I’ve been busy looking into jobs and/or studies for next year, went for an interview and working things out, thus not much writing on the blog. Will have a bit more time over next few weeks for some updates though.
Cheers…
… is that it can get very distracting. For DIY musicians how do you divide the time between all your social networking jobs and actually practicing and doing music? I think it’s better to practice your music first and maintain a minimum presence on the net, updating only when you need to, rather than get distracting by the ‘marketing’ aspect of the net.
If you can provide good music, do something remarkable, write a great song or perform something well, then you can let people online do the recommending for you, rather than be focused on self promotion that sucks precious time needed for developing your own talents.
I’ve put a view more vids up on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/donakrv), and the great thing about Youtube is that everyone and everything is on Youtube. Music-wise it has both established artists and bands as well as all sorts of ’struggling musos’ and hobbyists.
And it means that we’re moving into a ‘prosumer’ society, where we’re less content to be passive absorbers of culture but rather creaters and consumers. We can participate more in the music and media and we’re becoming more aware of the creative and production process.
I guess it’s got good and bad news for struggling musos. The good news is Youtube and other sites offer an avenue of expression and public display of their work. That also allows them to gain feedback and keep trying and improving, and they can grow a grassroots fan-base in the process.
The bad news (and in a sense good news for listeners) is that since the barriers of entry are lowered, making music as a business is going to get more competitive and potential consumers are going to demand more in quality and quantity, for less of the price (depending on the selling model of the future, like Spotify etc…).
And another aspect of the bad news, for DIY musos anyway, is the amount of time needed to promote online to develop a good fan base. (Even if a song goes viral, is it going to be remembered after the next viral thing comes along 15 seconds later?). How much time will you have for music compared to updating profiles, writing blogs, posting pics and vids, answering fan-mail, twittering, joining in discussions etc etc? Perhaps it’s going to require skill time-management. But that’s another post…
01
Nov
09
Small cartoon about media barons
Andrew Dubber has written a responce to an article about Myspace showing some ‘love’, and I must say I agree with what he’s saying. His post is here:
(http://www.musicthinktank.com/blog/happy-quit-myspace-day.html)
Is it that News Corp don’t understand what Myspace is about? Are they just comparing it to Facebook? If you compare other free services like WordPress and Youtube, who provide all kinds of stats and info because the owners undstand the type of tools they are, Myspace seems to be losing the plot.
27
Oct
09
Comparing 2009 to 69
Interesting article I originally found in the Sydney Morning Herald, but the link led me here:
http://blogs.sunherald.com.au/whoweare/archives/2009/10/tribal_beatles.html
It gives the stats on the top sellers in music for these years with the observation of how dominant pop is. But the whole media environment has changed and it seems to be like comparing apples with oranges. The ‘top sellers’ mean less these days because people choose their own music and don’t have to follow the trends. This kind of pop seems almost irrelevent, like the remainders for those who just have no taste in music. If you aren’t particular about the food you eat, a big mac will do. It’s probably the world’s most eaten food item, but so what? It still sucks.
23
Oct
09
Three Zones of Musos
So some struggling muso says “this is my art. It’s a matter of opinion if you think it’s crap. I don’t need input, I don’t want it to be more commercial, it’s about self expression.”
Sure you can say that. There’s always that problem of finding that balance as a songwriter or artist, isn’t there? Should you make changes to your precious work to make it more ‘accessible’, more ‘in style’? Isn’t that selling out?
But don’t you want to make money from your music? Don’t you just dream about making a living from the thing you most love? Aren’t you underrated? Aren’t you ignored by those greedy and ignorant industry executives?
Actually, sometimes you may need to make changes to your song. Maybe those lyrics don’t do anything for listeners, only you. Maybe the melody is just too average. Maybe you need to work on your vocals. Maybe as a band, you’re just not tight enough. You can’t get the attention of your punters down at the pub because they’re too busy rudely indulging their private conversations.
As a ’struggling muso’ myself, I’ve been thinking about some of these issues, and I’ve come to the conclusion that there are three ‘zones’ of music creators, or three ‘types’ of music maker. For want of better labeling, I’ve called them the ‘B zone’, the ‘A zone’ and the ‘X zone’.
Let me deliver the bad news first. As struggling musos or ‘hobbyists’, we’re in the ‘X zone’. And the unfortunate main characteristic of this zone, is that we don’t make money from our music creating. But there is an upside, and I’ll get to the later.
