I was thrilled earlier this week to FINALLY be able to participate in one of the coolest Los Angeles (and internet) holiday traditions. The Bowen Beer Bottle Band is assembled on a relatively annual basis by composer/arranger/conductor/recordist/bottle tuner Matt Bowen and his amazing wife/producer Summer. My wife and I have missed the first few installments due to illness and travel. No such issues this year. Enjoy “Carol Of The Bells,” and happy holidays to all!

If you’ve talked to me over the past couple of years, you’ll know I’ve become a HUGE fan of the Boston-based band Bad Rabbits I first ran across them at SXSW in 2009 thanks to a recommendation from a band I had been working with at the time. They absolutely blew me away, and they blow away just about every crowd they play in front of. Their debut EP, “Stick Up Kids,” was excellent. They’re an incredible mix of New Jack Swing, hardcore, and soul/r&b. And in this day and age of manufactured recordings, I can tell you without a doubt that these mofo’s can PLAY! So I’m devoting a post to getting them at least a few new fans, because damn they deserve it. Check out the video for their new song, “We Can Roll.”

The legal-speak gets a little thick at times in this video, and it’s long, but there are very salient points made by both sides. I clearly agree with the artists/artist’s reps on this, and fervently oppose the passage of this legislation. On that score the things that resonate most with me are what Patricia Polach says about who benefits financially from the music artists create at 36:00, and what David Lowery says just before the end of the video about starting a “free Mercedes dealership,” then complaining to the government that he can’t make any money in an effort to force Mercedes to give him the cars at a lower price. (An argument I’ve made in various places using a failing bakery suing to get cheaper flour as an analogy).

From the other side, the point is made that there is a double-standard applied in music broadcast royalties that forces digital broadcasters to pay more than their terrestrial (AM/FM) counterparts. The answer as to why is very clearly explained. It’s not fair, it’s politics. It should be fixed. Just not in this way, and not with this bill.

It’s mentioned that the US is the ONLY country that doesn’t pay performers (meaning the people who played on the recordings, as opposed to just the songwriters and publishers) royalties from terrestrial radio play besides North Korea. Which is true. And is at the heart of the royalty discussion here, because digital outlets DO have to pay those performance royalties. (Keep in mind that terrestrial radio survives just fine everywhere else while still paying that higher royalty rate.)

Another excellent point is made regarding the need for more revenue-generating engines for artists to exist in the digital world as a legal alternative to theft. Something with which I totally agree. But the point that Lowery only has time to glance at the end is that businesses are supposed to succeed or fail based on the strength of their product. Pandora’s ACTUAL “product” is their music genome system. Unfortunately for them, in order for that product to be worth anything, it has to be married with recordings: Artist’s products for which they are due fair compensation. If Pandora’s “product” isn’t strong enough to attract enough users to afford their suppliers’ costs, then THEIR business isn’t viable. That does not mean the entire idea of internet-based radio isn’t viable. It means the space needs to be filled by a company/product that can strike the correct balance of supply cost versus income.

I highly doubt that Pandora (or Skype) going out of business will kill the idea of internet based radio. Nor do I believe that these two companies are the only two that will ever create viable internet broadcast income streams for artists. I do believe they show incredible hubris in going to the government to sort out what is essentially their business’s problem at the expense of a group (artists) who they obviously thought wouldn’t stand up for their rights after a decade of “free promotion model” thinking destroyed their livelihoods. And that’s the backdrop to this whole debate. It is harder to make a living as a music artist than it was before the digital music age, yet companies want to squeeze them even further in the pursuit of their ambitions. The question that needs to be asked even more often isn’t, “What happens if Pandora goes out of business,” it’s, “What if artists can’t afford to make music for Pandora to play?”

All that said…if you can get through the industry jargon there’s a lot to be learned from this debate.

The lastest release by rapper, rascal, and raconteur Richard Benjamin is now available for your kind purchase HERE. I had the pleasure of handling the mixing duties.

Check it out. Patton Oswalt, who has a talent for cutting through the B.S. in stand up and interviews, delivered the keynote address at Montreal’s “Just For Laughs” festival this year. It’s in the form of two open letters: One to the comedians of 2012, and one to the gatekeepers of the comedy entertainment industry. But if you replace “comedy,” and, “comedians” with “music,” and “musicians,” you’ll find a lot of insight into where we are, and where we’re headed.

Here’s a link to the full text of his speech.

I’ve waited a few days to post here regarding this topic, because I wanted to see how it played out across the vast world of social media before I threw in my two cents. Most of you know the story by now.

