The Internet, TAG Strategic managing partner Ted Cohen posts on the MIDEM(Net) Blog, was “supposed to be the ultimate leveler, great music would be able to find its audience, the ‘big label’ gatekeepers would no longer control access to the masses.
But things haven’t exactly played out that way, he says, going on >>>
According to my friend, Tommy Silverman/Tommy Boy Records and the co-founder of the New Music Seminar recently pointed out to me that less than one tenth of one percent of music released last year sold over ten thousand units.
That’s not very encouraging to the other ninety-nine percent!
While tens of thousand of artists are self-releasing their music, their ability to get noticed in a meaningful way is stifled by the sheer volume of music that is arriving daily at iTunes, Amazon, Spotify, MySpace Music, Yahoo, Rhapsody, Pandora, iHeart and others.
Ten years ago, there were roughly twenty-five thousand album releases a year. In 2009, it is estimated that there will be over one hundred thousand albums put into digital distribution. That’s roughly a million new tracks a year, four million minutes of music, or almost three thousand days-worth of song. But, maybe, if I listen really, really fast, I could….nope!
The competition for my attention is overwhelming. I’ve got a spare hour this afternoon, I can listen to fifteen new songs, how do I find the fifteen new artists that will rock my world?? That is the career making-or-breaking question.
From my perspective, you have to be in business with the majority of these players to succeed:
Digital distribution can be easily achieved through aggregators such as:
- Ioda
- Iris
- The Orchard
- InGrooves
- BFM Digital
Indie Artists can directly secure digital distribution by paying a fee to, among others:
- ReverbNation
- Tunecore
- CD Baby
Artists can establish direct fan communication through these key outlets:
- MySpace
If you want to insure your success, availability is mandatory on:
- iTunes
- Amazon
- Zune
- Rhapsody
- Pandora
- Slacker
- Spotify
- Yahoo, AOL and iHeart Radio
There are some great marketing services, metadata providers and digital tools, including:
- Topspin
- ReverbNation
- CyberPR
- Chain Reaction Media
- The VirtualCD
- GigMaven
- Hello Music
- All Music Guide
- Shazam
- LyricFind
- Gracenote
Through my involvement this past year with Sara Haze, an amazing nineteen year-old singer-songwriter from Los Angeles, I’ve learned that it’s a full time effort to build a fan base. Creation and availability is just the start.
You’ve got to continually engage with your fans, encourage and incentivize them to ’spread the word’. BLOG, TWITTER, POST, make at least some of your music available for free to your public, let them know how good you really are! At every gig, grow your mailing list and your army, make some noise, it will pay off.
While global stardom might be your ultimate goal, focus now on making your music career your day job, Starbuck’s, McDonald’s and HomeBase should not be part of your resume going forward.
“The point of my post,” Ted adds, ” is to motivate you, not to intimidate or dissuade you.
“The good news is that you are finally in charge of your career. The bad news is, that face in the mirror, it’s the only one to blame if things don’t go well.”
Or as Pogo Possum, once put it …
(Cheers, Ted)
December 17th, 2009 at 10:33 am
The following article is a counterpoint – exhibiting the perspective of an anxious artist too scared to let go of the labels’ apron strings: Farewell to the Casual Music Fan.
It’s neatly rebutted in the comments by Scott Andrew:
December 17th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Ouch @ the quadrupling of music. It’s quite likely more music is being created than ever before, but at this level such an increase produces less income for everyone (at least the non-major artists that aren’t well-known and liked). Economics 101: supply is inversely related to market price; if you quadruple the quantity of music that’s bound to negatively affect price for those 99.9%.
December 18th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Music always had to be your ‘day’ job if you were going to be a professional musician. But, most musician’s cannot afford not to work without some form of investment behind them. I don’t see how there will be much investment in the future (outside of X-factor and major label music) because the time it takes to develop and reach a critical mass fan base whereby an artist can become profitable these days takes a lot longer and a lot more budget is necessary in order to get a return that would allow the artist to actually be able to pay the bills and generate a return on the original investment (minimum of 5 years, maybe a lifetime, who knows). (Because, giving up the day job requires that the artist would at least have the basic needs of food/clothing and shelter supplied in order to do that. Obviously, if we’re talking about a 4-5 piece band, multiply those living expenses by the number of band members). So, without a working model that compensates musicians, we will be looking at only the ‘elite’ penetrating our TV screens and radio airwaves and possibly only those ‘elite’ will be able to penetrate the net given the millions of songs out there. Nothing’s changed, it has just broadened the divide between the professional working musician and the ‘hobby’ or ‘weekend’ musician with a day job. If all those ‘new releases’ were made up of bands who are also playing locally or touring, then we would have every pub, club & theatre booked with live music every night of the week. You would think there would be more venues opening and more pubs, clubs and town halls putting on live shows. But, that doesn’t appear to be the case from what I’ve seen. It looks like we have popular clubs, theatres and venues being bought up by big players. hmmm.
