I'd take it one step further. Instead of sending it back to the original band/musician, I'd just make it a collective project where everyone who contributes becomes the community creator.
On that scale, the DJ is economically unimportant compared to the sandwich-making crew.
Very true. But what I love about pop-up events is that they are easier to do than opening a full scale restaurant. In this case you try it and if it works, great, you do it again. If not, on to the next idea.
And quite honestly, even if the music is bad, but there are pretty people to look it, the crowds will come.
For example, have you seen the crowds at the early shows of the classic punk bands, like the Misfits or the Dead Kennedys?
You know, thinking about a band like the Dead Kennedys, I think it was okay for them to have tiny crowds at the beginning. I knew about them early on because of the name. There have always been zines and alt-weeklies reporting on underground music and if you were one of those who kept up on that, you could find out about it.
Had the Dead Kennedys become an overnight sensation on the Internet, I'm not sure it would have worked well. Part of being a band like that is to be under the radar until word-of-mouth is so great that everyone eventually hears about you. The idea of blasting your presence everywhere online has given us one type of music, but to be truly underground, you aren't supposed to use mass media to let everyone know about you. Someone like Rebecca Black truly is an Internet creation.
We're probably seeing different realities. I know that email has made it a lot easier to contact fans. No more sending out show calendars via postcard. And now you can reach club bookers via email, which can be faster than phone. But sometimes it still works better to contact them by phone or in person and sometimes a physical press kit still works better than an EPK.
As for gigs, I think it depends. I live in a college town and it used to be that every fraternity party hired a live band. Now it's a DJ. That has nothing to do with the Internet, but a major source of paid gigs dried up. Similarly, lots of clubs switched from live music to DJs or karaoke.
There have been a number of paid gigs from corporations and cities hiring entertainment, and now that so many bands are competing for those jobs, the going rate has gone down. Weddings that used to hire bands now often hire DJs instead. Schools are cutting back on arts programs, so I would expect the demand for music teachers has declined (not sure how it has been for private lessons, though if you don't play in a school band, you might not be taking those lessons on the side).
Technology has lowered the barrier of entry for musicians, which is good, but the majority will not make a living at this and they should understand that.
It would be so sweet to see someone win American Idol and be offered a contract and say, "No thanks."
And they should.
Unfortunately they can't. The contracts everyone is required to sign just to try out and then appear on the show give the show producers control of the contestants. I've known people approached to try out and I have recommended that they do not.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Celebrity Mentality
It is now possible to "make it" - or at least make a living - without having to deal with that cabal. And that deserves to be trumpeted.
That's what I don't think people who haven't been a part of that music culture don't understand. I've been around unsigned musicians for 30 years. The ones selling their own cassettes and CDs at shows were "making it" as much (or even more) than those who are "making it" now without a label. People who have only known the music business since the Internet days are assuming that the Internet has transformed life for DIY artists. The ones raving about their great success now tend to either be those who used to be signed and are now keeping more of the money, or those who have only known life as a DIY musician in the Internet age and don't know what it was like pre-Internet. Some of what they think is new is the same thing unsigned musicians have always done. People have played gigs and made money from gigs for as long as there have been gigs. Artists who couldn't get radio play still found ways to find fans. It was done even before the Internet.
What I am saying is that there has always been a vast subculture of music that wasn't associated with a label. And the Internet hasn't changed things that much. There are more people who "feel" famous because they get a lot of people checking them out on YouTube, so yes, there are more people who are famous in their own minds. But in terms of making a living at this, I'd say that hasn't changed that much. The conversion rate from being seen/heard online and actually sales isn't all that great.
We're showing them how they can produce without the dubious 'benefit' of a label.
The majority of musicians have never been signed to a label nor were they going to be signed to a label. There have been musicians recording their own music and selling it at shows since at least the days of cassette tapes. Major labels have only been a factor for artists who have signed to major labels, but they have not be a factor for everyone else.
Here's the deal. Most kids who play sports find out by the time they are in high school that they won't have a career in professional sports. That doesn't mean they can't enjoy playing on the company softball team, but they don't spend much time talking about a sports career.
Most little girls who take ballet lessons aren't going to be professional ballerinas and they know it.
Among all the aspiring actors and actresses, we don't hear much talk about how they can now have sustainable acting careers with the Internet. Yes, indie filmmakers have new options, but for actors and actresses, we aren't getting a lot of pep talks about how now they can keep more money in their pockets.
But for some reason, we're telling musicians how they can become successful full-time musicians because the label system is gone.
Expectations in music seem out of line compared to expectations in other fields.
