Taking on the Macbook Air?

This was no small scale project, with Tiësto performing a 90-minute set. The gig, made possible by HP and Intel, was watched live by over 28,000 viewers.

It’s certainly an interesting concept, particularly when accounting for the fast-paced world of Twitter. It’s easy to jump from tweet to tweet, news article to news article while tweeting, but HP and Intel ensured maximum attention by collaborating with the biggest name in the business.

It’s remains to be seen how much revenue this might generate for HP and Intel, but one thing is for sure: the monetary value of a powerful musical figure like Tiësto.

Both HP and Intel obviously realise the lucrative potential of an endorsement by Tiësto, and boy did they get it, when, after performing his version of Adele’s Set Fire To The Rain, Tiësto thanked “HP and Intel for making this possible; they are the best”.

It might be tempting to revert to a cliché at this point, perhaps something along the lines of not being being able to buy that kind of advertising: but clearly it’s possible. This is a spectacular coup for both HP and Intel. Making the first ever live Twitter gig possible is a tag any major media company dreams about, but introducing Tiësto’s name to the mix is the most compelling notion of all.

The gig, which was part of the 2012 International Consumer Electronics Show (CES), can be viewed here.

Tweeting via his Official Twitter Page before the gig, DJ Tiësto said, “I am pretty honored and excited to be the first artist ever to perform live on @twitter !! Watch @hp & @intel”.

“The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) is the owner and producer of the International CES. CEA is the preeminent trade association promoting growth in the $186 billion U.S. consumer electronics industry. More than 2,000 companies enjoy the benefits of CEA membership, including legislative advocacy, market research, technical training and education, industry promotion, standards development and the fostering of business and strategic relationships. All profits from CES are reinvested into CEA’s industry services.”

HP and Intel were promoting their take on The Ultrabook.

Samuel Agini is the Editor of Andrew Apanov’s Dotted Music.

I have not changed my mind in regard to the rights an artist has – to get paid for what he does – but I see now that the source of the problem and the solution lie far away from the music end-consumer.

Music download can be something positive, and it is! I do believe that viral marketing can have a huge impact on someone’s popularity and therefore further his career. The main question is: how to make a profit and run a business, where there is no real income from it’s main product – in this case the music?

I hear a lot of people talking about merchandise and live shows being the real solutions for the future – I just like to remind everyone that merchandise and live shows already were parts of an artist’s income before the advent of the Internet. Therefore this is not only a weak, but also an absolutely stupid, answer to the problem.

You must now be thinking that I am still against free download and streaming, but no, I am not. I just believe that those who offer it for free should pay for using music as part of their advertising arsenal.

Spotify

Spotify, iTunes, YouTube, Telecom and even mobile phone companies being some of many corporations that take advantage of a product that lacks or has outdated, general and global regulations, simply lobby their way through and around royalties and copyrights, under the “we promote” flag.

Nokia comes with Music and that’s cool. But who does Nokia pay for this great feature? And how much?

Companies, which use 3rd party products, brands or services, pay insignificant amounts of money to Artists and labels, forcing them to either join this “criminal” scheme or to be doomed to oblivion.

A year ago I was talking with a business manager from a known German indie label, analyzing Spotify’s popularity and he told me that it was a necessary evil. The label had to join since everyone was doing it. The label had over a 2 Million plays from 40 different artists.

That Label got £440 for the lot, and after taking their commission (25%) of £110 plus £250 for campaign-advertising. The remaining £80 was proportionally divided, £40 going to the artists. There you can see how much 1 year on Spotify will give you…

Now remember before you slander a record label, keep in mind that not all of them are bad and almost none of them are making huge profits nowadays!

If you take the recent article from The Independent about superstar Lady Gaga, who probably has better royalty rates than the above mentioned label, she got around £108 for 1 million plays.

I am not sure, but I would bet my life that the label invested a slightly bigger amount in order to promote the “Lady” in question.

I believe that digital sales could easily be obsolete in a couple of years, and all music available could be for free to listen to, if artists and labels would get their share from these Multi-billion-dollar companies.

Photo by: Steve Wampler on Flickr

If music is not to be sold over the counter, that is fine – neither will newspapers, movies or books in the future – but those who provide means of mass distribution and also earn billions through advertising and attracting investors should pay their suppliers accordingly, in this case the music industry and the artists.

