Artist Suggestion - OCTOBER 27th

Rotterndam-The Netherlands native, Sabrina Starke, is poised to spread across the rest of Europe and take the United States by storm. The jazz/soul sounds Starke pelts is a well developed hybrid of U.K. sensation Joss Stone and American roots singer Erykah Badu. It’s no surprise you can’t find Starke on the Billboard-Netherland charts, as her delivery seems to be the genius finding of EMI’s A&R golden ear, Billy Mann. Start listening now, as Starke’s is about the hit the global mainstream. The not so mainstream cut "Foolish" seems to stand a good chance against world heavyweights and critical ears.

ARTIST: Sabrina Starke
TRACK: Foolish

Do You Need a Music Video?

Over the last year or so, never in my right mind would I have recommended to an indie label to shoot a music video. The delusions of grandeur an indie video would beat out a major label’s video investment for the extremely limited piece of the viewing pie seemed to be a crap shoot at best. Let’s call a spade a spade here- music videos are a sh** investment for an indie label, and in most cases, for majors as well. The model is obsolete, risky, and has little purpose outside of generating very limited/unexpected web interest, another form of artistic expression, and a “keep our fingers crossed” model in the hopes the video interest equates to downloads. Running a close race behind producing a new release, music videos rank #2 as a labels biggest expense. Seeing that videos generated less than 1% of labels total digital revenue in 2008, it’s unlikely I would have recommended an indie label, who already struggle to make ends meet, to invest in a music video. My views did a complete 180 with the creation of Vevo.

Vevo, which is the latest major label creation to maximize profits, has been coined the HULU of music videos. This idea is nothing short of genius, and an essential step by major labels to see a return on their music video investment. However, it appears major labels expect to have the upper hand with the Vevo creation but never before has the playing field become so level for independents. Vevo, as of now, is working with Universal Music Group to couple advertisement with video. A product placement model if you will. For instance you may see artist X using a HP computer throughout the video, produced in an unobtrusive way that isn’t in your face with the HP product. This approach eliminates banner ads and allows product creators/or partner companies a hand in producing how/why/when they want their product received to a particular music market. Despite the fact major labels will have a deeper pool of contacts in order to arrange advertising opportunities- big deal. It is the model that can be copied, not the contacts.

A quick world to major recording artists and labels: “Genius”. This concept is brilliant, and I commend you on creating the model and capitalizing on new ways to bring quarterly numbers back to the norm.

Word to indies: “Follow the model”. You don’t need advertising muscle to play this game. Step 1 → Exhaust your list of corporate contacts in order to find a potential company (large or small) that wants to be a part of the video creative process. Present the partnership as an opportunity, an opportunity to capture a tech savvy market through a new innovative approach. Step 2 → Generate a number that makes sense. Offer the potential partners an option based on the CPM (cost per thousand) model. Essentially they pay you per 1,000 views, which traditionally is $30 to $40. It is easy to generate a video budget or profit potential by evaluating the current number of web hits then projecting the number of viewers after going viral. The new music video model has endless potential for international musicians, especially for cross-cultural marketing opportunities, ability to reach new markets, and international exposure.

The Music Industry's Biggest Problems

As the music industry splinters into new niche markets almost daily, there is one thing everyone can agree upon whether your a musician, major label executive, or savvy indie label president- the music world is in a BIG mess. Don’t get me wrong, the industry is booming with new possibilities if you know how to work it properly, but everyone experiences growth and pain in different ways. Majors are still gasping for air since the piracy punch to the gut, indies battle for their share of the marketplace, and musicians fight the daily grind to be heard; but regardless of your individual problem the industry as a whole has two massive pills of mess on their plate: streaming & globalization.

Let’s go ahead and acknowledge that downloading has had both a negative and positive effect on the industry; but with the birth of downloading comes the explosion of new technology and emerging grey markets. Even though downloading and piracy continue to be the largest obstacle blocking industry professionals from making a dime, when these issues are solved, streaming and globalization troubles will inevitably move to the forefront. As the current downloading/piracy problem will eventually be resolved, it is important to look to where the industry is going, where it will end up, and how to be proactive and plan for the future. Condition yourself for the now, plan for the future. Address these issues:

1. Streaming

Despite being vastly different, people still confuse “streaming” and “downloading”. To quickly address, downloading is when you purchase an individual song or album in a digital format. You own the song, you purchased it, and you can play it however you see fit. Streaming is listening to the song/album where you can stream music, but more importantly you can do it for free (or little cost in some cases), as long as you have a device for streaming. Use Spotify as an example. People in selective countries can use Spotify on their computer and listen to songs all day. You don’t have to purchase a song, rather you stream it. Problem with this formula, if you want to be mobile and ride around in your car, or go jogging and listen on your iPod, you clearly can’t take your computer and access Spotify. Accessibility is the primary problem. Well the means to stream are becoming very much accessible now (ie: phones, cars, etc…) which could eliminate the need to download (ie: pay for the music). As a user I wouldn’t disagree with this model one bit. Why in the world would I download a song at $1.29, when I can stream the entire album for free anywhere I want?

