TED Day 2

I'm a TED host here, which gives me double permission to speak to anyone - actually just wearing a TED name badge is permission enough, but the Host tag has emboldened me to set aside all remnants of Britishness and just dive in. As a result I have met around 80 people in two days! Every one of them has been a delight. TED is all about connections - and the people connections are just as important as the idea connections. This has been a vintage TED for me in both respects and it's only halfway through.

The content in today's four sessions was astounding.

Session 3: Connected Consequences
Jonathan Zittrain reflected on altruism on the Internet (for example Wikipedia is 45 minutes from destruction at all times and the only thing protecting it is a thin line of volunteer geeks); Evgeny Morozov questioned whether the web brings freedome or new slavery (18% of US teenagers are addicted to it); Stefana Broadbent proposed that modern communication is re-establishing family and friend connection during working hours, which is the way things used to be before industrialisation; Aza Raskin showed a great Mozilla initiative in plain language granular applications called Ubiquity; Carlos Ulloa demonstrated amazing 3D video called Papervision; Rory Sutherland brought the house down with a hilarious talk on the invisible value of marketing; and Imogen Heap played a haunting, beautiful and very charming set.

Session 4: Nature's Challenge
Cary Fowler showed how a biodoversity storage facility in the Arctic may save us from famine; Janine Benyus inspired by asking the question "how would nature solve this?"; Mathieu Lehanneur showed a living room air filter and other strange designs; Matthew White gave us more brilliant euphonium; and Lewis Pugh brought gasps as he explained and showed how he swam for 20 minutes in freezing water at the North Pole to raise awareness of climate change - it took four months for the feeling to return to his hands.

Session 5: Hidden Algorithm
Beau Lotto showed amazong visual illusions to prove that context is everything; Rebecca Saxe shared the latest research about the RTPJ region of the brain which thinks about other people's minds; Henry Markram explained the modelling of a human neural column and predicted complete computer brain modelling within 10 years; James Geary explored metaphors; Manuel Lima reviewed the latest in visual complexity and data representation; and David Deutsch gave a searing and razor sharp definition of good and bad scientific method.

Session 6: Curious and Curiouser
Marcus de Sautoy spoke on symmetry; Garik Israelian explained how spectroscopy is spotting planets around stars and even whether they have plant life (he told me later that he believes 30-40% of all stars will be shown to have planets!); Candy Chan showed the benefits of neighbourhood communication techniques; 90-year-old Elaine Morgan got a standing ovation and left us all touched, moved and inspired by her fight to get the aquatic theory of human evolution accepted by the snooty academic establishment; and Sophie Hunger played a fine set with the best trombonist I've ever seen in her band.

What a day. A classic TED day. It seems a lifetime ago I gave my talk at TED-U. Must savour every moment because after tomorrow evening it'll be almost all over. Gordon Brown's talk is already up on the TED site. More will follow in the days to come.

TEDGlobal 2009 Day 1

It's a joy to be back at TEDGlobal in Oxford, and what an excellent first day we've had. Where else do you see Stephen Fry (who was winging it, albeit in his usual witty and learned fashion), followed by a 17 year old euphonium genius called Matthew White, followed by Gordon Brown? The PM actually impressed me and everyone else I've spoken to with a passionate and articulate speech about the great opportunity we have at the confluence of global communication, global problems and a shared ethical basis for global action. I hope he speaks as eloquently in Copenhagen.

This morning (seems like a lifetime ago as I write - that's TED) I spoke about sound to a packed house of 270 as part of TED-University, where 24 TEDsters did a series of short talks - a mini TED which achieves the same effect of simultaneously stimulating and boggling the mind. I loved Rachel Armstrong on saving Venice with a protocell reef and Sam Martin on manspaces. Some kind comments about my talk, so a good start to the week.

