Dude,

Dude, We Are HUGE on the Internet!!!

I swear, this is the one and only article I will ever write about the Internet. So much has been said by people both qualified and unqualified to comment, I never want to speak about it again. It has taken me years to both formulate an opinion about the Internet and get it to the point to write about it. I felt it was too early then to form an opinion and either praise or blame it. At this point in history, with lawsuits and bitter words flying, seems like the right time.

Let's get rid of the obvious right away, the moral issue. To me, it is wrong if only for financial reasons. A lot of high minded talk has been bandied about, speaking of the "exposure" for the artist and the "Potential customer base" this will create. Bullshit I say. A word of advice in the music business: You can die from exposure also. The theory that if you get to "test ride" or "window shop" an album, the more likely you are to buy it. That may be true, but only if that is controlled. The way it stands now with Kazaa and other illegal services, it is the only form of "Window Shopping" in the world where you get to walk away with the product. In the physical world, that'is called looting.

I have talked to many artists who claim to me that they are being exposed to a whole new audience via the Internet. I suppose that is true to an extent and I do believe every artist should have a website, for information dissemination reasons alone. It is true you may stumble across the artist in your travels across the Internet, but how likely is that really? Then when you get there, you get to "Window Shop" the music. Your a fan of mine? Great, I'll remember that when I'm starving tonight. If you want proof that it isn't such a big deal, look at the charts for Big Champagne, a service that monitors what people are looking for on P2P sites. 99% of the releases in the top 10 are major label top hits. 50 Cent really needs some "exposure" on the Internet this year, don't you think? He really needs the help. If people were so into new music, why would they be "window shopping" for something that can easily be shopped for in a number of different ways already (radio, TV, Ads, record stores)? HMMMM....

Theory number 2 states that "There is only one or two good songs on any record". This has always been true, with the exception of the great records that come down the pike every now and again. That is what makes them a "classic". Do I think there is a quality problem in the business? I used to scream up and down, yes there is. Then I thought about it some more and now I say no. I feel the problem is that in the early 90's we started to push music that was deemed "alternative". If you can remember back that far, the early 90's had a lot of hangover from the late 80's. Pop power ballads, 80's rockers and aging yet resurgent pop stars were all over the place. Beer commercials were mining the 60's and 70's for gems to use to push their products. Revisionist movements carried on throughout the decade (watch VH1 in any 12 hour period and you will get more of the 70's and 80's then you ever wanted). In the search for the "New", Alternative become the word. Alternative meant not just grunge, but anything not mainstream (which is a misnomer nowadays, as Alternative is Mainstream. Cover a Brian Adams song, that's F'n Alternative!!!). These various forms of fringe music were never meant to be mainstream but were pushed to the kids and the kids responded. A major belief I have about this is "You can't rebel against your parent's with their music". I can't crank up the Stones in my room, cause Dad might want to come in and "Hang". With all these old bands and music, for right or wrong, not getting the hell off the stage for younger bands to come in, a lot more was made out of Alternative. In the succeeding years of the 90's, various genres emerged and went away. Grunge by 96' was passe and America swallowed and promptly threw back up Electronica in the late 90's. Most of the repertoire has only minimal connection to the pop and rock world most of us use as our musical center and understanding. These styles place greater emphasis on things such as rhythm and dissonance and a lot less on things such as melody. Of course, if you grew up with 70's rock and pop, with it's connection to harmonies and melodies, your gonna HATE something like Nine Inch Nails. That was the point and your kid liked that about it.

The last decade has been an extreme one for music. At the very end of the decade, processed pop was right back on top, like it was at the beginning of the decade with New Kids On the Block. Even Hip Hop, as strong as it is and has been throughout the last decade, no movement seemed to last very long. Is it so hard for us to admit the last ten or so years, nothing that significant has happened? I hear a lot of negative talk and people complaining about us greedy record folk, Clear Channel, MTV etc... on and on and on. People in my age group seem to know more about record contracts and the 142 ways a record company can screw you over than they know guitar chords. There is still plenty of good music out there. If people really wanted it to get better, then start banging it out on your front porch. The world will find you if what your putting out is good. It is that simple. I was playing music in the Boston music scene professionally when Godsmack hit the scene in the mid-to-late 90's. Everyone was so taken aback that THEY had gotten the deal with a major and went on to great success. I know musicians who played on shows with them, who knew them etc.. Everyone wanted to know how they did it. Was it because they had great management? Did they buy somebody off? All kinds of things I heard. What was it?

