GrindEFX

Donald Passman’s seventh edition of his book “All You Need to Know About the Music Business” is available in bookstores today.

Along with the material from the previous editions – the music industry structure, building a team, understanding copyright and publishing, and literally everything else you need to know about the music business – this new edition adds the latest developments from the rapidly changing music business, including:

* The new 360 model of record deals, wherein record companies share in nonrecord revenue

* The Copyright Royalty Board’s latest decisions regarding online transmissions

* The developing customs on new technologies such as streaming on demand, ringtones, and digital downloads

* Updates on recording and publishing deals, as well as film music

I don’t know what else to say about this book that hasn’t already been said. If you’re even thinking about pursuing music as more than just a hobby, you need this book. If you only get one book about the music business, this is the book to get.

Rather than writing a review, I think it suffices to list the thesaurus entries for “definitive.” This book is: absolute, authoritative, clear-cut, complete, conclusive, exhaustive, precise, and reliable.

GrindEFX is back, w00t! Over at Techdirt, Michael Masnick highlights an interesting development in machine-generated music: a company claims to have created software that can recreate musical performances by famous musicians, living or dead.

As described on the blog, “Zenph Studio’s approach is to work out how the musician and the instrument acts and responds, then get a computer to play that track again as a real-time, real-life performance, which in turn can be recorded using modern techniques.”

It’s essentially MIDI on steroids. Zenph claims that through its software process, it can capture the nuances of any performer’s style and translate that into an algorithm to generate new recordings of old songs – or make entirely new songs that sound like they were performed by a famous musician.

Leaving aside whether this is a good idea in the first place – how long before we have Kurt Cobain hawking deodorant? - Masnick concludes with what I can only describe as an excellent law school final exam question -

So, now, take this software that supposedly can perfectly mimic a certain musician’s playing, and have it record a song. Say it’s a new song. Who owns the copyright? What if it’s adding John Lennon to a Rolling Stone’s song? Who owns the copyright? What if it’s an old song, updated in some slight way? Who owns the copyright? What if it’s just the same song but “remastered”? Who owns the copyright? The legal questions raised by this kind of software are going to keep copyright lawyers busy for a long, long time.

Being the slightly sadomasochistic law student I am, I couldn’t resist analyzing the issues raised in this situation. I am not a lawyer, and this article is only for general informational purposes; nothing here constitutes legal advice.

Read more…

On September 8th, Apple unveiled its latest ‘innovation’ to help prop up the recorded music industry – the iTunes LP. For only seven bucks more than a regular digital album, you can get some pretty pictures and liner notes. Facepalm!

But the story doesn’t end there.

Last week, Brian McKinney of Chocolate Lab Records told Gizmodo that Apple was charging record labels $10,000 in production costs to release an album in the iTunes LP format – and indie record labels need not apply. Apple later denied that allegation and said it is working on releasing the specs for the LP format and making them available to all, indie and major labels alike.

Regardless of the outcome of this “he said she said” tempest, it amplifies the silliness of the iTunes LP format itself.

Several web developers have dissected the format to find that it is essentially HTML, Javascript, CSS, and multimedia content – a website. For a little more than the cost of an actual physical CD, you get to save files to your hard drive that largely mirror content you can find online, from the artist’s website itself to Wikipedia, YouTube, and others. Read more…

In 2007, Radiohead released its album “In Rainbows” with an interesting twist – along with traditional CD and vinyl versions, as well as 99 cent tracks on iTunes and other digital retailers, the band offered its own digital downloads of the album on a “pay what you want” basis.

While solid numbers are difficult to come by, the experiment appears to have paid off for Radiohead. Along with the huge amount of press the move generated, the band reported over 3 million combined sales (physical and digital), and “rumors, polls, and inside sources” suggest that the average person paid around $4 to download the album. It is also very likely the pricing model itself drove demand for the band – the deluxe edition box set of “In Rainbows” sold over 100,000 copies (at $81 a pop) when it was released three months after the digital release, and Radiohead went on to its most successful tour to date.

But what’s most interesting is how the music industry responded to this experiment – it didn’t.

Read more…

Radio station to offer web streaming is not news. Web site to offer radio programming is.

CBS Interactive Music Group recently announced that it will begin offering music programming from Last.fm on HD radio stations in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and San Francisco beginning October 5th. The stations will effectively hand the broadcasting reins over to the crowd-sourced, music discovery site – bringing listeners “an eclectic mix of music aggregated and influenced by the service’s user-generated weekly charts, combined with live performances and interviews from the Last.fm studios in New York, and event updates.”

