This article was originally posted on December 12, 2009. As people in the music tech world seem to be getting excited about the impending arrival of Spotify to America I thought I’d revisit these thoughts from 18 months ago. The advent of Spotify is not a game changer in my mind therefore I still stand by this article.
Towards a New Music Business Model And The New Thinking That Is Required.
“The future does not fit in the containers of the past.” – Rishad Tobaccowala
“..we are now in an era where spectatorial culture is giving way to participatory culture”. Henry Jenkins director, Comparative Media Studies Program at MIT.
I give thanks once again to Brian Zisk and his incredibly motivated crew for inviting me to speak at the upcoming SanFranMusicTech event on December 7th in San Francisco, and later at the SXSW Conference in Austin in March 2010. Brian is one of the organizers of SanFranMusicTech and is moderating the panel that I will be on at SXSW. [If you've never attended SanFranMusicTech I would encourage you to do so. It's a wonderful, energetic mix of entrepreneurs, tech experts, musicians and thought leaders in the digital space. In other words it's not just for musicians or techies...] The panel discussions will revolve around the premise of how, or if, musicians are using the tools available to them on the Social Web.
I have written this essay as a prelude to the upcoming panels, both to outline my views on the subject in advance, and also as a way to organize my thoughts and past essays into one place. The debate surrounding online music distribution still evokes passion from critics and supporters alike, the most vocal being musicians who believe that I am working to make music free online and therefore deny them income from CD sales. Nothing could be further from the truth, I simply argue that musicians need to monetize everything around their musical output and stop dreaming that CD sales will one day return to previous levels; where the 2009 equation means 100k is the new 1mm, 10k is the new 100k etc. I should point out for the record that I am focusing almost exclusively on non-mainstream, independent musicians. [Although there is no reason at all that mainstream, commercial artists shouldn't be doing the same thing.]
It Has Been Almost Fifteen Years
It has been more than a decade since I was last fully immersed in the recorded music business [and then only peripherally as GM of eMusic.com,] and I have long held out hope that musicians would ditch the old media model, both the business and the manufacturing sides, and fully embrace the huge possibilities that the unfettered social web allows them – asymmetrical distribution as opposed to old media distribution silos, two-way communication with music fans as opposed to old media PR, and marketing tactics and an unparalleled universal sandbox in which to experiment.
I am still waiting. Unfortunately my patience is now wearing thin. And my impatience is no longer with the record labels, it’s with the musicians. Despite all the data and untold amounts of writing about the decline in music sales, mainly the fall off of CD sales, musicians appear to be sitting on their hands. The reason I am no longer impatient with record labels is because their business model is transparent – they exist to make money from musicians. On the other hand, musicians are [or ought to be] immersed in their art; no one guarantees a living from the arts, but talk to the average musician about internet music distribution and you will often hear the same refrain – “downloading and file-sharing is killing music and denying me a living..” [BTW, that is not the best argument in the for and against wars of online music distribution; in the USA musicians conveniently forget that MTV and commercial radio is built on the back of musicians and those companies don't pay royalties for that privilege. You can include MySpace in there too.]
I have long argued that musicians need to drop the notion of making money from CD sales through record labels and concentrate on making money from the experiential awareness that surrounds their brand; a brand they own, no one else. The downside to this for musicians is that they need to get organized and work hard, or arrange for what I call the “fifth Beatle” to help with online communications, selling merchandise etc. Consider this from Russell Davies
Creating music is only the first step to creating something valuable and timeless. For instance, David Byrne played a building. Music released as part of an event is the future – Radiohead’s release of In Rainbows was the first step toward the album release as event, if it’s an album at all.. How it’s done is also important. The container has changed forever. Remember what Rishad Tobaccowala has to say to advertising agencies trying to embrace the social web – “The future does not fit in the containers of the past.” It is no different for bands. The organizing principle of recorded music is now in the hands of musicians, not technologists, not record labels. Consider this or perhaps release your music like this.
As I have written before: “Control has moved from the few to the millions of many. If dull labels and dull bands keep offering dull, flat, non-experiential product – e.g. a CD, they will go the way of the Dodo. Consider what Cirque Du Soleil provides as an experience compared to Barnum and Bailey’s circus. Or Burning Man compared to your average music festival.”
Valuable and Timeless – Some Examples
So who is working at the edges of independent rock music for instance? Below are but a few examples of musicians currently providing what I feel is valuable and timeless work; I consider valuable and timeless as ‘worth spending time in the present with,’ as time is our one truly finite resource; art does not necessarily exist to entertain us, it should fill our time with wonder.
From left to right: Karin Dreijer Andersson as Fever Ray, Radiohead‘s 52 minute long ‘Scotch Mist,’ Dirty Projectors Stillness Is The Move video, Sunn 0))) live as reviewed by Sasha Frere-Jones, Patti Smith, back in the 70′s performing Horses on British TV and DJ Spooky performing on Earth Day in Washington, DC. [I know I'm walking on thin ice here as music taste, as with one's taste in art, is highly subjective, but...] Click on the images to link to content.
).jpg)
Online Music Businesses Cannibalize Each Other’s Model
As we approach 2010 we can now look back at the decade we are leaving behind and arguably acknowledge that only Apple, with its iTunes software and well designed and ergonomic hardware, was able to move the needle when it came to monetizing the MP3 download – this I know from just a cursory look at my Warner Music royalty statements. The one-stop iTunes package, coupled with the affinity that consumers feel when engaging with the Apple brand, simplified the downloading of music for millions of people. Those with more technical knowledge continue to use torrents to access music and film downloads.
Subscription services such as Rhapsody and EMusic continue to survive, but judging by their subscriber numbers, they have only created niche businesses supported by a minority of music fans. Recently News Corporation has signaled its willingness to enter the fray and two founders of Skype will soon launch Rdio, yet another subscription model. These two are following in the footsteps of iLike, LaLa, Spotify, Google Music and now MOG. Clearly the music access space is becoming crowded which only leaves consumers with paltry options, all based around similar offerings. None of this bodes well for the future of music, or for musicians, if we consider that income from these services has come nowhere near the level that it was from CD sales a decade ago. And by the way, I do not align myself with those that say the Internet is killing music. On the contrary, I argue that the major record labels and the RIAA, through their relentless lawsuits campaign, destroyed the trust and goodwill that music fans felt when interacting with music brands [musicians, artists, bands,] and by doing that they pushed music into being a good, a mere commodity. We need new thinking….
The Physical Space to Digital Space Dilemma for Producers [Brands and Musicians]
In a classic producer to market economy the producer typically has access to, and/or controls, the distribution channels and uses mass media channels to market the product. This works just fine in the physical world of CDs or vinyl records but the Internet shatters that model. In the past, musicians signed to labels and signed away the rights to their copyrights and masters, in return for access to manufacturing and distribution. [Unfortunately some still do..] The labels controlled the system and the purse strings – for artists it was a heavy price to pay.
These days the web gives individuals access to the same level of technologies as any organization; the playing field has been leveled. In what now seems like ancient history, Sean Fanning and a buddy started Napster while in college just over ten years ago, not because they wanted to create a new music business model but because the tools to create an online music file sharing system were at hand. It did not require a well-capitalized organization to start Napster – whether he knew it or not, Fanning was simply a pioneering disrupter who brought the music business to the brink of disaster. Venture capitalists soon swooped in an attempt to force through a new music business model, but the labels fought back litigating the original Napster out of business. [BTW, the record labels missed a huge opportunity by not embracing Napster but that's another story.]
In a recent post on his blog, my business partner at Fight, Justin Spohn, writes of how brands face a similar disruption as they move from the physical to digital space:
“In the physical world, brand competition can be, and has been, essentially symmetrical. Even as new competitors come into the market, there are certain practical restrictions – legal, social and physical that they’re all bound by. Competing brands have similar opportunities based on similar goals, laws, availability of scarce resources, development of distribution chains, and access to communication channels. This symmetry helps to create a stasis that keeps established brands on top [and] prevents upstarts from posing immediate risk to established institutions.
In the digital space though, almost none of this applies. Resources are not scarce to begin with, and become more widely available everyday. Practically speaking, there is no such thing as a distribution chain, and where there is something that might resemble one, the iPhone app store for example, access to it has nothing to do with the size of your organization. Because on the web individuals have access to the same level of technologies as any organization, and because they can distribute it just as effectively, it means that brands are now not just competing with other brands, but with individuals whose goals are not only not the same as a brand, but possibly in direct conflict. The competitive landscape is flat with established brands fighting what amounts to a global asymmetrical battle.”
