Over the years I've talked to, and been friends with hundreds, if not thousands of musicians, actors, screenwriters, visual artists, poets, comedians, authors and many others in the creative arts. Their income levels varied from zero to many millions of dollars annually.
Many of them were great at what they did, but only a few made over $100,000/year doing what they loved. $100,000/year isn't really that much anymore. Yet, many of them were happy, because they were doing what they loved. They were playing music, or writing and performing comedy, or acting...and the money meant less to them than the opportunity to do what they wanted. Many of them could be happy living in one room, working for $20 per set / show in small clubs or theaters, in the hopes of perfecting their craft, and growing to play to larger audiences, and get their message out.
The community in which I grew up didn't consider that to be success. Many musicians far more talented than I am were willing to starve for their art, and were so committed to their artistic success, that they sometimes spent years starving for it.
To those people, success meant pursuing their art and perfecting their craft fulltime, and not working in a shoe store to pay the bills. Just this morning, I talked to a comedian whose work I love, and whom I know will make it. She recently lost all the data on her computer, and may need a data recovery company to help her out. Chances are she couldn't afford our technology support services, or those of the data recovery company.
A lot of her writing was on the hard drive that had been toasted, and I wanted to help her as much as I could. I referred her to someone, and her data got rescued. A new hard drive was under $100, and she was back in business. I was really scared for her. Had she needed high end data recovery services, she'd not have been able to afford it.
The important thing is she's happy, she's talented, and she's generally a positive person.
Someone once said "If life gives you lemons, make lemonade." I always wondered what happens if life didn't give you a juicer. Not having a juicer is an impediment to getting the lemonade. Fine. Make your own juicer, but with an impediment, you get sediment. There was fruit juice before it was easy to squeeze juice out of an orange, lemon or grape.
Donald Trump didn't make his own juicer—not completely. He got a leg up in the real estate business from his father. He did a hell of a lot with what he was given, he is an astoundingly good self-promoter, and is still very hungry for the dollar and for more success. I don't understand that kind of hunger for the dollar, but that could explain why I'm not wealthy (warning: that last link leads to a Chris Rock video that has some swear words in it.) like Donald Trump. I'm not even rich like Chris Rock.
There are some political philosophies that tell folks who aren't doing well, or who've had some bad luck to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps.". Those "philosophers" assumed the one who was down could afford boots. It also seems like if one is down, pulling on one's own feet would more likely keep them down than support their back. But whatever. Trump got his boots from Daddy, Bush II was legacied into everything from Yale to the White House. I'm not so sure the whole "bootstrap" thing makes sense. "It takes a village to raise a child" seems a little more sensible a maxim/saying when it comes to helping groom someone for success, or for anything.
Richard Pryor worked his way up from poverty, to become a great artistic and financial success—in that order. He was talented, worked extremely hard at his craft, and got a payday.
Aaron Sorkin is a very accomplished, astoundingly talented, and yet, really humble man. Even after he'd had great success in writing TV, movies, and stage plays, he stuck to his values. He is very charitable, and is not all about "me, me, me", despite the fact that he pays far more in taxes than almost all his fans. He sees the insanity of corporate greed that those who employ him consider to be an ingredient of success.
I guess the bottom line is that people who don't compromise their values, and make a living benefitting society, and not ripping people off, and who love what they do, are a success.
I hope we all can achieve that some day.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Copycat, Tribute or Thievery? It's a tough call.
I Recently got a call from a a musician friend of mine. He was given an assignment to create two minutes of music in the style of a recording by a popular artist. The recording had a typical-sounding contemporary rock band accompanying a singer. It was hackwork—a formulaic composition and commercial arrangement with few, if any original musical ideas.
Nonetheless, the producer of the recording, and the musician assigned to create the "sound alike" piece were concerned about copyright infringement. It's a valid concern. What constitutes imitation in a sound-alike? I advised my friends to watch and listen to what Alf Clausen does on The Simpsons, and what Walter Murphy does for Family Guy.
But even Family Guy gets into trouble over this stuff once in a while. Personally, I can't see their song and When You Wish Upon A Star being that similar. This is one in the style of Gilbert & Sullivan. If it's in the style of a particular song, I don't know the original. If you know the Gilbert & Sullivan style song to be a parody of one in particular, please comment on it here.
Composers like Clausen and Murphy often write new songs that are really variants on songs we already know. A lot of people who hear these variants can even recognize the song on which the variant was based. By having modified slightly the chord progressions, melodies and harmonies and rhythms from the original song (and sometimes of a particular recording of a song) the composer gets "off the hook" on technicalities.
In normal-people speak: You can imitate without ripping off. So long as the "sound-alike" piece is sufficiently different from the original that people can tell them apart, there's usually no basis for a lawsuit.
My friend's call to me about this problem brought out several age-old questions:
1) When does imitation cross the line into stealing?
2) When does stylistic influence become "copycat"?
3) Can two people come up with the same idea, conveyed almost exactly alike, without one having "borrowed" from the other?
These are tough questions, and have been fought in and out of courts for hundreds, if not thousands of years. And it doesn't apply only to music. There are comedians, authors, even tap dancers, who have claimed, after seeing someone else's seemingly-similar work, that the similar work had been "lifted" from one of their own. It's often tough to tell.
Below are a few cases and/or general scenarios showing different manifestations of this problem.
Note: Nothing in here is meant to be legal advice. If you need legal advice about this stuff, contact your friendly local intellectual property attorney. I know a whole bunch of 'em. Contact me if you'd like some help finding one.
Nonetheless, the producer of the recording, and the musician assigned to create the "sound alike" piece were concerned about copyright infringement. It's a valid concern. What constitutes imitation in a sound-alike? I advised my friends to watch and listen to what Alf Clausen does on The Simpsons, and what Walter Murphy does for Family Guy.
But even Family Guy gets into trouble over this stuff once in a while. Personally, I can't see their song and When You Wish Upon A Star being that similar. This is one in the style of Gilbert & Sullivan. If it's in the style of a particular song, I don't know the original. If you know the Gilbert & Sullivan style song to be a parody of one in particular, please comment on it here.
Composers like Clausen and Murphy often write new songs that are really variants on songs we already know. A lot of people who hear these variants can even recognize the song on which the variant was based. By having modified slightly the chord progressions, melodies and harmonies and rhythms from the original song (and sometimes of a particular recording of a song) the composer gets "off the hook" on technicalities.
In normal-people speak: You can imitate without ripping off. So long as the "sound-alike" piece is sufficiently different from the original that people can tell them apart, there's usually no basis for a lawsuit.
My friend's call to me about this problem brought out several age-old questions:
1) When does imitation cross the line into stealing?
2) When does stylistic influence become "copycat"?
3) Can two people come up with the same idea, conveyed almost exactly alike, without one having "borrowed" from the other?
These are tough questions, and have been fought in and out of courts for hundreds, if not thousands of years. And it doesn't apply only to music. There are comedians, authors, even tap dancers, who have claimed, after seeing someone else's seemingly-similar work, that the similar work had been "lifted" from one of their own. It's often tough to tell.
