Brad Sucks, the (despite the name) well-loved Internet musician, has been blogging and releasing tools he’s building to make his online music life better. This one is especially nice: it’s a simple, open source script that connects mailing list sign-ups to Google Maps. Armed with this information, it’s easier to see where your fans are. (Image at right seems to suggest at least a one-person gig offshore of Nigeria, but you get the idea.)

Brad’s Mappy Email Signup Release

Early data is really interesting already. Of course, you need to have more than, say, five fans, but now’s a good time to start. I’m revamping some sign-ups around CDM, so I hope to try this here soon.

Previously from Brad: the brad sucks digital download store, which hooks you up with your own Amazon S3 and PayPal-powered online music store.

Brad also has a tool for asking for donations:

http://www.bradsucks.net/gimme/
http://www.bradsucks.net/projects/gimme/

For all the access we now have to online commerce, items like music instruments sometimes demand real-world interaction. (And you know how much I love Real World things.) Tom at Music Thing has polled readers there to find out where surviving music shops live around the planet. You can take a look at the map, and add your own locations.

See the map at Google

The results are heavily tilted toward acoustic instruments, naturally, though they happily go well beyond the expected Sam Ash and Guitar Center fare. I’m curious about shops which specialize in electronic gear — analog, digital, old, modern, software, whatever. Of course, not every city can be lucky enough to have a Robotspeak, which is basically CDM heaven (or credit card Hell, depending on how you look at it.) If you do have an electricity-friendly shop, though, let us know, and I’ll add it to my Desired World Tour Destinations list; point it out in comments here.

If you have a shop near you, no matter how small, be sure to mark it!

The era of artists regularly releasing stems for remixing seems imminent. In the meantime, we see occasional examples of artists who get it. Radiohead have a new feature on their tune Nude, promoted with Apple. Purchase stems of a song (that’s by stem, so you pay US$0.99 * 5 stems + 1 full song if you want everything), and you get audio via iTunes Plus. Purchase the full set, and you can also download a GarageBand / Logic Pro-compatible project with all loop, tempo, and key information embedded, as pictured at top. (Unless I’m mistaken, that’s also the ideal way to get uncompressed audio for use in other tools.)

If you happen to prefer another tool for remixing (say, one that rhymes with Mabledon Dive and is often seen running on computers from Apple), these are just DRM-free audio files, so the choice is yours. Upload the finished results to the Web, and the band will review submissions and open them to votes. There are already a number of remixes up at the moment.

NUDE RE/MIX on iTunes

Radiohead Remix Site

Hmmm, nude remixing? Brings new meaning to “bedroom producer.” Sorry, couldn’t resist.

Radiohead does specify that you can’t use these for commercial purposes; it’s too bad they didn’t choose to apply a Creative Commons non-commercial license, which would formalize essentially what they’re saying. But this is otherwise done quite nicely, nonetheless, and I hope we see more of this.

Like remixable music? Nine Inch Nails has a whole remix site, and indie label Magnatune lets you remix all their artists’ work via a Creative Commons license (though they typically don’t offer stems). Online music outlet Dance Tracks Digital goes beyond stems with full Ableton Live-ready projects, suitable for DJs. That’s just for starters; if you have other favorite remix resources, let us know.

Everything has an “API” these days, but what that means in practice is often not so exciting. You can make little widgets for Facebook, or post recent Twitter messages, or do other simple developer tricks. Echo Nest’s “Musical Brain” API is more far-reaching: it’s an API for music. All music online. The first of a series of developer tools, “Analyze” is designed to describe music the way you hear it, figuring out tempo, beats, time signature, song sections, timbre, key, and even musical patterns. More developer tools will follow.

Twelve years in development, the Musical Brain is a bit like a digital music blogger. It’s been crawling the Web while you sleep, reading blog posts, listening to music to extract musically-meaningful attributes, and even predicting music trends. It’s like almost like a robotic, algorithmic Pitchfork. (And I’m serious — it may be April Fools’ Day, but this is real. That’s what the “brain” claims to do, backed by research at UC Berkeley, Columbia, and MIT.)

