Disclaimer
I started blogging with Blogger in 2005 and slowed down as I reached my blogging end in 2010. I have attempted to save all the blog entries in monthly archive pages. It's quite interesting to go back and see my novice, naive enthusiasm for music making and playing, as well as travelling. I also notice that I used a lot of exclamation marks! I must have been excited. For a while, anyway... I note that I slowed down quite a bit from 2008 onward; the momentum of my first batch of songs—written, released, and toured—had worn off. Also, I was amidst my first real bout of homesickness—I was living in New Zealand. A couple other things to note. Some of my spelling is American rather than British/Canadian (I'm Canadian). Regrettably, I note that I used the word "tits" a lot—for a while—without being conscious of how senseless, unnecessary, and thoughtless doing so was. Please take what you read with these grains of salt. Return to the root/index of the blog.
May 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
SOCAN misunderstood, again
SOCAN has recently dinged i(heart)music a retrospective licensing sum that may exceed $2000 for several years' worth of promoted music concerts. I read about it and I immediately sympathised with i(heart)music's situation, however I also noticed some misunderstandings about SOCAN. I would like to address these misunderstandings as neutrally as possible - and you might keep in mind that I am a member of SOCAN.
In this post, it is mentioned that the musicians were paid all the proceeds from the promoted concerts - so why is SOCAN entitled to a fee? Because SOCAN isn't concerned with the performing musicians - it is concerned with the performances of songs. Granted, many-to-most of the songs performed at these concerts were written by the performing musicians... but not all of them. Consider the cover songs (many performing acts perform a cover or two), or the co-writes by people who do not participate in the performances (or who are not even part of the band/act). SOCAN collects this licence fee to reimburse the artists whose songs were performed at the event.
It's also suggested that songwriters might reconsider their membership with SOCAN. But, since laws are established to enable SOCAN to collect money for performances of songs (this includes radio, concerts, TV, movies, in Canada and around the world), and since many artists' songs are being used or performed in a variety of ways, it only makes sense that songwriters and composers would join SOCAN. If they don't, they are missing out on money that they are entitled to, and which is being collected whether they want it or not. It costs nothing for an artist to join SOCAN, it's simply a matter of signing up and saying "Yes, please distribute to me my share of your collections (because otherwise, where is my share going?)."
Finally, it's mentioned that promoters (who give all the proceeds of a show to the performing artists) may find it excessive to pay a fee to SOCAN in addition to paying the performers. Look at it this way - the fee to SOCAN should be regarded as payment to the songwriters/composers, and it should be part of the overhead. Just as you need to obtain a liquor licence to sell alcohol at your event, you need to obtain a SOCAN licence to have music at your event; just as you are paying the the musicians for performing, you are paying the songwriters for composing and creating.
In the original post from i(heart)music, there appears to be an understanding that an event only needs to be licensed by SOCAN if at least one member of any of the performing acts is a SOCAN member. I'm open to being corrected; I believe that every event that uses music (live or from recorded media) needs to pay a licensing fee. Even if the band performing has no SOCAN members, they may play songs that were written by SOCAN members. Also, if the band or act is from another country, they may be members of a similar association that is affiliated with SOCAN. In any case, if an event has music involved, then the creators of that music are entitled to the money that SOCAN obtains from you (the promoter or venue manager) through a licence fee, along with a submitted list all the songs that were performed during the event.
Sounds like pain in the ass, eh? Well, as a songwriter, I appreciate receiving any extra income from SOCAN, especially knowing that they're collecting it regardless of whether or not I want it. Essentially, I'm (voluntarily) participating in an in-place system that benefits me, whereas music venues and promoters need to (lawfully) participate. I bet a lot of people could suggest alternative (and perhaps better) solutions for compensating songwriters, music composers and publishers for the use of their creations.
In this post, it is mentioned that the musicians were paid all the proceeds from the promoted concerts - so why is SOCAN entitled to a fee? Because SOCAN isn't concerned with the performing musicians - it is concerned with the performances of songs. Granted, many-to-most of the songs performed at these concerts were written by the performing musicians... but not all of them. Consider the cover songs (many performing acts perform a cover or two), or the co-writes by people who do not participate in the performances (or who are not even part of the band/act). SOCAN collects this licence fee to reimburse the artists whose songs were performed at the event.
