blog
Did You Know That You Might Be An "Heritage" Band Now, Or Twenty Years From Now?
Archives
171 entries
Back to Latest Entries
Back to Latest Entries
Here are my take-aways from an August 24, 2007 article in the Wall Street Journal Venture Capital, Rockin’ to the Oldies
1. The journalist in this article leads with a somewhat off-putting remark: “Past-their-prime rock bands are used to being ignored by record labels and mocked by the music press.”
2. He goes on to say: “Fans often fill up concert venues to hear older acts perform their hits, but they typically shun their new record releases.”
3. The business manager of a “heritage” band [it seems that is the “industry term” for performers over 40 – TCC: so sorry guys, I thought we were just getting started!] says: "The biggest problem for heritage bands is record labels tend to market everyone the same whether they are a boy band or have been around 20 years…" [what about the "girls"]
4. The article goes on to describe what I thought were some pretty ingenious ways to promote these “heritage” bands.
5. The journalist again: "Record labels, hit by rampant piracy and falling profits, have been cutting back on the number of bands they support. With the power of the big record companies diminishing, bands are trying new ways to put out music."
6. Then comes the killer quote of the WSJ article: “Big record companies say they aren't threatened by the efforts to produce music without them. Bands 'are not equipped with the necessary specialist skills to take care of business' such as hiring producers, designers, photographers and publicists, says Max Hole, an executive vice president at Universal Music Group International, the overseas arm of the world's largest music company by market share. ‘We are experts in providing these services and skills, which allows the artist to create and make music.’”
The rest of the article is really not too bad or condescending about musicians and the aging process. In fact, I think these Ingenious guys may have found an interesting niche: “Heritage” bands. The basic problem though is that the number of great performers the business model can support, with such a high-touch, one-on-one, approach seems pretty limited. That is why I prefer the Fuzz no-touch, low-touch, medium-touch, high-touch approach to Artist Development that can be utilized by artists at all stages of their careers.
TCC: An Heritage Kinda Guy
1. The journalist in this article leads with a somewhat off-putting remark: “Past-their-prime rock bands are used to being ignored by record labels and mocked by the music press.”
2. He goes on to say: “Fans often fill up concert venues to hear older acts perform their hits, but they typically shun their new record releases.”
3. The business manager of a “heritage” band [it seems that is the “industry term” for performers over 40 – TCC: so sorry guys, I thought we were just getting started!] says: "The biggest problem for heritage bands is record labels tend to market everyone the same whether they are a boy band or have been around 20 years…" [what about the "girls"]
4. The article goes on to describe what I thought were some pretty ingenious ways to promote these “heritage” bands.
5. The journalist again: "Record labels, hit by rampant piracy and falling profits, have been cutting back on the number of bands they support. With the power of the big record companies diminishing, bands are trying new ways to put out music."
6. Then comes the killer quote of the WSJ article: “Big record companies say they aren't threatened by the efforts to produce music without them. Bands 'are not equipped with the necessary specialist skills to take care of business' such as hiring producers, designers, photographers and publicists, says Max Hole, an executive vice president at Universal Music Group International, the overseas arm of the world's largest music company by market share. ‘We are experts in providing these services and skills, which allows the artist to create and make music.’”
The rest of the article is really not too bad or condescending about musicians and the aging process. In fact, I think these Ingenious guys may have found an interesting niche: “Heritage” bands. The basic problem though is that the number of great performers the business model can support, with such a high-touch, one-on-one, approach seems pretty limited. That is why I prefer the Fuzz no-touch, low-touch, medium-touch, high-touch approach to Artist Development that can be utilized by artists at all stages of their careers.
TCC: An Heritage Kinda Guy
Comments
It won't be long before the "Big Guys" have to start considering "Spec Op Tactics" against Fuzz...
...and the [Fuzz no-touch, low-touch, medium-touch, high-touch approach to Artist Development] method!!!
This is why the record industry has been stuck in a vacuum since the late 90's... have one successful band and then market that band with a bunch of un-original clones... and pollute the airwaves with "everything sounds the same music!!!"
That's what inept marketers, consultants, publicists and designers have given us... compliments of the so-called "Big Guys who know Best!!!"
The nerve!!! Anyone over 40... a "Heritage"!!! Does this "label" give those of us who are, or quickly closing in on, a special entitlement to an additional 20% savings discount off of purchases ???
Meredith
I get the feeling that other organizations like Ingenious Media will follow this model, and look to work with the older acts.
The term "Heritage Artist" is respectful enough, but puts yet another term on artists that some may view with an air of negativity. I don't think I could have come up with a term like that for artists past the age of 40 years. I guess I've only ever viewed the artists I've liked as simply good, I can't remember ever putting some sort of age term alongside their careers. Al McKibbon, who passed away not too long ago, played bass for 65 years and I never once thought to think of him in those terms. He had great skills as a musician, and played and recorded music including his own album until right before his passing. Eubie Blake kicked much butt on piano, and scared the pants off much younger pianists with his "stride" technique into his 90's. He passed away at age 93. There are a host of other musicians who lived long lives, male and female, who continued to produce great music up until their passing that is too long to list here.
This new term for musicians for me only gets in the way of who they really are, gifted and talented for life, no matter their age. But the industry will most likely use and push this term on the masses long enough until it becomes a commonly used expression to describe older artists I'm afraid.
The record companies are skilled at providing services for the artists they find desireable, they've shown that skill in the past to good effect. But to put down musicians overall with such a blanket statement by the man from the record company really misses the point about today's musicians. He probably won't talk about the fact that the big record companies have already signed acts because the act did its homework so well, in all the areas he felt them lacking in the business areas, that the record company felt that the act was "low maintenance" enough to go after and sign, and therefore save a lot of money in the process.
I know of plenty of artists who would laugh their heads off at that statement, who are selling thousands of units monthly through downloads and physical CDs who have done all of that and more.
And I'm with you TCC, I too prefer Fuzz's "multiple-touch" approach to artist development. The artists have always been more intelligent than the credit they've been given, and now they have the avenues and assistance they need through today's web, to prove that negative impression of them wrong every time.
BB