DailyMusic

The New Business Model: Spotify

2012-01-04T13:52:00.000-08:00

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

2011-03-01T10:26:00.000-08:00

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"

2010-10-27T10:14:00.000-07:00

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.

Often reluctantly, I offer an answer to the individual that I in fact have been playing guitar and (attempting) to sing for 8 years this October. I often sit silently after my response to gauge the reaction of the individual. When you think 8 years you think a long time right? For example if you heard "I have been married for 8 years" or "I have been working here for 8 years." This sounds like a long period of time. As a musician, I always wonder what I should have accomplished by this point in my musical journey. I couldn't dare call it a career, although I have and am able to live off the funds earned from musical "jobs," but I choose not to. For me, there aren't enough inspired moments in a 24 hour day to keep me from using my (far to expensive) degree, and local musicians don't go on perpetual tours. They just aren't in the cards.

Regardless, this cause for anniversary really comes from a statement I made when I was 19 years old. I remember it so vividly because I believed in it so much it has stuck with me. At the time, I had recorded an album in a friend of a friends basement for zero dollars, had sold about 150 copies (yea, that's it!) and had just played a venue where I had made $750 in door and merch sales. Needless to say, from a local musician standpoint that is like the top of the world. I felt "accomplished." The quote went a little like this "If I dont' make it by the time I am 25, I am giving up music.." There are so many issues with this statement. The most glaring being that it is overwhelmingly laden with ignorance, and additionally plagued with holes that bring up about 50 questions. I won't state them all here, but a couple might be: What is "making it?" and how do you define "music?" Does that mean I am taking my thousands of dollars in musical investments straight to the pawn shop on my 25th birthday? Certainly not.

When I look back at the last 8 years I have found that there is a very thin line between "The Basement" and "Accomplishment." The highs and lows of a musical journey are overly intense, and you can feel like you are in the former or the later multiple times in a month, or even a week. My musical journey has been laden with inspired spurts of writing multiple songs in a short period of time to hating material I had loved the day before, losing and earning new band members, trying out new musicians (this is an extremely painful process,) working with individuals who didn't believe in the music I was playing, working with some who did, playing amazing venues to playing terrible venues, meeting gracious musicians to meeting extremely jaded musicians. My devotion to my own original music has been tested both by myself and the audiences in my hometown, the staff at venues who paid me handsomely and even the venues who barely paid me at all. For years, my resilience has been tested and far too many times faltered. I often wonder how my "8 years" have differed from my musicians around me based on my experiences. Sometimes I wished I had stayed in bedroom and written songs only performed on safe grounds, perhaps only for family and friends. Fell into a group of hard working musicians and most of all simply hardcore music FANS, played some devoted original venues, etc. How would that have affected my devotion to my instrument? The belief in my lyrics? The command of my vocal performance? I suspect in a big way.

My point of this post is essentially that there is a realization that "Accomplishment" is defined by YOU, the musician, at every turn. In the music business, there will always be someone redefining "Accomplishment" for you. You can choose to take their measurement tool or use your own. Most importantly, consider your source. Is theirs defined my money? Myspace fans? How fast you can solo on your guitar? Perhaps it is best to have the "bedroom" mentality while pushing your music publicly and standing amongst your peers, music business professionals and increasingly fickle audiences that could potentially be paying your rent this month. You have to believe in what you are doing, because there is always the chance you will encounter many who don't, or perhaps, simply have no interest in general. Selling 150 CD's and packing a small venue felt like accomplishment then. Was it? Not really at all. But accomplishment at that point wasn't measured only by others. Not the number of years i had been playing guitar, not the fact my peers had studio recordings and I was toting a home recording, not the fact I was playing the Acadia Cafe which is far from a respected venue (that perhaps holds about 100 people.) That didn't matter, I had the mentality that I was growing.

Perhaps a certain factor of delusion is required for a musician to continue to believe and push their music year after year. Venue after venue, Wins and Losses. This can be especially true given your odds. Not just of signing a major label contract, but simply of having a large fanbase in general, living comfortably off of your music (not just getting by.) If there was a constant realistic factor for unsigned or new musicians we may never get to discover new artists because there would only be so few in the business. They would have taken more conventional routes.

As someone in no place to give advice to musicians, I can't completely resist the temptation to make one statement: The need to believe in what you are doing at every turn is so incredibly imperative. The only way to waste your years as a musician is to doubt yourself and your craft. With that said I would love to auto-adjust my years of playing to 3-5 (there might be some gray area) It has been my only regret. I understand in detail now why I am not the best of my peers, and I never will be. That is a good thing. My peers are my source of inspiration and a resource for my self definitive success.

With that said, I will take another 25 years of music as I can get it. I hope my outstandingly talented peers take on this same mentality.

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

2010-09-16T08:10:00.000-07:00

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.

See, the problem is that MTV used to thrive on the idea of spotting and delivering new music to their viewers. As a young station, MTV was striving to become an opinion leader in music and be a part of the early forecast of a potentially great artist. A great example of this was their willingness to promote the career of Michael Jackson long before he had the support of other leaders in the industry (on Television.) As TV, music and radio changed into a digital age, CD sales declined, and the Internet revolutionized music consumption, MTV began to take a backseat to their self-appointed role. Now, instead of trailblazing the path for great music, they are choosing to follow the fickle listener who doesn't have time to seek out new and original music in order to secure their viewership, thus thrusting the music listener population into what I might call a "cover song state of mind." Sure some of this new music exposure has been shoved off to their branch stations such as MTVU and MTV2 but is this really an effective delivery of new music to a vast viewing population?

Over the past decade, as I watched MTV transform into what it is today, I have watched the station continue to attempt to re-capture their role yearly at the MTV music awards by bringing in and nominating one conspicuous artist a year in order to throw off their viewers and to seem "cutting edge." This year that artist was "Florence & The Machine."

Arguably as a group of active listeners, It would be fair to say most had not heard of "Florence & The Machine," And there is no denying the look on the confused attendees faces during both the performance and nomination especially including "Video of the Year."

