Blaise Alleyne 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (334) comment rss

  • On the post: ASCAP Thinks That Video Game Providers Should Pay Music Performance Royalties

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2010 @ 10:03pm

    Re: This entire article is completly off

    Marcus,

    Copy right owners are granted 6 exclusive rights. The 6th right is "in the case of sound recordings, to Publicly Preform via Digital Audio Transmission." This applies to any digital streaming or download process... Any sort of digital transmission of audio constitutes a public performance.


    When you watch a movie that has music in it on DVD, is that a digital audio transmission? How about when someone listens to a song off their hard drive in iTunes? That's definitely digital audio being transmitted, nevermind the transmission that would occur in a download, or a purchase from the iTunes store. What happens if you listen to a digital audio file from your basement, that's actually stored on a hard drive upstairs, and transmitted through a local area network? Do you require a license from a PRO?

    What's the difference, with respect to royalties, between the digital audio transmission that takes place when you watch a DVD on an Xbox 360 versus when you play a game on it?

    It's an insane, uninformed or incredibly intellectually dishonest thing to say, that any sort of digital transmission of audio is a public transmission of audio. The public part matters.

  • On the post: Surprising: Charlie Angus Proposing iPod 'You Must Be A Criminal' Tax In Canada

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2010 @ 10:47am

    Not too surprising

    Unfortunately, I'm not too surprised. Charlie Angus is great when it comes to combating draconian legislation that serves to prop up outdated business models, or that mentions VCRs, etc., but his own suggestions are very much on the collective licensing side of things -- whether that means paying royalties at the ISP level or through more levies. He's more a supporter of new collection methods than new business models. I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed that he'd actually act on this without realizing what a bad idea it is...

  • On the post: Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Declares Internet Hate Speech Law Unconstitutional

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 04 Jan, 2010 @ 09:55pm

    Re: USA and Canada

    "I don't think this is another case where we should be debating USA versus Canada"


    In the post, or in the comments? I don't think it's a USA versus Canada thing. I'm a proud Canadian, but I think the USA has more reasonable laws when it comes to third-party liability (nevermind the whole human rights tribunals thing...).

    "... especially comparing internet safety related laws."


    This isn't about Internet safety. It's about free speech, and third-party liability. Section 13 has such a low bar, and without safe harbours it can threatened neutral platforms in additional to the people who are actually saying controversial things on them.

    "It is obvious that both sides (all of NA) weren't ready for these types of concerns, so now we have to play catch-up. So why not together?"


    Yeah, I think Canada would do well to look at the laws in the US around safe harbours.

  • On the post: SOCAN Tries To Keep Its Copyright Consultation Submission Offline And Secret, But Fails

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 09 Dec, 2009 @ 12:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Songwriters don't OWN their songs (nice strawman), they own the exclusive rights to their work for a period of time as set by law."


    Yes... that's the point.

    "Nice try, but you need to learn from your boss how to be sarcastic better, you pretty much failed."


    Um... you need to talk to songwriters and people in the music industry more. I was just repeating an argument I received yesterday on a folk music mailing list. It's an argument used all the time by lots of songwriters and musicians (and by record industry execs when they try to represent songwriters and musicians).

    There was no imagination in my comment. I was just relaying what I've heard a million times from friends and acquaintances.

  • On the post: SOCAN Tries To Keep Its Copyright Consultation Submission Offline And Secret, But Fails

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2009 @ 02:42pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Did you see the section about increasing copyright? I think it was article 62 IIRC... SOCAN argued that we need a longer copyright term because of "human longevity... people live longer."

    Clearly, as human longevity approaches infinity, so too should copyright. After all, a songwriter owns her songs.

  • On the post: SOCAN Tries To Keep Its Copyright Consultation Submission Offline And Secret, But Fails

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2009 @ 02:40pm

    Re:

    "At this point, the rights are heavily stacked in favor of the users, who can copy, share, and trade with impunity, without any requirement to pay for the products they enjoy."


