Have been to Pandora yet? Sounds great doesn't it? Type in the name of your favorite artist and a station is built that features the music of that artist and those of a similar sound, genre or era. In my opinion, it's a great way to listen to music over the internet.
Recently, Pandora's owner has complained that his company is struggling to turn a profit because more than 60% of it's incoming revenue is going back out in royalties to the artists whose music is streamed on the site. Pandora has been asking the labels and artists to take a reduced royalty rate so that it can remain competitive. The site is ad supported allowing listeners do so for free. Pandora's stocks have been bounced around like a ship on a stormy sea this past year.
I've enjoyed listening to the free music on Pandora, but, maybe, it's time for Pandora to consider a change in it's business model. Perhaps an approach more akin to Spotify is in order. After all, asking artists to take a pay cut when it's their music that makes the whole thing happen, seems kind of backward. In my opinion, those who use the music should be asked to help defray the cost of bringing the music to them. Other streaming sites are already doing this.
In other words, it may be time for a rate hike. Maybe even a tiered structure. Right now you can listen to Pandora ad free for $3.99 a month. This would become the ad supported version and this bottom tier could be called Pandora Basic. A second tier at $4.99 a month could be called Pandora Gold, and a third tier at $9.99 called Pandora premium would have no ads at all.
Users and Fans of Pandora might not like this, but as an artist it just makes more sense. The business of music is not only hard but it can be costly. Lots of money can be poured into the making of just a single recorded release. Reciprocity is all that music makers want
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
At The Art Of It All
I've always been good when it comes to artistic things. Seriously. When I was growing up, it didn't matter what it was, paper, pencil, ink, paint, cardboard, you name it. If you could draw or paint on it or fold and reshape it, I probably used it to turn it into some thing else. In fact, I managed to get straight "A"s in art from kindergarten through grade and high school, and yes, even college. And, while I graduated from the University of Akron in 2009 with a degree in Mass Media Communications, I still retain a certain amount of ability when it comes to things of an artistic nature.
Somewhere along the way, I discovered that music or more to the point, songs, were a way to create something out of seemingly nothing. Once I got the hang of how to organize my musical ideas, I couldn't get enough. It's been like using my mind as a canvas to construct the intangible and then bring it into the world of the physical by way of writing it down.
When I got my first chance to record my ideas, things changed a bit. Learning the language of music seemed to slow the process. That's when I began to pick up instruments and fashion sounds as I heard them without regard for rules. This was fun at first, but then what would happen is, I'd get a great groove with no idea if words would even fit to what I had come up with. I spent a couple of years recording my writings in this way. It wasn't until I tried to relate my melodies from my mind to the instruments that I was playing. Not being a virtuoso on any particular one, left some of my tunes lacking in the beginning. But, a little formal piano took care of that in a hurry. Soon there after, I was going hunting for any little melody that passed through my head.
Over time, I've managed to bring the music to the words in a marriage that has not only been gratifying, but has won me an occasional compliment or two. Which, has led me into believing that I'm on the right track. If there has been a weak point, I think that it would be my singing. Which by the way seems to be what makes my songs work these days... go figure. Personally, I feel that I'm a work in progress. And now, being able to record and produce myself as I do so, I have an even greater opportunity to get everything I can from what I hear in my head.
The point of all of this, is that when a song or album is finished and ready to release to the world, it will go into the market place right along side countless other artists. After years of excepting that what I did with paint and paper was art, there are times when I don't feel the same when it comes to my music. The reason is simple. What makes it's way to the world is as close to what I imagined as possible, but the process of producing a record can be a tricky thing. So, the question then becomes, is it the performance, the arrangement, or the production that makes a piece of recorded music a work of art?
I'm sure that we've all heard a song or two on the radio and thought, "now there's no way that that one should get any air play," only to learn that it's a number one smash. Music is subjective, for sure, and I would say that it's true that most singer songwriters, bands, and musicians are creating sounds with meaning, even if only enough for their own tastes.
Radio is alive and well and not about to disappear anytime soon. However, whenever I'm online and I get a chance to stream some music, I'm always able to find something that sounds so good that I've got to hear it over and over again. I mean, folks whose stuff is more than worthy of air time over the terrestrial airwaves. Things with melody as well as rhythm and rhyme. Definitely worthy of being called art.
It just makes me wonder why it isn't possible to give more people a chance to learn that good music is alive and well and living online.
Somewhere along the way, I discovered that music or more to the point, songs, were a way to create something out of seemingly nothing. Once I got the hang of how to organize my musical ideas, I couldn't get enough. It's been like using my mind as a canvas to construct the intangible and then bring it into the world of the physical by way of writing it down.
When I got my first chance to record my ideas, things changed a bit. Learning the language of music seemed to slow the process. That's when I began to pick up instruments and fashion sounds as I heard them without regard for rules. This was fun at first, but then what would happen is, I'd get a great groove with no idea if words would even fit to what I had come up with. I spent a couple of years recording my writings in this way. It wasn't until I tried to relate my melodies from my mind to the instruments that I was playing. Not being a virtuoso on any particular one, left some of my tunes lacking in the beginning. But, a little formal piano took care of that in a hurry. Soon there after, I was going hunting for any little melody that passed through my head.
Over time, I've managed to bring the music to the words in a marriage that has not only been gratifying, but has won me an occasional compliment or two. Which, has led me into believing that I'm on the right track. If there has been a weak point, I think that it would be my singing. Which by the way seems to be what makes my songs work these days... go figure. Personally, I feel that I'm a work in progress. And now, being able to record and produce myself as I do so, I have an even greater opportunity to get everything I can from what I hear in my head.
The point of all of this, is that when a song or album is finished and ready to release to the world, it will go into the market place right along side countless other artists. After years of excepting that what I did with paint and paper was art, there are times when I don't feel the same when it comes to my music. The reason is simple. What makes it's way to the world is as close to what I imagined as possible, but the process of producing a record can be a tricky thing. So, the question then becomes, is it the performance, the arrangement, or the production that makes a piece of recorded music a work of art?
I'm sure that we've all heard a song or two on the radio and thought, "now there's no way that that one should get any air play," only to learn that it's a number one smash. Music is subjective, for sure, and I would say that it's true that most singer songwriters, bands, and musicians are creating sounds with meaning, even if only enough for their own tastes.
Radio is alive and well and not about to disappear anytime soon. However, whenever I'm online and I get a chance to stream some music, I'm always able to find something that sounds so good that I've got to hear it over and over again. I mean, folks whose stuff is more than worthy of air time over the terrestrial airwaves. Things with melody as well as rhythm and rhyme. Definitely worthy of being called art.
It just makes me wonder why it isn't possible to give more people a chance to learn that good music is alive and well and living online.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
How About That Demo...
When your a DIY or Independent artist, it's very likely that a lot of what gets done with regard to your music is done by you. In other words, you may be wearing all the hats. When it's time to promote your music you have to do it. Or when it time to go to social media in order to spread the word, you're the one whose tweeting, posting, or blogging.
You may be good at making music, but know absolutely nothing about marketing. And, selling your self may not be what you think of as the best way to sell your music. But, it's not enough to record your music and get it into iTunes. Once it's there, it could just sit, receiving little if any attention, until someone finds out about it.
The same is true if you've just made a CD. If you're fortunate enough to get it into a brick & mortar store, you've really got to let the people know or lose your spot on the self.
If you were signed to a label, most likely, a certain amount of resource would have been allocated for promoting your release. Depending on the size of your contract, you're promotion money would be part of a marketing plan or campaign.
This marketing plan, if you're lucky, might include some live appearances by you on local radio or television. May be a few print ads or some Radio or TV commercial. And, if you're really lucky you may get a shot at national radio or TV. At any rate, the formula used my most labels involves knowing who your audience is and getting your name and/or face in front of them as often as possible, or what your promotion budget will allow.
Most record companies use the age group of 14 to 24yrs as their marketing demographic, or audience to which they want to sell most of their releases. The idea is, that people in that age group tend to have a lot of what is know as disposable cash. I mentioned this before in another post, but it something that DIY artists should consider, even if it isn't important for the music that you make. I say this because, and this is just my opinion, you should always know who it is that likes your music enough to buy it. If your music skews older than the 14 to 24 demographic, it's likely that you will be doing a lot more live performances, possible at smaller venues, and your record sales will come partly from these performances, and tend to bring less income than said performances.
If you're not an artist who performs live, use YouTube, Vevo, or GrooveShark as a means of sharing your music visually. There's also video chat and webinars.
I realize that there's no revelation here. But, when you consider how Facebook tends to place most of it's attention on those whose followings are at least 10,000 and up, you have to look for and find as many other outlets for exposure of your music as possible. And while the idea of having and/or using a demographic may seem silly or even useless as an independent or DIY artist, it might not hurt to consider having broad appeal and then giving the people what they want.
You may be good at making music, but know absolutely nothing about marketing. And, selling your self may not be what you think of as the best way to sell your music. But, it's not enough to record your music and get it into iTunes. Once it's there, it could just sit, receiving little if any attention, until someone finds out about it.
The same is true if you've just made a CD. If you're fortunate enough to get it into a brick & mortar store, you've really got to let the people know or lose your spot on the self.
If you were signed to a label, most likely, a certain amount of resource would have been allocated for promoting your release. Depending on the size of your contract, you're promotion money would be part of a marketing plan or campaign.
This marketing plan, if you're lucky, might include some live appearances by you on local radio or television. May be a few print ads or some Radio or TV commercial. And, if you're really lucky you may get a shot at national radio or TV. At any rate, the formula used my most labels involves knowing who your audience is and getting your name and/or face in front of them as often as possible, or what your promotion budget will allow.
Most record companies use the age group of 14 to 24yrs as their marketing demographic, or audience to which they want to sell most of their releases. The idea is, that people in that age group tend to have a lot of what is know as disposable cash. I mentioned this before in another post, but it something that DIY artists should consider, even if it isn't important for the music that you make. I say this because, and this is just my opinion, you should always know who it is that likes your music enough to buy it. If your music skews older than the 14 to 24 demographic, it's likely that you will be doing a lot more live performances, possible at smaller venues, and your record sales will come partly from these performances, and tend to bring less income than said performances.
If you're not an artist who performs live, use YouTube, Vevo, or GrooveShark as a means of sharing your music visually. There's also video chat and webinars.
I realize that there's no revelation here. But, when you consider how Facebook tends to place most of it's attention on those whose followings are at least 10,000 and up, you have to look for and find as many other outlets for exposure of your music as possible. And while the idea of having and/or using a demographic may seem silly or even useless as an independent or DIY artist, it might not hurt to consider having broad appeal and then giving the people what they want.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
New Profile!
Problems with my Nprogram Myspace account have led to it's deletion. However, I've replaced it with another profile, at least until the New Myspace is up and running. All interested parties can find me at my new Nprogram Myspace profile.
Also, I've just release a new single called, "Full Court Press," and it's available at iTunes! Click the widget to the right for a full stream preview of it and all of the other songs.
Also, I've just release a new single called, "Full Court Press," and it's available at iTunes! Click the widget to the right for a full stream preview of it and all of the other songs.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Pono Anyone?
A few weeks ago, Neil Young appeared on Late Night with David Letterman to promote Pono. Pono is Young's project turned reality, for giving music fans and consumer better quality sound from their digital purchases. The word Pono is Hawaiian for righteous, and if it delivers the promise of studio quality sound, that's just about what it will be.