The problem here is not MTV's attempt to recapture their role, but rather their selection of an artist to create a distinct effect at the awards still rests on the networks inability to get creative in their role in the last 15 years. Some might remember MTV pulling this stunt in 2008 with a band called "Tokyo Hotel." For the most part these are artists that have made waves in other countries over the past year. MTV has not only not discovered or really offered this group an exposure opportunity but has rather reaffirmed their lackadaisical A&R skills by only selecting artists that have first made waves before giving them additional exposure. In other words for them it is like taking "chance" without being too risky. Not only have these artists been questionable in talent but also questionable in American appeal.

MTV must understand that they need not undermine their role as an opinion leader and their responsibility to the music community. As a listener and industry enthusiast, I would love to see MTV prove that they can once again be a leader in this role in the realization that throwing a curve ball once a year, playing a video at 2am or playing 5 second clips from great unsigned musicians that are lyric applicable as background music in their television programming is unfortunately not the way to succeed.

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

2010-09-15T09:44:00.000-07:00

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.

Twitter

Do use and promote a Twitter account
Do use your tweets as a business connection vehicle with record labels, other artists, radio stations, etc.
Do tweet multiple times daily. 2-10 is both an acceptable amount. Remember Twitter feeds are constantly rolling. If you are 1 of 2,000 people that an individual is following they may never see your tweets as they might get lost in the shuffle.
Do tweet relevant and useful information
Do re-tweet other bands or business connections to show you are paying attention to them.
Do use Twitpic and other third party sites to offer dynamics in your tweets. Twitter is going through recent changes which will make it even easier to see pictures and video exchanged through Twitter.
Do utilize Hootsuite or another third party application to quickly and effectively mange your Twitter account and other social media sites.

Don't

Don't expect your fans to be avid users of Twitter. (Although many are aware of Twitter, they are however unlikely to use it often and or are unsure of how to use even it's most basic features)
Don't be promotional over Twitter. As a guesstimate percentage, you should use Twitter promotionally only about 5% of the time.
Don't use automatic feed sites like ArtistData to update your twitter status about shows or any other band activity. This almost always indicates laziness among many other negative perceived notions.
Don't follow people "just to follow them." If you are in Twitter for the numbers the URL you were actually looking for was www.myspace.com/music. You will be welcomed with open arms there. Tell em' 2005 sent ya.

Facebook

Do

Have all of your shows posted/updated and clearly visible by a tab on your page
Do have a music player available and visible on your FB page, no music on a musician page suggests something to hide or reliance on your beautiful face in a photograph. Doesn't cut it.
Do be sure to have the "My band name + Others" tab selected as default so your fans don't only see communications from you but also that of your fans. Content only from you suggests non engagement.
Do have current content, including but not limited to an event, photos, status etc. Non-current content suggests a non-cutting edge band.
Use Static FBML to create custom tabs to add a differentiating factor to your page.
Do follow up after shows (especially those you have made event invites for) with a thank you to fans or related show content including photos and videos.
Do be personal in your posts periodically. A band without personality is one dimensional and will lose fan interest quickly.

Do respond to those who specifically address you on your page.

Don't

Don't make an event for every one of your shows (unless your fan base is vast.) This is a sure fire way to lose fans. Be selective, and organize your fans into geographic groupings so that someone 500 miles away doesn't get your invites. They might love you, but they might love not getting hassled more.
Don't have repeated content on your page (statuses)
Don't write or add negative content.
Don't use FB solely as a promotional vehicle.

Although there are many other social media avenues, these two are used most often. In using these do's and dont's I will discuss in further detail how to construct a proper promotional social media campaign and timeline using these and more avenues for a show or record release in "Part 2"

When the Stars (Industry Contacts) Align: Teenage Dream

2010-09-03T13:53:00.000-07:00

On DailyMusic, I really prefer to avoid CD reviews, especially reviewing artists that are currently being reviewed by 30 other music "journalists" on the web. Regardless, I felt it was important to discuss the Marketing and behind the scenes aspects surrounding the release of Katy Perry's new album "Teenage Dream."

From an industry standpoint, Perry's campaign is notable in that in terms of today's record promotion, the (we will call it) "Teenage Dream campaign" is arguably the largest dollar amount a label is willing to dish out for any single record in this day and age. Sure, these campaigns happen multiple times a year with other artists but rarely to the extent of "Teenage Dream."

Rather than review the content on "Teenage Dream," which do to outstanding number of competent co-writes and printed production credits equal to the length of the lyrics is a collection of, simply put, hit songs.

Now that the review is out of the way, I was hoping to focus on the outstanding amount of industry supporters Perry has garnered over her short term in the spotlight. Many might not know that Perry has been signed and dropped multiple times from other record labels before receiving a push from her current label for the ever so risque "I Kissed A Girl." A genuine and dynamic talent, Perry has become a product of the label and fixation of top 40 radio since that release.

I think more than anything Perry is a perfect example of an artist that still had to prove herself even after being signed in order to get a push for her singles. A great question is: How and when did Perry go from being dropped in multiple instances all the way to the high budget production of "Teenage Dream?" Some might say this happens when the "Stars" align. No, I don't mean those twinkling things in the sky, I am talking about industry contacts and talents who are all now ready and willing to grab a piece of the Katy Perry pie. No pun intended. These contacts, in turn, make a record less "risky" and a good promotional investment from the standpoint of the record label.

The funny thing (and perhaps, the point) is that although Perry is an unbelievable talent and has garnered belief from industry professionals over and again throughout her career, never have so many talented artists, producers, songwriters, etc. ever wanted to be a part of her success (at the same time.) See, from an industry standpoint, Perry was a "risk" for years. When your album arguably lacks what I will call "big (unnameable) names" whom are essentially behind the scenes, your songs are what I will call: not a guarantee. You might say: "Well, they put 'Kissed A Girl' on the radio didn't they?" Yes, they did, it got a small initial promotion, but at that point what percentage of listeners and industry professionals deemed Perry's silly antics and tongue in cheek tune essentially the makings of a "one hit wonder?" Since the tune hit the ground running the label all of a sudden decided they wanted to get behind Perry and they did, in a big way.

