BigChampagne's Ultimate Chart (a/o February 10th):
1. “What Doesn't Kill You (Stronger),” Kelly Clarkson
2. “Set Fire to the Rain,” Adele
3. “Turn Me On,” David Guetta
4. “Rack City,” TYGA
5. “Good Feeling,” Flo Rida
6. “Smooth Criminal (Glee Cast Version),” Glee Cast
7. “Young, Wild & Free,” Snoop Dogg & Wiz Khalifa
8. “Domino ,” Jessie J
9. “Sexy and I Know It,” LMFAO
10. “Ass Back Home ,” Gym Class Heroes
#NMS
This week's New Music Seminar was an absolute overload of information for attendees, a large percentage of whom were aspiring artists. The tips were flowing strong, and those taking notes probably have a year's worth of information to sift through. In some ways, "you had to be there," but there were some important themes that should not be missed - by artists, labels, marketing teams, managers, and everyone in-between.
Here are five to ponder...
(1) DYI is not DTF, and DIY has its limitations.
DIY - or 'do it yourself' marketing for the uninitiated - was widely viewed as an early startup approach during the sessions. ReverbNation CEO Mike Doernberg called pure DIY "crap," though at the earliest stages it can help an artist get some initial traction. "The DIY problem is that people think it's DIY for life - it's not... you cannot do it yourself," said Steven Van Zandt. "All the best records ever made were made by an army of people."
By contrast, DTF, or direct-to-fan, is highly related but ultimately something different. The marketing team surrounding Amanda Palmer, for example, is going direct-to-fan. But Amanda is not doing it all by herself.
(2) Consider Consolidation.
When looking for a direct-to-fan partner, consider the advantages of putting multiple services under one roof. The reason is that different platforms and initiatives are frequently interrelated, and harder to analyze independently. For example, a package that includes analytics, store distribution and email management can provide lots of coordinated intelligence that would be harder to understand independently.
So, the one-off widget can be isolating. Then again, more developed teams and labels can easily 'roll their own' and do the analysis and strategy by themselves. But someone is coordinating and analyzing the bigger picture, not swimming in the flotsam and jetsam of disparate partners and services.
(3) Control Is Good: Think More Data, Better Cuts, More Flexible Pricing.
Artists have more control than ever over transactions with their fans. But, the preferred transactions are ones that give artists the most data, the best percentages and the greatest pricing flexibility. So, while artists are wise to put their content on iTunes, the better sale happens on the artist site.
(4) Quality Is the Beginning of the Conversation...
You've heard this one before, though it was the source of considerable discussion at the event. Amidst all the marketing tips, platforms, and strategies, the assumption throughout is that the music is something people really want to listen to.
There was a wide range of opinion on the matter. The definition of quality is incredibly subjective, though the real judges are fans. Either fans are reacting and nodding their heads, or they are not. And once the judgement is made that the music is great, fans become evangelists as a rule.
But what resonates? Just Blaze urged artists to focus on originality, while making sure all the creative juices are still accessible to audiences. He also urged artists to "focus on one lane," and build on their strongest genres or styles.
Steven Van Zandt told artists to focus a lot more on their creative process and musical chops. That means putting activities like arranging, composing, and performing before recording and instant-uploading. Little Steven also urged artists to dig into the roots of their music - 50s and 60s for rock n' roll, early 80s for hip-hop - and to work out the kinks at a smaller venue. "The closer you get to the roots, the better your expression will be," Van Zandt said.
(5) Consider "FQ," or the "F*&k-ability Quotient"
So who won the NMS band competition? Hotspur, a group of great-looking guys with lots of sex appeal. Or, as Kelly Cutrone referred to it, "FQ" for or the "F*&k-ability Quotient". "Hotspur has FQ in spades," Cutrone quipped to the delight of the crowd.
Sounds hilarious, but Cutrone correctly noted that some of the most successful acts in history - from the Rolling Stones to the Jonas Brothers - appealed to girls based on great looks and on-stage charisma. So what was that about quality again?
Comments Closed
keithmohr Friday, July 23, 2010
Lets face it.. no one in the industry knows what to do, and everyone is grasping at straws. It wont be long until we see musicians on every street corner with their cases open collecting pennies. But at least these artists will know exactly how many pennies have been thrown in.
