Wrong On SOPA/PIPA

Bob Lefsetz’ Anti-SOPA Blog 

Clay Shirkey’s SOPA TED Talk

It doesn’t take an egghead with multiple degrees to see that Clay Shirkey is a liar who’s talking down to his audience. He simply can’t have it both ways; SOPA will be completely ineffective/SOPA will break the internet. Well, which one is it, Clay? It’s inconvenient to police content, but who is it inconvenient for? Google/Youtube, Facebook, Yahoo, that’s who. (but not because they’d be required to “police” a single thing; simply because they’d lose the money they make by selling ads on pirate sites) Small wonder that the same names are behind the massive smear campaign against SOPA/PIPA.

Conveniently, Shirkey mischaracterizes both the intent and the function of the DMCA and makes no mention of its ‘safe harbor’ provisions protecting sites that feature user-generated content. Conveniently, he also leaves out any mention of the substantial requirements of proof of ownership and standing before the court (in other words, due process) that must be established before any takedown may be issued under SOPA, a higher standard than under the current DMCA bill. Conveniently, he makes no mention of the fact that ISPs are not required to inspect data packets for infringing content, and that the burden of identification of infringing content is still on the copyright holder, who can be countersued for a false or malicious takedown, which current legislation does not provide for. Conveniently, Shirkey makes no mention that sharing is not the same as for-profit infringement, which is the clearly defined and explicitly stated intended target of the proposed legislation. There are so many misleading statements in this video, I thought I was listening to a spokesman for the Bush administration.

My wife works in a bakery, where as you’d expect, they have a scanner that produces edible images for cakes. They’ll put any image you like on a cake, as long as you bring it in. For a while, they put a stop to this practice because the parent company’s lawyers were concerned about copyright infringement and their potential liablity, but customer demand was too strong, so they reversed their stance, and stopped putting the custom cakes in boxes with a window in the top, to prevent snooping busybodies from seeing the cakes. Incidentally, when they returned to their former cake image policy, sales of Deco packs, little plastic figurines, cake toppers with the copyrighted Disney and Hanna Barbera characters, shot through the roof. The bakery’s parent comany is Procter & Gamble, a company with deep pockets, who clearly can afford to make a few lawsuits go away; contrast this with the poor little bakery in the Bronx, and you’ll have a much clearer notion of who gets hurt by this kind of fear-mongering. Yep, it’s the independents taking it in the chute, yet again.

Myspace; You Can Have It

Odds are good I’m finally gonna delete my Myspace profile. It’s fine that they have the best SEO ever. The new player doesn’t interrupt your surfing while my music plays. When I upload or play my own music, it’s in your feed, if you’re my friend, all of which is cool. What’s NOT cool is when the player starts playing Nickelback as soon as I stop feeding it, while also broadcasting to my friends that I’m that douche who’s the reason you have to listen to Nickleback. I’m not about to diss or unfriend people who sincerely love Nickleback, cuz that ain’t what I’m about. However, I’ve been known to unfriend people who merely put words in my mouth, let alone music, but Myspace ain’t a person, and Nickleback ain’t a taste I want in my mouth.

Resume

I started recording and the serious study of music in general and the saxophone in particular at about the same time, though it took quite a while for the two to really come together. I spent the equivalent of a Berklee education on music trade magazines, in learning production techniques and am mainly self-educated on the music side, as well. Today, I sing and play a dozen or so instruments and am capable of taking a music project from conception to finish, including the songwriting and sound design at one end and the mastering and package design at the other, though for preference, I’d by far rather not do it alone; I love being part of a band, where the synergy produces something greater than the sum of the parts, and the thrill of performing for a truly appreciative audience is better than sex. (or nearly, anyway; the only thing that might beat it is having sex in front of an appreciative audience) Nailing a performance in the studio is almost as good, but you get to hear it more than once, AND you can reproduce the experience for your friends and neighbors, so it’s really hard to pick jes’ one.

The Song

It’s about the song, the performance, the arrangement and then the mix, in that order. Gear today is amazing, and amazingly affordable, so the greatest challenge to today’s recording engineer is in having something that’s worth recording in the first place; you get those things right, it’s hard for anybody further into the process to screw it up. (try though they may) The tricky thing is that the order of importance is not the same as the order in which you work on these things. 

