I'll add to the discussion that it isn't just about music start-ups. Finding good people is a challenge for lots of companies. And what people try to do to matchmake between companies and people is to create events that bring them together.
Silicon Milkroundabout: Forget the banks, join a start-up. Songkick Blog: "Anyone who has ever run a start-up knows that one of the biggest challenges is finding truly exceptional people. Start-ups have the odds stacked against them from day one – over 80% fail – and the experience of trying to create something from nothing has been likened by Reid Hoffman founder of LinkedIn as jumping out of an aeroplane and trying to build a plane on the way down. That means that world class developers, who can be orders of magnitude more productive than the norm, who get excited about truly audacious challenges are not just helpful, but a necessity if you’re going to succeed."
It's not the big label guys that are trying to hire tech people, it's disruptive startups that are. What Mike was saying is that those startup folks can't get people to work for them.
I'm not sure I'd go work for a startup depending on major label support either because I'd question the business plan of that startup. Why try to create a company with built-in obstacles? Why not build a company around music that you can acquire for free or around some other aspect of the music business that doesn't require dealing with major labels?
It seems to be to be backward thinking to even contemplate a company where the major labels play a role. So rather than complaining about how they have stifled innovation, do something else. Create new music instruments. Create new music apps that let more people make music. Create new ticketing and marketing systems for live music. Find ways to get more music into the educational system. Expand ways for artists to get funding. And so on.
The reason I am so gung-ho about Music Hack Day is that it is a vast experimental system. Most of the ideas don't have significant commercial potential, but it gets people thinking about what they can do.
Here's a new start-up that is going after an under-served niche.
Every Week, 30,000 Stages Are Left Unfilled... - Digital Music News: "The NuevoStage system allows venues to list empty dates, and bands can pitch themselves and rally fans to fill targeted slots. Ultimately, if a band sells enough tickets, a gig is born - but the venue and band don't have to get linked to start the selling process."
What I am trying to do with my comments is to get people to realize associating music technology with major labels is a bit shortsighted. There are and will be music technology jobs that have nothing to with major labels.
It's primarily for people in Colorado (we meet monthly), but we have invited a few people from outside the area to join if it is likely that the Colorado members will be connecting with them in some capacity (e.g., at a conference).
The group is closed to avoid spam and to keep it curated. It isn't for pitching your company to get business.
But if you or someone you know is looking for music tech people and wants to participate in the group, joining the group might be an option.
Boulder has a lot of tech networking opportunities and is the home of TechStars, so there is a natural fit among tech, creative, and lifestyle folks (i.e., music, sports, healthy living, beer). This group is an extension of the kinds of interactions we want to encourage.
Yes, the technology has made it to market. There's so much in music that doesn't involve licensing music. That's the point I'm trying to make. People who want to work in music technology are out there. And they are creating the technology. I'm not sure who is looking for music tech people and can't find them, so I am asking where they are looking.
Re: everyone gets the point, for different reasons
I brought up Music Hack Day twice because I am curious whether the people saying there are no techies willing to work at music companies have been to Music Hack Days and tried to hire people attending there.
Perhaps the people having trouble finding people to hire haven't been looking in the right places. If they have gone to Hack Days and made their pitch and then have gotten no takers that's a different matter.
Actually I'm part of a group in Boulder whose goal is to bring members of the music communities, tech communities, and creative/marketing fields together. The group is growing.
If you aren't familiar with Music Hack Days, you should check them out. Hundreds of techies willingly spend an unpaid weekend creating music-related technology. Based on how well those events are doing, I think there's is still a labor supply available.
Seems like the logical place to find tech people interested in music would be at the thriving Music Hack Days being held in the US and Europe. Did the people looking for tech hires attend the Hack Day held in SF May 7-8?
What a lot of musicians do is just to pull a boilerplate agreement and customize it a bit. I would imagine people in the arts and writers have done the same thing.
If you are doing a project that isn't going to bring in much money, you can't afford to go to a lawyer every time. Most of these things are pretty standard so you can find a model somewhere on the Internet and adapt it for your needs. The biggest single thing for anyone in the arts is to make sure you haven't signed away the rights of your work if that's not what you intent to do. If you don't know what you are signing, then don't. But if you are the one drawing up the ageement and you are only agreeing to what you intent to offer, then you are on safer ground.
I've looked at my share of contracts and agreements. I've signed some, I've modified some, and I've refused to sign some. Most of this stuff is simple enough and the stakes are low enough that lawyers don't need to become directly involved.
So, again, based on my personal experience, I'll say that having something in writing heads off problems down the road. But you don't necessarily have to hire a lawyer at hundreds of dollars an hour to do this for you.