Something to think about here is that, right now, the label has put their belief in Perry in terms of a dollar amount, which is well deserved. But, in a recent interview with Billboard magazine, Perry put it in so many words that she realizes she is not changing the world with her current singles. While she has industry contacts on her side I look forward to her willingness to bend in her new found stature and deliver an album that digs deep. For now, let's be thankful Perry's 9 year struggle to the top has allotted her the dollar amount to be recognized in some way. We can only hope that the stars align for other true talent more often than the standard total solar eclipse and that there are still some dollars left for those deserving individuals.

The All Imperitive Record Label 'Choice'

2010-08-26T12:53:00.000-07:00

WARNING: This post is a little depressing.

"Well, hopefully, one day I will get 'signed.'"

I can't tell you how many times in the last 8 years I have heard this statement from musicians of all genres and experience levels. Its seems to be the most common goal among musicians. Sure, some are looking to make it on their own accord, others have different grand plans. But most of us want the all elusive "record deal."

Perhaps most perplexing is that (in a gross, unreserached overestimate) I would say that 70+ percent of these same musicians are unsure of what encompasses a record contract and 90+ percent are unsure of how to attain one and scarier still is that 98% of these musicians are unsure of what happens after the contract is signed. (by the way, quoting these percentages will get you an automatic "F" on your music business paper)

However, these numbers are closer to a reality than one might think. Perhaps a highlight for discussion is the idea that musicians must be well aware of how a record contract works long before their first encounter with one in order to make sure they are making a decision that is going to work for their career. This would be impossible to advise an artist community as a whole, considering the situation for every musician is uniquely different.

To many musicians, the thought process is that a record contract means a huge boost in support (of their music, by the label) It means money, It might mean touring, it might be a shiny new record. Sure sometimes it might mean those things, but most of the time it does not. In fact, what many musicians are unaware of is that entering a deal with a record label can actually stifle your "buzz" as a musician rather than light a flame underneath it. Here are a few notions to be aware of when signing a contract:

1. Just because you are signed, it doesn't put a rush on your new record. You might get signed to "Virgin Records" and be working at Denny's for 2 years while the label works out any kinks in your promotional plans, masters, etc.

2. Just because you are signed doesn't mean that everyone at the label is excited about you and/or your new record. Sadly, as Moses Avalon taught me: A&R people don't work in the same department as the promotional department. In other words, the same guy that signed you doesn't have much of a say in how hard your next record gets pushed. Everyone in the chain of command needs to like you. If not love you.

3. Just because Maroon 5 got a radio tour, commercials, TV promo spots and an interview with Billboard about their new record doesn't mean you will. Especially if you are on the same label, and definitely if your record is getting released at the same time theirs is. That is, bigger artists get bigger budgets, simply because their return on investment will almost always be much higher.

This is just a few situations. Regardless, remember that as these things are happening, it may take years to get a new record into your fans hands (if ever.) Often times, records never get released after years of freezes on promotional and touring activity. Before you know it, your fans haven't seen or heard from you for as long as they can remember. Where does this put you once the label decides to "spit you out" (let you out of your contract, or releases you themselves.)

The point being is that, knowledge of your goals before and after the signing of a contract will prove to help you be prepared in the long run. What type of advance are you looking for? What vision do you have for your next record? Does the label agree with that vision? What are your touring expectations? How do you feel about co-writing?

Remember a record label is an employer, not your personal unconditional supporter. That is what managers and, well, significant others are for. Just like prospecting for a job, you go for an interview, and in a good one you try to decide if the employer is right for you and if they have any place in furthering your career at this point in your career path. The label is the same. Just because a label offers you the contract you have been waiting for, it doesn't mean that their and your future plans match up. Is this employer going to be a good fit for you? If a contract is in front of you now, that more than likely means you started your career years, if not decades, ago. How will this employer supplement your career? I would argue, an important question.

And The Award For Excellence In Social Media Goes To: "Ready. Set. GRO!"

2010-08-18T10:26:00.000-07:00

As the band put it recently, It's been a long journey for alternative rockers Green River Ordinance over the past 10 years. Speaking from a personal standpoint, I have been following this band since their early release: "The Beauty of Letting Go" all the way through their major label signing and debut album.

Finding them by happenstance during a (now defunct) idea to move to Texas in 2004, I searched for young bands making waves near the city I was potentially moving to. In a miraculous "Google" search I found GRO stationed in Fort. Worth, TX and was instantly drawn to their talent and (perhaps even more) their then exceptional online presence. I know that 6 years doesn't seem that long ago, but remember this was long before the inception and success of Facebook and during the initial years of Myspace Music when it was just starting to get some traction. Regardless, this band was extremely connected as musicians with their fans, and to me, were pioneering along with others an online model that was working.

Jump forward to 2007 08'-09' and we find GRO's independent accomplishments bringing them potential to reach a larger audience with a much deserved record contract with Virgin Records. Their debut record continuing to bleed potential more importantly didn't give too much away up front. In other words, the album was a steady step in the right direction for the band as they continued to progress together as musicians (and friends.) In their feature on my "Bands To Google" section I did earlier this month, I made a statement about GRO being a "real band" by the traditional definition in the fact that, while their efforts as a band involved media 2.0, they still have been directly involved and associated with every aspect of their growth as artists since day one. The communications student in me might say that in order to effectively communicate and captivate any audience driving them (the audience) to action (whether it be purchasing a record or concert ticket or anything else) that you need to truly understand the goals and aspirations of your organization and all of your messages need to expertly coincide with these goals. Getting straight to the point, Green River Ordinance has proven not only that they know and understand their audience, but most importantly understand themselves and where they are heading.

Jump ahead now to 2010, Green River Ordinance announced this past Monday (Aug. 16th) that they have opted out of their record contract in order to do something new: Merge the experience of the listener (or "fan") and the experience of the artist into one by involving the listener in the whole process of recording an album. Completely unorthodox in nature, this model proves that Green River Oridinace is not discounting fans as inactive listeners, as many major label's traditional means of promoting a record might suggest.