Below are a few cases and/or general scenarios showing different manifestations of this problem.
- Harlan Ellison claimed that material for two of the episodes he authored for the series Babylon 5 were used in the movie The Terminator. He sued James Cameron (who wrote The Terminator) and won.
- Two key (musical, not lyrical) phrases in George Harrison's My Sweet Lord sound very similar to The Shirelles' R&B hit He's So Fine. The composer of He's So Fine sued, and George Harrison paid a settlement. George claimed he could have been subconsciously influenced by The Shirelles hit. After all, he and the other Beatles were avid fans of American R&B before they had "made it big". However, George was a terrific composer, who'd written many truly-original songs.
- There are many comedians who have written jokes about the same topics. Even comedians make fun of this, thinking of a lot of it as hackery. Many comedians use as an example the line "Why couldn't they make the whole plane with the same material the black box is made of?"..So many comedians have thought of that premise that it's considered a "hack" joke. Two people can observe and comment on the same thing without having heard one another's observation.
Note: Nothing in here is meant to be legal advice. If you need legal advice about this stuff, contact your friendly local intellectual property attorney. I know a whole bunch of 'em. Contact me if you'd like some help finding one.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Intellectual Property pirates haven't won, thanks to a win-win!
Futurist Alan Kay once said, "The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
My previous two blog posts decried the mentality that many people now see it as "okay" to steal music, movies, TV shows, and other intellectual property that others worked
hard to create and produce. I was beginning to think that since David Bowie said more than ten years ago that this kind of thing was going to happen, I became really upset. The NY Times piece is from 2002, but he's been thinking this kind of thing for a long time. The idea that creative people would non-consensually give away the things from which they now make a living was horrifying to me—and probably to many of you reading this.
But, it's a reality. Complaining about it won't make it go away. So what do we do? Crawl up into a little ball and die? I think the major record companies may be on the way there. But the rest of us—those of us who are small enough to "turn on a dime" can adapt.
I wondered how the internet service providers allow illegal traffic to pass through the conduits they set up—their little piece of the internet through which their customers get high speed access. There has to be some variety of accessory-like crime. I'm still not sure if I was right, as those with significantly more money/resources than I have chose not to test that, but instead, to get judgements against housewives.
I was beginning to resign myself to the idea that musicians, actors, authors, comedians, and so many other creators of works that enhance our lives would just have to make less money, or think of new ways to make a living. I knew there had to be some ways to prove the naysayers wrong. Yesterday, I found something that will help. This may be only a beginning, but it shows promise, and comes from someone who understands the challenges, and has the brains to help realize his vision.
Gerd Leonhard—a media visionary, hailed by the likes of The Wall Street Journal—said in his
book The Future of Music , and in many other places, that there is a way for creative people to make money other than live performance, and selling their recorded wares at gigs.
Do his thoughts carry over to creative works other than music? Damn right they do.
Gerd's new book is called Music 2.0. I haven't read it yet, but I will soon. It looks like a repurposing of existing material. Repurposing is a very a good thing, by the way.
I haven't met Mr. Leonhard yet, but I already like him a lot. If you create for a living, read his work. He likes you too, wants to help, and has some pretty good ideas on how to do so.
Although Leonhard and Bowie disagree on some critical points, they agree on some important things as well. Bowie's been expressing his views publicly about this subject for a long time, and Mr. Leonhard's been at it longer.David's an astute businessman, but Leonhard's coming at it differently. I'm rootin' for the (relative) underdog on this one, and think he may have something. I'd like to do whatever I can to help the cause of musicians making more money from their creative works.
Leonhard has shown that a "Download fee" assessed and added to every broadband subscription in the world, in addition to miniscule shares of web advertising revenues could go a long way toward letting what are now stolen works generate revenue for their creators. YouTube, Google, and so many others make a lot of their money selling advertising and "serving" the ads they sell.
An article in the UK's The Register highlighted an experimental model on a very small scale—80,000 people—on The Isle of Man in Scotland, in which the internet service provider assessed a small download fee, and added it to the monthly bill for broadband service. The assessment would be about $1.50 US per broadband connection per month. For that $1.50, a broadband customer would get unlimited downloading of music, movies, whatever copyrighted media are out there. It'd all be nice and legal, no one gets harassed, creators of art get paid for their work, and everyone gets to enjoy the fruit of creative artists' labors, while allowing them to create more.
If a YouTube page were tagged (labelled on the inside) as containing copyrighted and licensed intellectual property, and the Performance Rights Agencies such as BMI , ASCAP, SESAC, and now (thank God) SoundExchange—the first performance rights organization to pay attention to spoken word artists' broadcasts, webcasts, streaming media plays and narrowcasts—were to be the authorized representatives to license and collect royalties on the web, they could make money money for artists, distribute a whole bunch of it, and keep a nice taste.
It's a win-win. Google and other search engines could serve music as easily as it serves ads, and serve MORE ads as it licenses the content it serves. This isn't going to happen overnight. But it can happen.
There is much more to all this, and I will be investigating it as deeply as possible in the coming months.
Please send feedback. I'd love to know your thoughts on this matter!!
In future posts, I'll concentrate on repurposing, and why it's a very good thing.
My previous two blog posts decried the mentality that many people now see it as "okay" to steal music, movies, TV shows, and other intellectual property that others worked
hard to create and produce. I was beginning to think that since David Bowie said more than ten years ago that this kind of thing was going to happen, I became really upset. The NY Times piece is from 2002, but he's been thinking this kind of thing for a long time. The idea that creative people would non-consensually give away the things from which they now make a living was horrifying to me—and probably to many of you reading this.
But, it's a reality. Complaining about it won't make it go away. So what do we do? Crawl up into a little ball and die? I think the major record companies may be on the way there. But the rest of us—those of us who are small enough to "turn on a dime" can adapt.
I wondered how the internet service providers allow illegal traffic to pass through the conduits they set up—their little piece of the internet through which their customers get high speed access. There has to be some variety of accessory-like crime. I'm still not sure if I was right, as those with significantly more money/resources than I have chose not to test that, but instead, to get judgements against housewives.
I was beginning to resign myself to the idea that musicians, actors, authors, comedians, and so many other creators of works that enhance our lives would just have to make less money, or think of new ways to make a living. I knew there had to be some ways to prove the naysayers wrong. Yesterday, I found something that will help. This may be only a beginning, but it shows promise, and comes from someone who understands the challenges, and has the brains to help realize his vision.
Gerd Leonhard—a media visionary, hailed by the likes of The Wall Street Journal—said in his
book The Future of Music , and in many other places, that there is a way for creative people to make money other than live performance, and selling their recorded wares at gigs.
Do his thoughts carry over to creative works other than music? Damn right they do.
Gerd's new book is called Music 2.0. I haven't read it yet, but I will soon. It looks like a repurposing of existing material. Repurposing is a very a good thing, by the way.
