The Press

Image via CrunchBase

Did you read Frank Rich's column in the "New York Times" today?

Entitled "Obama, Lehman and the 'Dragon Tattoo', it's an indictment of the Wall Street robber barons via Stieg Larsson's best-selling book.

http://www.nytimes.com//2010/03/21/opinion/21rich.html

Here's the key passage:

"'A bank director who blows millions on foolhardy speculations should not keep his job,' writes Larsson in one typical passage. 'A managing director who plays shell company games should do time.' Larsson is no less lacerating about influential journalists who treat 'mediocre financial whelps like rock stars' and who docilely 'regurgitate the statements issued by C.E.O.'s and stock-market speculators.' He pleads for some 'tough reporter' to 'identify and expose as traitors' the financial players who have 'systematically and perhaps deliberately' damaged their country's economy 'to satisfy the profit interests of their clients.'"

Where are those tough reporters? Lapping up the spin of Timothy Geithner's public relations team?

"Geithner's major calling lately has been a public-relations tour, with full-dress profiles in The New Yorker, The Atlantic and even Vogue, which filled us in on his humble 'off-the-rack' Brooks Brothers suits. Last week he also contributed a video testimonial to the on-air fifth anniversary celebration of Jim Cramer's 'Mad Money.' Like the heedless casino culture it exemplified, that CNBC program has long been back to speculative business-as-usual, pumping stocks as if the crash were just a small, inconvenient bump on the road to larger profits and bonuses."

Then I turn to the Style section of the "Times" and find Patti Smith on its cover, in a dress.

Who gives a shit about Patti Smith?

The "New York Times", that's who. A bunch of self-congratulatory tastemakers who have paraded the work of this third rate artist ad infinitum for decades, even more so now, even though she hasn't done a worthwhile thing since the seventies.

I bought all the albums, save me the hate mail.

The point is, the papers are skewed.

I know, I know, it's complicated. I'm quoting Frank Rich at the same time I'm decrying the paper's efforts... But my point is, we've been dictated to by the mainstream press for years, have you ever questioned whether their viewpoint is accurate?

Take the Michael Jackson Sony deal...

I received the following e-mail from a powerful music business attorney:

"Have you seen that crap about the Michael Jackson deal? It's everything you talk about in lazy mainstream media reporting.

I've had 2 reporters call me and they seem to have no skepticism at all. I mean, I know it's more than a record deal, but if it's primarily based around records, they'd have to sell more than 50 million to come out of the deal--that will only happen in this market if Michael dies again.

Then in every report, you read about how Sony sold 31 million MJ records last year, 'almost 2/3 of them overseas.' So you check US Soundscan (which a few reporters actually did), and it's 8.3 million units (according to those reports). Multiply that by 3 and you get 31 million? Not in my math class. These guys are so lazy they can't even multiply.

Like I keep telling the reporters, every deal I've ever done that I've read about is wrong, so why should this one be right? Besides, I've inherited deals that Branca did and were reported at about 3 times what they turned out to be when I finally saw the contracts."

Whew!

The Internet is just a constant warning that the old players want to keep their cash cows, want no questions asked, believe they're entitled to their money.

One can argue that Stieg Larsson wasn't first, but a public that rebelled against a major label system that overcharged them for nine tracks they didn't want in order to get the one they did.

People are just as pissed about Wall Street. Unfortunately, it's a bit tough for many to comprehend. But maybe reform isn't as distant as the mainstream believes, as long as bloggers and those in the know online keep hammering away, revealing the truth.

More Spoiler-Alert

Image via Wikipedia

At the end of the first season of "The Osbournes", Kelly and Jack are riding in the back seat when they drive by McDonald's and Jack suddenly implores Kelly to look, the McRib is back! When his sister is unimpressed, Jack ends up telling Kelly it's the little things in life, like Bode Miller winning the gold medal in the Super-Combined.

