Share/E-mail This Story

Email This



Measuring Success By Fan Passion, Not Billboard Chart Position

from the that's-how-it's-done dept

Kyle Bylin, over at Hypebot, has an excellent interview with Yan, the manager of the hip hop band Jedi Mind Trick, where he talks about how the band has embraced the internet to become much more successful. The interview is chock full of the type of thing we write about here. For example, on the band's response to "file sharing":
For JMT, it has been more of a blessing. Yeah, they've lost sales to illegal file sharing just like everyone else, but the efficiency of those file sharing networks has allowed their music to spread across the world in a way that the physical distribution network never achieved.

Those file-sharing networks are definitely part of the reason why JMT can play a show in front of 2,000 kids in Bogota, Colombia or to a similarly-sized crowd in Bucharest, Romania. They may have lost sales, but they have gained new throngs of fans by playing live in places that their music may have never reached without the Internet. With the improvements in digital distribution, the hope is that file sharers will become supporters.
This highlights a really important point that many of the critics to these ideas often miss. They seem to assume a zero sum world, where those who embrace the free distribution of their work are automatically "giving up" sales. But what JMT has discovered is that by accepting this, they've build a huge fanbase in places where it wouldn't have been possible before. As Yan notes later in the interview:
Over the 14 years of their career, the Internet enabled them to take what started as a passionate fan base in say Philly, NYC, Boston, and maybe a few other major cities like Los Angeles and grow that fan base across the world.

Without the Internet, they may have been relegated to a regional phenomenon or maybe a group that plays 10-15 shows a year in major markets. With the help of the Internet, they've grown from a regional niche into a worldwide niche with a worldwide fan base. They're 14 years into their career and there are still cities that they haven't played where there is a demand to see them play, so they're very fortunate in that respect.
Yan also shows how the band realized early on that the market had changed and (unlike some others) quickly figured out how to use that changing market to their own advantage:
The internet created an opportunity for them to have their music distributed across the world in a way that physical distribution hadn't achieved. They recognized that opportunity and seized it by developing their worldwide touring business. In the early years, they took low guarantees to go play for their fans; they were confident that they would draw a crowd and get invited back. Now, those tour dates are the anchor of their business. Between the creative accounting of labels and depleting sales, they knew that they had to develop their touring business if they hoped to carve out a sustainable career. Ironically, in this digital age, artists are looking to the analog experience of playing a show to a crowd of actual human beings as the cornerstone of their businesses.
Furthermore, Yan talks about the importance of connecting with fans, and notes how that's more important in the long run than how many albums are sold -- in part because they know that they will get support via other means:
The rise of the social networks has been a great asset for JMT as well. Those networks have created unprecedented access for fans to artists and vice versa. Our business is a customer service business; we care about how the fans feel about the music. We're always looking for new ways to interact with the fans, because the fans' reactions to what JMT is doing musically are a better barometer of their success than SoundScan numbers. For a long time now, we've chosen to measure their success in the fans' passion for the music rather than Billboard chart positions.
Not only that, but Yan also demonstrates how fans like supporting the indie bands and artists that they find. We've been hearing from some lately, who claim that no musician will be able to make money in the future because there will just be too much competition. But that assumes, incorrectly, that fans don't want to support bands -- they just need a good reason to buy:
It seems like human nature to root for the underdog. Fans of independent music are typically a different breed of music fan, because they generally have to work to discover you and they're actively seeking out music rather than waiting for it to be spoon-fed to them through traditional radio, TV, etc. outlets, so when they discover you they wear it like a badge of honor. JMT has fans that send them pictures of themselves with tattoos of JMT's logo or lyrics -- they're literally wearing the music as a permanent badge of honor. That type of passion isn't measured by a Billboard chart, but we're fine with that. We've built a business model that exists outside the gates of that hierarchy.
Great interview by Kyle, and it's great to see yet another band that has this all figured out. In fact, they've got it so figured out that they've set up an artist management business to help other artists do the same thing as well.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 16th, 2010 @ 7:04pm

    20 years ago it would have been 'embracing magazines' 'embracing talk shows' or 'embracing radio'. the technology changes but the deal is still the same. really nothing new to see here. a typical friday post from the masnick, wherever he is.

