Spotify Lança 12 Originais Shows em Vídeo

Spotify To Launch 12 Original Video Shows

thanks to 

• in Music Industry News by Bobby Owsinski

Spotify recently announced that it was getting into the original content business by launching 12 new shows, and guess what? They’ll all be on video. According to the company, the video shows will be “centered around three main themes – music performances, music profiles and music culture,” and the episodes will be up to fifteen minutes long.

The foray into original video programming comes on the heels of the service successfully showcasing clips from Comedy Central, ESPN and MTV within the app over the last year.

One of the shows is Landmark, which is a documentary series centered around important moments in music history. A second, Rush Hour, forces two artists to quickly collaborate on a setlist of songs that they must then perform live. Yet another features veteran actor Tim Robbins who will produce a mocumentary about a competition that becomes the next dance music craze. Also planned are a number of animated and comedic series “tailored to the service’s young audience.”

Spotify didn’t provide a launch date, but indicated that late summer or fall is targeted. The company did say that the shows will be available to all users on both paid and free tiers, and initially available in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany and Sweden.

It’s pretty interesting that Spotify should jump into original programing, and especially video programming as well. Getting away from its streaming music core may be a stretch, but on the other hand, an audio-only show might be construed as trying to follow Apple Music’s Beats 1. Still, 12 shows is an ambitious agenda that requires not only a fair amount of corporate will, but the funds to match as well.

A year from now we may look back upon this decision and say how brilliant the execs at Spotify were, or we may say that they got away from the company’s core business. Only time will tell.

YouTube Não Precisa Mudar, a Indústria Da Música É Que Precisa!

YouTube Doesn't Need to Change, the Music Industry Does

It’s not YouTube’s job to duplicate the revenue that came from a pre-Internet business model.

For many music fans, YouTube is one of the best things that ever happened for finding and listening to new artists, much like radio used to be. Some players in the music business, however, see the service as being somewhere between a dodge and an outright scam that takes advantage of artists.

Legendary musician manager Irving Azoff, whose client list includes Christina Aguilera and Van Halen, is pretty clearly in the latter camp. In a recent post on the Recode tech news site, Azoff argued that YouTube pretends to care about music and the artists who create it, but pays them a “pittance,” while allowing a copyright infringement free-for-all.

Instead of removing songs that have been uploaded illegally and keeping them off the service forever, YouTube “hides behind” the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s safe harbor provision, Azoff says. Under that clause, services like YouTube  GOOG -0.28%  are protected from copyright infringement claims, provided they take action to remove infringing content as soon as they become aware of it.

And what is Azoff’s solution to this alleged problem? He says YouTube should either join the music industry in rewriting the DMCA, or it should not allow music on the service unless it has specifically been given permission to host it by the artist.

In fact, as YouTube star Hank Green pointed out in a response to Azoff’s post, removing content from YouTube isn’t as difficult as he makes it seem. The service’s ContentID system allows artists and their representatives to detect content and then choose whether to have it removed or license it and get a stream of revenue. And YouTube has paid more than $3 billion to artists via that system.

Azoff’s proposal that YouTube shouldn’t allow any music to appear unless it has permission also leaves out a fundamental aspect of copyright law, namely the concept of “fair use.” Under that principle, copyright has not been infringed if the use of a song meets a number of tests, including whether it is “transformative.”

Much like the rest of the industry, Azoff would no doubt prefer it if fair use didn’t exist. But it’s worth noting that while he complains about music not being taken down, YouTube also has a problem with the exact opposite: Namely, record labels and their representatives forcing the removal of content that they either don’t have the rights to or that are covered by fair use.

This issue was highlighted by a court decision last year in the infamous “Dancing Baby” case, in which the judges ruled that anyone who sends a DMCA take-down notice must consider the principle of fair use before doing so. The case was originally launched by Prince’s record label in 2007, after a woman uploaded a 29-second clip to YouTube of her child dancing with one of the artist’s songs playing in the background.

The larger context behind Azoff’s letter is that the music industry is trying desperately to roll back the clock and re-fight battles it has already lost, including a fight against the principles included in the DMCA (not to be outdone, Recording Industry Association of America chairman Cory Sherman would apparently like to go back and re-write the rules governing radio as well).

