Power Field Studio

Power Field Studio

quarta-feira, 27 de julho de 2016

Por Que Beijing É Uma Grande Cidade Para Jazz

Why Beijing Is A Great City For Jazz Music

Jazz musicians Liang Ying, Nathaniel Gao and Zhang Ke (left to right) perform at East Shore Jazz Cafe, in Beijing. Source: Terence Hsieh









Beijing’s underground music scene has been heralded as an epicenter of creativity in China: you can find everything, from dark noise, to grunge, rock, hip hop and avant garde jazz. Lately, however, I’ve been getting the impression that people believe that the Beijing music scene is dying, for lack of a better word. Jonathan Kaiman at the LA Times accredits the closure of venues and festivals, and denial of visas to President Xi Jinping’s anti-foreigner campaign, citing reports of increased pressure by local artists and venue owners to affirm the pro-socialist movement being carried out by the state.

I’ve been a jazz musician in Beijing for nearly four years now, and it’s hard for me to see the scene as “dying” here. In fact, I’ve had the privilege of seeing and even sometimes performing with some of the most amazing jazz headliners in Beijing, over the past few years: The Yellowjackets, Herbie Hancock, Kurt Rosenwinkel, Robin Eubanks, Jaleel Shaw, Snarky Puppy, Richard Susan just to name a few.

Ami Lee, managing editor at City Weekend Beijing recently posted an op-ed in which she criticises this “decline narrative” that’s been used to describe the arts scene in Beijing– that is, it’s convenient to wrap up all the venue and festival closures, arrested artists, deportations and canceled concerts within this simple idea that political forces have it out for Beijing’s music scene.

This notion of a convenient narrative is important to better understanding of Chinese society. First of all, it highlights a double standard leveled against Chinese artists: that they are (or should be) eternally locked in a black-and-white struggle against the iron fist of the Communist Party, although this expectation doesn’t exist for western artists. Second, this narrative doesn’t account for the increasing financial pressures on venues and artists in 2016: rising rents, an ageing artist demographic and skyrocketing back-of-the-house costs like beverages and food.

That aside, political forces have always played a role in determining how large shows or festivals with international acts are allowed to play out, here in China. In 2008, Bjork got herself famously banned for performing her song “Declare Independence” and shouting “Tibet! Tibet!” and even jazz icon Harry Connick, Jr. wasn’t allowed to play with his band due to an unapproved set list.

“The main difference now I think is just that music festivals are getting harder to operate, and I guess more and more bands coming from abroad are getting cancelled, but that’s different from the local scene,” says Nathaniel Gao, a jazz saxophonist who’s been in Beijing on and off for 10 years now. Indeed, it’s important that one separates the politics involved with booking international acts, which ARE decidedly political; and the local scene, made up of primarily musicians living and working in Beijing, who perform their own art, mostly independently. For the most part, the politics of art have largely stayed out of the local scene with a few notable exceptions. There’s crossover, especially when it comes to these large festivals, but for the most part, artists are free to do what they want. I recently saw an album released by a rapper known as MC Da Wei in which I heard him drop some of the most scathing political criticisms to date, at a club called DaDa.

Let me bring this back to what I’m most familiar with: jazz. Jazz musicians are privy to a special seat at the table of music in Beijing: we’re largely ignored by both the expat and the greater music community. Maybe it’s the lack of accessibility to the music we play: listening to jazz shows is hard, especially if you’re not familiar with the conventions of the music. 

Maybe it’s the lack of stereotypical behaviors that people expect from jazz musicians: you won’t find the musicians here doing drugs, getting rowdy or doing crazy performance art on stage, like historical tropes of jazz. But maybe it’s also the lack of exposure: while the gigs we play are advertised in magazines and websites, they’re not easily found, often tucked away in the back section of weekly events, if at all in print. My point is not that we are neglected, but rather, that the jazz scene here is comprised of a small, but growing group of both Chinese and international instrumentalists who are dedicated to producing creative instrumental music in the jazz tradition despite being paid the equivalent of $50 a night or less.

