New Record Label Will Give Out All Its Music For Free; Wants Fans To Subscribe To The Label

from the interesting-ideas... dept

Fri, Oct 7th 2011 6:26am — Mike Masnick

Jay Frank wrote the book FutureHit.DNA a few years back, and it's really a fascinating look into the music business. Frank, who formerly was the Senior VP of Music Strategy for CMT (part of MTV) as well as VP of Music Programming at Yahoo! Music, basically tried to scientifically breakdown what it took to be a "hit" song in the modern digital age. Of course, some might dismiss this as formulaic (and perhaps cynical), but I can't recommend the book enough. It's not just about "oh this is what makes a hit song," but it takes a look at how listening habits change in the digital era, and how even that may impact what makes a hit and what doesn't.

It appears that Frank doesn't just want to write about this, but he's about to put his theories to the test. Today he's announcing a new record label, called DigSin, that will be focused on releasing singles for artists rather than full albums. But here's the interesting bit: all of the music will be released for free. What he's looking to do is build up a base of subscribers who will want to be pushed new great songs that he's releasing. In effect, rather than a "label" in the traditional sense, you can think of it as a "tastemaker," or even a filter or trusted friend.

I have to admit that I've been fascinated by this concept for a little while. I've written in the past about how I've paid a small label/distribution company a yearly subscription in the past for a "CD of the month" club, because I trusted the guy who ran it to find me awesome CDs. In that case, it was a small operation, where the guy who ran the label would take into account each of the subscriber's tastes and try to match music to what they liked. It was like having the guy at the record store who knew your tastes picking out what you should listen to. It was fantastic. In this case, Frank is trying that on a larger scale... and not charging for it.

In this case, it appears that Frank is going to be looking at alternative revenue sources. If he can bring together enough music fans, that's certainly an opportunity. I would bet there will be some sponsorship opportunities that make sense, but I could also see some more creative efforts, such as upsell opportunities for merch or concert tickets.

The timing of this is interesting, as he's launching it at the same conference where Ian Rogers, the head of TopSpin -- and also a former Yahoo! Music exec -- gave a talk on the race to be trusted, noting that he believes that's the next stage of the music business. Basically with so much content out there, finding the right content for you is key, and that's going to be a trust issue. If you trust someone to bring you good music, that's a powerful connection.

Of course, it's worth noting that Rogers, in his speech, tells the record labels that they cannot be that trusted partner, because people will always doubt their sincerity on whether or not the musician that they're pushing, who's signed with them, is really that good. It is an interesting question. I think it's possible for a label to be trusted, but it's difficult. Though, I actually go back to an open letter that Ian himself wrote to then head of EMI Music, Guy Hands, about why he should turn the label giant into a trusted filter based on affinity groups around existing big name artists (i.e., build a mini label around... The Beatles, for music that Beatles-lovers would like and then build out that brand as a trusted brand). It's possible. It's just difficult.

On the artist side, DigSin is also focused on being a better partner -- an enabler rather than a gatekeeper. It's signing artists to very short term deals, with agreements around songs, not the artist. That is they'll share in the monetization of the specific songs. And the songs will still be available via traditional channels -- iTunes, Spotify, etc. -- for people who want them that way. But the real focus is on DigSin's ability to bring together a core group of people who are really into hearing the next great song first, and to help connect those people with musicians making those songs.

It's definitely a big challenge -- and one where there may be many hurdles. But if it's done right, it could be quite useful. I'm intrigued that Frank is attempting this, and if his notions on what makes a hit are correct, and he's able to execute on that with the artists who release singles through DigSin, it could become a very interesting model to pay attention to.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: hits, jay frank, music
Companies: digsin

77 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

freak (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 6:47am

Thanks, Mike!

I'mma sign up, this sounds like a great idea!

Actually, I'mma admit, I'm spending more on music than I was before I started reading techdirt, and a lot of it is due to techdirt. Artists you've highlighted, (Color Theory in particular. Currently, he's selling all his music, ever, recently remastered and put on a USB key in lossless formats. He's currently surveying his fans to figure out a price point, and I'm figuring it's worth about $100 to me), sites you've pointed out, and other little things that pop up in the comments, (Talco comes to mind; I hadn't heard of them before someone mentioned them in the comments. And fortunately, their music is available on jamendo for me to check out).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 6:57am

I am interested in this idea, but then I often enjoy seeing people try something new.
I like the concept of the artists not being bound for life to the new gatekeeper trying to cash in on being cool.
And the idea of focusing on the song rather than the album churn...