What does all of this mean? The Musical Brain may not be replacing your friendly local music blog any time soon, but what it can do is infuse some musical intelligence into applications like music visualization. The Matmos album at top used the Analyze algorithm to map the timbral profiles of songs on an upcoming album; that graph was then rendered by an artist in watercolor, translating the digital into traditional paint media.

The Analyze API could also enable everything from Web music apps and mash-ups to live audiovisual performance tools, or even smarter music games. That’s the reason co-creators Brian Whitman and Tristan Jehan, both with PhDs from the MIT Media Lab, chose to open up development to a broad audience. I got to speak to Brian a bit about the project.

A crazy scheme in which you pay a monthly fee and get unlimited music, huh? Imagine that.

Part of what was strange about flat fee advocate Jim Griffin’s new proposal for an ISP monthly fee for music is that subscription-based music lives already, from digital radio to music services. Amidst rumors that Apple might add subscriptions, the Zune, Rhapsody, and Napster all have flat-fee subscriptions right now, thank you very much. (I’m even told there are music players aside from iPod, though I don’t know if I believe this.)

I was a big fan of YottaMusic, a friendly Web front-end that connected to Rhapsody, and mourned its passing at the beginning of this year. But here’s good news: you can restore Yotta’s best feature, which was keeping track of music played in a Web browser for the superb Last.FM music community service.

Rhobbler

Rhapsody is clever enough not only to work in Web browsers on multiple platforms (even Linux), but generates an RSS feed of music you’ve been playing. Rhobbler hooks into that RSS feed and uploads to Last.FM. It’s a kludge, certainly — I’d love to see this built into the Rhapsody interface, along with other improvements. But it works: sign up once, and you’re done.

As some commenters noted in regards to the Griffin story, there’s a lot of music out there to keep track of — and a lot of us are listening to more than ever before. But that’s why it’s so nice to have tools like Last.FM. I also find, curiously, that subscription music for me feels like on-demand radio; instead of reducing how much music I buy outright, I just buy music I’m even more excited about.

If you’re not already a member, be sure to join our CDM group on Last.FM:

CreateDigitalMusic @ Last.FM

… and yes, promoting your own music there is encouraged! (Albums at right represent albums heard last week by CDM members. And, uh, dude … the group is all guys at the moment. I know ladies reading the site, and Last.FM has plenty of women, so join in and share your listening tastes!)

It seems Warner exec Jim Griffin was unprepared for the rancor of the Interwebs, because he’s backpedaling on a proposal to create a blanket fee for ISPs on music. All of that was just part of a “dynamic conversation,” says Griffin in a statement, and “It would be unfortunate if a creative and fruitful dialogue were sidetracked by a rush to judgment about what was simply my own illustrative example of one of many concepts I have in this space.”

Yes, indeed — it’d be unfortunate if a discussion of a hair-brained scheme with no plan for implementation or investment from any of the stakeholders were derailed by the fact that it was a hair-brained scheme with no plan for implementation or investment from any of the stakeholders.

See some excellent coverage and analysis from CNet News.com’s Greg Sandoval.

And as Sandoval notes, “What happens is that people hear the word “tax” and objective analysis goes out the window. People condemn and vilify. Out comes the torches and pitchforks.” That lack of objectivity is what frustrated me yesterday, even without being a specialist on the legal details

Of course, I disagree with Griffin about what happens to the “dynamic conversation” when people bring out the pitchforks. He says people lose the opportunity to “consider a variety of raw concepts without prejudice.” I say they lose the opportunity to consider just how out of touch with reality his proposal is.

I’ll never fully understand technology bloggers when it comes to music policy. Here’s an obviously stupid idea: Warner Brothers, the label, comes up with a scheme to add a surcharge to ISP bills to allow, supposedly, “legal” use of music file sharing services. Stupid, yes.