It starts with the song; if you don’t have a great song to begin with, you’re dead in the water. Beyond that, given that you have the song, you need a vision (or an auditory hallucination, really) of how it should sound, then you develop the arrangement in such a way that it’s easier or at least possible to perform and mix. 

The arrangement is key to the performance-what’s the singer’s range, what are the highest and lowest melody notes to be sung, what key should it be in? does the pre-chorus need to precede every chorus or just the first? would modulating up a whole step for the last chorus increase the energy level?-and also to the mix-do we need to drop the drums out in the third verse where the singer gets up close on the mic and whispers? 

Think about these things well before the recording session, then you have a roadmap for how you’re going to capture the performance in a way that enhances the song’s impact and makes it easier to mix. The mix is also a performance, so it makes sense to plan out and rehearse the mix moves ahead of time as well.

Proverbs, Deconstructed

If you were up Sh*t Creek, without a paddle, would it not be better to “go with the flow”?  One assumes there’s a current in a creek, so the lack of a paddle is less an impediment than in a pond; one may simply wait to come down, were it not likely that Sh*t Creek flows into Sh*t River, perhaps eventually, Sh*t Ocean. In illustrating a predicament, would it not be better to say, “down Sh*t Creek”, implying that one needed to paddle upward? Except of course, that would put us nearer to the source of the poo. Certainly a dilemma, either way, which is perhaps, what’s meant.

On Editing, Artistry, Fans And Friends

I won’t lay claim to any godlike powers, but I’m well aware that I’m 99th percentile in an awful lot of things; that may make me special, but it doesn’t earn me special treatment. I’m only as good as the track you’re listening to right now. (and if you’re a music industry gatekeeper, I’ll be very surprised if you listen to more than ten seconds before hitting the “next’ button-because I understand that my stuff can be great and still not be what you’re looking for)

There’s a blurry line between a healthy ego and a bad attitude, particularly if we’re talking about artistry. It really does take a lot of damn gall to pick up a microphone in the first place.  Being an artist isn’t something you do to make money, it’s a calling; you do it because you have to, and can’t even imagine yourself as anything else. In fact, Dr. Drew would probably say that being an artist or having artistic aspirations is a form of personality disorder. In my opinion, this is what makes many artists difficult to deal with, and I think it’s called either ‘artistic vision’ or ‘blinders’. Hey, it’s the producer’s job to see the forest, the artist just plants and waters the seeds. (and prays for a redwood rather than a Charlie Brown xmas tree)

Belief in oneself is a great and empowering thing, but if you can’t separate yourself from your work, you’ll likely make it difficult for anyone to help you improve either of the above. I have a theory that artists are artists because they’re more emotionally sensitive than the average bear; I think it makes sense, if you consider that if you’re going to portray an emotion, you must first feel that emotion. You need an intimate familiarity with how anger knots the muscles of the face, or how love melts the cockles of the heart. (you haven’t lived, ’til you’ve had your cockles melted)

You have to feel it while you write it, and feel it again while you’re singing it and you need to feel it enough to make other people feel it with you; that’s the essence of artistry, imo. I think you also need to be in love with the work; (at least until after the tour, by which time you should be disgusted with it and ready to write more) but you can’t be in love with it when you’re evaluating it, and you have to evaluate it, unless you can get somebody to do that for you; otherwise you won’t know how to edit, and edit you must, because there’s a limit to everybody’s attention span, and you can go from fascinating to annoying brutally quick, depending on who’s listening. You need friends as well as fans; your fans will love everything you do, but your friends will tell you the truth. If you lash out at people who tell you the truth, you could end up surrounded by only fans; I’m pretty sure that’s what happened with Elvis and Michael Jackson, and you can see how that turned out.

SonicBids’ Value Proposition

I really just wanted to respond to Mr. Panay’s disingenuous and self-serving comments post at Digital Music News, http://digitalmusicnews.com/stories/040611festival  but the comments are closed. (gee, and just when things looked like they were about to get interesting)  No doubt Panos Panay is a man of great personal charm, able to bend fledgling bloggers to his will with a mere prime rib dinner and perhaps a ride in his Ferrari, but his own words are what damn him, imo. Here’s the blog comment I refer to, in its entirety, with MY comments in brackets:

Comment By: Panos Panay
Friday, April 08, 2011

Hi There,

This is Panos, founder of Sonicbids. I’ve been following the comments and I think much of what I have to say has already been captured in comments made by Dave Cool and others.