I posted in the past about lossless audio compression schemes such as FLAC, which can play back a WAV file, which is what CD files are made from, with a sound that is exactly like the original. What Young has come up with, is a player that can play back studio files recorded at an uncompressed 192kHz/24 bit resolution. He's already made a deal with Sony, Universal, and Warner to make high resolution versions of some top name artists' music available in a Pono download store. The player will also have the ability to play back any audio file format, plus it will be able to convert those files into high resolution files.
Mp3 files are considered lossy audio files, because a portion of the information in a WAV, file from which they are usually made, is removed in order to compress it so that it is faster to download or stream over the internet. Much talk has been circulated over the past several years about using lossless compression schemes such as FLAC, which is similar to a zip file, where none of the information is removed. While some e-music stores have been making downloads available in several different forms, most are still offering only Mp3's, but with a higher bitrate such as 256kbps, 320kbps or higher.
Personally, I'm in favor of better sounding downloads, and more over, I think that Young is on the right track. The question that hasn't been asked is how much will the higher resolution downloads cost. One reason that the Mp3 has stayed in such high demand is that the cost per track is usually .99 or lower if on sale. Of course, having said that, I can see how some classic tracks and albums would be viewed worthy of a higher price, as a high resolution download, no matter what the cost.
All in all, with the introduction of Pono, it would seem that the digital download business may be in for a little shake up.
I posted in the past about lossless audio compression schemes such as FLAC, which can play back a WAV file, which is what CD files are made from, with a sound that is exactly like the original. What Young has come up with, is a player that can play back studio files recorded at an uncompressed 192kHz/24 bit resolution. He's already made a deal with Sony, Universal, and Warner to make high resolution versions of some top name artists' music available in a Pono download store. The player will also have the ability to play back any audio file format, plus it will be able to convert those files into high resolution files.
Mp3 files are considered lossy audio files, because a portion of the information in a WAV, file from which they are usually made, is removed in order to compress it so that it is faster to download or stream over the internet. Much talk has been circulated over the past several years about using lossless compression schemes such as FLAC, which is similar to a zip file, where none of the information is removed. While some e-music stores have been making downloads available in several different forms, most are still offering only Mp3's, but with a higher bitrate such as 256kbps, 320kbps or higher.
Personally, I'm in favor of better sounding downloads, and more over, I think that Young is on the right track. The question that hasn't been asked is how much will the higher resolution downloads cost. One reason that the Mp3 has stayed in such high demand is that the cost per track is usually .99 or lower if on sale. Of course, having said that, I can see how some classic tracks and albums would be viewed worthy of a higher price, as a high resolution download, no matter what the cost.
All in all, with the introduction of Pono, it would seem that the digital download business may be in for a little shake up.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
New...Again!
Recently, I've been having some issues with my Nprogram Myspace account. After a several week wait, I got an email apologizing for the time it took to get back to me and giving me some suggestions for what I could do until they could fix the problem. But, they also informed me that the reason that they were so behind in their responses was that they were building a brand new Myspace.
Later, I read and article in Billboard were the new owners were currently revamping Myspace, turning it into a site that leans toward artists and their fans through the use of social media. There's no definite date set for the site launch, but the design is great and well worth a look. If you follow the URL new.myspace.com you can get access to a video preview that is also available on Vimeo.
At the end of the video there's a chance for you to request an invite.When you click the link you're sent to a page where you type in your email address and a pop up dialog tells you that an invitation will be sent to you. The process lends an air of class to the new Myspace. From the looks of things, I think it will be well received and well worth the wait.
Later, I read and article in Billboard were the new owners were currently revamping Myspace, turning it into a site that leans toward artists and their fans through the use of social media. There's no definite date set for the site launch, but the design is great and well worth a look. If you follow the URL new.myspace.com you can get access to a video preview that is also available on Vimeo.
At the end of the video there's a chance for you to request an invite.When you click the link you're sent to a page where you type in your email address and a pop up dialog tells you that an invitation will be sent to you. The process lends an air of class to the new Myspace. From the looks of things, I think it will be well received and well worth the wait.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Quiet Times?
Musically speaking, it's been a rather quiet year. At least, as near as I can tell. New music by some of the more familiar major label artists are just starting to be released. New music from Dave Matthews Band, Bob Dylan, David Byrne, Dwight Yoakam, No Doubt, Pink and more are all expected this fall. So why so quiet this year?
I don't know. As near as I can tell, one of the biggest selling albums of 2012 is last year's "21" by Adele. That might tell you something. While it's not odd for an album to have success in multiple years, it makes you wonder about the music that's been released since the beginning of this year by artist such as John Mayer, Chris Brown, and Usher. I have no criticism of their work at this time. I only know that they are major label artists with huge followings.
Of course, if you've read any of my previous posts, then you know that I have a theory about how loss of melody in favor of more rhythm is most likely the reason. And, I know this sounds like a broken record effect, but maybe there's something to it.
Back in the 1990s, Hootie & The Blowfish went against the the Rap and Hip Hop heavy sounds of the time, with the release of their debut album, "Cracked rear View." The album featured slow to mid tempo Pop songs that were not only heavy on melody, but contained lyrics that were easy to remember and not nearly as offensive as some of the other releases of that time. Not only could you sing the words, but so could your parents. The album sold 16 million copies. That may not mean much to some, but if you've ever heard any of the songs from that album, then I think that you might get an idea of why I believe my theory to be true.
We all have a favorite kind of music that we like to listen to. As someone who makes their own music, I have an eclectic sense of taste when it come to what I like about it. But, all in all, I think that when we hear something that not only moves us, but is so memorable that it stays in our minds, it's usually something that most of us can relate to. When a song or a piece of music comes along and no matter what your favorite kind of music is, if that song or piece of music grabs you and not only holds your attention. But, when you hear it, you don't really recognize it as being part of a genre. That particular song or piece of music appeals to so many at one time that it's appeal could be considered, universal.
At that point, it's not about how much money the song or music makes, or how many units sold. In fact, when that happens, I think, and this is just my opinion, that it's about where you were and what you were doing when you first heard it. That we only think about how many people related to the experience of hearing that particular song or music, even though we all may have heard it at different times and in different places.
It's been a while since anyone has done that. But, with music, it can happen again, over and over. And, it may just be that it will happen again some time soon. We'll just have to keep listening.
I don't know. As near as I can tell, one of the biggest selling albums of 2012 is last year's "21" by Adele. That might tell you something. While it's not odd for an album to have success in multiple years, it makes you wonder about the music that's been released since the beginning of this year by artist such as John Mayer, Chris Brown, and Usher. I have no criticism of their work at this time. I only know that they are major label artists with huge followings.
Of course, if you've read any of my previous posts, then you know that I have a theory about how loss of melody in favor of more rhythm is most likely the reason. And, I know this sounds like a broken record effect, but maybe there's something to it.
Back in the 1990s, Hootie & The Blowfish went against the the Rap and Hip Hop heavy sounds of the time, with the release of their debut album, "Cracked rear View." The album featured slow to mid tempo Pop songs that were not only heavy on melody, but contained lyrics that were easy to remember and not nearly as offensive as some of the other releases of that time. Not only could you sing the words, but so could your parents. The album sold 16 million copies. That may not mean much to some, but if you've ever heard any of the songs from that album, then I think that you might get an idea of why I believe my theory to be true.
We all have a favorite kind of music that we like to listen to. As someone who makes their own music, I have an eclectic sense of taste when it come to what I like about it. But, all in all, I think that when we hear something that not only moves us, but is so memorable that it stays in our minds, it's usually something that most of us can relate to. When a song or a piece of music comes along and no matter what your favorite kind of music is, if that song or piece of music grabs you and not only holds your attention. But, when you hear it, you don't really recognize it as being part of a genre. That particular song or piece of music appeals to so many at one time that it's appeal could be considered, universal.
At that point, it's not about how much money the song or music makes, or how many units sold. In fact, when that happens, I think, and this is just my opinion, that it's about where you were and what you were doing when you first heard it. That we only think about how many people related to the experience of hearing that particular song or music, even though we all may have heard it at different times and in different places.
It's been a while since anyone has done that. But, with music, it can happen again, over and over. And, it may just be that it will happen again some time soon. We'll just have to keep listening.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
New Music
Last month I released two new songs. As Nprogram, I released, Everybody Ain't Got Somebody, an R&B ballad. And, under my given name, John Hughley, I released Give It to You, a med tempo R&B/Funk groove. Both songs are available at iTunes, Amazon.com, Rhapsody and more. They can also be streamed on Spotify.
You can also listen to the songs on my Facebook pages, Facebook.com/John Hughley and Facebook.com/Nprogram.
You can also listen to the songs on my Facebook pages, Facebook.com/John Hughley and Facebook.com/Nprogram.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Back To The Mac
Last month Apple released the long awaited Mountain Lion OS for Mac users. While I'm primarily a PC user, I try to keep my eyes open for all things Apple. With this release, Apple is turning it's attention back to the Mac, after it's much heralded success with the iPad.
The new OS takes Lion a step further and is inspired by the iOS used on the iPhone and iPad. It makes use of applications management and and a feature called GateKeeper which makes sure that nothing malicious gets installed on your computer. It includes iMessage, Notes, Reminders, Game Center, Notification Center, AirPlay Mirrioring, and Facebook and Twitter integration. Mountain Lion is being offered as a download from the Mac Apps store.
Mountain Lion will only run on iMacs from 2007 or later, MacBooks from 2008 and 2009 or 2007 MacBook Pros. It will also run on 2008 MacBook Airs, 2009 Mac Minis, and Xserves. To run the upgrade you'll need to be running OS X ver 10.6.8 or have OX Lion already installed. You will also need 2GB of memory with an additional 8GB for storage.
The cost for OX Mountain Lion is $19.99. Apple has reduced the price form last years OX Lion by $10 with the belief that the new features and an even more affordable price will help refocus consumer attention back to the Mac.
Monday, August 6, 2012
Once More.... With Feeling
A couple of weeks ago I read a blog post that stated the old music is outselling new music. Last month Soundscan reported that in the first half of 2012, 76.6 million catatog albums were sold as compared to 73.9 million current albums. While this may not seem like a revelation, it may be a sign that the trend toward digital downloads is beginning to take a hold, or not.....
In the 1980s, after the release of the CD as a music delivery system, music buyers rushed out to buy there favorite albums from the past, trying to get the all time great hits in the pristine listening state that was offered by the compact disc. Back catalog surged to the top of the charts then as well. Today however, since not everyone is wired just yet, it may not be as easy to leap to the conclusion that downloads have done the same thing as the CD.
There are many factors at play when it comes to digital music sales. Everything from the "culture of free" to streaming and yes, pirating can be considered a cause for the slow pace of music sales in the digital era. I have another idea about why there has been a continued down turn in overall music sales since the late 1990s, but I'm going to save that for another blog post. Mean while, and this is just my opinion, music sales are up, but not where they once were, because the major labels have a continued fascination with image as the best and surest way to sell more music. Thus, you see the absence of a blockbuster hit here in the first half of 2012.
I'm sure that anyone who is constantly on the lookout for new music, especially on the web, can tell you that they have found a great number of bands or artists who blow away anyone that the majors are offering right now. But, with back catalog doing well once more, and the number of major record companies about to dwindle from four to three, it's really a win win situation for the last three standing, for they will control the rights to all of major releases both old and new.
