Tag: streaming

Categories
Opinions

Are we out of original ideas?

Discussing the issues with reboots or remakes in the entertainment industry

Whenever I’m watching an entertainment news show such as Entertainment Tonight, or listening to podcasts like The Ralph Report, I am constantly hearing about the latest remake or reboot of a show or movie. Most of the time, I end up rolling my eyes because I am kind of sick of it. From the reboot of “Saved by The Bell” to the who-knows-what iteration and reimagining of Batman, there is always something. While yes, I understand and agree that nearly every story has been told and what matters is how the story is told, I find myself thinking about why there is this huge craze to bring back old shows and movies, or to just remake them entirely.

My first thought about this is that film executives are just lazy and don’t want to put as much work into telling stories. It seems like there is no real attempt anymore to try to make something original.

After some thought, I asked myself if it’s easier to reboot or remake a piece of media or if it’s more challenging because there is a directly comparable source. I think that it depends on if it’s being marketed as a reboot or a remake. If a franchise is being rebooted, then there is the potential for things to be a little more challenging because the story has to continue, or because it may only feature some of the original cast.

Whereas with a remake, it seems like there is less need to take artistic liberties because the base is there and only certain things are being changed.

Take the 2013 remake of the 1976 horror film Carrie with Chloë Grace Moretz. Not much differed from the original except for the lack of nudity, as Moretz was only 16 at the time, and the use of cell phones. Did the movie need to be remade? In my opinion, no. The Sissy Spacek version of the movie was really impactful, and remaking it without many changes just felt like it was a waste of time.

There have been times where I have been interested in the reboot or the remake of a show that I grew up watching and was left quite disappointed. For example, the Disney Channel show “Raven’s Home,” which airs on the network as well as on Disney+, was taking “That’s So Raven” and making it new. I loved “That’s So Raven” growing up, and when I watched “Raven’s Home,” I was left feeling bored. The jokes weren’t as funny, and there wasn’t the same energy present that “That’s So Raven” had. I was hoping to feel a sense of nostalgia, but instead I was left feeling let down because it didn’t have the same elements that made the original series fun and entertaining. “That’s So Raven” was so original, funny and quite wacky with the plot, and “Raven’s Home” just toned it down way too much to be enjoyable.

There have been instances where I have been incredibly annoyed with the thought of something being remade. For example, recently it was announced that the movie Face/Off was getting remade, and I was angry to hear this. I thought that the original film was this perfect mess because of how unrealistic the premise was and just how much overacting both Nicholas Cage and John Travolta did. So, trying to remake it seems like a waste of time. I don’t see any purpose other than money as a valid reason to remake this movie.

Nostalgia could be a motivation for this reboot and remake craze. In current times, I can understand the want to escape from our reality and try and bring back things that brought joy in the past. However, at the same time, I think that trying to shove forced nostalgia in everyone’s face removes the natural feeling of being nostalgic. Also, if the movie or show is made new, does it still hold the same importance or feeling as the original? I would argue that no, it loses what made it special in the first place.

I can also see how this trend of reboots is a cash grab, honestly. A lot of the time, certain shows and movies that did well in the past or had a decent following are seen as easy money. If a story is familiar, then it might draw a larger crowd than a story that is entirely new.

I think that if there wasn’t such a push for all this rehashing then it might be less annoying. A lot of major studios, with the right amount of funds and new technology, can take many more creative liberties than before, yet they keep reaching into the past to make things again. It frustrates me because there are many stories that could be told, and many ideas that are not being pursued because something that was popular twenty years ago needs another shot in 2021. Nearly every time I hear about a new movie announcement, it’s always some movie or show that was made before. I just want to hear about something that is original, that hasn’t been done before.

 

Graphic by Taylor Reddam

Categories
Music

Blog era erasure: How streaming services are erasing hip hop history

While platforms like Spotify and Apple Music facilitate access to music, they’re also erasing a big part of modern hip hop’s history

From the late 2000s to the early 2010s, hip hop music was undergoing one of the most pivotal and defining moments in its recent history: the blog era. As someone who was going through their teenage years at that point in time, it was a defining moment of my life as well.

In 2007, I was just starting high school and there were no better artists to me than Kanye West and Lil Wayne. If you would’ve asked me then I would’ve labelled myself their biggest fan and said they were definitively the greatest rappers of all-time. I spent hours upon hours listening to their music, among others, while I played video games or did homework, and YouTube kept feeding me songs of theirs I’d never heard.

