Inspiration

This is . . . . uh . . . . . amazing.

Stick with it. About halfway, after the woman sings they shred over some wacky time signatures and tempo changes. It's pretty awesome. In that non-western music kinda way.

Ivo Papazov and his Wedding Band

Posted by Jeff Schmidt at 11:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Posted by Jeff Schmidt at 11:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

A few weeks ago I had dinner with my wife Valerie, and an entrepreneur who has become part of her vastly expanding network of inspiring people.

At one point, he asked me a few questions about my music.

These were not the kind of questions I am used to getting - what tunings do you use? why do you play upside down? who is your biggest influence? etc...

Instead, he wanted to know how many CD sales I get from having videos on YouTube.

I answered that there's no real way to know for sure. People arrive at my CD Baby page from all over the place. CD Baby only tells me the link they came from directly. So while the number of people that come directly from YouTube is low, it doesn't mean that Youtube wasn't in the chain that ultimately led a person to my CD Baby page.

Then he asked me who my "target audience" was. Target audience? Uhhhh I don't know.

I know it's mostly bass players who have bought my music and come out to see me play live. But I don't think I've targeted them intentionally.

I made my CD, Outre for me. Since it's solo bass I guess it's natural to think bass players would be most interested in it. But I've never really marketed it or sent it out to magazines for review etc.... Nor have I tried to expose it to wider audience.

Anyway - there were more questions like this. The kind of questions which only a business perspective would inspire. It caused me to think in a way I had not yet really considered.

The ultimate question his inquiry was really trying to answer was - "Is Solo Bass a business?" Or more specifically, is "Jeff Schmidt - Solo Bass" a business?

It's not something I'd ever asked myself seriously. I have only considered the art of it - never the commerce.

I didn't get back into music to find a way to make a living - but as a way to feed my soul. I need to create. I need to experiment, push boundaries & buttons and try new things and put it out into the world. If I can't do that, I get cranky.

This is an entirely different mindset from one that says - I need to create a product that appeals to lots of people.

Or is it?

Perhaps that's a false dichotomy.

Anyway - this kind of questioning has made me think differently about what I'm doing. Why I'm doing it. And WHO I'm doing it for.

It's pretty easy to see that most art would never happen if it were forced to meet the "Is this a business" test.

But I have a hard time believing that kind of thinking should be removed from the artistic process entirely.

What do you think?

Posted by Jeff Schmidt at 03:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (12)

Can't believe I haven't done this before.

Here's a couple e-mail/myspace messages with questions and my answers.

No sense in keeping this stuff secret!

----------------- Original Message -----------------

From: Bill D.
Date: Mar 5, 2008 7:33 PM

Hi Jeff,

Awsome playing man! I am one of Michael wilcox's students.

I was just checking out your track "like father like son" and the fuzz sound is killer! Would you share what pedal did you use to get the sound. It's ballsy but clear at the same time..... I am intrigued!

Cheers,

Bill

JEFF SCHMIDT: hey man - thanks! please tell michael I said hello. he always makes me feel like quitting bass cuz he's so good :-)

for fuzz well well well - it's a long story - mostly cuz I used multiple fuzz & distortion fx to create all the sounds.

Here's the gear I was working with for the Ruiner Severhead project.

Boss GT-6B. There's actually some pretty nasty sounds in there. Even the distortion & fuzz is pretty good but it needs some help.

I also used an Electro-Harmonic Tube-Zipper. I have a weird little boutique fuzz pedal called the frog - or something like that. (forget th name right now - it's green tho)

Secret weapons on the Ruiner stuff is metasonix scrotum smasher and waveshaper. PLUS - in the ProTools system I used SansAmp plugin A LOT.

often times I'd record a track an then run the recorded track BACK out into various effects and re-record that - thats why I can't remember exactly how it was done.

does that help? prolly not heh?

--jeff

----------------- Original Message -----------------

From: The Happy Chimichanga
Date: Feb 29, 2008 9:56 PM

I was also wondering how does one go about becoming a solo bass artist.

JEFF SCHMIDT: Ha! Great question!

