Old Biz vs. New Biz

Repost from Jamie Rowe:

"Music Industry commentator Bob Lefsetz released this to his mailing list yesterday... was so good that I'm reposting it here. Lefsetz.org

OLD MUSIC BUSINESS

Labels were searching for talent, they felt if you were good enough, even if nothing like anything else, they could find a market for you.

NEW MUSIC BUSINESS

They just want something they can sell, hopefully just like everything else that is successful.

OLD MUSIC BUSINESS

They built it.

NEW MUSIC BUSINESS

They want you to build it, their role is just to blow it up.

OLD MUSIC BUSINESS

You had to be true to yourself.

NEW MUSIC BUSINESS

You're true to the buck, you follow it wherever it may go.

OLD MUSIC BUSINESS

The story was the music.

NEW MUSIC BUSINESS

The story is the story, who you are, what you stand for, who you're dating, what tech companies you've invested in. The hardest thing to do is to get someone to click to hear your music. The audience is immune to hype. But people are constantly grazing for information, if you're part of the discussion continually people will eventually click to find out what your music is all about. But you only get one chance. No one's got any time. They want to know enough to form an opinion, but they don't want to spend hours listening to your tunes to find out they don't like you that much.

OLD MUSIC BUSINESS

It was about the music. Sure, money was important, but only the most successful acts got rich and prior to Tommy Mottola the exec was secondary to the performer.

NEW MUSIC BUSINESS

It's about the money. And secondarily the fame. No one is interested unless you can generate bucks, right away. If you don't have this ability, don't bother to sell yourself, no one cares. Especially promoters. Used to be the labels subsidized club dates, building your career. But that went out with Napster...if you think the promoter wants to lose money, why don't you light a match to a wad of bills, see how it feels.

OLD MUSIC BUSINESS

Let you find your way.

NEW MUSIC BUSINESS

Wants you fully formed, it wants no experimentation, no finding of your way on their dime. They're only interested once you've proven the concept, data is everything, how many followers, how many streams, they want no one wet behind the ears,

OLD MUSIC BUSINESS

Believed in artist development. CREATIVE artist development. A business story, wherein you gain more fans and traction is CAREER development, don't confuse the two.

NEW MUSIC BUSINESS

The acts come and go, the execs remain, they want to milk what you've got now as opposed to worrying about where you're gonna be in the future.

OLD MUSIC BUSINESS

They wanted to sign no one who didn't write.

NEW MUSIC BUSINESS

They want you to write with others. There's too much money at risk to promote secondary songs. Furthermore, competition is fierce, with everything at everybody's fingertips, the entire history of recorded music, you've got to be just as good as the classics, the bar is ever higher. If you think you're good enough, you probably don't know what great is. Furthermore, as much as you hate the pros, it's their business to pick hits. The internet was supposed to unearth tons of unsigned talent that was gonna decimate the majors... It didn't happen. Turned out the labels were good at flushing out talent and there's only so much greatness to go around.

OLD MUSIC BUSINESS

You could say no.

NEW MUSIC BUSINESS

Everybody says yes all the time, otherwise their investors, their team, will have a fit. We live in a desperate decade, no one's got any self-respect, everybody's chasing the dollar and fearful there won't be a seat at the table for them. Furthermore, there's a backlash to this, fans trumpeting marginal talent to make themselves feel better. Don't fall for it. If you're not mass, you're not relevant. It's all about mindshare, and the audience has limited space. Respect this. Earn people's attention. And know that everything is slower these days. Records take nearly a year to top the chart.

OLD MUSIC BUSINESS

The money was in recordings.

NEW MUSIC BUSINESS

The money is in touring and the penumbra...merchandising, sponsorships, endorsements, privates... Like Donna Summer once sang, you work hard for the money. People are using Facebook as Mark Zuckerberg sleeps, but unless you're out working chances are the big money ain't comin' in. This will change, there will be more money from recordings as streaming subscriptions/revenue increases. And it will. Don't prematurely shut down free, it will just drive piracy. The key is to addict people first and then make them pay for convenience.

OLD MUSIC BUSINESS

Radio reached everybody.

NEW MUSIC BUSINESS

Radio is an overhyped medium that does not satiate the consumer. No one wants to wait an eternity to hear their favorite track when it's just a click away online. Which is why personality and story are key to the new radio, and no commercials. Sirius XM has got no ads, and Apple Music has story, but the previous has little story and the latter is laden with amateurs. The big winner? Howard Stern, who realizes story is everything and makes you feel included. Stars get more publicity than ever before, but they're smaller in reach than ever before. Adele goes mass because she can sing and employs good songs you can sing along with. But nobody follows her lead, everybody wants to be Kendrick Lamar or a pop diva working with Max Martin. Want to go nuclear? Write hummable songs with good changes that people can sing along with, and deliver them with a great voice. Sounds easy, but it's hard to do, and it's not hip. But that's today's music world, everybody wants it simple and hip, and

that's not a formula for entrancing the world.

OLD MUSIC BUSINESS

TV sold records and built careers.

NEW MUSIC BUSINESS

TV is irrelevant unless it has a mass audience, and none of the traditional shows do. Which is why everybody fights for the mass audience events. They do the Super Bowl to sell tons of tickets and the Grammys so the audience can finally put a face to the name. Admit it, you didn't know what some of the stars looked like until you saw them on TV last night.

OLD MUSIC BUSINESS

Upward mobility.

NEW MUSIC BUSINESS

The hit acts may be young, but it's still the same old white baby boomers running the companies. And they don't want anybody encroaching upon their turf. But like Scalia, they're gonna pass, no one is forever.

OLD MUSIC BUSINESS

Run by rock.

NEW MUSIC BUSINESS

Run by pop, country and hip-hop. You can get your piercings and tattoos, run up the Active Rock chart, but the truth is the audience is laughing if it cares at all, you're just one step away from a Civil War reenactor. Why don't you break out your BlackBerry. Even better, why don't you break out you 8-track tape! (And don't buy the comeback of vinyl and cassette hype. We're nostalgic for the past because the present moves too fast, but the truth is we don't really want to go there. We may be addicted to and distracted by our mobile devices, but we don't want to go back to the era of loneliness. It'd be like refusing to have an answering machine, back when we still talked on the phone... If someone says they're gonna call you, that they've been on the phone all day, they're an oldster destined for extinction. Millennials don't want to waste that much time. In the era of plenitude as opposed to scarcity it's all about deciding what you DON'T want to do, because you just don't have

enough time.)

