Log in
A+ A A-

redazione

Il tour di Bruce Springsteen il più ricco del 2016

Il The River Tour è stato quello che ha fruttato maggiori incassi in tutto il mondo nel 2016. Bruce Springsteen ha incassato con 76 spettacoli 268.3 milioni di dollari, con 2.4 milioni di biglietti venduti.

Al secondo posto della classifica stilata da Pollstar c’è Beyoncé con The Formation, mentre al terzo si sono classificati i Coldplay con A Head Full of Dreams, fermo a 241 milioni di dollari.

California, troppi locali illegali aumentano il pericolo

È stata messa in discussione la sicurezza dei locali della scena musicale di Los Angeles dopo un incendio a Oakland nel quale sono morte 36 persone, a dicembre, durante un evento illegale, dove le licenze non erano in regola. Lo riporta il Los Angeles Times.

Le autorità, secondo il quotidiano, non cercano in modo abbastanza attivo le violazioni e aspettano soltanto che sia il pubblico a lamentarsi. Sono meno di 25 i casi di controlli negli ultimi tre anni.

Gli illeciti riguardano l’assenza di sistemi antincendio, la vendita di alcolici senza licenza e un atteggiamento libertino nei confronti del fumo. 

Fastcompany.com: 7 Ways streaming music will change in 2017

Last year was another eventful one in the history of music. And that was no surprise.

In 2016, the music industry saw its first signs of true growth since the internet started ravaging it a decade and a half ago. By mid-year, labels saw revenue grow 8.1% over the same period in 2015, fueled mostly by an explosion in subscribers flocking to services like Spotify (40 million subscribers) and Apple Music (20 million). Indeed, in early 2016, we learned that streaming had officially become the industry’s biggest source of income in 2015. While revenue from downloads and physical album sales both continued their years-long decline (by 14% and 17%, respectively), streaming revenue grew 57% during the first half of 2016, and since then, all signs have pointed to continued growth. This is good news for record execs, but what it means for artists and streaming platforms—which each have their own contractual relationships with labels—remains to be seen. As the pie grows, expect to see intensified battles over how it all gets divvied up.

 

There were also big changes within the streaming landscape itself. Amazonand SoundCloud launched Spotify competitors. Apple polished up its existing service with a new interface. Pandora also unveiled its premium subscription service, expected to launch in the first quarter of 2017. For those keeping count at home, that’s three new subscription services in one year, on top of the three that launched the year before (Tidal, Apple Music, and YouTube Red). Despite all the new competition, Spotify has held onto its dominant role, growing its listenership and flexing its playlisting muscle with more in-house curation and data-powered personalized playlists like Discover Weekly, Release Radar, and Your Daily Mix.

Despite all the upward-sloping numbers, the music industry still found reason to gripe. Its chief target this year was YouTube, which, along with Spotify’s free tier, creates what the RIAA calls a "value gap" for the industry. Simply put, ad-supported services just don’t make as much money as music subscriptions. Indeed, vinyl sales—a relatively tiny sliver of the industry’s income—generated more money than ad-supported streaming like YouTube, SoundCloud, and Spotify’s free tier.

There was tension elsewhere as well. Frank Ocean pulled a fast one on his label Def Jam by releasing his short visual album Endless on Apple Music to fulfill his contract before self-releasing the blockbuster Blond and denying Def Jam a cut of the profits. The maneuver made record executives rethink the already-controversial practice of releasing albums by major artists exclusively on one platform, which may help drive subscription numbers, but frustrates fans and encourages piracy. Up until that point, big-name exclusives practically defined the year in popular music: Kanye West, Drake, Beyoncé, and Chance the Rapper all put out albums initially available only via either Apple Music or Tidal. (Spotify refuses to play this game.) Meanwhile, the concept of the album itself became ever more fuzzy, thanks to visual albums (i.e., music released as a long-form video or film) from Ocean and Beyoncé, plus Kanye West’s post-release editing of Life of Pablo.

