But the studio, one of the few remaining in Hollywood after many closed due to high costs and new technologies, faces a danger worse than a single wild rock star. Sunset Sound’s three studios have produced more than 300 gold records but they could be ruined by a filthy homeless camp next to the building. Garbage is stacked high, needles and pipes are scattered on the ground and homeless people use the street as a toilet.

Paul Camarata, the owner, said the studio was twice endangered by fires that could have spread from the camp’s tents. Staff have been harassed by mentally ill homeless people. Sir Elton John and Miley Cyrus’s producers wondered what was happening with the dirty tents outside, Camarata, 70, said. Taylor Swift vowed never to record at Sunset Sound again after a run-in on her way back from a nearby 7-Eleven store. “She wasn’t attacked or anything, but she was bothered. And enough to the point where she said, ‘I’m not coming back’.”

He added: “I kind of compare it to a restaurant. You go to a restaurant once or twice, and you have a bad meal. You’re probably not going to complain, you’re just not going to go back. And that’s what I’m afraid of here. If we don’t have business because of the environment that’s around this building, then I don’t know how we survive. This is a big problem.”

If Sunset Sound closed it would be a loss for the Los Angeles music scene. The studio was founded in 1960 after Camarata’s father Tutti was asked by Walt Disney to start a record label for the company. Disney did not want a recording studio at Burbank so Tutti Camarata, who died in 2005, opened one on Sunset Boulevard. Some of the Disney songs recorded there were for the 1961 version of The Parent Trap and for Mary Poppins.

Studio 1 became known for its excellence, Camarata said, and musicians soon came knocking. Herb Alpert, the American trumpeter, liked Sunset Sound so much that he tried to buy it but Tutti Camarata said no. The Doors, the Los Angeles band led by the unpredictable but brilliant Morrison, made their first album at the studio.

Morrison, who died aged 27 in 1971, left a lasting impression at Sunset Sound. While making that 1967 album the singer “took some acid” according to Camarata, and went to an all-night church across the street. The story goes that Morrison had a “revelation” and came back to the studio, climbing over a fence and breaking into the building. He thought the studio was on fire and started putting out “flames” with a fire extinguisher.

“He hit mostly all their equipment,” Camarata said. “Some of ours like microphones and stuff but mostly their equipment. Luckily he did not come into the control room.” Who ruined the studio that night might have stayed a mystery had Morrison not left a boot on the fence on his way out. Staff found it and figured out who did it. Jac Holzman, president of Elektra Records, the Doors’ label, said he was sorry but Tutti Camarata forgave the erratic Morrison.

Paul Camarata, who became president of Sunset Sound in 1980, said: “My dad was like, ‘hey, look, I’m a musician, too. I’ve seen some crazy stuff. It wasn’t that bad. We cleaned it up. Let’s just get back to making music’. And they did.” The Beach Boys recorded parts of the 1966 album Pet Sounds at Sunset Sound and the Rolling Stones made Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed there. In the 1980s Van Halen and Prince were often there.

The rich history of Sunset Sound is what draws modern musicians to the studio, said Josh Lawrence, 32, the studio manager. “The clients that come here sense the history,” he said. “They want to tap into some of that when they’re recording.” He worries that the homeless camp will scare away clients. He said they had pleaded with the council to remove the tents but had been overlooked.

Los Angeles council district 13, where the studio is situated, said it had more than 3,000 people sleeping on the streets but only 400 beds. Camarata said that if he had to close down then Los Angeles’ musical heritage would suffer a huge loss. “We are an institution,” he said. “If Sunset Sound was to shut down, I think it would be disastrous for the music community. Once it’s gone, it’s gone for good.”

Back then labels gave their music away for free for promotion, which proved to be the genesis of MTV, a new music video format that made hundreds of millions if not a few billion over its lifetime. Subsequently, the labels and their signed artists received nothing of measurable monetary value in return.

Moving forward to the late 90’s and early naughts, the major labels dropped their pants, bent over, and said take whatever you want for free in their negotiations with Apple iTunes. Well maybe not free but that further devalued music and started the domino effect decline of the value of an album as a concept.

Yes, we can diverge to the anarchy of pirate sites like Napster and Grokster, where once again labels missed an opportunity to attain data and leverage its value to drive better revenue opportunities. But there is a valid argument here, that labels should not have to negotiate with businesses that were illegally giving away their rights holders’ content for free.