Streaming isn’t necessarily illegal rather it is a bit of a grey market. Because it isn’t illegal, consumers argue streaming services are functioning as an essential means of marketing/promotion for musicians. Bullshit. Marketing and promotions is essentially an investment a musician makes in order to control the markets in which they are exposed. When marketing and promotion works properly, the musician will see a return on his investment. Streaming does NOT provide a return on the investment. Billboard recently ran an article by Robb McDaniels on this very topic. Tell me if this songs sounds like a good return on investment: “It takes 150 to 200 plays of a song before the content owner earns royalties on par with a single download.” That is 200 plays = 1 download people! “Content owners typically get paid 70 cents per download and half a penny per stream.” It doesn’t take a financial advisor to figure out this will presents some cash flow problems. Further, I seriously doubt someone is going to listen to the same track 200 times; but if they do it may take a 6 months. Wow, 6 months and 200 streams to earn 70 cents. Yeah real savvy marketing/promotions Mr. Consumer. Thanks for the tip.

The current business model of streaming services is an industry raping that far outweighs what major labels did. Tell me is this seems beneficial to a musician: The streaming service will charge a fee (typically monthly) in which it is split 50/50 with the copyright owner. Keep in mind many musicians do not have exclusive rights to their music, so the copyright may be held by numerous parties therefore cutting in the minimal profits. So a user who pays a $10 monthly service fee and stream 500 songs in a month, only $5 is going into the pot to divide equally among the 500 different artists they streamed. This model sucks for everyone involved except the consumer. The problem with today’s industry, everyone is greedy. Labels try to squeeze every dime out of a project and subsequently consumers feel as if they are entitled to take for free. “Good deals” are molded when everyone benefits and right now it is lopsided. My advice to the industry as a whole is to put the downloading/piracy issue on ice for a brief moment to quickly address the streaming problems of the future so we don’t pass problem after problem onto each new generation.

2. Globalization

American labels can freak out all day about piracy issues and the battling homegrown musicians can fight for a piece of the market, but the slow, steady, silent killer is music globalization. Immigrant musicians (non-American) musicians are quickly taking over the American music market, all in the while, global music markets strengthen, and the homegrown labels are too blinded by their own arrogance to see this happening. Frankly, I love it! Labels, musicians, and music professionals need to be elusive, they need to think globally, and they need to expand. Becoming diverse will quickly become more important than regional popularity. Up to now, musicians and labels have been grounded. As more international musicians enter the American marketplace, the already limited number of spots dwindle even further, making the competition much more fierce. Fierce competition means you need to think more efficiently, and being more efficient is thinking global. Musicians, beat the trend before everyone tries to capture a piece of the world market. Go global now and establish your niche before the competition follows suit.

"The Birthplace of America's Music" & Its Effect on Music Globalization

Here’s a statistic that will knock you on your ass. There is one state (a rather unlikely one) that’s racked up more Grammy Awards than any other; but if you combined the amount of Grammys won and the amount of Grammy nominees, it's suggested they tally up more than the next 25 states combined. Who is it? California? No. New York? No. Ummmm Tennessee? No. M-I-S-S-I-S-S-I-P-P-I……..correct.

The branding campaign adopted by the State of Mississippi declares “Mississippi-The Birthplace of America’s Music,” and I would say it’s dead on. The campaign is the culmination of the perfect storm of business relationships, political leaders, and innovative thinking from the State’s tourism board. What makes the branding tagline staggering is the authenticity. No gimmick, no spinning of facts, and no marketing ploy. So I’m sure readers are wondering what this has to do with “Music Globalization” so let me take you there, but before walking down that path it’s important to briefly look at the Mississippi music heritage.

