Dear Big Content,

I love your movies. Especially the ones that are all s’plodey and where stuff flies off the screen. And I love your records, the Led Zeppelin catalog in particular. I’ve always been a good customer: I don’t infringe, and I’m loyal to a fault. But I do have a few questions for you.

First, why do you treat me and my friends like punks? We buy your stuff. But you make it really hard to do it in a way that fits with our digital reality. I’m looking at you, movie and TV peeps. You really want me to accept the violation of a decades-old consumer compact whereby we could rent a movie on the same day it was available to purchase? Do you really think that making me wait TWO MONTHS to be able to rent Mars Needs Moms on DVD (I’m not even talking streaming) is going to drive me into Best Buy to plunk down for the petrochemical disc? Do you secretly like piracy? Because that’s exactly what you’re encouraging.

And music guys: how come you create the conditions where there are only three companies that can afford to offer your wares? Do you know how much fucking money you’re leaving on the table by clinging to your prehistoric licensing terms? Once upon a time there was this disruptive, infringing technology called radio. Completely freaked song publishers out. They wanted to force every broadcaster to pay an individually negotiated amount for every spin. In hindsight, that seems not only inefficient but imbecilic. Maybe the government needs to step up and prod you goofballs towards more internet-friendly terms. I bet you could even keep your car service! Now, I know that you fought the phonograph. And the CD. And the MP3. But you don’t have much fight left in you. So the time to get your shit together is probably now. And yes, me and my friends will be paying VERY close attention to make sure that the artist splits are fair. Because frankly, I’m not all that convinced that you’re providing much value anymore. Consider this your opportunity to be cut into the future while you still have a chance.

And would you please get a basic grasp of how the internet works? Why are you so keen to demonize an entire class of technology? Let’s take search for example. I can look up a recipe to make hash brownies. Or I can look up a recipe to make regular brownies. Now, we all know that those criminal scumbags offering the former must be dealt with in the severest possible manner. But what you’re proposing is like blowing up the entire library because you don’t like that the card catalog system tells you which shelf has the book on hash brownies. Are you really this boneheaded? I get that you’re jealous about Google making bajillions from search. But is that a reason to compromise a mechanism upon which millions of global internet users rely? I guess it’s true what they say: the entertainment industry isn’t all about the money — it’s about ALL the money.

Also, could you please stop pretending that the SOPA/PIPA debacle was about Silicon Valley vs. Hollywood? (Or, as you prefer to characterize it, homespun creators vs. Google.) Literally millions of internet users — many of them copyright holders — had issues with your overreaching bills. They didn’t jump into a controversial intellectual property debate because they wanted to. They felt compelled to, due to the fact that big-money industry lobbying groups like yours were attempting to speak for them.

So kindly cut it out.

I want to be your friend. But you don’t make it easy. The arrogance, belligerence and outright bullying that you employ is hardly endearing yourselves to an entire new generation of creators and rightsholders. If I wasn’t so goddamn genteel, I’d go ahead and list some of that stuff. But unlike you, I have a modicum of class.

Consider this a friendly bit of advice from someone who cares. The road you’re going down leads to disaster and heartbreak. But it’s not too late to turn around.

Your pal,
Casey

You know how people who hate Nickelback are nonetheless forced to reconcile their distaste with the fact that, were it not for Nirvana, the band could not exist? Well, the same could be said for David Bowie and ABC. I’m a died-in-the-wool Bowie fan, and it both annoys and enthralls me that every aspect of this song — from Martin Fry‘s flamboyant baritone to the relentless electro pulse — is ripped from the Thin White Duke’s hymnal (with a sprinkling of Bryan Ferry and Roxy Music). But the song is more than a sum of its parts: ABC’s exuberance comes through loud and clear in every call-and-response chorus and gated snare thwack.

As you were.

Check out Lux Eterna Records for more sonic goodness…

As far as hoary, oft-repeated sayings go, it’s hard to beat “rock is dead.” The origin of the phrase is shrouded in mystery — like the etymology of “heavy metal” — but it’s not hard to picture Lester Bangs coining it while reviewing the latest Lou Reed long-player in his underwear, specks of Robitussin drying on his mustachioed upper lip.

In reality, people have been claiming “rock is dead” since the genre wriggled its way into the repressed loins of America’s bobbysockers. Every so often, a new pack of scruffy young kids with guitars are labeled as its saviors, but it never lasts. ROCK IS DEAD. Long live paper and scissors!

But what if we had empirical evidence that rock really was dead? Or at least in a state of such dissolution that its resurgence was a probabilistic impossibility? To know for sure, we’d need data.

Now we’ve got some.

