Trent Reznor Offers Two Different Mastered Versions of New Album

Nine Inch Nails has been getting a lot of press in recent days now that iTunes is allowing fans to stream the full album before it is officially released, but it's one of the technical details of the release that has me more interested than the actual music.  In response to the infamous "Loudness Wars" (read about it here, if you're unfamiliar), Trent Reznor has elected to make the digital release of his new album available in two different versions.

The first, which will be the version available via iTunes, Amazon, and the other big digital music retailers, is the standard "loud" master that tends to be the standard for mainstream music these days - loud at the expense of dynamics.  The second version, which will be available via NIN.com, will be an "audiophile" master which, while not as loud, preserves the dynamics and represents the music more faithfully.

I applaud Mr. Reznor for this decision and hope other artists will follow.  The only way we're going to dial back from the "turn everything into a brick" mentality, is if larger artists reject it, or at least offer their fans the option to buy a copy with preserved dynamics.

[via Synthtopia]

Great Time-Saving Tool for Touring Musicians

The Internet has opened up all sorts of promotional opportunities for musicians that cost little to nothing when it comes to money.  However, the flip side of this is the cost of time in maintaining multiple social media profiles.  Songkick Tourbox is a free service that has come forward to making part of that a little less time-consuming.  That part is keeping your latest tour dates current and posted on you band's website, your Facebook, YouTube, SoundCloud, Bandcamp, Wordpress blog, Foursquare, Spotify, and more.  Even doing straight up copying and pasting of the dates from site to site can get incredibly tedious.

Before proceeding, I want to make it clear, I have no connection to Songkick at all.  Prior to this evening, I actually had no idea it even existed.  I was updating the live dates on Bandcamp for a band on my label called Espermachine and found the link in the settings there.  So this isn't intended to be a commercial, just a heads up for a tool I think a lot of fellow musicians might find interesting.

Essentially, what Songkick Tourbox allows you to do is post your live dates in one place, and then have that info posted to whatever social media profiles you maintain (and many you don't).  This saves a ton of time and provides good-looking results that will even allow your fans to look for tickets for your upcoming shows.  There's a lot more to it then I've described here, but I'll let you check that out on your own.

An Interesting Way to (Maybe) Monetize Your Music

So, next week, my latest album "Bruise" will be released.  These days, it's an inevitability that, provided you've got a following of some sort, your music will be uploaded to YouTube by fans.  Speaking with my friend Paul the other day, he mentioned that he had uploaded a video related to his interest in motorcycles some time ago and it ended up getting over 200,000 hits.  YouTube contacted him offering the possibility of monetizing his video clip via ads.  He had already made over a hundred bucks this way, simply for allowing some overlay ads.  He suggested this might be something worth looking into for my album, since fans would upload it eventually anyway.  So, I decided to do so and uploaded the entire album to YouTube.  Obviously, I still have to pass the threshold of views to be eligible for monetization, but I think this will  be quite an interesting experiment and a good possible option to raise some beer money for musicians who have a decent following.

What I can tell you so far is that the reaction from my fans has been overwhelmingly positive, and has really boosted my pre-orders.  Whether this experiment results in any revenue from plays remains to be seen, but with the changing landscape of the music industry, professional musicians need to find new options for generating income.

Interesting Article on the Landscape for Musicians in the Digital World

As musicians, we've been told constantly how digital music is better for musicians in the end.  But is this really true?  The Trichordist recently ran this article (from a multi-part series) about just this topic and shows many musicians are still being exploited as before with very little of your dollar actually reaching them.  An interesting, if depressing, read.  What do you think?

[The Trichordist]

When Bands Fall Off Cliffs

The Guardian has a very interesting article about bands that reach the dizzying heights of superstardom only to see sales of their subsequent albums dwindle away to nothing. An interesting perspective on a part of fame we don't often think about.

Addendum: Another Option for Soliciting Album Artwork

Earlier this week I made a post about various options for getting artwork done for your album.  I forgot one great way to do this if you are a somewhat established band with a decent sized fan-base: hold a contest!

