Just wanted to write a quick final post for this blog. I am currently working on a summary paper which will be uploaded to the blog as a new page when it is finished in the next couple of weeks.
I have learned a lot from conducting this project, and have caught a fascinating view into economic concepts being applied to real world problems. Recorded music is something that I am an avid follower of, and delving into the process of preservation, production, and public release has really provided me a lot of insight into an industry where I have until now played the role of relatively ignorant consumer. The scope of applications of work I was doing was also quit unexpected; I never realized how much overlap there is between the various copyright based medium industries (print, music, film, art). There is much more work that can be done on this subject and I sincerely hope that someone will be able to pick up where I left off. Always more data to gather, and new lessons to learn. Being able to work on a relevant and personally intriguing topic as my senior cumulative project has been very rewarding, and I feel as though I have gained a much better conception of applications of economic topics as a result.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Insight from Ebay
Since I posted about it awhile back, I've been working on cross-checking the albums I've collected as missing from Spotify with albums (or CDs) being sold on Ebay. This process is designed to give me a better idea of whether albums are truly missing (i.e. not available for purchase or streaming by consumers) or rather have just been restricted from streaming services because of artist or label wishes.
I've been surprised to find that there are more albums completely unavailable than I originally thought. Even with the limited number of artists and albums I have documented thus far, nearly half of the flagged missing albums are also not available in digital or even vinyl form on Ebay. There is always the possibility that individual collectors are holding these albums until they hit an optimal value at which point they will decide to put them on the market,and there is also the possibility that they are being saved as parts to priceless collections in which case the time it will take for them to become publicly available will be even longer. A third option is that the records have legitimately become obsolete and have been permanently lost, but statistically this is the least likely case.
Something I noticed about the absent from Spotify albums, that were available on Ebay was that there was a wide range of price per album. This could easily serve as a future indicator for rarity, or rather scarcity of a specific album. Excluding albums with uniqueness factors like red vinyl instead of black, or signatures by the artist, price variation as well as number of sellers can help to separate the albums at risk of extinction from those that are popular enough to have multiple sellers at relatively low prices despite not being available for streaming. It comes down to simple supply and demand, when supply is low and there is demand, prices will rise. The most expensive album I've encountered thus far was $300. To me that seems like a high price to pay, but I'm sure there will be more albums that I'll come across that are listed at even higher prices. Album collectors or possessors stand to gain the most from this so there is a tendency to hold onto their scarce possessions, at least until the market conditions are apt for selling rare, vintage folk albums. In that case, this hole in the collection I've been talking about may actually be at least partially superficial, controlled by album owners as well as labels and artists. The key for them is making sure the work isn't lost completely while trying to exact their profits. I'd say that's the biggest risk involved, especially if its a pattern that's been repeated by many people.
I've been surprised to find that there are more albums completely unavailable than I originally thought. Even with the limited number of artists and albums I have documented thus far, nearly half of the flagged missing albums are also not available in digital or even vinyl form on Ebay. There is always the possibility that individual collectors are holding these albums until they hit an optimal value at which point they will decide to put them on the market,and there is also the possibility that they are being saved as parts to priceless collections in which case the time it will take for them to become publicly available will be even longer. A third option is that the records have legitimately become obsolete and have been permanently lost, but statistically this is the least likely case.
Something I noticed about the absent from Spotify albums, that were available on Ebay was that there was a wide range of price per album. This could easily serve as a future indicator for rarity, or rather scarcity of a specific album. Excluding albums with uniqueness factors like red vinyl instead of black, or signatures by the artist, price variation as well as number of sellers can help to separate the albums at risk of extinction from those that are popular enough to have multiple sellers at relatively low prices despite not being available for streaming. It comes down to simple supply and demand, when supply is low and there is demand, prices will rise. The most expensive album I've encountered thus far was $300. To me that seems like a high price to pay, but I'm sure there will be more albums that I'll come across that are listed at even higher prices. Album collectors or possessors stand to gain the most from this so there is a tendency to hold onto their scarce possessions, at least until the market conditions are apt for selling rare, vintage folk albums. In that case, this hole in the collection I've been talking about may actually be at least partially superficial, controlled by album owners as well as labels and artists. The key for them is making sure the work isn't lost completely while trying to exact their profits. I'd say that's the biggest risk involved, especially if its a pattern that's been repeated by many people.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Evolution of Music Technology
I thought this week I'd do a focused post on the evolution of music technology, also called audio format, over the last century. Technological change has been the main driving force in the evolution of the composition of today's music collection. Its the force that has put many mid-century recordings into obsolescence, and has led to a larger than normal collection of music from the last 10 years or so due to the ease at current recording technology. Compounded with current copyright law, creative work to be kept out of public domain for creators life plus 70 years, the technological shift has led to the extinction of many songs and albums dating from mid-century to present. Therefore it is important to map the trajectory of music technology during this time frame.
Thomas Edison accidentally created the first recording of the human voice while experimenting with a new telegraph device in 1877 and by the end of the year was able to create a full recording of "Mary Had a Little Lamb," using the first functioning phonograph.
By 1885 Chichester Bell and Charles Tainter produced competition for Edison's phonograph which they called the "graphophone." It functioned in very much the same way as Edison's recording machine.
The gramophone was invented by Emile Berliner in 1888 and improved upon the earlier recording machines by using a disc as the recording medium, rather than the cylinder that had been used prior. It could hold up to 2 minutes of recorded sound. The discs were made out of vulcanized rubber.
The Columbia Phonograph Company, one of about 30 companies competing in the market at the time, found business success in collaboration between fairgrounds and phonograph leasing. This led to the creation of nickel jukeboxes. With this competitive advantage in business strategy, the Columbia Graphophone Company (changed name, same company), became the only company in the market to turn a profit during the 1890s.
During the 1900s due to the advent of mass production techniques for recorded and automatic music, copyright becomes a relevant question. The industry was now comprised of various iterations of the graphophone. gramophone, and new to the stage player piano. The supreme court decided that copyright protection applied only to music that could be read by the human eye.
In 1901 a new type of disc technology was released call the 78. Its name came from its rotational speed, and it is 10 inches in diameter. The 78 lasted as a format until 1974, and by 1910 there were new disc sizes introduced to the market as well. In 1906 the "Victrola" was rolled out by the Victor Talking Machine Company. It provided the added convenience of being a music player that could fit within the home. It was the best selling record player of its time.
The Radio Corporation of America began mass producing commercial radios during the 1920s which had lots of negative ramifications in the records industry.
1925 saw the introduction of electrical amplification of sound and the first electrically recorded discs went on sale. The technology was conceived by Bell Telephone Laboratories, and with the new higher quality recordings, record sales rebounded.
Radio Corporation of America bought up Victor in 1928, forming RCA Victor. But with the 1929 crash electronic leisure items such as the "Victor" or radio became luxury goods and out of financial reach of many consumers.
In 1933 FM radio was discovered, offering higher quality transmission with less static.
The fragility of the original material of records, shellac, is discovered in attempts to ship records internationally to troops, so in 1943 polyvinyl, PVC, most commonly known as "vinyl" is adopted as material of choice for future records.
By 1964 the cassette tape became the cheaper option compared to vinyl with the capacity to store 30 minutes of recording.
