This used to be a page on my Swindleeeee! blog about eMusic; I subsequently moved it over as a page on my main personal blog when I merged the contents of Swindleeeee! into that blog. As part of a cleanup of my main blog I’m now moving it to be a regular blog post, in order to preserve it for posterity. Ever since its founding eMusic has been repeatedly discovered by people who either don’t get the concept (“Hey, where’s Britney Spears?!”) and/or have severe difficulty using a computer and the Internet; these people also often seem to have a fuzzy grasp on such matters as grammar and spelling. And thus on August 11, 2003 (a date which will live in infamy), after experiencing problems with downloading music mrcat first uttered those immortal words, “E Music is SWindle.” ...

This used to be a page on my Swindleeeee! blog about eMusic; I subsequently moved it over as a page on my main personal blog when I merged the contents of Swindleeeee! into that blog. As part of a cleanup of my main blog I’m now moving it to be a regular blog post, in order to preserve it for posterity. I found public comments from David Pakman (formerly CEO of eMusic) always interesting even when he was repeating his favorite mantras (e.g., about the futility of DRM, eMusic as number two to the iTunes Store, and so on). Since I often found myself quoting from them, I thought I’d provide links to various of Pakman’s interviews, speeches, and other public comments, both for my own use and as a public service. Now that Pakman has left eMusic I’ll continue to maintain this page as I have time, both as a sort of memorial to Pakman’s time at eMusic, and also because I suspect he’ll have more interesting things to say in future. ...

In two previous posts about my current use of eMusic I discussed my musical jobs to be done and how I might now supplement eMusic with other services in order to optimize the use of my more limited number of eMusic downloads. One of the things I noted is my need to “audition” music prior to downloading it, which naturally leads to the question: Should eMusic create a streaming service to complement its current download offering? As I discuss below, I think it should, but only in a way that is consistent with eMusic’s current value proposition and business model. ...

It was over six years ago that I first subscribed to the eMusic digital music service, and over three years since I started my blog Swindleeeee!!!!! to provide an outlet for my eMusic-related musings. My posting frequency (never that high) has in recent months fallen off drastically. I either don’t have anything I want to write about eMusic, or I don’t have time to write anything. Rather than have Swindleeeee!!!!! join the millions of other blogs that have dribbled off into nothingness, I’ve decided to give it a dignified exit. More specifically: ...

I’m contemplating ending my Swindleeeee!!!!! blog and moving all the old posts over to my regular blog, though that might not happen for a while. In the meantime I’ve started posting some things over at my other blog that might be of interest to anyone still reading this one. The latest one is a long post (over 7,000 words!) on the rather oddball idea of applying Clayton Christensen’s theory of disruptive innovation to music.

As all long-time eMusic watchers are aware, eMusic’s business model has always been based on the “health club” model, i.e., the assumption that a certain percentage of customers will pay for but not use the service. In eMusic’s case that corresponds to subscribers who download fewer tracks per month than they’re paying for. The result of these unused tracks or digital “breakage” (as Digital Audio Insider refers to the phenomenon) is that the per-track payout from eMusic to labels was somewhat higher than it would be otherwise. That in turn made distribution through eMusic somewhat more attractive to labels than the nominal per-track pricing might otherwise indicate. ...

UPDATE: This was very much a stream of consciousness blog post, where I wrote down my thoughts as they occurred to me. Among other things, this meant that it lacked a good summary of what it is actually supposed to be about. The basic idea was/is to take Clayton Christensen’s theory of disruptive innovation in business and apply it to music and (by extension) to other arts, with a goal of sketching out a “unified field theory” that (with suitable elaboration) could potentially explain how music evolves not only from an aesthetic perspective but also in terms of the sociology and economics of the communities of composers, performers, critics, educators, audiences, etc., who participate in particular musical traditions and movements. I referenced Kyle Gann a lot because for a while I’ve been reading his blog and his writings on “downtown” vs. “uptown” music, but the themes of the post are really more in line with the writings of people like Alex Ross and (in particular) Greg Sandow who’ve been writing about the future of classical music in relation to popular music and the rest of contemporary culture. ...

Atul Varma of Mozilla Labs has a great post up, “Kids and the Open Web” where he advocates having the Mozilla Drumbeat initiative explicitly include some messaging around the value of an open web for children: What if promotional materials for the Open Web focused on how it makes lives better for children who are budding hackers? Lots of adults aren’t tech savvy, but they know that their kids are, and if we can prove that the Open Web is better for their kids, and that they can make their kids’ lives better by choosing a standards-compliant browser, maybe they will. ...

Apparently I have a thing for the British artist Jack Strange. After my post about Strange’s g and a follow-up, I’m back with more amateur (or should that be amateurish?) analysis of Strange’s work, this time his Spinning Beach Ball of Death. As with my first post on g, this is a cold reading without the benefit of seeing any artist’s statements or critics’ analyses. Spinning Beach Ball of Death is one of those works that most decidedly depends on one’s knowledge of “external facts” to elicit a proper appreciation. The naïve viewer will see simply a rainbow-colored paper circle spinning around. Clearly the circle is reminiscent of a beach ball, and as a first order analysis they might note the incongruity between the image of a child’s toy and the mention of death and conclude that the artist has given the work this particular title in order to invoke a particular set of emotional associations (e.g., a sea-side vacation tragically interrupted by a child’s death by drowning). ...

I recently posted some thoughts on the work g by the British artist Jack Strange. It was pretty much of a cold reading, without the benefit of having done any research on Strange or his work. Since then I’ve done some googling and discovered some useful commentary. Not to telegraph the punchline, but no one echoed my thoughts about g being (at least in part) a symbolic reenactment of the literal act of falling—which means that either I had a unique and valuable critical insight or I just pulled something out of my rear end. (I suspect the latter.) ...