YOU TUBE GETS TOUGH  

Less than two weeks after I wrote about Google's threat to remove huge numbers of You Tube videos, their strong-armed threat is about to become reality.

(For the background, read this: You Tube Threat To Artists? )

You Tube - owned by Google - has been in the throes of renegotiating contracts with record labels in the wake of the imminent launch of its own music subscription service. Google insists that all labels *agree* to the new terms and conditions for the new service - or face sanctions, including blocking of thousands of videos that have sat happily on the system for some time. Google wants to lock the labels down and call the shots - but the indie labels are resisting saying that they're being offered pitiful payments for allowing their artists' music to go on the new service. An Indie Label spokes person - Alison Wenham  has said "This is a grave error of commercial judgement in misreading the market". You Tube's response was carried in today's Financial Times:

           "Videos from independents could be blocked in a matter of days if new licenses 
             are not negotiated"

Indie labels represented and distributed by WIN

Wenham - who heads up the Worldwide Independent Network (a key distributor of indie label music) added: 

            "We have tried and continued to try to help You Tube understand just how important
              independent music is to any streaming service and why it should be valued
              accordingly" 

Universal - one of three majors
to sign up to You Tube's
new Terms 

The three global music labels - Warner, Sony and Universal - have signed up, but there is no doubt with their scale and commercial worth, You Tube will have come to some sort of arrangement with them to smooth the passage to the new model. Even the BPI which represents British record companies - including the three majors - said it was entirely wrong of You Tube to threaten to "ostracise certain independents" bearing in mind that it is the dominant on-line video viewing platform. You Tube claims that many labels have signed up and that the new subscription service is about "bringing new revenue streams for our musical partners". It's likely that as You Tube starts removing videos in the next few days, some of them could well still be viewable on You Tube via services such as Vevo. It's also important to note that individuals and bands posting videos direct to You Tube themselves are unaffected.   

But, as I noted last time, a DIY approach reduces the likely impact of record label promotion and financial muscle. You Tube are making a big mistake here, I believe, and although change is inevitable, this does seem to me to be another case of a corporate entity watching the bottom line and not the artistic endeavour. 

As the old business saying goes, You Tube is in danger of "knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing"

Alan Dorey
17th June 2014

THE DAY THE MUSIC DIED?  

This blog has often looked at the changing face of the music scene here in the UK.

Whether this is how we buy it, how it's sold - and how it's made in the first place - it's all been discussed in these columns.

All three of these activities have changed dramatically in the past 60 years. Some would say that the rate of change continues to increase. At face value, this is merely a statement of the obvious: all we have to do is think about the technological changes since the CD was first introduced in the 1980s to see that. How many formats came and went in the first ten years before CDs became all-conquering?

The thing is though, is the means of buying, selling and making music the be all and end all?

A modern day variant of
"Taping Is Killing Music"

I ask the question because I came across an American article this past week that ran with the provocative title "How One Generation Was Single Handedly Able To Kill The Music Industry".

The thesis was that we (the consumer) aren't buying music in the way that we used to - and as a result, we've destroyed the idea of buying records and thus closed off any chance of musicians being able to make a living. More specifically, it's a recent generation of consumer that it calls "The Millenials" who are most to blame - they love the music, but just don't want to pay for it. When the day comes that the baby boomers have faded away, the view is that no-one will want to buy albums or singles or vinyl ever again.

Here's the article in question:

How One Generation Killed The Music Industry

It argues that we now control both the supply and demand sides of the economic model and that record labels, productions companies - and even artists - remain wedded to the idea of selling lots of units, a model (the piece says) that is outmoded.

We are exposed to more music than ever, we share it round  and talk about it more than ever - and yet somehow, the creator of the music - the artist - seems to be overlooked in this never-ending desire to have more and more access.

