Ancient Music for the Future

Here are 3 videos that have been hacking my own thoughts about music. All of them have a distinctive non-western approach to melody, harmony and rhythm, and they are each incredibly catchy. My jazz training has given me a feeling that chord changes are "the bones" of a song, but the more I look outside of western music the more I realize how melodic and rhythmic exploration inside of more static harmonies can be deeply gratifying. I realize that many western musicians have explored modal music, but each of the examples below has a deep folkiness that is riveting and truly different than much of what I've heard. None of these songs feel like an experiment but rather a continuation of a musical tradition that has been in process for centuries (With the possible exception of some of Wu Man's extended techniques). The thing that is so interesting about all three of these pieces is that they each have a "hook."  They all force me to reconsider what makes music enjoyable, addictive, and the extent to which computers have homogenized the sonic reach of popular music around the world. This is ironic because I actually believe that computers are supremely versatile instruments, however they allow for a laziness that can end up eliminating nuance. I do think that computers are creating music that helps us process our computerized lives (eg: dubstep), just as ancient music helped people understand pre-industrial life. But just as our use of technology might become more organic and integrated into our humanity so might our music. These musicians all have a lot of information about what music means for humanity.

Kalumbu Song from Zambia



Pipa Song from China



Song from the Carnatic Indian Tradition (Southern India)

Ontology of vibration: economics, music and number

Photo Cred

This is a podcast by Marcus Schmickler

"Is it possible to approach developments in music by its relationships with money? Can we gain insight into societies by means of their relationship to music? Music serves as a mirror, as a prophecy for society because it reflects developments faster than anything that materializes. 

There is an obvious simultaneity between music and economical developments, between music and mathematics and between mathematical and economical relationships. How better could we navigate through these dichotomies than through number, their common foundation? Ultimately, while we look at the connections between both number and music, how does music and its matter, frequency, correspond to (an ontology of) number? This mix revises some of the more recent musical works explicitly drawing from mathematics and number."

Listen HERE
Pdf HERE

Instruments - LP

Instruments is a series of 20 instrumental cut-ups which explore the finest grains of sound from a variety of sources. (Full Free download HERE)

Instruments by musicisfreenow

Laura Goldhamer – Banjo
Lily Gottlieb-McHale – Cello
Jeremy Hoevenaar – Electric Bass
Jessica Feldman – Flute
Marylea Madiman - Horn
Marina Rosenfeld - Piano

All other instruments played by César Alvarez

The set "Instruments" by musicisfreenow is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Are Record Labels Necessary?

photo cred

This is a question that I've been asking myself a lot lately. It seems clear that musicians have more access than ever before to all of the resources that record labels traditionally offer (distribution, marketing, recording facilities, design, replication). But for some reason when you look at the CMJ Charts, the new releases in Rolling Stone and Spin, on "subculture" magazines like Fader or Vice, or even in most high profile blogs and websites (Pitchfork, Stereogum, Brooklyn Vegan) they are still filled almost exclusively with "signed" bands. When a band like Clap Your Hands Say Yeah blows up with a self release it makes headlines that repetitively trumpet the "liberation of the artist in the internet age," yet these are still headline-worthy events rather than standard occurrences. Also artists like Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, and Jill Sobule do really well with their fan-funded projects, but what is rarely mentioned is that all of these artists had the enormous help of record labels in developing their brands and cultivating their fame. Now they are able to capitalize on all of that but it still puts the record label at the core of artist viability. In this article I'm going to try and parse the continued relevance of the Record Label from the habitual reliance on it as a model for success. I believe that ultimately labels will start to look really different, and I think that figuring out why they still exist at all will help us develop a better model that connects musicians to the future of the music industry rather than the past.

(Full Disclosure: I'm working on developing a new model for my own label, but I'm writing this as a self-releasing artist, which I always have been)

PART 1

So let's start out with what record labels do, and how that has changed because of digital technology...

Distribution:
What Labels Do: Record Labels traditionally connect artists with merchants and locations in which to sell their music both online and in stores.

Why we don't need it: Tunecore.com has basically blown this wide open with a flat fee for worldwide distribution. Within 24 hours an mp3 you record in your bedroom can be purchased on itunes around the world. So while getting your music in a Record Store is still difficult, it is increasingly irrelevant. Almost all young people discover music exclusively online, and so easy access to Digital Distribution has now made this once essential function of the label largely optional.