Drawing up a simple agreement by the artist shouldn't require a lawyer. You can develop something that everyone can agree upon which doesn't require a lawyer to draft or to read. That's one of my points. You can keep things relatively simple and do it on your own.
From my own past experience it will prevent some headaches down the road to have something on paper (or in digital form -- even just email correspondence -- because there will be less misunderstanding about how everyone wants/expects things to be handled.
Here's how I would describe an agreement these days:
"A list of expectations and obligations."
Putting those in writing and having all parties read and agree to them can serve as a form of clarity.
Sometimes no one involved has enough experience to anticipate all issues that might come up so those potential issues don't get listed. But as people gain more experience, they are often able to anticipate what might need to be dealt with and then they can discuss in advance how to handle those (e.g., consensus, arbitration, buy-out).
I've been involved with groups that have no officers, no formal rules, etc. But periodically something will come up (e.g., who can or can't become a member, what topics can be discussed in the group mailing list, where to meet for coffee), it gets discussed, and group understandings are either reinforced or changed. So even in the most casual of arrangements, there are usually some expectations and when those aren't met, some action results. Even when there are just two people going out for coffee, there are all sorts of unstated social rules that people have in their heads. Not having a contract doesn't mean human interactions are necessarily simple.
For many years I was never stiffed on a payment, but more recently I have been several times. The people/companies who didn't pay had run out of money, so I was willing to be flexible, but as time went on, I realized I had nothing down on paper that said I was owned the money. And that would have come in handy if other people/companies entered the picture and didn't realize I was still owned money. If they didn't understand that there was an outstanding debt, they probably weren't going to pay me either. In one case I tried to get an agreement after the fact because it looked like a new company might be coming in to run things. All I was trying to do was formalize what had been previously verbally agreed upon between me and the person I did the work for, but no one wanted to acknowledge that there was an outstanding debt.
So having been burned a few times, I have learned the value of being more precise than just a verbal agreement.
I think that often two people or entities will start out with a verbal or simple agreement. But then maybe something comes up that wasn't discussed beforehand. So the next time one of those people or entities does a similar deal, an additional clause may be inserted to address that problem. And then maybe something else comes up that wasn't discussed beforehand, and then that clause gets inserted into the next deal. Before long you end up with a multi-page document.
I know a musician who draws up her own booking contracts. Each time she runs into a problem, she adds a clause for the next booking date. For example, one time she and her band played an outside concert in the hot sun without any shade. So from that point on, whenever she agreed to play an outdoor concert, she requested that a canopy be included. Her contracts also spell out how many hours to play, how many set breaks, whether or not food and drink are provided, what happens if bad weather leads to cancellation, and so on.
And any musician who has been underpaid at the end of the night will start using contracts from that point on to show proof of what was supposed to be paid.
All of you who have had repair work on your homes or cars knows the value of having something on paper that explains what your recourse might be if the repair job fails.
So, yes, I think you can keep the lawyers out of these sorts of things, but anytime you have an agreement that doesn't address a problem, chances are you'll going to include something about that problem the next time you enter into a deal.
I prefer verbal or handshake deals to contracts. But I have been in several situations where, after we were working together on something, we ended up with differing interpretations of how income coming into our project was supposed to be shared. If we had worked out something on paper beforehand, then the situation would have been much more clear all along. And if we couldn't come to terms initially, then we wouldn't have proceeded.
Call it a contract. Call it a negotiated proposal. Call it whatever you want. But putting expectations down on paper can be useful.
Here's another way to understand the distinction. The new music "rock stars" may be the app developers rather than people who play music to entertain passive audiences. Those who put the most music-creating tools into the hands of everyone will have a more profound influence than those who merely use the tools.
We've already seen how producers often became more famous than the artists they worked with. Now take that a step further to a world where the artists and producers fade back and it's the apps creators who take the lead.
It is happening, but a lot of the discussions about music are still about being your own rock star. "You'll sell merchandise." "You'll sell VIP packages."
What I am suggesting is that the most successful musicians may not be "creators" at all. People won't come to them to buy what they create. People will come to them to become the creators themselves. While this sounds like teaching, it's not in the old sense. It's more about participatory art, where everyone does it and gets to make an "original" they can call their own.
I've very much an advocate of giving everyone the tools to become creators themselves. I think the "direct to fan" model that has replaced the major label system is just the same old model on a smaller scale. It continues to assume there are music creators who will get to sell their creations to passive fans who are happy to consume them.
