Archive for the ‘The Biz’ Category

Why Bother? or The New York Times Covers the Music Biz

Wednesday, January 4th, 2012

The New York Times article on Cee Lo Green and the supposed impossibility of making a living as a musician, even when you’ve sold five million downloads of a single song, came out a while ago, but I’ve been fuming about it ever since so I thought I’d better get something down before I explode. The article seemed so obviously to miss the main point and to be so selective in its evidence that I was surprised to see some people taking it seriously and even expressing sympathy for Cee Lo in his dark hour. It is the paper of record, after all; how could it not be true?

First, of course, there is the obvious elephant in the room: the idea that Cee Lo can’t make a living making music, and instead has to depend on product endorsements, judging singing competitions, hosting talk shows, and playing extended gigs in Vegas. The fact that none of these things would have happened if it wasn’t for “Fuck You”—and “Crazy” before it—seems to have escaped the author. As did Cee Lo’s perfectly respectable career and living before those hits, including his time in the Goodie Mob and as a pre-Gnarls Barkley solo act. The guy’s been in the business for over twenty years, but somehow, according to the Times, he couldn’t make a living until he started shilling Seven-Up.

And why couldn’t he make a living? Because nobody, but nobody, can make a decent living selling records, that’s why. That’s gospel now, and you’re not allowed to doubt it. Even a monster hit like “Fuck You” made Cee Lo only an estimated $650,000. Forget for a moment that that figure is probably more than Cee Lo made in all his years in Goodie Mob, and possibly most of his solo career as well, but think about all the other money he made off of records this year. Royalties off of “Crazy”, for a start, which are probably still coming in. Then there are songwriting royalties for any cover versions of both songs (hello Gwyneth Paltrow and the Glee Cast). Finally, there are the performance royalties that are collected each time either record is played or sung on the radio, TV, in karaoke bars, and by cover bands. Chances are Cee Lo cleared at least $2 million off of “Fuck You” alone, and I’m being conservative. Then there’s the album, Lady Killer. The Times cites sales of 450,000 copies, which it considers lacklustre. Compared to a decade ago, that figure is low (though describing a top ten debut as “modest” is going a little far—how high does the Times set the bar, anyway?), but even if you figure Cee-Lo only made about $1.50 off of each copy, that’s close to another $700,000, a number that for some reason the Times doesn’t include in its article. In other words, in record sales and publishing alone, Cee Lo has probably made close to, and possibly more than $3 million dollars in the last year, more than enough to keep even the most flamboyant would-be “Loberace” alive and well-dressed for a couple of years at least. The rest is cash-in and retirement security.

I don’t begrudge Cee Lo any of it (though he’s got a lot of nerve describing himself as a “working-class” musician), but articles as misinformed and misleading as this are, I think, ultimately damaging to the industry. Certainly it is to the artists, if only because it makes it look as though the music business is hopeless in ways that it isn’t, and creates a feeling that any one, no matter how successful they are, is doomed to an endless grind of endorsements and television appearances, just to keep their heads above water. I have a feeling that some in the business would love to have people think so, in order to maintain their appearance of usefulness and keep artists chained to the system. It’s enough to make any hopeful musician chuck it in before they get started, even though there are plenty of ways to make a living outside the system. If you’re lucky, you can even do it by selling records.

Quote of the Day

Monday, November 21st, 2011

David Frum, criticizing Republican pseudo-economics, inadvertently describes the last five years of the record industry: “This isn’t conservatism; it’s a going-out-of-business sale for the baby-boom generation.”

Oh, yeah, that’ll do it

Tuesday, July 5th, 2011

How does Justin Timberlake plan to revitalize MySpace, now that he owns a large chunk of it? A talent contest, that’s how. Maybe he should just stick to singing acting.

At last

Tuesday, July 5th, 2011

AARP introduces a streaming service for old people like me (cough cough).

What renaissance?

Tuesday, June 7th, 2011

David Hajdu at The New Republic continues to demonstrate his own mixture of research-rich, understanding-poor column writing, this time taking on what he call the “Renaissance of Pop Collaboration”. Hajdu, it seems, has just discovered the mix of mini-inspiration and profit-driven collaboration used to create most pop records (I call it mini-inspiration because it generally consists of writers and/or performers creating one section of a song, and counting on another writer/performer’s mini-inspiration to complete the rest). Hajdu gets all his facts right, but doesn’t seem to realize that this is something that’s been going on for a long time and has been one of the distinguishing characteristics of pop music for a decade or more. He also makes the somewhat bizarre assertion that Katy Perry is “coat-tailing” Kanye West on “E.T.” Or is it West who’s coat-tailing Perry? Is coat-tailing even a word? Whatever the case, Hajdu seems to operate under the impression that one or the other needs help from a bigger name to get a hit, even though Perry has just become the first performer ever to spend an entire year in the top ten, and West is probably the most important rapper of the last decade (he also fails to mention, or doesn’t realize, that the original album version of “E.T.” doesn’t include West’s rap).

I wonder what makes Hajdu consider this a renaissance, though, as opposed to an entirely new way of making records. Songwriting collaboration is nothing new, of course, but the classic songwriting partners whom Hajdu seems to be evoking by the term renaissance didn’t work in anything like the manner most pop songwriters do today. Though many songwriters and producers work together on a regular basis, and there are production/songwriting teams such as The Neptunes, Stargate, and The Smeezingtons, true songwriting partnerships are rare. Add to that the fact that many performers, once they attach themselves to a track, often bring in their own writers, or song doctors for hire, to help create their parts. And don’t forget those classic writing teams of the past worked face to face, whereas today many tracks are created by email or on shared servers, without the various contributors ever coming into physical contact with one another (B.o.B. and Hayley Williams of Paramore, who had a huge collaborative hit with “Airplanes”, first met when they performed the song on an awards show several months after it was released).

In the last paragraph, Hajdu seems to imply that this form of collaboration is a good thing, or at least that it fits the party music that currently dominates the charts. He doesn’t seem to consider the opposite possibility, that this simplistic music is a direct result of the logistics of modern record production. It’s much easier, after all, to write a party anthem from a distance than it would be to write something more involved and serious in intent. The difficulties of long distance songwriting may help expand and diversify songwriting in some ways, but it may also hamper the creation of more sustained, organic work, the kind that results from a writer sitting down and creating an entire song herself. As opposed, that is, to creating a hook to be attached to someone else’s bridge to connect to someone else’s verse to be laid over a beat that’s been sitting on a producer’s hard drive for six months, that closes with a coda another producer conceived on his laptop during a cross country flight two years ago, based on a sample from a record first released in 1973. There are advantages to both techniques, and certainly the more modern method results in records that are full of fresh and often startling musical ideas. I’m just not sure they’re filled with much thought, and without thought there’s no such thing as a renaissance.

Cali Swag District vs. Gwyneth Paltrow

Friday, March 25th, 2011

If you ever wanted a capsule example of everything that’s still wrong with the record business, despite the fact that music sales seem to finally be going up again, nothing sums it up quite as nicely as the story of Cali Swag District. “Teach Me How To Dougie” was one of the breakout singles of last year (it was also one of the best). It never got very high on the Billboard charts, but it was ubiquitous everywhere else, especially on YouTube, where various versions of the song garnered over 50 million hits. The single itself has sold something over 2 million copies (and those are just the legal downloads).

Signed by Capitol, the group immediately went into the studio and recorded an album, Kickback. The first single from the LP tanked, though, and the album’s release date kept getting pushed back, until it finally settled into the limbo known as “coming soon”. It’s an old story, and has happened to a lot of hip-hop and r&b artists lately—just ask Amerie.

But it’s worthwhile considering their story in light of Billboard’s conjectures regarding Gwyneth Paltrow’s recent signing to Atlantic Records for a reported $900,000. How, Billboard’s Glenn Peoples asks, in the current sales climate, would Atlantic get their money back? To make up the $900,000, Atlantic would need to sell around 700,000 copies of her album (or seven million individual tracks), not an impossibility considering Paltrow’s pre-existent rock connections and success on Glee (the less said about Country Strong the better).

But that would just pay back Paltrow’s advance. There would also be promotional costs involved, and this is where the story gets interesting. Billboard’s estimate is that Paltrow’s album would cost about $300,000 to record, which would be paid out of Paltrow’s advance. But promotional costs, which include videos, advertising, singles promotion, etc. would be nearly seven times more than that. Meaning that Atlantic would need to make back over $3 million in order to turn a profit on Paltrow’s contract, hardly a sure thing (Peoples’ comparison of Paltrow to Darius Rucker, by the way, is ridiculous: Paltrow may be famous, but she’s not famous for making music, the way Rucker was).

Which brings us back to Cali Swag District. Their album is finished (and I bet it cost a lot less than $300,000), they’ve gotten their advance, and Capitol is now assuming all the risk for releasing the record. They’ve no doubt already made some of their money back on “Dougie”, maybe all of it. But any costs that accrue now—meaning the costs of promotion, advertising, etc.—are the record company’s alone. So why take the risk if the follow-up single to “Dougie” has already tanked and nothing else on the album, from Capitol’s point of view at least, stands any better chance of being a hit?

The fact that it would cost the label virtually nothing to release the album, especially if they went download-only for the initial release, is apparently beside the point. Releasing an album without promotion, according to the thinking of the major labels, is roughly the same of throwing it in the garbage. Even though that self-fulfilling prophecy has already been disproved by “Dougie” itself, not to mention “Crank Dat”, a batch of jerkin’ records, and now Rebecca Black’s “Fridays”, nothing will ever convince the heads of the major labels otherwise. And now that Cali Swag District is signed to a label that refuses to release their record, they’re stuck. They may very well be one hit wonders, anyway, but it’s still hard not to sympathize with them. Besides, the way Capitol is acting, we’ll never really know, will we?

SEO for band names?

Saturday, March 12th, 2011

I know there’s a precedent—XTC chose their name partly because they thought it would make it easier to spot references to them in the press—but this is ridiculous.

Not just sinking, but sinking fast

Friday, March 11th, 2011

Michael DeGusto’s correction of the death-of-the-music-industry chart everyone was passing around in January is almost a month old, but I just saw it and thought it was worth posting if only to repeat DeGusto’s obvious conclusion: in revenue terms, things are even worse than people thought. That this is happening at a time when the music itself is getting more interesting isn’t that surprising; the same thing happened in the early 80s, though without the effect of changing media and formats to give it more emphasis. Meanwhile, the major labels are still shifting the chairs around. Wonder how long it will take them to realize that it’s time to get on smaller boats.

The country music audience: smarter than the country music biz

Monday, March 7th, 2011

File this under things that should have been obvious but for some reason weren’t. I always figured that once the country audience moved from rural areas into the suburbs and the cities, it would come to more closely resemble the mainstream pop audience, and that both sides of the equation would become more accepting of the other. It’s something that’s been going on for years, but the people in the country music business, who you would think would know about these things already, apparently had to commission a study to find out about it. The contemporary country audience is as wealthy, as well-educated, and as tech-savvy as the pop audience, something that even country radio programmers and others in the industry seem to be surprised at. Which can’t help but make me wonder what they believed up until now. Do they really think the country audience falls for all that small town, simple life blather, or sees it as anything else but a romantic fantasy? Does country radio really think its audience is that stupid? Had they convinced themselves that they really were pitching hokum to a bunch of hicks? Considering how the business treats most fans, that would certainly be less surprising.

Quote of the Day

Tuesday, March 1st, 2011

“Who would want to break into [the music business]? It’s like a bank that’s already been robbed.”

Randy Newman