Now, let’s not forget the labels’ history. Back in the MTV days, they gave away music videos for free, but guess what? The artists still had to pay for it! They got charged from their royalties for content they wouldn’t see a penny from. That’s like taking money straight outta the artists’ pockets to line the labels’ own.

In the naughts, we saw the rise of DIY services and digital distribution as an artist’s centric solution to fighting back against being screwed over by major labels. But let’s not forget Myspace. It’s arguable that without artists helping build its network of users, Myspace would have never grown as big as it did. Artists did get to access their fanbase without being charged, unlike the dirty ‘bake and switch’ antics of Facebook.

Let’s move onto streaming where finally labels were beginning to wake up and understand the value of their rights in the digital realm. Yet they became awfully greedy and made it almost unsustainable for the likes of Spotify who could not afford for music and its business model to be a loss leader, unlike Apple, Google, and Amazon. Interestingly, the 2020’s has become the largest revenue stream (pun intended) for labels by a large margin.

What does all the above tell us?  Whilst formats change, music fans still want access to listen to the music they like. But the real question is, what are fans even paying for? What’s the value of access to music these days? Have the labels figured out the sweet spot between making bank and keeping the fans happy? The jury’s still out on that one.

Now, finally, this year and last we see the likes of Universal Music and other labels and publishers standing up to AI juggernauts, and rightly so. There is a potential new music goldmine if labels do not drop their pants as they did in the 80’s. All current indications are that they’re finally on the right track. If anything, they are in a better negotiating position because these AI steamrollers have been using music content to train their models without the legal right to do so. Potentially, this could lead to billions as a settlement for that illegal use. Then there are the partnership opportunities for the licensed use of labels’ catalogues, which would spark a whole new array of music consumption formats and revenue streams for labels and artists.

This leads me to the current TikTok vs Universal Music battle. TikTok is essentially trying to utilise the 80’s free promotion model, paying little to no royalties to rights holders. Universal Music’s pulling of its catalogue is a coming-of-age event.  It states very clearly that labels have learned from past mistakes that all rights holders on all platforms need to be equitably renumerated for the use of their music. There are no more free rides on a label’s music rights.

Hey Tik Tok, your growth has demonstrably benefited from the inclusion of music, it’s essential to acknowledge the financial investment made by rights holders in creating that content. Equitable compensation for the use of licensed music remains a cornerstone of a sustainable and mutually beneficial ecosystem for both platforms and rights holders. Moving forward, transparent and fair licensing agreements will play a vital role in ensuring all parties involved are appropriately recognized and rewarded for their contributions. If anything, TikTok’s platform will lose value to its user base without Universal Music’s catalogue.

There is a clear co-dependency here, but the labels have the upper hand, and rightly so. On a final, note hopefully, Universal Music’s stand on this issue will encourage the other major labels to grow some cajones and stand up to TikTok, resulting in a new music paradigm: no more free use of music.

Yes, the same platform that brought you cat videos and cringe-worthy influencers is now the go-to place for snagging every song imaginable. Thanks to some clever websites, you can rip the audio from any YouTube video, download it as an MP3 or .wav file, and sail the seas of free music. No subscriptions, no ads, no hassle.

Muso, the self-proclaimed music piracy watchdog, spilled the beans that a whopping 40% of music piracy is courtesy of these sneaky “YouTube-to-MP3” sites. Blame it on the streaming giants like Spotify and Apple Music, which now charge a hefty $10.99 a month. Seriously, who wants to spend $132 a year when you can get your favorite jams for free?

But here’s the plot twist—Google, the overlords of YouTube, seems cool with it. Even though they claim to despise copyright infringement, a simple Google search for “YouTube to MP3” leads you straight to these piracy havens. Apparently, they’re too busy counting their ad revenue to enforce their own policies.

YouTube spokesperson Jack Malone wants you to believe they care about artists and creators getting their fair share. He says they take action against audio-ripping services when notified. Funny enough, no one seems to have alerted them about the 10 blue links that pop up on the first page of a “YouTube to MP3” search. So much for commitment.

But why bother paying for music when you can join the piracy revolution? Napster may be dead, but its rebellious spirit lives on through YouTube.

Surprisingly, music piracy had been on a nosedive for the past seven years. Exclusive album releases on platforms like Tidal and Apple Music, which fueled piracy back in the day, had taken a backseat. However, as Muso CEO Andy Chatterley reveals, piracy is back, and it’s back with a vengeance.

