Thursday, May 17, 2007

Snack-o-tainment: Listening in Today

Listeners today all have M.A.D.D. (Media Attention Deficit Disorder)--I know I do. While I listen to The Hype Machine or scour blogs for some song I want to hear, I have the T.V. on mute, a dozen websites open to Digged articles, YouTube videos, or my email. If I don't like a song or a clip within maybe 10 seconds, it's on to the next. I am a tough customer, to be sure, but I don't think I'm alone.

Neither does the March issue of Wired Magazine which featured Snack Attack!, an article profiling the "snack-o-tainment" lifestyle characterized by today's fast-paced, up-to-the-minute culture. Tracing the trend of "distilling things to their essence" back to Moses' "first top 10 list," Minifesto for a New Age summarizes:
Music, television, games, movies, fashion: We now devour our pop culture the same way we enjoy candy and chips - in conveniently packaged bite-size nuggets made to be munched easily with increased frequency and maximum speed. This is snack culture - and boy, is it tasty (not to mention addictive) (via Wired).
I couldn't agree more. What would Susan Douglas have to say about this trend? Well, in the intro of her excellent book Listening In: Radio and the American Imagination, she writes:
People who grew up with radio still pine for the old radio days, for their intimate relationship with the box in their living room or bedroom, for a culture without television. They miss what now seems like the simplicity of those times, the innocent optimism (even during the Depression and the War), the directness of the medium itself. But what they yearn for most is the way that radio invited them to participate actively in the production of the show at hand...They miss their role in completing the picture, in giving individual meaning to something that went outto a mass audience. They miss the mental activity, the engagement, the do-it-yourself nature of radio listening. They miss radio's invisibility (4).
Douglas covers a number of important issues here.
  1. The "Intimate" Relationship: that seems to have largely shifted to iPods, Blackberries, Cell Phones, and Computers. People view these new technological devices as an extension of themselves: they feel lost without them.
  2. The "Simplicity" of olden days: Yep, that's certainly gone. With information coming at you a mile a minute, there is no escaping the constant influx, confusion and noise today.
  3. The "directness" of radio: You could argue that iPods, Podcasts, Internet Radio, and blogs are more direct than old radio because they cater to exactly what you want to hear. But these new forms are certainly not direct in the sense that you have to seek all of this out in the first place. You have to have access to a computer or an expensive player. You have to know what you're looking for and go find it. New radio today is still working on its "filter" system. Old radio would just shoot stuff at you and you didn't really have a choice--but people liked what they were hearing, so it was OK. Now with so many choices, nobody is willing to settle and they go the indirect route of searching out their best option, instead of the most direct.
  4. Audience "participation:" this is another aspect you could view in two ways. What Douglas refers to is the individual participation of listeners and their imagination. This may be decreasing with podcasts, blogs, internet radio, etc. because there is increasing amounts of visual accompaniment to everything--because it's possible. A multi-media clip is certainly privileged today over a sole audio byte--but not necessarily because it is better. It is just more stuff. The other way to see this is that audiences participate much more actively today because they are choosing what they are listening to, they are producing it, and they are completing the picture in new ways. They hear a song and imagine a video for it...then they create it and put it up on YouTube and then it is on the band's website! A number of artists have fielded fan-participation to the extent that it's getting a little much--like come on artists, do your job yourself (see Incubus, The Decemberists) But that's what the scene is like today--it's all about audience interaction and direct participation.
I think the way we listen today is very contradictory. We are pulled towards two extremes: listening distractedly and listening actively. We want to find something new quickly and we want to hear exactly what we want to hear when we want to hear it. In trying to find something new, we are impatient and listen quickly and actively (as in, actively waiting for our patience to dry up and clicking to the next thing). In hearing what we want to hear, we listen actively by creating content. We are listening more, but less deeply.

Case in point, one of the features in the Wired Article Tiny Tunes was about the first ever patented radio format: Radio SASS. The founder of Radio SASS (Short Attention Span System), George Gimarc--a veteran programmer and former DJ from Dallas who started Radio Sass--said, "People's patience for music - even the stuff they like - is thin. Twelve songs per hour won't cut it." To remedy that, Radio SASS employs editor-musicians to use their "intuitive editing" skills to trim unnecessary, non-catchy parts of old hits to get them down to "their essence."

Radio SASS describes their mission, stating:
Radio SASS (Short Attention Span System) takes the playlist and musically condenses songs to their essence. Through time compression, you get the memorable heart of each song, with an average length of aproximately two minutes with NO self indulgent guitar solos, NO long intros, NO repetition of choruses again and again. Radio returns to the snappy song length of the 1960s. (italics mine)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Apparently, the reason radio is falling behind in this "Bite Sized" environment of fast paced TV, news, movies, etc. is because musicians are sooooo self indulgent! That makes perfect sense! Ugh. This idea is so laughable to me and so offensive to anyone with a creative artistic sense, I can't imagine how it will fly--but I bet it will. Why? Well, here is the "hard sell" from SASS itself:
It's all about SPEED

Today's culture moves at a breakneck, multi-tasking, fast-forward pace. The time is right for a new dynamic way to experience radio. Enter, Radio SASS. This new protocol changes radio history in several postive ways. Listeners get more music, and more variety. Recording artists get 3x the airplay and exposure. Records labels get increased spins, increased sales. Radio gets a new sound.

