The Good Guys: Shazam and Other Licensed Lyrics Resources.

You’ve been asking “If those 50 lyric websites are undesirable which websites/apps are fair to songwriters?”

First of all if you get your lyrics through Shazam you are using a licensed service. To me Shazam is THE shining example of  technology that brings artists and fans together while managing to actually pay songwriters.  We wish everyone was like Shazam.

Here are some lyric sites that appear to be licensed and pay songwriters. This is by no means a definitive list.   If you are already using these sites? Great. If not consider using these sites:

http://www.azlyrics.com
http://www.elyrics.net
http://www.songlyrics.com
http://www.songtexte.com

http://www.lyricsondemand.com
http://www.tabs.ultimate-guitar.com
http://www.songmeanings.net
http://www.lyricinterpretations.com
http://www.metrolyrics.com
http://www.lyricsfreak.com
http://www.sing365.com
http://www.lyricsmode.com
http://www.lyrics.com
http://www.lyrics007.com
http://www.lyricsty.com
http://www.directlyrics.com
lyrics.wikia.com
http://www.lyricsbay.com
http://www.smartlyrics.com
http://www.lyricsbox.com
http://www.lyrics.net
http://www.onlylyrics.com
http://www.lyricsnmusic.com
http://www.musicsonglyrics.com
http://www.songmeanings.net
http://www.lyriczz.com
http://www.lyricsg.com
http://www.songfacts.com

Synchronized #TeamSpotify Blogger Dave Allen @DaveAtNORTH Reveals His Choice For 4th Horseman of the Spotocalypse!

Last week I wrote about the curious seemingly synchronized Pro-Spotify swimming – er I mean blogging by Jay Frank, Dave Allen and Bob Lefsetz.  Their seemingly synchronized attacks come whenever an artist speaks out about the abysmal royalties paid by multi-billion dollar Silicon Valley firms.   In Particular the 5.6 billion dollar on-demand streaming company Spotify.

They performed this seemingly synchronized swimming routine with me.  And more recently they did it to David Byrne.

Because of this, I good naturedly poked fun at the three.   Partly because there were only 3 of them.  I dubbed them the 3 horsemen of the Spotocalypse.

You see if 6 is the number of the beast then 3 is the number of the comedian.

“Dave Allen, Bob Lefsetz and Daniel Eck walk into a liquidity event”

3 is snot a serious number.

In my piece I  suggested that no one would ever take them seriously until they had a fourth member.  The Four Horseman of the Spotocalypse!   You see four is an extremely masculine and world changing number.

The Fantastic Four.  Masculine

The Fab Four.  Masculine and World Changing.

98 Degrees.  Masculine, world changing and they perform with their shirts off!

While our readers suggested that they add Kim Jong Un the dictator of North Korea as the fourth horseman we now see that Dave Allen has implicity revealed their choice for the 4th Horseman of the Spotocalpyse. 

<drumroll>  The envelope inside the  YouTube Music Award Cake please <drum crash>

“The 4th member of the Spotocalypse is Tim Quirk from Google.   <applause><cue music> <cue weird Greta Gerwig dance >

I’ve got to admit we were wrong.   This is an inspired choice.  Tim is both Cuddly and Angry.    Good work guys!  We really didn’t see that coming!

Oh and by the way Dave Allen by what measure are you “winning” and we are “losing the battle and the war?”  Let’s check the facts.

*The Scooby Doo gang killed Pandoras Internet Radio Fairness Act.

*There are now around the clock saturation stories examining Spotify’s seemingly meager royalties.

* The white house set up a task force on ad supported piracy.

And we did it with no secret corporate cash, subsidized travel expenses and we didn’t set up a 501 3(C).  We’ve not lost the battle or the war. Frankly it lots a lot like we are winning.

Finally Dave,cut the straw man argument crap!  You are just as bad as Tim.

Straw Man Argument:  Your critics want to  “keep music confined to a round, shiny disc that costs $18.99.”

Dave.  No one is saying that.  But go ahead.  Show me one example of your critics saying that.   Don’t you have business connections to Google through Cash Music?  Google should be able to snoop in someones gmail and find someone saying that?  Right? I mean if it really happend.

(Isn’t  that the purpose of those not-so secret barges that Google is building?  To sit in international waters and snoop our email beyond the reach of  US wiretapping laws?  )

One again Dave, Artists are simply asking for fair pay from these digital services.  Failing that we want the right to withdraw from these services. Nothing else.  You can’t just make shit up.

