Tag: blockchain

Databases as worlds: democratizing our digital existence

Posted on | by Bas Grasmayer

Our brains are engines of reality-creation. Our realities are shaped by the translation of millions of bits of information through our senses and the unconscious, subconscious, and conscious parts of our minds.

The information age is an age of databases that we spend parts of our lives in through expression and interaction. Many of the databases we populate are worlds of their own. They consist of identities and the products of imagination. Decades ago, internet forums were already worlds you could step into, but when modern social media came around, these databases were expanded vastly, making the virtual worlds of before look more like a lobby than a vast realm of landscapes and experiences you’ll never be able to explore in just one lifetime (just consider the 500+ hours of content added to YouTube alone, every minute).

Distinctive of these virtual realms is that they can serve as a layer for the IRL world we cannot plug out of. Google Maps provides a world you can explore, but also an information layer that perfectly overlays with our IRL experience. The same goes for anything that creates context for the IRL: social profiles, geotagged material, articles about places & phenomena, databases of products & their prices, etc. If I were to try to keep up with the rapid addition of new layers and create an exhaustive list, this article would probably never be published. Especially not with AI entering our world of worlds.

Databases are imagination layers. They’re records of decisions or interpretations. And the most important ones are owned by corporations, rather than by the people whose imaginations populate these worlds.

Anyone who has dabbled in crypto for a while will know that different blockchains provide different worlds — more commonly referred to as ‘ecosystems’. There are different people and entities creating the data, the decentralized apps (dApps) that interact with this data are different, and the products of imagination you find on these chains will differ. Blockchains, too, have layers. A base layer may be Ethereum, and then the ‘layer 2’ will create more specific worlds and ecosystems that all interact with that primary world, all centered around the same energy that provides life to all. It’s like traveling through a star system.

Galaxies from before have become dominated by corporate monopolists, often run by ‘Strong Man’ leaders. They are not elected, but appointed by boards of people that have acquired a financial stake in this corporate galaxy. Many of these people will have made 0 contribution to the actual worlds within that galaxy, yet they extract, profit, and get to make decisions about all these worlds.

The reason so many people believe in blockchain as a technology, is because of the democratization potential it has for the database-layer of our existence. But since so much of our existence is tied to databases, one can drop the middle part: the democratization potential it has for the database-layer of our existence.

In most of those blockchain-based worlds, cryptocurrency exists as a way to measure people’s stake in those worlds. Is it flawless? No. Does it create the most democratic outcomes? Certainly not always. But the model does introduce the ability for anyone with a stake to participate democratically. It creates incentives for open data models that distribute power, rather than data monopolies which concentrate power.

It’s not about money, it’s not about NFTs as a subculture, it’s not about speculating on tokens. It’s about creating a better internet.

The internet is such a big part of our existence; it’s ridiculous to leave it solely in the hands of megacorporations. It belongs in the hands of everyone contributing to it. The world is ours.

Web3: returning ethics to networked reality

Posted on | by Bas Grasmayer

This week I’ll be speaking about ethics & web3 at an event hosted by JUMP, an accelerator for the European music market. While I’ll make sure to dive into topics like energy use, economic inclusion and the tyranny of structurelessness, the invitation also got me thinking about how the web3 provides more ethical frameworks for our networked future.

Networked reality

First, back to fundamentals. We live in a networked reality. This is different from the channel reality of mass media before the internet. Messages and information traveled through channels, linearly or bi-directionally, through media but also distribution channels in the case of physical information carriers (e.g. CDs). It wasn’t piracy that was the real shock to the music industry: it was the transition from channel reality to network reality.

Networked reality implies data can travel freely through networks. Memes are an important part of the culture that has emerged from these networks. The remix is the internet’s language.

This networked reality initially played out in a rather decentralized way across loosely connected communities running their own software (e.g. vBulletin or phpBB forums). Network also means network effects and social platforms soon started leveraging their user activity to attract more users — slowly walling off data that had been accessible without an account through APIs or public pages. This created an extractive economy in which the value created by people funnels upwards to the platform owners. Eventually, the platform economy established a near-monopoly over the internet’s social layer.