     

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

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 16th, 2010 @ 7:30pm

    Re:

    You're so adorable! How do you do it?

     

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

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 16th, 2010 @ 7:31pm

    Re:

    Radio? You mean that evil den of music piracy that is raporising artists?

     

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

  4.  
    identicon
    Casey, Apr 16th, 2010 @ 7:34pm

    Does the band have to pay George Lucas for the use of the word Jedi?

     

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

  5.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Apr 16th, 2010 @ 9:46pm

    Re:"" .... and "lessons from the mouths of babes" ...

    AC - "20 years ago it would have been 'embracing magazines' 'embracing talk shows' or 'embracing radio'. the technology changes but the deal is still the same."

    You make a very important point there. Business is about adapting to changing circumstances and adapting. The problem is that in this instance the record labels arent adapting.

     

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

  6.  
    icon
    ranon (profile), Apr 17th, 2010 @ 1:32am

    Snakes on a Plane

    If that were true, Snakes on a Plane would have been a great hit.

     

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

  7.  
    icon
    Nick Coghlan (profile), Apr 17th, 2010 @ 2:59am

    Re: Snakes on a Plane

    The SoaP phenomenon wasn't passion, it was just a funny one-liner/mental image.

     

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

  8.  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Apr 17th, 2010 @ 4:33am

    The standard against which to measure the success of bands who use the internet to distribute music and to gain exposure is not the old label system.

    First, the vast majority of bands who used the label system came out of is owing money on their advance, i.e., earning less than no money. So any internet band which is earning money is automatically doing better that the vast majority of label bands. They're not going to come out of it in debt.

    Second, the bands that did win in the label the Beatles, U2, the Rolling Stones, are very fricken rare. You can't really compare the average band who might have a life expectancy of five years to such bands. It'd be like comparing an hourly worker with those few people who win lotteries. Random anomalies cannot be the standard against which success is measured.

    No, the standard against which internet bands must be measured would be bands prior to the computer revolution who did not use the internet. If you wanted to be a success without a label pre-internet, you'd have to tour. All the fricken time. That's what Bob Seger sang about in Turn the Page.

    There was simply no other means of getting your music out there. Radio would not play you unless you had a major label deal and every other radio station played your music.

    Music magazines would not write about you unless you had a major label deal.

    You could not burn a bunch of your CDs and hand/mail them out. You'd have to make cassettes which were a lot more expensive and time consuming.

    There was simply no way to print your fancy labels for your cassettes.

    You couldn't use your own PC as a studio, you'd have to go to a very expensive studio and pay by the hour.

    So the best you could do to get your music out to potential fans was to drive from city to city playing gigs. And even then, the best you could hope for, for all that work, was to get signed to a label and not owe a bunch of money after your time is over. There was simply no option to do it on your own. Wow. That's a life worth living.

     

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

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2010 @ 5:13am

    Measuring failure by the passage of laws:

    http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=piracy+bill&scoring=a&hl=en&ned=us&s a=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=1980&as_hdate=1999&lnav=hist6

    According to Google there never was more protection then today and they still can't make it LoL

     

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

  10.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Apr 17th, 2010 @ 6:58am

    Re:

    I do not recall the "embracing" twenty years ago to which you refer. Do you have any examples of this you would like to share?

     

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

  11.  
    identicon
    ToasterPoster, Apr 17th, 2010 @ 7:03am

    Re:

    Your powers of observation are simply out of this world.

    Where / how did you obtain these super powers and why did you chose to use them for evil rather than good?

     

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

  12.  
    identicon
    Pixelation, Apr 17th, 2010 @ 7:48am

    Middlemen

    It's the middlemen who are crying the loudest. The record labels are becoming extraneous, just not fast enough.

