Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Blogs
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Please Self-Release Me, Let Me Go
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedPlease Self-Release Me, Let Me Go

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1011121314>
Author
Message
 Rating: Topic Rating: 3 Votes, Average 2.00  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
progpositivity View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: December 15 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 02 2015 at 21:25
<The printing press enabled more readers, William Caxton published books that had already been written, he did not commission new writing. Over time that increased reader-base (demand) led to more writers being published (supply) whereas the internet has enabled more musician-supply without increasing the listener-demand.>
 
Yes.  An incredibly large pool of illiterate individuals who stood much to gain from learning to read ended up fueling an ever increasing demand for the printed page.  This was necessary in order for increased Supply of printed pages (due to lower production costs) to result in the spiraling cycles of increased Supply followed by increases in quantity demanded followed by further increases Supply due to greater economies of scale resulting in even greater quantities demanded.  A perfect storm!
 
I actually believe that the internet age has increased listener demand in the aggregate for recorded music but only to a moderate extent.  We now have people in remote areas of the world who are enjoying greater access than ever to modern recorded music and some of them are most certainly taking advantage of this access, developing a greater appetite for such music in the process.  But even so, this quantity of increased demand for recorded music is totally negligible relative to the incredibly large increases of production and distribution we have seen in the supply of recorded music in the 21st Century. 
 
So with a structural positive shift to the Supply Curve and with only a miniscule adjustment to the Demand Curve in the process, we are seeing exactly what economic theory predicts:
* Lower (inflation adjusted) prices
* Struggles for most of the masses of small scale 'suppliers' (indie artists) to move a large number of units.
Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7!
http://www.progpositivity.com
Back to Top
progpositivity View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: December 15 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 02 2015 at 22:08

Although we have been speaking about an aggregate demand curve for all modern recorded rock (or prog) music, it is worth pointing out that a truly unknown indie artist actually begins with a demand curve approximating $0 per unit no matter what quantity they supply (great or small). 

  

The recorded rock music product is different from an agricultural product like corn, wheat, or livestock.  If you produce corn of 'reasonably acceptable' quality, it is relatively easy to convince a purchaser of multiple quantity/units that you have a functional substitute in the competitive marketplace.  Simply convince one wholesaler that you have adequate quality corn to sell and one wholesaler will purchase bushels and bushels of corn from you.

  

Such is NOT the case for recorded music.  Even with a very high quality music product (which is difficult to define I know but most of us can probably agree that at least certain basic attributes are generally appreciated among your target market)...  so even with a very high quality product (i.e. excellent packaging, sterling sound quality, etc.), it is still not at all easy to convince a wholesaler to purchase your product in bulk.  So indie artists typically must convince customers one at a time (or at least in very small groups at a time).

Until music consumers are convinced otherwise, they deem a unit of an independent artist's musical output to be worth approximately ZERO dollars.  That is the cold hard truth.

Stated in economic terms, there is a very pronounced and significant 'product differentiation' in the minds of consumers for the recorded music product.   Music produced by artists they already know and appreciate has a measure of known (or expected positive) value in their minds.  Music produced by an unknown indie artist at best has an unknown value and quite often labors under a dubious shadow of doubt that must be overcome before someone will 'buy in' as a 'fan' or as a 'purchaser/consumer' of their product.  

  

But wait... It gets worse!  Most consumers not only deem the musical output of an independent artist to be worth zero dollars.  They also deem this product as unworthy of investment of their precious time and attention. 

I once heard a modern rock music fan refer to music played on commercial radio and/or released by professional labels as "REAL" music. Their only 'axe' to grind was that they were tired of indie artists pinging them in social media. It was really an off-handed remark. But the strong implication was that the music produced by independent artists and sold exclusively over the internet was not worth even recognizing as 'genuine'. I disagree strongly with that assessment and it is certainly an extreme viewpoint but it demonstrates some of the challenges an indie artist faces.

There are many different ways to attack this problem.
 
Sometimes an artist can manage to force captive members of their target market to pay attention to their music.  For example, perhaps these people paid money to see a 'headliner' and this artist has managed to land the gig of being the 'warm-up act'.  This is a classic and perfect opportunity.  You have (hopefully) a significant congregation of people who meet your target market demographic in one place and already 'primed' to listen to music.  Many of them don't want to "lose their place" or risk missing the headliner or are merely comfortably settled where they are so they are willing to submit themselves to this artist's music.  Even still, some of this captive audience won't PAY attention.  The artist still must do something to TICKLE their eyes or their ears.
 
Bottom line:  Before we can expect anyone to PAY money for music, we must first get them to PAY attention.  And even their attention rarely comes to passive artists for free.  Artists must actively work to EARN opportunities to garner the attention of their target market.

Another approach could be to force exposure to your music by having it played while they are doing another activity (like shopping or eating and drinking).  Again, the music will need to have some quality which attracts their attention- but if the quality is there, the biggest part of the battle is simply gaining exposure.

In both of these cases, the artist gains at least a precious moment of exposure time that represents an opportunity to EARN valuable differentiation in the estimation of potential paying customers.

Yet another way is to get exposure is to get 'thought leaders' to talk about or to write about your music.  This could be a reviewer at PA or an online radio station or even a member of another band with their own unique fanbase to talk, write, or play your music.

