Liner notes. Sexy, right? Even it not, they are a very important part of any music project. Some artists have been so adept at expressing themselves with just a few lines on the back of an album, tape or CD, that you look forward to their next release just to find out what they're going to say next.
Liner notes are the credits, thanks, and thoughts of the artist that made an album/CD. It's the information that tells you who played what instrument or sang a particular vocal. Also,it tells you who engineered and produced the music. Sometimes, the words to the songs might be included, as well as who wrote each tune. And, at times an artist may have someone else comment on their music.
My interest in the subject relates to being able to say what you want to say without having what you've said being misconstrued. Artists who make love music or dance music seem to have no problem talking about their particular interest. But what if you're music is a little eclectic? What if your personal philosophy is what inspires or propels your music?
Sometimes a project can take longer than you expect. In such a case, it's possible for the tone or feel of the recording to change. Then, that change could become what motivates the artist to write liner notes that reflect the new direction or provide some explanation for the extra time.
Most of all, the music should come first. If the music is about something, then what to write will come easy. For Nprogram projects, the music has been largely about a positive feeling, with words that sometimes relate to technology. If I were to release music under my given name, I would try for a more soulful, personal approach. I find that, that would give me more than enough to add to the credits.
Earth Wind & Fire, Stevie Wonder, and Michael McDonald are just a few artists that I have listened to, whose liner notes carry a strong message about the music on their albums. They don't always write a lot, but whatever they write is always worth reading.
Today, in an ever increasingly digital world, the push to bring every aspect of a music project online has led to the blog becoming somewhat like an extension of the liner note. While blogging wasn't originally intended as such, it can make it possible to relate thoughts, ideas, and experiences that an artist wasn't able to add to the digital version of an album. In fact, a blog can provide a fan with a way to connect with an artist between albums or events. And, it's an excellent way to share what you think about music.
While liner notes may not be a very sexy topic, it remains a point of interest for music fans and consumers everywhere. If all you have to say is thank you, no problem, as long as you have something to say.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
Play It Again..........
According to Hal Vogel, an entertainment economist, between the four major record companies, there are an estimated 11,000 label releases each year. Wow, right? So how is it that we only hear about a hand full of artists?
It's also estimated that the industry spends most of it's promotion and distribution on 2% of those releases. That's about 220 releases. Lets say that only ten of those releases receive enough attention to sell between 35,000 to 500,000, to upwards of a million or more copies. These artists will eventually receive most of, if not all of the labels' attention.
When you listen to the radio or watch an awards show, it's no wonder that you hear the same few names, over and over again. It then becomes a question of whether a major label artist becomes hugely successful because of their music or because of heavy industry promotion and distribution. An artist's first successful release might be due to fan adulation, while subsequent releases might be the result of label hype, intended to either repeat or outdo past performance, or maybe to prevent any chance of failure. From then on, they may even be riding on pure name recognition alone.
Mean while, how many of those 10,990 other releases would have a chance, if given the mega amounts of radio and TV promotion that's expended on those ten that make it, to the extreme. I think, and this is just my opinion, that music consumers want two things, they want variety and they want a memorable performance. This is key to why so many music fans have turned to the internet.
While CDs still offer the best sound quality when it comes to available recorded music, digital downloads are still providing the widest variety in terms of genre, style, and selection.
Each year, it's taking longer for an album release to sell a million copies. Over all sales so far this year has only slipped by 1.3%. This was due in part to digital album sales. This alone is not enough to suggest that downloads have won the format wars, but if the major labels are not willing to stand behind more of their product that ships to brick and mortar, then the door is definitely open for downloads to surge ahead.
The problem that remains, is all those other 10,990 releases that receive little or no promotion. Much of the money spent making those recordings is considered as a loss. This could be part of the reason why the cost of CDs from the major labels continues to rise. So, why do they do it? Clearly, it's a hit or miss strategy at work here. Whether it's intended or not, it has become standard industry practice. Which of those all but discarded releases might contain the music of the next musical sensation? And, why would their music be passed over in favor of the same cookie cutter formula that sells less and less with each release, while the art of a possible superstar is being relegated to the cutout bin?
