In a Digital World, Why Vinyl?

 Continuing on with the vinyl theme I wrote about last  week, I  wanted to share this paper I received from Garrett Keafer, one of the talented students in my Music  Industry Law class  at Trevecca Nazarene University here in Nashville. This paper combines a number of great insights  with some fascinating data and I highly recommend it.

              THE VINYL & VINTAGE SUBCULTURE; IN A DIGITAL WORLD, WHY VINYL?

These days, music is commonly becoming less and less personal; the age of physically owning a copy of music is coming to a close, and the days of streaming have yet to reach their prime. Yet, there is still a market for good old vinyl. In a world where actually owning music is becoming a rarity, how are records, the half-century old, dinner plate size way of storing music, making a comeback?

            It could be a little difficult to see where the appeal for a clunky format of music comes from when other options such as CDs, digital downloads, or even streaming is available. Of course, giving the LP a lifetime of a half century is generous. After all, very similar technology goes back as far as Thomas Edison’s first phonograph in the late 1800s (Mook, 2006).  Yet, the “vinyl revival” is very evident. While vinyl record sales still only make up a fraction of overall sales in the music industry, by 2006 the numbers of those buying used and new LPs took a turn for the better.

            Of course, the music industry is prone to shifting in unexpected directions, often into uncharted territory. For instance, for the first time since Apple launched their iTunes store in 2003, sales of both digital tracks and digital albums declined last year. This was not a miniscule upset either; according to Billboard Magazine, sales fell from 1.34 billion units to 1.26 billion units. Digital track downloads dropped an entire 5.7%. Digital album downloads, the less popular of the two options, only fell 0.1% according to Neilson SoundScan (Christman, 2014). This drop in digital sales is most likely due to music streaming services such as Spotify. Such services aren’t going anywhere.  

            This news may seem directly contradictory compared to the news that the vinyl record is not only on a comeback, but has reached a twenty-two year high as of 2013. Before last year, the latest peak in LP sales was in 2000 with about 1.5 million sales in the United States. After a small decline, in 2003, John Turton, the head of California based website Audiophileusa, said that not only are LPs selling well, but that the nation’s few remaining LP printing plants were working around the clock to meet the demand (Bragg, 2004). At that time, the “modest comeback” vinyl was seeing would be short lived. A downturn was coming throughout the following three years ending with LP sales dropping below one million units in 2006. This is most likely due to the introduction of digital music in 1998 and the rise of popularity in the early 2000s.Then somewhere between 2007 and 2008, sales took a huge leap and wound up landing in 2013 with approximately six million units (Oremus, 2014). That is quadruple the previous peak that occurred in 2000. The incline is getting steeper, as well. Sales in 2013 were up an astounding thirty-two percent from the previous year. 

Certain record labels, including Morphius Records, distribute vinyl internationally. The leaders of Morphius Records claim they gather around 30 percent of their revenue from vinyl sales. The vinyl to CD ratio becomes starker whenever local shops are considered. At these shops, LPs can outsell CDs two to one. A small record shop in Hampden, Maryland, called The True Vine sells seventy to seventy-five percent vinyl records (Mook, 2006). However, in 2013, indie retailer sales actually dropped nearly twelve percent, while non-traditional merchants such as Amazon, Starbucks, and live venues saw album sales go up 2.4 percent. Early this year, independent retailers are estimated to have had about thirty-five percent of the market share (Christman, 2014). This shows a parallel trend; as vinyl increases in popularity, as does the draw to a smaller, local, more intimate market

With all this, the revival of both vinyl and the local market is extremely clear and present. But the question remains; why vinyl? There are many possible answers to this question, none of which are more correct than another. Demographics, as usual, play a huge role in the reasoning behind the LP’s return. For baby boomers, nostalgia is a large part in their return to popularity. They can enjoy new music in an old form; they can finally justify holding on to their record players, dust them off and put them to good use. As for the younger demographic, they see it as obscure and vintage. The audiophiles see it as a superior way of listening to music (Bragg, 2004) because of the authenticity of analog sound. DJs are also responsible in part for the steady, consistent demand for vinyl over the years, insisting that vinyl is the superior wasy to mix music. One clever DJ even found a way to sample with analog technology by literally cutting up the vinyl. Essentially, vinyl is part of a cultural statement, both from artists and from their listeners.