The paragraph above outlines very clearly why Rhapsody, EMusic, LaLa, iLike, Spotify, Google Music, Rdio and the new offering from News Corp via MySpace are all fighting an asymmetrical battle – the online music landscape is flat, these company’s offerings are almost identical [i.e. they all license music from the same pool of copyright holders,] and they are fighting each other for a miniscule share of music fans’ dollars. In short they are cannibalizing each others business models. Only iTunes stands alone as a differentiator. The CEO’s of the other companies need to understand that the only thing that’s scarce on the Internet is attention, and they should be looking very closely at what their company’s brand strategy is, as only that will inform their social web music business strategy. They should be constantly looking over their shoulder, as any individual could disrupt their web business models at any moment.
In his essay Data-mining The Disconnections: Bits vs Atoms, The Rematch my friend Roy Christopher concludes by saying – “There are several trajectories here, but the main thing I want to point out is just that: the multifaceted influence of technological mediation. Every change has unintended consequences, and we lose something with every gain. These changes are neither good nor bad, but we should be mindful that they’re happening.”
Get Over Sucking on the Music Nanny State teat. A Digital Future Requires Strategy
Now that the internet has provided disrupting producers with all the tools they need to bypass the existing recorded music system, there should be no excuse for musicians to not go it alone. Yet, the producers – the musicians themselves, remain the problem. I believe that the safety and comfort offered to them in the past – record label deals, publishing deals, old media distribution, plus MTV and commercial radio for the most successful – created a diabolical music Nanny state, an addictive teat at which to suck that they are now having trouble weaning themselves off. I know there are many examples of musicians embracing the web but they have taken only baby steps and are in the minority – the majority are still staring into the headlights. [I purposefully won't discuss Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails here as much has been written about their successful use of the social web and I consider them special cases.]
The Nanny state reduced risk taking and danger in popular music. The very founding spirit of rock and roll was danger. Danger as perceived by those who didn’t understand the outburst of energy and excitement that this early musical form drew out of teenagers. Parents and adults in authority voiced their concerns and this led to ridiculous moments in musical history such as TV cameramen being told to only film Elvis Presley from the waist up.. If we fast forward to 1975 in the UK, we find that rock and roll, a mere 20 or so years later, with only a few exceptions, had become commercial, flabby, conservative and mostly dull. Then along came a new genre of music delivered by bands like the Sex Pistols, The Clash, Siouxie and the Banshees who injected rock with some street smarts and and sprinkled it with just a soupcon of danger. It was known as Punk Rock.
I bring up punk rock here as it defines a moment in rock music history that was as disruptive in 1976 as online music distribution became in the late 1990’s. Punk rock challenged people’s assumptions that popular music would always be, and could only be, controlled by large, well-capitalized, business organizations. Punk rock drove down production values and just like the Internet, became disruptive and leveled the playing field. Punk bands formed quickly, releasing records as 7″ vinyl singles on their own equally quickly formed record labels. A long term career in music was not the point of this enterprise, many bands flamed out within six months of their existence. Small independent labels sprang up to cater to this avalanche of bands, offering more favorable contracts than the majors had in the past. Business is business though, and the small label owners had plans for growth that ultimately led to punk rock’s demise. Soon enough punk rock was commoditized and, after a brief fling with Post-Punk, quickly fizzled leaving the stage for the New Romantics and their ilk. It wasn’t long until it was business as usual for the record labels – five years of promise had passed very quickly.
So I have to ask – why is there no online music equivalent of punk rock? Why is there no real and passionate embrace of the new?
The barriers to entry into the new music business are even lower than back in 1976. Why then, when the options to go it alone are everywhere online, do bands sign up with MySpace.com for instance, a News Corporation company owned by the right wing media curmudgeon Rupert Murdoch? [Without going in to too much detail, I wonder if musicians and artists have ever read the MySpace Terms Of Service agreement?] And then there’s Facebook and Twitter, two privately owned companies who are amassing a large amount of data about their users – how will that information be shared, or will it? Who owns it? Questions about who owns what with regard to copyrights and masters were paramount during the punk rock period of 1976 – 1981. Why not now, as data becomes the new master copyright?
Example from Jay Rosen, Journalism Professor at NYU, from Twitter:
This headlong charge by musicians and artists into social networking, without thinking through the long term ramifications of such behavior with regard to their copyrights, most likely stems from the fact that the average 20 – 30 year old has grown up, knowing only progress and advances in society driven by Internet technology and mobile communications; the use of these networked tools is second nature to them. Kazys Varnelis, the Director of the Network Architecture Lab at the Columbia University Graduate School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation, has similar thoughts about young people and progress. Here is an extract from a conversation with the editors of Triple Canopy where he considers the collapse of complex societies and the end of technological advancement as we know it:
“The generation now in its twenties and thirties is used to nothing but growth and to the success of systems like the Internet and cell phones. They’ve seen their lives transformed, largely for the better, by technology. So they find it hard to understand other possibilities, which is going to make it very hard for them. In our culture of punditry, everyone expects an easy, overarching solution, but I don’t think we’re going to find one this time….[Edit]..I think that a young person today needs to learn to be enormously flexible. Ten years ago who thought that we’d be talking about how long the New York Times has to live?”
Digital Natives, Digital Youth and Mobile Computing
I believe that only a minority of musicians are less than precious about their musical works. In other words they understand the power of the social web and how, when a song is released online as a free MP3, it is taken and repurposed by todays creative digital youth. The results can be startling and can often be better than the original work, [although I accept that defining "better" is in the ear of the listener and the artist may not agree.] It is also hard to argue that any “song” by Girl Talk is not an original work even though it might be crammed with dozens of samples from other artists’ songs [but that's another essay..]
The term Digital Native is defined in a Wikipedia article as “a person for whom digital technologies already existed when they were born, and hence has grown up with digital technology such as computers, the Internet, mobile phones and MP3s.” The idea has many critics as it only considers a narrow slice of young people and “…It suggests a fluidity with technology that not all children and young adults have, and a corresponding awkwardness with technology that not all older adults have.”
And yet it can be argued that when we expand the demographic range of the digital native it increases the audience for online music exponentially. Generation Z has no affinity for the CD or even a computer unless it’s a mobile device, plus their parents and grandparents are now well up to speed with accessing the social web as well as dealing with mobile technology.
The Herald Sun ran an article earlier this year about Gen Z:
“Gen Z had easily adapted to the challenges of the modern world, including technology, terrorism and climate change, said Sarah Cornish, former editor of magazine Total Girl. “They have never known a life without the internet, let alone computers, and many don’t know a world without mobile phones,” she said. “Most are also born post-September 11 and some of our readers are concerned about terrorism, and they are much more environmentally aware than previous generations.”
When the Herald Sun interviewed seven Gen Z students from Reservoir’s Merrilands College, aged from eight to 13, almost all identified global warming and climate change as the world’s biggest issue. When asked about terrorism most could recall the September 11 attacks, despite being only very young when they happened. “They blow up everything like the Twin Towers. People had to jump off the building otherwise they’d get a face full of fire,” Royce, 12, said.
Technology is just another toy to play with for many of the children.“
As we enter 2010, musicians need to acknowledge that the new generation of music lovers do not consider music as more important than the environment or terrorism. They also do not grow up with, or are burdened by, the ” Curse of Knowledge,” an endemic institutional culture problem that boils down to this – when we know something, it becomes hard for us to imagine not knowing it.
The new generations will hold previous generations more accountable for creating harm instead of creating and doing good. Not in a liberal, wooly, back to the earth way, but how they define themselves – their personal brand – and how they want to be perceived in society. Young people will move from wearing a brand’s clothing that defines them, such as shoe companies, to just simply wearing clothes made by companies that have traditionally used efficient, renewable earth-friendly ways to manufacture and produce. Brand clothing will be acceptable wear if the brand follows those principles and does “good.” It will also apply to products. It will definitely apply to musicians and how the next generation perceives their actions, both politically and environmentally.
I will leave you with this Twitter post that I saw, from someone attending a recent media conference: Ominous thought on media upheavel from Cisco exec: “music is lucky because it went first.” via @bmorrissey
So, musicians and/or bands – do you want the next generation of musicians saying “bands in the decade 2000 -2010 are lucky, because they went first?” I thought not. Please embrace the web.