It's also estimated that the industry spends most of it's promotion and distribution on 2% of those releases. That's about 220 releases. Lets say that only ten of those releases receive enough attention to sell between 35,000 to 500,000, to upwards of a million or more copies. These artists will eventually receive most of, if not all of the labels' attention.
When you listen to the radio or watch an awards show, it's no wonder that you hear the same few names, over and over again. It then becomes a question of whether a major label artist becomes hugely successful because of their music or because of heavy industry promotion and distribution. An artist's first successful release might be due to fan adulation, while subsequent releases might be the result of label hype, intended to either repeat or outdo past performance, or maybe to prevent any chance of failure. From then on, they may even be riding on pure name recognition alone.
Mean while, how many of those 10,990 other releases would have a chance, if given the mega amounts of radio and TV promotion that's expended on those ten that make it, to the extreme. I think, and this is just my opinion, that music consumers want two things, they want variety and they want a memorable performance. This is key to why so many music fans have turned to the internet.
While CDs still offer the best sound quality when it comes to available recorded music, digital downloads are still providing the widest variety in terms of genre, style, and selection.
Each year, it's taking longer for an album release to sell a million copies. Over all sales so far this year has only slipped by 1.3%. This was due in part to digital album sales. This alone is not enough to suggest that downloads have won the format wars, but if the major labels are not willing to stand behind more of their product that ships to brick and mortar, then the door is definitely open for downloads to surge ahead.
The problem that remains, is all those other 10,990 releases that receive little or no promotion. Much of the money spent making those recordings is considered as a loss. This could be part of the reason why the cost of CDs from the major labels continues to rise. So, why do they do it? Clearly, it's a hit or miss strategy at work here. Whether it's intended or not, it has become standard industry practice. Which of those all but discarded releases might contain the music of the next musical sensation? And, why would their music be passed over in favor of the same cookie cutter formula that sells less and less with each release, while the art of a possible superstar is being relegated to the cutout bin?
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Star vs. Artist
If you had the choice, would you rather be rich or famous? OK. If you had a choice between being a star or an artist, which one would you choose? For most of us, the first question would be easy to make. But the second question, not so much.
There are an estimated 12 million artist with profiles on Myspace.com. These are no doubt some of the most talented people on the planet. How many of them do you think would consider themselves to be artist? I would guess, all of them. Now, a profile on Myspace is not a guarantee that you will achieve stardom. Most artist will work very hard to make even a modest living, if that's at all possible. So, what makes a star, and who wants to be one?
You could be the most talented musician, singer, or songwriter alive, but being successful means getting your music out to the public. The internet has given artists a greater opportunity to reach a worldwide audience. But, for every success story, there are millions who will remain in relative obscurity. Like it or not, really reaching people means getting your music on the radio, on television, or in the movies. These media avenues remain the most viable methods of gaining exposure.
Talented people have and continue to turn to amateur shows as a means of gaining exposure. One of the very first of these was The Original Amateur Hour staring Major Bowes. The program first aired on CBS radio in 1934. The show ran until 1946, when Bowes passed away. Two years afterwords, the show was revived on ABC radio and Dumont television. It was hosted by Ted Mack and eventually aired on CBS television until 1970. Pop singers, Teresa Brewer, Gladys Knight, and Pat Boone are just a few of the contestants who went on to greater success after being on the show.
I bring this up because success from this type of exposure could almost instantly make your name a household word. This is what you want, right? But what happens if your popularity far exceeds your talent or ability? How many stars are made each year whose greatest talent is looking good and smiling for the camera? For a true artist, it has to be a difficult idea to balance. You want people to know who you are and just what you can do. You except the attention that comes with success, while trying to keep creating at the highest level possible.