In today's "New York Times", there's a compendium of stories about people who've lost their jobs during the recession, who've faced financial difficulty and have had to make dramatic turns to survive, if that. There's also a piece by Thomas Friedman about a town that charges $300 for a 911 call. Nothing's free anymore. We live in a world of diminished expectations. We're being nickel and dimed to death, just start filling the parking meter to get up to speed.

Then there are the trivialities. The product that suddenly breaks with no warning, that is necessary to your everyday life. The traffic jam that makes you late for an appointment. But it's the little things that ultimately put a smile on your face, that keep you going.

Because nothing is big enough to last. No gold medal, no sexual encounter, no momentary event can keep you going forever, in order to remain optimistic you must experience a steady stream of uppers, that may not make you stand up and say hell yeah, but will certainly put a smile on your face.

That's the human condition. In the face of adversity, you focus on the good things. You hop from one good thing to another, like crossing a river by jumping from stone to stone.

I've been following Bode Miller since the last century. When he started producing good results on K2, which hadn't made a decent racing ski since the 80's. Bode switched to Rossignol and won two medals in Salt Lake, unexpected by anybody but the devoted. Hell, I'll always remember him putting his ass to the snow and STILL winning. Because victory isn't always pretty. Only in Hollywood do people believe that perfection is the way to riches. It's our imperfections that make us lovable.

But Bode was pretty perfect in a sport that denies this. He won races in all five events, the World Cup, even skied an entire run at the World Championships on one ski after losing the other. He was not a machine, but a human being. Who could laugh. Something that's been absent from the U.S. Ski Team since the days of Bob Beattie, who believed only by overconditioning could his charges triumph.

Jimmy Heuga and Billy Kidd succeeded, but we never had a dominant racer until Bode. Someone the Europeans feared in every discipline.

But the Ski Team was like America. Conformity comes before success. And Bode didn't conform.

Eventually they parted ways, and Bode went on to further triumph, winning the World Cup again after the disaster in Torino.

There's no use revisiting it. We can comb through historical details, but all I can say is in Turin America was suddenly paying attention, and Bode didn't deliver. And America is all about winners.

But today Bode Miller delivered.

He came from behind, three quarters of a second out.

As Bode's aged, he's become a speed skier, he needed to win the downhill portion of the Super-Combined to stay competitive. I couldn't follow on the Web. Although he triumphed in the tight-turning slalom earlier in his career, Bode was now famous for not even finishing. He'd have to push and he'd probably ski out.

But that's not what happened. Bode pushed and won! He put it all on the line and blew them all away! I turned on my computer and there he was, smiling in triumph.

And I let out a yell, I smiled, a day fraught with problems became sunny and bright, despite the rain pouring down.

Bode never let me down.

But now he proved to everybody else that he was a winner. That you didn't have to be the smiling idiot of Jackson Browne's "Pretender" in order to succeed, going for the gold to placate everybody but yourself.

Ski racing is a very individual sport. But Bode's triumph today was not singular. It was for all of us. It showed us you can come back from adversity, not by denying yourself, by apologizing, by admitting your mistakes, but by doubling down, staying in the game and showing everybody what you've got.

Don't operate with one hand behind your back. Put it all out there. Let your freak flag fly. We want you. Rough edges and all.

The Grammy's

Image via Wikipedia

There was an interesting piece in the "New York Times" asking whether it was more important to win a Grammy or appear on the telecast. In other words, do you remember who won Album of the Year or do you remember Pink flying high in the sky? (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/arts/music/29grammys.html)

For those expressing displeasure with the Grammy telecast, I remind you that we no longer live in a monoculture. It was a very brief period, two decades at most, when mainstream and alternative merged, when MTV dictated the hits and radio fell in line behind. But now, you get to choose what you want to listen to from a plethora of choices. So if you tune in a telecast like this you're dumbfounded. Who are these people? Does anybody really care?

Beyonce prancing. Black Eyed Peas marching. Eminem and two guys you've never heard of ranting. Is this music? What kind of hole have we fallen down?