This established certain platforms as de facto public infrastructure. Think about it this way: when you step outside your front door in real life, chances are you step out onto public infrastructure, free to use, paid for by taxes, and governed by democratically elected bodies. When you step outside your front door virtually, you move immediately into private infrastructure, paid for by ads and your data, and governed by non-democratic hierarchies. For many people, it’s unthinkable to cut ties with friends and family and abandon WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, Telegram, Line, WeChat, Twitter, etc. It would feel to them like the virtual equivalent of moving away into the forest and becoming a hermit.

Networked reality has become a platform reality. Economically almost more akin to the channel reality of mass media than the distributed nature of the early web. One could espouse the merits of all the free-to-use tools, but the reality is that their dynamics are extractive. As the adage goes: if you’re not paying for the product, you are the product. Entire books could be written (and indeed have) about how we got here. I want to focus this piece on how web3 offers a more ethical way forward.

Your book and article recommendations on this topic are welcome in the comments.

Web3: returning ethics to networked reality

Web3 means a return to the network. Data is stored on blockchains, which are operated by the network of its users. This means that the ownership of the blockchain is distributed across its users. Scale that out far enough and the concept of measuring an individual’s level of ownership becomes abstract to the point that one could argue that the data on the blockchain is ownerless. This level of decentralization allows for the emergence of individual agency over the data they have custody over.

What makes the NFTs and tokens in your cryptowallet ‘yours’? Do you own them? Well… not really, the ownership is distributed across the blockchain. But you have custody over this data – you are uniquely in control, since you hold the keys to what happens to this data. This is why people warn about blockchains that are not sufficiently decentralized: you may have custody over your data, but a conglomerate of network operators could band together to seize ownership of it.

The reality of having a level of custody over your data to a degree that practically feels like ownership and that data being public and transparent creates a new reality to build in. New platforms can come along and tap into all the data that already exists. They don’t have to ask anyone for permission. Many blockchains, like Ethereum, are designed to be ‘permissionless’. As people build up their ‘on-chain’ profiles, they’ll place more importance on services that allow for interoperability for everything they’ve already collected. One example is the NFTs people spend money on: they value this data and platforms like Twitter & Instagram are mimicking web3 services by allowing folks to bring & display their NFTs inside the services.

This seems novel, but it’s been a de facto default for web3 services that are already years in the making. Snapshot, a governance tool for web3 organizations, allows anyone to connect their wallet, show that they have custody over certain tokens, and then allows them to participate in the respective communities’ votes. When the owner of popular NFT marketplace Hic Et Nunc took the platform down, the community scrambled to rebuild in record time. No important data was lost, because it was distributed on the network.

This creates a security mechanism: since the data is public and users hold the custody over it (as opposed to private & platform-owned), platforms that run afoul of their users’ best interests may see the community ‘fork’. That means they take their data & bring it elsewhere. The lack of interoperability has created a lock-in effect on users that is often leveraged to protect revenue and growth numbers. For example, if you leave a music streaming service, you lose access to all your playlists. If you leave a messaging app, you lose access to all your group chats & chat history. This is not the case with open standards like email, which you can access from multiple apps and services and even completely migrate to new service providers.

Web3 doesn’t lock-in like this (and if a ‘web3’ platform or blockchain does have this effect then it’s not ‘web3’ and you should think twice before spending your time or money there). Instead web3 services try to create long-term alignment with the users they cater to, since people can leave any time. This alignment takes the form of opening up participation in governance, as well as giving the users custody of the tools they use through tokens which can be used for governance, but often also come to represent the perceived value of a service (akin to shares, but without dividends).

Are the days of extractive platform economics behind us? Definitely not and I’d wager it will be a part of the internet’s economy for as long as we see the same extractive dynamics in other parts of our economies. But we do have the toolset to build things in fairer ways, almost like publicly governed and funded infrastructure – governed by the networks of people that make use of it.

How to accelerate a music & tech start-up?

Posted on | by Maarten Walraven-Freeling

There’s so many people with great ideas. There’s also many people who have the technical know-how to build products. And then there’s a seemingly endless list of problems to solve in the music industry. The idea of an accelerator is to put your company through a crash course in building out your product, learning from experienced hands, and staying hyper-focused on your ‘true north’. Often, founders get matched with mentors and after a number of weeks they come out finding their company in a place where they’re ready to go out. They move beyond bootstrapping and start to look for a seed capital funding round. One of my favourite recent start-ups, Fave, has seemingly benefited from swimming with narwhals during Music Tectonics and being part of Techstars. What this example also shows is how US-focused most of this culture is. What happens when you accelerate outside of a country that has a strong venture capital culture? How do you help to focus companies on growth? And what kind of program should you offer to the start-ups involved?

