12 • InterMixx • independent music magazine
OPINION: In a fascinating thread from Facebook, we discuss "The New Boss." by Noël Ramos
A link to an interesting article by the well-respected musician, David Lowery, (entitled: Meet The New Boss, Worse Than The Old Boss?) kicked off an even more interesting FB discussion, in which I defend you, the enterprising indie musicians of the new market, and also detail my long-held opinions about the industry, middlemen, and the majors... I'll include a link to David's article at the end of this, because it was a pretty good read, but I found the resultant conversation .. that it sparked to be much more telling. Specifically, it demonstrated the schism that still exists – and which rears its head quite often – between some old-school major label people, and those who are creating the new music paradigm of the independent market. Now to be fair, there were a number of industry folks expressing a variety of well-thought-out opinions that ranged from futuristic thinking, to lamenting their market's heyday of the 60s-90s, but I'll just be including comments from a few key participants. I'll change their names to protect the innocent. ;) The first comment that I felt compelled to respond to, came from a recording studio owner who has apparently worked on some very high profile, major label projects over the years. He also revealed himself as a musician, which shouldn't be surprising I guess... until I read some of his opinions... Studio Dude wrote: There's so much wrong in that it's ridiculous. The article claims: "The fact that artists are spending much less TIME recording can only mean they have less money or expect to make less money" No, it means computers have become the main musical instrument. The writing process, which is normally done outside of a studio, is now also the recording process. Other than vocals, modern records are made without air in the signal path. The part about bands touring and playing for smaller audiences? That means their audience is smaller, of course they're going to sell fewer records. To understand the way it actually works, you need to have two not-obvious ideas clear. First, the music business is not the record business. They are two different things. Second, an album has always been "merch". Music has always been used as a sales tool, it's not the goods that are being sold. The model has always been: build a brand sell stuff with the brand name on it. You can build the artist brand, someone else's brand or both. Here's a question, is it possible to have 1 million fans, sell no records, sell
no concert tickets, get no airplay on radio or the internet and make a living? The answer is yes and there are a lot of people doing it. They're called bloggers. Before you assume that I'm saying bands should become bloggers, I'm not, though it's not a bad idea. The point is this - when you have a large fan base, you will make money one way or another. Worry more about making music that attracts fans than what percentage iTunes takes. It's a distraction. Plus Apple has earned that money. Tracks on iTunes don't sell because of the artists, they sell because of iTunes. If iTunes didn't exist, there would be nearly no sales other than what sells at Walmart and Kmart. Most artists make music for the wrong reasons and that's why they don't sell. On your next commute, look around you and ask yourself "Do I want to hear these people's self-expression?" I can tell you that I sure don't. Music is for the listener, not the artist. What the artist needs to express is the listener's feelings. That's when there's a connection. Can you do both? Why not write songs where the artist can express themselves and that the audience will like? The answer is who cares? No one cares. The audience is just as narcissistic as the artist. Why should they pay you for your self-indulgence? They want to pay for theirs. They key is really looking at how things work accurately, and that article has all sorts of cause and effect wrong. Studio Dude's comment prompted a response from me... Noël wrote: "Here's a question, is it possible to have 1 million fans, sell no records, sell no concert tickets, get no airplay on radio or the internet and make a living?" With 1,000,000 fans it should be easy for ANYONE to make a living without selling records, tix, or having airplay! All you'd need is for each one to spend a minuscule TEN CENTS PER YEAR on you and you're at $100,000 annual income. Not too shabby. You could charge them a buck for a "membership" to your web site and be wealthy within a week. Who actually has that many true fans though? Certainly not your typical indie musician. Amanda Palmer, who even with her major label past and famous husband – and who broke records by raising a whopping 1.2 million dollars on Kickstarter, did it with the support of only 24,883 backers! Imagine if she had a million fans?
E SAV % *
20
SEND BOUQUETS FOR ANY OCCASION anniversary | birthday | just because
Hurry! Flowers from $19.99 +s/h Visit www.ProFlowers.com/Satisfaction or call 800.453.3844 Join Over 12 Million People Who Have Found a Better Way to Send Flowers *20% off discount will appear upon checkout. Minimum purchase of $29.00. Does not apply to gift cards or certificates, same-day or international delivery, shipping and handling, taxes, or third-party hosted products (e.g. wine) and cannot be combined with other offers or discounts. Discounts not valid on bulk or corporate purchases of 10 units or more. Offer expires: 6/30/14.
"Music is for the listener, not the artist. What the artist needs to express is the listener's feelings. That's when there's a connection." You're bringing up the sore subject of "art vs. commerce." Maybe in Nashville "music is for the listener, not the artist," but the most cherished bit of freedom that the digital revolution brought to the artists, is the ability to MAKE ART, not "product." And now they can even earn a living by doing just that. By aggregating a small niche market from disparate places around the world, an indie artist can find a few thousand superfans who will gladly spend 50 - 100 bucks a year on their art. That's a career, even without reaching a "million fans." "They key is really looking at how things work accurately, and that article has all sorts of cause and effect wrong." I disagree, but I don't necessarily think your views are wrong. I think you and David are both making valid observations. "First, the music business is not the record business. They are two different things. Second, an album has always been "merch". Music has always been used as a sales tool, it's not the goods that are being sold." Couldn't agree with you more, very well said. It's still a sales tool, but now instead of selling plastic discs featuring recorded music and a bundle of limitedusage rights, artists are using their music to sell INTERACTION. Amanda Palmer didn't sell CDs when she made that 1.2 mil, she sold thank you cards, signed art books, exclusive access, "surprise gifts," VIP treatment... She sold interaction with the artist. She parceled out little pieces of her world. Over 130 of her fans each paid more than $1000 for their chunk of it.