Brainstorming Doesn't Work

Johan Lehrer's article in the New Yorker lays it out bluntly.

 

...Keith Sawyer, a psychologist at Washington University, has summarized the science: “Decades of research have consistently shown that brainstorming groups think of far fewer ideas than the same number of people who work alone and later pool their ideas.”

This provides some interesting insight into the dynamics of group creativity. This further develops my earlier thesis describing changing social dynamics as the primary cause of "lame supergroup-itis".

But there's more nuance to this story than outright dismissal of brainstorming. One of the defining factors of brainstorming, according to it's creator, is not allowing negativity as it supposedly stifles creativity. This is wrong.

According to Nemeth, dissent stimulates new ideas because it encourages us to engage more fully with the work of others and to reassess our viewpoints. “There’s this Pollyannaish notion that the most important thing to do when working together is stay positive and get along, to not hurt anyone’s feelings,” she says. “Well, that’s just wrong. Maybe debate is going to be less pleasant, but it will always be more productive. True creativity requires some trade-offs.”

Sometimes blind positivity isn't the best answer.

As the article continues, researcher Brian Uzzi studied Broadway musicals to develop a measure Q of how familiar different artists were with one another. The higher the Q, the more familiar the artists are with one another and vice versa. After running the data to analyze Q scores with relation to the success of these musicals, the results were stunning.

When the Q was low—less than 1.7 on Uzzi’s five-point scale—the musicals were likely to fail. Because the artists didn’t know one another, they struggled to work together and exchange ideas. “This wasn’t so surprising,” Uzzi says. “It takes time to develop a successful collaboration.” But, when the Q was too high (above 3.2), the work also suffered. The artists all thought in similar ways, which crushed innovation.

...The best Broadway shows were produced by networks with an intermediate level of social intimacy. The ideal level of Q—which Uzzi and his colleague Jarrett Spiro called the “bliss point”—emerged as being between 2.4 and 2.6. A show produced by a team whose Q was within this range was three times more likely to be a commercial success than a musical produced by a team with a score below 1.4 or above 3.2.

If these results were to hold true across the creative spectrum, they could explain countless musical phenomena.

• Could this be why so many "legendary" acts tend to flame out after producing their masterpiece instead of producing two masterpieces many years apart?
• Is this at fault for the sophomore slump?
• Is there an optimal creative lifetime for a band?  I suspect yes.

Profound food for thought.

Is it time to reevaluate some of your band's procedures?

How Can Classical Music Make A Comeback?

Classical music is in crisis.

With the hit of the recession, donations to orchestras and symphonies took a nose dive.

The Philedelphia Orchestra declared bankcrupty. The Honolulu Symphony, Syracuse Symphony, and Louisville Orchestra folded. The Dallas Symphony, The San Francisco Opera, and The Colorado Symphony are all having massivie financial problems.

But it's not like people aren't going to concerts anymore. Worldwide, as of 2010 the value of the music industry was $168 billion dollars, up $32 billion from 2005. I consistently blow a hole in my monthly budget with concert tickets and I have no intention of changing this. If you're a music junkie I'm guessing you can say the same as well.

The real issue isn't the lack of financing for orchestras, it's the disconnect between concert-goers and the symphony business.

When is the last time you went to a classical concert?

When are you planning to go next?

Personally, I adore string quartets. I'm such a sucker for cellos that I almost always immediately like a band with one. But I don't have any desire to hear anything from the Dallas Symphony. The "Symphony Experience" of being a fanicly dressed statue has no appeal to me. It's a crappy school field trip that costs up to six times the price of a normal concert ticket. As callous as it may be to say this, should the organization fold I'd feel only a slight "meh".

It's surprising how artists, who live off of their creativity, can be too stubborn to change their presentation when it's clear the market isn't interested in their current offerings.

In times of crisis, it's the artists who unleash their creativity on their business who prosper.

The Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment realized the conventions of classical concerts weren't attractive to their fans, so they went on a pub crawl.

Maggie Faultless, joint leader of the orchestra, elaborates on their Night Shift concert series:

...I'd like to think that some people will feel that we have broken down some conventions and after this they might like to try other performances of classical music, but this isn't about enticing people into the concert-hall to hear an 80-piece OAE in concert, this is about empowerment. Audiences want to have a bit more ownership of what they're listening to. The best performances involve a three-way relationship - the music (ie what's on the page) the audience and the performers. The performers react not only to the written notes but to each other and most importantly, to the audience. But all too often in today's concerts, the third part of that equation is forgotten. Often when we're performing you can't even see beyond the first couple of rows, let alone to the back of a thousand-seat hall.

