Grex Music2 Conference

Item 112: Changes in the Music Business

Here's an interesting item on changes in the music business which appeared
in last Wednesday's New York Times.  If I haven't dallied too long, the 
full article might still be available on their web site.
(http://www.nytimes.com       (search the archive for "boomer"))
 

          January 28, 1998

          Restless Young Music Fans Hungry for the New

          ...

          A new generation gap is opening up among rock and pop
          fans. The difference isn't necessarily in the kind of
          music baby boomers and their children listen to. After
          all, Oasis emulates the Beatles, Hanson tries to be the
          Jackson Five, and members of Pearl Jam are avowed fans
          of the Who and Led Zeppelin.

          What's different is the way they consume that music: the
          elders stood by their favorite bands while the young
          constantly chase after the new.

          Record industry executives say pop music, particularly
          rock, is changing from a genre that gave rise to career
          artists (the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan,
          Michael Jackson) to one supported by a succession of
          young, transient acts.

          And in the concert industry, which earns most of its
          revenue from baby-boomer bands, executives are beginning
          to panic because most of these younger acts are not
          building a loyal fan base and their ticket sales are
          languishing compared with the success of their albums.

          ...

((back to KRJ))

One factor here, I suspect, is the increasing stretch between releases.
In the sixties bands tended to produce 2-3 albums per year; in the seventies 
that slowed to one per year; now we are to 2-4 years between albums 
for "major" artists.

I'd always blamed this on the rise of the accountants to control of 
the music business.  But a long-lost Wall Street Journal article
claimed that the long delays between albums were due to the rise 
of global touring.

RE #0 Also in the sixties, pop albums usually consisted of two or three hit
singles and nine or ten cover songs or other less-remembered efforts.  And
before the Beatles hit the scene big time in 1964, most albums concentrated
on Mom and Dad's favorite pop singers.

Actually, there used to be a lot of transient acts.  Acts like the Beatles
broke out of the disposable pop arena into what has become the standard, acts
that last.  We may get back to the "producer" era, where producers like Phil
Spector or Barry Gordie (Motown) applied their specific sound to a series of
mostly-forgotten "artists".  Look at Don Was's rep these days, or Jam & Lewis
back in the 80's...

  I think you're already seeing that to some extent in the rap & hip-hop
  scene -- producers are quite prominent, have a great deal of influence
  over the sound, and in an increasing number of cases are better known
  than the acts they're producing..

  Who, though, were "Jam & Lewis"?  Completely doesn't ring a bell for me
  even when I rack my brains for influential producers of the 80's..

(Jimmy Jam & Terry Lewis. biggest claim to fame that comes to mind
is their production work for Janet Jackson.)

(I agree with mcnally's assessment of producers in the hip-hop scene,
and would add that such influence seems to moving into the R&B category
as well.)

(I'd hypothesize that the reason for the disinterest in live music
is that the current generation is more interested in watching videos
than concerts, and most of the current acts are more interested in
making videos than music, at least in the pop genre.)

Well, there are still live music followers, but it's more of a cult thing.
I mean, there always have been and always will be bands - the Dead and Phish
being the classic examples, but also most jazz and funk - who exist for the
purpose of playing live.  What you see less of nowadays is mainstream bands
touring constantly with as much success as they used to be able to.

be able to what? (SF! SF!)

(You're wrong, but I'll fight with you about it elsewhere)

Didn't Jam and Lewis also produce the Time?

I assume I'll probably stick with my bands.  I don't chase new trends-- I find
an act or group I like, and I usually choose well enough that I'll continue
to stay with their music.

"Video killed the radio star," as the Biggles sang, but I would agree the
music concert seems to be less of a main attraction than music videos, thanks
to MTV.  However, I don't think the groups themselves want to always do a
music video-- I heard someone suggest the proliferation is usually contractual
obligation.  Maybe it's the abstract artist in me, but there are some really
CRAPPY videos out there.  I often find I need to go to VH1's Pop Up Video for
80's videos, or to MTV's show AMP for techno videos for something interesting.

Undoubtedly I'm just whining for the loss of a golden age 
which never existed.  :)

But I really lament the loss of this sense of "relationship" that I used 
to have with a number of bands and performers.  I miss the feeling that 
you could look forward to a release from someone -- it would be 
approximately an annual event -- and then you would spend a while 
listening to the album, just because of who had put it out, rather than 
dashing off in search of the next cheap thrill.
 
Three of the last performers who I had this sort of special 
bond with, I feel let down by and lost with in recent years: 
Richard Thompson, R.E.M., the Oyster Band; my runs with those bands 
went 20 years, 10 years and 8 years, respectively.  The only band 
that I still feel that tie to is Hedningarna.
 
Sifting and searching for someone new is getting to be more and more of 
a chore... there was a quote which I thought was from that same NY Times 
article, but which is apparently from a source which I have now lost:
there are over 700 new albums released each week.

Hhhhm. I tend to do this with only a few performers, and those are
usually the ones which I have loved for many yaers (James Keelaghan,
Archie Fisher, Garnet Rogers, and Dougie MacLean are all immediate
no-questions-asked buy-it-asap, if not sooner artists for me). I tend
not to do it for bands as much as singers, though the Oyster Band is still
one of my top ten favorites, and I do buy all of their releases the same
day as they come out. Erm. Mustard's Retreat, too. I have stopped doing
this for most everyone else, simply because most of the other bands that I
likehave had personell changes which have altered their sound enough that I
need to listen a bit before I buy their newest products. 

  re #10:  I share Ken's lament -- partly release schedules are too shaky
  and delays too long to invest much excitement in waiting for a favorite
  act's upcoming release, partly those releases have often disappointed
  me in recent years..  Either way I no longer wait with bated breath the
  way I used to, to the point where the fact that a favorite act has a new
  recording out often takes me completely by surprise..

  I've noticed that this has had a substantial effect on my record-buying
  habits -- without regular releases to look forward to, and already 
  posessing a large share of the available recordings of artists I know
  I like, and without decent channels to introduce me to new artists
  (I certainly don't pick up much from radio play and I don't have time to
  read much in newsgroups or the music press..) I buy records at only a 
  small fraction of the rate I used to..

Hhhm. Interesting. I didn't buy albums very fast in the eighties, well,
I bougth some things, but usually only after I'd been exposed via radio/
someone else's copy. Now (and particularly in the last several years)
I buy a LOT more. I will take a flyer on compilations especially, but
I also know what I like, and I have a lot more confidence now when I go
to the store. I don't ALWAYS buy something when I go to the music store, but
I know what kinds of things I might like, and check those bins accordingly.

Ah, see, but you've got it all wrong!  What got me glued to Depeche Mode was
I went back to buy old albums I hadn't heard yet, searched for b-sides, and
just whatever material I could yet!  I did that when "Songs of Faith And
Devotion" was a disappointment for me.  Then by the time _Ultra_ came out,
I was happy :)

Is there an unwritten rule that says you can't go backwards chronologically
in a discography?  Well, okay, I know a few here have just bought massive
amounts of recordings of their faves to begin with, but who says it has to
be new?  If it's good enough, it should stand the test of time..and if not,
well, I'm just a freak :)

I still for the most part buy according to the way Twila used to..I am poor
enough right now that I won't risk buying ANYTHING bad.

Well, my interest in King Crimson is pretty much all backwards - of the two
albums and one EP that have come out since I've been following them, one -
Thrakkattak - was horrendous, and only the album THRAK was really worthwhile.
Their older stuff, OTOH, is incredible.

  I don't even much like "Thrak", probably because I was a fan before then..
  I suspect I'd like it much better if I hadn't heard their other albums
  first but it's pretty weak in comparison..

If only for the 'noise' songs - VROOM, B'BOOM, and THRAK, it was worthwhile.
The rest was quite weak indeed.

How has the rise of the net changed your interaction with the 
music business?

Mmm, I'm surprised no one wanted to chip in on this one.
 