Relax. To say the Grammys are a reflection of music today is akin to saying what airs on NBC defines America. It doesn't. People have more passion for niche channels like Discovery than those trying to appeal to everybody networks.

But there's a limited channel universe. And the networks bought up the niche channels. What's going on in the music business?

Chaos.

What's ironic is that NARAS was the ultimate niche operation. What I mean by this was there was a category for every genre, it delved deep into music some were passionate about, but few cared about, which is exactly what's happening today. But the TV show is the opposite of this. With fewer awards given and only the most mainstream acts featured. Now is the time for NARAS to flourish. But beholden to the old major label structure that is crumbling, NARAS is teetering too. Overspending while membership is declining. Isn't this like trying to get people to buy albums on CD when you can cherry-pick the desirable singles on Napster?

But leading would require vision. And NARAS has none.

But who gives a shit about NARAS anyway.

I'll say that I was impressed with the Michael Jackson tribute. No, not his kids, who certainly aren't his biologically, and acquitted themselves quite well, but the performances... Everybody could sing! Could almost make you a Celine Dion fan. Especially after experiencing Taylor Swift.

How awful was she?

Dreadful.

"Fearless" deserved to win Album of the Year. I was glad it did. Scuttlebutt was it was DMB's year, but to say "GrooGrux" is good is to be a tie-dyed hippie hanging out in the parking lot before a show that features great playing but mediocre material. "GrooGrux" sold to a small coterie, most people don't care. But Taylor Swift is as mainstream as you can get. Triumphing in two formats. Speaking her truth to her audience. I love "Fearless". You can play it from start to finish, again and again, it's honest. But last night's performance...

Do you remember Billy Squier's pink video? Which killed his career overnight? Take a peek: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR0j7sModCI What was a hard rocker doing prancing around in a pink tank top? What was a neophyte artist doing sharing a stage with a legend who made it before auto-tune, before studio tricks could make anybody a singer?

I don't need to analyze the performance. (Hell, what I don't get is how Taylor rearranged her own hit song.) But what I am interested in is the impact. Because now, everybody knows that Taylor Swift can't sing. Is this what they'll remember?

Now unlike Billy Squier's pink video, there won't be endless repetition on MTV. And one can question how much of the target audience saw this performance. But the cognoscenti did, and to what degree do they now want to distance themselves from Ms. Swift?

In other words, did Taylor Swift kill her career overnight?

I'll argue she did. Oh, I'm not fully convinced of that, but let's start from this position.

She'll be even further hated in Nashville (and what kind of fucked up world do we live in where the CMAs are better than the Grammys?) I'd love to say whored out Top Forty radio stations will ignore her, but this is doubtful, still...

In one fell swoop, Taylor Swift consigned herself to the dustbin of teen phenoms. Who we expect to burn brightly and then fade away. From New Kids On The Block to Backstreet Boys to Miley Cyrus. A wall is created, stating you can't come any further. Debbie Gibson can appear in shows on Broadway, but she can't have a hit record, the powers-that-be won't let it happen.

Taylor's too young and dumb to understand the mistake she made. And those surrounding her are addicted to cash and are afraid to tell her no. But last night Taylor Swift SHOULD have auto-tuned. To save her career.

They say it's easy to fake it in the twenty first century.

But one thing we know is the truth will always come out.

It's hard to be a singer if you can't sing.

Ultimately, we want our stars to be genuine. Without this credibility, your time atop the charts is brief.

Taylor Swift shortened her career last night. And since she says she calls all her own shots, she has to shoulder the blame. Yes, her dream came true, she made it, she's a star, but the real test is longevity. Elton John can play with GaGa decades later. Will Taylor Swift be duetting with the stars of the 2030s? Doubtful.

Innovative Marketing

Image via Wikipedia

What's most fascinating about the late night wars is how few people are actually watching. Once upon a time, there were three networks, an appearance on Johnny Carson could break your career wide open. Today, five percent of America watches NBC during prime time. Back in the '52-53 season, it was thirty percent. Something's changed. But the reporting hasn't.