OLD MUSIC BUSINESS

Got no respect and didn't care. Warner Music was the engine that built the Warner cable system. Music was an outside business whose stars were more powerful than any politician or industrialist.

NEW MUSIC BUSINESS

Is constantly fighting for success and is full of brand extensions, looking for a way to make more bucks. If you're not willing to leave some money on the table, you're never gonna bond with your audience, which is struggling.

OLD MUSIC BUSINESS

Teed it up and the press said what it wanted.

NEW MUSIC BUSINESS

Controls the media, only gives limited access. And the doofus writers are sycophants, burnishing the images of the famous, as if fame and wealth made you and your music worthwhile.

OLD MUSIC BUSINESS

You spoke with your music.

NEW MUSIC BUSINESS

You feud in the media. When Taylor Swift disses Kanye West in her acceptance speech you know the end is near. When you're that self-referential, you've missed the plot. Kanye just wants publicity. How do you fight that? BY IGNORING HIM! But no one can seemingly ignore him.

OLD MUSIC BUSINESS

Your handlers promoted you.

NEW MUSIC BUSINESS

You promote yourself, no one better than Kanye. Veracity is irrelevant, it's all train-wreck all the time, we follow music like wrestling, everybody's a cartoon character fighting for our attention and we know the game is fixed, just like America, we may bump asses to your tunes but the only people who believe in you are the uneducated nitwits with no future. How did we abdicate all our power? How did we lose our self-respect?

OLD MUSIC BUSINESS

Was a haven of self-promoting and self-dealing crooks.

NEW MUSIC BUSINESS

Is easing towards transparency, and the oldsters don't like this. But the truth is anybody with success doesn't like this either, the money is in touring and the acts don't want the public knowing it can't get a ticket because of Amex and Citi sponsorships and self-dealing. Ever notice how the stars don't bitch? Because they're getting paid. When someone like David Lowery complains look at his stature, how much money he's making. Melissa Ferrick too. Has and never-beens can't get attention with their music, so they sue. And if you pay attention to what they have to say you'll get caught up in their backwater.

BOTTOM LINE

We're never going back to the past. The good old days had advantages, but there was tons of inconvenience that today's audience will not tolerate. To play in the present you must know it's all about attention, garnering it and maintaining it. Financial rewards come after. Isn't that the YouTube paradigm? They won't build your audience, but if you've got one, you can make money. And when you're building your audience know that unless it's an ongoing relationship, it's not worth much. You must continually feed people and you can't burn anybody. But that does not mean you cannot have an edge, never forget, edges hook people and not everyone is gonna like you, if you're not pissing off someone, you're not doing it right. And know that today the only people who truly care about you are those who can't help you. Everybody pledging undying fealty is lying. Society has changed, it's coarser, people can't pay their bills. They're with you for now, but for the future..? The label just needs

somebody, not necessarily you.

And we're looking for heroes. A hero is not someone who is rich, although they may be. A hero is someone who does what is right, not what is expedient, even if nobody's watching. You hook us with your music, but it's your identity that keeps us attached. And in music we've got to believe it's you, not the work of a handler. So if someone else is writing the material... You're no different from Olivia Newton-John. And if that's what you want to be, someone famous but with no center... We want the genuine article. We're just promoting imitators because pickings are slim and everyone's a slave to the money. "Uptown Funk" is catchy but meaningless. Neil Young can still sell tickets because he sells truth and soul, he does it his way.

Do it your way. Reinvent the wheel. Don't be sour grapes. Don't complain. If you're great and you're an original we've got unlimited time for you.

But few fit this paradigm."

The Case for High Fidelity Music

Hifi. What does it mean? Well, it's an abbreviation for high-fidelity, but what does that mean?

Fidelity refers to the quality of something. You might see the term "High Definition" in day-to-day life: Think HD video versus 480p. Think 12 megapixels versus 2 megapixels. There's a huge difference. Do you remember your first digital camera? I do. It was about $600 and it had 2 megapixels, but I thought it was amazing. A digital photo. Wow. I could take a picture, and then see it, right then, and then transfer it to my computer in a matter of minutes, ready to share or keep. Here's another throwback: do you remember when Youtube allowed 720p HD streaming for the first time? And then quickly after, they added 1080p. Insane! Then over time, we've moved up to 4k displays like the Retina display...wow. Now that is a beautiful looking screen. We never knew what we were missing until we experienced it.

Let me say that again.

We never knew what we were missing until we experienced it. A phenomenon has occurred in the audio industry -  one of the biggest ironies of the audio industry to date. We now have the capabilities to capture (as in, record) audio in higher qualities than we've ever imagined. We have the computer power and hardware capabilities to capture far beyond what the human ear can even perceive. The irony is this: the most common format to consume audio is streaming mp3s, a format created in the early nineties! If it's not that, then it's CD, surely that's better than Mp3 - oh wait...that was created in the late seventies and standardized by the late eighties. And you know what, it's still better than mp3!

WAKE UP, PEOPLE. This is pathetic! We can record audio at 2x, 3x, 4x...5x the quality of MP3s and CDs. Not only can we, we actually do. I do, and every engineer I know does. It's the standard to record at 24 or 32 bit resolution and at least 44.1kHz sampling rate. Many record at 96kHz, which is over 2x the quality of 44.1kHz...that is, on paper.

The video industry has continually tried to improve the quality of video. The audio industry is one of the few that has actually gone backwards, demanding lower quality for consumers in order to "save space" on computers. The irony is, most of the market is or will be dominated by digital markets. We can stream HD movies (which are gigabytes apiece) nearly instantly on Netflix, but Spotify, Pandora, Apple Music, etc., are streaming MP3s, which are only 10MB or so. I'll give you a hint - an uncompressed, high quality WAV file is still less than 10% the size of an HD movie. For some perspective - the soundtrack alone in that HD movie is likely a WAV file. A 2 hour long WAV file. That doesn't include the actual video itself, and we can still stream it instantly. So why can't we stream a 4 minute WAV file for music? The truth is, we can. It's just that companies fail to see its importance.

Why do people discount high fidelity audio? Let's look at the primary factors:

1. The files are "too big."
2. Their device can't play it.
3. They've never heard the difference.
4. They can't hear the difference. 

I've pretty much already debunked #1. In an industry moving towards streaming media, there's no excuse for streaming HD files. If we can have entire warehouses full of server racks housing millions of hours of youtube videos, porn websites, instagram photos and videos, and facebook content, we can have servers full of HD audio.