I haven't met Mr. Leonhard yet, but I already like him a lot. If you create for a living, read his work. He likes you too, wants to help, and has some pretty good ideas on how to do so.
Although Leonhard and Bowie disagree on some critical points, they agree on some important things as well. Bowie's been expressing his views publicly about this subject for a long time, and Mr. Leonhard's been at it longer.David's an astute businessman, but Leonhard's coming at it differently. I'm rootin' for the (relative) underdog on this one, and think he may have something. I'd like to do whatever I can to help the cause of musicians making more money from their creative works.
Leonhard has shown that a "Download fee" assessed and added to every broadband subscription in the world, in addition to miniscule shares of web advertising revenues could go a long way toward letting what are now stolen works generate revenue for their creators. YouTube, Google, and so many others make a lot of their money selling advertising and "serving" the ads they sell.
An article in the UK's The Register highlighted an experimental model on a very small scale—80,000 people—on The Isle of Man in Scotland, in which the internet service provider assessed a small download fee, and added it to the monthly bill for broadband service. The assessment would be about $1.50 US per broadband connection per month. For that $1.50, a broadband customer would get unlimited downloading of music, movies, whatever copyrighted media are out there. It'd all be nice and legal, no one gets harassed, creators of art get paid for their work, and everyone gets to enjoy the fruit of creative artists' labors, while allowing them to create more.
If a YouTube page were tagged (labelled on the inside) as containing copyrighted and licensed intellectual property, and the Performance Rights Agencies such as BMI , ASCAP, SESAC, and now (thank God) SoundExchange—the first performance rights organization to pay attention to spoken word artists' broadcasts, webcasts, streaming media plays and narrowcasts—were to be the authorized representatives to license and collect royalties on the web, they could make money money for artists, distribute a whole bunch of it, and keep a nice taste.
It's a win-win. Google and other search engines could serve music as easily as it serves ads, and serve MORE ads as it licenses the content it serves. This isn't going to happen overnight. But it can happen.
There is much more to all this, and I will be investigating it as deeply as possible in the coming months.
Please send feedback. I'd love to know your thoughts on this matter!!
In future posts, I'll concentrate on repurposing, and why it's a very good thing.
Friday, June 19, 2009
New Music Economy—Part 2
In my last rant about piracy and the state of the record business, I took what could be called a pro-industry stance. Well, let's explore the other side of the piracy problem.
People will continue to steal music. So what do we do about it? Do we inform the public? Maybe, but that will be minimally effective, at best. Do we punish the uploaders? I suppose that'd be a good start. Do we punish/close down the conduits such as KaZaa, Limewire, or Bearshare? Without a doubt, we must do that before we do anything else.
The RIAA has chosen the stupidest possible path. They made an example of a single mom of four kids who shared 24 songs. They took her to court and won a judgement of $220,000. She got a pro bono lawyer to fight it, and lost again to the tune of $1.9 million. That's just ridiculous. Not only is the amount of money a staggering overkill, but it makes the mother a sympathetic figure. Threatening her internet service provider, thus putting her at risk of losing internet access might be smarter. The broadband provider would never risk its business by letting this woman maintain an account with them. They should close down her sources of obtaining the new music, as their basis for existence is illegal. They should make it easier for MySpace or whoever's putting the music out there to share some of it consensually.
But they're not doing any of that. Instead, they're coming down like the wrath of God on someone who'll never be able to pay the judgement, and who was caught having pirated twenty four songs. She probably has a lot more pirated music besides those twenty four, but the RIAA didn't even focus on that. It's a public relations disaster that makes the RIAA seem like a bunch of ogres. Let them go after the businesses that deal in pirated music. Cut off the supply. The demand will still be there, but a certain percentage will stop pirating as much music, and the $1.9 million will be more than made up via a much more sensible means.
Public Service Announcements by the artists themselves might not hurt either. .Lawsuits against soccer moms just make the RIAA look stupid, discredit the industry in the eyes of teenagers, giving them one more rationalization to continue stealing. I'd like to see the record business fight piracy effectively. No one loses with good PR. I hope the RIAA, the record companies, and the recording artists figure that out quickly.
People will continue to steal music. So what do we do about it? Do we inform the public? Maybe, but that will be minimally effective, at best. Do we punish the uploaders? I suppose that'd be a good start. Do we punish/close down the conduits such as KaZaa, Limewire, or Bearshare? Without a doubt, we must do that before we do anything else.
The RIAA has chosen the stupidest possible path. They made an example of a single mom of four kids who shared 24 songs. They took her to court and won a judgement of $220,000. She got a pro bono lawyer to fight it, and lost again to the tune of $1.9 million. That's just ridiculous. Not only is the amount of money a staggering overkill, but it makes the mother a sympathetic figure. Threatening her internet service provider, thus putting her at risk of losing internet access might be smarter. The broadband provider would never risk its business by letting this woman maintain an account with them. They should close down her sources of obtaining the new music, as their basis for existence is illegal. They should make it easier for MySpace or whoever's putting the music out there to share some of it consensually.
But they're not doing any of that. Instead, they're coming down like the wrath of God on someone who'll never be able to pay the judgement, and who was caught having pirated twenty four songs. She probably has a lot more pirated music besides those twenty four, but the RIAA didn't even focus on that. It's a public relations disaster that makes the RIAA seem like a bunch of ogres. Let them go after the businesses that deal in pirated music. Cut off the supply. The demand will still be there, but a certain percentage will stop pirating as much music, and the $1.9 million will be more than made up via a much more sensible means.
Public Service Announcements by the artists themselves might not hurt either. .Lawsuits against soccer moms just make the RIAA look stupid, discredit the industry in the eyes of teenagers, giving them one more rationalization to continue stealing. I'd like to see the record business fight piracy effectively. No one loses with good PR. I hope the RIAA, the record companies, and the recording artists figure that out quickly.
Monday, May 25, 2009
The New Music Economy (hyphenate wherever you like)
I recently met with the founders of a startup record label. I'm 44 and they're in their twenties. Their view of how musicians use the internet is radically different from mine. I'd heard that musicians were all hyped on MySpace. I figured that they used MySpace because it was easy, and that the look of the page was secondary to the ease of posting content. I was wrong about that too. I wasn't giving the kids enough credit. Their thinking's more sophisticated than I'd given them credit for. (Sorry for having ended that sentence with a preposition. See? Old School.)
I still think that most of MySpace looks like a slum full of row-houses with the style and quality of the graffiti being the only difference between one house and the next.
Facebook is neat, clean, uniform, and overall, has content more relevant to me. That doesn't mean it's better for everyone. The kids want a means of expression, and Facebook allows less of that.