This article in The Hollywood Reporter indicates that rock is a spent force in the marketplace, squeezed out by more persistent pop forms. Based on a recent study highlighting the ubiquity of synth-pop, the news may be the final nail in rock’s coffin. (I’m just shocked that there was room for one more.)

According to Hit Songs Deconstructed, 79 percent of top 10 pop hits used a synthesizer as the song’s primary instrument. That’s up from 62 percent a year ago and seems to signal that the current electro-pop fad is here to stay — at least a little while longer. Further boosting that theory: the fact that 88 percent of Top 10 songs used electric-based instrumentation. As for the least popular instrument? The guitar, which hit a low of 4 percent during the second quarter of 2011….

…as for lyrical themes in pop music, “hooking up” is the most popular so far in 2011, prevalent in 38 percent of hit songs, followed by “inspirational” songs, which have steadily increased to account for 25 percent of the Top 10 in the second quarter of 2011, “partying/clubbing” (21 percent) and “love/relationships” at 17 percent. Curiously, any “other” categories of lyrical themes have failed to register at all, coming in at zero percent so far in 2011. Last year, when music listeners were seemingly interested in a little more than sex, it was at 9 percent.

Now, it’s easy to come right back and say that the vast majority of rock songs have been about fucking. That may be true, but the flexibility and durability of the form was such that it could include both “Wango Tango” and “Roundabout” in the same canon. I’m not sure that today’s pop will evolve to the same extent.

For those of us who still traffic in this antiquated form, there are more troubling indicators:

Other curious trends pointed to a steep drop in solos, down from 17 percent to 5 percent of hits, and the once popular bridge portion of a song now only exists in 42 percent of songs, down from 54 percent last quarter and 55 percent a year ago.

You may think that it’s perfectly fine to eliminate the guitar solo. Years of co-existing with jam bands elicits a certain sympathy for that worldview. I still enjoy them (if they’re well-placed and say something), but they aren’t a musical necessity. I have more of a problem with the idea that nobody employs bridges anymore. Sure, some of them are useless, but they are a time-honored construct that helps to give songcraft a form. I’m all for experimental art, but eliminating the bridge is kind of like saying we’re no longer going to bother with paragraph breaks. Can you get away with it? Probably. But it says something about our society if we abandon such formalities. It’s a short hop from here to anarchy. Anarchy, I tell you!

One thing that I like about having quantitative data on the death of rock is that it liberates me to keep making it. I am The Contrarian, after all. It would hardly befit my status to toil in a popular genre.

As always, we’re interested in your reactions. What do you think of this data? Was rock dead all along, and we’re just now noticing? What if it turns into a zombie? Are we prepared for that?

Only now, at the ripe age of 37, am I experiencing the fusion of progressive rock and metal in a way that makes sense for me. Although there is currently a slew of bands mining the intersection of complexity and heaviosity, there are two groups that embody the best of this integration: Opeth and Mastodon.

Both bands have new albums out (actually, Opeth’s record was released yesterday; Mastodon’s drops next week), and both have stirred up controversy among their core audiences for moving away from their metallic roots. NPR (!!!) is hosting a full-length stream of Opeth’s Heritage; Mastodon’s The Hunter can be heard in its entirety at their YouTube channel.

Analyzing a band’s motivations is a favorite pastime for music obsessives, but it is ultimately a pointless endeavor. Especially in this case, as both groups have telegraphed their stylistic shifts over previous releases.

For those not familiar with either act, here’s a bit of background.

Opeth is a Swedish band that came out of that country’s technical death metal scene. Early on, they distinguished themselves from their peers by combining the pagan mood of black metal with the more chops-oriented death style. Throw in the occasional acoustic guitar and vocals that alternate between growl and croon, and you have something approaching original. Over the years, Opeth adopted an even more progressive stance, becoming increasingly sophisticated in arrangement and execution. By the time Blackwater Park was released in 2001, the band had become a juggernaut, with a devoted international fanbase. Fast-forward to 2011 and the release of Heritage — an album that loses nearly all of the metal trappings, instead fully embracing a 1970s progressive rock aesthetic. Message boards are lighting up with comments from heshers who think the band sold out, wussed out or both. Actually, they simply became more themselves.

Mastodon sprouted from entirely different soil. Heavy-drinking, hard-drugging miscreants from Atlanta, Georgia, the band was originally as much a part of the hardcore scene as the metal community. Like their sludgy forbears Neurosis, Mastodon trafficked in crushing riffs peppered with fuck-all attitude. If you’ve spent any time in the hardcore trenches, you know the type: dirty black Carharts, full-sleeve tattoos and a kind of freewheeling nihilism. What made these guys stand out was their combination of go-for-the-throat aggression and enlightened musicality. It wasn’t long before they began incorporating elements of other styles, namely progressive rock. Their last album, Crack the Skye, is likely the high water mark of their prog odyssey, but The Hunter brings even more melody to the fore. Some of the songs even utilize — gasp! — major keys.

