Bio
I'm a designer with a geeky tech compusion. I'm Creative Director and Co-Founder of PINGV Creative, which specializes in creative strategy and intera...
 
 
 
 

What’s Hot on BlogHer.com

It's the end of the (music) world as we know it, and I don't feel fine at all!

  • Share This Post
  • submit
  • 8
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

If new music is created and nobody can find it, does it make a sound?

Time was you could listen to alternative radio and discover new tunes. Time was you could spend hours browsing the record store, digging up arcane and obscure artists. Time was the music could be found. But now it seems like all the radio stations are playing the same 20 songs (and a zillion commercials). Now CD departments are shrinking and disappearing from the stores. And now internet radio may be about to disappear. If that happens, how will you discover new music?

I had tried Pandora back when it launched. It was ... okay, but not great, and I let it go. But last month, when the iPhone apps came alive, and I found the Pandora app sitting there, I ended up revisiting the "music genome" service ... and found that they are doing much better at finding music I like than they ever did a year or so ago.

In fact, Pandora now is fabulous! After years of living in a music wasteland, with crap on the radio, worn-out "classics" on satellite, and pretty much nothing to be found on iTunes or in the local store, I rediscovered new music (and even ended up buying some). Pandora has been an incredible resource for introducing to me new music I never would have encountered otherwise.

Of course, that means it's too good to stick around, right?

Via the Chronicle of Higher Education:

Last year when the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board substantially hiked the royalty fees for songs that are Webcast, online broadcasters sounded an alarm. At the very least, they said, the raised fees would force some online radio stations to cap their audiences. At worst, the broadcasters warned, the royalty board could end up writing Internet radio’s swan song.

Now it looks like those grim predictions may come to pass. The founder of one of Internet radio’s leading lights, Pandora, tells The Washington Post that Web royalties may soon force his station out of business. The fees now soak up 70 percent of Pandora’s $25-million annual revenue, according to Tim Westergren. “We’re approaching a pull-the-plug kind of decision,” he says.

What’s striking is that Pandora is no fly-by-night operation: The Web-radio service, which lets users build radio stations to match their own tastes, reaches about a million listeners every day, and its recently created iPhone application has become one of the most popular downloads for the device. But the rules of the marketplace, as currently drawn up, are none too favorable to online broadcasters. Terrestrial radio stations don’t have to pay per-song royalties, and satellite radio providers pay only small fees. But by 2010, Webcasters can expect to pay between two and three cents per hour per listener.

Michelle Wolverton offers some context:

Pandora faces closing the lid on it’s popular streaming radio service after the CRB, earlier this year, tripled the fees due to SoundExchange. Each time a streaming service plays a song they have to pay a small fee to Soundexchange. Soundexchange is deeply associated with the RIAA, who continuously acts like the bully on the playground. Making all the rules and taking your lunch money to boot....

...I support 100% that artists make money from being played ANYWHERE. I know musicians who are struggling to keep up in the daily grind. I also know that there are a few who have passed along their music to Pandora so that new fans can be reached. I’ve also discovered new music over at Pandora and would hate to see them close their doors. I don’t think that anyone in internet radio objects to paying fees for playing songs, but suddenly requiring internet radio to pay 3x the fees that the did for streaming is unbelievable. Yet, it’s done.

Oh, and your regular AM and FM stations? They aren’t getting hit with the same outrageous fees. SoundExchange and RIAA are acting unfairly because they are scared of what internet radio is doing for independent artists at the same time being damn greedy with what shouldn’t primarily go to them, but to the artists that they “represent”. A lot of the time that money doesn’t reach the artist because Soundexchange “can’t find them“.

Techdirt has a dark analysis of all this:

The RIAA knew exactly what it was doing in pushing these higher rates: it was killing off alternative routes to promoting non-RIAA music. The RIAA labels have

  • 8
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
chelpixie 5 pts

First of all, thanks for linking to my blog post on Pandora.

Second, I think that the ads are just one way that Pandora is looking to save itself and this isn't a bad thing. Why would you stop supporting them because they make a choice that allows them to continue to bring you music?  They aren't asking you for money, which is one route they could go.  

I don't agree with your assessment that it's a mischaracterization. 
The RIAA likes to fight on behalf of musicians but musicians hardly
ever see any part of the financial awards they are fighting for. 

Just for a little background, when you submit your music to Pandora it's a long process, they might not even necessarily play it.  You don't get financial consideration for them choosing to play it.  To some musicians like Matthew Ebel, having their music reach that many people is payment enough.