The ‘B zone’ is the Business success side of music making. It’s basically what we consider 99% of the ‘music industry’. It’s music that’s economically viable, whether it’s Britney Spears, the Beatles, Metallica or some good-looking classical violinist who wants to sell us Vivaldi’s Four Seasons all over again. In fact it really covers all of popular music that can support an industry with pretty much no government assistance.
The ‘A zone’ is the Arty-farty side. It’s the starving musicians who have something profound and artistic to say but can’t get the traction of a big enough fan base to allow them to live so some organisation supports them with a grant. Maybe it’s a government grant or some cultural organisation, it doesn’t matter. What matters is some intellectual or cultural opinion leader thinks they deserve to be supported because of their contribution to society. They could be playing shards of glass, but if those in cultural circles appreciate and support them, they’re part of the ‘A zone’.
Often we in the X zone like to claim we’re in the A zone because we can’t get in the B zone. “Oh, I make really deep and insightful music, so insightful in fact that people just haven’t cottoned on to it yet”. We may not say that, but we think that.
Yet in all honesty we don’t really qualify for the A zone because we don’t suffer or starve for our art, and we don’t really have anything terribly profound to say without being awfully contrived. Secretly we just want to be popular, like a rock star.
Now was popular music ever really about artist integrity anyway? Only for those commercially success first, and even then does it really sell? Who really listens to John Lennon’s ‘Number Nine’ from start to finish anyway? That’s the track left out when you play the album.
The B zone is built on an industry, and without that industry, the artists are nothing. Commercial success is a necessity. And it’s not even the quality of songwriting, it’s the perceived quality of songwriting and performance that matters. It’s entertainment, and it has to be good enough to entertain the masses, otherwise there’s no money in it.
So it’s back to the X zone. But the good news is, the whole culture of the internet and social networking is affecting our culture of art and entertainment. We’ve becoming ‘prosumers’, proactive and interactive in our cultural pursuits. We don’t have to sit in frustration wondering why the music industry ignores us, because we can get out and publish/perform/express our music online anyway.
And the limit is only down to us and our dedication. There’s always room to improve, to write a better song and stick it up on Youtube, to make a better mix, record a better solo etc… Maybe one day people will want to buy it, maybe not. It probably depends on whether you persevere or not.
Or maybe they want the songs you least like –if it’s not your career you can be self indulgent anyway. If you want to do a 10 minute atonal metal solo, who’s to stop you? And there’s probably a tribe out there somewhere who appreciates your atonal solos anyway. Let’s glory in our X zone!
A job I’ve gone for recently stressed commitment -they needed the definite commitment to work for a certain period. And that got me think again about my glory days in the band.
Back then ‘commitment’ was something I didn’t really understand, or I should say, there were several factors about commitment that I hadn’t grasped that I should have if I really wanted to get out of the band or see it to its full potential.
The thing is, the band did all right -we managed to write over a dozen songs, play some of the pubs around town, and cut a 12 song demo (in two live studio sessions). I felt good about the musicianship -we all played our instruments well for the songs, and we had developed our own style. The singer had a good voice and had a natural talent for melody, and the bass and drums had that chemistry that makes for a really good rhythm section.
We had good comradeship and by and large have still maintained good friendships to this day (though the band is long defunct).
But those achievements were over a five year period.
And the pub scene during Sydney back then in the 90’s was super competitive (I’m guessing it still is today). In arts and culture, if you really want to make an impact, you’ve got to show extraordinary commitment unless you’re just super naturally talented.
If you’re in a band or you’re a songwriter, how much commitment do you have? Or think of it like this, is it worth someone else’s time to commit their professional time and effort into your art? How can you expect someone to do that, if you’re commitment and dedication is lacklustre?
When our band was doing the circuit, it was easy to fantasize about some A&R guy walking into your show, and at the end of it approaching you with their name card (seems that’s less likely to happen today). But if you think of it in terms of commitment, if you’re only practising once a week or every two weeks and you haven’t written more than 20 songs, how can you expect some record company guy to invest in that?
If you’re a songwriter and hope to ’sell’ a song to an artist via a publisher, but you only play around one hour a night, is that the sort of commitment that will inspire a publisher to invest in you?
Sometimes we like to think we’re more talented than we actually are, that we can kind of ‘wing it’, that some A&R guy or publisher guy will one day just happen to come across our song and that’ll be it. We think our songs are better than they are, because friends and family compliment them and it sounds a little like the Beatles.