With so much change in the last few years, what could 2017 possibly hold? Plenty. Here are our predictions.

THE MUSIC SUBSCRIPTION BOOM WILL CONTINUE

The number of people willing to pay $10 a month for music skyrocketed in 2016, but it’s still pretty small. All told, about 100 million people are believed to subscribe to music services. (This doesn’t include free streaming from SoundCloud, YouTube, or Spotify’s free tier.) But considering that there are 319 million people in the United States alone, there’s plenty of room for growth. Just look at Apple Music. The service, which is available in 113 countries and comes pre-installed on every iOS device, only took a year and a half to reach half of Spotify’s size in terms of paying subscribers. And they both keep expanding. Now we have Amazon Music Unlimited, which is well positioned to reel in new subscribers at $8 per month for Prime members. When Pandora finally launches its subscription service, it will have 78 million listeners to potentially convert into paying subscribers—not to mention a newfound possibility of expansion beyond the U.S., New Zealand, and Australia (although those plans are still being hammered out).

 

Streaming music is also breaking free from the confines of our smartphones and laptops. Thanks to the rise of smart speakers like Amazon Echo, Sonos, and Google Home, more listening is happening at home, making the prospect of treating music like a monthly utility an even more sensible one. Cheaper family subscription plans don't hurt, either.

AT LEAST ONE MUSIC SERVICE WILL DISAPPEAR

We’ve seen five new music subscription services arrive in the last two years (and one more coming from Pandora early next year), but that doesn’t mean music streaming has become a lucrative successful business. Quite the opposite: None of these services has made an enduring profit, although Spotify is working aggressively toward that goal as it gets ready to go public next year. Big tech companies like Apple, Google, and Amazon can afford to run their music services at a loss indefinitely. This landscape makes it tricky for smaller players like Tidal, SoundCloud, Deezer, and Napster (formerly Rhapsody). Both Tidal and SoundCloud were the subject of acquisition rumorsin 2016, and rumors continue to swirl around the prospect of Pandora selling itself off. Bandcamp would make a very attractive acquisition for Pandora or Spotify, but the artist-centric music and merch marketplace is well positioned to stay independent if it prefers: The company has been profitable since 2012 and its cultural influence is only growing.

The bottom line: Expect to see fewer music services this time next year. At least one of these companies is bound to get acquired or go under altogether.

STREAMING EEXCLUSIVES WON’T DIE

Frank Ocean may have put a damper on the industry’s enthusiasm about platform-exclusive album releases, but don’t expect to see the trend die off just yet. Universal (owner of Def Jam) may have sworn them off, but the other major labels have remained silent on the issue. Besides, in an age when many artists have an unprecedented capacity to chart their own course, does it really matter what the labels think?

Apple and Tidal are apparently willing to shell out a ton of money for these exclusive deals. And as long as they remain an effective tool for driving subscriptions amid intensifying competition, the streaming platforms aren’t likely to stop offering them. Despite some controversy, the exclusivity approach seems to work for most artists: Drake was the most-streamed artist on Spotify this year, despite Views only being available on Apple Music when it debuted. Like Beyoncé’s Lemonade and Ocean’s Blond, Drake’s latest album was a massive success overall.

That said, we should expect to see fewer of these deals next year. Streaming platforms, labels, and artists will use the tactic much more selectively to minimize fallout while still extracting whatever competitive value they can.

MUSICIANS WILL SQUIRM AS AI GETS BETTER AT MAKING MUSIC

Have you ever seen a computer write a song? It’s nuts. Give IBM’s Watson a simple melody and define a mood, and the multi-talented artificial intelligence platform will churn out an original song that sounds like it was made by a person—albeit not an especially talented one. But it’s now possible to teach machines enough about the rules of music theory to let them compose their own music, complete with multiple instrumental layers and changes in key and tempo. The result isn’t something you’ll want to listen to on your daily commute, but it’s still early in the quest to teach computers how to make art. And it’s not just IBM that’s focused on this. Google’s Magenta project, announced in April 2016, is in the beginning stages of stretching the limits of machine learning to help computers understand—and eventually mimic—creative thinking. Like Watson, Magenta has already produced a rudimentary song of its own.