Last weekend, an intern for NPR’s “All Songs Considered” posted a piece about how the vast, vast, VAST majority of her sizable music collection was (in one way or another) “acquired” for free. And she rightly wondered how her generation was going to support the continuing creation of music if they refused to pay for it. Rightly pointing out that concert tickets and T-shirt sales don’t pay the bills for the vast, vast, VAST majority of artists. Then essentially saying that purchasing or listening to music legally isn’t currently convenient enough, and asking that it be made more so.

Soon after that, David Lowery (Cracker, Camper Van Beethoven, multiple degree holder, college professor) posted one of the most brilliant responses possible to her piece. As he has done before, he took on the arguments for the “free music” culture one by one. And one by one he dismantled them all.

I implore you to read them both, as they’re both very important pieces of a puzzle it’s time we all (fans and creators) put together. Lowery’s is pretty long, but it’s worth your time.

What followed – to my great delight – was an absolute EXPLOSION of opinions, articles, Facebook posts, tweets, and general conversation about the ethics and finances of today’s music business. As I’ve said before, one of my New Year’s resolutions for 2012 was to make it my business to educate anyone within earshot of the reality of what stealing music (please let’s not call it “sharing” anymore) has done to the very roots of the creative community that makes the music they love.

My favorite so far is this piece from Salon.com. Well thought out, and well reasoned. Props to Scott Janovitz for passing it along.

I’ve been participating in a number of online discussions via Facebook and Twitter as well, and I’ve had some time to pull together a few coherent thoughts on the subject after a few days of contemplation. In no particular order of importance.

1.) There’s been some talk that Lowery’s piece was unfair to White. This is a red herring, and has nothing to do with the central facts at play. Feel bad for her if you want to, but it doesn’t change the reality of the situation.

2.) White, without meaning to, pointed out a fact that has been conveniently overlooked and ignored by pretty much everybody involved for over a decade. Two entire generations of music fans have now passed through their teenage years believing that music is free. That’s two generations of life-long music fans who, if they so chose, never had to pay a dime for the creations they love. Who have now developed habits, tastes, wants, and needs in relation to their music consumption that will be very hard to change.

3.) Who is at fault for this no longer matters. What matters is how we now create a sustainable way for music artists to ply their trade using the new tools we’ve created.

4.) This is the central one. TAKING MUSIC WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT IS STEALING. With ONE exception: When the person who owns the rights to the music decides to give it to you for free. Be that the artist, or (in ever decreasing cases) the label the artist signed their creation over to. I hope Bill Janovitz won’t mind me quoting him here, but he hit the nail on the head on one of the discussions I had:

“Lowery made many points in his piece. But the most basic and important one is that if you illegally download music for free, you’re stealing. You can twist your logic or lack thereof, to try and justify a counter-argument to that — the record industry snoozed, music is overpriced, take your pick — but I have yet to hear an argument that morally justifies stealing. The music is not just “in the air.” Not all artists deserve to be paid for their work if they have no audience. If I don’t want someone’s painting, I don’t buy it. But if someone creates music, records it, asks for a price to be paid to own or stream it, and someone downloads it for repeated listenings without paying, that is stealing.”

Let’s be honest here. If taking music for free was REALLY ethical, moral, and had a positive impact on artists, nobody would be having this conversation. These articles wouldn’t have touched so raw a nerve.

5.) It takes, on average, about 6 weeks of HARD work to make an album these days. As a producer, engineer, and mixer, I normally work 6 days a week, 12 hours a day while working on a full-length record. I’d say that in a similar amount of time, given I had the aptitude, and a similarly talented team of people, I could probably build a custom car in that time. If you then walk into my garage and take it from me, is that okay? No. That car probably will have cost me close to $100,000 in parts and labor. But more importantly, it’s a physical thing that you’d have to physically steal.

6.) Record budgets vary wildly today, but to make one of good quality, a nice round number would be $25,000. That’s JUST for production. And pretty no-frills production at that. Assuming they only release the album digitally, they’ll have to pay a small fee to get it to the digital distribution services. Then pay a fee on each sale. But since nobody knows it’s out, they have to promote it. By playing shows, making posters, buying online ads, spending endless amounts of time on social networking sites, making videos, etc. All of those things cost money as well.

7.) These days, most of that money is coming directly from the artists themselves. Think about that. These people are SO committed to making something for you that they are willing to part with what is likely more than half a year’s salary to create it. Now think about this fact:

“Recorded music revenue is down 64% since 1999.

Per capita spending on music is 47% lower than it was in 1973!!

The number of professional musicians has fallen 25% since 2000.

Of the 75,000 albums released in 2010 only 2,000 sold more than 5,000 copies.

Only 1,000 sold more than 10,000 copies.