In many ways this whole subject is moot, as right now 65% of all gigs on Sonicbids carry no submission fees. By June, this number will be 90%. [Well, it's 65% moot then, and according to Panos, will soon be 90% moot, but if you happen to look up the word "moot", you'll learn that it really doesn't work by percentages; an issue is either relevant or not,  but I'm willing to let you, the reader, decide]  But, I will also say that we are keeping some premium listings fee based, because I’ve s een these fees work and create opportunities for emerging music that without them would have never been possible. [This is the first misrepresentation of fact; submission fees don't create opportunities for bands and musicians; never did, not once.] If you care, read further. If you’re fixed in your opinion, then don’t waste your time reading my rather long-winded response. [Panos doesn't want you to read this;  you might twig to what's really going on, if you do]

We at Sonicbids did not invent submission fees. They existed long before I launched the company 10 years ago. [This may be true, strictly speaking, but not to any great extent, and particularly not for the vast majority of successful and good-paying festivals that a young indie band would want to associate with] Do I feel that it’s worth it for an artist to pay $25 or whatever to be considered for SXSW or CMJ? Of course I do.  [and why not? Panos splits the take with the promoters! This creates a confliict of interest and incentives for promoters to get a bit lax about little things like closing submissions when all festival slots have been filled or even for a few months or years after the festival date has passed; after all, it's free money, for which the concert promoter need do nothing, not even look at the submissions if she doesn't wanna.] And as an unabashed believer in free market dynamics,  [ a free market is one in which Panos is free to keep your money, and can dynamically turn around and use it against you]  I will tell you that if it was not worth it, then countless managers and agents and artists would not be applying to perform at these conferences every year — and benefitting from showcasing at them for over 25 years now. [Has Sonicbids been around for twenty-five years? No? even if it had, would twenty five years of injustice be justifiable based on longevity? And about those droves of managers, agents and artists, the smart ones, the reputable ones run, screaming from this smelly deal, because there is no upside to playing a show where you have no leverage; if you had leverage, the festivals would come to you, and you'd need SonicBids for what?] Is emerging music better off because SXSW, CMJ and other similar festivals exist? You bet.  [Maybe emerging music IS better off, but only because some crappy bands realize they're being screwed and quit the business. Here's a dirty little open secret: nobody gets "discovered" at CMJ or SXSW anymore, if they ever did; it's just a big party for the music industry that was already subsidized by the music press, the clubs, the fans and the major labels-now, they wanna fleece the indie bands, too.] Could they take place if they did not charge these fees? I doubt it. [This is the big "pants-on-fire" moment; it betrays either a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic economics of concert promotion, OR that Panos is pulling a fast one, because any festival that requires submission fees from its artists to stay in business is a losing proposition; in other words, completely economically infeasible. (the exception would be co-op festivals organized and promoted by the bands themselves, which is a much better idea than SonicBids, in my opinion) Concerts are supposed to get their money from fans and sponsors.  When they don't, they die.]

As far as other non-conference promoters that charge fees, when a band is still developing and young and untried, nearly all the financial risk lies with the promoter that books them as in many cases there is no guarantee that they will recoup their cost of the evening/event from the crowds that a young, emerging band will bring. I would go further and say that in most cases, these bookings are almost always at a loss as most events sell tickets not based on the emerging bands they book but by booking the same old, same old headliners. It’s changing but we’re not there yet. [Another whopper; ethical promoters assume these risks, laying off the cost of building future business (promoting lesser-known acts) against the larger drawing headliners; they don't need to be subsidized by starving baby bands if they know their business. I guess Panos maybe has a point, in that many of today's promoters don't, but do you really want your band and your brand associated with such losers?]

Historically, this unknown has made many promoters risk averse – or even downright hostile — to booking new music (join in on any of the calls that we have every day to festivals around the planet if you want to get a flavor of the objections to indie music). Why take a risk on a new artist when one represented by a label or an agent comes with a known draw that at least covers some or most of their costs?  [This is true, and it's why it's so much better to self-promote and build your fanbase and attract a great manager with negotiating skills and some clout, because until you can put butts in seats, there's nothing you have that a festival wants, which means you will be on the wrong end of any deal you make, Panos or no] (By the way, keep in mind that most clubs and most festivals are labors of love and largely unprofitable. I personally don’t know many promoters that live the good life.)  [It's amazing this guy can see anything for all the smoke from those burning pants; most clubs and most festivals make money, or they go out of business;  Panos ain't doin' so bad hisself, though I think he may have sold the Ferrari.]