One thing I have noticed is that sound samples on the web put me 
off buying far more albums than they encourage me to buy.
Usually I hear a 30-second sample by a band, and that convinces me 
that I don't need them in my life.  This is good for me -- anything which
discourages CD shopping is good for me -- but if it is a widespread
behavior it isn't going to encourage such marketing by labels and 
artists.

yep..  there are a number of records I've been interested in that I've
declined to pursue after hearing small snippets on web pages..  of course
I usually hate the single from any given album, too -- almost invariably
the most popular song winds up being among my least favorites even with
very popular artists..

There are a couple of news stories which I will try not to garble 
as I pass them along.
 
Monday's New York Times had a piece on how the corporate record biz
is trying to deal with the development of the MP3 format as a 
convenient way for fans to swap recordings.
 
All Things Considered had a short story picked up from Billboard
which reported that women now form a majority of CD buyers.
IIRC, the percentage of CD buyers who are women has risen from 
43% a few years back, to 51% this year.
 
The Billboard writer suggested several explanations:

 -- Record stores have been traditionally male-dominated territory, 
    but CD retailing has moved into Wal-Mart superstores and into 
    bookstores such as Borders
 
 -- Guys are spending more money on videogames and computer stuff.
 
 -- The charts are currently dominated by acts which skew towards a 
    female audience, most notably with the Spice Girls, Celine Dion, and
    the TITANIC soundtrack.  There's a shortage of top-selling 
    "guy music" right now.  This will probably change.

Actually, the skew towards females began a while back. A friend of mine who
was in radio promo for many years tried to get into the A & R end. Back in
1993 his industry contacts were telling him they were mostly interested in
female acts. Whether this was a desire to sell more to women or not I don't
know.

Hrmm..definitely, female artists have recently been allowed to come more into
their own-- that might be another facet of explanation #3

  I've been thinking more tonight about how the web has been changing
  the music scene -- lately the process has started to become much more
  noticable..  A couple of things that I think are significant developments:

  1) the MP3 format is really taking off and bootlegs, live recordings,
     homemade stuff, etc. are flying around the net everywhere you look.
     the record companies seem to be waking up and recognizing it as a 
     threat to their industry control -- and when they're gouging $16.99
     for new CDs these days with CD-R media under $1 (in quantity) perhaps
     they have good reason to fear a popular free format, distribution
     channels outside of their control, and a network of hobbyist and fan
     sites far too numerous for them to find and stop them all..

  2) artists are waking up to the possibilities of the web.  up until now
     it's mostly been amateurish fan-run sites or glossy, content-free
     record-company sponsored stuff but many artists are really starting
     to explore the "new" possibilities.  One particularly interesting
     example that I've spent a good portion of the evening exploring is
     Roger McGuinn's "Folk Den" site (http://www.salonmag.com/21st/reviews
     for an article about the site, http://sunsite.unc.edu/jimmy/folkden/
     for the site itself.)  Best known for his lead role in the
     influential (and underappreciated, I think) 60s band the Byrds,
     McGuinn has actively embraced the growth of Internet as a
     communications channel, actively participating, for example, in
     the Usenet group alt.music.byrds.  Lately he's been exploring his
     interest in traditional folk music.  Believing commercial interest
     in a collection of traditional folk songs to be limited, he has
     instead built an archive of such performances and made them
     available for free for non-commercial use via the web, adding one
     performance a month for over two years now.. 

     As a Byrds fan I have to say that the performances are merely OK --
     not knockouts in any way, still, it's the idea I find exciting.
     I think we'll see greater and greater numbers of established,
     successful performers doing such things to distribute their
     non-commercial pet projects to their fans and I think it'll be an
     interesting process to watch develop..

     [readers who come along later, please note: the www.salonmag.com
      URL for the article about "Folk Den" will change with time.. 
      I add it for the benefit of those music conference participants
      who are reading around the date on which I write this..]

CD-R media is available in qty's for just over $1 ($1.49 ea in 100, 1000, or
10,000)  You get into the under $1 when you buy a shipping container-full.

I'm with Mike and Ken way back there about loyalty to artists and anxiously
awaiting their new release.  It just doesn't happen for me anymore.

As far as the net is concerned, it has certianly put some artists closer
to the fans in a very good way. http://www.prairienet.org/posterkids
cones to mind.  And the record companies have good reason to be scared of MP3
sites.

What may make some big changes in the near future is Garth Brooks new box set.
6 cd's for $30.  This is waking more folks up to the fact that someone has
been making a *killing* on Cd's for many years. Thoughts on this?

Is 6 CDs for $30 a good price? Discounting the music that's on it?

That's about $5 per CD, which is cheaper that you can usually find used.  I'd
say that's a damn good price, being as it's much less inflated compared to
the cost of the media than the usual $15 or so

  You're right, CD-R media is still over $1/disc, I was being a little
  over-optimistic on my estimate, but it's reached the point now where
  single units cost about as much as a blank cassette tape, less perhaps..
  The record companies' reaction was predictable, if disappointing:
  keep raising the price of new CDs higher and higher and spend a lot
  of the proceeds lobbying for the recently passed "No Electronic Theft
  Act" making certain classes of low-level copyright infringement federal
  felonies..

  I hadn't heard the details on the Garth Brooks CD set -- if true that
  ups my respect for him a notch as he's in presumably about as good a
  position to gouge fans bigtime as anyone is and I'm sure it wasn't the
  record label pushing to release at that price..

There have been very few artists who have made any real objection to the
artifically high prices of CDs.  CD-R may still be >$1, but manufactured CD
has been less than $1/copy for many years.  Remember when an LP was about $8
new?  The manufacturing costs are nearly identical to CDs.  CDs came out
significantly more expensive, and the price has never dropped.

  It's bad that it's never dropped (well, it dipped a bit for a while)
  but what's intolerable is that it's going up even further..

Here Here!  Now what are we doing to object?  I , for one, only buy CDs at
used record stores like Encore.  Any other ideas?  Letters to our congress
people, stuff like that?

  I'm not exactly sure what you want Congress to do about it but whatever
  it is you're thinking of I probably wouldn't support it..  If you want
  to write letters, send them to the big record companies to tell them 
  that at $16.99/disc in many stores you're simply not interested in
  taking a chance on new music so your entertainment dollars are going
  elsewhere..  

  I think they're going to see sales drop, the question is whether they
  will draw the right conclusion -- by no means certain..  In the past
  when confronted with declining sales their strategy has seemed to be
  to cut off money spent on developing and promoting new artists and to
  funnel everything into mainstream top-40 acts who are proven sellers.
  Since this is about the exact *opposite* of what I'd like them to do,
  one might conclude that maybe they need a hint of some sort..

Garths pricing was totally his own (or his people's) doing, his record company
fought it all the way.  It does raise my respect for him (I still don;t care
for his music though)

The Music Biz has seen sales drop.  Actually level off.  For the past decade
or so, since about the time CD's took off, growth has been at about 30% per
year.  A couple years ago it dropped off drastically to about 2%.  For a few
years the big companies have been screaming about what a slump the biz is in.
30% growth for seven years is a slump!

Damn I wish I had a scrollback buffer right now.

It now costs about twice as much to produce a 12" record as it does to produce
a CD.  Be comforted that any of the Big-5 (used to be Big-6 but Seagrams
bought Polygram) pay about $0.50 per CD not including royalties to the artists
(but including the $0.03 that Phillips gets for *every* CD mfgrd. CD-R,
CD-Rom, CD-DA, etc. that's a lotta bread)

So what's the total cost to them of a particular CD?  That is, what's the cost
of royalties, on average?

(I would imagine that would vary enormously, depending on how major - and
pricey - the artist is.)