I think the successful musicians of the future will be more like enablers or community builders. Their shows will be about involving the fans in the process so that the fans feel creative themselves rather than worshiping the performer on stage.
This is why the local cover band that gets everyone dancing or the community singalong may be the better entertainment experience for average people than paying for expensive tickets so they can sit in seats and watch someone else perform.
It's been hard to convince many musicians that the future may be more about them helping others make music than in finding audiences for their own music, but I think it is already happening as the music app market continues to grow. When everyone carries a music-making machine in their pockets, they become interested in what they themselves can do.
On the post: The Music Industry Is Desperate For A Few Good Technologists
Re: There is Harmony
Silicon Milkroundabout: Forget the banks, join a start-up. Songkick Blog: "Anyone who has ever run a start-up knows that one of the biggest challenges is finding truly exceptional people. Start-ups have the odds stacked against them from day one – over 80% fail – and the experience of trying to create something from nothing has been likened by Reid Hoffman founder of LinkedIn as jumping out of an aeroplane and trying to build a plane on the way down. That means that world class developers, who can be orders of magnitude more productive than the norm, who get excited about truly audacious challenges are not just helpful, but a necessity if you’re going to succeed."
On the post: The Music Industry Is Desperate For A Few Good Technologists
Re:
I'm not sure I'd go work for a startup depending on major label support either because I'd question the business plan of that startup. Why try to create a company with built-in obstacles? Why not build a company around music that you can acquire for free or around some other aspect of the music business that doesn't require dealing with major labels?
It seems to be to be backward thinking to even contemplate a company where the major labels play a role. So rather than complaining about how they have stifled innovation, do something else. Create new music instruments. Create new music apps that let more people make music. Create new ticketing and marketing systems for live music. Find ways to get more music into the educational system. Expand ways for artists to get funding. And so on.
The reason I am so gung-ho about Music Hack Day is that it is a vast experimental system. Most of the ideas don't have significant commercial potential, but it gets people thinking about what they can do.
On the post: The Music Industry Is Desperate For A Few Good Technologists
You don't need major labels
Every Week, 30,000 Stages Are Left Unfilled... - Digital Music News: "The NuevoStage system allows venues to list empty dates, and bands can pitch themselves and rally fans to fill targeted slots. Ultimately, if a band sells enough tickets, a gig is born - but the venue and band don't have to get linked to start the selling process."
What I am trying to do with my comments is to get people to realize associating music technology with major labels is a bit shortsighted. There are and will be music technology jobs that have nothing to with major labels.
On the post: The Music Industry Is Desperate For A Few Good Technologists
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gonna Cost You
https://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_197623090250601
It's primarily for people in Colorado (we meet monthly), but we have invited a few people from outside the area to join if it is likely that the Colorado members will be connecting with them in some capacity (e.g., at a conference).
The group is closed to avoid spam and to keep it curated. It isn't for pitching your company to get business.
But if you or someone you know is looking for music tech people and wants to participate in the group, joining the group might be an option.
Boulder has a lot of tech networking opportunities and is the home of TechStars, so there is a natural fit among tech, creative, and lifestyle folks (i.e., music, sports, healthy living, beer). This group is an extension of the kinds of interactions we want to encourage.
Why Boulder Is America's Best Town for Startups - BusinessWeek
Boulder Startup Week | May 18-22, 2011
The pursuit of happiness - CBS News: "If happiness is a state of mind, then Boulder is its capital."
On the post: The Music Industry Is Desperate For A Few Good Technologists
Re: Re: Re: Gonna Cost You
On the post: The Music Industry Is Desperate For A Few Good Technologists
Re: everyone gets the point, for different reasons
Perhaps the people having trouble finding people to hire haven't been looking in the right places. If they have gone to Hack Days and made their pitch and then have gotten no takers that's a different matter.
Actually I'm part of a group in Boulder whose goal is to bring members of the music communities, tech communities, and creative/marketing fields together. The group is growing.
On the post: The Music Industry Is Desperate For A Few Good Technologists
Re: Gonna Cost You
On the post: The Music Industry Is Desperate For A Few Good Technologists
Universities with music tech
On the post: The Music Industry Is Desperate For A Few Good Technologists
Music Hack Day
http://musichackday.org/
On the post: When Copyright And Contracts Can Get In The Way Of Art
Re: Re: Re: Re: pro-paper
If you are doing a project that isn't going to bring in much money, you can't afford to go to a lawyer every time. Most of these things are pretty standard so you can find a model somewhere on the Internet and adapt it for your needs. The biggest single thing for anyone in the arts is to make sure you haven't signed away the rights of your work if that's not what you intent to do. If you don't know what you are signing, then don't. But if you are the one drawing up the ageement and you are only agreeing to what you intent to offer, then you are on safer ground.
