The path to success in the music industry is difficult for anyone, and the late-singer songwriter Vic Chesnutt had a harder road than most.

Vic, who passed away in 2009 on Christmas Day, had written songs since childhood. At the age of eighteen, a car accident took away his ability to walk and gave him just “limited use” of his hands. A gifted guitar player, Vic could now play only simple chords. This is something that every artist there who uses their hands to create has likely contemplated, if just for a moment, but for Vic, it was a day-to-day reality.

Still, he persevered, and, in the twenty-six years that elapsed between his accident and his death, Vic accomplished more than most. First and foremost, he wrote music — seventeen albums, including a major label release, About to Choke, in 1996. On top of that, he was an actor (you might remember him in Sling Blade) and a political activist. In the course of his career, Vic worked with the likes of Michael Stipe, and his songs were covered by Madonna, R.E.M. and more. Reviewer Bryan Carroll said that his music contained a “humble magic” and that his melodies seemed as familiar as “an old house or an old friend.”

Now, Vic’s many friends and admirers are holding a pair of concerts in his memory at Athens, Georgia’s 40 Watt Club.

“The Vic Shows: A Celebration of Vic Chesnutt’s Life and Music” will feature artists such as Victoria Williams, Lambchop, Todd Nance (Widespread Panic), Guy Picciotto (Fugazi), Dave Barbe (Drive-By Truckers producer), Kelly Hogan and Will Johnson (Centro-Matic) and more. Head here to see the full roster.

Although every aspect of Vic Chesnutt’s life and music is unique, there’s one poart of his story that’s all too common. Even though he had health insurance, Vic was dealing with massive health care debts right up to his passing. As we’ve asked before, how many more benefit concerts will we have to throw before we see the kind of reform that gives creators greater and more affordable access to health insurance?

As we remember and honor Vic, we can take time to examine our own state of affairs. If you’re a musician, FMC’s Health Insurance Navigation Tool (HINT) can help you better understand your health insurance options, via a FREE phone consultation with one of our two health insurance experts (who are also musicians). HINT doesn’t sell insurance. It does, however, let you go over your situation on a case-by-case, state-by-state basis, with no jargon. Look, we know the system is far from perfect. But we think a little understanding goes a long way. Something else we learned from Vic Chestnutt.

For those of you who watched the Grammy Awards on Sunday night (and apparently there were more of you this year than any year since 2004), you may have had a feeling of déjà vu when you saw virtually the same group of stars that clustered together in 2009, 2008, etc. Does this perhaps remind you — at least a little — of the 1993 film Groundhog Day? You know, like Bill Murray’s character hearing “I Got You Babe” every morning?

Now, if you happen to want to hear the same song at the same time every day, that’s fine with us. But sometimes it’s fun to let the needle find a new groove.

Today happens to be Groundhog Day, which is why we bring it up. And if the modern artist or fan feels like they’re “stuck in a loop” when it comes to music on commercial TV and radio, who can blame them? Perhaps the industry is a bit like the groundhog, who hopes that if it waits long enough, springtime will finally arrive. But what if it’s already here?

Everyone involved in music — from artists to labels to fans — have an opportunity to help create a better future for music. Sure, it might seem difficult, but it beats the “head-in-the-ground” alternative. We at FMC support innovations that expands the legitimate digital music marketplace and rewards creators. But we also recognize that there have been enormous disruptions in traditional business models due to changes in technology. Yet we don’t think it’s a good idea to go back to the old system of bottlenecks and gatekeepers that kept so much great music from reaching audiences. That’s why we support net neutrality — the principle that protects an open internet. We see this as crucial to today’s musicians, who use the web for everything from engaging with fans to booking tours to selling merch to collaborating with other artists. (speaking of net neutrality, you can still let the FCC know how YOU use the internet with our handy Comment Tool!)

Still, it’s obvious that we’re a ways off from a truly sustainable modern music ecosystem. In a recent article, Geoff Boucher stated that “there’s an odd postwar feeling these days in some music-industry circles, a sense that the revolutionary front of the Digital Age knocked down all the familiar structures but forgot to build lasting new ones. At the same time, others see a ragged charm and wide-open opportunity in this new order.”

