My first time with iTunes

On Monday, I bought from iTunes. I had to. I mean, it was a necessity. You see, I'm in the high school theatre group, and I'm serving as an aid to to the light and sound crew. Now, the play calls for a song called "The Skater's Waltz" by Emile Waldteufel. Carl told me that he couldn't install iTunes because of some Registry errors. (Nice job, Microsoft.)

Since I already had iTunes on my computer, I decided to fire up the iTunes Music Store. I hadn't ever purchased songs from iTunes before, so I had to create an Apple Account. I entered my e-mail address and details into the form (all in iTunes), and after getting my dad's credit card (with his permission, of course), I was ready to make my first purchase. The process was painless and easy.

After that, I found the version of "The Skater's Waltz" that I liked best (and trust me, there were plenty of versions). I clicked the Buy Song button, and a little confirmation window asked me if I was sure that I wanted this song. After confirming the purchase, the M4P file downloaded to my iTunes folder in a matter of seconds. But I wasn't done yet.

Since I had to send the song to Carl for its inclusion on the soundtrack CD that would be played whenever a song or sound effect was required. So I found a program called myFairTunes (0.5.8). myFairTunes automatically detected my purchased music, and converted it to MP3 with the help of iTunes' MP3 converter.

After all of that, I had an MP3 fit for use in the show. And our performance will have the song we need.

If Apple sold MP3s, I would buy them. But since they sell only songs with DRM attached, "The Skater's Waltz" will very likely be the only song I ever buy from iTunes.

With great celerity, Sony and Universal shoot themselves in the foot

I was ready to write an article about the PS3. I wrote half of it last night with the intention of publishing it this afternoon, but I got derailed. I had an essay ready about how Sony dropped the ball. Perhaps I'll complete it Saturday or Sunday. But for now, I'm going to rag on Microsoft and the Zune - or, more specifically, the companies behind the Zune.

Engadget has confirmed that the songs of roughly half the artists featured in the Zune Marketplace are nontransferable between Zunes - one of the MP3 player's biggest draws, already limited by the three-play/three-day limitation. Which artists? Musicians signed to Sony BMG and Universal Music Group. Remember that Microsoft is already paying $1 to Universal per Zuen sold? Well, this is what we get in return. Thanks a lot.

So what am I going to do about this? I won't buy any new CDs from artists signed to those labels. Used CDs are just fine. If I decide I want a copy of Good News for People Who Love Bad News by Modest Mouse, I can get it used from one of over a hundred Amazon users. Modest Mouse is, of course, signed to Epic Records, a subsidiary of Sony BMG.

This is no longer a matter of knowing that the Zune will die - I want the Zune to die. Between suing a few dozen thousand suspected file-sharers and trying to pass broadcast flag legislation and trying to even make CD ripping illegal, I've decided that I'm fed up. I will not buy new music from the big labels. Used music is just fine - Not only is it cheaper, but I also won't be contributing to record labels in buying used. Stick it to the Man!

What does music say about a person?

I've always thought that music in the social concept is an interesting topic: How does our taste in sound define us? People are social creatures, and music is inherently social. Some musicians perform for the fans, others for the experience, and others to try to reach stardom. What's so peculiar about music is how much of it relies on other people: If you sing the most beautiful song in the world and no one hears it, is it worth anything? If no one ever knows that you were singing, then the only benefit is your enjoyment - the base incentive to perform. Beyond personal enjoyment, all other benefits rely on the people who experience the performance. Many musicians are pleased if fans enjoy their work. Some musicians release their recordings on the Internet for free, in order to attract listeners. Every musical artist has asked: How do I draw fans?

And it's the fans that drive the music off-stage. It's the fans that have driven everything that happens beyond the musicians: What people think about them, which music CDs people buy, what merchandise to buy. The people who don't make the music spread it. The market for music exists because people are different, and the buyers all have their auditory senses intact (or, mostly).