Blame it on the ever-increasing costs of streaming services or sky-high mobile data charges in some regions—people are turning back to the good ol’ days of downloading tracks over Wi-Fi. According to Muso’s findings, a staggering 40% of music piracy is now channeled through sites ripping audio from YouTube videos. Move over torrents and illegal streams; YouTube-to-MP3 is the new cool kid in town.

So, what about the big shots like Taylor Swift? Despite her dominating the charts and selling millions of records, her albums were torrented hundreds of thousands of times. In 2023 alone, the rerecorded version of “1989” was torrented over 275,000 times. Torrents may be a drop in the piracy ocean, but they’re making waves, especially now that piracy is making a grand comeback.

It’s been almost 25 years since Napster changed the game, and in that time, we’ve seen countless ways to buy and stream music. But snagging tunes from the internet is like a timeless classic—it never really goes out of style.

Simple Things
Bristol, UK
24-29 February 2024

Bristol is a well-known mecca for music lovers. Local festival Simple Things sums up the psychogeography and creative spirit of the city that gave the world trip hop and other related underground offshoots. The event takes over multiple venues around Bristol including ​​Grade II listed concert hall Bristol Beacon, Rough Trade record shop, DIY arts spaces Strange Brew and The Island as well as clubs SWX, The Love INN, and county sports club Sportsmans. With this wide array of locations, the organisers (who also run a series of shows during the year https://simplethingsfestival.co.uk/shows/) bring together adventurous spirits such as intense electronic producer Gazelle Twin, dub techno duo Space Afrika, London-based practitioners of wild angular riffs Warmduscher and French noiseniks The Psychotic Monks, to name a few. The festival will wrap up with a show of Fever Ray whose maverick nature is emblematic of this eclectic and vibrant event.

More information and tickets are here.

MENT
Ljubljana, Slovenia
21-24 February 2024

MENT refers to a Latin suffix denoting an action, process or its result. Just as the name suggests, the Slovenian boutique showcase festival reveals the fascinating diversity of the Central European, Balkan and especially local music scene, which has left an imprint on the international music industry with bands like Laibach, Siddharta and most lately psych-folk trio Širom. Alongside the impressive line-up featuring 88 artists, there will be a three-day conference programme with panel discussions that cover the most relevant subjects, e.g. music promotion in specific regions of Europe, game-changing streaming transformations, DIY music distribution and more. Just like Simple Things, MENT is celebrating its 10th anniversary this year, so it must be special.

More information and tickets are here.

Edition Festival
Stockholm, Sweden
22-25 February 2024

This small yet unique festival celebrates immersive arts and experimental electronic music. Taking place in atmospheric and haunting Eric Ericsonhallen, the event unites likeminded artists focusing on multimedia aesthetics and augmenting the music with ambient textures. This year’s Edition is done in collaboration with INA grm and in partnership with Elektronmusikstudion EMS, a studio producing professional electroacoustic music and sound-art equipment. In keeping with the festival’s experimental approach, the line-up features genre-bending sound artists Marja Ahti, Beatrice Dillon, Kevin Drumm, Jessica Ekomane, Amina Hocine, Okkyung Lee, Daniel M Karlsson, Lionel Marchetti, John McCowen, Stephen O’Malley, Arnaud Rivière, Flora Yin Wong. In addition to the individual shows, the programme also includes the presentation of archival works from the studios of EMS and INA GRM.

More information and tickets are here.

St. Jerome’s Laneway Festival
Australia, New Zealand
3-10 February 2024

While it’s still summer in the Pacific region, the respective countries are making the best of it with a variety of primarily outdoor events. The St. Jerome’s Laneway Festival is a travelling music tour across Australia with a strong focus on indie rock. The regular stops are Brisbane, Sydney, Adelaide, Melbourne, and Fremantle. Same artists will be travelling from one place to another, starting on 3 February on the Western side of Australia and finishing on the other side of the continent in Perth on 11 February. This year, the event is also taking over the Northern Island of New Zealand. The line-up in Auckland features British rapper Stormzy, American producer Steve Lacy as well as local acts. Psych outfit Unknown Mortal Orchestra is one of the collectives associated with the contemporary indie scene of NZ.

More information and tickets are here.