This is the “Grey Spot” in the music business, leave the end consumer alone. At present, music distribution is a free product for Internet giants who managed for years, to stay away from the spotlight, blaming either the consumer or the labels for something that they are creating: the utter downfall of the artist as a professional worker.

If you have the illusion that indie labels make a lot of money, you are wrong. I see many A&R directors, PR managers working out of passion, driving to meetings in 1997 Toyota Corollas, and sleeping at travelodges.

Indie labels sometimes fight to present new products and even help bands to tour, knowing that this might be a risk investment with no compensation at the end of the day.

The idea of free music is now moving to another level. Some of the big festivals (especially in Europe) offer artists a spot on the festival, telling them that this is a great opportunity for them to promote themselves. Artists go there, play for free and on top they spend a couple of thousands in transport and lodging, so a sold out festivals can put their names on the bill and make even more money.

If this idea of promotion sticks, then we will see the demise of professional agents, managers, crews and artists, who will simply stop working, as there is no more money whatsoever to be made, never mind a living.

Stage production in the last 10 years has never been so bad. If we compare it to the ’80s (OK, they were a bit over the top), even smaller acts would back then offer something for your eyes besides the music.

If no action is taken, soon we shall see music, currently an industry employing thousands of people, becoming a hobby like gardening, or knitting in few years.

The Guardian recently reported that filings with Companies House show that bonus schemes were in place to pay senior managers as much as £41 million were business to go according to plan.

Citigroup, the former owner of EMI, apparently cancelled any prospect of such payments upon its acquisition of EMI.

But it wasn’t all clever business dealings on behalf of Citigroup.

Citigroup was to incur huge losses on its loans to EMI. It’s hardly surprising that the bank’s loans to the record label would sustain a dramatic decrease as a result.

Meanwhile, it’s not all doom and gloom for the music industries top dogs.

The Nielsen Company and Billboard have published their 2011 Music Industry Report.

Published annually, this year’s report was striking for the revelation that “[f]or the first time, digital music sales are larger than physical sales; accounting for 50.3% of all music purchases in 2011″.

And although Dotted Music will always support digital music sales, it’s important to note that there is a lot of work to do before the music industry can be said to have adapted to technological pressures.

It’s worrying, for instance, that CD album sales still more than doubly exceed digital album sales. Does this represent the consumer’s insurmountable desire to acquire a physical copy of the album, or could more be done to encourage the consumption of digital music? It is indeed likely that pricing strategies inhibit the consumer, discouraging the consumption of digital albums.

However, the increasing popularity of digital album sales (a 19.5% increase on last year’s figures) has almost certainly encouraged the 36.3% increase in Vinyl LP album sales, with 3.9 million units shifted in 2011, a Nielsen sales record.

With digital gains and vinyl surprises tensely juxtaposed , 2012 promises to be at least as dramatic as the last.

Samuel Agini is the Editor of ANdrew Apanov’s Dotted Music.

Special Editions Win Prizes

It’s significant that the prediction relates to physical sales (unless stockings have gone digital), especially when bearing in mind last month’s big news about record-breaking digital album sales in 2011.

So what is keeping the cumbersome physical CD from being consigned to last year’s Christmas stocking? What keeps it relevant?

The answer, according to the BPI, is to be found in Deluxe and Special Edition CDs, which now account for one in ten physical album sales.

Is the answer to the CD’s continued relevance truly found in its packaging?

Special editions, for the most part, are pricier and heavier than their standard release equivalents; surely the contemporary consumer, so prone to illegal downloading and carrying hundreds of kilograms worth of CDs on an iPod, is more tech savvy than to actually buy a special edition album.

But it can’t even be the bonus tracks that tempt the consumer into splashing out on a special edition CD. Okay, okay, maybe just a bit; but we all know that it’s easier just to pay a nominal fee for them on iTunes or Amazon. It would seem that we’re developing peculiar habits – hoarding silver, shiny toys, and special edition CDs.

That’s not to mock special editions – one of my prized possessions is a special edition of AFI’s Sing the Sorrow, almost ubiquitously known as Clandestine – which are the best way for fans to get value for money in buying an album. After all, does anybody really want to spend hard-earned money on a CD with packaging limited to a cardboard sleeve?

If you read too much into the BPI’s recent press releases you’ll be excused for thinking that the phenomenon of special edition CDs is a recent one.