 

Machines aren’t about to put artists out of work, but advances in artificial intelligence could make certain types of music easier and cheaper to create—video-game soundtracks or background music for a retail store, for instance—that would not require licensing or paying royalties. AI could also augment the creative process for flesh-and-blood songwriters. An artist stuck on writing the chorus of a song could tap into tools based on Watson or Magenta to auto-generate a few ideas.

Next year, expect the technology to improve slightly and for more artists to catch wind of it. Some will see an exciting new creative opportunity. Others will cringe at the mere idea of it.

NEW ANSWERS (AND DOLLAR SIGNS) FOR ARTISTS

The brief history of streaming’s rise has been accompanied by an often awkward question: How will artists fare? It’s a natural concern given the minuscule per-stream royalty rates offered under a model that’s still scaling to its full potential. There won’t be a silver bullet in 2017, but artists will see more reasons to be hopeful about the future because catering to artists has increasingly become a priority for streaming services.

Apple Music and Tidal have famously made artist-friendliness a key tenet of their offerings—or at least of their marketing. In June 2016, Spotify hired former Lady Gaga manager Troy Carter to oversee its expanding artist relations initiatives. Middle-class artists might not be getting huge checks from Spotify, but many are finding new promotional value in landing on the service’s most popular playlists, whether they be hand-curated in-house or data-powered. Discover Weekly alone drove more than half of all listening for 8,000 artists in less than a year. Spotify is also building out more tools and services for artists and finding ways to tap into the passion—and disposable income—of super-fans. Meanwhile, Pandora is busy reshaping itself into a service that caters more directly to artists’ needs, be it with data, marketing tools for artists, or the ability to sell concert tickets directly to fans from within the app.

For now, record labels still reap the lion’s share of revenue, but that balance of power is poised to shift. Between the platforms' investment in artist relations and the growing slice of revenue being generated by streaming, musicians are bound to see new benefits. And streaming services, labels, and artists will all have to renegotiate their relationships with one another. Artists may soon be in a better position to demand more from their labels or, following Frank Ocean’s lead, sidestep the middlemen altogether—a prospect that could become easier for less-than-household names as the streaming industry’s artist-facing services mature.

We’re also seeing promising signs outside of the all-you-can-stream model. In 2015, Bandcamp announced that it had paid out $100 million to artists since being founded in 2008. As 2016 winds down, that number is already up to $190 million, a number that suggests Bandcamp is booming. That’s not just good news for Bandcamp and the artists who use it to sell music and merchandise. It’s also a clear sign that music fans are perfectly happy to pay for music and support artists directly in the digital age.

AMAZON WILL BECOME A MAJOR PLAYER IN MUSIC

In 2016, the streaming battle was primarily framed as a competitive struggle between Apple and Spotify. That will continue in 2017, but while latecomers to the subscription game like Pandora and SoundCloud fight to amass bigger numbers, one company will have a relatively easy time: Amazon. Like Apple, Amazon has the advantage of being a giant tech company with a massive customer base to which it can market its music service. Its wildly successful Echo smart speaker is also a natural vehicle for a full-fledged music subscription service, and Alexa offers more voice control functionality to Amazon Music Unlimited subscribers than it does to users of other services like Spotify and Pandora.

 

It's also a cheaper option for many people: If you subscribe to Amazon Prime, Amazon’s music service is $8 per month. If you own an Echo or Echo Dot, you can get the service for $4 per month (although it will only work on that device). No other major subscription service has been able to dip below the standard $10 monthly price tag, making Amazon’s lower cost a unique competitive advantage.