Wayne in particular had so much music on YouTube that I’d never heard, and a lot of it was seemingly on one CD I desperately wanted. The thing is, I couldn’t find it anywhere. It wasn’t on iTunes, at Best Buy or at HMV, no matter how hard I searched, it was nowhere to be found. So, I got home one day, and typed the title into Google, hit search, and there it was, in all of its double-disc glory, Da Drought 3.

Da Drought 3 was my introduction to music blogs and mixtape-hosting websites, and it started a long, long love affair between me and sites like DatPiff, Nah Right, 2DopeBoyz, illRoots, Rap Radar, OnSmash and so many more. It became an almost daily habit to get home from school and check if anything new had been released.

I was able to witness Wayne’s prolific mixtape run in real-time and get early exposure to blog era staples like Mac Miller, Nipsey Hussle, Wale, Big K.R.I.T., The Cool Kids, Kendrick Lamar, and a multitude of other great artists, all for free. It was an amazingly eclectic era, where I could find music around every corner and it brought me some of my favourite artists and projects of all-time.

From J. Cole’s The Warm Up to Frank Ocean’s nostalgia, ULTRA., this era saw the beginnings of some of the biggest and most critically acclaimed artists of the last decade. No labels, no pressure, just their raw skill and talent on display and free of charge, and they captured the ears and hearts of millions in the process.

The tragic thing is, as years have passed and we’ve developed these wonderful new technologies for music consumption known as digital streaming platforms (DSPs), these mixtapes are becoming lost to time. There is an army of J. Cole fans out there who’ve never heard of his classics like The Warm Up or Friday Night Lights, and it’s not their fault.

These mixtapes existed in a weird area where, because they were free, the artists never needed to clear samples, as they weren’t making money directly from the music. The mixtape was a free promotional tool used to gain exposure and the real money was in touring and merch. They were able to sample whatever they wanted and because it wasn’t something they were profiting from, there was rarely any push back from the original artists.

This is where the problem lies for these mixtapes — once a project makes it to one of these DSPs, it starts making money. Even though artists only make a fraction of a penny off of each play on Spotify or Apple Music, the fact that they’ll be profiting at all without clearing these samples is grounds for a lawsuit. Because of this, these projects don’t get put on DSPs and because of that, they’re starting to be overlooked and forgotten by younger listeners.

For those listeners, these DSPs have made music consumption so simple that all they have to do is open an app and whatever they want to listen to is right there. With such a streamlined process for acquiring music, who has the time to boot up their computer, download music and add it to their Apple Music library, or even download a separate app just for these mixtapes?

It’s a process that’s become overly complicated over time, not by way of ever actually complicating the process, but because DSPs make everything else so much simpler. A lot of these projects not being available on these platforms has essentially forced them to cease to exist to those who weren’t around for their release, which is tragic as they are some of the best projects of the last decade or so.

Even more tragic is the state in which some of these projects are released to streaming services, either heavily altered or just missing some of their best tracks. 

For example, Lil Wayne’s No Ceilings mixtape is arguably the greatest mixtape of all-time. Earlier this year, it was added to DSPs, missing all the skits and a third of its songs. While the tracks on here still showcase Wayne at his peak, the amount of songs that are missing makes relistening feel like rewatching your favourite film and some integral scenes are randomly missing.

If the non-inclusion of blog era classics on these platforms erases some of the most important moments in hip hop’s history, instances like this greatly alter that history and lessen the potential impact that these projects could have on new listeners.

It’s a shame that the unadulterated original versions of these classic mixtapes are going to fall victim to time, copyright issues and technological advancements in music distribution. This is especially disappointing considering that this era occurred so recently and essentially launched the careers of some of the biggest artists in the world today.

Still, for those who lived through the blog era and lived with the classic mixtapes that came out of it, it’s a period in time that will forever remain special. The careers it birthed and legacy it carries will live on with those who cherished the era, even if the original music itself doesn’t get the chance to.

 

Graphic by Taylor Reddam

Categories
Music

Can musicians succeed without physical CDs?

SoundCloud, Bandcamp, Spotify and YouTube have changed the music industry

As more and more consumers choose digital music over physical CDs, music distribution trends are shifting away from physical product sales. According to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), streaming music online in 2016 amounted for 47 per cent of America’s total recorded music revenue in comparison to physical copy revenue that is equivalent to 20 per cent. In the first six months of 2016, the Nielsen Music 360 Report concluded the number of songs streamed on-demand through audio and video platforms was over 18.6 billion.