For artists, it is a statement that shows artists care about the presentation of their music. Vinyl has an out-of-the-mainstream cachet that appeals to fans and artists that are looking to prove their emphasis is on the music, not the profits that come from the music. It is tied to a growing subculture that has an interest in all things vintage, including analog music. So at least to this demographic, vinyl is cool again (Mook, 2006). Artists that present themselves in the vinyl format, including Daft Punk, the holder of the bestselling vinyl album of 2013 (Oremus, 2014), show that they care about the music they create and they aren’t just naive artists with their heads in the clouds. It proves they are connected to their fans. Meanwhile, distributors use this trend as a business strategy to state they aren’t just a big box store or a major distributor. To them, it’s all about presentation, strategy, and psychology (Mook, 2006).

On the other end of the presentation are the fans. This millennial generation seems to be attracted to vintage things of any sort, mixed with a little obscurity. Another example of this attraction besides the vinyl revival is thrifting. Music listening habits aren’t the only thing being affected by this attraction; fashion, as seen by the retro trend; culinary arts, as seen by obsession with foods that are gluten free or generally uncommon foods; cinema, as seen by the rage amongst independent film festivals; and even music itself, as seen by the growing “Indie” music genre. The millennial generation is bent toward separating themselves, not just from previous generations, but also from each other. This is this generation that is giving promising incentive to the vinyl investment.

There are huge risks involved with vinyl, especially concerning shipping. They are also extremely expensive to create in comparison to digital counterparts. A CD master recording costs about $150, while the far more complicated recording on vinyl costs nearly $700. Even before recording process begins, the vinyl album itself is expensive to produce. All of this means that the price for a single vinyl album can be extremely expensive to get off of store shelves. Yet, people are happy to take them off retailer’s hands, particularly young people. This gives hope to the reviving vinyl industry (Mook, 2006).

Therefore, though the vinyl trend may currently be only a small part of the industry, it won’t be long before it takes a larger portion. Digital downloads and streaming aren’t going anywhere, however. For the longest time, the music industry focused on accessibility of music. The digital revolution opened up all the possibilities in that regard; the simplest way to distribute music was not by CD, but by the internet. iTunes took advantage of this and made digital easy. The digital method will grow to be the main way music is distributed around the world, with streaming following close behind. Yet, streaming is not the most effective way to take music on the go; after all, the amount of data that is required by mobile devices can be expensive for users to keep up with.

The accessibility of streaming and digital download will remain a staple of our music intake, but the authenticity and feel of vinyl will grow to be a larger part of our culture, especially as those who are interested in the vintage feel grow in number. According to Will Oremus from Slate, the rise of vinyl is best understood against the backdrop of the simultaneous decline in popularity of the CD.

“As digital music has migrated from compact discs onto hard drives—and, increasingly, the cloud—collectors interested in a physical copy of their favorite albums no longer see a reason to prefer CDs to LPs. In fact, many prefer the latter, whether for the sound quality, the nostalgic appeal, or simply the beauty of the vinyl record as a design object. CDs and cassettes had their virtues as media, but aesthetics was not among them (Oremus, 2014).”

            In the light of the CD decline, the parallel rise in popularity of both Vinyl and Streaming makes more sense, and many retailers are taking advantage of this trend. For instance, when a vinyl album is bought from Amazon, they will present you with a digital copy for free. Not only is this offer available for present purchases, but also for past purchases. If you have ever bought vinyl from Amazon in the past, you can freely download a digital copy at any time. Amazon has solved the biggest problem with buying analog music — portability. Audiophiles praised the release of this service in 2013, and many other retailers followed the “auto-rip” trend throughout the rest of last year (Baldwin, 2013).