Marketing:
What Labels Do: Labels are able to offer capital for print ads, professionally designed marketing campaigns, branding and social media outreach.

Do we need that? Well, through social networking one could make an argument that you have all you need to promote a release but unless you already have a large committed networked fan base or a viral video you will still need to spend some money on marketing. This is why most musicians are wisely turning to making videos as promotion. Most "Indie PR" firms seem largely ineffectual from my end, and since they are pay to play rather than "curated" like labels, they don't seem to carry very much influence.

Recording Facilities:
What Labels Do: Labels have access to established producers and studios that are able to produce consistently high quality recordings. These resources help recreate the aesthetics of recorded sound that artists and labels have codified through decades of experience. In other words they can make records that sound like what people are used to hearing. Labels also are able to hire professional mixing and mastering engineers that make a huge difference in the final product.

What do we have: High Quality Recording technology is available for extremely cheap which means there are thousands of talented producers that have very humble resources but, with practice, can produce a product indistinguishable (by a mass audience) from a professionally produced recording. Mastering and mixing are also getting cheaper and easier though no less important.

Videos and Visual Design:
What Labels have: Labels may have established relationships with designers and artists that help design artwork, produce videos, design web sties, and style photoshoots. Most importantly Labels have capital to hire all of these people.

What we have: All of this has become more accessible through computers, cheap camera technology, and wonderful sites like cashmusic.org. Though creating something visually iconic, viral, and/or brilliant is still a high art that requires some resources.

Replication:
What Labels Have: Traditionally labels were able to print massive quantities of recordings for mass consumption.

What we have: There are dozens of replication facilities that will produce as few or as many CDs or vinyl as you like. Ulitmately though the CD making businesses seem to be in trouble. They got a big boost as artists starting self-releasing but I can't see indie artists shelling out for printed CDs for much longer.

Licensing and Placement:
What Labels Have: Relationships with music supervisors, film studios, and ad agencies is one of the most important things that labels have and are working very hard to maintain. These institutions and individuals have become de-facto tastemakers for indie music. Getting your song placed on Grey's Anatomy, or an iPod commercial (Chairlift) has become the new way to "be discovered."

What we have: There are sites popping up that offer artists a chance to get licensing opportunities, but I'm not sure how well these work. I'd love to hear anecdotal evidence in the comments. My sense is that a lot of music supervisors read blogs and are constantly on the look out for "it" bands of the moment. I'm sure there are areas of licensing that are democratic, but it also really depends on who you know. If I were a music supervisor I wouldn't necessarily want to use a site where uncurated acts submit there music for a fee. It's easier to find music I like on blogs. This area seems to be where labels still might have sustainable clout.

Tour Support and Booking:
What labels have: Here's an example of the mystical power of a label. A booking agency is very unlikely to take on a totally independent act without the support of a label. But the minute you get signed to a label you'll most likely need a booking agent, even if you still have little draw. The agency will assume that your label will help you develop a good following. Also venues will take you more seriously if you are on a label they recognize.

What we have: Booking was one of the first elements of the music business to move completely online. No one sends packages any more. You send emails and based on your perceived online hype and could feasibly get a gig anywhere. Venues are often democratic, if you can get people in the door they will book you. But again, do you need the label to help you get people in the door? I find that booking is something anyone can do, but it is also one of the most time consuming jobs that takes a certain skill set and a lot persistence. Labels still give you legitimacy in the eyes of established booking agents.

The Status Quo:
What Labels Have: Seems to me that the biggest advantage that labels have (which may also be their downfall) is that they are connected in the old machine of the industry. So for instance, it would be so great to self-release and not print CDs. However magazines and radio stations still require hand mailed hard media. This means that distributing your self-release with a good chance at showing up on college radio and in music magazines is prohibitively hard for most small artists. Ultimately I guess these institutions will go online for submissions. I think part of the reason we don't know what record labels are going to be like in the future is because we don't yet know what records will be like in the future. To me the video world is the most clearly ascendant force, and perhaps a full length video (like Kanye West's Runaway) will be the standard "packaging" for a musical release.

