ReportWire

Tag: Music Streaming

  • Spotify lossless streaming is finally here and it’s included with a Premium plan

    [ad_1]

    Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: over a half-decade of rumors, infrequent teases and affirmations that something is on the way, only for fans to impatiently bide their time and the thing to eventually arrive with very little advance warning. No, I’m not talking about this time. Spotify is finally that offers higher-quality music streaming.

    Best of all, the company is offering it to Premium members at no extra charge. You’ll get a notification once it’s enabled on your account. Starting today, Spotify is rolling out lossless audio in the US, UK, Australia, Austria, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Portugal and its home territory of Sweden. In all, Spotify Premium users in more than 50 markets will gain access to lossless audio by the end of October.

    The option is available on mobile, desktop and tablets, along with many Spotify Connect-compatible devices, including Sony, Bose, Samsung, and Sennheiser products. Spotify Lossless will make its way to Sonos and Amazon devices, as well as others, next month.

    Somewhat annoyingly, you’ll have to enable Spotify Lossless manually, and you’ll need to do that on each device on which you want to use it. To switch it on in the Spotify app, tap your profile icon in the top left, then go to Settings & Privacy > Media Quality. From there, you can choose to turn on lossless audio for Wi-Fi and cellular streaming, as well as your downloads. When it’s on, you’ll see a lossless indicator in the Now Playing view and the Connect Picker.

    Lossless streaming uses more data than other quality options, which is why Spotify is offering several settings for Wi-Fi, cellular and downloads so you (hopefully) don’t bust through any data caps you might have. You’ll be able to see how much data the various options — low, normal, high, very high and lossless quality — will use to help you figure out which way to go.

    Spotify Lossless offers up to 24-bit/44.1 kHz FLAC streaming. The company says the option means you’ll be able to stream in “greater detail across nearly every song available on Spotify.”

    Of note, the company says that you’ll get the best lossless experience when you stream music on Wi-Fi using wired headphones or speakers on non-Bluetooth connections, because Bluetooth doesn’t yet have enough bandwidth to support lossless audio. As such, if you try streaming lossless music with a Bluetooth connection, the audio signal will still be compressed before it reaches your ears. It might take slightly longer for each lossless audio track to start playing too, as your device might need to cache it to avoid mid-song stutters.

    “The wait is finally over; we’re so excited lossless sound is rolling out to Premium subscribers,” said Gustav Gyllenhammar, Spotify’s vice-president of subscriptions, said. “We’ve taken time to build this feature in a way that prioritizes quality, ease of use, and clarity at every step, so you always know what’s happening under the hood. With Lossless, our premium users will now have an even better listening experience.”

    Gyllenhammar isn’t kidding about Spotify taking its time to offer lossless listening. It was reported that the company was “close” to delivering lossless audio. In 2021, Spotify said it would , but that didn’t happen and the company has largely kept mum about a higher-quality streaming option since (it said in 2022 a Spotify HiFi experience was , but declined to commit to a release window).

    Earlier this year, it was suggested that Spotify would finally offer a lossless option in 2025 and that it . Thankfully, that’s not quite the case, as Lossless is included with a $12 Premium subscription that will definitely not get more expensive at some point in the future. Nope, no way. In any case, including it with Premium puts Spotify on par with the likes of Apple Music, which has offered lossless streaming to paid subscribers at no extra cost . Now then, Spotify, about Dolby Atmos…

    [ad_2]

    Kris Holt

    Source link

  • nugs.net to Stream Sturgill Simpson’s, AKA Johnny Blue Skies’, ‘Why Not?’ Tour 2024

    nugs.net to Stream Sturgill Simpson’s, AKA Johnny Blue Skies’, ‘Why Not?’ Tour 2024

    [ad_1]

    Fans Can Listen to Official Concert Audio from the Highly Anticipated Tour – Available for Streaming and Download Exclusively on nugs.net

    nugs.net, the leading channel for live concert streaming, has announced that it is releasing official live concert recordings from Sturgill Simpson’s “Why Not?” Tour 2024, which is currently underway.

    Performing under the moniker Johnny Blue Skies, Simpson’s return to the stage marks a new chapter for the Grammy-winning artist. Spanning 30 U.S. dates in 2024, the artist-official concert recordings from the tour will be made available for download on nugs.net and streaming exclusively in the app for subscribers. The “Why Not?” Tour continues into 2025, with 17 additional dates in Europe just announced. 

    In launching this collaboration, five concerts from the first week of the tour are available now on the live-music platform, and fans can expect nightly recordings to be available on nugs within 12 hours of each show. 

    Exclusive Access to Official Concert Audio

    As part of this exclusive offering, fans will have the option to stream or download Simpson’s official concert recordings in standard and high-resolution formats. These high-fidelity soundboard recordings capture the energy and rawness of his live performances, allowing fans to experience the tour nightly as if they were front row.

    “We first teamed up with Sturgill for a livestream event during the pandemic, a benefit concert streamed live to fans worldwide from an empty Ryman Auditorium. Fast forward four years, and we’re elated to have him back on nugs.net in this capacity; this is a special opportunity for fans,” said Brad Serling, founder and CEO of nugs.net. “This tour is a celebration of his return, and through nugs, we’re proud to be able to provide fans a piece of that live experience from home.”

    The “Why Not?” Tour is Simpson’s first full tour in over four years and features his band—Kevin Black (bass), Robbie Crowell (keys), Laur Joamets (guitar) and Miles Miller (drums). Of a recent three-hour long concert, the Santa Barbara Independent praises, “In his long-awaited return to music, Sturgill Simpson … brought a mesmerizing sense of calm to the Santa Barbara Bowl,” while American Songwriter declares, “Not only does this prove Simpson’s creativity is otherworldly, but it also proves just how versatile of a musician he is.” 