 

None of this is new.  Yet indie artists seem to expect these things not to apply to them.  For some reason they expect the world to come rushing to their web presence to buy their music.  It just isn't realistic.  You might as well buy a lottery ticket.

 

Devoted time/attention is a resource artists crave... This is true even for artists who enjoy large labels and promotion budgets.  (And so it is that at least some of the attention-grabbing antics we see in the music industry are not merely the result of undisciplined narcissism after all!  It is actually effective promotion.  But we knew that all along on some level, didn't we?)

 

Making your music available through multiple online outlets is only the beginning.  After that you face the task of getting people to PAY attention.  

  

Fortunately, consumer attention can be effectively earned through any number of promotional activities.  Unfortunately, each of these require a certain amount of (uh-oh... here comes a 4-letter word...)  WORK!  ;-)

Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7!
http://www.progpositivity.com
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 03 2015 at 05:59
Originally posted by Ozark Soundscape Ozark Soundscape wrote:

Doesn't matter. The more I work on it, the more I put it out there, the more that will come. But the main point is that someone is listening to it. While I'd like to be successful, not everyone on Bandcamp or what have you can make a career as a musician. The main advantage to the online music world is not that there are more people making careers as musicians, it's that there are more people with day jobs able to get heard. Back in the day it was a much more clear cut line. You had to get successful to be heard by anyone other than your friends and whoever happened to be in a club you were playing at. Now anyone can be heard by anyone over the world. Not a lot of people over the world, necessarily, but it's an improvement. It's at the very least better than how it was before.
There is no disputing that most of what you have said is true, but I cannot agree with your conclusions due to the ephemeral nature of the internet community. Internet only "fans" are a lot more fickle and transitory than those you gather from direct contact through gigging for example. This cannot be better than how it was before because it requires no "buy-in" or commitment from those fans to hear your music. Before, people had to make an effort to come and hear you play, now you are just a click in their favourites list.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Whether you want to make a career out of music or just want your music to be heard you have to market it.

There is a concept model in management called the Sphere Of Influence (SOI) - depending upon the business sector you are concerned with this has many different meanings but for the purposes of this debate I will confine this to one simple definition: The SOI is your contact network. This is not the same as your social network though there is obviously some overlap between the two, there are people in your social network who do not share your interests and there are people in your contact network who are not interested in joining your social network. Differentiating between the two is not overly difficult and it is wise to keep these two networks separate, but that's by-the-by.

Your SOI is not just the people you market to by means of direct marketing (and this applies to anyone who wants their music to be heard by a wider audience, not just the career musician) but it is also the contact network of people that you will use to market your music. Bandcamp is a marketplace, but it is not within your SOI, the people who contact you from your Bandcamp page however, can be part of your contact network, but those who simply visit your page and stream a couple of tracks are not. Bandcamp provides a place for you to sell your music but it cannot market it for you (because of another business three-letter-acronym called the Span Of Control, it does not have the manpower or resources to promote 1 million artists). Obviously you can add people who have bought your albums to that contact list but it does not mean that they are automatically part of your SOI.

Your SOI network includes:
  • Immediate contacts (band members and their friends, collaborators, your friends and family, fans, street-teams, etc.)
  • People who join your mailing list (at gigs, from bandcamp, on facebook, etc.)
  • Contacts within the media (print magazines, fanzines, ezines, bloggers, reviewers, music websites, etc.)
  • Contacts within the industry (record labels, A&R men, distributors, promoters, venue owners, etc.)
  • Like minded artists.
These are the people who you can influence directly (hence are within your 'sphere of influence') but this is not an altruistic network, they have to want to help you and that usually means some kind of reward. This is not (necessarily) financial reward, for a limited few your continued success is reward enough and for other it is the pleasure of hearing your music; for most their interest in your music (and therefore marketing your music) has to result in some benefit for them - for all web-based media this is simply increased traffic to their site, though some do offer a pay-to-promote service in some way (even if that only involves free promo copies). Obviously those in the industry will want to make money out of your product so they probably don't concern you if you are not interested in a music career (and likewise, they are not interested in you).

Increasing your SOI is key to being heard and there are many ways of doing this that artists have been exploiting since forever so I will not dwell on them here. Maintaining it is also key since it is a dynamic list that needs constant updating: ignore the people in your SOI and some will go away, conversely, pester them too much and some will lose interest. (Those that overlap with your social network are probably less work to maintain). If you can convert those into long-term fans then all the better since brand-loyalty in the music world is the most effective approach.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Today I received through the post a new CD from a band called Scarlet Soho (not a Prog band btw) that I have known for many years. Even though I have been out of band management for nearly ten years I am still on their mailing list because back in the day I was part of their SOI and they were part of mine. This was an ad hoc mutual arrangement: if I booked a gig they could be called on to support and if they booked it they could call on my band to support them. Now I am just a fan who buys their albums.
What?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 03 2015 at 12:39
Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

<The printing press enabled more readers, William Caxton published books that had already been written, he did not commission new writing. Over time that increased reader-base (demand) led to more writers being published (supply) whereas the internet has enabled more musician-supply without increasing the listener-demand.>
 
Yes.  An incredibly large pool of illiterate individuals who stood much to gain from learning to read ended up fueling an ever increasing demand for the printed page.  This was necessary in order for increased Supply of printed pages (due to lower production costs) to result in the spiraling cycles of increased Supply followed by increases in quantity demanded followed by further increases Supply due to greater economies of scale resulting in even greater quantities demanded.  A perfect storm!
 
