Members sabriel9v Posted October 2, 2009 Members Posted October 2, 2009 I used to come in this forum and bitch a lot about certain things. I’d pretty much just bull{censored} (I’m a champion bull{censored}ter ), but now I want to take the rare opportunity to voice my unique opinion. I want to people to read this, critique it and remain somewhat interactive with this document. I’m going to explain how giving away free music and filesharing can either harm you or help you. I’m utilizing three different models and will break them down. 1) The pop model – Artists who fall within the pop model write very catchy, radio friendly songs. They’ve kept the major labels afloat for years because their music is easily digestible and appeals to a large majority of people. Their strength lies in going into a studio, crafting a super polished and pristine record and selling it to the masses. I’m going to make a broad generalization and say that these people do not have interesting live shows on the smaller, local levels. They NEED to sell records and the purpose of the live show is to get people to purchase their super polished and pretty sounding record. Once pop model artists can gain more revenue, their live shows have the potential to become interesting and genuine experiences ie they can throw in huge light rigs, backup dancers, have cool costume changes, the works. But once again this experience is used to bolster their record, which has all the nice radio friendly songs on it. Image is very important for these artists because its used to sell records. Giving away free music definitely hurts these acts. They DO NOT need to give away free music and should combat filesharing. Their strength comes from the pop record and its existence. Free music should STRICTLY be used as a slight glimpse or teaser into the amazing, “groundbreaking” records that fans must buy. These artists should not give away all their music. Classic pop model artists – Kings of Leon, NSYNC, the Jonas Brothers, Lil Wayne, Leona Lewis 2) The live band model – The live band model has its roots in the jazz era, but even predates that. Before there were cool ipods, mp3 players and universal media formats, bands and artists needed to a way to directly contact audiences and get their message across. These types of groups typically do not write amazing songs, but have superior skills on their instruments and great ears. They can jam for hours and keep audiences entertained, everything is in the moment and they follow a very lean script. It’s like watching theater, the show changes every night and the performers must stay on their toes. Image is somewhat important, but only so far in that if the band members are tastefully dressed, have creative flyers and prom otional materials, they can easily book more shows. The stage is their home. Sometimes these bands luck up and write a super catchy and radio friendly tune. At which point they can either a) adopt the pop model (very risky) or b) use that tune as bait for new fans and keep rockin out live shows. Literally a handful of these catchy tunes can keep this particular band model afloat for years, they do not constantly require hits like the pop model artists. Giving away free music greatly benefits these artists (as well as allowing copious amounts of drugs and alcohol into their shows ). They want to get people out to more shows, so why not tape a few good performances and post them online. Putting a couple radio friendly tracks on their myspace can also get more fans out, but the purpose of the radio friendly track is to bolster the show. It’s the inverse equation of the pop model. Classic live band models – Derek Trucks, Sound Tribe Sector 9, Medeski Martin and Wood, Earth, and the most classic, the Grateful Dead 3) The tremendously good band model – Most of the super legendary groups and artists that we hear about fall within this model. People often make the mistake of throwing themselves in this category, but they’re not. The natural talent and cohesive group structure for these artists can only be replicated by the individuals involved in that group. I’m under the impression that being in this kind of group is a phenomenon that chooses you, you don’t choose it. Often these bands have members from a variety of backgrounds and it can lead to lots of in fighting and mercurial environments. If you’re a solo artist, you probably know just how damn good you are and need the right team behind you. Nonetheless, these groups can write a badass tune (not just a radio friendly song but something truly timeless) in the practice room ,track it the right way in the studio, make it a hit. Then they’ll perform that same song either the way it sounds on record or jam on it for 15 minutes and still sounds just as badass and fresh. Free music and filesharing dicks these bands in their talented asses the most. Why? It ruins the experience. If you’re a fan that downloaded the entire record and uploaded it onto a bit torrent, you won’t enjoy the live show the same if you even bought the record for $10. You also ruin the experience for other people. Think of this, what if you had waited for months to see this band in your hometown. You loved the record. Everything about the sound, songs, packaging, art, it all grabbed you. You finally see them in concert and they sound superior to other