Lately, we’ve been talking about evolving definitions of “success,” and working to identify which structures are working for musicians, and which might be improved. Throughout our ten-year history, we’ve pushed to expand community radio, so more musicians get a shot at reaching listeners in their own backyards, thereby strengthening local music scenes. And we continue to maintain that the internet must remain a platform through which artists can advance their careers on their own terms. Are we concerned about copyright and intellectual property in the digital realm? Of course. But we’re also encouraged by the ever-growing array of tools today’s artists and independent labels have at their disposal for cultivating audiences.

Whether you want to view the traditional industry as being “stuck in a loop” or as a “hibernating groundhog,” one thing is certain: great music will continue to be made. Getting that music heard will require some forward thinking and a bit of pluck, but hasn’t that always been the case? We at FMC hope that this decade will see continued innovation, more fan love and increased artist empowerment. So we celebrate all of you who are out there doing the hard work — and who refuse to be spooked by your own shadow.

Over the past couple of weeks, we’ve heard a lot of chatter about “breaking” new musical acts. The current bone of contention: can a truly DIY artist sell more than 10,000 albums?

The debate kicked off in mid January when Tom Silverman — founder and president of the legendary hip hop label Tommy Boy Records — was featured in a series of articles on musiccoaching.com. During the first interview, Tom referenced 2009 data from SoundScan, the company that tracks retail purchases of music, which indicated that only 112 records reached platinum status in 2009 (that’s 1 million albums). He then focused on the other end of the sales spectrum, pointing to the dearth of artists that have broken the 10,000 sales barrier without label help. Tom said:

In 2008 there were 1,500 releases that sold over 10,000 album units. Out of that there were only 227 of them that were artists that had broken 10,000 for the first time. So in the whole year only 227 of the artists were artists that had broken what we call the “obscurity line.” When you sell 10,000 albums, you’re no longer an obscure artist; people know about you. […] We looked at the 227 and identified that only 14 of them were artists doing it on their own and all the rest were on majors and indies; a little more than half were on indies.

Tom’s pronouncement became immediate fodder for the blogosphere: which 14 artists was he talking about? And why is 10,000 albums sold the magic number of viability? The biggest pushback came from Jeff Price, CEO and founder of TuneCore — a digital aggregator service for independent artists and bands that delivers music and metadata to the primary digital music outlets. (We’d be remiss if we didn’t mention that other companies, like ReverbNation and CD Baby, also provide such services).

In a blog post on the TuneCore site, Jeff Price called Tom’s math “dead wrong” and noted that, if it were correct, TuneCore would be responsible for releasing all of the DIY music that made up Tom’s tally. Jeff then name-checked a handful of artists that had sold a significant number of digital downloads — some in the millions — without major label help. There was a lot more to Jeff’s argument, which you can read here.

Let’s set aside “I’m right, you’re wrong” angle and instead focus on why the conversation is interesting. We see two primary reasons. First, only a handful of artists seemed to have broken this elusive 10,000 album sales threshold. How did they do it? What was their strategy? Of course, it’s smart to study these successful artists, to dissect their careers and try to mimic their plan, but remember that each artist is different. There’s no magical, unifying formula for success.

There’s also a more fundamental issue than Tom and Jeff’s disagreement about the effectiveness of SoundScan, or even the value of label support: how are we — meaning musicians and the music industry in general — defining success?

It’s 2010. We are now in an environment where revenue streams for artists have exploded, if not in cash dollars, than certainly in the number of places an act can earn money. In addition to the “traditional” revenue streams like retail sales (tracked by SoundScan), now we’ve got bands that have built up incredible fan bases that tour North America — even the world — without significant radio airplay or even noticeable retail movement. You’ll see punk bands selling 35,000 t-shirts at Hot Topic. There’s indie-rockers licensing songs for iPod commercials and underground hipster acts on the Jimmy Fallon show. And, although a lot of these activities are done to promote record sales, they also count as revenue streams. Sometimes really, really big revenue streams.