Still, as Statista (Figure 1), reminds us, the resurgence of the LP has had only a marginal effect on the industry as a whole. In 2013, vinyl albums accounted for only two percent of the entire profit of the industry (Richter, 2014). This could be due to the fact that about 65 percent of LP sales in 2013 came from independent music stores. Still, the “auto-rip” service could end up becoming the latest trend in music formatting with Amazon leading the charge last year. It presents the best of both worlds; the portability derived from the digital age of music with the vintage authenticity of the LP. After all, for the sound-purist audiophiles, the distinction between digital and vinyl all comes down to math and science (Bragg, 2004). While the digital format recreates, or more accurately mimics, sound; analog music is sound. 

So perhaps that is the most accurate reason why vinyl is making a reappearance; while it is a staple of a growing subculture, it really comes down to the fact that vinyl is simply more authentic. The industry will have to adapt to the simultaneous rise of digital streaming and the resurgence of vinyl, which could prove to be extremely difficult. The accessibility of digital and the feel of vinyl can coexist, and will coexist throughout the coming years, and all eyes on the industry to see if it will keep up.

Works Cited

Baldwin, R. (2013, April 3). Now When You Buy Vinyl from Amazon, You Get a Digital Copy fro Free. Retrieved April 11, 2014, from Wired: http://www.wired.com/2013/04/amazon-vinyl-to-digital/

Bragg, R. (2004). The Vinyl Experience; Remember those old LP records? In some circles, they're making a comback. . San Antonio Express News, 1.

Christman, E. (2014, January 3). Digital Music Sales Decrease for the First Time in 2013. Retrieved April 11, 2014, from Billboard: http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/digital-and-mobile/5855162/digital-music-sales-decrease-for-first-time-in-2013

Mook, B. (2006). Vinyl Records Enjoying Resurgence. Daily Record and the Kansas City News-Press, 1.

Oremus, W. (2014, January 6). The Hot New Audio Technology of 2014 Is... Vinyl? Retrieved April 9, 2014, from Slate: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/06/vinyl_lp_sales_hit_22_year_record_in_2013_digital_music_sales_down_chart.html

Richter, F. (2014, January 6). The LP is Back! Retrieved April 11, 2014, from Statista: http://www.statista.com/chart/1465/vinyl-lp-sales-in-the-us/

 

Jim Fogelsong

I feel compelled to write something about my friend, Jim Fogelsong, who died a few weeks ago at the age of 90.  Although I certainly knew who he was, I did not know Jim when he ran MCA Records or Capitol Records in Nashville in the 1980's.  I got to know Jim when he took on running the music business program at Trevecca Nazarene University.  I think that I had already been teaching there as an adjunct  for a few years when he arrived.

Jim made a point of spending time with each faculty member, meaning, in my case, he would take me to lunch each semester.  I grew to really enjoy these lunches. Later, when he started teaching a music business survey course at Vanderbilt's Blair School of Music, he would invite me to come speak to his class each semester ‑ an offer which always included an early dinner at Noshville.

  During our meals,  Jim would tell me stories about working for RCA Records and Columbia Records in New York.  He once told me a great story involving Doug Sahm and another one about trying out for a major league baseball farm team.  I am a student of the history of the music business and I was fascinated when Jim told me that he thought  he knew the guy who invented the controlled composition clause.  I told him that he should write a book.  I think he said that he was too busy. I think he was 86 at the time.  It's a shame that he couldn't share his vast institutional knowledge with the world.

  Honestly, what impressed me most about Jim was his awareness and concern for his Trevecca students ‑ he knew their strengths, weaknesses, passions, family situations,etc.   He cared deeply about them and I found this remarkable.  As my friend, Kay West wrote about him last week , "the good in Jim Fogelsong was there for all to see."  It really was.  I feel lucky to have known him and I  will miss those dinners at Noshville.