The cassette tape was expanded on through the advent of the 8-track tape cartridge. It was unique in that is was being incorporated into Ford's cars in 1966. However, its higher quality was outdone by the convenience and versatility of other recording mediums and it became obsolete rather quickly.
In the 1980s Philips and Sony collaborated to bring about an improved audio format called the CD. Consumer replaced vinyl collections with the more compact and uniform CDs, and in 3 years time one million CD players were sold.
1990 saw the introduction of today's main audio disruptive product, the MP3. It compressed digital audio files by a factor of 12 so that they could easily be sent from computer to computer while maintaining the same quality.
During the early 1990s, there were numerous disagreements over how to handle copyright with the introduction of the new audio technologies. The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 required the creators of digital recorders to pay 2% royalties to copyright holders as compensation for ensuing piracy.
1995 saw the launch of the first streaming audio service by the company RealAudio. The initial drawback was poor audio quality of this transmission mode.
In 1999 the first music sharing network, called Napster, was debuted. Due to various copyright suits, Napster shut down service in 2001.
Apple picked up the market in 2003 with the release of iTunes, which is to date the most successful online music store.
Information from: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/music/inside/cron.html
Thomas Edison accidentally created the first recording of the human voice while experimenting with a new telegraph device in 1877 and by the end of the year was able to create a full recording of "Mary Had a Little Lamb," using the first functioning phonograph.
By 1885 Chichester Bell and Charles Tainter produced competition for Edison's phonograph which they called the "graphophone." It functioned in very much the same way as Edison's recording machine.
The gramophone was invented by Emile Berliner in 1888 and improved upon the earlier recording machines by using a disc as the recording medium, rather than the cylinder that had been used prior. It could hold up to 2 minutes of recorded sound. The discs were made out of vulcanized rubber.
The Columbia Phonograph Company, one of about 30 companies competing in the market at the time, found business success in collaboration between fairgrounds and phonograph leasing. This led to the creation of nickel jukeboxes. With this competitive advantage in business strategy, the Columbia Graphophone Company (changed name, same company), became the only company in the market to turn a profit during the 1890s.
During the 1900s due to the advent of mass production techniques for recorded and automatic music, copyright becomes a relevant question. The industry was now comprised of various iterations of the graphophone. gramophone, and new to the stage player piano. The supreme court decided that copyright protection applied only to music that could be read by the human eye.
In 1901 a new type of disc technology was released call the 78. Its name came from its rotational speed, and it is 10 inches in diameter. The 78 lasted as a format until 1974, and by 1910 there were new disc sizes introduced to the market as well. In 1906 the "Victrola" was rolled out by the Victor Talking Machine Company. It provided the added convenience of being a music player that could fit within the home. It was the best selling record player of its time.
The Radio Corporation of America began mass producing commercial radios during the 1920s which had lots of negative ramifications in the records industry.
1925 saw the introduction of electrical amplification of sound and the first electrically recorded discs went on sale. The technology was conceived by Bell Telephone Laboratories, and with the new higher quality recordings, record sales rebounded.
Radio Corporation of America bought up Victor in 1928, forming RCA Victor. But with the 1929 crash electronic leisure items such as the "Victor" or radio became luxury goods and out of financial reach of many consumers.
In 1933 FM radio was discovered, offering higher quality transmission with less static.
The fragility of the original material of records, shellac, is discovered in attempts to ship records internationally to troops, so in 1943 polyvinyl, PVC, most commonly known as "vinyl" is adopted as material of choice for future records.
By 1964 the cassette tape became the cheaper option compared to vinyl with the capacity to store 30 minutes of recording.
The cassette tape was expanded on through the advent of the 8-track tape cartridge. It was unique in that is was being incorporated into Ford's cars in 1966. However, its higher quality was outdone by the convenience and versatility of other recording mediums and it became obsolete rather quickly.
In the 1980s Philips and Sony collaborated to bring about an improved audio format called the CD. Consumer replaced vinyl collections with the more compact and uniform CDs, and in 3 years time one million CD players were sold.
1990 saw the introduction of today's main audio disruptive product, the MP3. It compressed digital audio files by a factor of 12 so that they could easily be sent from computer to computer while maintaining the same quality.
During the early 1990s, there were numerous disagreements over how to handle copyright with the introduction of the new audio technologies. The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 required the creators of digital recorders to pay 2% royalties to copyright holders as compensation for ensuing piracy.
1995 saw the launch of the first streaming audio service by the company RealAudio. The initial drawback was poor audio quality of this transmission mode.
In 1999 the first music sharing network, called Napster, was debuted. Due to various copyright suits, Napster shut down service in 2001.
Apple picked up the market in 2003 with the release of iTunes, which is to date the most successful online music store.
Information from: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/music/inside/cron.html
Thursday, April 10, 2014
More Label Profiles
A couple of weeks ago I did a post highlighting some of the labels I saw popping up in my resource. The exercise proved useful and provided some valuable insight, so I'll be posting about some more tonight. The two I've looked into are Verve and Arhoolie.
Verve Records was founded by jazz enthusiast Norman Granz in 1955 in order to consolidate his previous recording activities (Clef and Norgan Records) and even more importantly to promote the work of artist Ella Fitzgerald whom he managed through most of her career. His first record released on the label in 1956 was a Fitzgerald and did very well considering Fitzgerald's already large audience. Granz helped to change the image of jazz, and Granz made an astute observation when he noticed that box office and record sales seem to go hand in hand. With high profitability and many successful artists, Granz sold the label off to MGM for $2.5 million in 1960. This seems to have been less a move of desperation, and more of a chance to make some serious profit from a successful business, much in the fashion of today's acquisitions (http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/oct/27/verve-records-jazz-norman-granz). the label has changed hands more times since then, and is currently in the hands of David Foster. I found a complete listing for all over Verve's vinyl records which could help to further document what content has been digitized and what hasn't, as an expansion on what's to be found in the Folkways collection (http://www.jazzdisco.org/verve-records/). It appears to be a catalog full of useful label information.
Arhoolie Records is a small record company that was formed by Chris Strachwitz in 1960. The first album released under the label was Mance Lipscomb, a Texas folk singer (and one of the new additions to the National Recording Registry, which I posted about last week), and the label was founded as a musical niche for "down home blues," like Lipscomb. In that sense, unlike some of the other labels I've looked at, namely Columbia and Verve, who cater much more so to big name acts, Arhoolie was more of a Folkways style label looking to work with smaller scale artists. Unlike all the other labels I have researched thus far, Arhoolie has never changed hands and is still run by the same man who founded it. It actually recently celebrated its 50th anniversary (http://www.npr.org/2013/03/16/174452880/arhoolie-records-50-years-of-digging-for-down-home-music). The label has maintained its goal of producing American root's music, and as such seems interested in the concept of cultural preservation through music. Strachwitz has continued to produce music because it is what he loves, and his story sounds in some ways similar to that of Moses Asch, founder of Folkways.