Immediately implemented by the band was the "Ready. Set. GRO!" campaign which was hosted with the increasingly popular "Kickstarter" Website. With the campaign, the band is looking to raise money from the people that they have directly paid the most attention to in their ten year run: their fans and rewarding their donations with realistic and often intrinsically valuable rewards directly from the band. Using Facebook, Twitter and their main website, GRO raised 7,713 of their 15,000 goal in just 3 days with 27 days left in their campaign.

Green River Ordinance has devoted themselves to being as transparent as possible for their fans over the past 10 years, and this week, in a big way, they have been rewarded for this. As media shifts and the record industry evolves, GRO continues to demonstrate they are on the upper echelon in terms of staying connected and continuing to focus on their craft, and most importantly, the people who care about it most.

GRO's "Ready. Set. GRO!" campaign link:

An A&R's Minneapolis Dream: "Last Kiss, Mpls."

2010-08-13T11:14:00.000-07:00

In lieu of a regular post today, I felt the need to highlight the convention of the best Minneapolis unsigned artists held last night that was "Last Kiss, Mpls." As a writer and musician, it is even hard for me to describe the breadth of talent that was compressed into one room for what some would call an emotional farewell show to successful Minneapolis local artist, Ari Herstand, as he ships off to Los Angeles.

Its funny, because I would argue that the Minneapolis music scene has been the industry's best kept secret for as long as I can remember. As a young musician, I used to follow my favorite Minneapolis artists thinking to myself: "How is this artist not known on a larger scale?" "Isn't it easy to make it big?" Sadly, I had no idea at the time what being a musician really meant. The journey, the sacrifices, the indescribable hard work, and not to mention raw and developed talent. To this end, the Minneapolis music scene has become an elite group of individuals who have put in years and an immeasurable amount of heart into developing themselves daily in order to make a career out of something that they love. This type of determination is sometimes so rare that this group of artists can sometimes all fit on one stage, and last night, they did.

Looking around the room at the collected musicians: some had already been there and back, some were still on their way or just starting, some starting new projects, some had moved on from music in general. No matter the category, each might have their own story of being jaded or uplifted at any given moment in their career. Regardless, each brought with them to the Varsity Theater a huge chunk of what continues to build the Minneapolis music scene everyday.

Additionally interesting is the inbred experience of each band that takes the stage. In a sense, as a young listener rather than participator at the time I felt I had discovered each of these bands individually, viewed them as completely separate entities when in reality each has had some integral part of each others career. Careers that were built by not stepping on each others shoulders. An inspiring concept to say the least.

Herstand performing at his farewell show "Last Kiss, Mpls."
Photo by: Acacia Flory

Inspiring still, in a quick scan of the kids in the audience, I couldn't help but notice the overwhelming amount of fresh faces here to watch original music, a concept that terrifying enough has continued to wane over the past decade. As each band took the stage the show simply seemed to flow, each of Ari's friends (bands on the bill) performed their own music in an immaculate presentation, with a humble sense of reality to their existence as artists.

To be expected, Herstand's performance was solid, but to his amazing credit he really didn't make the show "about him." It was seen in his performance and actions on stage that this was his thank you to a town and music scene that helped foster his career. During Herstand's show he took every opportunity he had to share the stage with each of the musicians he had met over the years, each bringing a unique element to his show and filling out his sound to album quality in a live setting. The show culminated in a remarkably organized collaborative performance with every musician that had performed throughout the night pulled onstage to help sing Herstand's song "Last Day." What appeared to be an organized riot turned into a one song showcase of the undeniable support of a legion of Minneapolis talent for a good friend and equal contributor to the scene that has been built here in the past 10+ years.

"Last Kiss, Mpls." was more than just a Herstand farewell (or goodbye for now as he might call it) it was a demonstration, a convention and testament to the idea that Minneapolis holds undeniable talent whom will continue to be some of the hardest working, bright eyed talent in the industry.

Performers for Last Kiss:
Ari Herstand, The Alarmists, White Light Riot, Dan Rodriguez, Gabriel Douglas, Sarah Winters, ReadyGoes, Chris Koza, Joey Ryan, Roster McCabe

Catch 22: Major labels step quietly with "indie artists"

2010-08-05T10:31:00.000-07:00

In the past 15 years a well known evolution took place from both the artist and label perspective as far as promoting music, touring and gaining a fan base. It seems to be well known that as the digital age grew to fruition, the label's business model slowly evolved from their original focus of making a long initial investment on an artist that was fairly unknown before discovery by their label to the model of today which essentially involves the label looking for artist that had already created their own buzz, had experience recording and touring. (I go into more detail on this in a previous post: "Industry Entry: Remember the 90's?"  Regardless, this business model is aimed at reducing their risk on investment by attaining an artist that has already been "road-tested" so to speak. (They have already proved that they CAN be liked by audiences and be successful as an artist.)

This shift although brought on an a change in what is now considered "indie" "major" or anything in between.    Specifically, any artist that has created a following before the assistance of a major label could technically be considered an "indie" artist no matter what type of music they play whether it be pop, hip-hop, rock, etc. Here is a better illustration:

"Indie Artist" (Old Definition:)  An artist that creates, distributes, and performs music independently with a sound that sits outside the boundaries of current popular music. Lack of label support derives from fear of investment in an artist with a musical style out of the norm

"Indie Artist" (Digital Age Definition:) An artist that creates, distributes and performs music independently. Lack of label support derives from fear of investment in an artist that has not already been heard or exposed to fairly large audience.

The difference derives largely in idea that nowadays, the stray from a specific musical style doesn't deter a label from signing an artist but rather the artists lack of previous exposure will deter the label. Note that the original definition can still apply today simply from the fact that music out of the norm or testing boundaries tends to have a hard time getting noticed (even locally) thus perpetuating the original definition in some cases that indie artists have a hard time getting signed.

Because of this major shift, almost all artists have a fairly long "indie" career before being picked up by a major label. In other words, there is much less possibility of being signed to a major label in the form of "overnight success." Furthermore, all artists (even pop artists) take on the old indie standards as far as interacting with their fans. Maybe they communicate with their fans personally with no manager, they plan their own tour schedules, they have a beer with a fan in NewYork whom they barely know. So what? Where does the problem lie?