Back in October, FMC published a blog post called 29 Streams that aimed to catalog all of the possible ways for today’s performers, songwriters and composers to make money off their music. Mostly we did it to highlight the fact that today’s marketplace has grown beyond the three traditional buckets of compensation — money from selling CDs, playing shows and so-called “public performances” (radio/licensing). These days, music comes to us via a wide range of delivery platforms — video games, TV soundtracks, even greeting cards and on-hold music. Plus, there are now new revenue streams that didn’t even exist ten years ago: digital sales, ringtones and performance royalties from webcasts and satellite airplay to name a few.

And no doubt the landscape will continue to change. Perhaps instead of arguing about how a particular artist sold 10,000 albums we should be asking ourselves if retail sales are still the best metric of success. Will they be a relevant measure as new revenue streams mature and consumer trends evolve? Most importantly, how will we quantify artists’ success five or ten years from now?

Currently we don’t have the answers, but we’re working on it. FMC has been designing a multi-stage research project that will ask a very simple question: on which income streams do today’s musicians, performers, songwriters and composers rely? The results of the research could provide the music community with a comprehensive analysis of how musicians from many different genres are getting paid in the digital age.

What does success look like? It’s likely all in the eye of the beholder. But as the digital music landscape continues to grow and mature, the entire industry would do well to remain flexible about definitions. Success may no longer look like a stretch limo with a fully-stocked bar. Could be it’s more like a Vespa with an extra coffee holder, an iPod dock, towing a trailer full of merch.

By now, you’ve probably heard all about the iPad, and seen the pictures of Steve Jobs displaying his new “tablet” in a manner undoubtedly familiar to the late Charlton Heston. So far, reaction to the device has been mixed at best, with some people already lining up to take potshots at Apple’s latest doohickey.

We still think it’s pretty neat, mostly because we’re curious about what it could mean for the music biz, which is still struggling to find an attractive (and profitable) alternative to physical product. Look, as long as whatever new gadget that comes along plays nice with independent and unaffiliated creators who want to join the digital party, we’re cool.

The iPad’s specs are certainly interesting: the touch screen (multitouch) is 9.7 inches in length (on a diagonal), and, because the body is only half-an-inch thick, it weighs a mere 1.5 pounds. In the weeks preceding today’s unveiling, Jobs was rumored to have said that the iPad represented “the most important thing he’s ever done,” and, as the proud papa dangled his newest creation in front of a packed house in San Francisco, some may have wondered… “um, why, exactly?”

The iPad will not actually arrive in stores until March, meaning, for the next six weeks or so, bloggers nationwide will sing its praises and tear it down as if on “shuffle.” None of this is likely to phase Apple, who seem eager to compete in new markets — the eBook reader biz among them. And, with the iPad’s “introductory price” of $499, it very well could give Amazon’s Kindle a run for its money.

Of course, we’re here to talk about music.

For those of you out there who miss the days of liner notes, producer credits and the good old fashioned “album experience,” there is reason to think — or at least reason to speculate — that the iPad will could indeed be something special for musicians and fans. Assuming that people do, in fact, want an digital facimile of old-fashioned LP, then the iPad — with its ten-inch screen and lush graphics — might take the not-so-major thrill of buying a digital music file from iTunes to a whole new level. To push this entirely speculative argument one step further, the iPad could give musicians more incentive to produce albums (and not just singles), by bundling the files in an oh-so-groovy package that could also include links to an artists’ website, tour dates, videos and so on and so forth. Again, the relative awesomeness of all of this depends on whether Apple keeps its storefront accessible to all artists, or becomes another gatekeeper. Currently, it’s pretty easy for even an unsigned artist to get their stuff on iTunes, and we have no reason to believe that this will change.

While the iPad obviously will not match the tactile experience of dropping vinyl on your turntable (unless you consider putting your index finger on a touch-screen to be “tactile”), it just could be this generation’s equivalent. Consider this: according to Engadget, the iPad’s book display “is nice. You can turn pages slowly – really slick looking page animation.” Gdgt, meanwhile, noted that “the scrolling is super smooth, it’s pretty damned nice.” Which gets us wondering what an album gatefold might look like in this format. Somebody tell the guy who made those Yes covers!

