600,000

            That’s the biggest story in the music industry right now. After paltry #1 records with a few tent poles, how does a band like Mumford and Sons come out of the gate that large with only their sophomore LP Babel? After all, 2011 started with the lowest #1 album of all-time, Showroom of Compassion by my beloved group Cake, which only had 44,000 in sales in its first week. Bob Lefsetz tellsthe story in a recent post about the October 13th Billboard 200chart. What he relates is that people thought the album as a format was done but now out of nowhere comes this independent band from England that pulls numbers like it’s the 1990s. Sure a few albums have topped a million their first week, well putting them in the top 20 for Billboard 200 debuts. They have come from artists with a proven track record of success or with a gimmick to help with album sales. Both was the case with Lady Gaga’s album Born This Way, which debuted with 1.1 million sales but 440,000 of those came from a promotion where Amazon.com sold the album for 99 cents.  Born This Way also was the highest debut album since 2005’s The Massacre by 50 Cent.

            But the numbers are only part of the story, the truth is Mumford and Sons’ 600,000 sold is that it’s the largest debut by an artist on an independent label. Mumford and Sons’ first LP, Sigh No More, never charted above number 2 on the Billboard 200. Granted that album did sell 1.4 million copies in 2011 alone, not to add in the copies sold in the previous 2 years it had been available. But 600,000 in the first week is a feat that couldn’t even be done but some of the major labels’ claimed saviors such as the Jay-Z and Kanye West collaboration Watch The Throne, which only had 436,000, and teen heartthrob Justin Bieber, whose 2012 album, Believe, only debuted with 347,000 sold. Lefsetz goes on to say it might be a sign of revolution; that people are becoming tired of processed pop music. I don’t believe we’re at that point yet. But if this is a renaissance of music with heart and coupled with Adele and Arcade Fire’s recent Grammy award triumphs, proof that there is room for independent labels and artists, then I welcome it with open arms.

The EMI-Universal Merger

          On September 21^st, the recording industry took a huge turn towards further consolidation when the European Union and the Federal Trade Commission in the United States approved the takeover of EMI by Universal Music Group. The deal would give the new company 40% of the industry. EMI and Universal are two parts of the current industry Big Four. The group also has Sony with 30 percent and Warner Music with 20 percent. EMI is coveted for its famous roster of artists that include The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Frank Sinatra, and Katy Perry. In Europe, the deal has tighter restrictions including sellingoff certain labels that are currently part of EMI, most notably Parlophone,which was the Beatles’ home at the company. The Beatles catalog will not bepart of the sale.

            In an article from the Huffington Post, it is argued that the merger will stifle innovation on the digital music. In one group controlling 40% of content, one could view that without that pass a project would likely die. According to the article, very expensive licensing agreements have hurt two very popular digital music services, Spotify and Pandora as these agreements make it very unlikely they will see a profit anytime soon. Spotify at last has the Big Four has shareholders so as investors, they have a stake in the company’s success but it’s always easier when you have the content provider in your back pocket. Another article from InvestorPlace suggests Pandora will also be ok because it’s up to politicians to set Internet radio royalties that dictate their cost. Maybe that’s a loophole that can be exploited to avoid having to pass Universal’s approval. Of course, the issue is not existing services, but potential new services.

            My biggest concern with the merger is the state of jobs in the industry. Yes, this big music company will be made of smaller labels, but with a merger always comes consolidation. Why have two marketing departments when you could run it out of one? Will that mean, it will become harder to get the job I want in the music industry going forward. Some would say the rise of independent labels may nullify this but 60 independent labels use Sony’s RED distribution for marketing including the current #1 album in the US, Babel by Mumford & Sons. I wish I had numbers on if job changes occurred during the last big music industry merger Live Nation and Ticketmaster to get a read on this but as we go from a Big Four to a Big Three, I have to believe that the number of people employed in the recording industry will shrink again.

National Association of Recording Merchandisers

If you’ve ever been part of an industry in the United States, more than likely your company has representatives in a trade association. Trade associations are groups that businesses form to collaborate an also support combined interests. Trade associations have been known to exist in America since at least 1883, when the American Seed Trade Association was founded by businesses in the seed trade. In the music industry, there are two major trade associations. The most well known one is the Recording Industry Association of America, which represents the recording labels. The RIAA is mostly known by the general public for recently fighting against piracy and handing down fines to people who have violated copyright law per its modus operandi to do so. But while the RIAA gets all the press, the music actually has a second trade association that works more towards putting that music in the hands and ears of the fans.