    Sturgill Simpson’s “Why Not?” Tour – Full List of Dates:

    • September 14 – Los Angeles, CA—The Greek Theatre
    • September 15 – Santa Barbara, CA—Santa Barbara Bowl
    • September 17 – West Valley City, UT—Maverik Center
    • September 19 – Bend, OR—Hayden Homes Amphitheater
    • September 20 – George, WA—The Gorge Amphitheatre
    • September 22 – Missoula, MT—KettleHouse Amphitheater
    • September 24 – Moorhead, MN—Bluestem Center for the Arts Amphitheater
    • September 25 – Minneapolis, MN—Roy Wilkins Auditorium
    • September 27 – Lexington, KY—Rupp Arena
    • September 28 – Detroit, MI—Fox Theatre
    • October 1 – Chicago, IL—Salt Shed
    • October 2 – Chicago, IL—Salt Shed
    • October 4 – Brandon, MS—The Brandon Amphitheater
    • October 4-6 – Austin, TX—Austin City Limits Music Festival
    • October 8 – Oklahoma City, OK—Criterion
    • October 9 – Rogers, AR—Walmart AMP
    • October 11-13 – Austin, TX—Austin City Limits Music Festival
    • October 15 – St. Louis, MO—Fabulous Fox Theatre
    • October 18 – Pittsburgh, PA—Petersen Events Center
    • October 19 – Forest Hills, NY—Forest Hills Stadium
    • October 21 – Asheville, NC—ExploreAsheville.com Arena
    • October 22 – Cary, NC—Koka Booth Amphitheatre
    • October 24 – Duluth, GA—Gas South Arena
    • October 25 – Nashville, TN—Bridgestone Arena
    • November 12 – Philadelphia, PA—The Met
    • November 15 – Hampton, VA—Hampton Coliseum*
    • November 18 – Washington, DC—The Anthem*
    • November 20 – Toronto, ON—Massey Hall
    • November 21 – Toronto, ON—Massey Hall
    • November 23 – Boston, MA—MGM Music Hall at Fenway
    • February 23 – Belfast, UK— Limelight
    • February 24 – Dublin, IE—Vicar Street 
    • February 26 – Glasgow, UK—Barrowland Ballroom
    • February 27 – Manchester, UK—Albert Hall
    • March 1 – London, UK— Eventim Apollo
    • March 2 – Bristol, UK—Beacon
    • March 4 – Amsterdam, NL—Paradiso
    • March 5 – Hamburg, DE —Markthalle
    • March 7 – Copenhagen, DK—KB Hallen
    • March 8 – Stockholm, SE—Annexet
    • March 10 – Oslo, NO—Sentrum Scene
    • March 14 – Helsinki, FI—House of Culture
    • March 15 – Tallinn, EE—Alexela Concert Hall
    • March 18 – Berlin, DE—Metropol 
    • March 19 – Munich, DE—Muffathalle
    • March 21 – Brussels, BE—La Madeleine
    • March 22 – Paris, FR—Le Trianon 

    (Note: The audio for the September 14th Greek Theatre show will not be available. Europe audio is not confirmed yet to be available for streaming or order.)

    With a free 7-day trial to the nugs.net app, fans can stream Sturgill Simpson’s ”Why Not?” Tour audio and unlock nugs’ expansive concert catalog, featuring official audio and video from last night’s show, and deep archives from the world’s most iconic artists.

    About nugs.net
    Since 1997 nugs has been at the forefront of live music. Founded as a fan site for downloading concert audio, nugs.net has grown into the leading live music platform for the world’s largest touring artists and emerging acts. Bruce Springsteen, Metallica, Pearl Jam, Phish, Dead & Company, Jack White and many others distribute official and professionally-mixed concert recordings exclusively through nugs, available for order and streaming with a subscription. nugs is also respected worldwide as the premiere site for livestreamed events, delivering unparalleled at-home concert experiences in stunning 4K and HD quality. nugs catalog of live music is available on the web, iOS, Android, AppleTV, CarPlay, Sonos, plus BluOS, and a free 7-day trial is available.

    About Sturgill Simpson
    Respected, beloved and fiercely independent, Sturgill Simpson made his highly anticipated return to music this year with the release of the full-length album, Passage Du Desir, under a new name, Johnny Blue Skies. The eight-song album was produced by Johnny Blue Skies and David Ferguson and recorded at Clement House Recording Studio in Nashville, TN, and Abbey Road Studios in London, England.  

    Released to overwhelming acclaim, GQ calls the album, “an instant classic,” while Pitchfork named it “Best New Music,” proclaiming, “expertly balances cosmic and outlaw country and reintroduces himself as the premier Nashville outsider.” Additionally, Rolling Stone declares, “a brilliant exploration of metamodern heartache” and Paste asserts “the album’s only imperfection is that it ends.” 

    Since his debut, Simpson has released five full-length studio albums—2013’s High Top Mountain, 2014’s Metamodern Sounds in Country Music, 2016’s A Sailor’s Guide to Earth, 2019’s Sound & Fury and 2021’s The Ballad of Dood and Juanita—along with the 2020 projects, Cuttin’ Grass Vol. 1 and Vol. 2. Throughout his singular career, Simpson has relentlessly pushed against expectations, earning widespread acclaim and countless accolades including a Grammy Award in 2017 for Best Country Album and six Grammy nominations across four genres: country, rock, bluegrass and Americana.

    Source: nugs.net

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • We now live in a music microculture, even when it comes to Taylor Swift – National | Globalnews.ca

    We now live in a music microculture, even when it comes to Taylor Swift – National | Globalnews.ca

    [ad_1]

    In the days before the internet, music was a scarce and regulated commodity. Yet the current landscape tells a different tale. With so much music to go around, the dynamics of the industry have changed what was once a “macroculture” into a “microculture.”

    To show you what I mean, let’s journey back to the music world of the past.

    Record labels would only sign acts that they believed had a chance at being commercially successful or if they had a champion somewhere in the office and were deemed culturally significant. Releases were meted out in measured amounts, usually several thousand albums a year. These were then further filtered by radio stations, music magazines, and record stores. The public got to choose from what was left.

    We had fewer choices to make. Even the biggest record stores stocked perhaps 100,000 titles, which included all eras and all genres of music. This made it easier to decide which acts to support in terms of music sales, time spent listening, and the purchasing of concert tickets.

    Story continues below advertisement

    Consensus ruled the day. Millions of people were on the same page when it came to determining which acts were “good” and deserving of our time and money. Those artists became huge and dominated the music world for as long as the public deemed them interesting and worthy.