    There's a difference between paying for products you enjoy (i.e. legally acquiring musical recordings, whether paid or not really) and paying for the enjoyment of products. SOCAN, as a collection society, is concerned with the latter. They aren't administering rights so that people can pay when they acquire goods, they're collecting a toll for the use of those goods.

    When we're talking about paying for the privilege of dancing (see Tariff 8 [PDF] or the gymnastic clubs story), or playing music to your horses, yeah, there had better be a lot of exemptions, otherwise it gets pretty ridiculous pretty quickly.

    "There is no simple mechanism in Canada to deal with piracy, illegal file trading, or many other issues that are rapidly taking over the music and movie fields.

    They aren't being maximalists, they are just trying to pull the pendulum back nearer the middle."


    And SOCAN's proposals to deal with those issues are maximalist. That is, their response is more copyright restrictions. They want to make it illegal to rip your DVDs to your computer, or to copy and paste from a DRMed eBook, implement a one-strike-and-your-out notice-and-takedown provision with a presumption of guilty until proven innocent, and they oppose an expansion of fair dealing to cover time/format shifting or forms of artistic expression like parody/satire/remix... yet they want to increase the levies we pay.

    Why should we pay more levies if we get less rights?

    If we're expected to pay an iPod levy all of the sudden, to supposedly account for private copying, they why are all these other restrictions on private copying being suggested at the same time?

    The Songwriters Association of Canada wants a levy on ISP connections... but in place of draconian measures to counter "piracy." They aren't asking for legal tools to go after illegal file sharers; they want to make it legal. SOCAN, on the other hand, wants more draconian measures while increasing levies at the same time. That's pretty maximalist.

    Also, the laughable "fair use would mean working for nothing" statement is also indicative of maximalism. It's not just the notion that royalty streams would dry up with more flexible fair dealing that's absurd, but the idea that the only value in music is in royalties.

    Anything that reduces royalties is bad, anything that increases them is good. The more royalties, the better. That's a maximalist position.

  • On the post: SOCAN Wants To Charge Buskers Performance Fees

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 07 Dec, 2009 @ 11:59am

    If we don't do this, artists will be working for nothing!

    But how will the artists get paid! If we don't have these royalties, that would mean asking artists to work for free! In order to pay artists, we need to take money from... the... err... uh... artists... *scratches back of head*

  • On the post: Neat Trick: Rogers Offers Online Video And Broadband Cap To Punish You For Using It

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 03 Dec, 2009 @ 10:15pm

    Left Rogers for Teksavvy

    We left Rogers for Teksavvy earlier this year, precisely because of the low usage caps and ridiculous overage charges. We were paying an extra $25/month, every month, just for overage charges. Teksavvy only offers half the speed, but more than twice the bandwidth at half the price (and with much lower overage charges). Rogers has since added an 'ultimate' package with a lot more bandwidth, but it's five times as expensive as Teksavvy's DSL (though, it's a lot faster). Teksavvy is $30/month for 200 GB at 5 mbps up / 1 mbps down; Rogers Ultimate is $150/month for 175 GB at 50 mbps up / 2 mbps.

    The only problem with Teksavvy is that they're a Bell reseller, and Bell's been trying to throttle its resellers and force bandwidth caps onto them... that will be fun.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2009 @ 02:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "As someone else mentioned, perhaps it's time to get back to actually selling music."


    By that, you mean selling digital downloads or CDs -- copies of recordings. That's such a small subsection of "the music." I'm not suggesting that anyone stop selling music, or that anyone has stopped selling music. I'm just pointing out that selling the music can be a lot more than just selling copies of recordings.

    "Music is the only non-artificial scarcity in the deal. Everything else (even to some extend concert tickets) is an artificial scarcity. Even concerts? ... If you could sell maybe 2000 tickets, you will typically be booked into a 1000 seat soft seater and that is that. The shortage of concert tickets is artificial at that point."