Without putting on the hat of music historian (which I’m not authorized to do), the migration of music throughout the United States indeed started in the sweltering Mississippi Delta, churches in Tupelo, beaches on the Gulfcoast, and impromptu music venues scattered throughout the Magnolia state. You can start anywhere and essentially trace musical roots back to Mississippi- a 6° of Mississippi music if you will. The tall tails of Robert Johnson selling his soul to the devil in order to play the guitar paved the road for legends such as Howlin Wolf and Muddy Waters. Muddy Waters and the Mississippi Delta, according to The Rolling Stones & Eric Clapton, inspired them to play music. The soul shaking gospel music that was born in the hospitality state churches spawned inspiration for Elvis Presley who groomed an immeasurable amount of musicians. Can’t stop yet: Jimmy Buffest taking beach music mainstream, Faith Hill helping commercialize country while LeAnn Rimes helped carry the torch, B.B. King making the blues cool again, Leotyne Price mantling more opera Grammy’s in history, Jim Henson turning the Muppets and their songs into household tunes,. I’m literally trying to find the end here: R&B sensation Brandy, “The Killer” Jerry Lee Lewis, Mavis Staples, Ike Turner, Britney Spears, Lance Bass, 3 Doors Down, Sam Cook, or Jimmie Rogers. I’m just naming commercially known names here folks. If I go down the nominee path or famous producers such as Glenn Ballard who produced Alanis Morissette or Willie Dixon’s contribution to Chess Records we would be here all day. The amount of legendary record labels or topnotch music businesses such as Peavey Electronics aren’t even factored into this amazing list. It is safe to say the roots run deep; but the strength of those roots are fertilized with timeless musicians who’ve revolutionized and influenced the industry around the globe.

It is fitting this legacy is now being revealed. As the music industry changes and major labels are now seen as irrelevant monsters to expanding a musical career, the “corporate” industry is played out. The glitz of California, which still has more major labels than any other state, or the hardnosed business arrogance of New York doesn’t necessarily attract the common musician or fans today. Indies rule the industry, and as artist flock away from the mainstream muscle industry, smaller markets are emerging. Indie labels are scattered throughout rural markets, not booming metropolises. The fact indie’s impact the marketplace more so than majors is reassurance that the major markets are no longer necessary. I’m not suggesting California and New York are being overrun by the Mississippi music scene, not going to happen, but rather revealing why the methods of the past are running its course. Believe it not, Mississippi has a sex appeal around the world that in specific areas far outweigh L.A. and NYC. It’s got authenticity other places don’t have. The world recognizes Mississippi’s musical roots. The United States doesn’t. As the industry scrambles to more global markets, sometimes a Mississippi connection opens more doors than the perceived muscle on the left coast and right coast. People’s hang up on the Southern state originated from stereotypes formed within the United States and typically from individuals that have never even stepped foot in the state to experience the positives of the culture and debunk a myth. Travel outside of the American border and the world sees glamour in the Magnolia state. They see authenticity and musical legends emerging that can’t be duplicated. In today’s industry where upcoming artists need to find a different hook, marketability, and global appeal, the methodical war on the east and west may not be worth fighting today. It’s not different. It’s not authentic, and more specifically doesn’t have the global appeal people in the U.S. think it does.

Readers who know my background may accuse me of being overly biased on this issue. Being Mississippi born and raised and a place I call home, damn right I’m biased, however my adoptive town of Chicago has allowed be to be objective. I can hear the argument: LA, NYC, Chicago, and Nashville made these artists successful. They made these artists commercial sensations. True. Unfortunately Mississippi has been loaning out its talent for decades, but finally Mississippi is recalling all its loans. The music market in Mississippi couldn’t (and can’t) provide the vehicle to make these musicians mainstream. The Mississippi blues had to migrate to Chicago to get popular, jazz moved to New Orleans, rock headed out west, and pop, opera, classical, and theatrics packed up to head north. Absolutely, Mississippi couldn’t/can’t explode musicians into international sensations but the state sure can breed them. Unfortunately the state does not have the amount of music venues, diversity, or economic means to self contain and manage its artists. However, much like the mid level musicians in today’s market that are fed up with big city bullshit and promises of stardom, Mississippi is sick of being taken advantage of by the “music professionals” that made careers feeding off Mississippi talent. The industry monsters are no longer dictating what/whom/when something is popular. The once essential need to attach yourself to the major markets in the major cities is no longer relevant. I’m pleased that (1) musicians now recognize this distinction after years of getting screwed by the evil empire, (2) Mississippi is absolutely determined to rebuild its music scene, and (3) the State’s politicians and tourism are aggressive about securing its place in not only American music history but in the world. So back to the question: am I biased on this topic- “yes”. Argue with me all day as I’ll gladly debate; but be aware of one final side note before you start the sparring match. The National Academy of Recording Arts and Science (aka: Grammy Association or NARAS or The Recording Academy), an organization that is universally known and arguable the controlling force in the music industry has teamed up with Mississippi. NARAS does NOT work individually with any other state. Because of Mississippi’s deep musical heritage, NARAS, working in conjunction with Peavey Electronics, produces The Peavey Awards to honor Mississippi’s Grammy legacy. This relationship is unmet by any other state. So if you disagree with me about the true ‘Birthplace of America’s Music,’ fine. However NARAS also recognizes this legacy, and if you disagree with the Recording Academy I truly question your legitimacy in the music industry.