This idea is utterly fantastic. If the Dallas Symphony were to pull off something like this I'd be all over it.

Other ideas that have sprung up from clever musicians are lie-down concerts of Bach (bring a bean bag!), drive-by Handel, and my favorite, baby-sitting for concert attendees. These are more than just "stunts" to be discarded, they're a targeted response to customers' needs.

Creativity isn't just for your art, it's for your business as well.

Are you making it easier or harder for your customers to throw dollars at you?

Link: How to Be Effective on Twitter

The Atlantic just put out a great piece outlining research on how to reach the most people with twitter.

"The Twitter ecosystem values learning about new content," the study notes -- so new info, it seems, is new info, regardless of who provides it. And sharing your own work conveys excitement about that work -- which means that self-promotion, rather than being a Twitter turn-off, can actually be an added value.

 ...This may seem like overthinking it; spontaneity, after all, is a big part of Twitter's charm. Still, it's also worth noting that, in the study's sample, respondents considered only 36 percent of the tweets on display worth reading -- and another 39 percent barely worth the effort. "These results," the authors note, "highlight the need for better awareness and presentation of valued content."

Piracy Will Never Go Away

Piracy will never go away.

The sooner we accept this, the better off we'll be.

File-sharing methods are developed by those on the bleeding edge of technology. Those who would legislate file-sharing are just discovering text messages. Until politicans stay up until 3am every night buried face-down in code, the pirates will continue to be in the lead. Lockpickers rejoyce at the release of a new "unpickable" lock. Woohoo, a new puzzle! It's the Red Queen from through the looking glass; everyone has to keep running just to stay in the same place.

First, let's get this straight: I do not condone piracy. Artists create beauty and should be compensated for their work. Period.

But piracy is an economic reality. Neil Young goes as far as to say "Piracy is the new radio." We can either learn to leverage this for our gain to build our fanbase or we can thrash helplessly against the relentless tide and hurt paying customers with DRM. The only way to stop piracy would be total draconian lockdowns on freedom of all information which would hurt both consumers and content creators.

Even now, the systems in place to protect content are only for the benefit labels big enough to afford lobbyists. Universal has been using YouTube's Content ID system to issue takedown notices for copyright infringment on crochet lesson videos without music and shutting down youtube channels for unaffiliated independent bands.  Independant artists, however, are unable to use the same system to protect their own works.

 Zoe Keating:

"I actually signed up for Content ID to track all the videos that ALREADY have my music in them. For a very brief window when my account became active (2 days) I was able to use the Content Management interface to search for and claim the audio of videos. I managed to claim the audio for about 20 videos before that feature was disabled on my account. I was told that claiming videos is not a feature that is supposed to be active for sound recording copyright holders and it was a "bug" that I was allowed to do it." 

The landscape of the music industry have irrevocably changed. The old school method of paying $1,000,000 to generate a hit single is being undercut by increased customer choices for music and dratmatically reduced fixed costs.

Remember how the Motion Picture Association of America reacted to the invention of the VCR?

"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home along." - Jack Valenti, MPAA Cheif.

As much as it hurt the typewriter industry, the development of word processors was a net posititve for society. (Can I get an amen for splecheck spellcheck?) Technology marches on, whether you like it or not.

Piracy will never go away.

The sooner we accept this, the better off we'll be.

The tech industry's solution is software-as-service, where users pay a monthly subscription fee to use this software through the web. Customers love it because you don't ever have to deal with technical crap and you can get to your data though any computer / tabelt / mobile. Businesses love it because it's reliable, costs nothing to distribute to more customers, and provides a stable monthly income stream. (Great blog post by Patrick at Kalzumeus software on why he's giving up desktop applications for web applications.)

The solution for the music industry is streaming, where users pay a monthly subscription fee to listen to anything, anytime. (Here's my strategy for streaming.)

Streaming is new and still getting the kinks worked out, but now that the services exists, they're not going away. Music streaming services may become the next equivalent to Cable TV.

David Lefsetz elaborates:

Do you think you’re paying when you watch sports on ESPN? YOU ARE! Approximately five bucks a month, whether you watch it or not. The key is to make music listening feel free, even if it’s not. We’re on that road, but too many musicians want to kill it, because it’s a nascent business. It’s like killing the iPod because it didn’t work on Windows and there was no iTunes Store. It’s like doubling down on Kodak because you don’t own a digital camera and who’d want to shoot pictures each and every day other than a professional?