What we have: We can decide for the future how music will be released by doing it ourselves in whatever way we want. But it might be a slow climb trying to get Spin Magazine to read your unsolicited emails.


PART 2

So on looking at the list above it seems like labels offer 2 fundamental things: Resources and Status.

Resources: Resources may come in the form of money or access to some or all of the things listed above. The range is wide (but definitely don't sign to a label unless they are offering you some of those things.)

Status: The Label is still one of, if not the, most powerful curatorial force in the music industry as far as I can tell. Being signed basically means that someone has decided to put resources behind you. This is valuable to the musician undoubtedly, and useful to the writers and venues that are sifting through thousands of artists. The question I have is: Is it worth signing away 50% of your profits to gamble on whatever status you may or may not achieve through the label. Most artists take the oppurtunity to sign with a label still because "50% of something is more than 100% of nothing."

An established artist actually fundamentally shouldn't need a label. If an established artist can raise money through fans or from personal wealth he or she can do essentially everything that a label can do and then keep all of the royalties from sales and make potentially ten-fold what he or she might make from a label release. In fact an established artist that ditches the label and then goes independent might get all sorts of indie cred. This is great news for famous people, but what about artists that aren't already famous?

What I've noticed is a very specific type of artist as the new template for success. This is what I cal the Artistpreneur. The Artistpreneur is a type of Artist who is as invested in fame and success as they are in art. And these artists have been enormously successful in the current landscape of the music industry. They work tirelessly to develop their brand, promote themselves, get noticed in any way possible. They are compulsive tweeters, social networkers, bloggers, vloggers, and emailers. The proliferation of this type of Artist has opened up a new pathway to success as a musician but I would also argue that it has created its own type of homogenization. The Music Industry has been much maligned of the years for developing formulas for success that it pushes onto its artists, but I might argue that internet culture has done the same thing. Internet Culture has created an imperative to be an Artistpreneur in order succeed. "If you don't succeed it is your own fault because everyone can make a youtube video." This whole question brings me to try and understand how does the new relationship to artist success show up in culture.

In the old model of popular music the record labels functioned like gardeners who chose which seeds to plant and cultivated them carefully. The minute anything else would start to grow in the garden they would carefully prune it and claim credit for it. Right now the musical landscape is beginning to look more like a Jungle. Sure the labels are still planting, but things are growing completely out of their control. I support the jungle of culture because it means that there is more culture available and thus more cultural conversation overall. I believe culture creates nuance and intelligence in society and is crucial for an intelligent. In the jungle culture, labels' resources are becoming less valuable, but their ability to bestow status might be becoming even more important. Basically the noise floor is raising, which means that more and more artists are being heard which makes it harder to stand out. Labels help you stand out a little, but mostly only to the extent that their reputation and resources allow.

Ultimately maybe there will be a broad wiki of emerging artists that could be a democratic ladder of recognition that artists could climb. That is sort of what myspace was about 3 years ago but now myspace is a cyber ghetto and the internet is flooded with sites trying to be the home of emerging bands. Facebook has the clear opening to be that site but it's band/pages platform is a miserable failure which has caused bands to seek out other locations. It would be beautiful to see artists able to convert hard work and online presence directly into a sustainable career, but as of now lawyers, labels and managers still hold on to a lot of power. What is also missing from this conversation is the whole design of publishing and copyright law which is still stuck with dozens of out dated rules and complications. The complexity and arcaneness of these laws also keeps record labels in business.

One online platform that is missing is one that assists self releasing artists in distributing fair royalties to their collaborators and band members. If this platform existed, established artists might be more interested in working with self-releasing artists because there would be a clear system in place for them to be paid upon the success of the collaboration.

As we move forward into the internet-based future, artists will become more empowered and labels will have a looser grip on their work. Labels however, still serve the crucial function of providing status and resources, and they consistently are a key element as artists leap from struggling to successful. The traditional label model seemingly becomes less profitable by the day but artists are still dependent on them to provide the capital for their success.

We are in a clear transition period right now, and I'm hoping for an evolution of online tools that will bring a sustainable career more consistently within reach of self-releasing artists.

Why is there Something instead of Nothing?

