The New Business Model: Spotify

It's definitely no secret that the music business has been shifting throughout the past 15 years, but what does still seem to remain a mystery is which solution is going to prevail as the best way for artists to continue develop new material and, well, get paid for it?

May have cracked the case on
consumers 'new' attitude toward music

I think many artists/musicians might agree that Napster was to 'blame' for introducing the idea that a potential listener might be able attain art (music) without paying for it.  Obviously, at the time many people were up and arms about this idea, including both fans and musicians alike.  Some argued the positive:  More exposure is simply better.  A listener that is able to attain the music for free might be more likely to "try out" the artist as one of their potential favorites.  In turn, they learn more about the artist and become attached in a way that may not have been possible had they not been able to test out the sound of a particular artist.  More importantly, they might do one of the only things that seems to get an artist paid nowadays (at least a major label musician) which is to actually go to a live show.  More than money, for the musician, this is a chance to make a more eternal connection to a fan.

But then, some argued the negative:  Exposure isn't the full reimbursement for time spent, or better yet; emotions spent.  Some people simply want a collection of songs and just because they download yours for free doesn't necessarily bring any additional benefits.  Regardless it was illegal.

To me, I felt this was, more than anything, a chance to re-analyze our consumer.  The fan.  Rather than ask pro/con questions about giving music away for free maybe the better question is WHY the fan wants it, and is WILLING to take it for free?  Is it possible that our consumers attitudes toward music creation, and dare I still call it: "art" has now changed?  And might it have happened before Napster cracked the case wide open?

Why and when did this shift happen?  Without research and without any real basis for an argument you might say this all happened around the time that record labels were doing what I call:  "Hire for Single."  Nowadys this would be called a "Development Deal." But "Hire for Single" worked differently in the early 90's.  My definition of this, was when a record company would hire a band/group/artist based on a single song they were interested that the artist had written.  At that time, people would buy records for a single song.  Why?  Because if they wanted to listen to that song over and over they had two choices:  Buy the 12 song record for about $13.99 or pull out your overdub tape and record it off the radio (In hopes the DJ didn't attempt to ride the 12 second lyric-less ramp of your favorite song talking about the stations latest promo.)  Simple as that.  Here's the other kicker.  You had to listen to the radio A LOT (maybe 2 or 3 hours) to get a chance to hear that favorite song because then, Top 40 radio played an amalgamation of hits from ALL different styles.  There was competition.  There was open mindedness.  Let's say most people opted to buy the CD if they loved a song, many times only to find out the other 11 songs on the CD were nothing but fluff more than likely produced by someone else and even sometimes was overtly different in terms of lyrical or musical content altogether.  To me, this is where the notion that a group might "Only have one good song" was created.  And to be clear, YES, I am blaming the record labels.  Mostly for pushing through a radio worthy single to sell a fourteen dollar record and fully understanding while doing so that the artist would more than  likely fall off soon after never to be seen again.  Then, it was a proper investment.  You could make a lot of money off of one song.  But this put many artists as a group in a danger zone with their fans.  Why do consumers want music for free?  Because they don't TRUST that they are going to receive a great all around product.  The music, just like large canvas painting, is an investment in their eyes.  It is also a reflection of personal taste.  If, as a sample (a radio hit), we deliver a certain taste in order to sell records, only to deliver a lower quality or different taste all together once the money is exchanged we run into a problem.  We gave them a good reason to be skeptical before buying.  Bad move.

But, back to our question:  "which solution is going to prevail as the best way for artists to continue develop new material and, well, get paid for it?"

Spotify is one of many streaming services.

As online resources for bands have evolved we have seen MANY artists somehow break through the overpopulation and be offered opportunities.  YouTube, namely has stayed consistent as a common vehicle to both stream videos, but in a lot of cases also stream simple audio.  As usual (and rightfully so) the labels have pulled back on the reigns and cried copyright infringement as people are posting songs they don't own for free streaming.  Still, there is something lurking here that works.  Streaming songs but not "owning" them is quite possibly what our consumer wants.  The chance to test the waters in a controlled and quality environment.  So what is the new business model?  I think at this juncture it might be safe to say that music streaming based on a Freemium approach will bring back a lot of what we lost over 15 years.  Here, we can restore the the almighty payment that artists have been missing as their music continues to get exchanged for free.  Also, maybe over time, confidence in music can be restored among those "fans" we always talk about.  Non-committed access to an artists catalogue gives the fan a chance to test those waters with a nominal investment.  Better yet, they don't even need to commit to ONE artist in particular.  The benefits to streaming services could go on for days, but most importantly the chance to restore interest in exploring music and to me, that is what they offer.

Will these services become the way that potential listeners consume music?  Maybe.  But for now, we can at least continue to restore the relationships these investors have in the music we are creating.  If you are an artist, give them a chance to stream your music by getting on Spotify or another service and continue creating whole hearted records that you believe in front to back.

Breaking the Fourth Wall: Ron Pope & Ari Herstand

Every once and a while you might find an artist do what I call "breaking the fourth wall."  This term is most commonly used in theater and stage production when an actor or performer chooses to break down the boundary between themselves and the audience to which they are performing and speak to them.