It's also suggested that songwriters might reconsider their membership with SOCAN. But, since laws are established to enable SOCAN to collect money for performances of songs (this includes radio, concerts, TV, movies, in Canada and around the world), and since many artists' songs are being used or performed in a variety of ways, it only makes sense that songwriters and composers would join SOCAN. If they don't, they are missing out on money that they are entitled to, and which is being collected whether they want it or not. It costs nothing for an artist to join SOCAN, it's simply a matter of signing up and saying "Yes, please distribute to me my share of your collections (because otherwise, where is my share going?)."
Finally, it's mentioned that promoters (who give all the proceeds of a show to the performing artists) may find it excessive to pay a fee to SOCAN in addition to paying the performers. Look at it this way - the fee to SOCAN should be regarded as payment to the songwriters/composers, and it should be part of the overhead. Just as you need to obtain a liquor licence to sell alcohol at your event, you need to obtain a SOCAN licence to have music at your event; just as you are paying the the musicians for performing, you are paying the songwriters for composing and creating.
In the original post from i(heart)music, there appears to be an understanding that an event only needs to be licensed by SOCAN if at least one member of any of the performing acts is a SOCAN member. I'm open to being corrected; I believe that every event that uses music (live or from recorded media) needs to pay a licensing fee. Even if the band performing has no SOCAN members, they may play songs that were written by SOCAN members. Also, if the band or act is from another country, they may be members of a similar association that is affiliated with SOCAN. In any case, if an event has music involved, then the creators of that music are entitled to the money that SOCAN obtains from you (the promoter or venue manager) through a licence fee, along with a submitted list all the songs that were performed during the event.
Sounds like pain in the ass, eh? Well, as a songwriter, I appreciate receiving any extra income from SOCAN, especially knowing that they're collecting it regardless of whether or not I want it. Essentially, I'm (voluntarily) participating in an in-place system that benefits me, whereas music venues and promoters need to (lawfully) participate. I bet a lot of people could suggest alternative (and perhaps better) solutions for compensating songwriters, music composers and publishers for the use of their creations.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Why are CDs so expensive "down under"?
What's the deal? CDs in New Zealand and (if I recall correctly) Australia are nearly double the price of Canada and the USA. In my several years of "down under" living, I've heard countless observations and discussions among other foreigners on this matter. For reference in this article, I am a Canadian who is currently "here" in New Zealand.
In New Zealand, new music CDs are usually $25 to $35 at retail outlets. In contrast, I recall newly released CDs to typically be $15 in Canadian retail outlets, however special orders, low-stock older releases, and obscure finds could rise to over $20. Mind you, someone recently complained that prices are now $20 in HMV, but if my memory serves me correctly, HMV was always more expensive than other outlets. Since I've been away from Canada for a few years, I checked Megatunes (which doesn't represent all of Canada) and it appears that new releases are still as low as $15 and ranging to $20.
Well, I have some theories and thoughts on this; that's the kind of guy I am.
For starters, let's look at population differences and manufacturing costs. I'm going to group Canada with the USA (giving a population of about 350 million) and New Zealand with Australia (totalling to about 26 million). I'm also going to assume that manufacturing costs for CDs are higher "down under". So I'm off to a good start here... making assumptions and grouping "rivalling" nations together, ha ha. Having done that, it's obviously possible that New Zealand and Australia need higher CD prices to turn a profit - they have a smaller consumer base that will buy CDs, and they have manufacturing costs that are similar, if not higher, than in North America.
