Five Common Mistakes New Artists Make

When an artist of any kind, Musician, Singer, Actor, etc. is first starting out, they tend to make a lot of mistakes on their path to fame. An artist’s life is not easy after all. Many times it may feel like they are living in a world full of no’s, constantly searching for the one yes. Only the strong can and will survive. It takes persistence, patience, a whole lot of talent, and luck!

I’m not saying there is a formula for becoming a successful artist, or that I know the secret to fame and fortune. However, there are definitely some things to consider avoiding.

Without further ado, here are the five common mistakes new artists make:

1.    “I’m the next…”

When a producer, casting director, etc. ask an artist to describe themselves, or their talent rather, they typically make the mistake of saying they are the next Beyoncé, JT, Oprah, or whoever. Don’t get me wrong; it’s perfectly okay to say what artists inspire you. My point is, that you should never directly compare yourself with another artist as it makes you “unsellable”. Industry professionals want artists that are unique, not identical to something they already have. While many new artists try to sell yesterday’s news, the industry is looking for “the next big thing”. 

2.    “I don’t need anyone’s help, I can do it all on my own.”

So many artists have this insane fear that, if anyone helps them their career is doomed for failure. They have heard so many horror stories of managers stealing money from artists that they don’t want to have any representation. Well, my friends, I am telling you right now, that you will never become a superstar, without help from industry professionals. Don’t get me wrong, you can make a little money, and build a small fan base on your own. However, the fact is an artist can only take their work so far before aid from a gatekeeper is desperately needed. Many artists only know the artistic side of their career, which gets them into trouble! For instance, how do you get your fans to purchase anything without knowing how to market to them? For that matter, how in the world will you ever grow your fan base, without good marketing tactics?

3.    “I’m gonna be an overnight sensation!”

This is what I call: “an artist living in the clouds”. It’s great to have goals, and you should always reach for the biggest apple on the tree. However, the common mistake is to assume that the biggest apple is yours right here and now. Like I said before, being an artist is not easy, it’s a constant struggle. It may appear that someone such as Lady Gaga or Justin Bieber became famous “overnight”, but that was not the case. A lot of hard work went into building that empire, from not only the artist but also by many industry professionals. As they say, you receive a million no’s before finally reaching the one who says yes! 

4.    “I don’t need any training.”

Too many artists think they are perfect in every way. That no one can make them more talented than they already are. On the contrary, no human is perfect. Every skill and talent that one may possess is and will always obtain room for improvement. It’s just as the old saying goes “practice makes perfect”. Don’t assume you “got the job”, unless you're someone such as Meryl Streep. If an artist wants to grow and expand their career, they must continue to learn. Take advice from others, especially those who have reached a higher level of success than you!

5.    “I’m not gonna work for free!”

The reason behind making this mistake is quite obvious. No one enjoys working for free. I get it; a person cannot survive without money. However, once again this goes back to the realization that artist’s lives are not easy. The “starving artist” is alive and well. The fact is, though, that no one begins at the top. In doing free work, artists are getting the exposure they need in front of industry professionals. The industry must meet you before they pay you. Once they trust and believe in your talent, then you will be paid for your time and art.

So there you have it, folks. Take my advice or leave it. The choice is most certainly yours!  

  

Music Streaming Has Finally Won The War

As many predicted, music streaming services have finally taken over the music market. For the first time in history, Universal Music Group (UMG) reported that streaming music revenue overtook physical music sales (Ingham, 2017). As you can see here by this graph:

http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/universal-posts-record-revenues-for-2016-as-streaming-overtakes-physical-sales/

As Ingham (2017) goes on to say, revenues from companies such as Spotify and Apple Music increased by 55.5%, roughly a jump from $1.06bn in 2015 to $1.64bn in 2016! That’s very impressive. On the other end, this means that physical music sales fell 13.1%, from $1.56bn in 2015 to $1.36bn in 2016. My theory is that this gap between streaming and physical sales is only going to grow larger. Streaming music’s lead is only going to get stronger, and in my opinion, this will also happen at a very rapid rate. The percentage increase year to year could be as much as 8% or higher. Technology is becoming more and more a huge part of human life, and there is no stopping it.

The best news of all is that the music industry is alive and well. UMG also reported that their total revenues rose 3.1%, or by $176m to put that more into your perspective (Ingham, 2017).