Well there are some fixed costs for royalties, and some not so fixed.
Mechanical roylaties are now $0.095 per song, per item manufactured (CD. tape,
LP, etc) so now you've got about $1.50 per disc in costs, the artists
royalties are based on the wholesale cost of an LP (yes, they are still
calculated based on the wholesale cost of a format that is no longer
available!)  This is $5.98 for a $8.98 LP, and the artist sees about 20% of
this (or about $1.20) which is probably split in some way with the producer.
(A producer may get from 1-8 "points" or percentage points on a record, in
lieu of a guarantee) so this puts it at about $2.70, but this is deceiving
because the cost of manufacturing the disc is usually taken out of the artists
royalties (manufacturing is a recoupable costs, just like studio time,
mastering, artwork, promotional copies, radio copies, advertising & other
promotion)  So now we're back to $1.50, and the wholesale price of a CD is
currently about $7.99 (as memory serves).  $6.49 in gross profit to the label.

RE#35 -- Everybody gets about the same deal, excepting a few "superstars"
(Michale Jackson, Madonna, REM, U2, and the like)

  I'm a little skeptical of the report since it came with no source cited
  but I received something today that claims that Minneapolis-based Twin/Tone
  records is moving out of the CD-pressing business and going to all-Internet
  distribution by the end of the year.  Supposedly their back catalog will
  still be available and they will contract for small numbers of CDs for
  bands to sell to fans while on tour but they expect most of their business
  to go to their $1.50/song, $10/album download-it-over-the-Internet-and-
  stick-it-on-a-CD-yourself scheme..

  I predict a rocky start but it wouldn't surprise me if eventually that 
  were the way that music winds up being distributed..

Well, if the price drops, it may well be.  I would be more receptive to the
local music store in Anytown, USA having the CD burner, fast link, and photo
printer for the full experience.  Frank Zappa proposed just such a scheme over
a decade ago.

Mike, I heard the same thing from a good/reputable source.  It said Twin/Tone
had already released it's last "CD" and that it was in the process of
switching now.

I don;t like the idea of having to do all the work myself, and I like CD
artwork/liner notes (I like LP's space more but.....) so Scott's idea in #38
sits better with me.

I don;t get out enough as it is, if I didn;t have to go out and buy records,
sheesh!  

Retailers should like this too since inventory costs will be so low, although
is will be replaced by lease costs for a dozen "CD kiosks"

Blockbuster wanted to go to such a scheme about, what, five years back?
CD manufacturing kiosks in video stores.  They had support from IBM, so 
the technical part was quite feasible, but the labels didn't want to 
support the idea so it died.
 
Chris: thanks for the mention on the Seagram's acquisition: this was
being discussed when I headed out of the country and I saw very little 
news while we were in Italy.

Yep, it's now the Big 5.  Sad, really.

USA Today reports that the numbers for the record business picked up 
decently in the first half of 1998.  Most of the increased business 
was due to the large number of successful movie soundtrack albums, 
especially TITANIC, and then Celine Dion also rode along on the 
Titanic.  For the first time, more women than men bought CDs.
 
Rock music still seems to be in the dumpster, sales-wise.

        Rock as in the classic-rock efforts?  Two weeks after Ringo's
new CD was out, WCSX was off of it.  Shame, wouldn't might hearing
some of those trcks instead of the daily dose of Stairway to Heaven.

  Judging by what I hear on the radio I'd say rock music deserves
  to be in the dumpster sales-wise..  I'm perfectly willing to
  believe that there's as much great music being produced now as
  ever but wherever it is it's not the music that's getting the
  promotion dollars from the record companies.  The acts that the
  big corps are pushing are unexciting and unoriginal -- it's no
  mystery to me why people aren't rushing to the stores to buy the
  CDs.  Those of us who are record junkies* may take the time to
  actively seek out cool new stuff but the majority of sales go
  to Joe Average who buys 2.5 CDs per year, based on what he hears
  on the radio..  (I'm just making that figure up but you get the
  idea..)  Maybe if WEA, Virgin, BMG, etc.. would get up off their
  asses and start pushing some of the really creative folks in
  their lineups who toil to produce records that nobody ever hears..

  * - record junkie:  I'm moving this week and I packed my CD collection
  (or most of it) tonight..  Thank God I don't own Ken-like quantities
  of CDs (and vinyl..  aieeee!!) but it was still Bad Enough.  And that
  was *after* my attempt at culling the collection earlier this summer..

  Perhaps the scariest part of the experience was the number of times
  I thought -- "there, finished" only to find another 100 CDs or so
  hiding in another room, apart from the main collection.  I think
  that if everything I own were destroyed in, say, a plague of frogs,
  it'd cost more to replace my music collection than to replace the
  remainder of everything else I own, including my computer and my car..
  God only knows what it'd be like if I didn't get rid of the things I
  don't listen to..

Rock music is in the dumpster sales wise because the music they're putting
out right now sucks.  While five years ago radio was full of fresh artists
and independent ideas, rock radio had turned into a top 40-type atmosphere
playing nothing but inane cheese and flipper-pleasing fare.  Current "cutting
edge" bands include Third Eye Blind and Matchbox 20, whose prettyboy cheese
rock was old years before they ever showed up.  Electronica never was "the
next big thing" as it was touted to be.  Radio is still toiling around in the
leftover sewage of good alternative, playing whatever they can get their hands
on.  The problem is that none of it is good and none of it is fresh.  The only
fresh, original music is too specialized to have any mass-market following,
and nobody is bothering to be original enough to have wide appeal.

This is in ref. to #18 (on how the internet affected buying). Personally I
am a music addict, everytime I go into a music store i buy something, Every
time 'cause I really like being exposed to new things. As a result I have a
great appreciation for just about every form of music. (BTW my favorite store
is tower, due to the fact that it carries books and a wide selection of
magazines.) Unfortunately since the majority of my favorite music comes from
britain or is extremely hard to find domestically (I listen mostly to Drum
'n Bass, a type of electronic music). So I've found that buying directly from
tthe record companies online is alot easier, and sometimes cheaper. So the
'net has really been beneficial there. Also one place that I feel is
revolutionizing online music uying is CDuctive (www.cductive.com) On their
website you can go through and pick out the tracks you like (you can preview
in RA) and they will put them onto a CD and ship it to you. You can even name
your CD. They charge persong and the price for a 12 song CD is a little
cheaper than buy a similar CD retail. They have deals with alot of the lesser
known labels, so it's a really cool way to get some of those songs that don't
get radio play or whatever. I encourage everyone to experience it.
Tyr

RE#44 -- Labels are not interested in developing artists anymore, they
want the instant gratification of a multi-million seller that sounds
just like the last multi-million seller.  It sucks rocks, but there
are hundreds if not thousands of bands out there willing to play this
game.  It's just like selling your soul.

  I'm sure that there's a lot of truth in that but it can't be quite
  that simple or presumably someone would be making money developing
  and promoting new acts -- either one of the big labels that wanted
  to distinguish itself from the others or perhaps some of the indie
  labels, sensing an opportunity to move in on the big guys' piece of
  the pie.  But if there's a flourishing indie scene right now, I'm
  somehow missing out on it completely -- as far as I can tell the
  indie record scene is about as dead as I can remember it being since
  I started watching such things..

  Is there nothing more going on here than the labels' devotion to
  short-term profits at the expense of long-term sustainability?  Or
  are there other factors at work, perhaps the assimilation of the
  big labels into multinational media empires that don't go by 
  prevailing music-industry practices?

We're still waiting for the next Big Trend (apparently electronica was not
it).

        Well, I can take more Rockin' Big  Bands, like Brian Setzer
Orchestra, doing new and older material.

Hey, I like electronica.  Don't understand why MTV's _AMP_ isn't a more
popular show.

It's too bad some of the US electronica groups are bowing to the garage band
demons of infinite distortion :P

things were better when synth had some pop about it, or had classical style
like say, Kraftwerk..