    The music charts were different, too. Because they were based on solely radio play and record sales, it was easy to follow an album’s progress. It might debut at, say, 187 on the Billboard Top 200 and begin a slow climb as more people got on board through radio play, touring, and old-fashioned marketing and promotion. Week after week, you could see the consensus build and watch a star being born. And you could see the exact week when an album ran out of steam and began to fall.

    Much of this happened outside the general public’s view, too. Billboard was mostly an industry publication and wasn’t found on a lot of newsstands outside of major cities. If you were conscious of any chart action, it was through listening to weekly countdowns on the radio (Casey Kasem’s American Top 40, for example), charts published and distributed by local radio stations and record stores, or by studying the inside back page of Rolling Stone which featured abridged versions of a variety of charts.


    Get the latest National news.

    Sent to your email, every day.

    In short, pre-internet, music was a macroculture with plenty of big stars. Today? Not so much.

    Oh, we still have an array of music charts because this is how the industry keeps score. They’re also useful when it comes to marketing: “X’s new album debuted at #1!” and that kind of bumpf. But the truth is the charts don’t mean what they used to. Radio play and sales are still taken into account, but streams are weighted heavily. The combinations of data used in compiling charts are so convoluted and removed from the old days, that comparing today’s chart successes (“Drake broke another chart record once held by The Beatles! Look how many albums Taylor Swift has in the Top Ten!”) to the days of old are apples and oranges. More like apples and hockey pucks, actually.

    Story continues below advertisement

    The internet has flattened everything out. Instead of several thousand albums and maybe 20,000 songs a year, more than 100,000 new songs are being uploaded to streaming music platforms every day. Somewhere between 110 and 120 million tracks are sitting on Spotify’s servers right now. And that number is growing by millions every year.

    The old cultural gatekeepers — labels, radio, record stores, music magazines, and I’ll even throw in music video channels — have been replaced by individual music fans. We’ve all become music directors, A&R staff, and curators. We listen to what we want, when we want, wherever we are, and on whatever device we want to use.

    Wait for our favourite song to come on the radio? Go to the record store to buy a new album? Pick up a copy of our go-to music magazine at the drug store? Madness. Everything is available all the time — and for free or something approaching it.

    There is too much music. Even though more than seven trillion songs were streamed last year — and that’s trillion with a “t” — the vast, vast majority were streamed less than 1,000 times. In fact, 45.6 million tracks had zero streams. Zero. Naught. Zilch.

    With so much music to go around — there’s something out there for each and every individual —the music macroculture has disappeared. The musical tribes or yore have separated, fragmented, and stratified. Outside of a few superstars, music is all about filling niches, making consensus about who is “good” all but disappear.

    Story continues below advertisement

    Artists like Taylor Swift, Beyonce, The Weeknd, and Drake are undeniably popular. But because so much of music culture is about niches, they appear all that much bigger by comparison. No disrespect to any of those artists, but as big and powerful as they are today, they’re nowhere near as big as artists were in the pre-internet era when we had fewer choices.

    Sure, we hear about Taylor Swift a lot, but that’s more celebrity talk and gossip than anything to do with her music. Swifties will bristle at that, but unless you’re part of her army, you probably can’t name five of her songs. And even if she is the Greatest Singer Ever, she’s an outlier in the world of entertainment. In the old days, she would have plenty of competition.

    The rise of the music microculture is part of something larger, too. People willing to work at filling niches are coming online faster than the companies and institutions that have supported the macroculture for decades. If you don’t believe me, talk to your kids about what’s got their attention these days. They’re following TikTok influencers, YouTube stars, and indie acts on Bandcamp.

    Content is being generated at the rate of at least 328.77 million terabytes per day. That’s 120 zettabytes per year. You don’t need to know what a zettabyte is to realize that it’s a big number. And just wait until AI really takes off.

    Story continues below advertisement

    The transition from macro to micro is only going to accelerate. As it does, what will it mean to be a “star” in the future when we able to get everything all at once?

    &copy 2024 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

    [ad_2]

    Alan Cross

    Source link

  • How much longer will we be able to buy digital music? – National | Globalnews.ca

    How much longer will we be able to buy digital music? – National | Globalnews.ca

    [ad_1]

    On June 1, 1999, a university student named Shawn Fanning sent a message to his friends telling them about a new program he’d written called Napster. It offered music fans a way to connect and trade digital music files quickly and efficiently using a new type of compressed file called an MP3. “Don’t share it with anyone, okay?” he asked. Within weeks, Napster was being used by thousands upon thousands of people.

    It was the beginning of the end for the traditional recorded music industry. After a hundred years of running a business based on selling physical pieces of plastic to consumers, executives were shaken from their complacency and denial about digital music and forced to do something. They needed to stop music from being free. If the public wanted music in digital form, then it needed to be legally purchased.

    Some of the major labels sat down with Napster, offering to buy the company. But that failed because they demanded 90 per cent of the profits. Even if they had been successful, anti-trust laws would have made such a purchase difficult. Regulators would have never let the industry have complete control over both the creation and distribution of music.

    Story continues below advertisement

    That prompted the labels to pair off to create a couple of digital storefronts. Universal and Sony teamed up on PressPlay, an ornery, miserable, restrictive, and not very functional digital storefront. EMI, AOL, BMG, and RealNetworks launched MusicNet, which was no better. Consumers hated both.

    Enter Steve Jobs. Knowing that the recorded music industry was in a bind over piracy, the threat of anti-trust violations, and technical ignorance, he offered a solution: the iTunes music store. And lo, it was pretty good.

    As sales of compact discs continued to fall, sales of legitimate, paid downloads through digital storefronts rose and rose, especially after digital rights management locks — the pesky bits of code that prevented copying of files more than X number of times — were removed. Purchases exploded. At one point in the aughts, iTunes was responsible for somewhere around 70 per cent of all legal digital music sales.


    Get the latest National news.

    Sent to your email, every day.

    Much was written about how paid downloads would ultimately save music and replace the compact disc. Others rhapsodized about “the long tail,” the idea that the industry would reap huge profits through the sale of low volumes of many, many, many different songs, tracks that had long disappeared from record stores. And again, things were pretty good.