I actually believe that the internet age has increased listener demand in the aggregate for recorded music but only to a moderate extent.  We now have people in remote areas of the world who are enjoying greater access than ever to modern recorded music and some of them are most certainly taking advantage of this access, developing a greater appetite for such music in the process.  But even so, this quantity of increased demand for recorded music is totally negligible relative to the incredibly large increases of production and distribution we have seen in the supply of recorded music in the 21st Century. 
 
So with a structural positive shift to the Supply Curve and with only a miniscule adjustment to the Demand Curve in the process, we are seeing exactly what economic theory predicts:
* Lower (inflation adjusted) prices
* Struggles for most of the masses of small scale 'suppliers' (indie artists) to move a large number of units.
Absolutely. The slight increase in aggregate demand is only due to the ease in which product can be acquired over the internet, not because of the increase in supply. This would explain the poor correlation between supply and demand.
What?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 03 2015 at 13:34
It's pretty evident we have a similar mindset and outlook so are are singing from the same song-sheet here Mark. Approve

Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

Although we have been speaking about an aggregate demand curve for all modern recorded rock (or prog) music, it is worth pointing out that a truly unknown indie artist actually begins with a demand curve approximating $0 per unit no matter what quantity they supply (great or small). 

  

The recorded rock music product is different from an agricultural product like corn, wheat, or livestock.  If you produce corn of 'reasonably acceptable' quality, it is relatively easy to convince a purchaser of multiple quantity/units that you have a functional substitute in the competitive marketplace.  Simply convince one wholesaler that you have adequate quality corn to sell and one wholesaler will purchase bushels and bushels of corn from you.

  

Such is NOT the case for recorded music.  Even with a very high quality music product (which is difficult to define I know but most of us can probably agree that at least certain basic attributes are generally appreciated among your target market)...  so even with a very high quality product (i.e. excellent packaging, sterling sound quality, etc.), it is still not at all easy to convince a wholesaler to purchase your product in bulk.  So indie artists typically must convince customers one at a time (or at least in very small groups at a time).

Until music consumers are convinced otherwise, they deem a unit of an independent artist's musical output to be worth approximately ZERO dollars.  That is the cold hard truth.

Stated in economic terms, there is a very pronounced and significant 'product differentiation' in the minds of consumers for the recorded music product.   Music produced by artists they already know and appreciate has a measure of known (or expected positive) value in their minds.  Music produced by an unknown indie artist at best has an unknown value and quite often labors under a dubious shadow of doubt that must be overcome before someone will 'buy in' as a 'fan' or as a 'purchaser/consumer' of their product.  

  

But wait... It gets worse!  Most consumers not only deem the musical output of an independent artist to be worth zero dollars.  They also deem this product as unworthy of investment of their precious time and attention. 

This is made even worse by the prevalent view that this product cost nothing to reproduce. It's the tiresome file-sharin' ain't stealin' fallacy and the countless equally tiresome and fallacious arguments that go to support it, such as I wouldn't have bought it anyway and I can't afford to buy every album I want.

Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

I once heard a modern rock music fan refer to music played on commercial radio and/or released by professional labels as "REAL" music. Their only 'axe' to grind was that they were tired of indie artists pinging them in social media. It was really an off-handed remark. But the strong implication was that the music produced by independent artists and sold exclusively over the internet was not worth even recognizing as 'genuine'. I disagree strongly with that assessment and it is certainly an extreme viewpoint but it demonstrates some of the challenges an indie artist faces.

It's an interesting point-of-view, I wonder how widespread it is.

Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

There are many different ways to attack this problem.
 
Sometimes an artist can manage to force captive members of their target market to pay attention to their music.  For example, perhaps these people paid money to see a 'headliner' and this artist has managed to land the gig of being the 'warm-up act'.  This is a classic and perfect opportunity.  You have (hopefully) a significant congregation of people who meet your target market demographic in one place and already 'primed' to listen to music.  Many of them don't want to "lose their place" or risk missing the headliner or are merely comfortably settled where they are so they are willing to submit themselves to this artist's music.  Even still, some of this captive audience won't PAY attention.  The artist still must do something to TICKLE their eyes or their ears.
I've seen too many support acts play to an empty hall or to a disinterested audience. The ones that interested me were those who rose above that and managed to grab the audience's attention, you don't need smart gimmicks for that, just a measure of professionalism.
Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

 
Bottom line:  Before we can expect anyone to PAY money for music, we must first get them to PAY attention.  And even their attention rarely comes to passive artists for free.  Artists must actively work to EARN opportunities to garner the attention of their target market.

Another approach could be to force exposure to your music by having it played while they are doing another activity (like shopping or eating and drinking).  Again, the music will need to have some quality which attracts their attention- but if the quality is there, the biggest part of the battle is simply gaining exposure.

In both of these cases, the artist gains at least a precious moment of exposure time that represents an opportunity to EARN valuable differentiation in the estimation of potential paying customers.

Yet another way is to get exposure is to get 'thought leaders' to talk about or to write about your music.  This could be a reviewer at PA or an online radio station or even a member of another band with their own unique fanbase to talk, write, or play your music.