Without going into details, 10,000 albums is about the point where independent artists begin to go into the black on professional album production, marketing and promotion.”

8.) I couldn’t be more thrilled that these facts are FINALLY making their way into the public consciousness.

9.) I don’t think there’s a magic wand solution to the problems we’re facing. I think we’re looking at a slow steady campaign of re-valuing music in the mind of the average music fan. So that “free” and “fair” aren’t seen as the same thing. And it starts with having THIS conversation about the REAL expenses and returns of being a music artist. In 2012.

10.) We can’t use outlier success stories as evidence that our problems have found a cure (read: Amanda Palmer). And we have to keep delivering this message. It’s time to teach the next generation of music fans to give their artists a chance at a sustainable career.

11.) Finally, we have to admit that if 75,000 albums are getting made each year, most of them aren’t going to be classics. That not everyone who picks up an instrument is a genius. That not every band/artist will find a fan base. That was true under the old model, and it will be true under the new. But my hope is that the new model we create can make room for more variety, and let that variety flourish for a longer period of time. Great art needs time to develop. Financial support gives an artist the time they need to turn into that exciting thing that melts your mind every time you listen.

Here’s an article by Angela Poe with some interesting insights into the history and current state of how we make money in the music business. I don’t necessarily agree with all of it, but there are some really thought-provoking ideas in here. This one’s my favorite, and it follows on yesterday’s post:

“It’s not about creating a way to make it ‘fair’ for everyone — it never was fair for everyone. The sooner the entitlement generation learns that not everyone gets a gold star and a music career just because they went to college and got a degree in music or the music business, the better. And not everyone with the best computer equipment has talent.”

David McCullough Jr. made a speech at a high school graduation recently. He’s a high school teacher, so that really shouldn’t surprise anyone. But the topic of his speech hits home with me. The fact that it also caused a bit of controversy is worth noting as well. Because, not surprisingly, many of those in attendance at the graduation failed to see the subtext. More disturbingly, they failed to see the that he is also correct. Because the hook he used to deliver his message to the graduates was this: You’re not special. He goes on in great detail to point out why this is an essential truth to understand, and how we must WORK to make our lives special; and through that work find deep fulfillment; and through that fulfillment touch others; and through those connections find wonderment and happiness.

I’ve often repeated what I found to be a profound quote from Pixar’s, “The Incredibles.” (Whether they meant it this way or not.) After an argument between the super-mom and her super-son about why he can’t participate in sports, she tries to put a period on the conversation telling him, “Everyone’s special, Dash.”

To which Dash replies, “Which is another way of saying no one is.”

If you’re wondering what any of this has to do with music, production, or recording, think about how many Guitar Centers there are across this country. How many instruments each one of them sells every day with posters, and commercials, and promises of rock stardom. How many laptops ship with multitrack recorders, software synthesizers, and sequencers built in. Then each of those serves as a desktop distribution system for our every creation via SoundCloud or Facebook or the iTunes Music Store.

NOW think about how many Jimi Hendrixs there are. Eric Claptons. Kurt Cobains. Jonny Greenwoods or Ben Gibbards. Miles Davis’s or Mozarts. Think about what separates what they did with these magical instruments in their hands from what most manage.

But here’s the trick: For them, the important part wasn’t about the fame and adulation that befell them because of their gifts. The important part was the CREATION. The PURSUIT. It was a lifelong endeavor to be savored and improved upon. Something that (despite those promises from the Guitar Center mailers) purchases, hope, and an internet connection can’t get you.

Should everybody play music? ABSOLUTELY. Even if it’s singing in your car. Music is an emotional thread that runs through each of our lives.

Does the fact that you can now take video of you singing in your car on your phone, upload it to YouTube, and tweet it to your friends mean you’ve got the talent, drive, ambition, and musical gifts to touch millions of lives? No. It does not. It means you own a hammer, a saw, and some nails. There’s a long trip from there to becoming a carpenter. But if being a carpenter is what fuels your soul, then it’s that trip that’s worthwhile.

The art of capturing performances is what fuels mine, and that’s why I keep on pursuing it, defending it, debating its importance, and above all learning every day. No matter the material rewards. Because I have – at least for me – the best job in the world. And if that wondrous day arrives that I DO get my mug plastered on a GC flyer, the first thing I’m going to think is, “You’re not special.”

In relation to my previous post referencing David Lowery’s great piece on the state of the music business, file sharing, and the overall misconceptions of technologists in regards to how poorly the music business is actually doing, I bring you this.

Here we have the perfect example of a tech-friendly blog using one – count ‘em ONE – example of the “success” of file sharing as a tool for a sustainable career. That against the backdrop of thousands and thousands of failures.