From USA Today, Monday October 12:
 
   "The record industry's main lobbying group has filed the first 
lawsuit aimed at stopping sales of a new portable device that plays 
sound files from the Internet.
   "The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) on Friday
asked the U.S. district court in central California to stop San Jose-
based Diamond Multimedia  from distributing its portable Rio flash 
memory device to U.S. stores, claiming it violates copyright 
protection laws.
   "Rio, the size and weight of a pager, plays sound files compressed
by Fraunhofer's MP3 compression software and downloaded into its memory.
Due to ship in November, it is expected to sell for $200.
   ...
   "(the RIAA) says Rio violates the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act, 
which requires manufacturers to protect against second-generation copies 
on primarily audio recording devices and pay royalties.
   "Diamond says Rio is not a recording device; it merely plays back 
sound files.  ... "
 
Is this a loophole big enough to drive trucks through?  

From the NME web site, today:  Kirsten Hirsh, on the 4AD label, is 
releasing an album of traditional appalachian folk songs which will 
only available from 4AD directly, via the web or old-fashioned 
mail order.  

Can I buy one of those MP3 players now?  I want one before they disappear.

Do an altavista search on +diamond +rio +mp3
I get hits on sites advertising this player from several countries.

The RIAA managed to kill consumer DAT, I imagine after not seeing CD-Rom
burners coming they want to reassert control.  

Ugh.  Been very profitable for record companies the last few years; do they
have to be such assholes?

  It's odd that they've gone apesh*t over the Diamond Rio when they
  didn't seem to do much about the MPMan (an earlier portable MP3 player.)

  Apparently the new Frank Black release is also available for purchase
  in the MP3 format..

  I doubt that this is a fight the RIAA is going to win but as Scott
  points out, they don't need to win, they just need to drag it out long
  enough to make MP3 players too much hassle for companies to release.

  On the good news side, though, today's NYT reports that the Digital
  Millenium Copyright Act bill seems likely to die at the end of this
  Congressional season because of a Republican snit over a former
  Democratic representative who's now heading one of the recording
  industry lobbying groups.  It's only one of the several "really bad
  idea" bills that may fail to get passed as the clock runs out on
  this legislative season.  Unfortunately, they'll be back..

From the Thursday New York Times.  Headline:  
  "Crossing Racial Bounds, Rap Steamrolls Rock."
 
...    "According to information released yesterday by Soundscan, a 
company in Hartsdale NY that monitors music sales, 9 of the top 15
albums on the pop chart are rap....  Last week the three top-selling
albums in the country were all by rap acts -- Jay-Z, Outkast, 
A Tribe Called Quest -- followed by Lauryn Hill at No. 4.   ((Ms. Hill
is not a pure rap style.))
...    "In the meantime, rock stars aren't selling rock albums 
anymore.  Some of the most anticipated albums of the year --
by the Smashing Pumpkins, Hole and Marilyn Manson -- are quickly
sliding down the charts after disappointing first-week sales."

what would the Digital Millenium Copyright Act do if it passed.

re #58: Doesn't surprise me a bit.  Rock is just flat lately and guitars are
being abused (after the backlash against synth).  So back swings the pendulum,
I suppose, and techno didn't get the favor-- it was rap, the next genre which
uses quite a bit of electronic devices and studio techniques.

I'm surprised no one remembers that Bono of U2 mentioned hip-hop had
tremendous technological resources of the electronic variety.  The band
started when the electronic sound in Europe and then the UK was beginning.

More on the MP3 player lawsuit:

http://news.webnoize.com/temp/3067.html
 
"A federal court of the Central District of California issued a 
Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin distribution and sale 
of a product of Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc., the Rio PMP300
portable MP3 player, on Friday."
 
The order is for ten days.  The RIAA puts up a $500,000 bond 
to compensate Diamond if the RIAA eventually loses the case.

There is also a link to a nice story on the user-driven
growth of the MP3 market.

Gad I hate the RIAA...

More on the MP3 player lawsuit:
 
http://www.wired.com/news/news/culture/story/15847.html
 
"Reversing her ruling of 10 days ago, US District Judge Audrey B. Collins
on Monday denied the request of the Recording Industry Association of 
America to issue an injunction against Diamond Multimedia.  The RIAA 
sought to prevent Diamond from releasing its Rio PMP300 portable MP3
player, a Walkman-like device that lets users upload music files directly
from their computers.

"'We're free to distribute the Rio,' an elated Ken Wirt, spokesman
for Diamond told Wired News from outside the Los Angeles courtroom.
The company plans to ship the unit in November.
 
...

((Testimony submitted on behalf of Diamond)) "asserted that the RIAA
'gave an inaccurate account of the legislative history of the 
AHRA ((Audio Home Recording Act)).'  Only if the Rio could accept 
input from a consumer-electronics device -- like a stereo -- would it 
be covered by the act, he said.  Since Rio is designed to record from a 
computer, the statute should exempt the player."

http://www.billboard.com/daily/1211_01.html
 
and many other stories on the completion of the 
acquisition of the Polygram music conglomerate by Seagram's 
Universal Music Group (formerly MCA).  The expanded UMG controls a 
25% market share, becoming the biggest of the Big Five labels.  
Staff layoffs of about 2000-3000 are expected, and the New York Times
indicated that somewhere between "dozens" and 200 artists would be 
dropped.

  Urgh..  "Universal Music Group" sounds much more sinister than "MCA".
  Which is probably fitting since this is *not* going to be good for
  artists or music consumers.

Yeech, well, that's the music business..The Smiths sung about that..

The Great Universal Music Group Massacre, II:
 
Excerpts from a Reuters story today, via Yahoo:
 
Seagram's Universal Music Group is absorbing the Polygram conglomerate.
 
"On the West Coast, UMG will fold Interscope, Geffen and A&M Records
 into one music group -- dubbed IGA -- with 290 of the 345 employees of 
 the latter two labels being let go.
 
"Around 140 of the 205 artists across the three labels are expected 
 to eventually be jettisoned, though the acts are expected to be cut 
 gradually over several months.
 
"Mercury Records ... will lose more than half of its 150 stafers and 
 two-thirds of its 145 artists as it is merged with Island and DefJam
 to create the Mercury-Island Group..."
 
So, that sums up to about 250 major label artists being cut.  So far.

Sounds like a fantastic opportunity to jump-start new music distrbution
channels.

(What with all that talent [both music and promotion] being cut loose, I
mean.)

        Think I heard someone say Motown labels is now down to 7 employees.

140 out of 205 artists being cut?  As in, almost three quarters?  Eep!

Maybe they're finding they just can't compete.  I was watching an MTV special
about how thinly money is sliced in the music business, and I can see why
execs are getting shook up.

I'd be curious to see that show if anyone has a tape. I'd also be curious
to know how much of that money is funnelled into transaction costs for
recent mergers and for lawsuits, etc to preserve old (and possibly
archaic) systems of production, distribution and promotion . . . . 

I've been letting this item languish while I waste too much time in party.
So, some of the references are not as fresh as they should be.

About two weeks ago USA Today ran a big article on the rumors about 
artists being cut from the Universal Music Group rosters.  The rumors 
are now up to 400-500 artists being cut.  Reportedly every artist who 
is not a superstar, or is not regarded as having superstar potential, 
will be axed.
 
On the retailing front:  Universal and BMG are going to combine their 
Internet marketing efforts.  This is considered significant because
together, Universal and BMG have about a 40% market share.  
The Universal/BMG venture, which will be called "GetMusic," will 
be doing "mail order," but not yet Internet delivery.  Still, 
retailers are a bit nervous about having two of the Big Five labels
going into a direct sale venture.

Amazon.com, after a very short period of selling CDs, has become the 
biggest CD retailer on the net, surpassing CD Now.

I'm not to surprized, actually.  They have far more information on bands,
individual albums, etc.  A lot of this stems from them letting the listeners
rate the band, write comments, etc.  It's really a pretty classy show--
'though I don't actually but anything there, instead prefering to order from
local retailors these days.

A news article tacked up on the wall at Schoolkids-in-Exile reports
that Laura Love is one of the artists dropped by the Mercury label
in the Universal Music Group consolidation.  One down, 499 to go...

