This is an excellent read, thanks Ted. I appreciate the honesty which was constructive and didn’t seem negative to me.
One thing I sense is since the means of production have changed for music, as well as how it is delivered, the whole concept of a ‘recording industry’ is perhaps a questionable frame to view music. Selling recordings made sense in the previous technological era, where music was scarce, but now it is ubiquitous one has to think differently.
If I was working at a major label I’d be looking to the gaming industry to learn. I don’t mean that music should, or will, be gamified, but that is an industry that has learned to sell software. Vinyl’s cool, and I expect it will still be sold 60 years from now, but it’s a side salad, the real meal is software. I don’t think musicians have wrapped their heads around this for the most part, and I doubt the recording industry is really capable yet. Ninja Tune had a go at it, but were perhaps too early, and too far ahead.
Music may be created that is not a song, not a fixed composition, and evolves in a non-linear way. A bit like a lot of music before the recording industry. It will work like software, and therefore it’s essential representation will be the algorithm, not a fixed output, or recording. This, I expect, will be easier to sell and make a living from than fixed recordings, which possibly have had their golden era. I would have more faith in a upstart to create this than a lumbering giant from a bygone era. In fact, musically, this is exactly what I’m working on right now.
This is a very astute and intelligent comment. As a musician and software engineer, it kind of blew my mind. You are onto something here. We think of recorded music as data, and data is easy to move from one computer to another. As long as you have a program on your device to process the data, you can listen to the music.
But what if recorded music was a program? That changes everything.
Exactly. Software has so many capabilities that are not being used, because we are fixated on the idea that music is an immutable recording, not a program. It’s not just labels either, musicians too, and music schools. For all the reputation music has for being unruly and rebellious, we actually appear to be stuck in a deeply conservative way of thinking that is highly anachronistic given the technology that surrounds us.
Sure Jeongbeom, it's actually helpful for me to articulate these ideas, so ask away.
I wrote an algorithm that creates a kind of 'field' or 'space' of music that one essentially moves around at varying speeds, with different patterns of rhythms or chords in different areas. I've been exploring it for a few months, and I am currently recording some of these 'journeys' through the space. This isn't an academic exercise, I really feel an emotional response to the space and its sounds, and although it's really hard to be objective about one's own music, a couple of people I sent it to gave very positive responses.
Ideally, listeners would have the program and then a few set journeys built in, which vary each time they are played. But the logistics of this is a bit complicated for a one-person project, so that might have to wait. For now, I will share the recordings, but I see this as an intermediary step to a more ideal situation of people having the program, and it generating the music on whatever device they are on. That way, each time the 'performance' would be unique, although there would be a similarity too, so that it's not completely random, which wouldn't sound good.
So basically two things have been created - an algorithm, and a journey through that algorithm; combined they make the artistic creation.
I'm soon going to share the audio and a post explaining in more detail the process, that I have written and re-written for about a month! I hope what I've said makes sense. I'll try to get it out there as soon as I can...
These ideas are definitely being explored in crypto circles. I find some of that discussion really interesting. The issue I have is with crypto, which appears to be a Ponzi scheme with terrible environmental consequences.
« That way, each time the 'performance' would be unique, although there would be a similarity too, so that it's not completely random, which wouldn't sound good. »
I thought of something similar for my latest composition. Several variations have been composed for each movement of the original piece. By combining these variations, unique versions of the work are achieved.
Everything is recorded and all variations are entirely written, fixed. So it is a lot of work (and maybe less exciting conceptually).
The algorithms I use are very simple. I don't program them. I edit the music accordingly, and I can decide to let go of the rule whenever I want, for a single note or an entire section if I believe that it will serve the music better.
« Ideally, listeners would have the program and then a few set journeys built in, which vary each time they are played. »
At one point I thought of distributing the album as a music player with the possibility to bookmark a combination of variations when the listener likes it. It was not feasible for me, so I went on publishing physical "1/1's", one for each combination of variations, on CDr or cassette.
Fascinating Petar. I had a listen to your music over the weekend and it sounds excellent and original. I will listen again and try to buy your new album in the new year.
Is the latest composition you refer to recorded yet? Do you have something to share? It sounds like a really interesting process and I would like to hear more. Scores, audio, anything.