Accelerators galore?

Even when you step outside of the VC bubble in the US, there’s many accelerators around: Abbey Road Red is an incubator whose core is music production technologies; MidemLab focuses specifically on consumer experiences; Marathon Labs is an accelerator, part of Marathon Music Group, which aims to support innovation in our digital music ecosystem. Another accelerator program wraps up this week: Music Tech Accelerator [MTA]. This is a program for start-ups in the ideation phase. In other words, there’s plenty of options for start-ups in the music & tech space to find partners to help them grow. Moreover, as the examples above make clear, most of these accelerators have a specific target group themselves. What this does is that it helps them hone in on the skills they can provide to the start-ups involved.

The programme

If I’m a bit more specific than the MTA finishes their pre-accelerator program this week. In this period, the start-ups involved focused on getting a business case together.

This is quite different from, for example, Marathon Labs, which looks at companies who have that first business case and who have recurring revenues in place. With that, their lab hones in on business development more than ideation. I firmly believe that more labels should do what Marathon does with their lab as it would allow them to work sustainably across the music value chain.

What’s striking about the MTA programme is that they help to pinpoint that first business case. As I mentioned, there’s a lot of great ideas out there. Those ideas, however, are only useful if they solve an actual problem. Proving that requires a business case, or at least someone signalling their enthusiasm for the solution offered.

Start-ups and solutions

To continue to put Marathon Labs and MTA next to each other for a moment, the solution offered often already exists for companies in Marathon’s lab. They need to develop it further and try to achieve a critical mass of users to become sustainable as a business. Start-ups in the MTA might need to find their first clients still. The MTA program pulls start-up founders out of their comfort zone by making them talk to potential clients.

This helps sharpen the story they tell as founders about their companies. Moreover, it forces those founders to think about what promises they make to their clients, and who their clients really are. WeShared, one of the start-ups in the current MTA pre-accelerator program, offers a solution for barrier-free tickets. If I look at their problem, my first instinct is that WeShared is a solution for the barrier-free ticket buyer.

The opposite, however, is the case. WeShared offers a solution to ticket sellers. The amount of time it take for a customer to purchase a ticket is annoying, but the app is also a time-saver for the sellers. For them, the incremental gains become a big saving overall. What’s more, barrier-free tickets become a revenue prospect instead of a loss-leader. Basically, what they have is a SaaS plugin for ticketing companies that solves a real-world problem. In doing so, they also immediately make life better for people needing a barrier-free ticket.

Start-ups and growth

The music industry has a serious problem with both metadata and copyright management. We often hear that blockchains can offer solutions for this. However, I’m personally more excited about companies that use blockchain as a tool integrated into a solution. Faniak, for example, sees obstacles with metadata across the production and distribution chains right into world of the performing rights organizations. They turned to a blockchain solution, but mainly for storage and validation. Mainly, they provide a cloud service that automatically allows metadata to synchronize across data points. All Faniak needs to do is make sure the smart folder they create with tags and other data is interoperable with various forms, websites, and tools.

Similarly, Copyright Delta aims to provide a solution for a broken royalty system. They use a blockchain, but only because it allows them to create a great technology that verifies credentials. Moreover, it allows them to create complete and consistent analyses of musical works and their recordings with streaming and other broadcast data. The gaps currently existing in this field are real and create issues for musicians and broadcasters on an almost daily basis. Streamlining data flows will help fix these issues.

What these two start-ups share, then, is that they provide solutions to real-world problems. That said, how do they make sure that their solutions become part of their potential clients everyday behaviour? This is where an accelerator can play a role. Not necessarily by providing a network, or by providing mentors, but instead by pushing founders outside of their comfort zone. They need to acquire new skills and punch through their objectives. A business model is as much about a great spreadsheet as it is about getting that first letter of intent from a client.

Next up?

When you have an idea, or when you know you can build a great product, what you need is a little push to leave your comfort zone. What’s great about accelerators like Marathon Labs and the MTA, while looking at companies in different stages of their development, is that they provide this push. Being in the growth zone forces you to go through challenges like finding your first client, talking about your idea and product, and requires you to set new goals in your business model.

