Hello everyone. This post wants to encourage a serious discussion about 'making it', 'becoming famous' and all the topics that many musicians are interested in. Forgive the lenght of it but I want to provide as much information as possible and I want this post to create a meaningful discussion.
I am a musician from Italy - nothing sensational, a normal indie project. Bare in mind that my arguments mainly revolve around the scene in my country but I'm fairly confident they can be applied everywhere. Also, if you are one of those people who just play for fun, without pretending to play in big venues or making a living out of it, this is probably not for you but I hope you can get a good read out of it.
Lately I've become quite depressed and I am thinking about quitting. Apart from my act, this led to other interesting questions that I can't answer. Maybe you can help!
How do you become famous?
In the last century, the story was always the same. Play, write, record, send demos, hope someone would sign you. In my opinion, this system was hard but fair. Not coincidentally, many fantastic artists emerged. Artists that shaped their genres and will be remembered forever. Then, with the Internet, we had Myspace, Soundcloud, Facebook and all the new social stuff. Everyone can record and everyone can post their music online. Here is my first obstacle: why do some bands make it while other don't?
I'm sure each one of us know some guys who are amazing musicians or who had amazing bands. They went nowhere. On the other side, bands similar to them made millions and became famous. I just can't understand that. You can count on all the qualitative difference you want, but I can't believe that a slightly less blurred CD picture or a slightly better mastering lead to millions of plays of difference and worldwide tours. It doesn't make sense.
Once upon a time, the mantra was 'if you are good, people will notice you'. Sadly, this doesn't seem true anymore. Have you watched the video of Joshua Bell playing in the tube and noone even considers him? A world-calibre violin player with a Stradivari and people didn't stop. Also, I'm sure that if you check the 'trending' section of youtube or the 'viral' section of spotify in your country, there will be shit. That's just what it is. Spotify Italy had a trap song about a certain type of bread in a Italian supermarker on viral for weeks. I'm not kidding you. That song is now at 1,5 million views on youtube.
Hype vs Quality?
It's terribly sad but I believe that (at least for the genre I consider in Italy) hype is now more important than quality. This is a tragedy. Let me tell you another story. Some years ago I got to know a indie band from Rome that amazed me. Fresh sounds, moving lyrics, very tight live, etc. and they were starting to catch some steam after their new album was released. This band has 3,400 likes on facebook and their best songs on youtube have around 25-30,000, which are good numbers for indie music in Italy (Italy has 60 millions inhabitants). They organized some concerts in their home town, people were attending. And then? Nothing happened. Noone was listening to them outside their city and they couldn't book shows in bigger venues because noone was listening to them. The old story of the 'looking for 18-year-old apprentice with experience'.They ended up disbanding.
Today I checked the page of one of the biggest italian indie booking agencies. They have a new artist. This guy has 1,700 likes on Facebook, he never played a gig and his album is not out yet (will be in 2-3 weeks I think). Well, this guy has a 15 dates tour booked in some of Italy biggest alternative clubs (many venues 1000+ capacity). How is this possible?
I put my tinfoil hat on and try to answer: 1) musical genius, legend that will become a reference for future generations. Highly unlikely. I've seen bigger, bigger bands disappear without trace. 2) money. this guy paid a lot and got some connections. Possible, but if money was the only limiting issue, wouldn't we see more people doing this? 3) connections. This guy knows the right people and they tailored a hype profile around him.
It could be 3. Still I don't understand how venues, which are usually super picky about live acts (how many likes do you have on FB? how many albums out? live gigs? how many people will you bring?) just dropping their pants and accepting the risks. Whoever toured a bit knows this. Even getting paid is a gruesome duel over the phone, negotiating 30 dollars less or more or a free drink at the bar.
Youtube vs Labels
A very famous italian trap artists started without a label. He simply recorded good tracks and good videos and uploaded them to his youtube channel. First song was two-three years ago I think. The least viewed track has 12 million views. 12 million over a 60 million total population. His most famous song has 77 million views. 77 million.
Now, surely he produces very good music and videos. But are we sure that those numbers are simply due to that? How many people are doing music in Italy, producing their tracks with incredible attention, hiring the best directors to shoot their videos and still not going over 20,000/50,000/100,000 views? I can't explain this without a hype train, the 'let's listen to his because everyone is talking about it', not because 'wow, this music hits me at a deep level'.
If I bring Julian Lage or Bob Reynolds to my town, there would be probably around 20 people showing up at the gig. Probably even you might find yourselves thinking ‘who are they’? If I bring Lil Pump, I would have to rent a stadium. Lage’s Nocturne is an amazing piece (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5g...) and has around 500,000 views - quite a lot! However, can he compete with the 539 MILLION views of ‘Gucci Gang’ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lf...)? Here’s the real question: does the difference in sound, production, execution, live performance, social presence, marketing amounts to 538,500,000 views? To me it just seems as unreal as travelling at the speed of light or squaring a circle. I would understand if the difference was 500,000/1 million/10 million or something that is still explainable by demographics, but this is just insane.
