Stones Sell Their Catalog Online In Hi-Res

Considering that hi-definition downloads was just something I touched on in a recent post, it's interesting to see that the Rolling Stones are offering their entire catalog of 27 albums digitally online for the first time. What's different is that the albums will be available in full 176.4 or 88.2kHz/24 bit uncompressed form at HDtracks.

The price for these downloads are a premium $19.95 for the 88.2k version, and 29.95 for the 176.4k version, which is quite a jump from the normal $9.99 that you pay for an MP3/AAC download on iTunes or Amazon MP3. HDtracks is no startup in that it already has 5,400 albums and 100,000 customers, but the Stones will be the biggest act in their stable so far.

This is all well and good and it will be an interesting experiment to see just what the sales and revenue will be from this venture, but until a current major artist signs on, we probably really won't know what the appetite is for hi-res tracks. The problem is that not that many artists today actually record at extended sample rates like 88.2, 96, 176.4 or 192k. For artists that recorded their work on analog tape, transfer to any of these digital formats is easy, but that format all but went away about a decade ago.

While it's true that a small contingent of artists still record on tape, it's a dying breed. Tape costs are high, and machine maintenance is higher, which is a limitation to the so-called "audiophile" downloads. But even 44.1kHz/16bit CD quality would be a vast improvement than what we're now used to online. With bandwidth and storage costs going lower all the time, this just might be an idea who's time will soon come.

-----------------------------------

Help support this blog. Any purchases made through our Amazon links help support this website with no cost to you.

You should follow me on Twitter for daily news and updates on production and the music business.

Check out my Big Picture blog for discussion on common music, engineering and production tips and tricks.

What Can Happen If You Don't Clear Your Samples

Copyright can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand it protects artists and makes sure they get paid for their work, and on another it can stifle creativity and suck a revenue stream dry. The latter is what happened to The Verve with their still much loved 1998 hit "Bittersweet Symphony."

It's hard to believe that Rolling Stone's Mick Jagger and Keith Richards get all the publishing income from that song, but that's what's happened. The reason why is that "Bittersweet Symphony" is closely based on the Stone's 1965 hit "The Last Time." Hard to believe if you know the song, I know, because I didn't hear it at first either.

"Bittersweet Symphony" is actually based on the Andrew Loog Oldham Orchestra's (the Stone's original producer) version of the "The Last Time" (listen below) rather than the Stone's version. The Verve acknowledged this and actually got a license from Jagger/Richards to use a sample of the song, so they thought they were in the clear.

But when Bittersweet Symphony came out, the Stone's representatives were immediately on the phone saying, "We want 100 percent of the song, or take it out of the stores!" The reason was that The Verve didn't just use a sample, they lifted virtually the entire song and just put new lyrics to it.

This nastiness probably could've been avoided with some shrewd negotiation up front, but that era of the Stones catalog is represented by the notorious Allen Klein, who was one of the hardest and most hated negotiators in the business while he was alive. It seems sure that the exact use of the song wasn't revealed until after the song became a hit, and The Verve thought they were in the clear.

What can you learn from this? If you're going to use a sample, remember that there are 2 licenses that you must get - one from the publisher and another from the record label for the recording. And remember that the length of the sample may become an issue so specify how much of the song you're using in advance.

Below are 2 videos. One of "Bittersweet Symphony," and the second from the version of the song that the music was lifted. You'll be amazed how similar they are.

-----------------------------------

Follow me on Twitter for daily news and updates on production and the music business.

Check out my Big Picture blog for discussion on common music, engineering and production tips and tricks.

The Truth Behind The Stones And The Windows 95 Ads

Microsoft certainly scored a coup when they got the Rolling Stones to agree to let them use their hit "Start me Up" for the huge ad campaign for Windows 95 15 years ago. Until then, the Stones (and most acts of that generation) had refused to license their music to commercials for reasons of artistic purity (when there was such a thing), so it was indeed a milestone when the song appeared across televisions worldwide.

Now an interesting post on businessinsider.com tells the story about how Mick Jagger and Keith Richards tried to switch versions of the song in order to eliminate paying former bass player Bill Wyman. It turns out that Mick didn't want to do the deal, but Keith was running short on cash (you never think of them in that situation), so a deal was struck. The Stones were also at a lull in their career and thought that the huge campaign that MS had designed would help reignite their career, which it did. Since Jagger is the CEO of the corporation and Richards is the COO, they make all the decisions without the others in the band voting.

When Microsoft received the final track they were horrified to find that it was a recent live version of the song instead of the original studio version. This was apparently done because the four Stones would make more money, since Wyman had already left the band and wouldn't be paid for a recording that he didn't appear on. MS pushed back and eventually got the original studio version and the rest is history.

Today artists don't think twice about licensing their songs to commercials. They can't afford to since it's one of the only remaining sources of income in these days of Music 3.0. In fact, artists are willing to do almost anything to get their music on television these days, and as a result, the advances are far, far less than what the Stones got back then (although a huge hit song would still fetch a pretty penny).

The story also goes to show that when it comes to money, never trust your friends or bandmates. Things can get pretty cut-throat out there.

-----------------------------------

Follow me on Twitter for daily news and updates on production and the music business.

Check out my Big Picture blog for discussion on common music, engineering and production tips and tricks.