    Space in a physical venue is a real scarcity. We're dealing with atoms, not bits. You couldn't offer more seats without getting a bigger room, which requires money and effort because you need the space and the capacity. The marginal cost of adding seats isn't zero ad infinitum. That's a real, natural scarcity, that you can choose to alleviate to a certain extent, depending on the effort and costs you'll willing to deal with. To pretend that the same constraints apply to digital files, which can be copied indefinitely, is what's artificial.

    "Heck, think of it this way: If you sold enough recordings in Fairbanks, you might have the money to afford to go there and have a scarce concert."


    Why would anyone in Fairbanks want to buy music they've never heard? The reason you don't treat fans who are sharing your music as "little thieves hard at work" is because they're bringing your music to a wider audience of people who might want to buy something.

    "So why not sell music, instead of giving it away for free?"


    You give away digital recordings for free if you don't want to squander one of your most valuable resources. If you recognize that it costs essentially nothing to distribute digital audio files indefinitely, the smart thing to do would be to use that to your advantage to get people interested in your music, rather than pretending the files are scarce and that people won't get them from other sources, or assuming that people will want to pay for digital recordings they've never heard. Then, you "sell the music" in other ways.

    You seem to think that the only way to sell music is to sell plastic discs that have copies of the recordings on them, or to sell access to recordings encoded as 0s and 1s. That's a pretty limited view of what music is. I think there are lots of other ways to sell the music without relying solely on the sales of copies of recordings.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2009 @ 02:30pm

    Re:

    Hi cram

    "You think music is valuable; why do you assume MP3 files or music in containers won't be valuable to fans..."


    I don't think I said otherwise. Of course digital audio files or other containers are valuable. It's just that value and price aren't the same thing. They may be valuable, but not able to command much of a price, and thus not be a great basis for a business model.

    "Does price exist only because of scarcity? That seems to be the general philosophy out here. Price also exists because there is a demand, even if said product is available in abundance -- iTunes is proof you can put a price on a digital file. So, price need not disappear in the face of abundance."


    Well, the price pressures on iTunes are still pushes towards zero. Do you know anyone whose iPod contains mostly music from iTunes? $1/song is pretty expensive when you're talking tens of thousands of songs. People use iTunes, but they still get music from other sources.

    And I'd argue that there are some scarcities you're paying for with an iTunes purchase, like the convenience of a simple, single, legitimate source for a wide variety of music. By all means, artists should list songs in an iTunes store. But have you heard of any artists living solely off iTunes revenue? You can sell digital audio files if people are willing to pay for the convenience of accessing them a certain way, or if people want to support you with their money, but I don't think it'd be wise to go the iTunes route in place of making digital audio files available, capitalizing on the abundance and offering some other real scarcities. iTunes, sure, but I wouldn't lock audio files up and bet the farm on it.

    "Are T-shirts real scarcities? Except for concerts, since no two concerts are identical, I don't see any "scarcity" of musicians that isn't artificial. All "limited edition whatever" are artifical scarcities."


    Limited edition goods aren't artificially scarce. Physical goods are scarce because they're made of atoms, not bits. The marginal cost of reproduction is not zero. Sure, you could continue making t-shirts indefinitely, but that requires an ongoing effort. Digital goods are "infinite goods" because no real effort is require on your part for their continued reproduction.

    I don't see anything wrong with only choosing to produce a certain quantity of a product, with only putting a certain effort in. That's not artificial scarcity, it's recognizing scarcity and only choosing to alleviate it to a certain extent. The scarcity is natural.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 11:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You're right, I don't get it. You keep going on about t-shirts and mini-putt games, but I'm trying to stay focused on the music. You're asserting the value of music... and that's exactly what I'm doing too.

    Of course it's the music that's valuable. That's the whole point of my post: free doesn't mean devalued. Music is valuable, even if the digital audio files are free.

