SHUT UP AND SING!

My inbox is filling up with writers wondering where the music industry is, why did this happen in sports and not in music?

Because music still has a plantation mentality.

NBA players no longer work on Maggie’s Farm. They get a percentage of revenue and if an owner crosses the line, he gets whacked, like Donald Sterling. Notice that the owners lined up with the players today, unlike in the NFL. You see there’s no game without the players. The NFL thought by making an example of Kaepernick they could cower the rest of the players into submission, put them in fear for their jobs, make them believe they’re replaceable. But then came George Floyd. This is what happens when you’re on the wrong side of history.

And speaking of sides, I’m halfway through the new book “Hoax,” Brian Stelter’s delineation of the alignment of Fox and Trump and their reality distortion field. It’s really inside baseball, if you’re not interested in TV ratings and all of the players, your eyes might glaze over, but the book makes very clear that Fox and Trump are joined at the hip, and they’re all about superserving an audience they’ve riled-up and angered to the point a Trump supporter went and shot people last night in Kenosha, well, at least he was arrested…innocent until proven guilty, right? Well, that only happens if you’re white. If you’re black…you did it, it’s your fault and let’s throw you in prison after giving you inadequate legal representation and let you rot.

So, the main complaint, other than the lack of touring, in today’s music business is streaming payments. The focus is on Spotify, the big kahuna, but the truth is the big four outlets, Spotify, Apple, Amazon and Deezer, pay just about the same, economics dictate it. And many people complaining can’t understand the difference between an online radio play and on demand one, they don’t know how much of the publishing they own, they just feel ripped-off. But then there are those who are legitimately complaining BECAUSE THE LABEL IS TAKING ALMOST ALL OF THE REVENUE!

There’s no manufacturing anymore. No shipping or returns. But the labels ask for more rights, 360 deals, even now when their revenues are going up.

Not that the public has sympathy. The PR people and the acts themselves keep telling everybody how wealthy they are, when the average consumer is struggling, especially now.

The game is to control distribution. And on one hand the major labels have sacrificed this in the streaming era, on the other they control the big playlists, and how you break acts.

And they also have relationships with TikTok.

You should read this article from “Rolling Stone”:

“Inside TikTok’s Hidden Hit Machine – The viral-video app’s music team has given crucial assists to artists like Roddy Ricch Doja Cat, and Saweetie. But can it keep powering the music industry – especially amid uncertainty about TikTok’s fate in the U.S?

You’ll read the above article and realize success is to a great degree dependent upon relationships, and the labels and the big artists have them with the TikTok gatekeepers. You’ll also sit and wonder…if I don’t make dance music, if I don’t make action music, is there any place for me on TikTok? PROBABLY NOT!

So, on one hand we’ve got evolution, the young ‘uns are hooked on this new platform that can blow up acts. But only a certain kind of act…what if you don’t make that kind of music?

Not that dance/beat music can’t have a message. But it was the TikTokkers themselves who overloaded the system with false demands for tickets to see Trump in Tulsa. That was spontaneously generated. As for the acts…it’s too dangerous, it’s going to mess with their privates and their sponsorships. But wasn’t the essence of music the message? If it’s just about products…hell, the Kardashians are doing that so much better, no musical act has come close.

And African-American acts rule the recording business. Shouldn’t they be aligning with these athletes, shouldn’t they be there first? How come the athletes have more of a conscience than the musicians? Then again, the athletes play on teams, in music it’s every person for themselves, now, more than ever.

The athletes are speaking truth to power. The owners are richer than they are (but if you’re a superstar and you play long enough you can own a team, but not a label), the networks depend upon them. How dare they throw a spanner in the works?

Meanwhile, the NBA is playing in a bubble, keeping its athletes safe from the virus, whereas in baseball it’s believed minor concessions can keep the players safe and in the NFL it’s believed God is on the league’s side, and therefore the players are inherently immune.

This is not the sixties, far from it. Yesterday Squaw Valley announced it was removing “Squaw” from its name. There’s a whole change of consciousness, and if you liked the way it used to be, if you want it the way it was, if you want to make the past great again, it’s got to be very scary.

Everything is up for grabs…and I mean literally EVERYTHING! From names to our country itself. What we’ve learned this year is be prepared for the unexpected, that no one can predict the turns of life and society. Once you think it’s one way, it’s another.