It's interesting that you mention the feasibility. That is exactly what has held me back. If programming becomes easier over the years, as I expect it will, it becomes more doable.
The problem is that audiences are (understandably) habitatued by a century of listening to recordings. Creating a program potentially represents lots of work that might very well be ignored, and yet, it's one of the most interesting things that artists could do right now.
Based on your music it sounds like you program. Are you using Supercollider. I really like the warmth of your synthesis. Great work! If you have the time to post on Substack it would be great to know more about what you are doing.
The latest composition I refer to is "Sept cordes". I can send you a link with variations if you want but I couldn't find a way to send a private message on Substack.
The score is currently a mess. I will finish it in the next few months and would be happy to send you a copy.
"Creating a program potentially represents lots of work that might very well be ignored, and yet, it's one of the most interesting things that artists could do right now." : Absolutely.
I don't remember ever using Supercollider. I've worked with OpenMusic for decades, but it eventually evolved into more of a "symbolic music writing sequencer" that I use less and less since it obstructs the general flow, especially when exceptions to the rules are needed as mentioned above.
"I really like the warmth of your synthesis." Hmm... I'm not sure what you are referring to. Could you please be more specific ?
Hi HL, I'm afraid only Bach can create Bach. I wasn't sure if your first comment was serious or sassy - such is the peril of the internet. Taken seriously... my aim is not to create music from algorithms but to create music using algorithms; a subtly but significant distinction. Bach used algorithms - harmonic, scalic, and rhythmic - to create his music. The 48 Preludes and Fugues is a highly conceptual work, both at a high level and low level. It combined cutting-edge ideas with humanistic expressivity. No algorithm can, or ever will, replicate Bach's genius.
What I am doing is nothing new. Musicians have used algorithms combined with the latest technology for time immemorial. The only difference is I am using a computer, but it can't replicate Bingen, Bach, or Coltrane, and their unique processes. Their legacies - as far as I'm concerned - should be left well alone. Replication is dull, but innovation exciting.
Back in the 1980s, trying to generate music like Bach's was a big thing in the AI community. A friend of mine did her undergraduate thesis on writing Bach-like fugues. I think it peaked with Hofstadter's book, but the idea still pops up now and then.
I've not read the book. Thanks for the recommendation.
I knew a kid growing up (he was about 14) and he could write baroque music that was indistinguishable from Bach. It was incredible. But when it came to doing his own creative and original work it was unremarkable. He was almost like a musical forger.
I expect something approximating this might be possible with AI, given my friend's approach seemed entirely analytical, however Bach was doing things of an artistic and conceptual nature.
Thank you Dom, I’m not really sure if I was being serious or sassy. I was just taken by the idea. I do take the distinction to create music using algorithms.
I’m not a musician but I do love music. My husband made music both technically (I still have his 30-year-old Amiga computer, Sequential Circuits Prophet 500(?), and other things that would be jacked in) and old-school, violin, guitar, and piano. I was the audience.
While I have always loved Bach and many others it wasn’t until Howie that I learned so many things. He could easily fill in all I would need to know. He also talked a lot about how Bach made his music. I think you two would have gotten on well.
And while it may not be new it does sound interesting. Innovation is good.
I do worry a little bit about what may be coming available to us all of a sudden. Legacies seem to be sold off to the highest bidder to do what they will.
Hi HL, I'm glad the idea resonated with you. By the sounds of your message it sounds like your lost your husband - I´m sorry to hear that. He sounds like a fascinating guy. For a lot of musicians Bach is kind of our Shakespeare figure. Immortal, mysterious, and sublime. I think the important thing for musicians is to respect our ancestors and what they did to carry this music to us. In that regard I think we should protect their legacies too. It's not just data to be played around with, there's something precious there, even sacred. Thanks for engaging.
From Wikipedia, about this "vital and happening indie music business":
On August 4, 2017, the staff of Bandcamp Daily donated all of the day's sales proceeds to the Transgender Law Center, a civil rights organization for transgender people.[47]
In response to the protests that took place following the murder of George Floyd and other African Americans who had died from police violence, Bandcamp announced that for 24 hours on June 19, 2020 they would donate 100% of profits to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.[31]
Sounds like it was already firmly part of the same corporate ecosystem as everything else and not particularly independent.