Make sure you provide all the templates and technical requirements upfront, and you'll be amazed at how talented some of your fans turn out to be.  You can provide other prizes if you wish, but simply having the winning design grace the catalog of a band they like will probably be enough of a thrill in itself.  As before, make sure you draw up some sort of simple contract laying out how the artwork can be used to prevent potential problems further down the line.

[UPDATE: We also had a reader going by the name of papernoise who said he'd be up for doing some album art for those looking for it... check his stuff out at www.papernoise.net]

[image via kevinbice.com]

Getting Artwork for Your Release

So you've slaved away for months on your latest musical masterpiece and it's been sent off to mastering.  Now would be a tempting time to just kick back and relax, but of course, even if you're doing a simple digital release, you still need to give your album/ep/single a visual identity - the cover art.  If you've never done this before, it can seem a bit daunting, but it really doesn't need to be.  The options are out there and just depend on how personally involved you want to get.

1.  Hire Someone to do it for You
If you've got a bit of a budget to work with, probably the best option is to hire a professional graphic designer to create your artwork for you.    If you're going to pay for it, it is not unreasonable to ask any prospective designers for examples of their work.  Specifically, you probably want to work with someone who has worked on album art before.  Don't settle for less than what is going to make you happy.

Some things to keep in mind:

• What you pay will depend not only on the experience or demand for the graphic designer, but on how extensive what you need is.  If it's a digital-only release, perhaps only a front cover image is needed.  Or if you're doing a full physical release, you might need a tray card, cover image, an multi-page booklet.  How extensive you get is up to you, but keep in mind it will effect the cost of the graphic designer, but also the printing costs.

•  Make sure you and the graphic designer are on the same page and get everything in writing.  It's important that everything be clear ahead of time with regards to who owns the rights to the artwork and how it can be used.  For instance, do you intend to use the cover image on t-shirts, posters, or other merch?  Some graphic designers might want more money for those rights. Have clearly defined deadlines and approval processes in place.   Just be sure both sides are clear on how the artwork will be used and you'll save yourself a lot of potential headaches.

•  Also make sure that the details for approval are clear to both sides.  You should be able to request changes within reason and issue any corrections that need to be done.  You can avoid a lot of problems in this area by having the artist do rough mock-ups of their ideas before moving on to creating the full-fledged final piece, but chances are at least minor revisions will need to be done.

2. Find Someone to Volunteer to Create the Artwork for You
If you're running a bit low on cash, don't despair!  There are tons of graphic design students and recent graduates looking to build up their portfolios who may be willing to do the job for free.  There are lots of really talented people out there who can help you, but there are some important downsides to this approach, too.  The first, and most obvious, is experience.  Students and beginners may be more prone to making rookie mistakes, or simply creating sub-par work.  So it can be a bit of a gamble.  The other is that since the artist is basically doing it out of the kindness of their own hearts, you don't have much leverage when dealing with things like missed deadlines, etc.

3. Do It Yourself
Are you pretty handy with Adobe Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign?  Have some experience in text layout?  Then maybe considering doing it yourself.  You'll have full artistic control, can ensure deadlines are met, and the only artistic temperment you'll have to deal with is your own.  If you've never done this before, let me assure you it is harder than it looks, but not impossible if you have patience and a willingness to learn.  Save yourself heaps of problems by finding out what format, resolution, etc. the manufacturer or digital distributor needs the finished work in.  Many manufacturers even provide templates for CD artwork layouts on their sites.   Not much of an artist?  No problem.  Services like iStockphoto offer millions of images of every description that could be the basis for a slick-looking album cover.  If you want to get up to speed on learning some of the popular graphics design programs such as those from Adobe, I recommend checking out the Classroom in a Book series.

Beyonce Accused of Infringing Copyright for Uploading Own Video

Boingboing has a story on the latest of many cases of a record label taking down You Tube videos by its own artists.  This time, it was Sony who removed music videos Beyoncé had uploaded to her YouTube channel.

I don't know what more to say about this that I haven't already.  This is pure and utter idiocy on the part of record labels.  It like they want to fail.

The Day I Infringed My Own Copyright

What you see in the window above depends on what country you're in. If you're in Europe, you probably see the standard YouTube player containing an introduction to the video tour diary I will be doing with my band on our upcoming U.S. tour. If, however, you live in the United States or Australia, you probably see an error message saying that the video can't be viewed in your current territory because of a copyright infringement claim from the Warner Music Group. So what gives? Did I use a copyrighted piece of music by another artist without permission? Nope. I used one of my own songs. I'll let that sink in for a second.