There’s creative jazz music nearly every night of the week in Beijing: from jam sessions, where musicians congregate to play jazz standards and talk shop and network, to international headlining acts, where world famous musicians come to share their craft with the community. Last week, New York saxophone legend Antonio Hart, who spends time in China every year, quipped, after a workshop at Beijing’s East Shore Jazz Cafe: “Beijing cats don’t mess around!”

Scott Sawyer has been playing drums in Beijing for nearly as long as rock and jazz music has existed here. “From the jazz scene perspective, it’s far from dying,” he says. “I’d say if anything, it’s thriving more than it ever has: we’ve got these new venues that are opening, though some of them come and go, and I’m not aware of any political pressures that are placed on the jazz scene. If anything, the scene is thriving and growing more than it ever has but it just doesn’t get the attention that a lot of that other stuff does.”

zhangke2
Zhang Ke, Source: Terence Hsieh

There’s also a sense of authenticity that resonates with many of the musicians here: “There’s a strong sense of Chinese culture and authenticity in Beijing, being a foreigner here you really experience that,” says Anthony Vanacore, a drummer from New York who’s been in Beijing for just a year. Traditional Chinese melodies infiltrate into the jazz idiom: musicians like guitarist Liu Yue and pianist Xia Jia have written modern jazz arrangements that include such melodies, reharmonizing and reworking them for piano trio with bass and drums, and even with horns and traditional Chinese instruments.

But most importantly (and concretely), there seems to be a community in Beijing that forms around jazz music– one that doesn’t necessarily exist in other music scenes in other places in China. On any given Tuesday, a crowd of jazz musicians descend on the jam session at Jiang Hu bar, an old traditional courtyard house that’s been converted to a performance space. It doesn’t feel like a New York session where the musicians are there to prove a point and call each other out, but a place where people are trying new ideas, patterns and concepts they’ve been practicing on their own, over jazz standards with a live band. Sometimes there’s a great crowd. Other times, the house is practically empty, but the band plays just the same. 

Despite the fact that they make about $30 a night, you’ll find the same guys coming back week after week. Do they need the money? Probably, but they’re also in it for the musical work out. Perhaps it suggests that a creative music scene can exist not just in spite of, but because of a lack of mainstream support. When you can make a lot of money playing a particular style or even song, it can affect your aesthetic judgment. In other words, it allows us to keep the main thing–the art–the main thing.

O Feudo Do Youtube Na Música Parte 1: Porque 3 Bilhões Para Os Detentores De Direitos Significam Nada

The YouTube-Music Feud, Part 1: Why '$3 Billion To Rights Holders' Means Nothing

AUSTIN, TX – MARCH 17: A view of the stage at YouTube At Coppertank during the 2016 SXSW Music, Film + Interactive Festival on March 17, 2016 in Austin, Texas. (Photo by Neilson Barnard/Getty Images for SXSW)



This is part one of a series that discusses missing narratives from the music industry’s fight against YouTube. The posts are meant to be objective–siding neither with YouTube nor with artists, but rather highlighting and unpacking important data points that both sides of the debate are leaving out.

Today marks the one-month anniversary of over 180 musicians signing an open letter to Congress, protesting Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). According to the letter, Section 512 directly diminishes songwriters’ and artists’ earnings by allowing “major tech companies to grow and generate huge profits by creating ease of use for consumers to carry almost every recorded song in history in their pocket via a smartphone.” While not mentioned by name, YouTube is the dominant scapegoat in this complaint.

Today also marks the ten-day anniversary of Google GOOGL -0.02%’s response to these complaints, in the form of an update to “How Google Fights Piracy.” The 62-page report highlights how Google has actually enabled creators to build more sustainable careers, from using SEO techniques to hide piracy websites to helping artists gain insight into their ever more distributed audiences.

Both stances remain impassioned, yet unconvincing. The music industry’s larger argument of “pay us more” is vastly oversimplified, and has prompted a similarly oversimplified response from Google.

For instance, YouTube often cites how it has paid out over $3 billion to music rights holders to date, 50% of which has been monetized through ad placement with Content ID (a proprietary technology that identifies copyrighted work in user-generated content). Both of these statistics are weak because they give no clarity to how that money is distributed, nor to whether that distribution is fair—questions that should stand at the center of discussions around YouTube’s utility to the music industry.

