The Government Giveth, The Government Taketh Away

Reprint of a Tunecore blog
By Jeff Price

Over the course of history, it was decided that people who made their ideas tangible –like songwriters– should make money. So they made up a bunch of really esoteric, hard to understand rules­ (aka laws) on how it should all work. The foundation for these laws can actually be found in the United States Constitution. The rules built on this concept get updated from time to time, but ultimately the foundation of the six legal rights that a person gets when he or she creates a copyrighted work, by making a song tangible (meaning it’s recorded or written down) are the basis for all the rules, laws and money made in the music industry.

Which, if you think about it, is a bit weird, because, what is it that is actually being sold when someone buys “music?” A buyer walks out of the store with some sort of device (like a vinyl record, CD or digital download) and plops it onto a machine. That machine “plays” the device, causing a speaker to vibrate in such a way that sound waves move through the air to our ears. Our ears detect these sound waves, and transmit them to our brains as electrical impulses. Our brains interpret these impulses and we “hear” the music.

In other words, unlike food or clothes, there is nothing tangible to a song beyond the intangible memory of what you just heard. The sound of music always lives in the past.

And yet, the governments of the world (acting on behalf of their constituents; in theory at least) decided that these transmissions of sound waves, and the people who wrote the songs, are so valuable and important, that they created a complex set of laws and regulations. These laws require that licenses be granted and payments be made to the people/entities controlling the rights to the recordings of the songs (usually called a “record label”) and the lyrics and melody of the song (usually called the “songwriter” or “music publisher”).

These rules and regulations tie together, regulate, and give basis for a global consortium of tens of millions of record labels, artists, songwriters, music publishers, performing rights organizations, and mechanical royalty collection agencies, to generate and collect and administer over $23 billion dollars.

And the governments of the world take this stuff very, very seriously. So much so, that there is an entire shadow economy built around an infrastructure of copyright boards, judges, copyright police, congressional committees, and teams of lawyers that are supposed to be the experts in knowing all the rules, and, in some cases, set royalty rates as to what these innovative creators should be paid.

However, in a move that could be construed as paradoxical (or, at the very least a “head scratcher”) these very same governments that created a way to assure that artists, songwriters and record labels can make money also decided that a songwriter/lable only gets these rights for 70 years after the death of the last surviving person who wrote the song (or ninety-five years from the date of publication in the case of a work for hire), after which point, all of the author’s rights get taken away, and the song becomes a “public domain” work, This means it’s available for anyone to use in any way they like without having to pay or negotiate anything with anyone.

Or put another way, 69 years and 364 days after the death of the last surviving writer, the people who control the rights to the song (like someone’s child or grandchildren) get to make money from the use of that song. The next day they don’t; one hell of a Monday to a Tuesday.

Which brings up the question as to why. Why give all of these rights and all of these rules for a set period of time? What is the reason that on that last magical day the very same hand that gave these rights decides it’s enough and takes them all away?

After all, when a song’s rights are stripped away from the person who wrote it, and the copyrights expire, many other people can make money off the recording and song. For example, at some point in time, the Beatles’ recordings and songs will enter the public domain, and when they do, anyone can release a Beatles album or cover Paul/John’s song without paying them. If someone buys that song or album physically from Amazon, a slew of people make money off the Beatles: Amazon makes money, the person who sold it makes money, the entity that made the cardboard box that the CD ships in makes money, the U.S. postal service makes money. The Beatles’ label, their estate, and John and Paul’s estates don’t make money from the sale.

Hardly seems fair.

On the other hand, what happens if Dr. Evil comes to life, only this time he has a trillion dollars at his disposal (don’t laugh too hard, there was a moment not too long ago when Bill Gates was worth a trillion dollars), and he decides he is going to buy the copyrights to all the recordings and songs in the world. Without a reversion of copyright, the world would be denied access to these creations. Corporations could hoard them forever, and perpetually deny or grant access at their whim. Put another way, corporations would have a complete and total stranglehold on culture (one could argue they already do, but that’s a different topic).