    I'm not inventing a focus on scarcity. Price exists because of scarcity, it's a mechanism for allocating scarce resources. That it disappears in the face of abundance shouldn't be a surprise. But a price of zero doesn't mean no value.

    "Scarcities" are about the music. That's why they're valuable!

    I have no idea what you're trying to say. You're setting up a strawman, suggesting that I think artists should just sell t-shirts or posters, and then reasserting the value of "the music" -- which is exactly what I set out to do.

    "In the end, the artificial scarcities aren't anywhere near as attractive as the real product, music. Stop selling sizzle, and get back to selling steak."


    Okay. What do you think artists should sell? What do you think the "real product" is? What do you mean by selling "the music?"

    (And a correction: artificial scarcities are what you don't want to sell -- sell real scarcities)

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 08:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "The ability to reproduce doesn't change value or cost to produce the work, only at best the end delivery costs. Essentially, if it takes a year to produce an album (write, record, produce, package, etc), that year is a cost to the artist. Those marginal costs are only a small part of the overall costs of music, and for that matter the value of it as well."

    Yeah, of course. But those are fixed costs. Sunk costs. Basic economics explains that, in a competitive market, price gets pushed towards marginal cost -- not the fixed cost.

    So, of course you want to recoup your expenses, but to think that the price will float way up above the marginal cost of reproduction because of high fixed costs is to ignore some economic fundamentals. It's disconnected from reality.

    "To tell an artist that they can no longer make a living only by writing and producing new material because the world has learned how to steal it seems a bit odd."

    That would be odd... which is why I never said that. Writing a producing new material is a scarce offering -- that takes time and talent. But artists haven't made money that way over the past few decades anyways. They've made money from selling copies of what they write and produce, by distributing in containers to fans.

    I'm suggesting that relying on income from the distribution of containers doesn't make sense when those containers are now digital and have a marginal cost of essentially zero. That's a shaky foundation for a business model. Distribution is no longer a scarcity in most cases. So, look to other scarcities around writing and producing an album, like the artists who've solicited funding from their fans in advance of the creation process.

    "What we get is a sea of material that has less value (the Reznor example)... It appears to have the potential of a vicious cycle, where less time and effort can be put into new music because more time and effort has to be put into touring, making appearances, and selling the proverbial t-shirts."

    I don't agree with you on the Reznor example. You can say his latest stuff isn't as good, but that's subjective. Certainly, a lot of fans have been supportive. I do agree with you though that there wasn't anything outstanding, imho, on The Slip (but I still like it). But it's a huge leap to say it's quality is because of the new business model. Correlation doesn't imply causation. Artists are often inconsistent with their art. You can't just automatically attribute any weakness in the album to its business model.

    About focusing on art versus worrying about the business side of things, that's always been and always will be a problem for artists. This doesn't change much. It's more time that needs to be spent connecting with fans, instead of sucking up to labels and schmoozing with industry execs. Though, I'd argue that connecting with fans around the music is in much closer to proximity to the art than schmoozing with the industry power brokers... but no one's claiming a utopia where artists can make money without trying.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 05:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To simplify

    "Some of what I react to on TechDirt is what appears at least to me to be this black and white notion of smartness versus stupidity (as Mike likes to say). "Paywalls are bad." "Free is good." "It's smart to do xxx." "It's dumb to do yyy" "

    I agree with almost everything Mike writes on Techdirt. I can see how you might react to some of those comments as black and white, but, imho, Mike does understand the nuances. Like, check out this article from his 2007 series on the economics of free: Recognizing That Just About Any Product Is A Bundle of Scarce And Non-Scarce Goods. That level of detail might not make it into every short Techdirt writeup, but when I read "give the music away for free," I read it against that backdrop. He means the digital audio files. I think the detail is there over time, or if you dig through the backlinks in each article.

    "I think there is a lot of gray area, and many valid and valuable hybrids yet to be tried or even invented."