Yes, the larger music value chain is partly to blame for why artists receive pennies for their YouTube streams. Unlike with native YouTube creators like Pewdiepie or Michelle Phan, a vast and complex ecosystem of labels, publishers, songwriters and other stakeholders often engulfs a musician’s work, leading to a similarly fragmented split of revenues.

However, YouTube’s Content ID seems inherently biased toward celebrities and against independent and emerging artists. Only around 8,000 rights holders currently have access to the technology, a portion of whom work in the music industry; this leaves hundreds of thousands of musicians unable to monetize their work. While qualifying for Content ID sounds simple—based on an “evaluation of each applicant’s actual need for the tools”—the service seems to have been reserved for a lucky and unrepresentative few, many of whom are probably associated with major labels.

Furthermore, contrary to the minimum rates that audio streaming services like Spotify are required to pay, Content ID’s value fluctuates over time in tandem with the value of the host channel, the health of the larger global ad market and other factors. YouTube is a fundamentally ad-driven business that interprets play count as a proxy for value, so the cost of ad inventory decreases for most user-generated videos. Unfortunately, these videos account for a small percentage of YouTube consumption: according to MIDiA Research’s recent report “The State of the YouTube Music Economy,” 91% of music video views are concentrated on the first page of results, usually dominated by verified channels like Vevo.
These fluctuations and winner-take-all dynamics give much-needed context to Google’s claims that the music industry chooses to monetize 95% of videos identified with Content ID, and that accuracy rates are as high as 99.7% (which in itself has been disputed, as the IFPI recently claimed that Content ID fails to identify as much as 20-40% of songs on YouTube). Regardless of what the correct numbers are, Content ID is only as valuable as the videos it identifies, and the technology is still unavailable to an alarming number of musicians.

Monetizing user uploads is a costly endeavor—Google has invested over $60 million in Content ID—and the $3 billion figure at least suggests that the technology is working. However, a gap still prevails in which most independent creators cannot monetize their content on YouTube. An artist’s ability to send a DMCA takedown notice seems more and more dependent on relationships with corporate third parties; ironically, the fact that only Taylor Swift-level stars are speaking out in this debate further silences the independent sector. Both Google and the music industry need to look beyond public spectacle, realize who is missing from the discussion, and take them into account when building a sustainable strategy for distributing their resources.



Componha Novos Ritmos Com Uma Caixa De Música - Vídeo

Compose new beats with a rotating music box












Electronic music artists are always exploring new ways of creating their music. The XOXX composer is the product of Royal Academy of the Arts student Axel Blume's experimentation. The device has eight spinning magnetic discs, that create a beat based on the placement of attached magnets. You have to hear it to believe it.

terça-feira, 26 de julho de 2016

O Que os Artistas fazem De Errado no YouTube

Where Music Artists Go Wrong On YouTube

First of all thanks to my friend Bobby Owsinski 

YouTube is capable of making people stars, and while that happens to exceptional content creators, most of them are not music artists. One of the reasons that artists don’t fall into the YouTube star category is that their general mindset is still set in the past. Here are the 4 places were artists go wrong on YouTube, which leads to far less success on the platform than they’re capable of.
  • It’s not about the views. YouTube is actually not optimized for total views, contrary to popular belief. It’s all about watch time and channel subscriptions, according to industry analyst Mark Mulligan. Most artists get most concerned about views, which takes their focus away from what really counts.

  • Major YouTube stars constantly drip content. They’re constantly posting on a schedule that their subscribers know and trust. Music artists, on the other hand, post an average of 3 videos every 18 months. The big problem is that even if these videos rack up some big numbers, the advertising revenue is lower because there’s not much inventory on the channel so the income is far lower than possible.

  • Releases are too far apart. Most artists are still on an album cycle, where they work on an album for months or years and only release singles (and therefore videos) when that album is complete. The world that we live in today has moved way past that. In order to keep an audience, constant engagement is essential and that means the release of more content in a more timely fashion, just like the native YouTube stars.

  • The video doesn’t have to be slick. If there’s one thing that we know from watching YouTube stars with huge followings is that production quality isn’t anything to get hung up on. A quick backstage video on an iPhone or impromptu acoustic jam can be far more effective than that big expensive music video. Like anything else, it still has to be entertaining, but with a little thought, a cheap video can still be very effective.