I think it's simply a matter of picking up the bass and deciding to play a complete song with it - rather than playing only 1 part of a song.

Now the "artist" part comes when you can make reasonably good songs.

But - that's relative. Please yourself first. Write stuff YOU want to hear.
Don't worry about making BASS the point of what you do - make MUSIC the point.

I'd like to hear your thoughts!

--jeff

----------------- Original Message -----------------

From: ♫ ♪ Justin ♪ ♫
Date: Feb 29, 2008 6:56 AM

Do you know of any good method books or DVD's for advanced players? I picked up almost everything I know from Wooten DVD's, but I want to branch out.

JEFF SCHMIDT: Hey man. I don't know of any DVDs off hand.

It depends on what youre looking for.

My suggestion - if I could be bold for a moment - take everything you already know and put it to creative use.

If you are an advanced player, you probably really don't need any more "instruction". But you may need to start "creating".

just my .02

I'd love to hear your thoughts!

--jeff

Got a question?

drop me a note at myspace.com/jeffschmidtbassist

or email me jeff at beautiful-bass.com

or in the comments here.

word

Posted by Jeff Schmidt at 11:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Remember back here when I said you only need 10,000 fans to make your artistry work financially?

A really smart guy named Kevin Kelly doesn't agree.

In fact - he thinks we only need 1,000 fans.

But they have to be TRUE fans.

excerpt:

A True Fan is defined as someone who will purchase anything and everything you produce. They will drive 200 miles to see you sing. They will buy the super deluxe re-issued hi-res box set of your stuff even though they have the low-res version. They have a Google Alert set for your name. They bookmark the eBay page where your out-of-print editions show up. They come to your openings. They have you sign their copies. They buy the t-shirt, and the mug, and the hat. They can't wait till you issue your next work. They are true fans.

Read Kevin's excellent post here.

I've recently changed my mind about fans.

Fans - as defined when I was growing up - were distant admirers. We only dealt directly with the artist's WORK - but rarely if ever the artist themselves. We were not worthy of their time & attention.

Things are different now in my view.

While the Rolling Stones and other "celebrity" artists can stay hidden from their "fans" - the majority of artists can't and shouldn't. There is a limit to how accessible you can be - for sure.

But until you reach that point - why pretend you're the Rolling Stones and hide from "fans"?

I don't really want "fans". At least not in that old school artist/fan relationship that looks like "GOD / Sycophant". That's lame.

I'd rather have friends. The art should be there to brings us together. Not act as a barrier between artist and "fan".

Another way of looking at it: the TRUE fan Kevin Kelly is talking about really looks a whole lot more like a FRIEND.

What do you think?

Posted by Jeff Schmidt at 03:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (11)

Posted by Jeff Schmidt at 11:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As Im sure you guys know - there's almost unlimited choice in news and entertainment now. You can still listen to radio and watch TV to get an idea of what's new & cool. The problem with those mediums is 2 fold.

First - they are totally bound by time & space. There are a limited number of channels and a limited number of hours in the day you can broadcast so the presentation is always going to be limited. It's scarcity.

Second - only things that attract the widest possible audience get "time" on the network. It's great for mass appeal stuff like Michael Jackson & Spiderman movies - not so good with high quality stuff that's more niche in appeal.

Online blows that whole thing wide open. You no longer have to wait for the 6 O'Clock evening news to find out what's happening in the world (on the west coast at least - the evening news is already several hours old by the time it "airs") and you no longer have to wait for a radio station or MTV to play a song before you find out about it.

This is very very cool.

It gives indie musicians and artists the opportunity to be discovered like never before. Of course - when I say "be discovered" I'm not talking about BY the TV and Radio people. Of course that can happen. But they're still looking for the same mass appeal style material they always have.

What I'm really talking about is being discovered by music FANS. Fans that will tell other fans. That trusted source of fan to fan - friend to friend carries far more persuasive weight than an advertisement or a corporate marketing strategy.

But a new problem arises in the land of ubiquity. Too much stuff.

For example. I'm looking at the feeds in my RSS reader. I use Google Reader. It's so efficient that I've subscribed to almost 400 feeds. That's easily 1100 new posts per day. And while google reader makes it easy to sift through all that info - it's still too much to fully appreciate.