Let's move on to #2. Quality drives industry. When Youtube enabled HD video, suddenly there's a huge push for people to make videos. It drives people to be a part of the buzz. That drove people to want to buy HD cameras, and HD monitors/displays/screens on which to enjoy those videos. This drove Apple and other manufacturers to make portable HD video players. Remember the first iPod Video? This drove people to make HD Laptops, tablets, TVs. That drove Apple to make the Retina. It goes on and on. Smart industries look at what people want. It's obvious that people want quality, but why don't people care about audio quality? Industries would follow if they felt like people wanted HD audio. Why don't people want HD audio?

You guessed it. #3. They've never heard the difference so They don't know what they're missing. People listen to music on their iPhone speakers, their laptops, their clock radios and iHome devices. They listen on tiny earbuds and Beats headphones. All of these things have terrible sound quality when compared to the technology we have available! It's absolutely ludicrous that people aren't all over the HD audio market. They're obsessed with HD video, so why aren't they obsessed with hearing their favorite music in the best way possible? They love going to the movie theater, and they love going to concerts, and the sound system is always rumbling their chest...but yet they don't care to enjoy high quality music on their own time?

I'll give you a hint: when your favorite singers, bands, and artists make music in the studio, they are likely listening to it on speakers that cost thousands of dollars, in rooms that are designed for critical music listening (that cost far above the price for the speakers) and they are purposely making their record for high quality sound reproduction. Yet, you dwarf this intent by listening to it on an iPhone speaker. How enjoyable is it to watch The Dark Knight or Inception or any visually stunning movie on a 1x1" screen? Not at all, really. But that's the equivalent of what people are doing to music. No wonder the industry is hurting right now - people are being conditioned to accept what is in front of them, which is mediocre audio quality at best. The final issue is that some people can't hear the difference between mp3 and WAV, or between a phone speaker and a car system. They can't hear the difference between $100 Walmart speakers and $10,000 studio monitors. Or at least they don't think they could hear a difference. But I assure you - everyone that walks into my studio, musician or not, audiophile or not, is stunned by the quality of sound coming out of my Barefoot MM35s, emanating into my control room. They're listening to a high quality, industry standard pair of speakers in a very high quality listening environment, designed and treated specifically for the reproduction of music. I hear comments like "Wow, if this was my place, I'd just listen to music all day long." Those types of statements make me proud, but also very angry, because I see the potential for people inspired by sound, who want to sit and listen to music again!

So it hit me: HD audio can turn music listening into a hobby again. It can drive industry. It can force companies to produce high quality speakers at affordable costs. It can force companies to promote HD audio being sold, distributed, and streamed.

You might think, "well, I can't spend that much money," and that's fine. The good news is, you don't have to. For a very modest cost, you can invest in a high quality pair of speakers and a high quality amplifier, a few cables, and you'll be on your way to listening to music better than you've ever heard it. It amazes me that the new generations coming up may never experience audio as I do. They may never hear music how it was intended to be heard. It's saddening. I want people to hear music as the artist intended. I want them to hear and feel the music like they're standing in the room with the band. I want people to invite their friends over to sit and listen to music, like I used to do as a kid. I truly believe that can propel the industry forward. I believe it could be the next big wave in the music industry.

And you might ask: is audio quality really that important? Isn't it all about the music anyway? Isn't a good song going to be a good song, regardless if it's listened to on a phone speaker of a $10,000 sound system? Well, allow me to offer an opposing situation. Imagine this: you see trailers on your Facebook for the new Star Wars movie. You're excited. You can't wait. It's going to be epic. Now imagine when it came out, you've waited for it, you're excited, and yet they tell you the only option you have is to sit and watch it on a Nokia phone from 2007. 

Does it change the fact that the movie is good? No. Does it alter your first impression of the movie? Absolutely. Does it distract you from the awesomeness of the movie? Yes. Does it turn the movie into a distraction itself, because the way you're consuming it in a way that is "convenient for them?" Yes. Is it hard to focus on it, because it's so small and uninspiring? Absolutely. Do you want to watch it again? Probably not. Do you want to buy it? Definitely not.

Movies were intended to be played in a theater. From day ONE. That was always the intent. And guess what, that's what we do. We watch movies in theaters and pay good money for it, because it's totally worth it. It's still good on Netflix, but we'd usually prefer to see blockbuster movies in theaters if we have the chance, and film companies make most of their money from opening weekend. So when Star Wars comes out and you're sitting there watching the movie on this huge screen in surround sound, I want you to think for just 10 seconds: what if my music listening experience could come close to this awesome, except in my own home, where I could watch movies, Youtube, Hulu, Netflix, DVDs, listen to my music, stream my Apple Music or Spotify Playlists, all with incredible sound quality? And then realize: it can.

*drops the mic*

Does Music deserve Our money?

An interesting phenomenon is occurring in the music industry. As CD sales plummet, and even as digital downloads plummet, streaming is still on the rise, but we know this. You've probably heard artists "complaining" about it. Or even me "complaining" about it. Nothing new, right?

That's not the phenomenon I'm talking about: I'm talking about separation of classes. The wealthy musicians like Bono, Pharrell, and Lady Gaga are raking in millions of dollars every year, but their careers cost millions to maintain. The noob musicians or "small time" acts of the Internet and small cities have never made much money, so they're not really missing much, and neither are consumers - these are the artists that aren't very good anyway. But what about everyone else? What about the guys in the middle that are making okay money, maybe they're even doing music full time. These guys might be regional acts or even just the "busy locals" that play a good amount of gigs, have talent, and are right on the line of "doing okay" and "can't pay my bills." What is happening to them?

Unfortunately, the ladder of success that these musicians are climbing is slowly turning into a slide...backwards. They are being pushed out of the industry by the hard truths of our music economy. What are these truths? If you're not familiar with what's actually going on in the world of music, allow me to educate you. 

1. Streaming is rapidly overtaking album sales, and most streaming services pay $0.008 per stream or less. Yes, that's correct, 8/10ths of a penny per play or less. For some perspective, 1 million plays would make an average 5 piece band just $1400 per person (before tax, of course). That's not enough to cover most people's bills for a month, let alone a touring band's expenses. 

2. Many venues are caring less about live bands because it doesn't get as many bodies at the bar. Many want DJs because they can pack the house playing the commercial musicians' music instead. (I will hereafter refer to DJs as "organ grinders.") Even the venues that DO want live bands are hardly paying at all. Can't tell you how many gigs I've played for free. I had to stop eventually. 

3. Many venues want covers because they want people to know the songs so that they can stick around. Covers do not advance the industry, original music does. The venue owners often think, "Those organ grinders play songs people know...and they work for less. Let's hire them instead." This one really gets me frustrated. 