‘Bandcamp donated money to a cause, therefor they’re not as independent as they say they are.’
Is that the take here?
Showy support? As opposed to what kind of support? Secret support? Do we want LESS corporate transparency? Would we prefer NOT to know which social issues they support? I don’t want that. I don’t think anyone does. Maybe it’s the cause they donated to that you don’t like, in which case, the problem isn’t with Bandcamp.
Should they have not donated money to the cause? Or maybe it shouldn’t be legal for them to donate? I’m not totally against this but it’s not the reality we live in.
I hope we’re not putting Bandcamp on the same level as say an Amazon, Microsoft or Coca-Cola. Is that what’s happening here?
Are we mad that they supported trans rights and the NAACP?
By the way, I didn’t know Bandcamp supported trans rights until you posted here, so thank you! I didn’t know I could like the company more than I already did.
So, “song investing” will go bellyup? Good riddance. There are capable and talented musicians and songwriters who currently perform live and sell their self-produced music (online or at concerts). Music industry probably should die a horrible death after killing off their own glorious vinyl formats (45 or 33). But turn-of-the century conductor and composer John Phillip Sousa really had the last word on this. He did not trust his band or songs to be recorded at all. He knew it diminished the live experience which made his band a world phenomenon. As result every little town in America had its own band to amuse themselves and community. Likewise any hillbilly had a fiddle or guitar with which they could sing and dance. The songs “invested” from one human to another. Heck, even Mozart and Beethoven had publishing issues.
Didn't some of those Sand Hill Road guys invest in FTX b/c they thought SBF playing video games while talking to them was a good sign? And keep their money in Silicon Valley Bank?
I'm not persuaded many of them are any smarter than anyone else.
I truly hope someone with the vision and the money buys Bandcamp from these "songtradr" goons, and then just lets the company get back to doing what it was doing before Epic decided to hoover them up for no good reason.
I still have no understanding of why Bandcamp's founder allowed the sale to Epic in the first place -- they were doing fine! They were sustainably growing year over year, getting better and better name-recognition and genuine credibility from the music community. If they'd just kept it up instead of selling out....well, one can only dream at this point.
Such a sad waste of opportunity and talent. Half their staff canned by vulture capitalists who have *absolutely no idea* what they've bought, why, or what to do with it besides ruin it like everything else they touch.
Because you never turn down the right offer. You can get lucky and make more money down the road not selling- if everything goes right. But nobody's got a crystal ball. A lot more things can go wrong, and then you're saying I could have been a billionaire when you had 9 figures instead of 10. I've seen it happen time and time again. Take the money and run.
“Take the money and run” is just a figure of speech. It’s selfish, sure, but it’s not good business sense and it’s certainly not good for working musicians. They got their bag and now things have gotten worse. So inspiring!
Vision, a real sense of community and community service in the broadest sense, empowering the arts and artists? Nah, the majority of vulture capitalists give exactly zero fucks about any of that. The buck trumps all, including people, plants, animals, ecosytems, etc.
Got my fiddle, dancing while it burns. The music ain’t going nowhere. It’s in record stacks and on hard drives everywhere. We had an access glut for a while, and now maybe music can go back to being valued. Independent musicians will find a way to press records, dub tapes, play shows. The big boys can re-learn that too. Get the bankers out of this space. They ruin everything they touch.
Excellent, Ted. I know you get no points for being early in the “I told you so” line, but I said circa ‘91 the creative music revolution will be in billing. It was creative and musicians lost. Hard to squeeze positive out of this but now music is only loud money for the famous and we all know the fame business model. Overall, it’s been a bad financial bet. But there was a time, when the unions had some control, before the MP3 made passing tunes around like making a phone call and drummers had limited partnerships. It made for better music. Money attracts talent.
I know the Concord folks. I’d say they consider it an honorable mission keeping the past alive...and they don’t need the money...yeah, you covered that.
Yes, new music is the future…Unfortunately, in the everyday life of the average working musician, (playing cover tunes) in every town USA is a cat and mouse with the archaic ways PRO’s operate. They limit young musicians just starting out and older musicians keeping the craft up.
Musicians can’t promote the gigs without putting a bullseye on the venue.