Years ago, musicians needed a music label—such as Warner Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment or Universal Music Group to reach a large audience of listeners. The labels had the exclusive means of creating physical albums that would give fans access to their favourite songs. Today, any musician with access to the Internet can upload their own music. Services such as Spotify, Bandcamp, YouTube and SoundCloud allow musicians to release their music online and share it with the world, either for free or for a small fee. This further opens the door for independent recording artists to create and release their art. With so many artists regularly releasing music, young bands can compete with the world’s talent to be heard.

Do musicians need to create physical versions of their albums to support their project or can they prosper exclusively online? Although digital music has its positive aspects, some artists might argue that being present on various online music platforms is not enough.“We can’t survive through our online presence alone at this stage,” said Jodie Amos, the singer of the UK-based rock group Badow. “Even though social media is really important to us to network with fans, the physical aspect still overrides the digital sales.” In 2014, country-pop singer Taylor Swift pulled her entire music catalogue from the online music streaming program Spotify, citing low revenue from the platform. “I think there should be an inherent value placed on art,” she said in an interview with Time magazine. “I didn’t see that happening, perception-wise, when I put my music on Spotify.”

Music streaming platforms like Google Play Music and Apple Music offer music as a service you subscribe to, instead of as a product you purchase. A monthly fee allows listeners to stream most of the world’s music collection, while paying musicians for their contribution to the platform. Global marketing research firm Nielsen found that Canadians spent twice as much on music streaming services in 2016 than the year before. They also found that, in Canada, the total amount of audio streams in the first half of the year jumped from 2.1 billion in 2015 to 9.2 billion in 2016.

Graphic by Thom Bell

“People discover bands through streaming now, and those who like what they hear can quickly find out when our next show is happening through our social media,” said Sam Robinson, bassist of Montreal-based rock group Diamond Tree. “We don’t make any money through streaming, but without uploading our music to streaming sites, we’d be missing out on a large audience and lots of potential new fans.”

CDs were once the main way music was purchased, but sales of CDs have declined steadily since the early 2000s. According to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), revenue from CD sales in the United States slid down 16.4 per cent in 2016 compared to sales in 2015. In 2000, 942.5 million CDs were sold in the US. In 2015, only 122.9 million CDs were sold.

In addition, creating professional-looking CDs can be costly for a musician or band compared to uploading it online. According to Eve Duplessis, who works at Montreal-based printing company Audiobec, it costs roughly $1,000 to create 500 compact discs sold in full-colour cardboard sleeves.Even then, to reach the widest possible audience, CDs are sometimes sold as “pay-what-you-can.” “I buy CDs to remember the artists I like,” said Montreal-based singer-songwriter Heather Ragnars. “If I like the music I hear at a show, I might buy a CD.” Singer-songwriter Alexandra Roussel said she finds physical media helps form a connection with her audience. “In this day and age, people like to be able to hold things in their hands. It makes for a warmer connection between the artist and their fans,” she said.

Many musicians in Montreal agree having physical copies of their music is a good way to make sales at their shows. According to singer-songwriter Philippe Da Silva, “there’s always one person who wants a physical copy they can hold. Although I believe most of my marketing happens online, I find it important to be able to offer a physical product to those who want it.” Vocal coach Angie Arsenault also believes it’s all about catering to your audience. “If you are a touring band, you should consider having physical merchandise such as CDs and t-shirts to sell to your fans at your shows,” she said. “If you are a YouTube star, perhaps a digital copy of your album is all you need. Personally, I like to have both options available.”

For Room Control bassist Richard Bunze, being able to sell a physical product to a fan is an important part of being a musician. “Anyone can upload their tunes to Bandcamp or Soundcloud, but I still think it’s important to have a tangible piece of your band for someone to take home with them,” he said. “It’s part of the whole package of your band. It’s an extension of your art,” he said.

Categories
Music

Log in and get out of your music rut

Songza, 8tracks, Pandora, GrooveShark and Spotify are companies that encourage listeners to discover music in more relevant, cost-efficient and innovative ways. Together, these five online services attract a cumulative 64 million users to their websites and mobile applications. All are free, but not all are available in Canada — nor are they all legal. Apart from being great services, these products shed light on changing paradigms in the music industry. Their business plans and profitability margins vary greatly, but the underlying truth is how we engage with music and how streaming is becoming more important than buying records.

Most of these sites allow you to listen to music you don’t own for free. How is that possible? A compulsory license with groups ASCAP, BMI and SESAC which pay musicians, songwriters and labels fractions of a cent each time their intellectual property is played. No real money can be made from these royalties. Releasing these songs for the world to hear, like and share brings new fans to shows. Each website has their particular way of getting the music you might want to your ears.