So I was visiting my friend George Raggett at his delightful and commericial/non-commercial hybrid art/charity/kiosk/installation called The Museum of Commerce. It was spectacular to just be so confused by the purpose of a place of business. I was lucky enough to see someone else come by and be confused too. In a gallery, I get to experience art but I feel the constant (and threatening) hum of business underneath the surface of every piece. George has flipped that on its head. He's plopped himself in and among chic DUMBO boutiques, while maintaining a commitment not to sell hardly anything but a $2 catalog with no writing in it (half the proceeds go to Haiti) and he gives you a free poster just for walking in the door. This is a brilliant new business model: Don't sell anything or try to make money, just act like a business. And odds are it's going to work out great in the art world. I think there are a lot of scenarios in our current economics where the more money you make the less you have. George elegantly enacts that paradox for us. While sitting on a chair that he will admit he stole from his kitchen table at home. Music is free now, and so is art apparently.

Boycott RIAA in March!!!!

Thanks to Gizmodo for this great idea. I'm pasting in the whole post...viva la revolución!

"Alright, we've been following the RIAA's increasingly frequent affronts to privacy and free speech lately, and it's about time we stopped merely bitching and moaning and did something about it. The RIAA has the power to shift public policy and to alter the direction of technology and the Internet for one reason and one reason alone: it's totally loaded. Without their millions of dollars to throw at lawyers, the RIAA is toothless. They get their money from us, the consumers, and if we don't like the way they're behaving, we can let them know with our wallets.

With that in mind, Gizmodo is declaring the month of March Boycott the RIAA month. We want to get the word out to as many people as humanly possible that we can all send a message by refusing to buy any album put out by an RIAA label. Am I saying you should start pirating music? Not at all. You can continue to support the artists you enjoy and respect in a number of ways.

Firstly, I encourage everyone to purchase music from unsigned bands and bands on independent record labels. There are tons of great artists out there, many of which you're probably already a fan of, that have nothing to do with the RIAA. Buy their records at eMusic, an online store that sells independent tunes in beautiful, DRM-free MP3 format.

Secondly, you can still support RIAA-signed bands without buying their music. Go see them live and buy their merchandise; they get a hell of a lot more money from that then they do from album sales. And hey, you could benefit from getting out more, couldn't you?

If you are unsure whether or not an album is put out by an RIAA label, the handy RIAA Radar will clear everything up for you. They have both a search engine and a great bookmarklet, so be sure to get yourself hooked up.

Let me just reiterate that we are not saying you should stop buying music and start pirating everything. We need to send a message with our wallets to the RIAA, and that message will only be stronger if we show support for musicians without your money making its way to the lawyer fund.

So come on, make next month one to remember. Let's stand together and let the RIAA know that yes, we are paying attention and no, we aren't going to put up with their unethical practices any longer." –Adam Frucci

Why Bloggers Don’t Run Record Companies
[via axehole]
I appreciate the contratrian nature of this article but I have to whole heartedly disagree. Not because I think eMusic is going to "help musicians quit their day jobs" but for these reasons:

• iTunes copy protected tracks have also been flatlining of late in case you didn't notice I think it's at about 25 songs per ipod sold.
  
• comparing eMusic sales toe to toe with iTunes sales doesn't give you a correct measure of the fate of non-copy protected tracks (non-DRM) because Apple is a mega corporation whose hardware has sky rocketed their iTunes store. I don't think that it will stamp out more independent and customer/independent-musician friendly downloading services.
• The whole idea for subscription services are that a lot of people aren't using their subscriptions to the fullest so all the math in this article is kind of silly. It's like cell-phone minutes. Just because they provide a certain amount of subsciption minutes doesn't mean all of those minutes are used by the customer.
  
• iTunes isn't helping musicians quit there day jobs either. The formula remains that record labels (small and large), promotion teams, hard work and just damn good music are bringing musicians into financial solvency and emusic and iTunes are just other tools in the belt of a struggling musician. Sure there are a few iTunes success stories but not enough to change the game.
• there is nearly zero distribution and manufacture cost for artists and record labels on these sites and that means that overhead is way less and product is infinitely available. Which means, especially for artist pressing their own CDs any online sale is icing on the cake because it doesn't take any of their units (which are often limited)
• And finally I think it's great that big record companies can't make ends meet on a diet of downloaded music, because record companies have been fucking musicians for almost a hundred years. And now it makes a lot more sense for an artists to stay independent. DRM or no-DRM music the record companies are losing their iron -grip on the machinery of musical success.