The problem now lies in the fact that indie artists (by today's definition) are still seeking and are good candidates for major label record deals. Some don't want them, but many of them do, and when they are actually on their plate they tend to look more appealing. Once again, what is the problem? Well, major labels end up needing to take on the strategic task of "stepping quietly" with these artists in order not to disturb or scare away the die hard fans that the artist worked so hard to gather over their "indie" years. What do I mean by step quietly? I mean making sure not to dip their hands too deep in the previous perceptions held by the indie artists fans. That means trying not to alter an artists musical style on their major label debut and continuing to make touring and on and offline communication personable (and much more.) Seems easy right? Not. If labels don't step easy with artists, the artist could lose their street credibility, buzz or even their current and potential fan base. All of a sudden the label has entered into a more risky investment because they are now working with strategies that they are not familiar with. Because of this (and many other reasons) artist transfers to major label status have often failed or not gone as planned.

The advantage (from the record label perspective) to former investment style is that taking a risk on a quite unknown artist the label has the ability to do as much molding or marketing as they see fit because there are less (if any) pre-existing public perceptions of the artist that the label has to juggle.

If you are an indie artist by the current definition and currently building a size able fan base under the major label radar, the ideas above could be a cause for strong consideration. Remember your fans should always come first as they technically create, mold and influence you. How would your fans feel if something dramatically changed to the way you created and distributed your music? Record labels can help you to further your career, but as an artist you must make sure it is the best way to move forward for you and your fans. Remember these things before you sign near the "X."

The Musical Science of Contemporary Pop

2010-08-04T12:19:00.000-07:00

Do you ever wonder why (as a listener) you tend to not like a certain artist, but you somehow find yourself bobbing your head to their tunes on the radio? Well I am going to explain to you the (theoretically) subliminal strategy behind what makes you seem to think that song is so catchy.

Of course there are a million reasons why a pop song might catch your ear even if you don't like the artist. Even though you might hate to admit it, sometimes the vocal melody is actually that well written, maybe an instrumental performance by the studio musician is really outstanding, or maybe the lyrics are just so insightful. Sadly, most of the time none of these things are true. Most of the reason a song is successful is because of studio tricks. And no, I don't mean auto-tune, beat mapping, or other various software plug-ins. Lets be honest, even the least savvy listeners nowadays are keen on how these are utilized in the studio. However what I do mean is the strategic use of instrument addition and subtraction that is so incredibly overused that at the bottom of the post I will show you 2 examples of massively popular songs within the past year that use literally the exact same layering technique, even in the same order.

Contemporary and radio pop, in my opinion, is framed around the idea that you, the listener, are not actually listening. The producer and artist are shaping a song that in the most general sense is built to make you bob your head and have what a musician would call: "A Pulse." This "Pulse" is always the goal when creating a Top 40, radio friendly song, and usually takes the drivers seat as opposed to lyrical or instrumental composition in this genre.

To create this pulse in a dynamic way producers use a technique of adding and subtracting a subset of instruments throughout a song in order to slowly build a pulse multiple times in one song. Usually a song will start with something that keeps a very steady rhythm (usually 1/4th beats on a kick or snare drum) from there additional instruments are added, usually one or two at a time to build the pulse of the song to it's release (which is usually always the chorus) To re-build the pulse, the song will usually start the second verse with the stripped feel of the first but with a different instrument keeping time (thus the dynamic factor) In most cases a general listener doesn't pick up on this technique being used and may just recognize the release as "Their favorite part" or "When the song picks up." Which if you take note, the release is the chorus which is also the most repeated part of the song. By adding and subtracting instruments in certain portions of the song including the chorus, the producer can make it more appealing because the chorus has an added dynamic factor that the rest of the song does not. An informal term for this would be making the chorus "pop." The fact that the listener doesn't pick up on the molding of the pulse and the release at the chorus almost makes it effect distracting to the listener. In most cases drawing away from questionable/silly lyrics or put simply: a poorly written song.

Perhaps the most unfortunate is that this feel is almost impossible to create live without a huge band or a backing track, which is in most cases is why many pop stars don't sound "full" live, or frankly, "bad."

The examples below better illustrate this technique. Specifically highlighting the layering in the chorus, which is the exact same between these two songs in specific.

First I will show you "Tik Tok" by Ke$ha then "California Gurls" by Katy Perry . Each song does standard layering up until the chorus in a similar fashion, but the choruses are almost identical. Listen to the instrument layering and relayering between the two songs. Not only do they use the same techniques, but the songs are extremely similar in general. So the next time you catch yourself bobbing your head for no apparent reason, listen for this technique. Oh, and if you are an at home producer, this might be a process that might work for you as far as professional "umph." Although, if you aren't producing songs for Britney Spears, it might be something to rethink.

Ke$ha: "Tik Tok" Katy Perry: "California Gurls"

Holding a Crowd, & We Don't Mean Online

2010-08-02T12:37:00.000-07:00

Over the weekend I was somehow reminded of an extremely jaded and somewhat (re)antiquated approach to pushing your music: Over-relying on the Internet and using it as the sole avenue for moving out of garageband status and into doing "bigger" things.

More than ever I felt compelled to do a short post about a band concept that is now and will forever be the element that is larger than life. An element that will always take the driver's seat when guiding a bands success: the live show, and the ability to do it well.

As the Internet continues to evolve into a resource for Labels, artists, venues and everything in between we must remember that there is no substitute for a bands ability to perform well in a live setting. Over time it seems that both the artist and it's potential label have lost sight of it's significance.

If I were to make an overtly judgemental statement it would be that we, as artists get caught up in the midst of the Internet's ability to generate automatic delivery and sometimes get obsessed with the idea of a "release" whether that be an album, a single or whatever else. The idea that we can potentially connect with ANY listener or record executive, or whomever else overnight on the Internet makes us overly focused on the concept of "overnight success." In some cases this can make some of these budding musician's dreams dangerously limitless thus flooding the Internet as a resource with musicians whom are arguably not ready to show their creations to an audience. Be it poor production value, writing, branding, etc. Through this, it appears that young artists lose focus of what it will take to further their career. Which, in the most general terms, means getting out and playing live. Playing live serves as an avenue to bettering one's musicianship, songwriting, presence and more.