And thus the tension between the public good vs. copyright holders and creators comes to play with the government standing in between them, trying to come up with a solution that does not tip the scales too far on way or another.

The question I have relates to technology opening the flood gates to more creators: should there be a re-evaluation of this tension? I honestly don’t have the answer, and I truly can argue both sides of this equation. If it were me, and I wrote and recorded the song “Paperback Writer,” why the hell should I not be entitled to make money off the thing I created? Who the hell is the government to interfere with my rights and decide it’s been long enough for me, or my children, or their children’s children to make money off my creation. If I build a house, the government doesn’t get to take it away from me after a period of time and say it is “public domain.” Why is my song, my creation, thought less of than a house?

On the other hand, somehow it would just not feel right to me if Mozart’s great-great-great-great-great (not sure how many greats should go here) grandchildren got paid each and every time his Flute Concerto No. 2 In D Major – K. 314 was played and sold.

In other words, what is the place of public domain and the reversion of copyright in the new emerging digital music industry?

My concern is not over what the answer is, but instead who gets to shape the discussion. To this point in time, the creators themselves are the minority voice. The multi-national corporations that have gobbled up and/or “own” all of these songs and copyrights are the ones pulling the strings, lobbying for changes to the law. This would be fine if the creators of culture–aka artists–and corporations were in step with one another, but this is hardly the case.

Today’s world has allowed musicians and artists to break free of a system requiring them to relinquish their copyrights to pursue their dreams and ambitions. Together they are louder than any other music entity. The trick is allowing their voice to be heard. TuneCore is simply a megaphone, you are the voice.

www.FANTAZZMOROCKS..com






Tell your friends about Fantazzmo!

Website:
www.FANTAZZMOROCKS.COM


Myspace:
www.myspace.com/FANTAZZMO

Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/Fantazzmo

Twitter:
http://twitter.com/#!/Fantazzmo

Blog:
http://fantazzmo.blogspot.com/

iLike:
http://www.ilike.com/artist/FANTAZZMO

Tumblr:
http://fantazzmo.tumblr.com/

YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/user/FantazzmoRocks?feature=mhum

last.fm:
http://www.last.fm/music/Fantazzmo




Grooveshark”
http://grooveshark.com/#/fantazzmo/music


Soundcloud:
http://soundcloud.com/fantazzmo

ITunes:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/fantazzmo-1-enter-the-fantazz/id390562266

Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/Fantazzmo-1-Enter-Fantazz-Explicit/dp/B0041MGLF6/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1310497015&sr=1-1

Sign And Fail: How The Traditional Music Industry Killed Culture

Sign And Fail: How The Traditional Music Industry Killed Culture

(Reprint from Tunecore Blog)





Email
By George Howard
(follow George on Twitter)

We talk a lot about how this era of the music business is a particularly good one for the independent artist (by that, I mean an artist not signed to a label; someone who releases his/her own music either by him or herself or with a small team). The reasons for this are many, and largely due to technological advances: companies like TuneCore made it possible for you to have your music distributed world-wide very efficiently; Pro Tools (etc.) allows for the efficient creation of music; social media enables you (in theory) to promote your music directly to fans, etc…

However, one thing we don’t discuss often enough is that there is another reason why now is a fantastic time to release your own work. While it’s related to the above, it does stand apart enough to merit observation.

The bottom line is that a significant reason that now is a great time to release your own music is that the cost of failure is so low.

Let me explain. Historically, when you decided you wanted to be a musician and release records, you chose a very specific path. This path required you to, among other things, dedicate nearly all of your time and energy to essentially getting a record deal. What this meant was that you were forced to do everything in your power to attempt to get the attention of a series of gatekeepers (press, radio, managers, booking agents, club owners, label A&R people, etc…) in the hopes that they would give you a series of chances that would lead to a record deal. During that time, while you were attempting to get this series of chances, you needed to be monomaniacal with respect to your purpose. An inordinate amount of time, therefore, was spent not making music, but rather attempting to position yourself favorably in the eyes of these gatekeepers. Doing this, obviously, had a “cost.” This cost was not necessarily one measured in dollars (though, pre Pro Tools, it sure wasn’t cheap to record demos), but instead one measured in time/distraction. Economists call this “opportunity cost.”

