Please Self-Release Me, Let Me Go

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: 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.

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

>

Edited by stefolof - August 26 2015 at 07:02

Easy Money wrote: I tried to read through the gist of this, I think Dean is on a very good and thoughtful track here. If you have been on this forum for a while you'll know that we don't always agree and we can gladly fill 15 pages almost instantly arguing about trivial nonsense, ha ha, but I think Dean's put a lot of thought into this and is being very thorough here. I'm a pro musician from way back and have seen major changes in the 'industry' since I started, some bad, some good. I really think it boils down to doing what I try to do, POLICE YOURSELF. I have been self-producing my own music since the early 90s. I stopped a couple years ago because, due to financial problems, I could no longer afford the latest technology. Although I'll gladly throw my music up on myspace and use it as demos to get gigs or attract other musicians, I never felt like my music should be presented as the same as those who I really admire. It's not because of any lack in playing technique or skills, or lack of musical vision, or even production values, although at this point a lot of my work lacks that modern state of the art sound. There is something I admire about those artists who are not constantly shouting, 'look at me'. Self promotion takes on an ugliness after a while that I can not be a part of. In the punk rock days it was flyers that would cover a whole neighborhood, with DJs it was literally mountains of self-produced mix tapes, and now it's everybody and their sister with a band on myspace. I know a band here in Memphis that has this elaborate web page, but the guitarist really can't play, it's sad really. My advice, don't be the guy at the party who has to tell all the jokes and not give anyone else a chance. Give a hard look at your music, compare it to people you really like, play them back to back. Do you really need to push your music on the world and say look at me, when really what you have done is made a nice demo for you and loved ones to enjoy and possibly score some gigs at the local dive.

Btw one more cent; due to the fact that people are doing more "DIY" albums, many of the pro's have slashed theire prices.

>

Edited by stefolof - August 26 2015 at 07:03

Also we are in a new era, where dimensionally we need to find that " special" artist. And it need not be a commercial message but just a cacophany of sounds that connects that innerself with it.

Edited by Chris S - February 02 2010 at 03:35

stefolof wrote: I've been following this thread for a while and what is missing from the discussion is the issue of MONEY. I totally agree about the "ocean of junk" but what exactly is creating this ocean? Some argue that it's because of technological advances. That's less than half the truth. The REAL driving force behind the phenomena is the same as behind other crappy products: IKEA furniture, break-down mobile phones, fast food, reality shows, Protools and the current (sick) "15-minutes of fame" culture. In short, it's because MONEY is dictating the rules. Remove money as an incentive and you'll remove the ocean.

>

Edited by stefolof - August 26 2015 at 07:03