Here’s the response from Michael Arrington (Techcrunch): “It’s clearly good for the music labels, who are facing their imminent extinction.” He claims that this is the plan the “labels” (actually one label) don’t want you to know (except that they’re sitting down for long interviews with Conde Nast Portfolio).

Gizmodo’s Matt Buchanan just regurgitates and further oversimplifies Arrington’s argument, and adds a picture of a kitten at gunpoint, concluding: “And as Arrington points out, it would basically freeze innovation in the industry, meaning labels would be able to ream them that much harder. Not to mention, thanks to the fine print, we’d probably no longer own our music. But that’s the whole point.”

Apparently, “imminent extinction” means multi-billion dollar industry. (In fairness, the industry often — inexplicably — argues the same thing. I wish I were part of an “extinct” multi-billion dollar industry.) And apparently you can’t even talk about the issue of how music will be distributed and paid for without focusing on the desire of said industry to destroy your life and the fact that it’s still completely doomed.

And we’ve already seen Arringtonisms like recordings are worth nothing, and musicians should really owe websites cash for promotion (the Web 2.0 Payola plan, evidently).

But what happened to the obviously stupid idea? I agree with these sites that the plan is bad — I just think, ironically, it’s bad for even more reasons than they think. I’m not actually sure anyone read the original source — I think they were too busy being enraged, or looking for appropriate kitty pictures:

Fee for All: Jim Griffin will lead Warner Music’s fight to tame the Web’s lawless music frontier.

Forget about artists. Forget about copyright holders. Screw the musicians. This is ridiculously stupid even for the labels, partly because they’re unlikely to agree on the idea — meaning the idea is extinct on arrival. “Freeze innovation”? I guess — if the labels actually pursue this. But the blogosphere has become so rabidly anti-label, it’s fighting them instead of pointing out the planet-sized holes in the logic we’re being fed:

I apparently had better things to do this weekend than hear the latest self-righteous, all music is free, the Web changes the fabric of reality post about the music business, this time from Michael Arrington of Techcrunch. The title is intended to get a rise out of people. (”These Crazy Musicians Still Think They Should Get Paid For Recorded Music.” Uh … thanks?) But tracking through links, I came upon this quote:

Recorded music is nothing but marketing material to drive awareness of an artist. Websites that bring that music to listeners are doing artists a favor. In fact, they’re doing them a favor that they should (and will) be paid for.

Now, regular readers know CDM is all about new business models for music, all about ditching DRM, not at all about archaic royalty schemes. And certainly I can’t think of a good argument for the prompt for Arrington’s piece, which was that Billy Bragg thinks artists are owed money retroactively by a site to which they’ve already uploaded their own music.

Here’s my answer to that:

Recorded music has value to consumers.

Everyone and their dog seems to be trying to get into the social Web, but Tonium, the folks who built the pricey but slick-looking Pacemaker mobile DJ player, have an interesting take. They’re combining mobile hardware, mixing and media management and software, and social site in one integrated service. It’s a bit like iTunes, Beatport, iPod, and Traktor had a love child. The idea is a three-pronged approach: there’s the portable DJ MP3 player we’ve seen before, for storing your music library and mixing sets on the fly, editor software that lets you fine-tune mixes, and a web community that lets you share mixes with other Pacemaker users. The editor syncs with the hardware, mixes from the hardware and the software can go online — you get the idea.

All of this looks good — and literally looks good, with lots of shiny black business on the website — but the question remains whether anyone can be taken seriously DJing this way, or perhaps whether that matters. The target seems to be casual listeners wanting a slightly more interactive experience, and people with some cash to spare. The software is already interesting, but time stretch and more customized effects are still due in an update. I also wonder if some people will just forgo the hardware and use the web tool and software.

Pacemaker.net beta

Tonium launches Pacemaker online community [Webware] — our friend Donald Bell notes that the site has had to sign some deals with labels and place restrictions on how often an artist appears in a mix