a newfound respect for the real

I recently ran across a website that lists the real names of music artists, and was shocked. Although it is fairly obvious that certain artists (like Prince) have devised monikers, I was surprised to see many of the names on the list. It also makes me wonder why certain artists decided only to change their last name. There are artists like Lou Reed (whose real name is Louis Firbank?) who I am guessing changed their names to make it easier to remember or spell. If he played clarinet or sax, I could understand the "reed" reference. But then there are artists like Gene Simmons whose real name is supposedly Chaim Klein Witz. Talk about bizarre. But how do they come up with these alter ego's? Names that sound "hip" like Nikki Sixx are expected, but how does "Gene Simmons" sound any more hip than his real name? I guess it sounds more American, and perhaps that is what he was going for.

One surprise from the list was Taco - his first name actually is Taco. Check it out - it's fun for a laugh: Music Stars Real Names

music industry strikes back at deserters

Radiohead and Prince made lots of headlines over the last few months for their non-traditional album sales tactics. In the case of Prince, he offered his album for free with a newspaper subscription. He got a large payment from that newspaper instead of getting payment directly from fans. He also gave away a large number of copies with tickets to his concerts. As for Radiohead, you'd have to be living in a vacuum to have not heard their approach - selling their album via their website, essentially cutting out the middle-man (their record label). The idea of a band selling their own album wasn't groundbreaking, but allowing fans to name their own price caused quite a stir.

Both Radiohead and Prince received praise and criticism from music industry professionals, but it was fairly apparent that the big labels were not happy about them rocking the boat. So now they are striking back...

The BBC just reported that Prince and Radiohead are not eligible to be considered for the Brit Music Awards this year due to their sales tactics. Talk about sore losers. There is little doubt in my mind that the Brit Awards is just another extension of the major labels and their attempt at controlling the media and sales charts, and trying to force bands out of the mix because they don't adhere to antiquated sales-based eligibility rules sounds like sour grapes to me.

Since when did album sales have anything to do with being a stellar musician?

age defiance

As something of a musician, I recently attended a free conference call which discussed some of the modern aspects of independent music marketing, and one of the things the speaker touched upon were the "myths" that people new to the scene tend to fear. One of the things this gentlemen suggested to be a major myth in the industry is that one can be either too young or too old to "make it" or make any waves in the music industry. While this statement may prove successful at providing warm fuzzies for all the thirty-something-and-ups on the line, in reality I don't think that he is exactly correct in his assertion. While it is true that the music *should* be the first and foremost thing that sways someone to be a fan, let's face it...if you are of a certain in a certain genre, you just don't get the respect.

When it comes to being too old to be "cool", I'm sure that in the genres of rock, blues and country, there isn't such a roadblock. But try getting into pop music or even electronic music at the ripe age of forty and see how well you do, particularly if some of your success hinges on live performances. As much as I don't want to admit it, I'm guilty of it just the same as the next guy. I went to an electronic show, saw a guy in his early forties and asked my friend, "what the hell is that guy doing on stage?" Now if I had already known who he was, of if he was one of the "dinosaurs" of the electronic music industry (who already earned his respect when he was younger), I would have felt differently...most likely. But he was for lack of a better word a "newbie", and as much as I hate to act ageist, I judged him as an "old newbie" which means he's up against more of a challenge than a regular newbie.

If you're still following this ridiculous example, all I can say is that I find that it is a shame that certain genres of music are still so wrapped up in image that breaking into a scene will be twice as hard for people who don't fall into that certain imagery. As much as I would like to think that the faceless internet is changing the way that we feel about such things, I myself stand as a shocking (and embarrassing) example that it hasn't changed very much at all. Sad, isn't it?

Then again, if the "old man" who was performing had really good kick-ass music, I may have felt a little differently. It's hard to say for sure.

whataver happened to minidisc?

I was cleaning out some old boxes the other day, and ran across some minidisc masters. As a musician, minidisc was an awesome and affordable solution for making digital recordings. The format was great, too. You had this small disc that fit into the palm of your hand (like in sci-fi movies like "Johnny Mnemonic") but with a protective case so that it doesn't get scratched. The recorder/player was available to consumers at a decent price (about $250) from a brand you could trust (Sony). There were some complaints about the compression applied to the disc, but it never bothered me. Certainly not as much as some of the effects of MP3 compression today.

I used my minidisc recorder for several years until the loading mechanism quit working. It was beyond warranty and I scrapped it. Since then, I forgot about the minidisc. Technically, it sounds about as good as CD, and with the protective and editing features (you could name/rename tracks and rearrange them from the front panel - no PC required), one could even say that it is superior to compact discs. But it never took off. The CD came out just before the minidisc, and as is often the case with competing technologies, the first horse out of the gate got the bets. I'd like to pick up another minidisc player one day, just to transfer these old masters onto my computer. Unfortunately, I have been searching and most of the players are quite expensive. In addition, I'll have to run it through some digital converters to get it onto my PC because the consumer players no longer allow you to transfer the file directly to your PC. You can blame that on those RIAA jerks and their copyright protection antics. (I guess I am not *allowed* to copy songs that I wrote and produced, eh?)

Meanwhile, the MP3 player continues to extend its foothold on the consumers of the world. Fascinating new devices like the iPhone are including MP3 players, and nearly all CD and DVD players (both home and auto) can read and play them. I read recently that there is a new format for the minidisc that allows it to hold 1Gb of data on one disc. That's amazing, considering how much smaller it is than a DVD. Do you think it is making a dent in MP3 player sales, though? Doubtful. I believe that if we retain any kind of physical storage medium, a new generation of the minidisc is the direction we are heading in - smaller with more capacity. Eventually, we'll have mini DVDs that will hold the same amount of data as the current DVD. Either that, or the quality of movies and audio will continue to increase, thereby requiring more data capacity, and any capacity-per-size optimization will be negated. I thought that the music industry might turn to tiny memory cards at one point (like you use in a digital camera), but they are so volatile and easy to corrupt that I'm glad they haven't.

I also read a recent article lately that stated that vinyl sales were up 13% in the UK, particularly 7 inch singles. Talk about unexpected. In this land of "Have Everything, Own Nothing" (Napster's advertised motto), it is refreshing that there are still some true music "collectors" out there. Let's hope that they still have some sort of media to hold in their hands in ten years.