August 11, 2010 The Artist 2.0 Manifesto
Insofar as the nature of the transmission and dissemination of art and media has been irrevocably altered in the past 10+ years, it may also follow that the nature of the artist can and must evolve. Despite the best efforts of the Music Industry and the Entertainment Industry at large, the internet has uncorked the bottle, and the genie has been emancipated. The pigeons are no longer content to stay snug in their holes. We now live in a world where walls are being toppled, both physical and metaphysical. It is quite possible, in point of fact, that many of the aforementioned walls never even existed. Perhaps recent events have lifted the veil in front of our eyes, so that we may finally see that the walls were never there to begin with.
In our former life, the Music Industry would tell us what we liked, and we would dutifully hand over our shekels in exchange for their Product. When they sensed a disturbance in The Force, every so often they would allow an Alternative Product to emerge, only to quickly co-opt it for maximum profit.
The Artist, at the time, was a commodity, tightly controlled and groomed for maximum profitability. A Formula was instituted, and only occasionally tweaked until maximum profitability was summarily achieved. If maximum profitability was not quickly achieved after a few tweaks of the Formula, the Artist was quickly jettisoned, to be immediately replaced by a younger, fresher version. However, if the Formula proved successful, it would be milked for all it was worth over a period of many years, until the artist either self-destructed in a magical blaze of fire or was, once again, jettisoned.
If the Artist began to yearn for increased creativity or artistic evolution, he or she was quickly reigned in. Some Artists were eventually able to achieve a degree of manumission after a period of many years. Others were sometimes given their own “Boutique Label,” or allowed to operate under a separate persona if they wished to create Product outside the bounds of the Formula. However, even these activities were tightly controlled, in order to achieve maximum profitability.
Despite all this, the patronage of the Music Industry, in the form of the Record Contract, was a gold ring sought after by almost every Artist. Yet, in exchange for this gold ring, the Artist usually gave up everything. The Music Industry owned the Artist, as well as the Product, with an ironclad contract. The Artist believed he or she was unable to function outside of the Industry, and this was often the case. The Industry controlled the distribution channels, as well as the flow of information and money.
Of course, the Music Industry relied heavily on the assumed naivete of the Consumer, who seemed willing to accept any Formula that was handed to them. Accordingly, they served as another wall, the wall between the Artist and the Consumer. They instituted the Filter, through which the Artist and Consumer would only see what the Music Industry allowed them to see.
Then came the internet, and we began to unplug from our matrix. The Consumer began to realize that it didn’t necessarily like what it was being fed. Sure, maybe it liked Britney Spears, but it also wanted to listen to some country, and maybe some jazz. And, you know, this noise rock band it found on the internet was pretty cool. And hey, here’s a really good ska band, and what about this salsa song and this rap artist? The artist, in turn, began to realize there was a way around the filter. A hole had been punched in the wall.
The Music Industry was flabbergasted. How were they going to control the Consumer and the Artist now? The internet didn’t have nicely segregated bins like Sam Goode! Communication between the neatly defined segments of Consumer and Artist was now possible. Different Consumer segments could intercommunicate, and they could communicate with the Artist as well. The cat was out of the bag, and thus began the slow, steady, continuing decline of the powers-that-be.
It is a new order, a time for a new business artistic model. In a world without borders, we must assume that the Audience (formerly the Consumer) will be as sophisticated, and perhaps even as eclectic, as we are. In the early days of our movement, before we were all part of the collective hive mind, this was the case, and it seems to have returned to the spirit of those halcyon days.
In accordance, we the undersigned, artists, pledge the following:
- We will no longer create art solely for a specific audience or demographic.
- We do not need to create separate artistic personas for different aspects of our creativity.
- We will allow our creativity free reign.
- We will no longer refer to our art solely as a Product.
- We will not allow our art to be governed by a Formula.
- There is no longer a Consumer. There is only the Audience.
- It is perfectly acceptable for an artist to release a country song and a freeform jazz exploration on the same record.
- We will no longer use the phrases “is this accessible” or “could someone whistle this melody?”
- We will no longer use the terms “single edit,” “radio mix,” or “commercial,” and we will no longer use the phrase “is this too long?”
- We do not necessarily want or need to “get signed” to a major record label.
- We will never again surrender our artistic control to any person or entity.
- As we are able to control our art, we are also able to control our commerce and our livelihood.
- We will control our own “brand” or “image.” This includes the freedom to completely reject those concepts if we so desire.
- We summarily reject genre labels when possible, by labeling our music “other.”
- We are free to use any and every artistic medium available.
- We will interact with the Audience without a middleman or filter. If we chose to allow the Audience to participate in the creation of our art, this is perfectly acceptable as well.
- We are free to use new and emerging distribution channels, or create our own if necessary.