So, this new fast-paced culture requires even more corruption of artistic integrity? This radio sounds like it will be homogeneous, poppy, crap on crack. Music wasn't meant to be all catchy hooks and the "good parts." As Susan Douglas points out, the anticipation and repetition and gratification in songs and playlists is all part of a really important combination that the best musicians AND DJs employ to get, hook, and keep listeners. I don't think this will be the answer to the new "snack-o-tainment" culture, but it certainly is an interesting attempt.

Three Two A Days

An infrequent daily dose of music stuff for your listening pleasure.Podcast: NPR All Songs Considered
This podcast features a variety of songs....chosen by actual people! There is variety--some of the stuff you might like, some you might not, but they definitely include a great variety of styles of music, including popular music and unknown independents, even if the reviewers can be a bit dry. Except for Bob Boilen, the weekly host. I love this guy: he's kind of geeky and soft spoken, but he's clearly a music fan and his voice is so very soothing. I also like his taste--which runs the gamut, just like mine. The great thing about all NPR podcasts is they allow you to access all of the content from the station, particularly niche shows you might never get from your local affiliate. It also offers all the benefits of radio---original content, a human voice talking to you--in the form of a podcast--time and space adjusted for your hectic lifestyle.

Blog: Brooklyn Vegan
Brooklyn Vegan is the gossipy music blog that, along with Fluxblog, helped begin this craze. Brooklyn Vegan is similar to Fluxblog in that it posts concert reviews, mp3s, some snarky observations on life and general goodness. It is not so much like actual radio, but more like a competitor for it and an additional marketing/communication tactic it could and has adopted.

The New Business of Music: Artist 2.0

Blogs, podcasts and internet radio—everything about the internet, actually—are changing the music business. They are changing the way artists are made, promoted, and perceived. Last Sunday’s NYT Magazine had a fascinating article on this trend, entitled “Sex, Drugs and Updating Your Blog” that chronicles the new breed of aspiring rock star which Clive Thompson calls Artist 2.0.Jonathan Coulton is an interesting example I had never heard of before the article. In September 2005, he quit his day job and set about to write and record a song each week, posting each one to his blog in a project called Thing A Week. Eventually 3,000 people, on average, were visiting his site every day, and his most popular songs were being downloaded as many as 500,000 times(!!). He was making between $3,000 and $5,000 a month by selling CDs and digital downloads of his work on iTunes and on his own site. The NYT article states:
Along the way, he discovered a fact that many small-scale recording artists are coming to terms with these days: his fans do not want merely to buy his music. They want to be his friend. And that means they want to interact with him all day long online (via NYT).
Blogging, artist podcasts (OK Go has one here), artist’s iTunes playlists, and instant and free access to music on internet radio or MySpace or any number of illegal download sites make for a completely different fan-artist dynamic. In the past, radio and TV would put an artist on a pedestal and make them seem very far away—even if you could hear or see them in interviews, the ability to interact with them was limited. Thompson writes:
In the past — way back in the mid-’90s, say — artists had only occasional contact with their fans. If a musician was feeling friendly, he might greet a few audience members at the bar after a show. Then the Internet swept in…Performing artists these days, particularly new or struggling musicians, are increasingly eager, even desperate, to master the new social rules of Internet fame. They know many young fans aren’t hearing about bands from MTV or magazines anymore; fame can come instead through viral word-of-mouth, when a friend forwards a Web-site address, swaps an MP3, e-mails a link to a fan blog or posts a cell phone concert video on YouTube (via NYT).
As this statement indicates, the old gatekeepers of fame and fortune are being dismantled by all of these different technological developments. Old terrestrial radio is part of the “establishment” that is on its way out and “new radio”—podcasts and internet radio, as well as music blogs, are taking over as a completely revolutionary type of promotional platform. More than just promotion, however, these sites are about access and personalization. Thompson also points out, "Musicians are at the vanguard of the change. Their product, the three-minute song, was the first piece of pop culture to be fully revolutionized by the Internet. And their second revenue source — touring — makes them highly motivated to connect with far-flung fans.” What was it about music that made it the first piece of pop culture to be revolutionized by the internet? Was the technology just there and simpler than say TV or movies? Was it the format—a bite-sized 3 minute song—that made it appealing and immediately digestible by the young internet audience? I don't know, but these changes are upending the music business as it currently operates and making it easier for many artists to get their music to an audience--their audience.