I'd have to say though, that for the longest time I didn't think that I would ever be someone who would going rummaging through my collection to find something that I hadn't heard in years. That is, until Rap took over for R&B. At the time there essentially was no true R&B, so I didn't really have much choice, if that's what I wanted to hear. While some may disagree with my assertion, I don't believe that anyone can argue that Rap has become the uptempo counterpart to today's slower ballad driven Hip Hop infused R&B.
So it is, that I was not surprised to hear that back catalog is outselling new music. Also, as the major record companies keep pumping out the latest image driven, melody deprived nonsense that continues to pour over the airwaves, more and more music fans will continue to go looking for the genuine article. Even if they have to go looking for it within the music of the past.
In the 1980s, after the release of the CD as a music delivery system, music buyers rushed out to buy there favorite albums from the past, trying to get the all time great hits in the pristine listening state that was offered by the compact disc. Back catalog surged to the top of the charts then as well. Today however, since not everyone is wired just yet, it may not be as easy to leap to the conclusion that downloads have done the same thing as the CD.
There are many factors at play when it comes to digital music sales. Everything from the "culture of free" to streaming and yes, pirating can be considered a cause for the slow pace of music sales in the digital era. I have another idea about why there has been a continued down turn in overall music sales since the late 1990s, but I'm going to save that for another blog post. Mean while, and this is just my opinion, music sales are up, but not where they once were, because the major labels have a continued fascination with image as the best and surest way to sell more music. Thus, you see the absence of a blockbuster hit here in the first half of 2012.
I'm sure that anyone who is constantly on the lookout for new music, especially on the web, can tell you that they have found a great number of bands or artists who blow away anyone that the majors are offering right now. But, with back catalog doing well once more, and the number of major record companies about to dwindle from four to three, it's really a win win situation for the last three standing, for they will control the rights to all of major releases both old and new.
I'd have to say though, that for the longest time I didn't think that I would ever be someone who would going rummaging through my collection to find something that I hadn't heard in years. That is, until Rap took over for R&B. At the time there essentially was no true R&B, so I didn't really have much choice, if that's what I wanted to hear. While some may disagree with my assertion, I don't believe that anyone can argue that Rap has become the uptempo counterpart to today's slower ballad driven Hip Hop infused R&B.
So it is, that I was not surprised to hear that back catalog is outselling new music. Also, as the major record companies keep pumping out the latest image driven, melody deprived nonsense that continues to pour over the airwaves, more and more music fans will continue to go looking for the genuine article. Even if they have to go looking for it within the music of the past.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Changes
There are two things that I try never to write about and they are politics and sports. The reason is simple. I always feel as though nothing that I say will either matter or have any effect as a result. Still, it's hard not to pay attention either.
When it comes to sports I feel confident when talking about at least one of them in particular, and that's football. I played football for 5 years in junior high and high school and I've been watching the sport since I was 3 years old.
Things inside professional sports have changed over the years, and in football most necessarily. It's been said that money changes everything. If your're a fan of pro sports then you may have witnessed that this is true. But despite the changes that have taken place, as a fan, what interests us most has pretty much remained intact.
However, there was a time, back in the 60's when football was a "fan's" sport. Fans would pack places like Lambeau Field, Wrigley Field or maybe even Cleveland Municipal Stadium for a game, whether it was raining, sleeting, or snowing. Neither the high heat of late summer nor the freezing cold of mid winter could keep fans away from the game that they loved.
In the 70's, football became a players sport as we watched individual effort become the hallmark of every winning team. There were stand out players at just about every position. And some names became legend. Names like Jack Lambert, Paul Warfield, Lynn Swann, Larry Sconka, or Roger Staubach always seem to come to mind when you think of the wining or championship teams of that decade.
When the 80's rolled around, football seemed to become a more of a coaches sport. Strategy and player usage was the key to many major victories. Football became chess like as coaches strolled the sideline adjusting their game plans. Names such as Mike Ditka, Joe Gibbs, and Bill Walsh come to mind, as they coached their respective teams to championship victories.
Things were a bit different in the 90s, as the owners took the spotlight. The fate of some teams were completely turned around by a change in ownership. While other teams returned to prominence through the steady leadership of a long time patriarch. The Halas' or the Rooney's, or maybe Jerry Jones might fit this category. Most were low key and classy but they always made sure that their team maintained a high profile.
Here in the 21st century, and this is just my opinion, we've watched as football has become a corporate sport. Owners looking for the cash that they need to procure the best of the marquee players, either from the NFL Draft or from free agency, have reached out to corporations in exchange for a mention, logo placement or maybe even the rights to name the teams stadium or playing field. Lucas Oil Stadium, Sun Life Stadium or FedEx Field come to mind.
This second decade of the 21st century is only a year and a half old at this writing, so whatever will happen in pro sports and football in general still remains to be seen. One thing we can be sure of is that there will be change. One such change is about to take place in the relative future, as the Cleveland Browns are about to be sold. While this may not concern football fans on the whole, it is on the minds of those fans in Cleveland and northeast Ohio.
Many are wondering if this will mean that the team will leave town, again. Current team owner Randy Lerner has assured all, that any contract to sell the Browns will have language written into it that will stipulate that the team remain in Cleveland.
The teams has struggled over Lerner's ten year tenure, but it would seem that even the teams harshest critics are eyeing the situation with a certain level of objectivity. Will this be good or bad for the Browns? Like most of us who've been watching this expansion team version of the franchise, the most import thing that may have been forgotten, is that they are an expansion team. They like any other expansion team deserve the right to be given a chance to build and grow. While it is true that they've been in the league now for what will be their 13th season, many changes have taken place, sometimes yearly.
Yes, Browns fans have suffered mightily. Yes, it is hard to be patient when the Browns are one of only a handful of teams that hasn't won a Super Bowl, yet still have a very proud and storied football tradition. Growth has often been slow to invisible. But, this could be just another step in the evolution of what may one day become a great football franchise. We will all have to wait and see.
When it comes to sports I feel confident when talking about at least one of them in particular, and that's football. I played football for 5 years in junior high and high school and I've been watching the sport since I was 3 years old.
Things inside professional sports have changed over the years, and in football most necessarily. It's been said that money changes everything. If your're a fan of pro sports then you may have witnessed that this is true. But despite the changes that have taken place, as a fan, what interests us most has pretty much remained intact.
However, there was a time, back in the 60's when football was a "fan's" sport. Fans would pack places like Lambeau Field, Wrigley Field or maybe even Cleveland Municipal Stadium for a game, whether it was raining, sleeting, or snowing. Neither the high heat of late summer nor the freezing cold of mid winter could keep fans away from the game that they loved.
In the 70's, football became a players sport as we watched individual effort become the hallmark of every winning team. There were stand out players at just about every position. And some names became legend. Names like Jack Lambert, Paul Warfield, Lynn Swann, Larry Sconka, or Roger Staubach always seem to come to mind when you think of the wining or championship teams of that decade.
When the 80's rolled around, football seemed to become a more of a coaches sport. Strategy and player usage was the key to many major victories. Football became chess like as coaches strolled the sideline adjusting their game plans. Names such as Mike Ditka, Joe Gibbs, and Bill Walsh come to mind, as they coached their respective teams to championship victories.
Things were a bit different in the 90s, as the owners took the spotlight. The fate of some teams were completely turned around by a change in ownership. While other teams returned to prominence through the steady leadership of a long time patriarch. The Halas' or the Rooney's, or maybe Jerry Jones might fit this category. Most were low key and classy but they always made sure that their team maintained a high profile.
Here in the 21st century, and this is just my opinion, we've watched as football has become a corporate sport. Owners looking for the cash that they need to procure the best of the marquee players, either from the NFL Draft or from free agency, have reached out to corporations in exchange for a mention, logo placement or maybe even the rights to name the teams stadium or playing field. Lucas Oil Stadium, Sun Life Stadium or FedEx Field come to mind.
This second decade of the 21st century is only a year and a half old at this writing, so whatever will happen in pro sports and football in general still remains to be seen. One thing we can be sure of is that there will be change. One such change is about to take place in the relative future, as the Cleveland Browns are about to be sold. While this may not concern football fans on the whole, it is on the minds of those fans in Cleveland and northeast Ohio.
Many are wondering if this will mean that the team will leave town, again. Current team owner Randy Lerner has assured all, that any contract to sell the Browns will have language written into it that will stipulate that the team remain in Cleveland.
The teams has struggled over Lerner's ten year tenure, but it would seem that even the teams harshest critics are eyeing the situation with a certain level of objectivity. Will this be good or bad for the Browns? Like most of us who've been watching this expansion team version of the franchise, the most import thing that may have been forgotten, is that they are an expansion team. They like any other expansion team deserve the right to be given a chance to build and grow. While it is true that they've been in the league now for what will be their 13th season, many changes have taken place, sometimes yearly.
Yes, Browns fans have suffered mightily. Yes, it is hard to be patient when the Browns are one of only a handful of teams that hasn't won a Super Bowl, yet still have a very proud and storied football tradition. Growth has often been slow to invisible. But, this could be just another step in the evolution of what may one day become a great football franchise. We will all have to wait and see.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Red Rendezvous
Though space may be the final frontier, many of us may not know that another Mars mission is about to occur. The new Mars rover, Curiosity, is set to land on the red planet's surface at 1:31am August 6th. While this may not seem like a historical event, make no mistake about it is.
Curiosity follows in the footsteps of it's predecessors, Spirit, Opportunity, Sojourner, and Pathfinder, which first touched down on the Martian terrain in 1996. The rover got it's name form a sixth grader named Clara Ma, in 2009, as part of NASA's name the rover essay contest. Standing at 7 feet tall, it is the largest and most advance rover to date.
The vehicle, launched in November is a 2.5 billion dollar science laboratory, which if it survives it's 12,000mph plunge into Mars' atmosphere, will spend a full Martian year studying it's desolate environment. Curiosity is slated to land inside of Gale Crater and climb Mt Sharp on a "follow the carbon," trail. During the course of the mission, the rover will be using drills and lasers to bore into Martian rocks to determine what compounds they are made of, in the hopes of discovering if life once existed there.
The Spirit rover ceased transmission in May of 2011, but Opportunity is still going, having already logged 21 miles. Both rovers were part of a three month Mars mission which landed there in March of 2004. If it's landing is successful, Curiosity will send back only black and white photos of the Martian terrain during it first few days, but it is capable of recording hours of full color video of it's surroundings.
Scientist at JPL, (Jet Propulsion Laboratories) and in other locations are excited about the upcoming Mars mission. It represents a chance to go further and do more, and there fore discover more. Learning about how the solar system and the planets within it where formed may serve to deepen our understanding of how life began, at least in our part of the universe. One could only hope that some clues to how life can form will be revealed. And if so, it will help increase our knowledge about the formation of life on Earth and through out our galaxy.
Live coverage of Curiosity's landing will begin Sunday August 5th at 9pm EDT courtesy of the Space Center in Houston. It may make for some very interesting TV viewing, so if you are not able to watch, you may want to set you DVR so that you too will have a chance to see history in the making.
Curiosity follows in the footsteps of it's predecessors, Spirit, Opportunity, Sojourner, and Pathfinder, which first touched down on the Martian terrain in 1996. The rover got it's name form a sixth grader named Clara Ma, in 2009, as part of NASA's name the rover essay contest. Standing at 7 feet tall, it is the largest and most advance rover to date.