We finally have the tool for success, the way out, streaming services, but you want to kill them. You’d probably eat a cookie today rather than forgo it and have twenty tomorrow.

Killing piracy kills the music business. It cuts down on listener experimentation and innovation. Who’s gonna make something that radio won’t play if there’s no free listening and sharing online?

The industry isn't based around getting signed anymore. As DIY musicians, there's no simple formula for success; everyone is figuring it out as they go.  It's not that the goal posts have moved, it's that the goal posts have been taken off the field. The freedom from labels is as liberating as it is scary.

But piracy is an economic reality. We can either learn to leverage this for our gain to build our fanbase or we can thrash helplessly against the relentless tide.

Update: There's a new BitTorrent service called Triblr that is designed to continue functioning even when a BitTorrent tracker is shut down.

"Like many other BitTorrent clients, Tribler has a search box at the top of the application. However, the search results that appear when users type in a keyword don’t come from a central index. Instead, they come directly from other peers." 

"Downloading a torrent is also totally decentralized. When a user clicks on one of the search results, the meta-data is pulled in from another peer and the download starts immediately. Tribler is based on the standard BitTorrent protocol and uses regular BitTorrent trackers to communicate with other peers. But, it can also continue downloading when a central tracker goes down."

So hackers/technologists become craftier in response to crackdowns. No surprise there. Piracy isn't going anywhere, so build your band's business models to accomidate this.

Two Kids Spend $100,000, Disappointed They're Not Famous

Over at Time's "Entrepreneuerial Insights" section, the brothers that form the band Two Lights write an op-ed about how their music career has cost them $100,00 so far and it's really hard, man.

Quoth the band,

"What meets me backstage is nothing like what I pictured. No fountains of champagne, no elegant lounges. It's just as dingy as the venue itself, with a printed sign taped to the star's dressing room door. The band is hanging out on a couch that someone obviously found on the street, and there are some catered snacks that look like they could have come from the NYU dining hall I try to avoid.

It occurs to me that if any part of me is doing this for the good life, I should let that go."

They then go on to elaborate on their expenses, ending with:

In short, the School of Rock is expensive. Then again, class can be a lot of fun, and some of the homework is pretty cool. And of course, if we do graduate — if we make it in the music business — we'll soon be earning a lot more money than even doctors and lawyers. Or so we tell ourselves...

Surprise! It's almost as if we make music for the love of it, shocking!

Lefsetz does a much better job of dissecting the article than I would.

1. If you think backstage was lavish back in the pre-Internet heyday, you were never there. Maybe in New York and L.A., but rarely there either. Just a ton of cold cuts, potato chips and beer on ice. As for who was there? A ton of hangers-on, who believed if they could just be close to the icons, they’d be cool.

2. Training. Irrelevant of whether you need music and voice lessons, complaining about the price is like me bitching how much it cost to go to college and law school. At today’s price, my college is $200k for four years. Add three years of law school on top of that and this guy is bitching about fifteen years of piano and guitar lessons for 30k? (And oh yeah, I had those too!)

3. Rehearsal. We all need an office. And if you’ve got no money, make it in your home. And if that’s too noisy, move where it’s cheap and you’ve got some space, like back to Maine. You don’t have to live in the metropolis anymore to make it. The Internet is everywhere.

3. Gear. As everyone online is saying, you spent $500 to move a piano? How’s the gas mileage on that Lamborghini? Either get an electronic keyboard or buy something used or rent. Don’t put the lifestyle in front of the success.

4. E-mail blasts. You wasted a grand. I ignore that stuff, and so does everybody else. We get hipped to quality and success by our network, we hate self-promoters/hypesters.
I could go on and on but you not only get the point, you know the story as well or better than I do.

It’s a long way to the top if you wanna rock and roll.

And you don’t make it by complaining, you make it by knocking them dead. And you can do that on a Japanese guitar as well as a Les Paul. Talent is much more important than equipment. These guys are just being ripped off by an old system which is trying not to die. They’re being bitten by hucksters the same way you get ripped off on the street by the guys playing three card monte.

Laughable.

P.S. If you’re so damn great, why do you have only 98 Twitter followers?

Lessons From Louis CK's MIllion-Dollar DIY Experiment

For those of you who missed it, on December 10th Louis CK released a self-produced, self-financed comedy special for a $5 download on his own website. No restrictions, other than asking you "please don't pirate this."

He made a million dollars in ten days, no middlemen required.