Lets be honest, capturing a musical piece or a lyric on record just as you intended it to sound the first time you played it in your bedroom is an incredibly hard task. Even the world's best producers in the world fail at this everyday. So how have artists for decades delivered these songs and emotions to their listeners exactly as they should be delivered: Through live performance. As a budding musician, understand that online tools are a great way to connect with an audience, but in most cases these online tools should be used to STAY connected with your fans, not relied on to generate new fans. Sometimes you can strike gold in the latter, but this is much less common. There is no real substitute for the traditional means of connecting with a new audience.

Try spending time honing your craft in more ways than one, everyday. It's important to remember that the traditional modes of connecting with an audience have not changed. Tour if you can, perform your songs like they sound on record and enhance them for the better. Be prepared at your shows to get information from potential fans (like an email or Facebook contact.) Offer them a physical product if you can of your latest recordings. Never forget that there are actual listeners behind your computer screen and don't lose sight of the importance of interacting with them onstage in addition to online.

The Temptation to Plagiarize Yourself

2010-07-28T09:35:00.000-07:00

Of course there are have always been debates about plagiarism with the music industry, some of the latest debates included Coldplay's "Viva La Vida," or Avril Lavignes "Girlfriend." But up for discussion today is the (sometimes unwanted) temptation to plagiarize yourself as a musician or group.

What is meant by plagiarizing yourself? This is the act of (sometimes subconsciously) copying your own, previously successful material In order to recreate success of a former album or song.

Sometimes this could happen on the artist's own accord, but on the other, sometimes record labels will give specific instructions to artists to deliver material that is "similar" to a previous hit and/or deliver material that falls under general categories, such as "up-tempo."

From both the artist and label standpoint, this strategy is sometimes unavoidable. Unfortunately, market research can really only be conducted on how well the artist as a whole is being received by an audience. Which in many cases is obvious. This does not include the research that should be done to fully understand which specific tracks (or style of songs by this artist) are connecting best with their current and potential audience, whether large or small. How many times as a listener have you made the statement "I love that band, but I am not really a fan of their songs on the radio, I like '#11' (Or whatever specific track.) With this statement alone, we can derive the conclusion that the potential for '#11' to be a success among a band's current and prospective fan base is not being noted (Being that it is not being released as a single.) This type of listener statement is all too common. Yes, "A" was a big hit, but who is to say "B" couldn't have been a bigger hit? What happens when the next album is released and songs in style "B" do not make the cut? Could this potentially lose a fan?

In general, this type of market research is greatly untapped, surely because of financial and time constraints. Or perhaps, those involved simply don't care.

This lack of 'caring' leads to the temptation to copy former successful songs in order to essentially: "Go with what works." As an industry we must remember what makes "Career Artists" (In other words, artists that have very long, sustainable and memorable careers) What makes these artists is the dynamic, yet smart, single song releases per album as well as an ever-evolving image and (at least slight) experimentation in musical style. Sure, a long set of linear, similar sounding singles will rack up dollars, but it doesn't make an artist memorable and perhaps could potentially bland the career of an artist that had much more to offer. Just a thought for record labels.

Here is a very current example of self-plagiarizing by Lifehouse:
NOTE: THIS IS AN OBSERVATION, NOT A DIG ON LIFEHOUSE AS A BAND, WHO ARE AN OUTSTANDING EXAMPLE OF ADULT CONTEMPORARY MUSIC TODAY.

Their single "Spin"enjoyed mediocre success in 2002, But watch as the sound of "Spin" is (essentially) reworked in 2010 to be a huge radio hit: "Halfway Gone." Both songs are also strikingly similar to "Hanging By a Moment," the song that broke the band out in 2000.

2002: "Spin" 2010: "Halfway Gone"

The predecessor to both:
2000: "Hanging By a Moment"

The Peacock Effect: For the Sake of Originality, Let's Ditch the Necktie

2010-07-26T11:58:00.000-07:00

Ok, It might be imperative to pre-empt this post with the fact that even I have fallen victim to this now, very defunct fashion statement as a musician. Regardless, I was hoping, our community as a whole could mark today as the day we officially
lose the necktie as a stylish "alternative"
fashion statement for stage or promotional wear.

Let's just spend a short moment trying to understand why the necktie was successful in the first place. Let's break the third wall and think about why this was considered cool and whom or what "made" it cool.

Well, the necktie is traditionally used by professionals in a business setting. Therefore, the necktie makes a few unspoken statements and has it's own engrained associations. Loosely put, the necktie says: Mature, professional, business, serious, smart, etc. The originator of necktie use in a musical/concert setting (we won't name names) was trying to (whether deliberately or not) create what is considered the "Peacock Effect" by wearing the necktie in a setting that is not usually associated with most of the above terms.

What is the "Peacock Effect?": In a loose definition, the "Peacock Effect" is an effect created when one uses something (in many cases something visual, such as odd colors on clothing, various accessories that are out of the norm, etc.) to stand out in a crowd. Much like an actual peacock would with it's bright colors, etc.

What is another example a use of the "Peacock Effect" in musical history?

The use of women's makeup and big hair by 80's rock stars.

What usually happens when the Peacock Effect is overused?

The odd use of the new item in a different setting almost always "stands out" at first, but over time that item usually develops it's own, new associations. For example, the use of the necktie in a musical setting is now usually associated with a singer-songwriter because of it's overuse by this group of musicians. Not only is it no longer original, but it's purpose (to stand out) is pretty much defeated.

Even country star Dierks Bentley
has jumped on the skinny tie bandwagon.

In a quick example that doesn't involve music: For a short while 5 years ago, a male could achieve head-turning attention by wearing pink clothing. Over time, this became less effective with the increasing popularity of the color and the implementation of the association term: "metrosexual." Thus categorizing the use of the color by males. This not only made the use more accepted, but even a standard color choice for men.