Concluding here, although some industry leaders may be afraid of this change, others are not. They foresaw the future of the music industry and are ready to embrace it. I know this newly found information is going to lead to more digital-focused business models, not only for UMG but also for all record companies both major and independent.

References

Ingham, T. (2017, February 23). Universal posts record revenues for 2016 - as streaming overtakes physical sales. Retrieved February 23, 2017, from http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/universal-posts-record-revenues-for-2016-as-streaming-overtakes-physical-sales/

I Graduated From A "Top 25 Music School"!

Going back to school is always on the mind of someone who may feel trapped or confused as to where their life is going. Almost three years ago today, I was in this position. Like most young adults fresh out of high school, I began working in retail. I had no idea what I wanted to do with my life. After five years of doing nothing but working, I was very unhappy. I knew I needed a change.

I began to reflect back to my high school years and thought why at that time my life felt so blissful. Of course, paying bills came to my mind first; as that was a huge luxury every kid has when they live with their parents. But then I thought of music! Music was what got me through every day. I loved listening to my iPod every morning on my way to school, playing the piano at every chance I could, and being a part of my school’s amazingly talented choir. Music is what gave my life that bright beam of light, and I would give anything to get it back.

The next day without any more hesitation, I went to my computer and began my Google search for music schools. That’s when I was first introduced to Full Sail University. It actually was one of the first search results that I was given. Following the link to their website, I fell in love with this University. The pictures of the campus were breathtaking, and the programs offered were exactly what I was looking for. At that moment, a feeling of warmth and happiness had come over me that I hadn’t felt in a very long time. My life had a purpose again; I knew that I needed to attend this school.

It turns out that the University I chose was one of the best in the country. For the consecutive fourth year in a row, The Hollywood Reporter has featured Full Sail University in their “Top 25 Music Schools” list (THR Staff, 2016). The article also mentions the notable Alumni: Grammy Award-winning producer Sebastian Krys, and Academy Award-winning sound mixer Gary Rizzo. This list of schools includes many of the most prestigious music schools in the US: Yale School of Music, Berklee College of Music, The Julliard School, and more (THR Staff, 2016).

At this point, I gotta admit, that after two months of graduation, I still am unemployed. However, I continue to hold my head high and apply, apply, apply. I know my career is still out there yet, especially after hearing great news like this.

So for every college grad out there still looking to jump-start your career, don’t give up! Stay positive, and keep envisioning your great success to come.

References

THR Staff. (2016, November 23). USC - The Top 25 Music Schools 2016. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/top-25-music-schools-2016-949274/item/usc-25-music-schools-2016-949278 

"The Controlled Composition Clause": The Devil in disguise

Let's talk about “the controlled composition clause” commonly found in recording contracts. This clause deals with “actual” musicians: composers, and singer/songwriters. There are artists who are just singers and not necessarily involved in the writing process, thus, this clause may be irrelevant, but would most likely still be present in their agreement. Here is what “the controlled composition clause” looks like:

“…Record Company is hereby granted a mechanical license for all Controlled Compositions, as defined below, embodied in the Masters at fifty (50%) percent of the minimum statutory mechanical copyright royalty rate in effect on the date of the first release of Records containing such Controlled Compositions (the “Controlled Rate”). The term “Controlled Composition” means a Composition embodied in any Master delivered hereunder which is written or composed by Owner, alone or in part, directly or indirectly, by Owner, or by any person, corporation, partnership, firm, or other entity in which Owner has a direct or indirect interest…” (Schornstein, 2006).

The purpose of this clause is to divide the Mechanical royalties, in which a musician would make from their music under US copyright law, between them and the record company. Clearly, this clause benefits the record company, and not the artist whatsoever. The artist instead of receiving 100% of the US statutory rate, is given a discounted rate, in this case, 50%. It is common, however, for record companies to give 75%, rather than 50.

It’s easy to see why record companies would include this clause as there is such a drop in music sales. This along with many other clauses opens up another revenue stream. As a singer/songwriter, you are cutting out the “middleman”, so naturally the record company feels entitled to a portion of that “extra income” you will be bringing in.

Getting a discounted Mechanical royalty rate is not the only downside to this clause, though. The other negative is that this rate will not increase even though the actual US Statutory rate has increased by the time of sale. The rate the artist receives is pinned at the rate established on the date of the first release of the record. It would be very wise to have your lawyer negotiate this to the date of manufacture of the record, rather than the release (Schornstein, 2006).