A music service based on collective bids on NFTs (aka fractional NFT ownership)

Posted on | by Bas Grasmayer | 2 Comments on A music service based on collective bids on NFTs (aka fractional NFT ownership)

This week hundreds of people pooled money to collectively place a bid on NFTs and attain fractional ownership using a tool called PartyBid. They succeeded. 478 people teamed up to form the Party Of The Living Dead and secured one of the highly popular (and expensive) NFT collectible CryptoPunks. 25 people acquired an NFT released by music x web3 project Songcamp Elektra, calling themselves Elektranauts.

After purchasing the NFT (of which there exists 1), buyers get ERC-20 tokens which represent the fractional ownership (of which there exist proportional amounts for each buyer). In my recent piece about data autonomy & the creator economy I explained how tokens on blockchains can be used to create platform-independent social groups. This is an example of it: the fractional ownership of the NFT represents group membership. In the case of the Party of the Living Dead that membership is signified through 1,201,725 $DEAD tokens and in the case of the Elektranauts through 2,100 $SQUAD tokens, a reference to a term used by the Songcamp DAO. What if certain privileges were given to those group members?

From whales to swarms

The NFT boom that happened over the past year saw so-called ‘whales’, people with a lot of (crypto)currency to spend, place huge bids in auctions. As the usability layer of the web3 evolves, we see groups of people (often organised in DAOs) come up with tools like PartyBid to be able to compete with whales.

It is early days for the web3. It may feel differently if you’re out of the loop, but new ideas, interfaces, protocols, tools, improvements, standards are being proposed, shipped and adopted on a daily basis. So what can build upon PartyBid? What can build upon fractionalized ownership of music NFTs?

A Bandcamp for Fan DAOs?

Fans can now come together to place collective bids on music NFTs. Afterwards, they receive tokens to signify their status as a fractional holder of that NFT. What if there was a service that offered extra perks based on the (fractional) ownership of music NFTs?

I buy music on Bandcamp for 3 reasons: 1) to support artists (for the brave: here’s my collection), 2) to get the audio files in order to DJ, 3) to offline sync the music into the Bandcamp app. The music may also be available on large streaming platforms, but I like the idea of ownership & supporting financially – it’s a win-win. So I stream my purchases from the app, or play from the offline cache. Could similar dynamics be utilized for a next-gen music service?

Each fractional NFT token you hold could unlock things like offline playback, although it may take a few years for the music licensing landscape to catch up with the web3. So let’s look at two other scenarios:

Fan chat

Communication tools for mini-fan clubs, e.g. a group chat. You login with your crypto-wallet, the service reads your tokens and 🪄✨ like magic ✨🪄 you’re connected to other fans. It would have to compete with other apps that may implement tokenized group chats, like Telegram (and I predict Instagram), so perhaps music-specific features should be included, initially by integrating with web2 platforms like SoundCloud, Bandcamp, Spotify, etc. A web3 route would mean empowering the group with tools specifically tailored towards DAOs of music fans.

Fan galleries

As a fan you can show off your collection on a profile. A service might help people find holders of fractional tokens of NFTs minted by the same addresses. That means: if an artist created 2 NFTs, the token holders for those NFTs can find each other through the platform.

This could create an economy on its own. If other people want in on the fractional ownership, then a new community could organize and place a bid to buyout the original community. The original’s members would be able to profit from the increased value of the NFT, plus would still be able to join the new community’s bid, so they retain access after the sale. Importantly, the original artist would also be able to receive a % of resale money, if such a clause is contained in the smart contract.

And then…

To imagine what the space could look like, one should ask “and then what?” If a certain scenario plays out, what does it look like when people build from there? What would have to surround it? There’s a whole lot of imagining going on right now and a lot of building. Some of it will follow patterns we’re familiar with from the web2, but much of it will diverge.

What’s becoming clear to anyone paying attention: what makes NFTs is not the high auction sums – it’s their functionality & use to underpin a new decentralized social web.

Data Autonomy, the Creator Economy and Web3

Posted on | by Bas Grasmayer

In the platform economy, your account, your username, your social connections: none of those belong to you. If you break the terms of service, or are merely suspected of doing so, the platform may revoke any or all of those and take away everything you’ve created or built (after it has reaped the benefits in terms of ad dollars from it).

