Here’s the second part of my interview with Andrew Dubber from New Music Strategies:

Do you think subscription stream-on-demand models are the best option for the industry? If not, what would be your ideal model for the future of music consumption?

The answer here, as with most things to do with the online music environment is ‘Well, it’s complicated.’ What you propose sounds like a good model, and I’m sure there’d be a lot of people taking you up on it. But complexity and choice are factors in online music consumption. People like to collect, organise and understand their music as an expression of themselves. Some people self-identify as jazz enthusiasts. They may not want to take home the whole record store.

The point is that looking for ‘the business model’ and saying ‘this rather than that’ means that you’ll overlook thousands of other useful, interesting or lucrative arrangements of production, promotion, distribution and consumption. I think you’re just as likely to make a decent business model around metadata than you are around the recordings themselves. But the point is, as soon as you choose one to the exclusion of all others, you’ll be wrong.

Do you think that the internet has empowered the amateur to the point that it’s become almost impossible for the good voices to be heard above the noise? Is it about who shouts loudest or who has the best gimmick (e.g. Sandi Thom)?

No. 90% of everything is always crap. The more stuff there is, the greater the 10% pile becomes. All we need are effective filtering systems to sort what we consider to be wheat from what we consider to be chaff.

Advanced internet users are advanced to the extent that they have better filtering systems than everyone else. RSS feeds and social networks with built-in recommendation systems (such as Last.fm) are examples of online filtering processes that bring the good stuff to your attention.

There’s a service industry revolution due in terms of customised and personalised cross-media content delivery. If it comes, and it’s done right, it will be of the same order as the call centre phenomenon.

Sandi Thom was a good story because it was the first time that particular PR stunt was done well. Like the million dollar homepage, everyone who tries to replicate that stunt will fail — because we’ve seen it and we know how it works now. That’s the great thing about the online environment. You have to be clever, and you have to be innovative every time you go to work.

I’m a musician - if I was offered a major label record contract tomorrow, would you advise me to sign - if so/if not, then why?

That depends on what you want out of your musicianship.

If you want to be famous, have a number one single in the charts, a music video played worldwide on television and a concert tour where hundreds of thousands of people turn up, buy your merchandise and sing along with your songs — then your chances are still much better with a major label deal than without it. That may not always be true, but it is currently.

However, if you want to have a sustainable career, manage your own repertoire, have creative control, earn a decent living, not be in debt to a major corporation, have all of the decision-making power about what you are and aren’t prepared to do and — over the course of your career — earn more money and reach more people that care about your music, then your chances are better as an independent.

Statistically speaking, your chances of being ripped off, prevented from working, in a lawsuit, stopped from using your own music as you wish and generally creatively constrained are much higher in a major record company. However, there are some world class marketing people working in major labels who would be good to have on board if fame is your desired outcome.

With all this drive to connect with fans, open up access to you and your music, sell relationships etc, do you think something of the mystery has been lost? Could you imagine someone as compellingly aloof and enigmatic as Dylan or Bowie emerging from the Music 2.0 era?

I can imagine all sorts of things. The world is a bizarre and surprising place.

There are people who are genuinely aloof and enigmatic — but to answer your question more directly, just look how accessible and folksy Bowie, Dylan and David Byrne have become, given the choice and the access through technology. Music is a form of communication and expression, and they have all made the most of the new music environment to enhance that aspect of what they do.

Most genuinely interesting artists (and I’d definitely include those three) turn out to be genuinely interesting, intelligent, creative and engaging human beings once they have the platform through which to express that side of themselves. I think that makes them more fandom-worthy — not less (and in a much more palatable and sensible way).

While it’s nice to have a priveleged position as the artiste, and while for some there may be a degree of frailty of the image that’s been created, which comes under threat from accessibility and close scrutiny, I actually think that directness of expression, connection and communication has been a goal of most songwriters throughout history.

Technology doesn’t make you directly connect with fans, but it does allow you to.

Frankly, the alternative way for audiences to see behind the screen is through the lens of the tabloid. An information vacuum will lead them straight there. With that in mind, it makes a lot of sense to me that most artists are choosing to control their own message and be deliberate about what they reveal about themselves — no matter how famous or mysterious they are.

Camera Obscura – Books Wrtten For Girls (Live Acoustic Version - Sunsets)

Share This

Popularity: 15% [?]