#YTMA Artists Can Help Clean Up YouTube: An Open Letter To Jason Schwartzman, Lady Gaga, Spike Jonze, M.I.A. Arcade Fire and Macklemore.

This is not about whether the YouTube Music Awards were a train wreck or not.  I’m not going to criticize the overall quality of the show’s production.  Live shows are tough.  I’m a performer, I know.   I’ll leave the criticism or praise of the show itself to others.   I enjoyed the show and thought it had its moments.  It was nice the public got a vote. And hey Eminem even got an award for an album that wasn’t out yet!

This is not a pile on.  This is about something entirely different.

This is about YouTube’s lack of corporate responsibility and artists’ traditional role as the first to use their influence to demand corporate responsibility in the face of massive corporate influence. 

This is about otherwise sensible and decent artists who I LIKE AND RESPECT that seem to have been unwittingly duped into lending their credibility to a site that hosts and often directly monetizes (with advertising) videos that promote hate, animal cruelty videos, human trafficking ads, beheading videos, jihadi recruiting videos, playlists devoted to violence against women and other disgusting stuff.  This site is YouTube. 

Think about it.

*Would artists perform on the MTV music awards if MTV broadcast hate videos from bands like Final War, Skrewdriver or Kill Baby Kill?  (That would never get past MTV’s standards and practices)

*Would an artist host the Grammys if The Recording Academy  were in the business of distributing cat kicking videos? (That would never get past CBS’s standards and practices)

*Would artists perform for a network that also had channels that seemed to be exclusively devoted to rape scenes? Real and from movies?

*And again, would artists make videos for a company that distributed a snuff film that shows a man decapitating his wife?

(Ed note: It should be noted that extreme violence,violence towards women, racism, hate, etc are all standard exclusions in artists recording and publishing agreements for licensing – and for good reason.  Why should YouTube get a pass on this?)

Now I feel confident that no artist who participated in the YouTube awards would knowingly support this kind of activity. I have to assume that they are as unaware as I was that this unspeakable stuff is on YouTube and YouTube is profiting from its repeated viewings.   If it weren’t for my University of Georgia research I would not have been aware of the extent of the problem either.

However, unlike many problems in the world, this is a problem artists can actually do something about and do some good in the process.

Assuming that YouTube does their music awards next year,  artists could do good by demanding that YouTube clean up their act before participating.  And there’s no time like the present to get started with the clean up.

I anticipate that YouTube will say that the videos violate YouTube’s terms of service and that YouTube will take down the videos if they are notified by a sufficient number of members of the YouTube community.  Or you could say that YouTube will take them down if YouTube gets caught enough times. (They never say how many “flags” are enough.)

Many of the videos already have graphic content disclaimers.  Someone–presumably YouTube itself or the YouTube community–has already flagged these videos, so YouTube knows what they are hosting!   I think YouTube needs to be much more proactive in cleaning up their act, and the artists who associate themselves with YouTube have an opportunity to do something about it.

Artists who performed this year could do good now by publicly  demanding that YouTube take down these offensive videos, stop advertising on the videos and give to charity Google’s share of all revenue generated to date from these videos.  For instance, the revenue from the Final War song below could be donated to The Anti-Defamation League.

Screen Shot 2013-11-05 at 2.30.29 PM

Beheading Videos.

I’m leaving out the screen capture on this one.  But if you search YouTube for “Beheading Mexico”  you will find a snuff film of a man decapitating a woman, (purportedly for infidelity). There is no news or freedom of speech issue here.   There is no editorializing or reporting here.  Just the raw footage.  You also find the chainsaw beheading execution of a man by the a notorious drug cartel. The reason the drug cartel filmed this execution was to intimidate and terrify people. Same with decapitation by various radical jihadi groups.  By hosting and profiting from these videos YouTube is amplifying the terror these groups intended to cause.

In the past when I queried this search on YouTube I came up with sponsored (advertised) videos for “male baldness cures” and other odd products that relate to the head. This leads me to believe there is some sort of keyword specific advertising going on.