4. The musicians that are making money are working so many hours and playing so many gigs, they don't even have time to work on original music, record new material, promote their own endeavors, or focus on growing as an artist and as a person. All they do is dance for peanuts to survive. Many of them have day jobs. 

5. There are so many "musicians" now, the demand and perceived value is weakened. Anyone can pick up s guitar and make a YouTube video. As I've mentioned in other posts, the Average Joe often can't tell a difference between mediocre and terrible musicians. Sometimes they can't tell the difference between good and bad musicians. And since the entry fee into the public eye is now NOTHING, the value of a hard working-man musician is lumped in with the other YouTube Schmos that uploaded a video of them epically failing trying to cover "Wonderwall." (I'll give you a hint- it's an incredibly easy song...) They both have the same outlets, the same places to market, the same digital distributors, and the same CD duplicators, so to the public, the Perceived value of the Joe schmo and the good working-man is smeared into being identical. It isn't. 

6. Big acts aren't making money from records either, which forces concert ticket prices up, or at least increases their frequency, which consequently shifts local venue concert prices down. Nobody wants to pay $20 to see a local band. The venue owners have to keep the bulk of the money to keep the doors open. They're running a business too, they gotta do what they gotta do, and we need them around! The bands can't draw a big enough crowd (see #5) and they can't pay bills with $20 a person. They often just go get food, fill up the van, and call it... "A success?"

7. Labels are short on money as well, and have been ever since digital pirating was a more prominent thing. Budgets are getting lower, which means artists aren't cultivated, and albums are made like a patchwork quilt of cheap fabrics. So They sign "360 deals" with their artists so that they can take a portion of basically any income they make from music. They focus on regurgitating music that sounds identical to what sold a little last week, rather than what people really want. When's the last time you turned on pop radio and said "that song was great?" Maybe once in your car this month. Maybe once this year?  Maybe once in the last few years? They aren't taking risks on the underground kids with energy - the  19 year old kids in their garages - the Nirvanas and the U2s, the Pixies' and the Wilcos and Foo Fighters' and the Shins back when they were high-school dropout twenty-something fast-food-chain-working nobodies. And most of those now WIDELY popular bands got that way because of labels taking that risk on them. It takes a lot of money to make a band that widely known. No no, that doesn't happen often anymore. They can't take the risk. They know that half-naked jail-bait ass is what makes them money, guaranteed, so they go for it. Even though, if they took a chance on the garage bands, they may end up to be historical later down the road. They may develop huge followings and become the next Dave Matthews or Foo Fighters or U2. 

8. There are only three major labels. Sony, Universal, and Warner. They control somewhere between 70-90% of the music industry in the United States and somewhere between 60-80% of the music worldwide. These 3 Huge corporations own or have acquired hundreds of smaller labels over the last 30 years. If bands are not on one of these three labels, or on a label owned and operated under their umbrellas, they fall into two categories: independent artists, or artists signed to independent labels. Listen, not all labels are evil or corrupt, but at some point in the chain, there is a corporation that owns your music. You don't own it. They own it, and they make way more than you will ever dream to make... Because you let them. 

9. Most of the major labels now are shareholders in the streaming markets. Which means when they technically make money from all artists, even the ones they don't do anything for, and they have control over who gets paid what. So they say "alright let's give St. Vincent 15% of her streaming royalties." That $0.008 just dropped to $0.0012. They hold way too much power. Ever wonder why labels aren't doing anything about streaming? The average wage for musicians is declining further and further, meanwhile Daniel Ek (CEO of Spotify) pulls in $120M a year. By contrast, Stephen Cooper, The CEO of Warner Music Group makes $2.7M a year. So the labels are desperately trying to jump on the train of steaming because it makes "them" money, not because it makes artists money. Because it doesn't make artists money, unless they're a huge established artist like Jay Z. But that does no good for the next generation. 

10. The bigger a company gets, the more money it takes to run that company. Think about how huge those three labels are. Imagine someone walked in, bought the place, and said "I run the industry now and you need to drop all of these lame artists and sign these amazing indie artists." The brainwashed consumers wouldn't adjust well, and since they don't understand music, they haven't been taught its importance, they don't get it. Why is it good? Where's the beat? I can't dance to this. Spotify wouldn't be cutting them deals to get their albums or to pay them more than the average person. The bands aren't quite popular enough to play big tours, and they certainly aren't selling records (thanks to streaming and prior to that, pirating), so they can't pay back their advances, which means the label has lost money. Do that enough times, and the label fails. So some bigwig swoops in and buys it back, and only signs the simple mindless stuff that will play on pop radio and in the background of Kia commercials and the trailers of B- Romantic comedies. There's no winning with the system they've created. It's designed to push mindless music. It's designed to fail, over and over again. Good, creative, thoughtful music rarely bodes well on the Top 40 charts. 

11. A lot of laymen think that artists are just whining about the industry - that it's the uber rich artists complaining "oh no, I only made $50M this year!" But in fact, they don't care nearly as much as the indie artists do. They make most of their money from their 20 other avenues - gigs, clothing, perfume and cologne, advertisements, endorsements, etc etc. but the indie guys-- the real diamonds in the rough, take no prisoners, nitty gritty songwriters making amazing music on their own dime - they're the ones getting shoved out of the industry by this. They're the ones who were barely surviving on their less than minimum wage musicians salary, and now it's even less than that. Don't believe me? In denial about what artists actually make?

12. Average minimum wage in the US is $8.25 for workers with no health insurance. Let's ignore the thousands of hours it takes to write, arrange, and record a song, and let's ignore the hundreds to thousands of dollars it can cost to have it recorded, mixed, and mastered. Ignore all of those hours. Let's look only at the time it takes for the song to be streamed - the "performance" of that song. If somebody streams a song that is (on average) 4 minutes long, that means the band is getting paid $0.10 per hour when streaming their music. A dime per hour, folks. To make an average day's wage for one minimum wage worker, a song would have to be streamed 660 times. For the equivalent of one day's work as a Walmart door greeter or a McDonalds burger flipper. That would mean 3,300 streams every day for each band member to make minimum wage. Let that sink in. 

And the worst part? The artist makes even less than that if they're on a label. So forget those dreams of signing to a label to make the big bucks... Because you actually can make more as an independent artist. A dime per hour is slave labor. Slave labor to whom? The streaming companies! Who make MILLIONS OFF OF YOU. They use YOUR MUSIC to entice advertisers to pay them millions to advertise Coca Cola and Taco Bell to YOUR FANS and then they POCKET THE MONEY. 