groups you’ve seen. If you had not bought that record, you’re detaching yourself from the full experience. Of course these artists and bands can sustain themselves through recessions and tons of filesharing, they do have sick live shows after all. But all the free music and filesharing ultimately damages the organization because it deflates them from attaining their full potential. Classic tremendously awesome and talented artists: CREAM , Pink Floyd, the Doors, Radiohead, Animal Collective, James Brown, Prince, Marvin Gaye, Neil Young, Jamie Lidell (look him up), Lupe Fiasco, Joni Mitchell, Dungen, Outkast, the Flaming Lips Final thoughts: Free music and filesharing are not the devil. They're just some of the many entities present within the music industry. How you approach them is up to you, but be realistic and don’t lie to yourself. Know what you are. In my last band I lied to myself and tried to convince everyone that we were a model 3 band, we weren’t. We probably should’ve taken the Kings of Leon route. Since then I’ve realized I’m probably more suited to model 2 and if I’m lucky will randomly fall into the model 3 category. But don’t lie. If your band can jam over a cover song and make it more badass and bring it to life better than the original artist, don’t focus on trying to write pop songs that will make your band go platinum. If you write candy coated pop tunes, don’t think that giving away your music for free will help you in the long term. Your pop records are your strength and life blood, don’t lie to yourself. And if you’re in the last category, thank God. Focus your disputes and battles within the group and do not rely on outside perceptions. It was your band’s initial spark and natural talent that got you where you are. Your gut instinct will lead you to greener pastures and newer sources of income. Most importantly, have fun. Not a lot of artists these days are driving super expensive Harleys through hotel hallways and crashing their Bentleys into hundred thousand dollar pools. If you're having fun and enjoy yourself, no one can take that away from you. Comments?
Members Matximus Posted October 2, 2009 Members Posted October 2, 2009 Your post is way to long to read. Sorry. But I agree that giving away music for free is smart if you're a nobody.
Members Wolfgang2049 Posted October 2, 2009 Members Posted October 2, 2009 Interesting read. I think two important things are missing though. One is the age of the band. I hate filesharing, period. But... I think that it does help some folks that are either just starting out, or that are really established. For the bands that are just starting out, it gives them some exposure they otherwise would not have had. That is all they get though. Nobody downloading unknown stuff is going to actually buy it in the near future. If it is catchy stuff, it may pay off long term. For the established bands (Iron Maiden, Metallica, the majority of the bands you listed Etc.), it increases their fanbase and income in the long term. They still have the same fans they did ten years ago, and those fans actually buy things. With filesharing, they expose themselves to the kids (that usually don't buy anything). Some of those kids will eventually see a show and/or buy a t-shirt. So, the filesharing is just a small addition to the money they make from their older fanbase. Some of those kids may eventually realize they are stealing and pay for something in the distant future if the band is still around. The second issue is genre/style. A progressive metal band is not going to get as many live shows in Dayton, Ohio , for example (or anywhere for that matter), as a country or cover band will. They rely more on internet sales instead of gigs. They write complex music that most people are not into, and they focus on the music rather than the show. They are having a much tougher time at it than a country band. Their entire business plan is internet distribution to the few pople in random parts of the world that listen to that music, with a few gigs here and there that the general population will not appreciate. Their potential fanbase is tiny compared to the pop stuff, and if 70% (pulled that number outta my arse) of the people that like them are filesharing, they are going nowhere fast. Obviously, a band taking this route is not in it for the money or fame or whatever. But, if most of their stuff was not being stolen, they would sure have a lot more money for picks, gas, drum sticks, tacos at 1am, etc. I may be totally crazy though. This is just how I see it.
Members richardmac Posted October 2, 2009 Members Posted October 2, 2009 I don't see the singer/songwriter in that group. You'd need a new category for them. The focus for singer/songwriters is the song itself, not so much the live show, so I guess they'd be sort of like your #1 category - protect the music, don't give it away. But your diatribe does not address motivation - does the artist want fans, money, or both? I know I'm not the only 40-something guy writing songs for self expression who wants an audience, no matter how small, and doesn't expect to make a career out of this. There are singer/songwriters who started out by giving away music, developed a following, and then converted some of the followers into paying customers eventually. I don't think that's a bad model...
