There is a scary little clause that sometimes makes its way into a label contract that says the music the artist delivers to the label has to be "commercially acceptable." What exactly that means can vary greatly depending on the terms of the deal, but in a nutshell, it means the label has at least some ability to say, "Nope - we can't sell that. Try again." That is a bit of a simplification - and let's be honest, even in the absence of such a clause, some labels still get all up in the creative stuff - but let's consider the general idea of artistic freedom versus commercial viability. Where is the line? IS there a line?
One school of thought - and frankly, it is hard to argue with - is that musicians should get to make whatever music they want, period. Endy story, as they say in bonny Scotland. Change, experimentation and such are all part of the creative process, and music is a creative pursuit. You don't go into the kitchen of a restaurant and tell the chef how to cook, so don't start coming into the studio and telling the musicians what to record.
Ah, but what if someone else's dime is paying for that studio - or the promotion, manufacturing or distribution of that music? What if the label signed a death metal band to a three album deal, and for album two, they decided to go country? Now, take that a step further - what if said death metal band went into the studio and recorded a second album that the label thought was too, you know, death metal - should the label get to say, "we're looking for something with more crossover potential - go back and get us something more pop." What if the label says, "we're all about the death metal thing, but we just don't like this album. Write some new songs and try again." If the label is footing the bill and the band is under contract, how far should a label go to control the creative?
Let me know what you think about balancing the creative and commercial. How far should labels go? Do they have free reign if they are paying the bills? Even if they technically do have free reign - how should they exercise that power? What does it mean for music overall when the bottom line trumps the creative process? Should creative control always win out, or is there realistically some balance that has to struck between the creative and the ability to be profitable? Share your ideas!
I think about this alot, not because I have a label telling me how to make music, but because as an independent musician I have to make some of these same decisions –
i.e. am I going to record a favorite tune that will involve paying royalties that will add a cost-
am I going to tell the very creative trombone player he has to play exactly this way at a gig because it’s my musical vision and I’m paying him- and cut off something magical in the process-
Do I make a Christmas cd because I’ve always wanted to, or a lullaby cd because sales are better?
I think there is always a compromise, and ideally the band in the scenario above has partnered with a company that really “gets” what they do, and done their homework to make sure of that in advance.
In the end, though, for myself I know I may need to do both -have some projects that are meaningful an artistic to me, and some that just pay the bills, as long as they are not going against the “core” of what you do, that’s where you have to draw the line.
This can drive you insane. If you consider yourself an “artist”, you push your own envelope to create something that is at least “new” from your head. If you happen to create something that everybody loves, then you make some money and consider yourself very fortunate. This is why most hits are from one-hit wonders. If you do it enough you do have a chance of hitting one. Sort of like the lottery. (you have to be in it to win it!) A hit song is a bit like magic. But VERY few people can sit down wth the express purpose of writing a “hit” with any success. (Well, except Diane Warren and all those folks in Nashville!) And trying to do this will probably drive you insane.
I would hope that anyone signing to a label does their research before hand and is 100% positive that the label will support them in their growth as a creative artist. It also helps if you have one of those “creative control” clauses like Sonic Youth (and many independent 90’s bands who signed to major labels) was able to get.
I think anything yo do musically can be used to further your artistic and creative growth. Whether I’m performing a solo gig of looped noise textures or playing bass in a theater pit, they all help me grow as a musician.
However, I do feel that you should choose what you do carefully and check it against your own ideals and beliefs. Releasing a Christmas album because you love Christmas music is a great idea. Releasing a lullaby album so you can turn a quick buck (especially if you don’t like lullabies) is not such a great idea.
I do think many musical artists are not given their due financially (exactly why I’m a music teacher and not a just a musician) but if you’re involved in the creation of music just to make money and that is your most important measure of success, you’re in the wrong profession.
Word up. Certainly an interesting topic. As @allen mentioned, this is something I often think about as an independant artist. At the end of the day, like @Abram mentioned, If you’re doing music to make money as a first priority, go get into accountancy or something else ’safe’. Not only are you perpetuating the problem of music being horribly tainted by commercialism, but you’re probably as likely to win the lottery as write a ‘hit’.
For me, I can’t really bring myself to write & perform a song written for commercial reasons, I, as I believe is a pure musical pursuit, strive to create something unique & organic. If I write a song I don’t believe in, I feel I have ceased being a musician, & are instead being an actor.
Cabaret & theatre aside, it would seem that many so-called musicians are being actors. I hope this is understandable.
After recently watching a singer/song-writer comp, I am sad to see that the judges time & time again opt for those who fall more inline as what is already accepted rather than those who were pushing the creative envelope.
I can thankfully take solis in the fact that it still seems to ring true on general that those artists & bands who have lasting carreers, which live on long past the time they stop creating music more often than not tend to be the pioneers. The copycats may make some hell cash but at the end of the day their music is forgotten. This is what I believe & I hope, for the sake of pure creativity, that it is true.
Sorry for the rant, evidently I am passionate about this topic.
- SP
I’m with you all – I think making music purely with the goal of making money is a crap reason to make music (and makes for really bad music, too). I believe you can’t make music with an audience in mind. Make whatever you want to make – THEN start thinking about who might want to hear it.