 

None of this is new.  Yet indie artists seem to expect these things not to apply to them.  For some reason they expect the world to come rushing to their web presence to buy their music.  It just isn't realistic.  You might as well buy a lottery ticket.

This echoes my sentiment too and emphasises many of the points I have been striving to get across in this blog. Your following summary pretty much says it all:

Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

Devoted time/attention is a resource artists crave... This is true even for artists who enjoy large labels and promotion budgets.  (And so it is that at least some of the attention-grabbing antics we see in the music industry are not merely the result of undisciplined narcissism after all!  It is actually effective promotion.  But we knew that all along on some level, didn't we?)

 

Making your music available through multiple online outlets is only the beginning.  After that you face the task of getting people to PAY attention.  

  

Fortunately, consumer attention can be effectively earned through any number of promotional activities.  Unfortunately, each of these require a certain amount of (uh-oh... here comes a 4-letter word...)  WORK!  ;-)

Clap Thank you.
What?
Back to Top
jayem View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 21 2006
Location: Switzerland
Status: Offline
Points: 981
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 05 2015 at 07:14
Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

Devoted time/attention is a resource artists crave... 

Isn't it like saying cooks are hungry...Aren't artists meant to quench a kind of thirst.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 05 2015 at 08:05
Originally posted by jayem jayem wrote:

Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

Devoted time/attention is a resource artists crave... 

Isn't it like saying cooks are hungry...Aren't artists meant to quench a kind of thirst.
Nope. That's not what the sentence means - the word "resource" is a little misleading perhaps.

Artists crave attention. An audience fulfills that need.
What?
Back to Top
jayem View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 21 2006
Location: Switzerland
Status: Offline
Points: 981
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 05 2015 at 11:44
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by jayem jayem wrote:

Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

Devoted time/attention is a resource artists crave... 

Isn't it like saying cooks are hungry...Aren't artists meant to quench a kind of thirst.
Nope. That's not what the sentence means - the word "resource" is a little misleading perhaps.

Artists crave attention. An audience fulfills that need.
Hum...Maybe I'm out of my depth and shouldn't insist but...

If we say artists are meant to provide "food" (of an entertaining kind) yet crave attention (attention that results in people giving them money and fulfils their need for their life to have a meaning), it's like saying a cook would provide food yet they're hungry because nobody pays attention to the restaurant they're running, and they end up with no money to buy their own food (and their life being meaningless as well).

Anyway I hope everyone agrees that artists should work so as to gain some attention, but only in that it makes the World a better place, and not because they're in need of anything.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 05 2015 at 13:46
Originally posted by jayem jayem wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by jayem jayem wrote:

Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

Devoted time/attention is a resource artists crave... 

Isn't it like saying cooks are hungry...Aren't artists meant to quench a kind of thirst.
Nope. That's not what the sentence means - the word "resource" is a little misleading perhaps.

Artists crave attention. An audience fulfills that need.
Hum...Maybe I'm out of my depth and shouldn't insist but...

If we say artists are meant to provide "food" (of an entertaining kind) yet crave attention (attention that results in people giving them money and fulfils their need for their life to have a meaning), it's like saying a cook would provide food yet they're hungry because nobody pays attention to the restaurant they're running, and they end up with no money to buy their own food (and their life being meaningless as well).

Anyway I hope everyone agrees that artists should work so as to gain some attention, but only in that it makes the World a better place, and not because they're in need of anything.
LOL The cook analogy was the wrong analogy for the point Mark was making, and you're just making it even more wrong because you have misunderstood the comment.

Unfortunately, I have been staring at the PC screen for the past 10 minutes trying to think of how to make this analogy work while clarifying Mark's point, but I fear I do not have that skill. Never-the-less I shall continue with the analogy: 

Artists want to be famous (irrespective of how you define and measure fame), whereas most cooks have no such "need". (aside from celebrity chefs of course).

A cook is like an artist on tour - people go to them to eat the food they are famous for cooking just as people attend a gig to hear the musician play the music they are famous for. The cook can keep churning out the same old recipes and the diners at the restaurant will keep coming back for more, just as people will pay lots of money to see The Stones or The Eagles as long as they keep playing "greatest hits" tours. 

The difference, of course, is the restaurant has a fixed number of tables and can only serve a limited number of people, whereas the artist can play more dates or move up to bigger venues if more people want to see his show. Success to the cook is having a full restaurant every night and success to the artist is also having sell-out shows but can also mean bigger tours and increased sales of their albums.

However, the cook does not crave attention in the same way as the touring band does, as long as the diners pay for their food then he's happy. The touring band wants the audience to like the show they put on, sure they want to get paid for being on stage, but they also want the applause, the curtain calls & encores and they want the audience to sing along with them, whoop and cheer, dance around, mosh and hold their cigarette lighters/cell-phones in the air at the appropriate moments. It's all part of the the buzz and the adrenaline rush of performing on stage that the cook will never experience. Cooks in most restaurants are more akin to tribute bands - they 'perform' the dishes created by the head-chef and the diners appreciate them just the same ... no one going to Heston Blumenthal's restaurant expects him to be cooking the food every night.