Naturally, the reformation of Pitchfork is perceived by many music writers and readers as the death of the digital publication. The apprehensive impression is coloured by recent news about similar layoff schemes at Bandcamp, Spotify and Tidal. The grim scenario looming over the independent music industry does not help to imagine anything different. A few years back, music journalism was shaken by the closure of Q magazine in 2020 and the loss of the printed version of NME who stopped producing a weekly magazine in 1998. So Condé Nast calling it a day for Pitchfork wouldn’t come as a big surprise.

One of the long-standing online publications, Pitchfork has been influential. Launched by Ryan Schreiber in 1996, it gradually evolved from a digital fanzine to a professional site with an international pool of writers. It is said to have boosted the careers of such contemporary indie giants as Arcade Fire, Sufjan Stevens, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, Interpol, the Go! Team, Junior Boys, the Books, Broken Social Scene, Cold War Kids, Wolf Parade, Tapes ‘n Tapes, and Titus Andronicus.

Unlike its current sleek version, Pitchfork circa the late 90s and early noughties specialised in sharp-tongued reviews, written in an unconventional (often conversational) manner. Balancing between a comic strip, a script for a play and draft for a fanzine review, the piece about Stereolab’s album Cobra and Phases Group Play Voltage in the Milky Night is a flow of arrogant humour and obnoxious stream of consciousness (Mr. DiCrescenzo, were you a music writer now, you would perhaps appreciate things in a very different way). Reviews rating albums (often unjustified) at 3 or 4 (and even 0) out of 10 were not rare on Pitchfork. Since its inception, 873 reviews have been awarded a rating of less than 5. The belittling tone of its writers became somewhat the publication’s schtick. The digital footprint on some forums reveals the outrage of music fans frustrated about extremely negative reviews.

Later on, they mellowed out. Critics like Brent DiCrescenzo or Rob Mitchum went their ways, with the former, quite predictably, becoming a scriptwriter and the latter moving on to science journalism. Still, the publication and the team haven’t been shy to say what they actually think. A rare and unprecedented stance in the world where many online sources are very cautious and have almost worship-like relationships with labels, publicists and PRs.

It would also be fair to say that Pitchfork have been an outlet that stood out from many music sites, often relying on copypasting and rephrasing cliches. In the interview with Billboard, DiCrescenzo admits that record reviews have never been really his cup of tea: “It sounds weird to say, considering I reviewed music for a living for years, but I kind of hate record reviews. They are formulaic and rely on oddly canonized vocabulary – nobody talks like this in real life. So, I wanted my reviews to make the reader feel [how] the record made me feel. If the record made me laugh, I’d try to make the audience laugh. If the album made me emo, I would go heart-on-screen. Kid A [Radiohead’s album] immediately awed and excited me and made me want to gush about it.”

After the publication was bought by media giant Condé Nast in 2015, it had to adjust to its new unlikely home (also home to glossy mags like Vogue and GQ). The decision to lay off the staff and merge the music site with the men’s magazine was announced by Anna Wintour, Condé Nast’s chief content officer and global editorial director of Vogue, who reportedly kept her trademark sunglasses on during the meeting. Given the differences between the publications, that is Vogue and Pitchfork, the clash of ideas conjures up allusions to the antagonism between youth subcultures, namely fights between mod and rockers in early 1960s Britain.

Regardless of the obnoxious stance of its writers in the past or better-tempered tone now, the loss of Pitchfork would be unpleasant for many music enthusiasts and industry professionals. The opinion of Pitchfork mattered. Although its development within GQ is not clear, it will certainly be another publication. In his Pitchfork appreciation feature, former staff journalist Marc Hogan wrote: “I am rooting hard for my brilliant and talented former colleagues who remain at Pitchfork. We need their work now as much as ever, but it’s hard to see how doing it will get anything but more difficult.”

Independence is an ambiguous phenomenon, particularly in the music industry overridden by the manipulative behaviour of bigger corporations. Earlier this year, we saw multiple examples where the independent scene was challenged by new regulations, e.g. Bandcamp being purchased by licensing company Songtradr and the utterly shocking policy of Spotify introducing a 1000-play threshold for royalty payments.

Still, the presence of independent labels is tangible. Represented by such associations as AIM, Impala and Merlin, the alternative tastemakers often make themselves heard. One such example is the Warner Divestment deal when dozens of independent labels got an opportunity to purchase 10% of the Parlophone catalogue which had been acquired by Warner Music Group in 2013.

Among the companies that took part in the deal was Cherry Red Records, whose forty-five history makes it one of the most long-standing and venerable labels in the world. Co-founded by Iain McNay in 1978, Cherry Red has gone through a series of transformations – from a propagator of punk in the late 70s, a purveyor of maverick talent in the early 80s and, finally, a label specialising in reissues of individual artists as well as thematic compilations.

