Can regulators stop the march of media consolidation?

One of the most important regulators in Britain, the Competition and Markets Authority, has ruled that 21st Century Fox's proposed takeover of Sky would not be in the public interest as it would give one organisation (and the Murdoch family behind it) too much control over news in the UK.

Of course, there are lots of questions behind such a ruling.  For example, what is the 'in the public interest' and who decides on what that is?  There has also been the suggestion that the Murdoch family would possibly shut down Sky News in order to satisfy the regulator. However, would that just end up reducing the number of different perspectives in the UK news landscape?  Lurking behind all of this is the question of what happens if Disney's proposed takeover of 21st Century Fox itself takes place?

There are lots of articles online about this issue but this one from the BBC is a good place to get started.

Postmodern Theory

I'm just going to put this here because I know that many of you will need to take time to digest the ideas of Jean Baudrillard after we deal with them in class over the next two years.  Repeated viewing of this may help.

Independent or Mainstream - What's the big deal?

A couple of articles about Mac Miller and Chance the Rapper exploring the advantages and disadvantages of being signed to either an independent or mainstream record company.

Mac Miller article

Chance the Rapper article

Last Minute Research

As promised, below is are links to aricles originally tweeted on @burntwoodmedia that you should already have read. All the same, better late than never.


Radiohead repackaging OK Computer on 20th anniversary, including a 'new' old track.

How streaming saved the music: global industry revenues hit £12bn

Beyonce actually outsold Drake in 2016

Jay Z pulls most of his music off Spotify in streaming battle with Tidal

Ed Sheeran settles Photograph copyright infringement claim

Spotify signs long-term deal with Universal

The music video that changes each time you click play

Five ways the singles chart can be fixed

Ed Sheeran has nine of top 10, but thinks it's weird

Spotify's Daniel Ek named most powerful person in the music business

Mobile Games - another saviour of the music industry?

Ever since the spectre of digital music began to haunt the music industry, any number of saviours have stepped forward to try to halt the loss of earnings felt as a result of illegal downloading. We've had the 360 degree record contract, social media, streaming and even the return of vinyl.  With the announcement that Taylor Swift has signed a deal to launch a mobile game, there's a sense that the music industry is likely to be rescued by a band of heroes as opposed to a singular figure.

Pop stars having mobile games makes a lot of sense; you can license your music for use in the game, promote yourself to a young, growing audience and create easy, click through sales opportunities.  However, it may not all be plain sailing, as documented by Perez Hilton, Katy Perry's first attempt at a game wasn't so successful and reminds us that quality can still count when it comes to attracting an audience.  Perhaps the most important point here, though, is that only a very few music artists will have the audience appeal necessary for a games company to want to do a deal with them.  It's not like games developers are going to be rushing to sign up artists from indie labels - though I would love to be proved wrong on this one.

The EMI Story

Everything you need to know about major record companies, conglomerates, technology and artists wrapped up in one great documentary. They do, however, rush the last chapter.
Watch it while you can on iplayer.http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07c6fj7

Taylor Swift and Apple - BFFs after all

Way back at the dawn of time, Apple Music time that is, Taylor Swift had a beef with Apple Music.   This wasn't her first run in with a big corporation.  She had previously taken on Spotify and withdrawn her music from their service because she felt what they paid the artists for the music devalued it.  Her battle with Apple was a similar one and eventually forced them to change their policy.  They now pay artists for tracks played during a user's three month free trial period of using Apple Music.   Now that Apple have bowed to her demands, Taylor Swift's music is streamed exclusively on Apple Music - forcing fans to sign up to the service if they want to stream her music. On top of this, if fans want to watch video of her most recent tour, they will also have to sign up to Apple Music.  Her 'DVD' of her 1989 tour is being exclusively streamed on the service.

What does all this show? The power of the artist?  The power of the institution?  A reduction in consumer choice?