Yes, I got these statistics from the "New York Times". But mostly the article on NBC/Conan/Leno was a rehash. It was as if you'd never paid attention to the story previously, as if you'd never read TMZ, had no Web connection. Trying to get the story right ended up making it so bland that only the most dedicated would ever read the article. But in the past, we read, because that's all we had. The Sunday "Times" plunked down on our doorstep, there was no Web.

But what made me fire up my computer was Stephen Elliott's essay "The D.I.Y. Book Tour" on the inside back page of the "Book Review".

Ever wander into a bookstore during a reading? The room can be packed with bodies, but oftentimes there's no one there but the author and the proprietor. But this is how you sell books. By going to where the people buy them.

"The Adderall Diaries" is Mr. Elliott's seventh book. It got good reviews. But the concept of going out on the usual suspect book tour depressed him, he "didn’t want to travel thousands of miles to read to 10 people, sell four books, then spend the night in a cheap hotel room before flying home. And my publisher didn’t have the money for that many hotel rooms anyway."

Sound like the music business? You can't even get a deal with a major label, and if you do, they take a plethora of rights and are reluctant to spend cash. And if they do open their wallet, it's to put you on TV, to meet radio programmers, who are inundated with talent and rarely care about you. They're worried about their own jobs, not yours. There's an unending supply of wannabe acts. If you don't make it, so be it.

Mr. Elliott decided to try something different:

"Before my book came out, I had set up a lending library allowing anyone to receive a free review copy on the condition they forward it within a week to the next reader, at their own expense. (Now that a majority of reviews are appearing on blogs and in Facebook notes, everyone is a reviewer.) I asked if people wanted to hold an event in their homes. They had to promise 20 attendees. I would sleep on their couch. My publisher would pay for some of the airfare, and I would fund the rest by selling the books myself."

Few people want a free book. What I'm saying is, only those people who truly wanted the free book would ask for it. Try this experiment... Stand on a street corner and try to give away your unknown CD. It's a difficult proposition, almost no one will take it. And those that do are probably afraid to deny you and will never listen to it anyway.

The readings that resulted were far different from in-store experiences. Some attendees were completely out of the loop when it came to famous authors. But the attendees couldn't get enough.

"The readings mostly went very long, over an hour with questions, and people didn’t leave. We were often up discussing until 1 in the morning."

The audience was rapt with attention, involved.

"All together, I sold about 1,100 books (not counting copies of my older books, which I was also selling) at 73 events. Seven hundred of those were books I purchased wholesale, a few hundred more were sold by local booksellers invited to the readings."

That's a lot of books. And you can bet those who read Mr. Elliott's book will continue to follow his career. After all, he came to their friend's house, they met him! It would be like seeing a new band in your buddy's living room.

But new bands would rather get radio airplay, or appear on TV. Both of which are difficult to achieve, are highly impersonal and rarely pay lasting dividends. But those are the established ways of breaking. But it's even worse, just like network TV, fewer people are paying attention.

You might feel good getting your album reviewed in the paper, even the "New York Times". But does your audience really learn about music from a traditional media outlet, where you can't even hear it?

Lost in the outcry about the death of traditional media is the fact that the audience has scattered, fewer people are paying attention, it's harder than ever to truly reach your potential audience, get them to check you out and close them. And it's actually converting people that counts. Radio statistics mean nothing in the abstract, nor do media clippings. It comes down to whether you have fans. But how do you get those fans to begin with?

Large music institutions are no different from NBC or the "New York Times". They keep tightening their belts and complaining that things are not the way they used to be. They're never going back to the way they used to be. We're never going to be limited to three networks again. If you want to succeed in the future you've got to throw the old rule book out, you've got to go directly to the people.

But this isn't sexy. You want to tell your mother your record was spun on KDRECK in Albuquerque, you don't want to tell her you played for thirty people in a living room. But the latter will probably pay more dividends.