According to CBS, this is the “first time a music website has been transformed into its own broadcast entity.”

How to tune in?

Read more…

Forrester Research recently released a report that lays out a “radical vision” to “save the music industry from the current Media Meltdown it finds itself in.”

While the actual report is only available to Forrester customers, the company’s blog reveals that the plan involves broad “music release windows,” similar to the chart on the right. “Premium” content is released first, followed by a “mainstream” release at a later time, and eventually wide dissemination to free and “feels like free” services.

Judging by comments on the Forrester blog and elsewhere, many scoff at the idea of regaining content scarcity through this staggered release approach. “What about pre-release leaks?” they ask. True, the industry has increasingly bumped up release dates of albums – Jay-Z’s latest came out three days early today – in part to combat the problem of early copies leaking onto the internet. But it’s important to keep in mind that large swaths of music listeners are not running around downloading leaked copies of albums off torrent sites.

Read more…

The National Music Publishers’ Association filed complaints on Monday, August 24th against two companies alleging copyright infringement for their unauthorized use of song lyrics.

The companies – Motive Force and LiveUniverse – both operate web sites which allow users to read and search for song lyrics from thousands of songs. Both companies also use many “web 2.0″ features to allow users to access the lyric database in Facebook, iTunes, and other third-party applications.

A look at one of the complaints reveals that the Publishers’ Association is alleging, among other things, copyright infringement on the basis of unauthorized public display – one of the few times this particular exclusive right is relevant to musicians. The Association also alleges this infringement is not innocent: both companies, they claim, earn significant revenue from advertising, soliciting donations, and driving traffic to their other ventures.

Billboard reports that NMPA President David Israelite has been leading the NMPA in an effort over the last three years to protect songwriters’ lyrics by contacting hundreds of unauthorized lyric sites providing them opportunities to properly license their content or risk a lawsuit. Says Israelite, “Music fans are the biggest losers when licensed businesses, like LyricFind, Gracenote and TuneWiki can’t survive and prosper because unlicensed, illegal businesses are allowed to thumb their noses at the law.”

ASCAP, BMI, SOCAN, PRS, LOL, OMG, WTF. Welcome to the world of Performance Rights Organizations, or PRO’s. Why do we have them, what do they do, and why is it important for musicians to know all this?

Recall from our discussion of copyright that one of the exclusive rights of a copyright holder is the right to publicly perform her work. The performance of music has always played a large role in the public’s engagement with music. Before recording technology came along, public performance income for musicians was simple – get on stage, play, and get paid. Now however, songwriters and musicians can have their recordings publicly performed without having to physically be there. As a result, the licensing of public performances has become very important to musicians and serves as a major revenue stream for them.

Read more…

I’m not entirely sure what people mean when they refer to “music 2.0.” I’m not entirely sure they know what it means either. Perhaps it’s just a buzzword – a way to trick people into thinking Twitter is exciting and useful.

I’m only kidding. “Music 2.0″ is a nebulous concept, but at its simplest, it embodies concepts that enable musicians and bands at all levels to reach new fans and connect with existing fans in a post-record label, post-filesharing, social networking, digital world. The term derives from Web 2.0 -  ”the second generation of web development… that facilitates information sharing, interoperability, user-centered design, and collaboration.”

Perhaps the reason nobody can pin down exactly what Music 2.0 means is that nobody can pin down exactly how musicians can find success in this type of world – this “music commerce frontier” as some have described it. Not the major record labels, not the “experts” of music 2.0, and definately not the musicians themselves. The good news is that whatever Music 2.0 means, it is clear that at its core is innovation. All the individuals and groups mention above are using innovation – thinking outside the box – to find success, and until someone comes up with a bulletproof plan for finding success through music 2.0, all musicians can do is learn from the successes and failures of others.

Read more…

Publishing.

This one word has caused more musicians to pull their hair out than any other word in the music business. It’s a tricky and confusing subject – confusion that’s aided by the unintuitive nature of copyright law, the use of archaic terms left over from the history of music publishing, and the general craziness of the music business.

But music publishing is one of the most important aspects of the music business. Every musician wishing to earn money from their music needs to have at least a general understanding of publishing.

If you’ve been following the Music Business 101 series here on GrindEFX, you should have a leg up on copyright and licensing, which form the basis for music publishing. If you haven’t read them yet and are unfamiliar with those concepts, why not check them now – I’ll wait! Read more…