The article also points out the different impact the internet makes on corporate, A-list stars like Justin Timberlake, Fergie, Beyoncé vs. Artist 2.0 like Jonathan Coulton or Poddington Bear (who I will post about in a minute). It states the A-listers
are still creatures of mass marketing, carpet-bombed into popularity by expensive ad campaigns and radio airplay. They do not need the online world to find listeners, and indeed, their audiences are too vast for any artist to even pretend intimacy with. No, this is a trend that is catalyzing the B-list, the new, under-the-radar acts that have always built their success fan by fan. Across the country, the CD business is in a spectacular free fall; sales are down 20 percent this year alone. People are increasingly getting their music online (whether or not they’re paying for it), and it seems likely that the artists who forge direct access to their fans have the best chance of figuring out what the new economics of the music business will be.
So, it seems that traditional radio still holds the key to the massive audiences A-list artists already command. But podcasts, internet radio, and all the internet’s other options offer an expanded set of tools for the younger, B-List artist--and some A listers as well (hey, even John Mayer has a mostly lame, sometimes entertaining blog). "B-listers" have a better chance of finding their audience with these tools, but does an Internet-built fan base inevitably hit a plateau? The article states:
Many potential Coulton fans are fanatical users of MySpace and YouTube, of course; but many more aren’t, and the only way for him to reach them is via traditional advertising, which he can’t afford, or courting media attention, a wearying and decidedly old-school task. Coulton’s single biggest spike in traffic to his Web site took place last December, when he appeared on NPR’s “Weekend Edition Sunday,” a fact that, he notes, proves how powerful old-fashioned media still are. (And “Weekend Edition” is orders of magnitude smaller than major entertainment shows like MTV’s “Total Request Live,” which can make a new artist in an afternoon.)
So there you have it, old school media is still very important, but Coulton wouldn’t have had a chance of being on NPR if he hadn’t garnered all that attention online first. It's a combination of factors that makes an artist popular, and it does appear that the old-fashioned media sources are also incorporating new media approaches and drawing largely on the artists popularized by the internet.

Many musicians, like OK Go (of treadmill dancing fame), still continue with the traditional route of signing up with a label and using the internet as promotion. The significance of internet radio, podcasts and blogs cannot be underestimated, however, for the success of the new “B-List” type artists like Coulton who construct their entire business model online. Thompson argues, “Without the Internet, their musical careers might not exist at all.”

The article addresses another aspect of the Artist 2.0 that the internet has greatly affected: their emotions. It notes, “This phenomenon isn’t merely about money and business models. In many ways, the Internet’s biggest impact on artists is emotional. When you have thousands of fans interacting with you electronically, it can feel as if you’re on stage 24 hours a day.” Tad Kubler of one of my favorite bands, The Hold Steady, wonders: "Are today’s online artists ruining their own aura by blogging? Can you still idolize someone when you know what they had for breakfast this morning? 'It takes a little bit of the mystery out of rock ’n’ roll,' he said." The creative process has also changed, to the point where fans are completely involved in the process—making suggestions, making their own music videos or “mash-ups.” The article ultimately asks:
Will the Internet change the type of person who becomes a musician or writer? It’s possible to see these online trends as Darwinian pressures that will inevitably produce a new breed — call it an Artist 2.0 — and mark the end of the artist as a sensitive, bohemian soul who shuns the spotlight.
Referencing famous recluses J.D. Salinger and the lead singer of the Cowboy Junkies, Thompson asks, “What happens to art when people like that are chased away?” I don't know if I see this type of extreme shift coming in who becomes an artist. I think the internet participation of fans will become normalized and as artists get used to interacting with their peers, they will figure out how little privacy they are comfortable with.

One of the most interesting bands Thompkins analyzes is The Scene Aesthetic, a band whose popularity on MySpace vaulted it to fame, and precipitated a national tour, and an album. The band began as a side project when Andrew de Torres wrote what would become the breakout hit “Beauty in the Breakdown” and recorded it in his basement with a buddy. Within days it had racked up thousands of plays on MySpace, friend requests came surging in, along with messages demanding more songs. De Torres and Bowley quickly put out three more; when those went online, their growing fan base urged them to produce a full album and to go on tour. Their album is due out this summer, and they have roughly 22,000 people a day listening to their songs on MySpace, plus more than 180,000 “friends.” They just finished a cross-country tour in December that netted them “a pretty good amount of money.” This type of artist is typical Artist 2.0--the new breed.

Thompson concludes:
This sort of career arc was never previously possible. If you were a singer with only one good song, there was no way to release it independently on a global scale — and thus no way of knowing if there was a market for your talent. But the online fan world has different gravitational physics: on the basis of a single tune, the Scene Aesthetic kick-started an entire musical career. Which is perhaps the end result of the new online fan world: it allows a fresh route to creative success, assuming the artist has the correct emotional tools.
In the end I think the significance of this article for the study of new radio alternatives is the amount new artists ignore traditional terrestrial radio--its importance has completely diminished except for the highest tier of Top-40 commercial artists. For young, fledgling artists like Jonathan Coulton, The Scene Aesthetic, or even The Hold Steady and OK Go--bands with record deals--the internet offers unparalleled forms of communication with fans, personalization of their "ad campaigns," promotion, and most importantly, creative expression. There are so many more ways that artists can build their fan base from a grassroots approach that doesn't privilege traditional radio or MTV or Rolling Stone. It means greater and better access for musicians and fans looking to share music. It also means big challenges for traditional radio and a record business looking to find a way to profit off of Artist 2.0.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

KEXP: Lessons in Multi-Tasking

KEXP 90.3 Seattle "Where the Music Matters" is a great example of how many media sources today operate on multiple platforms to maximize their exposure and ability to communicate with listeners/readers. Started 35 years ago as University of Washington station KCMU (10 watt!), KEXP has been at the forefront of technological innovations in the radio and recording industries for the past several years. They were the first station to provide real-time playlists of songs as they were broadcasting and in 2000, KCMU became the first station in the world to offer uncompressed CD-quality audio on the Internet, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It was also first to provide an online archive, where its broadcasts can be replayed for up to 14 days. In 2001, KCMU became KEXP 90.3, maintaining all staff, the same format and frequency, while almost doubling its wattage from 400 to 720 and moving to a new technologically-advanced studio near downtown Seattle. Through a partnership with Experience Music Project, the station's eclectic music programming was expanded and enhanced to provide a richer musical experience for listeners.