Session 1: What we Know and Session 2: Seeing Is Believing
Sound has featured on the main stage already - not surprising given the conference theme of "The substance of things not seen". Evan Grant intrigued me with his talk on cymatics - the study of wave phenomena and specifically the patterns produced by sound waves, for example in sand grains on resonating metal plates or in water. Some of these patterns are identical to snowflakes, starfish and even living cells. There is something wonderful here... We also had Mark Johnson of Playing For Change with the YouTube-friendly video of Stand By Me. I would have been more in tune with this if he had credited 1 Giant Leap, whose modus operandi and video style he has clearly borrowed wholesale. I applaud the charitable intentions of his project, but in terms of musical worth the first 1GL album is out on its own. If you don't own it, go straight to Amazon and get yourself a copy of the DVD. It is truly inspiring.

We also had James Geary juggling (literally) as he advocated aphorisms (my favourite: no snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible); Andrea Ghez making supermassive black holes intelligible and exciting; Willard Wigan showing his extraordinary nanosculptures (the Statue of Liberty in the eye of a needle!); Steve Truglia planing a parachute jump from 120,000 feet; and a wonderfully urbane and intelligent talk by Alain de Botton on the myth of success and the devastating effects of envy.

Just another standard day at TED. I have met upwards of 70 fascinating people so far - but that's just 10% of the number here. Only three days left...

Tennis can damage your hearing

As Wimbledon calls ‘Play’ this year, the International Tennis Federation (ITF) is considering whether to make “noise hindrance” part of its code of conduct.

The issue of noise in tennis matches has been championed by Martina Navratilova who says: "Grunting, screeching, shrieking - I call it cheating and it’s got to stop. I started having issues with it when I was playing Monica Seles back in the early 1990s. She was one of the first, and I didn’t like it one bit. It affected my game because to me it is important to hear the ball hit the racquet. Rules must be changed: players must be warned. If they don’t stop, they must have points deducted”.

Maria Sharapova has thus far held the crown as the loudest player in the post-Seles era. However there is a new kid on the block who seems to have (literally) taken the practice to a whole new level. In the recent French Open, Aravane Rezai complained to the umpire about the shrieks coming from 16-year-old player Michelle Larcher de Brito, who has now been given a wildcard into Wimbledon, much to the joy of the British media. It's not just the level of her cries, it’s also the length of them that is causing concern. Tennis officials are now considering a proposal to make noise hindrance part of the International Tennis Federation’s code of conduct, which could mean noisy players being muted permanently.

The response from the playing community has been that it is always been part of their game and that there should not be any restrictions on the release of energy. Larcher de Brito for example says "If they made a rule that you're not allowed to shriek or scream or grunt, it wouldn't be fair because it's part of the game. I'm 16, I'm still learning. Maybe I can eventually put it under control. I hope not because it comes from Monica Seles, it comes from Sharapova, it comes from really great players." Others, such as Nick Bollettieri who has produced Seles among others maintain that it is within the rules and nobody can say that loud players have cheated.

So here is the countdown of the five loudest players in modern tennis  and their noise output (bear in mind that past 85 decibels is the point where your hearing can be damaged by continuous exposure and earplugs are recommended):

5. Venus Williams 85 decibels Equivalent to: A food blender, city traffic (from inside a car). 
4. Serena Williams 88.9 decibels Equivalent to: A truck passing by at 10m or a farm tractor.
3. Monica Seles 93.2 decibels The inspiration for the famous Centre Court ‘gruntometer’. Equivalent to: an electric drill, a motorcycle at 25 ft, or a power mower.
2. Maria Sharipova 101 decibels Equvalent to: A jet flying over at 1000 ft, a typical house stereo at maximum volume, a table saw. A walkman at maximum level.
1. Michelle Larcher De Brito 109 decibels (apparently) Equivalent to: A night club on the dance floor, front row at a rock concert, a jet taking off, a car horn.

Surely this presents a great merchandising opportunity for this year’s Wimbledon along with the usual strawberries and cream – purple and green earplugs for those in the front rows.

The future of music

I recently tweeted about a new book called Against Intellectual Monopoly by Professors Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, who argue that the current laws on intellectual property rights, especially copyright and patent laws, are killing creativity and innovation. Using examples such as Napster, Disney and the pharmaceutical industry, Boldrin and Levine argue that there are other and better ways to reward people for their ideas or creations.