Supporting Articles and Related Posts
Roy Christopher – The Disintegration of the Compact Disc
RWW – Top Internet Trends of 2000 – 2009 Online Music
PaidContent – The Music Business Lacks A Mass Market Strategy
Good – The Dark Side of Social Media
TechCrunch – Live From Hollywood: Google’s Music Onebox Launches, Powered By MySpace And Lala
TechCrunch – Facebook Strikes Back At iLike: No-Spam Policy Cancels Concert Alerts
Cnet – Imeem Acquired by MySpace Means $30 Million Loss For Investors
Ze Frank – Digital Natives [Complete-ish]
Umair Haque [Harvard Business] – Create Something Valuable
Dave Allen : Some Essays and Posts Regarding Online Music
The End of The Music Album as The Organizing Principle
My Love of Vinyl Records, Some Thoughts on Marshall McLuhan, Neil Young on Analog
The End of The CD And The End of The CD Retailers
The Top 5 Reasons Why Vinyl Will Outlive CDs
David Byrne Tells Record Labels To Embrace The MP3
How Killing The Single Killed The Recording Industry
How Bands Can Make More Money By Not Putting A Price on Their CDs
Ben Taylor On Tour – Says Pay What You Want For My CDs, Sells More
Do Music Artists Fair Better in a World of File Sharing
Music Industry Attempts to Nudge Downloaders to Streaming Sites
Anton Corbin and U2 – End of the Album As Organizing Principle
Additional Articles and Posts
David Byrne Interview With Radiohead’s Thom Yorke
Justin Spohn of Fight Web Site This Is Violence
ReadWriteWeb Google – What The Web Will Look Like in 5 Years
Google vs MySpace News Corporation’s Google Saber Rattling Really About MySpace
Sasha Frere-Jones Glenn Branca’s End Times
Sasha Frere-Jones Hip Hop’s Demise
Sasha Frere-Jones Interview with Karin Dreijer Andersson of Fever Ray
Sasha Frere-Jones How Indie Rock Lost Its Soul
Amanda Palmer Web Site
Dirty Projectors Stillness Is The Move [Video]
Via Tania Web Site
Get Busy Committee Web Site
Roy Christopher How Has The Decline of the CD Affected the Way You Approach the Idea of Recording Music?
Let’s Deliver “Albums” This Way – From The Basement
Russell Davis Musical Ages Being a Catalogue of My Relationship
PaidContent – Xbox Connection Funnels a Million New Users to Last.fm
Patti Smith Horses and Hey Joe on British TV in 1976
Now Now, Every Children Web Site
Sasha Frere-Jones Hey Bono You’re Doing it Wrong
37 Signals The Curse of Knowledge
Rishad Tobaccowala Digital Is So Yesterday
Phil Hardy The Music Industry in 5 Years Time
Made The Perfect Online Marketing Strategy for Musicians
Sydney Morning Herald Is Celebrity Culture Over?
Carrie Brownstein The Role of The Record Label
Fanfarlo Case Study from Topspin
DJ Troublemaker All His Mixes, Always Free
The Daily Telegraph 15 Years Of Music On The Web
The Guardian In a decade of change and confusion in the music business, one figure came to rule it all. Unfortunately, it was Simon Cowell
New York Times The Fall and Rise of Media
Harvard Business Review The Unbundling of Music in Digital Channels [pdf]
Henry Jenkins of Comparative Media Studies Program at MIT on Transmedia [video]
Harvard Business School Reconstructing Digital Music
Harvard Business School Miles Davis: Kind Of Blue
New York Times REO Speedwagon Rocks On As a Game
EMusic and Sony The Fiasco, Where is EMusic’s Community Manager?
Great essay, congratulations! Of the many thoughts you exposed, one that caught my attention was the question of… attention. And the way we use our time. Why listen to music if we have the whole universe – the web… – to contemplate and explore? Isn’t the internet that exciting? This new world of technology (the web, social medias, mobile devices, etc) is so fresh that I could say that, just as “bla-bla-bla is the new black”, this technology is the ‘new music’. In other words, maybe the attraction music used to have, exists now in other cultural manifestations. To me, as a musician, it’s kind of creepy to think this way, but maybe – for the next years, at least – music will lost its power, creativity and influence over the younger generations. I used to have a music school and learned that my opponents were not only other music schools, but also language courses and fitness classes, for example. And this scenario gets even worse if we think that popular music has evolved to a kind of classical music: rock, jazz, reggae, soul/funk/black music, pop, samba (here in Brazil) are all genres that hasn’t changed much in the last 20 or 30 years. And became classical in the sense that its structures, its compositional structures, are now frozen and repeating old models. Why do we say “classic rock”? Because its a “museum” kind of music. This is a personal opinion, and many of my fellow musicians don’t agree with me. But if we consider that today’s rock groups are creating, mostly, exactly the same kind of music their parents listened to, with the same instruments, chords and melodies… isn’t that boring? Why should anyone pay THAT attention to music in the web, if musicians and artists are repeating older models, classic models?
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:14 pmMarcos, I completely agree and I love your idea of “classic rock” as a museum piece. I think musicians forget to easily that music is but one aspect of the younger generations busy cultural lives. As I mention at the end of the essay, young people will be looking for the “good” in everything and older generations will be judged by them on what good they created…or not.
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:37 pmDamn. I’ve been waiting for another deep post, and this one was quite epic. Indeed, what is the web equivelant of punk rock? Sadly, the lack of an answer due to the sheer number of bands and micro-niches that have emerged in music may be the reason why. In fact, the continuing fragmentation of music, music scenes, and music appreciation may BE the closest thing there is to a modern day movement of creative disruption.
As much as I am all for the present and future state of music and the music industry, I do regret this one point. Dave, I think you know as well as any of us that there are TONS of bands who are doing everything they can, creatively, to be leaders, movers and shakers in their own right. Nowadays, it seems like every band is something new weird and different (and aweseome!). I don’t see a lack of inspiration or creativity or willingness to embrace the new in bands. What I see are 10,000 pioneers who end up getting equally ignored because the band next to them is equally cool. I think the lack of apparent breakthroughs in music is an illusion, caused by the fact that groundbreaking music and music marketing strategies are now the norm.
Of course, this is a good problem to have. But a little part of me is sad that we will probably never have a monocultural moment again, when most everyone can like a certain band or genre and all rock out together…. or at least look back and oversimplify music history and say that we did!
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:47 pmMarcos, its a modern musicians duty to make sure that they are part of new “cultural manifestations”… even if they don’t seem like traditional music ventures. It may be that music’s future is not something that earlier generations would regard as (“classically”) musical. Music today is far more than just recorded or performed audio. For better or for worse, musicians don’t just play instruments anymore. They have to be conceptualists of a sort, and “play” an attitude/lifestyle/idea/cultural-manifestation that is reflected in everything they do. I can’t think of any other type of artist that has to do this to the same extent and depth (other than politicians). Thats pretty cool if you think about it.
December 2nd, 2009 at 6:56 pmDave, Wonderful article that I fully embrace. This part is my favorite as I was a big Napster supporter publishing an article response from Senator Feinstein when this was going on..it was so simple back then to see how to turn it around. The labels fought and destroyed the trust – and the opportunity.
“Fanning was simply a pioneering disrupter who brought the music business to the brink of disaster. Venture capitalists soon swooped in an attempt to force through a new music business model, but the labels fought back litigating the original Napster out of business. [BTW, the record labels missed a huge opportunity by not embracing Napster but that's another story.]”
In full agreement,
Dena
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:56 pm[...] For further reading about the future of the music business, check out this meaty article: Dear Musicians – Please Be Brilliant Or Get Out Of The Way [...]
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:09 amGood stuff Dave. I am amazed that so many musicians just don’t get it yet, but I work on the Web, as do you. Most people are 3 – 5 years behind in technology, and the old music business model is entrenched within the psyche of today’s musicians. It’s tough to dispel the starving artist myth. I’m begging you to not give up the fight, however (pun maybe intended). Artists need to hear the incessant drumbeat so that they can adapt to the new way of doing things.
When it comes to you and Justin’s writing and speaking about the cultural shift that the Web has brought, I am very much in agreement. I am enjoying seeing how disruptive technology can be.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:54 amDave,
Add my voice to the choir singing (and Tweeting) “Well Done!” One other example of someone helping to chart a new way of doing (the music) business is, of course, Imogen Heap. (Whom I discovered, through you, IIRC.) Lots has been written about her, of course, but this blog post seems like an excellent run down and complements many of your points.
http://deepdivemarketing.com/2009/07/20/the-new-music-business-model-imogen-heap/
The key, I think, which you’ve often said yourself, is authenticity. What Heap does works for her because she has been consistently looking for ways to bring her fans into her creative life, not just as observers, but also as participants. (Her latest example is she’s been auditioning cello players online in each city where her latest tour has stopped and picking one to join her for a song–if no suitable cellist can be found, she can’t do the song!)
But what might seem sincere and charming coming from Ms. Heap could be contrived and stupid coming from someone else. Just like what works for any of the artists you cite won’t necessarily work for anyone else. Artists shouldn’t try and copy the techniques (tactics, as we marketers like to say), but look to themselves and their audience to craft the right strategy to create and strengthen those connections.
You are right, I think, to challenge the music and arts communities to get up and figure out the best new path forward for them. I mean, come on. For decades everyone who wasn’t signed bitched about the labels, but everyone who *was* signed bitched about them, too–and both for good reasons! Now the labels, if not going away, are at least no longer “necessary” in the way they maybe once were, so stop your whining and get out there!