Now baseball has postponed games. Talk about a racist sport. But the old white men are its number one fans. How are they squaring this?

And our nation is so troubled that we know just when the hoopla begins to fade, another incident will transpire, Kenosha is just part of a continuum, unfortunately.

And in theory a record can reach everybody. But we have disinformation in the music business too. All the ink, all the press is about a certain white woman who came back to save the business. But despite being #1 on the inane “Billboard” chart, that superstar only has two tracks in the Spotify Top 50, at #39 and #49, and the album’s only been out a month. As for the Global Spotify Top 50…that person doesn’t have a single track in it!

And in an unmanipulated marketplace, i.e. Spotify’s stream counts, last year’s Grammy sweeper’s new track is at #49 and going down, after only a month in release.

In other words, in music it’s what have you done for me NOW! You can be over almost instantly and everybody but the PR spinners, no different from Fox News, knows. But you could come back, it’s always possible.

And then the acts who sustain on the road frequently don’t appear in the Spotify Top 50 ever! Meanwhile, “Hamilton,” which has substance, still dominates five years out, demonstrating what happens when you put sustained effort into a production that has some meat on the bone.

Meanwhile, we’ve got a bipolar African-American who has lauded Trump inanely running for president and sucking all the air out of the room. The sideshow has become the main show.

Artists are born, not marketed. It’s a sensibility. It’s a talent. One that the music business has been giving up on for decades, since the heyday of Tommy Mottola…the executives want control, they view the talent as fungible, they only want malleable entertainers. Or, they’ll work with you for a bit, drain all the money and then kick you to the curb. Then again, they keep forming panels, organizations… Action, not meetings. Meetings look good but usually accomplish nothing.

Life is about the individual. One person can make a difference.

But in music, everybody is looking for someone else to take the step before they get on board, they don’t want to be caught in the crossfire.

Then again, do we really want to hear from most of these people?

NO!

Music is a business. But when done right, it can be so much more. But in the race for dollars its essence is being sacrificed. Music stars used to be outsiders, now they’re part of the fabric, to their detriment!

Of course there are exceptions to all of the above, but so far there’s no musical movement. Acts are willing to raise money for someone else…but they’re too afraid of alienating any potential consumer to do otherwise. How many Americans are hard core Trumpers? 30-40%. Nothing is changing their opinion. Side with the protesters at your peril. But now the basketball players, who make more money than almost every musician, have put it all at risk. But they know their power. Basketball is America’s game, not football. Basketball is fast, made for today. It’s less of a coach’s contest. You can watch it and understand what is going on. The players live on Twitter, they’re accessible.

So what do you? Do you embrace the talent or quash it?

That’s the choice of the owners.

But first the talent has to take a stand.

Spotify

Pandora

Tune in today, August 25th, to Volume 106, 7 PM East, 4 PM West.

Hear the episode live on SiriusXM VOLUME: HearLefsetzLive

If you miss the episode, you can hear it on demand on the SiriusXM app: LefsetzLive

It starts with porn.

In the sixties and seventies, porn was controlled by a small cabal of producers and distributors. With the advent of the videocassette in the late seventies and early eighties profits went through the roof as a limited number of old and new players controlled the business utilizing professional actors. There began to be cracks in the system as the cost of production sank with the availably of cheap recording equipment but distribution was always a snag. And then came the internet.

People used to talk about this a lot. In the early days of the web. How porn creeped into every nook and cranny, how it happened in porn first. But as the net was built, as it became more profitable with Amazon and Facebook, porn went back to its naughty newshole and got little coverage…but it was ravaging the web. But this time, the story was the amateurs.

At first amateurs had their own brands. Distributing their product on their own websites. You could do it yourself, but the back end was not sophisticated. And people were reluctant to give up their credit card numbers.

Then the big boys went free. In other words, intermediaries like Brazzers and PornHub became clearing houses for porn and the value of the majors and their product went down and the amateurs got little monetary reward but major distribution. Meanwhile, porn stars were still trying to eke out a living with their own websites. But now came the beginning of clips. Yes, once everybody had broadband, it was about video, and you could record yourself on your phone and sell clips on Clips4sale or ManyVids, but there was no sense of community. Meanwhile, cam girls was now a thing. But it had a dirty imprimatur. You could Chaturbate, you could buy your time, but it had the appearance of a sleazy transaction. But all these cam sites were filled with amateurs, they ruled.

