Warning: mysql_get_server_info(): Access denied for user ''@'localhost' (using password: NO) in /home/customer/www/e-music.india-meets-classic.net/public_html/wp-content/plugins/gigs-calendar/gigs-calendar.php on line 872

Warning: mysql_get_server_info(): A link to the server could not be established in /home/customer/www/e-music.india-meets-classic.net/public_html/wp-content/plugins/gigs-calendar/gigs-calendar.php on line 872
Indian E-music – The right mix of Indian Vibes… » 2019 » December » 09

$2000 Fine Proposed for Translator That Failed to Inform FCC of Its Primary Station and Seek Approval for Serving Same Area as Another Commonly Programmed Station

Delivered... David Oxenford | Scene | Mon 9 Dec 2019 5:43 pm

With more and more stations relying on FM translators to provide local service, a decision released last week emphasizes the importance of following the rules about the operations of these stations.  In the decision, the FCC’s Audio Division proposed to issue a $2,000 fine for an FM translator owner that failed to advise the FCC that it had switched the primary signal being rebroadcast by the translator, as required by the rules.  The Audio Division concluded that, for about a month, the translator was not rebroadcasting what had been specified as the primary station.  During that time, as the translator was rebroadcasting a local station that already had a translator serving much of the same area, the licensee was also faulted for not making a “technical need” showing as to why it was rebroadcasting the same signal to substantially the same area.  Two translators cannot rebroadcast the same signal to the same area without special permission if there is substantial overlap of the service area of one translator station with the other.

The violations were discovered as a result of a petition filed against the translator’s license application by a local organization, highlighting that a station’s actions may be watched by others in their markets.  The proposed fine would have been $7,000 but the FCC staff found that the violations were not prolonged and that the translator owner had no history of prior offenses.  Given the potential for problems that can ensue should a translator operator be found in violation of the rules, as the FCC has made clear in the past (see for instance, this decision about a translator rebroadcasting a primary station that had been off the air, and our article here about another that was operating with facilities different than set out in its license), be sure that you are observing all the rules that apply to their operations.


Delivered... Spacelab - Independent Music and Media | Scene | Mon 9 Dec 2019 5:00 pm
General Admission and VIP tickets are available, as well as Super VIP, Big Kahuna and Cabana packages. Red Hot Chili Peppers, Post Malone, Billie Eilish, Marshmello, Lana Del Rey Are among the top performers.

No, sharing your Spotify year-end artist stats is not a good idea – here’s why not

Delivered... Peter Kirn | Scene | Mon 9 Dec 2019 12:56 pm

If you’re following music acts, odds are you’re already seeing Spotify-generated stats and graphs from artists. There’s a backlash to the practice – and with good reason.

First, before I sound immediately anti-Spotify or anti-streaming, this isn’t necessarily about that. There are reasons to distribute music to streaming services, and ways of leveraging that distribution to financial benefit (albeit largely indirect).

Putting aside the streaming business model itself for a moment, though, let’s consider what artists are doing here. Spotify sent an email last week to all artists registered for the Spotify for Artists program, with a link to “2019 Wrapped for Artists.” You need to be an artist with music on Spotify, but that’s it – the company even says you only needed three (!) listeners prior to the end of October to qualify for the “Wrapped” report. (Mine for some reason isn’t available, so I’m guessing there’s some lag from demand.) The service coincides with a “Wrapped” report for listeners/fans, which shows which tracks they streamed most. (Richard Lawler wrote this up for Engadget.)

The artist email email concludes with the instruction to “share your highlights with your fans on social.”

Here’s where things get weird – a whole bunch of artists just read that, and did as instructed. (Top tip to those artists: if you get a deal from a Nigerian prince or someone promising to, uh, improve some aspect of your anatomy, I suggest applying some caution before you act. Cough.)

Ironically, I heard about the backlash to the wrapped artists before I started seeing reports. Here’s one good example:

To that thread alone, there were some compelling responses:

But then once they began appearing, the flood of reports posted to Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter has become unnervingly commonplace. With apologies to those of you who did share this for some reason already, here’s why I think critics are justified in sounding an alarm.

What stats are included:

  • Total fan hours streamed
  • Highest number of fan streams per hour
  • Increases in followers, total listeners, new listeners, streams, and playlist adds
  • Number of hours fans streamed between 1am – 6am
  • Number of countries where fans are based
  • Country that grew by the highest percent of listeners
  • Number of fans that had the artist as their #1 artist

Source: Hypebot.

Note that of these, only one element – growth by country – is really useful for gathering data about how you’d want to expand your fan base or, for instance, where to tour. (SoundCloud has offered similar data, too, for years, in greater detail.) The rest is all about feeding Spotify’s goals, which is to say, increasing the amount of streaming engagement on Spotify. Even without considering the pittance of income that generates for artists, it isn’t about you. It’s about building Spotify’s business, Spotify’s growth, Spotify’s core data – improving engagement for them, on a platform they own and control.

But why should I make that argument, when Spotify makes that argument for me?

In a statement, the company says they’re “dedicated to growing careers and sustaining momentum.” The key is how they define “momentum,” which is driving up playback stats and getting music “on repeat.” But unlike a platform like Bandcamp, that doesn’t include ownership of the music or any way to offer merchandise (which generates more revenue) or ownership of listener statistics, which might assist you in planning a tour or connecting with fans directly. And even if more Spotify streaming helps you get gigs by increasing your fan base, or helping people discover your music through playlists, that still doesn’t explain why you need to share those stats with fans.