While it’s no Spotify, Amazon Music Unlimited launched as a perfectly decent, cross-platform music service. And the company is already starting to improve the service with more hand-curated playlists and exclusive content deals like the one it recently signed with Garth Brooks. Like Apple and Google, Amazon can afford to invest in this area without much concern for profitability. Expect Amazon to nab quite a few subscribers pretty quickly.

NEXT WAVE OF INNOVATION: VIRTUAL REALITY

Music execs might have been caught off guard by file-sharing and other technological innovations, but the resulting wounds have taught the industry a valuable defensive tactic: Sleep—to paraphrase Napster’s one-time archnemesis Metallica—with one eye open, lest it get blindsided by change yet again.

If virtual reality is going to be as explosive as the experts predict (ballooning to nearly $30 billion in revenue by 2020), the music industry will be ready. Big names like Paul McCartney, U2, Björk, Coldplay, and Deadmau5 are just a few of the artists who have already embraced VR in the form of immersive music videos or live concerts that invite fans onstage. But since consumers are just starting to get acquainted with VR, the music industry has pumped the breaks as it waits for the market for hardware and software (and thus demand for immersive content) to catch up with its ambitions. It’s pretty unusual for the music industry to be ahead of the next wave of innovation, but that’s what’s happening with VR.

 

There are already signs that VR will yield exciting developments for fans and the music industry. Immersive live streams of concerts, for instance, could evolve into a real source of revenue beyond the standard catalogs of recorded music. Music videos, music documentaries, and music-oriented video games can also take on new life in a world where virtual reality headsets are common. There are also interactive music visualizers, which turn songs—or even your own voice—into responsive animations that unfold in front of you. Then there’s the audio itself. For the best experience, immersive music environments will require engineers to mix songs in more spatially complex manners than standard stereo or even surround sound, which could pave the way for innovations in the way music is composed and produced.

There could also be money in VR. It’s still early enough that artists and labels can start crafting business models around a simple but familiar logic: Give fans something meaningful and entertaining that they can’t get anywhere else (or easily pirate) and they just might give you their money. Sounds crazy, I know.

Variety remembers the music industry deaths in 2016

The music industry was hit particularly hard in 2016, with the passing of many notable artists, producers, and managers.

The year got off to a rough start with David Bowie, who died two days after his 69th birthday on January 10. The pioneering British rocker had been diagnosed with liver cancer 18 months earlier but did not disclose his illness. Perhaps knowing that his days were numbered and as a parting gift to his fans, he released his 25th and final album — “Blackstar” — on his birthday. In December, Blackstar was nominated for the 2017 Best Alternative Music Album Grammy, and many consider it one of the best albums of the year. It featured a number of Easter eggs for fans such as a vinyl album cover that turned into a galaxy of stars in the sun. (Read his obituary here.)

April marked the unexpected death of Prince Rogers Nelson, best known by just his first name. Like Bowie, Prince was known for his incredible showmanship, style and musicianship. Prince died of a fentanyl overdose on April 21 in his Paisley Park recording studio and home in Minnesota. He was just 57. His magmum opus, the 1984 soundtrack to “Purple Rain,” earned him two of his seven career Grammy Awards and an Academy Award for Best Original Song Score in 1985. (Read his obituary here.)

Country music legend Merle Haggard also died in April. His career spanned five decades and spawned 38 No. 1 hits on the country charts. He died on April 6, his 79th birthday, in California. Haggard was honored with the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award in 2006, a Kennedy Center Honor in 2010, and even performed at the Grammys in 2014 with longtime friend Willie Nelson, Kris Kristofferson, and Blake Shelton. (Read his obituary here.)

Leonard Cohen died on Nov. 10. The Canadian poet and novelist, who became a singular international presence as a singer-songwriter with songs like “Suzanne,” was 82. Only a month before, he released his final album, “You Want It Darker,” a deeply introspective work that focused thematically on mortality. (Read his obituary here.)

