State Champ Radio

by DJ Frosty

Current track

Title

Artist

Current show

State Champ Radio Mix

12:00 am 12:00 pm

Current show

State Champ Radio Mix

12:00 am 12:00 pm


Twitter

They love artists, they’ve got money to burn, and they’re the music industry’s new obsession: Say hello to superfans.
In January alone, Warner Music Group CEO Robert Kyncl called for “stok[ing] the blue flames of superfans” and additional “direct artist-superfan products and experiences”; Universal Music Group CEO Lucian Grainge highlighted the value of “superfan experiences and products”; and Spotify hinted at future “superfan clubs” in a blog post.

The following month, leaders at Interscope and Live Nation shouted out superfans. That was all before Joon Choi, president of the Korean fan platform Weverse, one-upped everyone by telling Music Business Worldwide that “the potential for growth in the superfan business and economy is limitless.” Stoke those blue flames right, and they’ll never stop burning.

All this runaway enthusiasm about superfans “goes back to that Goldman Sachs article,” says Mike Biggane, a former UMG executive and founder of Big Effect, which is developing technology designed to help smaller artist teams. Last summer, the financial institution posited that superfans — Luminate defines this group as listeners who “engage with artists and their content in five-plus different ways” — could inject more than $4 billion into the music industry by 2030. 

Trending on Billboard

Goldman’s report also noted that the music business struggles “to fully monetize its content.” Nearly everyone listens to music, but the industry’s value pales next to that of gaming, for example. Games “have been more agile in terms of innovating and adopting ways to generate new revenue streams,” says Ben Sumner, managing director at Feel for Music, which helps games and brands with music supervision. 

But for labels and streaming services, collecting new revenue from superfans may be easier said than done. “People are trying to find a simple way to mine fandom,” says Mike Pelczynski, one of the architects of SoundCloud’s “fan-powered royalties,” a payout system that aligns streaming revenue more closely with fandom. “It’s good for investors to hear, but it’s not simple. Every platform is different.”

Not only that: “So much of the conversation is about how to extract more out of the superfan, which I think is a big mistake,” says Bernie Cahill, founding partner of Activist Artists Management. “If you take care of them, you will get far more value out of that relationship than you will by selling them another piece of vinyl or a T-shirt.”

Pelczynski believes that “superfans want to be closer to, and most importantly seen by, their favorite artist.” They also clearly gain from their connections with like-minded enthusiasts — working together to orchestrate fundraising campaigns to support the acts they love, for example. Luminate found that superfans are 43% more likely than the average listener to say they “like to participate in the community” that springs up around an act. 

These communities are defined by artist-to-fan and fan-to-fan relationships. It’s not immediately clear where labels can squeeze in.

And it’s notable that, historically, labels actually excel at reaching passive fans. A record label is unmatched when it comes to taking a song that’s connecting with audiences in one space and making it so ubiquitous that it becomes inescapable, the kind of thing that casual listeners run into at the gym and the supermarket. “We can reach Fall Out Boy‘s superfans pretty easily,” says Jonathan Daniel, co-founder of Crush Management (FOB, Miley Cyrus, Lorde and others). “When they have a song that raises its hand above the superfans, different opportunities come for them, and that’s where you really need the label — they’re great at taking it really wide.” 

What’s more, in an age of artist empowerment, it’s hard to imagine many acts ceding control of their superfan communities to record companies. “Smart artists really curate a direct connection themselves,” Cahill says — they know their diehard followers keep them afloat. (It’s jarring to hear executives say things like “fandom is the future,” as if it wasn’t also the past.) 

These days, due to the fact that artists can record, distribute and market themselves all on the cheap, they usually amass a dedicated following before they even sign to a label. This tends to give them a lot of sway in contract negotiations, and as a result, 360 deals — where labels take a share of the money that artists make from touring and merchandise sales, for example — are out of favor with young managers and lawyers, limiting record companies’ ability to cash in on superfans’ passion. 

