America continues it’s dance with stupidity.

From Wired:

Kids around the country are getting high on the internet, thanks to MP3s that induce a state of ecstasy. And it could be a gateway drug leading teens to real-world narcotics.

At least, that’s what Oklahoma News 9 is reporting about a phenomenon called “i-dosing,” which involves finding an online dealer who can hook you up with “digital drugs” that get you high through your headphones.

And officials are taking it seriously.

The audio in question is binaural beats. Evidently, they’re demon-like in their effect.

I’m off to take a listen.

Sunday’s visualization. Peter and the Wolf.

But when Kenny G decided that it was appropriate for him to defile the music of the man who is probably the greatest jazz musician that has ever lived by spewing his lame-ass, jive, pseudo bluesy, out-of-tune, noodling, wimped out, fucked up playing all over one of the great Louis’s tracks (even one of his lesser ones), he did something that I would not have imagined possible. He, in one move, through his unbelievably pretentious and calloused musical decision to embark on this most cynical of musical paths, shit all over the graves of all the musicians past and present who have risked their lives by going out there on the road for years and years developing their own music inspired by the standards of grace that Louis Armstrong brought to every single note he played over an amazing lifetime as a musician. By disrespecting Louis, his legacy and by default, everyone who has ever tried to do something positive with improvised music and what it can be, Kenny G has created a new low point in modern culture – something that we all should be totally embarrassed about – and afraid of. We ignore this, “let it slide”, at our own peril.

What’s a brand to do in order to connect with the kids these days?

How about sign on for product placement in a sexploitation music flick, otherwise known as Lady Gaga’s and Beyonce’s latest video. Released Thursday evening, the duo’s “Telephone” remix has already been seen over 1.5 million times on YouTube.

Key facts learned through viewing: Lady Gaga doesn’t have a penis but does like Miracle Whip.

As Mary Elizabeth Williams writes in Broadsheet:

So my giant, pushbutton festooned hat is off to the genius at Kraft who first saw the possibility of synergy between Lady Gaga and Miracle Whip. Has your mom’s favorite sandwich spread ever seemed so alluringly dangerous? Doubtful. Does it give a sudden craving for tuna salad on Wonder Bread? You tell me.

The video is rife with product placement, from Miracle Whip to Diet Coke to telephones to a dating service called Plenty Of Fish. This makes it a bit distracting from the fabulousness of Lady Gaga’s haute couture but perhaps only because we haven’t been fully desensitized to the practice yet.

As we learn when she’s stripped in prison, Lady Gaga doesn’t have a penis. Perhaps we could place some product there.

About Lady Gaga Doesn’t Have a Penis

This article originally appeared on ScribeMedia.org.

Please visit the original to rant, rave or otherwise discuss.

Possibly Related posts:

1. Sex Sells… Like Obama Girl
2. Brands Infiltrate the Music Industry?

It’s amazing how sometimes you take a few minute break to watch a video and two hours later you re-emerge wondering where exactly you’ve been.

Such was my morning. Not even sure how I ended up here but came across the above Beatles cartoon of Penny Lane. It’s part of a collection from 1965 – 1967 that saw 37 half-hour shows produced for British television. Each segment of the show was named after the song it featured. For old school animation fans it’s well worth the time spent.

Supposedly, MTV ran the series in 1986-1987. Unfortunately, I grew up in the boonies and we didn’t have hi-tech gadgetry like cable television so I’m seeing it now for the first time.

Better late than never. This Taxman/Robin Hood one’s pretty fab too:

Enjoy.

Related posts:

1. Jeff Zucker NBC Universal Fireside Chat
2. Color Us Tickled: ScribeMedia Wins an Emmy
3. The Morning Read: Five Easy Pieces for January 14

Share the Music — Baptiste Pons via Creative Commons/Flickr.

An international music group claims piracy is responsible for a 30 percent decline in global music sales from 2004 to 2009.

In a report released Thursday the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry calls for increased crackdowns on digital piracy, saying that while sales from digital downloads are up 21 percent from a year ago, 95 percent of all music downloaded is pirated.

The IFPI is promoting two key findings:

• Piracy is responsible for a lack of music investment
  

  In Brazil, music sales fell by 43% between 2005 and 2009, with a disastrous impact on investment in local repertoire. In 2008 there were only 67 full priced local artist album releases by the five major companies in Brazil – just one tenth of the number (625) a decade earlier in 1998.

• Piracy threatens all content producers
  

  Today, however, creative industries including movie, publishing and television, regard “monetising” the online world and addressing digital piracy as their greatest challenges. Illegal streaming and film downloads now account for 40% of the movie piracy problem by volume (MPAA). Illegal distribution of TV content is growing faster than music and movie piracy

I’ll start off simply and put some cards on the table: people should not pirate music. It’s theft. And while not $150,000 per infraction wrong, it is stealing. Simple enough.

That said, I take industry reports such as this with pretty much the same grain of salt I take reports from coal lobbyists on the environmental effects of mountain top strip mining.

Here are a few things we know from outside observers with little to no skin in the game. A 2009 UK report tells us that yes, people are buying less recorded music than before. The report also tells us that people are spending more on music in aggregate (ie., going to concerts, buying swag and yes, buying music as well).

