Robot Rockers - O Dia De Música Na Lithuania

Robot rockers lead Lithuania's street music day

An all-robot rock band makes music during the Street Music day in Vilnius on May 20, 2017 © AFP Petras Malukas

Vilnius (AFP) - From folk singers to an all-robot rock band, hundreds of Lithuanian music lovers flocked streets and squares Saturday to celebrate Street Music Day in dozens of cities and towns nationwide.

The Baltic state of three million people has hosted the festival since 2007, also attracting followers in other European countries. 

On the hottest day of the year, the robot band played at a square in Vilnius, one of more than 100 spots hosting concerts by professional and amateur musicians, and proved particularly popular with children.

"Robots are still quite rarely used in art," said Povilas Zmejauskas, 24, explaining the idea behind the band, which played rock and pop music.

There was also classical music, alternative rock, electronic dance music and jazz.

Andrius Mamontovas, a Lithuanian musician and actor involved in organising the event said some cities in Ukraine, Georgia, Latvia and Russia had also joined the street music initiative.

Hi-Fi Streaming Finalmente Chegou? - A Merlin/MQA Diz Que Sim!

Has Hi-Fi Streaming Finally Arrived? A Merlin/MQA Deal Says Yes…

First of all thanks to  Daniel Adrian Sanchez for this article.

Is the world truly ready for high-fidelity streaming?  Are our wallets?

At launch, Tidal became one of the first streaming services to support high-fidelity audio streaming.  The service boasted that consumers could better listen to their music.  According to Tidal, consumers would immediately tell the difference.

There was just one problem: high quality audio streaming still hasn’t convinced consumers.  Despite Jay Z’s best efforts, Tidal still ranks as one of the most-ignored music streamers.

Yet, labels haven’t given up on high-fidelity audio streaming just yet.  Independent label organization Merlin has just struck a new deal with MQA (Master Quality Authenticated).  Certified by the RIAA, MQA already has long-standing deals with the big three: Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Music Group.

Speaking on the deal, Mike Jbara, CEO of MQA said,

“MQA’s commitment is to provide exceptional sound quality from the studio recording all the way through to the consumer.”

MQA first launched commercially in 2016.  Though it first was made available on Tidal, it has seen a rapidly growing list of compatible hardware.  MQA’s current hardware partners include Onkuo, Technics, Bluesound, Meridian, and Pioneer, among others.

The service uses a ‘music origami’ process to convert large 24 bit files into formats compatible with streaming services and music devices without a loss of quality.  An MQA music file will usually play at better-than-CD-quality, says the UK-based audio tech company.

So, why hasn’t the high-fidelity feature caught on in the music industry?

One word: price.  Higher-quality streaming usually costs a lot more.  Tidal Hi-Fi costs $19.99 per month compared to the standard $9.99.  Studies have also shown that most people can’t tell the difference between a high-quality audio file and a standard one.

Even if those studies aren’t accurate, the price point remains a high consumer barrier for high-fidelity streaming.  Yet, that won’t stop Merlin nor MQA.  Merlin CEO Charles Caldas believes it’s only a matter of time before MQA technology catches on.

Merlin states that their members’ repertoire “performs best on paid subscription tiers.”  Accordingly, with the MQA deal, the independent label organization hopes to attract the early high-spending consumer demographic.

“From our own data, we know that Merlin members’ repertoire performs best on paid-for subscription tiers.  And it’s to this high-spending consumer demographic that hi-resolution audio will have the greatest appeal.”

MQA CEO Mike Jbara called the Merlin deal an important step forward.  The move will “further fuel the availability of master quality recordings for music fans.”  However, will the new deal win over consumers?  Or will the Merlin/MQA deal only serve for existing high-spending audiophiles?

Spotify Relatório - Os Pagamentos Aos Artistas em 2017 Estão Em Queda

Exclusive Report: Spotify Artist Payments Are Declining In 2017, Data Shows

As Spotify’s revenue goes up, artist per-stream and revenue payouts are going way, way down.  And here’s the data to prove it.