Verve Records was founded by jazz enthusiast Norman Granz in 1955 in order to consolidate his previous recording activities (Clef and Norgan Records) and even more importantly to promote the work of artist Ella Fitzgerald whom he managed through most of her career. His first record released on the label in 1956 was a Fitzgerald and did very well considering Fitzgerald's already large audience. Granz helped to change the image of jazz, and Granz made an astute observation when he noticed that box office and record sales seem to go hand in hand. With high profitability and many successful artists, Granz sold the label off to MGM for $2.5 million in 1960. This seems to have been less a move of desperation, and more of a chance to make some serious profit from a successful business, much in the fashion of today's acquisitions (http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/oct/27/verve-records-jazz-norman-granz). the label has changed hands more times since then, and is currently in the hands of David Foster. I found a complete listing for all over Verve's vinyl records which could help to further document what content has been digitized and what hasn't, as an expansion on what's to be found in the Folkways collection (http://www.jazzdisco.org/verve-records/). It appears to be a catalog full of useful label information.
Arhoolie Records is a small record company that was formed by Chris Strachwitz in 1960. The first album released under the label was Mance Lipscomb, a Texas folk singer (and one of the new additions to the National Recording Registry, which I posted about last week), and the label was founded as a musical niche for "down home blues," like Lipscomb. In that sense, unlike some of the other labels I've looked at, namely Columbia and Verve, who cater much more so to big name acts, Arhoolie was more of a Folkways style label looking to work with smaller scale artists. Unlike all the other labels I have researched thus far, Arhoolie has never changed hands and is still run by the same man who founded it. It actually recently celebrated its 50th anniversary (http://www.npr.org/2013/03/16/174452880/arhoolie-records-50-years-of-digging-for-down-home-music). The label has maintained its goal of producing American root's music, and as such seems interested in the concept of cultural preservation through music. Strachwitz has continued to produce music because it is what he loves, and his story sounds in some ways similar to that of Moses Asch, founder of Folkways.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Interesting Articles
I find it interesting that since beginning work on this project, in learning about the history of folk music and the issues with music recording preservation as well as keeping old media up to date, I seem to continually be coming across related stories in the news. A couple I came across in the last week seemed particularly interesting and relevant to the questions I'm asking so I'll be devoting a post to talking about them.
The first one I found on NPR. It was really the article title that caught my attention, especially since it sounded a lot like the title of this blog. Published on March 23, 2014, Lost Album Gives Voice To A Johnny Cash In Recovery really offers some insight into the micro side of recording, and album preservation, a side I haven't much explored yet. The piece talks about recordings Johnny Cash, a rock star rather than folk artist, made during the time period I've been studying. The recently uncovered recording, found by Cash's son while he was cleaning out the Cash-Carter house, was made during a low point in the rock star's career and had been for the most part forgotten about. This album was "lost" right around the time Cash was famously dropped from Columbia Records, a label I discussed in my last blog post. While in this case, it wasn't a business change that caused the album to fall through the cracks, a change in the label Cash was associated with was what allowed the album to seemingly disappear. At the time it would have been released, this album wouldn't have been considered anything special. Cash guitarist Marty Stuart remembered the recording sessions for the album as, "Pretty good songs, pretty good performances - but no magic" (NPR). Flash forward to present day. Cash has now been dead for more than 10 years, and this lost album has new value, not so much because of the music made but the story it helps to tell. All these years later, an album like this now has the added value of cultural significance. In the case of this album, many of the songs were written and recorded right after Cash came out of rehab. A detail which wouldn't have been very intriguing back in the day, now offers new insight into Johnny Cash the man as fans look back on his life. John Carter Cash, the son who found the album speaks to this when he says, "Why not let the light endure? Yes, this cool image whatever brings people in, and it's part of who he was. I still haven't figured everything out about my dad and I probably never will. And that darkness, that's truth. But that's not the full picture" (NPR). This sort of posthumous intrigue, especially with celebrities, seems to be the strongest argument for digitizing as much material as we can. The story is the same no matter the genre of music, and if we're talking telling the story of history, there is no better way.
The second story I came across was a CBS Sunday Morning piece about new recordings being added to the National Recording Registry. Latest Additions to the National Recording Registry caught my eye as I didn't know that such a thing existed. This registry is separate from the Smithsonian music collection I've been looking at and was explicitly created to ensure that pertinent cultural recordings, from a variety of music genres and settings (one of the new adds this year is baseball players talking about baseball). There are also Broadway recordings, radio/talk show recordings, and pre-20th century recordings going into the registry. The cool thing about this national registry is not only are the chosen recordings digitized, but with further technological innovation that will inevitably surpass what we currently use, will also be updated so as to always be preserved. There was a new folk genre add this year, Mance Lipscomb's album "Texas Sharecropper and Songster," included because of the cultural significance of Lipscomb's perspective as the son of a former slave and a Native American. In going to the National Recording Registry's website through the Library of Congress I found out that the registry was only begun in 2002 which makes it a little more than 10 years old. This method for preservation is one approach to cultural preservation, low volume but high significance. The question is why some recordings are deemed more important than others, and the possibility that some could be overlooked entirely. I will make a note of any of my Folkways records (if any) that appear on the registry, and it will be interesting to see what gets added in years to come.
The first one I found on NPR. It was really the article title that caught my attention, especially since it sounded a lot like the title of this blog. Published on March 23, 2014, Lost Album Gives Voice To A Johnny Cash In Recovery really offers some insight into the micro side of recording, and album preservation, a side I haven't much explored yet. The piece talks about recordings Johnny Cash, a rock star rather than folk artist, made during the time period I've been studying. The recently uncovered recording, found by Cash's son while he was cleaning out the Cash-Carter house, was made during a low point in the rock star's career and had been for the most part forgotten about. This album was "lost" right around the time Cash was famously dropped from Columbia Records, a label I discussed in my last blog post. While in this case, it wasn't a business change that caused the album to fall through the cracks, a change in the label Cash was associated with was what allowed the album to seemingly disappear. At the time it would have been released, this album wouldn't have been considered anything special. Cash guitarist Marty Stuart remembered the recording sessions for the album as, "Pretty good songs, pretty good performances - but no magic" (NPR). Flash forward to present day. Cash has now been dead for more than 10 years, and this lost album has new value, not so much because of the music made but the story it helps to tell. All these years later, an album like this now has the added value of cultural significance. In the case of this album, many of the songs were written and recorded right after Cash came out of rehab. A detail which wouldn't have been very intriguing back in the day, now offers new insight into Johnny Cash the man as fans look back on his life. John Carter Cash, the son who found the album speaks to this when he says, "Why not let the light endure? Yes, this cool image whatever brings people in, and it's part of who he was. I still haven't figured everything out about my dad and I probably never will. And that darkness, that's truth. But that's not the full picture" (NPR). This sort of posthumous intrigue, especially with celebrities, seems to be the strongest argument for digitizing as much material as we can. The story is the same no matter the genre of music, and if we're talking telling the story of history, there is no better way.
The second story I came across was a CBS Sunday Morning piece about new recordings being added to the National Recording Registry. Latest Additions to the National Recording Registry caught my eye as I didn't know that such a thing existed. This registry is separate from the Smithsonian music collection I've been looking at and was explicitly created to ensure that pertinent cultural recordings, from a variety of music genres and settings (one of the new adds this year is baseball players talking about baseball). There are also Broadway recordings, radio/talk show recordings, and pre-20th century recordings going into the registry. The cool thing about this national registry is not only are the chosen recordings digitized, but with further technological innovation that will inevitably surpass what we currently use, will also be updated so as to always be preserved. There was a new folk genre add this year, Mance Lipscomb's album "Texas Sharecropper and Songster," included because of the cultural significance of Lipscomb's perspective as the son of a former slave and a Native American. In going to the National Recording Registry's website through the Library of Congress I found out that the registry was only begun in 2002 which makes it a little more than 10 years old. This method for preservation is one approach to cultural preservation, low volume but high significance. The question is why some recordings are deemed more important than others, and the possibility that some could be overlooked entirely. I will make a note of any of my Folkways records (if any) that appear on the registry, and it will be interesting to see what gets added in years to come.