    But then along came streaming. Consumers were at first suspicious of the concept of renting music instead of owning it. “You mean if I stop paying my monthly subscription, all the songs I accumulate in my account will disappear? That’s madness!” The industry was distrustful, too, largely because it didn’t understand the tech. But despite a chaotic start that saw plenty of platforms fail or merge (Rdio, Songza, Mog, etc.), the public, driven largely by young people and their smartphones, embraced streaming, eschewing not only physical media (with the exception of those who discovered vinyl) but paid digital downloads.

    Story continues below advertisement

    Access to music had trumped possession of it. There was no longer a need to clutter up shelves and hard drives with your music collection. Let the cloud take care of everything.

    It wasn’t long before someone asked the question, “How much longer will we be able to buy digital music files?”

    The site Digital Music News thought it had a scoop at the end of 2017 when it published a story with the title “Apple ‘On Schedule’ to Terminate Music Downloads by 2019.” It claimed that in 2016, Apple began formulating a plan to phase out selling music from the iTunes Store. This roiled many areas of the internet, especially among people who have a legitimate need to purchase and hold music files.

    Me, for example. I’m always buying music from iTunes to help produce my Ongoing History of New Music radio. How can I talk about and then play music on the radio if I can’t get the music?

    The Digital Music News prediction has yet to come true, but Apple has killed some versions of iTunes, incorporating everything into Apple Music. Earlier this year, TV shows and movies were redirected from iTunes to a newly redesigned Apple TV app. PC users still have iTunes in a more-or-less classic form, but it hasn’t received an update since Dec. 7, 2020.

    As for any other digital store front, I can’t think of any, other than those like Pro Studio Masters, which sells ultra-high-resolution audio files — files that as of yet cannot be played on most smartphones and are far too big for wireless Bluetooth connections to handle.

    Story continues below advertisement

    Meanwhile, the amount of money being brought in via streaming is cratering. OnlyAccounts.io estimates that music downloads will generate about US$1.3 billion in revenue across all platforms this year, down 40 per cent from 2017 and a whopping 21 times less than revenue derived from streaming. Money from that segment will reach 158 per cent of its 2017 levels.

    Another stat: Streaming services will produce 72 per cent of global music revenue this year, up from six per cent in 2012. Paid downloads? A mere three per cent. Digital file aficionados have stalled at about 700 million worldwide. Streamers are at 1.1 billion and climbing.

    Buying music downloads won’t be going anywhere soon because the demand is out there, albeit falling year after year. Higher adoption rates of Hi-Res Audio formats (Dolby ATMOS, Sony 360, MQA, Spatial Audio) may keep things alive a little longer, especially when more smartphones are able to handle them. But with all the streamers (with the exception of Spotify; what’s wrong with you?) moving to audio that’s better-than-CD quality, we’ll eventually just end up in the same place.

    Meanwhile, back up your iTunes library. It will one day join your CD collection as a technological relic of the past.

    Alan Cross is a broadcaster with Q107 and 102.1 the Edge and a commentator for Global News.

    Story continues below advertisement

    Subscribe to Alan’s Ongoing History of New Music Podcast now on Apple Podcast or Google Play

    &copy 2024 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

    [ad_2]

    Alan Cross

    Source link

  • Here’s proof that there’s just too much music being made. WAY too much. – National | Globalnews.ca

    Here’s proof that there’s just too much music being made. WAY too much. – National | Globalnews.ca

    [ad_1]

    In the old days of physical music formats — CDs, vinyl, tapes — a collection was considered big if you had more than 100 of anything. Completists and obsessives might have upwards of a thousand or so records. If this sounds like you, I’ll bet that you knew the title of every song you owned and were familiar with each album on the shelf.

    Record stores were wondrous places, too. The biggest ones — think Sam the Record Man on Yonge Street in Toronto or any of the HMV superstores in major cities around the world — might stock 100,000 titles or more. A full browse of the shelves took days.

    Read more:

    Plagiarism wars put rhythm and beats under the legal microscope

    Then came the internet and the illegal filing-sharing that began in the late 1990s. People went nuts, accumulating as much free music as they could. Others began ripping their CDs to digital files where they lived alongside purchased downloads from storefronts like iTunes. Hard drives were filled to capacity with thousands and thousands of songs. A buddy of mine purchased a super-sized iPod Classic just so he could say that he carried 40,000 songs in his pocket.

    Story continues below advertisement

    Very impressive. But then came the era of streaming platforms (Digital Service Providers or DSPs) like Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, YouTube Music, and all the others. Suddenly, artists didn’t need a record label to get their music out to the world. For a very modest fee (or free for new artists), companies like TuneCore, DistroKid, CD Baby, and United Masters will see that any musician anywhere on the planet is uploaded to all the libraries used by the world’s music streamers. Hit “enter” and a song is available globally.

    Music distribution had been democratized. Artists were in charge of their own destinies and not beholden to some record company. Great, right?

    Well, hang on sunshine. What we have now is too much music. WAY too much. Let’s look at some numbers.

    Luminate, a company that tracks worldwide consumption of music and follows the habits of music fans, looked at new ISRCs coming into the system. An International Standard Recording Code is assigned to every song that gets released. Think of it as a Dewey Decimal System for books in a library. Better yet, it’s more like the ISBN code assigned to each and every book that gets published. Or you can think of it as the song equivalent of a social insurance number.

    Story continues below advertisement

    Luminate published data early this month that shows somewhere around 98,500 ISRCs are uploaded to DSPs each day. In 2022, a total of 34.1 million songs/ISRCs were uploaded. Today we have the equivalent of a jukebox that holds 196 million songs and videos. And the number keeps climbing every second.

    And it’s not the major labels. The same scan of the data showed that only four per cent of daily uploads — 3,940 songs, which is still a lot — come from the big three record labels, Universal, Sony, and Warner. That’s way too much for the music consumer to even begin to process and for the majors to properly market and promote. But it pales in comparison to what’s uploaded by indie labels and DIY musicians. That’s another 90,000 songs. Daily. Music Business Worldwide points out that for every song released by one of the Big Three, 24 come from other sources.