I was reading this discussion thread where it was suggested that CDs are not more expensive "down under", and that it may simply be a difference in exchange rates. It's also suggested that the higher prices are due to shipping. But what about local/national artists? Their CDs are just as expensive as international artists' are. Also, I don't believe that CDs are shipped overseas - I'm pretty sure that international record labels make licencing agreements with "down under" record labels, enabling the latter to manufacture CDs for retail. An example: I purchased In Field & Town from Hayden when he performed in Wellington last year; his CD was manufactured by Spunk Records in Australia, yet he was charging $25 to $30 (sorry I can't recall the exact price). Regarding exchange rates, I've seen the rate between New Zealand and Canada fluctuate as much as 0.3, and CD prices certainly haven't fluctuated in either country. I think that exchange rates and shipping aren't really factors - unless the ongoing rate was set by CDs that were once shipped "down under"...
Then there's the momentum of the ongoing rate - existing CDs are that price, so new releases must also be that price. Raising the price might result in less sales, and probably no record labels or artists want less CD sales - that would be anti-promotional. On the other hand, lowering the price for a new release might devalue it or somehow associate it with lesser quality. I wonder if North American entities would like to raise the prices of their CDs but feel they cannot, or maybe "down under" groups want to lower theirs? It's possible that people want to shift their prices but the momentum of the ongoing rate has the final say.
I've considered that New Zealand CD distributors, record manufacturers, or artists may want more money per unit than similar groups would in North America. On one hand, that's silly - everyone everywhere wants more money! However, perhaps North America sees a CD more as a promotional item than New Zealand does. It's possible, and I'm speculating - but I have met a fair number of music artists in Canada that sell their CDs between $10 and $20 at shows because they want to get the music "out there". I've met a fair number of artists in New Zealand that sell their CDs for $20 to $30 at shows.
Perhaps everything is just more expensive in New Zealand! Live shows are much more money here. So are CD's. So are meals. Beer is a bit more. Clothing and footwear... definitely much more expensive here. I find the real cost of living to be high in New Zealand, possibly higher than in Canada. The difference in cost of CDs (and these other consumables) may be proportionate to the difference in average wages or incomes in both countries. However, I recall the real cost of living in Australia to be much lower... maybe Australian prices have been the model for New Zealand prices!? Maybe the USA has set the bar for prices in Canada? I dunno.
I took a look at Google Insights and it appears that, for 2009 in all four countries, "free music" is the number one music related search. Actually that's not true, in Australia it appears they are more interested in "the music" (possibly for an Aussie music website), while "free music" is runner up. But these stats seem to indicate that people generally want to pay less-to-nothing for music; maybe with lower CD prices they would be more keen to pay? Maybe not - but that's a different discussion.
I've mostly avoided these higher prices in New Zealand; I've found it quite rewarding to purchase music from online outlets in Canada. I get more for my money! In one instance last year I made a bulk purchase of 6 CDs from Maple Music; with shipping to New Zealand it cost me about the same as buying 4 CDs locally (mind you the exchange rate was good then). Just the other week I made my very first digital music purchase, something that I've in the past been resistant to. It's definitely cheaper than buying a physical CD, and with Zunior you have the option of purchasing albums in FLAC format; compared to MP3 format the file size is larger and the audio quality is identical to the quality of the CD (which I can say is near impossible with MP3, but let's not get into mathematics). Plus, Zunior appears to offer PDF files containing complete album artwork.
Don't get me wrong, I prefer to have the physical CD, but these days and in my situation, I think I can slide into some FLAC and PDF files from Zunior for a while.
In New Zealand, new music CDs are usually $25 to $35 at retail outlets. In contrast, I recall newly released CDs to typically be $15 in Canadian retail outlets, however special orders, low-stock older releases, and obscure finds could rise to over $20. Mind you, someone recently complained that prices are now $20 in HMV, but if my memory serves me correctly, HMV was always more expensive than other outlets. Since I've been away from Canada for a few years, I checked Megatunes (which doesn't represent all of Canada) and it appears that new releases are still as low as $15 and ranging to $20.
Well, I have some theories and thoughts on this; that's the kind of guy I am.
For starters, let's look at population differences and manufacturing costs. I'm going to group Canada with the USA (giving a population of about 350 million) and New Zealand with Australia (totalling to about 26 million). I'm also going to assume that manufacturing costs for CDs are higher "down under". So I'm off to a good start here... making assumptions and grouping "rivalling" nations together, ha ha. Having done that, it's obviously possible that New Zealand and Australia need higher CD prices to turn a profit - they have a smaller consumer base that will buy CDs, and they have manufacturing costs that are similar, if not higher, than in North America.