By the time of the label’s first release – The Tights’ “Bad Hearts” single, Cherry Red existed as a promotion company that ran events at Malvern Winter Gardens in Worcestershire and some other venues. The diversity of the programme which listed artists as different as Judas Priest and Kevin Ayers signposted the direction of the future label. In the first five years of its existence, Cherry Red secured the success of now-legendary American punks the Dead Kennedys as well as gave way to such collectives and individual acts as Eyeless in Gaza, Felt, The Monochrome Set, The Marine Girls, Tracey Thorn, Ben Watt, Thomas Leer and The Passage. “We were learning as we went along”, Iain McNay, the founder and chairman of Cherry Red Records tells The Music Void. “We were working with pretty much exclusively new acts, and that was challenging, and our cashflow was always challenging”.

Talking about the multifaceted nature of Cherry Red, Iain McNay admits that diversity has been its trademark element from the very start. “We have always been diverse and that is what stood us apart from other independent labels at the time we started – Mute, Factory. They all pertained to a certain image, and our image was a bit all over the place. We were not trying to be trendy and were not trying to stick to one musical area. So this diversity has always been there”.

Over the decades, Cherry Red has become an umbrella for fifty-four smaller labels and acquired dozens of catalogues which fed into their image as diverse and all-inclusive. The company puts out 20-30 releases per month, most of which are reissues. Astonishingly, the overwhelming pressure of streaming on the physical media seems to have left Cherry Red unaffected. According to McNay, 70% of the label’s income comes from the sale of CD box sets, with the remaining 30% attributed to releases on digital platforms. Such proportion is partly due to the loyal fandom of Cherry Red and the fact that it put out music that would otherwise remain out of reach. “We put out a lot of lost music which is music that has been unavailable for years or was never available in the first place”, admits McNay. “We also have a very loyal fanbase, an email list with nearly 60,000 people”.

Any form of independence is questionable by today’s standards, and Iain McNay reminds us that it is a way of thinking rather than the state of being entirely on your own financially. “There is a certain spirit, and an independent spirit is around in different forms. There is a historical situation where certain labels like Beggars and Cherry Red have always been independently owned and they tried to stay as independent as possible. Our distribution goes through ADA which is owned by Warners. So you could say that we are not truly independent in terms of distribution”. Iain McNay continues after a pause: “It’s a lot to do with your spirit, the way you think, the way you act. And then it’s very difficult for a new label starting off not to get funding from somewhere. They get their funding and stay as independent in terms of their control as they can”.

Although their reissue activity and focus on physical releases imply the past-oriented approach, Cherry Red don’t shy away from contemporary technology. When asked about the development of AI, McNay sounds optimistic. “It’s still early days for us but we are exploring how AI can help rework our old masters. So it provides other ways of interpreting old tracks. I would say for us, there are certainly positives there. If people tried and copied our acts, I wouldn’t really care because I think people who buy our product appreciate authenticity. So, I don’t think the evolution of AI would affect us much”.

The Rise of AI and its Impact on the Music Business

The rapid rise of AI is probably the biggest event to hit music. It’s been an almost weekly occurrence of lawsuits, and panels at conferences discussing the pros and cons of its impact on artists and the business. On top of this, we have also witnessed new inventive ways for artists to utilise Ai to enhance their creativity You should check out Wayne Rosso’s post on what would happen if an AI-composed song won an award at the Grammy’s.

We saw mashups banned by Universal Music amongst many others. We would suggest that probably the biggest issue to raise its ugly head has been the illegal usage of music to train AI juggernauts like ChatGTP, Google Bard, and others. These AI monopolists think it is fine to rip off artists and pay them nothing despite their $100 billion-plus valuations. TMV states these VCs that back them and the services themselves are no better than thieves and should be treated as such by the law.

Whilst technological advancement is meant to be good for society why is it always the creatives/artists in our community who are the first to be stolen from as technology advances? And worse the thieves (big Mafioso VCs and the services they fund) think there is nothing wrong with doing that…

Streaming and the New Royalty Calculation Method

Next on the list is the change in how streaming royalties are calculated. Global Universal Music boss Lucian Grange gave his statement of the year ahead at the start of 2023 that he wanted a fairer system for the distribution of royalties to artists from streaming. Now at the close of the year, it turns out this supposedly ‘fairer’ streaming royalty system involves stealing from those artists who can least afford it.