So what I do is look to a few trusted sources across several key areas of my interests.

These - incidentally are NOT the traditional "trusted sources" like CNN or The New York Times. They are people (like you) who have earned my TRUST - who have already digested some of that other material and now present it in a smaller more focused and easily consumable package.

In other words - they act as filters. As curators. They perform the same function as CNN or MTV - but on a much smaller scale and for much more focused interests.

I too am a curator of the information I consume with the "share" function of Google Reader. I simply mark items I find interesting and Google Reader posts them to a webpage accessible by anyone. It's not a definitive list of what's available online. It's a definitive list of what I find interesting online. My Google Reader Page.

How is this useful to you? If you like me, if you share interests, if you trust that I know the difference between quality items and shit - my shared items page is a really good resource. I scan 400 feeds a day and only share a dozen or so per day at most. THAT is curation.

What if we could do this with MUSIC? Well, we can't just yet. BUT -

Steve Lawson just launched a new use for our favorite new internet toy Twitter. It's called To The Left Of The Mainstream. It's a regular feed of music Steve finds interesting and worthy of your attention. Follow the TTLOTM feed HERE.

If you like Steve, and trust his taste it's worth following. And it's not just about following Steve - it's about ADDING to the conversation too. You can tell Steve about something - and if he likes it - BOOM it goes on his feed for others to find out about.

Why does it surprise anyone that networking is easier on a NETWORK where communication and information flows in synchronicity?

Curation and filtering are even MORE vital in the internet space because it's potential is nearly limitless. But unlike the old guard - the new filtering is NOT a top down affair. It's interactive. You can shout back at the TV & radio now - and they can hear you- if they choose to listen.

EVERYONE can become a filter.

When you look at what these online tools allow it's all ultimately about connecting with other people and sharing information and ideas. And music connects like nothing else.

How do you do it? By participating. By sharing items online, by engaging others and ADDING to the conversation. In fact - if you engage in conversations you can add value to - the whole space gets better and more useful for everyone.

BTW - it also helps establish your personal BRAND. That's an issue for another time as there is ALWAYS a "what's in it for me" element to the equation. The short answer is - a lot!

Posted by Jeff Schmidt at 03:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

recorded this morning (in US) via Skype - a 55 minute chat with UK Solo Bassist Steve Lawson about all matter of music and geek related stuff.

I like talking with Steve about this stuff because he is similarly attracted to all things geek & web as I am. He's articulate on the philosophical aspects of music & bass that I really enjoy engaging in as well.

This will be a regular thing - every few weeks or so and will likely evolve over time into all kinds of issues & topics. I wanted to name the podcast something different than my usual "beautiful bass podcast". Nothing fancy really struck me other than that this is really a bullshit session.

So - viola! BULL SCHMIDT!

listen via embedded player below

or download the direct mp3 HERE
it's about 50mb.

Subscribe to the podcast in Itunes - just search for Jeff Schmidt in the itunes music store and you'll find the podcast - this way new epsiodes and BULL SCHMIDT sessions will be delivered right to you as they become available.

Also check Steve Lawson's site as he'll make these available in his own way I'm sure.

This whole thing came about on Twitter.

Are you not twittering yet?

Posted by Jeff Schmidt at 03:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In a recent article for Fast Company magazine, Duncan Watts, network scientist at Columbia University turns upside down the entire idea of HOW certain trends & ideas gets lots of buzz and become a hit while others do not.

The answer? Something most musicians and artists already know.

It's not dependent on talent or merit. Buzz happens - or at least seems to happen almost randomly.

You can read the whole thing on Duncan's blog HERE.

But here's a particularly eye opening excerpt:

Watts wanted to find out whether the success of a hot trend was reproducible. For example, we know that Madonna became a breakout star in 1983. But if you rewound the world back to 1982, would Madonna break out again? To find out, Watts built a world populated with real live music fans picking real music, then hit rewind, over and over again.