Members sabriel9v Posted October 2, 2009 Author Members Posted October 2, 2009 I don't see the singer/songwriter in that group. You'd need a new category for them. The focus for singer/songwriters is the song itself, not so much the live show, so I guess they'd be sort of like your #1 category - protect the music, don't give it away. I agree, I did not create a singer/songwriter category, however when speaking about pop artists, artists that rely on live shows, and tremendously talented artists, I kinda sorta lumped singer songwriters in there. I did use Prince, Marvin Gaye, and a few other singer/songwriter artists as examples. However, if you're thinking about the typical Ani Difranco or John Mayer coffee house playing type, no they were not directly spoken about. I would imagine that singer/songwriters actually benefit from file sharing and free music. Why? Let's say they do instrumental folk stuff like Leo Kottke, John Fahey or early Kaki King...if they can keep their production costs low, its easy to keep pumping out three, four, or five different eps each year. Its just them and their instruments, no one else. They create as much material as they like and make it as disposable as they want, just like rappers with mixtapes. However, when it comes to time to create the "real" album or product, I'd imagine they would put more money into it, hence, placing some sort of monetary value on the music. As for the artists' intent, um you're right. But I don't think any of these "futuristic" music business models take into account the artists' intent. We just have to assume that they're profit seeking or at least utility maximizing actors, the way we can measure that utility is through some sort of profit or currency.
Members richardmac Posted October 3, 2009 Members Posted October 3, 2009 As for the artists' intent, um you're right. But I don't think any of these "futuristic" music business models take into account the artists' intent. We just have to assume that they're profit seeking or at least utility maximizing actors, the way we can measure that utility is through some sort of profit or currency. It's tough to predict the future. Music has become so devalued, or at least music recordings have. Today's file sharing teens are tomorrow's adults, and they're not going to suddenly start dropping $50 a week on music. Most people reach a certain age and they start buying less music. Add those two factors together and it spells trouble. But I can forsee a whole new group of artists growing up now who will have downloaded free music themselves, and who will not think twice about putting their music online for free. And the more people do it, the more popular the concept will get. It'll be like blogging. No one charges for their blog, or rather, very very few people do. The new, young artists will look at us older guys, still trying to squeeze ten bucks out of someone to download our CD, and laugh. They'll be putting out music for the same reason people put out blogs... because they feel they have something to say. And ego. And I could be way off base, too. So long as there are books out there on how to make it in the new music biz, there will be folks trying everything they can to earn some coin, including selling music. But I don't see how anyone will be able to generate any kind of interest in the future without giving away music.
Members sabriel9v Posted October 3, 2009 Author Members Posted October 3, 2009 The beliefs and opinions surrounding free music and filesharing definitely show that there are large and multiple generational gaps between music fans. However, you still have young artists like Lily Allen (I think we're the same age, she's 23 or maybe 24) who say hey I just worked my ass off recording this record and I want compensation for what I've done. It's not fair for someone else to throw my entire record online because of their personal beliefs and desires. They were not involved in the creation process and are simply outsiders. We need more young artists like Lily Allen who speak negatively of rampant filesharing, but more specifically speak negatively about people who are big into uploading onto bit torrents. I personally consider those people the worst kinds of "fans" because they aren't spreading a positive word about the record by writing about it on a blog or introducing their friends to the music via cds or something, they figure it's ok to throw the entire cd up on a bit torrent for literally millions to have access to. They pride themselves on opening up the back door to everyone.
Members sabriel9v Posted October 3, 2009 Author Members Posted October 3, 2009 Music has become so devalued, or at least music recordings have. Who does this really affect? The purpose of this thread was to illustrate that free music doesn't harm everyone.
Members S.L.B. Posted October 3, 2009 Members Posted October 3, 2009 What about the 4th type of musician. The one who will never sell enough CD's that they don't even really see a hit by giving away free music. I would guess that 98% of ALL existing bands fall into this catagory, so instead it plugs up and creates a sea of crap music available for nothing. Hence the belief that all free music is bad and crap. I would also add that you can find good free music on line of completely legal bootleg recordings of some great bands that allow taping at their shows. Derek Trucks Band, and Grateful Dead among them, but also, Gov't Mule, String Cheese, Tea Leaf Green and on and on. Completely legal, completely supported by the artist, completely free and hella good. And you don't even have to visit some skanky torrent site to get it.
