Rebecca Black Could Bring About World Peace

I don't believe a single hippie or music fanatic that has ever said that their music (many times the Grateful Dead or Phish. It's always some jam band that "you totally have to hear live.") could bring about "world peace" if everyone just listened to it.


It's seemed as if it was a lazy, inflated swoop statement. Until now.


According to Billboard, teen (ahem) sensation Rebecca Black will release a new music video July 18 (on Monday, damn) on her YouTube channel. The song is called "My Moment," and details the rise to Black's "stardom."


"It's a fairytale story, but it happened in real life," Black said in a statement.


Black, 14, is also planning a five-song EP for early August.

This is the face of freedom, America. Fun fun fun fun.

If you read this blog regularly, then you are probably asking why I am writing about Rebecca Black.


I believe the music of Rebecca Black is the closest to unifying everyone in the world — or at least the United States — under a single flag.


I challenge the reader to consider the worst song ever. It doesn't matter what genre, artist, year or label. It needs to be two things:


1) Massively produced so that more than 1,000 people have heard it, and
2) You hate it.


Okay, now that you have it in your head, compare it to Rebecca Black's "Friday." While the other song makes you furious, "Friday" is one of those rare occurrences of something so bad that it is good (see Tommy Wiseau's "The Room").


I know I'm not breaking any new ground here whatsoever. But if several people can have a positive reaction out of something so negative, what can't we accomplish?


Which is why I look forward to "My Moment." It has the opportunity to, once again, prove that Democrats and Republicans can dance to the same linear tune in full ironic merriment.


Again, I don't mean to pick on Rebecca Black. In fact, I could see most 7th and 8th graders actually liking her song if she were to perform it at a high school talent show. But she has stepped into the major label limelight, and should expect such treatment.


If anything, we should be thanking her.

Coheed and Cambria bassist admits to robbing Walgreens

Mic Todd, bassist for progressive rockers Coheed and Cambria, admitted in Attleboro District Court today that he robbed a pharmacy for painkillers on Sunday.


The Sun Chronicle, Attleboro's daily newspaper, reported that Michael R. Todd confirmed his robbery of an Attleboro Walgreens after he saw footage and photographs from surveillance cameras identifying him as the culprit. Attleboro District Court records show he is charged with armed robbery and possession of a controlled substance.


Todd was arrested Sunday for allegedly robbing the pharmacy for OxyContin painkillers just hours before the band performed in Mansfield, Mass., with Soundgarden.


Police said that Todd, 30, showed a note to pharmacists in Attleboro, Mass., claiming he was hiding a bomb underneath his clothes and demanded six bottles of the painkillers. 


Todd's defense attorney, Sandra Ferreira, said that the prosecution may not be able to prove armed robbery, because Todd never brandished an actual weapon.


Todd then took a cab to the Comcast Center in Mansfield, where Coheed and Cambria was supposed to open for Soundgarden. He was arrested before the show, after the cab was identified via surveillance footage.


Co&Ca frontman Claudio Sanchez has stated on the band's Facebook page that the band will continue to play the remainder of the tour, and that Todd would be replaced by studio band member Wes Styles, who also plays keyboards for the band.


“We are surprised to say the least and will address the situation with Michael after the tour,” the Facebook posting said.


This is by no means Todd's first run-in with illicit substances, however. During the European leg of touring for Good Apollo, Vol. 1 in 2006, he left the band for rehab due to heroin addiction.


What do you think of Mic Todd's arrest? Comment below.

Battle of the Music Clouds: Google vs. iCloud vs. Amazon

Three services recently announced their plans for a cloud computing service for music. Google was the first to rumor that Music Beta by Google was in the works. Then Amazon released Cloud Player, available with a free 5 GB storage space. 

Now, the gauntlet has been thrown down. Apple announced Monday that iCloud, the newest computing service offered by Steve Jobs & company, will be released in the fall.

With so many choices looming around, which one could possibly receive the plurality of the consumer vote? Let's put them to the test.

ROUND 1: INTEGRATION

This could be the most important aspect out of all of them. Apple has shown that more expensive products but complete horizontal integration can succeed demand, even in a recessed economy. This is a heavy decision.