The public station (which is affiliated with NPR) currently offers traditional terrestrial broadcasting, live streaming of that on the web (= internet radio), "on demand" content including archived streams of terrestrial shows, podcasts, live performances, print music reviews, a blog, events...and a partridge and a pear tree. They offer some of the best music podcasts on the web, including KEXP Song of the Day (previously featured here), KEXP Live Performances Podcast, Sonarchy Music (experimental NW artists) and Music That Matters; you can find them all here. They also maintain a highly entertaining, informative blog, KEXP Blog, with lots of news updates, interviews, video and audio clips, etc. The pull some of the best up-and coming (mostly indie) acts to their studio for live performances and interviews, usually very well done. So they are providing a ton of original content in different, easily accessible and digestible formats.

Brier Dudley of The Seattle Times writes,
The station's biggest contribution may be the way it advocates for music fans and performers, by exploring the outer limits of the stifling regulations that the recording industry uses to protect its aging franchise. What's most impressive is that KEXP has found ways to do more with music online without breaking rules or alienating record companies. (via The Seattle Times)
KEXP really seems like a model for the future, fully embracing new media while continuing with their "traditional" terrestrial station as one component on their varied roster. All the aspects of KEXP flow together--there is inter-promotion for the station and the artists it features, which is dually beneficial to the station, artists, and record companies (if applicable). Dudley also makes the important point that KEXP has been successful largely because it has "appealed to performers who appreciate the station's role in promoting music. It also convinced record labels that a little flexibility and exposure will help their sales." Most of the artists being featured on KEXP stand to benefit greatly from the station's tastemaker reputation and broad listenership in the music business.

Tom Mara, executive director of KEXP said,
We're becoming quite agnostic about how people are experiencing music, how the music is being distributed. We just really care that you get it in a meaningful way, and we also care that we do it in such a way that people can share it with others. I don't mean that in any sort of illegal sense, but just getting others in the fold. (via The Seattle Times)
I see this trend across the music business and it means vast changes for radio. Radio has to diversify in order to retain its relevance. The key to keeping radio in the mix at all, however, is the individuality, specificity and quality of the content. There should be a point of view and an audience to speak to. Clear Channel style "lowest-common-denominator" marketing won't work for much longer. KEXP is so successful because their DJs select a varied, interesting set of music and produce creative content. KEXP looks like it's figuring out the new model as it goes--and it means good times ahead for artists and listeners alike.

Radio or Jukebox?

Sorry for the extended hiatus--other finals and dad turned 60! Blogging, like anything else one tries to do every day, requires a strong commitment and discipline--whoops! Two things I apparently don't have. No, but this does point out a major difference between "professional" blogs like Stereogum and "amateur's" personal hobby sites, like my other blog, I'm With the Band. Bloggers that make a living doing this and employ a staff of writers are able to devote their entire day to tracking and breaking stories. Amateurs or individuals blogging more casually are at a greater liberty to pick and choose what they post about. They also don't have as much time or incentive to post as frequently--though that point is arguable because generally the more one posts, the more "hits" they get. The distinction between "pro" and "amateur" blogger is important, however, because the pro can make enough money and amass a seriously large audience (and compete or supplement mainstream media sources), while amateurs are more likely to blog frequently for a couple of months and then eventually get bored and abandon the practice (though anyone can make a little $ with google ads). There's lots of fun facts about bloggers in this Pew report--I'll go more in depth in another post.
Since I just finished gushing about The Hype Machine, I figured I would continue down that path and talk about my other favorite site in the world, Stereogum. Stereogum is one of the most reliable and fun blogs about music on the web. Started by Scott Lapatine in 2002, this gossipy blog updates very frequently--one of the marks of a successful blog--posts lots of *great* audio clips, and is an excellent hit picker/maker. Many of the items that get featured on Stereogum eventually make it into Rolling Stone's Breaking section or other mainstream mag's "Band to Watch."

Stereogum also recently added a detachable audio player called "Gum Mix" which plays the last 12 or so tracks that have been posted to the site. This is one of the reasons I'm including blogs in looking at new avenues for music radio. Blogs now have the technology to make "mix-tapes" or their own DJed accompaniment to their written posts.

In a blog post about a presentation by a Pandora director, James Cridland writes "Says that his service is all about ‘Discovery’. Irritatingly calls it radio. It’s not. It’s a music jukebox. Grr." In a previous post, he writes that to get young people to listen to radio, one strategy would be to "- ensure broadcasters invest in content and talent so we have a clear differentiation between ‘radio’ and jukebox services like last.fm." So, what is distinctive about internet radio or podcasts with DJs is the content in between the music and the personalities connecting the music together. I agree with the importance of this distinction and I see a value in both versions. So far, blogs are offering a "jukebox" version like last.fm or Pandora, but with their own personal selections and music from recent posts. I think this is a particularly cool combo because it enables a listener to use the jukebox to jump around to tracks they like and then read about them as they wish. They can also detach the player to listen while they surf other sides--bonus!

