"Dude, let's start a band and record a CD and shop it to record labels. Then we'll get ourselves on MTV, get into a movie, tour with Lemmy and Zakk and go to Europe and live happily ever after!"
No one actually said that of course but that's what happened...and let me tell you - only YOU are in control of the "happily ever after" part; not your bank account.
Record labels:
As much as I fear record labels, I would love a venture capitalist to knock on my door. Money allows you time but not necessarily quality music. With a record label advance also comes a deadline. Yes it is true that many labels and or investors will boast on the highest mountain to be part of the union with your band but mostly, they want a return for their investment! They wouldn't lie. They'd tell you before you signed the 35 pages, "you'd better deliver". They would put it nicely of course and make you feel that they have every confidence in the world or they wouldn't consider the offer. However, it's a loan. Hopefully not too big of one.
Let's take the word 'day' and replace it with the word 'song' for a moment:
A Song in the Life
A Hard Song's Night
That'll Be The Song
Lucky Song
One Song at a Time
They all seem to fit this topic here. Especially the last one (without the religious connotation, although a prayer or two wouldn't hurt). 'One Song At a Time' - that is the way we are running the show right now. It's not really a plan. It's convenient. We're broke uh..eh...(excuse me while I clear my throat) I mean we are very frugal with our money and we are not on a label anymore. A band member has some excellent recording gear and we record as we write. When the song is ready we release it. "Huh?" You say? Is that against the rules? Who's rules? In the 1950's the whole industry was based on the 'single'. 45 rpm record. 1 song per side. Why make our fans wait? If a song is ready publish it! Most people will find a way to get it free anyway. That said, why go through all the trouble of finding some corporate giants who treat us like schmucks, waste time and money developing us in the wrong genre and turn around to renegotiate the next time around and/or blame US for lack of CD sales? It's our burden, our passion, our music so why shouldn't it be our decision to do with it what we please?
This is not a rant it's an epiphany:
There sure is a lot of writing on the wall these days! It seems that modern day musicians will only benefit from merchandise, live shows, publishing and subscriptions/on-demand services.
Pack for the trip - let's see, camera, phone, Ipod, laptop, PDA, camcorder, all the wall-chargers, car-chargers and cable connectors, spare batteries, battery chargers, adaptors, USB, SCSI, Mini jack, 1/4 inch, RCA, firewire.........
I need a bigger suitcase!
Much like the way the consumers have been tired of carrying around a PDA, cell phone, Ipod, Laptop, digital camera, video camera and any number of other gadgets that require grown men to harness 'bitch-bags', the cell phone companies have opted for the 'all-in-one' devices. Now the damn phones hold multiple gigs of music, web browsers, camcorders, cameras and who knows what else? Soon consumers will inevitably subscribe to ONE company for ALL their music. There's no doubt in my mind that it will be part of some conglomerate umbrella of Verizon or AT&T (whatever).
If you are subscribing to get ALL your music from one place you would expect ALL artists to be in their archives. Right? Not yet. It's getting there. Emusic boasts that it has "the world's largest catalog of independent music". OK, that's great for independent music. What about U2, Shaggy, Kid Rock(footnote 1) and Nickelback? Itunes, Rhapsody, Sony Connect? The main question I guess, relating to my theme here the best I can, do these companies accept artists if they only submit a single song? Is it absolutely necessary to have a pressed "CD" in order to stand along side the giants in the industry? I think you can see where I'm going here (if you know tell me and I'll meet you there). Much of my experience with a full recorded album [they still call them albums] is the time fillers! With the exception of a few artists (Boston's 1st record, Led Zeppelin, Stone Temple Pilots, Pantera, Soundgarden, Pink Floyd) I cannot listen to an entire album without skipping tracks. It seems that most artists, whether premeditated or unintentional, have but 1 or 2 'good' - maybe 'great' - songs and the rest are garbage or just mediocre. Why is that?
I can answer that question a few ways:
1) Maybe they didn't have enough material and slapped together a few tracks at the last minute to meet a deadline.
2) Maybe they were trying to cross over into different genres and just should have stayed with their forte
3) Maybe I'm a presumptuous asshole and I'm too picky or elitist to accept anything but the best.
4) Maybe I have a certain taste and end up biased based on particular styles of songs.
Notice my last two reasons pointed out the fact that the previous paragraph won't stand up as a valid argument to most people. The reason is basically this: Music is subjective; one man's junk is another man's treasure. You cannot expect to please all the people all the time. You can also take a bunch of cliches and make a hit song out of it (haha - it's true though). Back to the point: In my opinion, it seems most bands release a full length CD because it's the standard way of doing things. It's what you are supposed to do. I don't agree with that philosophy. If 4 songs feel good and sound good together and that seems like the best package STOP right there! It looks to me like you have yourselves an EP this time! Release it as it is!
What's my point? I don't know but it feels good to let it out. I think what my cerebrum is trying to convey (while side-tracking myself like a ADHD kid who forgot to take his Ritalin) is that the 'singles' format may very well be the vehicle for independent artists. Also, I feel that independent artist should remain that way: Indy!
1.) It's interesting that I happened to mention Kid Rock while assuming that all major artists have their music on Itunes and the like. I should do some research before running my mouth: I just read in Rolling Stone Magazine that Kid Rock REFUSED to publish his songs on Itunes. Maybe that's the reason he sold 1.3 million copies of his latest release, "Rock N Roll Jesus" (which came out last October). "All Summer Long" hit number 4 in July. According to Atlantic general manager , Livia Tortella, he's "the only artist that's not available on Itunes with a monster hit right now." At that level, maybe that is what it takes to actually sell CDs...hold out as long as you can. In his own words, "it's not very American to me when Apple tells you how they want to sell your product and tell you what it's worth." - Rolling Stone issue 1059 August 21, 2008.
-KD
No comments:
Post a Comment