at Indaba be unbuilt. Of course, I don’t think this building is being shipped to the Middle East, but as I sat mesmerized by the progress I remembered that taking something apart can be just as interesting as putting it together. If I may get sentimental for a minute, it also reminded me about how “unbuilding” can often be permanent and sad. In the book, the Empire State Building was lost forever, just as the view out my window will be forever changed. No deep commentary, just an observation.

The Orchard’s Response to the MySpace Deal – TAKE 2

After discussing this post with Dan last night, I’ve made a bunch of edits and clarifications (all in bold):

If you were at all interested in my last post on the MySpace-Label joint venture, then you should read this email The Orchard sent out to its members. It’s a few days old, but I’m not an Orchard client so I just came across it.

Overall the focus is on independent musicians and the theme is one of concern over their potential fate in the new MySpace-Label world. Most of The Orchard’s customers are independent musicians, so this perspective is not surprising. Read the full text here.

An interesting excerpt:

“If reports are true, the apparent MySpace licensing approach is troubling. It hearkens back to a time none of us wants to revisit … Where independent artists and labels were third-class citizens in the global music economy, instead of the second-class citizenship (with a good chance for an upgrade to first) that we enjoy today.”

I believe the folks at The Orchard are referring to revenue sharing between MySpace and the labels, without including any slice of the pie for independent artists and the indie labels The Orchard represents.

I completely agree with the sentiment that inclusion of indies is critical (as I stated in my last post). MySpace empowered independent musicians in the global music economy, but so did many other events over the past several years that have made independent labels more viable (digital distribution, payola crackdowns, internet radio, etc.). It light of all this positive change I obviously agree that it would be a shame to distort a great tool of empowerment to favor one class of artists over others unfairly.

But I think the situation is more complicated than that.

Because this licensing arrangement is the result of a lawsuit, it reflects the bargaining power the majors have to insist on a share of MySpace Music’s revenue. I could potentially see some collective of independent artists (dare I say a union?) suing for similar revenue-sharing, however individual artists choose to put their music on MySpace knowing full-well that they will not receive a share of ad revenue. They also receive an empowering promotional platform at no charge. MySpace Music’s retention of these artists will depend in part on its ability to continue providing enough value so as to outweigh the artists’ “loss” of unshared ad revenue. As long as artists derive positive net value from the site they will continue to use it. As Dan pointed out to me last night, these facts just highlight the disadvantage to indies, since the value proposition is the same for majors as well. In Dan’s words, why wouldn’t everyone get their fair share of revenue? True, the situation highlight the indies’ lack of leverage. But continue through the rest of my argument to see the whole picture…

The calculation is the same for the major labels, except they obviously felt that the result of these mathematics was starting to swing in the other direction. Labels felt that they were losing more than they were gaining, and so chose to take the matter to court to get what they thought they deserved. Now, as Dan and I both pointed out, indies had no mechanism for doing this, which puts them at a disadvantage.

To use The Orchard’s language, digital tools have empowered more “second-class citizens” to “upgrade to first” than was ever before possible. As far as we know, the value independent artists derive from MySpace isn’t going to decrease with the new JV, so compensating some copyright-holders doesn’t seem unreasonable (in this case it’s the major labels). This is a presumption that assumes indie content isn’t going to get de-emphasized on MySpace. If this presumption isn’t correct, then I agree, indies are immediately disadvantaged by this deal. Of course, we could also argue that indies are entitled to their fractional share of revenue, but part of being an independent musician is aspiring to one day make a good or even great living through music. The new JV’s licensing system sends money to the labels yes, but now that they are equity partners in a new digital medium it could also create more money for the artists who succeed through that medium. This is the part of my argument that admittedly requires the most vision and the biggest leap of faith, so read on to see what I mean…