So why don't bloggers run record companies? Who cares...the fact is music costs way less now and independent musicians are working their asses off trying to turn that into a good thing. I think it is a great thing, and I think DRM and non-DRM have a future. But as a musician and a blogger only non-DRM has a future on my ipod.

Thanks to everyone who came out to the Stone tonight. Brendan Connelly's percussion piece was brilliant. Jeremiah Cymerman was ever present and Ashley Fure's ipod was well equipped for the task of public mashing.

Ashley has no website but here's the piece she wrote for eight blackbird:

[mp3] Ashley Fure - Inescapable (in broken form) (2004) for ensemble, written for and performed by eighth blackbird


speaking of eight blackbird...here's a recent post from their blog:
"Making an Album in an iPod World"

They bring up all the right points, but they sound a little defeatist. Chin up kids, the proverbial "album" needs you guys to redefine it. And I'd start by not agonizing over pause lengths between tracks, because those really are pretty arbitrary these days. But maybe this will lift your spirits.

Universal Music Group Sues MySpace

"Universal Music Group is taking on the Internet's most popular social networking site and its global media parent. UMG labels and publishers sued MySpace and parent company News Corporation today (Nov. 17) for copyright infringement. "

"Businesses that seek to trade off on our content, and the hard work of our artists and songwriters, shouldn’t be free to do so without permission and without fairly compensating the content creators," a UMPG spokesperson said in a statement. "Our music and videos play a key role in building the communities that have created hundreds of millions of dollars of value for the owners of MySpace. Our goal is not to inhibit the creation of these communities, but to ensure that our rights and those of our artists are recognized."

hmm...another beast at bay. I'm just wondering/hoping that myspace might be replaced one day by a non-commercial (or less commercial), entity. That might change everything if the "portal" wasn't really making millions off ads. (eventhough I've read myspace has so much adspace it can't give it away) The great myspace migration would be an epic day. Craigspace!!!
(right now this is what i find for craigspace is some australian guy's blog)

from Visual and Acoustic Space by Marshall Mcluhan

I'm sorry. I'm obsessed.

"Acoustic space structure is the natural space of nature-in-the-raw inhabited by non-literate people. It is like the "mind's ear" or acoustic imagination that dominates the thinking of pre-literate and post literate humans alike (rock video has as much acoustic power as a Watusi mating dance) It is both discontinuous and nonhomogeneous. Its resonant and interpenetrating processes are simultaneously related with centers everywhere and boundaries nowhere. Like music...acoustic space requires neither proof nor explanation but is made manifest through its cultural content. Acoustic and visual space structures may be seen as incommensurable, like history and eternity yet at the same time as complementary, like art and science or biculturalism."

this is hiarious via junkonline

why zune is dumb:

from nytimes: "Songs take about 15 seconds to transfer, but transferred songs can be played only three times in three days before they disappear,"

music is free now. Why would you spend money on something that deletes your music?

"Would the Zune ever be able to connect to the Internet? Could someone walk into a Starbucks and use the connection there to download a song? Mr. Lee answered without hesitation: 'Probably, one day.'"

oh brother

Another example of a technology refusing to accept true viral-ness, because they want too much control and they think that their restrictions will get them money. here are other good examples of that kind of behavior:

friendster
new york "Times Select"

and I'm sorry but people need to stop writing this sentence: "blah blah blah due to the popularity of social networking sites like MySpace blah blah blah"

from Swen's blog:
Big labels are f*cked, and DRM is dead - Peter Jenner
theregister.co.uk: ""Few people know the music industry better than Peter Jenner. Pink Floyd's first manager, who subsequently managed Syd Barrett's solo career, Jenner has also looked after T.Rex, The Clash, Ian Dury, Disposable Heroes and Billy Bragg - who he manages today. He's also secretary general of the International Music Managers Forum.
The major four music labels today are "fucked", he says. Digital music pricing has been a scam where the consumer pays for manufacturing, distribution, and does all the work - and still has to pay more. Labels should outsource everything except finance and licensing." More

Music is Free Now. And here's why.