Working with two colleagues, Watts designed an online music-downloading service. They filled it with 48 songs by new, unknown, and unsigned bands. Then they recruited roughly 14,000 people to log in. Some were asked to rank the songs based on their own personal preference, without regard to what other people thought. They were picking songs purely on each song's merit. But the other participants were put into eight groups that had "social influence": Each could see how other members of the group were ranking the songs.

Watts predicted that word of mouth would take over. And sure enough, that's what happened. In the merit group, the songs were ranked mostly equitably, with a small handful of songs drifting slightly lower or higher in popularity. But in the social worlds, as participants reacted to one another's opinions, huge waves took shape. A small, elite bunch of songs became enormously popular, rising above the pack, while another cluster fell into relative obscurity.

But here's the thing: In each of the eight social worlds, the top songs -- and the bottom ones -- were completely different.

For example, the song "Lockdown," by 52metro, was the No. 1 song in one world, yet finished 40 out of 48 in another. Nor did there seem to be any compelling correlation between merit and success. In fact, Watts explains, only about half of a song's success seemed to be due to merit.

"In general, the 'best' songs never do very badly, and the 'worst' songs never do extremely well, but almost any other result is possible," he says.

Why?

Because the first band to snag a few thumbs-ups in the social world tended overwhelmingly to get many more. And who received those crucial first votes seemed to be mostly a matter of luck.

Word of mouth and social contagion made big hits bigger. But they also made success more unpredictable. (And it's worth noting, no one in the social worlds had any more influence than anyone else.)

So yes, Watts figures, if you rewound the world to 1982, Madonna would likely remain a total unknown -- and someone else would have slipped into her steel-tipped corset. "You cannot predict in advance whether a band gets this huge cascade of popularity, because the social network is liable to throw up almost any result," he marvels.

Predictably, the music industry received the analysis -- "Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market," published in Science in 2006 -- with a cocked eyebrow. When Watts presented his findings to executives at a major record label last spring, the younger among them were reasonably receptive. They're accustomed to the unpredictability of hit-making online, so they can grasp the terrifying randomness of success.

But the older execs?

Watts laughs. "They were all like, 'I think it's bullshit. I'm still going to go with my gut,'" he recalls. "And I'm like, Okay, good luck to you. You're going to need it."

Lots of implications in this.

For one - I have shied away from pursuing, and publishing testimonials from other artists about me in promotion of myself.

Perhaps this is a mistake. Maybe getting thumbs up from an established community is an important signal to the market. I realize that rarely has an effect on me unless it's someone I really respect and trust. For the market at large though, it's probably way more important than I give it credit for.

The bass extremes contest certainly provided that to some degree. I've not even come close to trying to capitalize on that.

I also know my "win" there was totally a product of circumstance, of time & place. Sure talent played a roll. Roll the clock back and re-do the whole thing again and I'm 100% positive there would have been a different result.

Have you ever been in the right place @ the right time?

Any ideas on how to keep showing up at the right place at the right time with the right idea? Or is even thinking like that a complete waste of time?

Posted by Jeff Schmidt at 01:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Why bands are being spoiled by musical choice: "Owen Adams of the Guardian says:

The widespread availability of once-rare tracks is homogenising artists' reservoirs of inspiration. Now the music is suffering"

(Via Guardian Unlimited: Owen Adams Archive.)

Ok - his point goes like this -

. . . when we didn't have every conceivable recording from every era and every genre available in some endless eat-what-you-can buffet, when we faced musical starvation and had to really hunt things down to satisfy our hunger, it spurred on much farther-reaching revelations.

That is why the last genuine innovations came at the dawn of rave in the late 80s, early 90s, and why from the dull thud of Britpop onwards, Alexis Petridis's well-named "consensus rock" has remained the proverbial colossus.

Sure, there is a galaxy of different configurations of what's gone before dressed up as innovation available at our fingertips. For instance, while before we would have tuned into the precious few John Peel hours on offer, now Dandelion Radio is continuing his legacy on a 24/7 basis.

We aren't merely spoiled for choice: the incessant gorging has catastrophic effects on artistic creativity.

