Within the past several weeks, two great events about the documentation of Canadian music scenes have been held in Toronto. Two weeks ago, dozens of aging punks gathered at the Gladstone Hotel for the latest installment of This is Not a Reading Series. The book of interest was Treat Me Like Dirt: An Oral History of Punk in Toronto and Beyond by Liz Worth. Interviewing Worth in a lively Q&A session was Damian Abraham, lead singer of the Polaris Prize winning hardcore punk band Fucked Up. The interview touched on several interesting themes, such as how to draw the boundaries of a scene (for example, in her book Worth includes Hamilton but not Windsor) as well as the importance of historical congruence (Abraham mused that time and place was of particular importance to the Toronto scene more so than in London or New York).
And last Tuesday, Polaris Music Awards founder Steve Jordan hosted a panel discussion featuring other writers who have contributed to the documentation of Canadian music scenes: Michael Barclay (Have Not Been The Same), Stuart Berman (This Book is Broken: A Broken Social Scene Story), Rob Bowman (Rockin’ Out), Alan Cross (20th Century Rock & Roll-Alternative Rock), Nicholas Jennings (Before The Gold Rush), Jason Schneider (Whispering Pines, Have Not Been The Same), and Carl Wilson (Let’s Talk About Love: A Journey To The End Of Taste). Jordan also asked some thoughtful questions, one of which being whether the panellists perceived there to be any clear-cut heroes or villains in their books. It was acknowledged that, while institutions (the government, major record labels or the political economy more broadly) usually get cast as the villain in music histories, the truth is not as straightforward. Rob Bowman stated his preference to concentrate on the unsung heroes in his writing (which he does in spades in his impressive history of Stax Records) while Alan Cross suggested that the narrators themselves are the real villains for introducing subjectivities into music narratives in the first place.
The latter event was not that well attended, perhaps owing to the fact that it was held at an exclusive members-only club (Twitter followers of the Polaris Awards were the only non-members excepted). This was unfortunate, as several questions important to scholars of music and the entertainment economy more broadly were touched upon (for example, who gets included in music histories? Is artistic innovation cyclical or stochastic?). While Q&A sessions do not lend themselves to deep exploration of such themes, I only hope that moving forward, events like these are held more often and in venues that are equally accessible to musical and academic communities alike.
Some months ago, Nielsen released a study in which they asked music ‘industry experts’ their opinions on what the most influential media outlets are. To arrive at their findings, they regressed the ‘influence’ score given by industry experts for various TV shows and websites against the average audience size for the given media outlet, and any show or website that scored higher than the expected average was deemed influential. Unsurprising findings include One Tree Hill, Gossip Girls and The Hills as the most valuable programs for sync placements, and Pitchfork.com as the most influential website.
When it comes to TV hosts, while we would expect to find Oprah at the top of the list, even she was outranked by Jimmy Kimmel. According to Nielsen, “Jimmy Kimmel’s high ratings, relative to his audience size might be in part due to his unique brand of music marketing. While the Today Show and others target more well known acts, Kimmel’s artists tend to frequently be off the beaten path.” The study concludes that “Smart labels or managers should understand programs/sites like Kimmel Live!, One Tree Hill, and Pitchfork.com have a certain something special that should be considered.”
It is an interesting finding, but one that I am uncertain about. Nielsen seems to be perpetuating the idea that the music industry should continue to chase after the most influential and bigger media outlets (in terms of audience size). But if musical interests are becoming increasingly segmented, as the Long Tail theory argues, should the music industry not also expand marketing strategies to incorporate our increasingly diverse musical tastes? Perhaps moving forward record labels should invest more energy in not only chasing the ‘big’, but also chasing the ‘smaller but influential’.
Wired Magazine had a very interesting article about more bad news for the record companies. A copyright ticking time bomb is set to explode on them in 2013.
Basically, the 1975 Copyright Act states that all copyrights granted after 1978 revert back to their original owners after 35 years, with some marginal cases excepted. This means that starting in 2013 bands like the Eagles can own the rights to distribute and sell their songs, keeping all the profits for themselves. No record companies needed, just go straight to Eaglesband.com.
This must be especially disturbing to the record companies, who tried and failed to get the statute changed back in 1999. One of their tried and true ways of making money has been to re-issue their catalogs in new formats. This was, for example, the primary source of the record industry boom in the 1980’s and 1990’s, as everybody bought CDs for the music they already had on tapes and vinyl. One imagines the record companies would hope to do the same thing again as Rock Band and Guitar Hero continue to expand. But it looks like they won’t be able to suck on the teats of those same mega-bands again, at least without some serious renegotiations from a very disadvantageous position.
Of course, the record companies may find some way to add value to the process of making and selling music. Maybe by providing marketing and global reach, covering start-up costs, as well as some kind of central distribution point. But if you think the music industry has been changing a lot in the last few years, just wait. In 2013 the odyssey will move to another level.
One of our preoccupations here concerns the relations between music and the ambiance of a place. Also, the constellations of people, businesses, networks, and practices that make a scene. You couldn’t find a better window into those topics than a recent documentary about Toronto’s worlds of music, City Sonic.
City Sonic is an online collection of many short videos. Each one focuses on a particular artist and some place that was transformative for her or his musical development. You can also view maps showing the places each film depicts, illustrating powerfully the spatial concentration characteristic of many scenes.
It also is an innovative business and distribution model. The videos can be downloaded and viewed on phones. There are links to the bands’ myspace pages as well as to the clubs’ web pages. The musicians and clubs in turn promote the film. Perhaps a more distinctively Canadian aspect is that large portions of the funding were provided by public agencies, in addition to some corporate sponsors, notably mobile phone companies Bell and Telus.
Musicians, film-makers, club-owners, media companies, government agencies all working in tandem. Who is missing? Oh yeah, the record companies.
This Friday, December 4 the Martin Prosperity Institute’s Kevin Stolarick will participate in a panel discussion on “Acting Locally” at the Hamilton Music Awards Careers in Music conference at Mohawk College. Admission is free for secondary and post-secondary students.
The details:
This year’s HMA “Careers in Music” Conference is dedicated to unlocking the full potential of Hamilton: The Music Capital of Canada. Representatives from Hamilton’s music industry, City of Hamilton, educational institutions and the international music industry, will propose types of engagement for all stakeholders and the expected results that this new strategy would have for those with an interest in Hamilton’s music industry on a local, national and international level. Thinking Globally Acting Locally will also feature a keynote address, creative clinics, technical workshops, and networking.
Thinking Globally Acting Locally is geared towards artists, students, industry, civic employees, politicians, marketing professionals and those interested in starting or furthering their career in the music industry.
Once again the Economist has a thoughtful perspective on the challenges facing the music business. This piece points to the rise of distributors who provide music for free (but legally) by monetizing the audio streams in a variety of creative ways:
The past year has seen rapid growth of digital music services that accept the post-Napster consensus that music should be free, or at least appear to be free. The companies involved range from Google, which now facilitates music streaming from its search page in America, to Nokia, which bundles access to a music-download service with some of its mobile phones. “The next big thing is a dozen different things,” says Thomas Hesse of Sony Music Entertainment.
Dave Kusek at Future of Music blog has been sharing his version of this “streaming-everything” vision for some time.
