Artists: It's Not About Your Music Anymore
This should be a very long essay to convey the headline's meaning correctly but society's ADD won't allow that. After reading rants from what I refer to as entitlement artists, I can see these major concepts are still not understood:
1) The entire music distribution system has changed.
2) Songs are a nearly unlimited commodity.
3) Why would any artist think they should be paid
every time their music is played?
"The artist is, literally, using the software writing expertise of the platform's team to expand the band's fan base."
There's one musician who, in my mind, represents the entitlement artists
as a group - David Lowery. His tirades
are unequaled, along with his ability to forget mentioning facts. This fellow has inflated his worth.
An artist who follows David Lowery's thinking in today's music climate will guarantee their isolation and failure
- that much has changed since Mr. Lowery gained his recognition as a member of the band Crackers
Seldom does an artist consider the costs that an online music outlet incurs. The focus is nearly always that of "...you're using my music," as if one artist's song matters. I've yet to see anyone like David Lowery address their ability to reach large numbers of people when their music is on a playlist, or the value of that reach.
Unless we're speaking of a well-known act, who's had a following built on exposure through radio (like David Lowery and Crackers), for consumers it's not the individual's song but the experience
of hearing it. Which brings us to my main point: That "experience
" requires building a platform which allows music to be played and heard by thousands of people.
The artist is, literally, using the software writing expertise of the platform's team to expand the band's fan base.
Mr. Lowery is a trained mathematician so I'm sure he understands supply and demand. However, I'd bet most artists don't grasp how competition grew, ten-thousand-fold, with the internet. There are also far more online stations able to play far more artists today, which brings down the value of both groups' products. (For this discussion, that's the song.)
It's not about your music anymore. Your song holds no value unless it's embraced by fans. You receive no embrace unless you get exposure. Now, who is it that's responsible for your exposure?
Here's a set of questions I've been asking for over a decade: "What is a song worth, and why should a popular song be worth the same as one that's only so-so?"
By today's payment system, each receives an equal amount for being aired.
of a song should be in this discussion because when you, as an artist, first present the public with your new song, supply and demand dictate that the song's value is zero. The station that's willing to take a chance and play your music may even lose listeners when your song plays.
Today it's what the public wants, and where it wants it from. Over air, online, or digital are just different roads leading to the ears an artist needs.
Demanding payment prior to knowing if the public wants your music will keep it from getting maximum exposure at that crucial time of introduction.
Let's not make it about your music anymore. You'll lose if you do.
Today's indie introduction is to...
When an artist has the power to please they should be given a chance to be heard.
Give Cornelia De'Flore''s "Funny Valentine" a listen
Add it to your playlist, free!