Makin the Break

from cover bands to originals. It's a trip. Cover songs are so familiar and comfortable, they are solid time-tested-tunes. Sure, you can riff off em but your net is always there.

In some ways songwriting has always felt like the last frontier, creatively. It's the smallest barrier between you & your audience. It's the form of expression most personal and raw. I can act or sing in front of others, no problem, express myself verbally, visually on canvas, on film... whatever. but to write a song, words, music, then sing it in your own voice... that's deep.

Anyway, the other problem is finding those tunes in your head, or heart, or spirit, or wherever they are, and then executing. Luckily for me, I had sort of the best "losing my virginity" you could have... an incredible band with, not only great originals, but some pre-made stuff I could lay vocal tracks right over. I had a bunch of underemployed lyrics & blues riffs, along with their basic melodic stucture & jumped in.... the water was warm. All I can say is... thank you musical gods of creativity and inspiriation.

Gwen Stefani was right, there is true power in songwriting. I don't know why it's been so daunting for me, but, it's less so now. Besides you can't put covers on the sites, like Soundclick so, onward & upward.

Sex in Palo Alto!??

1/28/05 Update - Fried is actually quoted in Newsweek (1/24/05) as telling the 13-yr.-olds that girls could make $250K as an exotic dancer ( & forgot to say that's only for the top-paid 1%). Maybe that wasn't such a good idea. After all, we're asking these kids to break their butts, not shake them, in order to earn that kind of money. These kids see success all around them and know it comes from chips, not strips, but, it is pretty tasteless, and there is such a thing as too much honesty when talking to curious and sometimes very knowledgeable 8th graders. .
__________________________________________
I know it's shocking. And, I'm not saying sex has actually taken place in Palo Alto, I'm sure that hasn't happened for a long time. It's just that now we're nationally known as a town that advises it's eighth graders to go into stripping. The story broke locally Wed. and I just saw the JLS Principal on the Today Show. He quickly pointed out that JLS is among the top 10% of CA schools.

All I can say is, the very notion that Palo Alto, where the only thing floating the dockers are the handhelds (the kind you buy at Fry's) would be known far and wide as some hotbed of sexuality is the funniest thing I've heard in years. The story is under the keyword "bootycall"... what WILL the PTA mavens think of this?! Thanks Bill Fried. That was the best laugh I've ever had from PA. See what happens when you underemploy execs? Stop the madness!

The Economics of a Career in the Arts

Bud
Originally uploaded by Intervisions.

Poor


art money choose between freedom money choose god love free choice free love free music free money love art love god

How The Economics of the Music Industry Affects Culture

Soundclick
Lawrence
cc Mixter
CD Baby
GarageBand
Pure Volume
Craigslist
Aquisition
Sign Here Online

This is what music had gotten to before Napster came along:

By 1992, after over 4 decades of seeing 20-30 varied and exciting number one hits, we were down to a dozen #1 hits a year by artists like Boys II Men, Mariah Carey and MJ, who dominated the charts throughout the decade.

Who dominated the 50's - Elvis, the 60's - The Beatles, the 70's - Elton John, the 80's - Michael Jackson, the 90's - Mariah Carey.

These label execs want us to believe that without them to find this precious talent we will have to suffer along with crappy music. Well, look at what they've offered up as they've consolidated power - puppet songbirds and enuchs. I'll take a Pip over this.

The truth is that there are thousands of talented and dedicated artists out there who are prevented from finding an audience because of the lack of venues, the lack of emphasis on live music due to an overinflated emphasis on recorded music, something caused by the labels themselves, and the lack of access to distribution, also caused by the labels.

In addition, the labels are notorious for doing everything and anything possible to obstruct every single new technology that has moved the cause of entertainment distribution & recording forward. They aggressively fought cassettes, VHS, CDs, and, of course, Napster and all the P2P sites.

If these labels stopped doing us this huge favor of finding us that one in five thousand band we would start looking for sites to help us find some live music in our area or a band's website that we might enjoy (see all the great sites above). Don't worry folks, we won't suddenly live in a society devoid of good music and art.... quite the opposite. We would start enjoying the creativity around us & within us.

There will always be artists that dominate a given year or several years...why? They have talent. Will people stop having talent without our treasured execs? I don't think so.

So, where does the label money go? Some of it does go toward cultivating young talent. They add experienced producer talent, and lots of high-tech hardware & software, which sometimes helps and sometimes doesn't depending what kind of sound you're going for. I mean, the White Stripes have a drum & guitar, nothing digital & lots of folks think they sound great.

They do put money into promotion & trying to make these acts polished, often "not getting it back". Meaning profit above their overhead, right? Well, let's take a look at that overhead. There is no ignoring the overinflated cost of all that, which the bands must pay before seeing a cent. So, the label does get it back, they get paid first, along with the lawyers, the ones who are supposed to be working for the bands.