The vehicle, launched in November is a 2.5 billion dollar science laboratory, which if it survives it's 12,000mph plunge into Mars' atmosphere, will spend a full Martian year studying it's desolate environment. Curiosity is slated to land inside of Gale Crater and climb Mt Sharp on a "follow the carbon," trail. During the course of the mission, the rover will be using drills and lasers to bore into Martian rocks to determine what compounds they are made of, in the hopes of discovering if life once existed there.
The Spirit rover ceased transmission in May of 2011, but Opportunity is still going, having already logged 21 miles. Both rovers were part of a three month Mars mission which landed there in March of 2004. If it's landing is successful, Curiosity will send back only black and white photos of the Martian terrain during it first few days, but it is capable of recording hours of full color video of it's surroundings.
Scientist at JPL, (Jet Propulsion Laboratories) and in other locations are excited about the upcoming Mars mission. It represents a chance to go further and do more, and there fore discover more. Learning about how the solar system and the planets within it where formed may serve to deepen our understanding of how life began, at least in our part of the universe. One could only hope that some clues to how life can form will be revealed. And if so, it will help increase our knowledge about the formation of life on Earth and through out our galaxy.
Live coverage of Curiosity's landing will begin Sunday August 5th at 9pm EDT courtesy of the Space Center in Houston. It may make for some very interesting TV viewing, so if you are not able to watch, you may want to set you DVR so that you too will have a chance to see history in the making.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Coming Soon
Soon, many of us will decide if it's time to upgrade our operating system. If you're using a PC then that choice is going to be Windows 8. Clearly, you don't need to take my word for what it is or what it does. There are pleny of sites that are offering tech reviews of the new operating system form Microsoft. But, I'd like to share what I've found out about what's coming.
Windows 8 is designed for tablet users, but works just fine on a desk or laptop. The operating system makes use of Apps. A preview is available for download and you can get a feel for what the new approach will feel like running on your machine.
The new Metro interface features a start screen that replaces the start button. This screen offers a set of rectangles called "live tiles" that correspond to specific apps and their controls. To access the Windows desk top, just go tot the bottom left corner called the "hot corner" of the screen and click. This will bring up the familiar Windows desktop, which no longer has the start button.
There's also the new Windows Explorer which makes use of a ribbon across the top of the screen as you would have in Microsoft Office. And on the Metro Start screen there's an app that takes you to the Microsoft Apps store.
From all that I have seen and read, it sounds like Microsoft has finally given up it's obsession with security features and has tried to give users better functionality. The emphasis is more on the interface, but there are other improvements, like an all new task manager.
The new operating system is due for release in October. Those buying Windows 7 machines between Jun 2nd and January 31st can get a Windows 8 upgrade from Microsoft for just $14.99. After Windows 8 Pro launches, you'll have a chance, for a limited time, to upgrade for just $40. I think those two offers alone make this one upgrade to look forward to.
Windows 8 is designed for tablet users, but works just fine on a desk or laptop. The operating system makes use of Apps. A preview is available for download and you can get a feel for what the new approach will feel like running on your machine.
The new Metro interface features a start screen that replaces the start button. This screen offers a set of rectangles called "live tiles" that correspond to specific apps and their controls. To access the Windows desk top, just go tot the bottom left corner called the "hot corner" of the screen and click. This will bring up the familiar Windows desktop, which no longer has the start button.
There's also the new Windows Explorer which makes use of a ribbon across the top of the screen as you would have in Microsoft Office. And on the Metro Start screen there's an app that takes you to the Microsoft Apps store.
From all that I have seen and read, it sounds like Microsoft has finally given up it's obsession with security features and has tried to give users better functionality. The emphasis is more on the interface, but there are other improvements, like an all new task manager.
The new operating system is due for release in October. Those buying Windows 7 machines between Jun 2nd and January 31st can get a Windows 8 upgrade from Microsoft for just $14.99. After Windows 8 Pro launches, you'll have a chance, for a limited time, to upgrade for just $40. I think those two offers alone make this one upgrade to look forward to.
Monday, July 9, 2012
What Does This Mean?
I've been trying to keep the subject matter of this blog as close to music as I can. However, I have an interest in a great many things. One of those things is science, physics in particular. Last week, scientists at The Large Hadron Collider at CERN, in Bern Switzerland announced that they had discovered a particle which they believe to be the Higgs Boson.
The Higgs Boson is an elementary subatomic particle first theorized in the 1960s by Peter Higgs, who believed that all of space is permeated by as yet to be discovered field. Matter and energy particles passing through this field encounter the Higss Boson and are slowed down by the interaction. This results in the acquisition of mass by the passing particles.
Most of us are familiar with three of the basic subatomic particles such as the proton, electron, and the neutron. These particles and many others are what make up our physical reality. How these particles interact is what make our world appear and function as it does. For years, scientists have been looking for the one particle that they believe to be responsible for the interactions of all the other particles. The discovery of such a particle would not only explain how and why some particles have mass, but also it would deepen mans understanding of how the universe really works.
While it's still too early to say just what this will mean for humanity, some are already saying that light speed travel may one day be possible by the ability to un-mass particles. Switching off the Higgs may allow for extremely large objects to be launched into space. The implications of having actually found the Higgs are fantastic at best.
Because the discovery is so new, it is likely that the profound nature of this discover will be lost on most of us, to say the least. Some physicists such as Dr. Steven Hawking have been doubtful as to the Higgs existence. He made a $100 bet that it would never be found. As an amateur when it comes to physics, I had my doubts that such a particle existed. My reason was not so much a lack of understanding as it had been my belief that such a particle was purely an attempt to quantify space/time. However, in the past several years , I had come to believe that there has to be another kind of field that allows for the seemingly instantaneous communication between particles of a quantum entangled system, which is the subject for another blog post all it's own.
This is a very proud moment for Dr. Higgs. He didn't believe that this discovery would be made in his lifetime. He and all of his colleagues at CERN should be congratulated. If their findings hold true, mankind may be on the eve a new paradigm. For now, I think we should all keep a watchful eye and our ears tuned in to find out more about just what this means.
The Higgs Boson is an elementary subatomic particle first theorized in the 1960s by Peter Higgs, who believed that all of space is permeated by as yet to be discovered field. Matter and energy particles passing through this field encounter the Higss Boson and are slowed down by the interaction. This results in the acquisition of mass by the passing particles.
Most of us are familiar with three of the basic subatomic particles such as the proton, electron, and the neutron. These particles and many others are what make up our physical reality. How these particles interact is what make our world appear and function as it does. For years, scientists have been looking for the one particle that they believe to be responsible for the interactions of all the other particles. The discovery of such a particle would not only explain how and why some particles have mass, but also it would deepen mans understanding of how the universe really works.
While it's still too early to say just what this will mean for humanity, some are already saying that light speed travel may one day be possible by the ability to un-mass particles. Switching off the Higgs may allow for extremely large objects to be launched into space. The implications of having actually found the Higgs are fantastic at best.
Because the discovery is so new, it is likely that the profound nature of this discover will be lost on most of us, to say the least. Some physicists such as Dr. Steven Hawking have been doubtful as to the Higgs existence. He made a $100 bet that it would never be found. As an amateur when it comes to physics, I had my doubts that such a particle existed. My reason was not so much a lack of understanding as it had been my belief that such a particle was purely an attempt to quantify space/time. However, in the past several years , I had come to believe that there has to be another kind of field that allows for the seemingly instantaneous communication between particles of a quantum entangled system, which is the subject for another blog post all it's own.
This is a very proud moment for Dr. Higgs. He didn't believe that this discovery would be made in his lifetime. He and all of his colleagues at CERN should be congratulated. If their findings hold true, mankind may be on the eve a new paradigm. For now, I think we should all keep a watchful eye and our ears tuned in to find out more about just what this means.
Monday, July 2, 2012
A New Beginning
Got Ping! According to several sources, come this fall you won't much longer. If you shop for music at iTunes then you may or may not have used Ping. Ping is Apple's social network designed to share your music purchases with your online friends. Having failed to gain an adequate user base, Apple has decided to call it quits.
Starting this fall, with the next major iTunes release, Ping will no longer be included. Personally, I have mixed feelings about this latest news. I have a Ping account and in as much as I have used it from time to time, there were those occasions, while online and at other social networks, that I would forget to open my iTunes player so that I could access the interface. Perhaps, this was the same for many other Ping users. The only way to access Ping is by having an iTunes account and user ID. If you shop for music at other sites or used other music players to search for downloads, then it's likely that when you found what you were looking for, if you shared your findings, you either used Facebook or Twitter.
Ping did however allow users to sync their accounts with Twitter. But, and I'm only guessing that those who did so probably didn't do so for very long, probably not wanting Ping users to view everything that they may have been tweeting. I chose not to sync accounts, preferring to visit the iTunes store and add my info manually. I thought that in this way, I could give Ping users that follow Nprogram something that they couldn't get any where else. Sometimes this worked but often time constraints made it impossible to do anything but what I had done at the other sites. But, there are two things that I liked. I liked being able to recommend music to others, and the ability to post up to 10 songs or albums that you are listening to. In that way, at least as an artist, fans of your music can get a sense of what music inspires you. You don't get that at the other sites.
Apple is now looking to future integration with Facebook and Twitter, with the release of what may possibly be iTunes 11. Most likely, the next version of iTunes will feature the same type of integration that you find currently with Spotify. While I've used Spotify I haven't shared what I've been listening to while doing so.
But, have no fear. No doubt greater integration with existing social sites may mean that iTunes and Apple will bring with them not only more innovation, but a new beginning for social music networking.
Starting this fall, with the next major iTunes release, Ping will no longer be included. Personally, I have mixed feelings about this latest news. I have a Ping account and in as much as I have used it from time to time, there were those occasions, while online and at other social networks, that I would forget to open my iTunes player so that I could access the interface. Perhaps, this was the same for many other Ping users. The only way to access Ping is by having an iTunes account and user ID. If you shop for music at other sites or used other music players to search for downloads, then it's likely that when you found what you were looking for, if you shared your findings, you either used Facebook or Twitter.
Ping did however allow users to sync their accounts with Twitter. But, and I'm only guessing that those who did so probably didn't do so for very long, probably not wanting Ping users to view everything that they may have been tweeting. I chose not to sync accounts, preferring to visit the iTunes store and add my info manually. I thought that in this way, I could give Ping users that follow Nprogram something that they couldn't get any where else. Sometimes this worked but often time constraints made it impossible to do anything but what I had done at the other sites. But, there are two things that I liked. I liked being able to recommend music to others, and the ability to post up to 10 songs or albums that you are listening to. In that way, at least as an artist, fans of your music can get a sense of what music inspires you. You don't get that at the other sites.
Apple is now looking to future integration with Facebook and Twitter, with the release of what may possibly be iTunes 11. Most likely, the next version of iTunes will feature the same type of integration that you find currently with Spotify. While I've used Spotify I haven't shared what I've been listening to while doing so.
But, have no fear. No doubt greater integration with existing social sites may mean that iTunes and Apple will bring with them not only more innovation, but a new beginning for social music networking.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Still A Problem
The other day, I happened to read a blog post that was in response to another blog post by an intern at NPR's All Songs Considered. Her name is Emily and she claimed that she only ever bought 15 CDs in her life while her iTunes library contained over 1500 songs. She also stated that while she worked at a college radio station, she ripped some 11,000 more songs.
She' 21 and doesn't feel that there was anything wrong with how she got the music. After the great war on file sharing, I can imagine that there are millions more just like her. She also said that she would like to have a Spotify style catalog of all the music ever recorded, with royalties payed to artist on a per play count basis. She wanted access to what ever she wanted when ever she wanted.