Young musicians can’t get the mentorship that comes from the local gigs.
Artist-friendly live music platforms are a solid investment
Amen to that! Local or touring live music. And the best is trying to play a musical instrument, however pitifully. It sparks the brain neurons like no other activity. It is brain food and exercise.
This column goes somewhat opposite to Mr. Gioia's earlier premise that no one is listening to new songs, and that the old songs are out-pacing the new in popularity. If this were true, older music should be a sound [NPI] investment for the 75 years after Bob Dylan and Paul McCartney die
They're not incompatible observations. Old music might be relatively more popular than new music on streaming platforms today, but that doesn't make it a good investment. As these songs inevitably lose their cultural capital they will be increasingly unattractive for purposes of licensing in commercials, films, video games, TV etc. The decline is sufficiently easy to see in the present that it makes it a bad investment.
1. Hipgnosis is a publicly traded vehicle. Thus it attracts dumb/fickle money in ways that privately held vehicles like Primary Wave and Reservoir do not. I had two guys from one of the privately held investment funds talk to my music business class at NYU a couple of weeks ago. They said they expect this kind of downturn in the short term and have funding sources that are confident over the long term. They had no incentive to say this; it was a private discussion, and for this reason I won't name the fund. Among those who follow this stuff, there was little doubt that Hipgnosis's share price was on a bubble and would come back to earth. Otherwise see https://www.billboard.com/pro/hipgnosis-accounting-repeated-other-publishers/.
2. That old boring topic that no one in music ever wants to talk about : interest rates. Song catalogs offered a great return compared to other asset classes when the prime rate was like 1-2%. Now that it's 8.5%, different story.
In short, I wouldn't read as much as you do into this Hipgnosis incident.
I know Ted's no fan of Spotify, but it's the only place I can find old recordings of music from the dreaded 50s-80s. I heard a few good tunes in the 90s when I was on the road traveling for site surveys of Sonic Drive In restaurants that were to be remodeled. Those tunes never interested me to the extent that I'd actually purchase the album. I haven't heard anything I like since; I like my old pop, rock, and jazz. So without Spotify I'm unable to find the vase majority of albums that I'd like to own. Some are simply unavailable, even with Discogs and Amazon. And even if they are, they're too expensive for my pocketbook. I hope Spotify can make a go of it for my personal satisfaction. As a side note, I've had a Pandora account since 2006, but getting deep cuts there is an iffy proposition, though if I'm in an FM radio mood, it's still good.
YouTube has been owned by Googlet since 2006. I avoid any Googlet product like it's Ebola. I don't want my YouTube views to allow incessant ads, spam, etc. that accompany them. I opened a new Yahoo account over two years ago because someone tried to access my e-mail, and ATT (another disgusting company) had so many incompetent tech support personnel that it took me almost a year to find one who could figure out how to access the e-mail account I'd had since 1996. I have only received two or three spam e-mails in my new e-mail, which were from companies that found my contact info through my architect's license. Firefox and DDG are your friends in this area, though Firefox has many problems, partly because they've sold out on their protection practices. I'm trying Brave, buy it doesn't like my Windows 7 Pro OS and loads particularly slowly. Regardless my avoidance of Googlet products has served me well.
This is a sad read for music lovers. Before I give up all hope: I can definitely see the wisdom in your assumption that old music may become a vanity/ego asset class but old master paintings and professional sports teams also have high vanity appeal and have been very hot investments for decades. Does this give reason for hope or are they just trendy bubbles ready to pop?
This is an excellent read, thanks Ted. I appreciate the honesty which was constructive and didn’t seem negative to me.
One thing I sense is since the means of production have changed for music, as well as how it is delivered, the whole concept of a ‘recording industry’ is perhaps a questionable frame to view music. Selling recordings made sense in the previous technological era, where music was scarce, but now it is ubiquitous one has to think differently.
If I was working at a major label I’d be looking to the gaming industry to learn. I don’t mean that music should, or will, be gamified, but that is an industry that has learned to sell software. Vinyl’s cool, and I expect it will still be sold 60 years from now, but it’s a side salad, the real meal is software. I don’t think musicians have wrapped their heads around this for the most part, and I doubt the recording industry is really capable yet. Ninja Tune had a go at it, but were perhaps too early, and too far ahead.