There was an interview with bassist/electronica dude Tom Jenkison - aka Squarepusher going around a few months ago. In it he talked about the value he found in musical seclusion. Not listening to the latest, hippest sounds. He found it was the best way for him to arrive at his unique musical statement.

I can totally appreciate this.

On the one hand, being inspired by others is often what gets us into the game to begin with. But at a certain point - most of us need to let go of those influences and find our own way. There are several very accomplished artists whose music I enjoy - but simply stopped listening to so it won't influence me any more.

On the other hand, there's a great case to be made for how total musical "seclusion" can be a sure fire way to let the times leap frog you.

Almost quite naturally, I find that I go through phases of intense listening and seeking of inspiration in the works of others, followed by phases of not wanting to hear anything so that I can sit and hear what's happening in my head. I think I might be in that phase right now. ,-)

Posted by Jeff Schmidt at 04:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Intrigued by shows like LOST, ALIAS & the movie CLOVERFIELD?

Peeps this TED Talk video (18 min) with creator of those shows J.J. Abrams on "Mystery"

Posted by Jeff Schmidt at 04:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails) produced a great record last year with rapper/poet Saul Williams. It's smart, edgy and doesn't fit the current model of what "hip hop" is sounding like these days at all.

It's kind of a throw back to "old school" hip hop - it's pre "bling, bitches and bentlys".

Anyway - instead of putting the music out through a record label - Trent & Saul put it out for free online with an option to get the high quality digital version for $5.00

Last week Trent released the numbers (something radiohead has not yet done) here's how it broke out:

As of 1/2/08,

5338 chose FLAC

Trent was somewhat disappointed. You can read his original blog about it HERE

Today - Trent does an interview on the whole matter with C-Net (don't know why he talks to them - whatever)

In the interview Trent basically said he might have given "the fans" too much credit - thinking the only reason people pirate music is because there's too many unnecessary obstacles to paying for it. That if given the fair and reasonable chance - fans would choose to support an artist.

With 18% of people choosing to pay - it appears NOT to be the case in this instance.

Here's the thing though.

Trent & Saul's project is really different. It's a fusion/mash up of Nine Inch Nails and Saul's unique brand of hip/hop poetry.

I'm not sure the average NIN fan or the average Saul Williams poetry or hip hop fan would really dig that kind of mash-up.

Perhaps Trent over-estimated the tolerance & interest of his & Saul's fans for music that travels outside the expectations of their own brands.

We've seen this happen with many other artists over the years who have traveled away from what made them "famous" to begin with. Sometimes to good results - most often not.

We all have artists we know & like - and when they do something that travels too out far from what we love them for - chances are we won't go along for the ride. That's just the way it is.

That forces me to wonder how different it would have been had Trent used this internet release method with a genuine Nine Inch Nails project.

I suspect the "support" figure of paid downloads would be way higher. But maybe even that is a pipe dream.

Anyway - here's the interview. Good read - the whole thing makes me think. I'm grateful for guys like Trent who try new things - take risks and then have the balls to talk openly about it.

Trent Reznor: Why won't people pay $5?: "In an exclusive interview, the Nine Inch Nails front man said his realization that fans think 'music should be looked at as free' was a bitter pill to gulp down."

(Via Jeff Schmidt's shared items in Google Reader.)

PS -For the record - I was one of the 18.3% that ponied up a measly 5 spot for a great recording.

Posted by Jeff Schmidt at 03:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This comes from one of my fav bloggy types - Hugh Macleod of gapingvoid.com

Admittedly the story is a bit contrived (at least to me) - but the princple message hugh is making is one I've been pretty level headed about for several years now.

At least I think i have. ,-)


-----------------------------------------------

beware of turning hobbies into jobs: "

[More thoughts on 'How To Be Creative':]

34. Beware of turning hobbies into jobs.

It sounds great, but there is a downside.

The late billionaire, James Goldsmith once quipped, 'When a man marries his mistress, he immediately creates a vacancy.'

What's true in philanderers, is also true in life.

When I was about nineteen I knew this guy called Andrew, who was a junior accountant, a few years out of college.

Andrew didn't really like being an accountant, at least, that's what he was fond of saying. His passion, of all things, was antique silverware. In particular, antique silver cutlery. In particular, antique silver teaspoons.