I could probably spend another couple thousand words describing why these bands’ latest records are worth your consideration. But what I really want to get across is that there are still acts that are willing to defy fan expectation while producing music that is ostensibly for a commercial marketplace. These aren’t avant-garde bands. They aren’t hipster noise. They aren’t irreconcilably retro (although both make fine use of older styles). They will never be featured in prime time TV shows or car commercials. Yet both records will sell, and concerts will be packed. I’d like to think it’s because the music is actually interesting.

If I were just starting out as a musician, I’d be incredibly inspired by Opeth and Mastodon. Hell, I am now. I’m not sure that Lux Eterna Records will be releasing any comparable records anytime soon, but I’d like to think that we share a commitment to musical exploration and sonic quality. That and a killer ’70s prog collection.

[A version of this post also appears at the Future of Music Coalition blog]

You may have noticed a series of articles in the New York Times Arts section about musicians and songwriters getting their copyrights back that they had “granted” to labels and publishers years ago. I got the closing quote in the first story; a follow-up appeared today.

I encourage you to read both pieces, as they tell an interesting story about the balance of power in the traditional music industry, and how that power is continuing to shift. The initial change was due to technology — the arrival of the internet meant that creators no longer had to depend solely on gatekeepers and middlemen to reach potential audiences. The latest shake-up is something that Congress initiated more than three decades ago.

One thing to note right up front is that there are two copyrights in music: the composition copyright — think notes on paper —  and the sound copyright — think music captured on tape or hard drive. The composition copyright belongs to the songwriter at the moment he or she writes the song. Boom, it exists! The sound copyright belongs to the performer (or performers, if it’s a band), when the “master” recording is created.

Historically, artists would transfer their copyrights to an outside entity, like a label and publisher, who would do the heavy lifting in getting the music out to the public. For a label, this meant pressing the CDs (or vinyl), sending promos to radio and record shops, securing retail positioning, etc. Publishers would administer the rights to the composition and lyrics and attract revenue through licensing. Typically, an artist would receive a certain amount of money from the label or publisher at the time of the transfer of their copyright. That money, known as an “advance,” would be held against all the debts incurred in promoting, distributing and licensing the work. Anyone who has spent any time examining the history of the music biz can tell you that many musicians — especially recording artists — never “recouped.” Which means that they may not have even been able to collect the royalties outlined in their contract.

But there’s a bright side. Even if an artist granted their copyright to a label or publisher, they are still eligible to get their work back after a certain period of time. In 1976, Congress set that term at 35 years; previously, it had been 56. The “new” law went into effect in 1978, and that’s when the clock started ticking. So now we’re seeing a host of works that are eligible to revert back to their creators. Essentially, anything created after January 1, 1978 is fair game for what’s called “termination of transfer.” This could be like the music-world equivalent of finding a 50 dollar bill in a pair of old jeans.

Termination doesn’t happen automatically, though — the artist has to serve notice at least two years before the date they want to get their copyrights back; once the Copyright Office decides that the song fits the criteria, they have five years to file a claim to actually have the work come back to them. If they miss the window, they’re out of luck.

Obviously, many of the companies that currently control these copyrights aren’t in any hurry to give them back. But I think it’s important for creators to have another bite at the apple, so to speak. When you look at the history of the music industry, you often hear horror stories about bad contracts where artists never recouped or made any money — particularly on the sound copyright side. The termination provision in the US Copyright Code gives them another opportunity. Even if they decide to re-grant their works to a label, they may have more leverage than the first time around. And, given that it’s much easier to reach audiences directly, they could very well take DIY approach and license or sell directly, thereby cutting out the middleman. No single approach is going to be appropriate for every artist, but I think it’s crucial that they get to exercise their rights as Congress intended.

Here’s where it gets sticky: the labels and publishers are likely going to try to find ways to justify holding on to those copyrights. Maybe it’s something in a contract that they will try to point out as being outside of the terms that Congress set forth. Right now, it seems like there is hesitancy to take this to the courts, because where there’s litigation, there’s precedent. Many termination scenarios will likely be settled privately. Some artists may want to assert their rights by filing with the Copyright Office, come what may. We may just have to see how this all plays out.