Playlists Devoted to Violence Against Women

YouTube has thousands of videos that depict rapes and violence against women.  Some are scenes from movies but others appear to be real footage from security cameras, cellphones and even professional cameras.   Regardless they are often grouped into playlists.  It should also be pointed out that many of the rape videos purport to be of underage girls (see below). I believe these titles are designed to specifically appeal to pedophiles.   If anyone does not believe that these videos have any effect on the young men who watch them just read the comments.   I dare you.

Here’s one such playlist “YouTube Mix – rape camera”   (I’ve catalogued dozens). The first video below “sketch” may seem to have an innocent title but trust me you don’t want to watch it. This playlist also contains a notorious and disturbing real video of a young teenage girl apparently being groped and molested on a school bus.   Note the advertising from Inspirato/American Express, Airborne and Xfinity.   Tweet at American Express.  Tweet at Xfininity.

Screen Shot 2013-11-05 at 9.14.21 PM

Screen Shot 2013-11-05 at 10.04.23 PM

Screen Shot 2013-11-06 at 12.57.55 AM

Neo Nazi bands and recruitment.

There are hundreds if not thousands of videos by Neo Nazi and  hate bands on YouTube.   Check the ADL list of “Bigots that Rock” and try a YouTube search yourself. Two things quickly become apparent.

1) Many of these videos YouTube has monetized with advertising.

2) The YouTube channels that host these videos appear to be actively recruiting members for various hate groups.  Look at the comments and email addresses displayed in the videos.

In the example below RNskins88 channel appears to be run by a Greek neo nazi group but in comments I’ve highlighted a supporter of the Aryan secessionist group Northwest Front actively recruiting. (BTW 88= Heil Hitler)

Tweet at Showtime.  Tweet at Chevrolet. 

Screen Shot 2013-11-05 at 10.37.03 PM

Screen Shot 2013-11-05 at 10.50.00 PM

Screen Shot 2013-11-05 at 11.02.14 PM

Do it for the kids.

These are just a few of the numerous categories of vile videos you find on YouTube.  It’s really quite startling when you begin to examine what they will host and monetize.  But to me the much bigger problem is that YouTube’s key music demographic are children.

If you have children you know that they don’t listen to Spotify or iTunes radio.  They get their music from YouTube.  They watch TV on YouTube.  They get the vast majority of their entertainment from YouTube.  While YouTube theoretically age restricts videos all the videos above are available even if you are not logged into an account.  Thus they are not age restricted unless you are logged in. I didn’t even get a graphic content warning on several of the most violent videos.   So basically when your kids are on YouTube ALL of this content is there and available to them to watch.

Music videos drive a large percentage, if not a majority of the traffic to YouTube so we artists have a special obligation to ensure that we are not a “gateway drug” for the really disgusting stuff that YouTube hosts.  I humbly ask you to join me and ask YouTube to clean up their act.  Do it for the kids.

This is not a matter of freedom of speech or censorship.  YouTube is a private company and they can choose NOT to host certain videos. They already choose NOT to host porn and certain other content.   If someone really believes they need to show the world a beheading video they can post it on their own website.  YouTube is not required under first amendment principles to host it.  That is a false argument.   And they are certainly not required to monetize videos like these with advertising.

If YouTube really wants to be an alternative to television and have the YouTube music awards be a rival to the Grammys they are gonna have to clean up their act.

Fetishize The Past? Google Executive’s Double-Vinyl-Gatefold-Sleeve-Rock-Opera Of A Straw Man Argument.

Paul Resnikoff at Digital Music News was masochistic enough to transcribe a rant  given by Google’s Tim Quirk at Future Of Music Coalition Conference last month. Tim takes a blog from The New Yorker that may or may not romanticize shopping for vinyl in shops in the 90s.  He then makes a false equivalency between that and artist’s current criticism of the current digital services and royalties.

This is the mother of all straw man arguments.  And again we need to call him out on it.

Artists are not fetishizing the past.   They are simply asking for fair pay in the digital age. End of story.  

Of course there is another interpretation of this.  Is Quirk implying fair artist royalties are some sort of fetish from the past?

If this is the case, count me as really confused. For wasn’t it Tim Quirk who in 2009 magnificiently ranted on his band’s website (Quirk was in the band Too Much Joy)  how his old record label Warner Bros was not properly crediting his account with digital royalties?

http://www.toomuchjoy.com/index.php/2009/12/my-hilarious-warner-bros-royalty-statement/

I quote from his blog:

“So I was naively excited when I opened the envelope. And my answer was right there on the first page. In five years, our three albums earned us a grand total of…

$62.47

What the fuck?”