Last example. My album was mixed and mastered by a very good engineer that also worked with another band. This indie band is made of crazy guys who just put money in the project - their music is not top notch I'd say, but I've heard way worse stuff in 1000+ venues. They hired the best video director in Italy at the moment, a guy who produces videos for artists with millions of views (who I personally know asks around 10,000 euros for a video). Their fb page has 30,000 likes and that video reached 130,000, with the song rotated on a national radio (pretty big if you ask me). Still, you could go to indie concerts and ask about this band: 9 out of 10 wouldn't know them. That video led to no gigs or to gigs in places that do not justify the cost and the production value. Why?
On March 01 2018 01:49 SoSexy wrote: I'm sure each one of us know some guys who are amazing musicians or who had amazing bands. They went nowhere. On the other side, bands similar to them made millions and became famous. I just can't understand that. You can count on all the qualitative difference you want, but I can't believe that a slightly less blurred CD picture or a slightly better mastering lead to millions of plays of difference and worldwide tours. It doesn't make sense.
look at the tiny differences between Vince Mcmahon's WWF and the AWA and NWA. Mcmahon was a stickler for the tiniest of details. He demanded all his commentators spoke "the king's english". sounds like a bizarre detail to worry about right?
well countless US based wrestling promotions tried to enter the lucrative Toronto market and got slaughtered. Vince Mcmahon on the other hand made buckets and buckets of cash in Toronto and made it look easy.
Torontonians will never consciously admit this but they view anything with a southern US accent as "bush league". Speak the "King's English" and you instantly have an air of legitimacy with people in the Toronto area.
no one understood this except Vince Mcmahon ... the AWA, NWA, and WCW didn't know this. They learned the hard way. They went out of business. The WWF flourished.
Toronto became Vince Mcmahon's #2 money maker ... 2nd only to New York.
Sadly, I think art has become a commodity instead of something that people just enjoy.
I think "the kids are alright" but we don't yet, at an immature age, look at art objectively. We more so like to try to define ourselves by what we like. What does reading Ulysses say about one? That one is brilliant.
Artists have never really had worldly success.I mean. it happens but it's getting harder, like you said. One must become an obvious "icon," marketable.
On March 01 2018 06:10 imgbaby wrote: Sadly, I think art has become a commodity instead of something that people just enjoy.
I think "the kids are alright" but we don't yet, at an immature age, look at art objectively. We more so like to try to define ourselves by what we like. What does reading Ulysses say about one? That one is brilliant.
Artists have never really had worldly success.I mean. it happens but it's getting harder, like you said. One must become an obvious "icon," marketable.
I agree with the commodity thing. Still, there is something off that I can't quite grasp. An example? 'Hey Jude' has 100 million on Youtube. 'Gucci gang' over 500 million. 'All about that bass' has 2 BILLION. What the fuck... the equation 'popularity = musical quality' is done for. It's over.
On March 01 2018 06:10 imgbaby wrote: Sadly, I think art has become a commodity instead of something that people just enjoy.
I think "the kids are alright" but we don't yet, at an immature age, look at art objectively. We more so like to try to define ourselves by what we like. What does reading Ulysses say about one? That one is brilliant.
Artists have never really had worldly success.I mean. it happens but it's getting harder, like you said. One must become an obvious "icon," marketable.
I agree with the commodity thing. Still, there is something off that I can't quite grasp. An example? 'Hey Jude' has 100 million on Youtube. 'Gucci gang' over 500 million. 'All about that bass' has 2 BILLION. What the fuck... the equation 'popularity = musical quality' is done for. It's over.
The people have spoken, GUcci gang is what they want. It's lit.
"Popularity = musical quality" has never been a thing. If you were a Beatles fan in the 1960's you'd get ridiculed for liking shallow boyband music. There's a reason you only see screaming teenage girls at their concerts; the smug hipsters of that time would never go to a Beatles concert.
Your argument could be copypasted from any era, it has been said a million times. And frankly I find it a bit self congratulating.
On March 02 2018 01:35 Jae Zedong wrote: "Popularity = musical quality" has never been a thing. If you were a Beatles fan in the 1960's you'd get ridiculed for liking shallow boyband music. There's a reason you only see screaming teenage girls at their concerts; the smug hipsters of that time would never go to a Beatles concert. Your argument could be copypasted from any era, it has been said a million times. And frankly I find it a bit self congratulating.
Led Zeppelin > The Beatles. plus, Mccartney died in 1966 any way.