Yet this isn’t an issue that stops after the first wave of works becomes eligible in 2013. It just keeps on going. At some point in the not-too-distant future, Madonna songs will be eligible for termination. Then grunge bands. For some of us, it’s another startling reminder of the passage of time. But for musicians and songwriters it’s an important and potentially rewarding part of copyright law that directly affects them.

This just in from our audio division:

What is the sound of a thousand suns collapsing? The blossoming of desire and the splendor of decomposition? We think we have a pretty good idea.

The Ten Thousand Things is an organic drone act of considerable potency. Lush, transfixing and unearthly, Anastam brilliantly captures the taxonomy of decay. This powerful aural talisman is available in three unique editions exclusively from Lux Eterna Records. Grab it below, or in the shop. Or listen here forever… and ever… and ever…

Anastam I
1. Immediate download of the album in any file format you want, including high quality lossless
2. Limited edition litho album art suitable for hanging
3. High-quality art photos and zen poems inspired by Anastam (PDF)
4. Antique library card embossed with a unique magickal theorem
5. Liner notes
6. T-shirt
Limited Edition w/physical and digital extras: $15

Anastam II
1. Immediate download of the album in any file format you want, including high quality lossless
2. Antique library card embossed with a unique magickal theorem
3. High-quality art photos and zen poems inspired by Anastam (PDF)
4. Liner notes
Special Edition w/digital & physical extras: $10

Anastam III
1. Immediate download of the album in any file format you want, including high quality lossless
2. High-quality art photos and zen poems inspired by Anastam (PDF)
3. Liner notes
Digital Edition w/extras: $5

And why not check out the rest of our roster while you’re at it?

[My amazing intern at Future of Music Coalition, Scott Oranburg, wrote this overview of Spotify, which I thought was too cool not to also post here.]

OK, we can admit it: we’ve been pretty pumped about Spotify for a while now. The mega-hyped European music service has been been making tracks across the pond for a couple of years, but it was beginning to seem like a US launch would never happen. Now, after securing license agreements with Warner Music Group — the lone major label holdout —  Spotify finally has the greenlight to open shop in America. For US listeners, Spotify offers a 3-tiered payment plan: Listen for free with advertisements (limitations, like listening hour caps will be introduced in six months); get unlimited ad-free music on your computer for $5/month; or get unlimited ad-free music on any computer and mobile device for $10/month.

We decided that it was well worth plunking down the ten bucks and taking the unlimited service for a ride. Why not? We’ve been waiting a while. In fact, when Casey Rae-Hunter interviewed Spotify founder/CEO Dan Ek live at the 2009 Future of Music Policy Summit, the Swedish entrepreneur said the service would launch later that year. Better late than never! (Casey also just spoke to American Public Media’s “Marketplace” about the US launch; check that out here.)

First Impressions
It’s really fast. And it works really well. And it sounds really, really good.

Although subscription on-demand music services have been around for a while now, none have managed to capture the same buzz as Spotify. We’re not naming names, but some initially struggled with clunky interfaces, iffy catalogs or weak marketing (or a combination). Meanwhile, Spotify seems to have been running on all cylinders in Europe right out of the gate. Our feeling about the American version is that it’s the real deal.

The entire interface feels incredibly familiar from the moment you login. The program itself looks a lot like iTunes, which many users have navigated for years. Playlists are stored to the left. Libraries are shown in the middle. Search bars are up top. Volume and playback controls are at the bottom. You can star songs or albums you like, and you can look back into your play history. And, Spotify’s unique caching and piecemeal streaming system makes everything play instantly, as if it were actually stored on your hard drive. Actually, the loading time was noticeably faster than our external harddrive on USB 2.0, and the quality on par with — or superior to — most of the tracks on iTunes or floating around cyberspace.

But the real “aha” moment comes when you realize just how expansive the Spotify catalog is. Search almost anything, and it’s right there for immediate playback. Choose entire albums or single tracks. Check out artists’ “top hits” before delving deeper into their catalog. And you can browse related artists’ discographies while you’re at it. It’s pretty much all the music you can imagine, immediately accessible and totally legal. The interface is fast and easy. Almost everything can be dragged-and-dropped, while playlists, libraries and even local files on your hard drive are immediately accessible with a single click.

Mobile Access
The iPhone app is pretty killer (Android is on the way). Over WiFi, Spotify feels just as good and plays just as quickly as it does on a laptop. The interface still isn’t quite as intuitive as that of an iPod Touch, but it’s pretty close. But more importantly, the 3G streaming is unbelievably fast compared to similar subscription services like MOG or Rdio. Spotify’s caching system is very robust, so much so that playback is totally consistent if you start an album and let it play straight through. There’s no telling exactly how long the cache will run (for example, imagine losing service on the subway for a few stops), but from our initial use, it seems very rugged. Of course, the caching has to restart when skipping between songs, so 3G definitely has some limitations when compared with an MP3 player with local files. (Local device downloads, which last as long as you subscribe, pretty much solve this issue.)