In the off chance that you made all the right moves, and the stars lined up, and you were offered a record deal, your cost of failure just went through the roof. While the label I ran (for better, and, sometimes, for worse) frequently worked with artists who had had major label deals, a lot of the time, an artist who had a record deal, and, for whatever reason, didn’t sell enough records to be deemed a commercial success, was forever labeled as a pariah; never to be offered another deal.

Essentially, the cost of failure with respect to getting signed to a label, and then not selling records was being barred from ever competing again.

In both cases — the road leading to getting a record deal, and actually getting the deal — mis-steps along the way (real or perceived) had a huge cost associated with them. In essence, there was really only One Way, and if you veered from this path (or were thrown off the path), it was very hard to get back on.

In hindsight, this is sort of insane. In what other business is it expected that you come right out of the gate, fully-formed, and achieve success on your very first effort? While there are certainly vocations — from doctor to stock broker — where screw ups can bar you from the field, these (and most others) tend to not even let you into the field until you’ve been trained (medical school, MBA, etc…). Part of that training is learning from others and learning from mistakes.

The old music business didn’t allow for this. One could argue that this high cost of failure, one that deterred people from straying from a fairly narrow path (artistically and in a business sense). led to the homogenized nature of the music business during this era.

This is because, of course, it wasn’t just the artists who have a high cost of failure. Rather, it’s the executives at the labels as well. If you’re making a few hundred large a year, you will do almost anything to keep that money flow coming. This also means that you won’t do anything that puts your salary at risk. This leads to a culture where few, if any, are willing to push for anything innovative or new, and most feel it’s safer to repeat the status quo.

Arguably, the major labels are still caught in this cycle.

The good news is that most artists are largely indifferent to the old-school label system at this point, and an increasing number are working hard to find new ways to create music on their own terms and build sustainable careers. This is partly because the major labels (or any label) just aren’t viable (or appealing) options at this point, but it’s also, I would argue, because the cost of failure has come down dramatically.

As it’s now easier than ever to create and release music, artists are freed from the one-album-every-eighteen-months cycle that raised the stakes (and cost of failure) to such a scary degree.

What results is that artists are much more inclined to create a work and put it into the marketplace quickly. In so doing, they honor a time-tested management theory known as the Deming Cycle. W. Edward Deming developed a philosophy that revolutionized industries, and, like most revolutionary philosophies, it can be stated simply, but takes some time to understand and implement. At its core, the Deming cycle recommends a circular process beginning with “Plan,” moving to “Do,” then to “Check,” then to “Act,” and then back to “Plan.”



This can be understood as “Ready, Fire, Aim” as opposed to “Ready, Aim, Fire,” so long as you also understand that after you fire, you must check where your shot went, and adjust before you re-fire.

This approach demands iteration over cogitation. It demands that you move quickly to get something into the marketplace, because only in so doing can you truly understand if what you’re doing will have an impact. Importantly, it demands that you study closely the results that occur upon entering the market, and assumes that you will refine your efforts prior to re-introducing them into the market.

This method works best when the costs of failures are low enough so as not to be fatal. In the old music business, you essentially got one shot. There was no opportunity to refine anything. Now, given the tools at the disposal of just about every artist, and a culture that not only expects, but demands agility (see the preponderance of “betas”), it is incumbent upon you to get into the game, learn, and then refine.

I strongly believe that this not only results in a higher chance of success for artists, but also in a more diverse musical landscape. This is because no one, no one knows what the market wants, and for too long people thought they did. This resulted in a lot of music being put into the market just because it resembled something else that had been successful. With the Deming approach, and a low cost of failure, we are able to do what we should have been doing all along: create what is in our hearts, and then — if we so choose — continue to refine as people respond to our work.