What is was, they worked at it. They made a record. They gigged regularly to support it. They set-up retail outlets with product, so people could come purchase it. They kept fans well informed as to where they would be and when they would play. What anyone on paper would call obvious. They did these things with determination and audiences reacted, which in turn the majors noticed. When they reached a certain threshold in the labels minds (X amount of units per week sold, plus positive live story) a deal was struck. How do I know? I now work for the guy who did the research that helped them get signed.

What does it really mean to be "Huge on the Internet"? Not much, it turns out. I work in A&R for major labels and I can tell you unequivocally, it means little to nothing. The only people who would champion that would be marketing people and that's a solid maybe at that. The "Music Biz" is really the "Pre-Recorded Music Disc Distribution and Sales Industry". Let's call a spade a spade. In music, two things count: 1. Money at cash registers 2. Asses in seats every 18 inches. Figure out a way to accomplish both of those goals, I guarantee you will be huge in the business, no matter what it is that you do. Hits on MP3.com or hits on your site are very exciting, let's face it, it could be a large whole number. How many people show up to your gig in the sticks on a Wednesday night? How many records have you sold from a legitimate source (outside of gig sales and your trunk)? A store with a neon sign is what I am looking for.

If people know you solely from the Internet, that is a terrible thing. Think about it. They got your product for free (with the hopes they would return and buy it, but not many did), you don't really know who they are or what market they are in and you don't know if they will return. If you did a show and sold CD's you know where you sold them, who bought them (i.e demographically speaking) and you got paid twice (Show and CD). You can return to this market regularly and reap rewards again and again, hopefully in larger quantities each successive time.

Beyond that, there is a larger problem. The problem with the fine arts and the Internet is that although on paper it allows for mass communication, it is a very private form of mass communication. Websites, music blogs, messageboards and the like don't reach people in a broad way in the manner that other forms of mass media do. The Internet was once called the Information Superhighway. The problem is, we all don't see the same billboards, like we do driving to work. Something that creates a common thread for all of us, which creates the critical mass all artists need to profit from their work. Every music-related Internet business plan since 1995 has been about creating a site that music fans flock to and use as their "portal" to the music world. Has yet to happen. They all, however, have succeeded in bastardizing the word "compelling."

Where is all this Internet stuff gonna take us? That is the big one. I am not really sure at this point, but I am sure that it will be a radically different place. We are in the process of re-carving the faces on the totem pole. The problem with the Internet is that it changes and erodes the foundation of the present music business. For the last seventy or so years we have been selling pre-recorded music as the main source of income. Any student of history will tell you, there was a time before that and music was sold then also. In earlier times public concerts and sheet music were once much bigger pieces of the pie. Has some always been skimmed off the top? Absolutely. Whether it was shady publishers selling extra copies of Bach's works out the back door in Vienna or bootleggers in China, the business of music has always had to deal with people skimming. The Internet just allows this on such a massive scale as to change the actual viability of the business.

Music will not go away but the method people make money in the business will change. I believe it is entirely possible in our lifetime to see something like concerts become the biggest moneymaker in music and pre-recorded music become something of a side business, like publishing. I don't think people have actually delved into that so much because the concept messes with some many people's livelihoods. The business was accused of being slow to react to the changing market and that is true. Mostly because of the effect it would have on people. I can tell you the people running the record business are not slow by any means. The majority of the headcount comes from the field branches, the plants, the sales and marketing staffs. To just say, we are dumping what we have to "embrace" (another bastardizied word) digital technology, without taking into account the people who are already there is a lot to ask someone. Even someone perceived to be a heartless business person. A lot people in the value chain will become displaced. However, I think any artist who is praying for the demise of major labels ought to reexamine that idea.

Without music companies to assist artist development, it would not be possible for a lot of acts to have success. People call labels to task all the time, now I am going to take the artist for once. What is the life span of an average successful act? Three years? Five years? Seven years? I'm not just talking Britney and Backstreet Boys here, I am talking biggest of all time. Beatles, roughly five years. Led Zeppelin, roughly seven years. Hendrix, three years. For whatever reason, a lot of times coming from the artist side (creative differences, substance problems, band infighting or just plain wanting out), things don't pan out. It is the same reason people jump from indies to major labels. They want to make the money now, while they are hot. While indie acts will cite Ani DiFranco and others as the path to follow, not many have the real fortitude to walk the walk. To spend year after year, month after month, night after night, performing and traveling by van to slowly make it on your own terms. Most artists want to blow it up and cash it out, even if only to pursue the next thing.

I don't really know what is coming down the pike at this point. I know what I see and I have a few ideas. However, I think I have said enough already.