Social networking has increased the value of artists who excel in communicating across a variety of platforms. So it's not surprising that people who are fundamentally interesting, who also happen to do music, might generate a following for reasons other than just music.
I think it's shifting the dynamics of music in general, not just away from the major labels. Amanda Palmer gets mentioned a lot in Techdirt. I like what she is doing in terms of redefining her relationship to performance art. I follow her for that reason. She's said herself that she's come to realize that her music is a way to connect to people rather than being an entity unto itself.
It's been interesting the number of musicians who get coverage from tech writers and who are showcasing at tech conferences. It might be a lot easier to get media coverage that way than to try to grab the attention of music bloggers/reviewers.
Anyone who was heavily involved with online music awhile back should remember the original mp3.com.
It was the way unsigned artists got visibility. There were mp3.com charts and some artists made their names nationally by being on the top of the charts.
And then mp3.com came to the realization that it couldn't make any money and almost overnight said it was closing down. People had invested a fair amount of time on the site and then it was gone.
I've been online heavily since 1993. Everything comes and goes sooner or later. That's why I'm skeptical about the predictions for Twitter. It, too, will be replaced by something else.
It probably was unnecessary, but there does seem to be a level of shilling in blogs and Twitter than has gone above and beyond what I've read in print.
A lot of these models where musicians or TV stars might sell their services to fans for a high dollar amount seem to be based on their celebrity value. Unless the creative person is selling something that is the creative itself, then the side activities (like auctioning off your personal possessions) can be done by anyone. Paris Hilton, for example, doesn't appear to have many talents as such, but presumably some folks would pay to hang out with her.
That's what's throwing people who think of themselves as creative types. When your money-raising activities drift into areas that anyone can do, save for their lack of fame, then the creative part itself becomes devalued. It serves only as a vehicle to attract enough people who want your time to make your time worth selling. So doing something outrageous that gets you press may serve the same function as doing something creative.
"The $1,000 to play with Felicia sounds like a good idea, but what if Felicia can't open up time to do so?"
That's the issue I keep returning to with music models. Josh Freese sold lots of different activities for various prices and then realized in oder to fulfill his obligations to have lunch with fans, he was having to turn down music work.
If you are going to start selling services, you might ask yourself what is most lucrative. It could turn out that a well-paying day job is a better way to fund your music than to sell lunches with fans.
It may turn out that what fans want, for example, is plumbing services. If you are a musician selling plumbing services to your fans, you're a plumber. If you are selling lunches, you're a lunch date. If you are selling trips to Disneyland, you are a traveling companion.
Good points. Artists have been selling themselves forever.
What I do like about Palmer is that she is open to talking about the business of selling oneself and she gives real numbers. Too many artists/musicians/bands won't talk about income and expenses.
Here's a good alternative view of crowds. Sometimes you involve crowds not so much as a collective source of good ideas, but to encourage them to buy into the final result.
I then wrote my own thoughts on the above article and how I think the direction of music is not toward the tribe model, but more toward the community model, where the fans are the show and the artist serves more as the community organizer.
I'd like to see more discussion between selling stuff at a fixed price versus the pay-what-you-want model.
I understand the idea of giving something away for free as a sample or to increase visibility. But, perhaps using Amanda Palmer as a place to start, I'd like to see what the TechDirt folks have to say about which is the better approach: levels of products at set prices, or pay-what-you-want for everything.
I jump into some of the music discussions for the same reason. Either the examples are being offered as a repeatable business model (in which case let's look at how well it will work for a number of people) or the examples are offered as isolated cases which are interesting, but not the future of the industry.
I'm not going to ponder if Sally Potter or the actors are going to get paid. I just want to say that I clicked on the article link, watched the trailer, and loved it. it's like Richard Avedon photos come to life.
"And once again, because of the state of the industry all major contracts will screw you over, and ones that don't are with minor labels."
I know artists who don't feel that way. They've signed short contracts for an album or two, and they developed business plans that didn't depend on CD money anyway so it didn't matter to them if they didn't see a dime in royalties. They use the major label promotional clout to make a name for themselves and then they move on after the deal is over.
