Music Criticism in 2010
What’s the purpose of music criticism? I admit, the question may sound naive and juvenile but think about it for a second.
If you’re reading criticism, what utility are you seeking? Presumably, you are in the market to buy or steal some new music and you need someone or something to help refine your choices. In my opinion, it’s all about music discovery.
What if you’re writing criticism, what’s in it for you? Maybe you have the noble purpose of rewarding those who create great content with praise (and the opposite for those who create poor content). At best, your criticism encourages creativity and thoughtfully steers people into broadening their horizons. Unfortunately, I think that’s seldom the case. More often then not, music criticism becomes merely a means for critics to show-off their depth of knowledge in pop culture or music trivia.
Before the internet, music criticism was far more vital than it is today. Buying a record was an act made more or less on blind faith and hunches. You might have heard one song on the radio but you had no way of sampling the entire album before purchase. At that time, we needed critics, no matter what their agendas were, to help steer us in the right direction.
Today, it doesn’t take much internet savvy to hear an album/track before purchase (or stealing). Instead of reading a review of the music, we can go straight to the source and hear it for ourselves. Consequentially, traditional music criticism has lost almost all of it’s value in my opinion. Artists still care what Rolling Stone thinks of their latest effort but the consumer should really care less. Why let David Fricke or anyone else influence your decisions when you can make up your own mind? Really, what gives a music critic the authority to be a trusted source on musical value? What does his or her resume look like? Criticism is not something that you can get better at over time like most other skills. I would even argue that music critics are the worst people to take your music recommendations from. They’re jaded, they’ve seen it all, and aren’t easily impressed.
If it’s all about music discovery to begin with, I would value a friend or acquaintance’s opinion or recommendation much higher than a music critic’s. Hopefully, that friend or acquaintance will know my musical preferences and make suggestions accordingly. That person might also know things that I haven’t listened to or been exposed to and thus could make suggestions on that basis. In all cases, I think taking music (or other content) suggestions from friends is a better method of music discovery. That’s why I’m excited about the social initiatives Spotify and MOG are taking. Pandora’s Facebook integration is great too. I think these types of features represent the future of music discovery and criticism’s influence will continue to wane. I don’t think many people will miss their snarkiness.
Apple Can’t Make iTunes a Subscription Service… yet
After Lala announced that it would be shutting down at the end of May, tons of chatter began about the coming Apple subscription service. It’s no secret that Apple has intentions of moving some portion of its iTunes business into the cloud. They confirmed those ambitions by purchasing Lala a few months ago. However, people forget a huge roadblock that prevents Apple from turning iTunes into a subscription business: they don’t have the legal rights. As of now, the music sold in iTunes is licensed to Apple only for a la carte sale. Apple would have to go back and re-license every track in its 10 million+ song catalog in order to be a viable subscription service. They can’t simply flip a switch that turns iTunes into a subscription service (although that would be great for consumers).
Peter Kafka at All Things Digital reports that his sources at labels have hinted that Apple has begun preliminary talks about securing rights for an iTunes.com. Kafka points out that these talks are very young and the likelihood of Apple unveiling a subscription service on June 7th is extremely low. Most likely, Apple will soon unveil a cloud based storage locker for iTunes purchases. Such an offering will not be the Spotify/MOG/Pandora killer that everyone is talking about. Also, it’s unclear whether Apple even has the rights to offer this extension of iTunes. Rights holders are claiming that a cloud based service accessible on multiple devices constitutes a different type of use than the a la carte digital track or album sale. They are arguing that they should receive adjusted compensation from Apple for this new type of use. That’s an issue for the lawyers to work out.
In the end, Steve Jobs has to be considering eventually pushing iTunes into a subscription service; it just isn’t going to happen this summer and probably not this year. Subscriptions services are very low margin compared to hardware sales but he has to be thinking that such an offering will boost iPhone and iPad sales. In the meantime, competitors like Spotify, MOG, Rhapsody, and Pandora have a chance to entrench themselves in the marketplace. If they don’t take a stronghold now, Apple will undoubtedly wreak havoc as mighty competitor soon.
Why Release Dates?
Last night at Webster Hall, I was pleased to hear that Frightened Rabbit‘s opening band, Maps and Atlases, was actually really good. Not too surprising as Frightened Rabbit is really starting to gain steam. You would think that they would have some quality support on their tour. Maps and Atlases definitely impressed with their complicated song structures and an amazing drummer. This is however, besides the point.