And that's the reason I step in to burst the bubble of the upcoming golden age of the DIY musician. Most aspiring musicians aren't going to make enough to live on even when the major labels disappear. A realistic expectation is that you'll do music for fun, but not for income. There's something about music that encourages a lot of people to think they have a chance, when the odds are against them amassing a big enough fanbase to provide the necessary financial support.
I went ahead and pulled some of the links. Again, it isn't really up to the musician to determine whether or not to accept a label contract. It's up to the show producers.
Actually, the contracts most contestants on those shows sign give significant control to the producers of the show. I think it is generally up to the producer and the associated label, not the contestant, to determine whether or not a label deal will happen. There's a significant loss of career control when appearing on one of the reality TV music shows, so even going on one turns you into a product of the Hollywood music machine.
I've seen and saved copies of some of the contracts, and could pull them if people want further reference.
We no longer produce or innovate... we sit around and sue each other.
I would also toss in Wall Street. Some of the best and brightest in the country have gone into an industry that is nothing more than pushing numbers around. It's gambling and con games rather than real wealth creation.
Re: Re: What if we also eliminated business structure?
Thanks for the link. Yes, definitely, and so much more. What if there wasn't a Facebook going for an IPO? What if we evolved away from corporations altogether and eventually everything was open-sourced?
I'm not saying it could happen, or even if it could, that it would happen immediately. But I think we are in the midst of a change as significant as the Industrial Revolution and perhaps our economic models will evolve accordingly.
Many of the greats, particularly in the arts, were decidedly un- (if not anti-) social.
I've run into this a lot. In fact, I have wondered if many musicians get into music because they don't have or don't want the social skills to pursue something else.
So in a situation where cultivating fans socially adds to success, they are at a disadvantage.
Palmer is exceptional in the degree to which she seems to genuinely like interacting with her fans and the energy she has to do so. The more I follow Palmer, the more I think no one else can do what she is doing. She is very unique.
Could we push this to an extra level and begin to open source businesses in general? Do we really need businesses as an entity? Can we design systems so that startups become less important and everything that anyone wants to do can be developed as an open source project?
I've posted this elsewhere on Techdirt and also on Hypebot. Palmer is so good at sharing her experiences I'm hoping she'll elaborate on this:
__
Since the beginning of Kickstarter, I have been curious about how cross-media collaborators share or don't share in whatever money is raised.
If, for example, a musician is offering something as a reward that the musician didn't make him or herself, does he contract for it, creating a work-for-hire arrangement (e.g., he hires someone to make a design for a t-shirt and then owns the design and can sell multiples)?
Or does the musician team up with others and they share in the income in some fashion? And if they share in it, how do they decide what each earns? Do they split it up equally? Do they get different amounts, depending on how much each contributes? And if that, how do they decide? By the amount of time put in? By the commercial going rate? By how much "fame" each brings to the project?
Amanda Palmer has multiple people contributing to her Kickstarter project which is why I am focusing on this particular project (plus she is very open about her business, so I hope she will share info). I'm curious what was the arrangement going to be if they just hit their goal and what's the arrangement now that they have greatly exceed their goal. Was there an original agreement to pay a certain amount to create a design, and then a profit-sharing agreement if the Kickstarter raised more money than the initial goal?
There's been so little discussion of music/multi-collaboration income sharing that I've wondered how various people divide it up. In some cases, the musicians may be hoping that the artists/photographers/graphic artists are donating their contributions in exchange for exposure, but if they are, I'm guessing that if the project is very successful, the volunteers are going to want some compensation, even if they don't think about it until after the fact.
And I think one of the interesting aspects of Kickstarter is the transparency. People can see how much money is coming in for each project. So if the various collaborators on the project didn't work out an agreement beforehand but now see how much money is coming in, they may adjust their terms accordingly.
Let's say, for example, you were going to cut a musician a break because he had no money. But then he raised $300,000 on Kickstarter. I'm going to guess that now you know he has money, you won't feel the necessity to give him your work for free or at a rock bottom price.
It is impossible to get the message across in the media if you have to invent or explain a whole alternative economy every time. This wouldn't be necessary, since the anti-ip-agenda has lots of easily presentable reasons and goals in and of itself.
Not being close to the situation at all, I'll speculate that they are saddled with a branding problem. The Pirate Bay is associated with music "piracy" and a political party using the word "pirate" tends to reinforce that association.
Personally I "get" Occupy Wall Street, even if they haven't well defined what they are trying to do. They are also not a political party, and if they were, I'd expect them to become more specific.
Another group that has tried to arise is the Tea Party, but from a political point of view, their goals often seem unworkable. They don't want anything taken away from them, but they also don't want the taxes to pay for it.
