1 Million Cups: Live Music Tutor

The 1 Million Cups video presentation that I chose to write about is Live Music Tutor, which can be found here. The company itself is an online music tutor interface that acts as a sort of hub for tutors and students alike. The service is free, although students do have to pay for lessons/classes. The main draw is that it has superior quality to other platforms in terms of its audio/video feeds and allows for potential students to take classes at their leisure. It contains a social media component that brings everybody together, so that one can find tutors that specialize in a certain instrument or genre and read their profile to determine if it would be a good fit. One can also apply to be a tutor, with the application going through a background check and other processes to determine eligibility.

The presentation was mostly done well, although there were a few facets that could be improved upon. The video that was played before the speaker came on was effective and professionally done, and while it didn’t get into any specifics in a monetary sense, it laid the groundwork for the presentation. The presenter did mostly fine in terms of his manner of speaking. It’s clear he’s not a charismatic public speaker, and despite an over-reliance of “ums”, he managed to get his points across clearly. My main problem is that they didn’t reveal the exact prices – or at least a range – of how much a normal tutor would cost, which makes me think that it could be expensive. I feel like they needed a more in-depth breakdown of their revenue streams, and in terms of the “celebrity” lessons that they touted, a brief list of which celebrities they featured or will feature would have been nice. Still, I like the idea of Live Music Tutor, as I feel it has the potential to be something more with a little refinement. One of the audience members who asked a question alluded to something like this, but I think that if they staged some events, such as an online “concert” performed by students who have successfully used the program, they would have strong marketing tools to use and show people how effective Live Music Tutor can be. Also, the potential of the technology that they utilize, supposedly superior to Skype and similar platforms, could allow for the company to either expand into other avenues or sell the technology itself, which might be an effective swaying point to entice investors. Overall, I was impressed with the ideas and ambitions of Live Music Tutor, and I’m interested to see how well they fare in the future.

Negotiation Tactics in Entertainment Business

This video, which focuses on the skills needed to successfully negotiate in job searches/interviews, gave me lots of great tips on something that I will need to apply to my own life once I graduate from Full Sail, and possibly even before that date. The video focuses on four different areas. The first is to “negotiate for a seat at the table,” meaning that you first need to schedule the interview before anything can happen. In the video, they emphasize being creative in presenting yourself, and also to position yourself in a way that gives you a higher value. The second area is to “negotiate for yourself,” which means that you need to set aside any previous frustrations with respect to your job search and convince (or negotiate) with yourself so that you feel that you are worthy and walk in to an interview with your head held high. The third is personal differentiation. They emphasize challenging the interviewer in some way, either by suggestion things to them about the company or work that you can perform, and by asking questions. The fourth is negotiating your job package, particularly salary. This is very tricky, as the person who mentions a number first usually “loses” in that the next person can react to that number. If you say a number that’s lower than the interviewer was willing to give you, he/she will probably settle on the lower number. They stress that you need to put yourself in the best possible position. Research the job beforehand and don’t undersell your abilities.

Another video I watched nicely detailed plenty of general negotiation skills that I will need to apply to my own career, and even in day-to-day exchanges. Emphasis is put on the belief that “everything is negotiable,” meaning that you can always ask your way to success by continually trying to reach the best deal for yourself. For instance, if you are buying a car, it is important to try to get the sellers to lower the price. Often, most people are willing to do so. The video also ties in with understanding underlying interests by telling the viewer to focus on “what you really want”. An interesting tactic was that of “bracketing,” where you ask for double (or at least some amount more) of what you actually want. The point is that the other negotiating side will often attempt to dwindle that down, often reaching the number that you were trying to obtain the entire time.

I also viewed a podcast that detailed how to come across well to those you are negotiating with. The podcast stressed likeability, such as calling the other side “counterparty” instead of “opponent”, as few negotiators respond well to bullying or excessive pressure. Something I thought was interesting was the idea that you should mimic the other person’s body language to better relate to them and give yourself a better chance of working toward a good result. Instead of focusing on what you want, focus on what the other side wants and how you can give it to them, often by presenting options. If you can focus on doing this and let the other side know that you are doing all you could to provide for their wants, they are likely to do the same for you.

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.