I was reading this discussion thread where it was suggested that CDs are not more expensive "down under", and that it may simply be a difference in exchange rates. It's also suggested that the higher prices are due to shipping. But what about local/national artists? Their CDs are just as expensive as international artists' are. Also, I don't believe that CDs are shipped overseas - I'm pretty sure that international record labels make licencing agreements with "down under" record labels, enabling the latter to manufacture CDs for retail. An example: I purchased In Field & Town from Hayden when he performed in Wellington last year; his CD was manufactured by Spunk Records in Australia, yet he was charging $25 to $30 (sorry I can't recall the exact price). Regarding exchange rates, I've seen the rate between New Zealand and Canada fluctuate as much as 0.3, and CD prices certainly haven't fluctuated in either country. I think that exchange rates and shipping aren't really factors - unless the ongoing rate was set by CDs that were once shipped "down under"...
Then there's the momentum of the ongoing rate - existing CDs are that price, so new releases must also be that price. Raising the price might result in less sales, and probably no record labels or artists want less CD sales - that would be anti-promotional. On the other hand, lowering the price for a new release might devalue it or somehow associate it with lesser quality. I wonder if North American entities would like to raise the prices of their CDs but feel they cannot, or maybe "down under" groups want to lower theirs? It's possible that people want to shift their prices but the momentum of the ongoing rate has the final say.
I've considered that New Zealand CD distributors, record manufacturers, or artists may want more money per unit than similar groups would in North America. On one hand, that's silly - everyone everywhere wants more money! However, perhaps North America sees a CD more as a promotional item than New Zealand does. It's possible, and I'm speculating - but I have met a fair number of music artists in Canada that sell their CDs between $10 and $20 at shows because they want to get the music "out there". I've met a fair number of artists in New Zealand that sell their CDs for $20 to $30 at shows.
Perhaps everything is just more expensive in New Zealand! Live shows are much more money here. So are CD's. So are meals. Beer is a bit more. Clothing and footwear... definitely much more expensive here. I find the real cost of living to be high in New Zealand, possibly higher than in Canada. The difference in cost of CDs (and these other consumables) may be proportionate to the difference in average wages or incomes in both countries. However, I recall the real cost of living in Australia to be much lower... maybe Australian prices have been the model for New Zealand prices!? Maybe the USA has set the bar for prices in Canada? I dunno.
I took a look at Google Insights and it appears that, for 2009 in all four countries, "free music" is the number one music related search. Actually that's not true, in Australia it appears they are more interested in "the music" (possibly for an Aussie music website), while "free music" is runner up. But these stats seem to indicate that people generally want to pay less-to-nothing for music; maybe with lower CD prices they would be more keen to pay? Maybe not - but that's a different discussion.
I've mostly avoided these higher prices in New Zealand; I've found it quite rewarding to purchase music from online outlets in Canada. I get more for my money! In one instance last year I made a bulk purchase of 6 CDs from Maple Music; with shipping to New Zealand it cost me about the same as buying 4 CDs locally (mind you the exchange rate was good then). Just the other week I made my very first digital music purchase, something that I've in the past been resistant to. It's definitely cheaper than buying a physical CD, and with Zunior you have the option of purchasing albums in FLAC format; compared to MP3 format the file size is larger and the audio quality is identical to the quality of the CD (which I can say is near impossible with MP3, but let's not get into mathematics). Plus, Zunior appears to offer PDF files containing complete album artwork.
Don't get me wrong, I prefer to have the physical CD, but these days and in my situation, I think I can slide into some FLAC and PDF files from Zunior for a while.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Swine flu brings back the word "swine"
Does anyone mind if I make light of a dark situation? When I first heard tell of the recent global "swine flu" concern, I couldn't help but grin at the word "swine". In my defense, I was also lightly concerned for humanity - but it does appear that the swine flu is treatable and that some general precautions are being made to prevent a global epidemic. So, I'm going to proceed with the casual hope that we'll keep it under control.