Although it does not include this in the example I provided, some agreements also have a cap on the amount of songs Mechanical royalties will be paid. They may limit it to 10 songs even though the artist wrote all 15 songs on the album (FreeAdviseLegal.com).

Concluding my thoughts here, I find this clause to be completely unreasonable and should be revised. My biggest reason for this: What resources of the record company’s are a musician using when they create THEIR music? The company is not providing the artist with composers or lyric writers at any point in time. So… I’m really confused as to why a record company would think money is to be split from the actual creative aspect that went into the creation of these songs. Now the producer I believe does deserve a portion of Mechanical royalties, as he/she helped record and mix the actual sound recording of the song(s). If and ONLY if the record company sets an artist up with one of their producers, then this clause makes sense. However, the percentage taken by the record company should be no more than 15%, and even that is being more than generous. The bottom line is the artists are already being paid very little, as the record companies have so many expenses to take out. All of which is understandable, but needs to be within reason. It’s completely unreasonable to charge an expense in which the record company’s resources of any kind were not used.

References

FreeAdviceLegal.com. (n.d.). Recording agreement points. Retrieved May 18, 2016, fromhttp://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/music_law/recording_agreement.htm

Schornstein, J. M. (2006). Recording contract clauses. Retrieved May 18, 2016, fromhttp://www.musiciansintellectuallaw.com/rec_clauses.html

  

Zoe Keating

Image by: Jerry Dodrill

This talented woman is a cellist creating music of the classical genre. She lives in the redwood forest about an hour and half out of San Francisco, California (Castro, 2011). Her music is hauntingly beautiful and full of emotion. She creates her music digitally via her computer using only one instrument, her cello. Layers and layers of musical phrases played from her cello create her songs. She loves what she does, and loves that she can share her art with the world.

Her music is available to purchase and/or listen to on a number of websites and programs such as iTunes, Amazon, YouTube, Spotify, etc. She is very famous for publicly announcing her income from each of these sources. Keating made a total earning of $75,341 from her music sales in 2013 (Dredge, 2014). In addition, the article also states that she made an additional $6,380 from music streaming services. The article further goes on to break down her earned income from the different sources. I won’t mention all the details, but her biggest source of income came from iTunes, bringing in $38,195, which is made up from 3,862 albums, and 32,170 single tracks (Dredge, 2014).

On her website (Click Here) she has her album for sale along with some merchandise. To purchase her album digitally her price is $6. She has a deluxe edition CD digipak for $12, which includes the CD, a photo booklet, liner notes, 4 bonus tracks, and finally the digital download of all 15-tracks. She also has the regular CD digipak for $9. This one includes the CD, along with the digital download of all 11-tracks. Lastly, she has the Zoe Tee for $18. This shirt is available for men and women in all sizes.

Concluding my thoughts here, I think this independent artist is very successful. She is proving to me that an artist can make an honest living on their music without the aid of a big record label. Just as Kelly (2008) states, it only takes 1,000 true fans to build a successful career in entertainment. She obviously has a dedicated fan base. Her bundles are great, and I was pleasantly surprised that they were offered. I do wonder if she will create more merchandise, and how much she is currently making from her t-shirts alone. All in all, I’m happy I now know of Zoe Keating. I hope her career grows as she continues to do what she does best.

References

Castro, M. (2011, September 6). Zoe Keating: A Symphony Unto Herself. NPR. Retrieved January 20, 2016, from http://www.npr.org/2011/09/06/140069246/zoe-keating-a-symphony-unto-herself

Dredge, S. (2014, February 24). Musician Zoe Keating reveals iTunes, Spotify and YouTube payouts for 2013. The Guardian. Retrieved January 20, 2016, fromhttp://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/24/zoe-keating-itunes-spotify-youtube-payouts

Into The Trees, by Zoe Keating. (n.d.). Retrieved January 20, 2016, from http://music.zoekeating.com/

Kelly, K. (2008, March 4). The Technium: 1,000 True Fans. Retrieved January 20, 2016, fromhttp://kk.org/thetechnium/1000-true-fans/

A Great Big World: "Is There Anybody Out There?"