    What happens to all these songs? In the case of about 20 per cent of them (39.2 million tracks or roughly one for each living person in Canada) nothing. Nothing at all. They’re completely lost and never heard by anyone, ever.

    Another interesting stat: A full third of the 196 million new audio and video tracks were created during the pandemic. If we back up one more year, we see that half of all the music available today was created since 2020. Musicians obviously took COVID-19 lockdowns as an opportunity to write songs. And even though things have returned to normal, that firehose of DIY uploads shows zero signs of slowing down.

    Story continues below advertisement


    Click to play video: 'AI music DJ supports surgeons in operating room'


    AI music DJ supports surgeons in operating room


    Well, so what? There are a couple of issues.

    First, with so much choice out there, it’s tempting to default to listening to songs and artists you already know. Sorting through new music is just too overwhelming. Could this skew overall listening to older songs rather than new ones? Maybe.

    Second, there’s an environmental component to all this. Digital files take up space on servers. Servers require electricity. A lot of it. What’s the point of DSPs spending money on electricity to harbour songs that no one listens to? There are some suggestions that if your song doesn’t attract X plays over a certain number, it should be expunged from the global jukebox. Either that or you’ll be asked to pay a storage fee until such time your song takes off. I’ve seen discussions about what to do with these “junk” songs that are nothing more than flotsam and jetsam in the ocean of music available.

    Story continues below advertisement

    I’ll throw a third point in here just for fun. With artificial intelligence now being used to create even more music, uploads to the DSPs will soon be much higher. Maybe exponentially higher.

    Read more:

    Music generated by artificial intelligence is coming to the radio sooner than you think

    If you’re a musician, none of this is encouraging. How is your music supposed to rise above all this noise that just keeps getting louder every day? Beats me. If you’re a curator of playlists, be it for Spotify or a radio station, what does your future look like? No clue, but it’s going to be overwhelming.

    Want to sample some of that 20 per cent of the music universe that’s never been heard by anyone? If you have a Spotify account, use it to sign into Forgotify and get a stream of unheard songs, tracks with ZERO streams. You may be there for a while.

    Alan Cross is a broadcaster with Q107 and 102.1 the Edge and a commentator for Global News.

    Subscribe to Alan’s Ongoing History of New Music Podcast now on Apple Podcast or Google Play

    &copy 2023 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

    [ad_2]

    Alan Cross

    Source link

  • A talk with Merck Mercuriadis, the Canadian spending billions on acquiring song catalogues – National | Globalnews.ca

    A talk with Merck Mercuriadis, the Canadian spending billions on acquiring song catalogues – National | Globalnews.ca

    [ad_1]

    HOLLYWOOD—Merck Mercuriadis is pretty relaxed for a guy who just made the biggest deal of his career. Twenty-four hours after acquiring Justin Bieber’s song catalogue for a rumoured US$200 million — his most expensive deal to date — his biggest concern is moving house.

    “Business is under control,” he says with a quiet smile. “It’s the move that’s stressing me out.” Top of the list? Wondering how is 100,000 vinyl albums will make the trip.

    Sitting poolside at an almost empty house below the Hollywood sign — the movers are about to arrive to take the remaining furniture to a new place in Laurel Canyon — Merck has delayed leaving until we’ve had a chance to talk.

    Read more:

    Justin Bieber sells entire music back catalogue to Hipgnosis

    Read next:

    Former Mississauga mayor Hazel McCallion dies at 101

    Merck, in case you don’t know, is the Quebec-born former rep for Virgin Records who went on to manage Guns N’ Roses, Elton John, and Morrissey, among others. Today he heads up the Hipgnosis Song Fund, one of about a dozen heavy-hitting companies buying up the rights to songs by the biggest artists in the world. He (and a few others like him) believe that these songs are eternal, an essential part of our culture, and will be enjoyed by people for decades to come. That means this music will generate income — a lot of it.

    Story continues below advertisement

    Hipgnosis has spent US$3 billion over the last 10 years and now manages somewhere in the neighbourhood of 60,000 songs. That includes compositions by Neil Young, David Crosby, Barry Manilow, Eurythmics, Blondie, The Pretenders, Shakira, Shawn Mendes, Leonard Cohen, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Fleetwood Mac, Kenny Chesney, Justin Timberlake, and dozens and dozens of others.

    The company is named after the iconic album artwork studio headed by Storm Thorgerson, responsible for dozens of unforgettable covers, including many commissions for Pink Floyd. Storm, a longtime friend, is also responsible for Merck’s Hipgnosis logo which features an upside-down elephant.

    “I asked him, ‘What does that have to do with what I’m trying to do?’” Merck says. “He replied, ‘That’s not an upside-down elephant. That’s an elephant that’s blown away by how good the music is.’ A few years ago, Billboard said ‘Someone’s just explained to us what the logo means. You’re turning the music industry upside down.’ And I said, ‘OK. Sure.’”

    Story continues below advertisement

    Merck sees songs as excellent long-term investments. “What I wanted to do was establish songs as an asset class for institutional investors and the stock market,” he told me. “I want them to understand that when these songs become successful, they become part of the fabric of people’s lives and our society. Therefore, they have very reliable and very predictable incomes — and that makes them investable.

    “Songs are even better than gold or oil because if you’re living your best life, you’re doing it to a soundtrack of great music. And you’re also listing to music if you’re being challenged, whether it’s through a pandemic, inflation, a recession, high-interest rates, or whatever it might be. You’re taking comfort and escaping with great music. So great music is always being consumed.”

    Merck is very bullish on streaming. “The old benchmark for extraordinary success was a platinum album, which in the U.S. is sales of one million copies [and 80,000 in Canada] in a country that has 330 million people. That means one in every 330 people bought that album. That immediately tells you that the average person might have loved music but didn’t love it enough to put their hand in their pocket and pay for it. Today, that one in 330 million people has been replaced by 100 million homes that have a paid-for streaming subscription. That means we’ve gone from one in 330 to one in 3.6.”