And we think this for two reasons:
The first is the fact that we’ve grown up listening to our favourite artists’ finished product. We fail to appreciate how much they’ve put in to get where they have. Like the Beatles cutting their teeth in Germany or the years INXS spent on the road touring the dingy pubs of Australia. We take it for granted. We think it’s just about writing a song, putting on drums bass and keyboards, going into a studio, and Bob’s you’re uncle.
And the other reason is because we hear the media spin those success stories. You know, someone writes a couple of songs, sends one off to a songwriting competition and wins it, or a band of 15 year-olds flippantly go into a band comp after only being together for 5 months, and win it.
Sure, it happens, but it’s a headline-grabbing story because it’s the exception rather than the rule. And there are people who just have that natural talent or spark (or looks) that attract the music industry execs. Chances are you’re not one of them.
And I’ve learnt over the past year, it’s better to read the industry books than the media hyping the success stories. The industry books -how to be a professional songwriter, how to tour a band, how copyright works, will help you understand the value of commitment, because so much of the music industry is about collaboration.
Whether it’s being in a band, or a songwriting team, you’re going to want to work with someone who’s committed as you are. It’s a lot to invest, and you don’t want to be held back halfway through a project. You don’t want people bailing out when the going gets tough, because that’s probably the key point before a breakthrough. And you don’t want someone making empty promises, failing to deliver their part on the lyrics, or put their money on the line for equipment when you have.
I speak as a hypocrite, of course. I’m not in the music industry, but I’ve learned from the shortfalls of being in band. What were those shortfalls?
I guess at the root of it all, we each in our own mind had a different expectation and desire for the band. I wanted to give it my best shot at success, others I guess were happy to have it as a ’serious hobby’, and that really was a fundamental difference.
The chain is as strong as its weakest link.
If it’s just a hobby, you’re not going to go the extra mile to get any better. There’s only so much you’re going to do for it.
But I’m not blaming other members, the responsibility is all mine. I was just deluded back then, but it’s easy to look back with 20/20. The band wasn’t the problem, the problem was me, because I failed to recognise the commitment level of the band. I got too dreamy-eyed, thought it could be more than it could, and invested all my “musical hope” in it.
Looking back on it now, I should have kept the band but just matched the commitment the others had to it, and collaborated with other musicians, worked on other projects, and perhaps taken up courses about recording or the music business. I should have explored other avenues, rather than put all my eggs in the one basket.
But the problem then was I was held down by foolish romantic ideas of ‘being in a band’ and I failed to see that the band was limited by its own cap on commitment, not the failure of A&R guys to ‘discover’ us.
Anyway, I’ll continue this in a next post…
15
Oct
09
About the MV
My reading has moved on to cover Music Videos in the music industry. (S. Simpson’s Music Business).
When I was in a band in the 90’s, we never went beyond ’serious hobby’ status, so we never even considered doing a video clip for any of our songs. But during that time the music video, which I’ll just call ‘MV’ from now on, was almost essential to promotion in the business according to what I’m reading.
It had started in the 80’s, where the MV was handy for big acts to have of their singles in order to send to TV stations round the world (rather than having to travel and perform on set), and from there they developed them on to more creative works.
Then MTV came along and became the dominant avenue for promoting acts. MTV was nationwide across the US, whereas promoting via radio was divided up between major cities -so getting one song on MTV was like hitting the jackpot, compared to sending the single to all the major radio stations across the country. (But there were also other video programs out there.)
So by 90’s international acts would sometimes spend almost as much on one video as they would on the album because of its promotional muscle. Downside for the artists was the record company would often make the expensive video recoupable from their royalties.
My impression is the MTV culture cynically caused the MV to be a glorified advertisement for the band or artist -if an MV was ‘hot’, it sold records. And from the Record Company’s point of view, it was primarily for promotion rather than sales, until MV DVD’s make up for the expensive budgets.
Of course there are many bands and MV producers who see the MV as an artist enterprise rather than just a commercial one. It’s obviously become its own art.
As my focus is on songwriting rather than performing, I’ve never really had much interest in the MV. So if there’s anything I look for in an MV, it’s giving me an impression of the performer or band (especially of up-and-coming artists). I don’t like MV’s with seemingly unrelated images and stories to the song, because to me that just detracts from the song. I’d rather see the band play on stage than some weird animation of funny animals which have nothing to do with the lyrics.