How about the word "swine"? This word had somehow disappeared from my vocabulary; I had completely forgotten it. I don't recall any of the previous "swine flu" incidents or epidemics that the Internet and news inform me of. Was I just a child when I last knew this word? When I was retrospectively traumatized slaughtering and sticking a pig with my father and brother, was I considering this word? I've now been in New Zealand for 2.5 years, and I spent nearly a year in Australia - both places that have wild swine running rampant in the bush - and I simply don't recall hearing this word. It's always "wild boar" or "wild pigs". Has the word fallen out of fashion (was it ever in fashion)?
I suppose it's an old word... an Old English word, perhaps. I believe "swinish" is an adjective, for example: "He was acting rather swinish towards the other patrons in the bar so the barkeep removed him from his premises." I imagine that the word was associated with pigs first, and analogies to disgusting, contemptuous, or brutish people came later. I made the following search and it seems this word was common in Shakespeare's literature, and appeared in an array of classic literature, of which titles I've read none within the past 10 years.
Well, I am glad to have this word back; I've been enjoying using it. I've been brewing batches of my own Winter Recession Soup with Free Range Swine, and devouring every last ration of it. When friends mention friends that go hunting, I ask if swine are an intended target... nope, just ducks. Shucks. I think of Wilbur from Charlotte's Web and I can't bring myself to categorize him as "swine" - he was such a likable pig. I've yet to appropriately refer to any person as a swine, but I'm on my toes, waiting. The word is in my jowls; it's my word of the month; it's my wry grin.
How about the word "swine"? This word had somehow disappeared from my vocabulary; I had completely forgotten it. I don't recall any of the previous "swine flu" incidents or epidemics that the Internet and news inform me of. Was I just a child when I last knew this word? When I was retrospectively traumatized slaughtering and sticking a pig with my father and brother, was I considering this word? I've now been in New Zealand for 2.5 years, and I spent nearly a year in Australia - both places that have wild swine running rampant in the bush - and I simply don't recall hearing this word. It's always "wild boar" or "wild pigs". Has the word fallen out of fashion (was it ever in fashion)?
I suppose it's an old word... an Old English word, perhaps. I believe "swinish" is an adjective, for example: "He was acting rather swinish towards the other patrons in the bar so the barkeep removed him from his premises." I imagine that the word was associated with pigs first, and analogies to disgusting, contemptuous, or brutish people came later. I made the following search and it seems this word was common in Shakespeare's literature, and appeared in an array of classic literature, of which titles I've read none within the past 10 years.
Well, I am glad to have this word back; I've been enjoying using it. I've been brewing batches of my own Winter Recession Soup with Free Range Swine, and devouring every last ration of it. When friends mention friends that go hunting, I ask if swine are an intended target... nope, just ducks. Shucks. I think of Wilbur from Charlotte's Web and I can't bring myself to categorize him as "swine" - he was such a likable pig. I've yet to appropriately refer to any person as a swine, but I'm on my toes, waiting. The word is in my jowls; it's my word of the month; it's my wry grin.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
I've been known to be itinerant
I enjoy considering the meanings of words.
I recall a couple years ago an acquaintance introduced me as an "itinerant singer-songwriter". I had to ask what that meant - itinerant - although if I had applied myself a little, I would have figured it out. I mean, I knew what it meant to have an itinerary!
Also a couple years ago, Radio New Zealand referred to me as a drifter on their website (see here). I remember feeling a little defensive about it; I felt that it implied I was an aimless wanderer. Well I admitted then, and I admit now, that I have known myself to enjoy stints of aimless wandering. But what exactly is a drifter?
Today, the word "drifter" on Wikipedia - a voice of a subset of the people of Earth (that subset whose members know how to edit a wiki resource) - redirects to the word "vagabond". According to Wikipedia, a vagabond is an itinerant person, commonly referred to as a drifter, tramp, rogue, or hobo - but not a bum, because bums "are not known for travelling, preferring to stay in one location." It's fairly explicit at Wikipedia that a vagabond was historically a purposeless wanderer, and that in later years there was a shift towards associating the word with bohemian artists such as Tolstoy, or the Hungarian mathematician Erdos. It's all at the Wikipedia page, if you'd like to see.