The key you're missing is accessibility. Art for the connoisseur must almost by definition be less popular than art for everyone. You are thinking about details that non-artists don't care about.
If you want to make a living doing art for connoisseurs, you have to get a patron. That was the story of art for much of human history, either aristocrats who did not need money becoming creators, or wealthy princes who paid artists as a part of enhancing their own glory. These days, I see many YouTubers I like with small followings actually able to get some decent income for their videos using Patreon. It is very much a modern form of this practice that I believe has really filled the niche for people who are not interested in the trending / marketed entertainment. Still not anyone can do it regardless of your skill, you have to build community and connections. Art completely by itself in the absence of any business sense is masturbation, which is fine, but unlikely to generate funds or fame. There is a reason streaming entertainers interrupt their videos constantly to thank subscribers, even though in a vacuum it makes their product worse.
I think you come off a bit as a dreamer, somebody who wanted to be rich and famous while at the same time deeply respected by critics for your artistic muse. I don't think the record label style of production would have suited you any better, because ultimately record labels are trying to gauge what will sell too, not just artificially making someone popular with their influence. I think if you want to continue making music for a living, you probably have to think about it in more practical terms, as a product to be sold. In general, that seems to usually mean teaching, or some other place where you can still utilize the skill you've learned without the pressure of being popular. Creating tutorial videos is especially common on Patreon, though I suspect that market may become very saturated. But in other words, I think you need to be more than just a musician. Especially for Patreon, you need to be kind of a minor internet personality to make it work, somebody who has a following just doing what they do naturally.
OP: I would invite you to read "Who Sits in the 41st Chair?", a blogpost by Scott Weinhart. It is about academia, but you should have no trouble seeing the relevance to professional music; in particular, it addresses "merit" (approximately "quality") and positive feedback loops (approximately "hype").
I am not known for my subtlety, so I apologize if this is a bit blunt: a lot of what you've written here is rather surface-level and armchair-y. I am also not known for my brevity, so let me qualify that. You are clearly a thoughtful person (I do not send 6000-word essays to people unless I believe they enjoy thinking) but equally clearly you have been directing your serious thoughts to music and not to sociology. This is, of course, hardly a critique: we are all scrubs at most things.). But it is to say that, since you're trying to "encourage a serious discussion about 'making it', 'becoming famous' [etc]", you would probably benefit from being a little better-versed in the perspective of the experts— who *have* devoted tremendous energy to understanding the topics of your discussion.
Scott's blogpost is not by any means the final word. I mention it because (1) as someone else who hasn't devoted a lot of thought to this stuff, I find it very readable, and (2) it contains a wealth of links that you might follow up on to 'catch up' in this discussion. And as a tentative (3): in my corner of academia, texts that do both of these things are exceedingly rare, and easy to miss among the masses of mediocre writing. [Perhaps things are different here, but somehow I doubt it]
Thanks everyone for your answers! Also thanks to whoever voted this 1-star - next time I'll write two sentences on a zerg all-in and get 5 -.-
On March 04 2018 22:55 Chef wrote: The key you're missing is accessibility. Art for the connoisseur must almost by definition be less popular than art for everyone. You are thinking about details that non-artists don't care about.
If you want to make a living doing art for connoisseurs, you have to get a patron. That was the story of art for much of human history, either aristocrats who did not need money becoming creators, or wealthy princes who paid artists as a part of enhancing their own glory. These days, I see many YouTubers I like with small followings actually able to get some decent income for their videos using Patreon. It is very much a modern form of this practice that I believe has really filled the niche for people who are not interested in the trending / marketed entertainment. Still not anyone can do it regardless of your skill, you have to build community and connections. Art completely by itself in the absence of any business sense is masturbation, which is fine, but unlikely to generate funds or fame. There is a reason streaming entertainers interrupt their videos constantly to thank subscribers, even though in a vacuum it makes their product worse.
I think you come off a bit as a dreamer, somebody who wanted to be rich and famous while at the same time deeply respected by critics for your artistic muse. I don't think the record label style of production would have suited you any better, because ultimately record labels are trying to gauge what will sell too, not just artificially making someone popular with their influence. I think if you want to continue making music for a living, you probably have to think about it in more practical terms, as a product to be sold. In general, that seems to usually mean teaching, or some other place where you can still utilize the skill you've learned without the pressure of being popular. Creating tutorial videos is especially common on Patreon, though I suspect that market may become very saturated. But in other words, I think you need to be more than just a musician. Especially for Patreon, you need to be kind of a minor internet personality to make it work, somebody who has a following just doing what they do naturally.
Best of luck.
I agree with your points. However, usin PAtreon is not being 'not interested in marketed entertainment'. I'd think it's quite the opposite - you have to be good at marketing to prosper on Patreon. As you said, teaching is oversaturated.