- In short, none of the old rules apply. We are free to make our own rules, or declare that there are no rules if we wish. Furthermore, we are free to amend or emend this manifesto whenever we desire!
Michael J. Johnson is a musician, composer, producer and engineer, and Associate Professor in Contemporary Writing & Production at Berklee College of Music, in Boston, Massachusetts. You can read his other writings on his blog, or listen to his music at ReverbNation.
Reader Comments (27)
Agree! Signed!
Golly whiz, that is just soooo idealistic. Good on ya and good luck. You're free!! You're free! And what do you do for a living?
Just remember as you go trippin' on down the Yellow Brick Road to LaLa Land, there is every likelihood that the day will come when you wake up and realize you have nothing, you are nothing and you are too old to start somewhere in a mail room.
Music and Business are two words that are inseparable ... Music is only about 10% of that equation.
We're probably all in agreement that the Internet is giving the artists way more control over what is possible with their music, but I'm confused as to how any artist would garner much support without being at least minimally accessible, at a minimum to the audience (s)he targets.
Even when the so called "industry" (as we think of it now) disappears, the business side of it will always be around. Artists will still have to define the audience, target it, and market to it. I'm not convinced that all the "old" rules will go away, but transform into something that's applicable in cyberspace.
Wonderful manifesto!
This is Sam Grinsell, signing up!
"The cat was out of the bag, and thus began the slow, steady, continuing decline of the powers-that-be."
Wow, you really think that, huh? Corporations are money-making machines for the real "powers-that-be," namely the top 1% of elite super-wealthy families around the world and the men (mostly) who manage their money. You see Warner Brothers and EMI reporting shitty earnings and you start dancing around like you won something. Meanwhile, the "powers-that-be" money moved to Youtube and Google and Apple. That top 1% is getting a lot richer this year, and that trend will continue.
When upstart innovators find something that works, they don't lead a revolution for independent artists, they sell out to larger corporations. Big Money always wins, because they get to sit back and let market Darwinism select the solutions for them...and then they buy those solutions. For most Music 2.0 companies, getting bought out is the entire end goal and business plan...again, another victory for those darn "powers-that-be."
The same tech miracles that democratized and empowered the little guy have also created a playing field that's more over-saturated than ever. More and more people reaching for less and less money, every year -- that's what the next decade really looks like.
2011 is going to be a really mean hangover for cheerleaders like you, as we're all forced to come to grips with the fact that the middle class in the US has been effectively destroyed, and our entire customer base here in the "music industry" is eroding faster and faster every month. Music is a human need, definitely -- but CDs and concerts and deluxe merch packages are a luxury.
If you can't see that there's still very real gatekeepers and rules in 2010, you should focus on reading instead of writing, man. This was a feel-good fluff piece.
One thing that has changed dramatically is the term 'Artist'. It seems cheap these days.
It's easy to forget is that the "level of entry" has been demolished, mostly,
perhaps, for the good. I say *mostly* because now almost anyone can be an ARTIST
and the *audience* is left to dig their favorites out of the *noise avalanche*
Although the well-known down sides to Music Industry practices are well documented, etc., at least
it did cut down the 'instant artist' factor quite a bit, so that only those most ardently committed
would likely persevere.
This list, like many, is IDEALLY sound, sure, but the practical aspects of enacting them in a field
of ....just a huuuge field of 'artists' clamoring to be heard, will take some time to.........stabilize'''....
When I was very young Bazooka Joe bubblegum used to come with a tiny piece of wax paper, a cartoon on one side and adverts for Space Monkeys on the other. And also some times adverts that told me I could be a 'real' doctor, by sending five dollars to some address in Milwaukee.
Is there a similar way of attaining 'professor-hood', I wonder?
As an Associate Professor I would hope that Prof Johnson could answer the question: when were the...'early days of our movement, before we were all part of the collective hive mind' exactly? The 50s? 60s? 1983?
Personally, I enjoyed having a record deal and I didn't give up everything or hardly anything. Argued a lot though. But they gave me money just in case I might sell a lot of records, a sweet deal for a no good punk, as Cagney might have said.
Dr. Tim London (Nuclear Physics)
Ha. Justin Boland. Always the cynic... but the informed and completely correct cynic.
I must say, I got more out of your 200 word comment as I did Michael's 1100-word trot (which, imo could have been written much clearer in about 500 words)
Thanks for the brain food all the same fellas. Keep making art, regardless, for your own peace.
As a student of Dr. J's at Berklee, I commend him for being one of the few fortunate artists who are able to make a living within their field. Say what you want about his idealism. His bills are paid because he is good enough at what he does to teach others to do it as well, without ever having become a part of the corporate money making machine.
I originally published this on my personal blog over a year ago, when things seemed a bit more hopeful. This was just my utopian idea of how things possibly could be. The climate has changed quite a bit since then, but I thought I would put it out there again, just to see if there was still some hope. Guess not!
@TonsoTunez, @Mark D, @Justin Boland: I recognize that this is very idealistic, and still very far from reality. If it weren't, there would be no need for a "Manifesto." To be honest, Justin, I agree with much of what you said, sadly.
@Dale Morgan: I agree. Not much more to say, because I'm not sure what the answer is.
@Tim London: I was thinking about the 1960's in particular, before the segmentation that occurred in radio, for instance. And btw, my doctorate took many years and much more than five dollars to attain.
@Garrett Heaney: 1090 words to be exact. Hey, it's a "manifesto," and I was going for flowery, old-fashioned language. Sure, it's an affectation, but I claim literary license! You might want to check your own grammar before you cast stones, though;)
If we can wipe aside our tears for a moment, I will say that I have recently seen evidence that there may be a true "musician middle class" emerging. I believe I saw this first mentioned on this very blog. Many of my friends and former students are making a decent living recording and performing original music outside of the mainstream music industry ecosystem. (I am a working musician who also teaches, and I often have to play covers to make money, so I can't really include myself in this group.)
Many of these musicians have to work at Starbucks as well, but a handful are making their living without having to resort to that. As recently as five years ago, I didn't know anybody who was able to do that. Sure, there are many obstacles, and the sheer amount of "noise" that exists at the moment is probably the most daunting, but maybe there is some hope?
THANK YOU for this - i'm in agreement with you, and can hardly contain my glee at seeing these words all together expressed so boldly and joyfully. i've had a 27-yr career in the heartland dabbling in lots of different musical modes, never feeling too honored for the diversity and experimentation that i've always gravitated toward, but simultaneously knowing how creatively wealthy i am, and that at last "the cultural stars are aligning" to benefit artists like me, and you as well. blessings and success to you, and keep declaring the manifesto!
It's 2010 and you are just now coming up with this? Remember punk rock?
i like good musical products & and i hate when there are out of place songs on the same record.
filter is good.
19. Do what works for you and your career and don't let other's rambling ideological nonsense get in the way or skew your own vision at any cost
@ Micheal Perhaps it's to do with relevance. Being a prof or a doc indicates a hierarchy of knowledge and when you write such obviously disputable and paranoid statements as the above I wonder if your signing off in this manner is just a way to get people to take you more seriously.
If your course features your conspiracy theories ('A Formula was instituted, and only occasionally tweaked until maximum profitability was summarily achieved. If maximum profitability was not quickly achieved after a few tweaks of the Formula, the Artist was quickly jettisoned' etc) I hope it also features proof of the existence of the conspiracies.
I've met people who think they have a 'formula' in the music biz and they are invariably coke casualties and/or mad. Yes there are standard processes that some labels use to promote, but they shift about so much they could hardly be a formula.
Yes, there is a fast turnaround of artists, but plenty of artists have survived and are still making a living many years after they signed their first major deal.
It's too easy to slag off the major labels and say they are bad for musicians. I don't have any love for them but they are a genuine route to success, even nowadays, and if you're expert enough to be teaching people about the music business then you should know this.
Maybe the time will come when they do, absolutely, collapse. We're not there yet, so, in the meanwhile, perhaps temper your absolutes with some maybes.
Apologies for hogging: re: the 60s as the early days, before the 'hive mind'...
Are you sure you're not over-simplifying here? Especially in the early 60s in America, weren't there 'race' stations for the Black population? Weren't there specialist country stations? Local stations featuring mainly local artists? Wasn't it the 60s when a radio station in, was it Detroit, organised a mass burning of Beatles records? (pretty 'hive' behaviour, no?) Was there ever a time when radio stations didn't play what they perceived most of their listeners wanted to hear, as well as the payola tracks and the adverts?
And hasn't there been public radio for many years in the states?
And, really, what has prevented people from finding out about and listening to and loving ska, country, jazz and noise rock? In fact, haven't people been doing just that, with occasional excursions of all kinds of genres into the top 20 as well as specialist shows and stores featuring this music?
Why do idealists make people so angry?
It makes me laugh.
I'll sign up - it doesn't have to all come true.
That's not the point.
Not angry, Juan, just challenging easy assumptions.
I think MTT is about looking honestly at the making and distribution of music, especially how things will work in the future. Obviously there's a lot of hopeful guesswork involved and there's nothing wrong with idealism but both should be predicated on reality.
I guess I'm an idealist also, so it irritates me to admit that Justin is right on many counts. Big Money always wins. It always has. The rest of us have to find our way through the cracks in the wall.
I think the point here is that this is one moment where those cracks are a little easier to imagine. It's still tricky navigating your way through them to make something that is going to have an impact, but what artist starts off thinking like a marketer? Don't you make work that you feel compelled to make & then work to the best of your knowledge & ability to get it heard?