The New York Times just posted
1) Another article about the "1000 bands at CMJ"
2) Another anemic 2-line treatment of blog culture and the changes brought on by digital music.
3) A (somewhat refreshing) cynical take on the glut of indie rock buzz bands, without a lot of insight on what is really going on.

This article gives me a perfect chance to try and explain why I started this blog.

read the whole article here:
In a World of Cacophony, Experience for Sharing
By KELEFA SANNEH
Published: November 2, 2006

here's an excerpt:
"And if you’d like to sample their music, all you need is an Internet connection and 20 minutes. Aggregator sites like elbo.ws (which publishes a useful blog popularity chart) make it easy to figure out exactly how many blog links a band has; Myspace makes it easy (and free) to hear four songs from just about any band at CMJ. At this festival indie-rock looks less like a wide-open space and more like a well-organized market.

It wasn’t supposed to turn out like this. Only a few years ago, the Internet threatened to blur boundaries of genre and culture making it easy for listeners to fill their iPods with whatever caught their fancy.

But listeners of all sorts like having what Mr. Christgau called a shared experience. That’s why the old monoculture flourished in the first place. And today’s indie-rock fans have something that’s smaller yet similar: a mini-monoculture. That is, a robust infrastructure of Web sites and blogs, along with a (necessarily vague) consensus about what indie-rock sounds like."

Sanneh is assuming that all of the samey bands playing at CMJ are a mildly accurate reflection of what the people attending CMJ have on their iPods. He's also asserting the idea that indie rockers really just long to be part of a monoculture, which is why so much of the music sounds the same. While many of the bands at this festival and on myspace are painfully derivative and formulaic, I really think that's how it's always been and now we're just hearing these bands because the Internet has given interested parties free access to millions of them. The fact that there are so many buzz bands represents a change in the buzz not in the bands. I'd like to forward the idea that the "culture" people want to be a part of is the culture engendered by blogs of insider knowledge and insight into unknown bands, but also a genuine interest in original music. (There is also a creepy spectator sport aspect of "wanting to be there before they got famous" that hangs thick in the air on CMJ week.)

What I’m excited about is that now that so much more music is available I think people inevitably will get bored of themselves. I think that the more you listen the more originality you can tolerate. And the more you listen the more the derivative becomes apparent.

Music is free now. Because it's everywhere and buying it is a customary but voluntary activity. Music is free now because it's all on the same hard disk and each day leaving farther behind the stratifications that have dictated the business of music for centuries. Music isn't free for everyone and it's not that people aren't making tons of money on music and spending tons of money on music, it's that the old machinery is silly. And the new machinery is still spanking new, amazingly functional, and pretty happily anarchic. Additionally, what is right now insider knowledge is rapidly becoming common knowledge.

When Gutenberg printed his first Bible, he took what was the sole province of the select few, reading and interpreting religion, and gave it to many more. And at first very few people had access to printed material but at the technology spread it became, arguably, the single most transformative moment of it's millennium. The digital age will do that to mass media. It has given the power of mass dissemination of images, sounds and words to the world. The YouTube craze I think has completed (now with myspace, flickr, google, blogs, Mp3 blogs/aggregators etc.) the beginning stages of what will be and is a total reinvention of entertainment and information exchange.

It doesn't matter that so many of the videos on YouTube are boring videos of people's pets and rambling confessionals. At this stage it doesn't matter what it is, it matters what it will be. And the fact that CMJ is blowing up while tower records is closing down, means something. Coming back to the original point: It doesn't really matter that so many of the bands sound the same at CMJ, what matters is that CMJ is a gangly (if over-hyped, and hyper-commercialized) physical manifestation of the awkward beginning of a revolution in the way people experience music. (Pimples, conformity, boring indie rock yelps and all.) The monoculture is Internet culture not a specific brand of indie rock; they just happen to be early adopters. And indie rock in my definition doesn't refer to a sound it refers to kinds of venues. Most bands that call themselves "indie rock" would sell their souls to a major in a second. But I don't begrudge them because, while our musical goals don't coincide, they're still hand making their demos and hustling on myspace like everyone else.