But it's not as simple as finding a small place to play. You've got to tailor your act to your audience. Beat-driven extravaganzas don't work in living rooms. Nor does heavy metal cacophony. Acoustic music, with stories, featuring songs that work without production connect one on one.

Sure, people love to dance. They even love to head bang. But the audience for dance music loves the record more than the act, which sucks if you're the act. As for metal music... You just need a bigger place to play. Or one that befits your music. A large garage, with a keg of beer.

But whatever you do, your music must be inviting to the audience. Don't tell people that you've got it right, that they're wrong and they need to acknowledge your greatness. You've got to be so good, so in the pocket that people will call their friends to stop by, as opposed to making excuses and leaving themselves.

You've got to think for yourself. You've got to know most people over thirty five telling you how to make it have no idea what's really going on. You've got to know that you've got to start extremely small, and that growth to ubiquity might never occur. But if you're good, if people like you, your audience will expand, you'll make more money, you'll be satisfied, you will have built it yourself, reliant on no fat cat, fearful of no one pulling the plug.

"The D.I.Y. Book Tour": http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/books/review/Elliott-t.html

"NBC's Slide to Troubled Nightly Punch Line": http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/business/media/17nbc.html

"More Than A Rough Patch": http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/01/17/business/17nbc_g.html

Too Much Joy !!!

Image via CrunchBase

I was forwarded this link earlier today, and I believe you may find it interesting how Warners handles digital royalties on bands no longer on their roster.

http://www.toomuchjoy.com/?p=1397

_____________________________________

I didn't read this e-mail until 8 PM.

And I immediately tweeted about it.

There are two kinds of people. Those who use Twitter and those who don't.

Please don't fall into the second category.

This ain't no MySpace, this ain't no Facebook, this is information, plain and simple.

Forget the hype, that it's those without lives listening to the minutiae of others. Sure, there are those who update their whereabouts on a regular basis. And those who think Twitter is purely for hype. Hell, I've now learned that Ian Rogers is not a discerning listener. Makes me wonder about Topspin. He's constantly tweeting that the music of every act the company works with is good. That's utter hogwash. Especially when the tunes are outside his normal flavor field.

Yes, you can learn a lot reading between the lines.

But you can also gain a ton of information.

First and foremost, you must make Twitter comprehensible.

Use Tweetdeck: http://www.tweetdeck.com/beta/

When it asks to install Adobe Air, just say yes. Adobe Air powers all the hip new software, like the New York Times Reader: https://timesreader.nytimes.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/TimesReader?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001 (It's free if you're a print subscriber.) The Reader is much faster than your browser. And more comprehensible.

And that's what Tweetdeck is all about, comprehension. It makes Twitter understandable, listing the tweets of those you follow, those that reference to you... There are a lot of "hidden" tricks in the app. Like click on someone's name, and a column appears delineating all their details. Play around.

But only if you've got a lot of RAM and a fairly new computer.

As for competing products... Start with Tweetdeck. Power users have favorites, but I don't want to overwhelm you.

So, I got this e-mail about the Too Much Joy royalty statement and upon reading it immediately tweeted about it.

And then my Tweetdeck notifications went berserk. People were retweeting my tweet.

In other words, the word was spreading.

How fast and how far?

To the point wherein minutes, the Webpage referenced was inaccessible, a data error showed up if you got anything at all.

Sure, this illustrates that if you've got information to purvey, be sure to have enough horsepower to get it out there.

But more importantly, that interesting information spreads like wildfire. Instantly. And far.

How far?

I've only got a fraction of my regular e-mail list following me on Twitter. I don't want to overload your inbox, especially with just raw information. So I tweeted as opposed to e-mailed.

It wasn't until the middle of the next day that I got a single e-mail about this Too Much Joy post. In other words, those relying on nineties technology, which e-mail is, were a step behind.

Notice, "Hits" didn't write about it. It seems that they've buried the hatchet with Lyor/Warner and don't want to piss anybody off.