Towards the end of their set, the band announced that they have a new record coming out in June. I’ve heard bands announce these things countless times, but it really stuck me as odd and antiquated last night. Turns out that Maps and Atlases were recently signed to Barsuk Records and will be releasing their “debut” album June 29th. I don’t mean to call out Barsuk’s marketing strategy on this one because I know that most indies are still using this “build to climax” release strategy. Now I understand all of the traditional reasons why record labels (especially majors) do this. They need to pitch the long lead press outlets months in advance for the chance that they might get a review or feature in a major magazine. They also want to have all of their marketing efforts reach a frenzy point around the release date so the buzz will continue to build on itself. These reasons make sense if you have an extensive radio campaign as part of the marketing plan but do they really matter for smaller indie bands?
Traditional (print) press is definitely losing it’s influence at least from a record sales standpoint. Buzz builds most when people have the music in their hands. Attention spans are so short now, you can’t expect someone to wait for a release date for an unknown band. Why not put the music out as soon as it’s finished? Then it doesn’t matter if it leaks. People are going to steal the music no matter when you put it out so at least give the people that want to buy the music an option to do so. In a nutshell, everything should be focused on building fans, not on securing press. The press will come once an audience is in place.
Apple vs. Amazon vs. Google
The three behemoths of technology are getting ready to battle over who will rule the new publishing industry. It’s interesting because not one of them really cares too much about dominating the space. Their core business all respectively lie in another sector. However, egos will get involved and fireworks will inevitable follow.
The publishing industry is merely a pawn in Steve Job’s game of hardware dominance. He needs the Big 6 publishers to sign up with iTunes so all of those iPad owners have something to buy in the bookstore. He could really care less if this helps the publishing industry as a whole. Can you blame him?
Bezos is in a similar position but he knows his Kindle is an inferior product. He’s hoping that he can outsell iTunes by using books as a loss-leader. Amazon can afford to do this because the rest of their business is so strong. However the publishers are really pissed off (read Ken Auletta’s great article here) with this plan. They don’t want to be told what to price their products. Rightfully so there, but is a digital book really worth as much as a paper copy? After all, screen glare is annoying and you can’t show off a digital book on a bookshelf.
Google has a different strategy of sheer brute force. Scan millions of books a year and have the largest catalog on the planet. Let anyone on any device access the material. Make all of that text searchable through Google. If you find something of interest on Google Books, you can preview part of it and then buy the whole text through their soon to be launched digital book store.
Who will win? I don’t really know. Definitely has a lot to do with the success of the iPad. If history repeats itself and Job’s duplicates the success of the iPod, he will be hard to beat. Regardless of who wins, is this good for the publishers? Probably not. I don’t see Kindles or iPads boosting readership rates. People that read books already might start substituting those purchases with ebooks. That will most likely hurt the publishers’ bottom line. People that don’t read books won’t do so on the iPad and definitely won’t buy a Kindle. This will be interesting to watch though.
Unvarnished
I’m intrigued by the soon to be launched site Unvarnished. Unvarnished allows its users to anonymously comment about other people on a public profile. They claim that the site is an online resource for “building, managing, and researching professional reputation, using community-contributed, professional reviews.” The site is in private beta know but I’m anxious to poke around on it (if you have an invite please send one my way).
I think that Unvarnished represents a shift for how people will use social media. Slander and bashing is not new to social networks but it has always in some capacity been discouraged by developers and/or culturally taboo. Facebook doesn’t have a “dislike” button and the lack of anonymity on sites like LinkedIn probably keeps most recommendations hollow and superficial. Charlie O’Donnell at the Business Insider pointed out that Unvarnished represents an unprecedented opportunity to actually get valuable and constructive feedback. Let’s face it, no one is going to give you anything but a glowing review on LinkedIn. There just isn’t any incentive to be honest. However, when you obscure the identity of the commenter, you allow for genuine and honest feedback. Your comments or collective reputation on Unvarnished could end up being a truly valuable asset in your career (and especially in a job search).
You might also think that Unvarnished could unravel into a free-for-all bashing by bitter clients, coworkers, and even psycho ex-girlfriends. I admit that’s quite possible, but Unvarnished has built in some checks and balances to prevent absolute libel. There will undoubtedly be some bashing going on, but as the service becomes more mainstream, I would argue that users will start to discount and even ignore blatant attacks. Everyone has enemies and the internet makes it too easy to bad mouth someone. It’s impossible to please everyone at all times in the business world and tiffs and hurt feelings are inevitable. I think that experienced Unvarnished users will be able develop a filter for comments based in fact and hollow praise or worthless attacks.
