Pages

Showing posts with label streaming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label streaming. Show all posts

Monday, April 22, 2024

When the Cream Don't Rise, Is it Time to Kill the Cow?

Popularity, Deezer Deletions and New Weird America Preservation

I recently discovered that Deezer removed the following albums from their platform:

  • Cherchez La Femme
  • Used To Be Good Looking
  • Rest Assured
  • Bluebird Days II
  • Lockdown Leftovers

That's almost half my catalogue.  Entire albums of mine, without warning, for no apparent reason, gone.

You would think that as a French streaming company, they would've at least chosen to keep Cherchez La Femme!  They said au revoir.  I've heard it's really hard to find music on their service and that their software est nul.

They recently changed their logo to a purple heart.  To me, this represents me being wounded by them, my music being killed by them, while serving the music community with my music, my battle for popularity lost, my heart broken.  C'est la vie.  When I went to Paris once, little French children pointed at me, laughed, and made pig snorting noises and "moo" cow noises, presumably due to my appearance.  Oui, I was an overweight, loud American tourist, probably wearing cargo shorts and a baseball hat.

My immediate reaction is to never recommend Deezer to anyone, but I'm about to distribute another album to them.  I guess they might choose to keep it around, like maybe for a year, and if it doesn't get streamed enough, they'll just delete it.

It got me thinking about how a part of my motivation to release my music is that I want it to be around after I'm not anymore.  How to leave a legacy so future generations can discover and enjoy it?  That's the next question.  I'm sure great works of art have been destroyed permanently throughout history, many of them by the French.  Get enough attention in your lifetime, and your painting winds up in the Louvre.  Posthumous attention is rare, and I'll admit it:  my music is not museum-quality.

Who is behind this?  Greedy major record labels.  They lost some power and control after independent online music distribution became possible, and they desperately want it back.  A glass-half-full Scott Cooley would say "at least they still offer Bluebird Days, Missing the Boat, Sense of Belonging, Drive Time Companion, Lakeside Landing, and Moon Dreams."  Maybe I should consider myself lucky that those albums met their threshold of 1000 streams per year, or however they make such decisions, and remain on their precious platform.

Consider this:  You're at a funeral for someone you knew well, a friend or family member, and you hear their spouse say they wrote songs their whole life but never recorded them.  The only person who ever heard them was the spouse.  You liked the person and now wish you and everyone else could've heard those songs.  You wish you could've heard the person perform the songs they'd written, but also, you wish you could continue to listen to them.  Even the spouse who heard them wishes they could continue to hear them.  You'd like to hear what their singing voice was like, what their instrument playing sounded like, what the melodies and lyrics of their songs sounded like.

It's the classic "when a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one there to hear it, did it make a sound?" scenario.  Then you can get into physics and talk about measuring observers and observing measurers, and cats.  Did it happen, did it exist?  Time, space, light, lines, particles, etc.

You're happy to hear that they enjoyed the hobby, of course.  You know that creative pursuits give the creators great joy while creating them.  You would have the same interest if you learned they had some other hobby.  If the now-deceased person painted paintings or took photographs or made pottery or clothes, you'd like to see them.  If they wrote poems or novels, you'd like to read them.  You wish you would've known about this personal, private, secret thing they did.

Then you have to consider that they kept it private because they did it solely for the enjoyment they got out of it, and never needed or wanted anyone else to enjoy it.  Maybe they didn't think it was good enough for anyone else to enjoy.

It's easier than ever to make your creative content publicly available for the world to consume because of the world wide web.  Upload your recorded music, your e-book, your art, your photos, your words, and let the world either buy them or enjoy them for free.  Type up your life story, or record a video of yourself explaining your life story.  It's all inexpensive if not free and easy to do, especially for intangible items that can exist as electronic files.

With physical objects like furniture or sculptures, maybe the surviving spouse or other descendants will enjoy/use them, sell them, or simply give them away.

It's wonderful to have in your possession a creative work of someone you were close to.  A reminder of your memories of the person, it can be comforting and inspiring.

I think those two things are the essence of what I hope for with my music.  That people will be able to get comfort from it and be inspired to be creative in their lives.  If they knew me, it might also have the benefit of reminding them of things I did or said when they spent time with me.