Two years ago, in a funding round, investors valued Spotify at $8 billion.  In the latest round, investors pushed that number above $13 billion.  Sounds like some serious growth.  Yet investors can’t ignore one glaring fact: after ten years, the company has yet to turn a profit.

But maybe that’s just another detail.  Now, analysts expect the company to finally go public on Wall Street within a year.  And the deals to make that a reality are finally starting to happen.

Recently, Spotify struck new long-term licensing deals with both Universal Music Group and independent music rep Merlin.  They’re also rumored to be closing a similar deal with Warner Music Group.  Ahead of their long-awaited listing on Wall Street, Spotify seems to have it made.

Yet, why are artists receiving less money as Spotify grows, not more?

Top-line revenues at Spotify are surging ahead, thanks to a flood of new subscribers.  A boost in monthly premium payments and increased advertising means a lot more revenue.  That part is simple.  Yet strangely, Spotify’s per-stream royalties across both recordings and publishing appear to be sinking, according to data shared with DMN.  That includes per-stream payments to labels (including indie labels and self-administered artists), plus mechanical royalty payments to publishers.

In other words, 1,000 streams on Spotify two years ago — when the platform was making less gross revenue — made rights holders more money than 1,000 streams today.

Musicians and labels on the service have felt the crunch.  But why is this happening?  Let’s rewind a bit.

Two years ago, a report published by Audiam found that as Spotify’s revenues went up, artists and label royalties went down.  Audiam is a reproduction rights organization headed by Jeff Price, and recently purchased by Canadian rights group SOCAN.  The company is basing a lot of its data on payouts reported under Section 115 of US Copyright Law.

Audiam stated then,

“However, the impact on the artists, songwriters, labels and music publishers is a bizarre, unexpected anti-intuitive equation that seems to subscribe to Newton’s third law of physics: ‘For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.’

“In this case, as more money is made from the music, music creators and copyright holders are making less.”

So, two years later, with Spotify finally reporting growing revenue, have these numbers changed?  Not even close.  To put it bluntly, Spotify has found a way to keep more of the revenue they earn (per stream) in their pockets.

Spotify seems to be countering this accusation by pointing to increased overall royalty payments.  But a closer look at the math shows that Spotify may be paying more — but is also taking a lot more.  All of which means that Spotify (and its shareholders, which include major labels) are cutting costs on per-stream payouts.

Audiam has now issued a new report, and shared it exclusively with Digital Music News.  Again, Audiam is sourcing a lot of its data from publicly available stats.  “The numbers I am providing are not Audiam’s numbers,” remarked Audiam founder Jeff Price.  “They are numbers reported by Spotify as required under Sec 115 of US copyright law.”

Essentially, the latest report updates the streaming service’s per stream numbers ending February, 2017.  And they reached the same conclusion: as Spotify’s value and revenues go up, artists and publishers are making less.

Mechanical royalty rates are continuing to decline in 2017, at least for Spotify’s premium (ie, subscription) streams.

Let’s start with Spotify’s ad-supported tier.  In February 2017, a single ad-supported stream generated $0.00014123 on the streaming service.  This means an artist would earn $100 in mechanical royalties after 703,581 streams.  Although this number represents a 1.1% increase from January, in December 2016, the number was at $0.00022288.

For the premium tier during the same month, Spotify paid out $0.00066481 per stream in mechanicals.  In this scenario, artists would earn $100 after 150,419 streams.  This number is up 5.2% from January.  Sounds great, until you see the year-over-year trend.

Another key thing to notice is the following discrepancies. In December 2016, to earn $100 from ad-supported streams, a song would need be played 448,672 times.  Spotify paid out $0.00022288. Yet, just one month later, the number dropped down to $0.00013508. To earn $100 from ad-supporter streams, a song would have to be played 740,302 times. Note that this didn’t apply to premium streams.