            That association is the National Association of Recording Merchandisers. NARM began as a coalition of wholesalers and retailers focused on physical sales. In 2002, NARM expanded to include all aspects of the music business including digital sales, mobile phone use, gaming, applications, merchandise, videos, and other parts of the music industry. With a board of directors that includes representatives from iTunes, Amazon.com, Microsoft, Target, Verizon Wireless, and Spotify, it easy to see that NARM is a heavy hitter in entertainment. According to press releases, NARM members control 85% of music sales in the United States.

            So what does NARM do? The main thing NARM does is creating promotions and marketing for recorded music first and foremost. Such programs have a “Gift The Gift ofMusic” campaign, which usually shows how music is a great gift for the holidays. They also worked with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame on the Definitive 200, a list of albums selected to be the best by these two groups. With the trend being buying older music, this is a great idea to promote older records. Beyond that, they also hold free online seminars for members to help people understand the music industry and bring ideas together. The also have an annual conference on entertainment law and another one on digital startups. By looking at these, it seems that NARM is an association that understands how music in changing and wants to remain relevant rather than fade away. I like that. I also feel like as a hopeful member of the music industry, it’s good to have a trade association that feels like it wants new members.

I feel joining this trade association would be helpful to me in that I can known what’s going on using NARM’s massive release database so my clients will known when new albums are coming out. I also feel it would help me see what technology is changing things and maybe even get in the ground floor myself. Again, it also feels like they want to expand and having that knowledge is also comforting.

Does space make the music?

In the TED talk entitled “How architecture helped music evolve,” Rock and Roll Hall of Famer David Byrne tries to explain how venues and spaces have molded music from the early times of man all the way to the current digital age.  Byrne is able to effectively comment on this due his status as an internationally known musician and the knowledge that he has played in several different venues. He uses this to his advantage to open the talk by commenting on probably his greatest known era, playing the legendary rock and roll club CBGB’s in the late 1970s. It’s a place deep in the heart of any rock and roll fan and Byrne describes how the room was for music. He states it was a “good sounding” room and its lack of reverb helped retain the qualities of the music performed. He then links it to another legendary venue, Tootsie’s Orchid Lounge in Nashville. This broadens the scope of his opening statements to show that at that time period, even among musical differences, a good room can mean a lot to music and that for rock and country, you just had to play loud enough for people to notice. It’s an effective start because it’s what most people want to hear a rock start talk about, playing legendary venues at their peak.

                        Byrne then changes gears. He talks about playing “nicer” venues, concert halls but finds that his music didn’t sound great in those venues. So he turns the question on himself first and then to a larger issue. Is music created for a specific venue in mind? Byrne seems to think so as he traces the path of music. He says that tribal drums fit the needs for a loud sound in the open air of West Africa. The long flat tones of 15^th century religious pieces fit the huge space of a gothic cathedral. Bach’s organ fugues fit smaller local churches. Royal salons fit Mozart’s more intricate pieces in the late 1700s. At the same time, operas became more and more bombast as audiences made the occasion a social event. The reflection of this was Wagner’s opera house, which was smaller but allowed for a larger orchestra. Then, a reversal happened. Concert halls became larger as the classes became larger. With more space, they had more reverb. Therefore, audiences now had to be quiet in order to hear the dynamics being introduced in music at that time.

                        Moving onto the arrival of modern popular music at the turn of the 20^th century, Byrne explains that jazz bands were playing on riverboats and in clubs at this point and like back in the salon days of Mozart and heyday of opera, would have to play over noisy audiences. He also links opera to jazz in that in opera, people would call for an encore on the spot, in the early days of jazz, dancers would call for a section to be played again which in turn got monotonous and led to improvised sections, creating what we know as jazz today. With the introduction of the microphone and the radio, music venues changed. You could now have music anywhere. Also, music could now be written specifically for recording and playback. Byrne’s example is “My Funny Valentine” by Chet Baker. The dynamics of being right into the microphone is an excellent example of being able to broadcast right into listeners’ ears. With music now firmly split between recorded music and live music, people flock to see popular artists and are forced to play poorly sounding larger spaces such as sports stadiums and arenas. Some bands, according to Byrne, try to fit these larger stadiums creating arena rock. Also, there are now spaces dedicated to enjoyment of recorded music, most notably the discotheque. Byrne then links the dancers of jazz wanting to hear sections again to early hip-hop, as MCs would rhyme over the best part of disco hits. He then says there is music written explicitly for car stereos, mostly today’s hip-hop music with heavy bass and today’s pop written with extreme detail but no dynamics for today’s MP3 players.

