Many folks ask me how I discover music. I wish I had an easy answer. I download a lot of stuff (both albums and playlists, which sometimes inform album purchases) via torrent or other filesharing options, I also read the occasional blog, and hear about a lot of good music from coworkers and friends. I don't use Pandora, I scrobble to Last.fm but never look at it, and I keep the iTunes Genius sidebar open but I'm not sure why (it's not like I look at iTunes when I listen to music--I click once and it plays).
I can speak in broad generalizations all day, but I thought it best to take you through how I found out about a couple teenage sisters from Sweden in a band called First Aid Kit. Every time I play them for someone the immediate response is "Who is this??" (in a good way). But I can't take credit for finding them.
I first found out about First Aid Kit from Peter Rauh via a Twitter message: "Some inspiration for the day: Two Swedish teenagers covering Fleet Foxes in the woods (no lie) http://tinyurl.com/5svkol" The link takes you to this video:
After I told Peter how much I loved the video, he told me he heard about it via Light In The Attic.
I downloaded the mp3 of the song for free, and checked out their MySpace profile. From there, I bought their record from Klicktrack.
After more than a few listens in a short time span, I knew others would enjoy the music, so I published an OpenTape player on my website:
I told a number of friends about the music, and my friend Britti even thought she played them on her radio show. Unfortunately, she had come across another band by the same name, this one from Spain -- goes to show you the importance of picking an original name for a band.
At any rate, I hope you all enjoy First Aid Kit as much as I do. I think they're mature beyond their years, and anyone who fashions themselves after the Fleet Foxes is A-OK in my book.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Collective Patronage: Your next advance is from your fans
Collective Patronage is not a new concept (heck, a quick Google search turned up this article from 2001 -- the author says "I can think of four local San Francisco-area bands, and one each in Minneapolis and New York, to whom I would happily give $25/year to support their music"), but only now is it beginning to be properly realized in the music industry. The idea is a return to the days of classical music, when composers were paid by their wealthy patrons to compose music that everyone could enjoy.
In a perfect world, someone richer than you would pay for your favorite bands to make lots of great music for you to enjoy for free. However, we live in a democracy with a free(ish) market, so we all have to do our part.
Artists are no longer confined by a physical medium (CD, cassette, vinyl, etc) as their flagship product, and fans have many options to avoid paying for music. Yet many, if not most, of us still pay for music that we like. In talking to others who work in the industry, the standard routine seems to be to download a number of albums without paying, take them for a few spins, and pay for the ones you like.
Had I said that 5 years ago, I would've had the RIAA all over me. As it stands, however, much of the fear of file sharing has subsided -- heck, there are even "marketing" companies who will seed your album on torrent sites.
While many of the barriers to entry for artists to produce and distribute music have diminished, they have not disappeared. Artists still need to cover recording costs, equipment costs, gas costs, etc. Claiming "oh, they can make that money on the road" only applies to a select few bands (and that number is diminished with high gas prices and harsh economic conditions).
Artists need fans, and they need some of those fans to pay some money. Yes, those "some"s are intentional. Fans can pay in many ways (eg - pay attention, pay permission to market to them, etc), but some of the fans do need to contribute money for the band's survival.
Some services have sprung up with the concept of Collective Patronage in mind -- SellABand.com, SliceThePie.com, etc -- but those are focused exclusively on unsigned, relatively unknown artists, and instead of fostering a true relationship between artists and fans, they are more of a game for the fans and a one-time "make or break" for the artists. In other words, they're not focused on long-term, sustainable growth. They also fall short in extending the concept of Collective Patronage to larger, more established artists.
"Oh, but the big artists have labels to cut them big checks!" Sure, sort of. But even large artists could do better for themselves taking checks directly from their fans rather than from labels. Think about it: with how much they're struggling, and with all their bureaucracy, would major labels make a major investment were they not almost positive they could recoup? Not likely.
Take the David Byrne - Brian Eno release Everything That Happens Will Happen Today -- by contract I can't speak to specific numbers, but the goal was to recoup recording costs and make as much as they would have made from a major label advance. Perhaps that was a bit audacious, considering the amount of marketing money a major label would have dropped, but guess what? The album hit that goal in well under the three months it's been out -- long before it even hit traditional retail outlets or iTunes/Amazon. Not only that, but both artists draw from a slightly older fanbase that isn't as likely to dig for music online.
Even ETH was a fairly traditional release -- digital only, digital plus CD, and digital plus limited edition tin with bonus disc. To move to a system truly based on Collective Patronage, a group of fans would all pay an agreed-upon sum to an artist each year to ensure that artist continues to produce music. In exchange, they receive access to all the artist's output for that year, plus maybe a few extra bonuses. Essentially, it's a subscription or membership to the artist.
Josh Rouse posts an album of some sort each month for his patrons (okay, subscribers) to download. Jubilee recorded an EP, gathered patrons based on that EP, and put the money they collected towards further recording (which, of course, the patrons receive for free).