A recording artist is more like the kind of cook who publishes recipe books. He can only sell one copy of each book to each consumer, just as the artist can only sell one copy of each album to each consumer. If he also owns a restaurant then people who have bought the book may book a table in the restaurant, just as when the recording artist goes on tour then people who bought the album will also turn up at the gig. The difference now is most of the people go to the restaurant because of its reputation for good food, not for the popularity of the cook-book, whereas most of the people go the gig because they liked the albums. 

Of course success of the book and the album is measured by how many copies they sell, yet for a recording artist selling albums can be a secondary concern (if we are to believe what many people have said in this and other threads) - they want to experience the appreciation that a touring artist gets when they perform on stage - the recognition of their talent, appreciation of the music and people taking the time to listen to the album and liking it. How they measure that attention is another matter. 


What?
Back to Top
jayem View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 21 2006
Location: Switzerland
Status: Offline
Points: 981
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 05 2015 at 15:23
From what I've understood you mean that there's is more about  meeting and feeling a connection than about giving-receiving.

It'll be no surprise if I tell you I've never felt comfortable yelling my praise to a band onstage: I was over-excited, dancing like crazy and wanted to sort of eat them. I also felt embarrassed when people were giving me applause when, while playing onstage, I thought I was mediocre, and nobody echoing my feelings when I absolutely believed in what I was playing, hence my distrusting of audiences as soon as music came out of mainstream. I happened to feel deeply connected to a band or a composer while on my own very often, that's how music was wonderful. I genuinely consume music as a kind of wonder-food.

However wrong I've read Mark's comment (I didn't know your name, but my greetings to you Mark):

"Devoted time/attention is a resource [many/a majority of] artists crave..." would read better.

Back to Top
progpositivity View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: December 15 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 05 2015 at 17:29
Good point.  The word "resource" may have been unintentionally misleading. 
 
We were discussing the marketing challenges faced by independent artists using mercantile terms.  
 
I was then attempting to use the same type of marketing language to describe how important (and precious and limited) a potential fan's "devoted time and attention" is to the sales process.  So I called that person's "devoted time and attention" a "resource".  Perhaps I would have done better to instead refer to it as a 'commodity'.
 
Consumers make decisions about where and how they will "spend" their limited amount of "attentive time" in a very similar manner to the way they make decisions about where and how they will "spend" their limited amount of discretionary income.  
 
Speaking as a music consumer, my limited quantity of discretionary "attentive time" is a precious resource commodity which artists want from me.  
 
Before a financial sale of music can take place, there is a prerequisite 'transaction' which needs to take place between a musical artist and his target market.  The artist needs to get me (his target market) to "pay attention".   Therefore, similar to financial currency--my 'attentive time' is a highly valued commodity in the marketplace.
 
My argument was that this resource commodity is an absolutely crucial prerequisite to music sales. Thus, any artist who is seeking to market/sell their music, whether they realize it or not, desperately needs to acquire it.
 
I wasn't at all trying to imply that all artists are solely interested only in acquiring 'devoted time and attention'.  In the prog marketplace, artists routinely epxress greater interest in pleasing or earning respect from a select group of people, namely music lovers who are like-minded enough in their musical tastes to appreciate the kind of music that the artist values and strives to create.  In this respect, the artist is more interested in gaining devoted time and attention from a certain target market of people. 
 
As a side-bar, I'm not 100% convinced this is true to the full extent that some of in the prog community might attempt to tell ourselves.  But this undoubtedly varies from individual to individual and I'm not trying to point fingers.  So allow me to use myself as an example.  I've been in a few bands and have recorded some music in my time. And to be honest, generally speaking, I always got a pretty good feeling whenever I noticed anyone genuinely appearing to enjoy music I wrote, performed, or recorded, no matter what their taste was in music. 
 
I think the key is that artists often don't want to feel like they have crossed the line to where they have begun creating music they personally disdain solely for the purpose of gaining a 'payment' of some form (whether that be of attentive time, sales, or anything else.)
 
I personally suspect that many proggers criticize certain artists for making commercial career decisions without having much understanding of or appreciation for the pressures involved and the level of accommodation that even some of their most revered musical heroes may have made along the way in order to gain enough visibility for the general public to have ever heard about them in the first place.
 
In any event, I really didn't assign "devoted time and attention" such a high place of prominence in my discussion in order to indict the artist's integrity.  I only assigned it such a position of high prominence because it is a prerequisite to sales. 
 
So many independent artists (not all but oh so very many) complete the creative process, proceed enthusiastically to the manufacturing process, and then create an online retail internet presence, only to become bitterly disappointed when a mass of customers do not arrive to purchase their product.  They may begin to question the quality of their musical product (which isn't always a bad idea...) But their music may be supurb.  They may have overlooked the crucial fact that they would need to work to earn 'devoted time and attention' from their target market. 
 
Or, perhaps some artists don't care about recognition or sales enough to put the work in.  They want to create.  And they are content to see who stumbles across it.  That is okay too. 
 
But I think where Dean and I both fall on this is that such artists shouldn't really complain bitterly about the lack of recognition or sales, right?  If I get a crappy looking CDR in the mail with no packaging and a poorly written press release containing typographical errors, can they really expect me to put THAT package ahead of the releases from Cuneiform or InsideOut Records, etc?
 