    He believes that companies like Hipgnosis are essential to the future health of music. “The big record companies are managing 20,000 songs and creating new songs every day. They don’t have the bandwidth to work the incredible hits in their catalogues. We’ve replaced that with song management.

    Story continues below advertisement

    “My job has always been to be an artist manager. I can’t play the guitar. I can’t sing a song. What I bring to the table is responsibility. Now I’m putting the same responsibility into managing great songs like Sweet Dreams are Made of This.”

    Read more:

    Which artists will be next to sell their song catalogues? (Jan. 9, 2022)

    Read next:

    Iran says bomb-carrying drones targeted defense factory in Isfahan

    His goal is to ultimately make songwriters better paid and to give them an opportunity to put song revenue to work for them.

    “If you’re Justin Bieber, you haven’t made this deal to take the money and spend it. You’ve taken the deal so you can put this money to work for you and make more money than you otherwise would have.”

    There are also solid tax reasons for selling your music to a company like Hipgnosis. If you take royalty cheques on a regular basis, most governments look at that as salary income, which can be taxed at a rate as high as 50 per cent. If the artist takes future royalties up front in a lump sum, that’s considered capital gains and the tax rate drops to about 20 per cent. If you’re talking about a deal with tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars, that’s a big difference.

    The artist also benefits by being able to engage in efficient estate planning. The money can be invested, and used for philanthropy or activism. And depending on the deal, the artist may still retain a royalty stream from future compositions as only the proven, successful songs are included in the buyout.

    Story continues below advertisement

    So how does an entity like Hipgnosis determine what an artist’s catalogue is worth? “Sometimes people look it [valuations] as a multiple of annual earnings. We look at it from the point of view of what’s the return on investment. How are your songs performing in a streaming world relative to the rest of the market? If you have 70 million monthly listeners on Spotify, your catalogue is going to be worth a lot more than if you have 10 million monthly listeners.

    “We have an incredibly diverse catalogue. Having established songs as an asset class, there are some things to consider. Copyright protection for songs in North America has been extended to 70 years after the death of the last co-composer. We’ve paid an average of 15x multiples for songs and we have an income stream that’s going to last for 101 years.

    “If you’re a major Bruce Springsteen fan, you’re probably at least 50 years old— that’s around the average age of his fanbase. But if you’re a Justin Bieber fan, you have maybe 60 or 70 years in front of you as opposed to 30 years for that Springsteen fan. If you’re a good parent, you’ll teach your kids about Springsteen, but … life. And Springsteen has about 17 million monthly followers on Spotify versus Justin Bieber’s 80 million.”

    Read more:

    Alan Cross explains why companies are buying up the rights to thousands of songs

    Read next:

    Pakistan bus crashes, catches fire, killing at least 40 passengers

    Story continues below advertisement

    Merck is always looking at deals. He approaches people and people approach him, always with an eye on how songs can be best exploited for revenue. That includes old-school things like sales, radio airplay, and other pubic performance income, but goes far beyond that. Streaming, obviously. Placement in TV shows. Appearances in movies. Licensing for commercials. Encouraging other artists to cover the songs. And here’s a big one: licensing samples for use in new compositions.

    “Interpolations [the incorporation of elements of old song into a new track] is a big one,” Merck says.

    “We had a number one record last year with Nikki Minaj’s Super Freaky Girl, which is an interpolation of Rick James’ Super Freak, which was obviously also interpolated into MC Hammer’s Can’t Touch This. We got a piece of all that. And in 20 years’ time, it’ll be interpolated again and be a number-one record for someone else. And along the way, it’ll be used in 20 different samples, in movies and TV commercials, and video games. And most importantly for me, we will celebrate Rick James in a way he hasn’t been able to be celebrated because we’ve got the bandwidth to be able to do it.

    Story continues below advertisement

    “And Rick James is more than just Super Freak. If you go back and listen to Prince, you will see how important Rick was to him. He was a serious player, a serious songwriter, a serious arranger, a serious producer. Rick was the real deal and we, as the custodians of that catalogue, a real responsibility to make sure that Rick James is celebrated as one of the great artists of all time.”

    Read more:

    How did the Canadian music industry do in 2022? The year-end stats are out

    Read next:

    Peru protests: At least 1 dead as political crisis continues

    Will this emphasis on older songs over the coming decades have a deleterious effect on new artists? If the companies like Hipgnosis push to keep this music alive beyond what would have been their best-before date in the old world, will it drown out new music?

    “One of the things that come along with streaming,” says Merck, “is widespread adoption. Today there are over 600 million people who stream music, up from 30 million just a few years ago. In a decade, we could have as many as two billion people streaming music. What that does is give the music industry a level of data that it’s never had before.

    “People are printing these articles saying that 70 per cent of the world is listening to catalogue [songs more than 18 months old] and only 30 per cent are listening to new music, ergo which must mean new music is dying. That’s BS. The bottom line is that 70-30 split has always been there. You just didn’t have the data.

    Story continues below advertisement

    “When I was growing up, for every new record I bought, I was listening to older records, too. For every new Yes record I bought, I would buy an old Doors, Beatles, or Jimi Hendrix record. We’re still doing the equivalent today.”

    With the sun setting and the movers about to arrive to remove the last of the pool furniture, it’s time to go. We wander into the backyard for a last look over the Hollywood Reservoir.

    “See that house over there?” Merck points to a Spanish-style place hanging over the mountain. “Madonna’s old place. And there — “he points to another house across the way — “Moby used to live there.” And straight ahead, probably the best view of the Hollywood sign from any private residence in LA. The new place in Laurel Canyon beckons.

    I hope all those records make it safely.

    Alan Cross is a broadcaster with Q107 and 102.1 the Edge and a commentator for Global News.

    Subscribe to Alan’s Ongoing History of New Music Podcast now on Apple Podcast or Google Play

    [ad_2]

    Alan Cross

    Source link

  • Quebecers are listening to less local music, musicians hope federal streaming bill will help  | Globalnews.ca

    Quebecers are listening to less local music, musicians hope federal streaming bill will help | Globalnews.ca

    [ad_1]

    Quebecers are increasingly streaming music online but listening less often to francophone artists, a trend members of the province’s music industry hope will be reversed with a new federal bill.