But there’s also a tendency for MV’s to become overly commercial. While there are MV’s that present the artist/band artistically, others flaunt sex and materialism shamelessly and really show little difference to a flashy soft drink commercial.
I’m just a hobbyist but I feel there’s a vast difference between doing music as a hobby without any financial issues involved and doing it as a business.
There was a point one of the speakers made at the AustralAsian Music Business Conference by one of the speakers who ran a label -don’t be shocked or offended when confronted with negotiations about figures and percentages if you get signed to a major label. The speaker had spoken of instances when musicians felt it was offensive when business details were brought to the table. If you want to make a living from music you have to accept the business side of it, you can’t just turn your nose up at the business in the name of artist integrity or idealism.
Of course most people who aspire to make a living as songwriters or performing artists do it out of the desire to make a living from something they enjoy and that is meaningful to them. In that sense it’s a great privilege if they ever get the chance.
But there is a drawback in that once one’s work of art becomes commercially successful there are commercial interests at stake and it’s no longer just the personal ownership of the songwriter. There are all the other parties with interest in the song -the record company, who probably owns the master of the recording, possibly a publisher with up to 50% stake in ownership for it’s promoting of the song, the manager who makes 15% of all the artists proceeds and possibly even the producer, who may also have a stake in royalties of the recordings.
Furthermore, the performing artist may be under pressure for the song to do well in order to use the royalty proceeds to pay off the advance and recoupment on recording costs -so even if an album sells 100 000 copies, it doesn’t mean the artist will make a profit.
I’m guessing in the pop world, there’s even more pressure. If sales are poor, then there’s a chance you won’t be resigned to a major label, and I’ve heard statistics where on average only 1 out of 20 artists really hit the jackpot while the others rarely left in obscurity. The record company relies on this big jackpot, the big star, to bring in the revenue to pay for all the other ‘failures’, though I’m not sure if that’s the way things work now for major labels in the current media environment.
With that commercial pressure, a performing artist is more constrained when it comes to exploring alternative artistic avenues or changing genre.
Of course, if you’re doing music as a hobby, you won’t have the time to work on your craft compared to if it was a job, but you can be indulgent and adventurous musically as much as you want to be. There are no artistic constraints.
And it seems to me from my reading, the other drawback of being a professional artist and songwriter is that it’s simply such a complicated and unreliable business. On the one hand it’s such a ‘hit and miss’ thing, especially with songwriting -the anticipation that the next song you write could be a hit, but it probably won’t. In fact the odd are probably around 10 000 to 1 if you’re an unknown.
One the other hand, should a song hit the jackpot and become a hit, all the little details beforehand you made with co-songwriters and producers etc become exponentially and financially very important.
This could also be the case especially if you’re in a band.
You say you wrote the lyrics and should get 50% for it, but the bassist contributed to the bridge and reckons he gets half of the lyric share. And then the drummer didn’t really contribute to the melody or the harmony, how much should his share be? And of course, you didn’t write a split letter at the time because you were all mates and assumed that it wouldn’t matter because you’d all have buckets of money if you ‘made it’.
When the financial stakes are so high, I’m guessing tensions could rise and relationships could become soured, and the lawyers probably get a fair chunk of the royalties in the end.
This is the issue I’m repeatedly coming across in books like Shane Simpson’s Music Business. The details are crucial for what might occur in the future, though it probably won’t, that is, with the paradigm of hoping for the hit record. So much care needs to be put into setting up everything, from a split letter for copyright ownership, to every contract along the way -with the publisher, with the manager, with the record label, with the producer. I imagine that if an artist isn’t careful, he or she or they may end up with the raw end of the stick.
That’s why the new ‘DIY’ media environment is a bit more encouraging. Rather than a band basing their hopes on the hit record, they can base it on more reliable factors such as a stable fan base. With so much more information available and direct contact with fans, they can budget and supply recordings/performances accordingly.
However, contracts and royalty issues and splits and negotiating may still become important if the band hope to get their songs in a film or TV program or add, but it won’t necessarily be what they’re relying on.
And there’s more leeway for the ‘hobby’ musician to compromise -sell a few of his songs on itunes, make a record when he knows he can sell a few thousand to fans around the world and know which town or city he’ll get a big enough crowd to do a show in. So what if it’s not his full-time gig?