     

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

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2010 @ 8:32am

    it is sort of like measuring the taste of food by checking your bowel movements later. if you want to change the measurement system to be something that doesnt really have antyhing to do with popularity, and replace it only with the stupidity of a few fans, it would sort of become meaningless.

     

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

  14.  
    identicon
    Bill Smith, Apr 17th, 2010 @ 9:19am

    Defining Success

    The critical issue in this is "How do you define success?"

    It used to be that a contract with a major label was generally considered a necessity because most artists wanted to be able to make a living from their art.

    But the artists and many others have learned that they can make a modest living from their art through word of mouth, connecting with fans and other methods that the major corporations view with utter contempt...largely because the corps can't take a huge cut from those methods.

    These artists know they are very unlikely to ever get "rockstar rich" but seem perfectly content making a reasonable living doing something they love instead of being stuck in an unfulfilling job to support their music habit.

    I say good for them.

    As a writer, I view success in that same definition...I will be perfectly happy to earn a modest living on my books. I just want to be able to earn enough that I can keep on writing. Anything more is just bonus. That's something I'm willing to work really hard towards...and because I sell direct to my fans, I can make a reasonable living on a far smaller number of sales than by going through a 40-cent-royalty-per-sale publisher.

    These methods provide that means to the creators who have talent and the motivation to find and connect with their fans.

     

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

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2010 @ 11:07am

    Re:

    I cannot wait for success to be determined by how many shiny plastic discs one has sold.

    "We sold eight hundred albums! We're the best in the world!"

     

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

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2010 @ 12:25pm

    Re: Re:"" .... and "lessons from the mouths of babes" ...

    they are slowly. but the adaptation pushed here puts them out of business and pretty much wipes out a 10 billion a year industry they arent in a rush to do that are they? the current methods are transient at best and i think they are holding out for something better which they will likely get.

     

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

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2010 @ 2:06pm

    Re: Defining Success

    the issue isnt how you measure success as much as how much you have to destroy other peoples success to get there. trading 10 superstar acts for 100 beer money bands isnt exactly a good trade and the masnick knows it. but he seems to think that money will appear out of nowhere to pay for it.

     

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

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2010 @ 2:36pm

    Re: Re: Defining Success

    All art is subjective but you keep on believing otherwise.

     

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

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2010 @ 2:37pm

    Re: Re: Re:"" .... and "lessons from the mouths of babes" ...

    No, they won't.

     

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

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2010 @ 4:40pm

    Re: Re: Snakes on a Plane

    the fans were die hards. by the masnicks measurement system it is one of the greatest movies of all times. now you understand why this entire post by the masnick is sort of stupid.

     

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

  21.  
    identicon
    ToasterPoster, Apr 17th, 2010 @ 5:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Snakes on a Plane

    the AC -> "this entire post by the masnick is sort of stupid."

    One data point proves an opinion to be correct.
    Nice.
    You did not do well in science class did you?

     

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

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2010 @ 5:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Snakes on a Plane

    Uh, Snakes on a Plane was definitely a huge success, comparatively. It made back double the cost of production, which is far more than any other movie of the same quality can say. Are you aware of how many cheesy B-movies make a loss?

    Nonetheless, it's also a case of not understanding what the fans want. The passion of the fanbase was purely about the meme, and very little to do with the movie. Marketing idiots thought "hey, look at all these fans, we'll be rich!", while in reality it was just internet goof-offs who liked shouting stupid catchphrases and jumping on a bandwagon.

     

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

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2010 @ 5:22pm

    Re: Re: Defining Success

    How dare competitors in a competitive market displace their competition!

    How dare anyone question the immortality of the superstar act!

    How dare 100 beer money bands take precious money from customers who want to pay them!

    What kind of insanity are you promoting here?!

     

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

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2010 @ 6:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Snakes on a Plane

    that is only one data point in a sea of datapoints. plenty of things have been internet hits that in reality suck. plenty of those video game and comic inspired movies got plenty of fanboi love and sucked major ass but by the masnicks standard the intensity of the fans around the project make it amazing. it just shows how out of touch with reality the masnick really is.