Friday, March 21, 2014
Label Specifics
This week, I've made some more technical changes to my data sheets and collection process which I'd like to highlight first. Under the Folk Artist Data Spreadsheet I added a column with links to each of the albums reviewed on the Folkways website. Under the Missing Albums Spreadsheet I have added a Yes/No column for keeping track of whether the album not found on Spotify is available on Ebay (in vinyl/digitized form). I also want to experiment and see if I can find any songs off the albums in question have been uploaded to YouTube, which would indicate that they have in fact been digitized. A presence on Ebay would suggest there is the potential for the album to be digitized, and that it is still in circulation on the music market. The Ebay search should be relatively easy to do, but I expect some trouble with the YouTube search. If it ends up being too tricky, or doesn't yield any results, I'll get rid of it, but for now I think its worth it to do some digging.
On to the real topic of this blog post. After compiling a list of the albums missing from the Spotify digital music collection I thought it would be informational and useful to do a little research some of the recurring labels which produced the albums on the list. From my earlier posts, I have developed a general concept of the Folkways approach and their history, and I'd now like to expand that with a few more labels that were producing folk music during the period I am studying. The two I will highlight today will be Riverside Records and Columbia Records.
According to the current holders of the Riverside label, the Concord Music Group, Riverside Records was launched in New York City in 1953 by jazz enthusiasts named Bill Grauer and Orrin Keepnews. Its original intent was to reissue classic jazz and blues recordings from the 1920s, however it wound up being one of the key labels of modern jazz. Some of its big name artists include: Thelonious Monk, Bill Evans, Cannonball Adderley, Wes Montgomery, Sonny Rollins, Abbey Lincoln, Art Blakey, Mongo Santamaria, John Lee Hooker, Jimmy Heath, Johnny Griffin, Charlie Byrd, and the Staple Singers. In 1964, a year following founder Bill Grauer's death, the company folded. In 1972 the Riverside catalog was acquired by Fantasy, Inc (http://www.concordmusicgroup.com/labels/Riverside/). The Concord Music Group does seem to be affiliated with Spotify, according to its website, but an interesting note is that the artists carried over and available from the original Riverside Records seems to be extremely limited. The two artists my search thus far with records under the label, Logan English and Jean Ritchie, are not listed under Riversides artists in the Concord Collection (http://www.concordmusicgroup.com/artists/artists.php?). They are also not listed under Fantasy, Inc.'s artists (http://www.concordmusicgroup.com/artists/label/Fantasy/). I'd be surprised if there weren't more folk artists under the Riverside label whose work has been lost (or has been made inaccessible) during the acquisition. This is exactly the albums I set out to find so to have evidence as to why the albums are missing is really exciting. It's a first indication of a real hole in the collection, a hole created due to the forces of the market.
Columbia Records is a label very different from Riverside Records. As one of the largest recording companies in the country, it is very focused on profits. It jumped into the folk genre in the 1960s when it signed three big folk artists at the time: Bob Dylan, The Byrds, and Simon & Garfunkel. These names aren't quite synonymous with the segment of folk I have been studying as they all are more associated with the folk-rock segment. Finding information about other artists signed by Columbia during this time is quite a challenge, but this timeline at least helps to highlight the most successful acts. The artists I have as releasing albums with Columbia out of my data collection so far are: Stephen Addiss and Bill Crofut, Andrew Rowan Summers, Malvina Reynolds, and Peter La Farge. As none of them are big name acts, it seems as though for the sake of profit maximization, and conservation of resources, Columbia, in fashion with other large companies, cut production and distribution of those albums which weren't successful enough. The likelihood of these albums floating around somewhere are probably higher than a small label, but again we can see the creation of a void in music collection. This time as a result of profit maximization as opposed to the business transfer we saw in the case of Riverside Records.
On to the real topic of this blog post. After compiling a list of the albums missing from the Spotify digital music collection I thought it would be informational and useful to do a little research some of the recurring labels which produced the albums on the list. From my earlier posts, I have developed a general concept of the Folkways approach and their history, and I'd now like to expand that with a few more labels that were producing folk music during the period I am studying. The two I will highlight today will be Riverside Records and Columbia Records.
According to the current holders of the Riverside label, the Concord Music Group, Riverside Records was launched in New York City in 1953 by jazz enthusiasts named Bill Grauer and Orrin Keepnews. Its original intent was to reissue classic jazz and blues recordings from the 1920s, however it wound up being one of the key labels of modern jazz. Some of its big name artists include: Thelonious Monk, Bill Evans, Cannonball Adderley, Wes Montgomery, Sonny Rollins, Abbey Lincoln, Art Blakey, Mongo Santamaria, John Lee Hooker, Jimmy Heath, Johnny Griffin, Charlie Byrd, and the Staple Singers. In 1964, a year following founder Bill Grauer's death, the company folded. In 1972 the Riverside catalog was acquired by Fantasy, Inc (http://www.concordmusicgroup.com/labels/Riverside/). The Concord Music Group does seem to be affiliated with Spotify, according to its website, but an interesting note is that the artists carried over and available from the original Riverside Records seems to be extremely limited. The two artists my search thus far with records under the label, Logan English and Jean Ritchie, are not listed under Riversides artists in the Concord Collection (http://www.concordmusicgroup.com/artists/artists.php?). They are also not listed under Fantasy, Inc.'s artists (http://www.concordmusicgroup.com/artists/label/Fantasy/). I'd be surprised if there weren't more folk artists under the Riverside label whose work has been lost (or has been made inaccessible) during the acquisition. This is exactly the albums I set out to find so to have evidence as to why the albums are missing is really exciting. It's a first indication of a real hole in the collection, a hole created due to the forces of the market.
Columbia Records is a label very different from Riverside Records. As one of the largest recording companies in the country, it is very focused on profits. It jumped into the folk genre in the 1960s when it signed three big folk artists at the time: Bob Dylan, The Byrds, and Simon & Garfunkel. These names aren't quite synonymous with the segment of folk I have been studying as they all are more associated with the folk-rock segment. Finding information about other artists signed by Columbia during this time is quite a challenge, but this timeline at least helps to highlight the most successful acts. The artists I have as releasing albums with Columbia out of my data collection so far are: Stephen Addiss and Bill Crofut, Andrew Rowan Summers, Malvina Reynolds, and Peter La Farge. As none of them are big name acts, it seems as though for the sake of profit maximization, and conservation of resources, Columbia, in fashion with other large companies, cut production and distribution of those albums which weren't successful enough. The likelihood of these albums floating around somewhere are probably higher than a small label, but again we can see the creation of a void in music collection. This time as a result of profit maximization as opposed to the business transfer we saw in the case of Riverside Records.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Update on Data Gathering
This week I'll be doing a quick post on some changes I've made to data gathering procedure, and updates to the Data & Notes page on the blog site.