But again, it's a moot point for most artists. They won't be offered label deals in the first place.
All I have been trying to point out is that if you don't like the contract, don't sign it. And to protect yourself, get a good lawyer first. No one is forcing anyone to go the major label route. There are alternatives.
"But when you realize that back then especially (and still now with the worsening education of America), people like Roxanne (and likely her parents) didn't KNOW it was a bad contract. Do you seriously expect a 14 y.o. to know anything about the spaghetti-logic laws of the music industry?"
I'm not sure how this relates to what I posted. I said that before you sign a contract, you get a good lawyer. And then you don't sign if you're going to get screwed.
She actually ended up with a clause that most artists aren't offered, so I don't see her contract as an example of what went wrong.
In the end, she's better off than most artists because she has a Ph.D. that someone else paid for. She'll likely be much farther ahead than had she stayed in music.
"The issue isn't that some contracts are good and some are bad, it's that the extremely limited competition between labels almost ensures that contracts are more likely to be in the company's favour."
When you are offered a bad contract, you don't sign it.
RSS
Twitter
Re: Re: Promotion via tech columns rather than music columns (as Suzanne Lainson)
Social networking has increased the value of artists who excel in communicating across a variety of platforms. So it's not surprising that people who are fundamentally interesting, who also happen to do music, might generate a following for reasons other than just music.
I think it's shifting the dynamics of music in general, not just away from the major labels. Amanda Palmer gets mentioned a lot in Techdirt. I like what she is doing in terms of redefining her relationship to performance art. I follow her for that reason. She's said herself that she's come to realize that her music is a way to connect to people rather than being an entity unto itself.
Promotion via tech columns rather than music columns (as Suzanne Lainson)
It's been interesting the number of musicians who get coverage from tech writers and who are showcasing at tech conferences. It might be a lot easier to get media coverage that way than to try to grab the attention of music bloggers/reviewers.
mp3.com (as Suzanne Lainson)
Anyone who was heavily involved with online music awhile back should remember the original mp3.com.
It was the way unsigned artists got visibility. There were mp3.com charts and some artists made their names nationally by being on the top of the charts.
And then mp3.com came to the realization that it couldn't make any money and almost overnight said it was closing down. People had invested a fair amount of time on the site and then it was gone.
I've been online heavily since 1993. Everything comes and goes sooner or later. That's why I'm skeptical about the predictions for Twitter. It, too, will be replaced by something else.
(as Suzanne Lainson)
It probably was unnecessary, but there does seem to be a level of shilling in blogs and Twitter than has gone above and beyond what I've read in print.
The celebrity game (as Suzanne Lainson)
A lot of these models where musicians or TV stars might sell their services to fans for a high dollar amount seem to be based on their celebrity value. Unless the creative person is selling something that is the creative itself, then the side activities (like auctioning off your personal possessions) can be done by anyone. Paris Hilton, for example, doesn't appear to have many talents as such, but presumably some folks would pay to hang out with her.
That's what's throwing people who think of themselves as creative types. When your money-raising activities drift into areas that anyone can do, save for their lack of fame, then the creative part itself becomes devalued. It serves only as a vehicle to attract enough people who want your time to make your time worth selling. So doing something outrageous that gets you press may serve the same function as doing something creative.
Re: Re: Tossing two cents into the pool... (as Suzanne Lainson)
"If Felicia can't open up time to play for $1000 then she has a problem that mostof us would be envious of!"
It hasn't been established that she would get $1000 for an hour's worth of game playing.
Re: Re: Tossing two cents into the pool... (as Suzanne Lainson)
It hasn't been established that she would get $1000 for an hour for game playing.
Re: Tossing two cents into the pool... (as Suzanne Lainson)
"The $1,000 to play with Felicia sounds like a good idea, but what if Felicia can't open up time to do so?"
That's the issue I keep returning to with music models. Josh Freese sold lots of different activities for various prices and then realized in oder to fulfill his obligations to have lunch with fans, he was having to turn down music work.