     

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

  25.  
    identicon
    ToasterPoster, Apr 17th, 2010 @ 7:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snakes on a Plane

    I realize that it is difficult for "the AC" to understand points of view which differ from what is comfortable to "the AC". This is normal, do not get upset about it.

    There are things one can do to broaden the mind. It is not easy, and should not be undetaken by the light hearted. I find reading the opinions of others to be quite enlightening.

     

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

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2010 @ 8:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snakes on a Plane

    there is more than one ac, so there is not a 'the ac'. there is only one masnick, guru on high and hopes of the downloading masses, thus the masnick. broaden your mind and think, not that the masnick really wants you to. he appears to hope you swallow the pap whole.

     

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

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2010 @ 9:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Defining Success

    you miss the point. it isnt disruptive, it is just stupid. it is playing off the existing system stealing from it to suck off beer money. without the existing system they would all pretty much disappear. the current stupidity only works because there is money in the system to make it work. when the money goes away it doesnt come back. the masnick knows this and has already talked about the shift of money away from music and movies to other entertainment and lifestyle items. the music business isnt getting bigger it is getting smaller.

     

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

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2010 @ 9:45pm

    Re:

    And TAM wonders why the recording industry is dying. Perhaps it's because they think people who are fans of their product are stupid.

     

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

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2010 @ 9:46pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Defining Success

    "the music business isnt getting bigger it is getting smaller."

    Except, you know...it is getting bigger, except for the irrelevant plastic disc sector.

    But don't let facts bother you. You never do, anyway.

     

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

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2010 @ 11:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Defining Success

    Seriously, you are so adorable.

     

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

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2010 @ 12:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snakes on a Plane

    This website isn't about judging what is "amazing". We don't care what you think sucks or doesn't suck.

    This is about business successes. And yes, Snakes on a Plane was a business success. Not as successful as some marketing hacks thought it would be, but far more successful than any other movie of the same quality.

    Apparently you don't think making a good cash return on your investment and work isn't success, but hopefully your mind will change once you actually have to start earning a living.

     

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

  32.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Apr 18th, 2010 @ 12:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snakes on a Plane

    "the AC" has spoken! all hail "the AC"!

     

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

  33.  
    identicon
    Andrew D. Todd, Apr 18th, 2010 @ 4:50am

    Kinds of Authorship, and Economic Models.

    People seem to take a fairly narrow view of authorship, in a way. I would like you to look at Henry Adams' classic _Mont-Saint-Michel and Chartres_, 1904 [1913]

    http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/mntsm10.txt

    and especially at Chapter II, "LA CHANSON DE ROLAND," in which Adams seeks to locate a great work of literature in its social context, a social context of its audience. Adams' candidate for the part-authorship of the poem is one Taillefer, the Duke of Normandy's minstrel. He finds a source, describing the Battle of Hastings from a distance of only a hundred years, which is not bad for the middle ages:

    Taillefer who was famed for song,
    Mounted on a charger strong,
    Rode on before the Duke, and sang
    Of Roland and of Charlemagne,
    Oliver and the vassals all
    Who fell in fight at Roncesvals.
    When they had ridden till they saw
    The English battle close before:
    "Sire," said Taillefer, "a grace!
    I have served you long and well;
    All reward you owe me still;
    To-day repay me if you please.
    For all guerdon I require,
    And ask of you in formal prayer,
    Grant to me as mine of right
    The first blow struck in the fight."
    The Duke answered: "I grant."

    The story goes that Taillefer was killed in the battle, the common fate of the vanguard. His life-goal, at a certain level, was to become the hero of his own epic. The artist was an expression of the values of his society, in this case, a society ruled by a warrior nobility. A truly great artist was apt to be notable in other ways.