Let me play devil’s advocate for a minute, just to see what people think – let’s say your day job is really preventing you from doing all that you could with your music. So, you want to make a living making music, because your other work just stands in the way of the creative process – but then, of course, you know that to make a living from music, you may have to consider how niche the music you are making is. Not just in terms of sales of recorded music, but in terms of getting people out to shows, etc. Is there ever a time to say, ok, if I am going to support myself by doing this, I am going to have to consider how what I am creating can help me make a living?
Someone mentioned Sonic Youth early, and I think they are a great example. They make their more “commercial” albums – which are definitely not even close to being “mainstream” but still accessible to a wide enough audience to sell – and then they have the whole side things for the more experimental stuff where there are no rules. Of course, being able to have that kind of division is a luxury most musicians don’t have, but I think it is an interesting example of balancing things.
“. I believe you can’t make music with an audience in mind. Make whatever you want to make – THEN start thinking about who might want to hear it. ”
Thats an interesting comment. If you’re making music for a hobby thats ok as there is no financial requirements, and if no-one likes the music thats cool. If you want to make a career out of your music, you have to take a look at the market forces. Businesses look for a need then produce a product that fills that need, artists want the music business to work the other way round, but labels will never see it that way as they have investors to pay back, and businesses to run.
The real question is whether you as an artist really want to commercialise your music and make money out of it or not, if you sign a contract that contract is binding, deciding afterwards that you don’t like it any more means that you’re either not commited to what you get into or didn’t spend enough time considering the contract in the first place. Both are your responsibility and something you should take full ownership of.
By default, signing a contract gives up some of your freedom of choice, but on the most part gives you leverage and support that you may not get if you go it alone. Only the artist can decide so choose wisely.
In order to sell music, you have to have an audience there waiting for it.
Small to mid sized independents all have an idea of what their audience will like, and produce music to accomodate this taste.
In many cases these companies only deal with the new idea/ envelope pushing music.
Which is nice artistically and creatively, but means lots of signed artists have nae tunes, and appeal to a minority badge wearing, devoted music fans. Therefore they dont make a living at it anyway unless they tour to exhaustion, which is only viable if youre about 21. So lots of bands who could maybe have been encouraged to write less of the obscure and more of the accessible material, disappear without making any lasting impact.
We live in a very unstable time for music. It s an idea to make music that people can relate to in some way.
I absolutely agree that you need to have an audience to sell your music to if you want to make a living in music. However, I am skeptical of putting the cart before the horse. I think a musician who is thinking, “hmmmm, I think (insert genre of music) is selling well right now – I am going to write a song like that” will ultimately have less luck than a musician who writes a song and then says, “ok, who is the audience for this song.” In other words, let the music shape the marketing – don’t let the marketing shape the music.
Very interesting comments. I would agree with most of them to a point. Making a living as musician is tough. I do it now as a hobby and hope to one day do
it as a professional. As far as the creative control goes, I think the artists should have it all. Unfortunately, the major record labels have a big hand in what gets played across the radio air waves and exposure is key for an artist of any kind.
If you’re an artist/musician, you need exposure. My appraoch would be to try to get the best of both worlds. Have a balance of cover tunes and slowly introduce some originals. Most people listen to what they’re already familiar with and whats universal. Sometimes you have to do what you have to do, after all, this is a business. I believe you can become a more creative artist the more you become establised in the industry and have found your own distinctive sound. You have to sustain longevity in the business.
Hi Heather, Marketing?
Not sure there’s much scope for that for DIY projects and small labels.
Talking investment there, no?
Well, my music before marketing comment was more about balancing the creative and the commercial than it was about the challenges of indie marketing. I encounter many people who try to write songs that think that X market will like or to fit Y trend. I think it is a bad approach.
But briefly, I really don’t believe marketing to be beyond the scope of indies/DIYs. Challenging? Absolutely. Finances are a major barrier compared to major labels, of course. But – from experience – you accomplish a great deal on less than shoestring with some hard work and creative thinking. I don’t think indie musicians/DIY musicians should write off promotion and marketing as something that is out of their reach. They just have to adjust their thinking and not that think they can model their approach after the approach of those with deeper pockets.
Really, though, my point is that the target audience should be matched to the music – the music shouldn’t be written specifically to satisfy a trend, if you see what I mean? Maybe I’m not expressing myself very well!
Hi, now I see your point. You would have to be quite cynical to mess about with your music to meet commercial trends. Lets leave that to the big boys.
Meantime, all help on this site is fantastic, but the sticking point for self release is definitely sales/ promotion, which I reason is marketing.
1. you make a record
2. You get distribution (online and retail)
3. You go on local radio
4. Get reviews
5. Arrange gigs and support slots
6. Dont take offence from lack of feedback
7. More gigs??
Not being a creative marketing type, this ia as far as I (or A musician) can take things.
Any brainstorm scope?