What you say is true, you have to be more than a musician. However, I'm tired of this attitude. If you clean toilets, noone is ever going to tell you 'good job but I think you need to be more than just a toilet cleaner'. If you win a major trial, noone is going to tell you 'good job but I think you need to be more than just a lawyer'. Ffs, most of us break their bones at their day job to survive, scrap every other free hour to practise and write songs, learn how to use social networks and still 'you need to do more'. It doesn't happen with 'normal' jobs.
OP: I would invite you to read "Who Sits in the 41st Chair?", a blogpost by Scott Weinhart. It is about academia, but you should have no trouble seeing the relevance to professional music; in particular, it addresses "merit" (approximately "quality") and positive feedback loops (approximately "hype").
I am not known for my subtlety, so I apologize if this is a bit blunt: a lot of what you've written here is rather surface-level and armchair-y. I am also not known for my brevity, so let me qualify that. You are clearly a thoughtful person (I do not send 6000-word essays to people unless I believe they enjoy thinking) but equally clearly you have been directing your serious thoughts to music and not to sociology. This is, of course, hardly a critique: we are all scrubs at most things.). But it is to say that, since you're trying to "encourage a serious discussion about 'making it', 'becoming famous' [etc]", you would probably benefit from being a little better-versed in the perspective of the experts— who *have* devoted tremendous energy to understanding the topics of your discussion.
Scott's blogpost is not by any means the final word. I mention it because (1) as someone else who hasn't devoted a lot of thought to this stuff, I find it very readable, and (2) it contains a wealth of links that you might follow up on to 'catch up' in this discussion. And as a tentative (3): in my corner of academia, texts that do both of these things are exceedingly rare, and easy to miss among the masses of mediocre writing. [Perhaps things are different here, but somehow I doubt it]
Hi, I read it. Quite interesting since I also had a love/hate relation with academia. The same thing applies to many other professions that I can think of - if I had to become a theatre director or a writer, I'd go equally crazy. How do you get your book out? How do you book a show at your city theatre? Etc etc. Academia quotations look equally bad but I must admit all jobs that have a 'secure' component don't scare me that much. Suppose you get a 3 years post-doc - for those 3 years you get paid monthly. It's not that bad even if you don't become the next Einstein. Meanwhile you have economic security and you can 100% focus on your craft - surely easier to produce good things that when you have to constantly phone venues to get a gig that maybe will get you 50 bucks. Pay me for 3 years of practising at home, writing songs and managing my facebook page, instead of having to do completely unrelated jobs just to scrap one hour each night for those pesky arpeggios.
The toilet cleaner, the lawyer and every other profession also benefit from being more than just the technical expertise of their work. They're the soft-skills and if you don't have them it really can screw you over and prevent you from advancing. Annoying as it is, office politics and being friends with the right people can dictate career success more than technical ability. But I would say when you're talking about selling your music, business sense IS one of the technical skills of the profession, not just making music. To be completely devoted to the technical skill of a profession without soft skills or business sense, you'll typically need some help. So you can have people completely lacking in soft skill or business sense who succeed, but beside them is someone who saw their ability and wanted to sell it. So employees tend not to need to sell themselves or have as strong soft skills as say, someone running their own business.
My comment about marketed entertainment I guess was aimed at mass marketed. But to be honest, I've never seen someone advertise their patreon outside of their own videos, so you have to already be watching them to consider becoming their patron. Their advertising of their videos tends to be limited to posting in forums of people specifically looking for threads by video creators. The marketing side of it is extremely limited, generally done by the creator using services which are free and reach a small portion of the population. So all I meant to say is that for some people the most popular videos of the day are not interesting, and they prefer a much more niche form of entertainment. In the past I accessed that entertainment entirely because people made it for free while they were bored, and now some of those people have grown up, retained the following they gained from those early stages, and have often successfully turned it into a real source of income, which means more content instead of stopping because real life and work and being tired. Because as you say, working a crappy job all day and trying to pursue a passion unrewarded / with no monetary gain at night can be hard to sustain, especially at the level of quality you would wish to make it.
But obviously you're right to say other jobs have better security and don't require you to be a shining star to receive fair pay. That's kind of why people work hard to get them, even though they can be boring and stressful and offer little happiness while doing them. I think most people would prefer to make their living doing something creative and fun that made them feel popular if they knew it would be secure and straightfoward and involve little risk. There can be no surprise with that, the biggest superstars have won a bit of a lottery and are just keeping the ball rolling. But no one can plan to win the lottery, so I think it's more useful to think about what is more under your control, because you're not just thinking about how to be successful with your music, you're thinking about how you can be happy and keep music in your life. Or, you know, if you would be happier moving on from music and doing something a bit more predictable.
EPT