The money is key - and if the money is followed, it's clear it has migrated from record companies (and to an extent, their clients, the artists) to other large corporations who seek to use their *brand muscle* to exploit our love affair with music to bolster their bottom lines. There's a table in the article which shows that today's biggest artists (it cites Pitbull) may have something like 50 million facebook fans, but when it comes to record sales, Pitbull's career sales are less than 10 million - and one "Cliff Richards" (I'll forgive them their error - it is an American article) seems to be 61 million. By using social media, consumers "play both sides of the field" by both creating and sharing music - and thus cutting out the middleman.

But why am I ambivalent about this piece?

Promote your music and offer it free to consumers.
Noisetrade encourage fans to make artist donations

There's no doubt that seismic changes have taken place, but in some ways, they always have done. The difference is that ease of access to technology and the clever marketing of the need to constantly *upgrade* and trade-in has meant that the regular recycling of demand has a much shorter lifespan now. Consumers may feel more in charge of acquiring music, but do artists really feel in control of producing it? In my experience, artists can use simple technology to do a myriad of things they had to pay someone else to do - record, edit, mix, produce, promote and sell. But, to market music in amongst the thousands of weekly releases is a huge task and only a small number will make it. The vast majority will work hard, produce highly promising content and then see it sit on Bandcamp or Soundcloud or Noisetrade and many other sites, not doing very much at all. Which is a huge shame. 

Bandcamp - Helps promote music?

I must conclude on a optimistic note because, well, there are plenty of artists out there who deserve breaks and exposure. Exposure isn't just about dropping something on You Tube and hoping for the best. But recent statistics show that when it comes to discovering music, consumers may opt for You Tube (83% of us use it thus) or recommendations from friends (71%), but a healthy 65% still use radio. You might think "He would say that wouldn't he?", but factor in the increase in radio listenership in the UK in 2013, and the importance of good radio shows designed to showcase new music  and - I think - there is some salvation at hand. "Having things for free" may be a fine notion, but the reality is that ultimately someone pays - and if musicians can't survive, then what is the future for the very music that we (apparently) love to share so much?

Alan Dorey

13th June 2014    

YOU TUBE THREAT TO ARTISTS?  

I've written before about the huge importance that You Tube plays in helping bands and artists promote their music. Having a video or interview clip on the Google-owned facility is pretty much an essential part of any song or album launch - and that's why artists are viewing Google's latest move with concern.

So what's the issue?

You Tube is believed to be looking at launching an advert-free subscription service for music videos which, in itself, doesn't seem like a major problem: it is after all, what several other rivals already do. But, there are two issues that musicians have spotted - one being the low rates likely to be offered (lower than rival services) and more crucially, an implied threat that should a small or independent record label or company not *sign-up* to the new service, their existing You Tube presence could be blocked.

You Tube
Soon to offer a paid subscription service? 

In essence, artists will receive less income - and could find that the viewing audience for their music falls away. Currently, whilst having a You Tube presence in itself isn't income generating, by permitting the inclusion of a short ad at the start of each play, bands and artists can earn something - and that's vital in the vastly changed music scene of today. As we already know, label publishing deals are as rare as hen's teeth, album sales are in slow decline and even touring (with all its spin-off merchandise) is not always creating the level of income that musicians need to keep going.

Radiohead's Ed O'Brien

Radiohead guitarist Ed O'Brien is trying to do something about it. He's co-chair of the Featured Artists Coalition, a group which seeks to campaign for musician's rights and he says that

 "To restrict indie artists and labels in this way is to risk creating an internet just for the superstars and big businesses."

By potentially restricting the range and variety of music on the subscription service, the Coalition also fears that innovation will be more limited and consumer choice will be severely restricted. It is said that this development - if it comes to pass - could mean that acts such as Jack White, Adele, Hot Chip, The Arctic Monkeys (all on indie labels) may no longer be available *officially* on You Tube. Some argue that this is all about artists being a little greedy, wanting to grab as much income as they can, but any considered analysis suggests that artists and fans will lose out - and the only benefits will be accrued by You Tube and the major labels.There are thousands of indie artists and upwards of 100 smaller record labels that will lose out, labels such as XL, 4AD, Domino Records and Cooking Vinyl.

