Adira

Viewing Adira, a film by Bradley Lincoln (who is a Full Sail graduate) and Irene Delmonte, was significant for a few reasons. First, I believe that it is important to support our own and to appreciate what graduates of Full Sail are able to accomplish. Adira proves that through an education at Full Sail and hard work, successful results can follow. I also believe that the independent film industry needs to be supported. Mostly, though, it was significant to me because of how it was funded, and the sheer amount of important decisions that the duo had to make in order to finish the film.

Last year, Lincoln and Delmonte started an IndieGogo campaign to raise money so they could make the film – the goal was $3,500, and they raised $4,501, not to mention a few sizable donations after the fact. Crowdfunding campaigns have been very popular for a few years, and it appears that they are going to continue to rise in importance in the future. For one, it allows the artists, whether in music or film or really just about anything, to cut out most of the middlemen and market themselves directly to their audience. It also allows the audience to feel that they are a “part” of what’s being funded, as their money allows for the project to be made. Also, there are perks to giving certain amounts of money, with donators being given actual rewards other than just seeing the project be realized. Plenty of records are being released this way, and I believe that labels would be wise to incorporate elements of the crowdfunding system into their promotional methods. Lincoln and Delmonte, despite the IndieGogo campaign going better than expected, still had a very limited amount of money and resources with which to make a movie. Their decision-making ensured that the film would be able to be released – they changed the story to fit the budget and personnel, such as making Adira the daughter of English parents to allow for limited use of German, of which they didn’t have many speakers. They realized that since costuming, especially for a period piece, is essential, they made sure that they would spare no expense in terms of getting the look of the characters right. They also chose to spend lots of money on cameras, as they knew that how important it was to make sure that their low-budget film still looked impressive on the big screen. It worked; at no point did I think that the film was “cheap”. Luckily, they had locations in mind already, actually writing the script around the locations that they knew they wanted to use. It might seem like a backwards way of writing a script, but with such a low budget, they didn’t have the luxury of being able to easily choose where they wanted to go. All in all, Adira is a success.

David Byrne's TED Talk: Venues and the Music Industry

David Byrne’s TED talk, which summarizes his main argument in his novel How Music Works, changes how the story of the evolution of music is told. The usual accepted idea of the evolution of music centers on innovators such as Bach or Mozart, who just from sheer brilliance and innate talent were able to alter the course of music history. While their genius cannot be disputed, none of the changes they or innovators after them created were made in a vacuum. That statement seems obvious, but what isn’t normally discussed is how much location and venue have provided the impetus for such changes. Byrne is suited to make such an argument. He is known as the leader of the Talking Heads, a popular art-rock band whom released a slew of acclaimed records throughout the '70s and '80s. The Talking Heads, through Byrne’s songwriting and vision, fused disparate genres such as punk rock, disco, new wave, ambient, and world music into a unique, organic sound – they started out in punk rock clubs like the legendary CBGB’s to eventually headlining venues such as Carnegie Hall. Byrne points out that fact himself in the talk, which is interesting as he actually notes that CBGB’s provided the better sound for the music his band made, while the seemingly more impressive Carnegie Hall actually drowned out some of the intricacies of his songs that perhaps required a more intimate setting.

Byrne raises the idea that music was created as a result of adjusting to the venues that they were played in. African music, for instance, features a mostly communal effort, with lots of percussion and call-and-response vocals. This music sounded great because it was played outside, with no reverb that one might hear in a large room to drown out the complex rhythms. Meanwhile, in cathedral-style churches, the music featured long, drawn-out notes with virtually no sense of rhythm because of the reverb of the rooms the music was performed at. This flattered the music being played, but if it were to be played outside, it wouldn’t work at all. Bach was allowed to play around with key changes because he played in smaller cathedral-style venues, and Mozart’s music was mostly very intricate and pretty because he was playing in small ballrooms where details can be discerned, giving him the freedom to try his hand at more complex music.