I understand why people may be skeptical of NFTs and smart contracts, but I feel the budding Web3 solves issues left unsolved by the Web 2.0… and the space is heating up as creator economy trends coalesce.

“Would you consider selling the URL?”

A few years ago someone reached out to me to see if I’d be willing to part ways with my 3-letter username on a platform. I wasn’t really, but was open to consider it. I also knew that if I wrote that in an email and the platform to which I had registered saw that email, they’d have cause to revoke my account.

The URL, or the part of the username in there, is not mine to sell. It’s owned by the platform. My account, with all the content I had created and followers I had attained, was equally not mine to sell. Sure, it happens all the time, but with risk.

There are multiple reasons for platforms’ prohibition of selling accounts or any aspects directly related to account. The reason most talked about is to prevent scams like fake followers, astroturfing or username squatting. The other reason is because these platforms depend on data monopolies to survive.

Data monopolies & walled gardens

Early in the web 2.0 days, there was this dream of open APIs, services talking to each other, people forging completely new services by leveraging APIs. It wasn’t just a dream. People did so. Loads of cool hacks and apps launched this way – some survived by pivoting away from external APIs, most died. What happened?

In short, advertising happened. It seemed like the only viable business model at a time before most people were used to doing payments online. A time before modern smartphones. It doesn’t feel long ago, but the internet was such a different place. When you want to make money with ads, you need eyeballs and you need data; lots of it. That means people need to spend time on your platform, so their eyes are there and their data is yours. And so is their ad revenue. External APIs got crippled.

The pandemic has accelerated the rise of the creator economy. It has made calls for fair compensation louder (see Spotify). It has made people go direct to their audience via newsletters instead of relying on Twitter or Medium. It has made people experiment with more direct forms of monetization through livestreams, virtual events, and fan communities on Patreon and OnlyFans.

And then there’s NFTs.

Your username as an NFT

We’re all familiar with the headlines of NFTs being sold for millions. Let’s look at the extra utility and how it matches creators’ demands for more autonomy & ownership of their data and the value they generate.

Recently I created a web3 primer video to set folks up with a crypto wallet and buy their first NFT using ENS. ENS lets you register a legible name as an NFT, like basgras.eth, that points to your wallet address (a hash code) in a way similar to how an email address points towards a mail server or a domain name points towards a host.

Services that support ENS allow people to display their .eth name as their usernames. So if someone wanted to ‘buy my URL’ or username on a service, I could just sell the NFT which only ever belongs to the person in whose wallet it sits.

What if we apply this concept of data ownership to more forms of data? We can apply it to social graphs via the community tokens someone holds in their wallet. Some of those community tokens may be specific to a small group of friends, like a group chat on Facebook or Telegram. Want to take those connections elsewhere? Just join another service and it automatically connects the holders of those tokens.

What about other data, like your posts? I expect they’ll become portable as NFTs with the media hosted through IPFS. It won’t be the incumbent platforms making the first step here. The autonomy and portability of NFTs will have to be created outside of them, so that they have no choice but to integrate them. That sets a new standard: “wait, I can bring my NFTs from outside in, but I can’t take my content out?”

This tension field is emerging and will likely strand incumbents somewhere between web2 and web3. How far it goes in terms of decentralization depends on the business models that get enabled (can this become bigger than advertising?) and how effective the trends are at confronting concentrations of power. What’s certain: People will expect to have more of a say over their data and they’ll expect ownership over the context in which they create value, which will become normalized through DAOs.

Facebook wasn’t MySpace’s web 2.0 successor: they were both web 2.0. Facebook’s web 1.0 predecessor was Geocities. The web 3 leap is larger: the successors to Spotify, Facebook and Twitter will look nothing like them, but will be able to solve the same problems & address the same needs. This time around, you’ll be able to move your data out. The incentive not to do so? You’ll own a part of them.

Thanks Dame.eth for the inspo

Sometimes a single sentence can connect all the dots.

Why I’m participating in Songcamp Elektra ⚡️

Posted on | by Bas Grasmayer

Songcamp started late March with a simple idea by Matthew Chaim:

This is a place for music and the new internet to crash into each other.

5 weeks later, 13 strangers had made roughly $34,000 USD through their creative collaboration which they sold as NFTs.