Louis C.K. said he was shocked as he watched the orders come in -- and then began to feel guilty about the amount he'd netted.

"I've never had a million dollars all at once. I grew up pretty poor and I was like, this is not even my money," he said. "This is just a five-dollar impulse that 220,000 people had, and now I have it. And I felt uncomfortable about having that much money."

So Louis C.K. set aside $250,000 to cover the cost of the expenses of producing the special, then doled out another $250,000 in bonuses for his staffers.

He then donated $280,000 to five charities: The Fistula Foundation, The Pablove Foundation, charity: water, Kiva and Green Chimneys.

"I was going to [donate] $100,000, but it's like blackjack -- I just kept dishing it out," he told Fallon.

That leaves $220,000 left over.

"Some of that will pay my rent and will care for my childen [sic]. The rest I will do terrible, horrible things with and none of that is any of your business," Louis C.K. wrote in a statement posted on his website.

He's not the first artist to make a killing without a label, this just serves as more proof that you can make it on your own. Radiohead's In Rainbows made the band more money than they've ever made for a record even though it was a pay-what-you-want record.

1 Direct-to-fan sales mean cheaper products AND more money going to the artists.

For a large company, $1,000,000 is break-even. For a DIY artist, it's a smash hit. Rembember $18 CDs back in the 90s? Each CD you bought from a third party only returned cents to the band.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather keep my first million.

2) Fans will pay for great art from the artists they love.What with all the crap the MPAA and RIAA are throwing about to justify the Protect IP Act and Stop Online Piracy Act, you'd think people will only pay for art when they're forced to.

Nope.

As the video game distribution platform Steam has shown, making legitmate purchase a better experience for consumers opens their wallets.

Piracy is a service problem.

Louis CK allowed you to download and watch his video using any platform you wanted.

He didn't even bother copy-protecting the video.

He didn't have to.

---

"I like the people at our record company, but the time is at hand when you have to ask why anyone needs one. And, yes, it probably would give us some perverse pleasure to say 'Fuck you' to this decaying business model." - Thom Yorke

Megaupload Shut Down

Wow. Megaupload, a New Zealand company, was just shut down by US officials for copyright infringement.

Last month, Universal Music Group forced a copyright take down of a music video featuring artists supporting Megaupload. UMG didn't own any of the copyrights, they just took it down because they could.

The UMG-YouTube agreement grants UMG rights to effect the removal of user-posted videos through YouTube’s Content Management System (‘CMS’), based on a number of contractually specified criteria that are not limited to the infringements of copyrights owned or controlled by UMG,” the record label states in its filing.

What that means, in case the preceding paragraph wasn’t clear enough, is that UMG has a private outside-the-DMCA agreement with YouTube that it can take down other people’s content from YouTube even when it doesn’t infringe their copyrights.

Indeed, in UMG’s 18-page filing not once does the company give any reason or even a hint why it had Megaupload’s Mega Song taken down from YouTube. At no point does UMG claim that the video infringed its copyrights and the previous claim, that the video featured one of its artists, is completely absent.

This isn't about protecting you, the artist. It's about protecting a dying business model.

From Seth Godin:

When the world changes... 

It's painful, expensive, time-consuming, stressful and ultimately pointless to work overtime to preserve your dying business model. 

All the lobbying, the lawsuits, the ad campaigns and most of all, the hand-wringing, aren't going to change anything at all. In fact, instead of postponing the outcome you fear, they probably accelerate it. 

The history of media and technology is an endless series of failed rearguard actions as industry leaders attempt to solidify their positions on a bed of quicksand. 

Again and again the winners are individuals and organizations that spot opportunities in the next thing, as opposed to those that would demonize, marginalize or illegalize (is that a word?) it. Breaking systems that benefit your customers is dumb. Taking money from lobbyists to break those systems is dumber still.

This isn't the first time music companies freaked out.

The industry flipped out about the invention of radio until they (begrudgingly) realized it could actually make them more money. With all we know now about the history of radio, can you look back and think "Wow, radio sure did destroy music!" Of course not, radio drove demand for artists' products. Music is marketing for the artist.

It'll be interesting to see how much longer the old industry will attempt to fight piracy before accepting the fact that the world has changed and deciding to profit from it.

UPDATE:
So more research has turned up the fact that Megaupload offered financial incentives for users to upload stolen music, movie, and warez. This complicates the issue because it means Megaupload was a a whole lot shadier than a simple "file sharing service". While I still see the raid as being a little over the top, there's not doubt that Megaupload wasn't into some shady business.