    Outside of wartime, that kind of value system is not very common with us now. Our age is one in which men spend years designing intricate devices, of which computer programs are simply the most perfect type. We tend to admire a novelist of the general type of Leo Tolstoy or William Faulkner, who is about one notch away from being a scholar, and whose habits are largely those of a scholar. Such a person can always become a lawyer if he wants. He can become the kind of lawyer who draws up wills and contracts and amicable-divorce papers, and has lots of free time. It is almost a joke-- law school is the disgruntled graduate student's escape hatch. This means that there is a persistent element of economic amateurism in literature. People write and publish things without worrying very much about the money, because they know that they would have to be extremely successful, fantastically successful for the money to amount to more than they get from their usual occupations.

    A modern rock star is something different. Aspiring rock stars are all serious money fantasists. No mature adult takes the average rock star very seriously as an artist, or an author, just as no mature adult takes the average rock star as a generally admirable person. The rock star is something rather different. I will tell you another old story, a darker one, this time.

    In the primeval past of Northern Europe, say about the time of Christ, and a few thousand years before, there was such a thing as a "year-king." The people chose the most handsome young man as king, and then they worshiped him for a year, without giving him actual power, worshiped him as a fertility god, and then, when the year was over, they hanged him from an oak tree. In some parts of Denmark, where the soil has the right preservative properties, archaeologists have dug up year-kings, with the ropes still around their necks.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bog_body
    http://www.amazon.com/Bog-People-Preserved-Review-C lassics/dp/1590170903

    What the music labels have offered to artists is the promise of becoming a kind of god-king. The labels promise that the artist will be worshiped by hordes of little girls, who will all scream, and get hot flashes, and faint, at the mere sight of him. He is driven around in a huge limousine, and surrounded by flunkies whose job is to insulate him from the common reality, and dressed up in sequined clothing. He is fed all the cocaine he wants, and often enough, he overdoses, or commits suicide. This sort of thing, all duly expensed, and with the usual middleman's markup, naturally consumes whatever money the artist makes, unless he is truly exceptional. But, for as long as the money lasts, he is a god-king, of sorts. At a certain level, it is considered fitting that a rock star should go the suicide-overdose route, rather than bump down to earth again. Such is the fate of a year-king.

    Of course, with the declining fortunes of the recording industry, it will be forced to take the next step. Someone like Janis Joplin, who ended it all, is considered a commercially safe icon. With increasing commercial pressure, and increasing desperation, it will no longer be possible to rely on chance or choice. The year king must die, and someone will have to arrange it.

     

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

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2010 @ 11:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snakes on a Plane

    no it is success, but it isnt the fan passion that makes it a success. fan passion is only one part of what made the movie profitable. it is the point of saying the ideas in this post fail because they attempt to measure only one part of what makes something a success and make that one thing the measure of success. it just isnt right. things that are successful often have fan passion but plenty of failed ideas also have fan passion. passion by fans is not a good indication.

     

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

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2010 @ 11:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snakes on a Plane

    Fan passion tells you where the interest is, where the opportunities are, and where you should expand your business.

    If the Snakes on a Plane production focused more on the meme and less on the shitty movie, they could have had a much better return on their investment.

    If you have plenty of fan passion, but minimal sales, that tells you that the opportunity is still right there, you're just not focusing on the right areas. Billboard charts will tell you one thing and one thing only: how many people want your shiny discs for that one album.

     

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

  36.  
    icon
    senshikaze (profile), Apr 18th, 2010 @ 11:41am

    Re: Kinds of Authorship, and Economic Models.

    wow, that was morbid, but...
    I can't see where you are wrong. Most of the ones that don't out right die, are usually forgotten very quickly; replaced by the next god-king. Of course this only really affects the record label's lackeys. A lot of musicians, including genres like rock, rap, etc, are artists; the ones who try to bend the illusions built up by cookie cutter bands. Those, while maybe not playing in stadiums with 100,00 attendees, are the true artists. They are the one who will be remembered after three hundred years. They will be the Bachs, the Mozarts, the Beethovens of our time.
    Not the stupid year-king's of the labels.

     

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

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2010 @ 10:13pm

    Why the slow week? There are usually between 78 and 82 new articles a week here, but last week there were only 65!