    Around 30 per cent of physical albums sold in Quebec in 2022 were by Quebec artists, the province’s statistics institute said in mid-December 2022. But on streaming platforms such as Spotify, YouTube and Google Play Music, local artists accounted for less than eight per cent of plays.

    Statistics like that worry David Bussières, a musician who sits on the board of Union des artistes, a labour organization that represents musicians and other performers.

    A lot of the music people listen to online is recommended to them by algorithms, he said in an interview, adding that the algorithms serve global audiences and tend to recommend popular artists who perform in English rather in French.

    Story continues below advertisement

    Quebec’s cultural identity will be weakened if Quebecers are less aware than in years past of the province’s musicians, he said.

    “The result of this is that the Quebec audience doesn’t get enough exposure to its music; they don’t know it well enough,” said Bussières, who is one-half of the electropop duo Alfa Rococo.

    Read more:

    Google ‘trying to intimidate Canadians’ over online streaming bill, heritage minister says

    Bill C-11, currently before the Senate, would help increase Quebecers’ exposure to local francophone artists by requiring streaming platforms to promote local musicians, including francophone artists, he said.

    Under the bill, foreign online streaming services would be forced to “reflect and support Canada’s linguistic duality by placing significant importance on the creation, production and broadcasting of original French language programs.”

    Artists make money every time their songs are streamed online — though not much: one million plays on Spotify will generate $5,000 in revenue, Bussières said. But artists are also using streaming platforms to build audiences that will buy concert tickets, leading to bookings at large festivals.

    If new artists aren’t able to build audiences, they’ll struggle to make a living as musicians, Bussières said.

    “Eventually, it’s going to diminish the impact that music from here has on the public and our cultural identity is going to be weakened.”

    Story continues below advertisement

    In November, Quebec’s statistics agency said that only four of the top 50 most-listened-to artists in Quebec on streaming services were from the province. The number 1 Quebec artist was folk-rock group Les Cowboys fringants, in 16th place.

    Eve Paré, the executive director of a Quebec music industry association, said Quebecers want to listen to local music, they’re just having a harder time finding it. Record stores used to display local music prominently, Paré, with Association québécoise de l’industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo, said in an interview.


    Click to play video: 'How Bill C-11 could change streaming services in Canada'


    How Bill C-11 could change streaming services in Canada


    When CDs were still the dominant way Quebecers consumed music, local artists accounted for around half of sales, she said.

    Music consumers can’t search for what they don’t know about, so they rely on algorithms and curated playlists, she said. And streaming platforms, she added, don’t give Quebec artists enough prominence.

    Story continues below advertisement

    Paré, who also supports Bill C-11, said music plays an important role in Quebec culture.

    “It’s a social connection, we all have memories associated with certain songs. I think of the songs from my teenage years, for example; the people of my generation share memories associated with those same songs. It’s part of a collective heritage.”

    But critics of the bill, which would bring streaming services under the purview of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, say it won’t necessarily help Quebec artists.

    Nathan Wiszniak, head of artist and label partnerships at Spotify, told a Senate committee in September that his company’s platform allows users to discover artists that they would never hear on the radio.

    “For example, seven out of the top 10 most streamed French-Canadian artists are independent rappers, and only two of those artists currently appear on French-Canadian radio charts,” he told the committee. Users, he said, need to retain “control of their listening experience.”

    READ MORE: YouTube, TikTok say Liberals’ online streaming bill would harm digital creators

    The bill, which has been passed by the House of Commons, has also faced criticism from content creators who worry they won’t meet Canadian content requirements, and from civil libertarians who reject increased government regulation of the internet.

    Story continues below advertisement

    Sara Bannerman, a communications professor at McMaster University, said it’s unclear how government regulators will use the new powers granted under the bill.

    While members of Quebec’s music industry hope the law will force platforms to change their algorithms, she said that might not be the approach the CRTC takes. The regulator might rely on promotional campaigns to support Canadian content or could force streaming companies to make it easier to search for specific types of content.

    Bannerman said the algorithms of streaming services should be made accessible to independent researchers and the CRTC. Recommendation algorithms aren’t neutral, she said, adding that they tend to be biased toward popular content and may also have racial and gender biases.

    Bussières said increasing the prominence of Quebec artists on streaming sites is critical to a healthy Quebec music industry — and a strong culture.

    “When we celebrate the Fête nationale, when we celebrate something, when we celebrate our culture, much more often than not, it’s through music.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How much more can the streaming music business grow? Not much, it turns out – National | Globalnews.ca

    How much more can the streaming music business grow? Not much, it turns out – National | Globalnews.ca

    [ad_1]

    Back in September at a music conference in Singapore, Sir Lucian Grainge, the CEO of Universal Music Group, stated that 100,000 new songs were being uploaded to streaming music platforms every day. That figure was confirmed at the same conference by Steve Cooper, the departing CEO of Warner Music Group.

    The audience was shocked. Numbers like 25,000 or even 60,000 have been tossed around. But 100,000?

    To be fair, neither man was talking about 100,000 unique and different songs. This number includes all the remixes, edits, alternate versions, live performances, special mixes (Dolby ATMOS/high-res/Spatial Audio, etc.), and the odd duplicate. But it’s still a lot. Apple Music, Amazon Prime Music, and YouTube Music all say they have at least 100 million tracks available. Spotify could be at that level, too, but the most recent official number I’ve seen for their library is 82 million.

    To put that into perspective, even the biggest record store back in the olden days (i.e. pre-Internet) stocked 100,000 titles at most. If we assume that each album has an average of 12 tracks, that’s a mere 1.2 million songs.

    Story continues below advertisement

    We’ve long passed the point of Too Much Music. Our choices are endless, practically infinite. And this isn’t a good thing. Let me count the ways.

    Let’s look at it from the perspective of the artist. Making your songs available for worldwide distribution has never been easier. But when you upload a track, it has to fight for attention with the other 99,999 tracks that were uploaded that day, not to mention the other 100 million already sitting in the library. Your brand new unknown track has to compete with practically every other song written in history.

