Posts Tagged ‘music’


It seems strange in 2014, when record collectors have picked over everything from pre-Revolutionary Russian vocal 78s to Vietnamese soul, that the musical history of Spain is still largely unknown internationally.

After all, some 800,000 British people live in Spain and millions more come to the country every year. What’s more, the musical histories of France, Germany and Italy – countries that many British people once turned their noses up musically – have all been mined to considerable acclaim, turning up wonders of Yé Yé, Krautrock and giallo respectively.

So why not Spain? There is, of course, the country’s troubled recent history: while Britain basked in the summer of love Spain was living under a military dictatorship that had no great love for pop music and would censor records that didn’t meet with its nationalist, pro-Catholic views.



Read Full Post »


In the days of social media, anonymous comments and secret-sharing apps, keeping anything under wraps is difficult.

But U2 and Apple managed it this week. Yes, there had been reports that U2 would take part in Apple’s iPhone 6 event and would even promote their new album. But the fact that this new album, Songs Of Innocence, would be given away free to some half a billion iTunes customers was kept a close secret and the resulting media splash when the news was announced was impressive.

What seems to have got lost in this, however, is quite what a ill-judged idea this album giveaway is, not just for Apple but for U2 themselves and the wider music industry. In fact – some U2 fans apart – it is hard to think of anyone who really benefits from the promotion.


On the face of it, this seems like a pretty good deal for U2. Their new album may be on iTunes for 0 pence but the band aren’t going to lose out financially, with the New York Times claiming that Apple paid the band and their label Universal “an unspecified fee as a blanket royalty and committed to a marketing campaign for the band worth up to $100 million”.

What’s more, the band gets a stupefying amount of exposure, with their new single soundtracking TV ads for Apple’s new products and 500m people exposed to their first new album in five years.

The problem for U2, however, is one of perception. They might have got paid handsomely for the album and it is getting a traditional, paid release in October. But Songs Of Innocence will remain forever in our minds as “the free U2 album”. And the less we pay for something, the less we tend to value it.

Of course, you might argue that bands are increasingly keen on giving away their new music for free and U2 are simply following this example. But no one, for the moment, has given away an album that even approaches their best work, let alone an album that might re-start their career. Consider Jay Z: didn’t you just know when he announced plans to give away his 2013 album Magna Carta with Samsung that it would be a stinker? And weren’t you ultimately proved right?

I’m no fan of U2 so I find it hard to judge where Songs Of Innocence might lie in their catalogue. Many people will love it, of course. But early reviews suggest the album is the sound of a band treading water – “treading old ground without much of a sense of how to move forward” as The Guardian puts it. Even the band’s old friend Neil McCormick seems to struggle to find much enthusiasm for the album in his Telegraph review – and he’s thanked in the liner notes.

One argument goes that U2 will use the publicity from the new album to launch a tour. That would have maybe made sense if they announced the tour at the iPhone 6 event, or just after, when the world was watching them. But the news cycle is so fast these days that U2 will be old news again next week. The fact that their album is free – i.e. disposable – will add to that.

The other problem for U2 is this move will arguably damage their chances of ever selling us any new music again. Digital piracy has become so easy to do that, for many punters, deciding whether to shell out for an album or download it illegally has become a moral choice.

To put it another way, there are millions of essentially very normal, music loving punters out there just looking for an excuse to download music illegally for free. And the next time U2 put out an album these people have a ready-made excuse. “Your last album was free,” the argument might go, “and that seemed to turn out OK. So why should we pay for this one?”

This is hardly watertight as moral arguments go. But if you’re looking to justify a sneaky free download it will more than serve.

Other bands and labels

Whatever the effect on U2, though, this deal was at least their decision and they’re likely to benefit from it financially. The wider effect on the music business, however, is likely to impact both bands and labels who had  zero say in the deal.

For the past decade or so the music industry has struggled with the perceived value of music: an album, which used to be considered a £10 affordable luxury, has seen its value diminish thanks to aggressive price cutting (often in supermarkets), newspaper and magazine giveaways and, arguably, Radiohead’s In Rainbows “honesty box” album release scheme.

As a result, the perceived value of music as a whole has fallen, putting the music industry in the middle of a particularly unhelpful vicious circle of price cutting. U2 and Apple’s decision to give away the band’s new album for free will hardly help this.

And if U2’s new album – recorded expensively over five years with super producers such as Danger Mouse, Paul Epworth, Flood and Ryan Tedder – is being sold for 0, then how much do you think people are going to pay for your new album, recorded over a week with your guitarist on production? You’ll be lucky to get a fiver.

That is a problem for bands, of course, particularly those who can’t breeze into the world’s stadium’s ever five years for a multimillion dollar tour.

But it is a big problem for labels too. Admittedly, they are getting more of their income from streaming and other revenue sources. But music sales remain a very important part of this mix, particularly for the indies, who are unlikely to have valuable equity stakes in Spotify and Beats. And if they can’t get money from record sales, then they can’t invest in new acts.


It might be slightly over egging things to call Apple a loser in this deal. At the same time, it is hard to see what the company really gains from Songs of Innocence’s free launch.

Publicity, sure. But why would Apple want people talking about an iTunes promotion the day after it announces plans for new iPhones and the Apple Watch?

Will Apple get more iTunes users as a result? Probably. But iTunes is already installed on some 500m computers. The problem for iTunes is not one of user base – it is that download sales are falling, particularly in the US, as streaming services become ever more prominent,

Getting a big act to put their new album for sale exclusively through iTunes is a neat way of combatting this, as we saw with the Beyoncé album release last year. The eponymous release became iTunes’ fastest-selling album, shifting 828,773 copies in three days and sticking one to the likes of Spotify (where it was initially unavailable).