Growth, growth, growth. As Spotify puts it, “for 2019 we’re focused on growth and velocity: all the ways your career grew, your music exploded, and your fans had you on repeat.”

What is that growth for, exactly? Well, it drives Spotify’s membership, and crucially it allows them to collect data they can offer back to advertisers.

It’s sick and twisted. By pushing you to focus on streaming stats, and then to share those same stats with your own fans, Spotify is driving home the idea that musical success is not how well you’re making out financially or how deeply fans care about your music or how it’s doing critically or your individual artistic satisfaction or literally any metric other than how much valuable user infomatics it is generating for a third-party corporation.

If they were just doing this to you, that would be one thing. But then they’re asking you to telegraph the very same message to your own fans.

Having made you do all of the work of making the music and promoting the music and then figuring out how the heck to get people to find it on their closed-box platform, they now want you to do additional work of pushing their corporate propaganda to everyone you know. (Heck, even in a pyramid scheme, you at least sell some inventory. Here you give it away for free and still lose out to the folks at the top.)

Here’s the only answer you really need to offer:

“But wait, isn’t all of this valuable to me? Shouldn’t I be grateful to what this service is offering me in promoting my music?” Okay, while I try to sort out the weird BDSM relationship we all now have with this corporation, here’s more evidence they really don’t have your interests at heart. In the same statement unveiling the service, they proudly announce:

“[We have a] steady stream of new features and resources, dedicated to growing careers and sustaining momentum; tools like Canvas, which lets artists add looping visuals to their music, and Marquee, which gives artists and labels the ability to sponsor new music recommendations.”

Let’s just translate there. they’re now giving you the ability to produce visuals for their platform on top of the nearly-free music you’re providing, and then to give you the “ability” to pay them money to get your music out there.

Wheee! So I can celebrate with my fans how much I’m part of a faceless algorithmic streaming service for which I earn nothing, punish myself for not getting heard that much, then pay the service to try to get heard more! Oh, and like make animated loops for them. Fun!

Because that’s the other evil part of this: the more Spotify dominates music listening, the more their ability to charge artists and labels for the privilege of being heard rather than the other way around. It’s just the old-fashioned pay-for-play scheme. I don’t doubt that some artists are blowing up this way, in which case, great! But the rest of us should delete this idea and move on.

Oh and by the way – this system benefits big industry conglomerates who are put of why Spotify is able to grow so fast. Those industry giants will often lock you into contracts where you pay them to pay for playlists and other exposure to get into the most-streamed music on the service.

This is not to say that streaming itself is evil. Streaming on its surface is just a different way of delivering digital files.

There is at least some hope that we could see a better business model for it. On Bandcamp, streaming is already tied to ownership – and at least for my part, I love streaming that music from the Bandcamp app even as I was happy to pay for downloads (or sometimes cassettes or vinyl or merch) on the site. Beatport’s streaming service for DJs is new, and the jury is still out on whether it’s good or bad for independent artists, but at least it attempts to a) set higher subscription fees for listeners, b) get a bigger chunk of money back to producers and labels, and c) drive casual DJs to spending more on serious consumption. I’m still researching whether the service delivers on the company’s claims, but even as far as the claims, this is a far cry from Spotify, who seem to openly celebrate the fact that they’re screwing you over for stats and revenue for someone else.

And again, maybe you’re happy with how Spotify is working for you. In that case, though, I’d still ask if you want to be sharing stats, assuming you’re in this music business to be in the business of actually making music.

In this rapidly shifting landscape, we need to keep a critical view of these tools, and constantly adapt to make them work for us, not turn into corporate shills for their agenda. That may well include actively engaging Spotify, but it almost certainly doesn’t include “sharing” corporate media with your fans.

I’ll tell you what makes me happy, though. I’m deeply satisfied that artists are striking back, and often in witty and hilarious ways.

So, Spotify, if you expect to “see us in the 20s” as you so proudly proclaim through a deep fog of corporate positivity – you may be seeing more of us in a way you didn’t expect.

Artists generally having fun:

Many artists are sharing their stats, and then sharing how little they earned (these guys got twelve bucks):

Music Without Borders editor Anil Prasad shared this detailed takedown, which also deals with Spotify’s corporate backers:

Here’s a thought: share music instead.

Oh and … no, listeners aren’t really happy either:

Spotify Wrapped: users alarmed by their own listening habits

We could just dump the whole thing in the ocean.

The post No, sharing your Spotify year-end artist stats is not a good idea – here’s why not appeared first on CDM Create Digital Music.

The 50 best albums of 2019, No 10: Weyes Blood – Titanic Rising

Delivered... Kitty Empire | Scene | Mon 9 Dec 2019 7:00 am

The LA singer-songwriter’s switch to stately orchestral pop earned Karen Carpenter comparisons, but her all-American concerns were firmly of our times

Going from playing bass in an avant-garde noise band called Jackie-O Motherfucker to garnering comparisons to Karen Carpenter is no mean feat. And yet that has been the winding trajectory of Natalie Mering, an auteur based in LA whose solo career reached an almighty crescendo this year with her fourth outing, Titanic Rising.

As slow and stately as a tanker turning, and as waterlogged as its title implies, Titanic Rising was a curio in 2019. Unburdened by modish musical trends – no guests, no genre crossovers – it was a feat of immersive beauty, the kind of record you might put on an old-fashioned stereo, dim the lights and sit through in one indulgent sitting, the better to appreciate its three-dimensional production washing over your skin like a gong bath.

Related: The 20 best songs of 2019

Continue reading...
TunePlus Wordpress Theme