If the artist sold a CD (industry average of 50 minutes of music and average $7 profit per $10 CD), they'd be making... You guessed it: $8.40 per hour of music - just over minimum wage. 

These truths are hard to talk about. But there they are. How many apply to you? Did you have any idea? Have you done the math for yourself? Are you a consumer kept in the dark, or a musician crying in the corner? Can you handle the truth? It sucks, that's for sure. 

Remember before when I mentioned how a five piece band would only walk away with $1400 per person after a million streams? If they actually sold a million digital downloads (a system that actually works and people enjoyed) they'd make $140,000 per person. That is no small difference. These guys that used to survive on "mailbox money" as we call it from royalties and record sales are no longer making what they used to make. Not even close. If these musicians want to continue their careers with the same quality of workmanship, quality, and consistency, they need money. They need money for instruments, tour busses, roadies, gas, cartage, insurance, hotels, rentals, live sound engineers, recording costs, album pressing costs, promotional costs, Merch costs... Do I really need to go on? Oh yeah, and FOOD, CLOTHING, and BILLS. 

If you expect to see your favorite indie bands continue down this path, you may be mistaken. Labels aren't looking at them nearly as adoringly. They think rock music is dead, and they aren't looking to fund it. Streaming services don't care about music being furthered - they're in it to make money, and they have found odd loopholes to make themselves millions. 

Let's be honest - we don't desperstely need help with "promotion" or "exposure" anymore. We all have the same Internet. We have an uncountable number avenues on which we can promote, so the idea that Spotify or any of these other streaming networks are getting you exposure is weak at best. Sure, you can find new artists, but you can do that on YouTube too, or any social media site. You can just ask your Facebook friends via status update for suggestions and you'll get hundreds. Most of us find new music from our friends, not from these services. All it takes is your friend saying "hey have you heard the new album from..." And you go look it up. The problem is that people are becoming apathetic - since everyone's music is now on the same plane value wise-- from the crappy YouTube artist all the way up to Springsteen-- people are overrun with music and they're tired of hearing about your band. 

But streaming is likely here to stay. So this raises another big question: who deserves to get paid in music?  Does everyone? Only the talented people? Who decides if they're talented or not? 

To me, anyone that is good at what they do, anyone that is doing a job or service that requires skill, or providing a product that took time and energy to create deserves to be paid for it. What I don't understand is, I'm an independent artist with no label affiliation, yet Spotify and other streaming and digital distribution outlets define the price of my music. When they do that, they're defining my music's worth, which isn't right. If I'm truly independent, I should get to decide that, right? 

It's almost as if someone thought "oh, if we make all songs cost $1, or all songs pay the same for streaming, the indie artists will be on the same plane as the majors, and we will be heroes!" 

No. You just devalued everybody. When I was a kid, I once stood in line for an hour to buy an $20 Smash Mouth CD on its release date. Smash Mouth, guys. 

I paid almost $2 per song in the nineties, and yet even though $2 in 90s is actually worth about $2.92 today (due to inflation), music is now worth less than it has been in the history of the industry. Did you know that an Early 1900s gramaphone recording (4 minutes of music) would cost consumers about $0.50 each? That's almost $14 in today's money... For one song. Yet I don't even make a penny for one play, or a dollar for one purchase. Yes it was new back then, but come on...a penny is nearly worthless today. You'd make more money playing a song on the side of the road, literally. You'd probably get a buck, or even a quarter. Heck - someone can toss you a quarter for singing a song on the side of the road and you've just made 35 times what you make from a streamed song. Think about that for a second. It has become a dangerous war between the continually lowering costs of technology and the intrinsic worth of music. 

I've used this analogy before: do you know how much the Mona Lisa is worth? Some experts say it is worth over $1B. Now if I were to email you a JPEG of the Mona Lisa, even a super high resolution version... How much is that worth? You got it-- zero. When you put something in the digital domain, it's worth almost automatically drops to zero because it can be shared effortlessly, cheaply, and it can be abused by the market. 

These markets define the worth of your art for you, and that is ruining the industry, in so many ways. It's not just monetarily, it's psychosocially. Consumers have almost no choice to perceive art as worthless... Because it costs nothing. And the worst part is...it's absolutely amazing for consumers. They've tastes the forbidden fruit. They've found the Holy Grail. Why would they ever pay for music again? Why would they pay $10 to see you play at a venue when they could watch YouTube for free? Why would they donate to your album fund on Kickstarter when they aren't even going to buy the album anyway? On that note, Why would they pay $10 for your album or even $1 for your song when they can listen to Spotify's 20 million songs for free. 

That raises the more important question: How, then, can they possibly even value music? The answer is: they can't. Like it or not, our brains thrive on making value-based assumptions. Will this food give me more nutritional benefit or not? Will this movie be worth $15? Will this house be a good investment? Is this $1 item really going to be good quality? What about a free item? What about 20 million free "items?" The current system does not support a market of fans. It supports a market of people who mindlessly put on music in the background of their life. 

Good Musicians deserve fair pay. Period. If they want to give their music away for free, they should be able to. If they want to charge $1 per stream, they should be able to. These companies are controlling art, folks. They're controlling how it reaches the world. You think you have a choice... But I can assure you, nobody prefers your bandcamp page to their Spotify playlists. 

Music deserves our money if we ever expect it to have value. It's a fundamental principle of economics - if you have a huge supply, price does down. When there is a limited supply, price goes up. Similarly, when demand is high, price is driven up. When demand is low, price is driven down. The equilibrium is where these things meet - and that's what we have to find. Right now we are experiencing a very strange market over-correction. The floodgates have now opened completely, and nearly every "artist" on the planet can now be streamed instantly, for free. Just like that. So the market needs to adjust. How? It's seriously so very simple - pay artists more and greedy CEOs less. If artists were paid just $0.10 (just ten cents! a dime!) per PLAY, the theoretical band we talked about earlier would be making $20,000 a piece from a million plays, rather than $1400 a piece. That's still not a lot of dough [well below minimum wage still], but if they were good enough to get a million plays in a year--which trust me, is a lot of plays for an indie band--that's actually a decent supplemental income to gigging, Merch, etc. Most musicians would KILL to make that much from album sales, as sad as it is. 

If artists were paid fairly, and it actually cost consumers to stream, I would likely get behind the streaming thing 100%. It's a brilliant way to listen to music, but it's an absolutely impossible way to sustain a market. Name one industry that has survived and thrived on "free." You can't, because there are none. You might as well start labeling musicians as "non profit organizations" to receive all the tax breaks.