He traces this line further with very convincing results, but perhaps the most interesting part of the talk is the point at which he gets to the creation of recorded music and the invention of modern microphones. Recorded music allowed for artists to record more quietly, because they didn’t need to play loudly to be heard above anything. Frank Sinatra’s vocals often sounded so intimate because of the microphone – otherwise such singing would be either too quiet or drowned out. The line traces all the way to the MP3 player, where music is now made because of the “venue” of this new digital setting – directly into the listener’s ear. Now, artists often don’t even consider the plausibility of performing some of their songs live – production techniques can provide such a unique experience that it’s almost like staging a concert through headphones.

Byrne’s talk is significant to me because it provides a template for dealing with changes going forward in the industry. Genius isn’t being repressed because of platforms such as SoundCloud where just about anybody can upload their own music – it’s being repurposed into a new form based on the changing context of listening to and enjoying such music. The industry has often failed, especially with the advent of MP3’s, at responding to change, sticking to old ways of distributing music. Instead, the music industry must change as music itself changes, especially considering how rapidly music consumption has transformed in just the past five or so years, with streaming platforms now reigning supreme. Those are the new “venues,” and music is being created in response to that new context. Will the industry respond the same way?

Beats Music Enters the Market

Back on January 31, Beats Music launched, a streaming music service that may very well become Spotify’s biggest competitor going forward. This is significant because Spotify’s status almost gave it a monopoly of sorts in the streaming service market. It is also significant because Beats Music, while not necessarily wildly different than Spotify in terms of its purpose, is taking some intriguing risks that could end up making or breaking the service going forward.  Beats Electronics is mostly known for their headphones that have dominated the high-quality headphone market for a few years. Beats Music is headed by co-founder Jimmy Iovine (the other co-founder being Dr. Dre) and Trent Reznor (a musician known for his work with Nine Inch Nails) as its chief creative mind.

In terms of its interface, it is very sleek and user-friendly, but the main goal of Beats Music that separates it from Spotify is to create a sense of discovery in the listener. The service utilizes an algorithm specifically designed to recommend songs or artists the listener might be interested in. While many services use recommendations, from personal experience none have been as effective or seamless as those found in Beats Music are. Curation is of high importance, with Beats Music guiding the listener through recommended songs and playlists by popular musicians, celebrities, and others, which change in real time depending on what that famous person might be interested in. If one is a fan of Trent Reznor and is inspired by his music, he/she can listen to what inspires him to make it. Bringing in these high-profile figures also serves to give Beats Music a better chance of catching up to Spotify just due to visibility and influence. Beats Music also uses a very unique program called the Sentence, which is a fun tool that lets the listener create a playlist for whatever he/she wants in terms of said listener’s mood or what he/she is doing at the moment (it can get oddly specific, to rather comedic effect).

What I’d say is its biggest risk is its refusal to allow a free plan like that of Spotify (you can use Spotify free, but with the caveat of having to listen to advertisements after a certain amount of songs). The service is $10 a month, and its creators are sticking by that number going forward. It’s a gamble because many people utilize Spotify’s free plan, and to convince people to spend money for something they can get free elsewhere can be difficult. Beats Music, however, is convinced that it offers a better overall product and experience than Spotify. What’s also interesting is that it has teamed up with AT&T to offer a family plan, allowing up to five people to use the service at one time for $15 a month.

While I have used it and enjoyed it, I still use Spotify more often, perhaps because of how long I’ve been using it (familiarity with the interface helps). At this point I’d say Beats Music still has some technical bugs to work through, and its music library, while large, still isn’t at Spotify’s level. However, these things can be improved, and I’m interested in whether or not Beats Music will succeed. Early signs indicate that it will, with over 70% of those who used the free trial switching to the paid service once it finished, and over 1000 paid subscribers signing up a day for the first month of Beats Music’s existence. That is good news for the streaming music market, and Beats Music’s emphasis on discovery and curation are two that I wish Spotify will improve on in the future if I am to continue using the service.

Changing the Album Experience with Integrated Extras

There are many who would say that the current system of music distribution is broken, and that as a result the music industry itself will only continue to struggle until the death of the “record label” as we currently know it. Certainly, there is a logical basis to this argument, but I’m more inclined to label music distribution today as in a state of flux. There are myriad possibilities as to what direction the music industry will take from here, although speculating on such usually just creates more arguments; instead of affecting change, many seem afraid to truly think outside the box for fear of failure.