Google Music — Google earns kudos for adding Google Music to the many, many applications already available to Gmail's users (this will happen once the beta is a full-blown application.) Users can listen to their music on any computer at any time, so long as it's connected to the Internet. It also allows users to download a free application on Android phones, theoretically eliminating the need for an iPod. While the app is not available on older Droid models, most recent models with powerful computing power will be able to use the update.

But here's a huge problem for Google Music: Because Google was not able to settle with the Big Four record labels, DRM files (purchased songs) are not able to be uploaded on the music cloud. This could be a problem if you're like me, having at least 1,000 songs downloaded from iTunes. Look for this to be resolved in one year, but it's very likely it won't be.

Amazon Cloud Player — Cloud Player is also available for many smartphones, including apps for Palms, Droids and Blackberrys. However, a huge miss on Amazon's part: integration with the Kindle. Several people read and listen to music at the same time, and what better way to do so than to combine electronic devices into one integral device? Don't be surprised if you see a new version of a Cloud-compatible Kindle by summer 2012.

Apple iCloud — No offense (as I write this on my wonderful MacBook Pro), but Apple holds several similarities to Scientology: Both are considered by many to be international cults that shell out more stuff correlating to how much money you can burn. But any time a user purchases a song from iTunes, that music is automatically updated to all of the user's Apple devices, not to mention that — for a small fee — all the user's music will be available on the iTunes server. The only problems here: If it's not on iTunes, it can't match up to iTunes' server. And everything you own better damn well be from Apple.

Round 1: Draw (Google and Apple)

ROUND 2: PRICING

It's still a big deal, considering more people are tightening their belts and wallets are thinning. For many, this will still be a heavy factor.

Google — Right now, it's free. What more can we say?

Amazon — Amazon is charging a whopping dollar per GB of storage every year, more than any of the services. So if you select that 50 GB plan (like I would), that's $50 out of your pocket. You may start out with a free 5 GBs, but most people will find this to be not enough.

Apple — Apple's website states additional storage costs $25, whether you want 5,000 or 20,000 songs.

Round 2: Google (for now)

ROUND 3: STORE

It's hard to get the public to trust you if you can't play fair with the labels and the artists. Let's see who has the edge here.

Google — No store, no points. Moving on.

Amazon — Amazon's store is pretty big (16 million songs in all), but doesn't have as many songs as iTunes, which has 2 million more.

Apple — In addition to outnumbering the number of songs on Amazon, iTunes still serves the most legal music downloads in the world, according to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. 

Round 3: Apple

ROUND 4: EASE OF USE

It doesn't matter who you are or how much money you spent on your service, inefficient programs are annoying. How do the players stack up here?

Google Music — After installing Music Manager, the device that uploads songs to Google Music's servers, on my computer, the first thing I noticed was the sheer slowness of the product. It's been two hours and I've only downloaded 200 songs!

But the scrolling and searching elements are vastly similar to any music library software, including cover art sections and even scroll bars that allow you to move through the music at your own pace. This seems like a non-element, but it's actually a luxury over the Internet.

Amazon — Again, Amazon is slow and doesn't upload songs with Digital Rights Management stamps. The service acts similarly to Google's, but the browser is more stripped down.

Apple — It's possible that this is complete bull, but Apple says that in addition to automatically pushing all content through the cloud, iCloud will also upload your music in a matter of minutes instead of days. And if for some reason your music isn't on one of your devices, tap the download button in the upper right-hand corner and it will be there.

Also Apple says it will upgrade all music files to 256 kbps AAC files, some pretty high quality for any Internet audiophiles. But this DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. Once a lossy file (such as an mp3) is compressed, there is no way to retrieve that data. So it could be a file good enough for an audiophile, but the sound sure won't be.

Round 4: Apple (for now)

Notice: This is not going to be like "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome." It will not be two men enter, one man leave. This will be a drawn out clash between two computing behemoths. 

This is now the Wild West of the music industry.

Which service are you most likely to use? Comment below!

What You Already Know: Kanye (officially) releases 'Monster' video

What can we say? Kanye West knows a thing or two about losing a head.

Leaked last Christmas just after the epic "My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy" was released, Kanye has officially unveiled the "Monster" music video, featuring a full cast of Rick Ross, Jay-Z, two Nicki Minajes and a whole mess of dead women. The video can be found on Rolling Stone's website here.