Cheers,
Jay
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:13 amDave, I like your post. Articulate and well thought out. I find it interesting that musicians are back to generating income through performance; that recorded music now available for free is the PR mechanism to get people to the show. The current consternation about lost recording revenue streams reminds me of a 100-year-old anecdote: When recording technology was in its infancy, some engineers were in Indonesia attempting to record the local music scene. However, the musicians thought recording music was a waste of time. For them, music was something always fresh and new. Capturing a performance seemed odd, like relishing yesterday’s news. Why listen to an “old” recording when you could experience the real musical moment, right now. Well, we don’t share that sentiment, ie, most of us like our recorded musical experiences. But those players have a point, and, perhaps, live music will always be revered as the best way to experience the musicians’ craft.
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:47 pm[...] know I love it when someone takes a stance like this: “Dear Musicians – Please Be Brilliant Or Get Out Of The Way“ This was written by Andy. Posted on Thursday, December 3, 2009, at 1:46 pm. Filed under [...]
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:46 pmGene, yes that’s an interesting point. I have noticed that income from performance royalties is on the rise, just as digital income flattens and hasn’t made up the difference from CD sales income of yesteryear. The live music spectacle is obviously the most sincere event that a band or musician can produce. I like the anecdote about music once recorded becomes yesterday’s news…
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:49 pmJay, yes Imogen does a great job of being in touch with her fans on the social web, whilst remaining really genuine and authentic. There are many artists who are succeeding at this [Amanda Palmer is another,] unfortunately they are in the minority.
December 3rd, 2009 at 2:51 pmI think the possibility for musicians to make money from “the experiential awareness that surrounds their brand” is only available to a VERY LIMITED group of musicians – those who appeal to youngsters. That pretty much eliminates jazz, classical, and to a lesser degree perhaps folk music and other genres with niche audiences. What jazz musician is going to make a living selling T-shirts, posters and innovative experiences? Wynton Marsalis? Maybe. Maybe not. Herbie Hancock? Doubtful. Wayne Shorter? Definitely not. The thousands of fantastic jazz musicians most people have never heard of? Fuggedaboutit.
So, that’s not a viable strategy for making a living – or even recouping music production costs – for many musicians.
I can’t offer a better idea. Yet. But I’m working on it.
As for musicians adopting online tools for DIY marketing, distribution, etc. (weaning themselves from the “Music Nanny State teat”), I’m with you. I’ve spoken with MANY musicians (and have dragged a handful kicking and screaming into the digital age) about this. Most are extremely resistant. At the very least, they don’t think they have time for it and/or it should be somebody else’s job.
They don’t want to be marketers and resent the notion that after spending years or decades honing their skills and developing their art, that they should have to shill it too. As a musician and a marketer, I obviously disagree. Hell, I think marketing should be taught in music schools! Despite my evangelical approach to modern marketing tools, I’ve found it mighty hard to move that mindset. Good pals (who are world-class jazz artists) have said to me “I created a MySpace page a few years ago. I’m not going to get on Facebook too. I don’t have time.” They definitely aren’t exploring new distribution models.
I am extremely worried about how musicians can continue to make money and survive. I’m cogitating on some ideas, but they won’t be fast or easy to implement. I hope to get inspired and make some good connections at SF Music Tech to further that process!
@CarriBugbee
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:55 pmSocial Profiles: http://www.CarriBugbee.com
http://www.facebook.com/JazzCrowd
Carri, have you heard of Jason Parker? He’s a Jazz trumpet player and has a quartet in Seattle. He’s using new media and doing music events to market his music, and he’s doing that as a full-time living. While I can’t speak to his level of financial success, he’s been written up by NPR and has received a lot of attention for what he’s doing. I’m going to see if I can’t get him to comment here.
*yells* Hey Jason, where are you?
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:03 pm“Music Nanny State teat”? What “Music Nanny State teat”? No one has ever offered me any such appendage. How do you wean yourself off of something you have never enjoyed?
Also: “What jazz musician is going to make a living selling T-shirts, posters and innovative experiences?” It’s a good question. I don’t want to toot my own horn, but what the hell, it’s my birthday. In the Industrial Jazz Group we are definitely interested in the experience surrounding our music (at what other jazz show will you be encouraged to wear a fake mustache? or to howl? or giggle at a well-placed obscenity?) — not more than the music itself, but at least as much as any indie rock band. And we sell a lot of T-Shirts as a result.
And there are other young-ish jazz groups — Darcy James Argue’s Secret Society comes to mind — who set up a narrative in which the music is embedded (call it an “experiential awareness that surrounds a brand” if you prefer, it’s the same thing). It can be done — it is done, in fact, and genre shouldn’t be a limiting factor.
@uglyrug
December 4th, 2009 at 3:07 amhttp://www.industrialjazzgroup.com
I think by and large this is the same nonsense I have heard repeated by industry critics for the last ten years.
A few points:
1. As revenue form music sales has declined, it doesn’t follow that there is substantially more revenue out there from live events to pick up the slack. Indeed, people are more willing to perform for less as there is now more competition from musicians who can’t make a living from releasing music and need to find new income streams. This goes for music licensing as well.
2. People always go on about the promotional potential of music circulating for free to raise brand awareness. Traditionally tour support for albums was expensive so you planned on breaking even on tours to promote the album. So we have music that can’t be sold to promote gigs that break even which promote… oh wait there is no money anywhere. So now I get to get off my lazy butt and stop expecting the world to pay me for spending time creating music for their enjoyment.
3. In the end, everything is just a way of getting around the reality that the internet has made it much easier to disrespect intellectual property. Its like all of a sudden the guy who works in the corner store is blind so we can all steal Doritos. Well our blind store clerk could really do with changing his business model and using the “experiential awareness that surrounds his brand” to make money from hiring someone to sell Bob’s Corner Store t-shirts.
4. The reality is all of us people who make a living from independent music never had any aspirations to release on major labels and because our margins have always been so low, any reduction makes survival harder. Its not a case of being lost without our “nanny state” to depend on.
5. What on earth is online music if its not everything you mentioned. If we were really punkrock we would hack into everyones ipod and make them listen to our music?? An infinity of soundcloud-spam emails? Or we could use our “experiential awareness” to harvest email addresses from a web 2.0 model like… myspace or facebook… no wait thats nanny state… hold on the internet is controlled and owned by huge companies and governments… and my internet line here in Bristol is owned by BT… which is a big company…. I guess I’ll go find a street corner and play my guitar and sing out my vitriol.
December 4th, 2009 at 8:56 amJames, first I have to say that of all the comments and re-tweets I have seen in the past couple of days, re the essay, is that the only negative ones are from artists and musicians. With regard to your first sentence re declining income, this chart and article from the Times, suggests that as the UK music industry slides, musicians are earning more – you must of missed the link in my essay, here it is again – Do artists do better in a world of illegal filesharing?
December 4th, 2009 at 9:27 amWhy do musicians always complain about the concept of one or two free MP3s to promote their music? In the USA, where I live, I do not receive royalties from radio or MTV, they go about their business using every musicians work for free. You should consider that this blog gets 300,000+ unique visitors a month. That would be a lot of exposure for your free song, and unlike radio you would be getting in front of a target audience, one that likes music, and buys music too. Mine is but one of 100′s of large music blogs that expose music fans to new music everyday.
The rest of your comment sounds to me like complaining. I am merely trying to nudge musicians into getting beyond the curse of knowledge – what we already know is the hardest to forget or change…
Dave
Regardless of what the Times informative graph says everyone I know is a professional musician. More and more they are having to cease doing exclusively music, and no that is not because they are releasing bad or unpopular music. That graph isn’t divided into any categories for size of act or venue. .billboard just posted a survey:
1982, top 1% of artists = 26% concert revenue
2003, top 1% = 56%.
showing that the big artists just cream off all the money. Anyone other than stadium acts are getting less in sales, and less in live revenue and secondary ticketing sales are increasing by 70% in 3 years.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/dec/03/ticket-resellers-seatwave-growth
the money isn’t going to any real artists, it’s going to agents and ticketmaster and led zeppelin reunion tours but it makes quite a nice little story if you ignore all that
the graph also assumes that artists always receive 12.5% of sales revenue which, given that sales prices are falling, is alsmot certainly not true.
I’m not complaining about releasing one or two mp3′s for free, you’ve pulled that out of thin air. We do that regularly.
In the UK we get money from the radio, ditto with numerous countries all over the world. I’m sorry you get a bad deal in America. Though to be fair the BBC has cut the amount per play on late night shows where the majority of independent music is played.
Saying I sound like I’m complaining is hardly an intelligent response to me stating that the real issue is a declining respect for intellectual property.