The aforementioned "New York Times" doesn't think this is a big enough story and has no infrastructure anyway. They've got Ben Sisario writing about the music business and..? Meanwhile, if something is written on one of their blogs...NO ONE READS THEIR BLOGS!

But if you're a musician, if you're a dedicated follower of music, this Too Much Joy post was pure gold. Proof that the major labels' business paradigm is theft. Plain and simple.

Tim Quirk just wants what is owed to him. A statement.

Warner can't even deliver that. And when the company does, it's inaccurate.

Furthermore, Tim reveals the fallacy of recoupment. It's not dollar for dollar, but based on your royalty rate. So, you might still be underwater, but your company can be rolling in dough!

Believe me, you can automate these processes. You can deliver accurate royalty statements on time. But the major labels don't want to. Apple has a history of everything I've purchased. But somehow the label can't find this info. It's just data. Computing power and the Internet can put this at your fingertips.

What happens first? Do the labels enter the twenty first century or do musicians avoid them?

We already have our answer. It's the latter. Major labels sign few artists, and screw them in the process. If they can't account to you on digital sales, raw data, do you really trust them with other revenue streams in your 360 deal?

The labels are old school. And everybody knows it.

Except maybe the mainstream press. Which is just as ancient in its thinking as the labels.

I was frustrated, I thought this story had no legs. But then I read this "Billboard" article: http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3ib78b45167c2724124247727de2177597 (and why can't "Billboard" render properly in Safari, since Macs are the platform of choice for musicians) interviewing Mr. Quirk.

The story was picked up by the "Village Voice" blog, "Daily Swarm", "Hypebot", me and the "Onion AV" blog. And if you don't know the power of the "Onion AV", you probably run a major label.

The word got out. Not via the mainstream. Those who needed to know saw it. So, unlike straight news stories that have no traction because someone shortly thereafter gets kidnapped or killed, the target audience read and digested Tim Quirk's story.

How you gonna convince people not to steal when you're stealing yourself?

The record industry never pondered that question.

You could have been there first. You could have seen the story on Twitter. As opposed to being the last to know.

What do you not know?

That's what's killing the major labels, what they don't know.

And we live in an information society. And your so-called enemy, the public, now has access to all kinds of data. Great info finds its audience. Great music finds its audience also. Ever think that the reason few new acts break is because the music's not good enough?

I know, that's heresy. Stone me.

But if you hear something good you tell everybody you know.

Via social media. Via Twitter.

SONG OF THE DECADE

Image via Wikipedia

Yes, it's been ten years. And I'm not one for lists. But in magazines and newspapers decade-ending rankings have started to appear. Best movies, best TV shows and best songs. So I thought I'd weigh in.

"Some have maxed out all their credit cards Some are working two jobs and living in cars Minimum wage won't pay for a roof, won't pay for a drink If you gotta have proof just try it yourself Mr. CEO See how far 5.15 an hour will go Take a part time job at one of your stores Bet you can't make it here anymore"

I've had a rough year. Financially.

After a disastrous nineties, I owe nothing. I live on a cash basis. I saved every damn cent I could, figuring it's hard to make a living on a freelance basis, and then the bottom fell out.

I'm not complaining. I've got my cash hoard. But it's depressing. Because almost everybody I know is broke, or close to it. I've even got a friend who put her stuff in storage and is bouncing from guest bedroom to guest bedroom, she just can't find a job.

They don't exist. Even if you want to work, you can't.

Your best bet is the network, those people you've known for decades. You can call and lean on them, if they still even have their jobs.

Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs is paying record bonuses and their Chairman Lloyd Blankfein says the firm is doing God's work. He must pray to a deity I've yet to encounter, one who wants to see the populace suffer. Used to be Wall Street helped build America, now traders just profit off exotic investment instruments. Meanwhile, if we didn't prop up AIG, the banks would be bankrupt and their employees would be just like us, without a job and with no prospects. Hell, did you see that story in the "New York Times" about ex Lehman Brothers employees? They can't work.

Not that I've got sympathy.