 

SONGZA

Songza is a relatively old player in the music streaming and recommendation game considering its launch in 2007. But this old dog has learned some new tricks that make it the fastest-growing and attention-grabbing of the bunch.

“The idea here is that we can get you some awesome music without you having to think,” said Songza‘s founder and chief executive Elias Roman, when describing what is now known as the music “concierge.”

While other sites and apps require the user to manually choose or assemble the playlist they want to listen to, the “concierge” leads you to a playlist curated by one of their experts and tailored to the time of day and your activity. If it is Tuesday evening, for instance, one might choose “doing homework” from the six activities available for that timeframe. Turns out, a mixture of obscure genres including soft jazz and American primitivism is a perfect, steady and lyricless backdrop to pounding out that paper. Very obscure music can be perfect for very mainstream activities. Songza puts them in touch.

What’s most impressive about this company is how consumers have responded. In June 2012, four months after the “concierge” was introduced, Songza was the second most downloaded free app for the iPhone. Seventy days after it’s launch in Canada in August, 1,000,000 people north of the border had acquired it.

While Songza remains incredibly user-friendly, a couple of snags will no doubt hinder your sing-like-no-one’s-around enjoyment, if even just a little. Say you discover a really great song, which you’re bound to at any given moment, well, Songza hopes you enjoyed it the first time because there is no way to repeat any previously heard song or even parts of the song currently streaming. Blasting any length of pyroclastic flows from outside Wi-Fi range can also cost you some stacks if your cellphone plan is short on data.

 

Available in Canada: Yes

Favourite playlists: “Tar Beach Lullabies,” “I’m A Boss,” “Y’all ready for this: ’90s Jock Jams”

 

8TRACKS

 

8tracks is another source of free music streaming, except this time the content is user-curated. After registering, the user can start listening to one of more than 600,000 playlists. Others can embrace their inner DJ, and create a mix containing a minimum of eight tracks uploaded from their own mp3 libraries. Oriented towards social networking, users sometimes try hard to get their choices listened to, commented on and “hearted” (akin to “liking” on Facebook). 8tracks users interact more with each other than on other services, but this is partly by choice. It was featured in TIME’s 2011 list of “50 best websites.”

At the entrance, users are greeted by the “cloud:” a collection of trending search tags. Two rounds of choices are made to refine the search. One might pair “lazy” with “chocolate” and end up listening to a playlist of exclusively acoustic covers. 8tracks one-ups Songza’s themed playlists by offering ones assembled by celebrities like of Elton John and Coldplay frontman Chris Martin. The company also offers prizes and media coverage to members who enter their mixtapes into contests. It has been in operation since August 2008, and while founder David Porter held high hopes since the site’s development in 1999, 8tracks hasn’t been as quickly adopted as Pandora or its peer-to-peer predecessor, Napster. Still, it has an average of five million users per month between the site and its smartphone app.

Grooveshark is a service which takes 8tracks‘ user contribution model to a more extreme level. All of the songs available for streaming come from users rather than record labels. Imagine Limewire with a music recommendation system. Just like its file-sharing predecessors, Grooveshark is currently the subject of lawsuits asking for damages in the millions.

 

Available in Canada: Yes

Favourite playlists: “Folking around” by myang6, “I’ve got the Power” by jmasliah

 

PANDORA AND SPOTIFY

 

Pandora internet radio is the grandfather and poster boy for the music streaming and recommendation market. It is the most used, the most profitable and has arguably the best recommendation system. In 2011, the company made $138 million and its stock began trading on the NYSE.

Pandora initially prompts users to choose one song they wish to listen to. That song is analysed according to rhythm syncopation, key tonality, vocal harmonies and instrumental proficiency. Algorithms then produce a series of similar tracks to be played. If a track doesn’t suit your taste, you can give it a thumbs down, further refining future suggestions. Up to this summer, close to 55 million people in the U.S., Australia and New Zealand have had their tastes examined via Pandora. Only those three countries benefit from access, in part because they offer fewer constraining royalty laws. Constraint can also be felt by the user: you may find yourself listening to subtly different versions of the same music you started with. Satisfied listeners can save a playlist, which then becomes a “station” anyone can listen to.

Spotify is another service that has acquired mainstream success in the U.S. but is unavailable in Canada. This company has concentrated its effort into seamless streaming rather than recommendation of music. It requires the user to download software which in turn grants them access to Spotify‘s entire song library from your device. Think iTunes but free, and with a library 18 millions songs deep and a 2.5 hours-a-week listening limit.

 

Available in Canada: No

Favorite stations (Pandora): “Wicked station,” “Dubstep radio,” “Smash station”

Exit mobile version