Deeper into the Interface
OK, so maybe we’re just a bit giddy, but Spotify seems to actually change the music-listening experience, too. Think back to when you first got an iPod: all the music you owned was on one device, and it synced with your computer pretty seamlessly. Suddenly, everyone had their music with them at the gym, in the car, on flights, etc. Music became further entrenched into all of our lives, and that was in pretty much everyone’s best interest (unless that music wasn’t paid for). It seems that Spotify is now offering a similar evolution in the listening experience.This isn’t just because Spotify eliminates frustrating load times, duplicated files, missing cover art, corruption errors, shoddy external harddrive connections, over-capacity listening devices, or waiting for downloads to finish. Rather, Spotify’s real impact may extend beyond the polish of the interface; it may come from the way we can share music with each other.

The potential here seems unprecedented. Because all of this music is in the “cloud,” Spotify users can subscribe to others’ playlists, email songs, share tracks on Facebook or integrate with other third-party products like Turntable.fm. A decade after the MP3 revolution, Spotify has now made legal and streamlined the music-sharing process. While writing this, we literally asked around the office and on Facebook about new music suggestions. All was immediately searchable and streamable. From there, we could post favorite tracks to Facebook or throw ‘em into our Turntable.fm queue for more people to discover. We even sent recently played songs to Mom, who is still listening to music suggestions from Mother’s Day 2009.

Spotify is well-integrated with Facebook, too. And, while previous social music offerings haven’t really taken off (like Apple’s Ping), Spotify’s social features have tons of potential. Went to your friend’s dance party last night? Great, check out her Spotify playlists, and grab the tracks immediately and legally. Share them with more of your friends following your playlists, throw them on your queue to listen to on the way to work, and then pick up where you left off once you sit down at your computer. From top to bottom, Spotify works really well and really quickly, and it creates a fluid music-listening experience that for many, may even trump Apple.

Impact on Artists
Of course, our primary concerns are about working musicians. We love to see new technology improve our experience with music, but we don’t want it to be at the expense of songwriters or performers. Fortunately, Spotify is completely legal, and pays rights holders (including musicians). Right now, the money coming to artists from such services is nothing like selling merch at shows, but it is a revenue stream. (In fact, independent musicians may fare better than major label artists due to contracts and “recoupables.”) There’s no way to predict whether subscriptions will eventually displace album sales — download or physical — and it’s also unclear how that shift would affect the music community as a whole. Still, it’s nice to see something that we think can legitimately “compete with free.” The rest comes down to user adoption of the premium service, licensing issues and contracts. We’ll be keeping an eye on all of these developments (and both ears on our Spotify).

HAPPY RAPTURE!

The Contrarian Media and LUX ETERNA wanted to take this moment to celebrate your imminent ascendancy to His Kingdom.

What’s that? Not getting Raptured? Well we’ve got the perfect consolation prize.

Here’s a brand new track from Strange Angels just in time for End Times:

Did you know The Contrarian has an audio division? Well, we do, and it’s awesome.

The label is called LUX ETERNA and we’re getting ready for a couple of exciting releases this summer, with more in the queue.

First up is the new album from The Ten Thousand Things, who you all know as Contrarian Library Scientist Wes Covey.

The record is called Anastam, and we’re releasing it in a few exclusive packages:

Anastam I
1. Immediate download of the album in any file format you want, including high quality lossless
2. Limited edition litho album art suitable for hanging
3 High-quality art photos and zen poems inspired by Anastam (PDF)
4. Antique library card embossed with a unique magickal theorem
5. Liner notes
6. T-shirt

Anastam II
1. Immediate download of the album in any file format you want, including high quality lossless
2. Limited edition litho
3. High-quality art photos and zen poems inspired by Anastam (PDF)
4. Liner notes

Anastam III
1. Immediate download of the album in any file format you want, including high quality lossless
2. High-quality art photos and zen poems inspired by Anastam (PDF)
3. Liner notes

These nifty packages will be available exclusively at the LUX ETERNA shop.

Next up is the debut from Strange Angels — the recording project of composers/producers Arthur Leon Adams III and Casey Rae-Hunter. This baby runs the gamut from art-pop to Beatles bounce to psychedelica, with a little They Might Be Giants thrown in for good measure. Here’s a track called “Hotel Suite,” which is definitely more on the “psych epic” side of things: