Starving Artistry and Bandcamp Without The Corporate Overlords
Here I am on a Friday night in my home office / recording studio, typing from my computer as I unwind from the day job work week while looking forward to a 3-day weekend that will be labor-free. Can’t think of any ideas for songs, so I’m blogging (and listening to The Zombies on YouTube Music - my streaming service of choice). Forgot how good they were.
I’ve been hoping more new songs would materialize, but checking back as I scroll the recorder phone app I use for first takes, I wrote two songs in July, and two in August, so 4 new songs since the last release is where I’m at. One is not a keeper, and it’s a revision to an older song scrap, so that’s what usually happens with those. The other three are not bad, with future release potential, depending on how they turn out when I decide to record them properly.
Things could be worse. I’m realizing I haven’t posted since early July, when I posted a “retrospective” of my latest album release. So, one could say I’ve taken a couple months off from anything music-related other than recording first takes of four new songs. I’ve checked in with the streaming counts, play stats, etc., for that latest release, and there are no surprises, so that could’ve been worse as well I suppose.
I put that album on Subvert – a new music site – and it went largely unnoticed, which also isn’t surprising. When you google what Subvert is, you’ll see it’s neatly summarized as similar to Bandcamp – another music place on which I can see there are streams, but no purchased downloads. It was easy enough to use, and looks pretty cool.
https://www.subvert.fm/scott-cooley
Often, when you read about Bandcamp, the article will boast a few well-known artists who offer music on the platform. Then you have the “started on” lists of artists who got their starts there, not unlike MySpace, Soundcloud, YouTube or TikTok over the years. Maybe this new music app called Subvert will be another added to this list. To me, it’s yet another place I actually upload my music to myself, after going through a distributor for all the major music streaming places like Apple Music, Spotify, YouTube Music, etc.
It could be that Subvert is to Bandcamp as Bluesky is to Twitter in some ways. Both are similar apps that promise to be better at what they do than those older apps they are similar to. I imagine there will always be new “indie-friendly” music service startups. I’ve seen a lot of them come and go over the last couple of decades. Subvert is one of the latest.
I think this new music service called Subvert has great potential, and I hope the future proves I’m right. Maybe I’ll actually sell some music on there, but I doubt it. Unfortunately, I’ve been completely unsuccessful on Bandcamp, which is similar in that you can actually buy music (and stream it for free). That right there is part of the issue, I suspect.
Generally, I’ve come to understand that most people subscribe to a music streaming service these days as the only way they listen to music. The extreme convenience vastly outweighs the lower quality fidelity for most. Few care about owning the higher quality version. When already locked in to that, they would only stray from that comfort for music they can only get somewhere else.
It seems like the biggest challenge for Subvert will be getting music fans to actually use it. I’m not sure what they’re doing for advertising and marketing, but it doesn’t seem like much yet. Like a lot of music-related companies in recent years, it’s all about the tech. I imagine their staff is mostly software developers focused on fixing bugs and slowly adding features, not adding music consumers.
I’m not the smartest knife in the drawer, but the self-releasing uploader artists on Bandcamp who are now uploading their music to Subvert too are not taking their music down on Bandcamp, where you can buy hi-res downloads, merch and CDs. It’s also got a large user base, and there’s no compelling reason to switch as a music fan…unless…you can only get the music you want exclusively at Subvert. That’s the only thing that will help it gain (and steal) some traction.
Bandcamp has both a lot of ultra-obscure DIY artists and some big-name popular artists and bands camping out there already, and an arguably cooler name already. The drawback (for artists) is that they keep getting bought out by corporations who lay off workers, which is happening to practically any and all music services these days, but I’m guessing few music consumers care.
The niche for both, however, is that they allow you to find music you wouldn’t be able to find in an actual record store (if those even exist anymore), and probably wouldn’t be able to find on Apple Music, YouTube Music, Amazon Music, Spotify, etc. If you’re already paying for a monthly subscription to one of those, like a lot of people are, you’re sticking with it, and if a band or artist’s music isn’t available in that service, you likely won’t discover or listen to it.
For the price of a restaurant meal, those bands and artists can easily self-distribute to all of those streaming services, but I guess some can’t afford it. That’s the way I see it. How it plays out is anybody’s guess. I have been able to afford to get my music in all of the above, so I’ve been lucky. How long those services choose to keep it available is another question. Popularity matters to them a lot.
All you have to do is look at me to be able to tell that I'm not a starving artist. It’s no secret I like to eat, and I've always had a primary source of income outside the music business. This choice has been shrewd. It's also not uncommon, unfortunately.
That said, I have managed to lose a few pounds this summer. Here's me with my accordion player (and lovely wife) at a recent party:
Gone are the days when you could be poor, quit school, get a band together, play in some bars for gas money, drive your van to a music hub like New York or LA from your flyover state, find a record company building, park, walk in, play a song or two for an A&R guy, get signed, get a recording advance, have a series of failed albums as they continue to support and develop you, then eventually get fame and fortune.
Now it seems to be mostly rich kids with industry connections who unsurprisingly get signed to major labels. Gone are the days when you had people who just decided they were going to be musicians whether they got rich and famous or not. I’m no expert, but it’s got to be increasingly rare for people to make a living from music alone these days.
Even if my music was ultra-popular, I might still not be able to quit the day job. Such is the current reality. Particularly since the Napster days of music piracy, people don't like to have to pay much (if anything) for music. I understand this pretty well.
I don't know what it would take to get me to actually buy music anymore. I'm talking about actually buying it (whether a digital download, CD, vinyl, cassette, whatever) versus simply streaming it (via the monthly streaming subscription I already pay for).
For approximately $150 per year, I get all songs ever by all artists ever that are always available on any device (computer, phone, car, home smart speaker, smart TV, etc.). Everything's always connected to the internet now. Unlike radio, it's ad-free.
Someone bought me an iPod for a Christmas present back when they were fairly new, so I decided to try it out. iTunes was annoying software back then, but I went for it anyway. I was someone who grew up with a vinyl album collection of maybe 25 records, several cassettes, and I was starting in on a decent CD collection at the time.
I decided if I was going to buy songs and download them, they should be really good songs. So, I now own about 50 of my favorite songs by my favorite artists. That was my line of thinking at the time, and actually, it still is.
The convenience of streaming far outweighs the high-fidelity audiophile quality thing for me. I also love the ability to create my own playlists and choose the songs I want in the order I want. The portability is also an important factor.
I think the music streaming services will continue to improve. The argument of the tangible physical copy with liner notes, etc. is one thing, but now you can easily find the liner notes, lyrics, etc. within the service you subscribe to, plus be able to play the music videos, etc.
I would love to have a fresh vinyl copy of The Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd and listen to it on an ultra-high-end home stereo with surround sound and all that, don't get me wrong. My ears are able to notice the difference between that experience and MP3s on a cheap set of headphones.
I know that the investment in the equipment, setting up of the equipment, and restocking of the music library with hi-res/hi-fi quality would take money and time that sound like they're not worth the effort, despite the fact that my ears would be happier.
Like a lot of people my age, my discovery of new artists has dwindled as I've gotten older. You like what you like and don't make the time for it anymore like you did in your teens and twenties. That said, the search, recommendation, and discovery opportunities are easier than ever with the music streaming services.
I guess if one of my favorite artists of all time had an album that was exclusively available for purchase only and it would never otherwise be available for streaming, that might sway me to buy it.
That's really the only factor that would convince me: exclusivity. If the only way I can hear a "new" previously-unreleased, previously-lost but now newly-found record by The Beatles or Led Zeppelin is to buy a high-resolution digital download or vinyl album from their respective websites or a specific music store, then I would seriously consider it.
Another factor I haven't brought up yet, that doesn't always occur to people, is that a ton of music artists could use some financial support. The common music consumer may not have awareness of this reality and just assume their favorite musicians are all wealthy. Streaming royalties alone don't pay the bills.
The music business is not unlike certain pro sports like tennis wherein only the top 10% are well off. For those ranked outside the top 100 players, they have a tough time making a living. The average fan has no idea. Paul McCartney and Robert Plant are not struggling to make ends meet, sure, but there are so many outside that elite upper echelon who are.
So, there's this feel-good, altruistic aspect of being a supporter of independent music. Being a patron of the arts is something to be proud of. Some givers want public credit, some don't require it. At people's memorial services, or in people's obituaries, they rarely cover how the deceased gave to charities during their lives, but it's nonetheless a noble thing.
They also rarely talk about how great of a tipper a person was. You’re not legally required to tip a server in a restaurant. Some people don’t, despite receiving excellent service. I’ve worked for tips in various jobs before, and this is unfortunately a fact.
Seems like increasingly, you have the option to leave a tip when you purchase various goods and services nowadays. The etiquette can be confusing. You can also buy things now and choose to pay more than the asking price if you want to. Some people think that’s insane.
There’s this obvious line of thinking that if you can already stream some music for free, why pay for it? And then if you’re dumb enough to pay for it, why would you pay more than the listed price?
What kind of person pays more? Maybe the same kind of person who buys music to own it instead of renting it via streaming subscription. Maybe those who want to reward those who are barely scraping by while creating music.
Throughout history, and throughout the world, artists have rarely been among the wealthy elite in society. There's this concept of the Bohemian, in which people intentionally choose a life of poverty and devote their time to music, writing, painting, etc. This is also a noble thing.
Art brings beauty and entertainment into the world, enriching people’s lives, and thus making it a better place. Those that make it have gone through major sacrifices to do so. Sometimes it seems that some professions deserve higher pay than others, and often it feels like there’s unnecessary inequality. Life isn’t fair. Most think teachers deserve more, for example.
Hmmm…if streaming is like renting, what if there was a rent-to-own situation wherein if you stream a song enough, you get a free download of it, then you own the WAV or FLAC file or whatever. Just a thought.
Don’t know where I was going with that. Back to my point. Which is that given the prevalence of people’s current music consumption habits (streaming), what could swing things back to the way they once were?
You can paint the record labels and streaming service providers as evil because they don’t pay artists well, if at all. There’d be a lot of truth in that painting. Then you could offer a way to get the music you want via some other means that would bypass that evil system. Stick it to the man and pay the artists you love more.
It’s not a new idea. There have been unsuccessful attempts before. There’s this idea of being subversive. The word makes you think of underground, anti-authoritarian, counterculture rebels in the 60s who were put on lists of suspected communists by the government.
If you’ve heard of Subvert.fm, you know where I’m going with this. Yes, I’m a “co-owner” and “founding artist member” of a new music marketplace called Subvert. Sounds like a bigger deal than it might turn out to be. I was among the first 20,000 artists to sign up. A bunch of people are optimistic that fans will leave behind the way they currently get their music in favor of this new way.
How will they get people to leave the familiar, comfortable, and ultra-convenient music streaming services they currently subscribe to without being resistant to change? That’s the big question. Is it even possible? Lots of people hope it is.
What is it? A members-owned co-op music platform like Bandcamp.
How will it succeed? From what I can tell, only two things so far:
• Exclusive music
• The anti-corporate thing
Artists I’m aware of who are making their music available on Subvert are also making the same music available everywhere else (YouTube Music, Apple Music, Spotify, Amazon Music, etc.), so that negates the first thing right off the bat.
I remember when Prince tried to release albums you could only get from his website for a while there, and later scrapped the exclusivity idea. Back in his subversive symbol/slave era.
I imagine it’s not unlike a major label artist who garners some measure of fame and fandom, then goes “independent” and does well because they brought that existing fanbase with them.
If you’re famous enough already, you can get people to pay. Like the bloggers/writers who switched to Substack subscriptions, the ones who had huge followings already did well there, while the others perished.
How can newer or emerging artists without much of a following magically get popular on a single platform only? I don’t know. Not sure anyone knows. Might be possible, but probably unlikely.
That leaves the anti-corporate thing, which is no doubt appealing. If I could be assured all my favorite artists’ full catalogs were all available on Subvert, I might consider cancelling my monthly YouTube Music subscription. They’d also need to offer ad-free music videos on there as well.
So, yep, it’s a big ask to get a music consumer like me to change, but the beauty of Subvert is that it’s free, or you can pay a hundred bucks and be a lifetime voter. Stream for free, pay what you want, purchase “exclusive” music. They also offer “zines” which have zero appeal to me. I’ve always thought of them as amateur comic books for punk rock fans or something, but Subvert seems to think they’re a big deal for some reason.
I’ve previously blogged about how the whole crowdfunding (GoFundMe, Patreon, etc.) concept feels weird to me as an artist. It’s always surprising to learn that very well-known artists with established music careers who are signed to well-known record labels actually have to ask the public to donate money to them for their upcoming recording projects.
I will be planning an “exclusive” release on Subvert sometime in the future. It just so happens that they went live right before I was getting ready to release an album elsewhere, so I released it on Subvert as well.
When I do, I’ll let you know. Until then, you can stream “Hues of Blue” on there in its entirety for free, just like you can on Bandcamp. Or, you can pay me the asking price (or more) to actually buy and download it. Have fun exploring and getting subversive.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment away, there's no moderation here.