The benefits of music include improving memory and improving mood.  It can help reduce stress too.  I want people to get these benefits from being able to enjoy my music.

If I want my music to be available for people to get these benefits from it, I have options, but unfortunately, they cost a little money.  It seems like streaming is the way people are going to enjoy music well into the future, and that turns out to be the least expensive way to make it available.

Therefore, I distribute to the streaming services.  I want people to be able to tell their Siri/Google/Alexa speaker to play some Scott Cooley and have it work.  So I need to be on Apple Music, YouTube Music, and Amazon Music for that to be possible.

I have a website, but it costs a little money to keep it up and running.  Free places to stream music like Bandcamp or Soundcloud are limited, might not remain free, and might not stay around due to lack of profitability.

There are trends of change with the streaming service providers having way too much music available.  There are cost-cutting efforts being made to reduce how much music is available, and the only thing they have to go on is popularity.  Deezer is one such streaming service, and they recently removed several of my albums, without warning, and presumably because they weren't popular enough.

The question I have is what if the music on those albums suddenly saw a surge of popularity elsewhere, would Deezer reinstate or re-enable them?

My guess is the files are gone forever already.  They removed my albums because they had not been listened to enough within the span of a year or something like that.

Just as with Tain Bo Cuailnge, which in Irish mythology was a story about the "driving-off of the cows of Cooley," the streaming services are putting me out to pasture.

Photo of the statue of Donn Cuailnge by Eric Jones

The bottom line is if your song doesn't get streamed enough - up to some predefined threshold such as 1000 streams per year - then no royalty payments will be issued.  This was a recent Spotify decision, and the other services will likely follow suit.

Now, as is the case with Deezer, if your song doesn't get streamed enough, they remove it.  If items don't sell in a store, they go on sale at least in an attempt to liquidate the inventory.  They call this "decluttering" to be a part of their "artist-centric" model, which means increase the market share for artists whose songs are already popular enough.

The writing is on the wall for independent artists like me who don't do anything to promote, publicize, market, or advertise their music.  Unless we spend more time on those things, our music will be removed.  Gone forever.  Preservation is reserved for the popular.  Maybe this is how things have always been in the grand scheme.  I could warn you that if you want to hear my music well into the future, download it now.  I could make it all free and downloadable from scottcooley.com, but after I'm dead, no one will want to pay the domain fee.

I don't necessarily want my music to be popular, I mainly just want it to be available and discoverable.  I know it's not the type of music that is likely to ever get really popular anyway.  However, if you think of all the musicians and songwriters in the 60s who were inspired by the Harry Smith Anthology of Folk Music, or whatever that was called, and the great music they created as a result, you're glad someone went to the trouble to preserve those songs.  Even though those songs were varied and strange and not likely to ever be popular.

I'm a part of the New Weird America, if you want to call it that.  I guess we have the Internet Archive as a potentially viable option, but Soundcloud is already doing whatever they can to monetize, and I'm sure Bandcamp will too.  In other words, even the once-free places for independent artists to share their music won't remain free.  Purging and decluttering is inevitable for all the streaming platforms.

The cream shall rise to the top, I guess.  I lived during a time when my music could exist publicly and commercially and be findable and playable.  These times, they are a-changin'.

But when the cream doesn't rise, is it time to kill the cow?  Got milk?  There’s this idiom most of us have heard before – at least I think it’s an idiom – that the cream rises to the top.  Unless you’re in the dairy business, you probably don’t fully understand it, but nonetheless you get the gist that the best at something eventually get recognized.  There’s another saying we’ve all heard some version of before that some who are not the cream “don’t know when to quit.”  There’s a lot to be said for not giving up.  We sometimes admire these people, while at the same time feel sorry for them.  Finally, we’ve heard the phrase “quitters never win,” which also has great merit.

Throughout history, there have been great stories of successful people who failed miserably numerous times on their way to success.  Maybe as a songwriter, I’m one of them, but probably not.  More likely, I’m one of the lower forms of dairy in the world of music.  There are people who pronounce the word “milk” as “melk,” and as my sister likes to point out, those who take it a step lower and pronounce a variation of “melk” as “mewk,” both rhyming with the word “elk”.  My music is more like mewk, if you’re comparing it to categories of word mispronunciation.