Monday, May 7, 2007

Poll of the Day: Hype Machine Worth the Hype?

The Hype Machine: The Future of All Media or More Hype?

Blogs are closer descendants or offshoots of print journalism than of radio, but the recent popularization of “blog aggregators” for music blogs serve the same function as radio. The most popular of this new breed of technology is The Hype Machine, which defines its mission stating, "The Hype Machine exists to create a medium that favors discovery of new music through public discussion while encouraging legitimate distribution of audio."

In essence, the site culls all the music posted on various music blogs (the blogs they search amp3 blogs which post audio; sites can be added by user request) in one easy to access site. The playlist on the front page is continuously updated and includes links to the blog entry from which the song was taken. An iTunes and Amazon.com link to buy the track makes The Hype Machine one stop shopping: if you like the song, you can read about it, buy it, or steal it*. If you don't, you skip ahead (better than radio).
*One important note about the stealing: The Hype Machine consciously tries to encourage "the legitimate distribution of audio" despite the fact that most/many of the songs they link to are illegally provided for downloading. They haven't encountered any large legal problems yet, but most major labels have their current songs pulled within hours of posting. This helps explain why most/many of the songs posted are a.) indie/unsigned artists who want exposure or don't care b.) live recordings or c.) older material from major label stars

The blog aggregator format is beneficial for a number of reasons. Because the content is based on what is being blogged about, it is all user generated. Music blogs do disproportionately represent indie rock and some underground hip-hop music, however, which can be limiting. The top tracks listed in my new sidebar addition are representative of any given day. The Hype Machine doubles as a customizable playlist or a great blog search engine because you can search by artist or website and create playlists or podcasts from the results. Another plus to the blog aggregator format is it allows you to get to the meat of a mp3 blog--the music! You don't have to read through somebody's explication of a bunch of songs to get to what you're looking for--you can use your ears and listen, and then maybe go back and read up. This flips the purpose of a music blog on it's head to a certain extent, but The Hype Machine does encourage visitors to go and post on the blogs about songs they likee. Downsides to this format, though, include that the order is completely random and the songs aren’t related to one another in any way a DJ would assemble a setlist. You also have to sort through a lot of stuff you might not like in the straight playlist version but you get a greater diversity of selection and options than any other site I know. It was even described to John Heilemann in a CNNMoney.com article, Capturing the Buzz, as "the future of all media."
The Hype Machine also has it's own radio, Hype Radio, not to be confused with Hype Radio: The Ghetto People's Station (no joke). It's an internet radio station powered by blogs—all the songs that are streamed on the station have been mentioned in blogs and featured on the The Hype Machine. Because the station includes the music people are writing about, it encourages a good deal of diversity because music bloggers make the playlists rather than a computer---there are a variety of uninterested (?) sources being drawn upon. This is a benefit for most people that like to have choice.

Heilemann describes The Hype Machine's progressive, functional appeal, writing, "While the Hype Machine may never be as famous or influential as Napster or Rolling Stone, Volodkin's baby contains elements of both, updated for the age of blogs - which is why it's so damn interesting." (via CNNMoney.com) The Hype Machine shows the new ways people are developing technologies and formats to collect the music people are talking about into a delivery service and forum.

*Full disclosure: I LOVE The Hype Machine and use it every day. Have you ever tried it? Will you now?

Saturday, May 5, 2007

Podcast of the Day: Roots Rock Radio

I've been talking a lot about internet radio recently, so I thought it might be nice to switch gears. I think I've mentioned that in the past I haven't been an avid podcast listener, though recently I have gotten into them more because they are great for finding new music. I've been checking out a bunch of different podcasts from the iTunes directory, and the title "Roots Rock Radio" appealed to me so I tuned in. DJ Richard Taylor is a mellow, folksy dude who plays "the best of indie roots rock/pop, alt country/Americana, Blues/Rockabilly, Garage/Punk, and Real Rock & Roll from around the globe."

Apparently, Roots Rock Radio has a pretty healthy listenership from around the world as this map from the homepage shows. I hadn't heard of any of the unsigned artists he plays, which included Archer Avenue, Tim Emmerick, and John Findlay, but they were all pretty high quality and if you like anything roots, rock, or country inspired, this is worth a listen. Between sets of 3 or 4 songs, Taylor reads "This Day in Rock and Roll History" factoids from Billboard.com and talks about stories in the news or his life. He also reads emails from listeners around the world. In the most recent episode, #93, he read an email from Vincent in France that said,
…I mentioned RRRadio.com on my blog with a special note on the show during which you talked to the GI based in Iraq. For us in Europe, US policy in Iraq is very unpopular. For the first time, communicating through RR radio with the soldier posted there listening to the same music, the conflict looked more human.
I thought this letter highlighted one of the great benefits of podcasts in that they are easily accessible to people around the world and they can bring together niche music communities through their ability to transcend time and place. With regular radio, perhaps this kind of connection would never have been made because the soldier might not have been able to tune into the station Vincent listened to. Moreover, traditional radio doesn't have any room for this kind of very specific, noncommercial content. The type of material Taylor is playing on Roots Rock Radio is by no means "mainstream" and I think it's really interesting that he's drawing such an international audience for such Americana based material.
The title of this podcast, Roots Rock Radio, also made me think about a question we have tackled before: does a podcast count as radio? Does the fact that people don't listen at the same time, or in a geographically focused location matter? Or do the properties of radio still exist in a podcast? Perhaps radio's goals are even furthered by podcastings ability to connect such disparate and disconnected audiences as the American GI and Vincent in France through music.