Byrne is highly effective at tracing the venues of music. There are some small holes from making such a larger generalization such as U2 only makes music for giant stadiums or using Chet Baker as the best example as recordings shaping music. I would choose something more layered or nuanced like the Beatles. In fact, the Beatles not playing songs from Revolver on their 1966 tour is probably the best example of live vs. recorded music. Regardless, it’s an important topic because they way we interact with music has changed immensely in the past 100 years and more so in the past 15 years. A recent article from the San Jose Mercury News shows that music even shapes venues where music isn’t the most important part of the experience. It’s an article about how music consultants are being hired by restaurants to set the right tone for their establishment. A lot of stores and restaurants are using Pandora or SiriusXM to set a basic mood but with this specialization technique, it could grow to be a larger field. Also, as someone who is interested in the live music industry, to hear the people have always talked and been rowdy at concerts gives me the realization that being quiet at a show is a newer demand and probably is a losing battle as one is fighting years of behavior.  Many acts have started to shy away from large stadium tours as of late, which is an interesting trend but also as acts sounds have changed to those, which no longer fit the stadium setting. Hopefully this is a turn to trying to play rooms that better suit their own sound.  It also would have been interesting to see David Byrne address such technological advancements as the Constellation Sound System by Meyer. As demonstrated by Bob Weir, formerly of the Grateful Dead, in his TRI Studios, he can make the space sound like a club or a cathedral all with the touch of a button. It’ll be interesting to see if more spaces adapt this technology so a recording artist could make their recording feel like the venue they imagine their playing.

Presidential Music Selections

            As the 2012 Presidential races come down to the wire, once again the candidates’ use of music becomes a hot issue in the industry. The latest issue is over Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan using Twisted Sister’s “We’re Not Gonna Take It” at a rally in Pennsylvania, per an article on Billboard.com. Snider released a statement saying, “There is almost nothing he stands for that I agree with except for the use of the P90X.” This is not the first time the Romney-Ryan campaign has been in trouble this year over their use of music. Earlier this month, the New York Times reported that Los Angeles-based band Silversun Pickups issued a cease and desist letter over use of their song “Panic Switch.” The Romney campaign went on to say the song was not used during the actual events and would not play it again.

            This issue really first made news in 1984 as explained in article from CNN.com. That year, Bruce Springsteen was ruling the pop charts with his album Born in the USA. With it’s aerobic backbeat and singsong chorus, Ronald Reagan’s re-election campaign thought it would be the perfect anthem to back “Morning in America.” Famously, the Reagan campaign must not have listened the verses, which hauntingly tell of an America in shambles and how poorly the country treats its war veterans. He would also explain his stance to Rolling Stone magazine, "I think people have a need to feel good about the country they live in. But what's happening, I think, is that that need -- which is a good thing -- is getting manipulated and exploited. You see in the Reagan election ads on TV, you know, 'It's morning in America,' and you say, 'Well, it's not morning in Pittsburgh.'"

            The 2008 election also had its share of issues. Singer Jackson Browne, for using his song “Running on Empty” in a campaign ad, sued Senator John McCain. Heart went on television asking Sarah Palin to stop using “Barracuda.” Sam Moore was apparently disappointed in Barack Obama’s use of “Soul Man.” How are these campaigns allowed to just pick up music for their events without any legal issue? The NewYork Times explains the answer is blanket licenses from ASCAP and BMI. The campaigns buy these licenses similar to a restaurant or performing arts venues. So it’s not an issue of royalties. The problem becomes does the candidate’s use of their music mean that the artist has supported the candidate?

            Personally, I think a candidate should reach out to an artist before selecting their music for a campaign. With the rise of campaign videos, authorized and unauthorized, making rounds on the Internet, an artist is more likely to find out who’s using their songs. It makes that approval more critical. Artists should be able to position themselves either politically or apolitically by themselves without some campaign manager changing that perspective for them. It's also critical because music is such an important part of many's people lives and has such deep emotions that to have it tied to someone else's ideology is a strong signifier. That's why this is a hot topic and I feel that link should be direct from the artist.