Members richardmac Posted October 3, 2009 Members Posted October 3, 2009 Who does this really affect? The purpose of this thread was to illustrate that free music doesn't harm everyone. Well, it doesn't affect people who give away their music for free. The fact that people are buying less music will not have much impact on those who give music away. It DOES affect people who want to sell music, because less people are willing to buy it, so that means either reducing the price or selling less music. So artists who give their music away for free aren't likely to complain about file sharing... they're working WITH the current conditions and not against them. The problem is, as BlueStrat says, converting those "free" fans into paying fans can be very difficult.
Members richardmac Posted October 3, 2009 Members Posted October 3, 2009 We need more young artists like Lily Allen who speak negatively of rampant filesharing, but more specifically speak negatively about people who are big into uploading onto bit torrents. I personally consider those people the worst kinds of "fans" because they aren't spreading a positive word about the record by writing about it on a blog or introducing their friends to the music via cds or something, they figure it's ok to throw the entire cd up on a bit torrent for literally millions to have access to. They pride themselves on opening up the back door to everyone. It didn't gain her much, except that a lot of people made fun of her, which is sad. She's totally correct in speaking out. I'm totally against illegal file sharing.
Members Cazual Posted October 4, 2009 Members Posted October 4, 2009 Interesting breakdown sabriel9v. I wouldn't argue with your thoughts, but it seems to me that whether it hurts or helps runs second to the fact that people will mostly take it for free anyway. Whether you resist it or allow it probably isn't going to change things much now. My own feeling is that if I was a professional (which I'm not) I would still be reluctant to give the music away completely freely because it would feel like I was saying that it had no real worth. I'd prefer to sell it very cheaply, or package it in some way that made it worth owning a legal version. But your diatribe does not address motivation - does the artist want fans, money, or both? I know I'm not the only 40-something guy writing songs for self expression who wants an audience, no matter how small, and doesn't expect to make a career out of this. There are singer/songwriters who started out by giving away music, developed a following, and then converted some of the followers into paying customers eventually. I don't think that's a bad model... +1 Acknowledging that garnering applause and respect is a primary motivation seems like a good first step. I don't honestly expect to make money out of the music that I make or will make in the future. However, if I ever do get to the stage of producing commercial standard work then I would retain some hope of getting more than just the odd clap. The willingness to pay money is the most honest affirmation that can be made about the value of any product. Fortunately for me, I don't need to make money from any music I might produce, so I can still survive on the occasional pat on the back, and the satisfaction that I get from doing it all. Perhaps there's a need to develop a 'Premier' non-digital music format that could offer both quality and some kind of prestige or coolness. You could offer free or 20c downloads (or whatever) for a digital version but the real cred would come with owning the ....ah.... vinyl version? Well, maybe not the original vinyls, but some kind of high class analog version that had a desirable physical presence (like the old album sleeves used to have). Sort of an extension of your ideas about lower and higher quality downloads (on another thread). Chris [Edit] The above idea might sound daft, but there is actually still a market for the vinyl albums, and apparently they are still produced in several countries including the UK, USA and Australia. Apparently they have a loyal following.
Members bostonwal Posted October 4, 2009 Members Posted October 4, 2009 Offering a free download is just another tool for promotion, like a magazine ad for instance. The idea of a "free sample" has been around for a long time in business. Record companies give away free samples for all the bands mentioned in the OP whether through a myspace site, a band website, or on youtube (you can easily see when the record company is the one posting the song). Illegal downloads have some promotional value but at a very high price. Last year the top selling album sold 2.7 million copies. In 2002 (not that long ago!) 2.7 million copies were sold of the #25 album of that year. That's a dramatic drop off. Illegal downloading is bad. Free give aways are a promotional choice every band in every genre has to make. My suggestion: break into the regular rotation of a listener by having a song which speaks to them and inspires them to put the song on their mp3 player and inspires them listen to it on a regular basis. Then word of mouth will take over and you have a chance to get passed the tipping point. I would certainly give away a song on the hopes that it would achieve this goal. I've got unsigned bands' songs on my mp3 player and listen to them regularly. Do you?