On the post: Musician Wonders What It Would Take To Become An Open Source Musician
Do we need anyone to claim authorship?
On the post: Musicians Realizing They Don't Need Major Labels Anymore
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Celebrity Mentality (to: Suzanne Lainson, # 85)
Eating, Live Butchery and, Oh Yeah, Music - NYTimes.com
On the post: Musicians Realizing They Don't Need Major Labels Anymore
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Celebrity Mentality (to: Suzanne Lainson, # 85)
Very true. But what I love about pop-up events is that they are easier to do than opening a full scale restaurant. In this case you try it and if it works, great, you do it again. If not, on to the next idea.
And quite honestly, even if the music is bad, but there are pretty people to look it, the crowds will come.
On the post: Musicians Realizing They Don't Need Major Labels Anymore
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Celebrity Mentality (to: Suzanne Lainson, # 85)
On the post: Musicians Realizing They Don't Need Major Labels Anymore
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Celebrity Mentality
You know, thinking about a band like the Dead Kennedys, I think it was okay for them to have tiny crowds at the beginning. I knew about them early on because of the name. There have always been zines and alt-weeklies reporting on underground music and if you were one of those who kept up on that, you could find out about it.
Had the Dead Kennedys become an overnight sensation on the Internet, I'm not sure it would have worked well. Part of being a band like that is to be under the radar until word-of-mouth is so great that everyone eventually hears about you. The idea of blasting your presence everywhere online has given us one type of music, but to be truly underground, you aren't supposed to use mass media to let everyone know about you. Someone like Rebecca Black truly is an Internet creation.
On the post: Musicians Realizing They Don't Need Major Labels Anymore
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Celebrity Mentality
As for gigs, I think it depends. I live in a college town and it used to be that every fraternity party hired a live band. Now it's a DJ. That has nothing to do with the Internet, but a major source of paid gigs dried up. Similarly, lots of clubs switched from live music to DJs or karaoke.
There have been a number of paid gigs from corporations and cities hiring entertainment, and now that so many bands are competing for those jobs, the going rate has gone down. Weddings that used to hire bands now often hire DJs instead. Schools are cutting back on arts programs, so I would expect the demand for music teachers has declined (not sure how it has been for private lessons, though if you don't play in a school band, you might not be taking those lessons on the side).
Technology has lowered the barrier of entry for musicians, which is good, but the majority will not make a living at this and they should understand that.
On the post: Musicians Realizing They Don't Need Major Labels Anymore
Re:
And they should.
Unfortunately they can't. The contracts everyone is required to sign just to try out and then appear on the show give the show producers control of the contestants. I've known people approached to try out and I have recommended that they do not.
On the post: Musicians Realizing They Don't Need Major Labels Anymore
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Celebrity Mentality
That's what I don't think people who haven't been a part of that music culture don't understand. I've been around unsigned musicians for 30 years. The ones selling their own cassettes and CDs at shows were "making it" as much (or even more) than those who are "making it" now without a label. People who have only known the music business since the Internet days are assuming that the Internet has transformed life for DIY artists. The ones raving about their great success now tend to either be those who used to be signed and are now keeping more of the money, or those who have only known life as a DIY musician in the Internet age and don't know what it was like pre-Internet. Some of what they think is new is the same thing unsigned musicians have always done. People have played gigs and made money from gigs for as long as there have been gigs. Artists who couldn't get radio play still found ways to find fans. It was done even before the Internet.
What I am saying is that there has always been a vast subculture of music that wasn't associated with a label. And the Internet hasn't changed things that much. There are more people who "feel" famous because they get a lot of people checking them out on YouTube, so yes, there are more people who are famous in their own minds. But in terms of making a living at this, I'd say that hasn't changed that much. The conversion rate from being seen/heard online and actually sales isn't all that great.
On the post: Musicians Realizing They Don't Need Major Labels Anymore
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Celebrity Mentality
The majority of musicians have never been signed to a label nor were they going to be signed to a label. There have been musicians recording their own music and selling it at shows since at least the days of cassette tapes. Major labels have only been a factor for artists who have signed to major labels, but they have not be a factor for everyone else.
On the post: Musicians Realizing They Don't Need Major Labels Anymore
Re: Re: Re: The Celebrity Mentality
Most little girls who take ballet lessons aren't going to be professional ballerinas and they know it.
Among all the aspiring actors and actresses, we don't hear much talk about how they can now have sustainable acting careers with the Internet. Yes, indie filmmakers have new options, but for actors and actresses, we aren't getting a lot of pep talks about how now they can keep more money in their pockets.
But for some reason, we're telling musicians how they can become successful full-time musicians because the label system is gone.