Music may be created that is not a song, not a fixed composition, and evolves in a non-linear way. A bit like a lot of music before the recording industry. It will work like software, and therefore it’s essential representation will be the algorithm, not a fixed output, or recording. This, I expect, will be easier to sell and make a living from than fixed recordings, which possibly have had their golden era. I would have more faith in a upstart to create this than a lumbering giant from a bygone era. In fact, musically, this is exactly what I’m working on right now.
This is a very astute and intelligent comment. As a musician and software engineer, it kind of blew my mind. You are onto something here. We think of recorded music as data, and data is easy to move from one computer to another. As long as you have a program on your device to process the data, you can listen to the music.
But what if recorded music was a program? That changes everything.
Thanks for your kind response Rich.
Exactly. Software has so many capabilities that are not being used, because we are fixated on the idea that music is an immutable recording, not a program. It’s not just labels either, musicians too, and music schools. For all the reputation music has for being unruly and rebellious, we actually appear to be stuck in a deeply conservative way of thinking that is highly anachronistic given the technology that surrounds us.
it's a great to see unique, but also very productive point of view with regards to the music as a experience.
I'm very interested in hearing what you are working on that you mentioned, would you be kind enough to share more of your thoughts?
Sure Jeongbeom, it's actually helpful for me to articulate these ideas, so ask away.
I wrote an algorithm that creates a kind of 'field' or 'space' of music that one essentially moves around at varying speeds, with different patterns of rhythms or chords in different areas. I've been exploring it for a few months, and I am currently recording some of these 'journeys' through the space. This isn't an academic exercise, I really feel an emotional response to the space and its sounds, and although it's really hard to be objective about one's own music, a couple of people I sent it to gave very positive responses.
Ideally, listeners would have the program and then a few set journeys built in, which vary each time they are played. But the logistics of this is a bit complicated for a one-person project, so that might have to wait. For now, I will share the recordings, but I see this as an intermediary step to a more ideal situation of people having the program, and it generating the music on whatever device they are on. That way, each time the 'performance' would be unique, although there would be a similarity too, so that it's not completely random, which wouldn't sound good.
So basically two things have been created - an algorithm, and a journey through that algorithm; combined they make the artistic creation.
I'm soon going to share the audio and a post explaining in more detail the process, that I have written and re-written for about a month! I hope what I've said makes sense. I'll try to get it out there as soon as I can...
Async.art has a concept like this being done.
These ideas are definitely being explored in crypto circles. I find some of that discussion really interesting. The issue I have is with crypto, which appears to be a Ponzi scheme with terrible environmental consequences.
« That way, each time the 'performance' would be unique, although there would be a similarity too, so that it's not completely random, which wouldn't sound good. »
I thought of something similar for my latest composition. Several variations have been composed for each movement of the original piece. By combining these variations, unique versions of the work are achieved.
Everything is recorded and all variations are entirely written, fixed. So it is a lot of work (and maybe less exciting conceptually).
The algorithms I use are very simple. I don't program them. I edit the music accordingly, and I can decide to let go of the rule whenever I want, for a single note or an entire section if I believe that it will serve the music better.
« Ideally, listeners would have the program and then a few set journeys built in, which vary each time they are played. »
At one point I thought of distributing the album as a music player with the possibility to bookmark a combination of variations when the listener likes it. It was not feasible for me, so I went on publishing physical "1/1's", one for each combination of variations, on CDr or cassette.
Fascinating Petar. I had a listen to your music over the weekend and it sounds excellent and original. I will listen again and try to buy your new album in the new year.
Is the latest composition you refer to recorded yet? Do you have something to share? It sounds like a really interesting process and I would like to hear more. Scores, audio, anything.
It's interesting that you mention the feasibility. That is exactly what has held me back. If programming becomes easier over the years, as I expect it will, it becomes more doable.
The problem is that audiences are (understandably) habitatued by a century of listening to recordings. Creating a program potentially represents lots of work that might very well be ignored, and yet, it's one of the most interesting things that artists could do right now.
Based on your music it sounds like you program. Are you using Supercollider. I really like the warmth of your synthesis. Great work! If you have the time to post on Substack it would be great to know more about what you are doing.