He deserves to succeed, it might not be perfect but this might disrupt the current gatekeepers even more than sharing ever did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ahow628 (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 7:11am

Love this
Everything about this is great. This is how I've always imagined it going.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 7:36am

Subscribe to someone's idea of tomorrow's top 40 list? Barf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- freak (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 7:55am
  
  Re:
  Somehow, I don't think that's a terribly accurate comparison.
  
  I mean, a top 40 is a collection of 'the most popular'. A label releasing singles . . . well, a label can, and will, whether it likes it or not, release more popular and less popular songs.
  
  Similarly, while the top 40 will never veer too far from the familiar, a label must constantly veer from the familiar in order to continue being relevant and profitable.
  
  And digsin is just a label focused around singles . . .
  And in that they aren't keeping the artists, or the copyrights on the songs, it seems to me to be very far from a top 40, and will have to be constantly focusing on new stuff.
  
  And hey, it's free, what am I going to lose if I don't like the service?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 9:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    They are focused on producing only 'hits' - exactly the kind that make up top 40 lists. While the product is offered for free it is a subscription based model, without enough subscriptions they will go under. Just saying that it sounds unsuited to my taste, I'm sure lots of others will fell differently - my motherin-law will probably love it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 9:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "They are focused on producing only 'hits'"
      
      like the entire recording industry has been since...forever?
      
      actually, you might be right.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 11:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, traditionally a record company would produce full albums where not every song on the album is a 'hit'. Maybe there are one or two singles from the album, maybe only one song is a hit. This way you can get an artist to give you a hit but at the same time let the artist do his/her thing on songs that are not written to be hits but written for the sake of art.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        monkyyy, 7 Oct 2011 @ 5:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and recently not even trying for hits anymore.... or are one of biebers songs much more bearable then the others
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chosen Reject (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 9:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I think (hope?) that this guy is going to find and promote songs that are really good, not what usually makes it into the top 40. That is, for every song that makes it into the top 40, there are a bunch of others that are just as good (take that how you want it to mean), but weren't promoted as such, and a bunch that were even better but didn't make it because they weren't promoted. Had they been promoted, they would have been in the top 40 easily.
      
      So I think (again, hope) that this guy will find the really good songs and promote them because he is relying solely on trust, whereas the current labels don't, so they can promote whatever act they want to be in the top 40.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 11:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It is sales that defines a song as a hit or not, its those same sales that push a song into the top 40. The aim to be more efficient by only doing hits and forgetting about all of the other songs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Bas Grasmayer (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 1:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "exactly the kind that make up top 40 lists"
      
      I think that might be where you're wrong. There are many types of 'hits'. I think it's too early to tell what the catalog of the label will look (or sound) like.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Andrew (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 9:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm not sure it's that dissimilar to the top 40. I've just read the linked post from Ian Rogers (TopSpin), where he says that we have gone from an era of mass media to one of niches, and he suggests we are now heading into an era of "trusted brands", where we will all subscribe to content from a few sources that match our tastes.
    
    Or, to put it another way, we've gone from an era of few sources (organised but increasingly uninspiring content) to one of many sources (some good but disorganised and hard to find content) and are now heading back to one of few sources again.
    
    This isn't to say it's a bad thing. I think it's fair to say that the top 40 worked pretty well for a while, but it has become increasingly irrelevant to the tastes and desires of many people today. Introducing a personalised top 40 (based on the tastes of people or brands I trust) sounds pretty good to me.
    
    In a sense, the model hasn't changed that much: we still have a small number of brands / companies / people providing music to us. But they should be working with us as enablers, not working against us as gatekeepers. Here's hoping. :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 7:37am

Sadly, it still sounds quite a bit like "give it away and pray". Yes, they have structures in mind to try to mine the users and make some money, but in the end, it is still selling what a few people want in order to pay for a whole lot of people getting something for nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 7:58am
  
  Re:
  Then you must really hate the entire business of Entertainment. Since its been like that since the beginning
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 8:08am
  
  Re:
  it is still selling what a few people want in order to pay for a whole lot of people getting something for nothing
  
  You have it backwards. It's actually "giving a whole lot of people something for nothing in order to get a few people to want & pay for something". And that's quite different from "give it away and pray" - it's more like "give it away and pursue a strategy"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 8:24am
    
    Re: Re:
    Marcus, it is on par with a grocery store giving away crackers and hoping like hell someone buys overpriced caviar to put on them. The people don't want caviar, they want the crackers. When your business model is no longer predicated on selling what people want naturally, and instead is based on hoping someone decides to pay way over market price for something to make up for all your freebies, you are very close to failing.
    