If you are going to start selling services, you might ask yourself what is most lucrative. It could turn out that a well-paying day job is a better way to fund your music than to sell lunches with fans.
It may turn out that what fans want, for example, is plumbing services. If you are a musician selling plumbing services to your fans, you're a plumber. If you are selling lunches, you're a lunch date. If you are selling trips to Disneyland, you are a traveling companion.
And the whole,
Re: (as Suzanne Lainson)
Good points. Artists have been selling themselves forever.
What I do like about Palmer is that she is open to talking about the business of selling oneself and she gives real numbers. Too many artists/musicians/bands won't talk about income and expenses.
Re: There is no payola on the internet. (as Suzanne Lainson)
Actually there is payola on the Internet. Many of those bands that are "featured" on certain sites have cut deals of one kind or another.
Re: Re: It is not that difficult. (as Suzanne Lainson)
Good breakdown.
Engaging crowds (as Suzanne Lainson)
Here's a good alternative view of crowds. Sometimes you involve crowds not so much as a collective source of good ideas, but to encourage them to buy into the final result.
http://mashable.com/2009/09/02/attract-your-crowd/
I then wrote my own thoughts on the above article and how I think the direction of music is not toward the tribe model, but more toward the community model, where the fans are the show and the artist serves more as the community organizer.
http://brandsplusmusic.blogspot.com/2009/09/people-formerly-known-as-fans.html
Asking, free, and pay-what-you-want (as Suzanne Lainson)
I'd like to see more discussion between selling stuff at a fixed price versus the pay-what-you-want model.
I understand the idea of giving something away for free as a sample or to increase visibility. But, perhaps using Amanda Palmer as a place to start, I'd like to see what the TechDirt folks have to say about which is the better approach: levels of products at set prices, or pay-what-you-want for everything.
Re: Re: Re: How Is This Sustainable Though? (as Suzanne Lainson)
I jump into some of the music discussions for the same reason. Either the examples are being offered as a repeatable business model (in which case let's look at how well it will work for a number of people) or the examples are offered as isolated cases which are interesting, but not the future of the industry.
Great trailer (as Suzanne Lainson)
I'm not going to ponder if Sally Potter or the actors are going to get paid. I just want to say that I clicked on the article link, watched the trailer, and loved it. it's like Richard Avedon photos come to life.
Sure (as Suzanne Lainson)
Okay. Make this happen.
We can toss out good ideas all we want, but implementing them is another matter.
I want lower health costs, so you have my permission to do this.
Re: Re: Re: All about the contract (as Suzanne Lainson)
"And once again, because of the state of the industry all major contracts will screw you over, and ones that don't are with minor labels."
I know artists who don't feel that way. They've signed short contracts for an album or two, and they developed business plans that didn't depend on CD money anyway so it didn't matter to them if they didn't see a dime in royalties. They use the major label promotional clout to make a name for themselves and then they move on after the deal is over.
But again, it's a moot point for most artists. They won't be offered label deals in the first place.
All I have been trying to point out is that if you don't like the contract, don't sign it. And to protect yourself, get a good lawyer first. No one is forcing anyone to go the major label route. There are alternatives.
Re: All about the contract (as Suzanne Lainson)
"But when you realize that back then especially (and still now with the worsening education of America), people like Roxanne (and likely her parents) didn't KNOW it was a bad contract. Do you seriously expect a 14 y.o. to know anything about the spaghetti-logic laws of the music industry?"
I'm not sure how this relates to what I posted. I said that before you sign a contract, you get a good lawyer. And then you don't sign if you're going to get screwed.
She actually ended up with a clause that most artists aren't offered, so I don't see her contract as an example of what went wrong.
In the end, she's better off than most artists because she has a Ph.D. that someone else paid for. She'll likely be much farther ahead than had she stayed in music.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's all about the contract (as Suzanne Lainson)
I thought Techdirt was full of options other than signing a major label contract.
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's all about the contract (as Suzanne Lainson)
"The issue isn't that some contracts are good and some are bad, it's that the extremely limited competition between labels almost ensures that contracts are more likely to be in the company's favour."
When you are offered a bad contract, you don't sign it.