USA Today ran a big feature on Friday:  "Is Rock Dead?"
RIAA sales figures indicate that rock's share of the market place 
shrank again in 1998:
     1988:   46.2%  share of sales is rock music
      ...
     1997:   32.5%
     1998:   25.7%

Lots of quotes from old geezers like Jimmy Page and Tom Scholz, and 
young geezers like Billy Corgan and members of R.E.M.  
The article points out that the industry is no longer willing to nurture
budding careers.  Mike Mills said that if R.E.M. began its career 
in the 1990's, "we would never have made it.  Our first record 
would have been put out there by someone expecting it to sell a 
million copies.  And when it didn't, we'd be out."

  Who decides what counts as "rock"?  Are there things like "alternative"
  that are now counted seperately from "rock" that would've been counted
  together in 1988?

As far as I can tell from the article, "alternative" sales are lumped 
in with rock.  The article talks about those high numbers from about 
a decade ago as representing the commercial success of Nirvana.

Country and rap sales have grown strongly in the decade while rock 
sales have been declining. 

All I can say is that SUCKS, especially as I see unoriginal rap material 
being very popular-- i.e., Puff Daddy-- just a step away from 
encouraging his acts to do nothing but cover tunes..

(maybe people like oldies.)

I recently read an interesting passage by a musicologist named Edward Macan
which speculated that rock as a whole is going into decline. "the power of
rock, after all," he says, "stemmed from the power of the cultural revolution
that spawned it, a cultural revolution the likes of which we have seen only
one other time in this century-- in the early 1920s, with the birth of the
jazz age."  Wouldn't it be interesting to see rock and roll go the way of
classical music?

We are DEVO!

It would seem that urban/rap music may be the next thing, since I can 
definitely see cultural undercurrents that the music expresses moving 
through society.  Black America seems to be making a push to move to 
front and center.

However, I would not discount the idea that contributions from Latin 
America will be making an even stronger presence in the future.  
Jennifer Lopez, Ricky Martin, and Gloria Estefan seem to be reaching a 
peak (or very soon) in the mainstream.

I would hardly say that there has _never_ been a cultural revolution of that
sort except during the 20's and the 60's.  Culture is changing all the time.
It's easy to look back on the 1700s and lump them all together as "Classical
Music", but I imagine that back then, the 1760s and the 1790s seemed just as
musically different as the 1960s and the 1990s do today.  

(uh, it wouldn't be the first time that "black" music captured the 
nation's imagination. gospel... blues... jazz... rock 'n roll... etc.)

I'd like to draw your attention, Daniel, to the bit of the quote that reads
"one other time in this century".  

resp:86  But it seems to be true now probably more than ever.  I could 
be wrong.

(it's only true for us now because we're living now. the blues were
*BIG*, even while being performed by the original artists. ditto jazz:
there were clubs in Harlem that catered exclusively to "whites"; 
"blacks" weren't allowed in, except to perform. of my short list, rock
is the only one that "needed" peformers of a Caucasian origin in order
to become a mainstream hit.)

Thank you, cloud, you're right.  I missed that.

Carson - really?  I was under the impression that jazz only really took off
when white performers got into the act as well, in terms of popularity at
least - but I don't remember where I heard that, and it might well be wrong.

(hmm... are you thinking of the Rat Pack singing? I can't think of
anyone else myself.)

Orinoco may have missed the bit about cultural revolutions "in this 
century" in resp:82.  
 
The history of jazz is murkier than it should be to me.  
From the 1920's, the only white name which leaps out from my foggy 
brain as important is Paul Whiteman.  But this was also the beginning
of the era of mass culture, so it's not clear to me that any 
individual jazz musician had a star performer's following in this 
period.   Jazz as a style seems to have been a big part of urban 
culture in this period, though.
 
When you get to the swing/big band era, white bandleaders dominated the 
market: Tommy Dorsey, Glenn Miller, Artie Shaw, Woody Herman.  
The only major black bandleaders I can think of from the period 
are Duke Ellington and Count Basie. 
The swing era is what we would recognize even today as 
popular music with a mass market, the star system, etc.

I find the history of jazz to be tremendously confusing, partly because
I have no real understanding of the various kinds of jazz.  Terms like
"be-bop" are just words to me.  I've probably heard some, but I 
wouldn't know that that's what I've heard.
Although I have no taste for jazz at all, I'd be willing to invest in
a good CD historical survey of the field if I could find one, just for
the sake of my cultural education.  So far all I've found is the one 
sold by BBC Music Magazine, which divides into two parts: the pre-WW2 
stuff, which all sounds alike to me, and the post-WW2 stuff, which also 
all sounds alike to me (but different from the pre-WW2 stuff).  This 
didn't help much.

I think the Smithsonian Collection of Classic Jazz is still in print.
This was a five LP set; I think it's been reissued on 3 CDs.

News item:  Columbia House, the music "club" owned by Sony and Time-Warner, 
is merging with online retailer CDNow.  The new entity will be 37% owned
by the two major labels.  Columbia House and CDNow will do extensive 
cross-promotion on their websites, and CDNow will get lowest-cost access
to the Sony and Time-Warner CDs.

  Can anyone say "anti-competitive"?  I knew you could..  So much easier
  to buy up a competitor than to squash them like a bug and run a much
  higher risk of antitrust scrutiny..

  Sony & Time-Warner don't quite make up a monopoly but put them together
  with Bertelsmann and you come pretty close.  I don't like seeing the 
  giants swallow up their potential competition.  CDNow already merged
  with MusicBlvd..  At least even Sony & Time-Warner don't have enough
  money to casually swallow Amazon (at least not at current valuation!)

News item:  The RealJukebox software program collects data on what 
music the user is playing and recording, and it reports this data 
to Real Networks along with the user's identity.   One person interviewed
in the article states this information could be subpoenaed under the 
Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
 
Every CD played on the computer is reported.  Songs found on the hard drive
are reported.  Any portable music player connected is reported.

Source: New York Times, 11/1/1999.

What is the Digital Millenium Copyright Act?

  Recent (last year) legislation that substantially increases criminal
  penalties for low-level software piracy and other intellectual property
  violations.  I'd summarize, but my recollection of it is so dire that
  I myself am convinced that I must be making it up and that nobody would
  pass such an outrageous law..

  It's about time RealMedia got slapped for the obnoxious behavior of 
  their software.  I uninstalled an early version of RealPlayer when it
  became clear to me that it was sending packets back to the company
  every time I used it -- this isn't just a new feature they added to
  their latest product (although it does sound like they're both collecting
  more information now and being even less sensitive to privacy concerns.)

  Real Networks apparently claim that their software isn't violating users'
  privacy because they don't store [all of] the information or share it with
  other companies.  I'd like to ask them exactly where they believe their
  product's behavior *does* lie on the privacy spectrum..  

  At any rate I think this is an excellent example of why closed standards
  for streaming audio and video formats are a terrible idea.  Unfortunately
  the muscle behind proprietary standards in those areas of computing is
  very strong -- you have Real[Audio/Video], Microsoft Media Player, the
  DVD formats, etc..

As soon as I get home any product by real is getting axed from my machines.

I guess I'm missing the point.  Why should I feel the need to hide what music
I listen to?

Why is it anybody's business but yours what you listen to unless you 
want to tell them?

  re #101:  Wow..  You *ARE* missing the point.

Today's news is that Real has issued a patch which will disable 
their reporting function.  

Yes, Mike, we've established that.  Would someone care to fill me in, or
should I just go on feeling dense?

resp:101 resp:102 resp:103  There are some people for whom privacy
is a  BIG issue.  For others, it's not quite that big a deal.  I take it that 
it is important for those who wish to protect their privacy be offered  the
means to do so.

Sheesh.  Remind me that I should add the topic of privacy to the list 
of things I should avoid bringing up in discussion.

(no, of course I didn't bring it up, but I hate seeing people get so 
touchy.. reminds me of the sadism people like to inflict on some 
solicitors who are trying hard to earn a living in a polite and honest 
way)

(and no, I'm not suggesting this topic of discussion is something 
polite and honest Real is using for marketing)

Item:  A Royal Oak CD store was busted for bootleg CDs yesterday, 
according to WWJ news radio.  I can't be certain I remember the name of 
the store precisely, so I'm leaving it out.  In your followups, it 
would probably be better not to accuse stores of criminal behavior
by name.