Over the last couple of weeks, as I've been finding more and more artists whose complete discographies do not appear to be available in digital form, I've become dissatisfied with my original data collection procedure. Trying to include all the information about the missing albums on the one spreadsheet did not make my data easily readable or understandable. It felt like too much information to be trying to squeeze into a couple of cells on a spreadsheet. I therefore decided to move the information about missing albums over to a new spreadsheet, which I believe will make it easier to conduct analysis later on in the semester, plus its easier to read and comprehend. To be more specific, for every "No" in column G on the original datasheet (called "Folkways Data Spreadsheet") there are entry(s) in the new spreadsheet (called "Missing Albums Spreadsheet") depending on how many albums were missing per artist. The link to this new spreadsheet is on the Data & Notes page off the main page of the blog, and should be view-able to anyone with the link. In making this change I won't be losing any information which was something I was concerned about, and though it adds another step to the gathering process, in terms of output and data simplicity I think its worth it. The change has also been reflected in my Data Gathering Process page.
With the new expanded information, it will be easier to find patterns in the data. This could include windows of time where there are more albums not digitized, or labels which keep popping up over and over. Looking at the data I have now, it would probably be worth it to look into the list of recording labels I have currently compiled and find out whether they are still in business, where the ownership to this music lies, and some possible reasons why they haven't digitized this older content. I'll try to do a post on that information in the next couple of weeks. Also on my itinerary with regards to the project is beginning a research paper on copyright specifically within the music industry. Once complete that paper will be posted in its own page on the blog.
Over the last couple of weeks, as I've been finding more and more artists whose complete discographies do not appear to be available in digital form, I've become dissatisfied with my original data collection procedure. Trying to include all the information about the missing albums on the one spreadsheet did not make my data easily readable or understandable. It felt like too much information to be trying to squeeze into a couple of cells on a spreadsheet. I therefore decided to move the information about missing albums over to a new spreadsheet, which I believe will make it easier to conduct analysis later on in the semester, plus its easier to read and comprehend. To be more specific, for every "No" in column G on the original datasheet (called "Folkways Data Spreadsheet") there are entry(s) in the new spreadsheet (called "Missing Albums Spreadsheet") depending on how many albums were missing per artist. The link to this new spreadsheet is on the Data & Notes page off the main page of the blog, and should be view-able to anyone with the link. In making this change I won't be losing any information which was something I was concerned about, and though it adds another step to the gathering process, in terms of output and data simplicity I think its worth it. The change has also been reflected in my Data Gathering Process page.
With the new expanded information, it will be easier to find patterns in the data. This could include windows of time where there are more albums not digitized, or labels which keep popping up over and over. Looking at the data I have now, it would probably be worth it to look into the list of recording labels I have currently compiled and find out whether they are still in business, where the ownership to this music lies, and some possible reasons why they haven't digitized this older content. I'll try to do a post on that information in the next couple of weeks. Also on my itinerary with regards to the project is beginning a research paper on copyright specifically within the music industry. Once complete that paper will be posted in its own page on the blog.
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Defining Folk
One problem I seem to be running into with this project is coming up with a conceptualization of Folk music, the specific genre I am studying. Last week I made a first stab at putting numbers on the market size, but based on comments from my adviser and my own uncertainty on what to consider folk or not when creating the maps, I decided to speak to the challenge of defining folk music in my post this week.
According to Merriam-Webster, folk music is defined as "the traditional music of the people in a country or region as well as a type of popular music that is based on traditional music and that does not use electric instruments" (Merriam-Webster). The first part of the definition very clearly speaks to international, country specific, music, as in Irish folk, Hungarian folk, Israeli folk, or any other nationality that you can think of. This part of the definition doesn't really apply to folk music within the US I think for the reason that our music industry is too larger and wide of breadth. Because of our extraordinarily diverse population, putting a a finger on what "traditional" music is for America, and even specific regional areas would prove to be a very challenging feat. I think the second part of the definition could help us out, specifically the part of exclusion of electric instruments. That's something concrete to go on, however figuring out what constitutes "based on traditional music" especially in an American context brings up the same problem as the first part of the definition. Maybe the challenge of American Folk music isn't so much the folk, but the underlying question of what is American tradition that stumps so many of us.
Perhaps folk music finds its definition in exemplary artists. The two names which dominate the American folk scene are Pete Seeger and Woodie Guthrie. Their names are the first to appear when conducting a Google search, and have come up in my Folkways inventory far more than any other artist. What this calls into question is whether the genre is determined by a artist specific model created by artists like Guthrie and Seeger, or if the genre is determined by set commonalities between artists, like style, lyrical spin, or more specific traits like having no electric instruments. In terms of market size, the better situation for artists on Folkways who aren't Seeger or Guthrie, would be a folk genre that doesn't rely on specific name recognition, rather a taste for an essence that is folk.
There is a serious differentiation when it comes to artist who consider themselves to be a part of the genre. I came across the most striking example of this while reading Rainbow Quest: The Folk Music Revival & American Society 1940 - 1970 which was written by Ronald D. Cohen. Cohen writes of a legendary folk artist Bascom Lamar Lunsford who started the Asheville Folk Festival. Excited artists Guy Carawan,Frank Hamilton, and Jack Elliot were disappointed to find that folk hero Lunsford "turned out to be just the opposite of the kind of person I'd expected. He sings like an old mountain reprobate, full of glee and friendliness. He turned out to be a reactionary aristocrat however. The first question he asked us was 'Are you Communists?'" (Cohen, 4-5). The reason I cite this example is because it calls into question the general assumption that folk is a liberal genre, obviously segments of folk have strong liberal tendencies, Pete Seeger and his conflict with McCarthy during the Red Scare is a strong example of this, but it seems as though that definition doesn't encompass the whole genre. Perhaps there is a faction like Lunsford who represent a more conservative take on the genre, and if there is, the market for the music is far less limited. Of course perception is everything so the fact that folk is perceived to be liberal might make any ideological differentiation inconsequential.
Folk is both cursed and blessed with an indefinite nature. On the one hand, overlap with other genres and diversification means that most people have probably heard and appreciated at least one folk song or a song that could arguably pass as folk. This includes music in such genres as rock, country, bluegrass, and jazz to name a few. The fact that the genre lacks a strong identity and rests largely on the shoulders of a few big name artist, however, makes branding folk music as its own entity extremely difficult and therefore developing a loyal following of fans, especially for smaller scale artists, nearly impossible. While Moses Asch solved the preservation problem, getting the music he saved to those who might value it is a much harder task. The cause of that difficulty, in my opinion, is a lack of definition within the genre.
According to Merriam-Webster, folk music is defined as "the traditional music of the people in a country or region as well as a type of popular music that is based on traditional music and that does not use electric instruments" (Merriam-Webster). The first part of the definition very clearly speaks to international, country specific, music, as in Irish folk, Hungarian folk, Israeli folk, or any other nationality that you can think of. This part of the definition doesn't really apply to folk music within the US I think for the reason that our music industry is too larger and wide of breadth. Because of our extraordinarily diverse population, putting a a finger on what "traditional" music is for America, and even specific regional areas would prove to be a very challenging feat. I think the second part of the definition could help us out, specifically the part of exclusion of electric instruments. That's something concrete to go on, however figuring out what constitutes "based on traditional music" especially in an American context brings up the same problem as the first part of the definition. Maybe the challenge of American Folk music isn't so much the folk, but the underlying question of what is American tradition that stumps so many of us.
