Saturday, September 27, 2014

Working to Survive in Music

     I think the first thing to note about this post is the word survive.  Not flourish, not get rich, not drive in a Lamborghini, but to get by, to endure, to withstand.  Of course I'm talking about what it's like for the average musician trying to pursue what they love.  I mean, from an outsider perspective it seems like every musician on MTV has a huge mansion, 20 gold chains hanging from their neck, and a flock of women that are omnipresent no matter where the artist goes.  When friends and family ask about what it was like for me to tour, they almost always started with: "How was tour? Was it the experience of a lifetime?  You are so lucky!".  Don't get me wrong, touring was the experience of my life that was the deciding factor for who I want to be and what I want to do with my life, but it was also one of the most stressful, scary, sweaty stinky, hungry, and thirsty times in my life.  Living on the road with next to no money to feed a group of people let alone pay for outrageous gas prices.  This isn't helped by how much my band and I make from digital music outlets such as Spotify, iTunes, Amazon, etc.  Making a thousandth of a penny didn't exactly buy a Big Mac.  The point that I'm getting at here is that the music industry is a vast (not to mention over-saturated) treasure trove of entertainment bliss for music consumers across the globe.  There's something for everyone out there that can absolutely light up their day!  The only problem is that these entertainers who put their lives into their work aren't making enough to simply... SURVIVE.
     This is for several reasons.  First of all, the market is absolutely oversaturated.  It is absolutely a milestone for an artist to swim from the bottom of their local music scene and emerge from the surface and get noticed.  This is because there are thousands and thousands of bands who sound almost exactly the same who want the exact same thing as you.  They may even want it more than you do!  This is one of the reasons so many artists don't get the pay that they deserve.  It's like spreading a tablespoon of peanut butter and trying to cover 1000 pieces of bread. 
   Also, there's the whole debacle of artists getting paid in lint and thousandths of a hay penny for their song reaching audiences online.  Whether that is Pandora, Spotify, iTunes, Amazon, or any other online distribution source, the artist isn't getting near enough money!  These companies get incredible amounts of income from advertisements that are seen by the online listeners that only reach the listeners because of YOUR MUSIC.  So in other words, these companies are cashing in on all of the advertisements made possible by YOU, all while you don't make a penny.  Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, right?  Well lucky for us (if you are a musician), there are many people who are thinking the same way and are taking steps to do something about it.  One of which is #IRespectMusic.  One of their philosophies that is posted on their home page by the recording artist Blake Morgan is that "we artists and musicians have the right to expect from our profession what others expect from their professions.  That through hard work and determination, perspiration and inspiration, we'll have the same fair shot to realize our dreams, answer our callings, support our families.  I respect my profession.  I respect artists.  I respect music."
I think this is an absolutely beautiful statement because I feel that even though consumers want the easy way to get music, like torrenting or streaming where the musician makes next to nothing or nothing, they need to recognize money doesn't grow on trees.  The music didn't get made from free.  It didn't take seconds for the artist to take or record.  It took hours of hard work that was not without cost and then proceeds through countless other steps before it reaches your ears.  Therefore, I feel that for artists to continue to make music that the masses may enjoy, they must be able to make enough money to survive and that starts with us musicians getting treated like how other professionals are treated. 

Friday, September 12, 2014

Is There Really a Difference Between MP3, CD, and Hi-Res?

Over the years, it's become very important for consumers to have smaller and smaller devices with more and more storage, better audio quality, with less cost and greater user efficiency.  Take for instance the iPod or cell phones over the years.  What was once bulky and inefficient can now travel in your pocket and can do a million things with aps and mobile internet. One of the by-products of these recent developments is the over-compression of music files.  Compression works by using algorithms that simply decide what frequencies are necessary to the listener and which ones are not.  The ones that aren't necessary are thrown away.  So when you throw a CD into your computer and burn it into iTunes, it goes through this process of compression.  This results in a file that takes up less space allowing you to store more on your device.
The question here is if you can really tell the difference between a compressed and uncompressed file.  According to Tim Jonze, who is the music editor of "The Guardian", "Yes, I could (tell the difference), although perhaps not in the transformative was I was expecting.  The higher quality recordings become ever crisper and clearer... But for me, appreciating the difference was reliant on a degree of concentration".
Jason Phipps, the head of audio at “the Guardian” stated that “I found it difficult to discern a sharp and noticeable difference other than to the quality of the lower frequency sounds.” The general consensus among listeners is that the difference isn’t really too noticeable until it’s pointed out.  Once it’s made obvious, it is much easier to tell the difference.  But once this difference can be seen, it is clear that much is lost in the compression process. 
My question is, why is compression still being used after we know how much quality of sound is lost in the compression process.  With every new iPod or laptop or any type of hard drive storage where music is kept, more storage is made available.  My first iPod many years ago which was an iPod mini had around 5 GB of storage.  Now, storage on iPods have skyrocketed over the course of several years and can now store 180GB or more without being any bigger!  So with the greater amount of storage, wouldn’t you rather have better quality music than a compressed file mucking up your favorite artist’s album?
For me, I will admit to saying that 99% of my music is digital.  I buy most of my music online because it is convenient and it makes it super easy for me to get music on my mobile devices because that’s where I listen to the most music.  I’ve lived for years not knowing about the difference between compressed and uncompressed files until I learned about it a few years ago in school.  After hearing the difference, I feel dissatisfied with the quality after compression.  Something to consider though is that I am an audio snob! So I myself am completely fine with being able to hold many uncompressed files other than a billion compressed songs.  While on the hunt to learn more about this topic, I stumbled across an article on media monkey.  I learned that compression saves about 20% of storage when it throws out “unneeded” frequencies.  I think that it is more than worth it to store 1/5 less on devices that can already store more music than I will ever purchase in my entire life! (http://www.mediamonkey.com/mp3-ogg-wma-audio-faq.htm)
The cool thing is that something called hi-res music is becoming more and more supported through many more electronics manufacturers.  There has been a lot of confusion though about what this actually is.  Is it CD quality, or is it better?  Actual hi-res music is the equivalent of a 24-bit studio master.  This is the highest quality around right now because it essentially is exactly what the studio puts out at the end of the recording process before it’s compressed to CD and compressed again to mp3.  According to “the Guardian magazine”, “the studio masters sounded fuller, more spacious and less flat… (the sound is also) less produced and more raw or natural, as it would be listening live.”
Once heard, it becomes apparent how deprived the world has been by using Mp3 because after hearing hi-res recordings sound and receiving the “studio master” instead of a compressed file it’s plain to hear how much better it is.  The only problem is that it is more expensive than a standard MP3 (an album can cost 18 euros in the UK) and can take up between 2 and 5GB instead of around 60MB for a compressed album.  In my opinion, it is worth it to hear the best of the best!
In summation, even though it is tough to hear the difference at first, there is a rather large loss of quality in the process of compression.  But there are advancements on the horizon that can give consumers the best sounding recording available! Although it is more expensive and takes up more space, it is clearly worth it for people who love music and who geek out at a great sounding recording like I do!
Source: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/21/mp3-cd-24-bit-audio-music-hi-res?CMP=twt_gu