     

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

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2010 @ 10:20pm

    People seem to take a fairly narrow view of authorship, in a way. I would like you to look at Henry Adams' classic _Mont-Saint-Michel and Chartres_, 1904 [1913]

    http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/mntsm10.txt

    and especially at Chapter II, "LA CHANSON DE ROLAND," in which Adams seeks to locate a great work of literature in its social context, a social context of its audience. Adams' candidate for the part-authorship of the poem is one Taillefer, the Duke of Normandy's minstrel. He finds a source, describing the Battle of Hastings from a distance of only a hundred years, which is not bad for the middle ages:

    Taillefer who was famed for song,
    Mounted on a charger strong,
    Rode on before the Duke, and sang
    Of Roland and of Charlemagne,
    Oliver and the vassals all
    Who fell in fight at Roncesvals.
    When they had ridden till they saw
    The English battle close before:
    "Sire," said Taillefer, "a grace!
    I have served you long and well;
    All reward you owe me still;
    To-day repay me if you please.
    For all guerdon I require,
    And ask of you in formal prayer,
    Grant to me as mine of right
    The first blow struck in the fight."
    The Duke answered: "I grant."

    The story goes that Taillefer was killed in the battle, the common fate of the vanguard. His life-goal, at a certain level, was to become the hero of his own epic. The artist was an expression of the values of his society, in this case, a society ruled by a warrior nobility. A truly great artist was apt to be notable in other ways.

    Outside of wartime, that kind of value system is not very common with us now. Our age is one in which men spend years designing intricate devices, of which computer programs are simply the most perfect type. We tend to admire a novelist of the general type of Leo Tolstoy or William Faulkner, who is about one notch away from being a scholar, and whose habits are largely those of a scholar. Such a person can always become a lawyer if he wants. He can become the kind of lawyer who draws up wills and contracts and amicable-divorce papers, and has lots of free time. It is almost a joke-- law school is the disgruntled graduate student's escape hatch. This means that there is a persistent element of economic amateurism in literature. People write and publish things without worrying very much about the money, because they know that they would have to be extremely successful, fantastically successful for the money to amount to more than they get from their usual occupations.

    A modern rock star is something different. Aspiring rock stars are all serious money fantasists. No mature adult takes the average rock star very seriously as an artist, or an author, just as no mature adult takes the average rock star as a generally admirable person. The rock star is something rather different. I will tell you another old story, a darker one, this time.

    In the primeval past of Northern Europe, say about the time of Christ, and a few thousand years before, there was such a thing as a "year-king." The people chose the most handsome young man as king, and then they worshiped him for a year, without giving him actual power, worshiped him as a fertility god, and then, when the year was over, they hanged him from an oak tree. In some parts of Denmark, where the soil has the right preservative properties, archaeologists have dug up year-kings, with the ropes still around their necks.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bog_body
    http://www.amazon.com/Bog-People-Preserved-Review-C lassics/dp/1590170903

    What the music labels have offered to artists is the promise of becoming a kind of god-king. The labels promise that the artist will be worshiped by hordes of little girls, who will all scream, and get hot flashes, and faint, at the mere sight of him. He is driven around in a huge limousine, and surrounded by flunkies whose job is to insulate him from the common reality, and dressed up in sequined clothing. He is fed all the cocaine he wants, and often enough, he overdoses, or commits suicide. This sort of thing, all duly expensed, and with the usual middleman's markup, naturally consumes whatever money the artist makes, unless he is truly exceptional. But, for as long as the money lasts, he is a god-king, of sorts. At a certain level, it is considered fitting that a rock star should go the suicide-overdose route, rather than bump down to earth again. Such is the fate of a year-king.

    Of course, with the declining fortunes of the recording industry, it will be forced to take the next step. Someone like Janis Joplin, who ended it all, is considered a commercially safe icon. With increasing commercial pressure, and increasing desperation, it will no longer be possible to rely on chance or choice. The year king must die, and someone will have to arrange it.