George Michael died on Dec. 25 at age 53. The pop star was part of the popular ’80s duo Wham! before branching out into his solo career. His powerful stage presence and overt sexuality were balanced by a giving spirit and desire for privacy. He was one of the earlier celebrities to come out as openly gay. (Read his obituary here.)

Numerous notable producers and managers died in 2016, including Beatles producer George Martin and Celine Dion’s husband and manager Rene Angelil.

A Tribe Called Quest’s Phife Dawg, The Surfer Blood’s guitarist Tom Fekete, and rising star Christina Grimmie all died too young. Grimmie was murdered by a deranged fan at the age of 22.

Other influential musicians lost in 2016 include musician and songwriter Leon Russell, who died Nov. 13, and two-thirds of progressive rock trio Emerson, Lake and Palmer: Keith Emerson in March and Greg Lake earlier in December.

 

 

ITALY SET TO OUTLAW SECONDARY TICKETING

An amendment to Italy’s 2017 budget law that would criminalise ticket touting has been approved by the country’s Chamber of Deputies, clearing the last major hurdle towards being written into law.

The amendment, introduced earlier this month by culture minister Dario Franceschini, prohibits the “sale, or any other form of placement [on the secondary market], of tickets” by anyone other than the issuer, and provides for fines of between €5,000 and €180,000 for those caught doing so – both on- and offline.

In addition, secondary ticketing sites will themselves be held responsible if found to be facilitating the illegal resale of tickets, and subject to “removal of the [tickets] or, in severe cases, the blocking of the website through which the infringement has taken place”, with no possibility for damage claims.

While professional touting is officially out, the amendment does, however, allow for the sale of the occasional unwanted ticket, which is “not sanctioned when carried out by a physical person on an occasional basis, provided there is no commercial purpose”.

Once written into the budget law, the amendment still needs to be approved within 30 days by the justice, culture and economic ministries, although a source close to the situation tells IQ it will “definitely be approved by [all] parties”.

The passage of the act could, however, be complicated by the looming referendum on overhauling the Italian constitution – to which a ‘no’ vote could, analysts believe, trigger the resignation of prime minister Matteo Renzi.

The move to outlaw secondary ticketing in Italy comes after controversy in the market following an admission by Live Nation Italy’s managing director, Roberto de Luca, that his company had been passing inventory directly to Viagogo, leading to several artists, including stadium-filler Vasco Rossi, severing their ties with Live Nation.

The direct links between several national promoters and the secondary market were made public by national TV programme Le Iene (mirroring similar revelations about the UK market made public by Channel 4’s Dispatches programme in Feb 2012) earlier this month. While many Italian promoters have exclusive ticketing contracts with primary ticketing company Ticketone, the programme alleged that primary tickets are sold directly to secondary platforms at face value, with 90% of the uplift then passed back to certain promoters.

Live Nation Italy, which said the collusion related to a “small number of tickets for a handful of international artists” and that it has “never been asked to list any tickets on secondary markets by Italian artists”, has since voluntarily withdrawn from promoters’ association Assomusica.

It was followed closely by rival promoter Barley Arts, whose managing director, Claudio Trotta, said in an open letter the association had, by allegedly failing to take a decisive stand on the issue, ceased to “represent me properly”.

Assomusica counters that it “had tried to put an end to the phenomenon [of secondary ticketing]” and fully supports Franceschini’s amendment.

“With this measure, the government has taken a clear step towards addressing the problem,” it said in a statement today, “including serious financial penalties for those who practice this activity. […] A big thank you … for taking such substantial action.”

Assomusica comments on the amendment on secondary ticketing

Assomusica acknowledges the important amendment by MP Rampi (and endorsed by the Government through Minister Franceschini) that was just approved, aimed at sanctioning the phenomenon of online ticket touting (secondary ticketing).