Expectations in music seem out of line compared to expectations in other fields.
On the post: Musicians Realizing They Don't Need Major Labels Anymore
Re: The Celebrity Mentality
On the post: Musicians Realizing They Don't Need Major Labels Anymore
Re: Re: Re: Re:
American_Idol_Contestant_Agreement.pdf
The Voice contestant contract terms
On the post: Musicians Realizing They Don't Need Major Labels Anymore
Re: Re: Re:
I've seen and saved copies of some of the contracts, and could pull them if people want further reference.
On the post: The Difference Between Nuanced Discussion And The Evil Underbelly Of The Internet Is Apparently A Fine Line Indeed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: There are better places to discuss music and the arts
charles hugh smith-Global Reality: Surplus of Labor, Scarcity of Paid Work
On the post: Ongoing Patent Fights Mean Startups Are Now Wasting What Little Money They Have At The Patent Office
Re: It's because...
I would also toss in Wall Street. Some of the best and brightest in the country have gone into an industry that is nothing more than pushing numbers around. It's gambling and con games rather than real wealth creation.
On the post: Ongoing Patent Fights Mean Startups Are Now Wasting What Little Money They Have At The Patent Office
Re: Re: What if we also eliminated business structure?
I'm not saying it could happen, or even if it could, that it would happen immediately. But I think we are in the midst of a change as significant as the Industrial Revolution and perhaps our economic models will evolve accordingly.
On the post: How Amanda Palmer Built An Army Of Supporters: Connecting Each And Every Day, Person By Person
Re: Age of the Social Artist
I've run into this a lot. In fact, I have wondered if many musicians get into music because they don't have or don't want the social skills to pursue something else.
So in a situation where cultivating fans socially adds to success, they are at a disadvantage.
Palmer is exceptional in the degree to which she seems to genuinely like interacting with her fans and the energy she has to do so. The more I follow Palmer, the more I think no one else can do what she is doing. She is very unique.
On the post: Ongoing Patent Fights Mean Startups Are Now Wasting What Little Money They Have At The Patent Office
What if we also eliminated business structure?
On the post: How Amanda Palmer Built An Army Of Supporters: Connecting Each And Every Day, Person By Person
How do the collaborations work?
__
Since the beginning of Kickstarter, I have been curious about how cross-media collaborators share or don't share in whatever money is raised.
If, for example, a musician is offering something as a reward that the musician didn't make him or herself, does he contract for it, creating a work-for-hire arrangement (e.g., he hires someone to make a design for a t-shirt and then owns the design and can sell multiples)?
Or does the musician team up with others and they share in the income in some fashion? And if they share in it, how do they decide what each earns? Do they split it up equally? Do they get different amounts, depending on how much each contributes? And if that, how do they decide? By the amount of time put in? By the commercial going rate? By how much "fame" each brings to the project?
Amanda Palmer has multiple people contributing to her Kickstarter project which is why I am focusing on this particular project (plus she is very open about her business, so I hope she will share info). I'm curious what was the arrangement going to be if they just hit their goal and what's the arrangement now that they have greatly exceed their goal. Was there an original agreement to pay a certain amount to create a design, and then a profit-sharing agreement if the Kickstarter raised more money than the initial goal?
There's been so little discussion of music/multi-collaboration income sharing that I've wondered how various people divide it up. In some cases, the musicians may be hoping that the artists/photographers/graphic artists are donating their contributions in exchange for exposure, but if they are, I'm guessing that if the project is very successful, the volunteers are going to want some compensation, even if they don't think about it until after the fact.
And I think one of the interesting aspects of Kickstarter is the transparency. People can see how much money is coming in for each project. So if the various collaborators on the project didn't work out an agreement beforehand but now see how much money is coming in, they may adjust their terms accordingly.
Let's say, for example, you were going to cut a musician a break because he had no money. But then he raised $300,000 on Kickstarter. I'm going to guess that now you know he has money, you won't feel the necessity to give him your work for free or at a rock bottom price.
On the post: NY Times Notices That The Pirate Party May Be Changing Politics
Re: Re: Re: Reception in Germany
Not being close to the situation at all, I'll speculate that they are saddled with a branding problem. The Pirate Bay is associated with music "piracy" and a political party using the word "pirate" tends to reinforce that association.
Personally I "get" Occupy Wall Street, even if they haven't well defined what they are trying to do. They are also not a political party, and if they were, I'd expect them to become more specific.
Another group that has tried to arise is the Tea Party, but from a political point of view, their goals often seem unworkable. They don't want anything taken away from them, but they also don't want the taxes to pay for it.
Next >>