Quite a few have responded to her blog post. Some were surprised that the "culture of free," still persists, and obtaining free music continues to be one of it's principle objectives. I was a little surprised that Emily was a college DJ but didn't want to pay for the music of her favorite artists.
With all that is going on with regard to the changes that are taking place within the music business, I guess that we've all kind of tuned out the issue of how to transition from the current physical model to a truly all digital model. I think that a complete transition will probably never really happen. That there will always be some tangible fixture that will allow individuals to purchase their own copy of an artist's recorded music. If not the CD, then the Thumb Drive or maybe some other form of portable memory storage device.
As an artist, I have no problem with paying for the music of those other artists whose music I admire. Having spent a good bit of time making and releasing my own music has given me an even deeper respect for what it takes to record a single or an album. There's a lot more to it then just setting up a microphone and pressing the record button.
First, you have to have the song or songs that your going to record. If you don't write, then you'll have to pay someone to write the songs for you. If your're not a musician, then you would have to hire some one to play the music. Your songs will need to be arranged so that they make a coherent and complete sound as a composition. This is the producers role, which could be you, or you could hire some one to arrange the songs for you.
You will either have to buy recording gear, if you don't already own some, or you would have to rent a studio which could be costly, depending on how long it takes to make your recording. Recording a song or an album could take several hours, days, weeks, months, or even years to finish.
Someone would have to engineer your recording, if you don't know how to do so yourself , or hire someone to engineer for you. Also, you or a friend, or maybe someone that you would have to hire, would have to sing the lyrics, unless your song is an instrumental.
Once the song is recorded, it would then have to be mixed. This could be done by your recording engineer. After your project is mixed, you may want to send it to be mastered, if this is not something that you or your engineer feels comfortable doing. Many mastering houses can master your finished recording for a price starting around $45 to $349 and up, depending on the number of tracks to be mastered and who you get to master it. Mastering gives your music that ready for the radio sound and is often an expense many independent artists and bands forgo for fear of exceeding their budgets.
If you choose to release your music as a CD then you will have to have it replicated. The price for replication has dropped considerably with the rise of digital distribution. A small run of about 100 CDs with jewel cases and a one or two page insert can cost about $200 to $300 dollars. Some replicators are offering free websites or release to CD Baby as part of a package deal.
Once your project has been mastered, it's on to the distributor. Digital distribution is probably the cheapest and quickest way to have your music released. Prices vary with each distributor. A single track may cost you $9.99 and up while an album may cost you $49.99 and up depending which distributor you choose. A digital distributor can get your music into emusic stores such as iTunes.
You will need a photo or cover art that will be used to reference your finished music in the emusic stores. Some distributors may offer this for a small fee, other wise, you'll have to either make it your self or pay to have it done.
All of these things cost the artist time, and/or money. Then there's promotion. If you're signed to a major label then this it's likely to be included in your contract. If you're an independent, it's all on you. I didn't list the price of everything that is involved in making a record, but the above should give you some idea of just what it takes.
I don't know about anyone else, but when I see my favorite song available for .99 cents or my favorite album for $9.99 and I either don't have a copy or my copy is either lost or destroyed, I tend to see this as a bargain. What's more, some emusic stores offer deep discount prices that allow you to download sings for as little as .49 cent while albums may go for as low as $4.99.
To me, that's cheap... a mere pittance. So, why is there still a problem.
She' 21 and doesn't feel that there was anything wrong with how she got the music. After the great war on file sharing, I can imagine that there are millions more just like her. She also said that she would like to have a Spotify style catalog of all the music ever recorded, with royalties payed to artist on a per play count basis. She wanted access to what ever she wanted when ever she wanted.
Quite a few have responded to her blog post. Some were surprised that the "culture of free," still persists, and obtaining free music continues to be one of it's principle objectives. I was a little surprised that Emily was a college DJ but didn't want to pay for the music of her favorite artists.
With all that is going on with regard to the changes that are taking place within the music business, I guess that we've all kind of tuned out the issue of how to transition from the current physical model to a truly all digital model. I think that a complete transition will probably never really happen. That there will always be some tangible fixture that will allow individuals to purchase their own copy of an artist's recorded music. If not the CD, then the Thumb Drive or maybe some other form of portable memory storage device.
As an artist, I have no problem with paying for the music of those other artists whose music I admire. Having spent a good bit of time making and releasing my own music has given me an even deeper respect for what it takes to record a single or an album. There's a lot more to it then just setting up a microphone and pressing the record button.
First, you have to have the song or songs that your going to record. If you don't write, then you'll have to pay someone to write the songs for you. If your're not a musician, then you would have to hire some one to play the music. Your songs will need to be arranged so that they make a coherent and complete sound as a composition. This is the producers role, which could be you, or you could hire some one to arrange the songs for you.
You will either have to buy recording gear, if you don't already own some, or you would have to rent a studio which could be costly, depending on how long it takes to make your recording. Recording a song or an album could take several hours, days, weeks, months, or even years to finish.
Someone would have to engineer your recording, if you don't know how to do so yourself , or hire someone to engineer for you. Also, you or a friend, or maybe someone that you would have to hire, would have to sing the lyrics, unless your song is an instrumental.
Once the song is recorded, it would then have to be mixed. This could be done by your recording engineer. After your project is mixed, you may want to send it to be mastered, if this is not something that you or your engineer feels comfortable doing. Many mastering houses can master your finished recording for a price starting around $45 to $349 and up, depending on the number of tracks to be mastered and who you get to master it. Mastering gives your music that ready for the radio sound and is often an expense many independent artists and bands forgo for fear of exceeding their budgets.
If you choose to release your music as a CD then you will have to have it replicated. The price for replication has dropped considerably with the rise of digital distribution. A small run of about 100 CDs with jewel cases and a one or two page insert can cost about $200 to $300 dollars. Some replicators are offering free websites or release to CD Baby as part of a package deal.
Once your project has been mastered, it's on to the distributor. Digital distribution is probably the cheapest and quickest way to have your music released. Prices vary with each distributor. A single track may cost you $9.99 and up while an album may cost you $49.99 and up depending which distributor you choose. A digital distributor can get your music into emusic stores such as iTunes.
You will need a photo or cover art that will be used to reference your finished music in the emusic stores. Some distributors may offer this for a small fee, other wise, you'll have to either make it your self or pay to have it done.
All of these things cost the artist time, and/or money. Then there's promotion. If you're signed to a major label then this it's likely to be included in your contract. If you're an independent, it's all on you. I didn't list the price of everything that is involved in making a record, but the above should give you some idea of just what it takes.
I don't know about anyone else, but when I see my favorite song available for .99 cents or my favorite album for $9.99 and I either don't have a copy or my copy is either lost or destroyed, I tend to see this as a bargain. What's more, some emusic stores offer deep discount prices that allow you to download sings for as little as .49 cent while albums may go for as low as $4.99.
To me, that's cheap... a mere pittance. So, why is there still a problem.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Solid State, anyone?
I heard a few years ago that at some point the computer hard drive, as we know it, was going to go the way of the dinosaur. While that hasn't quite happened yet, the Solid State drive is gaining in popularity as the technology is being more readily employed by computer manufacturers.
Question is, right now anyway, are we ready for that? Fact is, Solid State memory has been used in computers for years. It's what's know as static memory and most computers make use of it for RAM or random access memory. Solid State memory has no moving parts and there fore has been perfect for use as the systems random memory. Meanwhile, the traditional hard drive, consists of several rotating disks with a read and write head mounted on an arm that etches data on to each plate. This has been the industry standard for larger amounts of memory storage.
What's been keeping Solid State or SSD from being fully implemented has been the cost. The prices of such memory have been dropping steadily. Still, SSD drives can cost as much as $400 t0 $500 more that of a standard hard drive. But, that hasn't stopped Dell, Fujitsu, and Toshiba from placing the technology into their laptops.
Solid State Drive are faster than Hard Disk Drives because there are no moving parts. No moving parts means that there are no disks or platters that need to spin up and there are no read or write heads or arms to get stuck. The capacity of an SSD has been increasing slowly. It's possible to get a 1 terabyte SSD while the capacity of a Hard Disk Drive can go up into the multiple terabyte range.
While this is not exciting stuff, it is something to think about when considering your next computer purchase. There's no doubt that with the rapid pace in the growth of computer technology, it may not be long before all computers will come with either both a hard drive and a solid state drive, or just a Solid State Drive alone.
With today's need for speed, it may just be what we've all been waiting for.
Question is, right now anyway, are we ready for that? Fact is, Solid State memory has been used in computers for years. It's what's know as static memory and most computers make use of it for RAM or random access memory. Solid State memory has no moving parts and there fore has been perfect for use as the systems random memory. Meanwhile, the traditional hard drive, consists of several rotating disks with a read and write head mounted on an arm that etches data on to each plate. This has been the industry standard for larger amounts of memory storage.
What's been keeping Solid State or SSD from being fully implemented has been the cost. The prices of such memory have been dropping steadily. Still, SSD drives can cost as much as $400 t0 $500 more that of a standard hard drive. But, that hasn't stopped Dell, Fujitsu, and Toshiba from placing the technology into their laptops.
Solid State Drive are faster than Hard Disk Drives because there are no moving parts. No moving parts means that there are no disks or platters that need to spin up and there are no read or write heads or arms to get stuck. The capacity of an SSD has been increasing slowly. It's possible to get a 1 terabyte SSD while the capacity of a Hard Disk Drive can go up into the multiple terabyte range.
While this is not exciting stuff, it is something to think about when considering your next computer purchase. There's no doubt that with the rapid pace in the growth of computer technology, it may not be long before all computers will come with either both a hard drive and a solid state drive, or just a Solid State Drive alone.
With today's need for speed, it may just be what we've all been waiting for.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Big Deal...
The other day I read a blog post about a new site that wants to do for Radio what the DVR has done for Television. The blog proposes that people could really benefit from recording radio content, either for later listening of for sharing through social media.
The site is called DAR.fm. The blog mentioned primarily talk radio, but when you visit the site you have several other choices that include music and sports. While every radio station isn't yet available, there is a catalog of about 5,000 stations to choose from.
The sites founder, Michael Robertson who is also the founder of Mp3.com, hopes to make Radio visible to the internet. He says that most of the content on radio just fritters away into space. He's hoping to change all of that by giving individuals a chance to record their favorite Radio programs for use to share with others like you would a video or music file.
I wondered how this would work so I went to DAR.fm. Once there, I registered my email and started an account. The site really pushes talk radio, but you can find stations that play your favorite music even if your local station is not yet listed. after I started my account, I went to upper right of the page to the menu bar and clicked on record. This gave me a drop down menu that listed talk, music, and local guide. I clicked on music and got a list of alternatives and genres. Next I clicked on Jazz and a list of stations from around the country opened up. I chose WYEP out of Pittsburgh. After clicking on it, two recording options are given, you can either record for a specific amount of time and start the recording manually, or you can establish a day and time for the recording to start in the future. There's also a dialog box to add the email address of a friend that you might want to send the recording to.
It's an interesting concept. Clearly, it's geared toward talk radio, but there are a lot of music station on that 5,000 station list. If someone should record and share a musical event that was something new and refreshing, I could see how this could really catch on. However, if it's used just to post negative comments made by talk show hosts, I could see how the internet might be given it first "Jerry Springer," moment. And, just when the internet was doing so well. The best way to know for sure is to visit DAR.fm and try it out for yourself. Who knows? This might just be, a big deal.