Yep, any artist’s songs with less than 1000 streams will receive no payment at all – instead, it will be stolen and paid to the major artists who are, already doing fine.

It feels like the new motto for “fairer” streaming royalty payments equals stealing from the poor to pay the rich. Why is it in the music business that big major label corporations who complain about being stolen from are the first to be advocating for stealing from long-tail artists who are already doing it extremely tough? TMV believes these label execs need to take a long hard look in the mirror before complaining about being stolen from…

Bots Gaming the Streaming Ecosystem

Following on from the last theme the issue of bots gaming streaming services like Spotify to enrich criminals and depriving actual artists of payment is a clear issue.  It is probably the only area I will agree with major and indie labels alike. It needs to be stopped, no ifs, no buts.

The fact streaming services have and are continuing to do so little to combat such conduct is concerning. Going further it could be implied from the lack of effort to stop it that a number of these streaming services are complicit in such dodgy behaviour.

TMV would go even further and state very clearly as we have done previouslythat such conduct could only be carried out with the complicity of certain performing rights organisations and associated streaming services. How else will these scamming bot companies get paid? They can only get payouts for streams of their bot songs from the streaming services for the recorded rights and performing rights societies for the publishing song rights.

We believe more effort needs to be actively shown by streaming services and performing rights societies to tackle this issue head-on.

SXSW Sydney & Its Two Fingers to Australian Music Street Press

The Inaugural SXSW Sydney was a success according to many people – however, we would not know as we were denied a press pass as yes you hear this right “because we (TMV) are not afraid of speaking truth to power” That was a comment from the press officer to my face. Just wondering how the folks at SXSW HQ in Austin feel about that as it was never an issue for TMV to get a press pass back in the naughties to attend the real SXSW in Austin.

Going further, we also heard along the grapevine the organisers of SXSW Sydney refused to spend any advertising dollars on Australian music street press instead spending over $250K advertising in Murdoch publications that ironically pay no tax in Australia.  I wonder how the Australian taxpayer should be feeling about that considering it was primarily Visit NSW that funded SXSW Sydney (i.e. NSW taxpayers).

Does the music-loving public, music business generally, or press in Australia feel it is right that such an event excludes Australian music street press from their advertising budgets? More importantly, how does the Australian music business feel about the fact SXSW Sydney is supporting a media organisation that actively supports Trump, his insurrection against the US government, and climate denialism in every single cable channel and newspaper the Murdochs own around the world?

Essentially, SXSW Sydney actively went out of its way to exclude independent Australian music street press from its advertising budgets and instead chose to support a media organisation that actively creates division and hatred and pays no tax. Shame on you SXSW Sydney!

Twitter wait no X…

What was once Twitter and now named X is a mere skeleton of what it once was. Elon Musk certainly knows how to blow $44 Billion, piss off advertisers and lose tens of millions of users from the platform.  This led to his arch neediness Mark Zuckerberg launching an X competitor called “Threads”. According to current numbers, Threads is ahead of Twitter/X in active user numbers.

TMV called out Elon’s double standards when it comes to free speech sending him a direct message stating we thought his taking away proper moderation, especially of child sex abuse material reprehensible and the fact he ignores many countries’ privacy laws as illegal conduct. We stated people should be able to criticise him without being booted off the platform.

But lo and behold, TMV was ejected and had our account deleted. So much for freedom of speech. Clearly, Elon has very thin skin when it comes to being told honest opinions of him and his conduct. It has already become a festering shithole of racists, Ku Klux Klan, and Trump-loving idiots. We predict that X will be further starved of advertising revenue and die within the next 12 months if not earlier.

Artists Cancelling Other Artists

2023 witnessed numerous Australian artists cancel other artists from playing festivals like Blues Fest 2023 in Byron Bay. We wrote about it here. It is TMV’s view that it is wrong for artists to insist they will not play if another artist is playing because of that band’s previous antics. Especially where said band had apologised on numerous occasions and done more than these bands combined that cancelled them in terms of outreach for doing good.

Said band’s lead singer had well-documented mental health problems and these artists cancelling them impacted their income and earning capacity. Most successful artists have experienced mental health issues whether that be Kane West to Britney Spears – but is it right to then cancel their career? Who gives artists that right when it is another artists profession?