Perhaps folk music finds its definition in exemplary artists. The two names which dominate the American folk scene are Pete Seeger and Woodie Guthrie. Their names are the first to appear when conducting a Google search, and have come up in my Folkways inventory far more than any other artist. What this calls into question is whether the genre is determined by a artist specific model created by artists like Guthrie and Seeger, or if the genre is determined by set commonalities between artists, like style, lyrical spin, or more specific traits like having no electric instruments. In terms of market size, the better situation for artists on Folkways who aren't Seeger or Guthrie, would be a folk genre that doesn't rely on specific name recognition, rather a taste for an essence that is folk.
There is a serious differentiation when it comes to artist who consider themselves to be a part of the genre. I came across the most striking example of this while reading Rainbow Quest: The Folk Music Revival & American Society 1940 - 1970 which was written by Ronald D. Cohen. Cohen writes of a legendary folk artist Bascom Lamar Lunsford who started the Asheville Folk Festival. Excited artists Guy Carawan,Frank Hamilton, and Jack Elliot were disappointed to find that folk hero Lunsford "turned out to be just the opposite of the kind of person I'd expected. He sings like an old mountain reprobate, full of glee and friendliness. He turned out to be a reactionary aristocrat however. The first question he asked us was 'Are you Communists?'" (Cohen, 4-5). The reason I cite this example is because it calls into question the general assumption that folk is a liberal genre, obviously segments of folk have strong liberal tendencies, Pete Seeger and his conflict with McCarthy during the Red Scare is a strong example of this, but it seems as though that definition doesn't encompass the whole genre. Perhaps there is a faction like Lunsford who represent a more conservative take on the genre, and if there is, the market for the music is far less limited. Of course perception is everything so the fact that folk is perceived to be liberal might make any ideological differentiation inconsequential.
Folk is both cursed and blessed with an indefinite nature. On the one hand, overlap with other genres and diversification means that most people have probably heard and appreciated at least one folk song or a song that could arguably pass as folk. This includes music in such genres as rock, country, bluegrass, and jazz to name a few. The fact that the genre lacks a strong identity and rests largely on the shoulders of a few big name artist, however, makes branding folk music as its own entity extremely difficult and therefore developing a loyal following of fans, especially for smaller scale artists, nearly impossible. While Moses Asch solved the preservation problem, getting the music he saved to those who might value it is a much harder task. The cause of that difficulty, in my opinion, is a lack of definition within the genre.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
First Steps to Sizing Up the Market
This week I decided to do something a little different, resulting from my questions regarding the profitability of Asch's Folkways Records. I thought it might be beneficial to start doing a bit of market research to get a better picture of what's going on in market for music. I used a tool called SimplyMap to generate some tables and maps based on Census data from 2008 and 2011 which would hopefully start to give us a picture of American's music taste, and the potential size of the market for the lost music generation. As there wasn't a specific "Folk" music category, I decided the closest alternative option was Bluegrass, closely followed by traditional country. Defining the "folk" genre has been one of the problems I have continued to run into in articles and the book am I working through entitled Rainbow Quest. Even folk artists themselves seem to have trouble identifying other folk artists, as each group seems to carry with them their own definition of what constitutes folk. For this reason, I decided to include both Bluegrass and Traditional Country in my initial data collection. All maps and tables created used numerical data rather than percentages to give a more accurate picture of where potential consumers are and how many of them exist.
The first map I generated was the number of people who listed Bluegrass as their favorite type of music in 2008. It is depicted below.
Then we have the map of Bluegrass top choice in 2011.
Though the differences in the maps isn't extremely noticeable, in the top 10 states there was an increase in people putting Bluegrass as their favorite choice of music, going from 6,857,697 in 2008 up to 6,928,561 in 2011. Also by looking at the maps, we can find folk genre hot spots. When we take out the high population states (California, Texas, Illinois, New York) we see that geographically, this genre of music is quite popular in middle America (belt states of Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia and Kentucky) as well as seems to be gaining popularity out west in Arizona, Oregon and Washington.
Similarly for Traditional Country in 2008 we have the following map.
And for 2011 Traditional Country we have:
These maps appear very similar to Bluegrass, but when viewed closely, you can pick out some regional variance based on taste. In terms of which definition hits closer to Folk music in definition, I'd take Bluegrass as a better representative than Country but I feel that each are worth taking a look at.
I also have lots of other data to sift through so I'll probably dedicate another blog post to the numbers and my analysis as I sift through the information. The images above are just a starting point, and I do realize that the numerical data I can harvest from them will be more significant when talking about project scope.
The first map I generated was the number of people who listed Bluegrass as their favorite type of music in 2008. It is depicted below.
Similarly for Traditional Country in 2008 we have the following map.
These maps appear very similar to Bluegrass, but when viewed closely, you can pick out some regional variance based on taste. In terms of which definition hits closer to Folk music in definition, I'd take Bluegrass as a better representative than Country but I feel that each are worth taking a look at.
I also have lots of other data to sift through so I'll probably dedicate another blog post to the numbers and my analysis as I sift through the information. The images above are just a starting point, and I do realize that the numerical data I can harvest from them will be more significant when talking about project scope.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Profit or preserve?
This question related to the project came to me after reading the recommended article on Moses Asch and Folkway Records.
In economics we are always in search of efficiency. According to the market, firms have the sole mission of profit maximization. This implies that resources be used efficiently, as they are scarce. The music industry should follow the same pattern. Scarce resources are recording space and time, limited promotion, production, and distribution funding, as well as up until recently limited inventory, holding, space. With the digital age, inventory costs for all media have gone way down, as discussed in this article, but the other costs have remained. Moses Asch was unique in the industry as he was much more concerned with breadth of the collection rather than the monetary value of each album he produced. Of the 2,200 albums he produced on Folkways Records, 2/3 sold fewer than 100 copies. In the business world that would indicate incentive to discontinue the products in the hopes of making room for potentially more successful output. But Folkways wasn't a traditional business, if it can be considered to be a business at all. Rather than being in the market for profit, the label was in the market for preservation of human expression, particularly in the forms of folk music and jazz. In that sense, the collection I am studying for this project is much more akin to a museum of music, which makes sense as it is currently in the possession of the Smithsonian Collection, than labels which remove unsuccessful records from production and inventory so as to not be subject to the costs retaining the records creates.
If not for profit, what was Asch's intention in establishing Folkways Records? The music in the collection is much like art, the value largely indeterminable and subject to the beholder, in this case more specifically the listener. Asch did society a great favor by maintaining accessibility to otherwise obsolete music. Music is tricky because of the fickleness of taste, a genre can be super hot one year, and much less popular in subsequent ones. Factors outside the market such as social transformation, political unrest, and demographics all play roles in popularity of music. Those factors are also often reflected in the music itself, which can be seen in the nonconformist, sometimes rebellious, undertones in many of the albums I have collected data on so far. Music it seems has as much to say as print from specific periods of time has something to say about the greater society, and therefore may be considered as important for the documentation of cultural history. Museums, focused on preservation, run on a very different business model than do your traditional record labels or publishing companies. They are not driven by profit stemming from product, but rather from patronage by consumers who appreciate whatever has been preserved. Streaming websites such as Spotify and Rdio, seem to be digital museums, allowing users to listen to their collection without providing ownership of the content. As it stands, from a business perspective, preservation akin to the collection amassed of Moses Asch is inefficient, as he used resources and money which could have been more optimally used somewhere else, but when looking at his actions from the perspective of a preservationist interested in retaining the character of American cultural, the costs and benefits fall more in line.