The site is called DAR.fm. The blog mentioned primarily talk radio, but when you visit the site you have several other choices that include music and sports. While every radio station isn't yet available, there is a catalog of about 5,000 stations to choose from.
The sites founder, Michael Robertson who is also the founder of Mp3.com, hopes to make Radio visible to the internet. He says that most of the content on radio just fritters away into space. He's hoping to change all of that by giving individuals a chance to record their favorite Radio programs for use to share with others like you would a video or music file.
I wondered how this would work so I went to DAR.fm. Once there, I registered my email and started an account. The site really pushes talk radio, but you can find stations that play your favorite music even if your local station is not yet listed. after I started my account, I went to upper right of the page to the menu bar and clicked on record. This gave me a drop down menu that listed talk, music, and local guide. I clicked on music and got a list of alternatives and genres. Next I clicked on Jazz and a list of stations from around the country opened up. I chose WYEP out of Pittsburgh. After clicking on it, two recording options are given, you can either record for a specific amount of time and start the recording manually, or you can establish a day and time for the recording to start in the future. There's also a dialog box to add the email address of a friend that you might want to send the recording to.
It's an interesting concept. Clearly, it's geared toward talk radio, but there are a lot of music station on that 5,000 station list. If someone should record and share a musical event that was something new and refreshing, I could see how this could really catch on. However, if it's used just to post negative comments made by talk show hosts, I could see how the internet might be given it first "Jerry Springer," moment. And, just when the internet was doing so well. The best way to know for sure is to visit DAR.fm and try it out for yourself. Who knows? This might just be, a big deal.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
There And Back (Part VI)
The early 1990s saw Rap and Hip Hop reach to new heights as the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences continued to add new Grammy honors to it's growing list of presentations. After giving Rap it's first Grammy in 1989, the door was wide open for the sound of the street to flow freely across the air waves, as cash registers rang all around the globe (ca ching!). Rap got an additional boost from award winning Producer Quincy Jones. His album, Back On The Block released that same year, seemed to serve notice that Rap was not only worthy of greater attention, but was also a viable musical entity within the recording industry. It wasn't long before established artists from almost every genre were incorporating Rap into their own sounds.
The hard sound of Gangsta Rap soon made it's way up from the under ground and into the mainstream. Fueled by an aggressive rhythmic attack and explicit lyrics, the music quickly grew in popularity as a conflict loomed in the background. Over time, a supposed rivalry between East Coast and West Coast Rappers boiled over, culminating in the death of two of it's biggest stars, Tupac Shakur and the Notorious B.I.G
The feud was said to be just media hype designed to sell more records. However, the Black community was not amused and filed protests with the recording industry over what it felt was exploitation of urban misery and violence in the name of profit.
Needing to keep it real, the industry began to recruit and sign Rap artist who were still very much a part of the Rap subculture, but whose approach was more musical, with lyrics more reflective of who they were and where they were from. But, what's more, the early to mid 90s saw the introduction and rise of the Boy and Girl bands.
Some of the more familiar names are Backstreet Boys, Nsync, 98 degrees, Spice Girls, Expose, and All Saints. What made these groups different from their 50s and 60s counterparts is the way that some of them came to be. Many of the Boy and Girl bands of the 90s were the result of ads placed in news papers or large trade publications by producers who were looking to form such acts. Those that answered the ads would audition for a chance to be chosen, in the hopes of achieving stardom. Several members of the Backstreet Boys actually met while auditioning to be a part of other such acts. Here at last was the very situation that the music industry big wigs had been trying to get back to since the days of Disco.
Members of acts formed in this way more often then not were hungry for stardom and eager to sign on the dotted line. They no doubt had no qualms about what rights they may have been signing away. Once they were signed, they were fast tracked to the top.
The sound was a mix of Pop, R&B, and Hip Hop blended into a homogenized confection designed to catch the attention of the target audience of 14 to 24 years old. A strong emphasis was placed on appearance. It's just my opinion, but having good looks appeared to be more important than having the ability to sing, write, or play an instrument. Once signed to a major label, in house writers and producers went to work on designing a sound to fit each band's image. Big money from the majors insured that they would be guaranteed to get their fair share of media exposure.
By the mid 90s, these groups were hot, though rarely did they appear in public performance playing instruments. The Economy was booming, as the nation was in the middle of it's longest period of economic growth in it's history. Many people had jobs who never had them before. Disposable cash allowed potential record buyers within the target demographic to indulge in their favorite bands. Over time, the sound of the music began to exhibit a certain bland and repetitiveness that left it less than memorable. Some critics even considered it to be as "disposable," as the money that bought it.
But, this is what Disco had become, before it's demise. Mass produced like fast food and just as easily disposed of. However, music fans and consumers were behind the revolt that lead to the fall of Disco. While by the late 90s the blandness of Pop music was being called into question, most of which remained as just questions. Questions as to why the bands were having such huge success while no one within the bands were writing or playing on any of their major hits. There was a low rumble but nothing near the revolt that lead to the demise of Disco. The machine produced hit after hit until sales peaked in 1999. Some have said that the decline that followed into the 21st century, was due in part to the mass produce mind set. This may or may not be true, but there are some other factors that came into play as well.
Once again, the Rap and Hip Hop merry-go round was employed as a new group of stars that included P-Diddy, J Z, and Kanye West came onto the scene. But, by the late 90s, just as the major labels dreams had come true, a new nemesis for the music industry would arise in the guise of the Mp3 and internet file sharing.
The hard sound of Gangsta Rap soon made it's way up from the under ground and into the mainstream. Fueled by an aggressive rhythmic attack and explicit lyrics, the music quickly grew in popularity as a conflict loomed in the background. Over time, a supposed rivalry between East Coast and West Coast Rappers boiled over, culminating in the death of two of it's biggest stars, Tupac Shakur and the Notorious B.I.G
The feud was said to be just media hype designed to sell more records. However, the Black community was not amused and filed protests with the recording industry over what it felt was exploitation of urban misery and violence in the name of profit.
Needing to keep it real, the industry began to recruit and sign Rap artist who were still very much a part of the Rap subculture, but whose approach was more musical, with lyrics more reflective of who they were and where they were from. But, what's more, the early to mid 90s saw the introduction and rise of the Boy and Girl bands.
Some of the more familiar names are Backstreet Boys, Nsync, 98 degrees, Spice Girls, Expose, and All Saints. What made these groups different from their 50s and 60s counterparts is the way that some of them came to be. Many of the Boy and Girl bands of the 90s were the result of ads placed in news papers or large trade publications by producers who were looking to form such acts. Those that answered the ads would audition for a chance to be chosen, in the hopes of achieving stardom. Several members of the Backstreet Boys actually met while auditioning to be a part of other such acts. Here at last was the very situation that the music industry big wigs had been trying to get back to since the days of Disco.
Members of acts formed in this way more often then not were hungry for stardom and eager to sign on the dotted line. They no doubt had no qualms about what rights they may have been signing away. Once they were signed, they were fast tracked to the top.
The sound was a mix of Pop, R&B, and Hip Hop blended into a homogenized confection designed to catch the attention of the target audience of 14 to 24 years old. A strong emphasis was placed on appearance. It's just my opinion, but having good looks appeared to be more important than having the ability to sing, write, or play an instrument. Once signed to a major label, in house writers and producers went to work on designing a sound to fit each band's image. Big money from the majors insured that they would be guaranteed to get their fair share of media exposure.
By the mid 90s, these groups were hot, though rarely did they appear in public performance playing instruments. The Economy was booming, as the nation was in the middle of it's longest period of economic growth in it's history. Many people had jobs who never had them before. Disposable cash allowed potential record buyers within the target demographic to indulge in their favorite bands. Over time, the sound of the music began to exhibit a certain bland and repetitiveness that left it less than memorable. Some critics even considered it to be as "disposable," as the money that bought it.
But, this is what Disco had become, before it's demise. Mass produced like fast food and just as easily disposed of. However, music fans and consumers were behind the revolt that lead to the fall of Disco. While by the late 90s the blandness of Pop music was being called into question, most of which remained as just questions. Questions as to why the bands were having such huge success while no one within the bands were writing or playing on any of their major hits. There was a low rumble but nothing near the revolt that lead to the demise of Disco. The machine produced hit after hit until sales peaked in 1999. Some have said that the decline that followed into the 21st century, was due in part to the mass produce mind set. This may or may not be true, but there are some other factors that came into play as well.
Once again, the Rap and Hip Hop merry-go round was employed as a new group of stars that included P-Diddy, J Z, and Kanye West came onto the scene. But, by the late 90s, just as the major labels dreams had come true, a new nemesis for the music industry would arise in the guise of the Mp3 and internet file sharing.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
One Nation Under A Groove
When I set up my first Facebook artist page, I found a link to an app that offered me an opportunity to establish another artist profile that would sync to my Facebook page. That app was for Reverbnation. It seemed like the thing to do, as it was aimed at helping me spread the word about my music.
Reverbnation is a website that offers artists tools to help them with everything from social networking to getting an artist's music into e-music stores. The site went online in October of 2006 and today is home to some 2.6 million artist. The site is young, but growing. I find that it has a lot to offer artists and other music industry professionals as well. For the artist, you can link your main networking accounts, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Myspace, and send valuable information to all sites at the same time. As an artist, the site offers Fan Reach to send email to those who follow your music.
You can also get widgets to stream samples of your songs. You can start a blog or use their site builder to custom design your Reverbnation profile. And as I said before, an artist can have their music distributed to e-music stores such as iTunes, Rhapsody and Amazon.com. There's also the ability to purchase ads on Facebook. And, like Myspace, you can even add a link to your YouTube videos.
The feature that I have found the most interesting is their charts. Artists are ranked globally among all genres, then globally within a genre. After that, an artist is ranked nationally and then within a specific region. While making a chart might not seem like much, it can give your promotional effort a boost when your chart position begins to show some upward movement, especially within a specific region.
There's a lot more to Reverbnation than I've mentioned above. If you're an artist, the best way to know if the site is for you is to go and check it out. If you're a music fan, though it's just my opinion, I can easily say that the site will make you take notice. There are lots of artists there from every genre. There's music to suit every taste. In a way, you could say that Reverbnation has put it in all into one nation, under a groove.
Reverbnation is a website that offers artists tools to help them with everything from social networking to getting an artist's music into e-music stores. The site went online in October of 2006 and today is home to some 2.6 million artist. The site is young, but growing. I find that it has a lot to offer artists and other music industry professionals as well. For the artist, you can link your main networking accounts, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Myspace, and send valuable information to all sites at the same time. As an artist, the site offers Fan Reach to send email to those who follow your music.
You can also get widgets to stream samples of your songs. You can start a blog or use their site builder to custom design your Reverbnation profile. And as I said before, an artist can have their music distributed to e-music stores such as iTunes, Rhapsody and Amazon.com. There's also the ability to purchase ads on Facebook. And, like Myspace, you can even add a link to your YouTube videos.
The feature that I have found the most interesting is their charts. Artists are ranked globally among all genres, then globally within a genre. After that, an artist is ranked nationally and then within a specific region. While making a chart might not seem like much, it can give your promotional effort a boost when your chart position begins to show some upward movement, especially within a specific region.
There's a lot more to Reverbnation than I've mentioned above. If you're an artist, the best way to know if the site is for you is to go and check it out. If you're a music fan, though it's just my opinion, I can easily say that the site will make you take notice. There are lots of artists there from every genre. There's music to suit every taste. In a way, you could say that Reverbnation has put it in all into one nation, under a groove.