Obviously, the long-term impact of a single device on a fluid and evolving marketplace is tough to predict. (Razr, anyone?) It remains to be seen if the iPad will have a “since sliced bread” impact on the music world. One thing is for certain: we’ll know more come March.

Perhaps it is important for us to temper our enthusiasm… at least a bit. After all, not every musician (or every fan) will have the ability to access what is essentially a fairly pricey lifestyle device. And, at the end of the day, it’s quality of the music that counts — and not the device upon which it is played. That said, it seems that the iPad could be a positive thing for both music-makers and music-lovers.

What do YOU think?

For those of you who have been following Ticketmaster’s attempt to join forces with Live Nation (and even those who haven’t), today has brought some major developments.

On Monday, January 25, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it has placed some restrictions on Ticketmaster’s proposed merger with Live Nation. Although it’s too early to predict final outcomes, it’s possible these conditions will have an impact on the entire live music ecosystem, from ticket sellers to venues to artists to concertgoers.

Back when we first told you about the merger, principal players Irving Azoff (Ticketmaster/Front Line Management) and Michael Rapino (Live Nation) were talking about how fusing the two companies would result in greater efficiencies and innovations that would ultimately benefit the consumer. But those who oppose the merger warned that by combining the biggest ticketing company around (Ticketmaster, which had already merged with Front Line Management, which represents some of the most powerful bands in the biz) with a promotions company that owns venues and had recently gotten into the ticketing game itself (Live Nation), we’d end up with a huge monopoly with power over almost every part of the concert industry. FMC provided a forum for those for and against the merger to air their views; check it out here.

Now on to today’s developments. Here’s a breakdown of the DOJ-issued conditions placed upon the Ticketmaster/Live Nation merger.

First, Ticketmaster must give AEG (a major concert presenter that also owns big venues and sports teams) access to its ticketing software. According to the DOJ, this would create conditions for a possible competitor to arise — whether it’s a spinoff/subsidiary of AEG, or another company purchasing infrastructure originally hatched at Ticketmaster (but potentially tweaked and/or improved).

Second, Ticketmaster will be forced to relinquish control of Paciolan, a multi-service ticketing company it currently owns. The DOJ said that this condition was put in place to offset the competition that will be lost in the marketplace due to the proposed merger. From what we gather, this provision might make a difference in how much you shell out for those Lady Gaga tickets. (C’mon, you can admit that you like the Lady.) Paciolan apparently offers its clients a degree of flexibility in lowering service charges, so the theory is that if the company is “spun off,” Ticketmaster will have more incentive to lower its own prices to compete in the marketplace.

Third, the Ticketmaster/Live Nation conglomeration will have an “anti-retaliation” provision placed upon it, preventing the merged firm “from retaliating against any venue owner that chooses to use another company’s ticketing services or another company’s promotional services, including restrictions on anticompetitive bundling.” Clients who no longer want to do business with the merged company would be free to take their own copy of sales-related ticketing data with them.

Finally, the proposed settlement would establish firewalls to protect confidential data and prevent Live Nation/Ticketmaster from using information acquired through its day-to-day ticketing operations within its promotions or artist management arms.

If you’re wondering what sort of long-term impact these conditions will have, the answer is… it’s hard to know. According to the DOJ, “these remedies will preserve the competition that Ticketmaster faced from Live Nation.” But at the end of the day, it might be a while before the effects of the merger (and its restrictions) play out in the marketplace, and on musicians. We’ll definitely be watching developments.

In 2006, OK Go’s video for “Here It Goes Again” — also affectionately known as “the treadmill video”— became a web sensation. By decade’s end, it had been viewed approximately 50 million times — no small feat for a homemade clip. Although the video made its biggest splash on sites like YouTube, many fans embedded it on their personal pages and social networks. At which point “Here It Goes Again” went viral, increasing the band’s exposure on a global scale and boosting the band’s record sales (and the bottom line of their major label, EMI).

Fast-forward to 2010. OK Go releases its newest album, Of the Blue Color of the Sky, still on the EMI imprint. To coincide with its release, the band creates another insanely clever and watchable video, this time for a tune called “This Too Shall Pass.” Rinse and repeat, right?