Thank you for listening Dom.
The latest composition I refer to is "Sept cordes". I can send you a link with variations if you want but I couldn't find a way to send a private message on Substack.
The score is currently a mess. I will finish it in the next few months and would be happy to send you a copy.
"Creating a program potentially represents lots of work that might very well be ignored, and yet, it's one of the most interesting things that artists could do right now." : Absolutely.
I don't remember ever using Supercollider. I've worked with OpenMusic for decades, but it eventually evolved into more of a "symbolic music writing sequencer" that I use less and less since it obstructs the general flow, especially when exceptions to the rules are needed as mentioned above.
"I really like the warmth of your synthesis." Hmm... I'm not sure what you are referring to. Could you please be more specific ?
So that’s a yes to my query?
I look forward to what you come up with.
Hi HL, I'm afraid only Bach can create Bach. I wasn't sure if your first comment was serious or sassy - such is the peril of the internet. Taken seriously... my aim is not to create music from algorithms but to create music using algorithms; a subtly but significant distinction. Bach used algorithms - harmonic, scalic, and rhythmic - to create his music. The 48 Preludes and Fugues is a highly conceptual work, both at a high level and low level. It combined cutting-edge ideas with humanistic expressivity. No algorithm can, or ever will, replicate Bach's genius.
What I am doing is nothing new. Musicians have used algorithms combined with the latest technology for time immemorial. The only difference is I am using a computer, but it can't replicate Bingen, Bach, or Coltrane, and their unique processes. Their legacies - as far as I'm concerned - should be left well alone. Replication is dull, but innovation exciting.
Back in the 1980s, trying to generate music like Bach's was a big thing in the AI community. A friend of mine did her undergraduate thesis on writing Bach-like fugues. I think it peaked with Hofstadter's book, but the idea still pops up now and then.
I've not read the book. Thanks for the recommendation.
I knew a kid growing up (he was about 14) and he could write baroque music that was indistinguishable from Bach. It was incredible. But when it came to doing his own creative and original work it was unremarkable. He was almost like a musical forger.
I expect something approximating this might be possible with AI, given my friend's approach seemed entirely analytical, however Bach was doing things of an artistic and conceptual nature.
Thank you Dom, I’m not really sure if I was being serious or sassy. I was just taken by the idea. I do take the distinction to create music using algorithms.
I’m not a musician but I do love music. My husband made music both technically (I still have his 30-year-old Amiga computer, Sequential Circuits Prophet 500(?), and other things that would be jacked in) and old-school, violin, guitar, and piano. I was the audience.
While I have always loved Bach and many others it wasn’t until Howie that I learned so many things. He could easily fill in all I would need to know. He also talked a lot about how Bach made his music. I think you two would have gotten on well.
And while it may not be new it does sound interesting. Innovation is good.
I do worry a little bit about what may be coming available to us all of a sudden. Legacies seem to be sold off to the highest bidder to do what they will.
Hi HL, I'm glad the idea resonated with you. By the sounds of your message it sounds like your lost your husband - I´m sorry to hear that. He sounds like a fascinating guy. For a lot of musicians Bach is kind of our Shakespeare figure. Immortal, mysterious, and sublime. I think the important thing for musicians is to respect our ancestors and what they did to carry this music to us. In that regard I think we should protect their legacies too. It's not just data to be played around with, there's something precious there, even sacred. Thanks for engaging.
You could, eventually, give me Bach, a couple of violins, and concertos we have never heard before but still recognizable?
Dom from the future here. Anyone who is curious, here's the music I mentioned I was working on. Pull out your fanciest headphones! https://thelinernotes.substack.com/p/the-garden-in-the-machine-disembodied
From Wikipedia, about this "vital and happening indie music business":
On August 4, 2017, the staff of Bandcamp Daily donated all of the day's sales proceeds to the Transgender Law Center, a civil rights organization for transgender people.[47]
In response to the protests that took place following the murder of George Floyd and other African Americans who had died from police violence, Bandcamp announced that for 24 hours on June 19, 2020 they would donate 100% of profits to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.[31]
Sounds like it was already firmly part of the same corporate ecosystem as everything else and not particularly independent.
‘Bandcamp donated money to a cause, therefor they’re not as independent as they say they are.’