Getting beyond the curse of knowledge? Thanks for the Yoda advice. You said yourself you haven’t been in the music industry for 10 years, its much easier to talk from the sidelines.
james
December 4th, 2009 at 9:47 am======
James, first I have to say that of all the comments and re-tweets I have seen in the past couple of days, re the essay, is that the only negative ones are from artists and musicians.
=======
Amazing! So let me get this straight – the only people who disagree with your thoughts (on how musicians should stop trying to sell music, and instead get up into selling brand-related experiental awareness), are those who actually live it day to day?
And all the pseudo-academics, speculators, entrepeneurs and people who just plain like free stuff agree?
Remarkable.
What a bunch of whingers these musicians must be, if they disagree with the prevailing ideology of the commentariat.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:52 amDave— there’s so much edible meat in your article I don’t know where to begin. The revolution in today’s music biz is especially groundshifting because the record biz is broken, the web has changed everything and the future of music will be dictated by fans. In the future fans will fund new recordings, tell artists which songs they like, share their enthusiasm virally with friends… In short: a massive opportunity for musicians who really get the idea of connecting and engaging direct-to-fan. FYI— Nimbit (D2F pioneer) is currently doing a
December 4th, 2009 at 10:38 amsurvey of musicians on their current/future direct-to-fan activity. Check it out at http://bit.ly/2010-d2fan-survey
Thanks for your thoughtful article. Lots to contemplate. Have fun at SanFranMusicTech
Did I hear my name being yelled? ;) Thanks Cory.
To Carri: Cory is right, as is Andrew. There are many of us in the loosely defined “jazz” genre that are embracing the idea that “the experiential awareness that surrounds [our] brand[s]” is equally as important as the music. Why should genre matter? It only matters if you believe that the audience for jazz is all over 40 and aging, which I vehemently do not. And for those jazz artists who bemoan that their audience is old, well it’s on them. The only reason jazz, classical and the other musics you say are “eliminated” by this new model feel that way is because the musicians have allowed them to become that way. If you want a younger audience, find out what they want and GIVE IT TO THEM!
These days I’m MUCH more concerned with marketing the experience one will have at my events, not the genre. Sure, we play jazz music. But we don’t act like Jazz Musicians (with capital J & M). As Andrew states, we act more like indie bands, and try to appeal to our younger audiences desire for a cool experience to go along with the great music.
I won’t say that I make a living solely from putting on events and experiences, but I will say that everytime I play, whether it’s a club date, concert hall, bar, wedding, what have you, I try to leave the audience feeling like they were treated to an experience, not just a concert.
We’re out here doing it.
December 4th, 2009 at 2:44 pm[...] um show inspirador que serviu para ilustrar muito do que disse o Gang of Four Dave Allen no artigo “Dear Musicians – Please Be Brilliant or Get Out of The Way”, fundamental para o entendimento do cenário musical hoje. Não à toa a banda do Brooklin, NY, é [...]
December 4th, 2009 at 2:46 pmJames,
You have a remarkable way of twisting everything I write to suit your worldview. A fact, is simply a fact. I’m interested in the whole discussion, you are interested in making sure the world knows you think you are owed a career in music and the internet is getting in the way. Sorry about that. Change arrived about ten years ago at least, if you don’t want to embrace it just keep doing what you are doing, you do not have to listen to my input.
The music industry ignored the challenge that the internet brought and so did the newspaper and magazine industry, and they’re all doing just fine, right? I would ask that you read the end of the essay, the part about the 8 to 11 year old kids – they are the future. I certainly am not, my career is behind me, but I would like to keep nudging musicians to get involved. That’s why I travel to conferences to speak about these issues. After the 2010 SXSW conference in Austin in March, I am going to stop speaking or being on panels whenever the subject is about musicians and online music. I’m sure that will make you happy.
December 4th, 2009 at 3:01 pmEd,
Please define “free stuff.” And please note, when you mention entrepreneurs I presume you mean the folks who lead all the companies such as, Rhapsody, LaLa, iLike, Google Music, MySpace, iMeem etc etc who build business models based on paying copyright holders pennies on the dollar to offer services to music fans? I have been harmed by these activities too, I’d be happy to scan my last royalty statement from Warner Music which shows that, for about 3,500 downloads purchased via the internet or mobile, I received $17.56. And yet, I’m not complaining. I’ve been a professional musician for 30 years or more. I noticed change back in the mid-90s, that’s when I joined the team that got EMusic.com off the ground… I’m not the one that caused this meltdown, I just have thoughts about the situation and I spend time writing about it.
December 4th, 2009 at 3:19 pmLet’s avoid doing this too. This article is so misleading it is criminal how it escaped the editors – from The Guardian – Filesharers are parasitic freeloaders It goes on – “If illegal downloaders had their way, people in the creative industries would be forced into boring jobs and amateur art”
Filesharing is a completely legal pastime, downloading is not illegal. No one is being forced out of creative industries. The author doesn’t understand, that when she writes this – “So you think it costs too much to buy a film, or a song, or an album? Why don’t you film, or record, your own?” She hits the nail on the head – kids today are doing exactly that..
I suggest that she, and anyone else who doesn’t understand what today’s digital youth are up to, should spend a day or two on a school or college campus, as I did recently. The wake up call will come loud and clear. I want to hire these kids.
December 4th, 2009 at 3:30 pmDave,
By ‘free stuff’ i mean ‘free music’. This revolution is great for the consumer, of course! But free Nikes would be great for the consumer too.
And yes, by ‘entrepreneurs’ I mean exactly the people you state – people who get in on a start-up, perhaps worry about the legalities of it later (Pandora) or flip it on to a larger company for a tasty profit (LaLa perhaps) or who take millions in funding for a couple of years and then maybe go bust, maybe not (Spotify?) but at least come out of the other end with an apartment and a BMW, unlike the musicians whose music they helped along in the race to the bottom (value-wise). I don’t wish to paint these people as villains, they’re just playing the game like everyone else, the modern day agents and middlemen. So yes – of course these people are in favour.
And of course artists are not going to be in favour. They have to work harder for less reward – who would be in favour of that? And then the likes of you tell them to stop being lazy! I doubt there are any new bands today who don’t use the internet, who don’t hustle merch, who don’t work their arses off trying to figure it all out. They’re not lazy, and will likely taking someone telling them to “get out of the way” as somewhat of an insult. So I don’t think that you pointing out this disbalance proves your argument, it’s just stating the obvious, if you’ll pardon me for saying so.
In fact to go back to the thrust of your argument, I struggle to think exactly who your ire is directed at. Bands of 18 year olds trying to get signed are already doing the internet thing with aplomb. The signed-and-selling-5,000 bands are having to do likewise – they wouldn’t be able to survive if they didn’t. The lifers have been hacking round the country for 20 years selling whatever they can, wherever they can, and getting their sons to build websites for them. So who are these lazy people?
December 4th, 2009 at 5:44 pmDear James Ginzburg, and all who still don’t get it…
I am powerful.
I am fickle.
I am hungry for media.
I will give you 10 seconds to hook me.
As long as you continue to believe this is about you and not me, you will be left out in the cold. Entertain me, or I will leave and give my attention and money to one of tens of thousands of other worthy musicians. If you want to write music for you, but not for me, good luck.
The old regime is dead. Forget there was ever a time when file-sharing didn’t exist. Those times are gone, and never coming back. The more you fight, the further behind you will fall and there are 1000 musicians waiting to take your place.
I am your audience.
December 4th, 2009 at 8:08 pmI am your master.
I am the new regime.
Play the game, or be musically irrelevant.
Ed, let’s wrap this up. I’m not saying musicians are lazy, I’m just saying they should get in control and step out of the “online music biz model” as it will not serve them well. I say they should go it alone. Did you see today’s news ? — – Apple Acquires LaLa
December 5th, 2009 at 12:29 amYour Audience,
Thank you, you said in a few sentences what I took 1000′s of characters to get to..
December 5th, 2009 at 12:31 amDave,
fair enough – in that I agree with you, and thanks for clarifying. I did see the news, and that’s exactly what I was referring to. I’m sure LaLa was founded with the best of intentions, but whichever way you look at it, the founders have done a lot better out of it than the musicians whose product they sold.
Perhaps you shouldn’t use phrases like “artists are sitting on their hands”, or “artists should get out of the way” or even attribute dubious quotes like “filesharing is denying me a living” to artists (who would really say that? No-one! it’s 2009! We all know the score – even the dopiest musicians cottoned on eventually!) – if you don’t want to come across as accusing them of being lazy – they are emotive and some would say, aggressive.
Secondly, you’re right that artists should attempt to go it alone, but it’s tough when one minute you’re going it alone, and the next you’re a corporate whore. It’s a fast-moving thing: I (like many) signed up to myspace in 2004 when it was a new and unknown quantity (in the UK at least) – and had no inkling it would get bought out by Murdoch! So much for my go-it-alone efforts there!