    I have yet to see anyone explain this in a manner that is truly sustainable. It all preys on a small percentage of people doing something comparatively stupid and paying way too much for the "special" product in order to support all the freeloaders.
    
    Stepping over dollars to pick up pennies, it's the new business model I guess!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 8:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yeah man, that Gabe guy giving away his games is total loser. I bet he doesn't make a dime that fat idiot
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 8:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      and Free to air TV, man those losers don't know what they're doing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 8:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      and Radio, man those bums are soo stupid giving it aways like that
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - freak (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 8:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Marcus, it is on par with a grocery store giving away crackers and hoping like hell someone buys overpriced caviar to put on them."
      
      You say this, but I don't think you realize my grocery store does this. Except not with caviar; the brand of crackers that they sell (2 packs/cust/visit) are in the middle of an aisle filled with jams, and peanut butters, and cheeses and soups, and mixes like brushetta mix, and that aisle is also right beside the produce section, with all those fresh veggies and fruits.
      
      Just an interesting note, it's really quite irrelevant.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - freak (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 8:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And by 'sell', I mean 'give away for free'.
        
        I might also note that as a university student, the crackers were one thing that attracted me to that grocery store, and this IS a university town, so they're probably capitalizing on it in many different ways.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 8:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I love how they always bring in the physical world to explain the virtual world. Kind of shows how little they understand basic physics or reality in general.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        freak (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 8:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I love when they bring in the physical world to diss our ideas of the virtual world, and get the physical world horribly wrong to begin with.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 8:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      man, Google giving it away for free. What idiots, they will never make money, EVER
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 8:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Facebook seems to an appropriate model: use the information for profit, as the information on a particular person is a monetizable good. Digital music is in "infinite" good.
      
      Using the infinite to sell the scarce, working for religion since 39,000 BC.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 8:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Talk to me when you invent a Cracker Replicator. Until then, your analogy is utterly meaningless.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 9:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Marcus, when you come up with a music creator that is totally free and never costs time, money, or effort to make, you might have a point.
        
        Until you can address the sunk costs, your "infinite distribution" deal is all bullshit anyway, and you know it.
        
        Music isn't infinite. I would think that a talentless schmuck like you who clearly labours for weeks to try to turn out one wretched verse of self-defeating beat poetry would know that it takes time and effort to make music - even sucky, crappy music like yours. Unless you time is someone infinite, there is always cost.
        
        Grow up and join the real world.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 9:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        wasn't mrcus talking about infinite distribution not infinite music ?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 9:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        don't confuse the shills with facts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 10:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        he's not a shill, just an amateur troll - and a professional crazy person (I am assuming he gets cheques from the government, because I don't imagine he's very employable)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 10:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Marcus, I think you can retract that statement. I do not get checks from the government.
        
        It's just more proof that everything you say is bullshit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 10:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Shit, so you're only an amateur at being crazy too? Is there a Waste Of Space Olympics you want to compete in or something? Louder, Crazier, Stupider!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 11:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh Marcus, come on. You still haven't explained why you hate copyright so much, but you make a living working for the very companies that depend on copyright to pay your way.
        
        You can't explain why your music sucks so bad either. Yours is perhaps the best example of why it should be given away for free, because nobody in their right mind would actually pay for it. The only shows you seem to be doing are those created by your talentless buddies, using quite names like "festival" to explain away the small rooms with 100 people in them, most of them laughing at your total lack of talent.
        
        Go away Marcus, you are just being an asshole at this point because you don't want to lose any more arguments here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        freak (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 12:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You mean he's not responding politely and with a reasoned, intelligent response to someone who said their only purpose here was to google bomb him?
        
        Y'know, I can't understand it either.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 12:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He mostly seems to have given up on that, which is a shame - he got me to page two, but I was all excited about the top spot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 12:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Heh. Lose arguments? No see, the reason I am being an asshole is that I won the argument a long time ago, and everyone realizes it except you. And saying mean things to a brick wall, while still pointless, is at least more fun than trying to have a rational conversation with one.
        