I've probably belabored the point more than I need to, but I encourage fans to become patrons of their favorite artists, and artists to seek out patrons -- we all want to make each other a little bit happier and bring a little more beauty to the world through music. Some have the talent and inspiration, others have the money.
In a perfect world, someone richer than you would pay for your favorite bands to make lots of great music for you to enjoy for free. However, we live in a democracy with a free(ish) market, so we all have to do our part.
Artists are no longer confined by a physical medium (CD, cassette, vinyl, etc) as their flagship product, and fans have many options to avoid paying for music. Yet many, if not most, of us still pay for music that we like. In talking to others who work in the industry, the standard routine seems to be to download a number of albums without paying, take them for a few spins, and pay for the ones you like.
Had I said that 5 years ago, I would've had the RIAA all over me. As it stands, however, much of the fear of file sharing has subsided -- heck, there are even "marketing" companies who will seed your album on torrent sites.
While many of the barriers to entry for artists to produce and distribute music have diminished, they have not disappeared. Artists still need to cover recording costs, equipment costs, gas costs, etc. Claiming "oh, they can make that money on the road" only applies to a select few bands (and that number is diminished with high gas prices and harsh economic conditions).
Artists need fans, and they need some of those fans to pay some money. Yes, those "some"s are intentional. Fans can pay in many ways (eg - pay attention, pay permission to market to them, etc), but some of the fans do need to contribute money for the band's survival.
Some services have sprung up with the concept of Collective Patronage in mind -- SellABand.com, SliceThePie.com, etc -- but those are focused exclusively on unsigned, relatively unknown artists, and instead of fostering a true relationship between artists and fans, they are more of a game for the fans and a one-time "make or break" for the artists. In other words, they're not focused on long-term, sustainable growth. They also fall short in extending the concept of Collective Patronage to larger, more established artists.
"Oh, but the big artists have labels to cut them big checks!" Sure, sort of. But even large artists could do better for themselves taking checks directly from their fans rather than from labels. Think about it: with how much they're struggling, and with all their bureaucracy, would major labels make a major investment were they not almost positive they could recoup? Not likely.
Take the David Byrne - Brian Eno release Everything That Happens Will Happen Today -- by contract I can't speak to specific numbers, but the goal was to recoup recording costs and make as much as they would have made from a major label advance. Perhaps that was a bit audacious, considering the amount of marketing money a major label would have dropped, but guess what? The album hit that goal in well under the three months it's been out -- long before it even hit traditional retail outlets or iTunes/Amazon. Not only that, but both artists draw from a slightly older fanbase that isn't as likely to dig for music online.
Even ETH was a fairly traditional release -- digital only, digital plus CD, and digital plus limited edition tin with bonus disc. To move to a system truly based on Collective Patronage, a group of fans would all pay an agreed-upon sum to an artist each year to ensure that artist continues to produce music. In exchange, they receive access to all the artist's output for that year, plus maybe a few extra bonuses. Essentially, it's a subscription or membership to the artist.
Josh Rouse posts an album of some sort each month for his patrons (okay, subscribers) to download. Jubilee recorded an EP, gathered patrons based on that EP, and put the money they collected towards further recording (which, of course, the patrons receive for free).
I've probably belabored the point more than I need to, but I encourage fans to become patrons of their favorite artists, and artists to seek out patrons -- we all want to make each other a little bit happier and bring a little more beauty to the world through music. Some have the talent and inspiration, others have the money.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Why Trent Reznor Rules
I hope this shows up decently. If not please view it at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/factoryjoe/2877586803/sizes/o/
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Synchronous audio over video chat
If someone knows how to do this, please let me know...
I want to be able to play music synchronously over video chat. Meaning, I imagine, writing a simple streaming audio player on a video chat API that could either play songs from skreemr and seeqpod or from your computer (temporarily hosting them or pushing them to another hosting service) so that people on both ends can listen to the same music at the same time without the time lapses and audio overlaps that exist in playing music on one end through the computer microphone. Help?
I want to be able to play music synchronously over video chat. Meaning, I imagine, writing a simple streaming audio player on a video chat API that could either play songs from skreemr and seeqpod or from your computer (temporarily hosting them or pushing them to another hosting service) so that people on both ends can listen to the same music at the same time without the time lapses and audio overlaps that exist in playing music on one end through the computer microphone. Help?
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Artist Idea #3: TXT for Video
This is the third in a series of relatively short posts of potentially crazy, potentially profitable ideas for musicians to use. If you use them, you don't have to give me any credit, but please do write in and tell me how it worked for you.
Here's an idea that is best enabled with Topspin, but is worth running by any means necessary. Get a phone for the band (or, alternately, get an SMS receiving number/account online), post the number at concerts (tape it on your amps for full effect), and have fans text you their e-mail addresses. At the end of the night, or in the van the next day, compile all the e-mail addresses (and their phone numbers) you received. Put them into a list titled the city or venue you just played so you can keep track of where they are for future communications.Finally, give them a reward! My recommendation is a private link to a video of the previous night's performance, but I know not everyone travels with video cameras (you should! get the merch guy or someone in one of the other bands to tape you). Alternately, a personalized message would be nice, an exclusive song download would be better, and encouragement to tell their friends if they had a good time is always good policy.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Artist Idea #2: Dedications
This is the second in a series of relatively short posts of potentially crazy, potentially profitable ideas for musicians to use. If you use them, you don't have to give me any credit, but please do write in and tell me how it worked for you.
