Please Self-Release Me, Let Me Go

>

Edited by stefolof - August 26 2015 at 07:02

I think the situation is fine and the new developments are for the better. A lot of self-released music is flooding the internet but there are also filters: recommendation sites, forums, blogs, archive sites, etc. If you're part of a community of any kind, it is going to filter the information that reaches you. Myself I am satisfied if one of three or four self-released albums I listen to are what I'd call a "discovery". For the moment I am quite happy, the ratio is satisfactory. The filtering works. For example, 7 of my top 40 albums of 2009 (see the list here: http://rateyourmusic.com/list/alexandru_mircea/2009_albums)are self-released albums, the numbers:

5 - I don't know about the production, only that it was financially supported by fans; there was no physical release, only a free download; there was no marketing; this is the typical case when self-releasing is the end of a process not the beginning (as Dean nicely put it). Note that this album occupies the second place in the PA 2009 top. The band is a high profile band in our niche.

11 - a well established band in its local scene, producing the music without a musical producer, and releasing it through their own "label", which meant that the artwork was designed by a friend, the production costs of the music, of the physical package and of the video were covered by the band's own funds. (All those services were provided by professionals). There is no marketing, just internet buzz. Again this is the case of the self-release strategy as an end of the road. The buying cost of the CD is cheap, probably the equivalent of maximum 10 dollars.

17 - a new band's debut album. The band members have been working for this album for many years, and they were very professional about it; the songs and playing are top notch, the production is wonderful, the package was designed by a friend which is a professional in this field. There is also a free download version. There is no marketing. I couldn't say this release belongs to any of the types - the self-released album as an end or as a beginning of the road to self-management.

18 & 38 - two very young bands which are produced and released by a 21 year old producer. He plays with both bands, produces and mixes the music, releases the music as free downloads on his "internet label" and also obtains funds to release a few hundreds of CDs with a minimal package but with stunning artwork. The CDs (I have both) look better then many "proper" CDs I have. Needless to say there is no marketing other than online "mouth-to-mouth". This double case is that of the self-release as a beginning of the career. I think it worked.

19 - I don't know anything about this band, yet, someone I trust recommended them to me, and since then I've submitted them for PA, they were accepted and many people here like them more or less. I don't know if there was a CD, I only have a free download. There is probably no marketing. I'd say this is also a success of the "self-release as a beginning".

33 - a band known in the local scene but which didn't make it "big" because the scene is too small for it to generate a real market. The album was self-produced/mastered/mixed (one of the members is a sound designer too), and the release was done as a free download. This probably happened because there is no interest from sponsors and there was no reason for the band itself to invest as they're not going to give concerts (the singer is giving birth in a few months so they'll take a sabbatical period). There is probably no marketing. This is more like the "self-release as an end" strategy.

Myself I am happy with the results and I will definitely go see these bands playing when I have the occasion, or buy stuff they release. The question is - how good was this strategy for them? How many of them will be successfully active in a few years' time?

(By success I am referring to what they would call success - maybe some of these bands only want to have fun in their spare time and not to make a career. One of them doesn't even exist any more, the album was "post-mortem" )


Edited by harmonium.ro - February 02 2010 at 11:06

Textbook wrote: Sorry but this is a bit nonsensical in my opinion. I would've thought that the very definition of a talented musician is one who is able to produce a high quality product without calling in the label support team. It's true that much self-published stuff is rubbish but when wasn't that true of major label releases too?

No, they are highly developed and polished product made by the best paid professionals in the business. They are created and produced to sell in huge numbers, which they do. You're confusing your tastes with that of the target customers of these enterprises.

Textbook wrote: Well the argument still comes off as silly because I think most of that stuff, whether or not it sells, is bad art and am not interested in maintaining an atmosphere where it thrives.

Why is it bad art? Because you don't like it? That argument is just as silly. I agree there is high culture and popular culture, but saying popular culture is bad is just elitist and not true. If you visit museums you notice that they exhibit, along the masterpieces of the era, modest artifacts of the popular culture, with their own kind of artistic qualities. They never imply that the later are bad.

Textbook wrote: I also find it odd that you would use the fact that these guys are paid well as some sort of indication of their authority in music.

Nah, you're just interpreting my ideas to sound "bad" The point is that if you own a business of any kind, and especially a very competitive one, you're going to hire the best workers by paying them the best salaries, no matter complex and refined or basic is your product. That's logical.

Textbook wrote: I personally believe there is absolutely no essential causal relationship between success and talent

That has nothing to do with our little debate.

Textbook wrote: so being well paid doesn't mean you're the best at all.

I agree, and I didn't say that.

Textbook wrote: And yes, as far as my own experience of the world is concerned, art is bad because I don't like it.

I sympathize with this statement


Edited by harmonium.ro - February 02 2010 at 16:32

Textbook wrote: Sorry but this is a bit nonsensical in my opinion. I would've thought that the very definition of a talented musician is one who is able to produce a high quality product without calling in the label support team. It's true that much self-published stuff is rubbish but when wasn't that true of major label releases too? Yes, a support team can polish a turd but they can also wreck or even shelve a great album. I refer you to one of the all-time great hip-hop albums, The Best Part by J Live which is a stone cold classic of mature, musical, intelligent rap which literally sat in the vault for years because Raw Shack Records felt it didn't have any singles. I would rather have an environment where people can freely publish rubbish rather than one where releases need approval from "them"- word of mouth on the internet is a fairly accurate and reliable barometer of making sure that the diamonds in the rough will be identified and found by those who care.

Textbook wrote: Sorry but this is a bit nonsensical in my opinion. I would've thought that the very definition of a talented musician is one who is able to produce a high quality product without calling in the label support team. It's true that much self-published stuff is rubbish but when wasn't that true of major label releases too? Yes, a support team can polish a turd but they can also wreck or even shelve a great album. I refer you to one of the all-time great hip-hop albums, The Best Part by J Live which is a stone cold classic of mature, musical, intelligent rap which literally sat in the vault for years because Raw Shack Records felt it didn't have any singles. I would rather have an environment where people can freely publish rubbish rather than one where releases need approval from "them"- word of mouth on the internet is a fairly accurate and reliable barometer of making sure that the diamonds in the rough will be identified and found by those who care.

No need to apologise.

Textbook wrote: I guess the point here is that there may be people who would make incredible albums if they weren't self-released, those who do need the paint job a good label can provide, and that in this environment they may never receive it and be all they can be. But people are always going to slip through the cracks- bringing back the labels will mean we'll miss out on people who would make great albums if only they didn't have to deal with label politics.

Edited by Dean - February 02 2010 at 20:14

Dean: So you're asking people to make better albums?

OK, let me re-phrase that. If your demo is no good it will not get you any gigs or much attention no matter how much you try to shove it in people's faces.