That there's a precedent doesn't excuse the kids' behavior or justify their position. Stealing music is just wrong, and taking food out of the artists' mouths (or a record company's coffers) isn't good for anyone. John Perry Barlow got it right. The real New Economy is about making it easier to sell intellectual property by not requiring it to take physical form. However well-intentioned the proponent of the opposite view may be, by promoting the idea of giving away the "wine" in the hopes that the gifts may some day promote trips to the vineyard, they'll perpetuate the old "starving artist" paradigm, leaving the artist drunk with only their own wine and AA to keep them company.
Rant over!
Comments?
Okay, fine. I'm capable of admitting I was wrong, and hopefully I'm capable of learning and changing my view of things.
They also explained that, in their view, MySpace is a great way for the bands to publicize their material. They said that MySpace gives them free exposure to a lot of music, so they can determine (without paying for it,or working too hard to find it) whether they'd like to see the band live.
There's a much bigger issue in Gen-X and Millenial kids' view of intellectual property (and of how to publicize music). The current twenty-somethings have become accustomed to stealing music, and have found rationales for stealing which have insidiously crept into their culture. The rationalizations seem so deeply ingrained that they almost don't see it as stealing.
They appear, as a group, to be more okay with pirating music than previous generations had been. With Limewire and many other "services" it becomes so easy to steal that the kids don't see it as wrong. [Limewire is so evil and full of harmful things for computers (viruses, spyware, malware) that I won't even link to it.]
Not like I'm so holy myself. I don't mean to come off as holier than ..whoever, but this is one area that's important to me because I create things, and would prefer that people not steal them.
Not like I'm so holy myself. I don't mean to come off as holier than ..whoever, but this is one area that's important to me because I create things, and would prefer that people not steal them.
Perhaps many bands want fans to spread the word through whatever means possible, including the music-stealing sites and "services". Perhaps some bands say on their websites "Feel free to download and spread our stuff. We want to get our stuff in as many ears as possible.". I've not seen that type of notice on any band's website. Doesn't mean no one's doing it. But, you can be sure The Rolling Stones don't say that. Their stuff gets pirated as much as any other music.
The rationale these kids gave me was that the artists already know there's no money in making records any more, which is why most of them spend less on production today than they would have twenty years ago (if they were even old enough to have been in the business then). Production and distribution are much cheaper now, after all. Tools for making a high-quality record are available for only a few thousand dollars, and someone can put together a "great" studio for very little money today. (Of course, your definition of "great" may vary from theirs.)
Electronic distribution costs "nothing", and it's available on the "file sharing" networks. So.."What are we (the kids) doing wrong?"
Electronic distribution costs "nothing", and it's available on the "file sharing" networks. So.."What are we (the kids) doing wrong?"
The kids I met with believe that when a band releases a new record/CD, it serves as the basis for a new tour. There is a lot of money in touring, and the artists make their "real money" on tour. As such, by spreading the music around, the twenty-somethings help the artists to sell more seats, thus increasing tour profits. Tour profits lead to merchandise sales; so, again, helping to "promote" touring helps to increase merchandise and ticket sales, which is ultimately where the artist makes money anyway.
They also posed a social justice rationale. The big, bad evil record company charges $17 for a CD, and they keep majority of the $17. Very little goes to the artist, and the artist must use their piece of the record sale pie to pay back advances made by the record company. The kids I met with believe that, more often than not, the record company treats an artist's advance as a loan, and charges interest on it..
Helping the artist get out of debt is not too high on the kids' priority list. The kids say they'd rather pay iTunes for the one or two songs they might want from the CD, than buy the whole CD. Also, the artist sees approximately 70% of the recording sale by iTunes, versus a smaller percentage than that which they'd get from sale of the big bad record company's release.
[The (original) last word of the following sentence was censored by Facebook. So, I changed it both here and on Facebook:] That's a load of hooey.
I respect the kids who are starting the record company. I'm sure they have a lot of talent, and an understanding of the record business as it exists today. But I take issue with their positions. I figured that maybe I got it wrong, that I misunderstood. So I asked a few teenagers about their music consumption habits. The ones I asked tell me that they do buy songs individually, or that they listen to songs on MySpace without ever buying them. I think that's fine. If an artist puts a song on MySpace, but did not mean to distribute it beyond MySpace, and the kids go where the music is, that's just a sign that the band's getting popular. By having put the song up on the internet without a price tag on it, the artist is encouraging people to listen.
Helping the artist get out of debt is not too high on the kids' priority list. The kids say they'd rather pay iTunes for the one or two songs they might want from the CD, than buy the whole CD. Also, the artist sees approximately 70% of the recording sale by iTunes, versus a smaller percentage than that which they'd get from sale of the big bad record company's release.
[The (original) last word of the following sentence was censored by Facebook. So, I changed it both here and on Facebook:] That's a load of hooey.
I respect the kids who are starting the record company. I'm sure they have a lot of talent, and an understanding of the record business as it exists today. But I take issue with their positions. I figured that maybe I got it wrong, that I misunderstood. So I asked a few teenagers about their music consumption habits. The ones I asked tell me that they do buy songs individually, or that they listen to songs on MySpace without ever buying them. I think that's fine. If an artist puts a song on MySpace, but did not mean to distribute it beyond MySpace, and the kids go where the music is, that's just a sign that the band's getting popular. By having put the song up on the internet without a price tag on it, the artist is encouraging people to listen.
The social justice argument runs counter to the "recorded music is a promotional item for selling tour tickets.". rationale, but let's come back to that.
My research indicates that many artists' advances are interest-free., and that a good lawyer can make any such clause go away. Also, since production costs have come way down (part of the kids' argument), artists don't need advances as much as they used to. Any contract with a record label that doesn't involve an artist's advance, negates at least half the social justice rationale.
My research indicates that many artists' advances are interest-free., and that a good lawyer can make any such clause go away. Also, since production costs have come way down (part of the kids' argument), artists don't need advances as much as they used to. Any contract with a record label that doesn't involve an artist's advance, negates at least half the social justice rationale.
Let's look at the kids' rationales from another perspective:
John Lennon ain't touring. I doubt his estate agrees with the philosophy of "benevolence" espoused by the kids.
Billy Joel is 60. I don't think he's too thrilled about having to tour as much as he does at his age. Maybe he's not recorded (in part) because there's no money in it any more. His last studio album (River of Dreams, CBS 1993. Available on Amazon, iTunes, and lots of other places) sold in the tens of millions. Yet he tours with Elton John a lot. Elton is still recording. He's in a different position than most recording artists today.
I grew up Orthodox Jewish. A lot of Orthodox Jewish culture looks down upon the less observant variants of Judaism, and jokes that they have "Turned 'The Ten Commandments' into the Ten Suggestions."
Let's not ignore the obvious: The artists are charging for the recordings of their music. They're outright telling their fans that this recording costs $10 or $15. Do the kids think that's just a Suggestion? Do the kids think "Oh, the artists don't really mean that."?
Billy Joel wrote a great song called Christmas In Fallujah. The proceeds from the song are going to an organization called Homes for Our Troops —a not-for-profit organization that builds and adapts homes for injured veterans. Are the kids saying "Oh, no problem. We, the kids will tell all our friends about it, download it, spread it around, and somehow, Homes for Our Troops will make the money back on tour."?