So what happened to the 2009 Tim?

I’ll tell you.  He got a Job at Google.  Meet the new boss Tim.  Yourself.

(BTW all artists should read the transcription of Tim’s remarks.  There is a visceral hostility toward artists throughout the entire piece that is quite startling  considering he is an executive in Google’s music division. Just saying.)

New Boy Band Poll: Who Should be the Fourth Horseman of the Spotocalypse?

Time for some artists’ rights comedy gold.

We can’t help but notice that when an artist publicly criticizes Spotify there are three bloggers that seem to quickly post rebuttals as if they are members of a synchronized swimming-er blogging team.  To paraphrase Spin Magazine on these guys: “#TeamSpotify.”

Most recently we see the Three Horseman of the Spotocalypse going after David Byrne for his editorial in The Guardian.

Bob Lefsetz the 60-year-old self-described “industry expert” angrily calls the 61-year-old David Byrne an old fart.

Meanwhile Jay Frank calls David Byrne “bad at Math.”  Now while Jay is always careful to be right, if you look at the big picture it turns out he’s arguing over things like whether it takes 150 million Spotify spins or 75 million Spotify spins a year to reach minimum wage (and is that federal or state minimum wage, and which state Jay? ) . Does that really matter?  Byrne’s points still stand. Either way it’s a fuckload and it’s not sustainable. Yes Jay, technically you’re right but It’s like a Larry David episode.  You’re making my brain hurt and I AM A MATHEMATICIAN.

Finally Dave Allen former bassist of the “Marxist”  Gang Of Four now turned Ad Exec spends 100,578,238 words incoherently criticizing David Byrne, Thom Yorke and myself.  This in advance of a meeting with Spotify executives in LA.  I draw no conclusions.

But here’s the real problem with these guys: I can’t take them seriously.

And it’s not because I don’t like what they write.  It’s because there are just three of them.

If 6 is the number of The Beast.  3 is the number of the comedian.

“Dave Allen, Bob Lefsetz, and Daniel Ek walk into a bar”

If you want to be seen as a powerful, elite or even sinister force three is not a good number.  Think about it.  “Three Stooges”, “Three Blind Mice”, “The Three Amigos”, “The Jonas Brothers” etc etc.

Four is much better. Four is a masculine world-changing number.

“The Fab Four”   “The Fantastic Four” and of course “The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.”

These guys will not be taken seriously until they add another horseman.

The pro-spotify-anti-artist-blogging business is no different from the boy band business.  You need some variety among your bloggers for broadest appeal.  And the more bloggers the better.  They should really take a cue from some of the great boy bands of the past.   As Bob Lefsetz might say “Work hard, be excellent,  and add another member”  “The Four Horsemen of the Spotocalypse” is so much more serious sounding.

And they are almost there.  They’ve got three great ingredients already!

Jay Frank: The nerdy but fun one.

Dave Allen: The angry one,

Bob Lefsetz: The really angry one,

Who should they add?  Do they go cuddly?  Sinister? Cute? Hispanic?

They definitely don’t have cute.   And they probably should go cute but there are no cute anti-artist-rights-pro-spotify bloggers.

So dear reader please help us!  Please help The Three Horseman of the Spotocalypse become Four.   Vote for a new member!

“Luddite” Artists Point Out That BitTorrent Doesn’t Know Shit About Their Own Technology.

Like Germans BitTorrent is “mostly unitentionally  funny.”*  The  company has decided that they should attempt to legitimize their artist exploiting torrenting system with a charm offensive by buying billboards in Los Angeles.  Check this one out.

It seems to me that BitTorrent is suggesting that by using their product you are somehow safe from snooping by the NSA.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Nope you aren’t even safe from a so-called luddite musician. Check it out.

Here are the IP addresses, ports  and some sample Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven songs being hosted and illegally torrented by 33 Bit Torrent users.  This is using one of the vast number of tools available to snoop on Bit Torrent traffic–think the NSA doesn’t use this for jihadi communications????

And to the folks illegally sharing my music?   You might want to ask what other naughty stuff I can see on your computer?

Seriously, if I could figure this out in 20 minutes how hard is it for the NSA? FBI? Local PD? Hacker?

Apparently BitTorrent doesn’t even understand how it’s own product works. Luddites.

