Music Streaming: “Dressed-up Piracy?”

Here in the digital age, streaming has become quite the norm.  In fact, YouTube receives more than 1 billion unique visitors each month and over 6 billion hours of video are watched each month (https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/en-GB/statistics.html).  It’s safe to say that this statistic is quite amazing and many people in the younger generations take this amazing tool for granted.  The question that has been widely debated regarding streaming though is if it is a force for good or a force for evil!  Since I, myself am an artist as well as an avid music consumer, I will look at both sides of this argument.

First of all Rosanne Cash who is the daughter of the famous Johnny Cash voiced a very strong opinion on streaming on Facebook recently that essentially stated that if you aren’t buying a download or buying a physical CD, you are essentially stealing.  This makes sense to a certain extent because yes, there are cases such as leaked albums or “ripped” songs that aren’t supposed to be heard unless you buy an album that make their way onto YouTube for the whole world to see.  This seems to be inevitable as it just recently happened with Beyonce’s upcoming release and is not a great thing to hear because it is out of the artist’s control and is unwanted.  But the other side that I don’t think that Rosanne is considering is that although she is partially correct, times have completely changed.  We are in the digital age and it is ridiculous to even attempt to envision a time where you can’t stream or even illegally download.  Because of this, artists are using the amazing tools available to them such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud and more in order to market their music, enhance their music sales, and to get more people to shows.  Getting people to shows is becoming an increasingly important thing as of recently as this is the only facet of the industry that isn’t quickly leaking money.  If the music is going to be put on the internet for everyone to see despite your best efforts, you might as well go with it, market it, and spread it because this type of sharing isn’t going anywhere. As stated in the “music industry blog”, although streaming may have hurt music sale revenue, it has made up for it with live revenues (http://musicindustryblog.wordpress.com/2014/11/03/windowing-shake-it-off/).  The live industry is thriving right now and one could draw a correlation between this and the vast increase in streaming and social media use.  You have the possibility to reach an astronomical amount of people via streaming on YouTube so why not use this promotional tour to get your name out there and to bring more people to shows.

On the other hand, the point where I definitely do agree with Rosanne on is where she states “I’m IN this business and I see young musicians give up their missions and dreams all the time because they can’t make a living.”  This is very true and is a sad sight to see.  Streaming sites like YouTube and Spotify are now the norm as there has been a dramatic shift in music consumption, but these resources only pay the artists micropennies for their hard earned work.  The artist may have put hundreds of hours, thousands of dollars in the studio, sleepless nights, and days filled with anxiety in order to create a piece of art that can be enjoyed by other people but then 5 people buy a CD and 1,000 people stream it paying 50 cents to the artist.  Times aren’t like they used to be where you would either have to buy a ticket to the show to listen to an artist or to buy a physical album so sales have definitely taken a turn for the worst.  Unless the artist is a mega star like Justin Bieber or Taylor Swift, artists can’t exactly depend on a revenue stream coming from streaming and live music alone making it hard to keep recording new music, touring, or just paying the rent.  I think that if we hope to have new and exciting artists who make original work in the future we need a better model for pay outs on streaming services since the music consumption model has changed to streaming being at the pinnacle.  Currently, the wealth is distributed so that the small amount of artists already doing amazing receive over 90% of the pay while the hundreds of thousands of other artists split the leftovers.  This doesn’t sound right to me.

As you can see, there are two sides of every story which is especially evident in the debate that I have discussed.  The bottom line is that it is for the consumer to decide what is right and wrong in this situation.  They have the control ultimately over how money is distributed as they have the choice to buy the album, download it, pirate it, or stream it.  Either way, as an artist or as a consumer, keep yourself informed on which side you are supporting and how it affects the industry and the artists who make the music you enjoy!

A New Way To Learn Music

In 2014, it’s safe to say that there is no shortage of subscription services online.  You’ve got your Netflix, Hulu, and HBO Go for online TV and movies, Spotify, Napster, and Deezer which are music streaming services, and you’ve even got subscription services such as TrunkClub which is a styling subscription service that sends you clothes!  There are subscription services everywhere that do almost anything you can think of that make your life as convenient as possible but for music consumers, one service has always been lacking.  That has been music education.

                Apollo-M is the solution to this lack of music education and is largely funded by one of the largest companies for music education: LearnToPlayMusic.com. They have injected over $2 million for their aspirations of helping more people have access to more knowledge online.  The service is expected to launch around Spring of 2015 and are hoping to attract one million subscribers within one month.  If this occurred, Apollo-M would be placed among the top twenty “social and content delivery platforms.”  They claim to have over 35 years of music lesson content in fact.  This service is not only for the person just picking up the guitar but it can also be used by a professional musician looking to branch out and learn more.

What I think is especially great about this is how much money you can save.  The subscription costs $5 per month and for this price, you will have access to any sort of lessons for any sort of instrument you can think of.  I remember when I began playing guitar at the age of 16, I would spend all my cash on my favorite guitarists’ instructional DVD’s or tablature to learn to play a song that I loved.  Just a DVD or Tab book alone could cost $20.  If I had this service when I was growing up and learning, I could have had access to a much larger library of knowledge for a lower price.  Plus, another reason why they have a leg up on the traditional ways of learning guitar is that they have what is called: “Apollo-M Interactive Gameplay”, which they claim is the most advanced learning tool available.  I like this because it has the potential to make something like learning Music Theory which to many (including myself) can be rigorous and a pain to learn, fun.  Not only this, but they are also creating a social network that can connect you with musicians with similar tastes, connect music professionals to other music professionals, and to bring together students and teachers together one on one, live!  The only problem that I see here is that in 2014 there are thousands upon thousands of instructional videos, demonstrations, lessons, and videos on YouTube alone that can all be accessed for free as well as ways to connect musicians, professions, and student and teachers so it will be interesting to see how Apollo-M can expand upon this and create something even better.

Also, because this is a paid subscription service, I can only image that there might be some sort of compensation for the teachers who put lessons on this service.  This could create revenue for many music teachers of many genres playing a plethora of different instruments.  It isn’t mentioned specifically how the compensation is going to work but we can hope that contributors can be rewarded like how a band is paid for streams on Spotify (however little that may be).

The other reason why I think this is a fantastic idea is because it can help create a brighter future for all the future musicians.  Even though the industry seems to be shrinking with the drastic decline of record sales, that doesn’t stop people from either learning to play an instrument just for fun or to try and create a hit song and tour the world!  It can only benefit the business and music in and of itself having musicians with more knowledge that can really expand their mind and create something special.  Musicians from across the world that maybe could never afford to have one on one lessons for $50 per session can access a plethora of content online for only $5.  There is no limit to what kind of good that this service could do on developing brains.  Music has a magical effect on students young and old showing how beneficial it can be.  According to the latest scientific research, neuropsychologist Nadine Gaab claims that if you are able to start picking up an instrument earlier in life, you are more likely to have better reading skills, better math skills, and overall better learning and comprehension(http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2014/07/music-language-brain).

All in all, I think that this service can really benefit a large scale of people and can help to shape musicians of future.  Not only can one learn a variety of instruments and new genres to expand your playing if you are new to music or are a professional, but you can also access everything for a low price.  So no one has the excuse not to learn music for lack of money or lack of resources!

Source: https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/apollo-m-brings-netflix-style-080000248.html       

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. 

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