I don't know what it is about chatting it up with my friend Adam, but I always wind up with new artist ideas while talking with him. The next three are all from one conversation about ideas for Mondo Pr!mo's new release, 2FN HOT, and upcoming tour with The Pink Spiders.
Start by emailing all your fans and let each of them pick a song to have dedicated to them on your next tour stop nearest to them.
If you scale like crazy, it would be tougher to keep up with the dedications (perhaps start selecting fans at random, or fans with the best reasons for why they deserve the dedication), but while you're still building, the satisfaction and excitement of a personal dedication is a huge reward for your initial core fans.
Sure you might make a dedication anyway if someone asked you outside the venue before the show, but by offering the opportunity in advance, the fans will get more excited to go to the show and more excited about bringing friends to hear that song dedicated to them.
THEN you follow up with them, having brought a video camera on tour with you, by posting that song, with dedication, on youtube and email them the link.
Then they share that to all their friends who didn't go to the show, those folks hear your songs, get hooked, and, from the details of the youtube vid, know where to go to buy your stuff.
I don't know what it is about chatting it up with my friend Adam, but I always wind up with new artist ideas while talking with him. The next three are all from one conversation about ideas for Mondo Pr!mo's new release, 2FN HOT, and upcoming tour with The Pink Spiders.
Start by emailing all your fans and let each of them pick a song to have dedicated to them on your next tour stop nearest to them.
If you scale like crazy, it would be tougher to keep up with the dedications (perhaps start selecting fans at random, or fans with the best reasons for why they deserve the dedication), but while you're still building, the satisfaction and excitement of a personal dedication is a huge reward for your initial core fans.
Sure you might make a dedication anyway if someone asked you outside the venue before the show, but by offering the opportunity in advance, the fans will get more excited to go to the show and more excited about bringing friends to hear that song dedicated to them.
THEN you follow up with them, having brought a video camera on tour with you, by posting that song, with dedication, on youtube and email them the link.
Then they share that to all their friends who didn't go to the show, those folks hear your songs, get hooked, and, from the details of the youtube vid, know where to go to buy your stuff.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
#1s
Katy Perry's hit single, "I Kissed A Girl," recently tied The Beatles' "I Want To Hold Your Hand" for the longest reign at #1. While we can all sit around all day and all night debating the merits (or lack thereof) of each, I would like to point out the difference in culture surrounding these hits.
Namely, the fact that I eat, sleep, and breathe music, work in the music industry, am young and relatively "hip" (okay, the fact that I just put that in quotes takes me out of the running), yet have never heard this "I Kissed A Girl" song. In fact, every time I hear it mentioned, Jill Sobule's classic 90's hit by the same name comes to mind.
I could rant about how this is a sign of the changing landscape of music made possible by the digital medium and infrastructure, but you know that already. Instead, today I'd just like you to sit back and think about what it really means to have a #1 single these days--Katy Perry has sold fewer cumulative albums in 7 weeks than The Beatles did in 1.
The lowest common denominator will always exist, and will always sell. It's human nature to be attracted to artists and songs that other people like. That market won't disappear. The difference is not that people aren't buying music--music sales are still well above what they were in the 60s (and 70s and 80s and 90s)--it's that not everyone has to buy the same albums. They have different ways of discovering music, and more music to choose from.
As an artist, you should view this change as a boon--you no longer have to conform to a "norm" to get a coveted record deal and thus sell records; you can make whatever music you want and there will, more than likely, be a market for it. In a world where #1 means much less, being down the list a bit doesn't look so bad anymore.
Namely, the fact that I eat, sleep, and breathe music, work in the music industry, am young and relatively "hip" (okay, the fact that I just put that in quotes takes me out of the running), yet have never heard this "I Kissed A Girl" song. In fact, every time I hear it mentioned, Jill Sobule's classic 90's hit by the same name comes to mind.
I could rant about how this is a sign of the changing landscape of music made possible by the digital medium and infrastructure, but you know that already. Instead, today I'd just like you to sit back and think about what it really means to have a #1 single these days--Katy Perry has sold fewer cumulative albums in 7 weeks than The Beatles did in 1.
The lowest common denominator will always exist, and will always sell. It's human nature to be attracted to artists and songs that other people like. That market won't disappear. The difference is not that people aren't buying music--music sales are still well above what they were in the 60s (and 70s and 80s and 90s)--it's that not everyone has to buy the same albums. They have different ways of discovering music, and more music to choose from.
As an artist, you should view this change as a boon--you no longer have to conform to a "norm" to get a coveted record deal and thus sell records; you can make whatever music you want and there will, more than likely, be a market for it. In a world where #1 means much less, being down the list a bit doesn't look so bad anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