The music industry's greed and slowness to react to technology has caused it to implode. And that's the way it goes.
Karma.. she is an *itch.
DontJump Friday, July 23, 2010
tru dat! but, I will say that the confusion is the best times to try new things and make the new industry. personally I also think the focus simply needs to be on creating great music, and letting the business chips fall in place after that, even if it takes a decade to sort out.
jbedbus Friday, July 23, 2010
More jokes and absurdity from Resnikoff... "let's hold seminars to convince anyone who hopes to be a musician that they still need us!"
Quality? Now the record industry wants to talk about quality?
FQ? That's EXACTLY the kind of non-creative "industry" garbage that real artists can eliminate from the equation thanks to DIY. Unique and original can finally trump the industry's generic, inane idea of "pretty."
As much as I love Little Steven, he is completely out of touch on this issue. The classic albums of the past required teams of people, but that's not necessarily true anymore. It's time to redefine quality and the pinnacles of artistic acheivement. I am positive it no longer needs to involve lots of people in white shirts taking undeserved money from truly creative artists.
Idaho87 Friday, July 23, 2010
jbedbus, I hate to say but this isn't the man talking down to you or telling you what to do. I thought this was helpful: I don't have to take all of the points but it definitely got me thinking about how I should do my thing - with or without a company. It's my choice, and yours too.
bydesign Friday, July 23, 2010
great article.
seems like one of the biggest takeaways was that success rations are abysmal. so that's the truth as depressing as it is but artists need to really really love their art against those odds, and be willing to risk everything.
Maxwellian Friday, July 23, 2010
ha ha... had to jump in here. #5 is just hilariuos. but also really true - music is all about sex! that's at least half the reason people get onstage. I dont care if it's clasical or hair metal.
theexcitableboy Friday, July 23, 2010
As it is, and has always been, artists who are successful have marketability. The "FQ" is, and always will be, one of the greatest factors in music. The only case where this doesn't, necessarily, hold true is if an artist has been discovered posthumously. And even then isn't the "wanting that which we cannot have" always a huge draw?
The way a guitarist slides his hands and fingers over the neck and fretboard. The gyration of a singer's hips as the bass rolls the verse under a banshee wail. The driving rhythm that a drummer pounds into the undulating audience. All of this is the rhythm and pulse of the human spirit. All of this is sex. All of this is carnal. It isn't all about aesthetics. It's about attitude and imparting something greater than just a "phat beat" into the very being of the listener.
I would wager that anyone who doesn't understand what Steve Van Zandt is saying about "knowing your roots" has resigned themselves to merely being a part of this, all too recent, spoiled generation of "pop-heads." Even if these naysayers are able to find marginal success in the "scene," they will never understand what it is to impart life to, and with, music. Comprehending the basic parts of the evolution of music (pick a genre, any genre) is necessary to furthering the art itself. Shame on you for denying the musical DNA that supports the medium. It's bigger than you'll ever be and should be respected as such.
As far as his statements on needing a team of people to make great albums and music, I will say that every great author needs an editor (more often than not a team of them). Not to take out the intrinsic value of the initial message of the piece, but to fine-tune that message into something more accessible for its audience. After all, isn't the whole point of being an artist to make art available to as many people as possible, both in its overall comprehension and in its demographic breadth?
Thanks for the great article,
Will Saturday, July 24, 2010
Looks most definately count! A cool looking frontman/girl (not necessarily conventionally handsome or pretty), a natural star who stands out from a crowd matters!! It did in the 60's, 70's 80's and 90's and has done up to this day. If there is more than one member in the group with these attribute then that's a big plus. Most successful solo artists past and present have that X factor for sure.
The big problem is that there is NO mystery any more. Back in the day, bands were these objects of fascination, untouchable. Fans were thirsty to know what their lives were like - what they ate, who they shagged, where they lived etc etc. Now you can contact them on Facebook and Twitter or meet them for a burrito in Taco Bell.
Bring back MYSTERY and GATEKEEPERS and music will sell again.
You need me to speak at some of these stupid get togethers. Same ol' faces at Musexpo year on year.
OUR SPONSORS
© 2011 All Rights Reserved
Follow Us