Members richardmac Posted October 4, 2009 Members Posted October 4, 2009 Really good thread. Yes, on one hand, we are the dog chasing its own tail, talking about free downloads over and over and over, but what I find more interesting is the idea of converting casual fans to real fans. And I really REALLY like the idea of somehow coming up with something like vinyl (but not) that true fans would want to own. It would have to be analog, or at the very least be huge if it's digital. I think the idea of offering fans various levels of "fandom" is a good idea. It's not a new idea but deserves another look. This is where maybe guys like me need to go: Level 1 - Free downloads. Download my music for free, OR pay whatever you want. Level 2 - Purchase a physical CD. $10 via the Internet, or $5 if you come to a show and buy it. Or purchase the book "For What It's Worth," my autobiography, for $20. Or buy a t-shirt, coffee mug, etc. Level 3 - Special Edition box set. All three of my CD's plus autographed copy of the book "For What It's Worth." $35. Level 4 - House Concert. $200 (plus travel and expenses if outside the Tampa/St. Pete area) As far as the book, you can have your own 100 page book bound and published for $10 by cafepress... I'm sure there are countless others who do the same thing. Um, of course, I'd have to actually WRITE the book, but it's just an idea. The odds are huge that the vast majority of people out there couldn't give two damns and a jar of cold piss about my autobiography, but if someone really likes my music, they might be interested. You never know. Another thing I was thinking. T-shirts and coffee mugs have never sold for me or for most of the local artists I know, except for friends and family. For me, since my new CD is folk/rock and lots of the songs are stories, I'm thinking that quotes from songs would be better than, say, the CD cover. Like "Don't Mind Me, I'm Passing Through." Or for Cranberry Pond, a picture of a small pond with the quote "Deep down inside you, you know that it's true...It's people, not places, that matter to you." Same with t-shirts... if the product can appeal on two different levels, maybe it sells better. Writing books and coming up with clever t-shirts and coffee mug sayings... that is pretty far removed from music. Next I'll be suggesting your own line of greeting cards. It bothers me a little, but for a folk/rock guy like me, my music is a set of core values and a mindset. Stuff that ties into that picture might be helpful. Just thinking out loud.
Members sabriel9v Posted October 5, 2009 Author Members Posted October 5, 2009 Really good thread. Yes, on one hand, we are the dog chasing its own tail, talking about free downloads over and over and over, but what I find more interesting is the idea of converting casual fans to real fans. Depending upon what genre you perform, giving away free music can help convert casual fans into real fans. Your motivation may be to get more people out to shows as opposed to selling thousands of records. it seems to me that whether it hurts or helps runs second to the fact that people will mostly take it for free anyway. I feel that music fans are more inclined to download songs from bigger artists and not musicians at the smaller, local levels. The majority of the material floating around on bit torrents is already super popular. When I see these smaller acts offering their entire album for free download up on myspace, hardly anybody actually downloads the cd.
Members tim_7string Posted October 5, 2009 Members Posted October 5, 2009 I feel that music fans are more inclined to download songs from bigger artists and not musicians at the smaller, local levels. The majority of the material floating around on bit torrents is already super popular. When I see these smaller acts offering their entire album for free download up on myspace, hardly anybody actually downloads the cd. So, if this is true (and I think it is), there is no reason to give away stuff people aren't looking for anyway. If you have a small fanbase, you might as well sell them what they are willing to pay for. Keeping your songs or entire album off your website or Myspace page seems like a good idea. Either that or limiting it to 30-60 second snippets so potential fans still get a taste of it, but not end up getting bored from hearing all your stuff, which is available whenever they want it. I was talking with my fiancee about this the other night, using Nirvana as an example. I asked her what compelled her to buy their album Nevermind. She said she heard songs from the album at someone's house, then someone else's party, and in a third person's car. Each time she asked "What is THAT? That sounds cool!" Unlike me, she actually heard them first (I saw the legendary "Smells Like Teen Spirit" video on TBS' "Night Tracks" video show back in '91). She got a feeling from the music and was compelled to search out the song and buy the album. That is what is needed for people to want to buy your stuff. Having something in your music that makes people want it to begin with. Unfortunately, the usual channels to get that stuff out are the radio and television (and to some extent, YouTube). But if you don't have the $$$ to get your stuff out there on a national or global level, then you should not even be concerned about it. Just concentrate on the music itself. I think it's important to still do some of the old DIY/punk model: play shows locally, sell your CD at those shows, gain a following, spread out further into the area, try to license your stuff if possible, get on local radio stations (if offered in your area), and just keep making great music. You probably won't become a million seller, but you will make some fans and those fans will spread the word. And word of mouth is the best advertising.