Not so fast.

Unlike “Here It Goes Again,” OK Go’s latest video has been restricted for embedding via YouTube (at the label’s request), thereby reducing its viral potential. Additionally, EMI has been reluctant to issue licenses for viewing outside the United States. A key difference here is that this time around, the band played by the label’s rules — meaning they got permission to make the video with financing from EMI. OK Go frontman Damian Kulash said in a recent blog post: “We make our videos ourselves, and we keep them dirt cheap, but still, it all adds up, and it adds up to a great deal more than we have in our bank account, which is why we have a record label in the first place.”

Of course, the interesting thing is that the label doesn’t seem to grasp the mechanics of what made those early, self-produced videos so successful — a viral phenomenon fueled by an open internet.

Damian also notes that, “crazy as it may seem, it’s now far harder for bands to make videos accessible online than it was four years ago.” Why is this, exactly? Clearly, labels such as EMI have less leverage these days — particularly in regards to duplication and distribution. Once upon a time, top bands were enormous cash cows. But due to incredible transformative shifts brought on by technology — and yes, piracy is a part of this equation — the major labels’ revenue stream has contracted to what Damian calls “a “trickle.” And that trickle isn’t necessarily trickling down.

Still, while Damian points out that “you can’t blame them; they need new shoes, just like everybody else,” he also observes that EMI’s actions are indicative of the fact that certain corporate label chiefs have not fully woken up to the notion that embracing the future — whatever it might represent — is a key to their survival. Damian does note that, while “there are a lot of interesting ideas out there, on the macro level, who the hell knows?” Point taken. But is restricting fans’ ability to lawfully access content really the answer? We don’t think so. And it sounds like Damian doesn’t either.

One thing is clear: music has always been about the connection between the band and its audience. In fact, this is what created the money stream to begin with. Do we need to explore new ways to drum up investment in creative culture? Absolutely. But the bands must be allowed to maintain and leverage their relationships with their fans. This is the crux of Damian’s insanely well-articulated arguments for net neutrality, the latest of which you can read here.

The major labels’ days of happily floating down a deep-channeled revenue river may be over. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep working towards solutions that give all the stakeholders — especially creators — a spot at the stream Heck, with the right combination of smart policies and savvy partnerships, maybe we can even turn that sucker into a geyser. In the meantime, there is a silver lining: Damian and the boys have seemingly found its own solution to the embedding problem by uploading the video onto sites like “MySpace” and “Vimeo.” (OK) Go figure.

For those of you who griped that now-defunct digital downloading platforms like MusicNet and PressPlay were too expensive — “prices like these should be illegal!” — the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals has taken a significant step towards validating your opinion.

A lot of this stuff is in pretty heady legalese, but here’s what you should know about the issue.

When digital-downloads became the craze during the last decade, the major labels (Sony, EMI, Warner, and Universal) were expected to wield significant influence. Turns out, they became such big players that, between them, they accounted for about four-fifths of all the digital music sold in this country. Warner Music and EMI started the service known as “MusicNet,” while Universal and Sony launhced “PressPlay” — both of which have now gone to Digital Music Service Heaven (or Hell, depending on your perspective).

Not long after these services debuted, savvy consumers began to notice that: A), the price tag on these downloads did not seem to accurately reflect the true worth of the products (although determining the “true worth” of music is obviously its own sticky wicket), and B), the wholesale prices charged by MusicNet and PressPlay (i.e., the amount the retailers had to pay the major labels on a song-by-song basis) were strikingly similar: about seventy cents a pop. When compared to the price-per-song charged by eMusic — which sold music owned by independent labels at a quarter per download (and had no DRM restrictions) — it began to look suspicious.

For those of you who are allergic court proceedings, don’t freak out. The question is pretty simple: did MusicNet and PressPlay agree to set the wholesale price at an artificially high level? In other words, was the 70 cents-per-song rate the result of natural market forces (which is legal) or a conspiring between the aforementioned major labels (definitely not legal — at least according to section one of the Sherman Antitrust Act)? When this case was first heard in October 2008, the U.S. District Court in New York dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim, holding that their allegations of an illegal price-fixing agreement was both “implausible” and “unreasonable,” and, worse yet, “did not justify the inference of [an illegal agreement].” The bottom line: the District Court did not let the plaintiffs have their day in court.