WWJ said that investigators had bought bootleg CDs at the store 
for a three month period.

Item:  Wall Street Journal says that the FTC is investigating 
if major labels are breaking price-fixing rules on CDs.  The investigation
grows out of the review of the acquisition of CD Now by Sony and 
Time/Warner.  The practice in question is where the label sets a 
minimum price for a CD and will not supply the usual advertising 
subsidy if the ad lists a price below that minimum.  According to the 
WSJ story, suggested retail prices are not illegal, but collusion or 
solo practices to enforce them may be.

In another WSJ story today, they report that the Justice Department 
is reviewing the dominance of MTV in the distribution of music videos.

  What I read about the Justice Department MTV investigation is that
  Viacom (parent company of MTV, VH-1, and the MTV spin-off channel
  (M2?)) is accused of demanding exclusivity agreements for videos.
  
  If true, that sounds like flat-out restraint of trade:

     a) Viacom holds an overwhelmingly dominant position in the market,
     b) the alleged practices are clearly deleterious for competitors,
     c) they arguably harm consumers by preventing competitors to Viacom
        from entering the market and actually *showing* music videos.

  It's a little tough at this point to remember what MTV used to be like
  and even tougher to remember a time shortly before MTV when there wasn't
  a 24-hour music network but there were competing network television
  shows playing music videos in late-night Friday and Saturday time slots.

  In this day and age, though, Viacom holds an amazing amount of power in
  the music business and they clearly like to use it for their own benefit..
  I have no idea whether the allegations about demanding exclusive rights
  to show the videos they air are true or not but if they are true I hope
  Viacom gets nailed.  I think increased competition would be very good for
  popular music.

Interesting.  I didn't even realize that MTV and VH1 were the same
company....explains a lot, actually.

        When does MTV play videos these days?

  Alternate prime-numbered Sunday mornings between 4:30 and 4:35 AM.

Both MTV and VH1 tend to play videos late at night now, making both stations
useful as an alternative to insomnia, but not good for much else.

Any news on which store?  Was it bootleg CD's or pirate CD's?

resp:110  I always figured they were the same company, originally.  I 
have no idea when MTV Networks passed into the hands of Viacom, but I do 
remember it starting out as a Canadian company that also included 
Nickelodeon.  The Canadian markings were more apparent on Nickelodeon 
during the early '80s: a majority of the programming was produced and 
filmed in Canada.

I'm not sure whether or not competition would be a good thing.  MTV 
itself has explained that the market as it has existed didn't and 
couldn't support the wall-to-wall music video programming that it 
started with.  I think this was the reason for the creation of M2 
(which does show a lot more videos), but most people can only get it by 
satellite.

Anyone remember The Box?  The concept was pay-per-view based, except it 
wasn't pay-per-view-- it was more pay-per-request.  I don't remember it 
lasting for very long.

  Viacom also owns Nickolodeon, I believe..

Of course it would.  Nickelodeon is part of the old MTV Networks, as I 
said, so I'm sure the company had no trouble acquiring it.

In the late 80's (I think) USA network had a very late night weekend show
called Night Flight, that would show jazz videos, including Chuck
Mangione(?), the trumpet player, Miles Davis from the TUTU era, etc. I
haven't been plugged into cable for quite a while. Is there any sign of
these still available on tv? Or is it all just mainstream pop on mtv and
country on nashville?

What about VH-1 and BET, bmoran?

I do remember that NBC had a show in the 1980's called "Friday Night Videos."
and CBC in Canada (Windsor Channel 9) has "Video Hits" and "Good Rocking
Tonight."

CBC also had 'Night Music' hosted by David Sanborn. Usually live music,
But when he had Miles on, he showed the studio recording of So What from
1959(?). I don't have cable, so VH-1 and BET are unknown to me.

VH-1 is more geared to adult contemporary, which has been running 
heavily into general pop lately.  No, they don't do jazz vids, and I 
doubt serious players buy into that thing anyway.  BET generally shows 
stuff that feels more like being at a nightclub than watching some 
overproduced video.

The ones I saw were'nt 'overproduced', just classy. When Miles did TUTU,
it was just Miles, holding his hands in trumpet position, black and white
film stock, and little colored musical notes coming out of his fingers.
There were others I can't remember, but I mostly remember the overall
quality being much better than what was on MTV, until Michael showed up.

Michael Jackson?

Yes! Some of the videos were ok, but Michael raised the bar, opening up
the whole scene for some very creatice people to 'try anything', with
admittedly mixed results.

Right-- I did find it interesting that MTV chose "Thriller" as the #1 
greatest video of all time.  The director had worked on the film _An 
American Werewolf in London_, and he was chosen because of his 
reputation stemming from that film.

I don't think horror had been used in a music video before.

I also thought it was fantastic that Michael worked with a 
choreographer-- the documentary said he was quite a natural who had 
acheived a lot of talent relatively quickly, compared to the other 
extras who were skilled and highly trained dance professionals.

I think the video looked a little bit more like a film.  I'm assuming 
it was shot on 35mm, and a lot of the storyline constructs were more 
like that of a film.  That may have been the difference.  Of course, 
the budget was comparable, too.

A pretty impressive feat.  Most precursors to video *were* films, 
especially in the '50s and '60s (Elvis and Beatles movies, for 
example), but Michael appears to have taken the genre and integrated 
the song more fully into such a video.  I still enjoy watching it-- the 
craftmanship is fantastic.

It also helped that Michael Jackson had something visually interesting to do:
he could _dance._  That right there made his videos worth watching in a way
that most other bands' videos aren't.

Radio news report: The BMG conglomerate, one of the Big Five music 
companies, is seeking to make itself even bigger; it wants to buy 
either Sony Music, or EMI.
This would take us down to four major music companies.

<sigh>

good lord...will it ever stop?

"There can be only one!"   :)
 
I haven't been able to find a web confirmation on the BMG buying binge
story.

Silver lining: the fewer big corporations, the more niche markets open 
for small companies.

CNN:  "Time Warner Inc. of the United States is set to take a majority
stake in Britain's EMI Group Plc in a multibillion-dollar deal to 
create the world's largest record company, the Sunday Telegraph
newspaper said."
 
The CNN story mentions the previous rumors that BMG was looking to 
buy EMI.

Time Warner, as you are probably tired of hearing, is also merging 
with AOL.  

The merger story is everywhere today.  The Washington Post says the 
merged Warner EMI Music would be only the second largest record
company.
 
The Post says further: speculation is now circulating that BMG
will be in play.  BMG is the largest media company in Europe, but 
it would be the smallest of the remaining record companies, I think.
The Post says BMG doesn't have the stock values or assets to acquire
another record company to try to become too big to swallow.

A number of analysts argue that this is a merger of fading giants.
I remember when Warner/Elektra/Atlantic was the coolest of the major 
labels, renowned for being artist-friendly, but that was 
back in the 1970s and 1980s.  In the 1990s
the label has been ripped by corporate infighting and their market
share has sunk badly.  And as for EMI, well, their peak was with 
the Beatles.

  So who are the remaining competitors at that level?

Assuming this merger goes through, the four major labels will be:
   Universal Music Group (formerly MCA and Polygram, merged 1998, and
                          owned by Seagram's)
   Warner Music EMI   (owned by AOL Time Warner)
   Sony Music         (Columbia is their major label in the US for pop)
   BMG                (European conglomerate Bertelsmann)

... and Yahoo Reuters Entertainment news says BMG is looking for a deal.
 
The February 2000 issue of Stereophile magazine reports the demise of 
Mobile Fidelity, a premium-priced reissue label devoted to quality.
They championed LP quality in an era when major label pressings 
were crap; they claimed their gold CDs were somehow superior, a claim
I could never really buy into.  Their mastering work was generally
regarded as the best.  Mobile Fidelity shut down in November after
one of their main distributors went bankrupt, owing MF lots of money.