    Read more:

    The live music industry is in big trouble. Here’s why

    No wonder it’s estimated that around 20 per cent of the songs in Spotify’s library haven’t been streamed even once. If we accept Spotify’s estimate of 82 million songs in its library, that means there are 16,400,000 tracks that remain unheard of by anyone, ever.

    We’re starting to hear about fan fatigue, too. This once-wonderous all-you-can-eat buffet is beginning to make people queasy. All this choice has people flicking through song after song after song, looking for something perfect for the moment. This has become a grind as music is being used as a tool for our day-to-day activities rather than something that we can sink into and experience. We’re not listening; we’re merely soundtracking.

    Story continues below advertisement

    So much choice has led to confusion. Sure, this song is good, but there’s gotta be something even better out there. What’s everyone else listening to? What am I missing? I’m falling behind! Some even throw up their hands in despair: “I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT I LIKE ANYMORE!”

    For many, selecting something to listen to has become an interminable chore. Discovering new music has paradoxically become more difficult.

    Our attention spans have shrunk. If we don’t like something immediately — usually within five to 10 seconds — we hit the skip button. The algorithms then remove that song from what it recommends to us and we never have the opportunity to learn to like something that requires repeated listening.

    New music is increasingly dismissed, especially something different or experimental that has the potential to be groundbreaking and/or transformative if just given the time. The more choice we have, the more disposable songs become.

    Find a song. Make a judgment after 10-15 seconds. Skip. Next song. Skip. Repeat over and over and over again.

    What’s the solution? Some people are weaning themselves from constant streaming, opting instead to stick with a smaller, manageable selection of playlists that they’ve created themselves. Others have returned to physical media like CDs, vinyl, and even cassettes. An actual physical object that contains music invites far more investigation, which can lead to greater engagement.

    Story continues below advertisement

    Some of those folks have cancelled their streaming music accounts, concerned about how little they hear artists are making from streaming. Others are even discovering the pleasures of old-fashioned radio where they don’t have to worry about choice.

    Read more:

    Music generated by artificial intelligence is coming to the radio sooner than you think

    Meanwhile, the streamers have problems of their own. Ingesting thousands and thousands of new songs every day requires server space. Servers cost money. It takes electricity to run those servers. More customers mean more bandwidth is required to distribute all these digital files. That costs money and consumes energy.

    It’s to the point where digital music is less environmentally friendly than selling music on pieces of plastic. Add in the economics of the streamers’ business models — all their costs rise in lockstep with revenues — and you have a bunch of platforms that are very concerned for their financial futures.

    While record labels, especially the majors, are making billions from streaming, a figure that’s growing every quarter, they’re concerned that the market share for new music is shrinking as people opt to listen to more and more familiar music from years gone by. The gold rush that is “catalogue music” (material more than two years old) comes at the expense of new songs, which are supposed to be the catalogue music of the future.

    Story continues below advertisement

    Something has to change. The tsunami of new music is unsustainable in so many ways. Do streamers cap the number of songs they ingest? Do they restrict the size of their accessible libraries to their customers? Do they cull the songs that aren’t getting any attention from their libraries? Will we see streamers start to discourage musicians from uploading music by limiting royalties for songs that stream more than, say, a thousand times?

    Think about Mickey Mouse in The Sorcerer’s Apprentice. If someone doesn’t do something, we risk drowning in music that we will never hear.


    Click to play video: 'Spotify grapples with artist backlash over COVID-19 misinformation on platform'


    Spotify grapples with artist backlash over COVID-19 misinformation on platform


    &copy 2022 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

    [ad_2]

    Alan Cross

    Source link

  • Disctopia Welcomes ‘Song of Appalachia’ Singer Tim Goodin to the Platform to Establish His Presence in the Music Industry

    Disctopia Welcomes ‘Song of Appalachia’ Singer Tim Goodin to the Platform to Establish His Presence in the Music Industry

    [ad_1]

    Press Release


    Nov 10, 2022

    Disctopia, one of the fastest-growing indie music streaming platforms, today announces a collaboration with Southeastern Kentucky’s singer and songwriter, Tim Goodin. As a star on the rise with a growing social media presence, Disctopia seeks to expand the singer’s musical reach.

    After establishing his musical prowess through social media, Disctopia aims to get Goodin closer and faster to his musical career goals by collaborating with the music streaming platform. The North Carolina-based service offers the country singer a dedicated outlet where his music can gain a wider audience with room for exponential growth.

    Goodin, called a “crooner” given his soft singing voice, multiplied his following from a newcomer in December 2021 to more than 100,000 followers on TikTok. He’s also cultivating a listenership after releasing his debut EP, “Son of Appalachia,” which went up to #11 on the Top 100 iTunes charts earlier this year. The singer is currently gearing up to embark on an eight-show tour with The Steel Woods, a major national country act—adding to the perfect timing of this collaboration.

    “Our partnership with Tim Goodin sprung out of what we’ve seen him achieve in little time. We believe a platform like ours is what he needs to grow further. At Disctopia, we aim to meet the needs of new and emerging sounds,” said Patrick Hill, founder and CEO of Disctopia. “We are optimistic that we’ll be able to contribute positively to the career of both Tim and all other artists on the platform.”

    “I am honored to be partnering with Disctopia as the face of the music platform. It’s the right platform I need at this stage of my music career; I am hopeful that they will help in pursuing my dreams and aspirations as an artist,” said Tim Goodin, corroborating Hill’s statements.

    About Disctopia

    Disctopia is as a streaming platform dedicated to delivering indie content from creatives to fans globally through the Disctopia App. The platform is on a mission to revolutionize the independent creators’ industry by allowing fans to fuel the culture. The company is reimagining content streaming by providing access to indie creatives’ content. Ultimately, Disctopia aims to build a future where every creator is given a fair chance to succeed.

    About Tim Goodin 

    Tim Goodin is a singer/songwriter from the Hills of Southeastern Kentucky. The old Appalachian mountain hymnals inspired him to sing and pick up the guitar. Tim began playing in small country bands and fronted his own band before moving to Alabama at age 18. Eventually, Goodin decided to put some of his original creations out to the public via TikTok, gaining massive social media recognition. 
     

    Source: Disctopia

    [ad_2]

    Source link