So, let’s recap. As a result of the cost of production and distribution coming down, the usual suspect content creators and distributors lost power as new players entered the marketplace, and then the scene overflowed with amateurs. Not everyone made a buck. Or they made a little buck. Or some bucks for a very short time. But there was money in it, however it was divided.

Then came Patreon. Built on the concept of Kickstarter, you could subscribe for a month and get a varying amount of porn product depending upon how much you laid down. Like Kickstarter, it was all about moving people up the tiers. And, it was peopled by amateurs.

Meanwhile, the straight distribution outlets wanted to go clean. Tumblr was built on porn, but now it excised it and promptly fell of the radar screen, eclipsed by Pinterest, which came later, even though it was not the same thing, a pinboard/scrapbook for women as opposed to an edgier smorgasbord with video like Tumblr.

But there was Instagram. But facing blowback, Instagram kicked off anybody who was verging on porn. And it was hard to get back on. But, Instagram was how you advertised. This many people don’t understand, in the amateur economy, in the bubbling-up economy, Instagram is where you get noticed. People think it’s YouTube, but much less so these days.

But then came OnlyFans.

OnlyFans was for porn. Do what you want, charge what you want, we do not screen content, drive everybody to our site, this is your home. OnlyFans was ruled by amateurs, gave nothing away for free, and was all about hooking customers into subscriptions, paying a low monthly fee hopefully forever. And, it was about fans. People had their favorite porn stars that they’d discovered elsewhere over the years, and they were all driven to OnlyFans, a hassle-free environment, by the purveyors.

And now non-porn people have grasped the wisdom of OnlyFans and are embracing it to make bucks.

Cardi B. You’ve got to give the rappers credit. While the old farts sit around and complain, it’s the youngsters who embrace the new tools and test the limits and broaden their reach and fatten their wallets. You pay Cardi B $4.99 a month on OnlyFans. And you’ve got to subscribe to see the content. It’s incumbent on Cardi B to satiate her acolytes, but these fans also know they’re part of a limited club, not everybody is a member, and this makes them feel good, like an insider, in a world where everybody is alienated yet looking for collegiality.

Now, Bella Thorne has made $2 million in a week on OnlyFans.

Do you have a fan base? Then OnlyFans is a giant opportunity, assuming you broaden your horizons. Come on, for $4.99 you show video of recording, of your home life, you answer questions, it’s up to you, how do you intrigue your audience? Or, ironically, if you’re a smaller act charge even more. And people want to give it to you! That’s part of being a fan, keeping the act alive. This is not tip jars, a flawed concept. And this is not music only. This is your own little playpen. It’s al about creativity. And the only middleman is OnlyFans itself, which is really just a layout and payment system. It’s up to you. You’re either successful or not based on your work.

And it was never solely about the music. There was merch. There were fan clubs. It’s just that now it’s easier to distribute that stuff and make bank.

In other words, if you’re complaining about streaming income, you’ve got to embrace new ways of making money.

Once again, this is not about Kickstarter and Patreon and levels of membership and tchotchkes. There’s no product shipped, everybody is in it together, the superfans with the casual fans. The goal is to get everybody to continue to pay.

And since it’s all behind a paywall, you’ll get little ink. But most ink today is worthless anyway. PR people get stories in newspapers that are ignored and forgotten within twenty four hours, if not instantly. Today it’s all about word of mouth. And you want to belong.

So, this is an opportunity for all acts. It’s not a pool of money that’s broken down on streams. Your fans subscribe, you get the money, minus administrative fees, which are far from gigantic.

Think about it.

P.S. Of course some of this OnlyFans content leaks to the general web. But content creators police this. And finding it is oftentimes a chore. This is how Spotify got people to pay when file-trading was free, it was convenient! Some people will never pay, but you’d be surprised how many people will pay if it’s easy and not too expensive relative to desirability.

“Rolling Stone” has some of the best music news on the internet.

But now you’ve got to pay for it.

Sure, you can go to other sites and get an unlimited plethora, a morass too deep and unwieldy to investigate, but “Rolling Stone” has a limited number of articles, most of them interesting, oftentimes including videos, but now to view most of it you’ve got to pay $7.99 a month.

You can get the “New York Times” for $17 a month. And it comes out more than daily. That $7.99 for “Rolling Stone” doesn’t even include the magazine, that’s another $59.88 a year.