Why Everyone But The Artist And The Music Fan Is Doomed

Reprint from Tunecore Newsletter November 21, 2011

Why Everyone But The Artist And The Music Fan Is Doomed

6
Share



Email
By Jeff Price

(Updated Nov. 22nd – Please see the bottom of this article for sales information from TuneCore Artists in July 2011)

Every business built on gatekeepers eventually fails. At some point some technology comes around, making the entire old school industry obsolete.

It’s a shortsighted model based on greed, ego and false perception of invulnerability.

Take the old school music industry: it was a ticking time bomb of self-destruction waiting to go off. It began with the birth of recorded music. The “artist gatekeepers” with the infrastructure and access to place music on retail shelves decided they would not just charge a fee for the service, but would also require a transference of copyright from the creator to the gatekeeper.

For the “consumer gatekeepers,” they could have chosen to allow more music to be exposed, but they went down the same path as the artist gatekeepers.

It did not need to be this way; the artists could have been allowed to keep their copyrights, and music fans could have had access to discover more music. Try as these two sets of gatekeepers might, their control would be broken. Their over-the-top, greedy mistakes were always on a path of tearing themselves down; it was not a matter of if, it was a matter of when.

Along the way there were lies, theft, piles of money traded, and unnecessary filtering, but the artist and music fan would win. It’s evolution.

The fall came hard and fast. It used to be that as a musician, you had to go to the “artist gatekeeper,” the label, and be one of the anointed few that got the privilege of transferring ownership of what you created to the label so your CDs could end up on store shelves.

In order to get heard, and then hopefully have your music cause a reaction, you had to be one of the even luckier few chosen by the “consumer gatekeepers” to have your music played on commercial radio or MTV, or get written about in Rolling Stone.

Did they think, even a moment, that this control would ever be taken from them?

When eMusic, the first on-line digital store, launched in 1998, the boulder began to careen down the mountain. Within ten years, the entire 80-year-old traditional gatekeeper model had been destroyed.

No longer did you need an A&R person deciding an artist was of “commercial value” to be let into the system.

No longer did you have a retail store buyer subjectively deciding which CDs had enough value to be placed on their shelves.

No longer did MTV have a lock on deciding which music videos got seen.

No longer did commercial radio limit what we all heard to the 15 to 20 songs that they decided to play.

No longer was the general population limited to reading what the editors of Rolling Stone, The New York Times, Spin and others decided to write about.

In the digital world, all artists can be on infinite digital shelves with infinite inventory waiting to be discovered, heard, shared and bought. The general population of the world can decide what does and does not have value, and can share thoughts and preferences in scales never before thought imaginable, networking to one another globally, via social outlets like Twitter, FaceBook, MySpace, and YouTube.

Digital radio stations now have millions of songs available to be programmed based on the listener’s preferences, likes and dislikes.

This entire old school system was based not on serving the artist, but on gatekeepers exploiting artists to let them in. And when you are a gatekeeper, when you think you are the only one with the keys to the kingdom (and only you will ever have them), you do stupid things, immoral things, and create a business where you’re simply a necessary evil.

This mentality extended beyond labels, distributors, retailers, radio stations, MTV and print magazines. It reached into every nook and cranny of the old industry, into entities like ASCAP: the gatekeepers for songwriters to get their money.

Just as it was in the old school industry, there was a time when these gatekeepers reigned supreme in what they did; they, and only they, had systems to track and collect money owed to songwriters for public performances. But then hubris crept in leading to their taking their songwriter members’ money to not only do the job they were hired to do, but also to pay the heads of these organizations exorbitant six and seven figure salaries, spend their members’ money on fleets of cars, expensive dinners, first class airplane tickets, luxury hotels, over the top decadent office space in the most expensive cities in the world (as well as many other travel and expense perks).

They were gatekeepers blocking songwriters from getting their money. Just like the major labels, they were the only ones with the infrastructure to provide the service; if you wanted your songwriter money, you had to go to them. They made their priority maintaining control, not serving. Had they kept this focus, they would now not be in trouble, they would have adapted.