It's the band that stands last, and ends up with nothing but an overly produced album that sounds little like them or their original identity. If they're lucky, it does well and they can get a better deal next time, but, that's rare and the second deal usually looks like the first.

And if they're really "lucky", and it turns out their song is a hit... say goodbye to what should have been your nest egg for life, cause the label owns it now. So, where does the money go - to the highest level in the music business, the ex-musicians who would rather sit behind a mixing board than a keyboard, telling other bands how to "make it" because their own creativity stalled out.

Society is more invigorated artistically when the younger generation is calling the shots.

Labels need to stop advancing to bands, as Steve Jobs has said, and Hillary Rosen says is happening. The key is, there needs to be a way for bands to do that, make actual money by playing music!!. That's why it's so important to have the infrastructure and cultural conditions that will allow that... small but viable venues, a public interested in seeing live music and willing to use the internet to find music, as well as good sites that will help people find live and recorded music that they will enjoy.

When the bands are cutting those checks, then you will really see things start to change. What the public needs to do is put their cash toward the bands, not the labels.

In the label system the winners subsidize the losers, who usually "don't make back their advance" (no profit after paying in house cost). And that is a correct flow. The problem is the reason they have to. It's because it's winner take all in the music business. Here's why: (and this is my major issue with the record industry): efficiencies of scale/volume.

If you order T shirts printed, they'll charge you $100. to make 100 & $200. to make 1000, whatever, why? Most of the cost is in setting the press. The labels do not want 100 albums selling 100 units each. They want 1 album selling 10,000 units.

Even in this internet age, where we can finally shake ourselves free of the CD (o)pressor, they still want that one in five thousand artist, the Eminems, Britneys, Ushers (see my AMA post). It's all about creating that big superstar name, or brand.

First, for efficiency and second, because once the celebrity gets to a certain visibility level, there's a snowball effect and you get all sorts of free promotion. The big names have press on them 24/7 and the labels love that. In contrast, selling too many albums, which all do, say 100k units, gives you lots of mid-level acts, it creates more of a musician middle class.

The powers that be prefer a smaller (thus, more controllable) group of very influential, now owner class, elite musicians. They provide the role model and impetus to drive early-stage musicians...."look how far you can go in music". At the same time, they tout the company line, like Madonna & Eminem.

I'm not a fan of unions, at all. But, you know, it has protected a lot of actors from being totally exploited. Why is there no musician union?

So, those are some of the reasons music got so bad in the 90's, but, Napster (and to an extent, Cobain) really started to change things and, it is getting better out there. I believe that within the next few years we will see a true cultural revolution, a renaissance.

As the US Empire transitions out to the Chinese, we will, hopefully start using our technologies instead of just inventing them. We'll learn how to express ourselves with them and that will propel us to consume more varied and personalized entertainment. It will drive a huge market and those poised to exploit it should do quite well.

This time, the new boss may not be the old boss.

Family

Family
Originally uploaded by Intervisions.

Family fun family pain family drought family rain
Families go families stop families found families dropped
Families in families out families certain families doubt

The Economics of Innovation

Gates Clarifies 1/13/05
1/17/05 Update: In response to the comment posted, I agree with respect to 1999, 2000 & part of 2001 but stand by the rest of my comments which compare label execs unfavorably with VCs. I nowhere hold out the VC model of funding small businesses to be the best available model. It's not.

True free market funding would operate on a more direct, internet hosted model. The question here is, what is the role of the gatekeeper, the selector, the one who tells the public, "here's the good stuff". How well should that person be rewarded? That role is rewarded most highly, just look at the power and money available to VCs & label execs, but, how valuable is that role to society, now that we have the internet, which allows instant voting?
..............................................................



I got an email from Matt Stoller (IPac) recently. He was outraged that Bill Gates publicly called us Communists with a straight face and also mentioned that Gigi Sohn (Public Knowledge) wants now to go on the offensive (finally!) and come up with a plan. Yes, it's about time to start thinking proactively about what is called for here. So much talent has been spent on these court cases, a lot of this stuff is pro bono work performed by, of course, Communist lawyers. The same amount of effort could be spent in other ways.

My plea is to get a good plan in place, one that includes a public domain (see my 1/5/05 post), which, to me, is the key to setting these guys on their heels. That is going to scare them so much that they will have to react. Once the issue is about a public domain, the public can see the advantages and can see that our framers always intended for there to be a public domain and why.

The discussion would then be less about whether 25% of our population are thieves and more about what we want it to be about... who should have what kinds of control over our culture, our music, our film. Maybe at that point the ignorant American public will somehow catch on that they have turned over their own culture to companies who didn't create it and have no moral right to it, and, that it simply doesn't have to be that way.

This movement also needs to bring other skills to bear. As I've alluded to, I think guerrilla theatre has a place here. Because of the complex laws and issues, and because almost every medium besides the internet is owned by big business, it's been very difficult to mobilize and draw attention.

The media loves colorful, unusual ways of protest though. News editors do have to sell product and by staging interesting ways of drawing attention to what has been happening and what's at stake, the light shines on us and we can then deliver a message that can be heard. So far the best examples have been in the first wave of publicity, seeing a triumphant Hank Barry outside the courthouse, only to then have to go back and plead his case unsuccessfully before Congress. Also, the Wired CD and the Grey album. Lessig's last book sparked some collegiate interest.

Our side of this issue is far more sympathetic to the public and the fact that these corporate interests have brainwashed Americans to a degree that people are actually hostile to their own interests says a lot. The fact that, as Matt pointed out, someone as prominent as Bill Gates can get away with labelling us Communists, with impunity, also says volumes about where we are here.

So, let's look at answering this latest label thrown at us. First of all, last time I checked the Cold War was over. Though I'm sure Bill Gates who ripped off $43B of the world's wealth for himself, personally, finds Communist the worst insult you could hurl. Much better to have a system that allows one man to command more wealth than many countries, that allows 2% of people to use 90% of the world's resources. You deserve it, right Bill? Cause you gave us windows. No, you didn't invent it, you just ripped off the guy who did. I'm sure Communism is very, very scary for Bill. After Communism, public domain is probably what keeps Gates' gates up.

The mentality of these label execs screwing the artists and the public is a bit more complex, but very similar. A friend of mine reports that the label execs he has spoken with view themselves as VC's. First of all, you know you're in a bad way when you have to aspire to the moral position of the Vulture Capitalist, but, here we go. They aren't the same.

VC's look for groups of, essentially, highly educated, usually very accommplished, and all to often, men. They are looking for those most likely to execute a useful new technology, put in large infusions of money and good advice, absorb the risk, and try to get something made.

The label leaches look for the youngest, prettiest, stupidest kids they can find, play to their ego and offer them almost no real hope of profiting the way these company players do. What they put into the equation is far less than what the VC's do, and, proportionally, they reap far more. They take less risk because they usually advance only what they feel very sure they can get back. Now, VC's are also, increasingly, demanding revenues before investing. Still, the label deals are far more lopsided than private financings. I mean, it's not even close.

The VC's look for technologies to exploit. The labels look for children to exploit. There is a very big difference. One of the actresses in my film was signed to a major label at 18. She gave up a college education, she sang, danced, did everything those labels told her to do for 18 hours a day for many years. She never made a cent, neither did the other girls in her group. But her label sure did. They sold lots of albums and concert tickets, that's for sure.

When the VC's invest in a company, most of that cash goes directly to those working at the company in the form of salary. In music, they cut a check up top (have to, it's like the heroin dealer giving that first taste for free) but then most of the cash plows back into their own coffers to feed their own staff. VC is equity, labels essentially loan. I doubt they could ever get terms like that from anyone conversant in business. The lawyers and managers these artists may look to are part of the problem and have little desire to change a system they skim so much off.

In the VC world, the investment usually floats or sinks on the viability and functionality of the product. In music, it's far more about grooming and cultivating. Thus, the VC's are more deserving because they take a true risk. The variables of the tech marketplace include quickly outmoded technologies and a fairly free market economy. Music is a monopolistic economy over which the deep pockets exert far more control.

Additionally, the pool of viable companies seeking funding and the pool of potential artists are vastly different. The latter is huge compared to the former, and far more maleable. To analogize; the VC's are in a field of seedlings, they look for the healthiest, water them and hope they grow. This is what the label execs seem to think they are doing. In fact, they seem to have convinced Steve Jobs that they are astute as hell for doing it so well.

Label A&R guys are in a meadow of flowers and, essentially they plow it over, see what is still standing, and then sell the hell out of it. It's easy to find that "one in five thousand that can make it" (Jobs' words), just take the kid still working after 12 hours of dancing, and, if they look real good and are stupid enough to agree to get nothing for busting their butts for years... sign em up and plug them into the publicity machine... real hard.

VC's truly nurture start-ups. Major labels do exactly the opposite, they look for the most mature acts not yet signed, and they are plentiful. If you don't already have 70 songs and an audience the majors won't even look at you. Even though VC's are looking for income the stage of development is, relatively, far, far lower.

Are we communists? Hell no! What we want here is true free market Capitalism. What we want to change away from is monopolistic Capitalism which, in my mind, is far more like Communism because power is so centralized. So, for Gates, who has done more than anyone to destroy free market Capitalism all over the world... a man who has more money and power than any individual on the face of the earth to call US communists... well, I think a response is called for.

Cornocoupia

Cornocoupia
Originally uploaded by Intervisions.