Members richardmac Posted October 5, 2009 Members Posted October 5, 2009 I think it comes down to two things - one, is there a market for what you do, and two, can you reach those people. The Internet is the most efficient way of reaching people in the history of man - I don't know why someone wouldn't use it. As to how much of your music you post, that is definitely up for debate, which is what we're doing here and in other threads. Deciding on if there's a market for what you do can be difficult. Because asking a handful of people is borderline useless. I'm certain people told Bob Dylan that he'd never make it because he's a terrible singer, but look what happened. If you could get 1,000 people to sit down in a room and listen to your best song, and survey them, you'd have a better idea, but that's not practical. You sort of have to have faith, and listen to people's opinions, but keep working on your art. If you've decided that there is a market for what you do, then the next part is reaching that market. This is actually pretty easy... if you have a ton of money. If you don't, then it gets challenging. You're not going to get on the radio, so putting your music online for free might be the next best thing. Driving traffic to your site to get people to listen to it (or download it, if you allow that) is where a lot of us really struggle. You can make it really easy for people to hear your music... but getting them to check you out, that's the critical thing.
Members tim_7string Posted October 5, 2009 Members Posted October 5, 2009 I just don't see where anyone is going to get anywhere by just posting stuff online and hoping the world will somehow magically be aware of their genius. Whether it's free or not, people need to know about the music to begin with. How do we reach those people? That's the trick. Radio is a connected system, a network, so if you can get a song on there, it won't just play in one market, it will play all over the country. The Internet is accessible worldwide, but there isn't one place everybody goes to that will be listening to your songs like they would being exposed to radio or television. As for local radio, there is a way to get on that here. Whether or not it would succeed in other markets is doubtful, but at least the bands around here have a chance to be heard in the immediate area now. One artist, Little Bobby & The Storm, is played on the radio at least once a day, every day. I'm sure it will improve their CD sales now. If Bob Dylan had stayed in Minnesota all his life, I doubt people would even know about him. He moved to where things were happening at the right time (New York City). People say that you can become a star without leaving home these days by just posting a video on YouTube in the comfort of your house or apartment living in the middle of nowhere. Not really. Or make your own website and people will just all of a sudden download your songs hundreds of times a day. Nope. Promotion. It's all about reaching people. If they don't know about you, then you don't exist. It's basically that simple. Until we can all figure out what will promote us to people without requiring that we be millionaires to begin with, this will always stop our cause.
Members Cazual Posted October 5, 2009 Members Posted October 5, 2009 Promotion. It's all about reaching people. If they don't know about you, then you don't exist. It's basically that simple. Until we can all figure out what will promote us to people without requiring that we be millionaires to begin with, this will always stop our cause. That nails it. I was talking (via email) a while back to a guy who is about to retire after a successful working life in the industry, including producing some albums for local bands. His opinion was that the basic budget was now in the $1- 1.5 million range. Anything less and you'd be struggling to be able to make enough impact with an album to make reasonable money. If you do a bare bones job and spend almost no money on production and promotion, then maybe you stand a chance of scraping up enough cash up to cover your tiny costs and maybe go into profit. If you spend mega-bucks then the same applies. It's the middle ground that is the toughest - but it is in any industry. It's more true now than ever as industries polarise - with well equipped solo amateurs and low or no-staff outfits surviving at one end and very big corporations at the other. If you're in the middle you're vulnerable from above and below. The middle ground is largely on life support, as is the old model of selling music. Add that to the fact that many of the genres themselves - blues, rock, folk, etc. - are looking suspiciously close to their use by date (if not already pretty much niche interest now) and it's perhaps not a great time to be investing money. But somebody will crack it. Either with a new musical approach, something that's more entertaining than more bloody rock-n-pop, or some innovative marketing and/or promotion. I just don't have much riding on it being me.... Chris
Members ZERO HEROES Posted October 5, 2009 Members Posted October 5, 2009 There is a category I fall into.... don't need a label, don't need money, hires the really good talent. IMO, you do what makes you happy. If giving it away makes you happy, then do it. The best way to figure out if it's worth it or not is if you get more back than selling the songs.
