Tommy Lee Gets Interactive With Fan Generated Content

from the Karaoke2.0 dept

Ron Kujawa writes to us about The Public Record and Tommy Lee's project to collaborate with fans to produce his next album, Public Mayhem. Aiming to interact with fans and get more attention, Tommy Lee has posted some rough "stem" tracks online for anyone to download, and he's encouraging fans to upload their own music that might go with those tracks. (This is similar to what Nettwerk's K-OS did earlier this year with a contest for fans to remix his tracks.) Ultimately, the really good fan generated music will make it on the new Public Mayhem album with credits to the fan and royalties that go to charity. So every week, Tommy (or his production team) will release another raw track for fans to play with, review the submissions, and look to incorporate stuff into the album as he sees fit. Obviously, not everyone can make it onto the album, but if you're an amateur musician, there's not much to lose -- and there's a chance that Tommy might like your chutzpah or something. Either way, more music is being created and shared, and it sounds like a win-win for everyone.

On top of that, though, Tommy is also posting jamming tips for amateur rockers to help folks out with their music -- which seems like a great interactive component to this project. I'm not personally a fan of Tommy Lee's music, and the fan entries that have been highlighted so far haven't really piqued my interest. (From the ones I've listened to, there's some talent, but nothing I really like -- and there aren't even any submissions that so bad that you can enjoy them as a spectacle.) But still, Tommy is very likely training a new generation of musicians with his weekly YouTube clips filled with pointers, and the evolution of musical skills based on Tommy's tutelage has the potential to produce ever better songs. And it doesn't stop with Tommy, The Public Record is looking to do similar projects with other musicians, so we can all look forward to a virtuous cycle of fans creating music with more rockstars -- perhaps creating more rockstars and even more great music.



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    MarksAngel (profile), Oct 29th, 2009 @ 7:23pm

    This is cool :D

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    James Pond (profile), Oct 29th, 2009 @ 8:03pm

    Pretty amazing example of the new music paradigm.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 29th, 2009 @ 8:30pm

    Two things:

    (a) Rich enough not to care, and
    (b) not missing out on album sales.

    Interestingly, if the music is all "shared" in the end, there will be no royalties to give to charity. Amazing how that wheel spins.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 30th, 2009 @ 3:21am

    Re:

    (a) Rich enough not to care about what exactly? You have to be rich to interact with fans?
    (b) Not missing out on album sales? Could you be a little more clear on what you mean by this?

    If there's a plan to have album credits and royalties, then I'd say that's a guarantee there's a plan to sell the album.

    I think this is a fascinating idea. Has Tommy Lee done this much to connect with fans before? I don't think I've ever seen his name sprout up in the discussions before.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 30th, 2009 @ 4:12am

    Re:

    Even if all the music is shared, there will still be album sales. As has been pointed out many times in these forums, people who download tend to buy more. On top of that, they also tend to introduce more people to the music who may also buy copies. So to say that if all the music is shared there will be no royalties is a misstatement on your part, if not outright intentional misdirection.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Charles Vestal, Oct 30th, 2009 @ 4:45am

    This "nothing to lose" scenario seems a lot like spec work: http://www.no-spec.com/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 30th, 2009 @ 5:02am

    Re: Re:

    people who download tend to buy more

    Actually the study used to justify that (from Canada) was pretty weak tea. The downloaders were only slightly more likely than average to buy more, and when you eliminate non-buyers from the bottom, they were not really more likely.

    Further, this number is very disappointing, because in theory downloaders are the biggest music fans, and normally the top 20% of any group like that would do significantly more than the next 20%. However, they were not that much more inclined.

    It was the same with concert tickets as well, if you didn't sell a single ticket to a show to filetraders, it was something like a 400 seat different in 10,000 seats. If you can sell 9600 seats without file traders, it's likely you would find 400 more non-filetraders to buy seats. Effectively the Canadian music industry could live just fine without file traders.

    So sorry, that argument doesn't hold much water.

    See:

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090828/0444096038.shtml

    and other articles on techdirt. Mostly, they prove that file traders buy way less music than "rabid fans" should buy, not buying significantly higher than the average. This applied to recorded music and live music.