Last FM? Bought out by CBS. iLike? Murdoch again. Spotify? Based in Luxembourg and owned by investment vehicles in Cyprus which are in turn owned by some Swedish guys and the majors. That’s got The Man’s fingerprints all over it. Spiralfrog? Barely lasted 18 months. LaLa…? My tracks – and those of all my peers – have been on all of these services since their beginnings. As indie artists we have no budgets to be setting up new web2.0 enterprises; we exploit what’s available at the time. We embrace the new, the new gets co-opted by the mainstream, and then pundits tell us to stop sitting on our hands and be more punk rock.
Hey ho. I’m off to update my Soundcloud profile. Have a good weekend.
December 5th, 2009 at 3:53 amVery good article.
In my experience on working with musicians generally speaking they seem very opposed on getting organised and doing this stuff themselves. I guess it is a lot nicer to let the music companies -whatever they are- to handle it. Especially if you’re living in the buble of thinking that you are very special being, creating very special art. So special that doing all these laborious necessary online bits seem something like…. well what regular people do. This goes less to artists who are digital natives themselves.
It’s all there online. Companies and people might do it for you but most of them want to be compensated. That’s the trade off. Musicians are standing in the cross roads.
December 5th, 2009 at 4:13 am[...] Dear Musicians-Please be Brilliant or Get Out of the Way [...]
December 5th, 2009 at 10:44 am[...] Dear Musicians-Please be Brilliant or Get Out of the Way [...]
December 5th, 2009 at 11:32 amEd, in closing, I chose the title because as I note, getting attention on the web is not easy.. [grin]
December 5th, 2009 at 11:55 am[...] “The future does not fit in the containers of the [...]
December 5th, 2009 at 3:37 pmMy new Fight post – Beware of Social Media Snake Oil and Those Selling It http://j.mp/_socmedia closely related to this essay
December 5th, 2009 at 4:46 pm[...] guy. He writes regularly at Pampelmoose, and on Twitter. If you missed his essay earlier this week, Dear Musicians, Please Be Brilliant or Get Out of the Way, stop right now and go read it. Dave moves beyond the “internet is killing music” [...]
December 6th, 2009 at 9:44 amDave,
That Business Week article felt like it was beamed in from outer space.
My experience has shown that most companies that do not have the great good luck to be selling enthusiast brands (e.g.: Apple, Tapout, Mallomars) are basically fucked on the social media plane. That’s one thing you won’t be hearing much from these marketing gurus. In other words, there’s nothing you can do about the simple fact that everyone hates the phone company. I constantly get Twitter replies based on tweet content from companies that only succeed in alienating me or worse. (now having visions of agency pitches like, ‘well, no one will ever love your brand… let’s move on to what strengths we can focus on…’ yeah, that’ll get the account. Hah!)
I had to chuckle at the aside they had on the flipside being employees getting sucked into social sites at the expense of getting work done. I tried to transfer some of that kind of work over to someone who turned out to be an utter failure at managing the basic maintenance of MySpace correspondence (this was a couple years ago) but I see every day how adept they are at keeping their facebook friends updated. I’m sure many of us even do this to ourselves.
See you tomorrow at #SFMusicTech
December 6th, 2009 at 11:20 pmDave,
December 7th, 2009 at 12:30 amIf no one else has asked yet, what are your lunch plans Monday? Let’s get dirty and argue over some bibimbap or teriyaki.
Led Zepplin reunion tours? Not that I care, but did I miss something?
December 7th, 2009 at 1:56 amRoy,
not a tour, but a show, at the arse end of 2007 in London.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZxukPZ0pjA
It was a one-off, and all the profits went to charity, but I think the interesting thing about it is that receipts from this ONE SHOW put them something like 9th in the list for biggest-grossing touring acts of that year.
So it’s a good example of why overall ticket receipts may be increasing right now, but this is meaningless if you’re not a stadium act. If Led Zep had in fact done an entire tour, they would surely be first on the list, and people with a reason to espouse such things would be declaring that live revenues doubled last year – therefore musicians are in a better position than ever!
December 7th, 2009 at 2:28 amDave,
With all due respect, I can’t imagine why anyone with 1/2 a brain – let alone someone who might actually be brilliant – who wants to make art would have any interest in pursuing a career as an artist – in the music business. In the current climate artists are subjected to the agendas of protocol engineers, computer programmers, and anyone with an internet connection.
May as well go be a bank teller.
Yes, David Byrne got to play a building – so what? How many music promoters out there, in today’s climate, would give a young David Byrne the chance to get famous enough to get that gig in the first place, let alone devote the business resources – labor and financial – that Seymour Stein devoted to Byrne and so many other brilliant artists?
Who in their right mind wants to go into debt and spend time in a van just so they can wake up and say, “gee, I think I’ll spend 2-3 hours kissing the asses of non-risk-taking cube rats this afternoon, so they can feel that special connection and help spread the word”?
If anyone actually is that brilliant, I can’t imagine why they’d want any part of the music business today, and take orders from internet managers and users. Who wants the financial gains from their output held to the mercy of hyper-rational engineering and business school grads?
December 7th, 2009 at 1:05 pmDave,
This essay couldn’t have come at a better time!
As an *cough* “older” musician (33 but been in the industry since a teen), I can definitely relate to everything you laid out. Social media and web-based approaches to things are critical to the overall success of hitting your market with the music you put your blood, sweat & tears into.
As it relates to my work, this type of mentality is really prevalent in Drum-n-bass (but pretty much prevalent in every genre of electronic music), where the lion’s share of Labels are dominated by UK imprints & while the UK DJs/Producers are brought over with welcome arms to the US, oftentimes this is NOT the case going the other way. This coupled with the particularly worrisome mind-state of “if it’s not from the UK, it’s not good music” has forced literally 100s if not 1000′s of talented producers that I’ve met over the years to sit on music FOREVER in the hopes of floating the “right demo to the right label”.
5-10 years ago, this was a legit way of thinking- we needed those physical media distribution channels and the sheer muscle of music marketing dollars. But as you mention, look at Newspapers and Magazines- hell, just look at every label scrambling right now, they’re hurting BAD b/c they didn’t embrace digital media in a timely manner. Digital formats are the norm & content is king and if your content is good, with a minimal amount of effort, you can begin tasting the sweetness of successfully producing and releasing music.
This doesn’t mean it comes overnight, there’s homework involved at every corner and you really have to invest the time to learn the technologies that are out there and when to apply each as it pertains to your music business. You need to know about file formats, digital rights, SEO/SEM strategies to help drive visitors, digital distribution houses that can help you expand your core audience, etc etc…and you have to have that hunger inside that keeps your stomach touching your back and pushing to reach the top…
It’s very well possible that, for those out there that find it hard be successful in the digital world may be simply casualties to digital Darwinism, not necessarily through any fault of their own, but because they’re just not adaptable to the changing environment around them.
There are those out there that will die trying and I consider myself one of them, so for the die-hards out there, “Invictus” by William Ernest Henly says it best:
“Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
December 7th, 2009 at 5:50 pmHow charged with punishments the scroll
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.”
As another musician, it will probably come as no surprise that I side with my fellow creators and artists. Having toured up and down the eastern seaboard of the US in the late 90′s and early 00′s, the band ultimately broke up expressly because of our dismay at the state of the music industry and specifically because of the download and file-sharing culture. Only someone that has ever created anything- be it a song, portrait, book, etc…- can appreciate what it is like to put your baby into the public realm and totally lose control of it. If you have never done so, then do NOT preach to me about the ‘legitimacy’ of file sharing or how the ‘intellectual property’ concept is dead. When I write a song, record it, put it out there on the radio, cd, perform it in concert, whatever you DO NOT own that song to do with as you please (including passing it along to others). The income that comes from sales is crucial to the survival of the artist and therefore the art; as already stated, tours do not generate revenue unless you are already a well-established artist such as Elton John et al. Too many people these days thing they have ownership of something that is not theirs and that music and art should be free. Do you think it’s free to make these recordings.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:49 amThe very suggestion that the artist are to blame for this culture ires me to no end. Yes, the business model may need to be revamped, but the basic laws of copyright and ownership are just as applicable today as when they were created 30 years ago.
Dave:
I believe you’re ignoring a basic point. Musicians want to play music. Most don’t want to be business people, most don’t want to think about innovative business models. Most just want to sing, play their guitar, etc., and make a decent living doing it. That’s why labels existed in the first place.
Also, the idea of someone believing in your music enough to invest a decent amount of money and try to help you build your fan base isn’t really as scandalous as you think.
I agree with your idea about not worrying about file sharing, but I think you’re ignoring the fact that most musicians don’t worry about file sharing. You think musicians are the one group that’s dumb enough to ignore the obvious?