Fortunately for music, the idea was pushed at the Grammy’s as early as 1995, with a Grammy being given for the best special edition album every year.

BPI Chief Executive, Geoff Taylor, commenting on music as a gift, said, “Music is a thoughtful and personal gift to give or receive.

“CDs gift-wrapped and delivered to your door by the retailer make an ideal gift for Christmas whilst Deluxe and Special Editions of albums make a perfect present for die-hard music fans who want to get their hands on superbly packaged albums with bonus audio and video content and a wealth of memorabilia.”

According to the BPI, in the 12 months ending September 2011, one in ten CD sales of the Top 200 best-selling artist album titles have been deluxe and special Editions.

Long may an upward trend continue.

Samuel Agini is the Editor of Andrew Apanov’s Dotted Music.

You, the artist, have been born into a cultural sludge I like to call the ‘post-noughties 21st Century’; critics everywhere call it a cultural oblivion – music is dead.

This all comes down to a simple misunderstanding about where the music world is headed.

The sludge is this gloop of all the music created now; there is more than ever. The way to avoid this gloop is not to stop making music or to upload your music to every social network available, indeed; social networks are not the answer either. The answer is developing an audience focused on YOU. In a world where attention is scarce, it is artists who have built something that intrigues, and who have the attention of an audience that will win.

This doesn’t happen with your average rainy tuesday afternoon music, it happens with the exceptional; through the chill, the slow, the heavy, the soft. As musicians reveal themselves through their art, so listeners make their love of the artist known through investing in their world – because it’s something they’ve come to associate with.

Image credit: ache.tumblr.com

Know that a record deal is zero now. You don’t NEED the established gatekeeper. You’re aiming for Oxford or Harvard when in reality you need neither right now. What you need is the drive to do what no-one else is. The only territory worth exploring as an artist is the area without the map – the place where you need to lead the way.

Art is about the new, the fresh, the exciting.

To be an artist becomes; why me? Waiting to be picked is effectively doing nothing at all. Novelists can’t afford to spend their lives waiting for a publisher to choose them anymore so they build an audience, collaborate with other writers and build connections globally.

Everyday should be a trial by fire exercise in seeing what works and what really doesn’t. Artists are really bad with rejection, because art is one of those things, that it hurts when you’re speared in the side. Know that being scared of rejection means you are doing something really close to the bone – something that matters to you, and that matters more than anything.

You innovate and change. There’s no such thing as failing. You don’t get ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than those guys over there. There is no better or worse in music, only ‘listened to’ and ‘not listened to’.

Music is not a neutral exercise – some people will always be pissed off with everything.

There is a future to music, of course. Yours starts when the clock hand reaches the next minute; what are you going to start today?

Marco writes at behyped.com on the the new way of doing things. For the artists, entrepreneurs and creative geniuses of the digital generation who are exploiting the internet to start their own stuff.

Dan Sabbagh, writing in the London Guardian, took exception to the UK government’s apparent indifference to EMI’s sale. He argues that EMI’s catalogue represents 100 years of recording history and should not be broken up for the remaining Big Three to prosper. That’s all well and good, but I don’t know if EMI’s break up in itself represents such a loss to the music industry. It’s the content of the label’s catalogue that must be protected. The label has turned into a bit of a running joke within the music industry. It’s got the stage that the label’s reputation as a Big Four member is based, not upon the label’s own reputation or history, but upon the Beatles’ recording history, held in the label’s fragile clutches.

Sabbagh seems to think that the appropriate authorities, namely the secretary of state for culture, Jeremy Hunt, should perform some sort of noble action to prevent some vague and inconclusive evil from gripping the music industry.

The market is already in a bit of a mess, considering that there are only four real players in the game. Sorry, did I say four? EMI shouldn’t even count at the moment. In the clutches of Citigroup, it is as much a record label as it is a commodity. It’s not worth fussing over. No matter that it is the last big ‘British’ record label, as Sabbagh so patriotically claims, it is also owned by a bigger beast. That bigger beast is Citigroup, and its headquarters are in the United States of America, so claims about EMI’s Britishness are a bit of a misnomer.

To Sabbagh’s credit he offers more substantial arguments for government intervention than the above. He points to the threat to the economy – the threat to people’s pensions. It’s likely that EMI’s sale will result in thousands of job cuts, but that doesn’t mean that a sale can’t be a positive in the long run.