Domino Records
Home to acts such as The Arctic Monkeys, John Cale,
The Amazing Snakeheads and Hot Chip

  

The musical landscape is changing rapidly and often, progress is a good thing even if there is a period of uncertainty before things settle down into some semblance of order. But, as I noted in a blog last month (Battle Of The Bands - 22nd May) , there seem to be a number of potentially large and landscape-changing *deals* in the offing. Great care must be taken so that the music and those that make it can survive - and indeed thrive: otherwise, the big labels, the major music providers and streaming services will end up shooting themselves in their collective feet.

Hot Chip
Could lose out in the You Tube stakes

It would be nice - just for once - to have a positive development that has artists and consumers at the heart of it, rather than just chasing what Jean Jaques Rousseau once said was "the untempered lust for gain". 

Alan Dorey

5th June 2014

IT'S ONLY ROCK & ROLL, BUT I £IKE IT

In a previous series of blogs back in the depths of 2012, I looked at the use of rock and pop music in the movies - and increasingly, in TV shows. 

It seems that this trend is exploding and providing another stream of income in these tough days of declining albums sales. As with all things, it's good news for some, not for others. The real action is in the use of songs in advertising, computer games and internet trailers - and whilst it's pretty obvious that established acts get a big look in, it does appear that *breaking artists* are being considered too.

It all comes down to a fine balance between economics and recognition: is the song or artist affordable in licensing terms? Is the performance going to deliver? 

There's even a process by which all this happens - Synchronization Rights, the means by which music is married to specific visuals or promotions. The rights tend to be managed by the relevant song publishing company and the whole concept is generally thought to have been developed some years back by Andrew Ludwick of Warner Chapel Music. As with all things, there's a value to the copyright of a song and it's either the actual original studio recording or, increasingly, the composition and lyrics themselves. The Sync Process - as it's often called - is simply the means by which, say, an advertising agency will buy the rights to a song or content from the publisher.   

Recent figures from the BPI show that in 2013 alone, something like £19m was generated for the British music industry using Sync, an increase of 3.2% compared to 2012. However, that's small beer when compared to the US market where every TV show, every advert, every on-line promotion needs to have the *right* song for their product. Some TV and film studios have been known to pay anything up to $250,000 for a song that fits perfectly with the soundtrack in a movie or big feature television advert. Clearly, many songs cost a lot less than that - and certainly in the UK, there's a growing market in getting promising new artists' work such exposure where perhaps little if any actual money changes hands: it's all about gaining recognition and trying to increase record sales.

Capitol Records HQ - Los Angeles

This coming week over in Los Angeles at Capitol Records' round tower HQ, Sync Summit are running an industry beanfeast whereby prospective  musicians and artists can pitch their wares to a battery of Hollywood TV, film, advertising and music moguls. From the days when many acts frowned upon their music adorning a TV advert, it's clear that increasing numbers see this as a route to viability and thus allow the chance to continue recording, writing and touring. Leicester indie rockers Kasabian have, for example, made quite something out of the way in which they decided they had something worth marketing - and that something was using their music to promote Premier League football when it was being shown in countries outside the UK. Their new album - 48.13, released this week, was actually  made available to a Sync team from Sony/ATV Music some time before release in order that the deal could be negotiated.

Kasabian - They like football

It's not all one-way traffic either: artists can - to some extent - choose the media or message that their music is attached to and thus underpin their own beliefs and views: it's no longer a case of a song being taken by, say by a Political Party for an election campaign, and the artist having no say over whether or not they approve. 

Of course, at the end of the day, it's business and whilst bands and artists need to live, there is still something of a sell-out feeling when their music is used to make money for someone else.

Forty Years On - and still in demand

So, the next time you see any ads on TV or on-line where familiar music is used, it's all about the Sync. And as a parting shot, for fans of the landmark TV series Breaking Bad (and Mad Men too), a single song in such a show can create huge demand for an artist: indeed, the producers on Breaking Bad were so keen to have the classic 1972 hit by America - Horse With No Name - in one of the episodes, that the script was rewritten to accommodate it.

Actually, pretty good for a whole range of artists
whose songs were featured across the shows' five series

Alan Dorey

1st June 2014