Today, American Idol, the reality TV version of the amateur talent show, can give even the least talented contestants more than a mere 15 minutes of fame. And, as far as I can tell, most winners, and even the runners up, tend to lose much of their star shine within a few years of winning, burning hot for a time but then dimming from view. But, the drive to make it at any cost remains a constant motivation to appear on such shows.
So, be an artist, work hard, maintain your integrity, but never make it. Or, "damn the torpedoes," throw caution to the wind, and by all means, get yours while you can. I would still have to ask, which would you rather be, rich or famous?
There are an estimated 12 million artist with profiles on Myspace.com. These are no doubt some of the most talented people on the planet. How many of them do you think would consider themselves to be artist? I would guess, all of them. Now, a profile on Myspace is not a guarantee that you will achieve stardom. Most artist will work very hard to make even a modest living, if that's at all possible. So, what makes a star, and who wants to be one?
You could be the most talented musician, singer, or songwriter alive, but being successful means getting your music out to the public. The internet has given artists a greater opportunity to reach a worldwide audience. But, for every success story, there are millions who will remain in relative obscurity. Like it or not, really reaching people means getting your music on the radio, on television, or in the movies. These media avenues remain the most viable methods of gaining exposure.
Talented people have and continue to turn to amateur shows as a means of gaining exposure. One of the very first of these was The Original Amateur Hour staring Major Bowes. The program first aired on CBS radio in 1934. The show ran until 1946, when Bowes passed away. Two years afterwords, the show was revived on ABC radio and Dumont television. It was hosted by Ted Mack and eventually aired on CBS television until 1970. Pop singers, Teresa Brewer, Gladys Knight, and Pat Boone are just a few of the contestants who went on to greater success after being on the show.
I bring this up because success from this type of exposure could almost instantly make your name a household word. This is what you want, right? But what happens if your popularity far exceeds your talent or ability? How many stars are made each year whose greatest talent is looking good and smiling for the camera? For a true artist, it has to be a difficult idea to balance. You want people to know who you are and just what you can do. You except the attention that comes with success, while trying to keep creating at the highest level possible.
Today, American Idol, the reality TV version of the amateur talent show, can give even the least talented contestants more than a mere 15 minutes of fame. And, as far as I can tell, most winners, and even the runners up, tend to lose much of their star shine within a few years of winning, burning hot for a time but then dimming from view. But, the drive to make it at any cost remains a constant motivation to appear on such shows.
So, be an artist, work hard, maintain your integrity, but never make it. Or, "damn the torpedoes," throw caution to the wind, and by all means, get yours while you can. I would still have to ask, which would you rather be, rich or famous?
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Where They At?
Seen any good videos lately? I mean on TV. This year is the thirtieth anniversary of MTV, television's first network dedicated solely to the broadcast of music videos. While it's true that MTV was the first TV network, the music video had been around for years before it's inception.
The first music videos were actually made as promotion for the release of new single recordings. One of the very first of these was the Beatles', Strawberry Fields made in 1967. The film showed the band playing, while smashing and pouring paint over a piano. Its jarring juxtaposition of props, such as a table in the middle in an open field, served to lift it to artistic stature.
Some might say that it began with the Monkees, whose TV show first aired in 1966. The show was about a struggling rock band and featured the band performing their songs as video clips included within the show. Two of their hits were I'm a Believer and Last Train To Clarksville. Paul Revere and The Raiders also made music videos in the 60s and one of their hits was Indian Reservation.
On 4th March 1970 a show went on the air in Atlanta called, The Now Explosion. It featured locally produced music videos along with promotional clips from major artists, for hours on end, just like radio. The creators, Bob Whitney and Joe Fields managed to get the show syndicated and it was seen on TV stations across the country. It was eventually picked up by Ted Tuner. Some consider The Now Explosion to have been MTV, 10 years before there was an MTV.