The pension fund represents nearly half a million pounds in costs. That is the reason for Warner’s low bid of $1.5 million for EMI, in spite of the company’s reported £3bn worth.

But pensions aside, is EMI really contributing to the music industry in its current state? Is there an alternative to breaking it up? Sabbagh’s article is perhaps the most morally relevant piece written on the music industry’s long running joke, but, short of nationalising EMI, does he present any viable solution to the joke?

In fact, it’s no longer a joke for the music industry, and Dotted Music is first in line to argue that it is now very much a crisis. Thankfully Sabbagh has drawn attention to that.

Samuel Agini is the editor of Andrew Apanov’s Dotted Music.

A common thought on the view of Spotify is that is it great for the consumer, and bad for the artist. Valid point. Considering that record labels are getting about a third of a penny per play, leaving artists with even less. So for instance, every 15 tracks you play, which is an average track number for CD’s, is going to cost you around 5 cents. Well, when it is put like that it certainly seems like stealing. Great for the consumer, considering that an average CD usually runs about $12.99. So how can this not be labelled stealing from the artists.

Spotify iPhone app's Playlists screen

To take a deeper look into the music industry, you should start by looking at the numbers. Since the late 1990′s the music industry has fallen from a 45 billion dollar industry to a 12 billion dollar industry. This is largely due to the increase in piracy, and internet distribution of media – in this case, music. Therefore artists simply are not making as much money as they did. People don’t buy CD’s because distribution of music has been made so convenient. Even things like Pandora radio station give us another alternative to buying CD’s. Spotify is the latest alternative to buying music. And just like Pandora, you do not physically own the track with Spotify.

This brings the question of how much is each track play worth to an artist. Are artist entitled to make large sums of money because of their work? I think not. As a technicality an artist is only an employee of a Record Label. Very few artists make it big without being signed to a record company. If any artist choses to go independent, more than likely they will see less success then they ever would as a signed artist. Record companies are striking up deals with Spotify obviously because there are some profits to be made. The profits may be less than they like, but without Spotify or any other music service, songs will just be pirated. Piracy is wrong, and it is unfortunate that it exists, but the problem doesn’t necessarily have to do with piracy as much as it has to do with distribution.

Just because at one point in time the only way you could buy CD’s was to go to the local store and buy one, doesn’t mean that model will always be sustainable. The music industry was making record profits during this time. Music was harder to produce, and there was only a select few who had the opportunity. Now, during our internet age, music can be delivered to your computer over the span of just a few minutes, and there are many more opportunities for artists to be successful. You can buy professional recording equipment for under $500 dollars with Pro Tools. You can broadcast yourself on YouTube. You can distribute your music on Myspace. There are endless ways to get seen these days, and the costs to produce music have gone down considerably. Artists, more than anyone else are ignoring this. Just like any other business, you are not guaranteed to make “x” amount of dollars because you or someone else has in the past.

The record companies do understand this. That is why they are making deals to be a part of it. It may not be the most beneficial to the artists, but as an artist, you cannot expect to make a large sum of money off of a market that doesn’t exist. A CD that sold for 16 dollars at one point after creation, production, packaging, shipping, and finally retail markup does not equate in today’s standards. You want to send the CD directly to someones PC in minutes, with decreased production costs and charge the same $16? Um, I don’t think so.

The music industry should look at Spotify as essentially free advertisement, that you can actually make a little bit of money from. This is especially true for artists who are under the radar, and need exposure that can be done through direct pays or from word of mouth through Spotify’s social aspect. Artists need to think about the live performance at its rawest as their main income. There is no market to sell $16 CD’s anymore, so don’t expect to make hand over fist with each CD you release.

Spotify

With all of that being said, Spotify does have one downfall. For popular artists who are dominating the number of plays, they should receive a little bit more of the profits since it is because of them that Spotify is able to have a successful business. There is no reason that a band who has just gotten off the ground should be paid the same percentage, when comparing to artists like Lady Gaga who attract millions of plays. Without the big names, many people would not be signing up to listen. For the smaller bands, it is better to look at this as an opportunity to be seen.