"Will work for food
Will die for oil
Will kill for power and to us the spoils The billionaires get to pay less tax The working poor get to fall through the cracks Let 'em eat jellybeans, let 'em eat cake Let 'em eat shit, whatever it takes They can join the Air Force, or join the Corps If they can't make it here anymore"

By time you read this our President, Barack Obama, a man who ran on the mantra of hope, may be getting us deeper into Afghanistan. Isn't Al-Qaeda in Pakistan? And, if the Soviets couldn't win there, why should we? A country owned by China with disastrous financials (that's us, in case you didn't recognize your homeland).

And if you join the armed forces to serve your country, to pay your bills, you're entering the Hotel California. It seems you can never leave. You wish you were a rock star, high on dope, as you jumpily wait for people to attack you one more time. Coming home to a country that pays you lip service, but doesn't give a shit. If you come home at all. And if you do return, you're probably so traumatized you figure suicide is the best solution.

"In Dayton, Ohio
Or Portland, Maine
Or a cotton gin out on the great high plains That's done closed down along with the school And the hospital and the swimming pool Dust devils dance in the noonday heat There's rats in the alley And trash in the street Gang graffiti on a boxcar door We can't make it here anymore"

Not only have they ditched music in schools, now they're closing the libraries. Guess everybody's got to sit in front of the TV, paying media giants to have crap shoved down their throats. Elvis Costello sang about vapid radio? Well, they killed radio and now have us anesthetized in front of the flat screen, selling us products we don't need, that we put on credit cards that charge 29%. As for holding back... Didn't they say it was American to shop, that we were entitled? If we sacrifice, maybe that means the future truly is bleak. So, we consume until we go bust.

I try to have hope. Can't say that I achieve this state every day.

But one thing that helps me get through is James McMurtry's "We Can't Make It Here". Not only my favorite song of the twenty first century, but my most played. With over 200 plays in my iTunes library on the computer I superseded in 2006, and over 100 more since.

Sure, the lyrics are poignant, they're poetry. But there's a hypnotic groove that hooks me, that makes me want to play the song again and again.

There's an authorized electric version, but I prefer the acoustic take. Which James used to give away for free on his site, but now you can hear as backing to a clip on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vN0--mHug&feature=PlayList&p=8F9DB3A3A3F39061&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=21

You don't have to pay a scalper to see James McMurtry. He's gonna play in the bar in your hometown sometime next year. But the paper won't make a big deal, there won't be a buzz. But the paper is going extinct and we haven't yet made a complete transition from Kara DioGuardi crap to real music.

Is it only about the money? What happens when the money runs out? Then what? When no one listens to Top Forty, when no one wants to go to the show. When the old criteria die, it comes down to the music.

James McMurtry got a break at the beginning. He did a number of albums on Columbia, his first was produced by John Mellencamp. But when his deal was done he didn't give up and go to law school, he didn't get an MBA, he didn't don a suit and go straight, no he went indie, he kept writing, he kept playing.

And if that ain't twenty first century, I don't know what is.

In the next month, we're going to be deluged with statistics. Telling us who the winners were. People who provided fodder for the system, that you consumed, shat out and forgot.

But great art is unforgettable.

"We Can't Make It Here" is unforgettable. Just as powerful as "Eve Of Destruction", but sans camp, it doesn't slide off of you, it penetrates your core.

How did we get here?

To a country where there are winners and losers. And the winners feel entitled.

It's not only Wall Street, the music game is not much different.

The stars can't sell recordings anymore so they've jacked up the price of concert tickets to the point where the average attendee only goes to a show once a year. Isn't that like only having sex once a year? Aren't you entitled to more? Don't you want more?

Those left at the label complain that the audience is a bunch of thieves. Never mind the overpriced CDs they sold with only one good track for over a decade.

And the wannabes only want to know, which way to riches?

Every day they e-mail me...how can I make money?

If I had the answer to that, I'd be rich myself!