Is that the take here?
Showy support? As opposed to what kind of support? Secret support? Do we want LESS corporate transparency? Would we prefer NOT to know which social issues they support? I don’t want that. I don’t think anyone does. Maybe it’s the cause they donated to that you don’t like, in which case, the problem isn’t with Bandcamp.
Should they have not donated money to the cause? Or maybe it shouldn’t be legal for them to donate? I’m not totally against this but it’s not the reality we live in.
I hope we’re not putting Bandcamp on the same level as say an Amazon, Microsoft or Coca-Cola. Is that what’s happening here?
Are we mad that they supported trans rights and the NAACP?
By the way, I didn’t know Bandcamp supported trans rights until you posted here, so thank you! I didn’t know I could like the company more than I already did.
What aspect of donating to non-profits that they choose to support makes them part of the "corporate ecosystem"?
I think I get his point. Showy support for causes has become a very corporate thing.
That doesn't make it bad, but I sense some serious artificiality in it.
So, “song investing” will go bellyup? Good riddance. There are capable and talented musicians and songwriters who currently perform live and sell their self-produced music (online or at concerts). Music industry probably should die a horrible death after killing off their own glorious vinyl formats (45 or 33). But turn-of-the century conductor and composer John Phillip Sousa really had the last word on this. He did not trust his band or songs to be recorded at all. He knew it diminished the live experience which made his band a world phenomenon. As result every little town in America had its own band to amuse themselves and community. Likewise any hillbilly had a fiddle or guitar with which they could sing and dance. The songs “invested” from one human to another. Heck, even Mozart and Beethoven had publishing issues.
Living music is the best investment. Support your local musicians and, if you can afford it, touring musicians.
I don't think Bowie Bonds ever made anyone any money, except for Bowie. His thinking always seemed light-years of everyone else.
Didn't some of those Sand Hill Road guys invest in FTX b/c they thought SBF playing video games while talking to them was a good sign? And keep their money in Silicon Valley Bank?
I'm not persuaded many of them are any smarter than anyone else.
In that you are wise.
I truly hope someone with the vision and the money buys Bandcamp from these "songtradr" goons, and then just lets the company get back to doing what it was doing before Epic decided to hoover them up for no good reason.
I still have no understanding of why Bandcamp's founder allowed the sale to Epic in the first place -- they were doing fine! They were sustainably growing year over year, getting better and better name-recognition and genuine credibility from the music community. If they'd just kept it up instead of selling out....well, one can only dream at this point.
Such a sad waste of opportunity and talent. Half their staff canned by vulture capitalists who have *absolutely no idea* what they've bought, why, or what to do with it besides ruin it like everything else they touch.
Because you never turn down the right offer. You can get lucky and make more money down the road not selling- if everything goes right. But nobody's got a crystal ball. A lot more things can go wrong, and then you're saying I could have been a billionaire when you had 9 figures instead of 10. I've seen it happen time and time again. Take the money and run.
“Take the money and run” is just a figure of speech. It’s selfish, sure, but it’s not good business sense and it’s certainly not good for working musicians. They got their bag and now things have gotten worse. So inspiring!
Vision, a real sense of community and community service in the broadest sense, empowering the arts and artists? Nah, the majority of vulture capitalists give exactly zero fucks about any of that. The buck trumps all, including people, plants, animals, ecosytems, etc.
Got my fiddle, dancing while it burns. The music ain’t going nowhere. It’s in record stacks and on hard drives everywhere. We had an access glut for a while, and now maybe music can go back to being valued. Independent musicians will find a way to press records, dub tapes, play shows. The big boys can re-learn that too. Get the bankers out of this space. They ruin everything they touch.
Excellent, Ted. I know you get no points for being early in the “I told you so” line, but I said circa ‘91 the creative music revolution will be in billing. It was creative and musicians lost. Hard to squeeze positive out of this but now music is only loud money for the famous and we all know the fame business model. Overall, it’s been a bad financial bet. But there was a time, when the unions had some control, before the MP3 made passing tunes around like making a phone call and drummers had limited partnerships. It made for better music. Money attracts talent.
I know the Concord folks. I’d say they consider it an honorable mission keeping the past alive...and they don’t need the money...yeah, you covered that.