The intro of the video is just me explaining some of the ways we'll be posting on various social media sites during the tour to help fans keep on top of what's going on. The final bit is a montage of footage shot on our recent European tour set to a track off my last album. Why it got pulled is still not entirely clear to me. Warner did indeed act as a distributor to Metropolis Records, the label I am currently signed to for the U.S., but that relationship ended at the end of last year. Even so, Warner was merely the distributor, not the actual copyright holder.

I understand a company wanting to protect its intellectual property. But this is an example of one of the dozens of completely tone-deaf actions the record industry has taken in an attempt to combat piracy that actually ends up hurting the same artists they claim to want to protect. The music industry is more competitive than ever. I thought doing an 'almost real time' tour diary of our U.S. tour would be a great promotional tool and something fans would find interesting too. But now I'm being held hostage by a company I have absolutely no business relationship with whatsoever. And what's the sense of blocking music on YouTube anyway? Does Warner think people are pirating music on YouTube? Yes, there are unofficial postings of songs and fan videos but these are FREE PROMOTION. No one is going to take files with YouTube's terrible audio quality and think it's an acceptable replacement for the real thing. Fans aside, the idea that an artist can't post their own damn song in an attempt to promote themselves (and thus garner more sales for the label) is so ass-backwards it defies comprehension. This is why you're losing the battle, Record Labels. Oh, and if you want to watch the video in the U.S., Australia, or other countries where the video is blocked, I've uploaded it to MySpace Video where you can watch it hassle free.

UPDATE: Well, I don't know if this is a case of the squeaky wheel getting the grease or what, but it appears the YouTube video works in the U.S again. Guess I'll have to be more cautious about using my own music in the future. *snork*

What Am I Allowed to Sample?

One question that I see endlessly debated on various forums online is what exactly the law is in regards to sampling from movies, television, or other bands' music.  The truth is, there are really two answers to this... the legal answer (boo! hiss!) and the practical answer.

Legally, the dialogue, sound effects, and soundtrack of a television show or movie or the music on a CD is copyrighted whether it's released by a major studio or by your neighbor's kid.  Technically speaking, any creative work is copyrighted by its creator the moment it comes into being.  How long this copyright lasts depends on the laws in your country, but at some point, a works copyright expires and the work enters what is called "public domain".  Public domain simply means that the copyright is no longer controlled by anyone and the work may be freely used by anyone for any purpose they choose.  Note that most copyrights last for long enough that there are relatively few recordings around, especially in TV and film that are considered in the public domain.

Copyright can be complex, too.  You could make a recording of any of Beethoven's works and not have to seek permission because all of Beethoven and his contemporaries works have long been in the public domain.  However, if you took a sample from someone else's recording of the Beethoven piece, you'd need permission because the RECORDING of that performance is copyrighted even if the piece itself is in the public domain.

So from the sound of this, it kind of seems like you're screwed if you want to use something you sampled from someone else's work.  But let's look at this issue practically.  While using a sample like this without permission from the copyright holder is technically against the law, the odds of this becoming an issue for you are pretty miniscule.  Generally speaking, a copyright holder is only going to sue you if they can hope to recover more than the legal costs they'd incur by suing you.  So if you're just a hobbiest, or even a professional who sells less than 150,000 or so records, you can probably sample as you please.  If you're in a position where you are a well-known artist or you think the song is going to be a blow-up hit (and let's be honest, it probably won't be, statistically speaking), then it's time to consider clearing the sample with the copyright holder or simply replacing the sample.

Listen, I'm not one to advocate anyone doing something illegal, but this is one of those cases where, unless you end up making a lot of money from a track using a sample of someone else's work, you can stop stressing and sample without fear of being taken to court.  But be responsible about it.  Don't sample giant sections of another band's songs and call it your own work (cough*daftpunk*cough).  Be creative.  Make the sample the seed for something new and different.  Recontextualize and reconceptualize.  But most importantly, stop worrying.  

The Return of the EP?