I watched from the sidelines excited to see artists find new ways to collaborate, be onboarded to Web3 tools, terminology, and mindset, and make money along the way. This was exactly the mentality I was referring to in my piece Thinking small: a meditation on scale vs success for artists which encouraged musicians to consider options beyond the rat race of streaming, charts, playlist pitching, and constant touring.

Now, the second season of Songcamp has kicked off and I’m glad to be able to help out the music teams in a strategic capacity. Season 2 is called Songcamp Elektra.

Steep learning curves

Once you have some basic experience with web3, many interactions become fairly easy. You’ve bought some cryptocurrency, transferred it to your wallet, acquired some tokens, maybe bought an NFT, registered your name on ENS (also an NFT, by the way), and joined a DAO where you vote on community proposals. From here on out you’re fairly familiar with some of the topics, they become easier to research, and every next step is less daunting than the previous one. It makes it easy to forget about the steep barriers to entry.

There are two barriers to entering the space: one is tech literacy and the other is economical. As I was onboarding a friend the other day, so they could register their ENS domain, I was actually shocked how much work getting set up was. I spread that out over months, but doing it all in one go was a lot.

We went through:

  • The Metamask sign up process, which is unconventional for many web users, since it requires people to securely store a phrase they need in order to access their wallet. That comes on top of a password. This practice is more common in banking than in most web services – very logical once you’re onboarded, but perhaps less so if you’re ‘just signing up for a thing’.
  • An issue adding funds to the wallet, since Metamask’s partner that allows you to buy ETH (Wyre) seemed incompatible with their bank. Maybe it was another issue, but in any case: repeated errors.
  • Registering at Coinbase to acquire ETH. Coinbase requires ID verification, so you have to upload a photo and wait for review. (if you have tips for easier methods, let me know)
  • Me sending them ETH instead.
  • Being quoted a price on ENS and then having to pay ‘gas fees’ on top.
  • When registering their name on ENS: needing to wait for minutes in order for the transactions to clear. This can make people who are used to a fast web, and fast URL registration, quite nervous.

This is tough and requires a serious commitment from people. Suddenly, the streamlined UX landscape of the internet breaks down and things get clunky. For most people, that’s daunting, which is why I wrote a piece clarifying all these terms recently for my newsletter.

What I like about Songcamp is that it helps onboard people. It is really helpful to do these things as a group and to have a trusted group of peers you’re collaborating with in case you run into trouble or have questions.

Financial barriers

I’m concerned about how hard the web3 can be to participate in if you don’t have much disposable income. The way things work right now, it feels very much like pay-to-play. I’m glad there are projects like The Mint Fund which helps underrepresented creators mint their first NFT by covering their gas fees and offering additional support, however people shouldn’t have to rely on funds in order to be able to meaningfully participate.

The way around is participating in a DAO. You can collectively raise funds and then grant participants tokens, which they can convert to cryptocurrency or fiat in order to accomplish their goals.

Songcamp did a version of this for their first season when they sold an NFT in order to raise funds to cover the camp’s costs.

Group experimentation

Together, we’ll be doing a lot of firsts. I haven’t minted an NFT, I haven’t been part of a split, and as a matter of fact it’s been a while since I could lend support to artists from the very beginning of their creative process until post-release.

Songcamp is about firsts: both on an individual level, a collective level, as well as in a more general sense. The general firsts are that the creative experiments Songcamp is running haven’t been done yet before. As a collective, it’s our first time collaborating and many people inside the collective have never met each other before. On an individual level, this is a first for the aforementioned reasons, but also because there may be web3 firsts like those I mentioned in the intro paragraph of this section.

Fun & valuable

Most of all, it’s fun. I started the article with a sum of money to get your attention, but nobody is in this for the money. We have no idea what the outcome will be. Instead, it’s about collaboration, learning, experimenting, creating, socialising, and inspiring.

It’s exciting to be able to participate. I think the time commitment may even be similar to a well-prepared conference keynote about a topic I haven’t spoken about before. But in that same amount of time, I directly help creatives (and myself) with everything I’ve described above.

The most valuable thing we’ll get out of this is that we’ll learn skills, tools, and ways of organising. We’ll develop new perspectives. All of this will compound with previous experience and make it easier to start or participate in any subsequent web3 projects thereafter.

–

MUSIC x is a regular newsletter about innovation in music.
Follow us on Twitter @musicxnetwork.

Select previous writing: