Enough theory, where’s the evidence of the Indie Music Revolution?

There was shock, bordering on disgust, in the indie music community in reaction to the results of the recent ReverbNation/Digital Music News survey that found that 75% of artists still want to get signed to a record label. I was actually not shocked at all by the survey results. Yes, there are a certain % of musicians who still want to be a rock star or pop star, and they think that “getting signed” will help them to realize that dream. But most musicians I deal with on a day-to-day basis want to sign to a label for 3 reasons:

1)      A team

This is huge. They simply want a team of people that will help them with the day-to-day running of their career. And yes, they are willing to give up a little bit of freedom and some money to have access to that kind of team.

2)      Contacts

Most established labels have solid contacts with radio, media, bookers, festivals, conferences, etc. By signing with certain labels, artists instantly have access to those gatekeepers, which can help bring their career to another level.

3)      Money

This is the obvious one, but again, most artists I know don’t see signing with a label as a blank check and don’t expect to receive millions of dollars. What they do want from a label is some kind of investment so that they don’t have to keep paying for everything out of their own pocket. Even just $10-20,000 can make a huge difference in a DIY artist’s career.  And if an artist strikes the right deal with a label that is more about partnership rather than an ownership, then it might be the right move for their career. I’ve personally helped/encouraged DIY artists to find these kinds of deals, which might be surprising as I’ve developed somewhat of a reputation for being “Mr. Indie”.

=> Are we blindly promoting the virtues of ‘indie’?

Just as the idea of being signed to a label might sound sexier than what the reality is, is it possible that the idea of being “indie/DIY” sounds much sexier than the reality on the ground? I think for all of us working in this domain, we need to be very careful about blindly promoting the virtues of being indie, and even more careful when condemning artists who do want to sign to a label. Can an artist make more money by being “indie” than by being signed to a label? In theory, yes. But are indie/DIY artists actually making more money than their counterparts on labels? I’m not sure if anyone really knows. But I think we all need to do a much better job at providing concrete examples with hard (verifiable) data from DIY artists who are making a living from their music. Otherwise what are we selling to artists? Are we merely promoting the indie/DIY ethos so that we can sell more memberships/consultations/services/books? And this is just as much a question for me as it is for anyone else. After releasing a film about the experience of being an indie artist, and writing a book of marketing advice for indie musicians, I’m very much a part of this industry that caters to indie artists.

One person that is doing some great work in finding artist success stories is Ariel Hyatt through her ongoing series of articles “In Defense of 1,000 True Fans”. But Ariel is just one person out of many that could be sharing these kinds of stories. The fact is that there are companies out there with memberships in the tens of thousands that could be doing research to find out just what the reality on the ground is for indie artists.

On my end, I’m struggling to find more than a handful of success stories for a new film I’m working on; it’s frustrating, and a little disheartening. Some artists I’ve spoken to simply don’t have verifiable data to back up their claims, or once you dig deeper you find out that they make most of their income from a side job or teaching. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s not what we’re all talking about when we promote being indie/DIY and the idea of the “middle-class musician”, which is making a full-time living from your music. In other cases I’ve found that the artists have just started to recently make a living from their music, and usually a very modest living, not anywhere near a truly “middle-class” income. And in a few cases, after only 6 months, I hear back that the artists have been forced to find a part-time or full-time job because they simply could not sustain the full-time income from their music career.

=> Amanda Palmer and Matthew Ebel

There are two DIY success stories that keep popping up over and over again, which are Amanda Palmer and Matthew Ebel. Like many people, I admire what they are doing. Matthew Ebel is a brilliant and charismatic artist who makes the majority of his income from subscriptions to his website. It’s a truly amazing story, but are there many other Matthew Ebel’s out there?

Amanda Palmer has made huge waves with some of her incredibly creative fan-funding initiatives which have netted her tens of thousands of dollars. But how much of her fan base was created from her days with the Dresden Dolls, who were signed to Roadrunner Records for several years? How much money did Roadrunner invest in marketing the Dresden Dolls? Again, no one can really say for sure, however, it needs to be part of the discussion.

What’s clear is that even in her days with the Dresden Dolls, Amanda Palmer seemed to be very accessible to her fans and communicated with them directly, which has no doubt contributed to her success today, where fan interaction and engagement is key for any artist; label or no label. So I am by no means trying to take away her ‘indie’ cred. What she’s doing is indeed a model for all artists out there, but my question is about the relative scale of her success and whether it would have been the same with no history on a label.

=> And what about Radiohead and NIN?

On a much larger scale, Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails are often touted as “indie” success stories. What they did was innovative and amazing, providing a giant f&%* you to the major labels that made us all smile. But they had millions of dollars of marketing support from those very same major labels for many, many years. Can an artist who has never been signed to a label in the past duplicate those kinds of results? The model might be there in theory, but are sustainable long-term careers being created on the DIY level yet? We can’t on the one hand state that we’re living in a “post-label” world and then give examples of artists successfully using DIY tactics who benefited greatly from that very same label system.

=> OK, but what about the Internet? And social media? And the amazing tools for artists?!

Yes, we are living in a truly exciting time in the music industry, and there are more opportunities for artists than ever before, there’s no denying that. The technology, distribution systems, promotional tools, direct access to fans, it’s all there. The models for success are clearly present, and in theory it should be resulting in thousands upon thousands of indie artists making a full-time living from their music. But are the results on the ground there yet? I, like many out there, would love to know with concrete examples. Not 1, not 2, but dozens, HUNDREDS of examples.

I guess my frustration has boiled over because it seems like almost every week a new product or service comes out aimed at indie artists claiming to be the key to a successful career. Or another author releases a book claiming to know the “secrets to success” for indie artists. Or another industry expert demonizes artists who want to sign to a label. Is it really that much more risky to be signed than to be DIY? Maybe the discussion should be more about how the music industry in general is a tough place to succeed, with or without label support. It seems to me that there are success stories and horror stories on both sides of the label divide, and maybe, just maybe, this debate has more shades of gray than we all like to let on.

Don’t get me wrong, most people working in this industry who are trying to help indie artists are genuinely trying to do just that: help the artists. This blog post is not meant to be negative, nor is it meant to criticize any one person or any company in particular. It’s meant to be a call to action for all of us who work in this ‘indie’ music world: the companies, the service-providers, the authors, the so-called experts in this field need to do a better job of moving from the theoretical world to providing more tangible examples of artist success stories. And yes, success is relative, but what I’m really talking about are artists generating a full-time living income from their music careers that resembles the “artistic middle-class” that many believe exists.

Panos Panay of Sonicbids, who strongly believes in the existence of this artistic middle-class, recently stated that he would be willing to work with other companies to commission a comprehensive survey of their respective memberships to find out just what the reality is on the ground. I really hope this kind of survey happens, as companies like Sonicbids have the membership base to be able to get a much clearer picture of what’s really happening out there. I’ve reached out to Panos to let him know that I’m willing to donate my time to help with that initiative if it materializes.

How much income are DIY artists making from their music? How many are actually making a full-time living from their music career? And maybe just as importantly, how long have they been making a full-time living from their music? After all, it’s not about making a living for a few months or a year, it’s about sustainable, long-term careers.

These are all questions I think we need better answers to on a much larger scale before anyone can claim that the indie music revolution, or the era of the middle-class musician, has truly arrived. And my hope is that in the comments to this blog, in further discussions, and in the results of future surveys, the answers will become clearer.

Cheers,

Dave
(Another so-called indie music ‘expert’)

Sonicbids: No More “Indie” in 2011 (my fault?)

An interesting piece of news to report on in my little “indie” world. Sonicbids, one of the leading companies in the new music industry, announced recently that they were going to phase out using the word “indie”. How did this come about? Well, that’s an interesting story, because it’s kind of my fault :)

It started a few weeks ago with the debate surrounding the Grammy Nominations, and what the word “indie” really meant. Since I had made a movie documenting that very thing, I got involved in the debate with a guest blog post on Hypebot.com. Shortly after, Panos Panay, the founder of Sonicbids, wrote his own blog post about the Grammy Nominations, praising them for finally getting “indie”.

About a week later, Panos wrote another blog post with his 2011 Music Industry Predictions, and one of his predictions is that the word “indie” will become obsolete. Being the “What is INDIE?” guy, I felt I had to respond, so in the comments section of Panos’ blog, I wrote:

“I think the last people to let go of the word will be companies selling products and services to “indie” artists. So my question for you, good sir, is this: Will you lead the way and remove all mentions of the word “indie” from the Sonicbids site and marketing materials?”

Now, before I get to Panos’ response, I will say that I don’t necessarily disagree with him. Any word that has as many meanings and interpretations as the word “indie” is either at best a very nuanced word, or at worst, meaningless. So to move on and stop using the word altogether is definitely an option. However, is it realistic? The industry is flooded with products/services/websites marketing to “indie” artists everyday, so the word must mean something? Just looking at my book shelf, I have:

  • The Indie Bible
  • The Indie Venue Bible
  • Indie Power
  • Indie Marketing Power
  • The Indie Band Survival Guide
  • The New Indie (podcast series)
  • The Indie Band Bible

And there are many more, not to mention the websites and services that use the word in their marketing to artists.

And Sonicbids is one of those websites, with their “indie” pick of the week, their “Sonicbids LOVES Indie” marketing materials, etc. Which is why I called Panos on his prediction of the word becoming obsolete. Would he lead the way and stop using the word? It looks that way, as Panos responded to me a few days later:

“David, you are right taking me to task about removing references to indie music on the site. OK, you got it. We will gradually remove references to indie music on the site within the next 120 days.”

So there you have it, straight from the man himself. Sonicbids will phase out using the word indie. I’m actually not surprised by this, because if anyone is willing to put their money where their mouth is, it’s Panos. However, you can be sure I’ll keep a watchful eye on their website in the next few months :)

But what I’m most curious about is whether other websites/services will follow Sonicbids’ lead. Personally, I don’t think so, but what do you think? Is Panos right? Will the word become obsolete? Or will people continue to use the term? Should be interesting to see how things develop.

Cheers,

Dave “What is INDIE?” Cool

INDIE Has Arrived: 273 GRAMMY Nominations for Indies! Congratulations…Paul McCartney?

So there was a lot of buzz on the interwebs recently about the Grammy Nominations, notably that 273 “indies” were nominated for awards this year. For a guy who spent 2 years documenting the word INDIE in an effort to find out its true definition, you’d think I’d be thrilled. Indie artists have finally arrived and have been overwhelmingly recognized by the Grammys! Well, not so much. The American Association of Independent Music released their list of members who were nominated for a Grammy, and the list includes, among others:

  • Paul McCartney
  • Robert Plant
  • LeAnn Rimes

And in A2IM’s announcement of these Grammy nominations, Taylor Swift is also referenced as an indie artist. Now, these artists are on this list because of associations with smaller “indie” labels. However, as Paul Resnikoff, Publisher of Digital Music News, correctly points out in a great article on this subject, Major Labels are no doubt doing more of the heavy lifting in terms of promotion and distribution for these artists, so can they truly be considered “indie”?

Short answer? No. As much as I would love to say that Paul McCartney is an indie artist and I’ll interview him for my next film, it just doesn’t add up. And Taylor Swift is certainly no Ani DiFranco. But that brings up the same question as in “What is INDIE?”: where do you draw the line? At one extreme you have an artist who is unsigned, has no label, no distribution, and does not engage in fan-funding or seek money from investors, they do EVERYTHING on their own. At the other extreme, you have Taylor Swift, and not to mention all of the many shades of gray in between that we documented in the film.

So what’s the answer? I recently gave this a lot of thought for an interview on Hypebot.com, and the answer I gave was the following:

“If I were to define it myself, an indie artist is an unsigned artist, plain and simple. There are so many nuances, but if I had to define it quickly, that’s what I would say, although everyone has their own interpretation which is totally valid, as I documented in the film.

And that’s key, indie means different things to different people. If Paul McCartney or Robert Plant win a Grammy this year and in their acceptance speech they talk about how they are proud to be indie artists, then who am I to argue with them? Maybe being “indie” is more of a philosophy/attitude/state of mind rather than a strictly defined term that means only 1 thing.

Or, as Paul from Digital Music News suggests, maybe it’s time to leave that term out of the discussion altogether:

“Meanwhile, the majors lose more power every day, and things are going to look a lot different in five years.  So perhaps as the major label power-base withers, so should the antiquated ‘indie’ term.  Because under the current, vague definitions, almost every artist will be ‘indie’ eventually – not just Taylor Swift.”

I won’t argue with that.

Cheers,

Dave “Indie” Cool