Artists and bands have a love/hate relationship with YouTube but the fact of the matter is that it’s still one of the most effective ways of getting your music out to both fans and non-fans alike, and growing an audience. That said, the techniques that worked in the past are no longer valid. Luckily, there are some very good models to look at for guidance, but few of them are from the music business.

segunda-feira, 25 de julho de 2016

Violões MARTIN Lança Um Documentário De 40 Minutos Para Celebrar Os Seus 100 Anos.

Martin Guitar Tries Long-Form Branded Content With 40-Minute Documentary










Many companies now consider themselves “publishers,” increasingly investing in branded video content to push out online through their websites and social media accounts for marketing purposes.
It’s rare that such creations receive significant artistic recognition—let alone be selected for a major film festival.
Guitar manufacturer C.F. Martin & Co. released a 40-minute documentary short in May, titled “Ballad of the Dreadnought,” in recognition of the 100th anniversary of its influential “dreadnought” guitar shape.
The film, which was created with advertising agency Lehigh Mining & Navigation, has received Official Selections at six film festivals including the Newport Beach Film Festival, Canada International Film Festival, New Hope Film Festival, SouthSide Film Festival and the Annual WorldFest-Houston International Film Festival. 
“I saw this as an opportunity to educate people who may know a little bit of the story behind the guitar shape,” said Martin’s chief executive, Chris Martin IV.
The film features interviews with well-known guitar players including David Crosby, Steve Miller and Stephen Stills.
All of the interviews with the musicians and Martin guitar enthusiasts were provided at no cost, Mr. Martin said, which he described as a “huge honor.” The documentary was even narrated by actor and Martin enthusiast Jeff Daniels in exchange for two Martin guitars.
“The cost was in the production, not in the content,” Mr. Martin said.
It’s relatively rare for companies to invest in “long-form” branded content of this nature. Marketers typically favor shorter clips, which they hope might capture a few moments of users’ attention as they scroll through their Facebook or Twitter feeds.
For “Ballad of the Dreadnought,” Martin had initially set out to create a relatively simple 5-minute video. But as it began collecting video interviews and archival footage for that project, it decided to be more ambitious.
“It was a little idea that started as something else, and turned into a bigger project that really exceeded all of our expectations,” said Amani Duncan, Martin’s vice president of brand marketing.
“We’re really proud of the outcome. It’s both a marketing tool and about the legacy,” Ms. Duncan said, adding that the film is intended to appeal to existing Martin guitar owners, potential guitar owners and general guitar enthusiasts alike.
Since being published on the Martin Guitar website, “Ballad of the Dreadnought” has received over 30,000 views and has also been screened at various events across the country, often in partnership with Martin’s retail and distribution partners.
Although the film was conceived as a piece of marketing, it was also seen as a way to preserve the company’s heritage. 
“Because of the importance of keeping our history alive, we’re able to do these types of initiatives that are a little more brand-centric, and don’t necessarily have hard return-on-investment associated with them,” Ms. Duncan said.
According to Joe Iacovella, director of account services at Lehigh Mining & Navigation, the documentary approach might be a better way to reach potential customers than more traditional forms of advertising anyway.
“We could easily have put together a few ads that said ‘Hey! The Dreadnought is 100 years old.’ But this way we’re telling the story to existing enthusiasts and emerging audiences as well. Those guys aren’t necessarily engaging with brands the way they used to,” Mr. Iacovella said.
One limitation of the film, however, is that it can’t currently be posted to social networks and video platforms such as Facebook and Google, due to licensing limitations with some of the video footage it includes.
“If it takes off and really appeals to people, perhaps we’ll look at broader distribution,” Ms. Duncan said, who floated the possibility of licensing it to TV networks or online streaming services. “Licensing this would be beyond our expectations,” she said.

sábado, 23 de julho de 2016

Indústria Da Música - Nova Rodada!