He knew A LOT about antique silver teaspoons. He collected them en masse. He lived and breathed them. OK, maybe that's a pretty strange hobby, but hey, he was pretty much a national authority on them.

To make a long story short, eventually he quit his accountancy gig and got a new job as at a very prestigious auction house, specializing in valuing silverware.

I remember buying him a drink and congratulating him. What happy news!

A few years later, I was hanging out at the same bar with some mutual acquaintances, and his name came up in conversation. This time the news wasn't so happy.

Apparently he had recently lost his job. Apparently he had gone into rehab for alcoholism.

What a bloody shame.

'That's why you should never turn your hobby into your job,' said one of my friends, someone far older and wiser than me. 'Before, this man had a job and a hobby. Now suddenly, he's just got the job, but no hobby anymore. But a man needs both, you see. And now what does this man, who's always had a hobby, do with his time?

My friend held up his glass.

'Answer: Drink.'

Make of that what you will.

(Via gapingvoid: "cartoons drawn on the back of business cards".)

Posted by Jeff Schmidt at 11:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I love sharing articles that make people think. I always enjoy seeing how different people read the same text and get completely different ideas and opinions from them. It's not about right & wrong - but it does prove to me that it's best to read things several times - particularly longer items.

It's easy to fix on 1 or 2 parts of a text and miss other ideas. Of course - what's important to 1 person is irrelevant to another - and that plays a role also.

After yesterday's post about the music biz I got a few e-mails, myspace messages and phone calls from peeps all with different takes and ideas about what Seth's article says and what it means.

Like all of you - I also have my own ideas about what the article says and means. Mind if I share?

For the indie artist (like me, and many of you) - there's 1 crucial point made in the article which simply cannot be ignored. It's the one point that's as old school as the music itself - but we seem to overlook or forget it in many of these discussions.

Many musicians have understood that all they need to make a (very good) living is to have 10,000 fans. 10,000 people who look forward to the next record, who are willing to trek out to the next concert. Add 7 fans a day and you're done in 5 years. Set for life. A life making music for your fans, not finding fans for your music.

That is the insulation - the innoculation - the insurance policy against whatever "distribution" methods rise and fall away.

Tapes, CDs, LPs, MP3s, P2P all come and go - what remains through it all is your fans. If they are true fans.

Obviously this part of the issue has NOTHING to do with free downloads and piracy and digital distribution and ubiquity and blah blah blah. Those are the discussions for techies trying to sell technology (not music) and for corporate interests trying to maintain control and huge profit margins in a universe changing too rapidly for them.

They are discussions that are important to musicians and artists, and we need to stay engaged and in touch with them.

But unless your bound up in bed with corporate interests - they are also a distraction if you don't have your 10,000 fans.

Here's the deal. CD's are dying. People aren't buying music anymore . . . . Who cares. You have 10,000 people who have given you permission to contact them DIRECTLY about how to download your new song - get a discount on your upcoming show and get the first listen to your new EP or have the chance to personalize something with your music etc....

It's about having fans. And rewarding them. Making them feel special - like they are a part of YOUR club - not just a generic consumer.

The reason people are having a problem figuring out what to do next in the music sales biz is because many of them are putting the cart before the horse. They're trying to sell music without fans. That's some hard shit to do.

If I were to take my music off the "hobby" shelf and "go pro" tomorrow - here's what I'd do. My number 1 goal would be to earn 10,000 fans.

How? Lots of ways - especially with the internet - but let's be honest - old school playing live constantly is the main engine.

Fist and foremost - I'd commit to spending at least a year giging my ass off. I mean non-stop, not home for weeks at a time gigging my ass off.

That means taking every possible gig and chance to play in front of audiences I could get.

I'd also leverage the wonderful medium of interconnectivity that is the internet. This will help multiply the efforts made on the road - but again - rubber hits the road by playing live. Period.

The calculus I see a lot of cats using for most gigs is "how much can I make on door + cd sales".

That's fine - but it's extremely short sighted if you don't already have your 10,000 fans.

Because the goal isn't just to make cash off the door and cd sales and then move on to the next show.