 From the New York Times, February 1:  Neil Strauss writes a piece about 
bluegrass musician Johnny Staats, who has just signed a major label
contract with a Time-Warner imprint, but who has chosen to keep 
his day job as a UPS truck driver.  In discussing the new unpredictability
of the music business and the number of artists being cut from their 
major-label deals, Strauss mentions:  "the difficulty of breaking
even on any release that sells less than half a million copies..."

What?  500,000 is now the breakeven point?  That's halfway to platinum
status...

you sure?  There are so many people involved in the music business pie 
that it's difficult to recoup all production and marketing costs.

TLC sold 3,000,000 copies of _CrazySexyCool_ and still went bankrupt.

Just how well produced and marketed is this musician?  Costs can add up 
fast..

Just looking up the word 'recoupable' in the dictionary should scare most
people out of the music business.

I'm not surprised by that statement Ken, selling 50,000 units is an amazing
feat, but it won't make you *any* money if you're on a major...it will gross
about a half a million bucks for the label though...

...which is why you need to avoid being a "major label" artist.

I looked it up on www.riaa.com.  A Gold Record award is for sales of 500,000.
This used to be an exceptional, award-worthy number of sales, but according 
to Strauss it is now the typical breakeven point for the majors.
It sounds like record company costs have spun completely out of 
control for the major labels.

That was exactly my point.  Gee, watching MTV and VH1 is good for 
something.

It's like credit cards.  First, a gold record (or card) was something 
special.  Then it became ordinary.  Now it's platinum that's becoming 
ordinary.  What will be next?

(And we had stars, then superstars, then megastars, and now we're 
getting gigastars.  Sheesh!)

        Does that make OJ Simpson a kilostar?

item: http://music.zdnet.com/news/2000_03_20_cdnow.html
 
The investors' journal Barrons has a death watch list of 51 
Internet businesses which are running out of money.  Included in 
that list is CDNow.com, which was the premier retailer of CDs on the 
net for quite a few years.  
 
The CDNow/Columbia House merger which we wrote about somewhere in this
conference fell apart, because it turned out that neither party to the
merger was making much profit.  CDNow has about six months of cash 
available to it right now.
 
My personal opinion is that Amazon.com is killing them with a much 
better web site.

The real winners in all of this, of course, are UPS and FedEx

Not with a move to electronic distribution.

well, an item ordered electronically still has to be delivered to your door,
right?

Not if the "items" are encoded and delivered online.

Okay, true.....still, the number of every day non-computer related things you
can purchase online is large and getting larger and they have to get to you
somehow...

News item:  Seagram, owner of the largest (or maybe second largest) 
record company, the Universal Music Group, is in negotiations to be 
acquired by a French media conglomerate.
 
News item:  the world music label Wicklow, headed by Paddy Moloney
of the Chieftains, is now in limbo.    I expected this, as 
Wicklow was run as part of BMG's classical music division, and 
that classical music division is being dismantled.
Wicklow has put out some very nice albums by Sin E', Mary Jane Lamond
and Varttina; get them before they all go out of print, I guess.
I don't even know if the new Varttina is available in the USA yet.

  Today's NYT ( http://www.nytimes.com ) has a front page story on 
  French water and utility conglomerate Vivendi's proposed buyout of
  Seagram.  According to the NYT, the French buyer wants to transform
  itself into an "entertainment and telecommunications giant".  The
  article doesn't give many details, but definitely gives the impression
  that the buyer is much more interested in the MCA/Universal Group
  holdings than the original Seagram's core distillery business (it's
  suggested that the liquor part of the business would be quickly sold
  off..)

You may recall that CD Now was probably the biggest of the dot-com 
retailers on the death-watch list.  Cnet reports today that Bertelsmann,
one of the four remaining major labels, is buying CD Now for $117 million.

CDNow says it will continue to operate its retail shop under that 
brandname.  Bertelsmann gets the experience that CD Now has accumulated
running one of the largest music-related sites.  The deal is seen as 
win for both companies.  CD Now stock peaked at $25/share, and the buyout
is at $3/share.

Opinion item:
http://www.vh1.com/thewire/news/article.jhtml?ID=699
 
Matt Johnson of The The writes about his experiences as an artist
in the newly-conglomeratized Universal Music Group.  He was one of the 
artists to survive the brutal roster massacre at the label, but 
Universal shows no interest in promoting his new release, so he's doing it 
himself by making MP3 downloads available.  He admits that he has 
previously been critical of Napster and the Mp3 trading scene.
Quote:  "Most artists with more than a couple of years' experience
now sadly accept that the industry is run by principles of 
institutionalized corruption."

  I've been listening to a lot of The The albums lately (and, incidentally,
  have unfortunately been discovering that the one I like best is the one I
  bought first..  I hate it when you start buying a band's catalog hoping to
  discover more of what attracted you in the first place and just don't find
  what you were looking for..)

  I'll probably actually take advantage of the chance to download a track a
  week from his latest in order to decide whether I want to buy it.

I've always thought that Matt Johnson was an overrated hack who was made by
hype and the label. Ironic that he's biting the hand now that he can't get
any more vittles.

Matt Johnson does have musical talent... "Infected" displays this. He also
has a LOT of arrogance, and more arrogance than talent.

  I kind of agree with your criticisms of Johnson -- I think he's 
  produced enough good work to show what he's capable of, and piles
  and piles of pretentious dreck (e.g. the "Mind Bomb" album)
  I've been very frustrated listening to the The The albums I've
  bought lately, even considering that they were heavily discounted.

  It's undoubtedly significant that I think the best thing he's done
  was an album where he didn't write a single one of the songs --
  "Hanky Panky", his album of Hank Williams (Sr.) covers.  His blazing
  cover of "I Saw the Light" is far better than anything he's done
  performing his own material, much of which suffers from embarrassingly
  sophomoric lyrics.

News item: New York Times, August 1:  "Digital Music, Chapter 2."
EMI rolls out its plans for downloadable music.  
EMI plans to charge "full retail price" for downloads: $3.99
to download a single, $17-$18 for an album.  EMI claims distribution
costs are actually higher online than for the 
distribution of a manufactured CD.

This plan is DOA, I predict, unless pricing is slashed.
 

Hmmm... $17 to sit at my computer for half an hour to download a CD onto a
generic CD, with no booklet, ... or $15 for a commercially produced CD with
booklet, no waiting?


Touch choice. I'll have to think on it.

Online distribution may be more expensive now, but that pricing will kill
them.  And long term online distribution has got to be cheaper... no trucks,
no excess inventory, infinite catalog space.

Ken, is that article on line?  I think I'd have to read it myself to believe
something that incrfedibly stupid is actually suggested as a marketing plan
by a functioning business....

It was in the New York Times online for August 2.  Unfortunately they move 
most of their items to the for-pay section after a day, though some of the 
tech articles get to remain readable for free, so this article might 
still be there.  I'll have to check later.

  The only way I can possibly conceive of those prices being justified
  is by using special "record industry math" (you know, the same kind they
  use to calculate artist royalties..)

  I realize that the record industry executives Just Don't Get It when it
  comes to digital music distribution, but even they can't be so clueless
  as to expect that to be a viable retail model.  

Actually, I could conceive of those prices for out-of-print items, those
"Rarities" which some Napster users insist they're using Napster to get...
but not for items in current production.

The New York Times URL for the story about EMI's plans to sell 
downloads of music, including their pricing schemes:
 
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/08/biztech/articles/02popl.html

Anyone remember Copycode?
 
Copycode was Columbia Records' plan to put code markings into the audible
spectrum of recordings by leaving out certain frequencies.
 
The idea of Copycode was that this system would indelibly mark 
copyrighted music, and then Congress would mandate that all recording
machines would include circuitry which would shut off if someone 
tried to copy a Copycoded recording.
 
