I think David is right spot on. This is a waiting game and the infrastructure players can afford to sit back and let the VCs spend their money trying out different interfaces and subscription models, and when the money is gone, they will scoop up the best technology and either use it or kill it. It's hard to see Google challenging Apple successfully on streaming music - they have the existing huge paying customer installed base with iTunes, they know mobile customers well, they know tablets, they have great software engineers. Unless they are thwarted by the labels through overly onerous licensing structures, it's their race to lose.

This is a great post and rings so true for me as an musician, and also seems to ring true for many of my musician friends. We make music because when someone walks up to you after a performance (as I experienced this very weekend) and says, with tears visible in their eyes: "That one song, it really moved me," or "I'm inspired to buy an instrument and be creative," - THAT's what makes it all worthwhile. We do make music to connect. We make music because it speaks for us and to us in a way that words cannot.

Hey the Twitter share button doesn't work on my Windows 8 machine.

Hey Brad - Thanks for the comment! Just keep doing it - it does get easier and easier. For sure I will be writing about my Tom Jackson workshop later this year, I have a feeling it will be great writing fodder!

Hey Chick - Thanks for the question. I did not have to pay Universal anything for the license. It's important to note, however, that I made it clear to them that I am not looking to make any money from this video.

I don't often see "Jimmy Iovine" and the term "artist empowerment" occurring in the same article. I think you are right about what is missing from current streaming music platforms, but I don't see Daisy as focused on the artist. I think Iovine is good at catering to consumers, but "artist empowerment"? I think not. We all had hopes that the new MySpace would do just that, but it has disappointed. There is a vacuum. A service that builds artist-fan communities, facilitates indie music discovery, empowers artists and their brands - and still makes money - would be welcome. I don't see that happening with Daisy.

I am actually very excited about the karaoke as well, Clyde. I am really looking forward to this agenda of speakers - it looks like an amazing lineup.

Interesting thought. Certainly Chirpify has a lot of growth potential - and has some very visible users in artists like Amanda Palmer. Artists need tools like Hootsuite and Chirpify to both identify and market to their fans online.

Great, glad you like it so far - there's a lot to explore.

Great additions, Chris. The Hootlet is one of those great little apps you forget is there because you use it all the time! I've been using auto-schedule, too, although I am not clear what the algorithm is (is it generic or personalized?) But Hootsuite is a great tool with some super features.

My pleasure, Connor! I'm glad you liked it.

This is a really good, common sense article, Clyde. Sometimes the things that sound simple aren't, but I think you really cut through a lot of the marketing fog here.

I'm not sure who was launching who with the Myspace and Justin Timberlake collaboration. It seemed like something their respective marketing people thought would be mutually beneficial from a co-branding perspective. I think the actual content and execution behind both brands (Timberlake's Suit and Tie and Myspace's) did not live up to the hype, which, unfortunately, no amount of flashy marketing can make up for. Check out the new Beck/Bowie endorsement for Lincoln Motor Company: Yet another musician co-branding/endorsement extravaganza. They actually spent big bucks on a 15x22" pullout PAPER poster of Beck in this week's New Yorker Magazine - ugh. I guess at least they have the demographics right - but Beck, Bowie and Lincoln in the same breath? Kind of like Timberlake and Budweiser - I thought Timberlake had a classier brand image than that. At least Alicia Keys and Blackberry seems to make some sense from an image perspective, although, again, you can't put lipstick on a pig (the pig being the Blackberry, not Keys) and sell it as something suddenly desirable. What surprises me is that these artists' labels don't seem to consider the possible negative impact of these product endorsements on the artists' images. The Beck/Bowie/Lincoln ads: http://now.lincoln.com/2013/02/beck-says-hello-again/

"It makes one wonder if new business people will emerge that can work with the needs of DIY pop musicians just as they have in other genres such as hip hop and indie rock." An intriguing idea. Scott Borchetta of BMLG (at least from the articles one can read about him and his label) claims to allow his artists creative freedom, he marks them really well, and he is having significant success in pop with Taylor Swift with a model that is perhaps somewhat less controlled. Maybe. I can't see Columbia controlling Trent Reznor. Although I'm not sure he's pop, exactly. But maybe the labels are finally getting the message that controlling and exploiting pop artists doesn't work in the long run. Hmmm. Macklemore and Ryan Lewis and their New York manager The Agency Group's Zach Quillen, about whom I know you have also written, have definitely taken the collaborative approach. They have a group of business people around them who market them - it seems very much a team effort. Mackemore has talked about the growing pains of a "small" business - it's clearly a challenge working outside the label structure, but he chooses not to give up control in exchange for a smoother growth path for his business. After all, it really is just like starting a business to start a music career. I would love to see more freelance music business professionals have a way to identify and come together around emerging pop musicians - provide marketing support, merchandising, PR, management, and even raise capital as needed - just like in the tech startup community. There's an idea - Shark Tank for musicians... Oh, I guess that's been done (The Voice, American Idol...) Seriously, an angel investor startup business model that matched musical talent and music industry business savvy would be so welcome in the indie pop market, and so much more functional than what happens today. We might get better pop music, too.

Firstly, organizing musicians is a lot like organizing migrant farm workers. Most musicians are too busy trying to keep their heads above water financially and keep their creative spark alive to be political. The organizing movement needs a dynamic, articulate and visible figurehead. I don't think David C. Lowery is it. Much as I respect his passion, he is too angry to be an effective Cesar Chavez. Somebody smart and diplomatic - who is an actual musician like Lowery - must step forward bear the standard for working musicians, champion their cause. Musicians unions have not been effective in working the licensing, compensation and technology issues. I don't believe representation is currently happening effectively in the halls of Congress -witness the strong condemnation by some artists groups of the IRFA. Why were these constituents not at the table when this bill was being written? Why was their input not solicited earlier in the political process? Broken process. Second, the technology and platform providers (read: every company involved in writing software that has anything to do with creating and distributing music, from Avid to Google to Spotify) need to get together and hammer out an API that effectively allows the exchange of relevant metadata so the product (a song) can be tracked from cradle to grave - from production to consumption. It's byzantine how the system works now. This is a standards creation problem, it's been tackled before in the tech community (from telephone service to operating systems and application software). It certainly wouldn't be easy, but it is possible for key stakeholder company engineers to get together and map out flowcharts and design a software system that works so money can flow semi-transparently from consumer back to creator. Of course, the business model needs to work, and that is the problem. Many of the current players have competing financial interests, but perhaps everyone will see eventually that we all lose if nothing is done to create a better technological solution: artists, technology platform providers, consumers, and the labels/middlemen.

My playlist: @howtorunaband @hishamdahud @playitloudmusic @thornybleeder @madalynsklar @michaelsb @wicked_d @1michaeldolan @mrbuzzfactor @renmanmb @industryears @plugola @futurehitdna @wesdavenport