Church Music and Copyright Law

 I get phone calls and emails all the time from people asking about the legalities of performing or recording music in their churches. Some of the questions are simple and some are quite complex. One of the students in my Music Industry Law class at Trevecca Nazarene University in Nashville, Anna Price, just wrote an excellent primer on the subject of the intersection of the church and Copyright Law and with her permission, I am reprinting her work here. This should be really helpful.


Law and Light


 Copyright Law can seem like a cruel school master at times, watching and listening for any piece of work that might have been first used by another. Though that is a little exaggeration, it can seem like that at times. A person may innocently create something that is all too much like another’s work, and be greatly penalized for it. A person may not know any better and uses another author’s work in a way that violate that author’s right given by law under the Copyright Act. Whether knowingly or innocently infringed, the Copyright Law cannot be ignored.

 Though a tough and sometimes unclear subject, it is in the best interest of the people wanting to use protected intellectual property to know what is permitted and what is not under the Copyright Act, especially in the case of churches. The law is not meant to harm, but meant to protect and encourage authors and their work. The execution may be flawed in some cases, but the intent is good. The use of music and other copyrighted ideas in church can be a tricky subject, but the law does allow churches the freedom to “display” music and other works of authorship in services as well as provide protection for the authors.

 It is important to know what the church cannot do under the Copyright Law. It is also important to realize that even though fair use gives church services some liberty, it does not always protect from copyright infringement. The laws of copyright can feel like a leash on the dog; but it is especially important for the church to be aware of the law and obey it in order to act right under the law, and set an example to her people and the world. “Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake…as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good.” 1 Peter 2:13-14

 Some basics the church should understand about the Copyright Act are what the rights of the author(s) are, and what the church may be unwittingly violating. Directly from the Copyright Act Section 106 are the Exclusive Rights as follows:

“(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.”

 These six rights belong to the author(s)/copyright owner(s) alone. In order to legally use a piece of music or literary work - whether that means printing the lyrics or performing a song or another use - of another for any of the purposes mentioned above, permission is required.

 There is an exception to these protected rights known as the Public Domain that church may be familiar with. It does not mean that every song in the hymnal is free to use, unfortunately. Public Domain actually means that a copyright has expired. The current life of a copyright is the author’s life plus 70 years, after this time period the copyright expires and becomes public domain. This makes things a little easier for churches who sing old hymns because there are many great songs that are now part of the public domain. There is an issue to be aware of in the matter of public domain, however. Though a song may be public domain, there may be recorded performances of the song that are not. This is something to be aware when looking at public domain works.

 The Copyright Act also provides copyright limitations known as “fair use” which may be helpful in providing some allowances. The details of fair use are useful for the church to know. There are four things that a person, but more specifically a church in this matter, needs to look at, and ask if he/it is truly acting under the limited liberty of fair use. The four criteria for fair use are as follows:

“1.) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes, 2.) The nature of the copyrighted work, 3.) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and 4.) The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.” (Section 107 of the Copyright Act)

 The Copyright Act section 110 part 3 gives more specific guidelines for what fair use looks like in a church service:

 “(3) performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work or of a dramatic- musical work of a religious nature, or display of a work, in the course of services at a place of worship or other religious assembly.”

There the church has listed what she is allowed to use freely. The Copyright Act has provided leniency to use certain works without permission of the author so long as it falls under the above mentioned guidelines in a place of worship for the purpose of worship or teaching. These provide some protection from copyright infringement, but depend on the circumstances. Fair use does not always protect from copyright infringement. It is better to know for certain that the church is acting properly in regards to the law. If there is any uncertainty about whether or not an act of the church containing copyrighted material is considered fair use under the Copyright Act, then the church should ask a professional lawyer to be sure.

 Something to be aware of is that this provision does not include the ability to show a full movie without permission. Clips might be used as part of the lesson so long as it falls under the category of fair use or has permission, but to be able to show a movie for entertainment or other purposes at church permission is needed.