Nonetheless, to the extent that labels can encourage superfans to stream more or buy additional vinyl variants, they stand to gain financially. All the major labels also own merch companies, so if they can stoke demand for t-shirts that are subsequently manufactured by their own outlets, that’s another win. And UMG recently invested in Weverse and NTWRK’s acquisition of Complex, allowing it to benefit indirectly from superfandom.

Warner has another plan altogether: In February, Kyncl said that he’s “assembled a team of incredible technology talent” to construct “an app where artists can connect directly with their superfans.” While he hasn’t shared any additional details on what this will look like, users would presumably only have access to Warner artists on a Warner superfan platform. However, most listeners probably also want to connect with some acts signed elsewhere, to the extent they even know what labels their favorite artists are signed to.

The other hurdle for new superfan apps, or streaming platforms trying to add new superfan features, is all the existing options: The majority of artists already try to interact with their most passionate fans on TikTok, Instagram, Discord, Reddit and more. As a result, “artists’ time is very scarce,” says Roneil Rumburg, co-founder and CEO at Audius, a blockchain-based streaming service which enabled direct payments from fans to artists last year.

If more streamers try rolling out superfan features — SoundCloud, for example, allowed acts to message their top fans last year — then artists’ time will be crunched even further, as each platform will presumably require a different approach to engagement. In fact, Kyncl used exactly this reasoning to justify Warner’s venture into platform building. Artists “don’t want to optimize just for one platform over another,” he said.

“The few companies that are trying to build their own ecosystems, I applaud it,” Pelczynski says. However, “I think it’s going to be very challenging to make something that people will be willing to spend their time on and add to their daily usual behaviors.” 

Like labels, the most prominent streaming services have spent a lot of time in the past decade figuring out how to serve music up to passive fans. (Spotify once had a messaging system, but it was discontinued in 2017 due to “very low engagement.”) They have had success using various recommendation methods — editorial playlists, algorithmic playlists — to ensure that people keep listening.

But a new generation of listeners appears less interested in throwing an editorial playlist on in the background. Younger, more engaged fans like to slow down their favorite artist’s track, mash it up, or duet with it, leading to the proliferation of homemade re-works across social media platforms. 

“For the first time ever, an artist can put a song out and it might be a fan-created flavor of it that connects,” says Gaurav Sharma, founder of Hook, a platform that helps rightsholders monetize user-generated remixes. “Community is being built around music on social media, and fan remixing is a way to be unique in that expression.” It may be hard for major streaming services to cater to this type of fandom, though, due to rights issues: Labels probably aren’t going to condone unauthorized remixes on prominent music streamers. (This is the problem Hook is trying to solve.)

There has also been speculation around the industry about streaming services charging superfans extra for early access to music, a tactic that calls back to the exclusive album windows of a decade ago. That said, “fans expect a LOT of value to justify a monthly fee, especially with subscription fatigue,” according to a recent (subsequently deleted) tweet from Emily White, a former Spotify and Billboard employee whose “team was exploring artist fan clubs.” 

Still, despite all the potential obstacles, “We’re seeing a lot of momentum on the institutional music side to figure this out and do it quickly,” Rumburg says, before adding a note of caution: “When so many hopes and dreams get injected into one word or concept, there’s no way it ever lives up to the hype.”