*No offense Germans, I’m simply paraphrasing my favorite German Author Thomas Meinecke.

The IP Address The Port Sample File Name
98.194.45.42 45832 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
76.125.248.153 16079 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
76.122.163.166 53855 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
67.187.147.156 31163 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
67.180.160.68 49992 12 – Circles.flac
68.35.217.145 48451 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
67.173.109.168 39167 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
50.131.219.101 43611 12 – Circles.flac
71.198.221.119 47128 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
69.245.16.52 19150 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
76.126.53.161 46736 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
50.159.89.238 20533 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
98.255.69.205 61427 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
76.121.64.84 11373 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
98.225.183.21 21709 05 – Peaches in the Summertime.flac
174.60.188.235 32303 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
67.185.200.229 38984 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
71.228.181.111 53935 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
68.61.76.14 44025 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
24.130.205.30 16422 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
71.207.200.119 53935 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
98.232.177.136 39146 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
68.49.180.22 33418 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
98.239.116.29 56239 69-Cracker-Euro-Trash Girl.flac
71.207.226.46 53935 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
98.230.67.200 61161 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
76.106.137.141 33912 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
98.252.25.93 50437 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
76.101.248.189 16076 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
68.63.112.223 26424 69-Cracker-Euro-Trash Girl.flac
98.211.89.34 45985 Cracker – (2002) FOREVER – 04 – Guarded By Monkeys.mp3
76.23.241.13 50364 Cracker – Teen Angst (What The World Needs Now).flac
66.229.199.147 55914 10-Cracker-Lonesome Johnny Blues.flac

Third Nyan Cat Award For Web Based Idiocy: Cathy Caverly of Creative Commons.

Nyan Cat awards are given for outstanding achievement in disinformation, web myths and general web based idiocy.

I just read with some amusement this article in the UK Guardian whereby author Phillip Pullman rightly calls piracy “Moral Squalor”. But that’s not the part that’s funny. It’s the quote that they use for “balance” from Creative Commons Chief Cathy Caverly.

“By default, copyright closes the door on countless ways that people can share, build upon, and remix each other’s work, possibilities that were unimaginable when those laws were established.”

NO IT DOESN”T. IT JUST MEANS THAT YOU HAVE TO ASK PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR OF THE WORK IF YOU USE IT PUBLICLY AND/OR COMMERCIALLY EXPLOIT IT. HOW CAN ANY DECENT HUMAN BEING BE AGAINST THAT?

Permission is the foundation of civilization or have you forgotten that Ms Caverly?

But it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the Chief of Creative Commons would utter such idiocy. For they claim they offer a license “that lets creators take copyright into their own hands”. WTF? It actually does the opposite. Isn’t this a false statement? False advertising? Fraud? Reading that statement I can’t imagine there are NOT artists out there that unwittingly put their now valuable work into Creative Commons thinking they were gaining more control over their work when in actuality they were doing the opposite. I’m not a lawyer but isn’t there a problem misleading people in this manner?

Plain old normal copyright IS creators right to their works in their own hands.

Creative Commons licenses are a permanent surrendering of some or all of your copyrights as an artist. To use the same analogy these CC licenses take creators’ works from their hands.

Now some people see Creative Commons as a elaborate put up for a particular large Internet corporation that would like nothing better than to monetize every book, film, photograph and song without ever having to ask permission of the author. They often point to Sergey Brin’s (Google) financial support of the organization and the fact that his mother-in-law is the vice chair. Or they point out that their board is completely dominated by people with ties to technology companies and opponents of Copyright. I don’t agree with this. The pseudo-intellectual Creative Commons movement was afoot long before Google existed. Still one can certainly argue that Creative Commons are “useful idiots” and I won’t object.

But here is the question that no one is asking:

“Why are Creative Commons licenses even necessary?”.

For you can do everything you do with Creative Commons that you can do with old-fashioned-non-googly copyright! For instance I allow the non-commercial sharing of recordings of my bands live shows on the non-profit Internet Music Archive. There are thousands of our recordings on the internet music archive. All I had to do was state on our website that we allow this. Voila. Thousands of recordings appeared.

Neither do we object to fans posting ukele cover versions of “Take the Skinheads Bowling” on their facebook pages. And may I remind you that the Grateful Dead enacted their famous taping policy without a Creative Commons license?