In economics we are always in search of efficiency. According to the market, firms have the sole mission of profit maximization. This implies that resources be used efficiently, as they are scarce. The music industry should follow the same pattern. Scarce resources are recording space and time, limited promotion, production, and distribution funding, as well as up until recently limited inventory, holding, space. With the digital age, inventory costs for all media have gone way down, as discussed in this article, but the other costs have remained. Moses Asch was unique in the industry as he was much more concerned with breadth of the collection rather than the monetary value of each album he produced. Of the 2,200 albums he produced on Folkways Records, 2/3 sold fewer than 100 copies. In the business world that would indicate incentive to discontinue the products in the hopes of making room for potentially more successful output. But Folkways wasn't a traditional business, if it can be considered to be a business at all. Rather than being in the market for profit, the label was in the market for preservation of human expression, particularly in the forms of folk music and jazz. In that sense, the collection I am studying for this project is much more akin to a museum of music, which makes sense as it is currently in the possession of the Smithsonian Collection, than labels which remove unsuccessful records from production and inventory so as to not be subject to the costs retaining the records creates.
If not for profit, what was Asch's intention in establishing Folkways Records? The music in the collection is much like art, the value largely indeterminable and subject to the beholder, in this case more specifically the listener. Asch did society a great favor by maintaining accessibility to otherwise obsolete music. Music is tricky because of the fickleness of taste, a genre can be super hot one year, and much less popular in subsequent ones. Factors outside the market such as social transformation, political unrest, and demographics all play roles in popularity of music. Those factors are also often reflected in the music itself, which can be seen in the nonconformist, sometimes rebellious, undertones in many of the albums I have collected data on so far. Music it seems has as much to say as print from specific periods of time has something to say about the greater society, and therefore may be considered as important for the documentation of cultural history. Museums, focused on preservation, run on a very different business model than do your traditional record labels or publishing companies. They are not driven by profit stemming from product, but rather from patronage by consumers who appreciate whatever has been preserved. Streaming websites such as Spotify and Rdio, seem to be digital museums, allowing users to listen to their collection without providing ownership of the content. As it stands, from a business perspective, preservation akin to the collection amassed of Moses Asch is inefficient, as he used resources and money which could have been more optimally used somewhere else, but when looking at his actions from the perspective of a preservationist interested in retaining the character of American cultural, the costs and benefits fall more in line.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Consequences of Copyright
This very interesting article was recommended for me to read by my adviser for this project: "The Hole in Our Collective Memory: How Copyright Made Mid-Century Books Vanish" published in The Atlantic this past July. Professor Paul J. Heald at the University of Illinois has done an extensive research project looking at the effects copyright legislation has had on the availability of various media items, primarily in this case, books and music. The Atlantic article focused exclusively on books, but in Heald's full report you can read about his research on music and YouTube as well.
Heald conducted his research using a software program to grab a random selection of book titles off Amazon. It is similar to what I am trying to do with the Folkways Folk Music Collection, but of course is much more thorough and efficient. From the data he collected he had some very telling, quantifiable results. Some of the striking statistics include there being as many books in print from 1910 as from 2000, as well as the number of books in print from the 1850s being twice as big as the number of books in prints from the 1950s. As these results are contrary to the standard assumption that the number of books in print should steadily decline moving back from present time (due to less market demand as material ages), there is a red flag that something might be wrong with the copyright system.
Paul J. Heald
As we can see in the graph above, the hardest hit time period appears to be between 1940 and 1980, approximately the same period I am using as my window for Folk music. Since copyright was introduced in 1923, mid-century media (books, music) has become virtually obsolete. Digitization seems like it will be able to protect media released in the time since the technological revolution, as almost all music and many books are now released and stored online. But that doesn't bode well for the mid-century material which has yet to come of age and fall into public domain with the expiration of its copyrights.
There are also differences in books and music which should be noted. It seems that as time goes on the market for books (printed or e-format) is in decline. People aren't reading nearly as much any more, a trend which can be seen in the decline of print newspapers, the end of Border's, and the current struggle of Barnes & Noble to stay afloat. The music industry, though not as profitable in song by song or album by album sales, is still as popular if not more so than ever before. This can be seen in the number of new start-ups related to music sharing, filing, and listening. There is still a music market, and still a broad range of taste. Therefore when thinking about the effects of copyright, the losses resulting from inaccessible music may be even greater than those of the inaccessible books. The size of the present day music market, with the addition of laptops, tablets, smart phones and other devices, if much larger than it was at the time of release of many of the songs I am looking at.
It seems as though in the print industry and the music industry, publishers and labels play parallel roles. I found it interesting that in the article, publishers were said to be the ones keeping the mid-century books off the market because they weren't profitable with the copyright attached. From the data I've collected so far, it seems to be much the same story in the music industry with labels not digitizing music and releasing it on streaming sites possibly because with copyright the costs outweigh the benefits, potential revenues.
I plan on looking more in depth at copyright as the semester progresses and will be using Heald's work as a point of reference for my continued research.
Heald conducted his research using a software program to grab a random selection of book titles off Amazon. It is similar to what I am trying to do with the Folkways Folk Music Collection, but of course is much more thorough and efficient. From the data he collected he had some very telling, quantifiable results. Some of the striking statistics include there being as many books in print from 1910 as from 2000, as well as the number of books in print from the 1850s being twice as big as the number of books in prints from the 1950s. As these results are contrary to the standard assumption that the number of books in print should steadily decline moving back from present time (due to less market demand as material ages), there is a red flag that something might be wrong with the copyright system.
As we can see in the graph above, the hardest hit time period appears to be between 1940 and 1980, approximately the same period I am using as my window for Folk music. Since copyright was introduced in 1923, mid-century media (books, music) has become virtually obsolete. Digitization seems like it will be able to protect media released in the time since the technological revolution, as almost all music and many books are now released and stored online. But that doesn't bode well for the mid-century material which has yet to come of age and fall into public domain with the expiration of its copyrights.
There are also differences in books and music which should be noted. It seems that as time goes on the market for books (printed or e-format) is in decline. People aren't reading nearly as much any more, a trend which can be seen in the decline of print newspapers, the end of Border's, and the current struggle of Barnes & Noble to stay afloat. The music industry, though not as profitable in song by song or album by album sales, is still as popular if not more so than ever before. This can be seen in the number of new start-ups related to music sharing, filing, and listening. There is still a music market, and still a broad range of taste. Therefore when thinking about the effects of copyright, the losses resulting from inaccessible music may be even greater than those of the inaccessible books. The size of the present day music market, with the addition of laptops, tablets, smart phones and other devices, if much larger than it was at the time of release of many of the songs I am looking at.
It seems as though in the print industry and the music industry, publishers and labels play parallel roles. I found it interesting that in the article, publishers were said to be the ones keeping the mid-century books off the market because they weren't profitable with the copyright attached. From the data I've collected so far, it seems to be much the same story in the music industry with labels not digitizing music and releasing it on streaming sites possibly because with copyright the costs outweigh the benefits, potential revenues.