At TMV we do believe in rehabilitation or for people, countries, and artists to make amends for previous bad deeds. What is it about these artists who want to cancel other livelihoods and not take into account artists’ mental health? Just for taking such a stance, TMV believes these artists’ acts of cancelling are worse than said band’s original bad antics in the past.

So, there has been a lot of change and chaos in 2023 when it comes to the music and technology sector. 2024 is going to be interesting and we look forward to continuing to report on it. Peace out!

Hold on tight as we delve into the seedy underbelly of the music industry, where David Bowie’s journey to stardom could’ve hit a dead end faster than you can say “Starman.” Nile Rodgers, the funk maestro behind Bowie’s ’80s hit “Let’s Dance,” recently spilled the tea in front of a House of Commons select committee investigating the streaming economy. Get ready for revelations that’ll make your jaw drop.

Rodgers doesn’t pull punches, stating that labels these days are more fixated on counting their Spotify streams than fostering raw talent. In a world where artists are treated like commodities, Rodgers yearns for the bygone era when labels were willing to invest time in nurturing creativity. But those days seem as ancient as Bowie’s Ziggy Stardust persona.

The committee, featuring heavyweights like Prof David Hesmondhalgh and Dr Hyojung Sun, along with industry insider Merck Mercuriadis, paints a somber picture. Despite groundbreaking 2021 recommendations, it appears the music industry is stuck in a loop, like a broken record playing the same sad tune.

Sun dropped a truth bomb, stating, “We still have a long way to go before we can say the industry has been reset.” Hesmondhalgh chimed in, revealing that streaming is like a money waterfall—but only a select few are standing under it with buckets. Profit distribution resembles a dysfunctional family arguing over the last piece of cake.

In 2021, the committee declared that streaming brought hefty profits to the industry, leaving artists scrambling for scraps. Two years later, surprise, surprise! Nothing much has changed. The committee’s report revealed that streaming services devour 30-34% of stream revenue, labels snatch 55%, and the remaining crumbs are tossed to the recording artist, publisher, and songwriter. It’s a feast for labels, a fast-food value meal for the artists.

To highlight the absurdity, Rodgers compared his ’70s payday to the struggles of today’s artists. In ’77, after his Chic album sold a million copies, he was bathing in a sea of $100,000 bills. Fast forward to Snoop Dogg, who spilled the beans on getting a paltry $45,000 for a billion streams. That’s like getting a penny for every time you’ve hummed “Uptown Funk.”

Spotify, the alleged villain in this drama, defended itself, claiming it spreads the wealth among premium subscribers and advertisers. A spokesperson tried to pacify the masses, saying, “Nearly 70% of this money is paid out to music rights holders to what we call the ‘royalty pool.’” Rodgers, however, wasn’t buying it. He scoffed at labels using the tired argument that they invest millions in artists and repertoire, calling it an “archaic” tale. In other words, he smelled something fishy, and it wasn’t just the sea of Spotify’s excuses.

Sun joined the roast, throwing shade at record labels and their claims of substantial risk. Mercuriadis, armed with the power of streaming data, argued that labels never roll the dice anymore. They simply sign artists who’ve already been pre-approved by the masses. So, where’s the risk? It’s like choosing your dessert after seeing everyone else’s Instagram pics—the public has spoken, and labels just follow the trend.

The committee circus unfolded just days after Spotify’s CFO, Paul Vogel, did a dramatic exit after cashing in a whopping $9.3 million in shares. Talk about timing. Spotify had just decided to trim its workforce by nearly a fifth, making Vogel’s departure the cherry on top of the chaos cake. The streaming giant reported 17% cuts, the third round of layoffs in a year. They had already snipped 6% in January and went for a trim of 2% in June. Looks like Spotify’s playlist includes a track called “Unemployment Blues.”

Get ready for a wild ride through the music industry jungle, where Bowie’s rise to stardom teeters on the edge, labels dance with accusations of prioritizing profits over art, and Spotify’s CFO makes a cash-filled exit stage left. In this relentless rhythm of dollars and cents, the beat is ruthless, and the melody is money. Welcome to the show!

Last September, Killer Mike was spinning hip-hop classics at a music festival afterparty in Louisville. He declared it was all about freedom of speech – “say what the f*** you want!” But here’s the kicker: the event was co-sponsored by Stand Together Music, backed by libertarian billionaire Charles Koch, the fossil fuel fortune guy.