Kind of like HBO Max. Sure, HBO has some great content but it costs more than any other streaming service, $14.99 a month. Meanwhile, you can get Disney+ for $6.99. Or you can get Amazon Prime for $12.99 per month or $119 per year. How does HBO Max plan to compete? It can’t! Which is why there was a recent shakeup.

As for “Rolling Stone”…I receive its content digitally, both the magazine and the news, as part of my Apple News+ subscription, at $9.99 a month. Now Apple News+ is a failure, it turns out most people don’t want to pay for information at all, but if you want “Rolling Stone,” why not get the “New Yorker” and all those other magazines thrown in?

And then there’s the strange case of the “Los Angeles Times.” You can get an annual digital subscription for $98 per year, a bargain compared to “Rolling Stone,” but there’s very little in the newspaper, you’re better off paying more for the “New York Times.”

And then there’s Medium. If you want to read all the articles, you’ve got to pay $5 a month.

And then there’s Facebook and Instagram. THEY’RE FREE! You pay with your information and then they serve you ads. People complain about privacy, but they don’t want to pay. Meanwhile, Facebook and Instagram are being eclipsed by TikTok, that’s where the younger generation lives.

So what is happening?

NEWS IS NO LONGER FREE! That’s the other half of that old quote from Stewart Brand, it also wants to be EXPENSIVE! And now it is!

This change is going unnoticed. And the end result is people will know less than they ever did, because all the valuable information will be behind a paywall. And very few people are going to pay for all of it.

Let’s start with “Rolling Stone.” This is obviously an economic issue. They need to charge to stay in business. Ads pay much less than subscriptions, and it only works if you’ve got tons of eyeballs and tons of ads on a service that appeals to everybody, like Facebook or Google. Which is another reason why magazines are dropping like flies. I no longer sign up for two year subscriptions, I no longer renew early, because I’ve been burned time and again with magazines ceasing publication. Like with “Automobile.” Like with so many computer magazines. Hell, “Sound & Vision” just skipped an issue…how long will it be in print?

As for the “New York Times”… You may hate it, but it drives America, if not the world. Along with the “Washington Post” and the occasional “Wall Street Journal” article. It’s where you go for raw news. If it happened, they’ll write about it, they’ve got someone on the case. Sure, not all the news fits, but more than anywhere else.

Meanwhile, journalists can’t stop bitching about the death of local newspapers. WHO NEEDS THEM? If the “Los Angeles Times” wants to continue exist it should give up on national news, international too, just focus on what’s going on locally. I laugh at the front section of the paper, which does not cover the national landscape exhaustively and oftentimes has only one page of business news. WHO IS THIS FOR? But ancient institutions find it hard to change. The public killed the local newspaper. People no longer wanted to pay for it. You’ve got to reinvent it to increase desire, or just go out of business.

As for HBO Max… It’s so afraid of cable companies that it won’t charge less for individual subscriptions. Which is like the record companies trying to hold back digital to support its retailers at the advent of this century.

As for Facebook and TikTok…told you so. These are fads, they’re not forever, these are not Amazon, they’re not stores, they’re Hula-Hoops! There will be something after TikTok even if it continues to exist.

So, if you’re a consumer and you want to know what is happening you’re gonna have to pay. The people who don’t will be more and more clueless. Same deal with streaming television. But in both cases, people will not pay for everything, no way. It usually comes down to a balance of content and cost and if you get them out of whack, you’re history.

Then there are those who are trying to get ahead, to establish a base. They run circles around the established players by giving it away for free. You must ask yourself, do you want money or an audience? If you want the big money, you’re going to have to forgo the short term cash, you’re going to have to give it away free to reach people. As soon as you go behind a paywall, you inherently limit your audience, you become niche.

And then there’s music. Where everything is available at one low price. Superseding all the other offers. Apple News+ tries to compete, but it does not include every publication. People will pay if they want it, and they want music.

So what we have learned is the big will become bigger. And to compete, the small will have to be smaller, set their sights lower, oftentimes for a lower price.

This is a very different internet from 2000. And why do you think all those companies are bitching about Apple’s 30% in the App Store? Then again, Apple has all those eyeballs. And Apple is where it’s at because iPhone customers are more wealthy and Apple’s privacy standards are higher. Is it worth the 30%? Then again, how will you reach people?

It’s no longer about hardware. Now it’s about software. And the app might be free, but what it distributes is oftentimes not.