I've looked at my share of contracts and agreements. I've signed some, I've modified some, and I've refused to sign some. Most of this stuff is simple enough and the stakes are low enough that lawyers don't need to become directly involved.
So, again, based on my personal experience, I'll say that having something in writing heads off problems down the road. But you don't necessarily have to hire a lawyer at hundreds of dollars an hour to do this for you.
On the post: When Copyright And Contracts Can Get In The Way Of Art
Re: Re: pro-paper
From my own past experience it will prevent some headaches down the road to have something on paper (or in digital form -- even just email correspondence -- because there will be less misunderstanding about how everyone wants/expects things to be handled.
On the post: When Copyright And Contracts Can Get In The Way Of Art
Re: I don't like contracts either, but ...
"A list of expectations and obligations."
Putting those in writing and having all parties read and agree to them can serve as a form of clarity.
Sometimes no one involved has enough experience to anticipate all issues that might come up so those potential issues don't get listed. But as people gain more experience, they are often able to anticipate what might need to be dealt with and then they can discuss in advance how to handle those (e.g., consensus, arbitration, buy-out).
I've been involved with groups that have no officers, no formal rules, etc. But periodically something will come up (e.g., who can or can't become a member, what topics can be discussed in the group mailing list, where to meet for coffee), it gets discussed, and group understandings are either reinforced or changed. So even in the most casual of arrangements, there are usually some expectations and when those aren't met, some action results. Even when there are just two people going out for coffee, there are all sorts of unstated social rules that people have in their heads. Not having a contract doesn't mean human interactions are necessarily simple.
On the post: When Copyright And Contracts Can Get In The Way Of Art
Re: Re:
On the post: When Copyright And Contracts Can Get In The Way Of Art
Re:
So having been burned a few times, I have learned the value of being more precise than just a verbal agreement.
On the post: When Copyright And Contracts Can Get In The Way Of Art
Re: Re: Contracts
I know a musician who draws up her own booking contracts. Each time she runs into a problem, she adds a clause for the next booking date. For example, one time she and her band played an outside concert in the hot sun without any shade. So from that point on, whenever she agreed to play an outdoor concert, she requested that a canopy be included. Her contracts also spell out how many hours to play, how many set breaks, whether or not food and drink are provided, what happens if bad weather leads to cancellation, and so on.
And any musician who has been underpaid at the end of the night will start using contracts from that point on to show proof of what was supposed to be paid.
All of you who have had repair work on your homes or cars knows the value of having something on paper that explains what your recourse might be if the repair job fails.
So, yes, I think you can keep the lawyers out of these sorts of things, but anytime you have an agreement that doesn't address a problem, chances are you'll going to include something about that problem the next time you enter into a deal.
On the post: When Copyright And Contracts Can Get In The Way Of Art
I don't like contracts either, but ...
Call it a contract. Call it a negotiated proposal. Call it whatever you want. But putting expectations down on paper can be useful.
On the post: Professional Photographers Find Massively Successful New Careers Helping Amateurs Be Better Photographers
Re: Re: Re: This is the future of music
We've already seen how producers often became more famous than the artists they worked with. Now take that a step further to a world where the artists and producers fade back and it's the apps creators who take the lead.
On the post: Professional Photographers Find Massively Successful New Careers Helping Amateurs Be Better Photographers
Re: Re: This is the future of music
What I am suggesting is that the most successful musicians may not be "creators" at all. People won't come to them to buy what they create. People will come to them to become the creators themselves. While this sounds like teaching, it's not in the old sense. It's more about participatory art, where everyone does it and gets to make an "original" they can call their own.
On the post: Atlas Shrugged Movie Leaves Hollywood Scratching Its Head, Because It's Succeeding Without Them
More on it not doing so well
On the post: Professional Photographers Find Massively Successful New Careers Helping Amateurs Be Better Photographers
This is the future of music
I think the successful musicians of the future will be more like enablers or community builders. Their shows will be about involving the fans in the process so that the fans feel creative themselves rather than worshiping the performer on stage.
This is why the local cover band that gets everyone dancing or the community singalong may be the better entertainment experience for average people than paying for expensive tickets so they can sit in seats and watch someone else perform.
It's been hard to convince many musicians that the future may be more about them helping others make music than in finding audiences for their own music, but I think it is already happening as the music app market continues to grow. When everyone carries a music-making machine in their pockets, they become interested in what they themselves can do.
Next >>