Most musicians like to be in control of their career, but the idea of having to write, record, and tour, and on top of that work every business angle and come up with new business models that brilliant entrepreneurs haven’t even thought of yet is a little too much for most.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:47 pmFishBass, you seem to have completely overlooked the point of the essay. I wrote it to get musicians to wake up and smell the coffee. Everything has changed forever. I talk about artists making money in the article, you only complain about downloading and filesharing. Of course copyright laws are applicable, I never wrote that they weren’t. What is the point of breaking up your band, for as you say, “because of our dismay at the state of the music industry and specifically because of the download and file-sharing culture.” Those are two entirely different reasons, and I argue that there isn’t actually a “download culture.” So your band threw in towel…that has nothing to do with my essay. And BTW, I have created many albums that were released on major labels..
December 8th, 2009 at 1:51 pmAh, if only the greats were around today to enjoy this golden era. I’m sure Howlin’ Wolf would have an awesome Twitter feed. *sigh*
The more musicians “concentrate on making money from the experiential awareness that surrounds their brand” (gag!) the less time and energy they will have to create art. They will get really good at advertising themselves, though. Great.
Sure, musicians have always had to deal with some business-related b.s., and have always had to self-promote. But it’s a long way from Jerry Lee pounding away in the back of a flatbed in some low-budget teensploitation flick to worrying about “making money from the experiential awareness that surrounds [his] brand.” Unless the musicians in question were total douchebags like Paul Stanley, they never let the business aspects completely overshadow their music. In fact, many of the greatest musicians were horrible businessmen who never would have stood a chance in the current climate. It has always helped to be talented and photogenic. Now, in addition to making good music, and having all those other things going for you, you also have to be a marketing guru and be intimately familiar with the latest fleeting media fads. How many musicians in this new era are going to have that, and everything else, going for them? Do we even want that? Personally, I don’t want artists that read more books by Seth Godin than by Tolstoy.
Think of any truly brilliant artist that you admire from past eras, and then ask yourself how much time they would be wasting thinking about their “brand” if they were around today. Fuck that.
If musicians don’t concentrate on making really good music, getting better at their craft, and most importantly, LEADING INTERESTING LIVES so that they actually have something to say in their music, nobody is going to give a shit about what they do no matter how well they “understand the power of the social web” or whatever marketing-guru speak you wanna throw out this week. We’ll end up with some musicians who make horrible music, but are really good at drawing attention to themselves using that all-important knowledge of the social web. Will there ever be a great song written about the subject of social media? I won’t hold my breath.
I think Bill Hicks said it best: “Does anyone here work in advertising or marketing? Well if you do, when you get home take a gun shoot yourself. No bullshit, I’m not joking. Just do it.”
December 8th, 2009 at 9:55 pmDid I say Paul Stanley? I meant Gene Simmons. Aw, dammit, now my little rant is ruined.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:00 am[...] Allen of Gang of Four and an experienced professional in the online audio services industry has a lot to say about what musicians aren’t doing right in this day and age in an article wonderfully titled [...]
December 9th, 2009 at 11:02 amSchooley,
Quite. When I think about the real genius artists and musicians that I know – the ones who leave me genuinely stunned with their talent, the people who make me wonder whether i have an ounce of artistry about me at all – most of them can scarcely manage to eat twice a day or catch a train on time, let alone spend hours honing their SEO skills.
A world in which the only music that gets heard is music written by people who spend their days self-marketing and er, embracing the web (whatever that means) would make me shudder.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:57 pmno artist wants to write dull music that doesn’t engage with people.
no artist wants to create a really boring live show that no one enjoys.
no artist wants to alienate their entire fanbase by suing them over downloads, Metallica style.
so I really don’t see what you are actually recommending, other than throwing out vague platitudes like ‘ENGAGE WITH THE WEB’ and ‘CREATE EXPERIENTIAL UNIQUENESS!’
EVERY artist I know is giving out free music, trying to interact with their fans, trying to add value to their product – but as everyone does this, the impact of each attempt decreases to zero.
there is another angle to this as well, which is that creating a ‘unique and amazing happening’ that stands out from everyone else is often a lot easier when you have a large budget and infrastructure behind you. unknown artist A is competing with Established Star B, who has a whole team dedicated to doing exactly what you recommend, only better, and with more resources. I might give away a free tune – Big Star X may give away a free tune, complete with artwork by Banksy, a hook-up with Bacardi to get free drinks at the next gig, and they may then pay a PR company to ensure that the major blogs (who are flooded with free stuff) pay this particular give-away loads of attention. I may well have ‘embraced the web’ – but with a decent budget behind me it’s much more likely to embrace me back.
as far as I can see, the only useful point you made was ‘make really good music’ – which was kind of the plan all along.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:29 pmSo Schooley and Ed, am I to take it then that you both feel that Radiohead, who are one of the most creativit and original bands working in music today, and who embrace the web in full, are doing it wrong somehow? All I’m saying is that the old school methods of marketing and distribution as owned by the label system, have now been superseded, and unfortunately no one owns and controls the web so artists have to get more involved with that side of the biz now.
Touring bands use roadies right? So find someone to handle all of your web marketing and social media. I can’t believe that I have to point this shit out.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:01 pmSam,
So everything is fine. You’re making really good music, right? Good, end of story. All the other bands meanwhile, who aren’t making really good music, are the ones I’m asking to get out of the way.
December 9th, 2009 at 8:03 pm[...] pretty sure I did OK in the end. My big planning time sink was Dave Allen, with his epic post Dear Musicians – Please Be Brilliant or Get Out of The Way. Dave had made a bit of an impression at the SF MusicTech session in May by pretty much [...]
December 10th, 2009 at 2:02 amOK so I should hire someone to promote me on the web and help market my shit? Maybe I could pay them using a cut of the profits I receive from my music. In fact, seeing as ‘engaging with the internet’ is so important, we could split the profits 50/50 – because creating ‘experiential happenings’ is apparently now at least as vital as ‘making great music’.
Oh wait, that’s basically exactly the same as a (digital-only) record label.
Finally, regarding the Radiohead model – pundits REALLY need to stop offering it up as a panacea to internet music issues without fully understanding how it works…
THE RADIOHEAD MODEL (n.): In the weeks and months before a band’s album is going to come out, during the period when promos would normally be made available to the press and “tastemakers,” said band allows fans to acquire LOW-QUALITY MP3s for whatever price they’d like to pay—or for no price at all: the In Rainbows freebie was 160kbps. This way, fans can tide themselves over as discussion of the record begins from critics who have access and blogs, thus stoking discussion from all sides. The aim, of course, is for fans to be so excited about this legitimized leak, they’ll buy a higher-quality, statically priced copy of the album (whether as a high-priced, fancy-packaged special edition or just a plain old CD) come release date. (with thanks to Idolator)
I’ve heard so much about how Trent Reznor and Radiohead offer the industry a brave new path to take, all of which ignores the fact that they have all made vast pots of money from the old model, and have huge, and hugely dedicated, fan bases to which they can market.
I would like to read an article where someone suggests how an unknown artist with no budget and no existing fan-base could replicate some of the techniques of RadioReznor. That would be interesting and useful. Instead all I get is to be told to ‘embrace the web’ as if repeating those words like a mantra will actually do anything.
December 10th, 2009 at 4:22 amSam,
If you actually READ this blog and my numerous articles about online music, you would know that I am fully aware of the Radiohead and NIN models and how they work. You would also know that I have been a professional musician for 25+ years, playing in two popular bands, Gang of Four and Shriekback. So I am not just a “pundit” I am someone who has lived it and is now trying to bring an awareness to the new music distribution landscape. I didn’t want to just sit by and watch my music royalties shrink into non-existence (my last statement was for $17.56 whoop, whoop) I felt like starting this blog to speak out so that other musicians could start thinking about how to create a better way to get to the money. Clearly you disagree with my speaking out and that’s fine by me. I only wish that YOU would write about it and/or do something concrete that helps all musicians, rather than just barking at me here..
December 10th, 2009 at 8:56 amBTW, here’s another musician with some thoughts on the decline of the music industry – “Pink says she would be flipping burgers if she didn’t tour constantly..
December 10th, 2009 at 9:24 am[...] by the likes of Ian Rogers over at Topspin (check ‘em out) and is the opening theme in this great article by Dave Allen, of [...]
December 10th, 2009 at 12:32 pm[...] Out of the Way” has been making the rounds online since it first appeared on Pampelmoose and Fight earlier this [...]
December 14th, 2009 at 10:47 am[...] teat at which to suck that they [musicians] are now having trouble weaning themselves off.. Read the article here. Comments [...]
December 14th, 2009 at 2:19 pm[...] I’ll leave you with the last couple of lines from a particularly succinct comment I happen to totally agree with, made on a post in the excellent blog…: [...]