Music videos were being made all through the 70's, many were clips of performances at concerts or local or national TV shows. But that all changed with the release of Pink Floyd's, The Wall in 1979. The video was like a short film. It centered around Pink Floyd and was based on his life from his boyhood days in post WWII England. The video's concept of death and rebirth helped to lift music video to a new level of the music video as art.
It's pure speculation on my part, but perhaps this is what MTV had in mind when it first went on the air. Through out the decade of the 80s, some of the biggest names in music added very note worthy contributions. Many 80s videos featured big name film directors and were at times like miniature films. A story was always being told as the videos often served to augment the music of each artist.
By the 90s, the success of Rap and Hip Hop slowly began to change the formula for a successful music video. Production values remained high, but the content became increasingly sexual and/or violent. But, the music video as art didn't really begin to fade until a new player came on the scene. That player was The Real World, what's been consider as the first really TV show. The show was created in 1992 by Mary-Ellis Bunim and was intended to be a spin on the traditional soap opera. But, budgetary concerns led the producers to cast seven unknown individuals to participate in a "social experiment." The show was a hit with MTV viewers. Over the years the show has spawned many other shows that run along the same lines. And, much of what used to be blocks of music videos has been replaced by Jersey shore, Teen Mom, Diary, and Disaster Date.
Music videos are still being made and they are still a very viable part of an artist's career. The the relevance of the music video as an art form appears to be all but gone. But wait. Youtube.com has become hugely successful, as the music video has moved online. Maybe all is not lost.
The first music videos were actually made as promotion for the release of new single recordings. One of the very first of these was the Beatles', Strawberry Fields made in 1967. The film showed the band playing, while smashing and pouring paint over a piano. Its jarring juxtaposition of props, such as a table in the middle in an open field, served to lift it to artistic stature.
Some might say that it began with the Monkees, whose TV show first aired in 1966. The show was about a struggling rock band and featured the band performing their songs as video clips included within the show. Two of their hits were I'm a Believer and Last Train To Clarksville. Paul Revere and The Raiders also made music videos in the 60s and one of their hits was Indian Reservation.
On 4th March 1970 a show went on the air in Atlanta called, The Now Explosion. It featured locally produced music videos along with promotional clips from major artists, for hours on end, just like radio. The creators, Bob Whitney and Joe Fields managed to get the show syndicated and it was seen on TV stations across the country. It was eventually picked up by Ted Tuner. Some consider The Now Explosion to have been MTV, 10 years before there was an MTV.
Music videos were being made all through the 70's, many were clips of performances at concerts or local or national TV shows. But that all changed with the release of Pink Floyd's, The Wall in 1979. The video was like a short film. It centered around Pink Floyd and was based on his life from his boyhood days in post WWII England. The video's concept of death and rebirth helped to lift music video to a new level of the music video as art.
It's pure speculation on my part, but perhaps this is what MTV had in mind when it first went on the air. Through out the decade of the 80s, some of the biggest names in music added very note worthy contributions. Many 80s videos featured big name film directors and were at times like miniature films. A story was always being told as the videos often served to augment the music of each artist.
By the 90s, the success of Rap and Hip Hop slowly began to change the formula for a successful music video. Production values remained high, but the content became increasingly sexual and/or violent. But, the music video as art didn't really begin to fade until a new player came on the scene. That player was The Real World, what's been consider as the first really TV show. The show was created in 1992 by Mary-Ellis Bunim and was intended to be a spin on the traditional soap opera. But, budgetary concerns led the producers to cast seven unknown individuals to participate in a "social experiment." The show was a hit with MTV viewers. Over the years the show has spawned many other shows that run along the same lines. And, much of what used to be blocks of music videos has been replaced by Jersey shore, Teen Mom, Diary, and Disaster Date.
Music videos are still being made and they are still a very viable part of an artist's career. The the relevance of the music video as an art form appears to be all but gone. But wait. Youtube.com has become hugely successful, as the music video has moved online. Maybe all is not lost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)