People generally tend to be pretty good at things they enjoy, and inversely enjoy things they’re pretty good at, but that’s not always the case.  Someone has to lose, someone has to be bad or mediocre, otherwise we couldn’t have the winners and those among the best.  Not everyone can be great.  Some try hard and improve, find a niche, become supporting role players vital to teams.  The world needs the people who are not very good at something, but are passionate about it and do it anyway.

When it comes to songwriting, playing instruments, singing, and making music, I’m one of them, but I’m not in a band, I’m a self-contained solo artist.  I know I’m probably a little better at the songwriting part, but have never had the guts to move to Nashville and pitch my songs to great artists to record.  There’s a ton of competition out there, as most are somewhat aware of, just like there are lots of people writing movie scripts who have not dared to move to Hollywood.

Places like these are full of people with similar unfulfilled dreams.  People who eventually gave up.  People who maybe found a way to stay connected to the thing they were passionate about, perhaps finding work in the business side of the industry instead of the creative side.  People with day jobs who enjoy being immersed in the scene.  Places like Nashville have seen many come and fail and leave, returning to their less exciting home towns with their tails between their legs.

I come from a place where the people who are really in their element and fit in are people who love playing golf and fixing up old cars.  Punk rockers, rappers, and people who like to run in road races too.  The one guy I idolized most from these parts was Mark Farner, not the best songwriter, singer or guitar player in the world, but a guy who was confident and passionate and in the right place at the right time to live the dream of becoming a rock star in the band Grand Funk Railroad, and people around here like me lived vicariously.

The cream rises to the top naturally, separating from the rest of the milk to form a layer at the top.  It’s considered to be higher quality.  It happens in the music business.  Most people agree that Bob Dylan is a good songwriter, that Elvis, Aretha and Robert Plant were good singers, that the Beatles and Led Zeppelin were good bands, that Jimi Hendrix was a good guitar player, etc.

Homogenization artificially applies intense heat and pressure to make the fat mix into the milk so that it doesn’t separate naturally.  Artists signed to major corporate record companies concerned with profit are subjected to homogenization, which makes all of the music the same.  It can’t be stopped or changed.

Skim milk doesn’t come from skimming it off the top, but rather, letting it drain out the bottom.  You would think unsigned independent artists without being subjected to homogenization would be able to rise naturally, but with all the competition out there, most become skim.  They play a vital role in the music business by making others look better by comparison.

You would think in today’s world in which music is streamed online that cream would occur naturally.  There’s always been marketing, and payola, and now the record companies pay for the appearance of popularity via fake streams, likes, follows, etc. because they know it begets actual popularity.

Consumers of music need tastemakers and curators and marketing for discovery.  If it already appears to be popular, they’re more likely to give it a test listen to see if they might like it or not.  There’s just way too much music already in existence to ever try it all out in a lifetime.  The web offers great recommendation engines and artificial intelligence.

AI is actually creating its own fake music now that sounds a lot like real music.  Gone are the days when you went to see a bunch of bands and decided which you like best, but you can still get recommendations from friends and/or strangers who are like-minded music fans.

Talentless average Joes like me can add their music to the vast ocean of what’s available to find and enjoy, and never make back the amount it took for them to distribute it online.  This is maybe more like powdered milk for people who are really hard up to pour something on their bowl of cereal but have run out of real milk.  You have to make it yourself out of desperation, and you have no AI, no money for playlist marketing or fake streams.  You hope for simple, organic, natural rising to the top.  

When no rising occurs over a long period of time, maybe it’s time to kill the cow and cook the meat to get by.  Stop producing milk no one discovers or likes.  You enjoy the process of writing and recording, and that’s why you do it, but you know it’s not anywhere close to what you choose to listen to as a music consumer yourself.  It’s not that you were completely unaware of your limitations like some of the terrible contestants on the TV talent shows, you’ve known all along you’re not great at any aspect, but you like doing it anyway.

Maybe it was better in the days of old when the gatekeepers at those big record companies would never allow the average joe’s music to be heard in the first place.  Affordable home recording equipment, including computers, plus the world wide web changed all that.  