    So back on point, the question still stands: how many dollars go to charity if the record is just downloaded and nobody actually buys it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    HFC, Oct 30th, 2009 @ 6:17am

    Re: Re:

    Years ago, he had a contest with Acid Pro. I don't think he put the winner's work on his album, but it was a similar remix kind of deal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Lucretious, Oct 30th, 2009 @ 6:25am

    1.) Great idea

    2.) Tommy, your in your 40's, your not 22 anymore. Dress appropriately

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Oct 30th, 2009 @ 8:27am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Mostly, they prove that file traders buy way less music than "rabid fans" should buy

    I had no idea there was an official amount. Please, do tell, us, what do the ruling overlords say is the official amount that rabid fans should buy?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 30th, 2009 @ 9:09am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Ahh Mike, again with a question that is unprovable, thus trying to dismiss an entire argument. It's almost funny to watch you do it.

    Without getting into a huge research project to make you happy, let's just say that simply logic applies. If 20% never buy music, and 60% buy an average amount, then 20% buy double the average to make up for it.

    It's not a stepped thing, but since not everyone is buying, someone has to buy more than average to make up for the non-buyers.

    These top music fans (active downloaders) were not any more likely to buy music than the average buyer was. They are the biggest fans of music, have larger collections, and don't buy anything more than anyone else.

    Here's your own best answer: Your entire CwF + sell them overpriced stuff theory requires that a subset of fans are willing to pay excessive amounts of obtain "rarities". Those would be the same fans in the past that would have owned every album, every bootleg, every whatever.

    So you more than anyone would know, right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Raybone (profile), Oct 30th, 2009 @ 12:02pm

    To Anon..(the Troll above)

    Man...Ive been reading your ignorant posts for weeks now..and I must say that..
    You sir/miss have proven actually how little you know of current music trends and that you know even less about modern music history..

    "Those would be the same fans in the past that would have owned every album, every bootleg, every whatever."

    You just described every "rabid" Grateful Dead fan I know, who, buy the way freely allowed their music to be shared..

    Is it that you actually think the old way of doing music biz was better?..Do you know anything about what that was like for artists? For creativity? Originality?..The monopoly on culture by corporations who care nothing of art, only the bottom line, is over..and they(and i guess you) cant stand it.

    Pray tell what is your solution? What does the perfect world of music and culture look like to you AC? Do you think suing fans, destroying tech advancement, and allowing less freedom is good for art? Do you really think the REAL artists out there have a problem with this new situation where they find they have more bargaining power, more options, and more control (and as a result are more personally responsible for their own success or failure) over their careers?
    Note: I couldn't care any less about the fake cookie cutter artists that cant make it in this new environment...they have been part of the problem for decades. Let them learn to swim or drown..who knows maybe there is a real market for banal, derivative artists..at least now I have a choice...not on the radio yet..but on the internet, I do..
    This did not exist when I started in this industry in the late 80s...

    Ive seen both sides of the equation up close...and let me tell you..not one real artist I know is complaining, and I know, perform and work with a lot of them..


    In fact they are celebrating the democratizing effect of the internet and the new-found freedom to live, work and create without the monopoly controls that used to dominate and homogenize the music industry..

    Please educate yourself and stop being such a troll..
    there are well researched books on the inner workings of the industry throughout the 80s and 90s..you can start with "Hit Men" by Frederic Dannen..also you can check out the multitudes of examples discussed right here on TD on how real artists are making a better living now than ever before when there was NO chance given them by the corporate gatekeepers of yesterday.

    rant/off
    peace raybone
    musician, producer, engineer

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 30th, 2009 @ 12:30pm

    Re: To Anon..(the Troll above)

    Raybone, many musicians are "celebrating" because they aren't aware of the downside. Example, many of the in mainstream music may not have realized that the prize at the end of the rainbow, getting a record deal and getting well enough known to do this for a living, get famous, whatever, is being dismantled.

    Basically, it's like a swimming pool. Before it was 10 feet deep, 100x100, and only a certain number of people were in the pool. Now it is 1000x1000, but the water isn't even ankle deep for most of them. So they get the feeling of being in the water, but now it is very difficult for anyone to swim.

    In the area of "bar band" to "struggling regional artist" things are slightly better because bands can do more to get noticed. But the upside from there is getting smaller all the time. They are celebrating getting from nothing to "1 inch of water", not realizing that the water isn't getting any deeper.