Small submission fees, earned by promoters, take some of that risk-aversion away.  [And small submission fees of as little as $25, using Panos' figure, when multiplied by five thousand or so submissions would amount to$125,000. Boy, howdy, that'd rent a lot of Porta-Potties.] And many times WE will assume all the risk (Sonicbids) by sponsoring events and guaranteeing them revenue – often at a huge loss. Last year, we spent over $3 million to create these opportunities out there. And yes, it takes THAT much money to change the attitudes of people towards booking emerging music. And you know what? It’s working. We are on a track to DOUBLE the amount of gigs that are getting booked on Sonicbids from 80,000 to 160,000 this year. [Whoah, wait, did he say the promoters earned the submission fees? What goods or services did they provide in exchange, and most particularly, what did the bands that weren't selected get for their money? It surprises me not in the least that SonicBids shelled out $3M plus to put bands on bills where they had literally no business, and where did the money come from? The loser bands.]
I wish I could tell you that the 30,000 people going to Bonnaroo in June are going there to see the 10 bands that are getting booked using Sonicbids but that’s not the case. But, we insisted that the bands get paid $1,000 each, we are giving ALL fees to charity (designated by the Bonnaroo guys) and we are paying to sponsor the event as well. All in the name of promoting emerging music. [There you have it, Panos would've kept SB's share of the fees, but Bonaroo's organizers objected. Effectively, this amounts to SonicBids paying to have its name associated with Bonnaroo's vaunted brand. Personally,  I'm not averse to risk, but I am averse to the idea of buying legitimacy; I work in the advertising business, so I believe I know it when I see it.]

I am not going to go on and on about these fees (as I mentioned, we are moving to having over 90% of the gig listings to be non-fee based). I will tell you that they have enabled investments and created opportunities ranging from tours, to festival gigs, to channels on airlines, and slots in TV shows, all of which showcase new music, and would not have been there without them.  [Again, submission fees never created any of these opportunities; never, not once, and here's why;  without the bands that don't have to pay to play, there is no gig,  period.]

Lastly, if you don’t like paying submission fees to conferences and festivals, there are other avenues out there. But arguably, all require an investment one way or another. If you want to build any business, be it a music career or a company you have to be willing to take risks and invest money and time and energy. I’m not going to lead you on to believe that there’s any other way. [This is 100% true, but it's my personal opinion that there are far better ways to spend $72/year than on SonicBids; for starters, you could build your own website, where you have control of your content and mailing list or organize your own festival. As a bonus, you get to keep the skills you'll learn and the fans you earn.]

Trust me, I know first hand. I started Sonicbids by raking up $30,000 in credit card debt that took me 4 years to pay off and $50,000 of my personal savings, which was all the money I had in the bank (and nearly completely depleted). No one ever guaranteed me that all the energy and money that I would be investing would ever amount to anything. And unlike most online businesses, I did not start with a nice cool $1 million in VC money or whatever. I took a huge personal risk because of my belief and love and passion for emerging music. [Wink-wink; we're supposed to believe he did all that for love, with no expectaion of reward. Also, you gotta love the Freudian slip; the guy is all about "raking" in the cash, not racking up the credit card debt]

I’m glad it did it. Because nearly 350,000 gigs that have been booked since I started this site almost exactly 10 years ago and we think we’ll add another 160,000 this year. [See that? He took credit for twenty-five years of showcases and in the same post, twice admits he's been in business ten years. I think this sums up the kinda guy Panos is, but if not, try dividing the total number of SonicBids accounts by that 80,000 gigs per year figure.]

Rock on.

Panos

P.S. Wanna comment directly to me? Go to my blog. I listen.

Here is Dave Cool’s blog post RE SonicBids: http://davecool.ca/2010/03/the-dirty-word-at-folk-alliance-2010-sonicbids/ in which he admits Panos bought him dinner and is a swell guy.

So Here is Panos Panay’s value propositon: Pay me $72 dollars a year, plus submission fees for what a dozen other websites do better and for free, and I’ll use your money to lobby to exclude non-SonicBids members from as many major festivals as I can. Does this seem like a good deal to you? If so, feel free to join the gold rush, but remember what happened to the Forty-Niners; nearly all of them got broke, except the prostitutes and the guys that sold the pickaxes.