And the subcultures all have their own music. Whether the subculture defines the music or the music defines the subculture is a possibility to consider. Would the goth movement exist without death metal? Would the emo subculture exist without Bright Eyes? Or do 50 Cent and Aesop Rock define hip-hop and underground urban hip-hop? Do The Shins define indie rock? Simply, no, I don't think so. People are hard to categorize by genres, just as their music is. How could a person who appreciates multiple genres be limited to one respective subculture? Is it a crime for a goth to like TV on the Radio? If music defined the subculture, there would be a million subcultures, one for each unique identity. And what about the people who just like music? The people who generally belong to a culture and not a subculture? People with diverse tastes would be unclassifiable if music really summed up a person. Each man or woman has an identity that no one can duplicate.

Physical media

I own 46 CDs. I have reviewed 43 additional albums. I own 0 songs - none from iTunes, none from Yahoo!, none from MSN. That's zero, zip. I may have grown up with the Internet, but I will not give up CDs for files on an operating system. No way, no how. Physical discs have too much value for me to abandon them in the name of technological advancement.

And in an age when I can pick and choose which songs I want to buy, there's just one problem: I wouldn't actually own the songs I would buy. For some reason, I would only have a license to those songs - like I need permission to listen to the music I buy! Who calls me villain? Ha!

I will never buy music with embedded digital rights management (DRM). It's never gonna happen. Not any time in the next century. The music stores would have to give me a damned good reason to do that, and I just can't see it happening. There's one huge problem with DRM: It removes incentive, instead of creating it. In the next few minutes, I could begin downloading music from dozens of sources: Some legal, some infringing copyright in the process, but all quickly available. And when I can download unrestricted music at no monetary cost, there is no good reason to pay for an item of lesser value. I ask: What value does DRM add? Presently, none. DRM allows me no incentive to purchase the files it locks down - DRM says I don't own what I buy; I am buying a license, a permit that can be revoked or denied to me at any motion.

Other consumers will purchase DRM-laden music for one of several reasons: They are not concerned about the limitations; they are not aware of the limitations; it's cheap; they cannot choose an alternative. Any of these reasons are possible. I may be an audiophile, but I am not gullible: I will not degauss my CDs, I will not pay $500 for a wooden volume knob, and I will not pay for a license when I could find music of better resolution for free. I am perfectly aware of programs that will strip the DRM from iTunes files or licensed WMA files, but I still cannot do it - I would be upholding the very statutes I have thoroughly come to loathe.

But of the MP3 stores? Audio Lunchbox or eMusic? Jamendo? I have not used their services, either. I'm just not interested in those stores. I don't support them, because I have no incentive to; I am not out to spite DRM. I simply will not purchase it.

My CDs have the most value to me. They take up space; they are real. They are not a bunch of files in a box. They are discs, with packaging and additional material. I need no license for them. I don't care if the entire world stops buying CDs; any music I purchase will be on a CD.

Doubts about the Zune

As the Zune sees its release into the wild, numerous doubts and issues have arisen. These range from hardware to software problems and quirks, and leave the Zune's usability in doubt.

For one, there is the problem with the software that connects a Zune to a computer. The software is of course for Windows, but strangely there is no integration with Windows Media Player. Microsoft has spent a great deal of money developing Windows Media Player, but they don't even integrate their flagship music device into it? It sounds like it would be a lot easier to simply integrate Zune support into WMP11.

Then of course Microsoft has the Zune Marketplace. Again, where is the integration with WMP11?

Speaking of the Zune Marketplace, consumers are sure to be confused as they buy "points" to spend on Zune songs. But why is it that $1 = 80 points? Shouldn't it be more like $.01 = 1 point? People aren't good at math, so the latter idea sounds like a no-brainer.