Members ZERO HEROES Posted October 5, 2009 Members Posted October 5, 2009 I just don't see where anyone is going to get anywhere by just posting stuff online and hoping the world will somehow magically be aware of their genius. That's cause it can't be done. Someone has to do something for music to get popular, especially famous.
Members richardmac Posted October 5, 2009 Members Posted October 5, 2009 I just don't see where anyone is going to get anywhere by just posting stuff online and hoping the world will somehow magically be aware of their genius. Nobody said that. Unfortunately, some people might think that... The point is that if you want to make people aware of your music, the Internet is an extremely powerful tool. You can use it for marketing AND distribution. Whether you charge money is up to you. Putting music online is the easy part - doing online marketing is the hard part. There are ways to do online marketing with no money, but to me they're time consuming and extremely hit and miss. You are right that money is holding us all back in that area. But if there's a single area where it makes sense to focus and get better at, this would be it. I noticed this when I put up my first CD on CDBaby. For every X number of page hits, I'd end up with a CD sale. Even a math-challenged guy like me could figure out that the more traffic I got, the more likely I was to sell CD's. Internet radio can help... it's a good idea to get on as many Internet radio stations as possible. We should probably spend more time in this forum talking about inexpensive or free Internet marketing that works...
Members sventvkg Posted October 5, 2009 Members Posted October 5, 2009 I find this discussion interesting but it's sad in a way as well. What i'm going to say are my findings based on mine and my many full time musician's experiences selling albums. First, none of us are famous. We're all Indie and either tour a lot or gig our asses off locally and all of us...ALL OF US SELL CD's. The model works fine for performing musicians playing shows of their own, who connect with the crowd and have good music. Now, I believe there are ways we can move more product and I'm going to do some market research with some of these ideas in the next few months, but my primary focus is always getting the music into as many people's hands as possible. THIS should be the goal because it's builds fans and NOT selling music. Frankly if you're just a bedroom singer songwriter who's primarily making music for his or her own enjoyment, why not give it away? Look at it as sharing your gift with whomever may want it? Might make ya feel good, ya know? The added benefit will be that if you do play a show and enough people like your music and have gotten it, you WILL have people show up to see it performed. You bedroom guys who simply can't get that concept need to understand that those of us in the field have seen this happen. I have old CD's that I want to move because i'm working on 2 new ones so i'm going to give them away for tips and even if someone doesn't have any tip money, I'm going to encourage that they take the CD anyway. Other's who have been using this model are consistently getting more music into more people's hands and still making more money from giving away those disks via tips then they used to purely selling the CD's. The reason for this is people are appreciative of the gesture and do put 10's and 20's in the jar when they are taking a CD. This model WORKS, has and is being used successfully by many artists. In fact I may very well use it for my new albums as well. Again, this model and selling music in general won't work well for the bedroom guy so you guys may as well just give your stuff away. That's the paradigm we are living under today and rather then kick and scream about it if you want people to hear your stuff, put it out there.
Members Matximus Posted October 5, 2009 Members Posted October 5, 2009 It didn't gain her much, except that a lot of people made fun of her, which is sad. She's totally correct in speaking out. I'm totally against illegal file sharing. Yeah. She sounded like a big rich whiner. Funny enough, I just got her first record for free the old fashioned way. Borrowed it from the library and ripped it. I'm glad I didn't pay for it. It kind of blows. Anyway, there is absolutely nothing artists or the recording industry can do to change consumer's minds about music: It is free now. Period. Embrace it or whine about it. Doesn't matter. We'll steal your record either way.
Members Kramerguy Posted October 5, 2009 Members Posted October 5, 2009 one thing I've never really seen brought up- Why would I buy, or even bother to download a song for free, when I can listen to that song anytime, on demand, for free, legally (from the web)? you can find between youtube, various music sites, etc.. free "on demand" songs and even myspace, you can listen to the songs all day long, the only reason to purchase is to download, which if you have an ipod, used to be the way to do it.. but why would I pay $0.99 to download a song to my ipod when I can listen to it via web on my iphone for free? The model is still changing.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.