On Marketing

Despite everyone’s best efforts and a lot of wishful thinking, there’s still no substitute for actual physical shows and actual physical marketing. (as long as it’s targeted-there’s no point in papering windshields at the mall when your band is more emo than a Hot Topic cashier) Music “consumers” (I hate that word; what gets consumed, exactly?) are more savvy and guarded than ever before, and are more or less continually assaulted by people promoting crap twenty-four seven, especially if they’re online. Music fans believe that it costs nothing to record a song and that playing and singing requires no talent nor any effort whatsoever; after all, the marketers for computers, software and musical instruments told them so!

Prevailing wisdom would have you chasing ‘influencers’ online, and I suppose there’s some merit in that, but smarter money is on finding something better than great and seducing, rather than bludgeoning your audience; speak softly, and carry a big stick, as Teddy Roosevelt so famously put it. I used to sell vacuum cleaners door-to-door, and I can tell you that a truly great product practically sells itself, once you get it in front of a buyer. In today’s environment, the ‘having a great product’ part is the hardest part by far.

Amanda Hocking

Per Bob Lefsetz: Amanda Hocking

Nobody is asking us to sell all of our products for less than cost; that’s obviously not sustainable. If you want to reduce the price of your music so as to make up the difference in volume, (pretty much the proposition, here) you first have to have a product that people want, second, you need the means to produce the product at a very low cost, thirdly you need the ability to distribute the product at a very low cost, and lastly, (you see where I’m going, here?) the means to promote the product at a very low cost. You need an app for that, in other words.

You’re sitting in front of that very tool, reading this. So, if your product is the straightforward delivery of great songs, rather than stellar production values or a hot band, all you really need is a guitar, a microphone and a computer. (maybe also a YouTube account) The internet has given us all these wonderful tools, but it took something away, as well; it made us all local musicians and turned all the labels into banks. If I want a career, I now need to think like a record label, which means paying attention to a lot more than just the music; I need to know who’s going to buy my record before I make the record. The reason? Downloads don’t replace CDs, CDs don’t replace vinyl and streaming won’t replace downloading. (though it might replace radio)

Different fans have different needs and they purchase music different ways; some will only come to the show, but might buy a T-shirt and a CD while they’re there, others will want only vinyl, or a download, but might also buy a hoodie or a coffee mug, maybe a sticker. If you’ve really got the goods, some of your fans may want all of the above, or to go camping or on a cruise with you. Some might pay you a thousand dollars for a concert in their living room. The point isn’t to give away the store, but to make the entry point for new fans cheap, simple and easy, and maybe you have to have some options that are free. You don’t need to carry loads of inventory in this on-demand world, but you do have to know who your fans are and what they’ll buy.

I am a record label, I can do whatever I want with my music, including discount my physical product once I’ve recouped my initial investment, which I could get by crowdfunding, if I’m not making enough from gigs. There are sites available such as Groupon, where the more people sign up for a product, the cheaper it gets-what could be a more ideal platform for recoupment? If I know that 1,000 people are willing to pay two bucks apiece to get a physical copy of my next record before anybody else, I could order 2000 discs from Discmakers, and price the second thousand however I please, or even give them away at shows. Everybody wins!

*credit and thanks to Teresa James for the Sandy Beaches Cruise/Delbert McClinton link.

The Decline Of Arcades

Brian Crecente writes here that video arcades aren’t just dead, they’re never coming back. True or not, I think he’s wrong about the cause of their purported demise, and there may be implications for the film and music industries, as well.

One of the commentators below the article claims that his parents would drop him off at the arcade with $40 for a single day of gaming, presumably four to six hours worth, possibly also including snacks and drinks, this in the days of oversized CRTs and standup booth games costing a quarter or two. Now, consider the modern gamer paradigm of enormous LCD or plasma screens, HD graphics, surround sound, subwoofers, comfortable, seated position, snacks and drinks limited only by the size of one’s fridge and/or wallet, massively multiplayer online gaming and once a month pricing that feels like free, without spending a dime on transportation.

Despite the substantial initial investment involved, the richer experience and lower perceived cost (the gear itself can be amortized somewhat by using it for television, movies or computing, as well as games) leads me to believe that coinage has little or nothing to do with the matter, and that’s before factoring in the real estate expenses formerly borne by arcade operators.