The digital age has made the digital part of what ASCAP and others do a thing of the past. These organizations are not needed to track sales in iTunes or video streams in YouTube, and yet they are fighting and litigating to try to keep songwriters’ money going to themselves to stick in their pockets. They do not really give a damn that 98% of the world’s songwriters don’t get their cut of the money owed to them. There are other entities out in the world now, like TuneCore, that can get songwriters more money, more quickly, with transparency and an audit trail, and yet they fight against this efficiency.

It’s foolish, dumb and wrong.

As a member of ASCAP, we called and asked them for a list of entities that ASCAP licenses to, as well as the rates we should expect to get paid.

They called us up with two lawyers on the phone­–lawyers that ASCAP is able to pay from the money it collects from songwriters – and said they could not tell us the rates or whom they were in deals with as it would “violate anti-trust laws”. What I can’t understand is how they can state this while simultaneously issuing a press release about how they entered into a licensing agreement with Netflix.

Further, how can the people that hired them not get told what rates have been negotiated on their behalf? How would anyone know if they were doing their job?

It’s frustrating, but I keep this in mind, the end is inevitable; technology has rendered these entities moot, a thing of the past. The only thing keeping them propped up is that there are artists who do not understand how much money they are owed and where it is. As this information gets out, these organizations will use songwriters’ money in an attempt to sue, legislate and litigate, to stop these same songwriters from getting more of what they earned.

There should be no gatekeepers for musicians, or for anything. It all comes down to serving the musician. This is as it should be. Then entities like TuneCore must create products or services that are of true value to artists or get the hell out of the way. ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

UPDATE – November 22, 2011

(We apologize for the length of this article, but we wanted to provide more data. You can make comments down below.)

Many blog posters have been suggesting that artists not signed to major labels do not sell music or make money. Below is a small swatch of sales information for TuneCore Artists only. It shows what they sold and what they made in July 2011, just that ONE MONTH. I have removed the artists’ names and release info out of respect for their privacy.

Over 99% of these artists are not “signed.” Also note, these are sales from July, 2011, one of the slower music sales months of the year.

As you would expect, there are a small number of artists making hundreds of thousands of dollars each month and more artists earn less as you move down the list. But for all those that may comment suggesting most are making less, my response is, you’ve got to be kidding me.

These artists, all of them, are outside of the traditional system. Some are earning hundreds of thousands and some are earning $20.

And this is bad because…?

With the music industry democratized more artists are making more money than ever before. All of this money you are seeing is going directly into these artists’ pockets; this is money they would have never ever seen before.

Now add the songwriter money on top of this money.

Someone needs to explain to me why an artist earning something vs. nothing is a bad thing, as I truly cannot understand that logic. As far as TuneCore, as I have stated over and over, it’s your music that causes it to sell. It’s up to you to decide if the services and fees TuneCore charges work for you.

No gimmicks, no games, transparency in the way we work. Arm the artists with info and let them make their own decisions.

Here’s a sample of the data (click the link below to download the full doc):



VIEW FULL SALES REPORT



www.FANTAZZMOROCKS..com






Tell your friends about Fantazzmo!

Website:
www.FANTAZZMOROCKS.COM


Myspace:
www.myspace.com/FANTAZZMO

Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/Fantazzmo

Twitter:
http://twitter.com/#!/Fantazzmo

Blog:
http://fantazzmo.blogspot.com/

iLike:
http://www.ilike.com/artist/FANTAZZMO

Tumblr:
http://fantazzmo.tumblr.com/

YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/user/FantazzmoRocks?feature=mhum

last.fm:
http://www.last.fm/music/Fantazzmo




Grooveshark”
http://grooveshark.com/#/fantazzmo/music


Soundcloud:
http://soundcloud.com/fantazzmo

ITunes:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/fantazzmo-1-enter-the-fantazz/id390562266

Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/Fantazzmo-1-Enter-Fantazz-Explicit/dp/B0041MGLF6/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1310497015&sr=1-1

Launch Of Google Music– What Does This Mean For You?

