Wednesday
Oct132010
October 13, 2010 Ask The Readers: Do Music Fans Today Have Too Much Control?
The other day, Click Track, a blog at The Washington Post, posed this rather interesting question, “Does the 21st century music fan have too much control?”
In the advent of a world where fans can make global superstars out of rubbish on American Idol, fund artist’s careers using platforms like PledgeMusic and Kickstarter, and band together in an attempt to get Weezer to stop making records, the editors feared that fans today have too much control. They didn’t seem to have the audience needed to get answers to that question. So I thought I would put it open for discussion here.
Do fans today have too much control and what are the implications of this?
tagged Fans
Fans
Reader Comments (21)
From the artists standpoint in depends on what he/she expects to get in return for their creation. If an artist doesn't need or want money or an adoring fanbase then fans have no power whatsoever, the artist will create without being swayed by the fans. If the artist has a strong desire for cash or attention the fans will dictate their every move. As usual the best place to be is somewhere in the middle, create for a certain fanbase that is supportive of you without becoming totally bound to their every whim and every thought of what they think you should be.
The fans have a lot of control. Whether that is too much depends on your perspective. Because there are so many opportunities today for interactivity, fans increasingly expect to have input into everything they do. From their standpoint, music is there for their entertainment. If they aren't interested in you, they will move on. What keeps them interested in you is not necessarily great music. It could be your ability to stay in touch with them online. Or your ability to make your shows fun.
If you want to make the music that you want to do, you are free to do so. If you want the fans to financially support you, you need to give them what they want.
The fans only have as much control as the band lets them have. If a band wants to ignore everything but their own view of what the art should be, they can still do that. It's just that the advent of the internet has given the fans a much better platform to talk about how they feel, and that makes bands feel like they need to be more perceptive, or perhaps makes them more likely to pander to their fanbases instead of their artistic vision (could be a good or bad thing depending on how you look at it).
Who cares?
If you're creating music for a specific audience then you're probably mediocre anyway.
Sorry but there it is, artists.
When push comes to shove, you never allow your ego's to subvert fans, especially True Blue Fans...Never...without fans, artist are nothing.
fans can never have control!
fans are an opportunity, but not a warranty to artists.
just like Todd wrote: if the aim of creation is to translate into financial value, an artist has to produce what he believes consumers are willing to buy.
if the aim is to create some beautiful a fan will never be able to stop anyone from doing so.
i really appreciate the opportunities given by the internet to establish better relations between creator and consumer, but i do not think it can harm the creative process.
Labels are learning Fans Rule.....try earning a living in music without fans.....any artist that believe it's all about them is nothing more than an egotistical dummy.
i didn't mean to underestimate the influence of fans on the work of artists. i just wouldn't ever call it control.
Kleerstream,
The word you are looking for is "artiste".
Engaging fans is the only way music or any other art form can come to the forefront. Everything is so immediate today that it gives the appearance that fans have more control now than they used to. Did not fans control the meteoric rise of Elvis Presley, The Beatles, Bruce Springsteen, U2, Nirvana and so many of the greatest artists of our time? How could this have ever been bad? The process of artistic success will always be inextricably bound with fan engagement, an enjoyable burden that all of us should want to bear with a smile on our faces.
David Sherbow, CEO
www.LiveMusicMachine.com.
It is possible, since fans nowadays are extremely possessive with their idols.
The question here I think really is, "should music be a craft or an art?"
If it's a craft than you make targeted music for targeted fans. If they like it & think it's art fine. If they like & think it is "just music," that's fine too.
If music is an art, then the fan should have little control. Hopefully money will be available to support good art. I have my doubts.
There are more folks in graphic arts working for ad agencies & the gaming industry & whatever else than there are ones selling paintings in galleries.
Brian makes a good point. The question is rather misguided.
I don't write and create so that I can please my fans and I don't let them dictate whether I am going to be creative or not. I write and create because it is a fundamental part of who I am and what I need to do - I'm just fortunate that people connect with it and support me in that when they can. But I suppose if we become like slaves to a particular dream then we become desperate and use both current fans and the pursuit of fans to fulfill it. We start to institutionalise our endeavors and the term fans becomes interchangeable with customers and all we are is a business in a very overcrowded market. This might be exactly where you want to be, and that's fair enough, but it's not the most sensible industry to enter if this is the case.
Through the eyes of business it makes complete sense that fans have 'too much control' - imagine another industry with so many competing companies - it's a crazy over-saturated market. But this is just not the point.