December 16th, 2009 at 3:22 pm[...] hackles raised all week by an essay from one Dave Allen – the provocatively, excellently titled ‘Musicians: Please Be Brilliant Or Get Out Of The Way’ . . . my concern [is] at the tendency I’ve seen on many ‘industry’ blogs recently, of [...]
December 19th, 2009 at 12:39 am[...] Personally, I think everyone+dog is on the Web these days, which is why the most recently touted piece on the subject has provoked a rather scathing [...]
December 20th, 2009 at 5:55 pm[...] and Nine Inch Nails aside, music-industry critics keeping telling musicians to embrace social media. In response, musicians are asking “what year do they think it [...]
December 21st, 2009 at 10:54 amYou’re not really saying, “Please be brilliant or get out of the way.” You’re saying, “Please spend all of your music time working on internet promotions and stop spending time rehearsing, composing, and playing.”
December 21st, 2009 at 11:05 amTom,
So you missed the part where I pointed out that it would be wise for bands to get someone, who I call “the 5th Beatle” especially someone who is internet savvy, to work the web for you? And Tom, there are 24 hours in a day, I’m tired of hearing that musicians may have to actually work harder to be more successful these days…
December 21st, 2009 at 12:00 pm[...] Finally, be awesome Given all of this, two thoughts keep rattling around in my head. The first is the old adage, “The quickest way to kill a bad product is with great advertising.” The thinking being that the wonderful advertising will encourage droves of people to try the product, all whom in turn immediately find that it sucks. I also remember a panelist on a “How to Get Signed” panel (remember those?!?) back in 2001 exclaiming, “Look! You want to get signed?!? Be awesome!! The Pixies were awesome! They got signed!!” Love that. So yes, marketing, branding and business thinking all matter more than ever, but if you’re going to hold attention and sustain a presence you gotta be awesome. So much of what’s been written lately has been about music as commerce, but let’s not forget music as culture. And culture should represent our very best. [...]
December 27th, 2009 at 10:48 am[...] after a decade of adversarial struggles. Meanwhile, onetime Gang of Four bassist Dave Allen offered this thoughtful essay earlier this month, expressing exasperation with musicians who haven’t adjusted to the [...]
December 29th, 2009 at 3:10 pm[...] stevenl154 Dear Musicians – Please Be Brilliant or Get Out of The Way December 2nd, 2009 by Dave [...]
December 29th, 2009 at 7:57 pm[...] the fantastic and information packed Dear Musicians – Please Be Brilliant or Get Out of The Way, which I posted here earlier. Published: December 31, 2009 Filed Under: music Tags: music : [...]
December 31st, 2009 at 3:08 pm[...] the music business needs a different business model, and onetime Gang of Four bassist Dave Allen agrees. At the other end of the spectrum, is the newspaper industry which is looking at a paid [...]
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:50 am[...] current machine. But, there is a little hope, despite what the pic at the top of this Blahg says: This article by Dave Allen, (seriously, READ IT) shared by my friend Anthony DeBarros who is awesome, states most of my feelings pretty well. At [...]
January 3rd, 2010 at 2:32 pm[...] of Gang of Four and Shriekback), with much coverage of Dave’s challenge to musicians to be brilliant or get out of the way. Be sure to watch both [...]
May 2nd, 2010 at 11:40 pm[...] one’s an addition to the Please be brilliant [...]
May 12th, 2010 at 3:08 pm[...] Well that’s my take folks, for the article that triggered this stream of music industry consciousness of mine, please read this article by former Gang of Four member Dave Allen [...]
September 21st, 2010 at 8:27 amI love this article. I agree with almost every point you make. That being said, I don’t think it’s musicians faults that they’re all not a lot more famous.
When I turn on my radio in Chicago and three separate stations are all playing Katy Perry all at once, I know intuitively that it’s not a level playing field. Labels are paying huge amounts of money to market their products.
Some independent acts might be able to create a stir by doing something crazy, like by having their fans descend on their local art museum dressed as bears. I’m sure that would net them some press, but can every artist be expected to do that?
February 8th, 2011 at 10:31 am[...] It used to be that bands ignored their audience after a show, sneaking out the door to avoid the fans clamoring for their attention, autograph, or a lock of hair after their sweaty, hormone arousing performance. It helped give the band a veil of exclusivity, a play on supply and demand. But now? Now bands are in the business of selling t-shirts. (Read: Dear Musicians: Please Be Brilliant or Get Out of The Way) [...]
March 20th, 2011 at 6:10 pmHi Dave, It is I, the guy with the cameras that was always tagging along with Dirty Martini.
June 30th, 2011 at 9:07 amI just wanted to say that I don’t listen to radio at all or read the music magazines, I find artists from going to shows of bands I like and if another cool or friendly act is playing I will follow them as well. Sometimes even if the musician is not that amazing but they are willing to connect and chat I will buy a cd and a shirt anyway. It all comes down to attitude for me at this point, if I see they don’t love what they are doing or if it is clear they don’t have time for fans (or potential new ones) then I will be much less likely to spend my money and free time supporting them. But as you know if they are great and willing to connect I will go to the ends of the earth (or my pocket book) to support and share the music with others that will start loving them as well.
[...] VIEW ARTICLE SOURCE [...]
July 1st, 2011 at 8:01 am[...] Dear Musicians – Please Be Brilliant or Get Out of The Way | Pampelmoose by Dave Allen of Gang of … Share and Enjoy: [...]
July 2nd, 2011 at 9:35 amDear Dave, another Dave ex-UK here, just to say I quite agree with your point above that the record industry through its past and present practices broke the link between fans and bands – I would date it back to the introduction of CDs when, despite the cheaper manufacturing and reject costs, CDs came out at full album price (sometimes more) and, at that time, without the bonus material that could have offered some justification for the exorbitant prices. Having embraced digital media for its own benefit – but not that of fans or bands – the industry then had to cope with a format that allowed lossless copying – no more ropy cassettes recorded from vinyl – and near-instant international circulation by a fanbase now disgusted that they and the bands too were just being ripped off.
But how to get the toothpaste back into the tube? Maybe it’s too late, probably is – the biggest obstacle I see is the decline of devotion in people’s musical taste. The web and mp3s allow music fans to browse … graze … half-listen … and then pass on, the musical equivalent of channel-zapping. Maybe I’m just an old fart, but I remember the intensity of interest fans had around then for the bands that they listened to – if you “liked” a band, you REALLY liked them, bought all you could that had been released, eagerly awaited the next vinyl, went to see’em when you could and scoured the record stalls for the odd bootleg – sadly few and far between in the case of the Gang of Four, which brings me to what I wanted to say.
I finally got my act together in October last year to compile and index a listing of every Gang of Four live recording that I could find on the web. Having searched for about five years, the Gang of Four megapost has swollen to include a classic UK gig from 1979 with two unreleased numbers (“Waiting For My Elevator” and “This is I’m Not Stewing Steak/Hold up my Weekend”), a great Hamburg gig from 1981, and several US and UK radio shows from the reformation period – my listing, by the by, only covers the original line-up of the band, 1978-81 and 2005-2006. The Gang of Four megapost is run by fans for fans for free, and will not include any official material still in print – not the aim at all, the purpose being to preserve all the fan recordings made that were impossible to find back then.
If you think this is a worthwhile venture, I’d be grateful for your visit to the megapost, and, dare I hope, for a plug here?
Find the Gang of Four megapost here:
http://knowyourconjurer.blogspot.com/2010/10/gang-of-four-mega-post-by-dave-sez-go.html
Find similar megaposts archiving rare material by Here & Now/Planet Gong, Television/Richard Hell, and (on the second page) Magazine and Ultravox (pre-Midge Ure only) here:
http://knowyourconjurer.blogspot.com/search/label/Dave%20Sez.
Don’t forget to check the comments to each as you’ll find updates, reposts and more unreleased material there too.
Cheers, Dave Sez.
PS: I would love to know more about those two unreleased tracks – I see that “Hold Up My Weekend” also figured on a tracklist of 1978 demos which seem to be earlier than the session at Cargo Studios, Rochdale on 28-29 June 1978 which led to the Fast EP (Tracklist: 1. The Things you do 2. Iron Man 3. Hold up my Weekend 4. He called me a Wanker 5. Armalite Rifle 6. Anthrax. 20:05 min). Although mentioned on tape traders’ lists, those recordings are not, as far as I know, available on the web. Any information would be appreciated.
July 3rd, 2011 at 4:21 amI’ve noticed no-one seems to suggest to Electronic Arts, “You need to stop expecting that people will pay for the video games you produce. Instead, put all your developers in a van, drive them around the country, and charge people to meet them. Also, video games sales are the past, the future: T-shirts!”
July 25th, 2011 at 6:18 am[...] is right. I tried. Three streams are two too many to paddle against; this heaven gives me [...]
September 9th, 2012 at 12:09 pm