Music Industry News Roundup 

First of all thanks to my friend Bobby Owsinski









Here’s some interesting music business news from the last week. There’s a lot going on in the streaming world, but as usual, that’s not all.
Warner Music had it’s best quarter in a long time. Streaming agrees with this major label, and it’s up around 14% over the same time last year. Guest what? It’s all due to streaming.
“Happy Birthday” is copyright free, but what about “We Shall Overcome” and “This Land Is Your Land?” Both are considered national treasures and thought to be in the public domain, but are instead controlled by the daughter of Woody Guthrie. New lawsuits attempt to change that, but what does it mean for copyright law?
Many superstars are going it alone without a manager. Taylor Swift, Bruno Mars, Beyonce and Ariana Grande are using a close tight nit team to guide their careers instead of traditional management companies. Prince was notorious for doing the same thing, and Mick Jagger has essentially guided the Rolling Stones since early in their career. Works for some, not so much for others as Queen and Billy Joel had a rough time after trying the strategy.
Drake’s Views chart dominance is mainly due to streaming. It seems that sales aren’t what they used to be, but I’ve been making that point for a long time.
Spotify is trying to program ads based on your musical tastes. The company is now asking advertisers to submit ads that fit specific profiles to better target listeners on its free ad-supported tier. Creepy or smart?
Song pluggers now target playlists. Song “pluggers” or promoters used to target just radio in order to raise the profile of a song and make it a hit, now they target various playlists instead.
Apple has fixed a big problem with Apple Music. It has moved to fingerprinting technology to help better match your personal music collection to its online catalog. User have been frustrated with inaccurate matches, but this promises to kill the bug.
Downloads will be dead by 2020. That’s what this article predicts as it looks at the downward spiral down of downloadable music consumption. Not analysts believe it will happen this quickly, by the way.
Has streaming broken the UK singles charts? A better question might be, what dos the singles chart now measure, because it certainly isn’t sales.
That’s the News Roundup of what went on in the music industry last week. Let’s see what next week brings.
Spread the word! 

terça-feira, 19 de julho de 2016

Talvez Youtube Não Seja O "Bicho Papão" Da Música Apesar De Tudo


Maybe YouTube Isn’t Music’s Boogie Man After All

First of all thanks to my friend BOBBY OWSINSKI for this article.


Artists, bands and record labels have issued an all-out assault on YouTube this year over a variety of issues that mostly stem from what they consider to be low royalty payouts. The problem is, while it’s likely that many of the presumptions leading to the attacks have a basis in reality, their conclusions may be premature.

In the music industry’s eyes, YouTube is a devil that it’s forced to deal with. The service is widely used to market it’s product while throwing off enough revenue that it can’t be easily dismissed, yet YouTube is in a position of strength where the labels can’t easily use their licensing leverage to get their way as they could with other streaming service negotiations in the past. What seems to be true is that content owners are receiving a lower royalty rate for every video view than ever before. In fact, industry analyst Mark Mulligan reports that the per view rate was actually cut in half from 2014 to 2015, and is now down to around $0.001. That said, YouTube continues to pay the industry more money than ever, with almost $2 billion in payments since 2014.

While that may be true, the fact of the matter is that YouTube isn’t nearly as powerful as it once was, and indications are that its popularity for music delivery is waning. According to a recent BuzzAngle report that looked at music consumption from the beginning of the year, for the first time streaming actually outpaced music video views, with the number of streams at 114 billion and video views at around 97 billion.

What’s more, according to the GlobalWebIndex study, young people between 16 to 24 (the traditional driver for video views) are more willing to pay for streaming than older adults, despite indications that only 1 in 10 digital consumers end up paying for streaming music overall. This figure for younger Americans could actually be higher though, since pre-teens and teens don’t usually have credit cards. Many ask their parents to pay for the subscription or are part of a parent’s family streaming plan, so the complete picture here is still a question mark. When you take that into consideration, there may be more young people in that subscriber category than you might think.

Google has certainly taken notice to these numbers and is attempting to increase it’s own music subscriptions by running a sale. First of all, a free 2 month trial period for Google Play is now available that includes its YouTube Red service as well, and Red alone is being offered for just $0.99 for the first three months through the YouTube app. A company running aggressive sales campaigns is reacting to the market, and Google sees the writing on the wall. YouTube is falling out of favor with the demographic that, at least up until now, consumes it the most.