"Did not fans control the meteoric rise of Elvis Presley, The Beatles, Bruce Springsteen, U2, Nirvana and so many of the greatest artists of our time?"
The obvious answer to that supposedly rhetorical question is No, fans did not control the rise of those superstars. Record label investment, along with the right connections to radio and other taste-making mediums (MTV, Time magazine) did.
Its not really possible for "fans" to have "control", because fans are just a market. PledgeMusic and Kickstarter still represent an unproved niche-form of promotion (fan-funded). And the Weezer thing is just a tabloid headline. Fans don't actually have control, nor can they.
What we have here is a marketing trend in music in which artists are trying to give fans a few new interactive toys to play with in the hopes that it will keep their attention. This is a good thing, but its less important than people seem to think. The majority of successful musicians don't do anything substantial on this front, unless you count Twitter, which doesn't count because there's nothing musically substantial about it. Fan interactivity is a fine marketing tool, but it has thus far proven to have only modest potential, and is a bit overrated.
The smart thing to do in the "New" music industry is not for artists to try and reach out and partner with fans, but to reach out and partner with other artists. I would argue that the Dangermouse \ Jack White \ Damon Albarn \ David Byrn approach will yield far more results: be visible and "in" with a variety of quality musical enterprises. Interconnectivity and collaboration between artists yields more interesting music and more opportunities for exposure in the long term than pandering to a heterogenous mix of audience members.
So I would say, No, fans do not have too much control, but too many artists think they do.
Here's another hypothetical question to chew over:
After a gig, you can spend 20 minutes talking to fans, or talking to the manager of the band you just opened for. Who do you pick to try and make a connection with first? I know what I would do.
Justin
Hype and media manipulation only go so far in determining the success of any kind of art. In my 50 years around music, I have seen many turn table hits, massive major label budgets that resulted in great exposure and no sales and MTV heavy rotation that went nowhere. Any way you cut it, music has to be liked by people for it to become successful. Therefore, fans ultimately drive how successful an artist and their music is. Non fans are a market too that has made a decision not to invest emotionally or financially in a musical product. Fans are the market that did. Maybe I would understand you better if you described exactly what a fan is in the"market" you refer too. Thanks
To answer your hypothetical question. As I walked out of my dressing room I would thank the headlining band and their manager for letting my band open up for them and suggest that the fit was so good we do it again and for the remaining 19.5 minutes I would talk to my fans asking them for their email addresses and personally walking them over to my merch stand. telling them how supporting my band will help us to survive and keep creating the great music the fan liked so much.
David Sherbow, CEO
www.LiveMusicMachine.com
David,
Of course fans determine the success of an artist, in the sense that they need to actually like the artist in order for the artist to be successful. But that's not the type of "control" that Kyle was suggesting we discuss; he's talking about groups of fans having a more direct impact on how an artist conducts themselves and presents their art due to micro-investment or direct feedback.
Anyhow, before an artist can be liked or disliked by a fan, they have to be heard, and thats where media promo and "hype" is still necessary. Of course a big marketing budget doesn't guarantee people will like it, but without that effort, you probably would not have known whether they would have been successful or not. Yes, this is changing to a certain extent, but the democratization of music promotion on the internet has oversaturated the market, and thus well-connected agents, managers, and record labels are still required to push an artist out in front of the pack. (thats another discussion)
I'm sorry to be such a cynic, but you would really spend those 19.5 minutes with the fans - if advancing the band was your main concern? While I wish I could say I had been lucky enough to actually BE in any of the bands that I saw go from nothing to something, each one had the same story; they played a bunch of shows, recorded demos, and were known almost exclusively by their friends until they signed with a booking agency and\or record label and then BANG I'm reading about them on a dozen blogs, they're booked on a European tour and they're playing on Letterman.
I completely agree that the more organic way of building success can, does and will happen (Like Phish, for example). But I do think that Web-centric music industry thought overplays this; or rather, downplays the continually essential role of professional networking in finding new opportunities. I also think that peer networking (artist collaboration) gets overlooked. I think thats the best of both worlds - artist-to-artist interaction is in the "middle", and can expand your pool of contacts "above" you in the booking\tastemaking inside game, as well as "below" you by introducing yourself to new fans.
As a music fan, I find the idea of artists being "controlled" by their fans rather appalling. I listen to and admire the artists I'm a fan of precisely because I want to hear *their* ideas, not my own mirrored back to me, and certainly not the group-think of the "fan base."