Congress punted to the National Bureau of Standards, and the NBS study 
found:
   1)  Copycode was fairly audible.
   2)  Copycode did not always prevent the copying of encoded material
   3)  Unprotected material would occasionally trip the Copycode 
       circuitry in a recorder, causing it to shut off.
 
The NBS study buried Copycode, and it was never heard from again.
This was back around 1988, before Columbia Records was sold to Sony.

The concept, however, is back, under the name "watermark."
I have this from Usenet: I have not verified that it genuinely comes
from New Scientist:
 
  Starting over
  Record producers were appalled last week when they found they could
  hear a supposedly inaudible "watermark" designed to make DVD-Audio
  players reject copied discs. The industry's Secure Digital Music
  Initiative (SDMI) had chosen a commercial watermarking system, called
  Verance, which adds digital changes to music waveforms. The mark must
  be robust enough to survive MP3 transmission over the Internet, but
  remain inaudible when played on the yet to be launched DVD-Audio
  players. After the disastrous London demo, an SDMI spokesperson
  admitted: "We are starting all over again."
   From New Scientist magazine, 22 July 2000.

http://www.inside.com continues to offer interesting coverage.
 
http://www.inside.com/story/Premium_Story_Cached/0,2771,7085_9,00.html
discusses how some folks think the record biz needs to co-opt Napster,
not fight it, through a concept named "Superdistribution."
Essentially, you would want people to pass your content along and 
become marketers for you.
 
There are also reviews of the early versions of the major label
legitimate download systems:
http://www.inside.com/story/Premium_Story_Cached/0,2771,7005_9,00.html
   The title is really all you need:
     "My Life In Hell, or How I Tried to
      Download Pink Floyd, Legally."   This discusses EMI's system.
 
http://www.inside.com/story/Premium_Story_Cached/0,2771,7677_9,00.html
   This reviews the Universal Music download system.  Quote:
 
   "Apart from having a rather expensive, legitimately downloaded
    song file rendered unrecognizable by the legitimately downloaded
    software player, additionally off-putting were the 30-odd 
    screens of terms and conditions that must be agreed to before 
    using the Intertrust/Magex software."
 
There was a similar review in Billboard.  This stuff is not ready for 
prime time.

A third major label has disclosed its plan for online 
music sales.  
 
http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/000822/n22679178.html
 
BMG's prices are set at $1.98 - $3.49 for downloads of individual
songs, and $9.98 - $16.98 for each full length album download.
 
I wasn't sure this was a new story, it so resembled the 
previous stories on the EMI and Universal plans.

  I'm baffled by who would purchase an album under such a plan, unless
  you absolutely had to have it *NOW* (or rather, four hours' download
  from "now")

  So far all of the major label on-line music retailing plans I've heard
  can only be explained by one of two possible explanations:

     1)  they want on-line music retailing to fail, or
     2)  they simply do not understand the concept of providing enhanced
         value to consumers.

at work, i could download an album fairly quickly. (i've usually been able
to get five or six songs concurrently, in much less than twenty minutes.)
of course, if i'm paying over ten dollars for an album, I want a physical
item. 

i'd lay odds that these marketing shams are direct responses to an RIAA lawyer
suggestion that the record companies establish an online business model which
could be demonstrated in court to be suffering from the unfair competition
of the mp3-sharing systems, in order to either maximise damages claims or
comply with a technical requirement of the laws they seek to use to extinguish
napster/gnutella.

If i had to guess, that is...

(No, i don't have any inside information, just a theory about the law and its
uses.)

  I have, in my more paranoid moments, harbored similar suspicions..

considering whom we're discussing, calling it paranoia might be a stretch...

I don't see how that would be relevant unless the lawsuit against Napster was
only against future actions and not past actions.

  True, but even the record companies must realize that "What on-line music
  business?" is a pretty fair rebuttal to the charge that Napster, et al.,
  are killing the major labels' on-line music business..

I thought the charge was that Napster was damaging RIAA's business in general.
Also, there's MP3.com, a commercial venture, as well as ecommerce sites that
sell CDs (notably Amazon and CDNow).

  Another recent intellectual property-rights battle being fought in the
  music industry is covered in Salon this week. 

   http://www.salon.com/ent/music/feature/2000/08/28/work_for_hire/index.ht
ml

  Artists have been up in arms about a 4-word amendment stuck into the
  Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act by a congressional staffer (who has
  since been hired by the RIAA) changed the law covering sound recordings so
  that such works were now classified as "work-for-hire" with the rights
  belonging to the record companies, at the expense of the artists.

What I loved from that article--besides reinforcing my belief that 
the record industry is run by weasels--was the horrified realization
of the record labels that they were pissing off the artists whose 
rights they were stealing at the very moment they needed the support
of those artists in the Napster battles.

  Yep.  I'm hoping that as in any good Greek tragedy, their hubris will
  bring down the wrath of the gods.

Yes. IT enables Napsterites to justify their theft, since stealing from
thieves is morally more sound than stealing from non-thieves.

News item from mp3.com passes along a press release from musicmaker.com,
reporting that their board has voted to "liquidate and dissolve the
company."  The web site seems to be gone, though I have been having
erratic browser problems today, so...

Musicmaker.com provided custom-made CDs where the customer selected 
the tracks to be burned.  I am fairly sure that musicmaker.com handled
the big Pepsi promotion of custom-made CDs this summer, which we talked
about somewhere else in this forum.  (I don't actually have my Pepsi
CDs here to check.) Musicmaker.com was also trying to 
sell legitimate music downloads.

Perhaps musicmaker.com was a victim of Napster, which offers a better
song selection.

Someone - I think it was Mitch Wagner on sff.net - having tried Napster 
and found bad sound quality, incomplete files, and mislabeled songs - 
said that he's discovered how copyright owners will maintain a paid 
market for their wares in the cold new economy.

Two words: Quality control.

/. reports that Napster has followed up their agreement with Bertelsmann 
with a similar agreement with Edel AG, another major European media 
group.

New York Post, http://www.nypost.com/01252001/business/20975.htm:
 
EMI and BMG are reported close to a merger deal.  European regulators are
unwilling to see the five major labels consolidate down to four, so 
the plan is to sell EMI's Virgin label to independent label Zomba, 
home of N'Sync, Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears, and then claim
Zomba becomes a fifth major label.
 
Another web site somewhere pointed out that such a merger would bring
the Nipper icon back into general use.  Currently the USA rights to 
Nipper are controlled by BMG, while the European rights to him are 
controlled by EMI.  As the classical music industry is now doing global
manufacturing and packaging, it's often not been feasible for BMG to 
stick Nipper on American releases.

How many people are there today, I wonder, who wouldn't realize, on 
seeing the Nipper icon, that the strange-looking thing he's listening 
to is a type of phonograph?

BMG announced today that the for-pay Napster goes up in June.
Supposedly "digital rights management" will be an integral part of the
experience.  Sources at Napster did not appear to know anything 
about this.  Source: www.wired.com, I think, and probably cnet too.

I'm puzzled by it; it sounds like a somewhat ignorant BMG exec 
rushing into press with something he doesn't understand.

That sounds about right to me...they have a habit of doing that.

News media everywhere report that the proposed merger of EMI and BMG
has been dropped.  The two labels could not get European regulators
to go along with reducing the number of major music companies from 
5 to 4, and they were unable to come up with a spinoff proposal to 
somehow create a new fifth "major."  
 
This is EMI's second failed merger attempt in about a year.  
EMI and BMG remain the weakest of the five major record companies
and they still look vulnerable to takeover by somebody.

--------

Some time back, Rykodisc, the largest independent American label, 
was acquired by Chris Blackwell's new company Palm Pictures.  
All is not sweetness and light:  Joe Boyd, who sold his Hannibal label
to Ryko back in the early 1990s, has left Hannibal/Ryko/Palm.
There's an interview with Boyd in the new issue of Folk Roots magazine.

--------

This is really becoming the Music Business Conference, isn't it?  :/

You have several choices:

• Go to the menu of items for the Music2 conference
• Go to the list of conferences
• Go to the opening screen