Photographers who wish to freely share their photos in any manner commercial or non commercial may state so on their websites without using a Creative Commons license. Plus they have the added advantage of being able to change their minds later. Something that is not possible with a Creative Commons License.

Why is it left to me rather than a real journalist to point out that there is no point to Creative Commons licenses? Where are the grown-ups?

Well perhaps I’m too hasty. There may be ONE point to these Creative Common licenses:

They serve to confuse the public as to the true nature of copyright. And that looks suspiciously like propaganda to me. “Useful idiots” indeed!

Therefore we hereby present our 3rd Nyan Cat Award to Cathy Caverly of Creative Commons. Enjoy.

University Of Georgia Music Business “Undesirable”Lyric Website Study

Lyric searches drive huge traffic on the web.  They may not be quite as popular as “Lady Gaga Download”  and other similar searches but they are right up there.

There are lots of licensed sites and as usual lots of what appears to be unlicensed sites.  Almost all of these sites have major brand advertising.

Many of you may not realize this but I’m also on the faculty of The University of Georgia.  I teach in the Music Business Program.  I spent considerable time this summer studying these sites as part of my official research duties. It’s part of a bigger project whereby I’m studying and cataloguing many of the “lesser known” kinds of copyright infringing websites.

Here is a short paper listing this months top 50 “undesirable” lyric websites as well as my methodology and further comments. It is my hope that brands and advertising agencies will consult this list when planning advertising campaigns. Suggestions are truly welcome.

You may download/view  it here:

UGA Music Business Undesirable Lyric Website List*

If you don’t want to download it and read the whole thing (I’m talking to you generation tl/dr) here are the Top 50 “undesirable” lyric websites.  (If for some reason you believe your website was mistakenly included in the list follow instructions in the paper. )

(Ranked by search result rankings.)

Top 50 Undesirable Lyric Websites.

(This list has been corrected.  7 sites from original list turned out to have been licensed. Thanks to Andrew Stess at LyricsFind for doing deep dive into this over a holiday weekend).

Rank Website Final score Major brands

1

http://www.songlyrics.com

7.445

yes

2

http://www.lyricsmania.com

6.18

yes

3

http://www.stlyrics.com

6.055

yes

4

http://www.lyricsreg.com

4.485

yes

5

http://www.lyricstime.com

4.435

yes

6

http://www.lyricsdepot.com

4.395

yes

7

http://www.elyricsworld.com

4.33

yes

8

http://www.songonlyrics.com

4.285

yes

9

http://www.lyricstranslate.com

4.13

yes

10

http://www.karaoke-lyrics.net

3.89

yes

11

http://www.lyrics.astraweb.com

3.325

yes

12

http://www.kovideo.net

3.13

yes

13

http://www.oldielyrics.com

2.93

yes

14

http://www.poemhunter.com

2.825

yes

15

http://www.maxilyrics.com

2.675

no

16

http://www.lyricsboy.com

2.54

yes

17

http://www.anysonglyrics.com

2.27

yes

18

http://www.lyricsmansion.com

2.185

yes

19

http://www.absolutelyrics.com

2.11

yes

20

http://www.videokeman.com

2.105

no

21

http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com

2.055

yes

22

http://www.musicloversgroup.com

1.94

no

23

http://www.urbanlyrics.com

1.915

yes

24

http://www.asklyrics.com

1.895

yes

25

http://www.bmusiclyrics.com

1.885

yes

26

http://www.nomorelyrics.net

1.865

yes

27

http://www.plyrics.com

1.855

yes

28

http://www.lyricsforsong.net

1.805

yes

29

http://www.hotnewsonglyrics.co

1.795

yes

30

http://www.hitslyrics.com

1.73

yes

31

http://www.sasslantis.ee

1.705

yes

32

http://www.lyricspinas.com

1.68

no

33

http://www.cowboylyrics.com

1.655

yes

34

http://www.guitaretab.com

1.62

yes

35

http://www.songtextemania.com

1.54

yes

36

http://www.lyrics59.com

1.5

yes

37

http://www.golyr.de

1.495

yes

38

http://www.lyricsera.com

1.49

yes

39

http://www.justsomelyrics.com

1.47

yes

40

http://www.allthelyrics.com

1.44

yes

41

http://www.6lyrics.com

1.365

yes

42

http://www.lyricsfeast.com

1.33

no

43

http://www.hiplyrics.com

1.32

yes

44

http://www.lyricsprint.com

1.265

yes

45

http://www.paroles-musique.com

1.25

yes

46

http://www.muzikum.eu

1.235

no

47

http://www.alivelyrics.com

1.13

yes

48

http://www.lyrster.com

1.13

yes

49

http://www.guitarparty.com

1.115

yes

50

http://www.azchords.com

1.095

yes

*songmeanings.Net was mistakenly included in first list.  This was a typo we compared it to songmeanings.com. 