The solution? Give back power to the artists. The music economy is literally a communist system at this point--everyone makes the same wage, except those with special ties to those in power. No one is special, no one is better or worse, everyone is marketed as "equals."    When we are marketed as equals, the true definitions of talent, skill, and creativity get more blurred than they already are. As the fabulous David Ramirez put it, "and Every guitarist / thinks he's artist / when we hand out medals for carrying a tune."

Let music be a free market, but never free of charge. Give them a fair chance, not a fixed price. Let them choose their own music's worth. Give them hope. Their art has meaning. It's not yours to exploit, all you streaming companies out there. It's not yours to change and mutilate, or make "relevant," all you labels out there. 

All music is not created equal, so stop treating it like it's supposed to be. Music has worth, so stop pretending it should be free.

How to Criticize Art

I recently saw a friend get in an argument online about how he didn't like Led Zepplin. People were throwing this guy under the bus, telling him how he didn't know anything about music, how he had bad taste, and of course the trolling internet guy that says "shut up and die." The frustrating part was that the poster made some legitimate arguments regarding his stance, and the others simply wouldn't have it. 

I started to ponder: how should we criticize art, and further, how should we criticize each other's opinions on art?

First, I think it's important for people to stop using the phrase "you are wrong" unless it's 100% provable with facts. I think it's worthless to say things like "you're crazy" or "you clearly don't get it," which makes the sayer of such sayings appear as though they have no counterpoint, nothing to add, and therefore they are just a troll.  I think it's dangerous to read things on the Internet ONCE and go off on a rant without considering all that is being said for at least a little while. It's very easy to misinterpret text--especially in a fiery debate. Things are quickly typed and often are posted without proofreading, so do the world a courtesy and read things carefully. If you're unsure, ask a Question. "what do you mean?" Etc. don't form a deep rooted argument in seconds because you chose to read a sentence in your own voice. Try to read posts in the posters voice, not literally, but try to see where they are coming from, why they might say what they say, and whether or not they have thought about it, or if it seems like they're venting in a stream of consciousness fashion. 

When it comes to art, try using phrases like "I prefer," or "I think," rather than commands or insults. If someone makes something that you dislike, try to ask WHY they did what they did. And guess what - you don't have to ask them in public (online included), just ponder it yourself. Try to be better by asking yourself difficult questions. Next time you hear a song or see a piece of art or a photo or video, one that you're not particularly fond of, I challenge you to do just that. Absorb the entirety of the work, Sit there in silence for about 5 minutes, and just think about it. Really think about it. Healthy questions include:

1. What was the intent of this piece?

2. Why did they execute it this way?

3. What emotions or feelings does this present?

4. How does it relate to me?

5. Why do I like it / dislike it? 

If you like the piece, compliment it. If you dislike the piece... Here's a hint: you don't have to voice it. If the poster asks for opinions, feel free. If they don't, consider what you say before you post. Don't just start typing and hope the words come out right---actually sit there and think about your response. You can keep things to yourself, you know. I think it's important to criticize art in your own mind, even if you don't say anything about it. It helps you grow.

Trust me, I'm a firm believer in criticism, so long as it is constructive, and as long as it's warranted. As I've said before, I think white lies are terrible things when it comes to art - as I sometimes say "bluntness keeps you sharp." Constructive criticism also only works if the criticizer forms a legitimate opinion. Constructive criticism looks like this:

"I have an idea..."

"Have you considered..."

"I personally feel this could be better if..."
"Perhaps you could try..." 

Asking questions to the creator of the art is always a good thing. I mean real, honest questions. Not rhetorical or snarky questions, e.g, "what were you thinking?" That doesn't help. It fuels argument, which fuels tunnel vision. 

Criticism is good. I think it helps people grow. People being stuck in their own way is very common, but it can be dangerous sometimes. Ever been in a fight so long that you forget why it started? The same can happen with other tastes and opinions. Sometimes people care more about defending their opinion than the more important thing: constantly seeking knowledge, truth, and happiness. Everybody wants those things, right? I do. But I digress. 

What's wrong with this dude disliking Zep when he has a valid reason? For the record, things like "cuz they suk bro" is NOT a valid reason. I'm talking about a thought-out opinion. The more I think about it, why should this guy have to defend himself with a reason in the first place? Can't he have an opinion? Can't he have taste? Can't he dislike Indian food but love Korean cuisine? What's wrong with people having preferences?

There's this odd sensation that sweeps through the Internet - the desire to have the same opinion. The desire to agree. The desire to convince others of one's own opinion. Why is that? Why do people try so hard to convince others that their opinions are wrong? 

There's a time for putting someone in their place if they've presented outright false information, or if they are about to do or say something stupid. There's also a time to debate when it's civil and actually wanted or needed. But for the most part, why can't we relish the fact that we are diverse? 

From where does this strange notion come? I think it must come from the innate desire to connect, or to be companions, or to be similar and share common ground. But isn't diversity what makes us what we are? The irony here is that people strive to be similar, but yet they want to be special and unique at the same time. We all shudder when we see dystopian-society-themed movies where everyone is a mindless zombie under the control of Big Brother, yet we strive for a global community, singular opinions, and consistent tastes. How strange.

It's frustrating to watch people argue about whether or not something is "good" or "bad," or whether the creator was "talented" or "mediocre" or "terrible." We have probably all been in those arguments. A more stimulating and interesting argument is one that looks past the face and goes beneath to the meaning, for example:

Bad:

"This movie sucks."

"No it doesn't, You suck."

Better: 

"The plot in this movie sucked."

"No it didn't, it had a lot of substance."

Even better: 

"I think this movie lacked a strong storyline, and the character development was weak. It just didn't grab me like I thought it would."

"I think the ambiguity was designed into the film to make you feel disconnected, just as the characters feel disconnected."

The third option above proves that both parties have taken an introspective look into their reaction to the film. They've really considered their stance on a deep level, and they've got a good argument to back it up. I know this can't always happen, but it's a goal, right? 

I think opinions should be rewarded, and discussed. Insulting comments are weak: they signify someone who can't formulate a legitimate constructive criticism, or someone that is being overrun with their emotions that are clouding their judgement. Remember: don't feel the need to criticize just because something is posted. If feedback is warranted, or if it's clear the poster is looking for discussion, then go for it. Otherwise, remember what your mother said: "if you don't have anything good to say, don't say it at all." 