Assomusica had tried to put an end to the phenomenon also proposing an amendment to the Tax Decree signed by MPs. Fanucci and Fiorio. The same was then taken up and approved in Parliament in the Finance Act.

With this measure, the government has taken a clear position towards addressing the problem, including serious financial penalties for those who practice this activity.

To this end, Assomusica will be available to give its contribution to the drafting of technical implementing rules which the amendment refers to, and that Ministries of Economy and Finance, Justice, Cultural Heritage and Tourism will need to issue within 30 days since the entry into force of that law.

A big thank you to MPs Fanucci, Fiorio, Rampi and Minister Franceschini for taking such a substantial action. 

The President and the Executive Council of Assomusica

Ansa.it: Voglia di live, +21,9%. Ricerca Fipe, il 50% la consuma in casa

(di Federico Pucci) I locali pubblici sono ancora una fonte primaria per la diffusione della musica: a dirlo è una ricerca commissionata da Fipe in occasione della chiusura dell'accordo tra Siae e la federazione dei pubblici esercizi sulle tariffe per l'esecuzione di musica dal vivo e registrata nei locali pubblici per il 2017.
    L'indagine di Fipe su un campione di 1200 persone descrive un'Italia che, se pure consuma la musica preferibilmente a casa (50,4%) o negli spostamenti quotidiani (32,7%), la ricerca attivamente nelle situazioni sociali. Tra il 50,9% degli intervistati che frequenta abitualmente locali pubblici la presenza di musica negli esercizi è vista con favore dalla grande maggioranza (79,4%) e l'87,6% ha la stessa opinione positiva per la musica dal vivo: la possibilità di frequentare i locali per serate musicali o concerti dal vivo interessa il 90,3% dei frequentatori di locali e il 76,9% dichiara di recarsi in certi luoghi con frequenza maggiore proprio per la presenza di musica, mentre per l'82% di loro esercizi come bar e club sono la via preferenziale per la diffusione di nuova musica e tendenze, tanto da dichiararsi disponibili nel 51% dei casi a spendere di più nella consumazione o con un biglietto d'ingresso pur di ascoltare musica nella sua serata fuori.
    In questo quadro, il panorama dei "concertini", con meno di 200 persone e senza biglietteria, è in aumento: dal 2008 al 2015 questo tipo di eventi si è diffuso (+21,9% passando da 284.176 a 346.348 concertini), con un tasso di crescita particolarmente accentuato al sud (specie Molise, Sicilia, Basilicata e Puglia), dove si è scontato un ritardo. Le regioni dove i concertini si tengono maggiormente sono infatti al centro-nord: Lombardia, Emilia-Romagna, Veneto e Toscana insieme coprono quasi il 50% di questi appuntamenti. Per favorire questo tipo di manifestazioni il presidente di Siae Filippo Sugar ha annunciato che saranno messi in atto incentivi mirati in particolare agli artisti emergenti: tra gennaio e giugno 2017 ogni mercoledì sera Siae proporrà una tariffa più bassa per giovani artisti che eseguono il loro repertorio originale. E se il presidente Fipe Lino Enrico Stoppani accoglie questa novità con piacere, a suo avviso le istituzioni devono muoversi anche per sostenere i locali che ospitano musica. "Vogliamo proporre di estendere anche ai locali dove si fa musica i bonus per i lavori di migliorie concessi alle strutture ricettive. E poi ci sono figure come i facilitatori della notte, di cui si sono dotate città come Londra e Parigi: noi l'avevamo proposto ai candidati sindaco di Milano, perché la night economy non è fatta solo di fannulloni".
    Una posizione sottolineata da Sugar: "Dopo il settore costruttivo e quello alberghiero e della ristorazione, l'intero comparto creativo è il terzo per occupazione in Italia con oltre 1 milione di lavoratori: non si tratta solo di piacere e di cultura".