Friday, May 4, 2007

Pandora: Case Studies in Frustration

Here are some of the incidents that helped me determine the 7 Reasons Pandora Sucks.



















You can kind of figure out how they get from one selection to the next and that kind of predictability can be good, but it's also repetitive and boring. From Bruce Springsteen I get John Fogerty, Bob Seeger (obviously), Elvis Costello, Steve Miller Band, DMB, The Grateful Dead (really?) and some god-awful thing called Blessed Union of Souls that I want to skip but can't because I've exhausted my 6 song limit--again. Am I listening to a classic rock station because I thought I was listening to my own personal DJ.

From the Arcade Fire, I get to the Arctic Monkeys and some other bands that all sound kind of the same and not very interesting. Eleventeen? The Don’ts? Love Battery? A lot of these bands I would write off for their names alone. In about 40 minutes, I get 3 other listenable songs: The Arcade Fire, Stellastarr* and Guided By Voices. I’m not introduced to anything new I didn’t know I liked and I’m frustrated. Disgusted, almost.

If I make a station based on Fiona Apple or Joanna Newsom, that doesn’t mean I want to hear all female artists—quite the contrary, I rarely like listening to female singers. I like these two, though, and they are each quite unique and only they can pull off what they are doing. I don’t really want to hear Ani DiFranco, Joni Mitchell or anything else with a harp in it, either, thank you.

My most consistent complaint about Pandora was the sheer volume of absolute crap it played for me—regardless of the musician I started with. A radio is supposed to be some sort of filter and this type of filter is very limited. The problem with Pandora is they evaluate plenty of technical characteristics in a kind of objective way but there is no discernible quality control measure. Because quality in art is a subjective assessment, that makes it difficult to quantify.

One way Pandora might approach this is take into account the number of thumbs down or thumbs up ratings for the songs not just by individual user but total. Popularity measures always have their drawbacks and prevent less popular songs from rising to the top, but this might be one way to get some better songs played more. Also, one way I like to investigate bands is checking out the acts they have toured with in the past—that’s generally a good indicator. Artist's influences are also a great way expand in a historical way.

You would think that their "Quick Mix" mode might fix some of the problems of one-dimensionality but really, it just increases the types of bad songs you might hear. Maybe I’m really picky, maybe it’s the fact that I’m an avid media-consumer and I feel like I don’t have the time or patience to listen to anything I don’t like. Maybe Pandora just sucks.

Does it?

7 Reasons Pandora Sucks


Since Tim Westergern, the founder of Pandora, has been in the press for the battle to save internet radio these days, it seems appropriate to write up his project--one of the best known and most popular internet radio experiments. Pandora's capstone, called the Music Genome Project, has the ambitious/foolish purpose of mapping the musical "genes" of every song in the history of the world--ridiculous, in my estimation, and impossible at that. They also more modestly claim to help people find music they like. While the service offers a lot of benefits (free streaming in the U.S.) and may be improving (if it survives those proposed royalty hikes), Pandora's whole premise is flawed. Here are 7 of the reasons Pandora sucks:

1. Songs are not scientific specimens.
So far Pandora has analyzed over 10,000 songs on the basis of over 2000 "focus traits" which include 400 technical attributes like rhythm syncopation, vocal counterpoint, and key tonality. All the problems with Pandora stem from their focus on this method because songs are not scientific specimens readily dissected by "technicians"—they are art. I don’t think there is a good reason behind "objectively" evaluating these songs on technical traits because they are valued for their subjective appeal

2. DJing is an art that “musical genes” couldn't possibly inform and Pandora feels randomized. Early free-form DJs and the best of today’s performer-DJ blend the element of surprise and rewarding anticipation in making a playlist. They play off subtle qualities or themes to make seamless transitions and perfect matches. Susan Douglas talks about this in her book Listening In and I will expand on her theories in a future post. If a machine merely replicates the genre you're interested in, as Pandora does, you may be comfortable, but you're not breaking any new ground or in for a mind-expanding song from left-field.

3. The catalog is excessive in some areas and deficient in others. You could stumble upon thousands of terrible bands or singer-songwriters (hello Modern English, Buckcherry) but there's no classical music and few selections from abroad. The amount you can hear from selected artists is also limited. This directly results in my biggest issue with Pandora...

4. Pandora plays a lot of crap because there is no discernible quality control mechanism.
And I tested this theory with a wide range of artists, so it’s not MY taste that is to blame here. Because Pandora’s engine finds artists with similar technical attributes, they often find copyists who sound terrible because the style they are trying to emulate is unique and hard to pull off well. This brings me to my next issue….

5. You can only skip 6 times an hour.
When I shuffle on my iPod, which includes songs I should like since they're on my iPod, I might skip 6 times in 1 minute trying to find the song I want to hear. When there is all this bad music thrown in that I don't know and won't like, of course I'm going to want to skip more than 6 times.