HipHopWired Featured Video

CLOSE

Source: Ivan Pantic / Getty / Black Twitter
Unsurprisingly, there is a documentary about Black Twitter, but actual Black Twitter, or Black X, should we call it that? Nah, we’re going to stick with the original name, is on the skeptical side about who is involved.
The docuseries from former Insecure showrunner Prentice Penny coming to Hulu is not even out yet. Still, a trailer for it is being met with an enormous amount of skepticism due to the people who will be involved and speaking about the influential and popular subsection of Twitter, now unfortunately known as X, thanks to Elon Musk.
According to a press release. The series will take its cues from Jason Parham’s 2021 Wired cover story, “A People’s History of Black Twitter,” and “charts the rise, movements, voices, and memes that made Black Twitter an influential and dominant force in nearly every aspect of American political and cultural life.”
To help break down Twitter subsection’s rise to popularity and eventually carry the social media platform on its back will be Roxane Gay, Jemele Hill, Sam Jay, Amanda Seales, Kid Fury, April Reign, Raquel Willis, Apple Music’s LowKey, Chris Foxx aka @FoxxFiles, and more.
The Reactions To The Black Twitter Docuseries Are Already Pouring In
Therein lies the issue: many feel many people are being left out in this docuseries and are giving it the mean side-eye.
One X user wrote, “The real meat and potatoes of Black Twitter is everyday people. Not B-list Black celebrities and pseudo intellectual Talking Heads.”
Fair.
[embedded content]
Another user on X pointed out just how crazy this debate is, writing in the post, “Black Twitter arguing over whether that Black Twitter documentary is gonna include all the right people and topics, is the most Black Twitter thing ever.”
Prentice Penny also got involved in the debate, adding: “I’d like to think after 20 years of holding the culture down, y’all would trust I got #blacktwitterhulu best interest in mind. But lowkey, I also love black Twitter mad hesitant and petty ’bout it, too! LOL!”

When this documentary arrives on Hulu on Thursday, May 9, it seems likely that there will be a lot of hate-watching and live tweeting.
You can see more reactions in the gallery below.

1. Damn, that’s how y’all feel?

2. The video, lol

3. She’s right

4. Good chance they are going to be hate-watching

5. Always late to the party.

6. Very accurate

A federal judge is allowing music publishers to move forward with a copyright lawsuit filed against X Corp. over allegations of widespread copyright infringement on the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.
In a split ruling Tuesday (Mar. 5), Judge Aleta A. Trauger tossed out major parts of the case, like the accusation that X itself directly infringed any music. But she allowed some of the lawsuit’s core allegations — that X essentially enabled illegal behavior by its users by refusing to crack down on them — to move ahead.

In one example, the judge ruled that the music companies could pursue their “particularly striking” allegation that Twitter had been less willing to crack down on users who had paid for “verified” status.

Trending on Billboard

“If X Corp. truly did allow some users to effectively purchase the right to be able to infringe with less severe consequences, then that was plausibly an instance of promoting X/Twitter’s use to infringe copyright,” the judge wrote.

The case against Twitter was filed in June by dozens of music publishers, who claim that users on the Elon Musk-owned site had infringed over 1,700 songs from writers like Taylor Swift and Beyoncé — a claim that, if proven, could put the social media giant on the hook for $255 million in damages.

The case was organized by the National Music Publishers’ Association, which has long argued that Twitter is the last major social media service that refuses to license music. TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Snapchat have all allegedly entered into such deals with publishers, providing a library of licensed music for users to legally add to their posts. The lawsuit claimed that Twitter had, instead, effectively allowed its users to supply such music illegally.

The case was filed by Concord, Universal Music Publishing Group, peermusic, ABKCO Music, Anthem Entertainment, Big Machine Music, BMG Rights Management, Hipgnosis Songs Group, Kobalt Music Publishing America, Mayimba Music, Reservoir Media Management, Sony Music Publishing, Spirit Music Group, The Royalty Network, Ultra Music Publishing, Warner Chappell Music and Wixen Music Publishing.

Twitter moved to dismiss the lawsuit in August, arguing that social media sites clearly do not directly infringe copyrights when users upload illegal material. And they argued that digital services also cannot be sued for so-called secondary infringement unless they take active steps to aid the illicit behavior: “In this case, plaintiffs do not allege that X encouraged, induced, or took affirmative steps with the intent to foster the infringement of plaintiffs’ works,” the company’s lawyers wrote at the time.

In Tuesday’s ruling, Judge Trauger partly agreed with Twitter’s arguments. She easily dismissed the allegations of direct infringement, citing recent Supreme Court precedents, and also ruled that the company could not be held liable for “vicarious infringement” — meaning it profited directly from allowing illicit materials on the site. She also ruled that the music companies could not accuse X of so-called contributory infringement simply by offering tools that could sometimes be abused by infringers.