In a nutshell, the music industry wants digital services to pay enough to replace all the money that used to come from the traditional music sales before the Internet came along. But that’s never going to happen. Spotify and other streaming services are already paying so much that they are incapable of making money even with 75 million paying subscribers, yet the industry argues they still aren’t contributing enough.

In Google, record labels see a rich corporation that can afford to pay them the billions they feel they deserve. But why is it Google’s job (or Spotify’s, for that matter) to recreate the same amount of revenue that used to come from a completely different music ecosystem? Shouldn’t the music industry be the one adapting its business to the new model, instead of trying to force that model to fit its existing business? That’s how innovation works.

Qual o Gênero de Música Nós Gostamos Mais? (Somente nos EU)

Which Genre Of Music Do We Like Best?

If you were to listen to a week of nothing but radio, you'd think that all we listen to in the U.S. is pop and country music. If you were to read a week's worth of the music news, you might think that dance/electronic/EDM was close to the top of the heap in what we enjoy. The problem with those assumptions is that they're wrong, at least according to the 2015 Nielsen Year End Music Report that, among other things, looked at the genres of music we liked the best last year.

When taking into account the total amount of music consumption, which includes physical and downloaded albums, downloaded tracks, and streams, here's the order of music genre preference that the study determined:

Rock - 24.5%
R&B/Hip-Hop - 18.2%
Pop - 15.7%
Country - 8.5%
Latin - 4.5%
Dance/EDM - 3.4%
Christian - 2.8%
Holiday/Seasonal - 1.7%
Classical - 1.3%
Childrens - 1.1%

When it came to number of albums consumed, Rock was far ahead at 32.6%, followed by R&B/Hip-Hop at 15.1% and Pop at 22.6%.

For streams, R&B/Hip-Hop came out on top at 21.1%. Rock at 17.5%. and Pop at 14.5%.

Rock might not be the hippest genre and it's frequently portrayed in the press as spiraling downward in popularity and relevancy, but it still continues to out-perform other music genres, for better or worse.

Concertos de Realidade Virtual Começando no Próximo Verão

Virtual Reality Concerts To Begin This Summer

First of all thanks to my friend Bobby Owsinski for this article.

I'm a big proponent of virtual reality, especially when the audio is done well, and many have predicted that the technology will eventually be a boon to concerts. We're going to see soon enough as virtual reality concerts will actually begin to roll out this summer.

NextVR, which has been a leader in VR broadcasting of sporting events, has teamed up with LiveNation to broadcast a series of concerts, although no artists have been named as of yet. There will be a limited number of VR music events this summer, with a full schedule planned for 2017.

The NextVR broadcast will be available via Samsung's Gear VR using the Oculus Home app, although they will also most likely be available on other VR platforms as well.

LiveNation/NextVR aren't the only companies jumping into the concert broadcast game. iHeartRadio and Universal Music Group previously announced that they would also broadcast VR concerts this year.

Virtual reality concerts hold great promise because it gives the viewer a feeling of actually being there and watching from the best seat in the house, which many feel may eventually eclipse attending an event. Paying $200 for a nosebleed seat might not be a suitable option when you can get a better view from your home while still feeling immersed in the event.

The same can be said for sporting events as well, as NextVR recently signed a 5 year deal with Fox Sports, although there may be more technical challenges in this niche than with music.

One thing's for sure, VR is taking beginning to take off, even though it still hasn't hit the general public yet, as more and more companies are jockeying for position.


Read more:  http://music3point0.blogspot.com/2016/05/virtual-reality-concerts-to-begin-this.html#ixzz48LerEkgW

Warner Music Group Ganha Cerca de US $ 2 Milhões Por Dia a Partir de Música em streaming

Warner Music Group earns around $2 million a day from streaming music

Warner Music Group is earning around $2m a day from streaming activity of its recorded music catalogue.

MBW’s estimate is based on new figures released by the major label showing that its income from streaming jumped 59%, or $72m, in the three months to end of March.

That, combined with a typically quiet new year release slate, meant that streaming earned more for Warner in the quarter than physical or downloads – a first for any major label.

Although Warner didn’t give a specific income figure for streaming, we know that it must be higher than $164m, which equates to half of its $328m total digital revenue in the period.

Physical revenues stood at $151m in Q1.

Taking into account the 91 days of the first quarter, that means Warner definitely earned an average of more than $1.8m per day from streaming services.