    I don't think a hybrid model that depends on artificial scarcity will be all that reliable, but, sure, there are lots of scarcities you can find, lots of different ways to set up a model.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 05:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "The problem is that in itself, the "other scarcities" are not a business model mostly because they don't match the value consumers truly look for."


    "Other scarcities" doesn't necessarily mean non-music good, but non-MP3 goods. Helping an artist fund a new album, for example, is paying for the scarcity of content creation. That's paying for music without paying for a digital audio file.

    "The music is the value, it's the common thread. It's the key item."


    Absolutely. Look for the scarcities most directly related to the music -- or better yet, within the music (i.e. creation of new content, an encounter or experience, relationships based on the music, etc..).

    "Take away the music, and you are just some guy selling t-shirts. I may not like your t-shirts, but like your music. So I get it online for free and enjoy it, and you don't get a cent."


    I'm not suggesting you sell t-shirts instead of selling scarce goods more directly connected to the music. I'm just pointing out that it's a bad idea to rely on selling abundant digital audio files (and that that observation doesn't mean that music has no value, just that digital audio files won't command much of a price). I'm not suggesting that artists only sells t-shirt -- that's a strawman.

    "Oh, live shows? Well, let's say I live in Fairbanks, Alaska. Remind me again how many major acts have hit Fairbanks this year?"


    Live shows can make sense for some artists. Selling digital audio files or not doesn't make Fairbanks any less remote. But, take advantage of the fact that you can get your music to Fairbanks through the web without having to travel there? Hell, post video from your concert to YouTube or stream it live or something. Connect with fans in Fairbanks, and they'll be more likely to buy other scarce offerings that aren't so location dependent -- membership in a fan club with immediate access to certain things, deluxe edition physical containers for the music, merchandise, a chance to help fund a new album... Come on, there are lots of scarcities that aren't as location-dependent as live shows and aren't as distant from the music as t-shirts.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 01:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They won't continue to be scarce

    "If they want to help the artist, they can just give money, if they so wish."


    But the t-shirt often serves as a tangible sign of the connection.

    Reminds me of Asthmatic Kitty:

    And why do they want to own it? They want it to illustrate to others their taste and identify who they are as a person. I also believe they want to be part of something bigger than themselves, they want to belong... Ownership then becomes a way of them supporting your community through investing in that community


    The tip jar thing helps, but owning the t-shirt here serves as a sign of the connection, like a badge of membership in the community, something that's visible to others.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 01:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: To simplify

    Hey Bob,

    Yeah, I'll agree that Techdirt may often say "don't rely on selling music" (slightly different than "don't sell music"), but I think that, if you understand the economics of abundance thing, you realize that what's meant by "music" is often "digital audio files" -- that's the main abundant good. But, agreed, the wording is often ambiguous. It's common in conversation to speak of "music" when we specifically mean "digital audio files," so the same thing often happens when writing about it.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 01:38pm

    Re:

    "Remove that price, and suddenly the allure of piracy goes out the window. It's no longer cool, and what you are getting has no real value. You are no longer sticking it to the man, because the man stuck it to himself already."


    By the way, I'm not really taking about "piracy." Unauthorized distribution factors in, in the sense that if you don't make something available for free, someone else will, but it's pure myth to think that demand will disappear when something's available for free.

    I don't buy software, but I don't "pirate" it either. I use free software, open source software that you couldn't "pirate" if you tried because it's legally available for you to use and distribute. It's still pretty "cool" in software circles. If anything, that kind of freedom adds to the "allure." Just ask IBM or Google.

    I don't buy it for a second that "what you are getting has no real value" if it's available for free.

    And this isn't about "sticking it to the man." I don't feel compelled to "stick it to the man" when he's shooting himself in the foot. If anything, I feel pity. But I sure as hell don't want to be near the gun that's firing.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 01:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I think this is the discrepancy that SomeGuy is trying to highlight.