 Another pressing copyright issue churches should be aware of involves the recording and broadcasting worship services. This is yet another matter that needs attention. The sermon itself is not the issue, unless it copies another’s work, but if the recording of a church service contains copyrighted music the church needs a license. The desire to want to include the music in the service on a recording is understandable, but the church should be aware of the copyrights involved with recording it. Permission is needed from the copyright owner to record a copyrighted song. It may seem like a small matter, but once again it is good for the church to be right with the law in order to maintain an honorable presence in the community.

 Thankfully, in October of 1988, a new Performance Royalty Organization was launched with this very purpose of helping churches with copyright matters. This company is called Christian Copyright Licensing International, but more commonly referred to as CCLI. This is what CCLI’s mission statement says they exist for,

 “To encourage the spirit of worship to churches, organizations, and Christians individually, so that they may enhance their worship expression spontaneously, conveniently, affordably and legally.” (www.ccli.com).

 CCLI exists to help bridge the gap between the sometimes confusing world of copyright law and churches. CCLI helps provide churches with the resources and legal services they need to ensure smooth operation of worship services. Christian Copyright Licensing International provides licenses for copyrights, rehearsals, streaming & podcast, and videos. They also provide sheet music. They have resources of movie clips for use in lessons. They have different licenses, and they will explain what can be covered by the license and what cannot. Since 1988, CCLI now helps over 200,000 churches with copyright law, giving them the knowledge and ability to act legally and honorably more easily.

 The details that CCLI requires under the Church Copyright License reports be made for all copy uses every 6 months, but they encourage weekly reports be made to make the task simpler. They require the song titles being used, as well as the writers, copyright notices, and the church’s CCLI licensing number. In order to print the lyrics in a bulletin or project the lyrics on a screen, CCLI requires those four things to be listed at least once at the bottom of the page. All of these things help pay the authors their due, and give the church secure, legal resources to draw from.

 CCLI is not the only company available to help churches with these legal issues and provide licenses for copyrighted materials, but they are probably the best. As mentioned before, CCLI now helps over two hundred thousand churches.

 Much has been said about copyrights here, but churches may also want to know what kinds of costs are involved in violating the Copyright Act. There are statutory damages that will need to be paid to the copyright owner, which are thousands of dollars. There are also the court and attorney costs that will need to be afraid in the case of violation. These risks may be something churches want to be aware of. Not only will a case of infringement cost thousands of dollars that a church probably does not have, but it will cost respect.

 It is not very often that churches are actually sued for infringement, but the risk is growing and becoming more possible. Technology and knowledge have increased, and even the ways to access and use new technology have become better and easier in some ways. Ignorance will not be an option for long. Fair use may give a semblance of protection, but churches need to be careful. It is in the best interest of churches to be prepared and act responsibly in this day and age.

 All of these details about copyright law can become overwhelming - especially for a church that does not know any better. That is why CCLI exists. It is also why it is important for churches to be smart, to be aware. Churches need to be educated about and prepared for the realities and legalities of copyright law. Not only is there a huge risk involved if copyright owners should try to sue for infringement, but more importantly for the churches is the risk of their reputation.

 Church is more than a meeting place on Sundays. She is the representation of Christ on earth. She carries a great hope for the world. She is a light, and a city on a hill. She is God’s people. It is clear in Romans 13 that God wants His people to be an example, to obey the law. “Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.” Romans 13:8 Even in as small or big a matter as copyright law the church can set the example. Be aware. Be educated. Be legal. Be safe. Be strong.

 List of sources: The Bible Websites: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html http://www.churchmarketingsucks.com/2009/02/fair-use-and-your-church-part-1/ http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201002/201002_042_Copyright.cfm www.ccli.com http://www.copyrightsolver.com/mythsolvers http://www.christianitytoday.com/cbg/1999/mayjun/9y3038.html http://www.brotherhoodmutual.com/index.cfm/resources/ministry-safety/article/copyright-laws-and-fair-use/