Spotify has definitely been generating some controversy over the inexpensive, seemingly all inclusive service of music. It is ultimately better for the consumer, than it is for the artist – but a better alternative than piracy. The music industry isn’t what it once was. Consumers can now have music faster, cheaper, and in large quantities. This isn’t exactly what musicians want to hear, but that is the reality. The internet has made things easier, and more affordable. Music is not independent from this, and therefore Spotify has made attempt to fix the problem of distribution and theft. Some people may think this is stealing, but the Record companies are making deals with Spotify. The artists are employees of the Record companies. Right now Spotify has the best business model. Our technology driven business era may change that fast, but everyone needs to understand that the same technology driven era has created Spotify out of necessity.

This article was written by Thomas Randall. Thomas likes to blog on the internet about music, web design, and other various internet related topics. He knows what it takes to get some buzz on the internet and helps to provide the best white hat SEO services.

Although not the first of its kind, Guitar Hero definitely rose to fame first in this genre of video game. Designed by Harmonix and published by RedOctane, the first incarnation of Guitar Hero released in 2005; since then there have been nine main games (not including expansions and portable editions) in the series, designed by various studios (Harmonix, Neversoft, Vicarious Visions), and published by different companies RedOctane, Activision). For those that don’t know, Guitar Hero puts a plastic guitar in the players’ hands and tasks them to hit the notes in songs displayed on the screen, by accurately pressing colour coded buttons when prompted on screen. In later editions a drum peripheral was added that effectively worked in the same way as the guitar, along with a microphone which tasked the singers to keep the pitch of their voices at the correct levels (despite being allowed some creative licence with the words we sing).

Rhythm gaming experience

Guitar Hero proved itself to be a lucrative and successful franchise; however, over-saturation of the market with numerous editions finally led to the downfall of the series which was put on ice in early 2011. Guitar Hero’s main competitor was Rock Band, first released in 2007, and designed by Harmonix (who had been acquired by MTV), and published by MTV. Rock Band released six main games between 2007 and 2009 and although its sales figures weren’t as great as its competitor, it was pegged by some as the better, more representative game.

The importance of these games, however, is the need for close relations to the industry. Between them, these games featured songs from a plethora of bands and artists including Avenged Sevenfold, The Beatles, Blink-182, Green Day, Linkin Park, Nickelback, Nirvana and many, many more. The genre of the songs ranged between Metal and Pop-Rock, but DJ Hero, another game published by Activision featuring a turn table peripheral, covered the Pop, Club and Hip-Hop genres. All this music needed to be legally licensed from the respective owners and so a cordial relationship between the worlds of music and gaming was necessary for these games to work.

Although the relationship between the two industries was generally both a positive and a lucrative one, there were some major incidents that show that things don’t always run smoothly. Gibson Guitars sued companies involved in the development of both Guitar Hero and Rock Band for violating patents linked to the likeness of their guitars being used for the game peripherals. Axl Rose filed a lawsuit against Activision for its use of Welcome To The Jungle in Guitar Hero Legends Of Rock and its association with former Guns N Roses guitarist Slash. There was also an issue over the use of Kurt Cobain’s likeness in Guitar Hero 5, when his widow Courtney Love threatened to sue. So, as is apparent, the relations between the two industries aren’t always peachy.

Rhythm action games, especially Guitar Hero and Rock Band are perfect examples of how music is an integral part of gaming and in this case allowing gamers who may not have any musical talent, experience a little of what it could be like to be a rock star.

Dotted Music’s latest columnist – Alexander Goodenough – will discuss the relationship between the videogame industry and the music industry in his column. Alexander is a freelance writer whose interests range from videogames and films to music; he has experience in magazine-editing and graphic design.

Secret Codes & Battleships

“It took about four years, actually,” the vocalist admits. “I’m Australian but I live in London, and my last record was pretty experimental. It was the first time that I put out an album on my own label, and at the end of that period I was a bit burnt out to be honest. That was 2007, and it took me awhile to figure out what I wanted to do. I think the shortest answer to your question is that the goal for me was to really try to make a record that was a lot closer to the very beginning of my career, and the way that I used to write songs. That was focusing on song craft and writing classic melodies and really being quite hard on myself, the opposite of where I’d come from which was just being pretty indulgent and not really being concerned about airplay or commercial success. This record was about reconnecting and really trying to be disciplined, so that’s where it began and it was a pretty amazing run. I got to record all around the world; I got to reunite with a lot of people I hadn’t worked with since the beginning of Savage Garden, as well as working with songwriters and producers like Carl Falk who is a new Swedish producer. He’s a fan of Savage Garden and had actually come to my shows when he was 18. I’ll be 40 next year, and here I am in the studio with this 20 something prodigy and making new music together. It was a pretty extraordinary ride.”