Regardless of the outcome, I think Unvarnished is poised to become the next big culturally phenomenon. Bold statment I know but everyone wants to know what people say about them behind closed doors.
Simplicity is King
Clay Shirky is a genius. If you haven’t already, go and read his latest blog post on The Collapse of Complex Business Models now. He is undoubtedly much smarter than me and his insights are much more valuable than mine. His central argument is pointed at the TV/Film industry where obvious lines can be drawn to all other media industries. The central thesis is that when stress is introduced to a business model, most of the time that model can impose additional levels of complexity or bureaucracy in order to mediate that stress or even extract additional value from it. However, there is a limit to how far this pattern can repeat. Eventually, the weight and sluggishness of the model’s bureaucracy will make it susceptible to competition from simply structured and more nimble competitors. At that point, if further bureaucracy cannot squash these competitors, the model must simplify down to a competitively manageable level or face collapse. This pattern has played out many times in the history of the media industry when new and disruptive technologies are introduced.
Shirky hits on this obvious but often over looked mantra early in his post: “there are two ways to generate a profit: raise revenues above expenses, or cut expenses below revenues.” Glaringly obvious but also painfully true and hard to swallow. It’s clear that revenues in the recorded music industry are falling. To avoid collapse, simplification or further expense cuts need to happen. Many lament the fact that thousands of people have lost their jobs in the music industry as the firms scale back expenses. I feel that unfortunately, we are still very far from reaching an equilibrium where further layoffs and expense cuts are no longer necessary. The complexity in major and indie record labels was built upon the revenues of physical sales, not subscription models. Subscription models will I think eventually bring in massive amounts of revenue, but they still might not save the majority of the music industry jobs out there. More simplicity needs to be reached to better match this new business.
Shirky’s post has an apocalyptic tone but all is not negative. I particularly like his closing line: “when the ecosystem stops rewarding complexity, it is the people who figure out how to work simply in the present, rather than the people who mastered the complexities of the past, who get to say what happens in the future.” Hopefully the hungriest of us can figure out how to be the people working simply in the future.
What should I listen to?
In an interview with Music Think Tank yesterday, Dave Kusek expertly summed up the changing state of the music industry when he said “Knowing what to listen to is more important than having it in your collection. That is becoming more true every day.” Dave’s kind of a guru in this space and authored The Future of Music which is very relevant to anyone interested in these topics.
As cloud based streaming models slowly become ubiquitous, music will no longer be a scare commodity. When you have 10 million+ tracks available instantly at your finger tips, time becomes the true scarce resource for music fans. How do you figure out what to listen to with that much choice? Lot’s of smart people and companies are already trying to solve that problem. Most people won’t or wouldn’t like to admit it, but we like to be told what to listen to or what’s cool. That’s true for both the soccer mom listening to Celine Dion in her minivan and the most devout Pitchfork music snobs. The avenues for discovery music might be different, but people still take cues on what to listen to from their friends, the press, and even subconsciously from background music. Don’t be a snob and tell me that you are original and only like bands that are “off the radar.” And please don’t tell me that you “discovered” some new band in Brooklyn. We all develop tastes from social cues, some are just more obvious or overt than others.
So what to listen to? If I had that answer I would be building a company right now and not blogging. I do think that MOG is doing the best job at this right now. They cleverly blended social networking functionality into their streaming music service. They’re not trying to become a full blown social network and steal attention from Facebook (which would be a mistake) but instead just rely on social networking’s ability to recommend content from trusted peers. They blend these social networking features with more sophisticated algorithm based suggestion, and traditional editorial recommendations. I think they are right on in structuring their music recommendation wing as a blend of different services. Also, the music streaming service itself is pretty great as well. Thinking I might go ahead sign up once they offer a mobile app. Check it out: MOG – 3 day trial
Boiling Frogs
Everyone has heard the boiling frog anecdote. You can place a frog in a pot of room temperature water and slowly heat it until eventually the frog will be boiled alive. Try to place a live frog in a pot of already boiling water and it will jump out immediately, etc. Why does this work? Because frogs are reptiles, they have a brain that lacks the ability for any kind of advanced cognitive processes. Frogs are stupid animals. The people that work at major record labels however are not stupid animals. So why are these companies continuing to sit in a pot of slowly boiling water?