Let's see what official sources say about drifters. Merriam-Webster tells that a drifter "travels or moves about aimlessly" (click here), while Dictionary.com indicates something similar and adds: "a wanderer who has no established residence or visible means of support" (click here). Interesting - aimlessness seems to be a common theme. I confirmed with Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com that "vagabond" has some negative connotations and synonyms, as well, including: unsettled, irresponsible, disreputable, worthless, carefree, and rogue.
So, perhaps Tolstoy and Erdos (and some other historic artists) were vagabonds. I wonder if they got up to mischief, or if they appeared aimless? Did they do a lot of loitering? Were they known to be ambivalent or lost? Townes Van Zandt was a drifter - and a drunkard - and a well-regarded contributor to music history. Who else can we name as a drifter or vagabond that left a legacy of artistic contribution? How were these people perceived during their vagrant times?
I'm just curious, really, about these terms. I have entertained romanticized thoughts of being a drifter; a vagabond. By these definitions, I've not truly been a drifter - I suppose I have been to some extent, at times, but I've also been someone who enjoys having a home and a studio space where one can focus. I've supported myself and I've had aim, purpose, and ambition. The negative aspects of these definitions ruin for me the romance of being a drifter.
I enjoy considering the meaning of words, but sometimes I am too literal. I wonder what others think of words like "drifter" and "vagabond"? What about the term "itinerant/touring singer-songwriter"?
I recall a couple years ago an acquaintance introduced me as an "itinerant singer-songwriter". I had to ask what that meant - itinerant - although if I had applied myself a little, I would have figured it out. I mean, I knew what it meant to have an itinerary!
Also a couple years ago, Radio New Zealand referred to me as a drifter on their website (see here). I remember feeling a little defensive about it; I felt that it implied I was an aimless wanderer. Well I admitted then, and I admit now, that I have known myself to enjoy stints of aimless wandering. But what exactly is a drifter?
Today, the word "drifter" on Wikipedia - a voice of a subset of the people of Earth (that subset whose members know how to edit a wiki resource) - redirects to the word "vagabond". According to Wikipedia, a vagabond is an itinerant person, commonly referred to as a drifter, tramp, rogue, or hobo - but not a bum, because bums "are not known for travelling, preferring to stay in one location." It's fairly explicit at Wikipedia that a vagabond was historically a purposeless wanderer, and that in later years there was a shift towards associating the word with bohemian artists such as Tolstoy, or the Hungarian mathematician Erdos. It's all at the Wikipedia page, if you'd like to see.
Let's see what official sources say about drifters. Merriam-Webster tells that a drifter "travels or moves about aimlessly" (click here), while Dictionary.com indicates something similar and adds: "a wanderer who has no established residence or visible means of support" (click here). Interesting - aimlessness seems to be a common theme. I confirmed with Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com that "vagabond" has some negative connotations and synonyms, as well, including: unsettled, irresponsible, disreputable, worthless, carefree, and rogue.
So, perhaps Tolstoy and Erdos (and some other historic artists) were vagabonds. I wonder if they got up to mischief, or if they appeared aimless? Did they do a lot of loitering? Were they known to be ambivalent or lost? Townes Van Zandt was a drifter - and a drunkard - and a well-regarded contributor to music history. Who else can we name as a drifter or vagabond that left a legacy of artistic contribution? How were these people perceived during their vagrant times?
I'm just curious, really, about these terms. I have entertained romanticized thoughts of being a drifter; a vagabond. By these definitions, I've not truly been a drifter - I suppose I have been to some extent, at times, but I've also been someone who enjoys having a home and a studio space where one can focus. I've supported myself and I've had aim, purpose, and ambition. The negative aspects of these definitions ruin for me the romance of being a drifter.
I enjoy considering the meaning of words, but sometimes I am too literal. I wonder what others think of words like "drifter" and "vagabond"? What about the term "itinerant/touring singer-songwriter"?