6. I cannot and will not be programmed by Clear Channel, Pandora, or any other computer program!
This may just be a personal issue because I am a picky, avid music consumer. Just like I hate Clear Channel for using computer-generated playlists, I don't like the idea that my diverse interests can similarly be dissected and summarized so easily by a computer program, even if it is supposedly designed specifically for me. Sure, there are personalization mechanisms with Pandora: you can thumbs up or thumbs down songs to try to narrow the “station” more to your liking, but that’s time consuming and you only get those measley 6 skips an hour. Kids have always defined themselves by their musical tastes. It's one way to create an identity, and if that identity can be imposed from without by a computer, that doesn't make you unique. There's something enterprising about today's music hunters--they go out there and they find their music and stake their claim to that hard-earned musical property. "This is my band" or "I found this band before MTV did." With this program, it feels like it's all out there for anyone to randomly stumble upon.

7. Pandora is insulting.
There is an assumption implicit in the program that a listener’s tastes are limited to songs that sound just like the artist they choose. And the simple fact that Pandora plays me such hideous crap means they think I might like it. When I somehow get played Creed or Nickleback, I don't only feel offended. I feel aurally assaulted.

What has your experience been like with Pandora? Am I missing something here?

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Posting for Prizes!

It is now time for a shameless self-promotion and an attempt to purchase you as my audience. Blogging, contrary to some popular opinion, is hard work and extremely time-consuming! You have to be on top of the news, post frequently to get and keep an audience, you have to condense a massive amount of information into bite-sized posts, and try to keep some semblance of a theme or narrative in mind. Participation and audience is key and it is probably the hardest thing to attract. I know: "boo hoo." SO, in exchange for your participation in my blog, my favorite set of posts (this would imply there might be more than one) will be awarded some ice cream. Everyone loves ice cream but if you are lactose intolerant or don't, I'm sure we could work something else out like a Meeting Street cookie or a pen or shot glass. Or something. So post, take the polls, help me out please. Pretty please. I'll buy you a cone! This is your opportunity to tell me that I have terrible taste in music, can't express myself with the written word and probably shouldn't have elected to write a blog for my final project because they are stupid and annoying. Or you could offer insight into some of the topics and the future of radio--especially with your new found expertise from your own projects. Plus, at this point I will be buying Professor Smulyan a treat which is probably less ethically sound (considering she will be grading this) than trying to bribe an audience with ice cream.

What do you think about the fact that blogs are dependent upon audience and feedback to be interactive, yet this is the hardest factor to capture, especially in the beginning? Is audience dependent upon the material, the writing quality, the reader's interest, the blogger's networks or something else?

Poll of the Day: Pandora

Pandora and founder Tim Westergren have been in the news lately for the SaveNetRadio campaign. Seems appropriate to see where people stand on this service so here's the poll:

Up Next: What I think about Pandora.

Monday, April 30, 2007

Save Net Radio

SaveNetRadio.org

You may have heard that Internet Radio is dying. To get you up to date, here are the facts:

The Facts:
  • IR webcasters currently pay a performance fee of 1.17 cents per listener-hour (or about .076 cents per song streamed to each listener) that terrestrial radio does not pay and satellite radio pays at a much lower rate
  • Artists on terrestrial radio get no royalty payments at all; composers and publishers are paid through ASCAP or BMI publishing agencies
  • The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) is the agency charged by Congress with overseeing royalty disputes
  • The CRB proposed to raise the royalty rates for internet webcasters based on the recommendations of Sound Exchange, a non-profit set up by record labels and musician unions
  • The ruling will increase fees to .08 cents per song per listener, with incremental increases over the next 5 years until the fee reaches .19 cents per song per listener
  • The increases are 30 to 300% of what stations currently pay and makes internet radio economically impossible for almost all internet radio stations
  • The proposed royalty hikes are to begin payment May 15th and the fees are retroactive to January 2006
  • The CRB denied a stay and rehearing
  • The Internet Radio Equality Act is a recently introduced bipartisan act that would make the fees in line with what satellite radio pays: 7.5% of revenues
The Sides:
  • Supporters of the proposed royalty rate hike argue that the music industry needs to shift it's focus in the new digital age and this is one way for artists to collect money they are rightfully owed (and not getting from CD sales).
  • Opponents, which include many artists, believe the rates are far too high and will kill off most internet radio stations. The promotion and services provided by Internet radio are a wonderful tool for artists and listeners and these misguided, increased rates will kill the medium entirely.

