Thoughts on music, business and the web

Posts Tagged ‘music industry’

Streaming iTunes On The Way – My Guess: Apple Bought Lala For A Contract

Friday, December 11th, 2009

Everybody is clueless, why did Apple acquire the small startup lala although they hardly have integrated any external services ever? I have a guess. Just a guess, but it fits well in everything.

Apple didn’t buy lala because of its genius technology, they have their own streaming technology and deliver billions of previews a day already through iTunes, probably much more data than lala ever did. And it’s probably not for hiring talent, Apple is surely one of the most attractive employers worldwide.

Instead: could it be that lala owns some kind of contract with the music industry that helps Apple entering the streaming music business? Surely it is not easy for Apple negotiating an arrangement with the majors, they know that if Apple starts a cloud music service, they are out of business.They fear the face-off and therefore hesitated to bring their own streaming service Spotify to the US.

Apple was well happy with selling downloads and did not want to jeopardize its own business. Until now, because the time has come and customers want a streaming service. So i wouldn’t be surprised if Steve proudly announces a new iTunes, maybe in January? And surprise, surprise, with a 10$/month flat fee for streaming music (unfortunately US only…). In this case, Steve again would have kicked ass the majors. And Spotify is doomed, just what i predicted 10 months ago. Sad. Hilarious?

Ok, maybe i’m just wrong… let’s see.

For Me, Michael Jackson Is The Icon For All What Went Wrong In The Music Industry

Tuesday, June 30th, 2009

Michael Jackson’s life and death is tragic, i don’t want to touch anyones feelings. But to me, he a symbol for all what was wrong with popular music. Back then,  MJ was everywhere, there was no escape, and i hated it. I always was disgusted with this mass hysteria about his all around artificial appearance and his undoubtedly innovative but slick and commercialized art. And now this coincidence in 2009, he suddenly dies, at the same time as the music industry, it’s like a bad orchestration or a twist of fate.

Thanks to hypebot, i found  this remarkable post from Umair Haque on Harvard Business Blogs. He calculates MJ’s royalty income to $12M per year, which is a lot of money, but astoundingly low considering MJs outstanding fame:

If the world’s biggest pop star only made $12 million a year from his recordings, why would anyone make serious music? Where did the rest of the money go? Why, straight into record labels’ pockets.

Did they make better music with it? Nope — they made Britney and Lady GaGa. And that’s how they killed themselves: by underinvesting in quality, to rake in the take.

It’s not the web that is responsible for the current desaster of music economy, it is the greed of those who conducted all this. The music industry deserves to disappear.

The True Reason For The Current Breakdown Of The Music Industry: Don’t Mess With Art!

Tuesday, May 26th, 2009

Somebody just asked me whether i’m intersted in helping him in marketing his music in the web, pointed to his myspace profile and asked me about my quality valuation. Here’s what i answered him:

I’m not skilled to judge the quality of music. What does quality in art mean anyway? The sex pistols, did they make “good” music in the sense of a musician? Surely not. Have the been “good” musicians? *cough*. Was punk rock innovative? nope, it was just rock’n'roll, not even a fast one. So why have the sex pistols – at least – been so successful and why did millions identify with their music and why can be said: this is true art? Of course is the answer: because punk rock was an authentic, urgent and strong expression of an attitude towards society and life.

Authenticity is something that everybody carries inside, it derives from life itself, it is not manageable and cannot be created artificially. Authenticity is the key to art. I am convinced that the greatest and most common mistake in the music business is to influence and polish artists in order to reach marketing goals and therefore undermine and bury their authenticity. This is the true reason for the current disaster of the music industry.

Regina Spektor says: Don’t mess with art!

My Guess: We Will Pay $3 For An Album – For Service Fee And Fairness

Sunday, March 1st, 2009

As the Digital Audio Insider suspects, Amazon is conducting a large scale experiment with prices for digital music downloads. For a single day, Opeth’s Still Life was only $1.99 and immediately boosted to position #3 on amazon’s best seller list. Today it’s the Greatest Hits album from Creed (also $1.99, also #3). Last.fm numbers indicate that both bands are fairy popular (345,852 listeners for Opeth, 523,844 listeners for Creed), but both albums are from the back catalog, what makes this even more astounding.

There is the suggestion that an album should cost $5, my guess is that in mid term the prices will even drop to around $3. This seems to be the amount a consumer is willing to pay on a voluntary basis. (Remember the Radiohead In Rainbows numbers. Divide $2,736,000 by 1,200,000 downloads, then you get $2.28 in average.)

Why so low? It’s not only random customer behaviour. The value of an mp3 file itself, as is with any digital information, tends to zero. It’s an economic fact, because the marginal costs for the production of a digital copy are nearly zero.

Despite this a digital download has a value for the customer, because of two reasons:

First, the service that provides the download is a value. If you pay, you save yourself hunting in file sharing networks and ending up with mistagged mp3s in bad quality. The better the service, the higher the value. iTunes is more convenient than amazon’s mp3 store, so they might be able to realize a higher price.

Second, people will pay because it’s fair. But you are not paying for the file, your want to support the artist. People (mostly) want to be fair. In this view, you are paying for the consumer-artist relationship. This means that probably a direct sale from the band’s website has a higher value for the customer – if they know that the money goes directly to the artist – that could equal much more than $3.

What This Blog Is About: Read This NY Times Article

Friday, February 6th, 2009

If anybody wonders what’s the real problem with the music industry, read this note from NYTimes’ Winter Miller. It’s a review of the new album of Rachael Yamagata, a New York singer-songwriter who recently published a wonderful double CD and is currently on tour in Japan and Europe:

What I love about “Elephants … Teeth Sinking Into Heart” is you know for a fact that there was not a single A&R or P.R. or marketing person that was in the process remotely, because there’s not a single up-tempo song on the whole album. They’re all completely self-indulgent, in the best possible sense of the word, indulging in the beauty of the sadness.

I’m so thrilled when I hear that. There might be slight danger that a label would be trying to say “Let’s make sure there’s a radio song.” It’s a really healthy thing in this younger generation of artists…

No A&R, no PR and marketing remotely makes good music. Just think about it.


b-sides runs with WordPress