There’s no shortage of music in the world now, nobody’s ever out of milk for their cereal.  Very little barrier to entry now, but is that better for the consumers of music in the world?  Probably not.  It’s likely we’d be better off with more evaporated milk, condensing out the skim music like mine that waters everything down.

Humor is one way to separate yourself from the rest, and it’s a little easier to get recognition with anything that gets attention like controversy, swearing or humor.  There isn’t much room for humorous music though.  And if you’re like me, you never went all-in with it like Tenacious D or Steel Panther or Spinal Tap or Weird Al Yankovic who all turned it into a cash cow.  

People remember my funny songs the most, so maybe that’s my form of natural cream, but it’s not what I want to be remembered for.  I have too many serious songs I’m proud of in my catalog.  The few people out there who’ve bothered to check out any of my music, however, only seem to remember Horseshit and Fudge (Mackinac Island), unfortunately.

Even though I’ve always been cautious to not appear to be someone who thinks they’re better than they really are, I’ve nonetheless had great audacity in releasing my music on the web alongside the greats.  

What was I thinking?  Did I really think anyone would find it and like and recommend it?  Yeah, sort of, I guess a little part of me did, or I wouldn’t have done it.

Now, with a couple decades of trying and failing under my belt, and another album that I think is one of my best on the way, maybe I'll end on a high note before the inevitable slaughter.  Some of my music is still out there, and more is on the way.  Drink it in while you can.


Friday, December 22, 2023

To Scott: You Won’t Get Paid Next Year For Your “Art”. Merry Christmas! (From Spotify)

The Inevitable Return Of Music Gatekeeping And Long-Tail Culling Will Cause My Demise As A Solo Artist


I sometimes read articles about the music industry, since I consider myself somewhat of a musician.  I'm a pretender, I admit it.  As someone who writes and records songs at home, I've been releasing albums for many years now as if I'm a real solo artist.  As a result, I'm always curious to learn about how I could get more people interested in my music, how to increase the chances people will find it online and stream it and enjoy it.  I would like fair compensation for my creative works, like we all would.


Most people are probably aware that in recent years it has become increasingly easy to do what I do.  Inexpensive recording equipment and music distribution services have allowed nearly anyone to get their music on Apple Music, Spotify, Amazon Music, and YouTube Music, right there alongside the likes of popular megastars like The Beatles or Taylor Swift, whether signed to a record label or not.


I am a huge fan of YouTube Music myself, but am glad my music is available on all of the major ones.  If you cared to, you could find information online that would show labels, distributors, publishers, and audio streaming services arguably don't want to have to pay artists.  The labels seem to have lost the most power, and want it back, so naturally want to convince the streaming service providers to make changes that benefit them.  Like politicians, they seem to say one thing and do another.  Make promises they don't intend to keep.  They want to cut costs wherever possible, and if they can devalue the creators along the way, and get away with paying them less, they will.  


The whole music business is full of companies that claim they don't make enough money, and they're constantly laying off employees and trying to find ways to pay artists less, while claiming to want to pay them more.  Somehow, artist-friendly companies like Spotify claim I wasn't going to meet the royalty threshold by the distributor to get paid anyway, so might as well make a policy to give my pennies to the artists with the 1,000+/yr streamed songs.  Doesn't seem very friendly.


Such companies probably don't consider me an artist to begin with.  They might call what I make "noise".  My music might not be "art" depending on who is judging it.  It's probably amateurish and not high-quality to most.  Poor singing voice, sloppy instrument playing, lo-fi production.  Anyway, it was already practically impossible to get noticed, and the powers that be are now making it even harder.  


Not long ago I read there are 100,000 new songs uploaded to those types of services every day.  As a result, the record labels don't make as much money as they used to, and so now they are going to propose increased "gatekeeping" (more control over whose music gets released) and get the aforementioned music streaming platforms to agree to it.


Their pitch will include a focus on improving the music streaming experience for the consumers.  Fewer choices, higher quality music to choose from, more consumer satisfaction.  It's really about getting a bigger slice of the pie for the superstars they've signed, and I doubt they care that there's a moral dilemma in kicking and keeping people like me out.