However, some artists/record labels are at the very least attempting to experiment and see what it takes to convince consumers to buy albums again. In part of Jono Gibson’s article about changes in the music industry for the upcoming year, he points out that “integrated extras with album purchases” is a trend that will more than likely only increase from this point forward. Usually when one thinks of “extras” the existence of bonus tracks come to mind. Often artists will release “deluxe” or “expanded” editions of their records along with the standard version, featuring a few tracks that failed to make the tracklist proper. Personally, I’ve felt somewhat cheated by deluxe versions of records, as the idea of paying five extra dollars for perhaps only two or three more tracks wasn’t very appealing to me. How much is one bonus track actually worth? Regardless, the article in question talks about extras on a larger scale that gives the listener a much more expansive listening experience. Gibson mentions Beyoncé’s new self-titled album, which is fresh on everyone’s minds, mostly because of how it was released. Out of the blue, her record appeared on iTunes with virtually zero promotion or hype preceding it. When I first heard about it, I thought it must have been a hoax at first, as a pop star with her level of fame would presumably continue to take the “safe” route in terms of record distribution as she already has a built-in fan base. When I thought about it more, I realized that this built-in fan base is the precisely the reason why she can do this, as she’ll still sell records even if people react negatively because of her level of recognition worldwide. When I saw that she had released a music video for every single track on the album, I was even more stunned. Artists have done similar things before; I think of Beck and his album The Information, where he released somewhat off-the-cuff videos for every song, but Beyoncé’s album is different in that each video is of high-quality and very professionally done. By doing this, Beyoncé created a visual component to the listening experience of her record that made many listeners curious and made the album feel like a genuine event.

There are others who are also distributing and releasing their records in unique ways. Gibson mentions Lady Gaga, who released an app with her album Artpop to create an interactive component to the listening experience. An artist that I feel may have provided inspiration to Gaga is Björk, who released a very forward-thinking app experience along with her album Biophilia. In fact, she actually released ten small apps to go along with each song. Each app contained animation and even minigames relating to the songs on the record. Artists are also releasing their albums in different formats. Nine Inch Nails’ new record, Hesitation Marks, was released in digital, CD, deluxe CD, and vinyl versions, each with its own unique artwork. The choices don’t end there. Depending on how much one cares for or knows how to operate music files of different sound quality, the digital version comes in either MP3, FLAC, Apple lossless, or high resolution sound files. In this case both casual music listeners and audiophiles get what they want.

I have mixed reactions when I think about the longevity of some of these integrated extras. I have no doubt that pop bands/artists will look to Beyoncé and Lady Gaga for inspiration moving forward, but it’s hard to see something with so much monetary cost attached to it working for the industry as a whole. Most bands can barely afford to make one video, let alone for every one of their songs. Beyoncé and artists of her stature can perhaps afford to take risks because they know that they can sell records based on name recognition alone. Also, the idea of making an app to go along with an album is undoubtedly going to increase in popularity moving forward, but at this point it still feels like a novelty. In my perfect world, albums would be able to generate hype just for the music alone. This is obviously no longer feasible, mostly due to piracy. The album promotion schedule and strategy has changed dramatically because of piracy, as new records often “leak” on the Internet weeks or even months before their scheduled release date. It’s tough to keep excitement for release day going when thousands have already heard the album. Novelty or not, artists/record labels are likely going to have to keep subverting the usual method of record distribution if they wish to sell said records. While the methods of Beyoncé and Lady Gaga are perhaps too costly for most, artists are likely going to have to think about incorporating some elements of both for their future albums. I’d also say that allowing for choice in the release format, like Nine Inch Nails, could help artists reach different kinds of music listeners. While I don’t believe integrated extras are necessarily sustainable for everyone, I like that the trend going forward is that artists are trying. Through this effort we may eventually hit upon a release method that helps transform the industry back into being palatable to the record-buying public again.