Between December 2016 and January 2017, Spotify cut their ad-supported payouts by nearly half.  The number continues dropping as the year progresses, with premium streams slightly increasing.

What goes up must come down.  Just not in Spotify’s world.

In a strongly-worded piece in his blog, Bob Lefsetz defended the low payouts.  According to him, Spotify pays out over 69% of its revenues.  So, why the criminally low payouts?  Blame the music labels.  Calling out Audiam’s founder and CEO Jeff Price, Lefsetz explains,

“You’re being screwed by the label. And Spotify can’t say this, because the labels are their partners.”

But Lefsetz seems to be ignoring the reality that most of the recordings on Spotify come from self-distributed artists.  These artists aren’t signed to a label, they are the label.  But also seemingly disregarding Audiam’s previously published numbers, Lefsetz attacked,

“What about Jeff Price, its old fired founder, bullsh—ting that Spotify is not paying on so many tracks? That’s a registry problem, that’s not Spotify seeking to rip-off rights holders, that’s the result of an archaic system wherein we don’t know who wrote what and who owns what.  Does it need to be cleared up?  Yes.”

However, Lefsetz, seemingly Spotify’s apologist, can’t defend the following stats, no matter how hard he tries. Take a look at the numbers:

• 2016 Total Gross Revenue: Slightly over $1.1 billion
• Average streaming rate: $0.0046524
• Total plays: Over 162 billion
• Royalty pool amount: $75.4 million
• PRO fees: Almost $72 million

What can we deduce from the amounts?  The same conclusion that Audiam came to in 2014.  As Spotify’s top line Gross Revenue increases, the per stream mechanical rate continues to drop.

As Spotify continues to prepare for their long-awaited IPO, there’s no clear explanation as to why they continue to pay out artists such little money.  Audiam posted a publicly available website to show historically falling per stream mechanical royalty rates.  And despite Lefsetz’ best attempts to protect Spotify (calling Jeff Price out of touch), his final defense of the company ultimately sounds very hollow.

“But you’ve got an historical deal with a label that pays an incredibly low percentage, you’ve got a very low royalty rate, is this a problem? Absolutely. BUT IT IS NOT SPOTIFY’S FAULT!”

Or, is it?

Reporter Pergunta à Um Executivo Do Spotify - Vocês Tratam Os Artistas De Uma Maneira Justa?

                      Spotify’s Global Head of Creator Services Troy Carter (middle)

A Reporter Asks a Spotify Exec: ‘Do You Treat Artists Fairly’?

A Spotify executive admits that artist aren’t getting fairly paid.  But the ‘value chain’ is to blame, not Spotify.

An exclusive report published here showed that no — despite what the company says — Spotify doesn’t pay artists fairly.  In fact, in the past couple of years, the Swedish streamer has actually reduced payouts for artists.  Now, an executive for the company basically told journalists, “no, it’s not our fault.”

During a keynote Q&A at Nashville’s Music Biz Convention, Troy Carter blamed poor artist payouts on a broken “value chain.”  Music Week had asked the Global Head of Creator Services if the current payout system was fair for artists.  Carter, the former manager of Lady Gaga and Meghan Trainor, said,

“I would say no, but I would also say the value chain’s broken.  And I think what needs to happen is we need to reconfigure the entire value chain.”

Shifting blame away from Spotify, Carter said that the “broken value chain” applies to all streaming services.

So, which artists receive a fair amount?  Only those with hit songs, admitted Carter.  The old albums model, he explained, had songwriters receiving the same amount for hit songs as those who wrote its worst songs.  Streaming, however, has changed things.

“Is it also fair that if Max Martin wrote the hit on a record, that the person who wrote the worst song on the record is under the same rate as Max, essentially?

“The hit songs really, really matter and you’ve got every single producer and writer on the album trying to make that hit.  But… it’s really about rethinking the value chain.”