It definitely goes both ways. You can be creative as an artist and still be commercial and at the end of the day, pay bills. That gray area should be worked out way before signing a deal. Independence means a lot. That’s why so many artist just continue to fund their own studio projects. And the label have to push what the artist does, period. Unless of course you “sign blind.” Then you are that puppet for the duration of that contract. In that case make a heck of a lot of money, save it and jump ship when your contract is up and form ur own empire and takeover in the industry.
Hi TCB –
Cynical – definitely. I am surprised how often I get questions about, “do you think I should make (this kind of music) – does that kind of music sell?” – Not surprising when, as you say, the big boys talk that way, but I’ve been surprised at how many “aspiring” musicians are thinking that way.
I agree with your list absolutely – I just think the trick is always having a plan that is a few stages beyond what you are actually doing at that time, so you are always posed to use each opportunity as a springboard to the next. For instance, if we’re talking about local shows:
- Pursue local press coverage for every show. Once you’ve tackled the listings, try for a preview or review. Once you’ve had previews or reviews, try for a short interview. Or, once you’ve had local radio play/college radio play, try for a radio session.
- Start branching out as far as that local press can take you. If you’ve got clippings of reviews, previews, an interview – all that stuff – in your area, turn to the nearest big city that you can inexpensively reach by car and start over. Get a show. Get a listing. Then come back and try for the preview/review. Etc.
- Touring counts, but to get the most out of your touring when you’re just getting started, you should make a point to only hit cities where you will be able to afford to visit again in a few months time – even if you have a great show someplace, if you can’t go back there for a year and you don’t have major radio and press happening, it doesn’t matter. So, in the US for instance, this would mean regional touring. Decide where you can go and check out the listings in those places. Get a feel for who the local bands are that seems to get press and have a good following. Reach out to them for a gig swap. They book the show, draw the crowd, do the promotion and get the press, so you can walk into that town with that groundwork in place and start off with a little buzz. You return the favor for those musicians in your town – use the local media contact and audience you have built to give them a crack in your area. These things have a way of snowballing – you can build a great touring network this way that helps you maximize the value of going out and playing and cuts the actual cost of touring.
So, just a few examples of taking those first few baby steps from just starting out to just starting to build a larger audience. But really, in terms of promo/marketing, the trick is to get as close as possible to the big boy’s network of these things without paying big boy prices. I know it sounds a little pie in the sky, but I have seen this work over and over again…you need to reach out to companies and try to get them to work with you for far less than they would charge a bigger artist/label.
Do some research and find out who is doing PR/radio for bigger artists that are making music similar to yours. Figure out how much you can pay and reach out to these companies. Put together a plan and make a pitch. You can do things like offer to do some of the work – such as, you’ll send promos as long as they do the follow-ups – and you can offer to work on some incentive deal – a base fee plus bonuses if you reach certain sales thresholds or other goals. Go to them with everything you have accomplished yourself and make your case as to why taking a chance on your music could work for them.
Honestly, some companies won’t do it. But what you’re looking for is that one place where your music really clicks. A lot of big PR companies actually relish the chance to get in there with a new artist and really try to break them. Some PR people are only concerned with the bottom line, but many PR people – well, many people in the music industry, period – love music but don’t always get the chance to work with music they fall in love with. You have to get out there and find that person who already has the network in place to promote your music who really falls head over heels for what you’re doing and believes in it – and is looking for a project they can sink their teeth into. Your own commitment and enthusiasm matters a great deal here – it can be contagious, and if you show you have the songs, the drive and the passion, you might be surprised at the flexibility that is out there.
Most indie/DIY musicians and labels never ask, so they never get.
For advertising, wait until a publication is just about to go to press. They’ll have space they need to fill and fill fast. Make a deal. (If you think advertising matters, that it – I consider it to be way, way down the list for most indies.)
Anyway, just some thoughts. Have you tried any of this stuff? What kinds of problems are you running into?
Hi musicians,
thankyou for all the help thus far.
The last comment is really appreciated.
Rather than have a problem page type rant about getting noticed, Ive been doing some reflecting.
There is probably a better way to get people to hear your music than to adopt the current record label model and try to emulate it with a self release.
If cd albums/ EP’s arent selling well regardless of marketing campaigns, it doesnt make sense to spend time and money making and trying to sell them, even though its a life affirming dream to have distribution to your favourite record shops, they are struggling to sell signed artists.
So it has been great fun doing the things as a small record label would for the past year, but ultimately, its not a very sustainable model, and is a hobby rather than a business.
The creative process for me to be fair isnt really a hobby, and is about expression of who you are.
For different artists this will mean a manner of different things, but in order to continue to make something tangible from music Im thinking of coming at it from another perspective.
Ultimately, it may well end up at the same hurdle, ie contacting PR for radio/ press, but for the moment, the industry itself doesnt seem to have the answers.
Its a challenge, making money from sales of CD’s is fairly self limiting and probably isnt realistic unless you can produce good quality work for next to nothing.
Sales is tough. I am probably going to budget record,digitally release the next one, burn copies for friends/fans, and maybe send them to labels, and give acting as a record label a bit of a rest for a while, its a job as you say, and one that doesnt pay well!.
All help on this site continues to inspire/inform, and I think the key is to continue to be creative and have an outlet for the creativity, rather than to worry too much about creating physical product.
yours aye
Ian