“Many of the supposedly problematic practices that the plaintiffs identify are unremarkable features of X/Twitter generally that X Corp. has simply failed to fence off completely from infringers,” the judge wrote. “The plaintiffs have not identified any basis for concluding that X Corp. was obligated to make its service worse for everyone, just to punish the people who misuse it.”

But Judge Trauger said other alleged conduct, if ultimately proven, could put Twitter on the hook for damages. One such claim, she said, is the allegation that X committed contributory infringement by failing to crack down on “severe serial infringers” who “openly and obviously used the service as a tool for repeatedly posting infringing content.”

“If … there was a class of X/Twitter users who were brazenly using the platform as an infringement tool, and X Corp. made the decision to unreasonably withhold enforcement of its own policies against those users … then X Corp. could plausibly be held contributorily liable,” the judge wrote.

Another claim Judge Trauger allowed to move forward was that X took too long to respond to takedown notices from copyright owners: “If X Corp. engaged in egregious delays in responding to valid takedown notices, or outright ignored some notices that were both facially and actually valid, that could support liability.”

Notably, Tuesday’s ruling did not address the thorny issue of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a federal law that provides sites like Twitter with immunity — a “safe harbor” — from litigation over material uploaded by their users, so long as they promptly remove it when asked. The music publishers say X clearly failed to do so; the site strongly denies that point.

Though X’s initial motion to dismiss the case did not invoke the DMCA, the company’s lawyers will undoubtedly do so at a later stage of the case now that some of the claims are moving forward. When they do so, the statute will provide X lawyers with another avenue for defeating the allegations that Judge Trauger refused to dismiss on Tuesday.

An attorney for X did not return a request for comment on Tuesday evening.

In a statement to Billboard, a spokeswoman for the NMPA said the group was “pleased” with the ruling: “The spread of rampant music piracy on the platform is obvious and unacceptable, and we look forward to securing just compensation for the songwriters and music publishers whose work is being stolen.”

HipHopWired Featured Video

Source: NurPhoto / Getty / Elon Musk
Phony Stark, aka Elon Musk’s pockets, might be a little lighter if fired Twitter executives get their way.
As seen on The Verge, when Tesla chief and owner of X, Elon Musk, reluctantly took over Twitter, he gave a lot of people the boot, including top execs at the social media company.

Now, those same Twitter execs are coming for their coins they feel Musk owes them, the website reports via The Wall Street Journal’s reporting.

Former CEO Parag Agrawal, former CFO Ned Segal, former chief legal officer Vijaya Gadde, and former general counsel Sean Edgett slapped Musk with a lawsuit asking for more than $128 million in severance payments.
Per The Verge:
The same execs who forced Musk to close his $44 billion acquisition in the first place, who are now claiming his goal was to “cheat” them out of $200 million before their stock options vested the next morning. They also have a remarkably thorough source to explain why he closed the deal and fired them when he did: Elon Musk himself, as quoted by Walter Isaacson in the biography released last year, Elon Musk.
Another passage cited from the book calls out a conversation between Musk and his lawyer, Alex Spiro. “[H]e tried to resign … but we beat him,” they said, specifically referring to Agrawal. By firing Agrawal before he was able to send a resignation letter, they apparently believed it would mean the company wouldn’t have to pay his severance package.
The lawsuit also claims that X’s board says the company needed to pay $90 million to the lawyers who successfully made Elon Musk go through with Twitter’s $44 billion acquisition.
Call us haters, but we hope those former Twitter execs win this lawsuit.

HipHopWired Featured Video

CLOSE

Source: NurPhoto / Getty / Elon Musk / XMail
Elon Musk, a.k.a. bootleg Phony Stark, isn’t done with dumb ideas. The Tesla chief now wants to compete with Google’s popular email client, Gmail, with a new product called XMail.
Musk seems to have a serious one-sided beef with Google, and we wonder if the folks there know about it. First, he drops his version of ChatGPT called “Grok.”
He has also been calling out the Alpahabet Inc. owned company’s search tool, calling its AI tool Gemini “insane” and “racist.” He claims he spoke with a “senior exec” who assured him the company will “take immediate action to fix the racial and gender bias in Gemini.”