The Canadian government, in turn, issued a report of their own. Result: file sharing has “a positive effect on music purchases among Canadian downloaders.”

In Holland, a 2009 Dutch government report discusses overall societal gains attributable to file sharing.

Similarly, two Harvard Business School economists released a working paper that, in part, analyzed the ongoing effects of file sharing. As Michael Geist summarizes:

The paper takes on several longstanding myths about the economic effects of file sharing, noting that many downloaded songs do not represent a lost sale, some mashups may increase the market for the original work, and the entertainment industry can still steer consumer attention to particular artists (which results in more sales and downloads).

We can go on. A major IFPI claim is that less industry money is invested in new artists. Listen again to what they say about Brazil: “In 2008 there were only 67 full priced local artist album releases by the five major companies in Brazil – just one tenth of the number (625) a decade earlier in 1998.” (Emphasis mine).

The statistic sounds dramatic until you think how much has changed during that ten year period. It’s neither here nor there without contextualization so here’s some contextualization: in that ten year span digital tools emerged that allow more artists and musicians to record, produce and market work on their own without major label involvement.

As the Harvard Business School report notes, cultural creativity isn’t decreasing. Instead, it’s exploding. In 2000, 35,516 albums were released. By 2007 that number reached 79,695 albums, according to Nielsen SoundScan. In film, 3,807 features were created in 2003. That number increased to 4,989 in 2007, according to Screen Digest.

Who’s Buying What

TorrentFreak writes in a critique of the same report that when compared to traditional buyers, music sharers (ie., “pirates”) are:

• 31% more likely to buy single tracks online.
• 33% more likely to buy music albums online.
• 100% more likely to pay for music subscription services.
• 60% more likely to pay for music on mobile phone.

So while “five major companies” might no longer control cultural output, that doesn’t mean that cultural output is decreasing. It simply reflects that the means of production have switched elsewhere. This is a good thing.

While the IFPI might like to think — or imply — that the major labels are the entire music industry. They’re not.

They’re one piece of a continuously expanding pie that includes concerts, licensing, swag and other tie-ins. Unfortunately for the major labels, they’re holding the short end of the stick as this growth happens elsewhere.

Let’s not mistake the end of a one hundred year technological anomaly — the ability of a monopoly to record and distribute music — with a newfound need to wage copyright war across the planet as the IFPI hopes will happen.

This is exactly what the IFPI would like us to do though. It bemoans Spain and its “culture of state-tolerated apathy towards illegal file-sharing,” but enthuses about anti-piracy legislation passed in France, South Korea and Taiwan.

“Other governments, from the UK to New Zealand,” the authors applaud, “are proceeding with the introduction of [similar] legislation.”

The IFPI is smart to bring the entire media into this flawed conversation. By pointing out to their television, film and publishing brethren that they’re all in the same game, they line up sympathetic allies to fight a perceived common enemy.

It’s too bad their premises are misguided from the get go. Even worse that they’ll use flawed arguments to great effect when lobbying governments.

About Aardvark and the Synaptic Web

This article originally appeared on ScribeMedia.org.

Please visit the original to rant, rave or otherwise discuss.

Related posts:

1. Time to Face the Music
2. The Effects of File Sharing, EU Style
3. MySpace Music Hoping to Strike a (new) Chord with Consumers

My bestest stab at media criticism once ran thus: “cheapshot: when coldplay writes a new song, do they go through all their old songs to decide which one it should sound like?”

But it’s true and I’ll defend it as true. Yellow put these guys on the map as “serious musicians” and that’s about it. A great, wonderful song, although I don’t know why we dwell on them.

Since then. Nothing.

Sorry. That is all.

The Beatlemania set was all abuzz earlier this week when NRK announced they’d podcast a series called “Our Daily Beatles.” Each segment was to include a three-minute story of every Beatles song recorded, followed by the actual song, resulting in the first ever opportunity to legally download the Fab Four’s music.

It’s not to be. Apparently NRK ran afoul of their licensing agreement. As Rolling Stone points out:

Norwegian radio law states that “NRK can not podcast programs with foreign music if the radio program was broadcast more than four weeks ago.” Since the original broadcasts of “Our Daily Beatles” was in 2007, this turned out to be an issue.

PC World follows up with further details.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the RIAA will continue all current lawsuits but are now trying to strike deals with Internet Service Providers to create a “three strikes” policy against those they allege make copyrighted music available for download.

Under this new strategy, the RIAA will notify ISPs about alleged activity. The ISPs, in turn, will email customers about their infringement. If the customer continues to make files available, the ISP could either slow their access or cut it off completely. (Hat Tip: Electronic Frontier Foundation)

Warner originally made its catalog available to YouTube in September 2006, right before Google purchased the video site and while Universal Music was suing for copyright infringement.

However, Warner claims revenues generated to date are negligible and after months of trying to reach a new licensing deal, it is walking away from negotiations. YouTube began pulling videos Friday night, and wrote in its blog, “Sometimes, if we can’t reach acceptable business terms, we must part ways with successful partners.”

Warner artists include Madonna, Green Day and Frank Sinatra among hundreds. Their publishing group owns the rights to such classics as Happy Birthday to You.