According to Ed Christman’s article entitled “Losing Track” in the 3/20/10 issue of Billboard, “track sales in the US through the 9 weeks ending 3/7 totaled 225.5 million units, up just 0.7% from 223.9 million in the corresponding period last year.” We’ve all heard the tired story of the decline of the CD sales, I won’t bore you with more stats on that. However, this is new, digital track sales are now flat on growth. Pretty easy to see the boiling water right? What happens when the water warms more and digital track and album sales start plummeting like CD sales have?
Instead of ignoring these trends and hoping for a new format to come and pick up the slack, why not jump out of the water and truly innovate instead? Why not quit trying to swindle the minority that still pays for CDs or digital music and go after the majority that procures music illegally? Build a bigger industry around music instead of gradually slashing overhead, staff, and budgets to reflect the shrinking recorded music business. Maybe you don’t want an outsider like Spotify to swoop in and take away profits and power like Apple did with iTunes. That’s fine, I can understand that, so go and build your own competing software! Very smart people work at these companies and they are more than capable of developing this technology if they so choose. Surely the majors would license their music to a service in which they all share equity. The objective then is to grow the number of paying users at a low price point instead of trying to squeeze out a bunch of revenue from a handful of customers.
How hot will the water need to get before the majors realize they need to be in this new business?
All You Can Eat Music?
“Every song ever recorded available on demand at any time.”
That’s the potential and promise of all you can eat music subscription services like Spotify, MOG, Rhapsody, and Rdio. This value proposition is enough to give music nerds (myself included) heart palpitations. The monthly subscription fee varies between each company’s business model but anyway you cut it, it’s a great deal. If you’re spending $30 a month on vinyl, iTunes downloads, and countless hours trolling torrent sites for free music, $10 month for every song ever made is an amazingly great deal. Don’t think these business models will catch on? You’re wrong. Sorry. Don’t tell me that people will want to hold album art and will always want to go to a store and browse the new releases. If you think that then you haven’t yet experienced Spotify or used the Sonos system. It’s not a matter of if but when.
Ubiquity of these companies can’t come soon enough if you’re a music nerd but what if you’re not? Also, let’s face it; the music obsessed and digitally savvy early adopters comprise a shockingly small number of actual consumers. The vast majority of music consumers (consumption=listening not buying) don’t buy digital mp3s, don’t download music on torrent sites, still listen to radio, and still buy CDs at Wal-Mart or Best Buy (if they buy music at all). Have they heard of Spotify? Definitely not. Are they anxious awaiting it’s arrival in the US? They could care less.
All digital music subscription services have a gargantuan task in licensing music catalogs and building a comprehensive library. However, and unfortunately for these companies, this is not their main strategic problem. The main strategic problem will be convincing the general public to pay for music like they already pay for cable TV and internet access. That’s quite a challenge. Telling them that you will have “every song ever recorded available on demand at any time” won’t cut it. Casually music listeners don’t want or need that much choice. It’s cumbersome and overwhelming. Furthermore, paying for unlimited music access may seem wasteful and unnecessary for casual music listeners. If you are only listening to a few tracks a week or just need background noise, 10 million tracks is not a value add.
So how do the all you can eat music services solve this problem and become successful? I think the answer is seamless hardware interface and interoperability. In a nutshell, it will be ease of use. iPods are sleek and easy to use, but it’s still a pain to load them with music. The new music services need to pick up where the iPod left off and increase ease of use even more. This is both a hardware and software challenge. Customers need to be able to register and pay with a few clicks and a few minutes and then be able to access the service across different devices seamlessly. They then need to be able to access and enjoy the service on their home stereo (TV), their car stereo, their handheld device, and through any internet connection. The user interface will need to be intuitive and consistent across all of these platforms.
All these things might sound like a pipe dream wish list for an idealistic music nerd. Well, I guess they are. However, music subscription services will need to fulfill all of these needs by partnering with ISPs, hardware manufacturers, and Telecoms if they want to solve their main strategic problem. Once again, that problem is convincing the masses that they need to pay $10/month for access to music. It’s building a new recorded music business on the back of subscription services that will make everyone (artists, listeners, and copyright holders) happy. Forget the early adopters, they will sign up well before these problems are addressed. However, you can’t build a multi-billion dollar company on the back of early adopters alone.