And Dean, please don't hesitate to step in and to tell me to stop attempting to speak for you. I may be off-base and if I am I apologize in advance.  I should probably just say I'm speaking for myself there.
 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by jayem jayem wrote:

Originally posted by progpositivity progpositivity wrote:

Devoted time/attention is a resource artists crave... 
 
Isn't it like saying cooks are hungry...Aren't artists meant to quench a kind of thirst.
Nope. That's not what the sentence means - the word "resource" is a little misleading perhaps.

Artists crave attention. An audience fulfills that need.


Edited by progpositivity - February 05 2015 at 17:31
Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7!
http://www.progpositivity.com
Back to Top
progpositivity View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: December 15 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 05 2015 at 17:37
Hi Jayem!
 
Absolutely, yes.  I may have stated it in more absolute terms than intended.  Please feel free to add "many/a majority of" as a qualifier to anything and everything I write here at PA.. 
 
Ahem, well, let me modify that statement.  Please feel free to add that as a qualifier to "many" of the things I write... certainly to "a majority of" the things I write here at PA!  Wink
 
Originally posted by jayem jayem wrote:

From what I've understood you mean that there's is more about  meeting and feeling a connection than about giving-receiving.

It'll be no surprise if I tell you I've never felt comfortable yelling my praise to a band onstage: I was over-excited, dancing like crazy and wanted to sort of eat them. I also felt embarrassed when people were giving me applause when, while playing onstage, I thought I was mediocre, and nobody echoing my feelings when I absolutely believed in what I was playing, hence my distrusting of audiences as soon as music came out of mainstream. I happened to feel deeply connected to a band or a composer while on my own very often, that's how music was wonderful. I genuinely consume music as a kind of wonder-food.

However wrong I've read Mark's comment (I didn't know your name, but my greetings to you Mark):

"Devoted time/attention is a resource [many/a majority of] artists crave..." would read better.



Edited by progpositivity - February 05 2015 at 17:37
Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7!
http://www.progpositivity.com
Back to Top
progpositivity View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: December 15 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 05 2015 at 17:46
Dean,
 
I'm impressed by how well you "cooked up" that response!  Celebrity chefs are akin to entertainers/artists so I think you are spot on identifying them as a appropriate reference point.
 
Originally posted by Dean</div><div> </div><div><span style=line-height: 1.4;>Unfortunately, I have been staring at the PC screen for the past 10 minutes trying to think of how to make this analogy work while clarifying Mark's point, but I fear I do not have that skill. Never-the-less I shall continue with the analogy: </span></div><div> </div><div style=line-height: 18.2px;>Artists want to be famous (irrespective of how you define and measure fame), whereas most cooks have no such need. (aside from celebrity chefs of course).</div><div style=line-height: 18.2px;> </div><div><span style=line-height: 1.4;>A cook is like an artist on tour - people go to them to eat the food they are famous for cooking just as people attend a gig to hear the musician play the music they are famous for. The cook can keep churning out the same old recipes and the </span>diners<span style=line-height: 1.4;> at the restaurant will keep coming back for more, just as people will pay lots of money to see The Stones or The Eagles as long as they keep playing greatest hits tours. </span></div><div><br><span style=line-height: 18.2px;>The </span>difference, of course,<span style=line-height: 18.2px;> is the restaurant has a fixed number of tables and can only serve a limited number of people, whereas the artist can play more dates or move up to bigger venues if more people want to see his show. Success to the cook is having a full restaurant every night and success to the artist is also having sell-out shows but can also mean bigger tours and increased sales of their albums.</span></div><div><span style=line-height: 18.2px;></span></div><div>However, the cook does not crave attention in the same way as the touring band does, as long as the diners pay for their food then he's happy. The touring band wants the audience to like the show they put on, sure they want to get paid for being on stage, but they also want the applause, the curtain calls & encores and they want the audience to sing along with them, <span style=line-height: 18.2px;>whoop and cheer,</span><span style=line-height: 18.2px;> </span><span style=line-height: 1.4;>dance around, mosh and hold their cigarette lighters/cell-phones in the air at the appropriate moments. It's all part of the the buzz and the adrenaline rush of performing on stage that the cook will never experience. Cooks in most restaurants are more akin to tribute bands - they 'perform' the dishes created by the head-chef and the diners appreciate them just the same ... no one going to Heston Blumenthal's restaurant expects him to be cooking the food every night.</span></div><div><span style=line-height: 1.4;></span></div><div>A recording artist is more like the kind of cook who publishes recipe books. He can only sell one copy of each book to each consumer, just as the artist can only sell one copy of each album to each consumer. If he also owns a restaurant then people who have bought the book may book a table in the restaurant, just as when the recording artist goes on tour then people who bought the album will also turn up at the gig. The difference now is most of the people go to the restaurant because of its reputation for good food, not for the popularity of the cook-book, whereas most of the people go the gig because they liked the albums. </div><div> </div><div>Of course success of the book and the album is measured by how many copies they sell, y<span style=line-height: 1.4;>et for a recording artist selling albums can be a secondary concern (if we are to believe what many people have said in this and other threads) - they want to experience the appreciation that a touring artist gets when they perform on stage - the recognition of their talent, appreciation of the music and people taking the time to listen to the album and liking it. How they measure that attention is another matter. </span></div><div> </div>[/QUOTE Dean
 
Unfortunately, I have been staring at the PC screen for the past 10 minutes trying to think of how to make this analogy work while clarifying Mark's point, but I fear I do not have that skill. Never-the-less I shall continue with the analogy: 
 
Artists want to be famous (irrespective of how you define and measure fame), whereas most cooks have no such need. (aside from celebrity chefs of course).
 