December 19th, 2009 at 5:10 am
Re: the Scott Andrew comment.
The notion that diehards are sophisticated purveyors of taste, and casual fans have opinions of no consequence to the art, is facile. Thankfully the truth is more complex.
There are fanatics who are narrowly interested in one thing, blind to the beauty in everything else. There are ordinary appreciators who value music highly but have a casual relationship to it. These are just two examples of appreciator types of which there seems to be an infinite number.
Schlosberg’s point in Farewell to the Casual Music Fan about something essential being lost with the fragmentation of the platform is a valid one. Music is as much defined by context as content. Change the context and everything changes with it.
The forward developments will continue to bring positive changes. But there will be losses too and the Great Artist who bestrides the globe appreciated by millions will probably be one of them.
I understand that Scott Andrew was having a wee bit of a polemicist’s moment there and no one grudges him that. But Schlosberg’s piece is well thought out and points to some uneasy realities about the consensus value of music to come.
December 19th, 2009 at 5:11 am
There is a misleading premise in the perennial question: what are musicians to do now that the Internet is destroying the music industry.
It is misleading because the Internet is not destroying the music industry. It is the record business that is screwed. The music business is in rude health. So to answer the question what are musicians to do: they are to do what they have always done. If they are driven and ambitious enough they are to find ways of turning their talents into a career. That is not an easy call but it’s a possibility.
When I started out, the options available were similar to the ones that still exist today. Here are some: get a qualification and teach, get a qualification and join a professional orchestra or choir, get accomplished and become a session player, become a live performer, become a producer or engineer, open a recording facility, join or form a function band, compose music for visuals, advertising and broadcast. Or a concoction thereof.
Granted, some of these are not very sexy. But we’re talking jobs here. A careers officer might counsel caution and rightly so. The arts in all its forms is a precarious endeavour. But he wouldn’t shoo a student from the room who suggested any of the above. They are tangible. He might shoo If the student suggested becoming an artist or a songwriter and pursuing a record deal. Why? Because that would be the equivalent of buying lottery tickets as a career choice. It’s not an impossible prospect just an unlikely one. It always was. Nothing has changed in that regard except it is even more unlikely now.
Of all musicians, a very small fraction got on the record business gravy train. All but a small fraction of them were thrown off again. Of the remainder another small fraction got to drink from the cup. Being an artist in the record business is not and never was a viable career option. So why do the discussions around the various forums including some of Ted Cohen’s remarks here seem to assume that it is?
The new networks and associated technology add something extra to the business of making music whether one is involved professionally or recreationally. They take something away from the traditional business of making records. And that loss hampers virtually no one other than the gravy train people. So to ask what are musicians to do is a legitimate question with a simple answer: find work! To ask what are the folks on the train to do is like asking what will kings and queens do when the world is a republic. Why would anyone care?
December 19th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
@Clark:
Bravo!
Nicely done!
December 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
@Clark Obviously, for the sake of this thread, Ted Cohen is talking about performing artists and performing bands. That is very very clear. In order to do that, it simply has to be your ‘day job’. Obviously, there are other ways to make money in music. We, for example, have a studio and bands come and record in it. I’ve spent loads of time doing sessions and BV’s for artists and of course, there are ways to makes some money even playing in orchestras. That’s not really the point that Ted is making though, is it?
December 21st, 2009 at 4:04 am
Rage Against the Machine beat X-factor this weekend for Christmas No. 1
December 21st, 2009 at 9:37 am
Since rankings are based on units shipped and not units sold, rankings are artificially generated and have no meaning. The labels can make anyone they want ‘Number One’ as needed.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:19 pm
It actually is by units sold @Dresdnik not units shipped! RATM was solely based upon downloads sold (the record was not in the shops)