Shutting down Pandora is going to hurt the musicians, not help them, many have gotten their music heard by thousands that wouldn't ordinarily be reached and the RIAA can't stand that there is a way to discover music without them in the equation.  This system is one that can't be controlled by RIAA, it's fair to the users and the artists.

gringainteguz 5 pts

Many musicians are discovering that the money is in live concerts, not in CDs and merchandising. Even though new technology is likely to bring a renaissance of recorded music, as the previous poster commented, I think the revival of live concerts is a great thing.  Let recorded music and radio wane a bit. Music lovers always find a way to enjoy music. I happened upon a live concert by a famous folk artist in Honduras a few months ago. It was great! Guillermo Anderson and his band sang, danced, played steel drums, horns, etc. Afterwards, I purchased a few selections from itunes but nothing can compare to that evening. Also, my other city is New Orleans, and again, listening to mujsicians as they play is the best way to experience jazz.

 Laurie, a gringa in Honduas

WomenBloom 5 pts

Allison Allen

Bloomer-in-Chief, WomenBloom

http://www.womenbloom.com/blog/

I think Laura is absolutely right.  The institution that is the music business has fought tooth and nail all along to try to stop the inevitable.  I think most people very much want musicians to be fairly paid for their creative work.  But, instead of looking at new technology and new models for distributing music (and thereby making money), the old guard are trying to darndest to squeeze out any competitor.

I see it rather similarly to GM who fought tooth and nail against higher fuel standards, manufacturing electric cars, etc. despite the writing on the wall with regard to oil supply and demand.  The worm has turned very quickly in that case, and they have been caught flat footed...from willful blindness and shortsightedness.

I believe new technology will prevail eventually.  In the meantime, it's going to be a pain for those of us interested in finding new music.  And, I think ultimately the music industry will painfully pay for their willful resistance.

alvenable 5 pts

I disagree with the assumption that it's a mischararcterization that musicians are losing out. Because the old guard (record labels, RIAA, etc.) is trying to defend their profits, they're going after the consumer to make up the difference, which in turn affects the relationship between artists and their fans. Despite it being cheaper to distribute music, the cost of a physical CD is still ridiculously high, yet the artist is getting the same piece of the pie, if that. Add in the fact that touring costs will continue to rise due to gas prices and airfare, many artists can't or won't tour as often, which also affects their bottom line since they're likely to make more money on the road selling merch.

To date, there are very few successful online models to prove that people are willing to pay for music. For every iTunes, eMusic, or even Amazon MP3, there are dozens of other places where people can get the music for free.

And while this may not be directly related, I do believe that the quality of the music is also part of the problem. There are a lot of crap acts out these days, which isn't going to make folks want to spend $17.99 on a CD when they can get the single elsewhere for free.

Dimple and a Smirk (dot) com ( http://www.dimpleandasmirk.com )

Mata H 5 pts

This is horrible news. I love Pandora, and have bought a number of CDs because I heard the artist there first. What can we do?

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs right along at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

Laura Scott 5 pts

I don't know if the issue is whether people would pay for a service like Pandora. My own feeling is that if Pandora were to start inserting interstitial ads into the stream I would stop using it then and there.

But I think the notion that it's the musicians who lose is a mischaracterization. It seems more like the studios are trying to maintain and defend (through litigation and lobbying for legislation) an old business model and the old infrastructure. It seems to me that the record industry had a great thing going for decades, but now the paradigm is changing. Music is cheaper to produce and distribute. Maybe the real problem is that there's less margin for the middleman, and the middleman doesn't like it and has the means to gum up the works. Maybe?

Laura Scott, BlogHer Contributing Editor, Tech/Web
design ( http://pingv.com ), snap ( http://scatteredsunshine.com ), blog ( http://rarepattern.com ), tweet ( http://twitter.com/lauras )

Virginia DeBolt 5 pts

Ha. I just got into an argument with a Hyundai salesman while test driving a car this weekend. The car came with 3 free months of XM radio. A lot of people don't mind paying $10 a month for XM radio, but rebel against paying for anything that comes on the web. The car salesman couldn't believe that I actually PAID for music.

In principle, I support the idea that a person should receive payment for their intellectual property. A musician shouldn't have to give away their product, their music. I don't think it would have hurt Pandora to use ads or find a way to collect enough money to keep going. But, for whatever reason, we are having trouble figuring out how to distribute music in a way that allows the creators and distributors to make a living from it.

Virginia DeBolt
BlogHer Technology Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/virginia-debolt )
Web Teacher ( http://www.webteacher.ws/ )
First 50 Words ( http://first50.wordpress.com/ )

alvenable 5 pts

With services like Last.fm, Pandora, and Muxtape under fire, it's definitely getting tougher to find new music. While I still attend a lot of concerts each year, hoping that you learn of a new artist/band because they were a great opening act can be hit or miss.

I do rely on friends and other blogs to learn about new music. 

Perhaps sites like MySpace where artists have an active role in controlling their content need to make it easier for people to learn about the thousands of bands. If I'm friends with X band, have an app come up that says "Check out this song..."

Sadly, the fight between Internet radio/music services, the RIAA and SoundExchange will continue. I just hope there are enough people amongst those parties realize who will suffer: artists, especially smaller acts, and their (potential) audiences.

Dimple and a Smirk (dot) com ( http://www.dimpleandasmirk.com )