Darren Hayes

Secret Codes & Battleships will be the second studio full-length to be issued through Hayes’ own record label. “I’d been with Sony Music or Columbia Records since I was 23 years of age, and when the record deal ended I didn’t even try to get another deal,” he confesses. “I felt quite frustrated towards the end of the record deal; I’d made an album called The Tension And The Spark and it was the most critically acclaimed record I had ever made, but the record label hated it. I experienced what it feels like to have a record essentially buried; it got a release in the UK but the US refused to release it, and it was really upsetting. I think at the end of that period, I vowed that I never wanted to put myself in that position again where an album that I’d made and was proud of was at the mercy of someone else. That was the beginning of me starting my own label, although Secret Codes & Battleships is out through Universal in Australia and EMI Music in the UK and the rest of the world. It’s a partnership between my label and those major labels, and that’s amazing because I’ve still retained all the control over my music and I’ve got this incredible machine and this enthusiastic promotion team behind the record. I can never really be in that position again, where a record of mine is essentially shelved.”

However, negative aspects come to forming one’s own record label. “I think partly why I’ve partnered up with major labels this time is because just being on my own was exhausting, and financially it’s very expensive – there’s a lot of costs involved in just getting stock to stores, and hiring a team,” the Australian explains. “There’s probably 20 people that work directly for me and with me on the record, so having that burden shared with a major record label as I do today is easier than just being on my own.”

Until now, the reason behind signing up with Facebook has been to serve as a destination for your fans to keep up to date with the minute to minute happenings of your band and as a showcase for the mini battles that you’ve won. But Facebook’s f8 partnerships have opened up a whole new level of Facebook marketing, where offering your music through a Sonic Bids, Band Profile, or a non-partner Facebook App, despite the allure of the customizability, is no longer taking advantage of the social marketing “game” in Facebook.

Spotify on Facebook in ticker

If you’ve taken a look at the new Facebook ticker on the top right of the screen, you’ll notice your friend’s listening habits, courtesy of Spotify. Divert your eyes to the left navigation menu, below the category “APPS” and you’ll notice a permanent fixture titled, “Music.” Forget Pandora and Last.fm. Music has gone social – Facebook social.

Facebook's Music App

In theory, in a social world, users are inclined to listen to the music selected by their common denominator – namely their friends. You can see how Facebook Music has opened up an opportunity for listeners to be persuaded into listening to friend’s music tastes, instead of those of the automated machines that fuel Pandora and Last.fm.

But how this translates for musicians is that Spotify has gone from just another medium to publish your music, to THE medium for publishing your music. Prior to Facebook Music, unless you were spamming your friend’s walls with your music, you have the opportunity to capture the ears and attention of your listener’s friends.

Spotify’s Increasing User Base

Since the launch of Facebook music (and Spotify’s login changes that require a Facebook account to use the music service) according to Inside Facebook, Spotify has gained 1 million new monthly active Facebook users, up from their average of 3 million users per month. The increase in users makes it that much more necessary for your marketing arsenal.

How to get your music onto Spotify

If you’re looking to get your music up on Spotify, you can sign up for Tunecore’s music distribution service. But, as Information is Beautiful’s infographic, “How Much do Artists Earn Online“, shows, unless you’re seeing 4,053,110 plays per month of your Spotify tracks, which would earn you a minimum wage of $1,160 per month, don’t expect to be making a living using Spotify alone. Think of it as an investment into increasing your social presence.

Two Tips:

1. If you’re pitching your music to a particular blogger or journalist, sending them a link to your tracks on Spotify will guarantee that their network of friends will have access to your music, granted that the blogger or journalist does in fact listen to your music.
2. Create a custom Facebook landing page (using iFrames) that sends visitors to your Spotify tracks. As a result, upon their listening to your tracks, the news of your listener’s music choices – namely your music – will get published onto the listener’s wall and their friend’s tickers and music app.

Francis Bea is a New Yorker turned Chicago co-founder of Musefy.com (in development) and writes Musefy’s blog Musebox.