However, there may indeed be a light at the end of the tunnel. After the District Court made its ruling, the plaintiffs appealed and the Second Circuit found that the plaintiffs’ complaint contained enough of a factual basis that, if all the alleged facts are true (and that, of course, is crucial), an inference of illegal conduct could be made. To state it another way, if the plaintiffs here have submitted legit evidence, then, according to the court, “[these] allegations, taken together, place [the defendants’] conduct ‘in a context that raises a suggestion of an [illegal] agreement, not merely parallel conduct that could just as well be independent action.’” Thus, while the Second Circuit did not actually make a determination of guilt or innocence in this case, they did provide the plaintiffs with a much-needed mulligan.

While the ultimate outcome of this case lies somewhere in the future, at least this much can be said: the major labels will be going to court. Familiar stomping grounds, at least.

This might seem a bit off the beaten path for some of our musician readers, but it’s such a cool opportunity that we thought it deserved mention.

You’re probably familiar with the idea of artists’ retreats; maybe you picture bongos around a campfire and sharing the color of your aura. That’s not what Blue Mountain Center is about (your aura is your own business). This is a practical artist retreat, where the focus is where it should be: an environment conducive to creative exploration.

The Blue Mountain Center is a working community of writers, artists, activists and musicians in the heart of Adirondacks, the largest state park in the continental US. As a part of our cultural commons, the Center exists to provide a peaceful and comfortable environment in which guests are able to work, free from the distractions and demands of normal daily life.

Sounds great to us. Here’s the thing, though: The Blue Mountain Center is geared towards creative and non-fiction writers, and artists “not requiring exceptional facilities.” So no Marshall stacks. But composers and songwriters could probably get a lot out of the experience.

Here’s some more info from their website:

The committee is particularly interested in fine work which evinces social and ecological concern and is aimed at a general audience.

The Blue Mountain Center hosts conferences for up to 25 people during the spring and fall months. The purpose of the meetings is to bring together those working on pressing social problems such as civil liberties, environmental health and safety, peace, and economic justice.

The Application deadline for our Traditional one month Residencies is February 1. The session dates for 2010 are:


Session 1 - June 18 to July 16M

Session 2 - July 24 to August 21

Session 3 - September 3 to October 1

So, if you can put that iPhone or Blackberry and step away from Facebook, you might want to apply!

We’re blown away by the responses we’ve gotten from our FCC Comments Tool, which helps musicians and indie labels file with the FCC in their historic net neutrality rulemaking proceeding. (The initial comments phase closed on Jan 14, but we’re keeping the tool active through the reply comments period, which has a deadline of March 5.)

We at FMC believe strongly in open internet platforms that allow ALL creators to compete on a level technological playing field with the biggest companies. that said, our tool wasn’t designed to spit out form letters. Rather, we thought it was important for the Commission to hear directly from musicians, so we simply created a painless way to do it.

The range of viewpoints represented are phenomenal, with no comments completely alike. One thing was clear, however: the internet is incredibly important to the lives and careers of musicians. Thanks to everyone who told the FCC their stories — your voices on this issue truly needed to be heard. If you filed using our tool, you’ll be hearing from us shortly with direct links to where your comments appear on the FCC site. In the meantime, check out comments from R.E.M., Ok Go, Erin McKeown, Nacional Records and more.

We’re also really proud to have filed joint comments with a broad array of independent creator organizations who believe that the open internet is crucial to our ability to compete in a legitimate digital marketplace.

Co-signers include American Composers Forum, American Music Center, Center for Creative Voices in Media, Film Independent, Fractured Atlas, International Documentary Association, International Music Manager’s Forum, Just Plain Folks, Meet the Composer, Nacional Records, National Alliance for Media Art and Culture, Writers Guild of America West, and of course, us.

Check out the filing here.

And stay tuned for more info on how YOU can plug into the conversation on net neutrality.