http://www.spinner.com/2013/03/28/lollapalooza-2013-lineup-report/
Rumors of the 2013 lineup for Lalapalooza! True or false?
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Friday, March 22, 2013
Justin Haters Be Hatin'.
http://www.npr.org/2013/03/18/174643299/justin-timberlakes-musical-vision-isnt-20-20
Openly hating on Justin and how his album is less than satisfactory for his liking.
Openly hating on Justin and how his album is less than satisfactory for his liking.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Prince being Prince.
http://www.spinner.com/2013/03/07/prince-roots-guitar/
Prince being Prince.
After a guitar performance Prince decides to throw the guitar, that isn't his. When asked to sign it he wouldn't do that either. Just another circumstance of Prince being Prince.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
SXSW: Worth it or Not?
http://www.businessinsider.com/everything-i-wish-id-been-told-before-my-first-sxsw-adventure-2012-3?op=1
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/031511sxsw
Here are two articles I really liked about experiences at SXSW. They both just give a little more in depth look at what their experiences were like.
So the question at hand is, "Is a stop at SXSW worth it for artists/bands?" Depending on what you are going to the festival for is really what determines the answer. If you are going to market and meet other people in the industry yes, SX is a good networking tool that only happens once a year. And not only is it people in the music industry that will be there, but it's also people involved in film and technology industries as well. It is more beneficial to market and network because so many important people will be in one place at one time. However, if you are an artist trying to establish some ground that may be a little more difficult and especially costly. Performing at SXSW is something that would look good on a resume, however, if you are going for exposure join the other 12,000 musicians and bands going for the same reason. It's too over saturated to try and "standout". Although, if you are somewhat established it may be beneficial for decent exposure with a name that is recognizable That would be a different story because then you would be able to sell tickets. But with an exceeding price tag for a just-starting-out band, I don't see the point.
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/031511sxsw
Here are two articles I really liked about experiences at SXSW. They both just give a little more in depth look at what their experiences were like.
So the question at hand is, "Is a stop at SXSW worth it for artists/bands?" Depending on what you are going to the festival for is really what determines the answer. If you are going to market and meet other people in the industry yes, SX is a good networking tool that only happens once a year. And not only is it people in the music industry that will be there, but it's also people involved in film and technology industries as well. It is more beneficial to market and network because so many important people will be in one place at one time. However, if you are an artist trying to establish some ground that may be a little more difficult and especially costly. Performing at SXSW is something that would look good on a resume, however, if you are going for exposure join the other 12,000 musicians and bands going for the same reason. It's too over saturated to try and "standout". Although, if you are somewhat established it may be beneficial for decent exposure with a name that is recognizable That would be a different story because then you would be able to sell tickets. But with an exceeding price tag for a just-starting-out band, I don't see the point.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Here are my discoveries for this week! Even though I discovered the first one in class, I still really it.
The Lone Bellow; Soulful. I can't get enough soul.
Image Dragons; I like the more contemporary sound with a more rocker voice. It's interesting to me!
Phoenix!!
http://www.nme.com/news/phoenix/68666
I really liked this article about Phoenix releases their fifth album for two reasons. One: I really like Phoenix. And two, they bought the console that Michael Jackson recorded his 1982 hit "Thriller" on for only $17,000. Considering how popular he really was that is a pretty small price tag for the French band to pay. I'm really excited to hear what their album sounds like compared to what "Thriller" sounds like. Although, I feel like this raises the bar for Phoenix because people will have high expectations, this is Michael Jackson we are talking about!
I really liked this article about Phoenix releases their fifth album for two reasons. One: I really like Phoenix. And two, they bought the console that Michael Jackson recorded his 1982 hit "Thriller" on for only $17,000. Considering how popular he really was that is a pretty small price tag for the French band to pay. I'm really excited to hear what their album sounds like compared to what "Thriller" sounds like. Although, I feel like this raises the bar for Phoenix because people will have high expectations, this is Michael Jackson we are talking about!