The goal is to earn 10,000 fans.

10,000 people who have met me - shaken my hand and said "YES" I will let you contact me IN THE FUTURE about your music and related activities. 10,000 people for whom I have first name - last name - town of occupancy and a valid e-mail address. 10,000 people who are highly likely to buy my stuff. That means putting on one hell of a show every single time. Old school.

Also - don't take the 10,000 figure too literally. Maybe you only need 5000 or maybe you need 20,000. The point remains - all efforts should be focused on getting a solid reliable fan club that you can communicate with directly. In fact - I'd say that if you don't have permission to contact someone - they're aren't part of your 10,000.

Realize you'll probably end up like every other organization where 80% of your revenue comes from just 20% of your fans. Use that as the calculus to determine what your magic number is.

I can't tell YOU how to do this.

But it's pretty obvious to me, that being without it is not really a business. It's a hobby.

So it has to be a goal - a focus and effort has to be put behind it rather than haphazardly HOPING it happens while your busy doing other things. It also helps if your music doesn't suck - but that's another conversation.

Again - I'm only a hobbyist - but I've done enough shows to have made some observations and formed some opinions.

There's one thing I often see other "pro" musicians NOT doing. Mingle with the "audience".

Back-stage is death. Sure you get to socialize with other musicians and drink & eat etc... but the "relationships" you really need to be making are in FRONT of the stage. Those are people who have ALREADY proven a willingness to PAY for music. Don't ignore them. Save the whole "back stage" vibe for when you have TOO MANY fans to meet personally. Even then - you should make an attempt to meet and connect with them.

EXAMPLE.

When I was invited to play a Victor Wooten's Bass Nature Camp over the summer - I wanted to give each of the 60 students a copy of my CD. No . . . not sell it - I'm in the BUILDING phase - so I wanted to give it away.

Now - I could have - like others - simply put a pile of my CDs on a table, announced they were free and then gone back to HANG out with Chuck Rainey, Victor Wooten & Steve Bailey as students grabbed a copy in the hall.

Instead - I took my CDs - piled them up on a table along the LUNCH line, sat on the edge of the table and personally handed my CD to each of the 60 students as they walked through the lunch line. I got a chance to meet each of them, say hello, share a few words and when requested - signed copies of the CD.

The potential for connection and long term relationships with people is worth far more than a single CD sale. Particularly moving forward. If people are less likely to buy recorded music - the connection you have with audiences needs to be deeper than a single $10.00 CD sale.

Of course - if you already have your 10,000 fans - you don't need to give your stuff away. Or do you?

Topic for another time.

Posted by Jeff Schmidt at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A few months ago I posted an lengthy item about file sharing and downloads.

In it I argued that the old command & control system of scarcity, labels & retail & physical media was falling apart, and there is no use in trying to build walls around it to prevent digital ubiquity. I suggested we needed to find a NEW business - since selling "copies" was obviously not a good long term strategy in a digital world where 1 copy turns into millions in an instant.

Today, Seth Godin - echos most of those same sentiments.

Seth Godin is one of those nu-marketing guys (in fact he may be THE nu-marketing guy)

nu-marketing is the idea that you can no longer get away with pasting remarkable marketing and slick advertising on mediocre products to create hits.

The world is far too interconnected now and people will spread the news of your mediocre over-hyped product far faster than they ever could.

Instead, Seth's mantra has been to create remarkable products that people will want to talk about. And about getting permission to develop a connection with those people. Once that trust is established people will sell your remarkable product for you and become your fan. This applies to a vast array of interest areas - one obviously being music.

Seth's views are totally of this time and because of that - he happens to have everyone's ear. When Seth says something - people listen and usually believe him. Seth's blog is updated an average of a post per day - usually pithy 2 sentence posts that re-enforce the larger ideas Seth promotes.

His post on music is unusal in that it's longer than typical.

It's optimistic and a must read for artists.

Click the link to Seth's blog - or keep reading - I've copied it.

Continue reading "Ok . . . Don't take my word for it [music biz & digital]" »

Posted by Jeff Schmidt at 08:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)