Gatekeepers at Spotify have already returned, and others are likely to follow suit.  They dominate music streaming.  They’re like the government if you want people to hear your song nowadays.  This isn’t China, where you can’t criticize the government, and it seems they’re wielding a bit too much power while constantly complaining they’re not profitable.  As a solo artist who also claims I’m not profitable, their recent changes aren’t helping.


On Spotify in 2024, if I release a song and it doesn't get streamed 1,000 times in a year, I don't get paid.  Rewarding popularity is fine, but not paying for creative works is not fine.  Everyone wants everything to be free.  Everyone has a cousin who downloaded all the music ever recorded back in the Napster days who will put them on a USB drive for you.  I'd rather pay.  


Music streaming services, like any tech company, can just change their terms whenever they want and you can choose to play by their new rules or not.  Whether it’s an artist’s first release or not, until they achieve a certain amount of popularity, they are basically distributing their songs for free streaming, just like they would on SoundCloud, Bandcamp, or Free Music Archive.  


Tracks must have reached at least 1,000 streams in the previous 12 months in order to generate recorded royalties.  Less than that don't reach artists because they supposedly do not surpass distributor's minimum payout thresholds.  The reason is to increase the payments to tracks that do reach at least 1,000 streams in 12 months and deter artists from gaming the system with more tracks per album and more frequent track and album releases, I guess.


The powers that be in the “professional” music business probably freak out any time a DIY artist does well without them.  The bar to music creation and distribution has been lowered for a long time now, and record company executives are probably having meetings about devising methods to separate the wheat from the chaff, but at the same time discussing their fear of missing out on signing talent that they could have “nurtured”.


Who says I need nurturing by a record company?  With their lemming mentalities of copying whatever the latest successful trends are, their “support” would turn me into a cookie-cutter mainstream artist.  They would preach that I should respond to every social media comment about my music to “engage” with the fanbase.  They’d have me lip-syncing for sure, doing short tik-tok videos and AI remixes of my own songs, or whatever they think is the next new cool thing.


Everyone with a computer – or even just a smartphone nowadays – can create their own beats and tracks and rap profanity over them and then submit them for streaming on Spotify, but that doesn’t mean they are skilled in the craft of songwriting.  The record company “experts” say they are not deserving, legitimate creators because they threaten their slice of the royalty revenue.  They complain about a wasteland of vapid garbage tracks uploaded by novices who do not possess innate talent. 


They probably don’t like a lesser-known DIY artist like me who writes emotional music from the heart not caring how many streams I get or how many playlists I’m on.  I don’t pay any attention to what is popular at all because I don’t care.  I contribute to what they see as over-saturation by hobbyist amateurs and they’re trying to find a way to weed me out and regain their industry gatekeeper status and giant profits.


The funny thing is, today’s record companies seem lazy, never taking chances, and simply waiting for artists to create their own buzz before pouncing.  If they can’t sign up the next viral sensation like that average Joe guy with the beard who wrote a song complaining about the rich men controlling his county in Virginia or wherever, they’re going to criticize him.  Then if they do sign him to a deal, they’re going to ruin his appeal.


I would hereby like to criticize them.  The major labels are the biggest contributors to the deluge of watered-down music in the world.  Ever since the 1970s, music has seemed to go downhill.  The fake drum loops of the BeeGees and polished perfection of ABBA in the disco era led to the use of drum machines and synthesizers and rap in the 80s, on through to today where virtual instruments, quantization and auto-tuned vocals are the norm.


Music tastes are subjective, and advances in music technology have always happened and will never stop.  Generally, it makes music more palatable, but too much of it makes you wish you could transport yourself back in time to enjoy music live and acoustic and real.  Pop music today is drastically different from pop music when I was a kid.  People used to play real instruments and write songs with melodies.  Not as much anymore.


It's easy to complain, easy to say each generation is worse than before, easy to be an old nostalgic person yearning for the way things used to be.  Hits are hits, unless manufactured by marketers manipulating the system.  Payola has always existed, paying for fake streams, appearance of popularity causing more actual popularity.  You like what you like, and that’s okay.  Music was fed to me by radio, and that shaped what young people liked, and shaped my tastes.


