How lovely and refreshing (and personally affirming) to read John Goldsby’s comments here.

I too share John’s musical ambition to be the best musician I can, to be passionate and honest, innovative yet authentic.

I love playing jazz, probably because of the shared nature of the music, the opportunity to compose in the instant (improvise) and the feeling of being part of something bigger.

Which is all very well, but has nothing to do with the topic.

My best advice is to pick up John’s book, go straight to page 226 and read the dedication, bass draggers all.

Kevin

Plus, from a purely financial point of view, you’re looking at the effects of having less overheads (no expensive producers, no labels taking 90% of your sales, no lawyers, etc.) and therefore needing to ship less product to break even.

@Mike – The rest of my old band were made up of the cool kids and I was the geeky, over-enthusiastic drummer. Every time we met with our A&R girl, I was given some suggestion on how to dress, how to act on stage (don’t dance around, it’s not cool), who to talk to, who NOT to talk to, where to be and so on.

I was getting all this and we weren’t even signed yet – I couldn’t imagine what it would be like if I had continued with them.

The band were told what to play (you need to write more ‘hits’ was a constant refrain) and how to play it – our ‘thing’ was to rock sitting down on stage, which people really loved and it was a nice, unique angle for the press coverage – but they told us we should be standing up with electric instruments. Oh, and there was too much country in our music.

And this was before we even negotiated the financial arrangements, where they would own the music and give us next to nothing for all our work.

It was just too much to sacrifice for the slim hope that we might, one day, have millions of people listening to us.

And it’s not just me, Jacob Slichter’s account of his times with a major is worth a read – http://www.amazon.com/Wanna-Rock-Roll-Star-Machine-Gunned/dp/0767914708

There is a large conceptual gulf between pop musicians who are looking to get over in a big way, find the lowest common denominator to reach the biggest group of listeners, and musicians who are just satisfied making a decent living, being heard and supported by a discerning yet loyal fan base. I am not saying one path is better than the other, but they are different paths.

I think the days of the mega-super-pop-star are coming to an end (what do I care if someone supported by Sony/Warner/EMI is at the top of the MTV charts if I never ever watch MTV?). But — the future for musicians who play well, compose well and like to connect with listeners who really want to listen to their music are rosy indeed.

The new opportunities arising in the last few years encourage musicians to be the best they can be. Of course there have always been players who did it themselves—Charles Mingus, Marian McPartland, Peter Ind and others had their own record labels back in the ’50s and ’60s. But, musicians back then could not compete with the distribution that the majors had—until recently. The playing field is getting very level, very fast.

One more pop/jazz comparison: Most pop musicians I know who struggle for five or ten years and do not break through and get a “deal” with a big label (see Steve’s original post) tend to give up. The jazz players just keep practicing and working gigs, the attitude being: just focus on the music and everything will fall into place.

I am referring to jazz players because that is what I know, but I think my attitude is shared by many working musicians in various musical genres.

And there is always the opportunity to be heard by millions . . . I play on a lot of recordings for others, movie soundtracks and the like, but to paraphrase Mike: It hasn’t been my smartest or best playing but it’s been heard by more people.

@Greg: What is the audience for? The audience is important, but there is a point where the audience is on their own—I can’t make them like what I am playing.

My goal is to be a good musician first—so I can honestly listen to myself and like it—and then I assume that some of the people listening will also dig it. I am extremely conscientious about my music and my playing, so if someone in the audience doesn’t like it (which is inevitable)—then it doesn’t matter to me. I play for myself, and for the people who like what I am doing.

I think most people who really enjoy music can hear if a musician believes in what they are playing.

I’ve made the point before, but it doesn’t hurt to reiterate it – my main reason for ‘making music for myself’ and suggesting that other musicians do the same is that ultimately it’s the most trustworthy way to make the ‘best’ music we can.