Let's not ignore the obvious: The artists are charging for the recordings of their music. They're outright telling their fans that this recording costs $10 or $15. Do the kids think that's just a Suggestion? Do the kids think "Oh, the artists don't really mean that."?
Billy Joel wrote a great song called Christmas In Fallujah. The proceeds from the song are going to an organization called Homes for Our Troops —a not-for-profit organization that builds and adapts homes for injured veterans. Are the kids saying "Oh, no problem. We, the kids will tell all our friends about it, download it, spread it around, and somehow, Homes for Our Troops will make the money back on tour."?
Back to the slightly less obvious:
A band/recording artist can only tour so many days in a year, and can only sell so many tickets per performance. As such the revenue potential is much more limited. With digital distribution, manufacturing costs for recordings are down to almost nothing. The profit margin potential for the artist is substantial enough that stealing deprives them of more income today than it would have before digital distribution existed.
Concert tickets are $50 to $300, versus $10 for the digital version of the original recording. So the twenty-something rationalizes they'll spend $50 to see the concert (risking the possibility of not getting tickets) versus spending $10 for the record. Hmm..something doesn't fly.
The Grateful Dead (see reference below) used to have a "taping section" at their arena shows. They encouraged fans to tape and distribute shows. They believed that spreading the word among "the faithful" of the "Grateful" would increase sales. They were right. But that worked for THEM, and THEY authorized the taping.
There's a joke: "How many Grateful Dead fans does it take to change a lightbulb?....Grateful Dead fans don't change lightbulbs. They wait till the bulb burns out, then follow it around for twenty five years.".
The Grateful Dead had groupies on a par with few other bands. The "faithful" of the Grateful would buy the records. The "Dead", and their music-sharing marketing strategy were a phenomenon before file sharing, and before piracy became as easy as it is today. But again, "The Dead" authorized people to tape the live shows. They never authorized people to tape the records they (the Dead) made for sale.
I do NOT long for the days when record companies had an iron grip on the industry. I believe that "big corporate" is not out for the interest of the recording artists (except perhaps the interest it charges the stupider among them them on recording contract advances). That doesn't take away from the companies' right to demand money for their product.
The Grateful Dead (see reference below) used to have a "taping section" at their arena shows. They encouraged fans to tape and distribute shows. They believed that spreading the word among "the faithful" of the "Grateful" would increase sales. They were right. But that worked for THEM, and THEY authorized the taping.
There's a joke: "How many Grateful Dead fans does it take to change a lightbulb?....Grateful Dead fans don't change lightbulbs. They wait till the bulb burns out, then follow it around for twenty five years.".
The Grateful Dead had groupies on a par with few other bands. The "faithful" of the Grateful would buy the records. The "Dead", and their music-sharing marketing strategy were a phenomenon before file sharing, and before piracy became as easy as it is today. But again, "The Dead" authorized people to tape the live shows. They never authorized people to tape the records they (the Dead) made for sale.
I do NOT long for the days when record companies had an iron grip on the industry. I believe that "big corporate" is not out for the interest of the recording artists (except perhaps the interest it charges the stupider among them them on recording contract advances). That doesn't take away from the companies' right to demand money for their product.
The kids starting the record label told me that the only real means of directly making money from recordings is via synchronization licenses–the licensing of a recording for use in a movie or television show. There are also Performance Rights Organizations such as BMI, ASCAP , SESAC, and (most recently) SoundExchange, which distribute money to artists and publishers whose works are played in broadcast media and public forums (such as performance spaces, and as background music in clubs).
Needless to say, I disagree with the kids BIG time. I respect their passion and entrepreneurship, and realize that their rationale IS changing the record business. But I believe that this change is working to the detriment of recording artists. If record sales were through the roof, the fears would be less founded. There are fewer platinum (million-selling) records today than there were a few years ago.
So, to make money, today's record companies have to retain a large majority of publishing income. (Publishers are song pimps. They are the agents representing a musical work, and try to promote it for use in movies, television, performances by artists, and anything else that will get the work to generate income.).
In years and decades past, many record companies required some artists (who compose their own material) to sign over to the record company a percentage of publishing income to which they—the artist—would otherwise be entitled, in exchange for the record company allowing them to record the song, and have the record company get it out to the masses. This practice is abhorrent, but was tolerated for a long time.
The record label owners with whom I met want to write its artists' songs so that they can legitimately retain the publishing rights. That's fine. It's smart business. But if records aren't selling, why start a record label? Why not start a publishing company? Clearly these entrepreneurs believe they'll make money selling records. But with this new "understanding" of sales in the music business, how are these kids going to make a dollar with every would-be music consumer wanting to non-consensually barter their "promotion" services for the stolen music?
I like to think I understand the idea of promoting product versus selling it. Clearly I'm too stupid to understand "the new economy" as espoused by the Millen-Gen.
That's okay. Someone much smarter than me gets it. The great lyricist, author, and visionary John Perry Barlow beautifully and eloquently summarized the REAL new economy in his 1992 essay: Selling Wine Without Bottles . John was also a lyricist for many songs by the Grateful Dead—the SAME band who encouraged taping and distribution of The Dead's intellectual property.
Needless to say, I disagree with the kids BIG time. I respect their passion and entrepreneurship, and realize that their rationale IS changing the record business. But I believe that this change is working to the detriment of recording artists. If record sales were through the roof, the fears would be less founded. There are fewer platinum (million-selling) records today than there were a few years ago.
So, to make money, today's record companies have to retain a large majority of publishing income. (Publishers are song pimps. They are the agents representing a musical work, and try to promote it for use in movies, television, performances by artists, and anything else that will get the work to generate income.).
In years and decades past, many record companies required some artists (who compose their own material) to sign over to the record company a percentage of publishing income to which they—the artist—would otherwise be entitled, in exchange for the record company allowing them to record the song, and have the record company get it out to the masses. This practice is abhorrent, but was tolerated for a long time.
The record label owners with whom I met want to write its artists' songs so that they can legitimately retain the publishing rights. That's fine. It's smart business. But if records aren't selling, why start a record label? Why not start a publishing company? Clearly these entrepreneurs believe they'll make money selling records. But with this new "understanding" of sales in the music business, how are these kids going to make a dollar with every would-be music consumer wanting to non-consensually barter their "promotion" services for the stolen music?
I like to think I understand the idea of promoting product versus selling it. Clearly I'm too stupid to understand "the new economy" as espoused by the Millen-Gen.
That's okay. Someone much smarter than me gets it. The great lyricist, author, and visionary John Perry Barlow beautifully and eloquently summarized the REAL new economy in his 1992 essay: Selling Wine Without Bottles . John was also a lyricist for many songs by the Grateful Dead—the SAME band who encouraged taping and distribution of The Dead's intellectual property.
Let's review: A new band distributes their product for free or cheap so that they can gain an audience. Check. Got it. I see the strategy.