        Now, where's your creative output? Oh right, you have none, or if you do you are far to embarrassed by it to share it. I make shitty music for fun, and I'm proud of it, and happy to hear whatever mockery you can come up with! (I wish you'd be a bit more inventive about it, though - your insults are tired.) I'm rather flattered by your 100 estimate to be honest - I doubt I've ever performed in front of a group bigger than 50, maybe 75. You, on the other hand, are the epitome of a coward, hiding behind anonymity to avoid admitting that all you do with your time is troll blogs and curate porn.
        
        You seem to be having a really, really hard time getting this through your head but: some people create for absolutely no other reason than that they have fun doing so. The fact that you still don't understand that says a lot more about your lack of a soul than it does about my lack of talent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2011 @ 11:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You won nothing, except perhaps another chance to go on stage and have people laugh at your "performance". You a perfect candidate for the President of Tardian Paradise.
        
        You "create" nothing. But you do make a lot of noise.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Oct 2011 @ 8:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You "create" nothing. But you do make a lot of noise."
        
        I wanted to come up with a response to what you said, but I felt your own words were perfect. You do indeed make a lot of noise. None of which is remotely relevant to the article. Insulting someone who creates. You're a real big man anonymously aren't you? It's cute. In a sad way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        BeeAitch (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 4:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Heh, by my (unofficial) score card it's Marcus 8 (9 now); pathetic name-calling, childish troll 0.
        
        YOU LOSE AGAIN.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 10:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You do realize that the building where the grocery store is isn't free, right? It's a massive sunk cost. And yet they don't charge you for admission to get inside... funny how that works, huh?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        hothmonster, 7 Oct 2011 @ 2:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        your grocery store doesnt have a roped line, bouncer and cover charge? Mine does, but its full of sluts and it only sells alcohol by the glass. But they got free peanuts so...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 3:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Software that can create music is already a reality so there are no sunk cost there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 3:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Can you explain where all the millions that artists are making today comes from please.
        
        Hint: it is not from free music that people can find ANYWHERE, so where it is coming from?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 2:53pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Nope the right analogy would be a grocery store giving away those little slips for discounts or products.
      
      Is like sending coupons to others hopping they will come buy at your store.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 2:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Here is a hard fact, music is not the only revenue stream for a musician, selling plastic discs is no different than selling a T-Shirt from the band and today a T-Shirt offers greater returns than a disc.
      
      So I don't really see how giving away music has any impact on revenues, people didn't stop buying merch, people didn't stop going to concerts although if they keep hiking up the prices soon nobody will go, and I don't see people not wanting access, in the age of interactive, crowdsourced, why are bands not selling access to live videos of themselves? why are they not endorsing some products?
      
      Oh they are and they are making millions doing it too.
      
      If giving away music was so bad, radio would have killed them long ago.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe Perry (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 11:13am
  
  Re:
  "give it away and pray" works in other industries. obviously, and it was mentioned before, with tangible products, free samples given away in grocery stores or outside of a restaurant or kiosk.
  and the most prominent "give it away and pray" strategy I can think of right now is in video games. microtransactions, in which they give a game away for free, then they count on a small percentage of the users to pay money for in game items. many games are using microtransactions these days, a lot of people consider it a better way to make money than a monthly fee, they consider it the way of the future. and it's clearly working for the video game companies that are using it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcus Carab (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 11:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    But I don't really think those are "give it away and pray" situations. GIA&P is when you don't have any idea how or why people are going to give you money, you just hope that something will materialize - the purest version of that being making everything free and then asking for donations.
    
    Grocery store samples & video game micropayments are proven strategies - I suppose there was a little bit of prayer at the beginning, but that's more like "give it away as an experiment". If the experiment works, or at least hints at what might work, and you continue improving on it until it starts making you money - well, then it all just becomes a business model.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 11:24am
  
  Re:
  Sounds just like every product based business I've ever heard of... Movie producers spend millions creating a movie and then pray that enough people will pay to see it to cover the expenses; Record labels record and manufacture cds and then pray that enough people will buy them to pay the production costs; Bakers get up early to bake bread every morning and then pray enough customers will make purchases to pay the rent.
  