Here's a great video resource for more good tips:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9neybpOvjaQ

Fear Mediocrity

"It's not art if it's easy to do. If anybody can do it, if your little brother can do it, why would you pay for it?" - David Banner

I find this really interesting. I watched a video from David Banner about the state of the music industry, and he had some really interesting things to say. What do you think about this statement? This has been my opinion on the music industry for quite some time now, and it's quite frustrating when you think about it, because defining what is good has become impossibly difficult for music.  

There is so much art out there in the world - music, video, photo, etc. and everyone takes on the stance of - "well who are you to say this sucks?" or "who are you to criticize this person's music?" One of the biggest paradoxes of society today is that everyone is so afraid of offending everyone else, while at the same time, getting offended by everything. You'll see comments on youtube videos or soundcloud posts to the tune of "oh my God you should kill yourself" or "this is terrible, you suck." I'm torn on these statements because while they are mean and mostly posted by malicious people, part of me - a very dark part - actually looks at them as a positive thing. Let me explain. 

There was a time (long ago, mind you) when musicians were hired to entertain the Kings and Queens, and if they were bad, they might be stoned, thrown out, or killed. They certainly wouldn't be paid or fed, in fact, even if they were great they'd be lucky to get paid or fed. Now sure, I'm not saying this is what we need now, haha. But my point is that there was a fear of being bad back in the Middle Ages. It meant pain. Now, there is no fear of being bad. Instead, there is false pride. There are a LOT of haters out there that just want to be mean for no reason, I get that - but then there are people who are actually listening to the music and making a judgement that it sucks. Thanks to the internet, it's now impossible to tell the difference.

Let's look at the opposite side of the coin - the false pride. I see a LOT of music shared on social media. Some of it is incredible, and some of it is terrible, and on both posts I'll see comments like "sounds amazing!" or "you are so talented." In my mind, of course I'm thinking "how can anyone say that this is good? The performance is weak, the lyrics are regurgitated, the music is poorly written, and it feels emotionless... Doesn't even sound like they tried to express any sort of emotion or thought. On the other posts, the music is creative and original, the lyrics are thought provoking, the emotion feels honest. And then it dawned on me - we as a culture have become so desensitized to mediocre music being pushed down our throats, we don't know how to judge it anymore. People are unable to make judgements about music because they are uneducated on the topic. Have you ever heard someone say "I just listen to the beat" when talking about music? What a sad, empty, musical life they must live. They are throwing out hundreds of thousands of songs by saying that statement. What they really mean is "I like music with a 4/4 kick pulse so that I can mindlessly play it in the background without having to actually listen." It might as well be a grandfather clock ticking away. 

Skilled Musicians, however, know how to judge music, at least to some degree. They can, within minutes, understand the complexity and creativity of a piece of music, they can identify strengths and weaknesses in the performance, and they can sense the emotion and honesty that went into making it. I'm not talking about recording quality - I'm talking about the music. They might make a comment like "This song really lost me with the lyrics and the music sounds is really formulaic." and people will lash out at them for making an informed, relatively polite criticism. Which is ridiculous, isn't it? Why can't someone make a suggestion? Why can't someone have an opinion? 

Sure, I know that art can be formulaic and still be good. Just because something is "different" doesn't make it art, and just because something is common doesn't make it "not art." Look at pop music - there can still be great pop songs even though they have many similar details. Most songs follow a similar structure, have similar chord progressions, and have similar dynamic structures. But that's what makes it art - when you take the formulas and turn them into something great, primarily when it comes to the combination of emotion, lyrics, melodies, rhythms, and chords. The "new spin on the same old thing" is what makes it interesting. 

The truth is, the average Joe/Jane doesn't know much about music. They hear a song and decide within 15 seconds (according to some studies) if they like the song or not. 15 seconds!  What does that tell you? They often don't care about lyrics, dynamics, structure, or arrangement. They often don't care about meaning. And at the core of it all, music is about storytelling. Even if the song is instrumental, it still tells a story that deserves an open ear. If the average song is 4 minutes long, they decide whether or not they like a story whilst only hearing 1/16th of the story. That's the equivalent of watching a movie and walking out of the theater after 7.5 minutes. In many movies, that won't get you past the opening scene or two. You've barely met the characters. You don't really even have an idea of what is about to happen. Doesn't the movie deserve a fair shot?

That of course raises a different question - how bad does a movie have to be before you walk out in 7.5 minutes? If we translate this into music, what might it be saying about the state of songwriting? 

Let's look at this differently. People travel from all reaches of the earth to visit the Louvre museum in Paris. I've been there, and it's amazing. Many of the paintings in that museum are from unknown or unpopular artists. Yes, the Mona Lisa is there, but there are paintings littered about that museum, everywhere you can see. So here's my question - who decides what goes into the museum? Who decides what is worthy? My assumption is that there is a board, or a panel, of critics/experts that decide what is worthy to go in a museum like that. Yet some people think music is beyond this - the whole who are you to say this is bad music? 

Everyone remembers Simon from American Idol. So many people had it out for the guy and said he was mean, rude, etc. But you know what? He was right, 90% of the time, and He was honest 100% of the time. He didn't give people false pride. He didn't tell them "you're amazing" when they weren't. People would boo and yell at him for "being mean," when in reality, he was being truthful. Society doesn't like truth - they like white lies. They like fantasy. They like a fairy tale (ironically, they like fairy tales but don't like or have time for musical storytelling...) Society thinks it's a good idea to "encourage" and "support" those that are mediocre, but there's a point where it becomes dangerous - now the skill-less person has a false sense of pride, and they continue without a kick in the ass from anyone. I don't know about you, but some of my most humbling moments (and most educational moments) have come from someone saying I needed to practice more, or that I was lacking, or that I wasn't good enough, or that I was wrong, or that I was inexperienced. Those things can be hurtful, yes, but they end up making you a better person. They drive you to be better, because one of the few things we like more than being known is being impressive.

So what I'm getting at is this: we need people to fear being bad but accept criticisms. We need people to sit in their rooms and work, work, work at their art until they feel they are ready. The problem is that culturally, we've accepted "you're ready" way too easily. "You're Ready" in society today basically means "You just figured out how to upload it to youtube." It may sound harsh, but it's true. I think fear is a powerful motivator. Fear of the Simons. Fear of the critics. Fear of the ones who actually know something about music. Fear mediocrity. Those who fear mediocrity will likely show their music to peers, to people that are better than them, and they're humble enough to admit it. Their peers give them advice. They proceed to work until it's perfect. When it's ready, they release it to the world. 