It seems to me that the problems with the Zune stem from Microsoft's attitude toward consumer products. Namely, Microsoft has a vendor-based attitude instead of a consumer-based attitude. This is a product that's supposed to be big this Christmas, so why try to please the vendors so much? Microsoft is paying a fee to Universal Music Group, it probably isn't integrating the Zune Marketplace with WMP11 because of the Urge service, and it requires an entirely new program to be installed. People don't like how that sounds. Apple does integration perfectly for the iPod: One program, one store, prices in actual money.

On the plus side, the Zune has lots and lots of features. It's big on features, unlike the iPod - which does a few things and does them well. Microsoft definitely wants to out-feature the competition. They also want to convert you from the iPod camp (not likely) by offering free WMA versions of songs you bought from iTunes.

But in between use (listening) and functionality (the computer) comes the interface (the software). The software is definitely the weak point in Microsoft's launch, a lesson that needs to be learned as soon as possible.

Peril and danger in the music industry

The music industry loses more than 5 times the GDP of France to BitTorrent

That blog entry is hilarious. The guy is absolutely genius. But allow me to take it a step further. That research only followed one BitTorrent tracker, ThePirateBay. According to Slyck.com, 21 of the top 23 BitTorrent trackers link to music. Assuming that each one of these trackers racked up $11,440,939,650,000 in potential infringement penalties, then the RIAA lost $240,259,732,650,000 to piracy in one month. Yes, that's 240 billion dollars in the space of 30 days. Now, assuming that the number of infringements stays constant (it doesn't) through the year, that means in one year piracy costs the music industry $2,883,116,791,800,000 - almost three quadrillion dollars. That's 252 times the U.S.'s entire national debt, and it's all because of BitTorrent use in the space of a year.

This is the equivalent of a revelation. The music industry is wrong to say that they've lost 300 million dollars to piracy; they just need to come out and say that piracy costs the music industry almost three quadrillion dollars a year, and only then will anyone realize the terrible scope of piracy. Considering that BitTorrent has been around for about two years, the music industry has thus lost around $5.6 quadrillion dollars - just through BitTorrent.

If we were to count the cost of piracy through other file-sharing programs, such as Limewire, DirectConnect++, and KaZaA, and if we were to also include losses to CD trading, the suggestions are staggering. According to this article, the world GDP for 2002 is $32 trillion - $32,000,000,000,000. If we were to count all forms of copyright infringement between 2004 and 2006, I'd esimate that the music industry has lost about $10 quadrillion or more to piracy - $10,000,000,000,000,000. In two years the music industry lost about 313 times the amount of money there is on Earth to piracy. Wherever you live, call your senators and Congressmen and demand that they find a solution to this horrible, horrible problem, because piracy costs the music industry more money than is humanly possible. We cannot let this proceed any longer, or it will continue to cost the music industry more than the cumulative GDP of every country ever. Every second is worth a million dollars.

The aesthetic reasons songs aren't played on the radio

There is a lot of music in the world. A lot. I can not emphasize just how many bands and soloists and producers there are on Earth, and the list grows as I write this. As the means of production become more accessible, anyone who before could only wish that they could make a record now has only to look in the right places to find a studio that will fit inside your computer.

But don't think that this rise in accessibility has much of an impact on the music industry - not even the indie labels. Even though The Average Joe Band has their shiny disc for sale on CDBaby and a couple tracks on Myspace, they are likely to see very few sales. Their market consumes such a niche space that it receives very little attention. Indeed, there are so many different spheres of accomplishment and recognition that it becomes easy to lose the prize in the mist.

Since there are so many garage bands, bedroom musicians, jam bands, singer-songwriters, DJs, bands, singers, orchestras, and supergroups, chances are that whatever the average music consumer hears is the cream of the crop. While even the most non-discerning consumer will be able to tell you which bands absolutely suck, this itself is remarkable - A band has been separated out from all the other millions of bands. A record executive has singled out one band from a multitude of others and determined it to be worthy of an investment. But any record store will have hundreds, if not thousands, of other bands' albums and singles. Several record executives have found sounds they believe will appease the marketplace.