Pushing his own company forward, Carter said that Spotify stands out among the crowd.  In fact, Spotify has a model that has proven sound and successful for artists.  Yet, as the company continues bleeding money, Carter remained noticeably silent on how the company plans to become profitable.

“What I love about Spotify is that it’s a very honest platform.  We play a game called best song wins.  It doesn’t matter if you’re the biggest artist in the world or an act that was on Soundcloud and finally went to Tunecore and uploaded on Spotify, then the listeners don’t lie.”

Among streaming services, said Carter, Spotify provides artists a unique platform tailored specifically for them.  Despite numbers showing the contrary, Carter said,

“This isn’t call-out radio research or anything like that — this is actual people leaning into records, and you’re finding out whether things are fake or real really quick.  And I think creators and artists having access to that sort of platform is powerful and I think we’re already seeing that the entire business is going to be reshaped.”

Gregg Allman - A História Nos Charts Da Billboard

Gregg Allman's Billboard Chart History

First of all thanks to Kevin Rutherford for this article.

Whether it was solo or with the famed Allman Brothers Band, Gregg Allman was long a fixture on the Billboard charts.

Beginning with the Billboard 200 debut of his family band’s self-titled album in January 1970 until, most recently, an Allman Brothers live record that graced various album charts in April 2016, one has never been hard-pressed to find material from the singer and guitarist, who died Saturday (May 27) at age 69 at his home in Savannah, Georgia.

It all began with The Allman Brothers Band, the first release from the rock group that included Gregg, brother Duane and a lineup that remained intact from 1969 to 1972, including longtime guitarist Dickey Betts and drummer Butch Trucks, the latter of whom died earlier this year of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in West Palm Beach, Florida. The album debuted at No. 194 on the Billboard 200 chart dated Jan. 24, 1970, and eventually rose to a modest peak of No. 188 (March 7, 1970), spending just five weeks on the survey.

But the best was yet to come for the band, including a No. 1 album on the Billboard 200 – 1973’s Brothers and Sisters, which ruled for five weeks beginning Sept. 8, 1973. It proved to be the group’s only leader on the chart in their storied history, though the band rattled off an additional three top 10s, all in the ‘70s: Eat a Peach (No. 4, April 29, 1972), Win, Lose or Draw (No. 5, Oct. 11, 1975) and Enlightened Rogues (No. 9, April 14, 1979).

Additionally, the group charted 10 titles on the Billboard Hot 100, though just three reached the top 40: “Ramblin Man,” the band’s biggest hit, at No. 2 (Oct. 13, 1973, kept off by Cher’s “Half-Breed”), plus “Crazy Love” (No. 29, May 5, 1979) and “Straight from the Heart” (No. 39, Sept. 19, 1981).

The Allman Brothers Band does have a No. 1 song to its credit, though: “Good Clean Fun,” the lead single from 1990’s Seven Turns, crowned the Mainstream Rock Songs airplay chart for a week in August 1990, after debuting at No. 6 just over a month prior.

Most recently, the band made an appearance on the Top Rock Albums chart dated April 23, 2016, at No. 34 with Live from A&R Studios -- a live LP recorded at New York’s A&R Studios on Aug. 26, 1971.

Meanwhile, Gregg Allman’s solo material also shone brightly on the Billboardcharts. He first appeared on the Billboard 200 dated Nov. 24, 1973, with debut solo effort Laid Back at No. 144. The set eventually rose to No. 13 (Feb. 2, 1974) and remained on the chart for 39 weeks.

That remained Allman’s best rank on the Billboard 200 for nearly four decades, until his most recent studio release, Low Country Blues, which debuted and peaked at No. 5 on the chart dated Feb. 5, 2011, selling 36,000 copies, according to Nielsen Music.

Allman also managed a No. 1 song on his own: 1987’s “I’m No Angel,” which led Mainstream Rock Songs for a week that March. He followed with a pair of No. 3s: “Anything Goes” later that May and “Can’t Get Over You” in August 1988.