Imagine now that the same new band tours, and word spreads about them. They work hard playing clubs for a few years, become bigger, develop a reputation, and they start wanting to charge for their intellectual property and product. They tell fans "Continue to download and spread our first two records, but the third one is for profit. You want it? You pay for it. This is what we do to eat, and we spent months making something from which you'll derive benefit. Please pay us the respect of not stealing our stuff.". What are the chances the fans will abide by the band's will after years of going by a rationale like the one above? Whether the kids steal it or abandon the band because they're charging for their work is, I suppose the kids' choice. But if they download the record when the band says it costs money, is that not stealing?
The new economy should be opening more doors for sales of music—every kind of music, in every imagineable form. CDs, DVDs, Blu-Ray, Sheet Music, MP3s, streaming media subscriptions...They should be thriving more than ever, given how easy it is to promote the work all over the world for next to nothing. But the kids are figuring that by distributing the music across a file "sharing" service like Limewire they might help to make a struggling songwriter in Brooklyn get a "cult following" in India, thus opening up tour possibilities on another continent, is very nice. But...if the guy's struggling and you like his music, you should pay for it unless the artist /owner of that music specifically requests that you distribute his music without compensating him. Stealing the Brooklyn composer's music would be like walking into a pottery shop, taking a nice clay bowl, and telling the shop owner "I'm not going to pay for this thing you made, but I'll tell all my friends about it, and they'll all come in and pay you for some other bowl. Or maybe we can organize some parties at which you can present your pottery. People will buy them there. But clearly you've put out this nice display table so that we could take the stuff.
The new economy should be opening more doors for sales of music—every kind of music, in every imagineable form. CDs, DVDs, Blu-Ray, Sheet Music, MP3s, streaming media subscriptions...They should be thriving more than ever, given how easy it is to promote the work all over the world for next to nothing. But the kids are figuring that by distributing the music across a file "sharing" service like Limewire they might help to make a struggling songwriter in Brooklyn get a "cult following" in India, thus opening up tour possibilities on another continent, is very nice. But...if the guy's struggling and you like his music, you should pay for it unless the artist /owner of that music specifically requests that you distribute his music without compensating him. Stealing the Brooklyn composer's music would be like walking into a pottery shop, taking a nice clay bowl, and telling the shop owner "I'm not going to pay for this thing you made, but I'll tell all my friends about it, and they'll all come in and pay you for some other bowl. Or maybe we can organize some parties at which you can present your pottery. People will buy them there. But clearly you've put out this nice display table so that we could take the stuff.
Radiohead set up a "pay what you want" scheme for their most recent release. The kids with the record company admitted that they paid nothing when they'd downloaded the music. The official Radiohead website encouraged people to donate something, but allowed people to download it without paying. That was Radiohead's choice. They have the money to allow fans to take their music in the hopes that the fans will be come an extension of the band's publicity firm. Most artists who record their music in the hopes of selling it don't have those kinds of resources, and ask fans to pay a set amount.
Last point: Has this ever been done before? Is there a precedent for "come see my live shows, because that's where I make all the money"? Almost. Comedians have traditionally not sold very well. Lisa Lampanelli and Jeff Foxworthy are noteworthy exceptions. (Shameless plug: My company—Dragonfly Technologies—developed Lisa Lampanelli's website) Jeff Foxworthy's You Might Be A Redneck is the best-selling comedy album to date.
Most comics make their money on the road. Most make the CDs, distribute them electronically or in-person after shows, but don't expect the CDs to be a major source of income. I doubt they want their material stolen (either by other comics who use their jokes or by would-be consumers who steal tracks from CDs/DVDs), but it's not as big a source of income for them, and they (comedians) have almost always made more money on tour/performing than they do from CD/merchandise sales.
Most comics make their money on the road. Most make the CDs, distribute them electronically or in-person after shows, but don't expect the CDs to be a major source of income. I doubt they want their material stolen (either by other comics who use their jokes or by would-be consumers who steal tracks from CDs/DVDs), but it's not as big a source of income for them, and they (comedians) have almost always made more money on tour/performing than they do from CD/merchandise sales.
That there's a precedent doesn't excuse the kids' behavior or justify their position. Stealing music is just wrong, and taking food out of the artists' mouths (or a record company's coffers) isn't good for anyone. John Perry Barlow got it right. The real New Economy is about making it easier to sell intellectual property by not requiring it to take physical form. However well-intentioned the proponent of the opposite view may be, by promoting the idea of giving away the "wine" in the hopes that the gifts may some day promote trips to the vineyard, they'll perpetuate the old "starving artist" paradigm, leaving the artist drunk with only their own wine and AA to keep them company.
Rant over!
Comments?
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Creative people being "ripped off by the white man"? Gee, that's news!
What I know about finance could fit into a thimble, and leave room for the Empire State Building. Nonetheless, a few things have become apparent, even to those of us who work in and around showbusiness,
The entertainment industry traditionally thrives during a down economy. That's not news. This down economy is different, though. Those who understand how and why the current situation came to be are saying it's worse than the cyclical ups and downs that previous Republican administrations had given us; in other words, the last guy was the worst we've seen in a long time.
Nonetheless, that doesn't affect musicians and other creative artist directly. Here's something that does: pension funds. Many musicians, actors, dancers, and others in the creative arts have worked at union jobs for part, most, or all of their careers. As part of employment with a union shop (such as the New York Philharmonic), they had a small pension contribution made on their behalf each time they performed. That pension fund was adminstered by God knows who, over decades. And now, union pension funds all over the country are invested in financial products that may have only ten percent of the value they had only two years ago.
Musicians: You're the first creative arts union to get the bad news. The American Federation of Musicians' and Employers Pension Fund recently announced that they're in really bad shape .
Since this is a crisis, we will defer the rant about how "Employers" could possibly be included by name /title in a union pension fund.
SAG and AFTRA are in slightly better (but not MUCH better) shape. If I understand their situation correctly, their pension funds merged around October 2008. Many of the union members of both unions wanted to merge the funds, but it didn't happen until very recently.
HOWEVER, as with many in SAG and AFTRA, there's some drama involved. The Actors Fund is suing JP Morgan for mismanagement/breach of fiduciary duties.
What a joy, huh?
People in all industries who looked forward to benefits after having spent thirty or forty years working union jobs, sticking by their unions–even during labor disputes, walkouts, and other tough times may not have anything left to which they can retire.
I don't mean to be an alarmist. What I know about money is...well, not a lot. But the stories I'm reading about failing banks, investment houses with stocks down to $1.50 or so, frighten me. Musicians, actors, dancers, or anyone else who worked a union job in the entertainment industry should be checking their pension funds often.
If it's possible to take your money out for a while, maybe that's the way to go. Talk to your investment advisor. If you don't have an investment advisor, get one. If you don't know how to get one, e-mail me, and I'll send you some information. I don't know about money, but I know people who do–and none of them are affiliated with a major bank or with Bernie Madoff. I don't claim to know about money. However, I care a lot about people who create art or who entertain for a living.