The music I hear that is written very specifically for a market definitely trends in the direction of being formulaic, often transparently cliched, lacking in substance. (just look at what happens to almost every cool band who suddenly find themselves playing stadiums and start writing mid-tempo anthemic sing-alongs because the eclectic range of their earlier material no longer works in that environment – see U2, Coldplay, RHCP, Green Day etc…) It’s also not a particularly successful formula, given the range of musical people trying it and those who end up making any money at it.

So working on the principle of a ‘worst case scenario’, if I make a record for me, I can assume that – unless I spend my life dancing around to the sound of the fridge door opening and closing – that there will be other people out there with similar taste to me. Hopefully, I’ll then be able to tell the story of the music in a more honest way, ‘represent it’ as enthusiastically as you’d expect someone making the music they love to do, and then do everything I can to make that available.

*If* that doesn’t work, I’m stuck with 1000 CDs that I LOVE, that I’m proud of, and will give away, donate and continue to promote because I love it, not because it’s my job.

If, on the other hand, I write music to be famous, to play stadiums, to do big tours, blah blah blah, I have a) bought into the myth that that will make me happier (Mike, there’s definitely a part of all this that is me shouting at fame-hungry musicians – “give it up, you’ll get there and probably hate it!!” – as my genius friend Kennan Shaw once said, “first prize is 10 years on a bus”) – but if THAT fails, which for ALMOST ALL BANDS , it will, you’re stuck with an album even you don’t believe in (after all, you belief in it was predicated on it being a success; no success=no belief), and are also trapped in a deal built around you spending money based on the likelihood of fame… lose-lose.

Success, and recognition for what you do, are no bad things at all. I wouldn’t mind selling 100,000 albums. (In fact, I’d rather sell 100,000 than a million…), but it’s not a motivation that will lead me to make great music.

Fame is the DOWNSIDE to success. Using me as an example, I already have all the recognition I need to motivate me to keep going when I have moments of self-doubt. I have praise/accolades from many of my musical heroes, from people whose opinions I value greatly. That’s enough.

As I’ve said, once record deals are reinvented to serve the purpose of connecting musicians with an audience, I’m in. I’m happy to share profits with people who are helping to get the word out. Skills and work deserve to be compensated. I don’t think that musicians are charity cases who should get everything for free – far from it.

What I object to are the insane, near-criminal terms of most record contracts, and the utter heinous bull-shit myths about fame. You’re climbing to the top of a pile of shit and find that all there is at the top is another shitty slope down the far side.

To be motivated to produce art by the quest for ‘fame’ is a piss-poor reason, and I’m not about to write advice for people who are desperate for it, beyond ‘give it up’.

As the great and wise Tom Sine once said, ‘Why Settle For More And Miss The Best?’

Something I think you’ve maybe missed in this Steve that the record labels also provide that the independents don’t: sheer numbers.

There’s certainly an appeal for some people in having their song heard and liked by millions and millions of people rather than just a select few.

I’m a software engineer by trade and certainly the code I’ve been most proud of is the stuff that’s gone into KDE and the Linux kernel so is used by millions. It hasn’t been my smartest or best code but it’s in use by more people.

Thoughts?

So guys and gals what are your audience for?

My reason for ignoring the money grabbing, fame hungry morons who see music as some kind of get rich quick scheme is that a) they’re so deluded about the odds of success, they might as well buy lottery tickets, b) their mistaken belief that it’s possible is built on the lies that the big labels in collusion with the myth-peddling music media have perpetuated & c) they’d be in a much better place for sustained, “real” success if they concentrated on making great music then used it as a bargaining tool with whoever in the big labels was smart enough to see the potential.

If people want to “use” music as a vehicle to “get famous” or rich, my attitude towards them is a mixture of pity and contempt and I’m certainly not about to waste my time writing blog posts helping them pursue their hopelessly unlikely rock star fantasies. My pity is largely for them missing out on just how wonderful a part of being human playing an instrument can be if you do it because you love it. To persue money & fame over that is cultural bankruptcy of the saddest kind.