For an enthusiast/hobbyist like me, the streaming royalties are nominal anyway.  Although I've sold some physical CDs, there's no demand for them anymore.  Streaming is so convenient.  By now I am possibly what they call a more established "long-tail" artist, having released 11 albums so far, but the more of me there are out there, the less we all get.


As a self-releasing singer/songwriter "niche" artist, mainstream popularity was never going to be in the cards for me, nor was getting signed to a record deal even at an independent label.  Lets face it:  even in the pre-digital music world, the middlemen gatekeepers would not have let me in.  AI curation in the future will limit exposure to artists like me somehow.  They'll make sure I don't get suggested or recommended in those "you may also like..." lists.


Inevitably, the music streaming services will have more quality control in the future, using algorithms to weed out the really bad music, and they'll also probably hire young people to be music screeners.  It is highly likely my music will not suit their taste in music.  They'll probably start charging way more to get your songs on the services as well.  The nominal pennies I would've made next year will go to those who get (or purchase) more streams than me.  Merry Christmas more popular artists, from Scott.


What young 20-something kid Music Screener / Curator / Sounds Like Recommendation Programmer is going to like an artist who primarily strums an acoustic guitar, doesn't have a great singing voice, and is an old white guy with obviously home-recorded music?  I see my future, and as a pretend musician in the first place, I won't survive.  It will be increasingly difficult for people to find my music online, so there will not be any lasting impact at all.


I'm not giving up yet, but I'm realizing the end is near.  The writing is on the wall. The beginning of the powers that be weeding me out, not letting me in the gate.  It was fun for a while to have my music be "out there" and discoverable, and to know that a few people did discover some of it, and a few of them liked some of it, and a few of those looked for more and looked forward to more.  It's a strange industry that has been through significant changes, and at least I can say I was a part of it for a while, on the fringes anyway.


I recently thought I’d check my popularity on Spotify.  For song streams, they say they have (suspiciously) ended support for data leading up to the year 2020.  When I check my “all time” stats, here’s my top ten:


#         Title                             Streams

1. Mackinac Island                25,884

2. The River of No Return             281

3. I Did a Bad Thing                     251

4. Puttin' Up a Pole Barn             125

5. Whatever Floats Your Boat     101

6. Smitten With the Mitten              89

7. Shred Betty                              66

8. Algoma Central Blues              52

9. Cherchez La Femme              51

10. In My El Camino                      43


Looks like unless I become a 2-hit wonder next year, I’ll only get paid for one song, and not the other 140 Scott Cooley songs you can stream on Spotify.  Maybe my “hit” Mackinac Island will continue to bring in a few fractions of pennies for a while, but the writing is on the wall.  Thanks Spotify.  Merry Christmas.  They tell you that you likely won’t get paid at all except for that one song probably, but then they send you a “wrapped” gift link thing to make you feel great about it with a bunch of other meaningless stats that don’t monetarily amount to anything.  Hit play to watch me click through it:




 

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Why I Hope Pono Takes Off and My Unsolicited Advice for Neil Young


Names are more important than you think for products and services to do well.  It’s a big reason why Bandcamp and Soundcloud are cool.  The word wiki is cool, especially when you figure out what they do and that the word means quick in Hawaiian.  Which brings me Pono, another Hawaiian word meaning righteousness or maybe just righteous.  I know as little about the word as the new music service it’s named after.  What I do know is that Neil Young is spearheading a company to make higher-quality music available to everyone.  He showed the device on Letterman – an unusually large and oddly-shaped orange thing that kids won’t think is as cool as their new smartwatch music player for sure.  Kids only know low-quality compressed MP3 and iPods. 

To them, vinyl records are things hip-hop DJs scratch, and otherwise, are uncool, old-fashioned, grandparent things and not even used by their parents who listen to CDs.  Kids these days – there might be pockets of them who have record players and buy something from Jack White, but that’s a really small market.  So Neil’s initial market will be his fanbase which includes me, then he’ll have to hope it catches on with the kids.  If it does a little bit, Sony and Apple and Amazon and Google will follow suit and improve their quality, and then Neil will have another achievement to add to his legacy for kick-starting this long-overdue thing.  This itself is somewhat of a contradiction on a few levels.  Neil isn’t known for perfect and pristine music-making like Pink Floyd or Boston that would really shine in high def.  If you read up on Neil, he gets on kicks.  He supposedly got on a kick about digital being the thing of the future back in the 80s and invested in it, then changed his mind and went back to analog. 