That of course leads to reaction from the music consumers. A target audience usually consists of the core market for certain genres of music. Bands within those genres compete for the tarket audiences' attention. This happens in every record store. The record store, in response to the target audience, will supply the target markets with the music the store believes will appeal to the most people. Inevitably this leads to discontent from consumers who see their tastes and preferences excluded from the market. These discerning consumers will turn to niche markets or second-hand markets for the music they seek.

It is the indie genre that arises from the collective of unhappy voices. The previously marginalized product finds a new market that completely disregards the consumers from the major spheres and chooses only to appeal to smaller, less viable spheres of consumers. In the course of this process, some genres or performers are ignored at each level, leading to new spheres, including music distributors that operate by putting artists' songs into the iTunes market, for example. There are so many different spheres available that perhaps almost all music consumers will stay within the three biggest spheres - major pop/rock artists on big record labels, indie pop/rock artists on big record labels, and indie pop/rock artists on indie record labels.

But what does that have to do with me? I'm just a volunteer record reviewer for a community radio station, KXCI. Once ever week or every two weeks I drop off CDs I've analyzed and pick up some more. KXCI gets hundreds of CDs in the mail every week. The process never ends. I don't know how many other volunteers do what I do, but what I do know is that every week the music director's small office, equipped with two desks and a couple bookshelves, is stacked high with CDs. CDs occupy the bookshelves, they lean on each other in small crates piled like little appartments, they lay scattered across the desks, they cover the floor, they are everywhere. These CDs encompass a wide variety of genders and genres. These CDs were recorded by people all across the United States and some of them are from other countries. These CDs were produced by professionals and amateurs alike. What these CDs share is that the public at large will near none of them - maybe one or even two.

Half of the music I hear is unfit for radio. I'm not pretentious, I'm not picky - I just review music and determine its suitability for airtime. KXCI has standards, and I have standards. People locally and all around the world listen to KXCI, thanks to FM and streaming audio. If I cannot listen to an album without later talking about it in violent terms to my half-interested friends, there is no way I'm going to recommend it for radio play.

So ignoring all the spheres, all the economics, and all the radio, I'm going to tell it straight: Some music will never be heard by the general public because it is bad. no, I tiptoe - Half the music that exists is bad. I would immediately change the channel if the music I have to hear was played on the radio. Some of the albums I hear I would not wish on my worst enemies, and as a reviewer I listen to every song on the albums I review.

Bad music is almost indefinitely prevented from entering the three biggest spheres - I am not talking about music I don't like that others may like. This is despicable music I am talking about. However, music is quite subjective. When I talk about bad music, I talk about music that subsists in the smallest spheres, that appeals to the smallest markets.

The simple explanation for why many bands remain unknown is simply that they are bad. They appeal to far too few people to be successful. It is not a matter of marketing a band or writing the write songs or meeting the right people. If you are bad, no one will listen to you. I'm telling this to all the unknown bands out there: Mediocrity is the number one obstacle to success. A lot of music in the world is bad. The scope of the world's mediocre music is so vast that few people in the world will ever hear the scope. I am exposed to far more unpleasant music than I would prefer.

There is a lot of music in the world, much of it bad. The reason people at large don't hear it is because a filter like me will catch it. There is a good reason why you haven't heard of the bands The Weegs or An Albatross - And if you know who they are, you have "bad" taste in music - Someone has determined that you in all chances won't like those bands. People like me, who review music, decide on a daily basis which bands have a chance of going on the radio. If radio is life and death, half the bands that send their CDs to radio stations, hoping to break into the market will die.

The thing about reviewing records is that reviews are not absolute - Any music journalist could tell you that. There is no rubric for the constitution of a 10 on the ratings scale; instead, scores for music are based on other music. Actually, it is a question of how well does the music plays in comparison to other bands - the opportunity cost of radio, if you will.

So really, why does some music never play on the radio? I'm not going to tell that it's because it fits only a niche market or because there are better bands that could be played. Frankly, if your music doesn't get on the radio it's because it sucks.