For further reading:

"Radio's Tangled Web" (via Newsweek)

"The End of Internet Radio?" including an interview with Tim Westergren, founder of Pandora, which is leading the fight against this ruling. (via Alternet)

"Congress to rescue the Internet radio star" (via CNNMoney.com)

The official (115 page) proceedings for the Determination of Rates and Terms by the CRB (via CRB)


SaveNetRadio.Org

Can anyone tell me about the symbolism of this slice of bread? I don't get it.
SaveNetRadio.org

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Three A Days

1 Podcast + 1 Internet Radio Station + 1 Music Blog = A Musical Work-Out
  • Podcast: KEXP Song of the Day
    • This podcast is a great way to start the day, like a shot of espresso, only it's indie music from a wonderful college station in Seattle. As the title hints, this podcast offers one song a day from independent artists--sometimes it's a live in-studio performance, sometimes a better known artist's single and sometimes a new band selected by the DJs at this nationally renowned University of Washington station. The range of artists includes The Arcade Fire, Grizzly Bear, !!!, Junior Boys, Beirut, and Okkerville River. This podcast is a great way to get introduced to new bands in a very unobtrusive way: it's one song, with no DJ intro and if you don't like it, you can just skip to the next or turn it off. If you do like, it, you have one free song now!
  • Internet Radio: Live365 Internet Radio
    • Live365 is the largest network of free internet radio stations. With a user-friendly search engine, forums, recommendations, customization options, and the ability to DJ your own IR station, Radio 365 is like iTunes for Internet Radio.
  • Music Blog: Fluxblog
    • Matthew Perpetua's Fluxblog was a pioneer in the mp3 blog world, beginning in 2002 as one of the firsts. Still a great source for mp3s, this blog posts 3 or 4 a day with brief reviews of the tracks, as well as concert reviews and music industry updates. Great diversity if you have the patience to sift through and find what you want. Some recent posts include Ellen Allien, Spoon, Hillary Duff and Jarvis Cocker songs. For a laugh, here is the Wiki entry referring to Fluxblog as a burrito, illustrating the wonders of user-generated content and editing.

Friday, April 27, 2007

Poll of the Day: Internet Radio

Introductions: Internet Radio

Definition: "Internet Radio: (aka e-Radio) is an audio broadcasting service transmitted via the Internet. Broadcasting on the Internet is usually referred to as webcasting since it is not transmitted broadly through wireless means but is delivered over the World Wide Web. The term "e-Radio" suggests a streaming media that presents listeners with a continuous stream of audio to which they have no control much like traditional broadcast media." (via Wiki)

Timeline:

  • 1994: Internet Talk Radio was introduced
  • 1994: the Voice of America became the first broadcast news organization to offer continuously updated programming on the Internet
  • 1995: Radio HK, broadcasting independent music, became the first full-time, Internet-only radio station
  • 1995: Netradio (Net.radio, NetRadio, NetRadio Network), founded in 1994, became the first all internet radio network. It was also the first Internet Radio network to receive an experimental license from ASCAP, which later became a standard license for all online radio stations.
  • 1996: NetRadio offered the first weekly live internet only concert series.
  • 1999: Scour.com released the Mycaster software tool and website, allowing users to operate their own internet radio stations.
  • 2004: SuprNova, one of the most popular torrent sites, partnered with an amateur internet radio group and formed SuprNova Radio.
IR vs. traditional radio:
  • Similarities: In many cases, IR provides the exact same programing at the same time as their terrestrial counterparts, simply streamed through the internet rather than broadcast on the airwaves. There can be commercials, annoying DJs, and the same 10 songs played all the time. You can't skip through commercials or pick what you want to hear on IR, just like on terrestrial radio. Like traditional radio, it is free (if you don't consider the cost of internet and computer access).
  • Differences: Unlike traditional terrestrial radio, IR offers a huge selection of stations because the spectrum is physically unlimited and accessible anywhere, as long as you have access to a computer. The need for a computer (right now--internet radio in the car is supposedly in the works) to hear IR means there is both a financial and logistical barrier to access. You can't listen to IR in the car or on the go, as of now, and you have to be near a computer--not the most convenient or possible for everyone. IR also requires listeners to actively seek out the stations they want to hear on the internet, while traditional radio really only requires you turn it on and maybe press the seek button. There is a different level of agency involved in finding internet radio.
Examples: See Sidebar

Pros:
  • Free!
  • Accessible anywhere in the world if you have access to computers
  • Can increase listenership of local stations and niche stations through access to broader audiences
  • Great for expats and people with interests not served by traditional radio
  • Sound quality: no interference or static
  • Diversity of stations and programing
  • No physical limits to # of stations
  • No copyright issues because it is a stream rather than a download
Cons:
  • Currently limited to those people with access to a computer
  • Streams of commercial stations will have the same problems as those stations (commercials, annoying DJs, bad and repetitive music selection)
  • No control over content
  • You have to seek out the station you want to hear
  • Proposed royalty rate hike could mean demise of Internet Radio
Next Up: Is Internet Radio About to Die?

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Sunday, April 22, 2007

The Beginning of the End?


The Internet has changed radio (just like everything else) for good. It hasn’t killed it—yet, but blogs, Internet radio, and podcasts have already added many very important aspects to the traditional terrestrial landscape of radio. They are dramatically changing the way we listen and how content is produced and distributed. They are reinventing the structure of radio while building on historical precedents in the field. Internet radio, podcasts and blogs are leading the way to the future of music, news, entertainment and general information distribution. These developments change who creates media and who consumes it. Large corporations like Clear Channel are no longer the only gatekeepers of the airwaves—in fact, the airwaves themselves include a completely different spectrum now because of the internet. Everyone is able to have a voice without having access to a radio station. While these developments may never supplant traditional radio completely, they are certainly adding important alternatives and causing ripples through the entire radio industry. This will be a blog about these exciting changes and where radio might go from here.