But I do it because I want to, it's my passion. That's why I write. And as long as people read, I'm going to proceed. It's fine with me that you're partaking for free, because first and foremost it's about communication, hell, it's about attention, and I've got yours, and believe me, nothing thrills me, nothing satisfies me more.

I may be a lone voice in the wilderness, I may be the only person who says this, but I truly believe James McMurtry's "We Can't Make It Here" is the best song of this nascent century. It doesn't only sound good, it's got something to say.

"We Can't Make It Here" lyrics: http://www.jamesmcmurtry.com/we_cant_make_it_herelyrics.htm

Alternative acoustic take: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbWRfBZY-ng&feature=related

Official video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv0q3cW3x1s&feature=player_embedded#

Empowerring Your Audience

Image by aulia.m via Flickr

Go to a gig and you'll see a plethora of attendees filming the event. Not only taking photos, but literally recording the gig.

Old acts want to employ a no-camera policy. They want to ban the users. Newbies tolerate it. Why not EMBRACE the audience's activity?

Why doesn't every band have a page for audience uploads? Pics AND clips? Allowing the fans themselves to vote on which ones are the best, which ones are worth viewing?

Of course, you host on YouTube and you embed on the artist's page. If Google can sway L.A. to host its e-mail in the cloud, why can't bands utilize the company's free services to their advantage? Flickr is a great resource too!

The point is we've got it all wrong. We're trying to tell the fans what to do, when they should be telling US what to do!

Did you read the story on Twitter in yesterday's "New York Times"? All its good ideas come from outside. Like search, hash tags and referencing people by using the @ symbol. The company decried some of these innovations, they didn't even want messages to be called "tweets". Then they realized they had it wrong, that they should be embracing third party innovation, not stifling it!

People want to share music. Rather than trying to stop this, copyright owners should make it easier. You want to e-mail someone the track? Let the band's site do it for you! And if the person you send the music to clicks a button on the e-mail, saying he actually likes the new cut, you get points, allowing you better seats at the gig or some other swag.

What, do we think we're going to prevent people from swapping music? If you believe this, you must not have any USB keys, which even come in credit card-sized promotional form these days. It's not about stopping trading, but INCREASING trading!

Eventful has got it right. An act should go where its fans want them to.

Fans want more access, not less. Where is fan access to music business executives? Ashton Kutcher and every musician known to man can tweet, but Edgar Bronfman, Jr., Doug Morris and Jimmy Iovine can't? No wonder the business gets such a bad rap. If it's all about relationships, how about doing a spot of work, helping the cause? Believe me, hiding behind Mitch Bainwol will pay no dividends.

Speaking of Twitter, people like to tweet about tracks. Why not create a service easier than Blip, that allows people to hear what others tweet about? I should be able to tweet about a track, and if you want to check it out, all you've got to do is click the link. And I get the URL for the track from one central, easy to use database. Plug the name into a Google-type search engine and you IMMEDIATELY get a bit.ly shortened url for someone to hear the entire thing. This is better than radio promotion. You're getting people truly interested in the music checking it out right away. They're pulling it, you're not pushing it. And pull is where all the money is. It's just like Google AdWords. The people who click WANT TO BUY!

The fans want to hook up at the gig. Can't you make this easier? A special meeting station, with free wi-fi for iPhones. Believe me, you can get a sponsor to cough up the free wi-fi.

We've got it all wrong. We've been FIGHTING the customer instead of EMBRACING HIM! So worried about losing money, being unable to sustain the nineties model, we're closing the door to the future. The more you can get people excited about music, the more you can increase their access, the more money you ultimately make.

Sure, Twitter itself may not yet be profitable, but the tweets are evanescent. Music is not. Get someone hooked on an act, and they'll go see them live, buy merch, buy the music, whether it be the track outright or listening on a paid streaming service.

For over a decade, the technology's been more interesting than the music. Because music has been putting up barriers, refusing to play in the new world. This makes no sense. Instead of telling people how to use the music, let them tell US!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/technology/internet/26twitter.html