A cook is like an artist on tour - people go to them to eat the food they are famous for cooking just as people attend a gig to hear the musician play the music they are famous for. The cook can keep churning out the same old recipes and the diners at the restaurant will keep coming back for more, just as people will pay lots of money to see The Stones or The Eagles as long as they keep playing greatest hits tours. 

The difference, of course, is the restaurant has a fixed number of tables and can only serve a limited number of people, whereas the artist can play more dates or move up to bigger venues if more people want to see his show. Success to the cook is having a full restaurant every night and success to the artist is also having sell-out shows but can also mean bigger tours and increased sales of their albums.
However, the cook does not crave attention in the same way as the touring band does, as long as the diners pay for their food then he's happy. The touring band wants the audience to like the show they put on, sure they want to get paid for being on stage, but they also want the applause, the curtain calls & encores and they want the audience to sing along with them, whoop and cheer, dance around, mosh and hold their cigarette lighters/cell-phones in the air at the appropriate moments. It's all part of the the buzz and the adrenaline rush of performing on stage that the cook will never experience. Cooks in most restaurants are more akin to tribute bands - they 'perform' the dishes created by the head-chef and the diners appreciate them just the same ... no one going to Heston Blumenthal's restaurant expects him to be cooking the food every night.
A recording artist is more like the kind of cook who publishes recipe books. He can only sell one copy of each book to each consumer, just as the artist can only sell one copy of each album to each consumer. If he also owns a restaurant then people who have bought the book may book a table in the restaurant, just as when the recording artist goes on tour then people who bought the album will also turn up at the gig. The difference now is most of the people go to the restaurant because of its reputation for good food, not for the popularity of the cook-book, whereas most of the people go the gig because they liked the albums. 
 
Of course success of the book and the album is measured by how many copies they sell, yet for a recording artist selling albums can be a secondary concern (if we are to believe what many people have said in this and other threads) - they want to experience the appreciation that a touring artist gets when they perform on stage - the recognition of their talent, appreciation of the music and people taking the time to listen to the album and liking it. How they measure that attention is another matter. 
 
[/QUOTE wrote:


Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7!
http://www.progpositivity.com
Back to Top
jayem View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 21 2006
Location: Switzerland
Status: Offline
Points: 981
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 07 2015 at 16:01
Amazing how generous those Dean + Mark posts are. This would invite us to talk about restaurant chains, and how people singing by heart one happy composer's melody equates people eating the same meal with its special taste "invented" by one happy cook; how artists may not want attention on themselves, but that their works need the attention from at least one person, in order for them to be called "art".

I'd asked Dean several month ago why he wouldn't leave a homepage-link to his own art (and had to search for the links on his music left on PA) and ended up listening to tracks each with their own particular flavour, which in the chief thing isn't it, although some pieces seemed to fit classic harmonies, but with curious exceptions here and there...



Back to Top
Komandant Shamal View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: February 02 2015
Location: Yugoslavia
Status: Offline
Points: 954
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 08 2015 at 04:12

^ LOLThumbs Up great post!

Believe it or not, I'v been read all the pages of this blog and I disagree with Dean.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 08 2015 at 04:58
Oh gosh. 

Considering I have waxed lyrical on a wide gamut of topics related to self-released product in this Blog then that is a very bold and sweeping statement.

Now. I have read every word you have posted in this Blog and I cannot actually tell whether you disagree with me or not.

If you would care to elucidate then perhaps we can have a rewarding discussion that can expand upon some of the ideas and thoughts I have presented so I can show you the error of your ways and you can show me mine.

For by disagreeing with me I can only surmise that you are content with artists releasing any old rubbish in the name of music, without care for detail, integrity or artistry. By disagreeing with me, I can only assume that you do not care whether an artists album is heard by other people or not. By disagreeing with me, I can only presume that your own appreciation of music sets low standards and fails to live up to them. By disagreeing with me, I can only believe that you do not care whether an artist who wants to make a career out of music succeeds or not. By disagreeing with me, I can only conclude that you are part of the listening community engendered with a false sense of entitlement to own what the artist has produced without compensation. By disagreeing with me, I can only infer that artists are not entitled to recognition and reward for their efforts. By disagreeing with me, I can only suppose that you believe that self-released music is an amateur product that can never be regarded as equal to its professional counterpart. 


Wink

What?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 08 2015 at 06:12
Originally posted by jayem jayem wrote:

Amazing how generous those Dean + Mark posts are. This would invite us to talk about restaurant chains, and how people singing by heart one happy composer's melody equates people eating the same meal with its special taste "invented" by one happy cook; how artists may not want attention on themselves, but that their works need the attention from at least one person, in order for them to be called "art".
I think we've probably stretched the cook-analogy to breaking point and are perhaps confusing "cook" with "chef" a little too much now (assuming that the translation of cook and chef continues to yield a difference in languages other than English ... chef coming from chief meaning head-cook, whereas cook is merely anyone who cooks).
Originally posted by jayem jayem wrote:

I'd asked Dean several month ago why he wouldn't leave a homepage-link to his own art (and had to search for the links on his music left on PA) and ended up listening to tracks each with their own particular flavour, which in the chief thing isn't it, although some pieces seemed to fit classic harmonies, but with curious exceptions here and there...
Erm... I don't have a homepage to display my art or my music. 