Now, he claims he is dropping his own email client called XMail.
In a post on X, formerly Twitter, Musk revealed “it’s coming” when replying to X Engineer Nate McGrady asking, “When are we making XMail?”

We all know Musk is full of you-know-what and tends to make outlandish claims all the time, but he could be serious about this XMail thing.
If he thinks he will be able to compete with Google’s Gmail immediately, he’s definitely going to have some serious work cut out for him.
Demand Sage claims that Gmail currently has 1.8 billion active users globally, and we don’t see XMail coming anywhere near that.
Yeah, so good luck with peeling off longtime Gmail users and luring them to “XMail” if he decides to create it.
We truly believe Elon Musk is just talking out the side of his a** like he does with everything else.
You can see more reactions to the possibitly of XMail arriving in the gallery below.

1. Accurate

3. Howling

4. Sure Jan

5. This guy gets it.

6. Excellent question

Elon Musk’s social media platform X has restored searches for Taylor Swift after temporarily blocking users from seeing some results as pornographic deepfake images of the singer circulated online. Searches for the singer’s name on the site Tuesday turned up a list of tweets as normal. A day earlier, the same search resulted in an […]

HipHopWired Featured Video

Source: NurPhoto / Getty / X / Twitter
Elon Musk’s struggling social media platform, X, formerly known as Twitter, suffered another blackout, and he has nothing to say.
Spotted on Deadline, the sinking ship we all used to love suffered a major blackout on Wednesday night, just before 10 pm PT, according to Downdetector.

Users were greeted by a dormant site with no feeds or posts working and a ‘Welcome To X” greeting with a “Let’s Go” action button that took them nowhere, according to Deadline.
But, at the time of the blackout, #MyTwitter, #NotTwitter, Did Elon, and #TwitterDown were all trending, hilariously.
X began working again around 11 pm PT, but no explanation was provided by the social platform or its owner, who is usually very active regarding his platform.
If you search his timeline, the only thing you will see referencing X is him sharing a quote in a post claiming that “X/Twitter site traffic up 22.3% Year over Year from November 2022-2023,” with him writing in the caption “Growth is strong.”

A Breakdown of Elon Musk’s Fumbling
X has been dying slowly since Elon Musk reluctantly purchased it for $44 billion. Since then, he has put on a masterclass showing everyone how to ruin a company and lose billions successfully.
He stupidly changed the name from Twitter to X, with many still calling it Twitter. He’s seemingly cosigned an antisemitic conspiracy theory on X, leading to companies pulling advertising dollars from the platform.
Musk double-downed on his stubbornness by taking a dig at those advertisers, leading to IBM to say we are good with advertising on X.
In another head-scratching decision, Phony Stark reinstated far-right Hulk Hogan, Alex Jones’ account. 
We have no idea how much longer this platform will continue to function, y’all better start getting those Instagram Threads and TikTok accounts popping as soon as possible.

Photo: NurPhoto / Getty

The European Union is looking into whether Elon Musk’s online platform X breached tough new social media regulations in the first such investigation since the rules designed to make online content less toxic took effect.

Explore

Explore

See latest videos, charts and news

See latest videos, charts and news

“Today we open formal infringement proceedings against @X” under the Digital Services Act, European Commissioner Thierry Breton said Monday in a post on the platform formerly known as Twitter.

“The Commission will now investigate X’s systems and policies related to certain suspected infringements,” spokesman Johannes Bahrke told a press briefing in Brussels. “It does not prejudge the outcome of the investigation.”

The investigation will look into whether X failed to do enough to curb the spread of illegal content and whether measures to combat ” information manipulation,” especially through its crowd-sourced Community Notes fact-checking feature, were effective.