Now, why would Killer Mike, known for speaking out against police brutality and backing Bernie Sanders, associate with a political powerbroker like Koch? Some say it’s possible he didn’t know his set was linked to Koch, but critics are calling out Stand Together Music for sneakily collaborating with artists who might not share Charles Koch’s values.

Stand Together Music, led by Koch’s son Chase, claims to be promoting Charles Koch’s “principles-based legacy.” It’s not just some rich heir’s pet project; critics argue it’s a way for Koch to rope in pop musicians, young music fans, and other hard-to-reach folks into a conservative movement aiming to dismantle environmental regulations.

The organization, launched in 2022, boasts partnerships with artists like Machine Gun Kelly, The Chainsmokers, and Pitbull. Critics, like Connor Gibson, claim it’s a reputation laundering gig for Koch Industries, using musicians as unwitting pawns.

Even Rage Against the Machine’s Tom Morello is in the mix, featured in an interview on Stand Together Music’s site. But Morello’s politics, aligned with Occupy Wall Street and environmental causes, seem at odds with a conglomerate owning oil refineries and pipelines. Awkward, right?

Representatives for the artists didn’t spill the beans when asked for comments. Stand Together Music, in response, said it’s “honored to partner with incredible musicians” and they’re all about using music to solve real-world problems.

But let’s not forget who’s pulling the strings – Charles Koch, sitting on a $60 billion net worth, and his late brother were heavy hitters in conservative politics. They threw big bucks at groups attacking climate solutions, and they even birthed the Tea Party movement. Stand Together Music seems like their latest attempt to diversify their appeal, reaching music fans this time.

Chase Koch, the musical heir, founded the organization, claiming it’s all about bringing people together. But critics argue it’s just another tentacle of the Koch network aiming to weaken government regulations, all while throwing fun concerts and parties.

So, while Killer Mike might be spinning tunes for freedom of speech, the real question is, who’s calling the shots behind the music? It’s a strange situation, where musicians might be unknowingly playing to Koch’s politics, all while trying to make a difference in the world of music.

Good luck with that.

Clockenflap
1-3 December
Hong Kong, Special administrative region of China

The major international music event in the city romantically portrayed in Wong Kar-Wai brings together impressively diverse acts. With perennial Pulp as a headliner, the line-up features other iconic collectives such as New York hop-hop group De La Soul and Chinese alternative rockers Omnipotent Youth Society who have been active and defined the local independent music scene. Taking place at the city’s Central Harbourfront, the festival boasts six stages focusing on various music genres from pulse-y dance beats at Electriq to more experimental ones at Tommy. Preceded by a wave of cancellations due to the Hong Kong protest in 2019 and the pandemic later, this year finally sees the festival returning to its seaside metropolitan splendour. Get tickets here.

Maho Rasop
Bangkok, Thailand
2-3 December

The two-dayer in the capital of Thailand puts emphasis on music and a festive pre-Christmas mood (the name Maho Rasop translates as “festive celebration”. This year, the festival will hold its fourth edition featuring some of the names from the line-up of neighbouring Clockenflap: British post-punk revivalists IDLES, Squid and Yard Act will play at Maho Rasop on Saturday, the next day after their shows in Hong Kong. Post-punk is certainly a keyword that defines the festival’s spirit and choice of acts for 2023. The Sunday programme will be headlined by Interpol. Still, the event gives a chance to discover hidden gems of Southeast and East Asia: viral South Korean K-pop project Balming Tiger, intense Japanese girl group Atarashii Gakko!, Thai extravagant fashion designer and DJ Nuh Peace and more.
Get tickets here.

Wilco’s Sky Blue Sky
Riviera Maya, Mexico
2-6 December

Labelled as “an intimate, all-inclusive, music vacation”, Sky Blue Sky is a festival curated by Chicago-based alternative rockers Wilco. The four-dayer takes place in Hard Rock Riviera Maya, a seaside resort in Mexico. Combined with the picturesque setting, the line-up looks especially tempting featuring maverick artists: art-pop producer Cate Le Bon, indie-folk songwriter Kevin Morby and Father John Misty, to name a few. The latter will be playing material from his latest Chloë and The Next 20th Century album described by Pitchfork as a “wryly comic collection of vignettes that all depend upon the timelessness of a love song”. Apart from the music programme, Sky Blue Sky offers a variety of excursions, pools, an on-site waterpark, zipline, swim-up bars and other kinds of leisure. Worth a long journey, even from a different continent.
Get tickets here.