Monday, May 21, 2012
How Tweet It Is
It took a while before I got a Twitter account. I wasn't sure that I had enough going on to set one up. Once I did, I was amazed at just who had one. You can follow me @Nprogram or @JohnHughley.
I set up the second account after considering to give the music done in my name as much of a separate identity as I possibly could.
Twitter is an interesting concept in communication. I'm sure by now everyone knows that you have to say what you want to say in 140 characters or less. While this may sound easy enough, this constraint forces a tweeter to be as concise and to the point as possible. As an artist, I thought that most other artists would be tweeting constantly. But, what I found is that what works best for just about every artist at every level, is that tweeting only when it's informative, entertaining, or promotional is really all that's necessary.
Anyone can set up a Twitter account, having something meaningful to say is entirely up to each tweeter. In fact, some tweeters are having whole conversations just tweeting to each other. The site offers direct messages, but you've really got to pay close attention to your personal email if you want to keep up.
My first few months on Twitter were very interesting. I tried to follow back everyone who followed me. Slowly, I found that some who will follow you will tweet very interesting bits of information and some tweets will make you wonder. It wasn't until I read the blog of a fellow tweeter who writes for a magazine, that I found out that if you're following a lot of tweeters, you're stream could become congested with tweets that may be of little value.
This tweeter suggested unfollowing everyone and starting over, only the next time around, follow only those whose tweets hold some significance. This tweeter also said that it was a very difficult decision for them to make, but one that made their tweet stream not only more manageable, but also more informative. Personally, I didn't want to start all over, and the idea of unfollowing everyone who was following me was a little difficult to digest. That was, until Twitter cut off my ability to follow others. When you reach a certain number of people that you are following, and if you aren't being followed by at least a third of that number, then Twitter blocks you from adding any new tweeters until your followers increase.
I like to follow music, technology, science, and news tweeters, so I was forced to go through my list and look for anyone who was first of all, just having fun, or maybe not even tweeting at all. From there, it was a matter of relevance to my interests. I didn't carve away as many as I thought that I might. But, the result was the loss of some followers, who were followers of those whom I had unfollowed. I was sure by this time that this wasn't the way that Twitter was supposed to work.
As time has gone by, I found that improving the content of my tweets has brought followers back to my account. That, and replacing those that had been unfollowed with tweeters more in line with my interest. I'm certain that, depending on who you are and what you do also makes a big difference in your ability to grow your following. If you're national or international at what you do, it's very likely this will provide you with ample opportunity you add followers. Access to Radio or Television doesn't hurt either. However, some tweeters appear to be able to add followers, just by the use of provocative subject matter within their tweets.
One of the most interesting things I've observed while on Twitter is the accounts of those who seemed to have a small number of tweeters when compared to who they are and what they do. But, as I've read their tweets, I discovered, and this is just my opinion, that this is probably due to a close connection to their audience or peer group. Or, perhaps it doesn't matter who or how many tweeters are following them. Maybe what they do or how they live, is what it's really all about.
I set up the second account after considering to give the music done in my name as much of a separate identity as I possibly could.
Twitter is an interesting concept in communication. I'm sure by now everyone knows that you have to say what you want to say in 140 characters or less. While this may sound easy enough, this constraint forces a tweeter to be as concise and to the point as possible. As an artist, I thought that most other artists would be tweeting constantly. But, what I found is that what works best for just about every artist at every level, is that tweeting only when it's informative, entertaining, or promotional is really all that's necessary.
Anyone can set up a Twitter account, having something meaningful to say is entirely up to each tweeter. In fact, some tweeters are having whole conversations just tweeting to each other. The site offers direct messages, but you've really got to pay close attention to your personal email if you want to keep up.
My first few months on Twitter were very interesting. I tried to follow back everyone who followed me. Slowly, I found that some who will follow you will tweet very interesting bits of information and some tweets will make you wonder. It wasn't until I read the blog of a fellow tweeter who writes for a magazine, that I found out that if you're following a lot of tweeters, you're stream could become congested with tweets that may be of little value.
This tweeter suggested unfollowing everyone and starting over, only the next time around, follow only those whose tweets hold some significance. This tweeter also said that it was a very difficult decision for them to make, but one that made their tweet stream not only more manageable, but also more informative. Personally, I didn't want to start all over, and the idea of unfollowing everyone who was following me was a little difficult to digest. That was, until Twitter cut off my ability to follow others. When you reach a certain number of people that you are following, and if you aren't being followed by at least a third of that number, then Twitter blocks you from adding any new tweeters until your followers increase.
I like to follow music, technology, science, and news tweeters, so I was forced to go through my list and look for anyone who was first of all, just having fun, or maybe not even tweeting at all. From there, it was a matter of relevance to my interests. I didn't carve away as many as I thought that I might. But, the result was the loss of some followers, who were followers of those whom I had unfollowed. I was sure by this time that this wasn't the way that Twitter was supposed to work.
As time has gone by, I found that improving the content of my tweets has brought followers back to my account. That, and replacing those that had been unfollowed with tweeters more in line with my interest. I'm certain that, depending on who you are and what you do also makes a big difference in your ability to grow your following. If you're national or international at what you do, it's very likely this will provide you with ample opportunity you add followers. Access to Radio or Television doesn't hurt either. However, some tweeters appear to be able to add followers, just by the use of provocative subject matter within their tweets.
One of the most interesting things I've observed while on Twitter is the accounts of those who seemed to have a small number of tweeters when compared to who they are and what they do. But, as I've read their tweets, I discovered, and this is just my opinion, that this is probably due to a close connection to their audience or peer group. Or, perhaps it doesn't matter who or how many tweeters are following them. Maybe what they do or how they live, is what it's really all about.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Like It Or Not
A few short years ago, while posting music at a site where artists review each others music, I got an invitation in my in box from Facebook. The site was just beginning to grow and they invited me to come and put up an artist page. It seemed like a great way to give my music some further exposure, so I did just that.
I posted a photo and several tracks and waited to see if anything would happen. In the mean time, Facebook was continually changing the look and functionality of their site. After a time, they began to offer access to apps that made artist pages look a little more personalized. Then, at a certain point, certain features could only be accessed if you agreed to create a profile as well. I balked at first, but only because I was only interested in promoting my music. A few months went by, and those certain features started to look more than promising to me, so I created a profile and began to make friends.
Around this time the site was growing very fast and things were changing all the time. I wasn't sure if the site was something that I really wanted to be a part of so I deactivated my account. Some of the friends I had made at the site were into music and after a few weeks I began to wonder how they were doing. I reactivated my account to find that I hadn't lost a single one of them. At that point I decided to try and find some balance between what I was doing with music on my artist page and what I was doing personally on my profile. Facebook answered by allowing members to suggest their pages to their friends. Cool, huh?
That feature was short lived, as the number of members joining your page increased, the less access you had to that feature. I think at about that time the site did away with the Join button and went with the Like button. I can only guess that Facebook has gained it's nearly 900 million users by continuing to innovate and try new things. When they put Like buttons on all artist and fan pages, it's just my opinion, but I think that they may have given some members reason to think a little deeper about their choices. What I mean to say is that where members were ready and willing to join a page, clicking the word like may be making them a bit reticent when making what would seem to be an otherwise easy choice to make if you were only adding a page.
It's just my opinion, but I can imagine that more than a hand full of members have hit the Like button on a page that at first blush appeared harmless, then thought about who might see what their choices were and quickly went back and clicked Unlike. I'm not going to suggest that the site do away with the Like button. No. I propose that they give members who post pages a choice of whether they want a Like, Join, or Add button at the top of their page. This may or may not cause confusion among members, but I think that some members would hesitate less if they could choose to add a page as opposed to liking a page.
As an artist, I click Like on the pages of other artists all the time. I feel that it's just a small way to show my support for their efforts. However, the word like may seem a little strong for having a limited knowledge of, or casual acquaintance with someone.
Rest assured that as Facebook approaches it IPO there are probably more changes in store for the site. Of course none of those changes will be put before the site's members for their approval before they are made. Most members will barley bat an eye as they share their baby pictures or photos of the kittens or puppies that their pets just had. We all make use of the site to communicate with friends and family. And, change is a part of life, just like Facebook.....whether we like it or not.
Monday, May 7, 2012
What's In A Name
Some time ago, I was at a website that allowed artists to post their songs for review, when I read a comment from an artist who said that he went by his real name because it was the only name he had. At first I thought what he said was funny. But he also said that he wasn't able to think of anything cute or clever to call himself.
Up to this point, I had never really given much thought to what name to release music under. If a name came to me that had what I thought had a nice ring to it, then that's what I went with. Since I was always thinking that I would be part of a band, names came really easy. I got the name Nprogram while I was working at a local TV station in my area. As far as using my given name, it just never occurred to me to release music as myself, John Hughley, until recently.
What the artist above said brings up a very good point though. Some of the best music you've ever heard has been made by some of the most memorable artist with some of the most memorable names. Names like, the the Beatles, Rolling Stone, Earth Wind & Fire, Commodores, Eagles, Led Zeppelin, and the list goes on. When it comes to using their given names, artist have either used them or changed them. If you're going solo, the choice is yours. I think that what really matters as a solo artist is whether or not the music you intent to release is something that you want people to associate with you, when ever your name comes up.
For artists and bands, what you call yourself can become a brand name, if your music is memorable enough. Building a brand is something that takes a good deal of time. Many artists and bands will begin most likely by performing live. This gets your name and music in front of as many people as possible. In today's DIY world, you might think that all you would have to do is put up a website. It's true, you can reach a great deal more people at one time, but people need some way to find out that you do music online. And, while the web is a natural, it can make you appear as a little fish swimming around in a very big pool. If you choose this way to begin, be prepared to spend countless hours networking and connecting. Be sure to try and get your band posted to as many sites as possible.
If you play live, you may have the opportunity to sell merchandise which carries yours or your band's name or logo on it. This is a great way for friends and fans to remember your you. And, it's also a good way for people who've never heard of you to find out about you. Merchandise can also be sold from your website as well. Of course, friends and fans can be asked to to join your mailing list so they can stay informed about new releases or live performances.
I'm not an expert on building a brand by any means, and I'm sure that there's a lot more to it than what I've mentioned, like having a good, solid PR campaign or some means of getting information about you or your band to the media. While all of what I've said helps, the one thing to remember is that building a brand takes time. It's more likely that you could become well known for good music, and then discover that your name has be come synonymous with that, and "boom" you have name recognition.
If you have a good logo, though you don't have to, you may want to have it registered as a trademark so you can have the exclusive right to use it to represent all things created that relate to you or your bands music. That way everyone will be able to distinguish you from brand X
Up to this point, I had never really given much thought to what name to release music under. If a name came to me that had what I thought had a nice ring to it, then that's what I went with. Since I was always thinking that I would be part of a band, names came really easy. I got the name Nprogram while I was working at a local TV station in my area. As far as using my given name, it just never occurred to me to release music as myself, John Hughley, until recently.
What the artist above said brings up a very good point though. Some of the best music you've ever heard has been made by some of the most memorable artist with some of the most memorable names. Names like, the the Beatles, Rolling Stone, Earth Wind & Fire, Commodores, Eagles, Led Zeppelin, and the list goes on. When it comes to using their given names, artist have either used them or changed them. If you're going solo, the choice is yours. I think that what really matters as a solo artist is whether or not the music you intent to release is something that you want people to associate with you, when ever your name comes up.