Old songs will be public domain after a certain point regardless of attempts to monetize them.
Yes, new music is the future…Unfortunately, in the everyday life of the average working musician, (playing cover tunes) in every town USA is a cat and mouse with the archaic ways PRO’s operate. They limit young musicians just starting out and older musicians keeping the craft up.
Musicians can’t promote the gigs without putting a bullseye on the venue.
Young musicians can’t get the mentorship that comes from the local gigs.
Artist-friendly live music platforms are a solid investment
That’s where new music is born.
I am working on such a said platform for artists to leverage their value after every gig.
And paying homage to the artist they cover...
Amen to that! Local or touring live music. And the best is trying to play a musical instrument, however pitifully. It sparks the brain neurons like no other activity. It is brain food and exercise.
This column goes somewhat opposite to Mr. Gioia's earlier premise that no one is listening to new songs, and that the old songs are out-pacing the new in popularity. If this were true, older music should be a sound [NPI] investment for the 75 years after Bob Dylan and Paul McCartney die
They're not incompatible observations. Old music might be relatively more popular than new music on streaming platforms today, but that doesn't make it a good investment. As these songs inevitably lose their cultural capital they will be increasingly unattractive for purposes of licensing in commercials, films, video games, TV etc. The decline is sufficiently easy to see in the present that it makes it a bad investment.
Gosh if only Taylor Swift would buy the music industry...
I think you are forgetting a couple of things.
1. Hipgnosis is a publicly traded vehicle. Thus it attracts dumb/fickle money in ways that privately held vehicles like Primary Wave and Reservoir do not. I had two guys from one of the privately held investment funds talk to my music business class at NYU a couple of weeks ago. They said they expect this kind of downturn in the short term and have funding sources that are confident over the long term. They had no incentive to say this; it was a private discussion, and for this reason I won't name the fund. Among those who follow this stuff, there was little doubt that Hipgnosis's share price was on a bubble and would come back to earth. Otherwise see https://www.billboard.com/pro/hipgnosis-accounting-repeated-other-publishers/.
2. That old boring topic that no one in music ever wants to talk about : interest rates. Song catalogs offered a great return compared to other asset classes when the prime rate was like 1-2%. Now that it's 8.5%, different story.
In short, I wouldn't read as much as you do into this Hipgnosis incident.
I know Ted's no fan of Spotify, but it's the only place I can find old recordings of music from the dreaded 50s-80s. I heard a few good tunes in the 90s when I was on the road traveling for site surveys of Sonic Drive In restaurants that were to be remodeled. Those tunes never interested me to the extent that I'd actually purchase the album. I haven't heard anything I like since; I like my old pop, rock, and jazz. So without Spotify I'm unable to find the vase majority of albums that I'd like to own. Some are simply unavailable, even with Discogs and Amazon. And even if they are, they're too expensive for my pocketbook. I hope Spotify can make a go of it for my personal satisfaction. As a side note, I've had a Pandora account since 2006, but getting deep cuts there is an iffy proposition, though if I'm in an FM radio mood, it's still good.
Try YouTube. It has everything that Spotify has and then some. It's particularly good for old obscure recordings.
YouTube has been owned by Googlet since 2006. I avoid any Googlet product like it's Ebola. I don't want my YouTube views to allow incessant ads, spam, etc. that accompany them. I opened a new Yahoo account over two years ago because someone tried to access my e-mail, and ATT (another disgusting company) had so many incompetent tech support personnel that it took me almost a year to find one who could figure out how to access the e-mail account I'd had since 1996. I have only received two or three spam e-mails in my new e-mail, which were from companies that found my contact info through my architect's license. Firefox and DDG are your friends in this area, though Firefox has many problems, partly because they've sold out on their protection practices. I'm trying Brave, buy it doesn't like my Windows 7 Pro OS and loads particularly slowly. Regardless my avoidance of Googlet products has served me well.
Thanks anyway.
This is a sad read for music lovers. Before I give up all hope: I can definitely see the wisdom in your assumption that old music may become a vanity/ego asset class but old master paintings and professional sports teams also have high vanity appeal and have been very hot investments for decades. Does this give reason for hope or are they just trendy bubbles ready to pop?