I plan on looking more in depth at copyright as the semester progresses and will be using Heald's work as a point of reference for my continued research.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Reflections on the First Week
In the last week I have determined my initial research approach and have been getting acquainted with the different sources I will be using to gather information. My blog now has four different pages: home, relevant literature, notes & data, and data gathering process. The home page is where all my weekly summary and other posts will be located. The relevant literature page is where articles and books related to the research question can be found. Notes & data is probably the most important page as it is where links for my Google spreadsheet with data and notes on the process can be found. The last page has my step by step research gathering process, which will inevitably be amended as I continue working on collecting data. I have currently made the choice to ignore albums released after 1980, so as to keep the focus on Folk Music up through the 1970s but not later. This year will probably change as I do more research on the subject.
I have gone through about 3 pages of albums on the Folkways website and have started to uncover some patterns. Pete Seeger was very prominent on all three, but his albums were primarily re-releases and his name is so big in the Folk music world, that documenting his countless albums would add little to the project. I am also figuring out what to make of various collaboration performances and albums as it seems in the Folk genre, solo artists sometimes came together to record an album as a group, going their separate ways afterwards. I am curious whether that sort of album is more or less likely to be preserved. Something that is starting to become clear is that almost all Folkways music has been digitized and is available for streaming on Spotify. There was one record under the Folkway label that was on the Folkways website but not on Spotify, which I have yet to come to a clear answer as to why. It seems that "Bergerfolk Vol. 2: Happy Landings Family Folk" has mysteriously not made it into the Spotify collection. So far that is the only example I have of missing Folkways songs. The other pattern that seems to be emerging is that folk albums not available on Spotify tend to be under different labels, labels which probably haven't released content for streaming. The most frequent among these that I have found so far has been Columbia. Whether or not these albums are available digitized through a source other than Spotify is a question I'll have to look into.
Finding consistent discography sources has been a challenge, though I do find myself coming back to the same few for many of the artists. Something that I have run into is discrepancies in reporting of some artists' complete discography so it seems that there is quite a bit of uncertainty and question in music sellers, archivists, and enthusiasts themselves. Having a standardized and verified database of released songs and albums for labels and song artists could definitely be of use in the search I have been doing. Overall the my approach seems to be working, and getting data that we hypothesized we'd find so it looks like I've got more data to collect to start piecing together the story of what's been digitized and why, as well as answer the questions of why some records seem to have chosen not to.
I have gone through about 3 pages of albums on the Folkways website and have started to uncover some patterns. Pete Seeger was very prominent on all three, but his albums were primarily re-releases and his name is so big in the Folk music world, that documenting his countless albums would add little to the project. I am also figuring out what to make of various collaboration performances and albums as it seems in the Folk genre, solo artists sometimes came together to record an album as a group, going their separate ways afterwards. I am curious whether that sort of album is more or less likely to be preserved. Something that is starting to become clear is that almost all Folkways music has been digitized and is available for streaming on Spotify. There was one record under the Folkway label that was on the Folkways website but not on Spotify, which I have yet to come to a clear answer as to why. It seems that "Bergerfolk Vol. 2: Happy Landings Family Folk" has mysteriously not made it into the Spotify collection. So far that is the only example I have of missing Folkways songs. The other pattern that seems to be emerging is that folk albums not available on Spotify tend to be under different labels, labels which probably haven't released content for streaming. The most frequent among these that I have found so far has been Columbia. Whether or not these albums are available digitized through a source other than Spotify is a question I'll have to look into.
Finding consistent discography sources has been a challenge, though I do find myself coming back to the same few for many of the artists. Something that I have run into is discrepancies in reporting of some artists' complete discography so it seems that there is quite a bit of uncertainty and question in music sellers, archivists, and enthusiasts themselves. Having a standardized and verified database of released songs and albums for labels and song artists could definitely be of use in the search I have been doing. Overall the my approach seems to be working, and getting data that we hypothesized we'd find so it looks like I've got more data to collect to start piecing together the story of what's been digitized and why, as well as answer the questions of why some records seem to have chosen not to.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Introduction to the Project
This semester I will be working on a project to determine the size of the hole in our online collection of digitized music from throughout the 20th century. As the digital revolution is a relevantly recent phenomenon, it is understandable that much of the music of the time period in question did not necessarily make the transition to our modern music collection. There is potential for inclusion, and expansion of the current repertoire via the digitization of the personal music collections of our parents and grandparents.
My first task will be to inventory the collection of music that currently does exist, using the Smithsonian Folkways database as my starting point. I will then look into whether there is any kind of internet information site (such as a Wikipedia page) for each artist on Folkways. Then, I will see if the artist's music (and how much of it) is available on popular music stores and streaming sites such as iTunes, Amazon, Spotify, Rdio, and 8tracks. Because this would be quite impossible to make any significant progress if I was trying to cover all genres, I plan to spend most of my time looking into the trajectory of the collection of Folk music recordings over the years. Hopefully as I compile more and more information, patterns will develop as to how much of the music has been preserved, and how much of it we are missing. Depending on the size of the hole, I may attempt to come up with a valuation and potential market for this lost era of music.
Some key ideas and takeaways to be had from this project will be the effectiveness of conversion when changing mediums in media, the cost and benefits of current copyright law, and application of research on the Folk music genre to other genres of music (classical, rock, jazz, etc.), and other industries such as print and artwork. With the available storage space on the internet being almost, if not completely infinite, we definitely have the space to hold and keep track of as many different digitized items as we want. The question is, however, do the benefits of attempting to complete these collections warrant the cost of time and effort it would take to accomplish this?
An example of the period and genre of music that I will be doing research on will be similar to that of the recently deceased, American icon, Pete Seeger. I'll attach the New York Times article published following his death because it is both interesting to read of his path through American history and his role in the Folk movement: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/arts/music/pete-seeger-songwriter-and-champion-of-folk-music-dies-at-94.html?hp&_r=0.
My first task will be to inventory the collection of music that currently does exist, using the Smithsonian Folkways database as my starting point. I will then look into whether there is any kind of internet information site (such as a Wikipedia page) for each artist on Folkways. Then, I will see if the artist's music (and how much of it) is available on popular music stores and streaming sites such as iTunes, Amazon, Spotify, Rdio, and 8tracks. Because this would be quite impossible to make any significant progress if I was trying to cover all genres, I plan to spend most of my time looking into the trajectory of the collection of Folk music recordings over the years. Hopefully as I compile more and more information, patterns will develop as to how much of the music has been preserved, and how much of it we are missing. Depending on the size of the hole, I may attempt to come up with a valuation and potential market for this lost era of music.
Some key ideas and takeaways to be had from this project will be the effectiveness of conversion when changing mediums in media, the cost and benefits of current copyright law, and application of research on the Folk music genre to other genres of music (classical, rock, jazz, etc.), and other industries such as print and artwork. With the available storage space on the internet being almost, if not completely infinite, we definitely have the space to hold and keep track of as many different digitized items as we want. The question is, however, do the benefits of attempting to complete these collections warrant the cost of time and effort it would take to accomplish this?
An example of the period and genre of music that I will be doing research on will be similar to that of the recently deceased, American icon, Pete Seeger. I'll attach the New York Times article published following his death because it is both interesting to read of his path through American history and his role in the Folk movement: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/arts/music/pete-seeger-songwriter-and-champion-of-folk-music-dies-at-94.html?hp&_r=0.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)