    TL;DR

     

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

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2010 @ 9:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snakes on a Plane

    again it doesnt matter. by the definitions in this article, soap had die hard loyal fanbois all over the place. it was an excellent top rated best movie ever by this standard. my point is the idea of this sort of standard is meaningless and really quite stupid. its mostly an attempt to try to redefine the music business away from the current models to useless squishy feel good fan counts or dedication calculations. it is just stupid.

     

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

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2010 @ 10:21am

    Re:

    Mike (actually his wife) just had his first baby. I assume he's been preoccupied with taking care of his family.

     

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

  41.  
    icon
    6 (profile), Apr 19th, 2010 @ 11:45am

    I just saw JMT in concert on Sat night at the 930 club in DC. They were pretty good, but I still kinda wish someone would make a microphone so that you could hear the words they're saying even when the base is so loud your chest feels like it is exploding.

     

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

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2010 @ 11:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Snakes on a Plane

    In your opinion, which is also stupid.

     

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

  43.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Apr 19th, 2010 @ 12:39pm

    Re:

    No, the standard against which internet bands must be measured would be bands prior to the computer revolution who did not use the internet. If you wanted to be a success without a label pre-internet, you'd have to tour. All the fricken time.

    In many respects that hasn't changed. If you are giving your music away for free, then one of the ways you are going to make money is via touring.

    I'd like to have more discussions with unsigned bands who have been at this for at least 15 - 20 years. I'm curious whether they are finding it easier or harder now to make a living. There have been several trends over this time:

    1. Karaoke and DJs took some venues out of the live music business.
    2. The unsigned bands were selling CDs directly to fans all along. So if fans stop buying CDs, it hurts them, too. A successful unsigned band could often sell between 10,000 and 100,000 copies per CD at their shows. When they were able to get $15 per CD, that was a great margin.
    3. The Internet and tech tools have encouraged more people to record music, so there are far more people doing it than in the pre-Internet days. And many of those who have recorded a few songs or an album aspire to get gigs, so venues have gotten to the point where they put four bands on a bill now rather than just one or two in the past. A lot more competition for the money that is out there.

    The conversations I've had with musicians who have been playing unsigned as far back as the 1970s to the 1990s suggest to me that they aren't finding it easier now. But I haven't polled hundreds of bands to get info. If bands want to weigh in here or elsewhere, I think it would add a lot to the conversation.

    Again, I'm looking for bands who have never been signed. How does business compare today to 15-20 years ago? Has your income shifted from one source of revenue to another?

     

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

  44.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Apr 21st, 2010 @ 3:32pm

    If you're unfamiliar with the music business

    If you haven't been a musician or worked with them, you may not know what it's like trying to get a club gig.

    Here's something that will give you a sense of it:

    Video: The Band vs. The Promoter

     

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

  45.  
    icon
    ZONG Music Partners (profile), May 3rd, 2010 @ 6:57am

    Fan/Consumer Power

    We constantly recommend the new artists we work with to seriously consider giving away their music for free in the beginning. It's a great way to get the word out about your music in a powerful way. When someone becomes a fan of your music they WILL tell others about it, whether it's free or not. So in the beginning it's a great approach!

    In the interview it was mentioned that JMT always looks for new ways to connect with fans. The fan-artist interaction model will become the GOLD STANDARD of the industry, if it hasn't already. In fact, we have a client here in Nashville that I assure you has plans of launching a new site that does that in a powerful new way. As we are allowed to release further information regarding this new company, we will be leaking it on our facebook, twitter and myspace pages FIRST before ANYTHING gets released to mainstream media, so stay tuned.

    Regards,

    Benjamin Wade Inman
    Managing Partner
    ZONG Music Partners LLC
    Nashville, TN

    Connect with us
    http://www.twitter.com/zongmp
    http://www.myspace.com/zongmusicpartners
    http://www.facebook.com /pages/ZONG-Music-Partners-LLC/254935045208?ref=ts

     

    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