And while we all love Steve Albini’s screed about the horrors of the “old-model” recording business, as David Lowery pointed out, it wasn’t quite the nightmare Albini made it out to be (which is not to say it wasn’t without SIGNIFICANT problems). Nor is file sharing now our savior. While his opinions are fearless, his logic is often worth questioning.

Blogs like this seep into the public consciousness based on small sample sizes, and snappy quotes. They’re based on a decade-old set of “artists vs. labels” assumptions about the music business. But they DO NOT paint an accurate picture of the current business of music as a whole.

At the end of my little piece here, you’ll find a link to an incredibly insightful, well-reasoned, and well-researched article by former Cracker/Camper Van Beethoven man David Lowery. Who, as you can read, has been a virtual renaissance man with his hands in many facets of the music business for over two decades. Why am I posting it?

At the beginning of 2012, I made a little vow to myself. That I would stop ignoring all of the erroneous, anecdotal, and occasionally offensive remarks/posts/tweets I endured on a regular basis about how the music business isn’t as bad for the “average artist” as it used to be.

This came after two particular conversations. The first was with a member of a platinum-selling band who were getting ready to promote their new record. He told me that on every tour (tours which supposedly now take up the slack in lost recordings sales), they know they’ll have to play one or two shows that LOSE MONEY in between cities where they know they can make it back. You’ve heard this band in the mall, on commercials, and on the radio. I was pretty stunned, considering that this band had built their entire career through relentless grass-roots promotion and touring.

The second conversation was with a fellow producer/mixer/engineer. He was home last Christmas, opening gifts with his family. Somebody had bought an iTunes gift card for his young nephew. Upon opening it, the perplexed nephew said, “What do I do with this? I get my music for free anyway.” The entire room laughed.

My friend – a large part of whose modest income is made producing low-budget records for metal bands – said, “Hey thanks for that. You all understand that this is how I pay my rent, right?” And what he got back were stares of disbelief. From his family!

As someone who regularly works with artists from all levels of the business, I have a pretty good idea of what their economic realities are. Spending weeks locked in a tiny room with a group of people means you have a long time to get to know one another, and an artist’s financial situation is a pretty common topic of conversation. As someone whose livelihood is directly connected to the health of those artists’ incomes (and thus their ability to spend money on future recordings), I have some pretty serious skin in the game as well. To a person, not a single one of them has talked about how our new free digital model of music distribution has helped increase their revenue. Not one. Not the ones on major labels, not the ones on indie labels, and not the ones paying out of pocket.

So I decided to take my message to the streets. Or to Facebook, or Twitter, or social occasions…wherever the topic of file sharing being “good” for artists came up.

I have had a number of conversations in the past 5 months on this topic. Some in person, many more online. And I’m usually met with a pretty staggering degree of resistance to the idea that artists have a harder time eeking out a living now than they did in, say, 1995. Usually starting with the “music should be free” argument, and at some point directing me to a viral chart or graph that uses some sort of erroneous data to prove that things are indeed getting “better.”

And that’s where I ran into a problem. Because while I know that those charts and graphs aren’t correct, I don’t have the time to chase down all the facts and figures to PROVE it. Let alone put together a cohesive counter-argument. And while I surely know a damn sight more about the economic realities of the music business than the data analyst I was exchanging heated posts with on Facebook, everybody’s just as smart as everyone else on the internet.

Enter David Lowery. And bless his heart, because in this one article, he addresses every last one of the gripes, comments, and fallacies I’ve been exposed to. That “Pie Chart Of What Musicians Make?” Yeah, it’s wrong. The “Touring Revenues Are Up” theory? Well, that’s true in a sense. But only because artists are playing MORE SHOWS TO FEWER PEOPLE! So touring revenues are up in the same way your personal income goes up if your hourly wage gets cut, but you decide to work 80 hours a week instead of 40. And please don’t get me started on that “The Sky Is Rising” chart. No matter. They’re all covered in this one amazing article. Backed up with real facts, figures, and numbers by a guy with multiple college degrees to match his skill as a musical artist.

AND with the added bonus of pointing out how tech conglomerates (Apple, Google, Mediafire, et. al.) have not only replaced major labels, but have done so in a way that forces artists to GIVE AWAY THEIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY! The very same intellectual property they fight for like hungry rabid Tasmanian Devils when it’s threatened.

We’re well past the stage of breaking down the old music business model. Congratulations. We’ve done it. The problem, as Mr. Lowery so deftly points out, is that we haven’t replaced it with anything sustainable.

MEET THE NEW BOSS. WORSE THAN THE OLD BOSS? by David Lowery