    So when you say "Let them learn to swim or drown", the reality is nobody is in enough water any more to do either.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Raybone (profile), Oct 30th, 2009 @ 7:33pm

    to AC...

    Thank You for responding in a more civil way than my post..you humble me..but also confuse me in that your tone is different when referring to Mike.

    However, I must dispute the points you made because the evidence I'm seeing from my perspective within the industry leads me to draw radically different conclusions. I don't see the industry as an emptying pool, but as a limitless, vast ocean now, open to all who have gumption and talent to make a living doing what they love without signing into indentured slavery.
    you mentioned...
    "Example, many of the in mainstream music may not have realized that the prize at the end of the rainbow, getting a record deal and getting well enough known to do this for a living, get famous, whatever, is being dismantled."

    Ok firstly...where is the evidence that the ability to make a living in music is being dismantled? I see much evidence to the contrary..in fact..long before the internet was widespread..i knew many cover bands who's members were doing well enough working 3-4 nights a week to buy houses and send their kids to private school. Ive been in these bands. trust me, if you have real talent and are smart with your life choices, you can do better than most college graduates.

    check out the story of Imogen Heap...an incredibly creative and original(subjective, i know) artist who was soured by her brief experience with being signed. She then pursued her solo career like any small business. She took out a loan to live and write for a year..released her album...the album did so well..she created her own company and had the majors crawling to her for a contract to distribute in US, Japan, and Europe. She bargained from a position of power, due to her amazing following garnered through her own efforts online and allowing her fans to hear her music.

    other great examples include Ani Defranco and LTJ Bukem not to mention the various artists mentioned on TD.

    what Im saying is that there has been a paradigm shift in the industry due to technology that requires a paradigm shift in approaches to becoming successful in music. Even in what the definition of success is. Perhaps we may see the decline of the superstar...I doubt that since Ive seen the power of personality cults.

    However, I predict there will be a massive increase in middle-class full-time artists. Its already happening now. More music will be available that is just as professional as anything put out by a major.

    you might try looking at whats happening from a different perspective. the pool is not emptying...its bone dry and unnecessary, because everyone is swimming in the ocean now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 31st, 2009 @ 4:14pm

    Re: to AC...

    Raybone, my tone with Mike is often because he tends to talk out of his ass a bit on some subjects, taking rare exceptions and attempting to stretch them to cover everything. He is funny as heck to read sometimes,and even funnier when he gets all grumpy and starts talking down to his "fans".

    Anyway...

    "where is the evidence that the ability to make a living in music is being dismantled?"

    This is actually pretty easy to answer, even using Techdirt's own posts. Mike recently ran a survey that shows that the music industry in the UK is "growing". Actually, combined music sales and live shows ticket sales aren't increasing faster than inflation over the period, and considering that some concerts have doubled and tripled in price, the net number of tickets and records sold appears to be dropping.

    Now, as to why I think the ability to make a living in music is being disabled is because of the dilution of income. For those who made nothing before, making something now seems good, but diluted enough, it no longer has the ability to truly feed anyone.

    (for the following part, please don't pick at the numbers... I have no idea how many profitable acts are in the US right now. These are figuring numbers)

    let's say in the US right now there are 5000 total acts actually making a real living in music. In theory, you double the number of acts, and you half the income per act. Now many of those who were making a good living are making a barely breaking even living, and those who were just getting by are heading back to McDonalds for more income.

    Remember, there is not a single indication that there is any more money spent on music than the rate of inflation.

    Now, take this one step further. When you disband the record labels, it is likely that there will, over time, be fewer and fewer mega groups. Now, mega groups do collect a big part of the total income, but they also cause it. Will they money that was previously spent on mega acts be respent in music, or will it go (as Mike has suggested before) to other entertainment options, like video games or other items? There is no true study on the situation, but the risk is that the money leaves the industry altogether.

    Taking it one step further, one of the things Mike wants to get rid of is licensing. Well, in the UK, that is 25% or so of the total business. Removing that money from game hurts writers, performers, and removed another income stream.

    So for me, the people at the bottom who are "getting more" right now think that things are progressing nicely, but I think it will be shown that the "new way" won't be profitable enough to keep most people exclusively in music.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This