  Every business model I have ever seen is based on the same premise - investing money first and then getting enough customers to cover the expenses. Making a reliable profit only happens after a customer base is fully established. And to do that it is necessary to offer 'free' samples. Sometimes those samples are offered to the public at large (such as bread samples in the new bakery), other times they are offered only to executives and agents (such as music samples by a new group). Always they are given away for free with a prayer.
  
  So, yes, "give it away and pray" is a perfectly normal opening business model and they are using it to that extent. What's your point? Why do say that like it's a bad thing? Do you really believe customers will buy the product without a sample? Would you?!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 2:51pm
  
  Re:
  Giving away what?
  The music, that is fine, since what you want to sell is tickets, contracts and merchandise.
  
  The music is irrelevant for sales it isn't praying.
  
  I still won't buy though, because of the license.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 7:55am

Connecting the dots � (#Trust_Us)
If you sign-up the email you receive is from topspinmedia.com so it's not all that suprising that "he's launching it at the same conference where Ian Rogers, the head of TopSpin -- and also a former Yahoo! Music exec" is telling "the record labels that they cannot be that trusted partner, because people will always doubt their sincerity". Looks like bald-faced self-promotion and a power grab - "look they can't be trusted but we can". (#Trust_Us).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 8:01am

Very tempting..

However; I couldn't see paying and being limited to a specific label. Why don't they just do this like Cable TV? A number of companies can offer access to a variety of recording companies and their media...

The RIAA and it's lackeys make this SO much harder than it needs to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 8:03am

Err, well I did just sign up - I'll look into it more. I am looking for some new tunes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Evostick, 7 Oct 2011 @ 8:24am
  
  I signed up too
  Bugger all on there. Where is the music?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 7 Oct 2011 @ 8:06am

It's always about MONEY not music, isn't it?
Sounded great until near the end: "That is they'll share in the monetization of the specific songs."

What I hope is the site is laid out so that I can easily scrape MP3s. Doesn't take me long to decide on a tune, maybe fifteen seconds. I can go through 50 in fifteen minutes. (I frequently have: have you guys noticed there's a LOT of legal free music out there? Download.com seems to have closed the music section, but used to have some great music.) Anyway, I figure that my speed and accuracy on picking tunes will make me a great "customer" IF I can just scrape the tunes and not have to look at ads or wade through pages. That's the way I want it, and this new site had damn well better give it to me that way, or I'll just go elsewhere. -- But how's it going to learn of my most excellent taste?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 8:10am
  
  Re: It's always about MONEY not music, isn't it?
  Mobi said the same thing about record executives. Every meeting its always about money and monopoly of the content. They don't care about making good music anymore, just how much they can weasel from consumers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 8:41am

lol
I'm looking forward to a follow-up from mikey a year from now on the "success" of this company, based on giving away its product for free. I'm sure once it fails miserably you will conveniently forget it, or use some lame excuses as to why it didn't succeed, and how you know better and have the magic business formula for making millions from giving away stuff, yet you never have done it yourself nor could you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- freak (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 8:54am
  
  Re: lol
  Techdirts archives are up.
  
  Go for it.
  
  Find a company that techdirt endorsed a year or so ago that failed. Heck, find all the ones that TD endorsed last year that have since failed.
  
  No, go on, please.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 9:03am
    
    Re: Re: lol
    Where can I find this?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - freak (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 9:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: lol
      By 'archives', I just mean that techdirt doesn't hide any of its old content.
      
      It doesn't make itself particularly navigable, going back in time, but it's possible.
      
      Here:
      http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?start=3150
      
      That link will put you 3150 posts back into the archives, which is actually only back to Dec 23rd, 2010 right now. Yeah, I know, that's an insane amount of articles.
      From there, just keep clicking 'older posts' until you've scanned all the stories from the year.
      
      I suppose you could also use a good google search. Go into advanced searches, and search specifically for hits from techdirt between 2009, Jan 31st and 2010, dec 31st for whatever search terms you'd like.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 3:01pm
  
  Re: lol
  LoL
  
  I want to see your face when you do realize that all labels are already doing this because lets face it, music is free whether you like it or not, people are spending money because they want too, not because they have too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
CRK, 7 Oct 2011 @ 9:03am

Makes me sad
It's a cool concept, yes, and I like the idea of eliminating the gatekeeper concept, but what bothers me the most is that this purely encourages artists to focus on making a single - not an album. Which directly affects the artistry of the industry, which we already know is on the decline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- freak (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 9:13am
  
  Re: Makes me sad
  It might go the other way.
  