I am conceiving of this joint venture not as a traditional major label but as a new type of music company we haven’t seen before – one that can share revenue with labels and artists and provide them with empowering digital tools. From this point of view, partial ownership by labels could actually mean more money passing through to successful artists. This is obviously theoretical and ambitiously framed, but I could see an artist saying something along the lines of this: “If I’m going to generate ad revenue on MySpace and you own a piece of that income, then I want to own a piece of it too, so I want it included in my deal.” Until a few weeks ago, all the cash was staying with MySpace. The way label contracts are negotiated and the entire label business model needs some significant adjustment for this to work, but we could be stepping in the right direction. And, as Dan also pointed out, the indie labels that The Orchard represents would need a seat at the table too (or could decide to remove their content from MySpace), and right now it doesn’t look as if they are getting one. The company I am describing here requires serious change to the way indie label and artists and major labels and artists interact with one another and participate in this new joint venture. I bring it up here because I think it’s a more ambitious, visionary approach to the future of MySpace Music (which is now a reality everyone needs to deal with) than others have put forth.

And now, a recap (since this wasn’t the clearest argument):

1. It’s great that the major labels are truly engaging in the digital world.

2. We need to make sure that indie artists and labels continue to derive value from MySpace and aren’t treated unfairly.

3. It’s possible that since the new MySpace Music is owned by a large internet company AND the major labels it could become a new type of music company with access to content, promotion, distribution, and new compensation models.

4. #3 relies on the following presumptions: 1) Labels take advantage of their role in MySpace and use it as an opportunity to discover a more diverse array of talent and to compensate that talent fairly, 2) MySpace Music does not completely subordinate indie content to existing major-label content, thereby impeding the discovery of indie content, and 3) MySpace Music offers and increasingly diverse array of digital tools to indie AND professional artists to help them develop, reach fans, and get paid.

In addition, there are orders-of-magnitude more independent artists than label artists online and off (including on MySpace), so I have to believe that any business intending to serve artists needs to appeal to indies and majors, not just big-name label stars. If this new company is to make money off of digital distribution or advertising for example, it will need volume, and volume requires independent artist participation and retention. It would be bad business to squeeze the indies on this one, and I’d be surprised if the folks at MySpace Music weren’t aware of that. After reading my post Dan agreed with this paragraph, but convinced me that The Orchard is probably talking more about the few hundred independent labels they represent – not necessarily the hoards of indie artists I am talking about here (so it may not be as relevant to this argument).

What the MySpace-Label JV Could Mean

Much has been said about the joint venture announced between MySpace and the major labels (minus EMI, although they will almost certainly jump in at some point), but I’ve been sitting on this and wanted to think about it before a few days before commenting.

This deal has the potential, and I stress potential, to completely change the game. The labels have been slow to adopt new technologies and business models (if they have at all), and this JV is an obvious recognition by the old powers-that-be that times are indeed a changin’. Of course, the Universal lawsuit against MySpace was recognition too, but it was the typical, counterproductive kind…”No fair! Gimme gimme gimme!” instead of “how can I constructively participate and in the process save my own skin?” To be fair, the outcome of the lawsuit is pretty progressive, and it represents a recognition that participation in new models will be more valuable than fighting them.

We perceived an industry-wide shift towards this recognition at SXSW this year, so the MySpace deal doesn’t necessarily come as a HUGE surprise. What does come as a surprise (to me anyway) is the foundation that’s being laid over at the new MySpace Music. Total independence from MySpace with direct reporting into Chris DeWolfe. A brand new executive team. Some kind of enhanced product offering that empowers artists to do more (the details are a little vague, but it sounds like some type of sales capabilities will be involved). All this could potentially lay the groundwork for something completely game-changing…a digitally-savvy entity with forward-thinking management that is tapped in to millions of independent artists worldwide that can also monetize the years upon years of recorded music that is owned by the major record labels. This company could position itself as the music business of the future.

There’s are a few things that need to follow for that to happen.

1. Every artist uses MySpace; no one likes it. It’s time to give My Space Music a makeover. It’s terrificly difficult to navigate and it looks god-awful. Music is art, and musicians are artists. Products like Indaba Music and Virb that are well designed for creative people do a much better job building brand equity with their content providers than MySpace does.

2. MySpace needs to give artists more. Of course, MySpace has built a big business offering artists promotion and distribution only. But if it wants to be a next-generation music company it needs to offer artists more value – creative services, tools that help artists grow and build a fan base, tools that do a better job helping artists forge meaningful connections with their fans, just to name a few.