** Over the weekend we were notified that these sites are also licensed:

http://www.musicsonglyrics.com

http://www.songmeanings.net

http://www.lyriczz.com

http://www.lyricsondemand.com

http://www.tabs.ultimate-guitar.com

http://www.lyricsg.com

http://www.songfacts.com

May I humbly suggest that Lyric sites begin putting a notice on their sites clearly explaining which organizations and publishing companies have licensed them.   At least until we manage to create a master list.

*update 10/22/2013  new list: UGA Music Business Undesirable Lyric Website List Oct 22nd 2013

Does Sirius and “Piped in” Airline Music Lead to More Music “Discovery” than Pandora? PT 2

After one get’s past the debate about whether webcasting and streaming pay artists fairly, you find there is a more complicated question.  How much of webcasting and streaming is “discovery”  and how much is just plain old consumption.  Listening to familiar tracks we already know.  This is not an academic question.  This fact can be taken into consideration by Copyright Royalty Board judges when they set the rates for webcasting. (Yes believe it or not in the year 2013 the prices to webcast songs and music are set by the US government!!).

Clearly all forms of broadcasting and webcasting are a little of both consumption and discovery (or promotion).   But the Webcasters have been arguing that they are better suited for “discovery” and thus are giving unknown artists and listeners something of value.  That argue they are better for music “discovery” than traditional broadcasters. Is that really true?

Yesterday I took my top 5 bonafide radio hits from the 80’s and 90s and subtracted their spins from each service then I looked at the percentage of spins “left” on each service.  The idea being the more a service plays the non hits the more likely listeners are discovering music.  I found something surprising.   Sirius XM and “Piped in” Airline Radio played more deep tracks or non-hits  than any other format.  Thus listeners were more likely to discover songs they didn’t know on these two services.  At least from my catalogue.

Following up with yesterdays post.  I’m digging deeper into my catalogue and subtracting spins for the minor hits, regional hits and tracks that otherwise garnered significant popularity from other sources.

Yesterday I subtracted spins for just the Top 5 tracks.

Low, Teen Angst, Get Off This, Take The Skinheads Bowling, Eurotrash Girl.

We will now subtract the spins for an additional 10 tracks.

All these tracks garnered significant radio promotion and sales through the years.

Eye of Fatima pt 1*  (Minor National  Rock/Modern Rock success)

Happy Birthday to Me*  (Minor national alternative paly, Minor recurrent play).

Turn On Tune In Drop Out With Me.  (#13 AAA radio.  Minor format.  Featured in Californication.)

Sweet Thistle Pie* (Mid-Atlantic, Chicago,  South Florida, Texas regional)

Good Guys And Bad Guys* (MTV Specialty and College Radio)

Big Dipper ( Coastal Carolinas regional).

Cracker Soul (Virginia, Carolinas and Chicago regional).

Turquoise Jewelry* (KROQ Los Angeles only)

I See The Light  ( Indie 103.1 Los Angeles Only. Daily airplay for nearly 3 years because DJ Steve Jones of Sex Pistols just decided to play the shit out of it on his popular afternoon show!)

Yalla Yalla  (Armed Forces Radio, mildly viral YouTube remix.)

* Promotional CD or Vinyl serviced to radio. 

This is not subjective.  These tracks were selected after looking at various royalty statements and airplay reports.  These are the top 15 tracks that still generate significant spins and individual sales.  There are certain tracks that were worked as singles like “I Hate My Generation” that generated a brief period of airplay but have never sustained spins.   Nor have they sustained individual sales over the long term.  These tracks are not included.  As further evidence please note that the aggregator of web simulcasts Live 365 pretty much agrees that these are the top 15 tracks.  See last screenshot.