  I considered this briefly for a second, but if artists want to make the most money, they'll probably want to make albums all the same, and use the extra attention from DigSin to sell the albums.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 9:18am
  
  Re: Makes me sad
  I also love full albums - but I don't think there's anything intrinsically superior or more creative about them. When did we decide that all music shall be divided up into songs of 3-6 minutes and arranged on discs of 8-20 tracks, and anything else shall be considered unusual? You have to admit, it seems rather arbitrary.
  
  Artistically, and philosophically, I see no reason why a single song cannot be just as much of an artistic accomplishment as a completed album. I also anticipate a future in which musicians start experimenting beyond those two concepts - for example I think we'll begin to see something I'm quite excited about which is "living albums", where a band announces a project (like "we want to record some really bluesy stuff" or "we just bought a new synth and we want to base a bunch of songs around it") and, instead of fans waiting for the disc to be finished, they sign up to receive new tracks from that project as they are done.
  
  I guess what I'm saying is in part I feel your pain, because I love well-constructed albums, but I think it would be pretty arrogant of us to assume that the death of that one particular format is also the death of creativity and quality in music.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chosen Reject (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 9:45am
    
    Re: Re: Makes me sad
    No, he's right. As soon as people stopped solely reciting stories, and instead started writing them on scrolls, creativity in story telling died.
    
    Wait, I mean as soon as scrolls were dropped in favor of bound books, storytelling creativity went the way of the dodo.
    
    Hold on, I mean as soon as bound books were replaced with ebooks, storytelling stopped completely.
    
    Let me back up, as soon as art moved from cave walls to animal hides, art has never been the same.
    
    Uhm, I mean as soon as art went from animal hides to canvas, painting creativity dried up.
    
    No, I mean that as soon as art went from canvas to digital, art stopped being good.
    
    Err...Oh I know, I'll go with music. As soon as music went from paid court musicians to random people, quality dropped.
    
    I got it this time. I mean as soon as music stopped being about entire concertos and more about individual pieces arranged in an album, musical genius stopped dead.
    
    Give me one more try. I meant that as soon as music went from albums to individual songs, the artistry in the industry went on the decline.
    
    You know, I'm going to go lie down and think about this some more.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 8 Oct 2011 @ 4:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Makes me sad
      You're kidding, right? Player pianos put musicians out of business and killed the music industry.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 9:36am
  
  Re: Makes me sad
  Does this concept tie the artist up in which they can't make an album?
  
  For example, let's say Artist A is dipping his toes in the water, and creates a really good song. He puts it out there, it's a hit. He feels good, and creates another, puts it out there, people going wild.
  
  After a while, he's got 12-15 songs out there individually. Will this service allow him to compile all of that into a single album and sell it on his own website? Would they expect a cut?
  
  What about someone that created music in their spare time? Let's say they have been, for the last 10 years, creating stuff at home. Let's pretend they have compiled 3 albums on their own. Now they see this service, and send one of their songs over. Will they be bound to hand over all of their music?
  
  I don't think this service will make the album go away....unless they handcuff the artist....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - monkyyy, 7 Oct 2011 @ 6:22pm
    
    Re: Re: Makes me sad
    i doubt they will, otherwise techdirt wouldnt have talked about it
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Strawbear (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 9:35am

I love the idea of this, but can only see it making money in terms of licencing very successful songs for commercial things (films ads etc) and to gain a following for artists so they get more tickets sold for gigs. I can't see the online part of this making any money at all, even if they carry merchandising.

If the artists are on short term deals, what happens after they do well for one song here, then move over to EMI, for example. Will the site make any money off them at all then?

It is however a wonderful concept and I hope it makes the artists on it a nice living wage which their work entitles them too. If I thought any decent music had been made in the last 10 years I'd be sure to check it out.

As for the single vs album debate - I have to say I like albums. They are a work of art in themselves, tracklisting alone is an under valued art. But such is the way of things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Atkray (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 11:11am

I used to use Yahoo messenger and listen to yahoo music all the time.

The algorithms they used to suggest songs were much more accurate at picking songs I would like than netflix is at picking movies(which is pretty accurate).

If they are using anything even remotely like that this is going to be a huge success because it will match the artists to people that like their particular style.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill Rosenblatt, 7 Oct 2011 @ 12:47pm

I think everyone's missing something here
Everyone here is talking about the label or the listeners. It's funny how, in evaluating business models like this, nobody ever seems to talk about the *musicians*.