For those of you in other creative arts unions who are / were looking forward to some variety of retirement benefits, I'd love to know what your circumstances are.
Bottom line; CHECK YOUR PENSIONS!!!!
The entertainment industry traditionally thrives during a down economy. That's not news. This down economy is different, though. Those who understand how and why the current situation came to be are saying it's worse than the cyclical ups and downs that previous Republican administrations had given us; in other words, the last guy was the worst we've seen in a long time.
Nonetheless, that doesn't affect musicians and other creative artist directly. Here's something that does: pension funds. Many musicians, actors, dancers, and others in the creative arts have worked at union jobs for part, most, or all of their careers. As part of employment with a union shop (such as the New York Philharmonic), they had a small pension contribution made on their behalf each time they performed. That pension fund was adminstered by God knows who, over decades. And now, union pension funds all over the country are invested in financial products that may have only ten percent of the value they had only two years ago.
Musicians: You're the first creative arts union to get the bad news. The American Federation of Musicians' and Employers Pension Fund recently announced that they're in really bad shape .
Since this is a crisis, we will defer the rant about how "Employers" could possibly be included by name /title in a union pension fund.
SAG and AFTRA are in slightly better (but not MUCH better) shape. If I understand their situation correctly, their pension funds merged around October 2008. Many of the union members of both unions wanted to merge the funds, but it didn't happen until very recently.
HOWEVER, as with many in SAG and AFTRA, there's some drama involved. The Actors Fund is suing JP Morgan for mismanagement/breach of fiduciary duties.
What a joy, huh?
People in all industries who looked forward to benefits after having spent thirty or forty years working union jobs, sticking by their unions–even during labor disputes, walkouts, and other tough times may not have anything left to which they can retire.
I don't mean to be an alarmist. What I know about money is...well, not a lot. But the stories I'm reading about failing banks, investment houses with stocks down to $1.50 or so, frighten me. Musicians, actors, dancers, or anyone else who worked a union job in the entertainment industry should be checking their pension funds often.
If it's possible to take your money out for a while, maybe that's the way to go. Talk to your investment advisor. If you don't have an investment advisor, get one. If you don't know how to get one, e-mail me, and I'll send you some information. I don't know about money, but I know people who do–and none of them are affiliated with a major bank or with Bernie Madoff. I don't claim to know about money. However, I care a lot about people who create art or who entertain for a living.
For those of you in other creative arts unions who are / were looking forward to some variety of retirement benefits, I'd love to know what your circumstances are.
Bottom line; CHECK YOUR PENSIONS!!!!
Sunday, February 1, 2009
In Your Face!
Ask most successful people in showbusiness how they got to where they are, and you'll find that most of the answers will have some pretty similar themes. You'll hear things like "I could never see myself doing anything except playing the piano."; or "I want to act more than I want to breathe."; or "The only time I'm happy is when I'm on stage."; or "I knew since I was 5 years old that one day I was going to sing at Carnegie Hall.".
People who succeed in showbusiness have to want it more than say, the guy vying for Carpet Salesman Of The Year at the "Rug Shack" in Teaneck, NJ. They also have to be willing to starve for it, and to work really really hard for a very long time till it "happens". A few talk about being "discovered", like they're waiting for Magellan to come around. Those aren't the ones who make it.
Lana Turner is/was the exception to that rule. She got discovered in a soda shop, but that was "dumb luck". Don't count on luck.
So, how do you make it happen? Do you just keep perfecting your craft, working every little hole-in-the-wall club that'll have you? Do you write a blog, or screenplays for college films in the hopes that someone will find your work? Absolutely, yes! You take the work, and you "work" it. Get experience, perfect your craft. My friends who are comedians work their hometown clubs every night they're in town. The ones who are in New York, Boston and L.A. work six clubs a night sometimes.
NO doubt about it, you have to perform as many times as possible, in front of many many MANY audiences. You have to make mistakes, and you must consistently get better at what you do. What then?
Well, you have to get the word out. You have to be the best self-promoter you can be. No one will believe in you more than you do (at least until you get famous). Exploit every resource available that can help you spread your message. It's easy to do, and it's FREE!
The job of "talent scout" in the world of arts and entertainment has changed dramatically since twenty five years ago. A wise talent scout isn't just going from club to club, or open mike nights to find the next great talent; they're out here on the web, looking for every possible "place" in which the "next big thing"could be performing "on demand".
The web has SO many free means of advertising, promotion, publicity, that getting your name out there is easy. You've just got a lot of competition. So, assuming you can do something to merit the attention of a prospective fan or purchaser of your services; assuming you have to have "the goods" to be able to keep their attention longer than a few seconds, you've got a shot. Maybe your video will go viral, and will get you some attention. Maybe someone will forward something you've written to..."the right person", and things will start to happen. But you have to get "out there".
Most people have shorter attention spans today than they did twenty years ago. The number of messages that come our way every ten seconds is..mind-boggling. So your stuff better be a real attention-grabber, and an attention keeper.
Remember Lonely Girl 15? She was an actress who was hired to play the part of a, well, a lonely girl. She did this on YouTube. To date, her first video blog installment/webisode has had 1.83 MILLION views. It cost practically nothing to do what she did. The second episode had over 2.5 million views. Her least popular episode had a 150,000 views.
The series has had spinoffs for both the web and (European) broadcast television. See? Someone in their basement with captivating content, the desire to succeed, and the "grass roots" cleverness to market it well has a good shot. Lonely Girl 15's still makin' a dollar off what started out as a $500 a week lark.
In the age of YouTube, Facebook, and ...just the plain' ol' web, the means to reach out and GRAB your audience are are easily accessible, and are FREE-FREE-FREE!!!!!!!!! So how come you're not famous yet? It's about usin' the tools.
The self-righteous purists of the arts and entertainment worlds don't get it. About fifty years ago, Truman Capote said of Jack Kerouac's On The Road, "That's not writing, that's just typing.". Truman wasn't speaking out of professional envy, of course. Truman was already successful as an author when he'd made that remark.
There are many people out there whose "typing", gets published, and many others whose writing, is being seen 0nly by their parents, and the 75 followers of their respective blogs. Why, oh WHY is this injustice allowed to continue? Because the "typing" sometimes speaks louder than the "writing", and because most people don't know the difference between art and hackery.
People will judge what's in front of them. If you ask most people to choose between A and B, they won't think about C. "Coke or Pepsi?"..."Vanilla or Chocolate?". ..You might occassionally get someone who'll ask for "bottled water", or "butterscotch", or who might even pass on dessert, but most will pick one of the things you offer, because they assume that's all there is. If people will judge what's in front of them, get in FRONT OF THEM! Easier said than done? Yup. Nonetheless, it must become an important part of your daily activity.
Don't believe me? Coca Cola's the most popular soft drink in the world! They spent $2.6 billion in advertising in 2006. And they're already #1. You can be sure that one of the reasons they stay at the top is because their message is constantly out there; they buy the best possible message they can afford, and they can afford a LOT.