IQ-Mag.net: ITALIAN TICKET TOUTS FACING FINES OF €180,000

The sale of tickets on the secondary market in Italy could soon be punishable by a fine of up to €180,000.

Following weeks of controversy around online ticket resale – which kicked off with complaints by consumer-protection groups over widespread touting of tickets for Coldplay’s shows in Milan next July and culminated with Italian pop stars Vasco Rossi and Tiziano Ferro severing ties with Live Nation Italy for alleged collusion with Viagogo – Italy’s culture minister, Dario Franceschini, on Friday tabled an amendment to the 2017 budget act which, if passed, would provide for fines of €30,000–€180,000 for the sale of tickets by anyone but the event’s promoter or authorised resellers.

Franceschini (pictured) calls touting an “intolerable phenomenon”, and says “recent events show that self-regulation” – such as that advocated by Prof Waterson in the UK – “is not enough: we need legislative action.”

If passed into law, Franceschini’s proposal would be among the strictest ticket resale regulations in the world. The 2017 budget must be approved by the Italian parliament by 31 December 2016.

“RECENT EVENTS SHOW SELF-REGULATION IS NOT ENOUGH… WE NEED LEGISLATIVE ACTION”

Following an admission by Live Nation Italy’s managing director, Roberto de Luca, on TV programme Le Iene that”we issue some tickets, a very limited number of tickets, on other sites, in this case Viagogo,” the company has withdrawn from Italian promoters’ association Assomusica.

A Live Nation Italy statement, however, notes: “The allegations on Le Iene relate to a small number of tickets for a handful of international artists. Live Nation Italy has never been asked to list any tickets on secondary markets by Italian artists.”

Assomusica, which recently called for “urgent legislative measures” to tackle ticket touting, welcomes Franceschini’s bill.

“I acknowledge with great satisfaction that […] Minister Franceschini announced that he will submit an amendment to the budget law to limit and counter the phenomenon of online ticket touting, or secondary ticketing,” says its president, Vincenzo Spera. “I’m really satisfied to see this unity of views between the minister and Assomusica…

“Our association has always been at the forefront of [putting an end to] touts making money from spoiling cultural events, which promote art and socialisation.”

Assomusica favours the Government's proposal against secondary ticketing

Assomusica acknowledges and welcomes the Government’s proposal, in the person of Minister Franceschini, who will present an amendment to the Budget Law to stem the flow of secondary ticketing.

President Spera declared: "I acknowledge with great satisfaction that this afternoon Minister Franceschini announced that he will submit an amendment to the Budget Law to limit and counter the phenomenon of online ticket touting, or secondary ticketing. I'm really satisfied to see this unity of views between the Minister and Assomusica, since a few days ago the Honourable Fiorio and Fanucci had submitted an Assomusica proposal, regarding the Tax Law, towards stamping out the phenomenon."

President Spera also affirmed that "Our Association is always at the forefront to ensure the legality and avoid that touts can make money spoiling cultural events which promote art and socialization."

L'amore per la musica studiato con uno scan del cervello

 Non amare la musica può essere collegato a differenze nel cervello. Secondo uno studio di Ars Technica svolto su tre gruppi di 15 persone e pubblicato su PNAS, la risonanza magnetica ha svelato che chi non ama la musica ha un flusso inferiore di sangue in alcune zone del cervello collegate alle ricompense, come lo striatum ventrale, quando ascolta una canzone. Ci sarebbe anche una inferiore connettività funzionale fra la corteccia uditiva destra e lo striatum ventrale.

Il controllo è stato fatto con un gruppo che ama la musica e uno che ha un approccio normale. A tutti e tre i gruppi è stato anche sottoposta un’altra attività come il gioco d’azzardo. In questo caso, le differenze fra i tre gruppi non sono state così grandi.

I ricercatori hanno anche scoperto che chi ha una passione particolare per la musica ha maggiori connessioni fra le due aree. 

Subscribe to this RSS feed