However, considering the substantial 59% rise in streaming income, and the fact that download overtook streaming revenues at WMG a year ago, it’s a safe bet to suggest Warner’s daily earnings from streaming are nearer $2m – which would require its streaming cash to have hit $182m in Q1.

That’s especially true as download income decreased by $17m in the first three months of this year, a fall easily offset by streaming’s growth.

What makes these numbers particularly pleasing for Warner is the lack of overhead, with a much bigger margin percentage coming its way from streaming consumption than a resource-heavy physical release.

Warner boss Stephen Cooper said on an earnings call on Friday (May 6) that Warner was “proud to be leading the industry’s transition to streaming”

He added: “Just five quarters ago, streaming was the third-largest revenue source in our Recorded Music business, behind both downloads and physical. Today, we are the first major music company to report that streaming is the largest source of revenue in our Recorded Music business.

“This rapid transformation is evidence of our ability to sign, develop and market artists that thrive in the streaming world.  Reaching these achievements is made possible by healthy macro trends in the recorded music industry, as well as tireless execution by our global operators.”

As you can see below, Warner’s total revenues in the quarter grew 10%, or 13.4% on a constant-currency basis.

Digital revenue grew 21.2%, up 25.0% on a constant-currency basis.

Net income stood at $12 million versus $19 million in the prior-year quarter.

Revenue rose in every major region, with Asia up 17%, Latin America up 17% and Europe up 12%.

"Record Store Day" Pode ter atingido o pico

Record Store Day May Have Peaked

First of all thanks o my friend Bobby Owsinski for this article.

Since 2008, Record Store Day every April has been a huge hit. In fact, many in the music industry feel that it's been a big reason for vinyl's resurgence, calling attention to a side of the business that had been essential dead and buried and has now returned to a level of surprising growth. Even though the latest Record Store Day a couple of weeks ago was proclaimed the biggest ever, there's evidence that we might've seen its peak.

One of the best things about RSD was that the small Mom & Pop record store was celebrated, but this time many of these stores refused to join in the festivities because they now feel it's been totally co-opted by the major labels.

The reason is that in order for a store to officially participate in the event, they are forced to purchase a slew of "official" new vinyl releases, which they're not able to return if unsold. This has imparted an undue financial burden upon already cash-strapped stores which many are now unwilling to take.

While many vinyl fans do look for new or re-released titles, most record stores make their living on used or early edition releases, and find that new vinyl just doesn't sell in the quantities that the labels require them to take for the event (the big indies are complicit here too).

Small indie labels and artists are also upset too, in that the major labels tie up all the vinyl pressing plants for months prior to RSD, so they're not able to have new vinyl ready for the event.

So like with so many other movements that start off with the best intentions, Record Store Day has been co-opted by big business, and as a result will soon cease to be the event that it once was. Let's hope that the indie record stores find other ways to maintain their visibility so they can still stay in business.

Apple Vai Consertar o Seu Serviço de Streaming - E Chamou Trent Reznor Para Ajudar

Apple is going to fix its music streaming service — and it has called in Trent Reznor to help

Apple is reportedly planning to release big changes to its music streaming service Apple Music in June, according to Bloomberg.

Musician Trent Reznor has been brought in to oversee a redesign of the music streaming service to make it easier to use.

One of the biggest complaints following Apple Music's launch last year was that it was difficult to use. The Telegraph called it "clunky, fussy, confusing and flawed," and BGR described it as "an embarrassing and confusing mess."

Bloomberg reports that Apple is trying to fix that in time for Apple's WWDC event in June — and Beats cofounder Trent Reznor has been called in to help.

Apple acquired headphone and software maker Beats in 2014 and turned its streaming service into what would become Apple Music. That acquisition also brought on board Nine Inch Nails musician Trent Reznor and music industry executive Jimmy Iovine.

Bloomberg reports that Iovine has played a key role at Apple. He reportedly brokered a deal with Taylor Swift to get her new album on Apple Music, and did the same for rapper Drake.

There have been a string of departures within Apple's music streaming division, and Bloomberg claims that leadership issues have caused development on Apple Music to slow down. The renewed push, which comes from Reznor, Iovine, and also Apple executive Eddy Cue, is designed to bring new customers to the service.