3. MySpace needs to demonstrate significant focus on independent artists. This JV was a settlement with the labels over the usage of major-label content, but the vast, vast majority of artists on MySpace are independent (I’d love to see a comparison of MySpace pageviews derived from indie content vs. major label – if there’s one out there someone please let me know). So far we haven’t heard anything about what this new company is going to do for the armies of artists that have nothing to do with the major labels. In fact, this is probably the farthest the majors have ever ventured into indie territory, and there’s a serious possibility of alienating independent artists and driving them elsewhere. This relies partly on marketing execution, but it also has real implications for MySpace’s product development, a lot of which overlaps with #2 (above). Despite the serious problems with major labels, most indie artists still aspire to get signed and make it big. However, an increasing number of indie artists aspire to stay indie and make it big before needing a label. MySpace needs to involve indie artists and show them what the majors can offer them even before the strike it big. This way, the indie artists that make up the bulk of the MySpace network won’t be driven away.

#1 really shouldn’t be a hard for a company like MySpace. Then again, it’s almost always been the small, nimble companies that have built elegant platforms (maybe with the exception of Apple). #2 and #3 are not going to be as easy. Artists are a fickle bunch – they’re tough to woo, they vary in terms of their technical capabilities, they often have many layers of difficult handlers to deal with, and so on. Add this to the potential (and I stress potential) downsides of a close partnership with major labels, and the situation is even more difficult. Someone is going to make it happen though, whether it’s MySpace, a conglomeration of smaller companies, or some other large company. We’ve started down this exciting road at Indaba Music, but everyone has a long way to go.

Bad Music is Still Bad

Duncan Riley over at TechCrunch wrote a great response to some ridiculous comments from The Society of Authors, the UK Association representing professional book authors. These folks are claiming that internet piracy will put an end to original writing. Sound familiar? It should, because this was the same argument music industry execs made for music when the internet and P2P hit the scene.

I’m glad Duncan is calling shenanigans on this kind of argument, but I take issue with one point he makes. In his words, “While online content and E-Book readers are changing the book game, there will always be a market for books; literature is not modern music, it can’t be created on a whim by 9 year olds using Garage Band.“

I feel like people outside the music world often make this mistake – as anyone on Indaba will attest to, digital production technology makes it easier for anyone to create music, but it doesn’t guarantee that the music will be any good. Musicians, engineers, and producers still need to be talented – this hasn’t changed in over 100 years of recorded music. The implication that all of modern music is about inexperienced 9 years old hacking songs together on Garage Band is moderately offensive.

The Amazing Beatboxing Dog

A very amusing new Flash campaign for Swedish telco Tele2 features an interactive beatboxing dog.  Not sure what it has to do with the advertiser’s business, but it’s music and it’s funny so I figured I’d share.

[via GigaOm]

Statistical Rap Shirts

Gordon brought these hysterical analytical interpretations of rap lyrics to my attention today…some very, very funny pokes at some of the most famous (and/or funny and cheesy) rap lines* of all time. Evidently you can also buy them on t-shirts too! A few of my favorites are below.

*Because a lot of the songs depicted graphically after the jump include misogynistic and sometimes vulgar lyrics, I feel compelled to mention a wonderful talk that Moby gave at SXSW this year in Austin. Moby is such a wonderful human being and so it was a great interview all around, but I was particularly moved by his thoughtful way of looking at offensive lyrics. Moby is by no means a fan of censorship and said he is indeed a member of the ACLU, but he also said that he takes great personal offense to lyrics that demean women or any other persecuted group. Moby therefore makes a personal choice not to listen to such lyrics. It was a meaningful discussion to me because hip hop and rap songs with offensive lyrics have been ingrained in my memory and childhood…they were a big part of the music I grew up with…and so now I feel bad even writing this post because it indirectly calls the wrong kind of attention to these lyrics. So I wanted to point out that I don’t take the lyrics lightly (even if some of these depictions are positively hysterical), and everyone should check out Moby’s talk for some good perspective on things.