It's a big deal. Seriously. In fact, West has printed the final product with a prelude that reads:

The following content is in no way to be interpreted as misogynistic or negative towards any groups of people. It is an art piece and it shall be taken as such.

Unfortunately, I'm skeptical on that part. But the lighting and makeup work is fantastic, albeit rather late. ANYWAY, I will let the viewers be the judges.

What do you think of the new "Monster" video? Comment below!

Weezer cover Radiohead's 'Paranoid Android'

Looking for a classic redux? Look no further.

Neo-power-popsters Weezer got a little post-modern Friday when they posted their cover to Radiohead's "Paranoid Android," arguably OK Computer's best song.

And just in time (sort of). Lead singer/guitarist Rivers Cuomo's Twitter says he's writing new material. For those of you that haven't enjoyed Weezer since the Make Believe days, that's why I said sort of.

ANYWAY, the cover sounds really good. The key change is nice and ambient, sounding vaguely like a boosted Slightly Stoopid. But you don't have to take my word for it. Just listen for yourself.

Facebook to partner with Spotify for new streaming service

And the services just keep coming and coming, but America is missing out again.

According to Parmy Olson, a Forbes blogger, Facebook is partnering with the ad-free music-streaming service Spotify to provide a music service for the social networking site.

"Spotify on Facebook," or "Facebook Music" (they haven't picked a name yet) will allow users to listen to songs with their friends simultaneously. No money is being exchanged in the deal and Spotify will get no extra advertising with Facebook. It is strictly an integration via Facebook.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has expressed excitement about the deal, signifying that Facebook is finally getting the music service that Last.FM couldn't provide. But one major part of the deal is still missing:

AMERICA
Currently, Spotify only functions in (hold on to your hats) Finland, France, Norway, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

Spotify has yet to solidify a deal with the United States market, mostly due to the fact that America remains the No. 1 music market and labels are wary of a full-streaming service with no ad revenue (even if Spotify asks premium users to pay). That's a LOT of cash that labels think they're losing. But what the Big Four is missing out on, similar to the illegal downloading prosecutions in the early and mid-2000s, is the globalization of the digital marketplace, and the numbers prove it.

According to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry's 2010 report, digital market services increased by more than $4 billion in revenue in six years. Physical distribution revenue is at an all-time low, as more and more chain and mom-and-pop record stores continue to close nationally.

In addition, music videos now make more money than ever with the advent of YouTube and the industry's new embrace with the video service.  For X hits on a specific music video, the label receives a small cut from YouTube. Don't think that makes cash? Think of all those Justin Bieber videos with 250 million-plus views.

My question is this: Why can't the music industry offer a similar "YouTube" deal to unlimited music services? For example, every time a person listens to a song, Spotify would give royalties to the record labels for their licenses of the songs.

Countries that use Spotify, Sweden for example, have seen increases in overall music revenue since the illegal download boom. Why? IFPI quotes Jonas Sjöström, chairman of the Swedish independent labels body.

"This kind of growth is achievable when you have a combination of good user-friendly digital services and a deterrent response to piracy," Sjöström said.

And maybe he's on to something. After all, Sweden is the birthplace of torrent masters The Pirate Bay. If they were able to overcome that very simple and vast piracy service, maybe the U.S. could, too.

Now, it is possible that American distribution could falter. Spotify and other streaming services could be the downfall of the American industry. But when the industry is making less money than ever before, maybe it's time for a change-up in the game plan.

Wavves announces new EP via Twitter

Wavves at SXSW 2009

Not much information yet, but noise/surf-rock trio Wavves tweeted today that the band is working on a new EP.

Here's the Tweet:

No title yet but t'll come out this summer and it will have a track with fucked up and best coast + one more collab shit will b bonkers

Very nice, Nathan Williams. And it's especially nice that Best Coast and Wavves can bury the hatchet after an ugly end to 2010. But the real surprise here is a possible collaboration with Toronto hardcore outfit Fucked Up. A joint work between these two groups — Wavves' groovy surf riffs and the Fucked Up's natural, crunchy aggression — could either be as dynamic as chunky peanut butter.

Check out the video below for Wavves' summer 2010 hit "Post Acid."