Anyone who thinks the past rise of popular groups like the Beatles had anything to do with fan control is seriously confused. Yes, to be popular means lots and lots of people like your music; it doesn't mean the fan base is controlling anything except whether they want to buy the record or not.
Platforms like PledgeMusic and Kickstarter are like so what?
If it works for the artist go for it.
None of the classic composers were ever commissioned for some of the works they created?
I look at a lot of this as fans voting with their dollars.
If the artist is lucky enough to acquire the votes needed to live without worrying about food & shelter for awhile then they are more likely to create art and not ear candy for the masses.
There has always been a shortage of benefactors for artist.
I'd much rather see the fan base make or break an artist than an ivory towered record executive.
I believe real talent will always find a way to break through and make it to the top.
It's part of what being real talent is about.
On the whole fan funding thing.... Everybody heard Public Enemy dropped their budget goal from $250,000 to $75,000, right? Not sure if they made it or not (& if they made it, how many of the dollars kicked in were actually their own). Granted Public Enemy is certainly not in their prime for doing a campaign in the same way someone like Lady Gaga might be at the moment, but they are a recognized "Gold" if not "Platinum" brand.
In a lot of ways I feel like being a lifelong music professional is a bit like being a professional gambler. Everyone has there system that they think will work, but the house has the odds in their favor & there's no retirement plan....
Justin
Artists subjected to the nuances of the fan control Kyle talks about, whether they like that fan interaction or not, have achieved true fan engagement the most difficult of all tasks required of an artist. Artists need to follow their heart when making their music and should not change their direction because their fans suggest otherwise unless, of course, they agree with their fans. Seminal artists like The Beatles, Springsteen and Jay-Z have taken huge directional risks and have had to deal with the consequences of doing so. In any event, I believe that Artists succumb far more to the manipulation of their managers, advisers and record labels who always want their cash cows to spew out the same commercial product. At least an artist's fans who care enough to interact with the artist about the material they are doing, in most cases, do so out of their desire to have their beloved artist continue along the path of creation that engaged that fan in the first place. Artists have to stand their ground and deliver to their fans what they think is their true art.
In my opinion, though extremely important, Internet interaction, as it presently exists, will never be able to compete with personal interaction fan engagement. In the 80's and 90's, I managed major regional rock and r&b artists with huge fan bases which were built, due to the times, by personal interaction at shows. I have broken many of the biggest rap artists of our time at radio over the past 15 years. It is more evident now than ever that a hip hop artist with only internet interaction and little street presence has almost no chance of developing into any kind of major regional or national attraction. Music is consumed so fast that unless a fan is anchored personally with an artist in some fashion, it becomes strictly about the song and never about the artist. That's why what's left of hip hop has been primarily reduced to a singles driven world. For music to survive it is essential for fans to be allowed to get as personal with their artists as they can. In my opinion that deep of a connection can not be formed through internet interaction.
I totally agree with you that "collaboration," artist and music business both, will be in large part contribute to the salvation of artists in the future.
David Sherbow,CEO
www.livemusicmachine.com
If you consider the kind of music that becomes a hit to be too random, too accidental, and think the influence of the fans is the reason for it, you suggest that music fans at large cannot divide real musical quality from crap. The "old industry" with their huge promotional budgets did believe that, too, and spent huge amounts to promote crappy music that sold in large numbers of units. They could also have invested in musical education of youth so the future fans could find out for themselves what's quality music and what is not. As we all know, they didn't do that and opted for the quick revenue route instead, like every good businessman would have done at the time. Thereby, they largely disregarded those music fans who really could divide quality from crap and shoved lots of promo and press down their throats for acts that they did not like, whilst charging quite a price for the good music and not enabling them to listen before they buy.
Lots of fans did end up with some albums that they never listened to, whilst other albums that the fans were interested in, didn't even make it to them because they were quickly deleted by the label for not meeting business expectations or merger-induced decreases in the artist roster and other business moves.
So when the possibility arose to get the music for free, those fans who know how to tell good from bad music, took it with open hands and started downloading, believing they would break even and get a refund for the music they bought that they felt was crap.
But all music fans believe they like good music and not crap regardless of what musical styles they like, so basically everyone downloaded because everyone felt previously having been cheated on by the music industry to some extent.
So the best thing the labels could have done to prevent the current situation would have been to educate about music and to claim in promos that they do not cheat on their customers but instead give them value for money.
One method to do that would be to give them a say in what becomes a hit, for example by the measures and techniques you have mentioned in your article such as televoting.
Therefore, I say no. Music fans do not have too much control. Rather, they are not listened to enough.