As a perfect case study we have the news that Google is switching off access to commercial music videos for UK users from March 16th because negotiations with the Performing Right Society (PRS) have broken down. PRS, which represents the record labels and some artists and negotiates prices for public performance of recorded music in the UK, wants Google to pay more because user numbers have grown; Google says PRS is overpricing. Without a PRS license, it's illegal for Google to share this content in the UK. The result is that the public loses access to the music - which means that everyone loses.

Then there's the launch of Spotify. Legal for private use, Spotify streams music at reasonable quality, completely free of charge and with no buffering. It contains hundreds of thousands of tracks from almost all the major labels, and is a joy to use. It's currently accessible only in Europe, and UK users are among the first to be able to sign up without being invited first. Spotify will never replace my own music because I prefer listening at full bandwidth: I use Apple Lossless codec (see my earlier post about compression). But a recent survey by Jonathan Berger, professor of music at Stanford, has shown that young people actually prefer the sharp, tinny sound of compressed MP3 to the richer sound of full quality audio. If this is true, Spotify and free streaming services like it are the future of music.

The challenge to the music industry is this: if all we need is one copy of a work on a server, streaming to millions of people simultaneously, where does the revenue come from?

So far the industry has attempted to transfer its product-based business model from selling physical units to selling digital units, in other words charging for downloads. The Battle of Napster and this latest PRS/Google conflict are encounters resulting from this effort. Whether you believe the industry is cleverly getting the last few pints from the cash cow before it finally dies, or you see the industry as King Canute refusing to acknowledge very wet feet, there is no doubt that this model is doomed. Digital recorded music will soon be consumed without being owned or paid for.

Value is based on scarcity, which is why the most enduring revenue stream for musicians is live performance. But there are limits to how many gigs an artist can play each year, to audience sizes, and to ticket prices. This revenue stream is simply not scaleable enough to replace product sales.

Another obvious revenue source is opening the band-brand conversation and securing sponsorship deals. This is growing fast and has some way to run. But again there are limits: many artists will have ethical issues about which brands they promote, and consumers will lose interest in artists who dissipate their own brands by selling out too obviously.

The third revenue stream is public performance of recorded work, where royalties apply - Internet broadcast, background music in public spaces like shops, sync rights for TV, film and advertising, and commercial radio plays. I have posted before about my belief that music is not the most appropriate sound for every public space, but I expect this revenue stream to continue - as long as the industry agents like PRS can get their act together and create a sensible and consistent pricing model. However in a world of free personal music, public performance royalties will become increasingly anachronistic, and in any case they will never amount to more than a tiny fraction of the money lost with the demise of product sales.

Fourth there is patronage, or commissioned work. The great musicians and artists of previous centuries has no copyright protection and no recordings or duplicates to sell. They were paid by patrons, and produced much of their work to commission. Expect to see a renaissance of the patronage model as copy sales dry up.

But it seems to me that the future business model for all artists must be driven by a revenue stream that has only just started to trickle so far: the monetisation of the relationship between the artist and the fan. In this model the record companies have little or no role to play at all. Artists have their own teams handling a database of fans, who all choose where they want to be on a relationship continuum that stretches all the way from a single free download to personal meetings with the artist.

As the fan chooses to move up the scale, buying an album, signing up for a newsletter, joining a tiered loyalty programme, getting exclusive merchandise, buying tickets for fanclub-only gigs, getting signed merchandise, being in direct communication with the artrist, and attending small-group private audiences or gigs, the annual subscription goes up accordingly. And the music, most of the time, is free.

This model applies some of the best lessons from business and marketing - relationship marketing, database marketing, disintermediation, customer-centric business, virtual business, atomic business, web 2.0 - and applies them to an industry which is all about relationship. The fans crave relationship with the artists. So far, record companies have simply been in the way of that. Radiohead and others have started to explore this new direct model; the new wave of artists who don't need expensive recording studios, large advances or teams of suits to manage their entourages will leapfrog these efforts in the coming months and years. Using social networking, and new musician-specific tools that are already becoming available (see Gen-Y Rock Stars for some of these resources), artists will create their own communities, and connect directly and openly with them.

Within a decade I believe the music will be free - and the money will be in carefully managed direct relationships. Relationship is where the value lies - and it can never be pirated.