For artists and bands, what you call yourself can become a brand name, if your music is memorable enough. Building a brand is something that takes a good deal of time. Many artists and bands will begin most likely by performing live. This gets your name and music in front of as many people as possible. In today's DIY world, you might think that all you would have to do is put up a website. It's true, you can reach a great deal more people at one time, but people need some way to find out that you do music online. And, while the web is a natural, it can make you appear as a little fish swimming around in a very big pool. If you choose this way to begin, be prepared to spend countless hours networking and connecting. Be sure to try and get your band posted to as many sites as possible.
If you play live, you may have the opportunity to sell merchandise which carries yours or your band's name or logo on it. This is a great way for friends and fans to remember your you. And, it's also a good way for people who've never heard of you to find out about you. Merchandise can also be sold from your website as well. Of course, friends and fans can be asked to to join your mailing list so they can stay informed about new releases or live performances.
I'm not an expert on building a brand by any means, and I'm sure that there's a lot more to it than what I've mentioned, like having a good, solid PR campaign or some means of getting information about you or your band to the media. While all of what I've said helps, the one thing to remember is that building a brand takes time. It's more likely that you could become well known for good music, and then discover that your name has be come synonymous with that, and "boom" you have name recognition.
If you have a good logo, though you don't have to, you may want to have it registered as a trademark so you can have the exclusive right to use it to represent all things created that relate to you or your bands music. That way everyone will be able to distinguish you from brand X
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
YouTube
Some time last year, I read a blog that advised musicians to get their music on YouTube. At that time, I hadn't spent much time at YouTube. The most that I'd watched is an occasional vlog. I figured that a really good video for a song would cost a lot or it would also be time intensive. That was until I started searching for some of the indie artists that I had been listening to on Myspace. That was about the time I discovered that there was everything but the kitchen sink on YouTube.
The only problem I had with this, is that what I was looking for was often not available. Of course, if an artist or musician was with a major label, most likely there was something up there, even if it was a homemade live version of a song. I don't have a problem with this, but it took a long while to understand why so many bloggers were making such a big deal about getting your music on YouTube. In fact, I found that a lot of indie artists were only posting vlogs or small samples of their work, with maybe an occasional full track. Most likely if a song was there it was a live version. I also found that artists were more likely to post demonstrations or interviews as opposed to songs.
Then I heard that it was possible for videos to be downloaded and the music separated from from the video. Of course that had copyright violation written all over it, not mention the loss of a sale to someone who was able to do that. But, even so, the possibility of reaching millions is still enough to get many artists to post a video, even if there are only photos or a slide used.
For an artist who is primarily a songwriter and doesn't do a lot of live performing, YouTube is still the way to go. I've posted my own attempts at video making for several of the songs from the Work The Program album and they can be seen on the
Nprogram Video Channel.
The only problem I had with this, is that what I was looking for was often not available. Of course, if an artist or musician was with a major label, most likely there was something up there, even if it was a homemade live version of a song. I don't have a problem with this, but it took a long while to understand why so many bloggers were making such a big deal about getting your music on YouTube. In fact, I found that a lot of indie artists were only posting vlogs or small samples of their work, with maybe an occasional full track. Most likely if a song was there it was a live version. I also found that artists were more likely to post demonstrations or interviews as opposed to songs.
Then I heard that it was possible for videos to be downloaded and the music separated from from the video. Of course that had copyright violation written all over it, not mention the loss of a sale to someone who was able to do that. But, even so, the possibility of reaching millions is still enough to get many artists to post a video, even if there are only photos or a slide used.
For an artist who is primarily a songwriter and doesn't do a lot of live performing, YouTube is still the way to go. I've posted my own attempts at video making for several of the songs from the Work The Program album and they can be seen on the
Nprogram Video Channel.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
American Top 40
Music and TV entrepreneur, Dick Clark passed away last week. He was 82 years old. I would imagine that just about everybody and his/her dog, has or will at one point or another write or report on his passing. I'd like to add my two cents.
Clark's role in popular music history, in my opinion, is firmly cemented. Most of us know of him from his annual salute to the end of each year, held in Times Square on New Year's Eve. But, Clark had a great love of music, and in 1956 he became the host of a local TV show in Philadelphia called Bandstand. On the show, Clark played records while a group of local teens danced. He asked about favorite songs, watched for the latest fashions and the latest dances. After two years, the show went national and became American Bandstand, airing on ABC.
Clark was always on the look out for all things new as they related to music. This often meant bringing on artists that may have been offensive to parents. In a compromise move, he would have those artists dress in suits and ties. In this way, the artists were listened to with less judgement and less resistance. In a way, even though he was criticized for it, he bridged the gap between teen viewers and their parents, by making these artist more palatable.
Clark was always in favor of and defended artistic freedom. He would present both the famous and the not so well know. He had an ear for talent. He was the first to allow Black artist on the show to perform the original versions of their songs, and he was the first to break the color barrier by integrating his dance crew. In a way, in my opinion, the case could be made that if it weren't for Dick Clark, there would not have a been a Don Cornelius and Soul Train.
In 1973,after the Grammys moved to CBS, Clark created, The American Music Awards. Award winners were chosen by a poll of 20,000 record buyers, as opposed to members of the Recording Academy. Music fans would often choose without regard for whether they had purchased the music and often went with their sentimental favorites. In the early 1990's, after complaints from some artists whose records had sold millions but were not nominated, the use of Sound Scan was instituted. This would be so until 2007, when falling ratings and declining record sales lead to allowing fans to once again choose their favorites.
Dick Clark's legacy lead to his induction into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in 1993. Today, at a time when there will soon be only three major record companies, in control of all of the major labels, on the face of the Earth, I don't see another Dick Clark or anyone like him coming along in the near future. While the Indie scene looks promising, and the internet offers many opportunities for getting the word out about whats new in music, it may not be as easy as you might think.
Clark's role in popular music history, in my opinion, is firmly cemented. Most of us know of him from his annual salute to the end of each year, held in Times Square on New Year's Eve. But, Clark had a great love of music, and in 1956 he became the host of a local TV show in Philadelphia called Bandstand. On the show, Clark played records while a group of local teens danced. He asked about favorite songs, watched for the latest fashions and the latest dances. After two years, the show went national and became American Bandstand, airing on ABC.
Clark was always on the look out for all things new as they related to music. This often meant bringing on artists that may have been offensive to parents. In a compromise move, he would have those artists dress in suits and ties. In this way, the artists were listened to with less judgement and less resistance. In a way, even though he was criticized for it, he bridged the gap between teen viewers and their parents, by making these artist more palatable.
Clark was always in favor of and defended artistic freedom. He would present both the famous and the not so well know. He had an ear for talent. He was the first to allow Black artist on the show to perform the original versions of their songs, and he was the first to break the color barrier by integrating his dance crew. In a way, in my opinion, the case could be made that if it weren't for Dick Clark, there would not have a been a Don Cornelius and Soul Train.
In 1973,after the Grammys moved to CBS, Clark created, The American Music Awards. Award winners were chosen by a poll of 20,000 record buyers, as opposed to members of the Recording Academy. Music fans would often choose without regard for whether they had purchased the music and often went with their sentimental favorites. In the early 1990's, after complaints from some artists whose records had sold millions but were not nominated, the use of Sound Scan was instituted. This would be so until 2007, when falling ratings and declining record sales lead to allowing fans to once again choose their favorites.
Dick Clark's legacy lead to his induction into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in 1993. Today, at a time when there will soon be only three major record companies, in control of all of the major labels, on the face of the Earth, I don't see another Dick Clark or anyone like him coming along in the near future. While the Indie scene looks promising, and the internet offers many opportunities for getting the word out about whats new in music, it may not be as easy as you might think.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Who Needs Reality?
I have a degree in Mass Media Communications, often, things that relate to other media are on my mind. I majored in production and I learned a lot about how things are put together before they go out over the air. Most of my real world experience has come from the time that I spent in local broadcast TV.
Since the TV writer's strike of 07 and several month after the strike of 2011, I've noticed that Reality TV is continuing to proliferate. Cable networks are coming onto the air with lineups that feature nothing but reality TV shows. And, some networks that once featured some of the most informative and information filled programming such as TLC which used to be The Learning Channel and Court TV, which became TruTV, now show reality based programming almost exclusively.
I'm not a snob or a TV critic, but the deepening of the reality TV rut is a little more than disappointing. While it is true that watching fewer hours of television is preferred, what do you do when you have free time and none of your 200 channels is showing very much that's entertaining.
I talked about reality before in another post when I was discussing the lack of videos on MTV. Speaking of, it was MTV's The Real World that started the current state of affairs.
The show was supposed to be a take off on the soap opera format, but when there was very little budget it was decided to use real people instead of actors, directors, or scripts. The shows success lead to a variety of spinoffs including, Survivor, Big Brother, The Amazing Race, and while you wouldn't think of it as being one, Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? The latter is classified as a game show, but if you look a little closer you'll see why I include it.
The list of shows goes on, but I don't really want to name them all. There are just too many. The networks used to employ quality writing, expert direction, and superb acting to get people to watch their programming. But, with increased competition from cable, they've given up and resorted to whatever will get viewers' attention. And, reality fits the bill. There's low production cost because there are no actors, directors, or scripts. But where is the entertainment value in what is turning out to be nothing more than a lot of conflict and bad language?
Maybe what's needed is a redefining of what is considered to be entertainment with regard to TV programming. I think that it's a little more than troubling when reality shows resort to using celebrities to get people to watch. What does that tell you? Where is the reality in that? Where is the reality in a show that has to resort to staging events because the actual lives being filmed become boring at times? That sounds more like unreality to me. And if that's supposed to be real, then, who needs reality?
Since the TV writer's strike of 07 and several month after the strike of 2011, I've noticed that Reality TV is continuing to proliferate. Cable networks are coming onto the air with lineups that feature nothing but reality TV shows. And, some networks that once featured some of the most informative and information filled programming such as TLC which used to be The Learning Channel and Court TV, which became TruTV, now show reality based programming almost exclusively.
I'm not a snob or a TV critic, but the deepening of the reality TV rut is a little more than disappointing. While it is true that watching fewer hours of television is preferred, what do you do when you have free time and none of your 200 channels is showing very much that's entertaining.
I talked about reality before in another post when I was discussing the lack of videos on MTV. Speaking of, it was MTV's The Real World that started the current state of affairs.
The show was supposed to be a take off on the soap opera format, but when there was very little budget it was decided to use real people instead of actors, directors, or scripts. The shows success lead to a variety of spinoffs including, Survivor, Big Brother, The Amazing Race, and while you wouldn't think of it as being one, Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? The latter is classified as a game show, but if you look a little closer you'll see why I include it.
The list of shows goes on, but I don't really want to name them all. There are just too many. The networks used to employ quality writing, expert direction, and superb acting to get people to watch their programming. But, with increased competition from cable, they've given up and resorted to whatever will get viewers' attention. And, reality fits the bill. There's low production cost because there are no actors, directors, or scripts. But where is the entertainment value in what is turning out to be nothing more than a lot of conflict and bad language?
Maybe what's needed is a redefining of what is considered to be entertainment with regard to TV programming. I think that it's a little more than troubling when reality shows resort to using celebrities to get people to watch. What does that tell you? Where is the reality in that? Where is the reality in a show that has to resort to staging events because the actual lives being filmed become boring at times? That sounds more like unreality to me. And if that's supposed to be real, then, who needs reality?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)