If you are a Neil fan, you like the fact that he does what he wants and gets away with it – there’s just something about the guy that is appealing.  He can sell stuff, no problem, especially if it’s music-related.  He’s sold toy trains and electric cars, or maybe if he hasn’t really sold many, he’s tried to make a difference in the world in his own way that makes sense to him.  Willie Nelson sells bio diesel, or at least his bus runs on it.  These guys try to make a difference, and it’s admirable.  Neil’s got connections, he’s influential, likable.  He changes styles a lot, and you like that.  If you read about him, he’s one of many people in the music business who believe records should be made live in the studio, with few overdubs, real instruments, on all-analog equipment, then converted from some type of tape to high-quality digital. 

Many argue the digital-from scratch recording equipment and software like ProTools produces better-sounding, higher-quality music than Neil’s current older-school approach.  You can google music engineer forums and read all kinds of arguments for and against this approach.  You read about what the human ear can and can’t hear, frequency-wise, and learn about hertz and bits and stuff you don’t care about so much.  We all want the highest quality music we can get, and we are willing to pay extra for it, that’s the bottom line.  We care about quality, and we know MP3s don’t sound as good as our records did under the needle when they were new, even if we had cheap stereo turntables. 

CDs are pretty good quality, but are inconvenient.  We all carry around phones with us everywhere now, so there’s got to be an easy way to get high-quality music on them that’s low-hassle.  Neil needs to make something that can be a part of your phone, not some weird-shaped orange deal that is an extra thing you’ve got to carry around in addition to your phone.  The Googles and Amazons of the world have had trouble getting all the “major” record companies on board to compete with Apple’s iTunes, so that’s obviously a hurdle, as is the streaming digital locker in the cloud concept, which is here to stay.  It’s going to take more bandwidth and space, which costs more, but we’re getting there. 

The technology exists for high quality music, and with cheaper cloud storage and faster internet connections, there’s got to be a way to buy and organize your music collection on a website, and listen to it on your mobile phone, and have it be 24-bit/196hz or 1 bit or DSD or SACD or FLAC or OggVorbis or whatever the higher-quality standard is going to be.  We all agree on this, so Neil needs an app with online store/storage/download/sync//radio/streaming service to get it on people’s phones somehow, not the weird orange thing.  I’ll buy the weird orange thing myself, and put up with the hassle of carrying around an extra gadget in addition to my phone, and other Neil fans will too, but eventually, I’m going to want the whole shebang on my phone. 

Another thing is, iTunes won’t let the non-major independent artist to distribute unless they go through an aggregator.  Totally annoying.  There are tons of us out there who can go direct on Amazon, direct on Google, direct on Bandcamp, but have to go through Tunecore or CDBaby to get on iTunes.  If Neil only goes after the major label artists or the next step down from major, that will suck, just as MP3s suck.  Neil should start by letting in independent artists who are DIY’ers without a record deal with an established record company first.  It should be a slow-building, grassroots thing from the ground up.  His approach we’ve read about so far was to first get the majors on board, just like Google and Spotify did.  That’s backwards thinking, in my opinion, and it would really build momentum if something were in place for independent artists to distribute their high-quality recordings at service launch time, along with the major label artists. 

Of course, Neil is himself a major label artist, and might not fully recognize or appreciate the huge audience of independent artists out there in the world who would love to distribute to Pono directly right away.  Affordable home recording equipment and digital technology has made it possible for millions to get their music out into the world without getting lucky with a major label contract first.  He shouldn’t blow us off. 


So, to sum up my advice for Neil:  1) ditch the orange thing and make it work on everyone’s phones, or better yet - make the orange thing be a smartphone as well, and 2) let in the independent artists for direct DIY distribution at launch time.  It has great potential and I hope it works, if for no other reason than to force the big players in the music service game to up the quality.