MP3's and digital music in general have changed the landscape of the music business more thoroughly than perhaps any other technological development.  Sure, the formats music has been sold in have changed numerous times throughout the years, but never has the change in format resulted in such a dramatic shift in the way people listen to and buy music.

The ability of consumers to purchase music on a per-track basis has in some ways made concepts such as 'singles', 'EPs', and 'albums' a bit antiquated.  So how will this effect the way musicians release their music?  The Denver Post has an interesting article on this very topic.  They're predicting that as people buy more individual tracks and less full-length albums, the incentive for artists to release music in the traditional album format will evaporate and we may see the shorter EP become the standard format for many artists.

I'm a bit conflicted about this, if, indeed, it comes to pass.  On the one hand, more frequent releases from artists certainly helps on a promotional level, as there is always going to be press around the artist.  Perhaps it may encourage artists to experiment and take risks more often if they know their next release is only 3-4 months away, making it easier to do a bit of 'corrective steering' if they lose the audience. 

On the other hand, I feel like music in general would be worse off without the album as a format.  Sure, shorter, more frequent releases might benefit the consumer, but does it benefit the art?  There are countless albums that I can't imagine NOT listening to from start to finish.    These aren't merely a random collection of songs, they are artfully arranged so as to be more than just the sum of their parts.  A great album is its own universe that you can escape to for an hour or so.  The impact of a song can be amplified depending on what precedes it or follows it.  Indeed, just as songs are structured to have emotional and energetic peaks and valleys, a great album shares a similar structure that can't be experienced in bite sized morsels.

But times change, and you either adapt or die.  The fact is, people are buying their music differently than fans in the past have, and that can't help but alter the way it is sold.  It'd be nice to see more artists working to make the album more appealing to consumers by making as much effort as possible to ensure every song is a good one, but we may have already passed the tipping point.  The truth is, no one truly knows where all of this is going to end up.  It's exciting and terrifying all at the same time.  But we as musicians need to keep open minds and listen to what the fans want.  It might be at odds with what we personally believe, but if we approach changes like this as challenges to be conquered, instead of trying to convince consumers that they're "wrong", we might find out this business can be salvaged after all.

What do you think?  How do you buy your music these days?  If you make your own music, would you be open to releasing multiple EPs instead of full length albums or is the album format too important to just let it die?

Dumbest Company in the World Tries Even Dumber Defense to Their Still Dumber Plot to Rip Off the Beatles

Via http://www.3news.co.nz:

Are you ready for your Monday morning cup of WTF? This boggles the mind. A digital music retailer called Bluebeat.com tried selling the Beatles catalog on their site for 25¢ a song. The only problem? The Beatles haven't licensed any of their music for digital sale yet. Now let's forget for a second that this company chose perhaps the most conspicuous artists they could have to try and rip off. Let's forget too how notoriously litigious EMI has been in protecting that band's songs. Hell, let's even forget that they tried to digitally sell an artist that pretty much everyone and their mother knows hasn't released anything digitally yet. No, those insane details aren't even the dumbest part of the story.

Displaying a set of balls the size of watermelons, Bluebeat claims they are within their rights because what they are selling are not, in fact, the actual Beatles tracks, but are instead exact recreations of the tracks created through 'pyscho-acoustic simulation'. Sure. That ought to hold up in court.

Great Article on the Loudness War

There's a really good article on the Loudness War on ProRec and how the author believes it will eventually end. Not sure I agree with his conclusions, but the "cola wars" analogy he uses to describe your initial reaction to how music sounds versus how you feel after extended listening is really spot on.

Guns n' Roses Sued by... Ulrich Schnauss?

NewYorkMag.com is reporting that Guns n' Roses are being sued for allegedly using unauthorized samples from the songs "A Strangely Isolated Place" and "Wherever You Are" by German ambient musician Ulrich Schnauss. The track in question, "Riad n' the Bedouins" appeared on GnR's recent commercial flop "Chinese Democracy". I personally wouldn't believe that Axl Rose was hip enough to know who Ulrich Schnauss even was, but the article has samples of all three pieces of music and it's pretty much clear as day. Oops.

Well, THIS is Encouraging...

