Posted on 05/27/2009 1:20:55 PM PDT by a fool in paradise
The biggest idea I came out of SxSW with this year was that free is dead. Over. Overdone. We killed it. Because so much is free online, we expect it; where’s the value in that? It seems to me that the folks in Austin weren’t quite on this one yet… even SxSWi keynote speakers Guy Kawasaki and Chris Anderson seemed slow to the punch (Guy’s big bright idea for Chris’s new book “Free,” out this July, was to give it away for free. HELLO? Been there. Done that. Have they NOT notice that the music industry has already beaten this model into the ground?)
Sure, giving stuff away for free is nice. People like it. And these days, you have to do it just to keep up with the Joneses. But keeping up doesn’t get you ahead. And obviously free doesn’t exactly pay the bills unless you’re Trent Reznor or Radiohead, i.e. established. So what about the little guy? Good question.
Things to think about:
1. What’s the effectiveness of your free? To lure in new fans? To solidify current fans? 2. What’s the strategy of your free? Is your free creative? Why do I want it over someone else’s? 3. What’s the bottom line of your free? To get me to pay for something else?
Free can’t be JUST free anymore. And how the hell can you beat free? So that’s my question:
What’s the new free?
Thinking that the answer is in fact the opposite of free. The complete opposite. F***ing expensive.
Take the new food for example (thanks Erik!). $5 Kashi anyone? $4 local, farm-raised, cage-free eggs? $8 Pom Wonderful? $5 rice milk? Are we (me included) out of our minds? Perhaps. But clearly, somehow those foodies did it. We’re willing to pay ridiculously high prices for incredible quality. What’s more is we often drive way out of our way to get it (for most of us, Whole Foods, etc. isn’t usually down the road). Why? We value life for one, fueling our bodies with the best we can to feel healthy, younger, whatever. But also it’s just plain delicious, so there’s definitely an aesthetic association. And for sure, it’s COOL. I love walking into Whole Foods with my eco-conscious shopping basket and looking at all the pretty colors and all the pretty people. I do. It’s a group I want to be long to. But the best part is getting home, unpacking everything, unwrapping and putting it away. I love touching it. I love how it looks in the refrigerator and on the shelves. It looks nice.
Hmmmmm…. what else makes you feel good, feeds the senses, makes you willing to make an effort to get it, makes you feel cool and the need for inclusion? YOUR FAVORITE BAND.
So what’s missing? Well, if it’s digital, you can’t TOUCH it. And that’s a bummer. There’s a lot of pleasure out of simply owning something, holding it. Is that the missing element? Making music TACTILE again?
I think so. And apparently Tim Easton does as well. Bless him.
xo
The record companies should pay everyone who downloads any of that Grade C rap music a buck a file.
Also note that the signal to noise ratio, as more regional, old/new, and lone nut performers release their materials to the world outside their immediate community, will be cluttered with a lot of lame works as well as interesting discoveries.
Stugeon’s Law applies. 90% of everything is crud. If you are getting to hear 1,000 new bands a year instead of 40, you're likely to hear 900+ cruddy bands. But you'll get to hear 100 good one as opposed to 3 or 4.
The conventional media is undependable. They lie about politics. They lie about this nation's history. And ta-da, they lie about musical history as well. Big Media owns its share of entertainment companies and to a degree protects its investment in artists both old and new.
The music industry long ago stopped seeking up and coming talent and taking it to a wider market. Nowadays they own an artist outright and don't want someone who has a number of releases on smaller labels that sold well to great reviews. Either the label owns the whole catalog or they don't want you (and they don't want to negotiate for past works).
So you are now “living off the grid” and having to search out the bands and musical forms that most interest you. And probably making discoveries into the works of people who are long dead or retired as well as new entertainers.
But the business model that came around in the wake of Woodstock (where the Bill Grahams of this world sought to sell 40,000 tickets at stadiums as opposed to two performances of Jimi Hendrix at a club in a night) are largely over. Few acts make the leap to that strata (older established acts can remain there, sometimes) and even fewer new acts that play such rooms are “credible”.
Giving away songs doesn't mean that you are “desperate” for attention. It also isn't a guaranty that you'll be heard, enjoyed, or appreciated. It will get your material “out there” in an alternative media. And Hollywood does take notice. There are producers who've discovered bands on mp3.com when they needed some lower cost bands to fill out a soundtrack. The thousands you can make with song placement in a movie, tv show, or commercial can be much larger than receipts trying to sell the song on a 45, album, or digital download. Ultimately you need exposure, and then the money.
Big Media controls “fame” these days. But then, they have a protected self-interest.
The same music industry told the Beatles time and time again that the “guitar group” sound was “out” and that they wouldn't get a contract.
The music industry is square. It just about always has been.
I suppose the next thing that comes after “free” is “bundled” downloads (you get one song that you want plus some other crud they want to force on you, just like the free Entertainment Weekly subscriptions they offer at Best Buy).
Another way to do bundled promotions is for example, you buy an ipod and it comes pre-loaded with 20 songs from a label that you “don’t want”. Some of the sheeple would be likely to turn one of the cuts into a “hit”.
Just like the majority of albums of the past.
I didn't know such a "law" existed. Besides, it is WAY too generous on the "good" bands.
Lormand's Law puts it at 98% crap.
Here in Austin, I would put it at 99% crap. I think tattoos and mutilations are now a big component on one's draw as an artist or band. Tattoos and mutilations are also a substitute for real talent for way too many musicians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law
The first reference to what was then called Sturgeon’s Revelation appears in the March 1958 issue of Venture Science Fiction Magazine, where Sturgeon wrote: “I repeat Sturgeon’s Revelation, which was wrung out of me after twenty years of wearying defense of science fiction against attacks of people who used the worst examples of the field for ammunition, and whose conclusion was that ninety percent of SF is crud”.
I learned something new today. Thanks
“I think tattoos and mutilations are now a big component on one’s draw as an artist or band.”
That’s just sad. Glad I still prefer good music.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.