This is not to say that musicians are looking for attention, per se. Perhaps you wear the necktie because you find it comfortable, or you usually do when you aren't on stage? But the goal of stage and promotional wear is to wear something unique, something that the audience isn't wearing. You are the star, you are looking to set yourself apart and in essence create an "image." I have personally been told true stories of a record label requiring their musicians, by contract, to wear black socks as opposed to the standard white in order for the band to set themselves apart. Sadly, these types of unique statements are no longer being made by the necktie and only time will tell what will take it's place. Maybe it's just me, but I am hoping it's replacement comes soon. Until then, I am sure that we will continue to see it onstage and through camera lenses.

Country Gets A Makeover

2010-07-22T15:00:00.000-07:00

Quite honestly, I am surprised a lot of the new marketing of Country music hasn't been stated out loud by anyone just yet? I think we are all ready to face the facts that Country music for the most part received a "makeover" over the past 5 years in specific.

Jaron is the latest pop star to crossover
after years of being out of the limelight.
Jaron released "Crazy For This Girl"
with his brother Evan in 2000.

The country music we knew from 20 years ago was still steeped largely within its roots musically. Promotions for artists usually fit the music and the artist themselves: They were, well, 'simple.'

Over the past 5 years, Country got 'glossy' and for the most part started to mirror pop music. Let me explain what I mean in a few examples:
Recordings became much more complex with added overdubs and processed sounds. And of course the ever elusive addition of the "electric guitar"
Our favorite country stars started to look better. More attractive artists were signed. Does Shania Twain's shocking midriff ring any bells?
Most recently, Country stars are able to add or subtract instruments in their recordings in order to crossover to different radio stations temporarily. Perhaps the average pop listener doesn't realize that if you add the violin back into Taylor Swift's latest hit that the song becomes much less appealing to them?
Most shocking however is the entrance of former pop stars into the country world only to be welcomed by listeners with fresh ears. A prime example is multi-platinum selling Darius Rucker (former Hootie And The Blowfish lead singer.) What most people don't know is that Darius tried multiple other genres in an effort to revive his career before he landed on country. He is outstanding at what he does, but by today's standards, most listeners would call this a "sellout"

Regardless, Country has become a mainstream approach for many up and coming musicians. What was once considered "old people" music has now evolved.

PSA for Top 40 Radio:

2010-07-21T14:00:00.000-07:00

Some might say that "radio is dying" and perhaps now considered an antiquated approach to consuming music as an active listener. I would tentatively agree with this notion. Although I am still a listener of radio stations where I currently live, I am tempted to scold them for they way they are currently doing business.

I think the notion that radio is dying comes from the idea that our worlds are becoming more personalized, and will continue to do so indefinitely. We currently live in a world where media has become something that you can mold to your wants and needs completely. Whether it be the news that is delivered to you, your music, or something else, we still get to choose. This is certainly not a new notion by any means.

But, perhaps the reason radio is suffering is the fact that not only have they not made a strong effort to adapt to a customizable world, but they have rather moved further away from it. Do you remember when requesting a song on a station was an exhilarating experience? Nowadays, you rarely ever hear those clips of an excited listener trying to get their song played.

The issue here lies with the fact that stations have moved further and further away from taking ANY chances with their song selection. Why? Well perhaps they are worried they will lose listeners. With our business hats on: we realize that without listeners, we cannot get advertisers, and without advertisers we don't have funding, and in essence don't have a station.

FM stations should take a lesson from Pandora

But we are missing one huge piece to this puzzle. Where is the proof that a variety of music that is completely "new" to a listener will cause them to change the station? Isn't the success of "Pandora" living proof that listeners are looking for "new" music and artists fairly often and are completely willing to give them a try? Sure, Pandora adapts to your favorite genre, but why couldn't your favorite FM station do the same thing? Most importantly, what is the percentage of time spent by stations discovering and delivering new music to it's listeners in contrast to the amount of time spent trying to rack up advertising contracts?

In an industry that is suffering, There is room for stations to do something unique and creative. For now, your frustrated listeners will be tapping their feet to the monotony for as long as it takes to charge their iPod or power up the PC. I challenge stations to go back to working hard to deliver quality and variety in their programming. Engage and pay attention to your listeners. They should be your first priority.

The New Album Price = Free

2010-07-19T21:10:00.000-07:00

Since the dawn of the digital and iTunes age, a subject always up for discussion is "What should I charge for my album?" For the most part, I am not even sure this is a question that the record labels can decide on an exact answer. As industry professionals, record executives recognize that sizable income is really attained from almost anything but that actual sale of the physical record itself, and we have watched the prices waffle back and forth over the years as these professionals settle into the new business model: digital delivery (of music.)

Although there were multiple factors leading to this discussion, I believe the reasoning for this "waffle" is fairly simple: In retrospect, listeners were a fairly simple audience to market (or sell) to. A painfully simplified example might go as follows: Listener hears about musician on the radio, MTV, live show, etc. and listener chooses to "try" the new artist out. But at this time "trying" an artist meant buying their whole album, and praying to god that the rest of the album was somewhat decent. I am sure there were a just a few disappointed "Chumbawamba" and "Eiffel 65" listeners out there. Needless to say, the process has since become more complicated with more advanced resources that allow listeners to become their own "A&R" (or artist scout) so to speak. The new variables include Illegal and legal downloading, websites with enhanced content, YouTube, Pandora and so many more. These variables allow the listener to know everything about the band before spending a cent on their albums or concert ticket. Essentially making the need for each marketing and PR move to be extremely minute in order to generate new band excitement. Long story short, nowadays, the "mystery" of a new band is diffused long before a physical album leaves the shelf.

Lately we have seen bands or artists (even those with large major label success) to offer a free digital single or even a full digital album for free. This new trend for album pricing, I believe, stems from this evolution.

In thinking about this strategy, it is important to ponder the benefits of this strategy for new bands and established bands alike. This strategy focuses on a "freemium" approach to marketing music. In essence, this is to offer something free in order to bait a customer to purchase the full product or another product. In this case that might be concert tickets, another album or simply a sign up on your mailing list. This can be an extremely effective approach in generating the interest of new listeners or even listeners who were previously familiar with your music. A band must understand that a listener can be in multiple stages of interest in your music (or product.) They might be a die hard fan on one end, or a brand new listener on the other end, but never forget there are thousands of shades of gray in-between and that any certain listeners personal experience or connection to your music could be completely different from that of the next. The 'freemium' approach helps to eliminate those shades of gray by inviting them to take an interest in you with no perceived risk or prior commitment. Most importantly, a free track or album allows website traffic and generated interest in your band to be 'on your time.' In other words, you are in further control of your own public relations.