Now the question is “Who plays the largest percentage of my catalogue outside the Top 15 tracks”

Airlines 39.27% broadcast
Sirius XM 28.57% broadcast
College Radio 25.02% broadcast
Pandora Radio 17.28% webcast
Live 365 16.91% webcast/broadcast
Rhapsody Radio (not on demand) 10.19% webcast
Terrestrial UK 8.81% broadcast/webcast?
Terrestrial US 1.07% broadcast

So for music discovery your best bet is a little air travel!  Followed by Sirius and then College Radio.  To be fair Pandora moves up a notch and it’s relative percentage of songs in the “tail” of my catalogue hardly changes.  This seems to argue that at least 17% of the time Pandora seems to be true music discovery.  It’s not just playing what the crowd says is already popular.  Again that 17% is nothing to sneeze at.  This suggests  that at least some significant portion of the time Pandora is playing you some artists or songs you would have likely never encountered.   That is encouraging.

Tomorrow let’s look at the On-Demand streaming stats.

Live 365 shows 13 of the 15 tracks in it’s top 25.

13 of tracks in top 25

Does Sirius and “Piped in” Airline Music Lead to More Music “Discovery” than Pandora?

Readers of this blog know that there is a raging debate over the rates that artists are paid by Streaming and Webcasting services.    But underpinning that debate is the notion that certain webcasting services and streaming services help people discover new music and are thus giving something of value back to the artist.  It occurred to me that I have a big enough song catalogue that we could actually look at the question try to measure if these services lead people to new music or just sort of spin what is most popular and familiar.

So in my own catalogue there are 5 songs that were genuine radio hits on multiple radio formats.  At least here in the US.   As individual tracks they also tend to be in my top ten sellers. They were also released commercially as singles.    They are:

Low

Teen Angst

Get Off This

Take The Skinheads Bowling

Eurotrash Girl

(Pictures of Matchstick Men is a Status Quo cover and I don’t get granular statements for that track).

There are also another dozen tracks that were minor hits, regional hits,  or garnered significant but fleeting radio play.  I deal with these and “On-Demand” services in a subsequent posts.

So the question I attempted to answer is  “What percentage of spins on these service are NOT the top 5 hits?”   This is not necessarily the only way to look at the question.  This is perhaps the bluntest of measurements.  However it is interesting to actually look at the data rather than just make unverified claims.   (For balance I’ve also asked a friendly yet sometimes adversarial fellow blogger to look at my raw data and ask the question differently.)

Here are the somewhat surprising results.

Percentage of spins that are NOT my top 5 hits.  Webcasters and Broadcasters only.   On Demand Streaming services like Spotify or Rdio are not considered.  

Sirius XM 46.13% broadcast
Airline Radio 46.02% broadcast
College Radio 32.15% broadcast
Live 365 31.36% webcast/broadcast
Pandora 18.18% webcast
Rhapsody radio 16.02% webcast
Terrestrial UK 8.90% broadcast/webcast?
Terrestrial Radio US 3.47% broadcast

Here are the big surprises.   Sirius XM although relatively few spins, tends to play more stuff out in the “long tail” of my catalogue than every other source.  And Airlines?  how did that happen?

Pandora which loudly boasts of it’s music genome project ends up in the middle of the pack.  Further 4 out of 5 spins on Pandora are for “Low” my biggest hit.  The only other service that spins Low as much is US terrestrial (85% of all spins).   However there is one caveat with Pandora.  The other 20% of the time the spins are more evenly distributed throughout my catalogue.  At least relatively speaking.   I mean the number two played track is an obscure outtake  from Kerosene Hat “Sunday Train.”  I assume that is the music genome at work.  So 20% of the time Pandora acts as claimed as a music discovery service.  At least with my catalogue.  Second caveat.  This is just within my catalogue.  It’s entirely possible that in aggregate Pandora as claims plays more indie music and artists out in “the tail” of popularity.

Percentage of Spins that are the track  “Low.”  Webcaster and Broadcasters. 

Terrestrial Radio US 85.26% broadcast
Pandora 79.82% webcast
Rhapsody Radio 63.75% webcast
Terrestrial Radio UK 39.56% broadcast/webcast?
Live 365 28.97% webcast/broadcast
Airline Radio 25.09% broadcast
College Radio 24.99% broadcast
Sirius XM 24.96% broadcast

About 20% of the time Pandora seems to really play some obscure tracks. Kudos!

Pandora plays