1988 was a busy year for Allman, who also charted with his own Gregg Allman Band. The group peaked at No. 117 on the Billboard 200 with Just Before the Bullets Fly (Aug. 20, 1988) and at No. 17 on Mainstream Rock Songs (Oct. 29, 1988) with "Slip Away."

Low Country Blues yielded Allman’s final appearance to date on a Billboardairplay chart, too: “Just Another Rider,” which peaked on the Adult Alternative Songs chart dated April 16, 2011, at No. 27.

Allman was set to release Southern Blood, his seventh solo album, this year.

Os 10 Melhores Covers De Todos Os Tempos

10 Greatest Cover Songs of All Time

The secret behind a perfect cover song is taking something brilliant and turning it into something that’s your own. All 10 of these acts were able to harness a classic or even little known song and arguably create a better version that’s been celebrated by millions.

The 1960s was heaven for cover songs. During a time when bands would often play more covers than originals, reimagined cuts still stuck out as truly brilliant. Jimi Hendrix laid down one of his greatest tracks with “All Along the Watchtower,” which was originally written by Bob Dylan. Adding a hard rock base and phenomenal guitar work to the folk standard, Hendrix took hold of “All Along the Watchtower,” which is more closely associated with Hendrix than Dylan 50 years later.

Johnny Cash was a legend for decades before he took a chance and turned Nine Inch Nails’ “Hurt” into a somber country track. “Hurt” reignited Cash’s star power near the end of his life as he received universal praise for the song. Trent Reznor was admittedly uncomfortable with Johnny Cash manipulating “Hurt” at first, but after watching Cash’s music video for the song, Reznor teared up and realised “it wasn’t really my song anymore.”

Disturbed took a huge risk when they covered one of the greatest songs ever written, Simon & Garfunkel’s “The Sound of Silence.” The band has often been a magnet for criticism among metal purists, but Disturbed shut them all up with this powerful cover, which has just been certified a mind-blowing double platinum after moving over two million units.

Check out our picks for the 10 Greatest Cover Songs of All Time in the Loud List above!

Chris Cornell - As Vendas Dão Um Salto De 550% Após A Sua Morte

Chris Cornell's Sales And Streams Jump More Than 550 Percent Following His Death

First of all thanks to Hugh McIntyre for this article.

Whenever a beloved musician passes away, sales and streams of their most popular works shoot through the roof. Devotees want to listen to their favorite tune or full-length again in an attempt to find some solace, while casual fans or those who might not have known the artist's work in life go out of their way to finally discover what they had been crafting for years, which has become much easier now that streaming platforms have taken over.

Earlier this month, legendary rock musician Chris Cornell passed away from what appears to be a suicide, and in the days and weeks since, fans everywhere are listening to the art he created as a solo artist and as a member of Soundgarden and Audiosoave, both of which were highly successful in their time.

According to Nielsen Music (reported by Billboard), the sales and streams of Cornell’s career discography grew by just over 550% from the week prior to his death. On platforms like Spotify, Apple Music and Pandora, the songs he recorded with his two groups and as a solo act were streamed 32.5 million times during the week in which he passed away. The charting week prior to that, his tracks were played five million times, which is still a healthy amount for somebody not currently promoting any new material, and it shows that while the jump in streams may have been massive after he died, it’s not as if the world had forgotten the genius of Chris Cornell.

That same week, 38,000 Chris Cornell albums (again, that sum includes both Soundgarden and Audioslave records as well) were sold, which represented a 1,700% gain in purchases. The week before his untimely death, only 2,000 records were sold.

When it comes to digital track purchases, fans really stepped it up, and in the tracking week ending May 18, Cornell’s music sold 144,000 copies. That is a 2,222% rise from the week before, when only 6,000 songs were purchased.

When the Billboard 200 is refreshed shortly, at least a few albums recorded by Cornell will likely reappear on the all-encompassing ranking, and he and his music are sure to posthumously own a number of spots on rock-specific charts for weeks to come.