Another example in popular culture: Reality TV sucks! But a pretty large percentage of the world watches TV. The networks realized they could spend less on production by letting go of trivial luxuries like actors and writers, while increasing (or even just keeping the current) advertising rates. The broadcast networks were right: people will watch garbage on TV if that's all there is to watch on TV. But before the networks put something on, they hype the hell out of it. They spend tens-of-millions of dollars in advertising trying to convince you that watching people lose weight, or rebuild a house, or lose weight by rebuilding a house is better than some..."scripted" drama or comedy. They're just selling dreck. Collectively, they're offering you Dreck A or Dreck B. Either way, they win, and they continue to keep this junk ON the air because most Americans are buying their hype.
Cable TV subscriptions are up. There's never been a time at which premium content is more worth paying for than during a bad economy during which "Reality TV" is...a reality.
So, if you're a comedian, how do you get out in front of the world? You work every club, you play for every audience, and in your off-time, you update your website very often, you get a blog, you trade links with people, you tell every club at which you work that you'll link to them if they link to you. If you manage to get up in the morning, you issue a news release. Of course, you can't just write a news release and expect people to publish it. You have to work smart. This book will tell you lots about how to do it, even if you have no money.
So get good, then get great, but ALWAYS get your message in front of people OTHER than those for whom you performed that night. Use your creativity, ask your friends for help, ask me for help if you'd like.
Go get `em!
People who succeed in showbusiness have to want it more than say, the guy vying for Carpet Salesman Of The Year at the "Rug Shack" in Teaneck, NJ. They also have to be willing to starve for it, and to work really really hard for a very long time till it "happens". A few talk about being "discovered", like they're waiting for Magellan to come around. Those aren't the ones who make it.
Lana Turner is/was the exception to that rule. She got discovered in a soda shop, but that was "dumb luck". Don't count on luck.
So, how do you make it happen? Do you just keep perfecting your craft, working every little hole-in-the-wall club that'll have you? Do you write a blog, or screenplays for college films in the hopes that someone will find your work? Absolutely, yes! You take the work, and you "work" it. Get experience, perfect your craft. My friends who are comedians work their hometown clubs every night they're in town. The ones who are in New York, Boston and L.A. work six clubs a night sometimes.
NO doubt about it, you have to perform as many times as possible, in front of many many MANY audiences. You have to make mistakes, and you must consistently get better at what you do. What then?
Well, you have to get the word out. You have to be the best self-promoter you can be. No one will believe in you more than you do (at least until you get famous). Exploit every resource available that can help you spread your message. It's easy to do, and it's FREE!
The job of "talent scout" in the world of arts and entertainment has changed dramatically since twenty five years ago. A wise talent scout isn't just going from club to club, or open mike nights to find the next great talent; they're out here on the web, looking for every possible "place" in which the "next big thing"could be performing "on demand".
The web has SO many free means of advertising, promotion, publicity, that getting your name out there is easy. You've just got a lot of competition. So, assuming you can do something to merit the attention of a prospective fan or purchaser of your services; assuming you have to have "the goods" to be able to keep their attention longer than a few seconds, you've got a shot. Maybe your video will go viral, and will get you some attention. Maybe someone will forward something you've written to..."the right person", and things will start to happen. But you have to get "out there".
Most people have shorter attention spans today than they did twenty years ago. The number of messages that come our way every ten seconds is..mind-boggling. So your stuff better be a real attention-grabber, and an attention keeper.
Remember Lonely Girl 15? She was an actress who was hired to play the part of a, well, a lonely girl. She did this on YouTube. To date, her first video blog installment/webisode has had 1.83 MILLION views. It cost practically nothing to do what she did. The second episode had over 2.5 million views. Her least popular episode had a 150,000 views.
The series has had spinoffs for both the web and (European) broadcast television. See? Someone in their basement with captivating content, the desire to succeed, and the "grass roots" cleverness to market it well has a good shot. Lonely Girl 15's still makin' a dollar off what started out as a $500 a week lark.
In the age of YouTube, Facebook, and ...just the plain' ol' web, the means to reach out and GRAB your audience are are easily accessible, and are FREE-FREE-FREE!!!!!!!!! So how come you're not famous yet? It's about usin' the tools.
The self-righteous purists of the arts and entertainment worlds don't get it. About fifty years ago, Truman Capote said of Jack Kerouac's On The Road, "That's not writing, that's just typing.". Truman wasn't speaking out of professional envy, of course. Truman was already successful as an author when he'd made that remark.
There are many people out there whose "typing", gets published, and many others whose writing, is being seen 0nly by their parents, and the 75 followers of their respective blogs. Why, oh WHY is this injustice allowed to continue? Because the "typing" sometimes speaks louder than the "writing", and because most people don't know the difference between art and hackery.
People will judge what's in front of them. If you ask most people to choose between A and B, they won't think about C. "Coke or Pepsi?"..."Vanilla or Chocolate?". ..You might occassionally get someone who'll ask for "bottled water", or "butterscotch", or who might even pass on dessert, but most will pick one of the things you offer, because they assume that's all there is. If people will judge what's in front of them, get in FRONT OF THEM! Easier said than done? Yup. Nonetheless, it must become an important part of your daily activity.
Don't believe me? Coca Cola's the most popular soft drink in the world! They spent $2.6 billion in advertising in 2006. And they're already #1. You can be sure that one of the reasons they stay at the top is because their message is constantly out there; they buy the best possible message they can afford, and they can afford a LOT.
Another example in popular culture: Reality TV sucks! But a pretty large percentage of the world watches TV. The networks realized they could spend less on production by letting go of trivial luxuries like actors and writers, while increasing (or even just keeping the current) advertising rates. The broadcast networks were right: people will watch garbage on TV if that's all there is to watch on TV. But before the networks put something on, they hype the hell out of it. They spend tens-of-millions of dollars in advertising trying to convince you that watching people lose weight, or rebuild a house, or lose weight by rebuilding a house is better than some..."scripted" drama or comedy. They're just selling dreck. Collectively, they're offering you Dreck A or Dreck B. Either way, they win, and they continue to keep this junk ON the air because most Americans are buying their hype.
Cable TV subscriptions are up. There's never been a time at which premium content is more worth paying for than during a bad economy during which "Reality TV" is...a reality.
So, if you're a comedian, how do you get out in front of the world? You work every club, you play for every audience, and in your off-time, you update your website very often, you get a blog, you trade links with people, you tell every club at which you work that you'll link to them if they link to you. If you manage to get up in the morning, you issue a news release. Of course, you can't just write a news release and expect people to publish it. You have to work smart. This book will tell you lots about how to do it, even if you have no money.
So get good, then get great, but ALWAYS get your message in front of people OTHER than those for whom you performed that night. Use your creativity, ask your friends for help, ask me for help if you'd like.
Go get `em!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