I loved this album cover the minute I saw it on iTunes. The cover is very mysterious and a beautiful midnight shade of blue. It’s a picture of a starry night sky. The moon is glowing and is enormous. You can see a tree centered on the ground below with a little girl sitting on the very top branch gazing into the stars. The band’s name is written in giant letters in the sky. The “O” in the word “world” is perfectly displayed by the yellow moon. The album title is written in smaller writing and placed in the bottom right-hand corner. Not to forget, the rocket ship headed to space that is placed in the “A” representing the negative space of the letter. Together it all forms a stunning piece of musical art.

This artwork effectively represents the band, as the music in this album is very mysterious and lyrical. A lot of the songs are piano based, and have strong messages conveyed in their lyrics. Their hit single “Say Something” featuring Christina Aguilera sounds very haunting and alluring. The cover art shows a vast world of interest and meaning. It also shows wonder and excitement. This is the bands very first album release, so not only is the picture a perfect beginning to their career, but also so is the album title. Asking consumers is there anybody out there is pretty cleaver. They are asking the world to listen up. This duo is made up of two guys named Ian Axel and Chad Vaccarino. After the success of their single with Christina Aguilera, the two decided to release the full album. Their name A Great Big World fits them very well as Axel stated, “…everything’s kind of bigger than us” – referring to their newly found fame and success - (Knopper, 2013, Para. 6).  

The album had mixed reviews. The New York Times seemed to have nothing good to say about it. However, Newsday’s Glenn Gamboa called the album “eclectic both musically and lyrically” (Jaeger, 2014, Para. 7). He also stated how heartfelt and jubilant the songs were. Fans of singer/songwriters, which is A Great Big World’s target market in my opinion, are intrigued by beauty and music/art with deep meaning. So the cover art for this album appealed perfectly to their target audience.

References

Jaeger, K. (2014, January 21). A Great Big World's 'Is There Anybody Out

There?': What the critics are saying. The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved January 6, 2016, from http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/a-great-big-worlds-is-672857

Knopper, S. (2013, December 18). Meet A Great Big World, the New

York duo behind 'Say Something'. RollingStone. Retrieved January 6, 2016, from http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/meet-a-great-big-world-the-new-york-duo-behind-say-something-20131218

Fair Play, Fair Pay Act of 2015!

I found a great article in the Los Angeles Times regarding this new bill. The article is titled: “Fair Play, Fair Pay Act of 2015 would require radio to pay for music”. The author is Randy Lewis, one of LA Times reporters. Here is the link: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-fair-play-fair-pay-act-congress-radio-royalties-20150413-story.html

At first, it seemed as though the author was against the bill, but as I kept reading I felt otherwise. The author is simply showing you both sides of the argument, paragraph by paragraph. At the very end, he states how the US economy has lost millions or more a year because of radio not paying royalties on music. Based on his conclusion, I say this author is in favor of the bill.

If the bill does in deed pass there are great benefits involved. The obvious reason is of course that the artist will be paid for their work. After all, they created a product that they meant to sell, not give away for free. Lewis (2015) gives a great quote from Michael Huppe, CEO of SoundExchange, saying how if it weren’t for the artist’s music, the radio stations would have nothing to play but static. The US economy would also benefit from this bill passing, as foreign countries would finally agree to pay royalties to US musicians for radio airplay. They currently are not agreeing to pay because radio stations in America do not (Lewis, 2015). Naturally no one wants to give money and not receive money.

There are harmful things that can come from this bill passing as well. For one thing, this could cause a loss in jobs, as smaller radio stations would be forced to shut down (Lewis, 2015). Radio stations only make money from advertising and fundraising. If huge royalty fees are added, these stations won’t have the money to pay them. Which leads me to consider the other negative of charging the listener. This bill passing could mean that we as consumers now have to pay a monthly subscription fee to listen to any radio station (digital or traditional).

Concluding with my opinion on the issue, I am actually in favor of the bill. For me it boils down to, this is the future of music. It’s part of the digital revolution. People nowadays are streaming music anyways. I believe we will no longer buy music individually and only pay monthly for a music service. At that moment royalties will definitely have to be paid to artists. Otherwise their music would be 100% free, and we all know that will never happen.

References

Lewis, R. (2015, April 13). Fair Play, Fair Pay Act of 2015 would require radio to pay for music. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December 1, 2015, fromhttp://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-fair-play-fair-pay-act-congress-radio-royalties-20150413-story.html