Remember that with any strategy, it should be followed with more strategy and planning. If you choose to do a free single or album, be prepared to follow with a full album, big concert or other event of interest soon after. Also, keep your website clean. Now that you have them there, what other information would you like them to know? How will you make that message clear to your potential or existing fans? The luxury of capturing a fans attention on your own turf is extremely monumental, how will you make their visit work towards your own benefit and assist in creating a long term fan? In general, these are unique questions a band must answer for themselves.

'Free' is a strategy that bands can make work in a major way. The evolution in this model is sure to be exciting over the next few years as the labels and artists adjust to digital distribution and free Internet music resources. For now, this is a niche all aspiring bands should be experimenting with while it is still fresh.

A Lesson In Fan Relations: Jason Mraz

2010-07-13T14:01:00.000-07:00

So many musicians rely on social media and Web 2.0 tools (2 way communication) to connect with their fans. Whether it be on Facebook, Twitter, a personal website or perhaps even the tired "Myspace Music" account. (Hopefully you are not using the latter as a sole tool for connecting with fans.) With any type of public relations, advertising, or marketing there are many tools that musicians and labels alike are able to utilize, and at a fair price. But there comes a time when everyone is "on board" so to speak with these types of tools and soon enough these outlets are bombarded with users who have accounts "just to have them." It's at this point when we separate the "men from the boys," and true success stories can arise.

As we know with these tools and trends, anyone can hop on the bandwagon first and really derive success, and in many cases it involves little to no strategy when you are one of the first. John Mayer is a great example of this type of success. Mayer was one of the first to really utilize a webpage to spread his music virally. Many were discovered and offered lucrative record deals during the initial years of "MySpace Music." But now in a flooded network it is harder and harder to stand out and really use these tools to connect with fans and not use these tools just to "sell." Bottom line is that when the strainer comes through the flood, only a few artists are smart and strategic enough not to slip through the cracks.

Jason Mraz, is an artist (whether strategic or not) who has utilized web 2.0 to it's fullest and continues to do so daily. Throughout his success, Mraz has broken the mold of the stereotypical shift into major label status by continuing to make decisions and create media that feels (for lack of a better word) "humble." He does so through:

Breaking the mold of the "album release." He continues to release acoustic EP's, cover songs, unreleased music and live DVD's in-between albums. The latter, always involves documentaries of him interacting with fans and behind the scenes. You can never negate the power of giving the average joe an insiders look. A musicians career is "mysterious." Straining some of the mystery for their enjoyment can pay off immensely for an artist, and it has for Mraz.

Most importantly, Mraz utilizes Facebook, in specific, at least daily and uploads a variety of content, that allow him to get closer and closer to his fans.

Above all, the content posted is in tune with his lyrics on his records rather than the price tag on them. In other words, Mraz uses social media to get closer and create relationships that feel more personal to his fans rather than to "sell" to them. From a musician (or business) standpoint, the "sell factor" is essential but should never be your focus. Once a fan arrives at the perception you are being merely promotional, you have lost them, and for your sake, hopefully not forever.

As advice to budding musicians and professionals alike: Take notes on the the web 2.0 strategy Mraz has in place. We can't be sure it is a planned strategy and perhaps his presence is an genuine accident. But for those of you taking advantage of Facebook, Twitter or another applications hoping for instant success coupled with free and easy public relations, don't use it "just to use it." Remember, anyone can buy ad space on a billboard, but not everyone can write a successful advertisement to put on it. Think strategy before throwing yourself amidst the social media "flood."

Industry Entry: Remember the 90's?

2010-07-13T07:37:00.000-07:00

In the most relevant debate; Whether a band should sign to a major label or simply "go it alone:" I can't help but think just how different things were even 15 years ago. What comes to mind first are the hit making factories of the 50's and 60's when solid songwriters would sit in office cubicles and churn out hit after hit for the best singers in the nation. At that time there was a process, and science to becoming successful in the music industry. I believe now more than ever that there is clearly no formula that works EVERY time. Of course this isn't news to pretty much any reader as many would say, "Well, we are in a digital age..." Which of course means that just about anyone can create a record and have it in a million headphones overnight.

Sure, the Internet is changing the music industry, and for most of the labels that got on board this wasn't a problem. And sure, many things have changed over the past few years. But lets be honest, the music industry is made up of mostly savvy businessmen who have simply changed their business model. Their investment strategy has changed and adjusted to the generation.

Specifically speaking for my own generation, the investment strategy in the early 90's to 2000's was focused on singles. The labels were interested in marketing as little as one of the artists songs. They weren't looking for a current large following, great live performance, striking good looks or MySpace friends. Do you remember browsing the "single section" at Target or Best Buy and picking up the latest radio hit? Have you seen any of those endcaps lately? That was big business for labels at the time.

But, lets face it, over time this investment became viewed has risky and perhaps (in my own words) "Frivolous."
As the industry audiences shifted towards a "want it now" attitude, record labels realized that the investment of developing an artist (especially for the purpose of perhaps only one hit single) was not only no longer financially viable but time consuming. Could you imagine if this was still the model? New music from your favorite artist every 2 years and only hearing from them on tour? If you didn't catch them in your city, you didn't catch them. An artist nowadays would loose their fan base quickly by still using this model and labels would essentially lose money on their "investment."

So, should a budding musician go with a record label or "go it alone?" Honestly, labels are still looking for talent, but looking to invest in a new way. The most important thing I believe an artist can do is wear their "business hat" as often as possible. Understand that businesses cannot thrive without consumers, and that business models must shift to meet the demands of the consumers fueling that business. This point of view might help you decide whether a label is seeing you for your artistic potential or as their newest product. Neither are bad, but they both aren't for everyone.