For me, I like to utilize this term in indie music to represent when an artist makes a conscious decision to not separate themselves from their fans by saying "I am the artist, YOU are the fan."  Whether it be when playing live, or representing who they are online etc..  For some reason the quoted thought process happens all to often as successful indie musicians or musicians whom have most likely had one night stands with the music industry (by it's former definition) after which the music industry never called them back or showed naked pictures of them to their friends become jaded into thinking they haven't been brought back into the realm of DIY artists.  The responsibility to share your trials and tribulations with your fans and followers becomes far greater.  You might say that this thought process can simply be summed up with the reasons why we love to watch VH1's "Behind the Music" so much.  We (the fan) need to have the fourth wall broken when it comes to making an connection with an indie musician.

By my own definition, these are my favorite type of artists (DIY) because it forces artists to be creative.  What you say and do is on your own accord and there is no one, besides your fans, to tell you if it is working.  Some might call that blind faith in an industry that makes stars the strangest of ways of which one is never the same as the other.  DIY musicians have made a conscious decision to be a musician as a career and vowed to live off of 90% intrinsic value and 10% monetary value until those percentages start to even out.

Moving straight ahead to the point...  This month two DIY artists, Ron Pope and Ari Herstand, will be embarking on a massive U.S. tour in search of/confirming what I would call "breaking the fourth wall."  Outside of both being young artists in very similar genres, I believe that these guys have a little bit more in common that is seen by the naked eye.  Both Ron Pope and Ari Herstand have had brushes with all types of success.  I am sure that 95% of their audience in attendance during the 40+ date tour are well aware of each and every one of those successes.  Perhaps they had a lot to do with them themselves.  Most notable about the "Whatever It Takes" tour is that these two musicians are taking a record industry convention and exposing it's nuts and bolts fully and completely utilizing their resources at hand, most of which are free (That is what you call good PR.)  Explaining them here might discount the creativity within the process.  (Visit:  Whatever It Takes Tour)  All aspects of the touring and promotion planning for the WIT tour bleed what a modern DIY musician is, perhaps you could better describe the tour as the quintessential way that one creates a full time job out of music.  Either way, even if you haven't heard Ron or Ari, maybe you are an up and coming local artist? or just simply an ambitious fan?  Read the history of these individuals and visit them on one of their tour dates.  You might find them inspiring.

Catch information on the tour here:

Whatever It Takes Tour

Personal Post: Thin Line Between "The Basement" and "Accomplishment"

So many times throughout my musical endeavors, I feel I have been confronted with the same question over and over (only acknowledging sober individuals) often from potential or aspiring musicians, but not always. This question is usually first coupled with a various compliment. The question? "How long have you been playing guitar and singing." I can't tell you how troubling it is for me to answer this question for a world of reasons. The foremost might be met with my insecurity that I feel I should be so much better at my craft (singing, songwriting, guitar playing) in ratio to how many years I have been playing. I look around me at the local musicians, their strengths, their weakness and there is a constant comparison, perhaps a silent competition going on. How long did it take so and so to begin headlining at said venue? Get a management or record contract? What have they achieved since, if anything? I often wonder how I stack up, what I have accomplished in the time I have focused on music.

MTV Responsibility: Florence & The Machine = One and Done.

Do you remember when MTV used to have their ear to the music scene?  You should, because it was actually not all that long ago.  Some might argue that MTV's purpose was to keep us (the listener) posted on the next best thing within all genres of music, after all, they are and still continue to be the industry's most popular source of music information.  No this isn't a rant regarding MTV's reluctance nowadays to play music videos, nor is it regarding the afternoon's packed full of reality television.  It is rather the argument that MTV has assisted largely in the recent development of fan reluctance toward new and "original" music.

Some might argue that MTV in their role has the responsibility to deliver new music to us (the now very fickle listener.)  Over the years MTV began to undermine their self-appointed role by continuing to ignore new music and artists as time continued to pass.  Essentially, MTV has become a Top 40 radio station only playing songs and genres that have already gained momentum with the active listening population.

Power Up Your Band's Social Media Presence and Do Real World Promotion Part 1

Being an artist nowadays really is better than it ever.  With an unlimited amount of social networking resources bands can create an online presence fairly quickly.  Within about .05% of the time it took you to create your brand new record you can communicate and deliver your new material to your fans in a manner that seems "instant"

What Band's must not forget is the fickle nature of communication delivery on social networks.  In a big way, it is very easy to be "too late" in using these tools to connect with current and prospective fans.

In short, half of what makes a record contract so valuable is your access to professional promotional minds.  Timely and effective communications about a big show or new album can be critical in the success of creating a buzz about your band.  Record labels and management deals can make this happen.  Whether it is always a success is up in the air, but it is almost always planned and attempted no matter how big or small the artist and or label.  You, the small unsigned artist should be doing the same on your own.  Without a plan to effectively promote yourself, your events and releases it can be very difficult to conjure up support or buzz.  Realize that this doesn't just "happen."  YOU have to create it. 

Since you are "small" in essence, you do not have the luxury of doing an interview with Billboard, a spot on the Jay Leno show and a tour of the country.  So you need to rely on digital and social media tools to market yourself, your record, your show and whatever else.  Here is where it gets sticky.  Most bands make themselves aware of these tools and use them which is great, after all, their livelihood in many ways depends on the support of their fans with whom they must communicate with.  Whether you are aware of the tools and whether you are using them effectively are two different things.

To start, let's be sure your band's social media presence is up to date and following a short list of Do's and Don'ts for social media activity.  We will start with Twitter since this seems to be the most elusive and misused by artists.