And that's the second thing...we as a culture need to educate people on music and art. We need people to have informed opinions. Not only that, but people need to crave talent. We need to foster a culture of people that crave talent, skill, so that they can recognize it. If they actually know what they're looking at or hearing, They'll cherish it. There are a lot of talented people in the world, and I hate that many of them are essentially just youtube carny sideshow acts. People watch their videos for amusement, not for absorption. They don't think twice about it. We are conditioned to go from carny to carny, enjoying out 15 seconds of laughter, our 15 seconds of amazement, or 15 seconds of fear, our 15 seconds of empowerment, like a fun house. We are conditioned to hop from site to site, content to content, video to video, without giving much thought into what we just witnessed. We watch it, we move on. It's training us to be thoughtless, passive, and emotionless. It's training us to be consumers of general content rather than enthusiasts of the actual content presented. We are trained to like, like, like, like, which lowers our standard of what we actually do like.

So here's my moral of the day:

1. Fear mediocrity. Live your life striving for greatness, always.
2. Embrace criticisms, ask why, don't get offended.
3. Surround yourself with people who are better than you. 4. Learn to spot the difference between haters and honest opinions.
5. Be picky about what you define as "good art."


For those asking "how do we actually criticize art, then? Isn't it all subjective?"... That will be my next blog post. 

Another Daily Dose of "WTF IS HAPPENING TO THE MUSIC INDUSTRY?"

I came across this article today. 

http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2015/09/youtubes-biggest-threat-to-the-music-industry-may-not-be-what-you-think.html

If you're feeling lazy and you don't want to read that article (although I highly recommend it), I'll give you the skinny. 
Apparently, the next generation (after Millennials) isn't nearly as interested in music as generations prior. In fact, they're more interested in youtubers like this "PewDiePie" dude (a gamer, who reviews games, and reacts to games on camera, and makes $1M per month from Youtube doing so). If you ask me, this is getting a little creepy - a little too "Truman Show." To know that the next generation's media consumption boils down to watching people live their lives on youtube videos, religiously. Apparently, on average 15 hours of youtube watching per WEEK!

Really creepy if you ask me. And VERY sad for the music industry. Say it ain't so. Again, I know who I would point fingers at (pirating, the internet, labels, streaming, radio, mass media, etc) for not keeping the interest of their market and instead turning the music industry into a communist system where the rich stay rich and everyone else works for pennies. I mean that's literally what's happening in the music industry. In fact, gamers sitting on their butt produce far more interest (and money!) than what's on the radio. Sad.

Speaking of movie references, this reminds me of that great scene from "When Harry Met Sally" that so accurately portrays my feelings on the matter. They're driving to New York, and Harry asks her to tell him the story of her life to pass the time. She says "well, nothing's really happened to me yet, that's why I'm moving to New York." And he responds, "So something will happen to you? Like what?" And she says "I'm going to journalism school to become a reporter." And his punchline: "Oh, so you can write about things that happen to other people."

When I was a kid, a hobby of mine was just sitting in my room, putting on a cassette (or CD) and just staring into the speaker like a doofus, hoping to glean some meaning from the vibrations and tones and lyrics. I would lay on my floor with large coily-cabled headphones and close my eyes, trying to paint a picture in my head of the band singing to me, imagining where everyone was standing, or what they might be doing in a music video to that song. I'd do this for hours, daily. I'd even invite my friends over and we'd stare into the speakers together. We'd talk. We'd laugh and crack jokes. We'd air drum or air guitar (back before anyone I knew played guitar or drums).

And look where we are today. People put on music on a 1/4" mono phone speaker and put their phone on the table next to them while they surf facebook. The highest quality digital format available to the mass public is CD. STILL. After almost 30 years. Every industry is booming in the entertainment world except music. Movies, Film, TV, Youtube, social media, apps, etc.

SO. Here's my crazy plan to save the music industry: 

1. Pay Artists Fairly for streams and radio, and let them define what their music is worth. No, iTunes, you don't get to tell me my song is worth $1.29 if I think it's worth $1.41. It's the principle of the thing.
2. Abolish record labels entirely (now that everything is digital, what's the point? They're just a bank with a lot of phone numbers.)
3. After ^ is complete, Establish new ways for artists to get loans, funding, independent of labels.
4. Encourage mediocre artists to practice before they publish. Seriously. Stop thinking you're amazing and wait until you're ready.
5. Encourage the general population to embrace HD Audio. Analog, digital, home theater, home stereo, headphones, car, ALL of it. We have more technology now than ever to have AMAZING sounding audio all around us. 

6. Encourage local cities to cherish their local artists and DISCOURAGE playing covers. Covers don't help music grow forward, they make it move backward. If you don't have enough material to fill up a set, you shouldn't be playing a gig.

7. Encourage local venues to have standards like "you must be this good to play this venue," otherwise, people will stop going to that venue because they're tired of mediocre shows.

8. Encourage touring, gigging, and advertising of artists. Don't look down on them for wanting to share ART with YOU.

9. Discourage turning artists into corporate sellouts because they're desperate for money.

10. Revitalize music in a social media environment - because it sucks now.

11. Establish higher quality streaming and never make it free to the public.

12. Encourage artists to be themselves, come out with wild new material, as long as it's true to their passion and has nothing to do with market pressures.

13. Encourage people to turn off the computer and pick up a real instrument.

14. Promote the idea of "music listening" as a HOBBY. As something to sit and just DO. No wonder kids have ADHD problems today...they are suffering from information and electronics OVERLOAD.

15. Abolish the giants that control radio play and "who deserves to be on radio." All they care about is money.

16. Encourage people to record at home...but when the time is right to actually make the real record, record with someone who knows what they're doing. Aside from having an ACTUAL studio, with nice rooms, equipment, etc., you have an unbiased third party who can guide you along the way, leaving you to focus specifically on the music and the performances, and them to focus on all the technical parts. Almost every great record has been made this way. Seriously.

17. Promote ACTIVE listening...actually thinking about lyrics, melodies, and what it all means.


In truth, this has nothing to do with the fact that I'm an audio engineer for a living. Before I was an audio engineer, I was a musician. Before that, I was a music lover. Now, I fill all three of those roles. I couldn't care less if my job disappears in 10 years. What I really want is for music to live on, to grow, to expand. I want it to improve. I want to be able to turn on the radio and hear a KILLER song that I've never heard before (which now happens about...once a year?) To me, there will always be a career in music. Even if it pays worse than crap, I'll still do it. It's what I love to do. It's my passion. But I believe that the industry can change. It has changed SO MUCH in the last 20 years, it's time for us to catch up and make it our own again.