But giving away a new album is an entirely different kettle of fish. That’s not driving sales. It’s encouraging free downloads. And if the perceived value of music does continue to fall, well that’s bad news for the 30m odd tracks for sale through iTunes and for iTunes itself, which takes a percentage of the sale price on every track sold.

There’s also the problem of Apple’s slightly aggressive strategy for the album release, which saw Songs Of Innocence put into users’ iTunes libraries whether you liked it or not (something Popjustice memorably compared to “Bono inviting himself into my house and doing eleven shits on the floor”).

Yes, it’s hardly the greatest of tasks to simply delete the album. But I can’t be alone in keeping my iTunes rather anally curated, leaving only the best music in there and relegating anything else to an external hard drive. This release, then, feels intrusive.

And while we’re talking about streaming services, don’t forget that Apple has its own such platform, iTunes Radio, and bought Beats (home to streaming service Beats Music as well as expensive headphones) earlier this year.

Songs of Innocence is available on both these services as well as iTunes. But it is hard to see how Beats Music and iTunes Radio – two services that are crucial for Apple’s future in music – will exactly benefit from playing second fiddle to a big iTunes giveaway.

U2 fans

So who exactly does benefit the most from this album giveaway? U2 fans, largely, who you imagine will be delighted to see the band’s new release show up in their iTunes.

And U2 still have a lot of fans: their last tour, U2 360, recorded a gross of $736,137,344 and total attendance of 7,268,430 according to Billboard.

But that doesn’t mean that 7m people would have bought their new album. The band’s last release, 2009’s No Line on the Horizon, sold around 5m copies worldwide – not bad but low by U2’s standards. And album sales have dropped across the board since them.

So Songs of Innocence could, maybe, have expected to shift 3m units (at a very rough guess), maybe half of those on iTunes. That’s some 1.5m people who would have shelled out for a digital copy of the album and who have been spared the expense by Apple’s largesse. They, then, are the real winners here and are to be congratulated.

For the rest of us, though, the release remains problematic and – while giving away a new album is hardly the worst of crimes – the wider effect on the music industry will be fascinating to observe.

Read Full Post »

I’ve always been fascinated by different musical genres. It used to be driven by a desire to create my own but lately – sadly maybe – it’s more of an academic exercise.

It is, however, a pretty fascinating question. Most people with a reasonable knowledge of modern music could distinguish dubstep from drum and bass or house from techno but do we ever really stop to think why?

These thoughts were triggered again this summer by the emergence (for me, anyway) of both footwork and moombahton, two recognised “new” genres of music.

The latter, in particular, was instructive. Moombahton was apparently created when DJ / producer Dave Nada slowed down the Afrojack remix of the Silvio Ecomo and DJ Chuckie song Moombah to 108 beats per minute to play to a crown that had been enjoying the previous DJ’s reggaeton set.

Liking the results, Nada then went off to the studio to record a five-track EP that echoed the slowed down Dutch house sound.

But why on earth would this constitute a new genre? And, if it does, how can we all create our own genres?

The key lies in slowing down the drums. Musical genres – and I’m largely talking about dance music here, surely the most genre conscious of any type of music – largely come down to the drums and a combination of speed and style.

Of course, it’s not just that – most music genres have their own particular palette of sounds too. But consider: what differentiates the bass-line-obsessed dubstep from the similarly bass-line-obsessed drum and bass but the drums?

Similarly what fundamental difference is there between 174 BPM hard house and 174 BPM drum and bass, other than the former’s straight up four to the floor beats and the latter’s shuffling step?

I should probably put in a massive disclaimer here: many times it just isn’t that simple. House and (US) garage, for example use the same sounds and have largely identical beats and are only separated by garage’s use of “proper” songs with a recognised verse / chorus structure.

Nevertheless, the dance spectrum can still be largely charted by BPM, from hip hop’s low 80s, to house at 125, techno at 135, drum and bass at 174 and gabber at 200+.

What’s more, I’m prepared to bet that if you sped up a techno record to 174 BPM and added drum and bass percussion most people would identify it as drum and bass, while if you took the same record, slowed it down a little and added a breakbeat it would go down as breakbeat / breaks / whatever they’re calling it these days.

How then to create your own musical genre? Again, the example of moombahton is telling: by slowing down a particular track enough Nada “created” something with its own individual feel.

It won’t always work, of course, but in this case he lucked out.

But so what? If it had just stopped there we would be talking about one slowed down song (or rather, we probably wouldn’t be talking about it, but you get the idea) rather than a whole new genre.

But it didn’t stop there. Nada liked the sound and went out to re-create it. And that, effectively, is the key to creating a genre: create one slightly odd song and it’s just that; create five slightly odd songs that all sound the same, give them a name, and you have a new genre on your hands.

But how to create something “slightly odd”? Your easiest way by far is to play about with the drums that define a genre. So, slow something down so it sounds a bit weird, à la moombahton. Or speed something up, as the old rave DJs did to house, hip hop and funk records to create drum and bass.

Now set out to re-create the slowed down / speeded up original. You won’t manage it, of course, but in doing so the sound of your own genre – or as close as you’re likely to get to it – should gradually become apparent.

Speed up reggae to 240 BPM, for example. Or slow down techno to 60 BPM. It might not sound very good. But it will undoubtedly sound different.

Now give your nascent genre a name and get spreading the word.

Chances are it will come to nothing – but who knows? 20 years from now you too could be earning large money from piss poor DJ sets, raking in the bookings as the godfather  and general keeper of the flame of your own particular genre.

And that, surely, beats working for a living.

Read Full Post »