    • You say that, if music is offered to free for too long, it becomes devalued. Music is only valuable if it costs money. ("The only value in music... is because the store has a $15 price on the CD.")

    • But then you contradict yourself: "If you want me to pay money for something of value, SELL ME MUSIC. It's the thing I value the most..."



    How could you still value music the most and ask someone to sell it to you (implying that they aren't) if music loses its value when it's available for free?

    By the way, I'm not suggesting people shouldn't sell music, even copies of it. If someone wants to pay for a digital audio file, why turn them down? A pay-what-you-want thing or selling through iTunes could still allow fans who really want to buy your digital audio files to do so, whether or not they're available for free elsewhere. And, by all means, sell CDs. The physical container is still pretty convenient at a live show. Most of the artists I play with still sell lots of plastic from the side of the stage.

    But don't depend on selling abundant goods, or selling physical copies of the albums when the recordings are available online for free. That's asking for trouble. And don't try to stop the recordings from being available -- it's futile and counter-productive. Instead, look at all the other scarcities associated with music to build a more sustainable and complete business model.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 01:09pm

    Re:

    "When you talk about the actual music being free and making money off of other things, if you ignore copyright and patents, what are the other things?"


    We're not talking about the music being free, but the digital audio files (which can be reproduced ad infinitum). Charging for the scarcities associated with the music doesn't have to mean charging for "other things." Charging for the creation of new music is a perfect example, and artists who've done it charge a premium.

    I get what you're saying about the price influencing the perception of value, but you can't divorce that from scarcity. Charging $10 for an MP3 isn't going to make people value it more. But, by all means, if the demand is there, charge a premium for the scarce components of music.

  • On the post: Free Doesn't Mean Devalued

    Blaise Alleyne ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 12:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: They won't continue to be scarce

    Suzanne, SomeGuy, really enjoyed your conversation! A few things to add.

    "What I anticipate is that as millions of musicians begin offering all of the above, none of the offerings will stay scarce."


    SomeGuy offered some useful comments already, but I'd also point out that there's no functional equivalence in art. No matter how many female, folk/pop singer/songwriters there are in the world, no one will replace Robyn Dell'Unto in my heart and in my mind; nothing will substitute for the connection I've made with her music.

    But, Suzanne, I do think you have a point. The whole democratization of the tools of production and distribution thing also means that musicians are competing with each other more and more.

    "The fantasy DIY model has replaced the fantasy get-signed-to-a-label, but both are difficult to achieve successfully."


    I like that line, and I'll tentatively agree with you too. Anyone looking for a get rich quick scheme or seeking to be a megastar is going to be just as disappointed.

    But I do think there are some ways in which the Internet really does offer some hope (modest hope though -- not necessarily for the wannabe megastars). A band in Seattle can be heard worldwide, but that doesn't mean the world will hear them. But it does mean that it's much more likely for a handful of people to hear them and connect with the music.

    I haven't put out any polished recordings of my own music yet, but I've received a handful of totally random emails of support: one from Israel, one recently from a girl who found a Christmas carol recording a did through beemp3.com (a site I've never even heard of). The hope, at least from my perspective, is not that you'll be known worldwide, but that you can build a modest contingent of fans across the globe.

    Like, take a look at open source software development. I've been working on the Creative Commons Drupal module. The Internet hasn't made me famous or provided the project with thousands of developers (i.e. open source doesn't mean the Linux kernel), but I've got a grad student at CMU and someone from Denver hacking on it, and users from Spain, Denmark and the States installing it and trying it out. *shrugs*

    "Now I am starting to get so many event notices on Facebook, I rarely look at those now either."


    I can relate. I've always got 15-20 events in the queue. But I'm increasingly convinced that connecting with fans needs to be more personal... not that the artist needs to be personally involved with every connection, but that you need to connect with individuals, not masses. You need your music to resonate with an individual so that they become a fan. I'm interested in the parallels between "connecting with fans" and evangelization, but that may just be the aspiring theologian in me...

Next >>