I've been able to make a living only in music for 25 years. You look for every opportunity that presents itself, develop every skill that you can, & work like a banshee. You're right, Dale - it's a really crowded marketplace. So you have to create real distinction, whatever that may be.
I wish everyone good luck, and thanks for re-posting the manifesto, Michael.
Gave me a wee smile that did.
I like the approach you came from.
The good news is that record labels and the old machine is finished.
The bad news is that artists now actually have to do what they did on their own.
Most “artists” don’t have it in them to do any of the things it takes to make a living creating art.
I think a more realistic manifesto might look like this:
1. I will create music for a demographic I know well and am a part of.
2. I will create separate personas for different aspects of my creativity if I so choose, and so long as it doesn't confuse the people who support my art.
3. I will allow my creativity free reign, just like I've been doing all along.
4. My art is not a product and never was, but I'll make it available for purchase at a price that reflects its quality and value, then tell people about it, and ask for the sale.
5. Formulas are roadmaps to profitability.Creative approaches to formulas help create brand identity.
6. There is no such thing as a music consumer. There never was. The only thing that gets consumed is time.I will appreciate the time (and money) my fans spend on me and my art and thank them for it.
7. It is perfectly acceptable for an artist to release a country song and a freeform jazz exploration on the same record, if they're the Grateful Dead. I'm not, so I won't. (but you can, if you're Phish)
8. I will continue to ask myself, “is this accessible” or “could someone whistle this melody?” To do otherwise would be career suicide, and I'd probably have to content myself with teaching.
9. I won't need to edit my productions down, because the fat will be trimmed before the production stage, and all mixes will be mastered to a standard suitable for delivery in the formats fans will pay for. To do otherwise would be career suicide, see 8
10. I do not necessarily want or need to “get signed” to a major record label, unless I want to increase my fan base more quickly and at very great expense.
11. I will maintain artistic control of my output, as well as quality control. To do otherwise would be yada, yada, 8.
12. is redundant; let's jes' move along to
13. except that's redundant, too; covered it in 8, 9 and 11.
14. I will actively help my fans find my music by relating it to similar things they may already enjoy and describing it in terms they're familiar with; to do otherwise would be career suicide, see rule 8.
15. I will use any and every artistic medium available to the folks who buy my music, to ensure that they have a way to play it.See rule 8
16.I will submit my music to the best and most effective filters available, and poll my audience to insure they're getting the experience they desire at a comfortable price point. Again, rule 8
17. redundant; covered in 15.
18.Everybody's free to make their own rules, but in this business (and every other) the fundamentals never change.
This discussion is thought provoking and useful from the standpoint of formalizing the potential choices we can make in our music pursuits. There are points in Michael's Article and Mojo's alternative that I would and have adopted. The problem is drinking the kool-aide. Like Martin Luther thought he was being a revolutionary and what did society get? Another "us vs them" problem.
The true idealists would be those who identify their music goals and pursue them with the resources they can bring to the table. Forget the formulas; that's the old-speak.
This discussion is thought provoking and useful from the standpoint of formalizing the potential choices we can make in our music pursuits. There are points in Michael's Article and Mojo's alternative that I would and have adopted. The problem is drinking the kool-aide. Like Martin Luther thought he was being a revolutionary and what did society get? Another "us vs them" problem.
The true idealists would be those who identify their music goals and pursue them with the resources they can bring to the table. Forget the formulas; that's the old-speak.
Disagree. There's tons of garbage on Reverb Nation. There needs to be good commercial structure, especially for new artists. There also needs to be a singable melody. Otherwise forget it. 9/10x an 'adventurous' artist is just an unfocused one with an unclear song.
Someone above said big money always wins - while it may be true that big money will always keep its icy, deathly grip on its assets, it's irrelevant from the modern musician's standpoint. The "uncontrollability," if you will, of the internet results in a galaxy of music accessible at the click of a mouse from all different genres, to people who like all kinds of genres. I grew up on Napster, not the radio.
Dr. J is absolutely right that there are no "consumers" anymore. I honestly don't know a single person who has bought music recently. As an aspiring musician I have been releasing all of my music completely for free and I expect that I will continue doing so throughout my career. My favorite bands have also been doing this, and I think it is a testament to the fact that Dr. J is correct and his manifesto is right on.
Music is an art of expression of emotion. It is not meant to be controlled by the likes of those who seek to profit and exploit, and now that the music-sharing technology is here, we can definitely expect to see "Big Money" backing away from this industry, with its tail tucked under between its legs. They still have less creative businesses to exploit, like oil, tobacco, and the war complex. I find it strange that so many people here are trying to pick this piece apart when its message is 100% clear and true.
do you know this?
http://www.facebook.com/intimidadromero
Amazing!
this is 2.0art