In the early days of the internet I did have a homepage to display my drawing and painting, as this developed I added stories to illustrate that artwork, and then as bandwidth improved I added musical soundtracks to those pieces of art and their stories. Due to the ephemeral and impermanent nature of the internet I have had to move that homepage to several different servers and website providers over the years and now have reached the stage where I have lost the will to continue moving it and rebuilding it every time a service provider decides to change their business plan and screw with its clientele. 

Without exception, every CD I made followed a concept of some form or other, inspired by a piece of art I had created or a story I had written. With that view, it could be argued that the CDs I made were merely vehicles for the cover-art I was making. I tend to shy away from such epithets as "musician" and "composer", I construct music in the same way as I would paint a picture or write a story and, therefore, regard any piece of music I have created as a construction rather than a composition. Truth be told, I often put more effort and thought into the cover-art than I ever did into the music, though there are pieces of music where that effort is equal, and some where it is vastly greater. I do not see myself as a polymath or a neo-Renaissance man and my personality traits tends to be more rationalist than artist.

One thing that struck me as "odd" about constructing music was how alarmingly easy it was to do even with my limited ability as a player of musical instruments and my rudimentary knowledge of music theory. That is not some immodest self-aggrandisement - constructing a complex piece of music from simple motifs, refrains or melodies is not difficult in itself, nor is inventing those musical motifs or refrains to begin with (I believe that anyone who can whistle or hum a tune can do that with ease). My musical aim, if I ever had such a thing, was to experiment with what worked and what did not, and to leave in those mistakes that didn't work and build upon them (that is the nature of experimentation is it not?), the choice of using classic harmonies or breaking-the-rules was mine alone to make. Our ears tell us when a harmony works and when it doesn't, and our ears tell us whether we have resolved a dissonance or not or whether we should even try, and our ears tell us when a piece of music has become boring or tedious and needs to change melody, or key, or meter, or tempo, or just stop. Any listener of music has the ability to know good from bad in their personal estimation. [and to continue this well-worn cook analogy, as an eater of food, I know whether the food I have cooked is good or bad... see Prog Chefs Unite!!! thread].

That this music can (and now does) stand alone for the appreciation and criticism of others is a something that surprises and astonishes me, and now, from the detachment of some nine years since I last 'released' an album, I can listen to it with a degree of neutrality as if hearing it for the first time. I'm not overly disappointed by what I hear. It's not great, but it isn't wholly bad either.

What?
Back to Top
jayem View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 21 2006
Location: Switzerland
Status: Offline
Points: 981
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 08 2015 at 08:21
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

I think we've probably stretched the cook-analogy to breaking point and are perhaps confusing "cook" with "chef" a little too much now (assuming that the translation of cook and chef continues to yield a difference in languages other than English ... chef coming from chief meaning head-cook, whereas cook is merely anyone who cooks).

"one happy chef" adds a professional undertaker to a simple cook, but "one happy cook" still doesn't itch me, maybe later if I become more familiar with english language...


Back to Top
Komandant Shamal View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: February 02 2015
Location: Yugoslavia
Status: Offline
Points: 954
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 08 2015 at 11:49
@Dean, you wrote this sentence at the first page of your blog:

Quote And with that the concept of self-release is doomed to inevitable failure and will never spark the revolution that many hope it will.

IMHO above sentence describes perfectly this blog. Your blog is too pessimistic, it is a perfect example of defeatism and this is not a blog that has passed the test of time and that basic hypothesis that is well shown in the above sentence really was collapsed after a whole range of fantastic self-released prog rock albums released latter.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: February 08 2015 at 12:08
Originally posted by Komandant Shamal Komandant Shamal wrote:

@Dean, you wrote this sentence at the first page of your blog:

Quote And with that the concept of self-release is doomed to inevitable failure and will never spark the revolution that many hope it will.

IMHO above sentence describes perfectly this blog. Your blog is too pessimistic, it is a perfect example of defeatism and this is not a blog that has passed the test of time and that basic hypothesis that is well shown in the above sentence really was collapsed after a whole range of fantastic self-released prog rock albums released latter.
Oh dear.

Let's put that back into context shall we...

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

 
I almost never listen to self-released artists, because as you said, if in this era they can't get anybody to sign them, they probably are terrible. But I can't see the ability to self-release as a bad thing in any way. If you'd rather only listen to music that other people think is good, there will still be plenty of label releases this year...
And with that the concept of self-release is doomed to inevitable failure and will never spark the revolution that many hope it will.
Now, I am fully aware that English is not your native tongue and some of its subtleties can be a little difficult to grasp, but the ironic sarcasm of my response to Nick's comment that he almost never listen's to self-released artist should be self-evident to all who read that reply. And by "ironic sarcasm" I mean I do not agree with the statement, so since you disagree with it and I disagree with it then we cannot possibly disagree with each other and we are in agreeance. 

Whoop-di-sodding-doo.


What?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1011121314>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.164 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.