Launch Of Google Music– What Does This Mean For You? (Reprint)

Share



Email
Get ready to cut the ribbon; the search engine giant Google has just launched the long-awaited Google Music, a platform enabling musicians to connect with their fans. Google Music allows you to discover and purchase new music, upload your personal collection to the cloud, share purchased tracks with friends on Google+, and access your entire collection from the web or any device. So what does this new digital platform mean for the user? And for the artist?

WHAT IS IT?

Google Music includes an online music store within Android Market that provides à la carte digital downloads of albums and tracks (tracks vary from free to $1.29). When you make a purchase through Android Market, the album or single automatically goes to your Google Music library, which can be thought of as a kind of locker. In addition to storing downloads from the store, the locker can also hold up to 20,000 songs from your personal music collection.

Once in the locker, the music can be streamed on the web and any device, and even stored for offline listening on a mobile device. You’ll be able to access your songs on up to 10 authorized devices per account.

In addition, artists will be able to create an “Artist Page,” which will feature the artist’s albums for sale, as well as additional information and media such as band photos and an artist bio. To upload and publish content for Google Music using their artist portal, users must be residents of the United States (including its territories, protectorates, and insular areas). To edit an artist page, you can be located anywhere in the world.



www.FANTAZZMOROCKS..com






Tell your friends about Fantazzmo!

Website:
www.FANTAZZMOROCKS.COM


Myspace:
www.myspace.com/FANTAZZMO

Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/Fantazzmo

Twitter:
http://twitter.com/#!/Fantazzmo

Blog:
http://fantazzmo.blogspot.com/

iLike:
http://www.ilike.com/artist/FANTAZZMO

Tumblr:
http://fantazzmo.tumblr.com/

YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/user/FantazzmoRocks?feature=mhum

last.fm:
http://www.last.fm/music/Fantazzmo




Grooveshark”
http://grooveshark.com/#/fantazzmo/music


Soundcloud:
http://soundcloud.com/fantazzmo

ITunes:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/fantazzmo-1-enter-the-fantazz/id390562266

Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/Fantazzmo-1-Enter-Fantazz-Explicit/dp/B0041MGLF6/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1310497015&sr=1-1

FOUND: My PRS is back in my hands

FOUND: My PRS is back in my hands

I will complete this blog and the long story behind it at a later time, but for now, I am happy to have my guitar, "Big Blue" back.

www.FANTAZZMOROCKS..com






Tell your friends about Fantazzmo!

Website:
www.FANTAZZMOROCKS.COM


Myspace:
www.myspace.com/FANTAZZMO

Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/Fantazzmo

Twitter:
http://twitter.com/#!/Fantazzmo

Blog:
http://fantazzmo.blogspot.com/

iLike:
http://www.ilike.com/artist/FANTAZZMO

Tumblr:
http://fantazzmo.tumblr.com/

YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/user/FantazzmoRocks?feature=mhum

last.fm:
http://www.last.fm/music/Fantazzmo




Grooveshark”
http://grooveshark.com/#/fantazzmo/music


Soundcloud:
http://soundcloud.com/fantazzmo

ITunes:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/fantazzmo-1-enter-the-fantazz/id390562266

Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/Fantazzmo-1-Enter-Fantazz-Explicit/dp/B0041MGLF6/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1310497015&sr=1-1

REWARD!!! My Blue PRS Guitar was taken after a show on Fri, NOv 4.

REWARD!!! On Friday, Nov 4, my dark blue guitar (PRS) went missing at the Stardust in Downey. It was last seen on the right side of the stage before the band Broken Silence performed. I am offering a $300 reward for its prompt & safe return. To collect, please return the guitar to management at the Stardust, (Dust) or call (562)480-3573 and I will meet you anywhere, anytime, no questions asked. Thank you, Sergio Bedolla

Fantazzmo Tour

Four days & four shows, Fantazzmo just finished up the last show on our mini tour and we had a blast!!! Last stop was a house party in Fontana and ....yeah it kicked Ass!!! Thank you to everyone who rocked out with us and made this a great experience, see you soon!!!