The 27-nation EU also will examine whether X was transparent enough with researchers and will look into suspicions that its user interface, including for its blue check subscription service, has a “deceptive design.”

“X remains committed to complying with the Digital Services Act, and is cooperating with the regulatory process,” the company said in a statement. “It is important that this process remains free of political influence and follows the law. X is focused on creating a safe and inclusive environment for all users on our platform, while protecting freedom of expression, and we will continue to work tirelessly towards this goal.”

A raft of big tech companies faced a stricter scrutiny after the EU’s Digital Services Act took effect earlier this year, threatening penalties of up to 6% of their global revenue — which could amount to billions — or even a ban from the EU.

The DSA is a set of far-reaching rules designed to keep users safe online and stop the spread of harmful content that’s either illegal — such as child sexual abuse or terrorism content — or violates a platform’s terms of service, such as promotion of genocide or anorexia.

The EU has already called out X as the worst place online for fake news, and officials have exhorted owner Musk, who bought the platform a year ago, to do more to clean it up. The European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, quizzed X over its handling of hate speech, misinformation and violent terrorist content related to the Israel-Hamas war after the conflict erupted.

– Megan Thee Stallion agreed in October to settle a long-running legal battle against her former record label record label, 1501 Certified Entertainment. The deal came after more than three years of bitter litigation stemming from her accusation that 1501 duped the young artist into signing an unfair record deal in 2018 that was well below industry standards. That cleared the way for her to sign a distribution deal with Warner Music in December. 

– Kesha and Dr. Luke reached a settlement in June to end a decade-long lawsuit accusing the pop star of defaming him in 2014 when she accused him of raping her in 2005. The agreement came on the eve of trial — and just a week after a New York court issued a key ruling that would have made it harder for Dr. Luke to win the case.  

– DJ Envy, the host of the popular Breakfast Club hip-hop radio show, was sued over the summer by dozens of investors who claimed he was complicit in an alleged multi-million-dollar real estate investment scam in New Jersey perpetrated by celebrity real estate guru Cesar Pina. Envy denied the allegations and said he too was a victim of the fraud. But when federal prosecutors indicted Pina in October for running a “Ponzi-like investment fraud scheme,” they specifically noted that Pina had “partnered with a celebrity disc jockey and radio personality” to boost his reputation. 

– New state laws restricting drag performances were struck down as unconstitutional, first in Tennessee, then in Florida, and finally in Texas, each time on the grounds that they likely violate freedom of speech. Such statutes are nominally aimed at protecting children from obscenity, but critics say existing laws already do that and that the new legislation is instead a thinly veiled attack on the LGBTQ community. The new laws have been closely watched by the music industry over concerns that aspects of concerts could run afoul of broad new restrictions. 

– Tory Lanez was sentenced to 10 years in prison in August for shooting Megan Thee Stallion in the foot during an argument, capping off three years of legal drama over the violent 2020 incident. The sentence came after Lanez was convicted on three felony counts at trial, a verdict that the singer is currently appealing. 

– The two key remaining members of Journey — lead guitarist Neal Schon and keyboardist Jonathan Cain — battled in court over back-and-forth accusations related to band finances and a corporate American Express card. The lawsuit was just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Journey’s internal dysfunction and legal issues, as detailed by Billboard’s Steve Knopper. 

– A private feud between longtime members of the legendary rock band Mötley Crüe burst into public view in April when co-founder Mick Mars filed a lawsuit accusing his former “brothers” of tossing him to the curb after he said he could no longer tour due to a “tragic” disability called ankylosing spondylitis. The rest of Crüe, on the other hand, says they offered Mars “generous compensation” as a courtesy, but that he instead chose to file an “ugly public lawsuit.”

P!nk is 44 years old and loving it! The superstar took to X (formerly known as Twitter) on Monday (Dec. 11) to respond to a troll who wrote that she “got old” under a video of the “So What” singer promoting her upcoming 2024 North American tour dates. “Yes, although I don’t feel old, and […]