As I've mentioned before, I'm just about to release my 6th proper album in a couple weeks. I've been releasing albums for ten years now, as well as operating a small label, so the fact that the music industry is struggling is no surprise to me. However, this excerpt from an article from the Chicago Tribune shocked me a little...

"We''ll have plenty more in upcoming days, but as a backdrop for the summit, here are a few tidbits of information shared by publicist Ariel Hyatt about U.S. album sales in 2008: More than 115,000 albums were released, but only 110 sold more than 250,000 copies, a mere 1,500 topped 10,000 sales, and fewer than 6,000 cracked the 1,000 barrier..."

Will Consumers Drink Up Apple's Cocktail?

Apple is joining forces with the 4 major label groups on a new project codenamed "Cocktail". The idea behind Cocktail is to add features like full album art/booklets and liner notes that have been largely lost in digital music sales. They've been fairly vague about the details, but have hinted that there is more to it than just this. One would assume that if the model worked for the major labels, it could eventually reach out to indie labels and musicians.

I know I personally really miss the experience of listening to an album while I'm looking at the artwork, reading the lyrics and liner notes, but I also know I'm older than the demographic music retailers are generally most concerned with. Most younger music fans I talk to don't seem to care about these things so much. Do you think something like this would make people more likely to buy music? Does it appeal to you at all?

New Service Helps Simplify Updating Artist Web Sites

It's a fact of life for musicians today that you need to have as wide-reaching a web presence as possible if you want to succeed. The great thing is, there is no shortage of great social networking sites that allow you to promote yourself easily and for absolutely free. The downside, however, is that as the list of sites you promote yourself on grows, the more time is required to keep them current and updated. And the more time you're spending on that, the less time you have to, oh, I don't know MAKE MUSIC.

That's the problem a new site called ArtistData aims to solve. I should be upfront and let you know that I have not personally tried this site out yet, so I can't vouch for how effectively it does its job, but I do intend to give it a try once I get my new album completed, as I want to get my music up on a wider range of social networking sites than I presently do. So here's what ArtistData has to say:

"OUR CORE BELIEF:
Musicians should only enter data once.

ArtistData tirelessly works to give musicians more time to be creative. We're building solutions to automate the monotonous updating of artist websites, social network profiles, concert databases, Twitter, official news feeds, iCal, local press, fan newsletters, and even tour books. When an artist updates our site, we update all their sites. Our current users save hundreds of hours, giving them more time to do what they love: create music."

Cheap Trick Release New Album on 8-Track

Although I suspect most readers of this blog weren't around when 8-track cassette was a common format, I thought you all might get a kick out of this. According to Boingboing, rockers Cheap Trick have given a tip of the hat to the decade that spawned them by making their new album, The Latest, available on the long-obsolete 8-track format.

It's easy to kind of snicker at this, but I bet they do pretty well with them. Hardcore music fans love different formats, and Cheap Trick has a big enough fan base even now that will probably love the sly in-joke. I think this sort of thing represents one of the possible futures for the music industry - not 8-track, smart-ass, but doing smaller runs of specialized releases that cost more than the standard release for the die-hard fans. Making more from less, so to speak.

Up next, the complete works of Frank Sinatra on 78 RPM wax cylinder.

Steve Albini Student Lecture

Whether you're a fan of his music or production style or not, Albini has been at it for a long time and has a lot of valuable and often unconventional info to share. This is a 90-minute student lecture Albini gave last winter in NYC.

UPDATE: This apparently is an older lecture that was given in Tennessee, not NYC. Still a valuable view.

Enjoy.

Now This is Genius...

A story on techdirt says that Gnarls Barkley member Dangermouse's troubles with EMI haven't ended and he is taking a rather unusual approach to fighting back. Dangermouse famously battled with EMI over his solo "Grey Album" which mashed-up elements from the Beatles' "White Album" and Jay-z's "Black Album".

Now the label won't allow him to realease his new album "Dark Night of the Soul". So, since we live in the age of internet leaks, Dangermouse will be selling blank CD-Rs with extensive artwork and encouraging his fans to go find it online,and download and burn their own copies.

I gotta say, it's a ballsy move, but if it works, it's a strong win for musicians not being bullied by their record companies.