My question is simple: with no contracts, no artist development, and no income guarantees, why would anyone in his right mind want to sign to this "label"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 1:57pm
  
  Re: I think everyone's missing something here
  "with no contracts"
  
  Considering how contracts have been criticized by musicians as unfair for them since the begging of labels, and how most musicians are leaving the labels because of the shitty contracts, I do believe you may be incorrect in your knowledge of the relationship of musicians and labels (most of them anyway).
  
  "no income guarantees"
  
  There is no such thing as a guarantee, in any job. Especially these days
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bill Rosenblatt, 7 Oct 2011 @ 2:06pm
    
    Re: Re: I think everyone's missing something here
    I am not as naive as you seem to think I am.
    
    I meant why would I choose this over, say, some indie label with good distribution (say, through the Orchard or IODA) and a commitment to develop my career over the course of more than one song? Or just do the whole thing myself?
    
    Perhaps the word "guarantee" was not well chosen. But wouldn't I rather go with someone who is at least guaranteeing to sell my products for actual money?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Oct 2011 @ 3:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: I think everyone's missing something here
      What do you think musicians sell?
      
      They are entertainers, they don't sell music they sell feelings, they sell experiences and if you look at an MRI from the brains of people enjoying music or cocaine your probably see similar patterns.
      
      Those things can be embodied in variety of physical products where the least of them today is a plastic disk, but they can still sell T-Shirts that incredibly give the same margin of profits, they can still deliver that music in great boxes, they can still make live concerts, people still pay for tickets.
      
      So I don't see how giving away music, which is basically what radio does harms them in any way.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - freak (profile), 7 Oct 2011 @ 9:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: I think everyone's missing something here
        Y'know, a friend of a friend of a liar I know told me about a scientific study that DID try to compare musicians & music listeners to cocaine users in just that way!
        
        They found out about half-way through about an unavoidable experimental error that meant the (positive) results were worthless :p
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kelsi Bohnen, 11 Oct 2011 @ 12:47pm

Digital Music Labels
Mr. Masnick,

You provided a very interesting perspective and enlightening summary on the concept behind the new record label, DigSin. Considering my interest in the current transformation of the music industry, I find myself speculating what impact such a unique business model will have and the results it will generate. I am particularly drawn to your discussion on releasing singles for free and the label�s plan to �build up a base of subscribers who will want to be pushed new great songs.� In the past, music professionals such as Bobby Owsinski have argued for the economics of free and encouraged content owners to give away their music in order to increase market size. It appears to me as though Frank will be utilizing this model as part of a larger marketing plan to expose his artists. Although the economics of free have proven to be beneficial to an array of artists, concerns have arisen regarding the overall effectiveness of the model and the results it produces for the music industry. In particular, analyst Mark Mulligan recently argued that despite recent developments, the digital music market continues to face an impasse because the �economics of free don�t yet add up.� How do you perceive this philosophy and the role it plays in the music industry? More specifically, how do think this philosophy can be effectively integrated into Frank�s business model and used to build a loyal audience?

You also touch upon the relationship the new digital music label will have with artists stating that �on the artist side, DigSin is also focused on being a better partner�an enabler rather than a gatekeeper.� I am drawn to this statement because artists are continuously taken advantage of by record labels through long term deals and agreements designed for the advancement of the label. DigSin have developed a more artist-friendly model that signs artists to short term deals based around individual songs rather than the artist. I believe this is a huge step in encouraging better business practices and contributing to the prosperity of artists. I noticed that the digital music labels, RCRD LBL and Green Label Sound, have been partaking in similar non-traditional deals with artists for several years now, and success stories such as Kid Cudi have arisen from them. In the long run, do you think such deals will become the norm and shape the music industry for the better? The co-founder of RCRD LBL, Peter Rojas has expressed that his company is making artists more comfortable about distributing their music, because the terms of their contracts ensure that they get paid and are �in a way in their own best interest.� I believe DigSin will also achieve this relationship with artists, hopefully changing the way labels conduct business and influencing the music industry for the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eric a.k.a young spit, 9 Sep 2012 @ 6:42pm

im a young artist im 15 years old
i im a young rapper 15years old and i im really tryn to get signd to a label and tryn to get me out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]