Should Grammys Consider Streaming?
http://mashable.com/2013/02/11/grammys-who-should-have-won/
With all controversy with streaming and internet radio going on these days, some people have started to speculate whether or not it should be taken into consideration when it comes to awards. The Grammys for instance, were this past weekend and if such things like Youtube and Spotify were taken into account there would have been different awarded recipients. In the article I posted above shows some of these stats. Even song of the year and album of the year would have turned out differently.
I think that these factors are important because these are other ways people can and do listen to music. So why shouldn't they be taken into consideration? The ways of accessing music are changing and with that being said we may possibly need a new way to consider tallying for award shows. This is the 21st century after all, we keep tabs on many other things. This shouldn't be to hard to handle.
With all controversy with streaming and internet radio going on these days, some people have started to speculate whether or not it should be taken into consideration when it comes to awards. The Grammys for instance, were this past weekend and if such things like Youtube and Spotify were taken into account there would have been different awarded recipients. In the article I posted above shows some of these stats. Even song of the year and album of the year would have turned out differently.
I think that these factors are important because these are other ways people can and do listen to music. So why shouldn't they be taken into consideration? The ways of accessing music are changing and with that being said we may possibly need a new way to consider tallying for award shows. This is the 21st century after all, we keep tabs on many other things. This shouldn't be to hard to handle.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
SoundExChange
What is SoundExChange?
Definition: is a non-profit performance rights organization that collects royalties on the behalf of sound recording copyright owners (SRCOs — record labels, generally) and featured artists for non-interactive digital transmissions, including satellite and Internet radio. –Wikipedia
The purpose of SoundExChange collect, distribute, and administer sound recording copyrights and royalties owed to songwriters/publishers and recording artists through platforms such as internet radio and other streaming services.
Copyright owner of the recording (usually record label, unless you are independent); They get 50% of royalties.
Recording artists get 45% of royalties.
The 5% left over is for back-up singers and session players.
THE MAIN POINTS:
Composer sign up with a Performance Rights Organization or PROs; BMI, SESAC, or ASCAP pay him/her and his/her publisher.
Recording artist signs up with SoundExChange which collects royalties for and him/her recordings copyright publisher.
digital services/internet (satellite radio, internet radio, cable tv music channel) pay royalties----> to SoundExChange---> pays royalties to recording copyright publisher 50% and Recording Artist 45%, 5% to back-ups and session players.
How does SoundExChange know what to pay?
Webcasters and satellite radio companies are service providers. They provide SoundExChange with reports of use (how many times a song has been played) and they send in the royalties. SoundExChange uses the reports of use to determine what the record company and recording artists are owed and then Sound Exchange sends them a check.
I hope this helps understanding how SoundExChange works!
-Carlee McKee
Music News; Follow-up on The Topic of Beyonce
Lip Synch Controversy; Do people really care?
After lip synching the National Anthem at the Inauguration of Barack Obama some thought that the performance of Beyonce at half-time of the super bowl would be affected. But the percentages after the super bowl show that it did no damage at all. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/super-bowl-2013-beyonce-destinys-417999 The hollywoodreporter put out astonishing numbers for records sales after they performance. Beyonce's digital album sales went up 230% alone, while Destiny Child's jumped 600%. So, I guess this goes to show that if a artist is good enough people will watch regardless. Now you just have to be good enough for people not to care whether or not you lip synch.
After lip synching the National Anthem at the Inauguration of Barack Obama some thought that the performance of Beyonce at half-time of the super bowl would be affected. But the percentages after the super bowl show that it did no damage at all. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/super-bowl-2013-beyonce-destinys-417999 The hollywoodreporter put out astonishing numbers for records sales after they performance. Beyonce's digital album sales went up 230% alone, while Destiny Child's jumped 600%. So, I guess this goes to show that if a artist is good enough people will watch regardless. Now you just have to be good enough for people not to care whether or not you lip synch.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)